KIROKAZE
untitled
h
RMH
EXPECTATIONS
titsay
let's talk about Bridgerton tea, my ask is open
$LAYYYTER
No title available
@theartofmadeline
The Stonewall Inn
Sweet Seals For You, Always
izzy's playlists!
Not today Justin
Keni
tumblr dot com
No title available
❣ Chile in a Photography ❣
One Nice Bug Per Day
sheepfilms
seen from Netherlands
seen from United States
seen from United Kingdom
seen from Germany
seen from Tunisia
seen from United States
seen from India
seen from Canada
seen from Myanmar (Burma)
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from Bangladesh
seen from Indonesia
seen from Bangladesh
seen from United States
seen from Singapore
seen from Japan
seen from United States
seen from United Kingdom
seen from United States
@viragoqueen
Still thinking about this… it is literally the central point in Gisele Pelicot’s case. It is a man driving a truck, your neighbour, a family father, the man fixing your computer, a friend, a doctor, a man who works at the local supermarket, your husband of twenty years. Shame on anyone pretending this is not the most important lesson in this awful situation.
Now there is a good jkr quote
Once you start noticing the passive voice being used for men's actions, you can't unsee it. In history class it was always "women weren't seen as equal human beings" or "women weren't able to own property or have jobs or get education" rather than men legally considered women their property and banned them from work, school, and property rights.
In the news it's always "girl raped in park" or "woman killed in home" which would make some sense if the perpetrator was unknown, but they often have already caught the culprit by the time the article comes out and it's always a man.
The amount of times I've seen a headline about a man murdering his entire family before killing himself being titled "man commits suicide after family is killed" with a nice little family photo of them is absolutely absurd.
Hell, just last night I saw an article titled, "3 kids killed after mom let ex-partner take them to get food." Her male ex took the kids to get food and murdered them before killing himself. Not only is the headline passive, but it also phrases it in a way that makes the mother somehow look guilty like she knew what he had planned or knew he was insane.
To top it off, people get really uncomfortable if you stop using the passive voice for this stuff. They start squirming if you straight up say "men wrote laws banning women from voting" even when that is literally what happened. BOTH men and women act this way. It's like we're all just supposed to pretend that rape, enslavement, murder, and other human rights violations against women just fell from the sky.
One of the "rules of misogyny" is that the worst thing about male violence, male flaws, male abuse and oppression against women; is that those things make men look bad. That's why this male supremacist world has implemented this passive language for men's actions; this language that indirectly speaks of their actions and even seems to blame a woman for the man's crimes if they can find an opportunity to do so.
If that insidious, passive, redirecting voice wasn't there - if instead these things were labeled directly and properly, so that it sounded like this - "Man killed girl in park", "man took his three kids to get food and killed them", "man killed woman in her home", "men banned women from owning property or having education" ... If it were like that, it would make people actually acknowledge the crimes men commit against women. It would make people actually acknowledge how rampant violent behavior is for men. It would make people hold males accountable for their own actions and tendencies; and their pathetic egos can't possibly handle that.
I made a post intentionally counteracting this passive language.
It created discomfort in some women. They tried to deal with it in different ways. Some tried to nitpick the statistics, others said I was "inspiring hatred," and then others tried to turn it into a joke: "Oh yeah, my dad totally murdered 1000 women last year."
But the majority of women were angry. Passive language robs women of their natural incline to become angry and rebel. When the perpetrator is put into light, the indignation starts to grow, and so does the desire to get justice.
was thinking about why the lack of female characters in lotr and the hobbit dosen't feel like exclusion and it's because they're just dudes being friends, like they are all just a gang of besties wandering about and the three female characters basically go "right we're doing this now" and they all just go "alright we're doing this now :)"
The women are treated as people, who are important, but happen not to be the current main characters. The men aren't men because they are better than women at swinging swords, they just happen to be male. They go off to war/ the quest because it happens to fall into their hands. None of them particularly want to. They all want to go back to their life at home where they left the women and families.
Mrs Maggot is kind and sensible. Lobelia Sackville-Baggins is jealous and petty but in the end principled and stout. Arwen is beautiful and kind and learned. Galadriel is powerful and ancient and wise, but is tempted by terrible power. The Ents have lost their womenfolk and miss them, because without women there is a loss greater than not reproducing. Ioreth of the houses of healing talks too much and is a little annoying but is knowledgeable and capable. Eowyn believed her work looking after her uncle to be less important than going to war, but she realizes she was wrong. It may be noble to lay down your life, but it's possible to keep on living and building and healing and that is more important than any battle, and much better than making a home in your despair. Rosie Cotton is faithful and patient and does not take bullshit and keeps the hearth warm in times of crisis.
