1. This is how this shit works:


    • When a person of color says that they hate white people, they hate white people as an institution (aka white supremacy/hegemony)
    • When a woman says that they hate men, they hate men as an institution (aka male dominance/patriarchy)
    • When a queer person says that they hate straight people, they hate straight people as an institution  (aka heteronormativity)
    • When a trans* person says that they hate cisgender people, they hate cisgender people as an institution (aka gender essentialism/rigid gender roles)


    (Source: popularslutclub)

  2. Trans*phobia and Homophobia





    I have had several people messaging me about the fact that The Hawkeye Initiative in many ways comes across as being trans* and homophobic. It never occurred to me that THI might be perceived as such, and I really appreciate those of you who have taken the time to point it out to me.

    Please understand I am not ignoring this. It is not an issue to be taken lightly, nor something I want to rush into sloppily, so I am speaking with people on a one-on-one basis and getting ideas for how best to resolve this issue without closing the blog.

    Thank you so much for your patience-

             Incorrect. You’re addressing misogynistic double standards in comic art. You’re not being transphobic, what female comic book characters are subjected to is fucking ridiculous all by itself. This isn’t making fun of gender nonconforming individuals, this is making fun of how expected gender conformity for women is sexist, ridiculous, and unrealistic. Rock on, please.

            Also, homophobia???? I haven’t seen any homophobia yet. Like seriously let me just give you this;


        PLEASE just keep doing what you do!

    how is it transphobic to show that NO HUMAN CAN DO THESE POSES WITHOUT LOOKING RIDICULOUS?

    trans* issues don’t even come into play here like what

    what i understand even less is how homosexuality is also somehow related but you know this is fucking tumblr and they have to ruin everything good

    Bolded for truth!

    Ok, no. The original intention of the Hawkeye Initiative was to demonstrate how female characters in comics tend to be drawn in physically impossible ways and in ludicrously improbable costumes just so artists can add in gratuitous T&A.

    But some misguided people began submitting art that made femininity itself the target for mockery. They often did this in homophobic and transphobic ways.

  3. image: Download

    (Source: beytwerk)

  4. vickiexz:

    PSA: Your Default Narrative Settings Are Not Apolitical

    Once upon a time, we know, there really were knights and castles and quests, and maps whose blank spaces warned of dragons and magic. That being so, a medieval fantasy novel only needs to convince us that the old myths were true; that wizards and witches existed, and that monsters really did populate the wilds. Everything else that’s dissonant with modern reality – the clothes, the customs, the social structure – must therefore constitute a species of historical accuracy, albeit one that’s liberally seasoned with poetic license, because that vague, historical blueprint is what we already have in our heads.

    But what happens when our perception of historical accuracy is entirely at odds with real historical accuracy? What happens when we mistake our own limited understanding of culture – or even our personal biases – for universal truths? What happens, in other words, when we’re jerked out of a story, not because the fantastic elements don’t make sense, but because the social/political elements strike us as being implausible on the grounds of unfamiliarity?

    The answer tends to be as ugly as it is revealing: that it’s impossible for black, female pirates to exist anywhere, that pixies and shapeshifters are inherently more plausible as a concept than female action heroes who don’t get raped, and that fairy tale characters as diverse as Mulan, Snow White and Captain Hook can all live together in the modern world regardless of history and canon, but a black Lancelot in the same setting is grossly unrealistic. On such occasions, the recent observation of Pulitzer Prize-winning author Junot Diaz that “Motherfuckers will read a book that’s 1/3rd elvish, but put two sentences in Spanish and they (white people) think we’re taking over” is bitingly, lamentably accurate.

    Foz Meadows is fabulous, also I think I could read about real life female pirates all damn day.

    This whole piece is well researched too, so it should come in handy the next time you hear a straight/cis/white/male nerd say something problematic (and since they really seem to enjoy spewing toxic nonsense, that will probably be soon).

  5. Misandrist Sex Tip #5


    A good way to break the ice is to show him that you two have things in common. If a random dude grabs your ass and tells you that he just couldn’t help himself, rip his eyes from their sockets to show him that you lack self-control sometimes as well.

