John Scalzi gets it.
This is what I have been trying to say in so many words—all men aren’t menaces to women, but all women have been menaced by men.
I think that is an important distinction to make. However, I do feel like it shifts the focus away from the men who are doing the thing a bit, and panders more to the whiny men who “aren’t like that!!!” more than necessary.
Regardless, I am so glad to see another guy taking a stand about this shit.
Oh it is total pandering to those ass-butts. But It’s the first thing you have to do is confront that bullshit. You have to have an answer for it. I got into a LONG fight with someone on Facebook about that very thing. I lumped all men into the “can’t be trusted until proven otherwise” category and got shit upon shit for it. From a gay man. I’m like wtf, man.
- 1 day ago
- 5 days ago
- 6 days ago
Joan Rivers on the Ed Sullivan Show, 1967 (x)
HOW IN THE WORLD DID SHE TALK LIKE THIS BACK THEN AND END UP HOSTING A SHOW TEARING APART WHAT PEOPLE LOOK FOR A FRIGGING LIVING????
SHOCKED when I got to the bottom and saw “Joan Rivers”
You either die a hero, or you live long enough to see yourself become the villain.
(via ohthatsloverly)Source: stand-up-comic-gifs
- 2 weeks ago
- 2 weeks ago
"I think it was time for men to see what it was like. And this video, on the set as well, made people a little uncomfortable. It was funny to see that. Even though the treatment was the director’s idea, when we were doing the scene where they wash the cars, right? You’ve seen this scene a million times with girls. They’re in a bathing suit, they’re pouring water on themselves — you’ve seen it in movies even. You’ve seen it everywhere. They’re pouring water and suds all over themselves, they’re rubbing their boobs on the car, the whole thing. When we were doing this with the guys, the crew, the director — and he’ll admit this too — and the guys who had to do it after one take were like, “Well I think that’s enough. I think, you know, that’s cool.” I was like, “No!” Because if a girl were doing this right now, we’d be shooting it for an hour! Meanwhile we’ve done one take and you’re like, “That’s good.” I was like, “No, it’s not good! Rub your butt on the car!” It’s supposed to be funny, people have to get the joke, but they also have to see what it’s like. How absurd it is to do things like that. I asked the guys, “You feel absurd right now? Yes? Good, then we’re doing it right. Now rub your chest on the car and let’s go.” [laughs]
For me it was like, I just wanted them to see what it feels like. I wasn’t trying to have some big political conversation about it, but I am trying to say think about what you do."
- 1 month ago
- 1 month ago
- 1 month ago
- 1 month ago
In my post-series 3 re-watch, an interesting observation struck me: a large number of Sherlock’s female characters are involved in the media industry.
Jennifer Wilson supposedly worked in the media, which Sherlock deduced from the fact that she was dressed in a ‘frankly alarming shade of pink’ - the colour most closely associated with femininity.
Irene Adler used the media to her advantage. As Mycroft informed Sherlock, ‘She’s been at the centre of two political scandals in the last year, and recently ended the marriage of a prominent novelist by having an affair with both participants separately’ - she used public interest in private affairs to gain power. She also used the media to keep tabs on Sherlock, who she knew she would be facing as an adversary.
Kitty Riley worked as a journalist, and was a key player in Moriarty’s scheme to bring about Sherlock’s demise.
Janine also worked in the industry as assistant to Magnussen, the head of a major news corporation. Magnussen’s villainy, like Moriarty’s, was strongly linked to the media industry, and again, Janine is connected to that. She also has connections to Mary, who also fulfilled antagonistic narrative roles. She also takes her revenge on Sherlock for using her by selling false stories about their non-existent sex life to one of Magnussen’s rivals (another link between the media and antagonism).
The Empty Hearse, Anderson’s group of theorists after which the seventh episode is named, predominantly comprises of young women, and it was a young women who shared a theory and was the focal point of that group.
It’s also notable that Jennifer, Irene, Kitty and Janine are all associated with sex. Jennifer was a serial adulterer, Irene used sex as a form of power play, Kitty attempted to seduce Sherlock upon their first meeting and Janine used the sensationalism of sex in the media to take revenge on Sherlock. Both A Scandal in Belgravia and His Last Vow also contain shots in which Irene and Janine hold newspapers - tangible products of the media industry - while wearing read nail varnish, often used as a signifier of sex and sexuality.
