mad-maenad

I will admit it. I have read all three books in the Fifty Shades of Grey series.

I am not admitting this because I am ashamed of my sexual desires or even because I feel the need to rant and rave about the poor writing quality of these books. (And it is extremely poor. I set my Kindle to count how many times the word “gasp” is used in the third book and the total was more than 70). I am admitting this because I feel the need to share my opinions about what I consider to be the incredibly — and dangerously — abusive relationship portrayed in the books.

When I first heard about Fifty Shades of Grey and learned they began as Twilight fanfiction, I swore I would not read them. I have read all of the Twilight books and I did not enjoy them. I found the relationships between Edward and Bella and Bella and Jacob to be patronizing and emotionally abusive, and I also thought the writing was pedestrian at best and boring to read. Why would I devote the limited amount of time I have for reading for pleasure to a series like this?

But as the dialogue about Fifty Shades of Grey increased, both in the media and amongst my friends, my curiosity was piqued. I attended a talk titled “Fifty Shades of Grey - Bad for Women, Bad for Sex” and decided that I should see what all the fuss was about.

To quote the book, I gasped. I rolled my eyes. I even bit my lip a few times. But not for the reasons Anastasia, the protagonist, did. I did out of exasperation, boredom and disgust, but also out of fear. After reading this book series, I am deeply afraid that this type of relationship will be viewed as the romantic ideal for women. And I consider that to be extremely dangerous — much more so than anything that takes place between Christian and Anastasia in the Red Room of Pain.

Could the character of Anastasia Steele be any more of a stereotype? She is an introvert, has low self-esteem, has abandonment issues from her father, apparently has only one close friend who bullies her and even though she works in a hardware store, she doesn’t seem to possess any self-sufficiency aside from cooking for her roommate and herself. She seems to have no sexual identity until Christian Grey enters her life and requests that she become his Submissive in a sexual relationship.

In order to be Christian’s submissive, Anastasia is expected to sign a lengthy and detailed contract that, amongst other requirements, requires that she exercise four days a week with a trainer that Christian provides (and who will report to Christian on her progress), eat only from a list of foods Christian supplies her with, get eight hours of sleep a night and begin taking a form of birth control so Christian will not have to wear condoms. Anastasia negotiates a few terms of the contract with Christian (she only wants to work out three days a week, not four), but all of her negotiations are only within his framework — none of the terms are hers independently. Nothing in their relationship is hers as an independent.

The character of Christian Grey is a rich, superpowered businessman who was abused as a child. He is in therapy, and Anastasia frequently references his therapist, but based on how he treats Anastasia, he doesn’t seem to be making much progress. As Anastasia’s relationship with Christian progresses, his controlling tendencies affect her life more and more. When her friend takes portraits of her for his photography exhibit, Christian buys all of them, because he does not want anyone else looking at Anastasia. (They weren’t even in a relationship when he did this.) When she is hired as an assistant at a publishing company, he buys the company — to make sure she’s “safe” working there. When she goes out to a bar with her one friend, against his wishes, he flies from New York to Washington State that same night, just to express his anger — and exercise his control over her. When she does not immediately change her name at her office (in hopes of maintaining some professional autonomy, given that he bought the company she works at), he shows up, unannounced, at her office, in the middle of her workday, to pick a fight with her. When she asks why it is so important to him that she change her name, he says he wants everyone to know she is his.

Christian’s possession of Anastasia is the cause of much of my disgust and fear of the book’s influence on people and how they view romantic relationships. After they exchange their wedding vows, the first words he says to her are, “Finally, you’re mine.” The control he exercises over her does not reflect his love for her; it reflects his objectifying of her. Christian never views Anastasia as a person, let alone an independent woman. He wants her to obey him, and even though she refuses to include that in her wedding vows, it is exactly what she does. When her mother questions her choice to keep her wedding dress on rather than change before traveling for her honeymoon, she says, “Christian likes this dress, and I want to please him.” Her desire to try some of the “kinky fuckery” in his Red Room of Pain comes from wanting to demonstrate her love for him, not her own sexual desires.

