[majchic]

[nightmareofhands-deactivated202]

missing dworkin today ❤️‍🩹

[zombiifem]

SHES THE ONE WHO SAID THAT?????? queen i never knew it was her

[unrespectability]

her full recollection 💖

[xcounterforcex]

> when he died he stopped

LMAOOO

[evilrosamundpike]

It took less than 20 years of widespread porn consumption to reframe completely how sex should be. Less than 20 years to groom women (and girls) into believing that their role in the bedroom is to be the means to a fulfilled fetish, that it’s in their duty to be strangled, slapped, spanked, tied, and hurt, and to do all without complaint.

Watching porn is normal and if you’re against your boyfriend/husband consuming material that features the sexual assault of women, you are a shrill, prudish woman who is actually abusing her boyfriend/husband by being too controlling.

Historical revisonism calls it “feminism,” refuses to connect the dots between what is happening now and what happened in the 70s, when feminist movements became harder to ignore and men reacted by pushing for the production of violent pornography. Actual feminism sees it for what it is: a calculated attack against female personhood, dignity, and boundaries.

[crtscreen]

throughout the late 2000s and early 2010s, our generation was inundated with aave. it eclipsed lolcat as the "funny way to talk." ain't nobody got time fo dat turns into dat boi o shit waddup. this is blatantly not an "aracial" or "gen z" way to talk. it IS black english. not to mention the amount of black reaction images!!

WHY, specifically, is it black peoples' facial expressions that are seen as just so comical or exaggerated? analyze the history of this nation's comedy and tell me why you might be predisposed to thinking of black peoples' faces as just, "more emotive" or exaggeratedly funny than a white or nonblack person's

and throughout those years, 00s-10s, many black bloggers -- victims of the mass staff-led purge (under the cover of them being 'russian' while reichblr still exists) -- they DID tell us it was a problem, DID try to educate people who freak out at the insinuation of 'being racist,' DID argue, DID point out the duplicity and the appropriation and the gross equivalence of african american slang with unintelligence, goofiness, etc. and they were ignored, abused, cancelled, chased off, until being eventually mass deleted by our racist transmisogynistic staff.

we didn't do enough, and the generation after us gen z "kids" didn't stop the trend. using the '-ahh' suffix. rizz. no cap. ate. delulu. it's giving. it's serving. crash out. lock in. aura. tea. main character. bruh. slay. real. keep it 100.

all of the following images are or were popular reaction images! what do they all have in common?

it feels like the effort to categorize slang as AAVE and not 'gen z' or 'gen alpha' slang has really petered out. it feels like we stopped talking about digital blackface in an era where the administration is posting ai-generated videos of black women who speak and act like exaggerated stereotypes and it frustrates me because we all have a responsibility to understand our generation's role in normalizing this type of racist shit for kids today. this needs to be addressed!

[bauliya]

so women are supposed to grin and bear the books, the comics, the movies, the plays, the tv shows, the stories, the sci-fi, the translated ancient poems, the fucking millennia of men writing about their self inserts torturing women and it being declared as High Art by other men, we’re supposed to read it in our free time, study it in classrooms, include their styles in our own writing, accept their cultural influence as natural, watch it in the cinema, write about it, talk about it, accept it, aspire it, but men can’t tolerate three seconds of female wish fulfilment of a woman snapping the wrist of a creep without feeling personally kicked in the balls.

[darkshrimpemotions]

This reminds me of something I observed in college while I was doing my honors thesis on women in modern horror films. I watched a LOT of horror during that time as part of my research, and sometimes that was done with my family around.

And my dad and brothers? Were deeply disturbed by the movie Jennifer’s Body. I was flabbergasted. It’s not scary! It’s not even that gory. But they were horrified by it. These men who grew up on 70s slashers were legitimately shook by 90 minutes of Megan Fox eating a few teenage boys, mostly off-screen.

Similarly, my all-male reading panel for my thesis? Were so disturbed by my synopsis of the film Teeth that they couldn’t even talk about it. One of them said he couldn’t look at his wife for a week after reading it.

Again, grown-ass men who study and teach media for a living. Who definitely watch and enjoy horror movies. One of whom was a huge Tarantino buff. We watched and read worse in his intro to mass media class! But one movie about a girl whose vag could bite was enough to haunt him.