The women aren't excluded. They have other important things to do.
But why in the first movie are all the representatives from the different species, elf/dwarf/human, men? These are the important people, the leaders, the best and they're all men.
lotr doesn't feel like exclusion because women are used to making ourselves forget we're women in order to enjoy a story, especially if said story is otherwise enjoyable. we're very good at pretending that our womanhood isn't an integral part of our humanity.
the only female characters in lotr who actually sort of affect the plot at all are galadriel and eowyn. arwen pines and rosie cotton doesn't exist until the last 15 minutes of the last movie. and they're both very much a male character's reward.
lotr is a story that someone deliberately wrote, not a documentary. no quest "just happened" to fall into anyone's hands, it was all a deliberate choice the writer(s) made. tolkien could have just as easily made one or more of the members of the fellowship a woman. peter jackson could have decided to make that change too, and it would have been less detrimental to the story than whatever he did to gondor.
they chose not to make even one of the main characters female, and it's very much because women aren't full humans to them, and so they couldn't even imagine using female characters to discuss such deeply human things as hope and regret and longing.
@icarus-free @nothingiswrongwithyourarmrests
The reach is so unreal it’s pathetic. Think critically please, I’m begging you to think critically with your adult brain.
It probably would be more believable that the ladies you rattled off had that imaginary “better and more important shit to do in the shire while four idiot male teenage hobbits went off and saved the goddamn world” you’re talking about if you hadn’t just listed off pretty much the only female hobbit characters that have names
Rosie cotton has exactly ONE speaking line where she lets Sam know they thought he was dead but she waited for him. So romantic! Love that for her, get it girlfriend. It’s awesome for him that Sam gets rewarded for working so hard in the journey by marrying a nice girl when he gets home. That really rules for him
Now speaking of speaking roles - what was Mrs maggots first name again? Remind me
Except that was a trick question actually because according to the LOTR wiki she doesn’t fucking have one. Real important female background character, there. Lotta depth of personality. Literally her only known detail is that she’s someone’s wife. Fuck all the way off with calling her “kind and sensible” you don’t know shit about her because all ANYONE knows about her is that she’s a farmers wife - I’m pretty sure that makes her not even a character, just a background detail. Like, prove me wrong and tell me even one canon fact or quote about her.
And you DEFINITELY can’t call the entwives female LOTR characters because they’re never named, never speak, never mentioned as more than details in someone else’s story, and are out of the picture before OUR story even fucking begins.
Plus the very fact that Galadriel has such a long cool history as one of the oldest female elves is not exactly as dope as it seems when it clicks that she’s basically the equivalent of at least three different women he didn’t want to take the trouble to make into separate characters. “Long lived” say less JRR we get how hard it is to craft complex characters, you did your best
And the fact that Tolkien wrote literal armies of named and relevant and important male characters for his world and like six women is not something you can philosophize away just because unnamed and unspoken women exist in the background of his world??? Like pull your head out of your goddamn ass. This is some women who cooked the last supper shit. Being there and being completely ignored and unexplored does not a character make.
Stop giving men credit they haven’t earned! Stop praising the absolute bare fucking minimum- yeah I guess he could have explicitly said middle earth has no females and he chose not to do that, good girlboss choice JRR, thanks for not doing that. That’s how you sound.
Listen I also love Arwen and Galadriel and Eowyn, but at a certain point we have to simply be able to admit to ourselves that the dude wrote exactly three female characters in his entire world that were important enough to be included in his narrative. No more, no reaching to try and include every background female ever mentioned. Cause if we do that we can also include thorins sister Dis, and bards wife and daughters, and crazy Tom bombadils forest wife Goldberry. But they also contributed neither jack nor shit to the story, so it’s not exactly meaningful to call them good representation of women in fantasy fiction.
You can enjoy media while also being critical of it - in fact, that's preferable. What's shitty is trying to make excuses for its failings to make yourself feel better about liking it.
tolkien’s belief in women
another letter he wrote talks about women an wifely duties, and another scorns feminism.
