Argumentative thoughts on sex, gender, and kink by a pair of Bad Feminists.
Install Theme
A skilled professional I know had to turn down an important freelance assignment because of a recurring commitment to chauffeur her son to a resume-building ‘social action’ assignment required by his high school. This involved driving the boy for 45 minutes to a community center, cooling her heels while he sorted used clothing for charity, and driving him back - forgoing income which, judiciously donated, could have fed, clothed, and inoculated an African village. The dubious ‘lessons’ of this forced labor as an overqualified ragpicker are that children are entitled to treat their mothers’ time as worth nothing, that you can make the world a better place by destroying economic value, and that the moral worth of an action should be measured by the conspicuousness of the sacrifice rather than the gain to the beneficiary.

Steven Pinker (via eccentric-opinion)

This analysis makes a lot of sense until you think about it for more than half a second.

There are a bunch of flaws, but I’m posting from mobile so here’s the big one: Steve has entirely missed the point of the exercise /for the child/.

The point isn’t that conspicuous sacrifice is what’s important. The point is acquainting kids, especially well-to-do ones with mothers who can freely take time off and whose schools have “social action” requirements, with the human-level process of charitable work. It is about exposing the kid to new things, not strictly maximizing our altruistic output in a moment to moment fashion.

In short, it’s easy to shit on this as long as you ignore the primary didactic benefit it’s supposed to have.

(via ozylikes)

Anonymous asked: Regarding your response to the 'Triumph of Ferocity' issue: This is exactly the reason why feminist activists like you guys are perceived as zealots by some people. The art has no sexuality involved in any way. You should stop interpreting things in a way which is convenient for you. One could argue though that the art represents a man abusing a women. It is, however, a fact that roughly 40%~50% of all domestic violence victims are male. The 'abused Housewive' is a false stereotype.

Ah! I’m so sorry for having failed to respond to this earlier. There were some logistical errors involving me being out of town and thinking that this had already been posted in my absence. 

At this point, it’s probable that you won’t read this, Anon, but here’s an answer for you: 

a) In what way do you suppose that it is convenient to see images of sexual violence, even where there are none? What do you think that gets feminists? Like, I guess it allows us to claim victimage, but… Then what? 

b) Can you get me some citations that agree with your 40-50% numbers? I’m interested in having accurate data, though I’m honestly not sure in what way this relates to your point. It seems like you’re just mentioning this to point out that bad things happen to men, too. That’s accurate, but not really germane?  I’ve also literally never heard the stats cited as being that high on male victims.

Having said that, I additionally don’t know why “abused housewife” would suddenly become a false stereotype even if half of abuse victims were male? Like, lots of wives are still abused by their spouses, even if men are abused, too, right?

c) His leg is between her knees. He has a hand around her neck. Her legs are spread and her garters are exposed. Her wet dress drapes around her hips prettily. Do you not see any of those things as being sexual, or connected to sexual imagery at all? 

I poked around and found a couple of pulp novel covers that reminded me of the posing an Triumph. 

Here we have spread legs with the dress pulled up high on the thighs. http://fuckyeahpulpfictioncovers.tumblr.com/post/11119893094/backwoods-tramp-by-harry-whittington-gold-medal Certainly sexual, right? If a man were forcing her thighs open with, say, a knee and she was visibly struggling with him, do you think this posing would look like a sexual assault, or not so much? 

Here we have a fight—a deadly fight! A dangerous fight!—where the female participants are still really sexualized. http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-K7Mr1UPYWcE/T3UAaSjt1jI/AAAAAAAAA-0/tfQhHIEQsP8/s640/trapped.jpg Lilliana, in Triumph, feels to me like she’s in that mode. 

But, like, whatever, really. I’m not saying, and I’d never say, “This art depicts sexual assault,” I’d only ever say, “Wow, this looks like sexual assault to me.” 

d) Even if it is imagery of a man abusing a woman and it’s not sexual at all, maybe it would still be cool if that kind of art didn’t appear on Magic cards? Like, if we agree that the art is icky whether it’s sexual or not (and it seems like we do!), why are you upset that I see it as sexual? 