  6. ed-woods-biggest-fan:

    only on tumblr would shaming people who get off on childporn, incest, and bestiality be controversial

    You guys clearly haven’t visited Reddit. Or any other place online where white males congregate.

  7. 18:24

    Notes: 651

    Reblogged from nezua

    Tags: sexismmisogynypatriarchylanguagefeminism

    The main use of any culture is to provide sym­bols and ideas out of which people construct their sense of what is real. As such, language mirrors so­cial reality in sometimes startling ways. In contem­ porary usage, for example, the words “crone,” “witch,” “bitch,” and “virgin” describe women as threaten­ing, evil, or heterosexually inexperienced and thus incomplete. In prepatriarchal times, however, these words evoked far different images. The crone was the old woman whose life experience gave her in­ sight, wisdom, respect, and the power to enrich peo­ple’s lives. The witch was the wise-woman healer, the knower of herbs, the midwife, the link join­ ing body, spirit, and Earth. The bitch was Artemis­ Diana, goddess of the hunt, most often associated with the dogs who accompanied her. And the vir­gin was merely a woman who was unattached, un­claimed, and unowned by any man and therefore independent and autonomous. Notice how each word has been transformed from a positive cultural image of female power, independence, and dignity to an in­ sult or a shadow of its former self so that few words remain to identify women in ways both positive and powerful.
    — Allan G. Johnson Patriarchy, The System (via nezua)
  8. There is only one reason behind killing women: to prevent women from working in the government…We should expect more similar assassinations in the upcoming weeks and months because they have threatened every female civil servant, including members of the provincial council and teachers.

    Zufenon Safi

    who represents Laghman in Parliament

    she made the statement on the occasion of the

    acting head of women’s affairs in Laghman Province in eastern Afghanistan [being] shot to death in broad daylight on Monday as she was traveling to work.

    (via thesmithian)
  9. Put more simply, this all means: in the eyes of patriarchy, “men gotta fuck women”. If you are a woman not being fucked by a man, you are doing ‘woman’ wrong, and if you are a man who is not fucking women, you are doing ‘man’ wrong. (The consequences of doing ‘woman’ wrong are, of course, significantly more punitive than doing ‘man’ wrong, because women are always closer to consequences under patriarchy.)
  10. Author Scott Lynch responds to a critic of the character Zamira Drakasha, a black woman pirate in his fantasy book Red Seas Under Red Skies, the second novel of the Gentleman Bastard series.




    The bolded sections represent quotes from the criticism he received. All the z-snaps are in order.

    Your characters are unrealistic stereotpyes of political correctness. Is it really necessary for the sake of popular sensibilities to have in a fantasy what we have in the real world? I read fantasy to get away from politically correct cliches. 

    God, yes! If there’s one thing fantasy is just crawling with these days it’s widowed black middle-aged pirate moms. 

    Real sea pirates could not be controlled by women, they were vicous rapits and murderers and I am sorry to say it was a man’s world. It is unrealistic wish fulfilment for you and your readers to have so many female pirates, especially if you want to be politically correct about it!

    First, I will pretend that your last sentence makes sense because it will save us all time. Second, now you’re pissing me off. 

    You know what? Yeah, Zamira Drakasha, middle-aged pirate mother of two, is a wish-fulfillment fantasy. I realized this as she was evolving on the page, and you know what? I fucking embrace it. 

    Why shouldn’t middle-aged mothers get a wish-fulfillment character, you sad little bigot? Everyone else does. H.L. Mencken once wrote that “Every normal man must be tempted at times to spit on his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats.” I can’t think of anyone to whom that applies more than my own mom, and the mothers on my friends list, with the incredible demands on time and spirit they face in their efforts to raise their kids, preserve their families, and save their own identity/sanity into the bargain. 

    Shit yes, Zamira Drakasha, leaping across the gap between burning ships with twin sabers in hand to kick in some fucking heads and sail off into the sunset with her toddlers in her arms and a hold full of plundered goods, is a wish-fulfillment fantasy from hell. I offer her up on a silver platter with a fucking bow on top; I hope she amuses and delights. In my fictional world, opportunities for butt-kicking do not cease merely because one isn’t a beautiful teenager or a muscle-wrapped font of testosterone. In my fictional universe, the main characters are a fat ugly guy and a skinny forgettable guy, with a supporting cast that includes “SBF, 41, nonsmoker, 2 children, buccaneer of no fixed abode, seeks unescorted merchant for light boarding, heavy plunder.”

