Horror stories about Muslim misogyny have long been used by western patriarchs to justify imperialism abroad and sexism at home. The Guardian’s Katharine Viner reminds us about Lord Cromer, the British consul general in Egypt from 1883. Cromer believed the Egyptians were morally and culturally inferior in their treatment of women and that they should be “persuaded or forced” to become “civilised” by disposing of the veil.
"And what did this forward-thinking, feminist-sounding veil-burner do when he got home to Britain?" asks Viner. "He founded and presided over the Men’s League for Opposing Women’s Suffrage, which tried, by any means possible, to stop women getting the vote. Colonial patriarchs like Cromer … wanted merely to replace eastern misogyny with western misogyny." More than a century later, the same logic is used to imply that misogyny only matters when it isn’t being done by white men.
What Happens When A Prep School’s Black Student President Mocks Her White Male Classmates - Buzzfeed
Read the whole thing but the TL;DR is that a black lesbian was elected to student body president at Lawrenceville (boarding school in NJ), she faced harassment in her time as president including an incident where photos taken of her half-naked in her room were sent to the freshman class, and she posted a photo of herself dressed up in preppy white boy clothes with mocking hashtags on instagram and got removed from office for it.
LOOK WHAT YOU DID, SCOTUS.
Exactly 5 our of 9 justices are fine with this result. The ruling was crafted in a way that would make these consequences inevitable, but also let them disavow said consequences.
These people want to turn the U.S. into The Handmaid’s Tale, but more racist. Throw every single conservative out of office and salt the earth after.
Today, evangelicals make up the backbone of the pro-life movement, but it hasn’t always been so. Both before and for several years after Roe, evangelicals were overwhelmingly indifferent to the subject, which they considered a “Catholic issue.” In 1968, for instance, a symposium sponsored by the Christian Medical Society and Christianity Today, the flagship magazine of evangelicalism, refused to characterize abortion as sinful, citing “individual health, family welfare, and social responsibility” as justifications for ending a pregnancy. In 1971, delegates to the Southern Baptist Convention in St. Louis, Missouri, passed a resolution encouraging “Southern Baptists to work for legislation that will allow the possibility of abortion under such conditions as rape, incest, clear evidence of severe fetal deformity, and carefully ascertained evidence of the likelihood of damage to the emotional, mental, and physical health of the mother.” The convention, hardly a redoubt of liberal values, reaffirmed that position in 1974, one year after Roe, and again in 1976.
When the Roe decision was handed down, W. A. Criswell, the Southern Baptist Convention’s former president and pastor of First Baptist Church in Dallas, Texas—also one of the most famous fundamentalists of the 20th century—was pleased: “I have always felt that it was only after a child was born and had a life separate from its mother that it became an individual person,” he said, “and it has always, therefore, seemed to me that what is best for the mother and for the future should be allowed.”
Although a few evangelical voices, including Christianity Today magazine, mildly criticized the ruling, the overwhelming response was silence, even approval. Baptists, in particular, applauded the decision as an appropriate articulation of the division between church and state, between personal morality and state regulation of individual behavior. “Religious liberty, human equality and justice are advanced by the Supreme Court abortion decision,” wrote W. Barry Garrett of Baptist Press.
“The Real Origins of the Religious Right”, Randall Ballmer
Ballmer makes the case that evangelical elites seized uponabortion as an issue that would mobilize Christian voters but would be more politically palatable than another cause close to their hearts: defending the tax-exempt status of racially segregated schools.
Racism and tax breaks and hurting women when they get a chance. THIS is what contemporary conservatism is all about.
I was wondering how your daily report is coming along? I know you have to send one to the other tiny white men in all the other ladies’ underpants so you can all figure out how best we can manage our squishy parts. And for that, I’m truly grateful. One less thing to worry about, am I right? Now I can concentrate on more important things like polishing this glass ceiling and dreaming about how much I love giving a good BJ.
Though the ending kind of ruins it. No one should do anything for penises.
While today’s pair of horrible decisions might seem like distinct issues, in fact they are both part of a larger war on women and workers.
The absurdity of the Hobby Lobby decision…is obviously part of the Republican war on women, but it is also very much a war on the poor. An IUD costs about a month’s worth of wages at the minimum wage. If an executive can’t get birth control because her employer gets too hot and bothered thinking of her having sexy time, she can afford it on her own. A Hobby Lobby floor worker? Probably not. For women workers at closely held corporations, this decision will be devastating.
