Lavender Labia

bitterbuffalo:

kiskex:

Distinguished sociologist Erving Goffman noted that women in photographs are often portrayed in compromising or submissive situations such as having the head turned upwards to expose the neck or in a contorted stances often with light self-touching. Such poses invite the gaze of the viewer and make the subject of the photograph seem vulnerable and exposed to sexualization.

This kind of thing is super interesting to me. Other ways women are photographed but men rarely are include;
Standing on one leg/legs crossed and weight all on one leg / leaning on someone or something - the woman is vulnerable and incapable. She literally can’t stand (exist) alone.
With their head cropped out of the image or with their eyes down - this goes back to Madonna and Child and is totally entwined with the whole subject / object problem. The (male) viewer is the active subject, the woman is the passive object. You’re allowed to look because she sure as hell isn’t going to do anything, her body exists for you. (Hello rape culture.)
Not dressed - this isn’t such a big deal if the woman is photographed alone but often photos will depict naked women and fully dressed men, often in suits. The implications of this are pretty obvious.
Cut / bruised - vulnerability again. To be honest I’ve seen these kinds of images more on Tumblr than I have anywhere else, they don’t seem to have made it into mainstream photography quite as much. But Tumblr is super fond of headless semi-dressed women with grazed knees. I guess in some way you could agrue that these photos show the strength of women, but I personally don’t buy that. For the same reason I don’t like this theme used domestic violence ads, I think it only serves to re-victimise the women.
Obviously there are also some really great photographs of women that don’t do any of these things, and some photographs that use these themes for legitimate reasons.

kiskex:

Distinguished sociologist Erving Goffman noted that women in photographs are often portrayed in compromising or submissive situations such as having the head turned upwards to expose the neck or in a contorted stances often with light self-touching. Such poses invite the gaze of the viewer and make the subject of the photograph seem vulnerable and exposed to sexualization.

This kind of thing is super interesting to me. Other ways women are photographed but men rarely are include;

Standing on one leg/legs crossed and weight all on one leg / leaning on someone or something - the woman is vulnerable and incapable. She literally can’t stand (exist) alone.

With their head cropped out of the image or with their eyes down - this goes back to Madonna and Child and is totally entwined with the whole subject / object problem. The (male) viewer is the active subject, the woman is the passive object. You’re allowed to look because she sure as hell isn’t going to do anything, her body exists for you. (Hello rape culture.)

Not dressed - this isn’t such a big deal if the woman is photographed alone but often photos will depict naked women and fully dressed men, often in suits. The implications of this are pretty obvious.

Cut / bruised - vulnerability again. To be honest I’ve seen these kinds of images more on Tumblr than I have anywhere else, they don’t seem to have made it into mainstream photography quite as much. But Tumblr is super fond of headless semi-dressed women with grazed knees. I guess in some way you could agrue that these photos show the strength of women, but I personally don’t buy that. For the same reason I don’t like this theme used domestic violence ads, I think it only serves to re-victimise the women.

Obviously there are also some really great photographs of women that don’t do any of these things, and some photographs that use these themes for legitimate reasons.

As a trans woman, not many things give me a headache the way the entire concept of passing does. Passing is the idea that if a trans woman (or any person who is presenting as a woman) looks, dresses and acts a certain way, people won’t be able to tell they are anything other than a completely “normal” woman. If you look at online trans communities or forums, you’ll find tons of tips on how to pass better – everything from hair removal tips to workouts to how to walk and sit more femininely.

All of this presupposes that there is only one right way to look like and be a woman. And it’s infuriating. On the one hand, whenever I go out in public or post pictures online, a part of me is deathly afraid that I’ll be insulted or worse. I desperately want to be accepted as the woman I am. On the other hand, I hate that in order to feel safe, I’m expected to fit into the very narrow box that is labeled “woman.” Tips on how to pass always seem to say that you should avoid building muscle mass and avoid wearing clothes and makeup that are too costumey, that you should try to hide your shoulders and soften your features. Trans women are often told that if we want to pass, we have to try our hardest to be petite, soft, have just the right amount of femininity, and not stand out too much. But what if I want to be a different kind of woman? What if I want to look like Grace Jones or Kate Moennig? What if I want to look like Beth Ditto or Dolly Parton? They’re all cis women; don’t they pass?

“

—	Meyllen Djneres The moral of “passing” discussions always seems to be: if you get bashed it will be your fault. (via charthebutcher)

The question lesbian and gay people need to answer is not “Why are transgender issues suddenly demanding so much attention?” but rather “Why have we abandoned transgender people and their concerns in our rush for equality?