So, what is the significance of this?
Sherlock as a programme is strongly based around the idea of perception. It’s Sherlock’s powers of perception that drive the crime-solving aspects of the narrative, and the way in which characters perceive events and one another form the shape of the programme. The majority of the characters whose perceptions have significant narrative impact are male - Sherlock, John, Mycroft, Lestrade, Moriarty, Magnussen, even Anderson. The media is an industry built around how we perceive others, and its feminisation within Sherlock provides a route by which women within the programme can use perception to shape the narrative, some of the instances of which I’ve already noted above.
What I am particularly interested in is the way in which these (sexually-confident) women explore male homoeroticism, homosexuality, desire and relationships.
With the exception of Jennifer Wilson, who of course never met Sherlock, all of these women discuss Sherlock, particularly with regard to John, in this light. Irene confronts John about his feelings for Sherlock - when he declares that he’s not gay, she responds “Well I am. Look at us both.” Kitty, when she first meets him, asks “You and John Watson - just platonic? Or can I put you down for a ‘no’ there, as well?” Janine, in one of her interviews, says that ‘I know some people thought he’d been having an affair with John Watson but I can tell you that’s definitely not true.’ Even the nameless young woman in The Empty Hearse, who had never met Sherlock, inferred homosexuality - her theory involved him kissing Moriarty. There are plenty of other similar inferences in the (feminised) media throughout the series, too - one newspaper refers to Sherlock and John’s ‘salacious home life’, and another refers to ‘confirmed bachelor John Watson’.
221beemine wrote an excellent meta entitled ‘Female Reading of the Male Gaze, and Sherlock’ which you can read here, in which she explores the female perception of Sherlock and John’s relationship. What is increasingly clear to me is that this perception is not exclusive to the programme, but is being increasingly integrated into it.
I’ll leave you to your deductions.
(via professorfangirl)Source: wsswatson
- 1 month ago
Oh—you wouldn’t date a girl who’s ever been a stripper?
In that case, I wouldn’t date a guy who’s ever been to a strip club.
Oh—you wouldn’t date a girl who’s ever done porn?
In that case, I wouldn’t date a guy who’s ever watched porn.
You’re the reason we exist.
You’re the demand to our supply.
If you disdain sex workers, don’t you dare consume our labor.
As they say in the industry, “People jack off with the left hand and point with the right.”"
- 1 month ago
A lot of men (and probably other genders, but mostly men) like to creepily hit on people (usually women) in contexts in which it’s not ok to hit on people. (Eg: on the subway).
Girls start experiencing this before they’re considered old enough for sex ed.
(via euphoricenallage)Source: realsocialskills
- 1 month ago
Facebook Chief Operating Officer Sheryl Sandberg's nonprofit organization, LeanIn.org, has partnered with Getty Images to “to create a line of stock photos that depict mature, professional businesswomen, rather than ones who appear dumb, subservient, sexualized, or sometimes all three at once.”
“One recent study found that only 3% of creative directors are women. In journalism, men continue to fill the majority of top editor roles — and this likely extends to photo editor roles as well. We’ve all seen Mad Men. This isn’t the 1950s, but the advertising industry is not exactly a model for gender equality. None of this is to say that men can’t accurately depict women in visual imagery, but if we’ve learned anything from the research, it’s that gender equality in every industry leads to better and more representative outcomes.”
"The new library of photos shows professional women as surgeons, painters, bakers, soldiers and hunters. There are girls riding skateboards, women lifting weights and fathers changing babies’ diapers.”
We’d like to see more of this.
(via dduane)Source: kateoplis
- 1 month ago
Friends, minions, I’ve heard this too many times. Too many people squawk it as an excuse to enjoy his works, as if his fans would have to flay themselves if it weren’t true. It’s especially special when self-described feminists rush to defend him, scrabbling for proof until they collapse into drivel. I have friends so desperate never to enjoy books with the slightest whiff of misogyny that they’ll hold Tolkien up as a champion of equal rights. He wasn’t.
He was sexist.
Before you tell me how wrong I am, take a look at his Letter #43.
