1. This is how this shit works:

    lesbianese:

    • 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)


    SO WHEN ANY OF THESE PEOPLE SAY THAT THEY HATE ANY OF THESE GROUPS, DON’T RESPOND WITH “NOT ALL WHITE PEOPLE/MEN/STRAIGHT/CIS PEOPLE ARE LIKE THAT”. WE KNOW THAT. IT’S NOT ABOUT YOU PERSONALLY. IT’S ABOUT INSTITUTIONS AND THE WAYS IN WHICH THEY, AS INSTITUTIONS, OPPRESS US. SHUT THE FUCK UP.

    (Source: popularslutclub)

     
  2. 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).

     
  3. 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)
     
  4. nyreen-kandr0s:

    The 7 Most Ridiculous Things About Calling Out Fake Fangirls

    lightspeedsound:

    montrealmighteatitsyoung:

    cracked:

    Calm down, you fucking nerds.

    Hot damn Cracked is just destroying it lately.

     ”If you’re calling someone out as a fake fan, what’s your victory condition? Preventing someone else from liking things you like? When your plan is “prevent people from enjoying Superman,” you’re a Hostess snack cake villain, and even more irrelevant to the modern world. When someone appoints himself the World’s Greatest Thor Fan, he needs to understand that Asgardians don’t require defense against cooties. Those new fans aren’t Skrulls. For a superhero, battling imposters isn’t a problem, it’s a Tuesday. And if you think the greatest Thor fan in the world is male, wow, you’ve been using a different Internet from me.”

    seriously, in love with some cracked.com articles right now

    particularly, the “wtf japanese trends that you can blame on white guys“ 

    Territorial nerds are the worst. That Japan article is good—I learned a few new things.

     
  5. That deep-held distaste for women’s health providers led Texas lawmakers last year to slash $73 million from all of its family planning services and shift the money to other areas of the budget. This blunt instrument hit all of the state’s women’s health providers, but was meant to target Planned Parenthood and deny it taxpayer dollars—even though the clinics that received state subsidies for care never performed abortions.

    This may be in line with their staunch opposition to what they see as a baby-killer, but that ideology comes with quite the price tag. News has surfaced that for the two-year period between 2014 and 2015, poor women are expected to deliver nearly 24,000 babies that they wouldn’t otherwise have had if they had access to state-subsidized birth control. Those extra births will cost taxpayers as much as $273 million, with between $103 million to $108 million of that hitting the state’s general revenue budget alone. Much of the cost comes from caring for those infants through Medicaid.

     
  6. It is illegal for women to go topless in most cities, yet you can buy a magazine of a woman without her top on at any 7-11 store. So, you can sell breasts, but you cannot wear breasts, in America.
    — Violet Rose   (via siarn)

    (Source: christiannaturist)

     
  7. Thoughts On “The Hawkeye Initiative”

    eschergirls:

    sylviasybil:

    girlinfourcolors:

    On tumblr, polerin elaborates:

    There’s some really nasty shit lurking not too far under the surface of some of the drawings. In some cases, like the ones where they switch clothes, it’s not even too deep.

    Making choices of clothing based in femininity/femme-ness on a dood isn’t a context free choice. Doubly so when you are mocking something. It relies on the deep history of cissexism and oppositional sexism in our culture. Even if that’s not the intent of the artist, it is impossible to look at these drawings and not have all the jokes about guys wearing women’s clothing or “acting like a girl” come up. That’s the POINT of these drawings.

    And that point pins trans women to the wall as a side effect of (rightly) critiquing the sexism in comics.

    Despite the best of intentions, the vibe comes across as really anti-femme, anti-trans women, and ultimately, anti-women. After all, if we’re unable to talk about the mistreatment of women without bringing men into the picture, what does that really say about us? If we’re unable to talk about the mistreatment of women without considering how it effects all women, what does that really say about us?

    However. Putting men in women’s clothing and poses can quickly and easily slot into homophobic and transphobic ideas about the “proper” way to do masculinity and the obligation to do so. As said above, even if the artist’s intentions are pure, the image can still provoke bigoted reactions in the audience. Art is not created in a vacuum.

    The Hawkeye Initiative is challenging the connection between femininity and sexualization, but it’s like a hydra - while you’re cutting off the “women shouldn’t be considered sex objects” head, the “sexualized men must only be doing it for the gay male gaze” and “men acting like women is unnatural and wrong” heads are coming up behind you.

    I wasn’t originally going to reblog or post about this because the original post is by my friend (girlinfourcolors who I think is awesome) and Escher Girls is mentioned, and I don’t want people to think I’m talking about this because I’m jealous or anything (in fact I promoted the HI).

    But ultimately, this is something that’s been bothering me lately too, and that means enough to me that I want to say something.  I chose to reblog both the above posts because I think they both say important things, but to avoid a conflict of interest (and an endorsement of everything in the posts which could risk a derail), I just snipped the parts that concerned what I wanted to talk about.