Oops, sorry about that horror post. I posted, thinking that I’d just be a nice, helpful lit review, but then I realized that I had about 200 words more to say about mouths. 

My greatest scholarly work was in the field of horror and I miss being an academic. 

I’m sorry.

Teeth

hexmeridian:

crofethr:

craftastrophies:

thecharmingstrangeness:

psshaw:

turbofanatic:

Has anyone else noticed that in the largely female horror/monster artist  community on DA and tumblr (myself included) tends to focus a LOT on teeth, mouths, and violence as a consumptive act (there’s a lot of cannibal characters is what I’m sayin’) and that seems as a bit of a weird counter to mainstream horror and monster art where violence is nearly always penetrative? It’s usually knives, chainsaws and blades, heck even the Alien had a phallic mouth used to bore into faces.

Is this even a thing happening consciously?

No? Never mind then.

I… am trying to figure out approximately how much this post has irrevocably changed my life.

okay so we actually talked a lot about horror in my philosophy class this past week?

and like one of the things about typical horror movies is that they’re very much about violence towards women? like i don’t want to say that all horror movies are about violence towards women but i also don’t want to talk for a thousand years on the nuances of that trope so long story short if you watch a lot of horror movies there’s a lot of penetration imagery and blending the boundaries of sex and violence. and even the entire “final girl” trope that has become a basic structure of horror is basically asking for all of this imagery of penetration and violation etc. and all of it happens because the victims in horror movies are often women because he stereotype is that women are vulnerable.
i’m probably explaining this really badly it’s all waaaaaaaay more nuanced than this but it all kind of ties together in a really fascinating way.so when you look at it that way, it makes sense that a lot of monsters created by/for men (i.e., mainstream monsters) are going to be penetrative. as for monsters created by women being consumptive… that’s a very interesting trend and there’s probably a reason for it but i havent thought about it enough to pick one out

I wonder how much of that, then, is tied up with women’s consumption being a subversive act? Women being encouraged to not consume or take up space, so that then greedy, unapologetic consumption and largeness and loudness and appetite becomes monstrous, which could be problematic. But when driven by the people who are told not to consume, it become atavistic and wish-fulfilling and an outlet for impulses and desires, which the best horror always does.

Oh my god this is doing creepy, awesome things in my head. 

Bookmarking this as something to bring up to my students in class this semester…

Gender and horror? MY FAVORITE TOPICS.

1) If we’re talkin’ mouths, teeth, and consumption specifically, there’s a line of argument In The Literature that goes something like this: mouth = vagina. 

We see this pretty literally in ancient Greece where it was believed that the mouth and vagina were directly connected. So, if she talks a lot, if she’s hungry a lot… that’s sure concerned with her vagina, boy howdy. As a consequence, gluttony and inappropriate talkativeness become typically feminine vices. 

Western society is sufficiently indebted to the Greeks that I think we see these ideas passed on and can point them and their echoes out nowadays. 

Unless I’m mistaken—and I TOTALLY MIGHT BE—mouth=vagina is also something that pops up in Freud. Which is not to say “culturally, consumption is sexual and gendered female,” but is to say “these are old ideas that have popped up repeatedly and I would be utterly unsurprised to see them in modern horror, especially since horror deals with sex and taboo so often.” 

I’ve seen mouth=vagina taken further to explain corruptive transformation via the bite that we see in vampires and zombies. I think I read a paper that claimed that this metaphor was especially clear in zombies because, basically, you have an encounter with the vagina (you are bitten by a zombie). You are corrupted by the vagina/sex (you get sick). You become mindless and seek only sex (you are now a zombie).

Surprisingly, I haven’t heard a STI-related argument, but when I last checked, there wasn’t a lot of literature about zombies, specifically. 

2) As far as gender and horror generally goes,t here’s a not-completely-insignificant body of scholarly work on this subject, as is possibly clear from my previous comments. What I’ve read I’ve really enjoyed.