Too lazy to wade through it all? Fine. Here’s an excerpt:
The sexual impulse makes women (naturally when unspoiled more unselfish) very sympathetic and understanding, or specially desirous of being so (or seeming so), and very ready to enter into all the interests, as far as they can, from ties to religion, of the young man they are attracted to. No intent necessarily to deceive: sheer instinct: the servient, helpmeet instinct, generously warmed by desire and young blood. Under this impulse they can in fact often achieve very remarkable insight and understanding, even of things otherwise outside their natural range: for it is their gift to be receptive, stimulated, fertilized (in many other matters than the physical) by the male. Every teacher knows that. How quickly an intelligent woman can be taught, grasp his ideas, see his point – and how (with rare exceptions) they can go no further, when they leave his hand, or when they cease to take a personal interest in him. But this is their natural avenue to love. Before the young woman knows where she is (and while the romantic young man, when he exists, is still sighing) she may actually ‘fall in love’. Which for her, an unspoiled natural young woman, means that she wants to become the mother of the young man’s children, even if that desire is by no means clear to her or explicit. And then things are going to happen: and they may be very painful and harmful, if things go wrong. Particularly if the young man only wanted a temporary guiding star and divinity (until he hitches his waggon to a brighter one), and was merely enjoying the flattery of sympathy nicely seasoned with a titillation of sex – all quite innocent, of course, and worlds away from ‘seduction’.
You may meet in life (as in literature) women who are flighty, or even plain wanton — I don’t refer to mere flirtatiousness, the sparring practice for the real combat, but to women who are too silly to take even love seriously, or are actually so depraved as to enjoy ‘conquests’, or even enjoy the giving of pain – but these are abnormalities, even though false teaching, bad upbringing, and corrupt fashions may encourage them. Much though modern conditions have changed feminine circumstances, and the detail of what is considered propriety, they have not changed natural instinct. A man has a life-work, a career, (and male friends), all of which could (and do where he has any guts) survive the shipwreck of ‘love’. A young woman, even one ‘economically independent’, as they say now (it usually really means economic subservience to male commercial employers instead of to a father or a family), begins to think of the ‘bottom drawer’ and dream of a home, almost at once. If she really falls in love, the shipwreck may really end on the rocks.
That’s just a sample of his talk. I don’t suppose you want any more. It’s already enough to explain why he treated Galadriel’s deeply held ambitions as unfeminine. Why he considered Lúthien ”a mere maiden even if an elf of royalty” and a less important figure than Beren (never mind how often she saved his life). Why Aredhel’s quest for autonomy is portrayed as tragic and deadly, implying that a woman should obey her male relations. Why Faramir becomes, in Eowyn’s own words, “a lord who tamed a wild shieldmaiden of the North!”
We’re dealing with a bloke who wrote that matriarchal societies were unnatural and could never exist in Middle Earth except with Sauron’s influence. And his “false teaching” and “corrupt fashions,” no doubt. Tolkien created a fictional history for the real world we live in, explaining all evil as the legacy of Morgoth. His works frame “unnatural” women — real, living independent women — as part of that evil.
Yes, Tolkien concocted some intriguing female characters. But that’s not the same as granting them equality. All too often we see them only in glimpses and are left to guess at their motivations. Most get less attention for a whole life lived bravely than Fëanor gets for a single tirade. It’s the men who express their emotions and explain their logic, usually as if they’ve got a soapbox and a megaphone, while women hover behind them in soft focus.
This may be a shock to some, but Tolkien wasn’t perfect. We’re allowed to disagree with him. We are not bad people for liking his books while aware of their flaws, and bemoaning them, and imagining what Arda would be without them.
Denying Tolkien’s sexism won’t make it go away. What it will do is make insidious attitudes harder to recognize, all the better to infect the minds of unwary readers.
And it will get you FRIED TO A CRISP.
Because NO ONE BADMOUTHS SAURON’S ELITE KICKASS UBER-EVIL SOCIETY-WRECKING SUBVERSIVE PUSSY RIOT OF DOOM!*
If I hear this one more time, I will UNLEASH THE DRAGONS.