Wanting to please Christian apparently includes subjecting herself to verbal and emotional abuse from him ‘til death do them part, because any time she tries to stand up to him — which isn’t often — he berates her, guilt trips her and beats her down verbally until she apologizes and submits to him. After she uses the “safe word” in the Red Room of Pain so he will stop, he bemoans his sad state of mind later, mentioning that his “wife fucking safe worded him.” He is not concerned with her well-being or why she felt the need to use the safe word. He only cares about how it affects him.

The question that I kept asking myself as I read the books was why Anastasia stayed with Christian, and the answer I found was that she has absolutely no sense of self worth. She only feels sexy when he says she is, and when he insults or patronizes her, she accepts what he says as the truth. One of the passages that disgusted me the most was when Anastasia was at a club with Christian, dancing and thinking to herself that she never felt sexy before she met him and that he had given her confidence in her body. Yes, being with a partner who frequently compliments you can increase your confidence, but Anastasia went from zero to one hundred thanks to Christian. None of that came from within herself. Because of his influence on her, nothing in her life came from herself — her job, her home, her way of life, or even her self-esteem.

The co-dependency between Anastasia and Christian is alarming to read and even more to contemplate. When she breaks up with him at the end of the first book, the second book finds her starving herself and wasting away to nothing until he contacts her again. When she thinks his helicopter has crashed in the second book, she thinks to herself that she can’t live without him. Their marriage only comes about because he is scared she will leave him, and when she asks what she can do to prove to him she isn’t going anywhere, he says she can marry him. Yes, origins of insecurity and desperation are a great start to a healthy marriage.

When Anastasia finds herself unexpectedly pregnant and shares the news with Christian, he rages at her, asking if she did it on purpose and storming out of the house, disappearing for hours. Even though Anastasia thinks to herself that the pregnancy happened too soon in their marriage, she never considers terminating it.

The themes of the novel — that love alone can make someone change, that abuse from a spouse is acceptable as long as he’s great in bed, that pregnancies should always be carried to term even if the parents are not ready to be parents, and the ridiculously antiquated, Victorian idea that the love of a pure virgin can save a wayward man from himself — are irrational, unbelievable and dangerous.

Our culture has seen a radical shift of ideals moving towards traditional gender roles and Fifty Shades of Grey is a shining example of that. Early marriage to one’s first sexual partner, having a baby even when saying neither of the partners is ready to be a parent, and submission to one’s husband as the head of the household are all aspects of life that feminists and progressive thinkers have worked to move beyond. Anastasia and Christian’s relationship is not romantic. It is abusive. The ways he tries to “keep her safe” are not masculine or sexy. They are stalking. Fearing one’s husband’s reaction to an unexpected pregnancy is not normal, because “boys will be boys.” It is sad and dangerous and should not happen in a healthy relationship.

Fifty Shades of Grey was one of the best-selling books of the year. Sex toy classes have been inspired by it, as have new types of cocktails. The film adaptation is already in the works. I sincerely hope that honest discussion will be had about the book and that the Christian Grey ideal of romance is not one that will be perpetuated throughout our culture. The best way that can happen is through open, honest dialogue that leads to healthy relationships of two equal partners. That, in my opinion, is sexier than anything that can happen in the Red Room of Pain.