The Harris case is specifically about home care workers in Illinois. Who are home care workers? Women. Poor women. Lots of African-Americans, lots of Latinos, lots of undocumented workers. Home care workers are a major emphasis for SEIU right now…But moreover, it shows how little Alito and the boys care about rights for women wherever they are. It’s hardly coincidental that this case comes down the same day as the contraception mandate. The Court evidently believes that the home is not a workplace, but of course it is a workplace, especially if someone is getting paid to do work. That it is women working in the home, as it has always been, just makes it easier for conservatives to devalue that work.
— The SCOTUS War on Women and Workers, Erik Loomis
This video is not romantic. It is an attempt by Thicke to use his huge public platform to manipulate and shame his wife into getting back together with him. Now, if she says no, she becomes the bad guy, and he becomes the victim. In fact, he’s already making himself out to be the victim – between his sad I’m-so-awful-and-pathetic texts, and the fact that his face is cut and bloody in the video, he’s doing his best to come off as the poor, heartbroken, sensitive man who’s been left by his mean, unrelenting wife. Sure he may have done some things that contributed to the breakup, but look how sorry he is. Look how willing to make amends. How could she be so cold and hard? And what about their children, don’t they deserve to have their father around?
What Robin Thicke is doing is trying to coerce his wife into coming back to him, by publicly shaming and humiliating her. I have no idea whether the texts in the video were actually from her (though I really, really hope that they’re not), but it doesn’t really matter, because he’s presenting them as hers. He is, as @middle_ladle said on twitter, punishing her for leaving him quietly. He’s exposing her to the world, looking for sympathy. He’s making it harder and hard for her to say no.
I just watched that video last night and it is deeply disturbing, especially in light of the very recent massacre carried out by Elliot Rodger. Thicke’s videos and Rodger’s videos are on the same continuum of toxic and violent male entitlement.
He (or whoever is the brains behind that operation) is deliberately invoking misogynistic themes in order to keep him in the spotlight. Look how well it worked last year with “Blurred Liines”. Making money off misogyny is evil.
Interesting to note that while a history of animal cruelty is widely accepted to be a link with becoming a serial killer, the link between cruelty towards women and killing women is still up for debate. If a guy abuses a cat and then shoots women we say "we should have seen it coming that guy was nuts", but if abuses women and then shoots women we say "we had no way of seeing it coming that guy was a perfectly polite, kind and wonderful human”.
wow it’s almost like we live in a culture that has completely normalized men’s violence towards women…
How about instead of pointing at theoretical repressed homosexuality (seriously?), spectrum disorder, steroid abuse, being half-Asian (seriously?), or affluence, we blame (for once!) masculinity? Specifically, toxic masculinity in which entitlement over women is closely connected to criminal, anti-social behavior like stalking, harassment, domestic violence, rape, and murder? Toxic masculinity that is pervasive in our culture, economy, and politics?
As far as I know, misogyny still has not been classified as a mental illness. Doing so would mean a huge chunk of our population would have to be declared mentally ill.
Men turning to violence because they think women have wronged them is terribly common. Just as common is this violence being minimized and excused by being degendered.
It’s just so convenient that people will immediately find a way to blame already marginalized groups like the mentally ill and queer folks for a heinous act that was committed by someone acting out a type of violence that is specific to straight men.
This rampage was quite explicitly enabled by a culture that conflates masculinity and sex with power, control, and dominance of women. PUAs and MRAs (as well as abusers and rapists) are just the more obvious, extreme examples of this attitude. But the notion that women simply owe men (their bodies, their time, their attention, their care, their labor…) is the water we all swim in, the air we all breathe.
Fun fact: these two douchebags knowingly allowed scumbag violentacrez/Michael Brutsch to create subreddits like r/jailbait, r/n*ggerjailbait, r/rapingwomen, r/beatingwomen, etc. and fill them with child pornography and horrifyingly violent, racist, and misogynistic material. Brutsch brought Reddit a ton of traffic in its early days. Reddit eventually got bigger, but all the pedophiles and assorted other scumbags remained on the site. It was only after intense public pressure and a media campaign that Reddit agreed to take down r/jailbait and other child porn subreddits. Brutsch was also involved in moderating r/creepshots, which was also the subject of much controversy a few months ago.
Look at these smiling motherfuckers. Erik Martin and Alexis Ohanian got their start with the degradation and exploitation of children and women (and these things still exist on Reddit—the administrators refuse to remove anything unless forced). Yet media outlets continue to write laudatory pieces about them and their terrible website. Fuck the whole lot of them.
In the past 24 hours, two new article emerged regarding the importance of VAWA for Native American women. PLease visit Facebook.com/Save.Wiyabi.Project for more information about how you can help.