Kit Kat Club
Polite reminder for straight people who say “who cares” when someone comes out: such gestures are addressed to lonely queer kids. not you.
Tweet by Danny Bowes (@moviesbybowes).

I want to retweet and reblog that a million times. (via alliahart)
Young men need to be socialized in such a way that rape is as unthinkable to them as cannibalism.

Mary Pipher, Clinical Psychologist and Author, Reviving Ophelia (via sunshine-machine)

this should have been reblogged a million times already.

(via sukedada)

And remember, they are socialized to accept rape culture as “masculinity” and “normal.” This isn’t inherent biology. So they can be socialized away from it. This quote = everything.

(via heyreadabook)

arabellesicardi:

Here is a side by side comparison of how The New York Times has profiled Michael Brown — an 18 year old black boy gunned down by police — and how they profiled Ted Bundy, one of the most prolific serial killers of all time. 

Source for Brown, Source for Bundy.

journolist:

When #IfTheyGunnedMeDown Happens in Print: 

Section from the Rolling Stone profile of Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, one of two brothers who committed the Boston Marathon bombings vs section from the New York Times profile of Michael Brown, who was shot and killed by a Ferguson, Missouri police officer Darren Wilson. 

H/T to @daviddtss 

Et si on inversait les rôles?

chaotiqueneutre:

Le concept commence à être bien éculé sur le net, avec des tas de vidéos youtube courtes et souvent humoristiques imaginant des situations du quotidien où “rôles” féminins et masculins seraient inversés. Parfois, c’est bien vu quoique léger, d’autre fois ça renforce avec complaisance les pires préjugés sexistes. Le problème globalement est que sous une pseudo posture de dénonciation, les rapports de genre y sont toujours dépolitisés, lissés, vidés de toute violence ou relation de pouvoir.

Et ça pose un gros souci. J’ai l’impression que l’accumulation de toutes ces gentilles (fausses) satires contribue en fait à long terme à essentialiser les comportements et expériences “typiques” vécues par les hommes et par les femmes cis. On en rit, les mecs se disent que ce serait bien embêtant si c’était eux qui se faisaient continuellement emmerder en boite mais après tout qu’y faire, c’est la vie n’est-ce pas? (Ou en tout cas la faute de quelques gros cons, mais pas eux hein, ils sont des mecs bien.) Même l’expérience vécue par les femmes semble emmerdante mais pas si terrible que ça, l’humour dessert ou atténue la dénonciation d’une inégalité alors qu’il pourrait la servir, et pire que ça, on sent en filigrane une sorte de tentative de symétrisation des déboires féminins et masculins, tactique d’ordinaire apanage du masculinisme. En gros: les filles se font harceler, mais elles rentrent en un claquement de doigt dans le club alors que les hommes se font presque tous refouler, elles vivent la drague comme une prédation mais après tout aucune ne fait le premier pas et les pauvres hommes sont bien forcés de s’y coller s’ils veulent séduire qui que ce soit. Bref, un classique laïus “les hommes aussi vivent le sexisme, c’est trop injuste de payer l’entrée”, et le contexte plus large d’une oppression systémique soigneusement occulté.

En fait, dans le pire des cas je dirais que l’utilisation qui est faite du registre comique a même un effet complètement contraire à celui qu’on attendrait. Prenons cette même vidéo inversant les rôles en boite: ce qui est drôle, c’est quoi? C’est de voir toutes ces femmes mortes de faim, sans gêne et sexuellement agressives (et tous ces hommes timorés). Pourquoi est-ce drôle? Parce que c’est inconcevable, ça relève de l’extraterrestritude, de la science fiction. Le ressort du comique est là. Et plutôt que de faire accepter au spectateur cette éventualité d’une femme plus désirante que l’homme, voire prédatrice, je crois que la vidéo ne fait que renforcer et ancrer l’improbable de la situation.

J’ai donc vu passer cette vidéo hier, postée par DariaMarx sur twitter, et me suis dit “chouette, une réalisation un peu plus sérieuse qui n’a pas peur de mettre les mains dans le cambouis”. Bon. Ce serait un très bon court métrage si la scène sur la (le) nounou voilé(e) était pas franchement simpliste et caricaturale, frisant une islamophobie paternaliste bien à la française. Au début j’ai tenté de me dire “ouinn mais c’est ptêtre une satire de la femme française non-racisée qui veut voir le sexisme ailleurs mais reste aveugle à celui de sa propre culture, etc” Et puis en fait nan. C’est juste trop gros, la femme voilée est bien sûr incarnée par un personnage qui a l’air complètement abruti et qui est sous l’influence totale de son mari. Du coup je suis déçue.

Ma conclusion, c’est que 90’s kids do it better, et que les années minitel avaient du bon, parce que cette vidéo là reste un sans faute du genre. 



No Comment par lltorres

TW: RAPE Here’s a situation every woman is familiar with: some guy she knows, perhaps a casual acquaintance, perhaps just some dude at the bus stop, is obviously infatuated with her. He’s making conversation, he’s giving her the eye. She doesn’t like him. She doesn’t want to talk to him. She doesn’t want him near her. He is freaking her out. She could disobey the rules, and tell him to GET THE FUCK AWAY FROM HER, and continue screaming GET THE FUCK AWAY FROM ME every time he tries to step closer, or speak to her again. And then he will be all, “I was just talking to you! WTF!” and everybody else will be all, “Yeah, seriously, why’d you freak out at a guy just talking to you?” and refuse to offer the support she needs to be safe from dude. Or, the guy might become hostile, violent even. Ladies, you’ve seen that look, the “bitch can’t ignore me” look. It’s a source of constant confusion, as soon as you start budding breasts, that the man who just a moment ago told you how pretty you are is now calling you a stupid ugly whore, all because you didn’t get in his car.

