#gender oppression

[astropeony]

Michelle says: freedom for womyn💥🔪🔪

Tumblr blew my mind with a content label for non-erotic images of naked women or women breasts (as it hid a drawing of lesbian erasure, happy pride i guess🫩), so I drew a female character with flat breasts for the sake of experimentation, and guess what? Of course, the content label didn't appear. I wonder why :) ......

In my second ru-language blog (I'm just too lazy to fight for my life with a translator to get some things translated correctly), there are a lot of sketches and I'm getting tired of regularly catching content labels on drawings of a woman's body without GODDESS DAMN sexual context, even though I'm seeing gore and porn without those labels, even though I have this fucking filter ON >:( It's incredibly frustrating. I tried to investigate whether it's a general issue with nudity or whether censorship would bypass a character without a noticeable "female" breast. As it turns out, it's not necessary to censor a flat woman's chest. Strange, why is it necessary to censor a large one huh? >:)🔪🔪🔪

[profeminist]

Ghana passes bill making identifying as LGBTQ+ illegal

Lawmakers approve a tough new bill, but rights groups say it threatens basic freedoms.

"Ghana's parliament has passed a tough new bill that imposes a prison sentence of up to three years for anyone convicted of identifying as LGBTQ+.

It also imposes a maximum five-year jail term for forming or funding LGBTQ+ groups.

Lawmakers heckled down attempts to replace prison sentences with community service and counselling.

It is the latest sign of growing opposition to LGBTQ+ rights in the conservative West African nation.

The bill, which had the backing of Ghana's two major political parties, will come into effect only if President Nana Akufo-Addo signs it into law. He previously said that he would do so if the majority of Ghanaians want him to.

Gay sex is already against the law in Ghana - it carries a three-year prison sentence."

Read the full piece here: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-68353437

[hancrow]

tldr at the end

so weird when people start talking about how "men can't be oppressed simply because theyre men" and then start listing all the reasons that- huh- men *can* be oppressed simply because theyre men, and then trying to put a different spin on it???

like im so confused

so youre going to tell me that men being told "don't cry" "dont do *that* job that's for *girls*" "that couldnt happen to *you*, youre a *man*" is.. not men being oppressed... because.. theyre men...??

and it's like-

trans/misogyny and trans/misandry can and do co-exist. because misogyny is oppression against women and/or women-aligned people and/or people perceived as women in some way, and misandry is oppression against men and/or men-aligned people and/or people perceived as men in some way. often at the expense of the other group.

for example:

telling a woman, "don't do *that*, thats for *men*, do *this* instead" - that is misogyny and misandry. how? because you're implying that a woman cannot do this so-called "manly" thing, because it's "not suitable for girls", and then telling her to do this other thing instead, indirectly implying that this more "feminine" activity is *for* women, and therefore *not* for men... which implies that men can't do that thing because it's not "manly" enough.

the reason trans/misogyny and trans/misandry co-exist and overlap is because it is, at it's foundation, oppression. it is the oppression of a certain group of people because of the idea that certain genders cannot and should not do activities (and etc.) that society have deemed unacceptable for that group.

women not being taken seriously by healthcare providers, simply on the basis that theyre women? misogyny (and misandry, because it implies that men have a different [higher] level of knowledge/autonomy of their bodies than women do, which is frankly untrue)

men not being taken seriously by SA/R help/survivors, simply on the basis that theyre men? misandry (and misogyny, because it implies that only women could be so "weak" [untrue] as to be able to have been SA/R'd, which is patently untrue)

women being told to go into nursing instead of doctorate school, simply on the basis that theyre women? misogyny AND misandry

men being told to go out and get a job instead of staying at home to help with the house/kids, simply on the basis that theyre men? misandry AND misogyny

do you see the pattern? the answer to solving or helping trans/misogyny is not to turn that rhetoric back on trans/men- that's what's already been happening! misogyny CANNOT exist without misandry, and misandry CANNOT exist without misogyny. oppression cannot exist without oppression.