    You don’t like it? Don’t buy my books. Get your own fictional universe. Your cabbage-water vision of worldbuilding bores me to tears. 

    As for the “man’s world” thing, religious sentiments and gender prejudices flow differently in this fictional world. Women are regarded as luckier, better sailors than men. It’s regarded as folly for a ship to put to sea without at least one female officer; there are several all-female naval military traditions dating back centuries, and Drakasha comes from one of them. As for claims to “realism,” your complaint is of a kind with those from bigoted hand-wringers who whine that women can’t possibly fly combat aircraft, command naval vessels, serve in infantry actions, work as firefighters, police officers, etc. despite the fact that they do all of those things— and are, for a certainty, doing them all somewhere at this very minute. Tell me that a fit fortyish woman with 25+ years of experience at sea and several decades of live bladefighting practice under her belt isn’t a threat when she runs across the deck toward you, and I’ll tell you something in return— you’re gonna die of stab wounds.

    What you’re really complaining about isn’t the fact that my fiction violates some objective “reality,” but rather that it impinges upon your sad, dull little conception of how the world works. I’m not beholden to the confirmation of your prejudices; to be perfectly frank, the prospect of confining the female characters in my story to placid, helpless secondary places in the narrative is so goddamn boring that I would rather not write at all. I’m not writing history, I’m writing speculative fiction. Nobody’s going to force you to buy it. Conversely, you’re cracked if you think you can persuade me not to write about what amuses and excites me in deference to your vision, because your vision fucking sucks.

    I do not expect to change your mind but i hope that you will at least consider that I and others will not be buying your work because of these issues. I have been reading science fiction and fantasy for years and i know that I speak for a great many people. I hope you might stop to think about the sales you will lose because you want to bring your political corectness and foul language into fantasy. if we wanted those things we could go to the movies. Think about this! 

    Thank you for your sentiments. I offer you in exchange this engraved invitation to go piss up a hill, suitable for framing.

    Dude. I bounced off his first book in that series, but that character MIGHT just convince me to give it another try.

    Also, Anne Bonny, Mary Read, Ching Shih, the Red Lady, Lai Sho Sz’en, Grace O’Malley, Sayyida al Hurra, the Lioness of Brittany, Mary Killigrew, Lo Hon-cho, and quite a few others.


    This guy is such a patriarchal bigot that he actually wrote to Scott Lynch because he thinks all fictional worlds should be sexist and racist too. Lynch’s response was perfect.

  11. image: Download


that’s it. the internet is over. this won. everybody go home.


    that’s it. the internet is over. this won. everybody go home.

    (Source: maxofs2d)

  12. Not bad, considering that it’s Jezebel:

    The so-called “War on Men” isn’t a war on men at all—it’s a war on inequality. Oh, you’re feeling marginalized and underrepresented? Complain to me after you’ve been marginalized and underrepresented for 200 years. You haven’t even made it a day (mainly because it’s not actually happening to you yet—you have always had and WILL always have representation). And we can tell that you aren’t really subjugated, because if you were you would be coming to us, the supposed dominant group, for help—just like we’re forced to come to you, groveling, and beg for our reproductive rights, marriage rights, and equal pay for equal work. Instead, you’re insulting and alienating us and trying to shove us back down where we “belong.” Women and people of color and LGBT Americans have the right to complain because we’ve fucking earned it. And we’re kind of busy here, working on a project called “equality.” Let me know when you’re done flipping out over losing 1% of your privilege. We could use your help.

  13. nezua:


    Which is why i always contend that the term emasculation is
    patriarchal hogwash unto itself. Theres really no such thing. Its a
    word thats used when men want to whine about being treated like an
    equal as opposed to a superior (the horror!) or when theyre (god
    forbid) treated just as shitty as women usually are. When shitty
    treatments applied to women, its just life, when it happens to men its
    a speshul event and term. Fuck off.

    exactly. nobody can “emasculate” me. what a silly idea.