I think that the above quote is only a glimpse into how awful the letter is, and would recommend reading the entire thing (letter 43, written to his son Michael in 1941), but especially the entire paragraph.
Later, in letter 53, he condemns the spread of feminism (among other things) as diminishing the diversity of the world.
The way she referred to beauty as one of the traits that makes Arwen a worthwhile character lmao
lotr doesn't feel like exclusion because women are used to making ourselves forget we're women in order to enjoy a story, especially if said story is otherwise enjoyable. we're very good at pretending that our womanhood isn't an integral part of our humanity.
This is taught in schools, by the way. I went to an all girls' high school and our teachers focused heavily on modern award winners + the few classics that don't either erase or demean women, and while it still took decades to develop the feminist consciousness I have now, I was always noticeably more bored by media that erases women than women who went to coed schools where the attitude was "stop being so anti-intellectual; Misogynistic Dead White Man #729's book is a classic!"
PS: We all see the difference between audiences' reaction to Tolkien's naked misogyny vs. audiences reaction to JKR saying "sex-based oppression exists and requires sex-based solutions", yes?
Link
youtube source (linked in the above twitter post)
The mass-rape trial in France exposes a case that’s both wholly unprecedented and dully familiar.
So many aspects of the trial of Dominique Pelicot and 50 other defendants in France over the past month have been so extraordinary to experience that they feel somehow surreal, or upside-down. In 2020, Gisèle Pelicot, a 67-year-old retiree living in the small French town of Mazan, was told by police that her husband of almost 50 years, Dominique, had been arrested after trying to film up women’s skirts in a shopping center. At first, Gisèle was cautiously understanding. If Dominique was willing to go into therapy, she thought, they could stay together. But then the police confronted her with something infinitely more shocking. On his hard drive, a folder titled “abuse” contained some 20,000 photographs and videos of Gisèle being raped and assaulted by strange men—72 in total—as well as her husband. For about a decade, they told her, he had been drugging her food and drink, and inviting men he met on the internet to abuse her. In court last month, Dominique Pelicot validated the charges against him. “I am a rapist, like the others in this room,” he said. Fourteen of the other men on trial have pleaded guilty to the charges against them, but the majority claim innocence, arguing that they thought they were simply participating in a “libertine” game between husband and wife.
Before his arrest, with regard to his own security, Dominique was meticulous to a fault. The men who came to his home had to warm their hands on a radiator before entering his bedroom. They had to undress in the kitchen. They weren’t to smell of cigarette smoke or aftershave, lest they leave any discernible trace of themselves behind. If Gisèle stirred while an assault was ongoing, Dominique ordered the assailant to leave the room. He kept detailed records, saving videos and photographs of each man in file folders categorized by their first name—“part pleasure,” he later explained in court, “but also, part insurance.” With regard to his wife’s safety, however, he was strikingly nonchalant. He didn’t require that any of the men accused of raping his wife use condoms. Some are accused of choking her while Dominique watched; others, of assaulting her with objects. One man, who was HIV-positive, allegedly raped Gisèle on six separate occasions, telling Dominique that he couldn’t maintain an erection if he wore protection. When Gisèle began to complain of strange physical symptoms—substantial weight loss, hair loss, huge gaps in her memory, difficulty moving her arm—Dominique drove her to doctor appointments, but didn’t stop drugging her, or facilitating her abuse. When she mentioned that she’d been having unexplained gynecological issues, he accused her of cheating on him. Of her husband, she said in court: “In 50 years, I never imagined for a second that he could rape.”
The mass trial of Dominique and 50 other men who could be identified (more than 20 alleged assailants remain at large) began in September, exposing a case that’s both wholly unprecedented and dully familiar. The fact that we’re aware of it at all is because of Gisèle, who gave up her right to privacy so that the allegations of what happened to her could be made public. What she believed, her lawyer said, was that “shame must change sides”—for the men accused of raping and assaulting her to be the ones whose characters were stained, whose reputations were maligned. In the process, she’s become a feminist icon in France, in whose name women’s groups have rallied, seeking to raise awareness about sex crimes involving drugging and pointing out that women are most likely to be raped by someone they know. Every day, before she enters the courtroom, Gisèle is applauded by crowds who have gathered outside to support her.