Fifty Shades of Feminism - A Response to E. L. James’ 'Fifty Shades of Grey'

(via unironicallyardentnerd)

More evidence of why Twilight and 50 Shades are shit, but also incredibly dangerous and backward shit.

thatgothlibrarian

Anonymous asked:

Sometimes I hate Wonder Woman, thanks to this stupid website

dumblr--feminist answered:

I only ever had a passing love for Wonder Woman never was a huge fan. I hate how the feminists have appropriated her as some sort of icon when Wonder Woman was originally created because the guy was writing about a woman who was a SUBMISSIVE to him. Her creation is heavily tied into a Dom/Sub relationship and what do feminists hate? EXACTLY! So the fact that she’s a feminist icon NOW fucking pisses me off because SHE WAS LITERALLY NEVER EVER MEANT TO BE THAT! But of course feminists ruin the fuck out of everything. Not surprised.

fandomsandfeminism:

dumblr—feminist:

dani-kin:

fandomsandfeminism:

You know literally nothing about Wonder Woman. -laughs- 

William Marston, Wonder Woman’s creator, WAS a feminist. In a 1943 issue of “The American Scholar”, Marston wrote: “Not even girls want to be girls so long as our feminine archetype lacks force, strength, and power… Women’s strong qualities have become despised because of their weakness. The obvious remedy is to create a feminine character with all the strength of Superman plus all the allure of a good and beautiful woman.” (Sounds like feminism to me.) 

And yes, he was into Sub/Dom stuff, but not the way you’d think. He one said "Give them an alluring woman stronger than themselves to submit to, and they’ll be proud to become her willing slaves!"

He alleged that women were innately “less susceptible than men to the negative traits of aggression and acquisitiveness, and could come to control the comparatively unruly male sex by alluring them.” This controversial‘girls run the world’ prediction was very much ahead of his time. In a 1937 interview with The New York Times he claimed –

“The next one hundred years will see the beginning of an American matriarchy–a nation of Amazons in the psychological rather than physical sense,” adding that, “women would take over the rule of the country, politically and economically.”

[Source] 

So yeah. Wonder Woman’s creator was a guy who was really into strong dominating women and believed in a future Matriarchy. 

Now, obviously, Wonder Woman has changed a lot since these early days. She’s not always consistently written (no super hero is), but her status as a Feminist Icon is fairly indisputable. 

OMG when I saw this ask I laughed my ass off.  Wonder Woman as the sub?  LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL *wipes tear*

MOTHER FUCKING SOURCE YOU DOUBTING CUNTS!

Don’t you DARE fucking imply imply you know jack shit about anything when I got sources to GOD I hate you bitches. And Fandomsandfeminism NEEDS to stop stalking me!

I wasn’t stalking you. You posted this in the feminism tag, which I track. Just for the record. I track the feminism tag. 

And why are you screaming misogynistic slurs? Seriously. There’s no need to start insulting people because they don’t instantly agree with you. 

Now, let me just quote some of the source you provided. Let’s really look at it. 

“Wonder Woman was essentially a female Superman. The Amazonian princess who left her home, the Amazon kingdom of Paradise Island, after rescuing and falling in love with a downed American airman named Steve Trevor in order to help fight against the evil megalomaniacal Axis forces. She was super strong, fast, intelligent, impervious to harm, and she could fly in her invisible airplane. She also wielded weapons. On her wrists, she wore manacles that could deflect bullets (Olive Byrne always wore manacles). She had a golden tiara that she could throw like a boomerang with deadly accuracy, and she also had a magical lasso that forced all who were caught in it to obey her (This later evolved to become the lasso of truth, no doubt related to Marston’s early research). She was, as Marston described, a strong, smart, generous, loving, affectionate, and alluring superheroine who would later become a feminist icon. However, Wonder Woman was far from a perfect feminist icon in her original form (Wright 21).” 

Sounds pretty feminist. 

But why does this article think that Wonder Woman wasn’t a perfect feminist icon? 

“The Wonder Woman comics penned by Marston were packed with bondage, spankings, enslavement, and punishment of both men and women.” 

Because there was bondage in it? Because Wonder Woman lost her powers temporarily if she was tied up? I’m not seeing how Dom/Sub themes inherently makes something anti-feminist. True, it is an odd origin, and there is much debate in current feminism about how to read dom/sub relationships. But I disagree this inherently makes her anti-feminist, especially considering the other themes in the work.

