Posts tagged with ‘feminism’ include the following:

benkling:

I don’t know if you’ve ever listened to the lyrics of “Baby It’s Cold Outside,” but they’re kind of iffy in a contemporary context.

"Say, what’s in this drink?"

The whole conceit of the song is that she wants to/needs to leave and he’s trying to keep her there against her will/better judgment—for quite some time.

My little sister was singing it for choir and I wanted to make a less iffy version with her. So we did that. A few years ago. This is it.

(It’s not a great production or anything, just something we did for fun.)

You can grab it here.

Was reading a YouTube comment gender debate—because I never want to be happy—when this happened.These two were in a run-of-the-mill personal suffering pissing contest until something abruptly flipped and the dumb guy and the dumb girl both suddenly, angrily, started to prove each other’s points and didn’t realize that they weren’t fighting anymore.

Was reading a YouTube comment gender debate—because I never want to be happy—when this happened.

These two were in a run-of-the-mill personal suffering pissing contest until something abruptly flipped and the dumb guy and the dumb girl both suddenly, angrily, started to prove each other’s points and didn’t realize that they weren’t fighting anymore.

[Someone on Facebook posted this algorithmically generated status.]
She’s a militant caricature of women’s rights activism.He’s a first-amendment-thumping stand-up comedy fan who likes to talk about atheism.
And now they have to share the same internet!
Episode Synopsis:When Nathan and Faye’s tickets get swapped, guess who ends up at the Richard Dawkins lecture and who goes to see the Vagina Monologues?

[Someone on Facebook posted this algorithmically generated status.]

She’s a militant caricature of women’s rights activism.
He’s a first-amendment-thumping stand-up comedy fan who likes to talk about atheism.

And now they have to share the same internet!

Episode Synopsis:
When Nathan and Faye’s tickets get swapped, guess who ends up at the Richard Dawkins lecture and who goes to see the Vagina Monologues?

gingerhaze:

it’s kinda funny how hard it is for people to accept that Brienne is really like super butt-ugly. I mean even I find myself thinking while I’m reading, “She’s just ugly by the narrow-minded ultra-feminine standards of that time, she’s probably actually really hot!” But the thing is, it’s okay that she’s ugly, it’s an important part of her character, but like, man, why do we have such a hard time accepting not-hot fiction ladies? 

Because people think the solution to women (and men) feeling like shit about themselves is to stretch the standards for physical beauty.

(It’s not that American readers can’t accept ugly women—that’s a bit of a misleading way to phrase it. It’s that they can’t bear to place that label on the woman in their head, because of how terribly cruel they think it is. It’s easier for them to place it on a man because it doesn’t feel like you’re taking everything away from him and reducing his worth to zero.)

The most crippling thing in America is for a person to feel their body isn’t nice to look at. Welp, that’s not all, or even most, of what your body’s for. But everyone’s telling you it is. How do we fix that?

You can change beauty standards to an extent, but you can’t eliminate them. That’s a lazy solution, anyway. “Everybody deserves to feel beautiful” is a mentality that suggests that it’s of paramount importance to be considered physically attractive, so that problem won’t change.

The solution isn’t to broaden your definition of “physically beautiful” to encompass every possible person, it’s to broaden your definition of beauty to encompass more than the physical. That’s become such a cliche that nobody seems to absorb it.

Eventually, the solution is to broaden your definition of “worthwhile” and “valuable” to encompass more than just “beautiful.”

People who are really affronted when they see someone asserting any sort of framework for physical beauty are really exposing that they hold physical beauty in much higher regard than they ought to—that they are the narcissistic children of a narcissistic culture.

Kristen Schaal has that quote about being called too ugly to be on TV, and it boils my balls when people respond “whaaat, nooo, she’s so cuute, she’s so pretty, your standards of beauty are just too narrow” and think they’re being progressive. Maybe she is kind of cute; that’s not the point. That shouldn’t be the quality we need to defend. It shouldn’t be what gives her permission to be on television.

It’s like if someone were to say “Obama’s not white enough to be president” and you were to respond “awww, nooo, he’s white enough! your standards for whiteness are just too narrow.”

Repostin’ this from a while ago.

Sometimes I like to amend god-awful tumblr images.

Repostin’ this from a while ago.

Sometimes I like to amend god-awful tumblr images.

What I think we need to do is infuse every day and every action with the kind of values we hope will be in the future.

Gloria Steinem

I don’t know if you’ve ever listened to the lyrics of “Baby It’s Cold Outside,” but they’re kind of iffy.

"Say, what’s in this drink?"

The whole conceit of the song is that she wants to/needs to leave and he’s trying to keep her there against her will/better judgment.

I wanted to make a less iffy version. So I did that. This is it.

(Female vocals provided by Madeline Kling.)

You can grab it here.

Where the term “Slut-Shaming” doesn’t apply:

This is a part of my counter argument to someone who disagreed with my assessment of slutty/sexy costumes as a harmful combination of demeaning and indulgent.

"Suggesting that [sexy/slutty] costumes play into defining looks as a woman’s most important characteristics [sic] still affects women who do want to be sexy."

Everyone WANTS to be sexy. Everyone wants to be desired. But only the arrogant and the insecure (males and females alike) incorporate that desire into their everyday behavior. It’s nice to be wanted, sure, just like it’s nice to be complimented. But fishing for compliments is indulgent and annoying, and fishing for desire is equally so.
People, regardless of gender, who parade their sex around (slutty) are as annoying as intelligent people who parade their intelligence around (pretentious/pompous) or rich people who parade their wealth around (snobbish). Peacocking is fine in a situation where you’re actively trying to attract a person or people that you’re interested in, but as a lifestyle, it’s vulgar. It’s called being showy.

That’s not a gendered accusation, it’s a human psychology/sociology issue.

The reason women are said to look slutty more often than men are is because physical attractiveness is valued more in women. In men, the analog social trait is wealth. The male equivalent of a slutty looking girl is a douchebag who flashes his cash and his car and anything else that serves as an indicator of wealth. Some people find it attractive, but most people consider it tasteless. (To what extent and resulting in what actions, of course, remains disparate.)

“Women should dress how they want.”

Of course people have the freedom to dress however they want to. But NOT the freedom not to be judged for how they present. Nobody has (or deserves) that sort of exemption. That is such a silly thing to feel entitled to.

We have freedom of speech, but we can’t get angry when people judge us for what we choose to say.

Dress is communication. Since people don’t spin a wheel to choose their garments, we can assume they’re chosen deliberately. Dress is a huge part of the presentation of the self. And that, just like any choice and any presentation/performance, reveals things about the person doing it. Which is a transmission. It’s communication.

And if that message is “look at me!” then you’ll be judged accordingly.

(It is, however, inexcusable to interpret the message of any form of dress as “rape me!” THAT argument is called victim-blaming and it’s unacceptable.)