Then of course you have things like the Gone Girl backlash–men yelling that Amy Dunne is evil and women clamoring to assure everyone that they know she is not someone to emulate–the backlash against Carol Danvers, and, more recently, the griping from MRAs against the upcoming film Hustlers, which is about strippers scamming their Wall Street clients.

My conclusion? Most men–at least most straight, cisgender men, who are both my sample population and most of the ones whining that Carol is a “villain”–are perfectly fine with, and desensitized to, media where men do violence to women (horror movies), or men do violence to men (horror and action movies). They’re even sort of fine when women do violence to women (“ooooo cat fight!”).

But they get intensely uncomfortable when women are depicted doing any kind of violence to men, especially in films that tilt the balance of power to the other side of the m/f gender binary beyond a single moment or scene.

So woman as flesh-eating monster with men as her preferred cuisine? Woman who responds to unwanted sexual contact by biting it off? Woman who frames her cheating husband for murder? Woman whose response to harassment–behavior that many of the loudest whiners know is both creepy and reflective of their own thoughts/actions–is to break something?

Too scary. Unacceptable. Disturbing. These men hate being presented with the idea, even in fiction, that their position of power is socially constructed, that it could easily be flipped the other way. It terrifies them.

In feeling that terror, they experience a tiny modicum of what living, existing, moving, being perceived as a woman in the world is like.

And they flinch every time.

[tzikeh]

Here have a newspaper comic from 1993

[drill-teeth]

Something I really struggle to get people to understand is that like. Sometimes there was no intentional homoerotic subtext, the author was just extremely misogynistic. Sometimes the author wasn't "secretly shipping" those two men, the author literally just hates women so much that they see them as being literally incapable of relationships with depth. Like this is kind of a big thing with misogyny actually. A lot of extremely misogynistic people truly believe that a man can only have meaningful and complex relationships with other men because they literally just think women are so inferior they only exist to birth children and clean the house. It's like when people say along the lines of "no one worships exclusively men quite like straight men do". It's just that phenomenon actually. That happens to be manifesting in a raging misogynist's writing. Writing a man character who literally only puts effort into his friendships with other men while completely ignoring his literal girlfriend or wife is actually an extremely straight thing to write. And that doesn't mean you can't ship those men or that there are no stories with actual intentional homoerotic subtext. I just think it's important to be able to recognize extreme misogyny in writing and acknowledge it without brushing it off and assuming good intentions when literally all evidence is screaming that this was a misogynistic writing choice and not a representing gay men choice.

[hellgrub]

where's the part from Whipping Girl about femininity being treated as a performance, artificial, fake whereas masculinity is considered authentic, even amongst many feminists

[hellgrub]

from the chapter "skirt chasers"

[iphigeniacomplex]

[Transcript:

The media neutralizes the potential threat that trans femininities pose to the category of “woman” by playing to the audience’s subconscious belief that femininity itself is artificial. After all, while most people assume that women are naturally feminine, they also (rather hypocritically) require them to spend an hour or two each day putting on their faces and getting all dressed up in order to meet societal standards for femininity (unlike men, whose masculinity is presumed to come directly from who he is and what he does). In fact, it’s the assumption that femininity is inherently “contrived,” “frivolous,” and “manipulative” that allows masculinity to always come off as “natural,” “practical,” and “sincere” by comparison.

]

[389]

The Erlkönig Hanno Karlhuber, 1993

German, b.1946- Oil , 70 x 100 cm.

[auntymurda]

‘behind the perfection.’ photographer henry leutwyler’s limited edition ballerina skate decks. / 2013.

[historicity-was-already-taken]

This weekend I was schmoozing at an event when some guy asked me what kind of history I study. I said “I’m currently researching the role of gender in Jewish emigration out of the Third Reich,” and he replied “oh you just threw gender in there for fun, huh?” and shot me what he clearly thought to be a charming smile.

The reality is that most of our understandings of history revolve around what men were doing. But by paying attention to the other half of humanity our understanding of history can be radically altered.

For example, with Jewish emigration out of the Third Reich it is just kind of assumed that it was a decision made by a man, and the rest of his family just followed him out of danger. But that is completely inaccurate. Women, constrained to the private social sphere to varying extents, were the first to notice the rise in social anti-Semitism in the beginning of Hitler’s rule. They were the ones to notice their friends pulling away and their social networks coming apart. They were the first to sense the danger.