  14. …cultural power dynamics don’t suddenly change when we enter the bedroom. Sex and sexuality, both how we experience it and how the media encourages us to experience it, can be and still are touched by oppression. A man does not lose male privilege when he’s trying to convince a woman to engage in a fetish he has. His male entitlement is still there, the pressure and socialized tendency for women to please men, service men, do what men want in order to avoid facing male wrath because we ignore them, reject them, “friendzone,” them, is still all there.

    Internalized Hatred & Choice Politics

    (via gynocraticgrrl)

    Same with Whites vis a vis their attractions or non-attractions to PoC.

    (via witchsistah)

  15. tic-tac926:



    Coverage of the murder of Kasandra (Kasi) Perkins by NFL linebacker Jovan Belcher has been incredibly brutal over the past few days as we witness so many mainstream news sources rush to defend Belcher’s character and erase any whiff of ‘male violence’ or ‘domestic abuse’ from the conversation. Most media that covered the story over the weekend barely mentioned her, headlines reading” “Chiefs LB Belcher kills self“, “NFL tragedy: Chiefs chairman says Jovan Belcher murder-suicide ‘incredibly difficult’”, “Jovan Belcher murder-suicide leaves Chiefs in shock“, “Kansas City Chiefs’ Belcher in fatal double shooting“… You get the picture. Something about a football player. The NFL is taking it pretty hard.

    Fox Sports went out of it’s way to find people to defend Belcher’s honour:

    He was a good, good person … a family man. A loving guy,” said family friend Ruben Marshall, who said he coached Belcher in youth football. “You couldn’t be around a better person.

    He was someone who took genuine pleasure in bringing happiness to others,” [Dwayne] Wilmot said.

    CTV News quoted Kansas City Mayor, Sly James, who urged people not to ‘judge’ Belcher:

    I hope people will look at the situation and try not to judge the person. There are a lot of people hurting. There’s a young baby right now without parents,

    The New York Times stacked their piece with quotes assuring us that Belcher was a good man:

    I had every reason to believe he was a well-spoken, articulate man who exhibited a lot of genuineness

    I didn’t want to believe it. He was a good man. A good, loving father, a family man.

    Numerous mainstream news outlets who covered the events framed the whole thing as a baffling tragedy.

     It feels like an infinite number of lives directly impacted by the decision of one person. And for now, no one knows how or why he came to that decision. All anyone knows is that he did. (Aol Sporting News)
    There’s going to be unanswered questions, the why’s of this tragedy. It’ll never be truly known to us. (Fox Sports)

    And indeed, it was a tragedy. But while the media obsesses over the death of a young athlete, wondering how such a crazy, crazy thing could happen, they miss the most obvious thing. That is male violence against women.

    What this situation isn’t, in fact, is baffling. Because violence against women is a global epidemic. In Canada alone, a woman is killed by her intimate partner every six days. Global research “suggests that half of all women who die from homicide are killed by their current or former husbands or partners.” In England and Wales, two women per week, on average,  are killed by a partner or ex-partner. In the U.S.,  between 1980 and 2008 the percentage of women killed by intimate partners went from 43 percent to 45 percent. For men it went from 10 percent to 5 percent. A blog post over at What About Our Daughters points out that “black women ages 25-29 are about 11 times more likely as white women in that age group to be murdered while pregnant or in the year after childbirth.”

    And we are baffled when it happens again? This ‘double shooting’, this ‘murder-suicide’, this ‘unthinkable tragedy’? We don’t know how this could have happened? Really? Take a guess.

    Instead of stating the obvious – that this was yet another case of male violence against women, we feign confusion.

    But there’s nothing confusing about the situation. We can even, simply, look to the way in which media has framed this incident, to see why this continues; to see why women continue to be abused and murdered by their partners. Domestic violence is prevalent because we clearly don’t take it seriously. We are more concerned about the loss of an NFL player than we are about the fact that this was a violent man who took the life of his partner.

    Oh. And as pointed out by Jason Whitlock, the Kansas City Chiefs decided not to cancel their game the very next day. A woman is murdered by one of their players, but god-forbid they postpone their Sunday celebration of masculinity and violence. And let’s please not pretend that the male-centric culture of professional sports like football and hockey don’t centre around violence and aggression. That it isn’t a blind celebration of patriarchal capitalism. Let’s not pretend like the NFL gives a shit about women.