OR

You could follow the rules. You could flirt back a little, look meek, not talk, not move away. You might have to put up with a lot more talking, you might have to put up with him trying to ask you out to lunch every day, you might even have to go out to lunch with him. You might have to deal with him copping a feel. But he won’t turn violent on you, and neither will the spectators who have watched him browbeat you into a frightened and flirtatious corner.

So we learn the rules will protect us. We learn that, when we step out of line, somebody around us might very well turn crazy. Might hurt us. And we won’t be defended by onlookers, who think we’ve provoked the crazy somehow. So, having your ass grabbed at the bus stop, having to go out to dinner with a guy you fucking can’t stand, maybe even having to fuck him once or twice, it’s a small sacrifice to avoid being ostracized, insulted, verbally abused, and possibly physically assaulted.

It’s a rude fucking awakening when a woman gets raped, and follows the rules she has been taught her whole life — doesn’t refuse to talk, doesn’t refuse to flirt, doesn’t walk away ignoring him, doesn’t hit, doesn’t scream, doesn’t fight, doesn’t raise her voice, doesn’t deny she liked kissing — and finds out after that she is now to blame for the rape. She followed the rules. The rules that were supposed to keep the rape from happening. The rules that would keep her from being fair game for verbal and physical abuse. Breaking the rules is supposed to result in punishment, not following them. For every time she lowered her voice, let go of a boundary, didn’t move away, let her needs be conveniently misinterpreted, and was given positive reinforcement and a place in society, she is now being told that all that was wrong, this one time, and she should have known that, duh.

For anybody who has ever watched the gendered social interactions of women — watched a woman get browbeaten into accepting attention she doesn’t want, watched a woman get interrupted while speaking, watched a woman deny she is upset at being insulted in public, watched a woman get grabbed because of what she was wearing, watched a woman stop arguing — and said and done nothing, you never have the right to ever ask, “Why didn’t she fight back?”

She didn’t fight back because you told her not to. Ever. Ever. You told her that was okay, and necessary, and right.

You didn’t give her a caveat. You didn’t say, “Unless…” You said, “Good for you, shutting up and backing down 99% of the time. Too bad that 1% of the time makes you a fucking whore who deserved it.”

Nobody obtains the superpower to behave dramatically differently during a frightening confrontation. Women will behave the same way they have been taught to behave in all social, professional, and sexual interactions. And they will be pretty goddamned surprised to come out the other end and find out that means they can legally be raped at any time, by just about anybody.

http://fugitivus.wordpress.com/2009/06/26/another-post-about-rape-3/ (via seebster)

true story: it’s been proven: fighting back means you are more likely to be killed during rape. 

(via lightspeedsound)

C’est un idéaliste, dira-t-on. Mais non, ce sont les autres qui sont des salauds.
Frantz Fanon, Peau noire, masques blancs (1952)
Prejudice against women, however, has deep and far-reaching consequences that do a lot more than make them feel bad, for it supports an entire system that privileges men at women’s expense. Sexist prejudice doesn’t just target individual women, for it is fundamentally about women and strikes at femaleness itself in every instance. Each expression of antifemale prejudice always amounts to more than what is said, for it reaffirms a cultural legacy of patriarchal privilege and oppression. When a particular woman is treated as less intelligent, less serious, and less important than the men she works with, for example, this specific view of her is easily linked to the patriarchal idea that women in general are inferior to men. When men ignore her ideas and suggestions or pay more attention to her looks than to her work, they do so with a cultural authority that damages her far more than similar treatment directed at a man.

Since patriarchal culture values maleness, the weight behind antimale prejudice is limited primarily to the individual woman who expresses it and is therefore easier to discount (“She must not like men”). And however hurt men might feel, they can always turn to the compensations of male privilege and a mainstream culture that sends continuing messages of inherent male value. In this sense, the issue isn’t whether prejudice hurts-it hurts everyone it touches. But prejudice against women wounds in deeper and more complex ways than does prejudice against men because the hurt is magnified by a patriarchal system that spreads it by association to all women and that systematically links it to male privilege.

Because prejudice affects women and men so differently, calling antimale prejudice “sexism” distorts the reality of how systems of privilege work. Prejudice against women not only harms individual women, but perpetuates an oppressive system based on gender that harms women more deeply than any isolated instance of hurtful speech or discrimination. Antimale prejudice may hurt individual men, but it isn’t connected to a system that devalues maleness and oppresses men as a result. The difference between the two is so great that we need to distinguish the one from the other, and that’s what words like “sexism” and “racism” are for. Sexism distinguishes simple gender prejudice-which can affect men and women both-from the much deeper and broader consequence of expressing and perpetuating privilege and oppression. Without this distinction, we treat all harm as equivalent without taking into account important differences on both the personal and the social levels in what causes it and what it does to people.
Allan G. Johnson,The Gender Knot
(via wretchedoftheearth)
BREAKING: Today marks two weeks since the murder of Michael Brown. Today also marks this blog’s 14th continuous day of coverage on the Ferguson MO protests and the investigation of Michael Brown’s murder. Brown’s killer, Officer Darren Wilson, has still not been brought to justice.