German Jewish men tended to work in industries which were historically heavily Jewish, thus keeping them from directly experiencing this “social death.” These women would warn their husbands and urge them to begin the emigration process, and often their husbands would overlook or undervalue their concerns (“you’re just being hysterical” etc). After the Nuremberg Laws were passed, and after even more so after Kristallnacht, it fell to women to free their husbands from concentration camps, to run businesses, and to wade through the emigration process.

The fact that the Nazis initially focused their efforts on Jewish men meant that it fell to Jewish women to take charge of the family and plan their escape. In one case, a woman had her husband freed from a camp (to do so, she had to present emigration papers which were not easy to procure), and casually informed him that she had arranged their transport to Shanghai. Her husband—so traumatized from the camp—made no argument. Just by looking at what women were doing, our understanding of this era of Jewish history is changed.

I have read an article arguing that the Renaissance only existed for men, and that women did not undergo this cultural change. The writings of female loyalists in the American Revolutionary period add much needed nuance to our understanding of this period. The character of Jewish liberalism in the first half of the twentieth century is a direct result of the education and socialization of Jewish women. I can give you more examples, but I think you get the point.

So, you wanna understand history? Then you gotta remember the ladies (and not just the privileged ones).

ask historicity-was-already-taken a question

[roachpatrol]

Holy fuck. I was raised Jewish— with female Rabbis, even!— and I did not hear about any of this. Gender studies are important. 

[kogiopsis]

Why Gender History is Important (Asshole)

[treewizarded]

“so you just threw gender in there for fun” ffs i hope you poured his drink down his pants

[notyourdamsel-in-distress]

I actually studied this in one of my classes last semester. It was beyond fascinating. 

There was one woman who begged her husband for months to leave Germany. When he refused to listen to her, she refused to get into bed with him at night, instead kneeling down in front of him and begging him to listen to her, or if he wouldn’t listen to her, to at least tell her who he would listen to. He gave her the name of a close, trusted male friend. She went and found that friend, convinced him of the need to get the hell out of Europe, and then brought him home. Thankfully, her husband finally saw sense and moved their family to Palestine.

Another woman had a bit more control over her own situation (she was a lawyer). She had read Mein Kampf  when it was first published and saw the writing on the wall. She asked her husband to leave Europe, but he didn’t want to leave his (very good) job and told her that he had faith in his countrymen not to allow an evil man to have his way. She sent their children to a boarding school in England, but stayed in Germany by her husband’s side. Once it was clear that if they stayed in Germany they were going to die, he fled to France but was quickly captured and killed. His wife, however, joined the French Resistance and was active for over a year before being captured and sent to Auschwitz.

(This is probably my favorite of these stories) The third story is about a young woman who saved her fiance and his father after Kristallnacht. She was at home when the soldiers came, but her fiance was working late in his shop. Worried for him, she snuck out (in the middle of all the chaos) to make sure he was alright. She found him cowering (quite understandably) in the back of his shop and then dragged him out, hoping to escape the violence. Unfortunately, they were stopped and he, along with hundreds of other men, was taken to a concentration camp. She was eventually told that she would have to go to the camp in person to free him, and so she did. Unfortunately, the only way she could get there was on a bus that was filled with SS men; she spent the entire trip smiling and flirting with them so that they would never suspect that she wasn’t supposed to be there. When she got to the camp, she convinced whoever was in charge to release her fiance. She then took him to another camp and managed to get her father-in-law to be released. Her father-in-law was a rabbi, so she grabbed a couple or witnesses and made him perform their marriage ceremony right then and there so that it would be easier for her to get her now-husband out of the country, which she did withing a few months. This woman was so bad ass that not only was her story passed around resistance circles, even the SS men told it to each other and honoured her courage. 

The moral of these stories is that men tend to trust their governments to take care of them because they always have; women know that our governments will screw us over because they always have. 

Another interesting tidbit is that there is sufficient evidence to suggest that Kristallnacht is a term that historians came up with after the fact, and was not what the event was actually called at the time. It’s likely that the event was actually called was (I’m sorry that I can’t remember the German word for it but it translates to) night of the feathers, because that, instead of broken glass, is the image that stuck in people’s minds because the soldiers also went into people’s homes and destroyed their bedding, throwing the feathers from pillows and blankets into the air. What does it say that in our history we have taken away the focus of the event from the more domestic, traditionally feminine, realms, and placed it in the business, traditionally masculine, realms?