    The Chiefs issued a statement that said their game Sunday afternoon against the Carolina Panthers would go on as scheduled, even as the franchise tried to come to grips with the awfulness of Belcher’s death. (Fox Sports)

    And then, of course, almost on cue, there’s the victim blaming.

    While the New York Times was bad, including leading quotes like: “What could have caused him to make him do that?” “You never know what would trigger that.” “We had heard that they had been arguing in the past,” Deadspin managed to post the most disturbing coverage of them all, quoting from an email sent to them by an anonymous friend of Belcher’s.

    The relationship had “soured” this friend said. The couple had been “arguing”. We shouldn’t focus on this “isolated incident”, the friend stressed, this had been building for some time. Oh. And did we forget to mention the obvious? That Kasi was after Belcher’s money?

    …she made it clear that she was leaving and [would] contact a lawyer to “get as much money as possible”.

    And as if this ‘friend’ had not gone far enough, here’s the kicker: Kasi was, according to this source, “the catalyst to this incident.”

    The friend (as well as other sources) mentioned that Belcher had substance abuse issues and had suffered a number of concussions. So looks like Belcher was the real victim here.

    I have no idea what could have inspired the folks at Deadspin to print this (seemingly libelous) garbage. It seems unnecessary. Detrimental even. Why contribute to a culture that is clearly so desperate to avoid holding men accountable for incidences of domestic violence? Maybe Belcher had problems. In fact, I’m sure Belcher had problems. And one of those problems was patriarchy and a culture that feeds, encourages, and understands masculinity to centre around aggression and power. Belcher’s problems are real. But so is patriarchy. And men aren’t the primary victims of that system.

    None of those quotes Deadspin featured will sound new to anyone who’s ever come out about abuse or to anyone who’s known a woman who’s gone public with her experiences of male violence. Not one. I myself have been at the receiving end of all of them and more. The “oh, but you two were fighting, weren’t you?”, the “she pushed him to do it. You know… she’s kind of a bitch…”, the “she’s just trying to get revenge/money/attention/whatever”. I’ve heard the same said about my friends. I’ve heard the “well you went back to him…”, the “he was drunk”, the “she’s crazy.” I could go on.

    The point is that this has to stop. We pay lip service to domestic violence or ‘family violence’ (the newest in terms the government uses in order avoid describing the truth of the matter), removing gender from the discussion and presenting violence against women as a private matter (a ‘family’ matter) — ‘they had problems’, ‘oh, it’s none of our business’ — yet we are so clearly committed to doing nothing. We are unwilling to admit that this is a systemic issue and that this is about gender. Because we don’t give a shit. We care more, as a society, about sports than we do about violence against women. We are still representing women as conniving gold diggers who ‘ask for it’. Who push men to violence. Who are the ‘catalysts’ in their own murders.

    The media is not innocent in this. They aren’t simply ‘reporting the facts’. The media is shaping the conversation and they are shaping it in a way that excuses and erases male violence against women.

    The media and journalists make choices. They can say ‘bullying’ or they can say ‘misogyny’. They can say ‘sexting up kids!‘ or they can say porn culture. They can say cyber harassment or they can say sexual harassment. They can say ‘murder-suicide’ or they can say ‘domestic violence’. They can say ‘family violence’ or they can say ‘male violence against women’. They can choose to quote people who accuse Perkins of being a gold digger or they can quote people who are critical of an unequal and oppressive society (but that probably won’t be quite as popular) and of a male-centric culture that celebrates and idolizes violent men. Certainly they can choose not print quotes that reinforce that which so many already want to believe — that women deserve the violence they are subjected to. That somehow there is no one to blame. Just another isolated incident wherein a woman happens to die at the hands of a man. “What can we do??” We ring our hands. It’s all just so baffling, isn’t it.

    “I didn’t want to believe it. He was a good man. A good, loving father, a family man.”

    Is it too much to ask that if you murder the mother of your child and yourself and leave an infant without parents you LOSE THE FUCKING RIGHT TO BE CALLED A GOOD, LOVING FATHER AND A FAMILY MAN?

    God forbid grown ass men take responsibility for their actions.