Here are two that seem particularly germane:
-May I recommend Men, Women, and Chainsaws by Carol Clover?

It’s a pretty imperfect analysis (TW: Freud), but I think it’s a very good book.

-I also enjoy the paper Monster Pains: Masochism, Menstruation, and Identification in the Horror Film. It’s by Aviva Briefel and can be found on JSTOR.

From the abstract:
"Male monsters in these films are associated with acts of masochism that allow for a comfortable spectatorial distance. In contrast, female monsters precede their sadistic rampages with moments of menstruation, which claustrophobically draw their audiences to them."

(via ozylikes)

tmirai:

hatzigsut:

very chilling topic on twitter right now. 

i have my own reasons for #WhyIStayed, and looking through this hashtag, i can see so many women and men who were lost, just as i was.

i stayed because it was the first time i felt important to anyone. he “loved” me. when he said he would die if i left him, i thought it passionate. when he started showing up unannounced at my house, because my friends told him my brother’s friends were over, i thought the jealousy was endearing.

then he tried to kill himself when i left town for two days. he was convinced that i would find someone else, in a town where i knew no one. i came back home, and promised i would never leave.

the manipulation and emotional abuse became physical—but only once. he slammed me against a wall after i made a joke about dumping him once i started college. i hid the bruises from my family, for weeks. that was the moment i decided to get out, no matter what happened. for some people, it only takes one time. others need more than one. and some people never make it out alive.

it is not always easy to “just leave.” it is a blessing if you are able to leave, with no consequences.

That second picture really resonated with me. So here’s a story I’ve briefly mentioned before:

I was in an emotionally abusive relationship. He was 19, just graduating from high school and I was 14 just getting into high school. It was just a crush at first. Then, when he reciprocated my feelings, it was an exciting secret romance behind the backs of my parents. I was in love. Infatuated. We were obsessed with one another, and when my parents found out they tried to keep us apart. Which, of course, only fueled my desire to want to be with him.

It started off “small.” He hated girls that wore make up, so I didn’t wear make up even though I wanted to because he’d be angry if I did. He got upset when I told him I was hanging out with guys. Not dating or flirting with them. Literally just hanging out. Didn’t matter if it was in a big group or one-on-one. He hated the idea of me around other men, though he swore it wasn’t because he thought -I- would do something. When my parents found out about us and threatened to press charges, I started dating a guy at my school to throw them off but I did legit have feelings for him. When my boyfriend found out, he was livid. I felt guilty about it, for cheating and keeping it from him. He said he would forgive me, but it would take time to get over it.

I was almost 18 at the time, about to go to college, when this happened. He’d hold it against me for the next 3 years, during which he’d always guilt trip me, saying how he had always been faithful and perfect for me. He accused me of giving him an STD once, years after the whole incident (during which I was never sexually active with the guy and was clean myself). We had been virgins when the two of us had sex, so he had this whole obsession with me being perfect and pure just for him. He got more vehement about me not hanging out with guys. If I went to dinner or a party with friends, I was afraid to tell him about it because he’d ignore everything except for the fact there were men there. He constantly had mood swings, as everything reminded him of what I did to him and he just felt disgusted with me, and he’d become cold and distant. My guilt was bad enough already, but he made me feel worse every time I got upset with his attitude. I was distancing myself from friends and family, adhering to his expectations and standards, but it was never enough. I stayed because I thought he was the closest I’d ever get to a “perfect” man, even though he had so many problems. He told me no one would ever love me like I loved him, and that he was the perfect man and how other women would be much more thankful than I was, but he -chose- to stay with me. And I believed it.

After fighting about this for nearly 4 years, I finally challenged him: if he was so disgusted with something I did years ago, why didn’t he just leave me? He told me (for the millionth time) how frustrating it was that I just couldn’t understand his pain. He told me that sometimes he just wished he could hit some sense into me.