*Totally fictional. There ain’t no such thing.
but can we start one
#tolkien#elves behaving badly#YES HE WAS SEXIST#yes there were problems with racial metaphors#it’s important that these things are not overlooked or ignored#discuss them#understand them#imagine his worlds and works without them#he wasn’t perfect#no one is#Einstein was a fucking disgusting misogynist#and that doesn’t discount his contributions#liking something and accepting its flaws is good#liking something and excusing its flaws is bad#BUT OKAY SAURON’S ELITE KICKASS UBER-EVIL SOCIETY-WRECKING SUBVERSIVE PUSSY RIOT OF DOOM#there’s my new blog title (tags by flatbear)
(via flatbear)Source: maire-annatari
- 1 month ago
- 1 month ago
When I was seventeen and preparing to leave for university, my mother’s only brother saw fit to give me some advice.
“Just don’t be an idiot, kid,” he told me, “and don’t ever forget that boys and girls can never just be friends.”
I laughed and answered, “I’m not too worried. And I don’t really think all guys are like that.”
When I was eighteen and the third annual advent of the common cold was rolling through residence like a pestilent fog, a friend texted me asking if there was anything he could do to help.
I told him that if he could bring me up some vitamin water that would be great, if it wasn’t too much trouble.
That semester I learned that human skin cells replace themselves every three to five weeks. I hoped that in a month, maybe I’d stop feeling the echoes of his touch; maybe my new skin would feel cleaner.
It didn’t. But I stood by what I said. Not all guys are like that.
When I was nineteen and my roommate decided the only way to celebrate the end of midterms was to get wasted at a club, I humoured her.
Four drinks, countless leers and five hands up my skirt later, I informed her I was ready to leave.
“I get why you’re upset,” she told me on the walk home, “but you have to tolerate that sort of thing if you want to have any fun. And really, not all guys are like that.”
(Age nineteen also saw me propositioned for casual sex by no fewer than three different male friends, and while I still believe that guys and girls can indeed be just friends, I was beginning to see my uncle’s point.)
When I was twenty and a stranger that started chatting to me in my usual cafe asked if he could walk with me (since we were going the same way and all), I accepted.
Before we’d even made it three blocks he was pulling me into an alleyway and trying to put his hands up my shirt. “You were staring,” he laughed when I asked what the fuck he was doing (I wasn’t), “I’m just taking pity.”
But not all guys are like that.
I am twenty one and a few days ago a friend and I were walking down the street. A car drove by with the windows down, and a young man stuck his head out and whistled as they passed. I ignored it, carrying on with the conversation.
My friend did not. “Did you know those people?” He asked.
“Not at all,” I answered.
Later when we sat down to eat he got this thoughtful look on his face. When I asked what was wrong he said, “You know not all guys do that kind of thing, right? We’re not all like that.”
As if he were imparting some great profound truth I’d never realized before. My entire life has been turned around, because now I’ve been enlightened: not all guys are like that.
No. Not all guys are. But enough are. Enough that I am uncomfortable when a man sits next to me on the bus. Enough that I will cross to the other side of the street if I see a pack of guys coming my way. Enough that even fleeting eye contact with a male stranger makes my insides crawl with unease. Enough that I cannot feel safe alone in a room with some of my male friends, even ones I’ve known for years. Enough that when I go out past dark for chips or milk or toilet paper, I carry a knife, I wear a coat that obscures my figure, I mimic a man’s gait. Enough that three years later I keep the story of that day to myself, when the only thing that saved me from being raped was a right hook to the jaw and a threat to scream in a crowded dorm, because I know what the response will be.
I live my life with the everburning anxiety that someone is going to put their hands on me regardless of my feelings on the matter, and I’m not going to be able to stop them. I live with the knowledge that statistically one in three women have experienced a sexual assault, but even a number like that can’t be trusted when we are harassed into silence. I live with the learned instinct, the ingrained compulsion to keep my mouth shut to jeers and catcalls, to swallow my anger at lewd suggestions and crude gestures, to put up my walls against insults and threats. I live in an environment that necessitates armouring myself against it just to get through a day peacefully, and I now view that as normal. I have adapted to extreme circumstances and am told to treat it as baseline. I carry this fear close to my heart, rooted into my bones, and I do so to keep myself unharmed.
So you can tell me that not all guys are like that, and you’d even be right, but that isn’t the issue anymore. My problem is not that I’m unaware of the fact that some guys are perfectly civil, decent, kind—my problem is simply this:
In a world where this cynical overcaution is the only thing that ensures my safety, I’m no longer willing to take the risk."