if you are not in control of your emotions (unless it is, perhaps, anger), and unless you like these certain things? you're not a *real* man, then

if you are not emotional/reactive to things (unless it is, perhaps, anger), and unless you like these certain things? you're not a *real* woman, then

to defeat misogyny and misandry (gendered oppression), then you cannot perpetuate the idea that one gender is better than the other, or that only certain genders can do certain things. you have to break the idea that only certain ideas/tasks etc. are for certain genders. it cannot be *equality* unless all are equal. it doesn't mean boost women up while tearing men down, it doesn't men keeping women oppressed, it means evening the playing field.

allow women to be publicly strong, publicly weak, publicly *everything* that is human because being strong, smart, weak, emotional, angry, joyful etc. is not gendered.

allow men to be publicly strong, publicly weak, publicly *everything* that is human because being strong, smart, weak, emotional, angry, joyful etc. is not gendered.

tldr: trans/misogyny and trans/misandry do co-exist and overlap, and to destroy one means having to destroy the other- there is no other way to defeat oppression. oppression means to be *oppressed*. if you defeat one and not the other, you free no one- for now you are caught yet again in the endless cycle of oppression, now you're just the ones on top/the oppressors. im sick and tired of people denying the existence of one or the other.

[femininetransmascq]

The reason of liberal feminism keeps trying to minimize gender-based oppression is largely because it wants to alienate trans men from feminism.

Also we must be remembered that the unmanly vile cis man sissies (these types of cis-het men are very common in conservative politics) who oppress the existence of trans women are promoting this behavior under the name of 'inclusive feminism'.

[she-is-ovarit]

As mental health worsens among Afghanistan's women, the UN is asked to declare 'gender apartheid'

The U.N.’s most powerful body is being asked to support governments seeking to legally declare the crackdown by Afghanistan’s Taliban rulers

UNITED NATIONS (AP) — The U.N.’s most powerful body must support governments seeking to legally declare the intensifying crackdown by Afghanistan’s Taliban rulers on women and girls “gender apartheid,” the head of the U.N. agency promoting gender equality said Tuesday. Sima Bahous, executive director of UN Women, told the Security Council that more than 50 increasingly dire Taliban edicts are being enforced with more severity, including by male family members. That is exacerbating mental health issues and suicidal thoughts especially among young women and is shrinking women’s decision-making even in their own homes. “They tell us that they are prisoners living in darkness, confined to their homes without hope or future,” she said. Under international law, apartheid is defined as a system of legalized racial segregation that originated in South Africa. But a growing consensus among international experts, officials and activists says apartheid can also apply to gender in cases like that of Afghanistan, where women and girls face systematic discrimination. “We ask you to lend your full support to an intergovernmental process to explicitly codify gender apartheid in international law,” Bahous urged the 15-member council, including its five permanent members: the United States, Russia, China, Britain and France. There is no existing international law to respond to “mass, state-sponsored gender oppression,” Bahous said. But she said the Taliban’s “systemic and planned assault on women’s rights … must be named, defined and proscribed in our global norms so that we can respond appropriately.” The Taliban took power in August 2021 during the final weeks of the U.S. and NATO forces’ pullout from Afghanistan after 20 years of war. As they did during their previous rule of Afghanistan from 1996 to 2001, the Taliban gradually reimposed their harsh interpretation of Islamic law, or Sharia, barring girls from school beyond the sixth grade and women from almost all jobs, public spaces, gyms and recently closing beauty salons. The Security Council meeting on U.N. Secretary-General Antonio Guterres’ latest report on Afghanistan took place on the final day of the annual meeting of world leaders at the 193-member U.N. General Assembly.

Males oppress female human beings on the axis of sex. The Taliban commits mass rape and genocide of women and girls, bars them from obtaining an education and treats them as domestic and sexual property. Yet despite what research and scholarship has been published across disciplines, despite what investigative journalists have reported, despite the lived experiences of these women and girls being described, despite video and photographic documentation, despite both the data and the grossly inhuman rules and religious code written in policy and holy books, the immense global pattern of the oppression of female human beings by males is dismissed, justified, willfully ignored, or just plainly not prioritized. Male supremacy goes unchallenged.