[historicity-reblogs]

Badass women and interesting commentary. Though I would argue that “Night of Broken Glass" includes both the personal and the private spheres. It was called Kristallnacht by the Nazis, which led to Jewish survivors referring to it as the November Pogrom until the term “Kristallnacht" was reclaimed, as such.

None of this runs directly counter to your fascinating commentary, though.

[wtfhistory]

READ THIS.

[the-waters-and-the-wild]

If anyone has books or articles related to these accounts or ones like them, please let me know. These stories need to be told. 

[historicity-was-already-taken]

@the-waters-and-the-wild hi! I’m (OP) actually writing a book on these themes. If you’re interested in learning more or helping me out with access, please check out this page: https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/women-in-the-warsaw-jewish-underground-project#/

Women in the Warsaw Jewish Underground Project

Help me pay for the translators, books, reproductions of archival materials, and editors I need. | Check out 'Women in the Warsaw Jewish Und

[historicity-was-already-taken]

Hi, @fromthedeskofcripslock

I’m not only still here, but THE BOOK CAME OUT. Nine weeks on the NYT Bestseller list, and multiple stints as #1 in all of the Holocaust, and ww2 nonfiction on Amazon! All because nerds like you showed widespread interest 💗

DAS BOOK

[atwoodsfemalefantasy]

no one else believes me, but i SWEAR The Giving Tree is misogynistic propaganda. you're telling me a female described tree loves a boy so much she gives him everything. and the little boy asks for everything she has, and she gives it all until she has nothing left. and the boy is never grateful until the very end when the tree is just a stump, and even then the boy sees nothing wrong with what he's done. and this is a message we're supposed to read to children????? that men can take and take and take from women until we have nothing left and it's somehow wholesome?

i remember being read The Giving Tree as a little girl. i remember the little boys thinking it was a great story, while me and my friends, all girls, were left shocked. we had expected some message at the end about how taking and taking from someone while giving nothing in return is wrong. it was like pages had been ripped from the book. the little boys saw nothing wrong, but we understood that the book was saying we were supposed to give and give and give until we had nothing left, and it was a happy ending. because the boy got everything he could ever want, and the tree got the boys attention for an hour or two.

The Giving Tree should really have been called The Taking Boy. i still can't believe we read this to children.

[marbleguard]

this post has unearthed a deep forgotten memory of having this book read to me by my mother as a very young child, and crying inconsolably at the end of it. Like you say, I think because the story feels like it's missing a part where the tree receives some mutual care in return, and you wait and wait as the pages turn for this to happen, but it just never does, and the tree essentially dies as it watches the boy (now and old man) teach his grandson to plant a new tree... presumably to exploit in the same way.

I remember my mother telling me "Why are you crying? The tree was happy! It's a story about love. The tree gave itself because it loved the boy," and not knowing how to articulate what upset me so deeply about the book. It may sound dramatic to say but I felt deeply scarred by this book just from the few times it was read to me, and I think that's because even if we cannot put it into words at that age, even very small female children have some sort of subconscious awareness the book is about their mothers, and by extension about our own future as women, and about the unfairness and cruelty we will experience which will be treated as a virtuous expectation.

[atwoodsfemalefantasy]

i want to bounce off this reblog because it's so great and i also thought of another point i didn't touch totally on in the OG post that relates to this response :)

i remember, as a little girl, hearing all these stories about "sacrifice". "she sacrificed everything for me, she's the best mom" or "my mom sacrificed her whole life to help me" or even our own mothers saying that "love is sacrifice" and how she was happy to give up her dreams or goals because she loved her husband and her kids. The Giving Tree is about our mothers that gave everything to this world, to their husbands, to their children, and it's called love. it's romanticized. it feels like the best thing a woman can be is someone who gives everything up, sacrifices everything, until she's not even a real person but a driving force in someone else's life. we watched our moms in relationships where she gave and gave for so little in return, and called it love. kids pick up on that, especially daughters. The Giving Tree is our mothers.