“

—	“Transgender Communities: Developing Identity Through Connection”

Teachers are often unaware of the gender distribution of talk in their classrooms. They usually consider that they give equal amounts of attention to girls and boys, and it is only when they make a tape recording that they realize that boys are dominating the interactions.

Dale Spender, an Australian feminist who has been a strong advocate of female rights in this area, noted that teachers who tried to restore the balance by deliberately ‘favouring’ the girls were astounded to find that despite their efforts they continued to devote more time to the boys in their classrooms. Another study reported that a male science teacher who managed to create an atmosphere in which girls and boys contributed more equally to discussion felt that he was devoting 90 per cent of his attention to the girls. And so did his male pupils. They complained vociferously that the girls were getting too much talking time

In other public contexts, too, such as seminars and debates, when women and men are deliberately given an equal amount of the highly valued talking time, there is often a perception that they are getting more than their fair share. Dale Spender explains this as follows:

The talkativeness of women has been gauged in comparison not with men but with silence. Women have not been judged on the grounds of whether they talk more than men, but of whether they talk more than silent women.

In other words, if women talk at all, this may be perceived as ‘too much’ by men who expect them to provide a silent, decorative background in many social contexts. This may sound outrageous, but think about how you react when precocious children dominate the talk at an adult party. As women begin to make inroads into formerly ‘male’ domains such as business and professional contexts, we should not be surprised to find that their contributions are not always perceived positively or even accurately.

“

—	Language Myths

I was changing backstage and Nikki Sudden noticed that I had a bit of body hair and made some horrible comment about it… and Rowland came to my aid, he said “god Nikki, what on earth is sexy about a woman who’s smooth and plastic as a bath tub” and later on, on the way home, he told me that in fact his perfect fantasy girl would be covered in soft blue fur, like a cat or a really good wolf.

“

—	Genevieve McGuckin

femmefrustration:

derseking:

femmefrustration:

mgodp:

femmefrustration:

word-riot:

This is the most ridiculous thing I’ve come across in a long time.

I understand the daily hardships that so many people have in a world ruled by white males.

I understand that sometimes this can make it feel as if all white males are the enemy (especially for those who fight for equality).

But posts like this need to stop.

You are not advancing anybodies rights.

You are not promoting anybody’s equality.

This is not activism.

This is hate-mongering.

Thanks for the contribution :)

I’ve lost track, am I even allowed an opinion these days? Whatever. How about this radical idea: Let’s treat each other equally, and then we’ll all be equal? All this mindless mud-slinging achieves nothing and only serves to demonstrate how true objectives of those involved (notably NOT equality).

You guys are good at this! :)

This isn’t okay and you need to fuckin stop.

This is so beautiful it brings a tear to my eye.

Men always say that as the defining compliment, don’t they? She’s a cool girl. Being the Cool Girl means I am a hot, brilliant, funny woman who adores football, poker, dirty jokes, and burping, who plays video games, drinks cheap beer, loves threesomes and anal sex, and jams hot dogs and hamburgers into her mouth like she’s hosting the world’s biggest culinary gang bang while somehow maintaining a size 2, because Cool Girls are above all hot. Hot and understanding. Cool Girls never get angry; they only smile in a chagrined, loving manner and let their men do whatever they want. Go ahead, shit on me, I don’t mind, I’m the Cool Girl.

Men actually think this girl exists. Maybe they’re fooled because so many women are willing to pretend to be this girl. For a long time Cool Girl offended me. I used to see men – friends, coworkers, strangers – giddy over these awful pretender women, and I’d want to sit these men down and calmly say: You are not dating a woman, you are dating a woman who has watched too many movies written by socially awkward men who’d like to believe that this kind of woman exists and might kiss them. I’d want to grab the poor guy by his lapels or messenger bag and say: The bitch doesn’t really love chili dogs that much – no one loves chili dogs that much! And the Cool Girls are even more pathetic: They’re not even pretending to be the woman they want to be, they’re pretending to be the woman a man wants them to be. Oh, and if you’re not a Cool Girl, I beg you not to believe that your man doesn’t want the Cool Girl. It may be a slightly different version – maybe he’s a vegetarian, so Cool Girl loves seitan and is great with dogs; or maybe he’s a hipster artist, so Cool Girl is a tattooed, bespectacled nerd who loves comics. There are variations to the window dressing, but believe me, he wants Cool Girl, who is basically the girl who likes every fucking thing he likes and doesn’t ever complain. (How do you know you’re not Cool Girl? Because he says things like: “I like strong women.” If he says that to you, he will at some point fuck someone else. Because “I like strong women” is code for “I hate strong women.”)