“The simple fact that Diana Prince, this omnipotent force for good, was no more powerful in her daily life than most other woman underscored how underpowered women were” 

I inherently disagree with this reading. The fact that Diana appears to be a normal everyday “powerless” woman only to secretly be a superhero reads very differently to me. I think it underscores how powerful women were underestimated, and that women shouldn’t underestimate themselves just because of how others view them. 

The article then goes on to say that yes, even the somewhat dubious “looses her powers because she gets tied up” thing was dropped decades ago. Just as feminism has changed since the 1950s, so has Wonder Woman. 

The assertion that Wonder Woman was NEVER meant to be a feminist icon is demonstrably false (The man talked about wanting America to become a Matriarchy for god’s sake), and even her flaws as a feminist icon are based on a debatable reading of the early canon.

Anti-feminist blogs annoy me to no end.  There is literally no positive purpose to them.  They’re not about change, or even meaningful dialogue, but wallow in a static state of negativity. 

And also, pro-tip you mangy reactionary douchebag: if you expect a claim to hold up under scrutiny, better have a rock-solid claim with more than one obviously biased source to support it. 

Please go crawl back into whatever cesspit you emerged from and look at your life, look at your choices.

rejectedprincesses
rejectedprincesses:

Introducing the eleventh Rejected Princess: Mai Bhago, 18th century Sikh warrior-saint and only survivor of the Battle of Khidrana.
A quick bit of background, since it may be that you, like me, do not know a ton about Sikhs. You probably know that they’re the guys who wear turbans, don’t shave, and consistently get mistaken for Muslim — usually by ignorant morons who are trying to start something. Frustrating as that is, douchebags attacking them for virtually no reason is something that Sikhs have had to live with for the majority of the religion’s existence. Exhibit A: the Mughal Empire.
The Mughals were badasses. Their founder, Babar, had quite the lineage to begin with: descendant of Tamerlane (an Uzbeki warlord known for constructing pyramids out of his enemies’ skulls) on his father’s side and grandson of Genghis Khan on his mother’s. The Mughals continued and refined this legacy. On the one hand they did so militaristically, riding elephants into battle, redefining warfare, and expanding the empire until it encompassed all of present-day India and beyond.
On the other hand, they also advanced literature, culture, and the arts tremendously. They built the Taj Mahal, giant libraries, and had a tremendously multicultural empire. For more info on that, check out Akbar the Great, who — having brought together a huge number of disparate peoples in a surprisingly peaceful, literary, and secular empire, especially for the time — definitely earned the moniker. 
Unfortunately, by the time this story begins, the Mughals were being ruled by Aurangzeb, who was neither peaceful nor understanding. He was particularly aggressive towards the Sikhs, partly because of religious reasons, partly because the Sikhs weren’t down with the caste system. In fact, the Sikhs were egalitarian in general, with women considered equals to men.
Which brings us to Mai Bhago. Sorry for the long intro, I just want you to know what she was up against. 
Mai lived in a peaceful rural town with her parents. She spent a lot of time with her dad, who, in their daddy-daughter hangouts, taught her what any good father should: how to be a devoted Sikh, how to ride a horse, and how to kill anyone who starts shit with you. All of these came in handy just a few years later, when the leader of the Sikh, Guru Gobind Singh Ji, founded the Khalsa — the warrior-saints.
You see, the previous Guru before Gobind Singh Ji — and there were only ever ten of these guys to ever live, with Guru Gobind Singh Ji being number ten — was executed by Aurangzeb when the Guru was nine years old. Rather than capitulating to Aurangzeb and living a quiet life, the Guru ordered his followers to eschew the caste system, forsake their family names, be baptized as warrior-saints, and kick ass for the lord.
Mai Bhago was one of the first to get down on that.