In court, though, Gisèle’s cross-examination has mostly been by the book, which is to say that lawyers for the defense—more than 40 in number—have done everything they can to impugn her character. “There’s rape and there’s rape,” one defense attorney told her, implying, as many of the defendants have argued, that Gisèle and her husband were swingers participating in an elaborate sex game. “No, there are no different types of rape,” she replied. Although the judges in the trial denied the prosecution’s request that videos documenting her abuse be shown in court, agreeing with defense lawyers that doing so would compromise the dignityof the defendants, they did allow those lawyers to show some 27 pictures that revealed Gisèle’s genitalia, and her face with her eyes apparently open. (A medical expert has testified that, given the medication Dominique was secretly administering, Gisèle was so heavily sedated, she was closer to being in a coma than being asleep.) Lawyers asked her whether she was an alcoholic, and whether she had “a secret inclination for exhibitionism.” In response, Gisèle stated that every day since the beginning of the trial, she’d been intentionally humiliated, and that she understood why most rape victims don’t press charges. Although she appears composed on the surface, she has said that, internally, she is “a field of ruins.” Even so, a few weeks into the trial, one defense lawyer, Nadia El Bouroumi, posted an Instagram Reel of herself in her car, miming to the Wham song “Wake Me Up Before You Go-Go.” (She later deleted the video and posted a statement saying she was profoundly sorry if her meaning had been misinterpreted.)
This kind of ritualized cruelty toward victims is standard in legal systems worldwide, and yet the Pelicot case has stripped away all the usual obfuscations and muddying of details to make certain things clear. There are just so many accused rapists in this case, each one caught on camera. There are so many men who are alleged to have assaulted a drugged grandmother of seven that before they go into the courtroom, they have to form a queue, shuffling one by one in hunched, sullen fashion, as though waiting in a breadline, or for a bus. The men range in age from their 20s to their 70s. One was a firefighter. One was a nurse. One was a journalist. One was a prison guard, one a civil servant. Many were apparently happily married with children. One, a 22-year-old, missed the birth of his daughter the night he went to allegedly rape Gisèle.
Not all men rape women, the adage goes. But the Pelicot case has upended that argument: not all men, but any man, of any age, any profession, any marital status. Living in a small town of 6,000 people, Dominique was able to find 72 men nearby who were allegedly willing—as per his invitation on a forum titled “Without Their Knowledge”—to “abuse my sleeping, drugged wife.” The site he used, Coco.fr, was shut down earlier this year, but it has been implicated in 23,000 separate crimes that are under investigation by more than 70 public prosecutors’ offices across France. Not all men but, still, so many men. One defendant in the Pelicot case, a 72-year-old former firefighter and truck driver who was described by friends and family as “kind,” “attentive,” and “open to others,” told the courtroom that he had “a deep respect for women,” and that if his ex-wife were present, she’d tell them, “He loves the woman in all her diversity, all her complexity.” Nevertheless, he is accused of raping an unconscious woman, Gisèle’s lawyer countered; the man has denied the accusation. Another defendant explained that he realized what he was doing was wrong when Gisèle moved while he was assaulting her, and Dominique quickly ushered him out of the room. “When I crossed the garden, I thought about reporting the incident,” he said in court. “Then life resumed its course; the next day, I went to work very early, and that was that.”
The men accused of raping and assaulting Gisèle, it’s worth remembering, are so numerous that they were arrested in five separate waves, spanning almost a year. In court every week, a new group of defendants has been presented to the judges for consideration, so that their psychological profiles and the testimony of their partners and ex-partners can be taken into account. One defendant, a private nurse, was apparently extremely empathetic to his patients, whom he considered family. He and his wife tried for many years to have children, undergoing multiple rounds of IVF and eventually hoping to adopt. Another, a mason, was reportedly a wonderful father whose friends testified that he was respectful and quiet, never even making dirty jokes at parties. Some of the men have been described as egocentric, aggressive, and routinely unfaithful. One was incarcerated for acts of sexual violence against three other women at the time of his arrest. One has asked about the possibility of restorative justice. Some confessed to having been abused as children. One, although not charged with assaulting Gisèle, is accused of being mentored by Dominique in the drugging and rape of his own wife, who has stayed with him despite learning that both her husband and Dominique allegedly raped her while she was unconscious on several occasions. One defendant was described by his fiancée, with whom he shares a 15-month-old child conceived after his arrest, as having a “heart of gold.”