“

—

Gillian Flynn, “Gone Girl”

Whilst I appreciate the sentiment here, I really don’t think it’s productive to perpetuate so much girl-on-girl hate by saying Cool Girls are “bitches” and “pathetic” and “awful”, and then by implying that they aren’t real women.

Girls who act like that described above almost always do so because of insecurity, because buying into the dominant paradigm is easier than paying the disproportionate social cost of opting out, because it’s not always apparent how hurtful this behaviour is…for all sorts of reasons - none of which justifies hating on the individual woman. The answer is to critique patriarchy and misogyny because they are responsible for restrictions women are coerced into.

And you know what else? Some women genuinely do like those things. And who fucking cares.

Urgh. I’m torn here because I think there is a super-valid point underpinning this quote but it’s obscured by the author’s own internalised misogyny.

eshusplayground:

murdermetonymy:

Women’s revolution in India.

This right here is the difference between feminism and womanism.

Feminism: If a man hits you with a stick, that’s sexist and misogynist.

Womanism: If a man hits you with a stick, hit that muthafucka with a bigger stick.

stfufauxminists:

hellishhallelujah:

“I’ve never heard my male friends speak up about the abuse men face unless I start talking about women first.”

~ From About Male Privilege

That sums up my beef with MRA’s perfectly. If you want to create safe spaces for men who are victims of abuse, that’s perfectly fine. If you want to campaign for awareness of sexual/domestic violence against men, that’s fine, too.

But stop talking over women to do it.

THIS.

Men are never so interested in violence against men as when women are talking about violence against women.

[TW: misogyny, violence against women, rape, victim blaming]

goldenheartedrose:

one-of-the-lonely-people:

we-are-star-stuff:

ihopeyouareabletoable:

h-plus:

leftybegone:

I would totally put my face 4 inches from her chest and scream, “I’M SO HAPPY RIGHT NOW!” And I’d make a point never to take my eyes off her boobs until she got so uncomfortable and creeped out that she decided to leave, go back home, sit on her bed in the dark, and think about how completely stupid she was to write “STILL NOT ASKING FOR IT” while asking for it.

This woman’s a disgrace.

But she’s not asking for it. This is a human body, nothing more, nothing less. It’s not being sexualized, in fact, she’s covered her nipples too. I’m sorry, h-plus, that you feel that your body and the body of other women should be considered a disgrace. Do you feel uncomfortable when looking at pictures in the doctor’s office of a woman’s naked body? And do you, leftybegone, get uncontrollably horny at the same sight? Control your python (or garden snake), man, you’re not 12. Have some maturity over the matter. If you did that to that woman, leftybegone, you’d just be putting a bad face on us guys, making us seem like sex-crazed, immature horndogs. Maybe you are one, but I’m tired people making that assumption of us as a gender. It’s disgraceful. She wouldn’t think it was stupid of her to do that if you did. You’d just make her movement more powerful.

Rape (noun):the crime of forcing another person to submit to sex acts, especially sexual intercourse.

Men aren’t primal fucking animals. They’re humans that are completely capable of resisting their urges. I bet you (leftybegone) are a kid with some serious hormones since you, obviously, can’t control yourself.

“She was asking for it”. Really? Can you really blame an individual for someone else’s lack of control? The mere fact that a woman is more likely to be assaulted if she wears certain types of clothing does not make it right. She could walk around naked and that still doesn’t excuse rape. The solution to the problem is not for women to “dress less slutty” but for men to realize that a woman’s choice of dress is not an open invitation to sexual assault.

I just find the bitch a bit disgusting. You’re in a public place and there are public decency laws for a reason. If you leave your back door open, you’re encouraging people to enter your house. If you leave your tits on show, you’re encouraging people to touch them. Except then it’s not rape, because you’ve left your fucking assets fully out there to be groped and molested.

It’s stupidity and piousness of the highest degree.

Interesting factoid. It is completely legal to go topless in several states, so citing public decency laws is a bit ridiculous.

What the fuck is wrong with the world? Bolded comments from one-of-the-lonely-people and leftybegone epitomise everything that’s wrong with the world.

Both of you need to fuck off. I’m done with the world today.