The following years were very difficult on the Sikhs, with the Mughals waging nonstop warfare on the Guru. As tough as it was on him, it was arguably tougher on his warriors, holed up in fortress after fortress, eventually subsisting on nothing but nuts and leaves. After months of this, with heavy hearts, forty of them forsook the religion and left the Khalsa, in order to return to their normal lives.
Mai Bhago was having none of that. Upon hearing about the forty deserters, she rode to every city around and got all of the women to refuse any hospitality to them. She even rounded up a group of women to take up arms in the deserters’ place — telling the forty to either stay behind and look after the children or sack up and fight. Suitably ashamed by this, the forty deserters had a change of heart and decided to rejoin the Guru’s cause.
Just in time, too — because as the forty (plus Mai) were riding back to the Guru, the Mughals were making another assault on his stronghold. The size of the army is difficult to determine from historical records, with the only source I can find claiming the Mughals had ten thousand men, which seems a bit ridiculous. In any event, it is agreed that the Sikhs were massively outnumbered. 
On December 29, 1705, the forty-one Sikhs rushed in to cut off the Mughals anyway. They did several clever things in and leading up to the battle:
1) Positioned themselves in front of the Khirdana reservoir, the only source of water for miles around, and defended it viciously.
2) Laid sheets  across bushes everywhere, giving the appearance of tents — and then hid in nearby bushes, ambushing the Mughals when they started attacking the empty “tents”. 
3) Kicked up a colossal amount of dust, attracting the attention of the retreating Guru — who proceeded to unleash an incessant barrage of arrows from a nearby hill upon the Mughals.
Eventually the Mughals, battered and thirsty, withdrew. All forty of the deserters died in that battle, as did a large number of Mughal soldiers. Mai Bhago was the only Sikh survivor. From there, she became bodyguard to the Guru. She outlived him and later died of old age herself. The Mughal Empire under Aurangzeb’s leadership began a slow decline and died out a bit over a century later. The Sikh religion continues strong to this day. Mai Bhago’s spear and gun can still be found in Sikh museums, and her house has been converted into a Gurudwara (a Sikh place of worship). 
And lastly: although best known by the name Mai Bhago, technically her name, after converting to Khalsa, was Mai Bhag Kaur — Kaur being a surname all female Khalsa take, meaning, literally, “princess.”
As an art note: she is depicted here not just wearing the traditional Khalsa clothing, but that of the Nihang, an elite warrior Khalsa sect. This outfit includes a variety of bladed weapons (the Guru was known to have five weapons on him at all times), electric blue robes, steel-wrapped turbans, and steel bangles about the wrist. I am unsure if she was technically Nihang, but for damn sure she had their spirit.
And yes, she is decapitating that guy. Follow the trail of dust to see the arc of her sword. She has her sword and shield on the same arm, up around her shoulder. Realistically, I should have put the shield on her other arm, but hindsight is 20/20.
Lastly: the Mughal being beheaded has period-accurate clothing, although his helmet is one of an infantryman and his outfit is that of a cavalryman. I wanted to be able to see his face.[many thanks for Zaid Hassan and the kindly anonymous Sikh who wrote in with additional information that went into edits on this entry!]

rejectedprincesses:

Introducing the eleventh Rejected Princess: Mai Bhago, 18th century Sikh warrior-saint and only survivor of the Battle of Khidrana.

A quick bit of background, since it may be that you, like me, do not know a ton about Sikhs. You probably know that they’re the guys who wear turbans, don’t shave, and consistently get mistaken for Muslim — usually by ignorant morons who are trying to start something. Frustrating as that is, douchebags attacking them for virtually no reason is something that Sikhs have had to live with for the majority of the religion’s existence. Exhibit A: the Mughal Empire.

The Mughals were badasses. Their founder, Babar, had quite the lineage to begin with: descendant of Tamerlane (an Uzbeki warlord known for constructing pyramids out of his enemies’ skulls) on his father’s side and grandson of Genghis Khan on his mother’s. The Mughals continued and refined this legacy. On the one hand they did so militaristically, riding elephants into battle, redefining warfare, and expanding the empire until it encompassed all of present-day India and beyond.