He had never physically hurt me before. He had never been rough or raised his voice more than a handful of times. But he’d never get the chance to. It took over 6 years, but I finally got tired of staying and I left.

Abuse can be so much more than threat of violence or actual violence. It can be subtle. It can be a means to control through isolating someone or damaging their self esteem. We don’t think of these forms of abuse as “that bad”, but they can be. I’m a stronger woman from what I went through, but I wish it hadn’t been that way, and I still deal with insecurities and emotional hurdles from what I went through.

People do not understand abuse. It’s good to see survivors, or people who have experienced abuse explaining what it’s really like.

(via the-city-mouse)

circuitbird:

I wish Glory were a reasonable cosplay for me to attempt BUT CYBERARMS

Never give up hope.

circuitbird:

I wish Glory were a reasonable cosplay for me to attempt BUT CYBERARMS

Never give up hope.

(Source: blorgblorgblorg)

letsglitchit:

Feel free to reblog without tutorial if ya want:
Databending .gif animations like this is one of the easiest things you can do in Audacity, it just takes a little finesse. Open up the .gif file in Audacity (A-law, 1 channel, little-endian). Now I want you to zoom in as close as you can somewhere in the middle of the file, just stay away from the beginning really. Now I want you to select the draw tool. Select one the samples, just one of the little dots at the end of two intersecting lines, and move it. Maybe be bashful at first, move it just a little bit. Now save the file (A-law). Open it up and voila. You can definitely edit more than one sample, but the point is you can’t go wild cutting and pasting/using filters like you do on other formats. Now sometimes these files won’t open up in an image editor but they WILL open up in Irfanview (a must have application for glitch artists). So now you can use CamStudio or LiceCap or some such thing to capture your databent gif.

(via letsglitchit)

markdoesstuff:

dammitmat:

hungryghoast:

omercifulheaves:

So hey, it turns out that Gillian Anderson dressed up like Morticia Addams was something we all needed in our lives.

[takes a knee]

OH MY GODS EVERYONE LOOk

if you’ve never seen this perfect photo, here you go


Oh, wow, this IS everything I ever needed. Two of my idols of femininity in one place!

markdoesstuff:

dammitmat:

hungryghoast:

omercifulheaves:

So hey, it turns out that Gillian Anderson dressed up like Morticia Addams was something we all needed in our lives.

[takes a knee]

OH MY GODS EVERYONE LOOk

if you’ve never seen this perfect photo, here you go

Oh, wow, this IS everything I ever needed. Two of my idols of femininity in one place!

(via the-city-mouse)

I’m always fascinated by the number of people who proudly build columns, tweets, blog posts or Facebook posts around the same core statement: “I don’t understand how anyone could (oppose legal abortion/support a carbon tax/sympathize with the Palestinians over the Israelis/want to privatize Social Security/insert your pet issue here).” It’s such an interesting statement, because it has three layers of meaning.
The first layer is the literal meaning of the words: I lack the knowledge and understanding to figure this out. But the second, intended meaning is the opposite: I am such a superior moral being that I cannot even imagine the cognitive errors or moral turpitude that could lead someone to such obviously wrong conclusions. And yet, the third, true meaning is actually more like the first: I lack the empathy, moral imagination or analytical skills to attempt even a basic understanding of the people who disagree with me.
In short, “I’m stupid.” Something that few people would ever post so starkly on their Facebook feeds.

Megan McArdle, “Only Stupid People Call People Stupid” (via hongkongstockexchange)

I dunno. I feel like “I don’t understand how anyone could believe X” is a much, much better position to take on issues than “I know exactly why my opponents disagree with me! It is because they are stupid and evil!” The former at least opens the possibility that your opponents believe things for good reasons that you don’t understand— which is often true!

In general, I believe it is a good thing to admit ignorance when one is actually ignorant, and I am willing to put up with a certain number of dumbass signalling games if it furthers this goal. 

(Source: jenlog, via ozymandias271)

:: wiping mustard from chin :: it’s not makeup it’s war paint