[yavo]

The Language We Use (Critical Discussion of the Present State of Progressive Dialogue)

the language we use when discussing who can speak on what or whatever. ever since talking with some feminists who said that only women can fight for and speak on feminism. I've so far been trying to document a few of the traits of this style of discussion which permeates liberal/toxic progressivism, such as:

lack of keeping the door open for groups who may either not be recognize or articulated today, but may be tomorrow. assuming that our present understanding is conclusive and complete.

the fixation not on what experiences or issues a group experiences and how others may relate to it (building off prior point), but instead the fixation on very specific things with exceptions made for present groups. examples of this include looking at historical examples of feminist groups who opposed the inclusion of trans women, or the disinclusion of neurodiversity and disability from present social organizing.

tying both of these together, I believe there is an unrecognized struggle between unifying aspects and specifying aspects. both are important, specifying aspects are important to understanding why we associate between different groups, what issues they experience, how they materially experience different stuff than other groups, etc., while unifying aspects are the material overlap different groups have with each other on concerns, with multiple unifying aspects stacked on top of unifying aspects. however, within many circles you have a strong tendency of those who are either for unifying aspects or specifying aspects, with the specifying aspects dogmatists believing the unifying aspect dogmatists to be erasing them, while the unifying aspects dogmatists believe the specifying aspect dogmatists to be splintering them.

these points combined are presently the critiques I have in mind, with the experiences of watching queer groups go from disincluded to becoming included, and the same for neurodiversity, as well as neurodiversity somewhat recently becoming socially articulated and going through those hurdles of realizing definitions being made accidentally contradicted reality, excluding others who clearly experienced our stuff (in our case, the group who was initially discluded was those with DID)

conclusion: I hope my concerns are clear from this, and I hope others can help either corroborate, critique, or add additional observations or points that concern the language we use to discuss the issues of our various communities, and how to keep it productive towards the goals of (1) understanding and articulating struggles of different groups and (2) the material unifying of these groups and groups of groups by recognizing their shared material interest

I've tried finding reading on this topic, but almost everyone has kinda shrugged. if you have any recommended reading on the topic, please let me know!

[daffodilhorizon]

"feminists" are mad at me for saying feminism is also for nonbinary people

The terfs are at it again folks i guess someone's gotta carry on the legacy of exclusionary feminism that's been with us since the first wave

[anti-capitalistlesbianwitch]

What It's Like To Be A Hairy Feminist — In The Summer

Showing your body hair in summer clothes can make you vulnerable to humiliation and abuse. But the stigma can be deadly for trans and non-binary people.

As female body hair slowly gets more screen time and it becomes easier for a white, cisgender, able-bodied person like me to show it in real life, among my comparably open-minded friends, and in my job at a feminist publisher. That is a privilege. For transgender women, visible body hair can lead to threats from bigots. As Juno Roche says, "Trans women with hair are not marked out as 'hairy' — we become real targets, often for abuse and violence, because people read us as 'men pretending to be women.'"

As a person who is read by others as a hairy cis-woman, I am far less likely to face this kind of violence and abuse. It is a privileged position to be in, but that doesn’t make it a walk in the park. I will never forget the time, years ago, when a close friend visibly recoiled at the sight of my armpit hair, and asked me, only half joking, "Why can’t you just be normal?" For most of the winter, I do appear "normal" — the hair is covered by clothes, so no one can tell. But come summer, and the lure of cool skirts and light dresses, suddenly I wonder whether it would just be easier to shave it all off. To just look "normal." There’s no magic solution for how you push through that fear and uncertainty. Yes, it would be more pleasant to take the train and not be stared at by grown adults, whispered about by straight couples, or sneakily have pictures taken of you by people who haven’t worked out that their phone screens are reflected in the glass behind them.

But keeping my body hair is a philosophical and feminist choice, not an aesthetic one. I don’t have hairy armpits and legs in order to look edgy or cool. I leave the natural hair where it is because I want to accept myself and my body exactly how it is. I would rather spend time working on my mind, rooting out, challenging, and unlearning the oppressive assumption that women must pluck and shave and wax themselves bald in order to be acceptable, fuckable, and deserving of love. It’s an oppression that’s probably impossible for me to completely eradicate, because it has been socially enforced and culturally reinforced every day of my life, for over three decades.