On the other hand, they also advanced literature, culture, and the arts tremendously. They built the Taj Mahal, giant libraries, and had a tremendously multicultural empire. For more info on that, check out Akbar the Great, who — having brought together a huge number of disparate peoples in a surprisingly peaceful, literary, and secular empire, especially for the time — definitely earned the moniker. 

Unfortunately, by the time this story begins, the Mughals were being ruled by Aurangzeb, who was neither peaceful nor understanding. He was particularly aggressive towards the Sikhs, partly because of religious reasons, partly because the Sikhs weren’t down with the caste system. In fact, the Sikhs were egalitarian in general, with women considered equals to men.

Which brings us to Mai Bhago. Sorry for the long intro, I just want you to know what she was up against. 

Mai lived in a peaceful rural town with her parents. She spent a lot of time with her dad, who, in their daddy-daughter hangouts, taught her what any good father should: how to be a devoted Sikh, how to ride a horse, and how to kill anyone who starts shit with you. All of these came in handy just a few years later, when the leader of the Sikh, Guru Gobind Singh Ji, founded the Khalsa — the warrior-saints.

You see, the previous Guru before Gobind Singh Ji — and there were only ever ten of these guys to ever live, with Guru Gobind Singh Ji being number ten — was executed by Aurangzeb when the Guru was nine years old. Rather than capitulating to Aurangzeb and living a quiet life, the Guru ordered his followers to eschew the caste system, forsake their family names, be baptized as warrior-saints, and kick ass for the lord.

Mai Bhago was one of the first to get down on that.

The following years were very difficult on the Sikhs, with the Mughals waging nonstop warfare on the Guru. As tough as it was on him, it was arguably tougher on his warriors, holed up in fortress after fortress, eventually subsisting on nothing but nuts and leaves. After months of this, with heavy hearts, forty of them forsook the religion and left the Khalsa, in order to return to their normal lives.

Mai Bhago was having none of that. Upon hearing about the forty deserters, she rode to every city around and got all of the women to refuse any hospitality to them. She even rounded up a group of women to take up arms in the deserters’ place — telling the forty to either stay behind and look after the children or sack up and fight. Suitably ashamed by this, the forty deserters had a change of heart and decided to rejoin the Guru’s cause.

Just in time, too — because as the forty (plus Mai) were riding back to the Guru, the Mughals were making another assault on his stronghold. The size of the army is difficult to determine from historical records, with the only source I can find claiming the Mughals had ten thousand men, which seems a bit ridiculous. In any event, it is agreed that the Sikhs were massively outnumbered. 

On December 29, 1705, the forty-one Sikhs rushed in to cut off the Mughals anyway. They did several clever things in and leading up to the battle:

1) Positioned themselves in front of the Khirdana reservoir, the only source of water for miles around, and defended it viciously.

2) Laid sheets  across bushes everywhere, giving the appearance of tents — and then hid in nearby bushes, ambushing the Mughals when they started attacking the empty “tents”. 

3) Kicked up a colossal amount of dust, attracting the attention of the retreating Guru — who proceeded to unleash an incessant barrage of arrows from a nearby hill upon the Mughals.

Eventually the Mughals, battered and thirsty, withdrew. All forty of the deserters died in that battle, as did a large number of Mughal soldiers. Mai Bhago was the only Sikh survivor. From there, she became bodyguard to the Guru. She outlived him and later died of old age herself. The Mughal Empire under Aurangzeb’s leadership began a slow decline and died out a bit over a century later. The Sikh religion continues strong to this day. Mai Bhago’s spear and gun can still be found in Sikh museums, and her house has been converted into a Gurudwara (a Sikh place of worship)

And lastly: although best known by the name Mai Bhago, technically her name, after converting to Khalsa, was Mai Bhag Kaur — Kaur being a surname all female Khalsa take, meaning, literally, “princess.”