Following along with the trial, what’s been hard to process is the disconnect between how the defendants are being treated and what Gisèle has endured. The men’s psychological profiles are inherently humanizing—it’s difficult not to feel pity for those whose children have died, or who were reportedly abused themselves, or who apparently fought for their children with special needs to receive the educational assistance they needed. And yet these men also allegedly participated in the abuse and rape of a passed-out woman: an immobile, voiceless, dehumanized body served up to them by her husband, whose actions implied—and were accepted by the men—as ownership. “If a man came to have intercourse with me, he still should have asked for my consent,” Gisèle said in court. But that acquiescence itself would have been in opposition to what so many men apparently wanted: ultimate sexual domination over someone who couldn’t consent, orchestrated by the one man whom she loved and trusted the most.
(archive)
does anybody have that experience when you notice male children OBVIOUSLY ignore any female? I was at the vet the other day, and i saw a little boy running around, there were grown men and women, and the boy was 5 years old and pushing around cats, so i told him to stop and that the cats weren’t his toys, and that they were alive. he half assedly said “i don’t hit them” and i said “you should respect them, they’re alive beings on their own” and he didn’t even hear it. He just literally didn’t listen to me. I told the second vet in charge who is a grown man there to tell him to stop, and when he walked over to the boy and called his name he put down the cat and fully paid attention to him. And he said he was sorry and that he won’t do it again.
I’ve seen this pattern everywhere with little boys. They listen only to grown men, their fathers uncles brothers whatever. And if they can, they only sometimes pay attention to other male children. I’ve never seen a little boy take a little girl as seriously he takes his grown man figures or his male friends. On the other hand female children are on general more attentive and listen to anyone / pay attention to anyone, male or female just to be ignored by male children.
Can someone explain what exactly this is? i mean it is socialization, sexism and male entitlement at play but like more detailed and articulate?
Little boys often refuse to see women as figures of authority bc they watch the women they are most familiar with (mothers/other female family members) be undermined regularly.
Simply put, if when mommy makes a decision or tells you to do something and daddy immediately tells you to do the opposite, you learn that you dont actually have to listen to mommy or any other women.
ALSO! it is a result of uneven labor distribution and how that is hidden plus male violence against children. Similar to how women tend to do the bulk of regular cleaning that has to be done multiple times a day while men do a “bigger” “harder” or in some way “more manly” job like mowing. using the quotes here because these jobs are not actually much harder, they are just much rarer. So men do these rare jobs and then create cultural narratives that these jobs are harder or must be done by the men to obscure the obvious fact that they do less work. There is a similar pattern in how child rearing happens. Fathers do very little work in helping teach or guide their children, they instead tend to step in to reprimand and punish children for “big things” which is seen as more emotionally or intellectually difficult so it is presented by men as equally laborious to feeding, changing, bathing, teaching, etc on a very constant basis.
But from the perspective of a child, this creates a huge conditioned response in terms of just associating their father (or another man) reprimanding them being considered “more serious” whereas their mother is constantly there talking and guiding them verbally. Considering how much men terrorize their children, even their sons when they are young enough, there is probably a conditioned fear component as well just to hearing a male voice reprimand you. It’s why you see some mothers use threats like “don’t make me get your father / tell him later” etc to get their kids to behave, bc a lot of kids just honestly are more afraid of men and fathers.
This is what I mean when I say that men practice patriarchy and male separatism using their own wives, daughters and sons.
I wish women did not feel so strongly about the fact men, on average, are physically stronger than them. I feel like women have such negative feelings about this that it drives them to ridiculousness. Listen, I get it. I get it, I get it, I get it. The fact men are stronger is frightening. It’s scary to know that if a man decided to physically attack you then you are probably fucked. The USWNT, women who have spent years honing their skills on the field, lost to teenage boys who—when compared to the women—were basically just beginning to develop their talents. I understand how demeaning that can feel to every woman who hears this fact. I can imagine how demeaning it was for the USWNT. I’m sure every woman has been in a situation, playful or threatening, where they have tested their strength against a man and lost miserably. I’ve seen videos where women hit and slapped men with genuine rage and fury and the man barely even flinched. I understand how embarrassing and scary it can be to come to terms with the strength disparity between men and women, but you simply must come to terms with it. Far too many women have taken to pretending that it's not there—this is not a good approach.
