This is a personal blog. I talk sense and nonsense.
Install Theme

hssanya:

Did you know that after they switched to blind auditions, major symphony orchestras hired women between 30% to 55% more? Before bringing in “blind auditions” with a screen to conceal the the candidate, women in the top 5 major orchestras made up less than 5% of the musicians performing.

Though from what I understand, the screens are actually removed for the final round of auditions. The blind auditions probably help a lot of women get their foot in the door, but it doesn’t entirely eliminate bias.

(via heyreadabook)

witchhboy:

"Stop the Devaluation of Feminized Jobs" - Lillian Cuda.
This piece is a commissioned t-shirt and sticker design for MisogynistShaming. I’m excited to see the final garment. If you’re interested in a commissioned piece, please email me at lilyterese@hotmail.com

witchhboy:

"Stop the Devaluation of Feminized Jobs" - Lillian Cuda.

This piece is a commissioned t-shirt and sticker design for MisogynistShaming. I’m excited to see the final garment. If you’re interested in a commissioned piece, please email me at lilyterese@hotmail.com

(via cognitivedissonance)

gailsimone:


the preeminent gail simone of our time

Still a huge problem.

gailsimone:

the preeminent gail simone of our time

Still a huge problem.

(Source: dee-lirious, via pileofmonkeys)

mommapolitico:

smartgirlsattheparty:

thedemsocialist:

Any questions?

Woah.

I know I’m posing this twice, but just was wondering when a company is going to sue on the premise that men getting vasectomies is against the corporation’s belief that God wants us to be fruitful and multiply?

Or that Viagra causes men to have impure thoughts and may aid them in sinful behavior like adultery.

mommapolitico:

smartgirlsattheparty:

thedemsocialist:

Any questions?

Woah.

I know I’m posing this twice, but just was wondering when a company is going to sue on the premise that men getting vasectomies is against the corporation’s belief that God wants us to be fruitful and multiply?

Or that Viagra causes men to have impure thoughts and may aid them in sinful behavior like adultery.

(via questionall)

One of the devastating weaknesses of university learning, of the store of knowledge and opinion that has been handed down through academic training, has been its almost total erasure of women’s experience and thought from the curriculum… What you can learn [in college] is how men have perceived and organized their experience, their history, their ideas of social relationships, good and evil, sickness and health, etc. When you read or hear about “great issues,” “major texts,” “the mainstream of Western thought,” you are hearing about what men, above all white men, in their male subjectivity, have decided is important.

— Adrienne Rich, “Claiming an Education" (pdf), a commencement speech given at Douglass College, 1977

(Source: kawrage, via socio-logic)

Female voters in the US have been called “soccer moms” and “security moms”. In 2004, single women were “Sex and the City voters”. Now – because apparently women can’t ever just be “citizens” or “voters”, or more likely because conservatives prefer to call us names instead of delving too deep into women’s issues – we are “Beyoncé voters”. Bow down, bitches.

Most single ladies would generally be thrilled with a comparison to Queen Bey in any way, shape or form, but the cutesy nicknames for politically-engaged women need to stop. Surely pundits and the political media culture can deal with the collective electoral power of the majority voting bloc in this country in some better way than symbolically calling us “sweetheart”, complete with head pat.

Jessica Valenti: Nick-naming women ‘Beyoncé voters’ is exactly why we don’t vote Republican (via guardian)

The Republican who coined “Beyonce voters” was using the term to describe “single ladies” who wanted access to birth control and benefits from the government. It’s basically their new version of “welfare queen”—a dogwhistle largely meant to denigrate non-affluent women of color.

(Source: jessicavalenti, via cognitivedissonance)

My hope: I want a pro-choice situation for last names. Instead of a given, how about a conversation between parents? Maybe someone wants a cohesive family name; maybe someone wants to honor a great-grandmother or grandfather; maybe someone wants to shed a last name and join a new family; maybe someone wants to give their child four last names and let the child pick at 18 years old. I don’t know. Something. Anything. Just not a given.

What Happened When We Gave Our Daughter My Last Name | The Hairpin (via feministlibrarian)

I always wanted a daughter to have my last name and a son to have his father’s. That’s not a choice that works for everyone, but it feels right to me.

People are confused by it when the topic comes up, but confusion has never bothered me. I’d just shrug at all their “what abouts” and tell them if I wasn’t making them do the same, what was the problem?

(via parentheticalaside)

I once got into a fairly intense fight with a boyfriend because he was really resistant to the idea of giving our hypothetical children my last name instead of his. This was a guy who was very progressive…just not progressive enough.

I think this may be a good way to determine just how truly feminist a dude is. Like, if he’s fine with you keeping your name, just don’t give it to his kids, then he needs to be sent back to the matriarchal reeducation camp.

