Some men get a sick pleasure out of stripping away the “illusion” that women are equal and violently showing them exactly how inferior they are. The online troll population has these kinds of characters in it, but the dominant class is men who don’t get the level of sexual attention they feel entitled to from women, and therefore have concocted elaborate, dogged theories about how women are broken, because they cannot ever allow that women have a right not to like them personally. (Or that if they started acting like decent people, maybe they would actually be more likeable.) All misogynists get upset when women are given attention for their talent or skills; it violates their core belief that women are here to serve. This is why writing on the internet while female means getting everything from laughably delusional men pretending to “critique” your writing while barely concealing their rage to rape and death threats. Particularly if your writing is not upholding the opinion that women are inferior servant class.
I really wish dudes would call out other dudes. But they never fucking do because they care more about ~bro cred~ than not being misogynists.
In celebration of International Women’s Day, people are taking to the Internet to complain about Anita Sarkeesian. The first installment of her long-awaited video series about sexism in video games was released yesterday, inspiring an inevitable torrent of backlash. Aside from suggestions that she “stole” the Kickstarter funding for the Women vs. Tropes in Video Games series, much of the criticism is because she disabled comments on the YouTube video.
Leading the charge against Sarkeesian’s decision is Tumblr user amazingatheist, who posted a ten-minute video entitled “Who’s The Damsel Now?“ Arguing that Sarkeesian’s “censorship” of YouTube comments counteracts her message about strong women, and that her TED talk about online harassment amounts to “whining,” amazingatheist says:
“What are you afraid of, Anita? Why can’t people have a discourse about your material? Why can’t people make their opinions towards your content known? I understand that some comments will be abusive in nature — probably most will — but so what?”
Ironically, the existence of this response means by definition that amazingatheist is making his opinion known, as well as participating in a discourse about Sarkeesian’s material. [READ MORE]
The amazingatheist destroyed his own chance at participating in these discussions by being a misogynistic MRA. Just in case, that link needs a trigger/content warning so TW: rape, misogyny, abusive language.
The woman got bombarded with rape and death threats when she talked about the idea of doing this series. And people are up in arms about her not wanting to deal with that during her actual work??
So aside from the misogyny aspect here (and that isn’t to downplay it at all, because holy fucking shit you ASSHOLES,) I would like to point out something that appears to be lost on 95% of the denizens of The Intertubes:
No one is required to let you air your opinion in their space.
This includes the comments section of anything they upload to YouTube.
Seriously, the number of people who think that they are somehow owed the right to comment on things boggles me. You want to bitch about someone’s videos, comment on news articles, disagree with someone’s Facebook post? Go do it in your space. No one owes you shit.
And in particular, no one you are abusive and violent toward owes you shit.
I’m still boggling at this bit: “I understand that some comments will be abusive in nature — probably most will — but so what?”
Abusive in nature…but so what?
That comment says everything, doesn’t it?
After all, who fucking cares about what it’s like to receive death threats, rape threats? About what it’s like to have people barge into your space to pour violent, abusive vitriol all over your work? They are owed that opportunity, apparently. They are owed the opportunity to abuse you, and if you deny them that, you’re “censoring” them.
I would like everyone to think about that for a moment. @amazingatheist thinks it’s OK to threaten & abuse women he disagrees with - he’s done it himself, and he’s certainly never had any problem with anyone else doing it.
Abuse is OK. But protecting yourself from abuse? OH NO, CAN’T HAVE THAT.
What a shitstain.
Fuck “the amazing atheist” and all his fedora-clad MRA homies.
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 anybodies equality.
this is not activism.
this is hate-mongering.
Thanks for the contribution :)
congratulations, sexism is now over. You have beaten the evil whites. You win!
Fuck. These. People.
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! :)
It just keeps. Getting. Better.
Where’s the “Always the friendzone, never the bonezone” one?
It got better.
This weekend, the New York Times published an extremely exploitative article about a transgender woman who had died in a fire. The article, about Lorena Escalera, only mentions that she was killed in a fire after telling readers that she was “curvaceous,” that she “drew admiring glances” in her “gritty Brooklyn neighborhood,” that she “was known to invite men for visits to her apartment,” that Lorena was “called Lorena” (as opposed to saying she was “named Lorena” or that she simply was Lorena) and that she “brought two men to her apartment” sometime between late Friday night and early Saturday morning.
The article by Al Baker and Nate Schweber treats Escalera completely disrespectfully, later describing a pile of debris outside the burned apartment which “contained many colorful items. Among them were wigs, women’s shoes, coins from around the world, makeup, hair spray, handbags, a shopping bag from Spandex House, a red feather boa and a pamphlet on how to quit smoking.”