[marbleguard]

What you describe is something I have noticed over and over in TV and documentary interviews where adult children are asked to speak about their mothers. Both men and women will mention appreciating how their mothers sacrificed for them, but almost without fail, this will be the only thing the men have to say about who their mothers were. Women will often speak about her sense of humor, her style, her favorite hobbies, her talents unrelated to care-giving, but the men almost never mention a single thing about their mothers aside from what she did for them. To them, their mother's greatest achievement is having given up everything to make them a successful man.

In the male mind, women are not their own people with their own lives, but vessels that carry and sacrifice to make and support the people with actual lives... men.

[miiju86]

[whatbigotspost]

Gen Z men twice as likely as boomers to say wives should "always obey"

“It is troubling to see that attitudes towards gender equality are not more positive," said Julia Gillard of King’s College London.

[whatbigotspost]

@ theskimm on instagram highlighted more of the poll findings

For the US part…we had like 1.5 whole generations of women being allowed to build credit, own property, get abortions, be able to prosecute their husbands who rape them, and almost equal workforce participation and so many men have apparently lost their fucking minds about it. I’ll never understand.

[scifi0lver]

One of the Facebook pages I like is "The Man Who Has It All." Here are some of the posts I like the most.

[feminineforms]

Figurine of a woman holding a dog, 8th century, China

Glazed earthenware figure of a woman holding a dog. It was not only the men of the Chinese aristocracy who took to horse-riding; by the Tang dynasty Chinese women are often depicted on horseback. Like the men, they too adopted the dress of their horse-riding neighbours, the so-called 'foreigners dress' (hufu), consisting of a belted knee-length tunic with splits up the side worn over loose trousers gathered at the ankle and tucked into high boots. Indeed the hufu became the fashion in 7th and early 8th century Chang'an and there are many images of groups of women, some in the long traditional female Chinese robes - which were worn decollete at this period - and others in hufu such as this. This piece has a cobalt blue lead glaze which is seen in China from the beginning of the 8th century. It arrived along the Silk Road from the Near East, probably in the form of glass cabachons. These only needed to be ground down and fritted with lead glazing material to make them ready for use. The amber of the lapels was from iron and the green of her shoes from copper, both used in the 7th century. She may be holding a small dog - although the modelling is indistinct. Pet dogs were fashionable among the Chang'an aristocracy. The most famous Chinese woman of the mid-8th century, Yang Guifei, the emperor's favourite concubine, was known to have a small 'Samarkand' dog which she used to distract the emperor's opponents when they were playing cards so she could cheat on his behalf.

[depsidase]

[trash-and-trash-accessories]

I do want to note that the whole "women are allowed to dress masculine and wear trousers" thing needs to be viewed in its historical context:

People fought for generations to be allowed to dress that way. They fought hard to be allowed to wear pants. Blue jeans were a symbol of feminist revolution. Women were barred from workplaces and schools for wearing them.

This is not some a natural fact that women dressing masculine is less shocking and humiliating. That normalization was fought for and hard-won.

And yet so many people erase the struggles of those people who fought to make that happen and pretend that it's just normal and natural that people don't see women "dressed like men" as ridiculous.

The Marriage of Figaro has what's called a "breeches role" which is a woman wearing men's clothes playing am ale role. This was done partly due to the vocal range requirements, but in many cases it was done comedically. It was risque and sexualized or comic relief that a woman was dressed as a man.

Anti-suffragette posters mock women wearing pants - well they were bloomers and split skirts back then - and mocking more masculine cut styles of clothes. This was meant to portray this as ridiculous.

They mocked the "new woman" in Weimar Germany, lamenting that they were too masculine.

This is a political cartoon from the 1920s depicting a woman in masculine dress deciding which bathroom to use:

Sorry but you're erasing these struggles and flattening history when you say this shit.

Women were killed and institutionalized in the struggle to make this happen. It really fucking bothers me the way it's framed as "people just don't find it as weird when women dress masculine."

Yes they fucking did. Until women and transmasculine people fought for their right to wear what they want. It's normalized because people struggled to normalize it.

And it's not normal everywhere. There are many countries where it's still illegal for women to wear pants. Afghanistan, for example.

Even in the US, it's forbidden and considered ridiculous in groups like the FLDS, the Amish, and the Hutterites.

We are flattening and erasing the struggles of women when we say these things. I know we're trying to build theory here but you can't build solid theory on a foundation of lies.