    First, I want to say, yes I did post some of the stuff that may be also problematic.  I was operating by the same “I post all fan art submitted to me” principle I use for the redraws, AND I’m also not immune to feeling pressure to go along with something that’s popular. :\  I admit that fully. 

    And I like the Hawkeye Initiative and it’s goals.  This is not about every picture, it’s about some of them.  Specifically the ones where the only source of humor seems to be that Hawkeye is dressed in a crop top & high heels (this particular one was of a civilian character, not a superheroine), or that he’s kissing Batman, and other posts like those.  Such posts make me uncomfortable because I thought the point was to show that Hawkeye (dressed as Hawkeye) in a pose would look ridiculous, not that a man in high heels or a crop top would look funny.  Hawkeye in thong battle armor (like women) shows how ridiculous that armor is, but if he’s just in tight pants, a crop top and heels, or kissing another man… the humour is coming from “oh my god a man in women’s clothing” and “oh my god a man being sexual with another man”, and I think that’s pretty problematic.  Catwoman kissing Batman isn’t wrong just because Hawkeye looks wrong kissing Batman to some people, neither is a non-hero woman in crop top, tight jeans and heels.

    I know I have a platform, so I often am hesitant to blog about these things because I don’t want people to think I’m preaching from the mount, or saying that something is inherently wrong or broken because of an issue in it (which people seem to assume a lot about what I write).  I also fear making the blog all about me, so I try to restrict it to just posting pictures.  But I’m also a trans woman, and I’ve gotten literal abuse and threats on my safety because early on in my transition people thought “a man in high heels!” or “a man wearing women’s clothing!”, and this sort of humor makes me really uncomfortable.  It took my friend speaking up for me to realize I should speak up too.

    I’m not telling anybody what to do, but just think about where the source of your humour comes from before you do one of these pictures.  That’s all. :)

     
  8. For many men it is unthinkable that women could possess a technical competence equal to their own. Women would have to be paragons of competence to be accepted by male colleagues (Cockburn, 1985, 188)
    — 

    Finn, Geraldine. Voices of Women, Voices of Feminism: Limited Edition. Fernwood Publishing; Halifax. 1993. (pg. 113)

    Relevant: a recent study that found women face persistent gender bias in the sciences:

    Science professors at American universities widely regard female undergraduates as less competent than male students with the same accomplishments and skills, a new study by researchers at Yale concluded.

    I’d wager that you’d find similar results if you conducted the same experiment in other fields.

    (Source: gynocraticgrrl)

     
  9. image: Download

    riotrite:

joans-own-words:

shooting4ownhand:

aim2misbehave:

I actually never knew this!

I didn’t know this but my knowledge of the history of science pretty much consists of Galileo, Newton, and Einstein.

I hate men in science

To be fair, this isn’t really how it happened, and it’s not fair to characterize as brilliant and accomplished a person as Cecilia Payne-Gaposchkin as some sort of helpless victim of patriarchy. In fact, I think that kind of narrative actually fits into patriarchal assumptions. This is a woman who earned the first PhD in astronomy ever from Radcliffe, the first person to earn a PhD for work done at the Harvard Observatory, and was the first female full professor at Harvard. Her thesis (which is the dissertation mentioned above) was highly lauded and much-discussed, not dismissed out of hand. She actually had a good working relationship with Henry Russell, and he called her results impossible because of prior data and in the context of academic review, not popular media. When Russell published his subsequent paper agreeing with Payne, he openly acknowledged and cited her work, exactly as you are supposed to do in science. In 1977, she received the prize that bears his name.
Is it definitely sexist and stupid that since then, much of the credit has been given to Russell. She also faced a number of serious impediments to her career due to her gender- that’s why she came to the USA in the first place. Women in the sciences are still systemically discriminated against. Sexism and patriarchy are definitely two important parts of her story. But I am pretty sure Payne herself would strongly disagree with portraying Russell as a villain. More importantly, it does a discredit to the work she did and the things she achieved to boil her career down to a parable on sexism. Her life should be told as a story of incredible achievement in the face of patriarchy, not ultimate capitulation to it.

    riotrite:

    joans-own-words:

    shooting4ownhand:

    aim2misbehave:

    I actually never knew this!

    I didn’t know this but my knowledge of the history of science pretty much consists of Galileo, Newton, and Einstein.

    I hate men in science

    To be fair, this isn’t really how it happened, and it’s not fair to characterize as brilliant and accomplished a person as Cecilia Payne-Gaposchkin as some sort of helpless victim of patriarchy. In fact, I think that kind of narrative actually fits into patriarchal assumptions. This is a woman who earned the first PhD in astronomy ever from Radcliffe, the first person to earn a PhD for work done at the Harvard Observatory, and was the first female full professor at Harvard. Her thesis (which is the dissertation mentioned above) was highly lauded and much-discussed, not dismissed out of hand. She actually had a good working relationship with Henry Russell, and he called her results impossible because of prior data and in the context of academic review, not popular media. When Russell published his subsequent paper agreeing with Payne, he openly acknowledged and cited her work, exactly as you are supposed to do in science. In 1977, she received the prize that bears his name.