Take the word “transgender” out of the equation.
Would the New York Times ever describe a woman who is not transgender, who had died in a fire, as “curvaceous” - in the first sentence, no less? Would it carefully note that her apartment contained makeup and “women’s shoes?” Would it say that she was “called” whatever her name was - especially if police later identified her by that name?
Janet Mock and other noted leaders in the trans advocacy movement have been speaking out about this article online. Thank you to all of you who submitted incident reports about this article, or alerted us to it through Twitter. We are reaching out to the Times to discuss the many incident reports we received, and to ensure that exploitative pieces like this don’t get printed in the future.
Science of the Physical Pain Associated with Heartbreak
You lose a part of yourself when connections are lost, and its not far-fetched to say that you feel completely empty inside. There’s an ache, a deep ache that erupts from the inside of our bodies longing for the past. The pain is real and there’s no other way to describe how bad it really hurts than to name it heartbreak.
When a person feels secluded or feels loss, changes in the brain’s blood flow occur. The anterior cingulate cortex (responsible for regulating physical pain distress) becomes more active during these times, causing the physical pain associated with heartbreak. (via)
Heartbreak is an emotional and physiological event, and the pain is real, not metaphorical. Correct. I’m not sure how or why so many folks ever came to the conclusion that emotional pain was not pain really. But it probably has something to do with misogyny.
My favorite movies in 2011 || The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo (2011)
Mikael Blomkvist: “I want you to help me catch a killer of women..”
When bullying occurs it’s not in isolation from the culture in which it occurs. The idea that bullying is a one-off instance of rule breaking is a misconception. It is, instead, the systematic enforcement of rules, particularly gender rules. And, yes, that includes same-sex bullying—in some ways an even better example of gender-rule enforcing than opposite-sex bullying. The list of children, with which we are now sadly familiar, who have killed themselves as the result of slut-shaming and trans- and homo-phobia is bleak and long. There are serious penalties being paid for not following gender rules.
From an early age, boys are fitted with emotional straight-jackets tailored by a restricted code of behavior that falsely defines masculinity. In the context of “stop crying,” “stop those emotions,” and “don’t be a sissy,” we define what it means to “Be a Man!” Adherence to this “boy code” leaves many men dissociated from their feelings and incapable of accessing, naming, sharing, or accepting many of their emotions. When men don’t understand their own emotions it becomes impossible to understand the feelings of another. This creates an “empathy-deficit disorder” that is foundational to America’s epidemic of bullying, dating abuse and gender violence. Boys are taught to be tough, independent, distrusting of other males, and at all cost to avoid anything considered feminine for fear of being associated with women. This leads many men to renounce their common humanity with women so as to experience an emotional disconnect from them. Women often become objects, used to either validate masculine insecurity or satisfy physical needs. When the validation and satisfaction ends, or is infused with anger, control or alcohol, gender violence is often the result. Violence against women is often thought of as a woman’s issue; but it is a mistake to call men’s violence a woman’s issue. Since men are overwhelmingly the perpetrators of this violence, this men’s issue calls us to question the cultural values that produce men who hurt women.
Rev. Joe Ehrmann (via inquotation)
On the socialization of cis males:
"From an early age, boys are fitted with emotional straight-jackets tailored by a restricted code of behavior that falsely defines masculinity."
"Adherence to this ‘boy code’ leaves many men dissociated from their feelings and incapable of accessing, naming, sharing, or accepting many of their emotions."
On sexism and rape culture:
"This leads many men to renounce their common humanity with women so as to experience an emotional disconnect from them. Women often become objects, used to either validate masculine insecurity or satisfy physical needs.”
On the physical abuse of women:
"… it is a mistake to call men’s violence a woman’s issue."
"Since men are overwhelmingly the perpetrators of this violence, this men’s issue calls us to question the cultural values that produce men who hurt women."
Tags: Patriarchal masculinity, feminist masculinity, misogyny, transmisogyny, sexism, heterosexism, cissexism, patriarchy, substance abuse, gender violence, domestic violence, rape culture, male socialization, dissociation, empathy, bullying, masculinity
When I talked to teenage boys about these types of homophobic taunts, they often tell me such epithets are simultaneously the most serious of insults and have little to do with sexuality. As one boy told me, “To call someone gay or fag is like the lowest thing you can call someone. Because that’s like saying that you’re nothing.” Another claimed “Fag, seriously it has nothing to do with sexual preference at all. You could just be calling somebody an idiot, you know?” Another made it perfectly clear when he told me, “Being gay is just a lifestyle. It’s someone you choose to sleep with. You can still throw around a football and be gay.” In other words, a guy could be gay so long as he acts sufficiently masculine.