PS: one-of-the-lonely-people, that word “piousness”, I don’t think it means what you think it does.

radicallyhottoff:

Ok—so everybody (including me) always says that white supremacist heteropatriarchal nationalism is “structural”—that we have to deal with the “structure” in order to make changes.

But nobody (including me) ever says exactly what that *means*. what does “structure” mean and what does “structural” mean and what does “we have to get at the root and change the structure” mean? (This is all the US).

Well, I’ve been discovering—“structure” means:

Food disbursement (or: how do we access a basic survival need): grocery stores, co-ops, resturants, farmer’s markets, etc. (closely connected: farmers, seed companies, etc).

Burial systems (or: how do we access a basic human dignity): burial plots, funeral homes, coroners, paupers burials, etc.

Birthing systems (or: how do we access a basic human dignity): hospitals, birthing centers, “home,” (i.e. apartments, houses, 99% of the time, in this case, “home” is NOT a shelter or other homeless/abuse survivor site), prisons, etc.

Housing systems (or: how do we access a basic survival need): houses, apartments, public housing, condos, gated communities, etc

Energy systems for heating, cooling, cooking, etc (or: how do we access a basic survival system): energy companies (i.e. untilites companies), oil corporations, etc.

Energy systems for travel (or: how do we access a basic human right to movement): oil corporations, the big three, trains, FAA, etc.

Information systems (or: how do we access the basic human right to policy information and *demystification of that policy information* about the systems we live under): public libraries, the FCC, Comcast, Time/Warner, Disney, Google, Viacom, etc.

Attempting to be installed as we speak:

Water disbursement systems (or: how do we access a basic survival system): soda corporations (i.e. CocaCola, Desani (which is I think belongs to Coke).

If you look closely at how each of these systems work (and there may be more, but I am choosing right now to keep this discussion down to basic human needs/dignity), you see that the basic concept within each of them is “to control how disbursement of particular “service” will happen.”

And you see that unequivocally, in every single area:
Poor people,
Non-white people,
Non-cis people,
Disabled people,
Non-citizens,
Non-straight people,
have the *most* trouble accessing, navigating, acquiring any of these systems. (And I understand that using “non-X” as a descriptor is problematic, I am using it as a way to show that for each identity, problems with access play out in a different way—but they all *play out in a problematic way*).

The choice to opt out of these systems: i.e. bury your own dead, grow your own food, etc is there on a very limited basis—but usually it is only available to those with access to a high level of resources (e.g. hipsters). Poor people CAN and DO find themselves “off the grid” but this is almost always due to unjust and unequal problems within existing structures (e.g. segregation, inaccessibility, etc). BUT—this is also how many communities of color have managed to create successful community driven economies, and it is how many social justice organizers (most notably in places like Detroit), have been able to recognize an oportunity existing in the most dire circumstances (i.e. defining “resource” as community knowledge rather than money).

Also: the ability to “opt out” is heavily monitored and restricted by the catch-22 inherent in all of these systems: you must have money to access them more easily—but you can’t get that money unless you spend a vast portion of your life working within them. thus, through the strict monitoring of “time,” most people are unable to “opt out” of systems as they don’t have the *time* to grow their own food, bury their own dead, etc.

These systems are how you get the triangle system we live under and how some of us benefit from things and others don’t and how .01 percent of people at the top control everything and *benefit* from the privatization. Privatization does not create *independence*—but *dependence*. people are heavily dependent on the benevolence of corporations for jobs—and almost totally dependent on them for the actual service they offer.

This is one of the top ten things I’ve read on Tumblr.

A dentist acted legally when he fired an assistant that he found attractive simply because he and his wife viewed the woman as a threat to their marriage, the all-male Iowa Supreme Court ruled Friday.

The court ruled 7-0 that bosses can fire employees they see as an “irresistible attraction,” even if the employees have not engaged in flirtatious behavior or otherwise done anything wrong.

“

—

Mother Jones, “Man Fires Assistant For Being Too Hot and “Irresistable”, Iowa Court Says He’s Within Legal Rights”

Yay! Another landmark judgement for feminism!

And here, folks, we see rape culture in action. It’s given that men are unable to control themselves around “temptation” — and when someone has a problem with that, the “temptation” (aka the woman) must be punished.

I think in many cases, your morality is deeply lacking if all you want is a child born, but not a child fed, not a child educated, not a child housed. That’s not pro-life. That’s pro-birth.

“

—	Sister Joan Chittister