As an art note: she is depicted here not just wearing the traditional Khalsa clothing, but that of the Nihang, an elite warrior Khalsa sect. This outfit includes a variety of bladed weapons (the Guru was known to have five weapons on him at all times), electric blue robes, steel-wrapped turbans, and steel bangles about the wrist. I am unsure if she was technically Nihang, but for damn sure she had their spirit.

And yes, she is decapitating that guy. Follow the trail of dust to see the arc of her sword. She has her sword and shield on the same arm, up around her shoulder. Realistically, I should have put the shield on her other arm, but hindsight is 20/20.

Lastly: the Mughal being beheaded has period-accurate clothing, although his helmet is one of an infantryman and his outfit is that of a cavalryman. I wanted to be able to see his face.

[many thanks for Zaid Hassan and the kindly anonymous Sikh who wrote in with additional information that went into edits on this entry!]

thatgothlibrarian

sassafrassj:

jtotheizzoe:

LEGO has announced that they will produce a female scientist minifigure set!

After last year’s release of a single female scientist minifigure by LEGO, designer Alatariel Elensar submitted concepts for a full minifigure set of female scientists to the LEGO Ideas competition. This week, after more than ten thousand people voted for Elensar’s project, LEGO announced that they are putting the set into production for late summer 2014!!

The figures above (still concepts, not the final sets) are doing what female scientists do, devoid of pink, and full of awesome. As Maia Weinstock notes at Scientific American in her rundown of the LEGO project, toy companies have an enormous amount of power to determine what children think, helping them form their ideas about how the world is, and how it should be.

I’m proud of my favorite toy company for doing their part to inspire young minds. Sounds like we’ve got the perfect holiday gift idea, for young girls AND boys :)

LEGO.  Holy crap I’m in love with you right now.

THE DINOSAUR ONE

mirrorsedge

mirrorsedge:

yukimurs:

 

I like this headcanon

I’m actually really upset about her character being killed off, because I think its super important to have characters in supernatural shows whose abilities are NOT SUPERNATURAL.  Think about it, she’s one of the few, if only characters on the entire show who kicks ass and takes names because of her own work ethic and talent.  She’s brave, skilled, smart and compassionate and was an interesting and unique aspect of the pack.

It was a terrible choice to eliminate her. 

fuckingfeminists

fuckingfeminists:

Hi everyone. I hope it’s ok that I share a situation that happened to me today that completely confirms my labeling myself as a feminist. Earlier today, I commented on a facebook picture of Humans of New York, whom I follow avidly. I replied to a comment made on a particular photo by a man with…

Holy hell.  Maybe its because it’s 3am after a long day, but this pissed me off.

My response:

What the hell is wrong with you people? That person’s comment didn’t even refer to ____’s comment at all, but redirected attention to her body—which is gross and disrespectful. I don’t care if he was “joking” or not, it was in poor taste and incredibly rude, and was hardly a compliment at all. This isn’t about being oversensitive, its about encouraging people not to be tasteless, crass, useless imbeciles jerks online. The fact that people are actually defending his lame, uncalled for, idiotic response as harmless “joking” frankly leaves me flabbergasted. Please take a step back and get a dose of perspective. I’m sick of this shit.

Sorry for the foul (and kinda ableist) language, but this is just ridiculous.

neenorroar

seducemymindyouidiot:

jaegerbitch:

if someone calls you a slut, break their fucking neck without even hesitating or saying a single word and as they lay there on the ground dead, lean down close to their corpse and whisper

slut means the end in swedish

This should probably not be construed as valid legal advice. 