    Is it definitely sexist and stupid that since then, much of the credit has been given to Russell. She also faced a number of serious impediments to her career due to her gender- that’s why she came to the USA in the first place. Women in the sciences are still systemically discriminated against. Sexism and patriarchy are definitely two important parts of her story. But I am pretty sure Payne herself would strongly disagree with portraying Russell as a villain. More importantly, it does a discredit to the work she did and the things she achieved to boil her career down to a parable on sexism. Her life should be told as a story of incredible achievement in the face of patriarchy, not ultimate capitulation to it.

    (Source: densityofstates)

     
  10. moniquill:

    r-noodles:

    I think someone should do a reverse Hawkeye Initiative (drawing women in men’s poses) and this is why:

    The Hawkeye Initiative is this really cool thing, but a major protest from the people still clinging to the “you are throwing a fit over nothing” argument seems to be

    “Well it doesn’t look stupid because the pose is wrong, it looks stupid because men and women are different and drawing a man in a woman’s pose is obviously gonna look off.”

    So let’s combat that with this:

    If a man in a woman’s pose looks ridiculous solely because it is a woman’s pose, then a woman in a man’s pose will look equally ridiculous, won’t it?

    And thus begins the reverse Hawkeye Initiative, in which we draw women in the poses of Superman and Captain America and Batman and yes, even Hawkeye, and we realize that they don’t look off at all. In which we prove that no, it doesn’t look stupid because of different sexes.

    It looks stupid because the poses are sexist.

    Just a thought.

    I second this motion, mostly because it would result in…comics just being good?

    (Source: the-best-at-space)

     
  11. galesofnovember:

    This is a super important primary source to have in your life.

    It is double important if you want to take on the dreary and unfunny task of talking to whiny men who like to throw temper tantrums on the internet about how feminists oppress them.

    The whole article is very readable and interesting,  but here are two important summary conclusions:  

    ” men [in traditionally feminine fields] are given fair—if not preferential—treatment in hiring and promotion decisions, are accepted by supervisors and colleagues, and are well-integrated into the workplace subculture. Indeed, subtle mechanisms seem to enhance men’s position in these professions—a phenomenon I refer to as the “glass escalator effect.”

    An additional conclusion is the men do face stigma when they enter traditionally feminine fields but that this stigma actually benefits men because it pushes them into more “acceptable” professions that are higher pay and higher status.  For example,  a male kindergarten teacher will be “stigmatized” into being made assistant principal, or  a male social worker will be stigmatized into becoming a supervisor, policy maker or researcher and in both cases this is likely to propel them over more qualified women. 

     
  12. image: Download

    shooting4ownhand:

aim2misbehave:

I actually never knew this!

I didn’t know this but my knowledge of the history of science pretty much consists of Galileo, Newton, and Einstein.

    shooting4ownhand:

    aim2misbehave:

    I actually never knew this!

    I didn’t know this but my knowledge of the history of science pretty much consists of Galileo, Newton, and Einstein.

    (Source: densityofstates)

     
  13. missvoltairine:

    “all work under capitalism is basically just like survival sex work,” said the middle-class white dude anarchist.

    “no,” said the other middle-class white dude anarchist, “all work under capitalism is basically just like rape.”

    they fought with each other over this until they ripped each other limb from limb, and then all their limbs exploded

    and nothing of value was lost.

     
  14. 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.

    zillah975:

    last-snowfall:

    fuckyeahscifiwomenofcolour:

    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.

    LADY PIRATES REPRESENT.

    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.

     
  15. But my rant is actually not quite about that stuff at all. It’s about history, and this notion that History Is Authentically Sexist. Yes, it is. Sure it is. We all know that. But what do you mean when you say “history?”

    History is not a long series of centuries in which men did all the interesting/important things and women stayed home and twiddled their thumbs in between pushing out babies, making soup and dying in childbirth.

    History is actually a long series of centuries of men writing down what they thought was important and interesting, and FORGETTING TO WRITE ABOUT WOMEN. It’s also a long series of centuries of women’s work and women’s writing being actively denigrated by men. Writings were destroyed, contributions were downplayed, and women were actively oppressed against, absolutely.

    — 

    tansyrr.com» Historically Authentic Sexism in Fantasy. Let’s Unpack That. / A great post from Tansy Rayner Roberts; read the whole thing, share it. (via gwendabond)

    Yes, exactly!

    (via malindalo)

    Similar arguments can be made against those who write fantasy or historical fiction based on European history and think that means they can have zero POC characters. Do some actual research and critical thinking about the period you’re writing about (or fictionalizing) instead of lazily falling back on genre conventions that marginalize women and POC.