(via parentheticalaside)

lexlifts:

thornsandwillows:

If you take a young man and woman and they both tell a stranger that they work in the same restaurant, it’s very likely that they will assume that the woman is the waitress, and the young man a cook.

But I thought a woman’s place was in the kitchen? Not when she’s being paid for it. I can’t believe it took me this long to realize the implication of this. A woman’s place is one of servitude.

this fucking hit me like a fucking train 

(via nicethingsforawfulpeople)

Some men do the dinner dishes every night. That doesn’t make their wives free. On the contrary, it’s just one more thing she has to feel grateful to him for. He, in the power and glory of his maleness, condescended to do something for her. It will never mean more than that until the basic power relations are changed. As long as men are the superior caste and hold the political power in the class relationship between men and women, it will be a favor your lover is doing you, however imperiously you demand it. And beyond that one thing, nothing else need have changed.

Dana Densmore

Independence from the Sexual Revolution (via medusasseveredhead)

Oooooh girl. Now that I live with a lesbian couple I’ve been wondering why the dishes situation feels soooo fucking different and this articulated it perfectly.

(via dia-lectics)

This is really well put, and it rings true in my own situation - I do all the cooking, cleaning and childcare, but if I fuck up with any of those things, in the eyes of general society, I don’t get the blame - she does, because they think it’s still fundamentally her responsibility, she gets the blame for delegating badly. People think I’m amazing for doing normal, everyday standard shit, and I never get criticised because they think it’s a miracle that I’m even doing it in the first place. If she was doing what I do people would think of her as just a run of the mill housewife, but for some reason it makes me exceptional. It’s bullshit.

(via class-struggle-anarchism)

My sister and her fiance are going through some shirt right now because he’s a man. Prior to them moving in together, he had been taking care of himself for years, doing laundry, cleaning, etc. Then she’s there and he’s suddenly become a stupid helpless baby who needs her explicit directives to do anything at all related to housework. The dude has a doctorate from an Ivy and he can’t figure out when to start dinner?

Civilization would crumble into foul-smelling, bedraggled, malnourished chaos if not for the unpaid care work of women.

(via veruca-assault)

bird-on-a-leash:

paperwhale:

claydols:

your bra strap is showing please hide it because it is suggestive. also your boobs are producing lumps in your shirt please hide them. your butt is in the same situation please get rid of it. also your legs. your arms. your face.

image

I can see your feet and it’s very distracting and slightly arousing.

This is why I’ve given up on thongs. I no longer care if people can see my panty lines. Why are they even looking at my butt anyway?

(Source: basedgosh, via peacefulacrez)

pushtosmart:

AAA Gaming Priorities via The Verge and Siliconera

(via cognitivedissonance)

…[H]ere’s my prediction: the day a religious exemption burdens by so much as a mouse’s whisker the right of men to protect their own bodies from unwanted, well, anything, is the day the Supreme Court Five discover that religion is not so deserving of deference after all.
glitterlion:

sssammich:

upsettingshorts:

lohelim:

calyps-iswearimakemods:

upsettingshorts:

maryfoundnemo:

I’m officially naming this award season “the year stars stopped giving a fuck”

Far be it for me to dispute Cate Blanchett, or the larger point she’s making, but the guys are all wearing the same thing.  If the camera were to do that to the guys, it’d just be black pants over… and over…. and over…

I agree. In this particular case, it’s apples and oranges. Tuxes versus gowns. Photocopies versus unique work. Perhaps their real foul was not running the shot by her before hand.

I would like to point out, though, the salacious nature of the slow pan up a woman’s body. In this particular case, detail isn’t usually put on the hem of a dress (because no one wants to see hand beading or embroidery get dirty or ripped out by an errant stiletto), and a full-body shot would be better to showcase the drape and design of these beautiful gowns like in the fashion plate glossies. Starting at the bottom and slowly panning up dehumanizes women because you don’t see their faces until you’ve seen the rest of their bodies. Their identities don’t matter.

That’s a really good point, thank you.

#I’ve never seen such a calm exchange on tumblr

But also, the whole “black on black on black” line is just another excuse to justify this very obvious invasion of space because while most folks might be wearing the same color tux, they are definitely not necessarily wearing the same designer or, at the very least, the same design. If the purpose is to highlight the fashionz, why wouldn’t they also focus on the details of the various tuxes?
I don’t think anyone needs to actually answer that.

It’s thoughtless to attribute the elevator camera pan solely or even mostly to the greater variety/interest in women’s clothing at this event. The very fact that women have to be more decorative than men and are more closely scrutinized (and oftentimes harshly criticized or mocked) for what they choose to wear is itself a form of sexism.

glitterlion:

sssammich:

upsettingshorts:

lohelim:

calyps-iswearimakemods:

upsettingshorts:

maryfoundnemo:

I’m officially naming this award season “the year stars stopped giving a fuck”

Far be it for me to dispute Cate Blanchett, or the larger point she’s making, but the guys are all wearing the same thing.  If the camera were to do that to the guys, it’d just be black pants over… and over…. and over…

I agree. In this particular case, it’s apples and oranges. Tuxes versus gowns. Photocopies versus unique work. Perhaps their real foul was not running the shot by her before hand.