Fun story: when I was on the train to Stockholm this summer I saw the word “Slutstation” (the last/ending station, or terminus), and looked slightly out of my mind because I couldn’t stop giggling.

femme-fatalist

femme-fatalist:

A lot of my friends have been getting engaged/married lately and I’ve had this conversation with many of the brides.  One who is pursuing a doctorate, felt she didn’t want to change her name cause she’s already attached to it professionally.  But I got the impression that she was struggling with stigma about it, as she suggested that family members on both sides didn’t seem to take kindly to her rejecting her husband’s name.

Another friend of mine is married for the second time.  She didn’t take her first husband’s name, and according to her this ruffled lots of feathers.  But the second time around, she took his name.  Why?  Because it was prettier than her ex’s name.  Simple as that.  She doesn’t have a supportive family and always considered her friends closer than her own mother, so it’s not surprising it was relatively easy for her.

From an archivist’s standpoint, hyphenating is an easy solution that wouldn’t screw up record keeping too much (you could still easily track and connect records), but from a feminist standpoint, such a method still relies on an inherently patriarchal structure.  Either way, you’re taking on a name that is rooted in the male parental line.  If we’re truly looking for a liberating option, is that really the answer?

In that vein, I think I prefer creating an entirely new name.  In Sweden, due to the obnoxious number of “Andersons,” “Johannsons” etc etc, families essentially started making up surnames.  They’d create them from the town or region names in which they lived.  I’ve always loved this option, as it results in more creative, distinctive names.  And quite honestly, before patrilineal surnames took on that’s how people were getting along anyway.

ambitiousblackfeminist
black-culture:

You are invited to submit a 1-2 page autobiographical essay or first person creative nonfiction(essays/memoirs) for this anthology .
The aim of Our Black is to create a book comprised of narratives on the Black Experience and the multiplicity of Blackness. The goal of Our Black is to build a collection of narratives that reflect the diverse experiences of Black folk, one which could be used to better understand the complexity, depth, and challenges of Being and living Black.
The book Our Black will be divided into these thematic chapters:
Acceptance and Ambiguous Blackness: Multi-Racial Identity in AmericaBe A Man: The Burden of Black MasculinityBinary Minorities: Being Both Black and LGBTQ(IA)Never Black Enough: Outside the Scope of Legitimate BlacknessThe Intersection of Gender and Race: Being a black woman in americaNot Quite African-American: Black immigrants and First generation AmericansBlack Self Identity: How Much is Blackness Defined by Whiteness?
If interested please send us an email at ourblackproject[@]gmail.com for more information and a copy of our writers’ guidelines. We will be accepting submissions until March 1, 2014.
Please feel free to share this post as you please. I am truly blessed to be working on a project such as this and I am driven by its potential. With much work and dedication, this can be turned into something phenomenal.
All the best,
zellie imani

signal boost!

black-culture:

You are invited to submit a 1-2 page autobiographical essay or first person creative nonfiction(essays/memoirs) for this anthology .

The aim of Our Black is to create a book comprised of narratives on the Black Experience and the multiplicity of Blackness. The goal of Our Black is to build a collection of narratives that reflect the diverse experiences of Black folk, one which could be used to better understand the complexity, depth, and challenges of Being and living Black.

The book Our Black will be divided into these thematic chapters:

Acceptance and Ambiguous Blackness: Multi-Racial Identity in America
Be A Man: The Burden of Black Masculinity
Binary Minorities: Being Both Black and LGBTQ(IA)
Never Black Enough: Outside the Scope of Legitimate Blackness
The Intersection of Gender and Race: Being a black woman in america
Not Quite African-American: Black immigrants and First generation Americans
Black Self Identity: How Much is Blackness Defined by Whiteness?

If interested please send us an email at ourblackproject[@]gmail.com for more information and a copy of our writers’ guidelines. We will be accepting submissions until March 1, 2014.

Please feel free to share this post as you please. I am truly blessed to be working on a project such as this and I am driven by its potential. With much work and dedication, this can be turned into something phenomenal.

All the best,

zellie imani

signal boost!