I would like to point out, though, the salacious nature of the slow pan up a woman’s body. In this particular case, detail isn’t usually put on the hem of a dress (because no one wants to see hand beading or embroidery get dirty or ripped out by an errant stiletto), and a full-body shot would be better to showcase the drape and design of these beautiful gowns like in the fashion plate glossies. Starting at the bottom and slowly panning up dehumanizes women because you don’t see their faces until you’ve seen the rest of their bodies. Their identities don’t matter.

That’s a really good point, thank you.

#I’ve never seen such a calm exchange on tumblr

But also, the whole “black on black on black” line is just another excuse to justify this very obvious invasion of space because while most folks might be wearing the same color tux, they are definitely not necessarily wearing the same designer or, at the very least, the same design. If the purpose is to highlight the fashionz, why wouldn’t they also focus on the details of the various tuxes?

I don’t think anyone needs to actually answer that.

It’s thoughtless to attribute the elevator camera pan solely or even mostly to the greater variety/interest in women’s clothing at this event. The very fact that women have to be more decorative than men and are more closely scrutinized (and oftentimes harshly criticized or mocked) for what they choose to wear is itself a form of sexism.

(Source: mattsgifs, via omskivar)

We think of segregation most commonly with regard to housing and schools, and the country remains deeply segregated in those arenas. But we don’t often talk about segregation in employment, what researchers call “occupational segregation,” describing the phenomenon in which certain people are steered toward certain jobs, or toward deep long term unemployment. In last week’s Colorlines installment of the Life Cycles of Inequity series on the experiences of black men, Kai Wright cites a study that reveals segregation in high-wage construction and other industrial jobs: 45 percent of white men, compared to 15 percent black men and very few women at all, and with white men earning approximately double what the black men do. Women, and many men of color, are steered into lower paying occupations as a matter of course, with deep consequences to their lives and families. Workers organizations such as the Restaurant Opportunities Centers and the Retail Action Project have begun to document this kind of segregation. According to the Roosevelt Institute’s research, for us to have desegregated workplaces fully as of 2005, nearly 70 percent of black women would have had to switch occupations with white men.

Rinku Sen: On the Civil Rights Act’s 50th, Workplaces Remain Segregated - COLORLINES (via aboriginalnewswire)

I know someone who’s in a pink collar job and nearing retirement age. She owns her own home, but doesn’t really have much in the way of savings and there’s no such thing as a pension for a secretarial job.

She told me she recently ran into a former high school classmate who had been a unionized carpenter. He’s been retired for years, has his own home, a nice pension, and time and energy enough to take on a small, part-time job.

"I’m never going to be able to stop working," she told me.

(via aboriginalnewswire)

burningupasun:

eastofgallifrey:

itsfuckingdistractingohgood:

eastofgallifrey:

University Study on Sexism in Doctor Who

"Fun fact, Rose’s Bechdal test score would have been in the 80′s were it not for the episodes Moffat wrote during her run."

Guys, really, you should click the link. 

“Ironically, the woman who is often propped up as proof that Steven Moffat is, in fact, not a sexist was one of the worst in terms of the Bechdel test and overall independence of thought and character. While maintaining an average speaking time, the episodes she is in only pass the Bechdel Test 57% of the time, and she herself only passes 42% of the time. She also never passes it on her own after Series 5. It is also important to note that River’s “passes” barely scraped by this test. Her passing conversations were always around three or four lines of exchange total, limited to one per episode, and were always in the presence of/with the Doctor.”

This confirms that my love for Donna and Martha is rational and correct.

burningupasun:

eastofgallifrey:

itsfuckingdistractingohgood:

eastofgallifrey:

University Study on Sexism in Doctor Who

"Fun fact, Rose’s Bechdal test score would have been in the 80′s were it not for the episodes Moffat wrote during her run."

Guys, really, you should click the link. 

Ironically, the woman who is often propped up as proof that Steven Moffat is, in fact, not a sexist was one of the worst in terms of the Bechdel test and overall independence of thought and character. While maintaining an average speaking time, the episodes she is in only pass the Bechdel Test 57% of the time, and she herself only passes 42% of the time. She also never passes it on her own after Series 5. It is also important to note that River’s “passes” barely scraped by this test. Her passing conversations were always around three or four lines of exchange total, limited to one per episode, and were always in the presence of/with the Doctor.”

This confirms that my love for Donna and Martha is rational and correct.

(via panic0)