Women choose to pretend it's not there because acknowledging that it's there makes them feel inferior. I ask women to remember that this world was built with the ideals of men in mind and to cater to their specific strengths. Men value strength and violence so of course the world is going to seem like those two things are all that’s valued in it. It's no coincidence that many male heroes are physically strong/easily able to cause harm—such as Naruto or John Wick or the Avengers. Of course it feels shitty, as a woman who inhabits this world, to have to acknowledge that your biology generally prevents you from being able to have the ‘can beat anyone in a fight’ type of strength that gets constantly praised.
However, I implore women to consider that men being physically stronger than them is no more of a significant fact than women being able to give birth while men cannot. Women also have biological advantages over men but when was the last time you saw a man calling himself inferior because of them? Imagine if the world was built with female advantages in mind. Imagine a world where the ability to give birth was seen as some sort of pinnacle of human worth. I mean, the ability to give birth is crazy. You are literally creating a whole new life. The female body is capable of providing the necessary tools to bring about a whole new person. Every brain that has thought of something life changing and every hand that has built something new was brought into existence by a woman’s reproductive system. Every single person that has ever so much as breathed was brought to life by a woman, but men never think women are superior for this fact.
Oh, but women couldn’t get pregnant without men, right? No. IVF exists. But even without it, the correct thing to say would be that women cannot get pregnant without sperm. A woman can get artificially inseminated. She never has to go out and find a man to have sex with. Is that not an advantage? Because, I mean, what can a man do if he wants to have a child but no woman is willing to give him one? Hire a surrogate? That comes with a list of complications, is far more intimate than artificial insemination, and is incredibly expensive. How is that not a disadvantage of being male? You may be thinking that you, as a woman, never want to become pregnant, but that is not the point! The point is that it's arbitrary to look at biological advantages as anything other than completely neutral.
Women also survive famine better and live longer than men. Imagine a world where women held this over men’s heads? But we don’t live in that world. In this world, I’m certain a man would say that they die sooner because of being braver, taking more risks, and doing dangerous jobs. However, if it were women putting themselves in danger and dying as a result, men would not be quick to call us brave; they'd call us the opposite. Idiotic. Foolhardy. Too stupid to take the necessary precautions to keep ourselves alive.
It is just so painful to see women lamenting over the physical disparity between men and women. Let it go. Consider being neutral on the subject of biological advantage. Consider that male strength isn't something to pretend doesn't exist and isn’t something that proves women are inferior.
I understand that acknowledging vulnerability is against the survival Instinct—I get it—but come on. How can we let this get to a point where we’re saying it’s okay for males to enter female sports and beat the absolute crap out of/wipe the floor with women? Them being stronger is neutral! It does not mean anything! But it’s fact. Pretending it’s not only serves to put women in a losing position. Pretending it’s not only serves to make women into a laughing stock. Men will gladly collect medals that belong to women—they’ve been doing that forever. If there was no reason for male and female leagues then there wouldn’t be any. You cannot deny your way into something being true. I also wish it were true that the average woman was evenly matched against the average man, but it’s simply not reality. In the same way that it’s not reality that the average woman is taller than the average man.
I am begging women to think neutrally about this topic instead of being in such deep turmoil over it that they open the door for men to walk all over us.
The first feminist action is to kill the man inside your head.
Male fantasies, male fantasies, is everything run by male fantasies? Up on a pedestal or down on your knees, it's all a male fantasy: that you're strong enough to take what they dish out, or else too weak to do anything about it. Even pretending you aren't catering to male fantasies is a male fantasy: pretending you're unseen, pretending you have a life of your own, that you can wash your feet and comb your hair unconscious of the ever-present watcher peering through the keyhole, peering through the keyhole in your own head, if nowhere else. You are a woman with a man inside watching a woman. You are your own voyeur.
Margaret Atwood
‘‘we need to tell men it’s okay to cry and show their feelings’‘ LMAOOOOO we need to tell men to stop killing and raping and beating women and watching porn holy shit y’all can fuck off with that ~male positivity~ bullshit, men are the OPRESSOR class in patriarchy we don’t need to hold their hands and coddle them like this
The toxic aspects of masculinity, such as not being willing or able to engage with your own emotions, definitely does not perpetuate shitty behavior by men towards women, ohoho I am so intelligent
men don’t treat women cruelly because they can’t engage with their emotions, they treat us cruelly because to them their emotions are the only ones that matter. sensitive and emotional men can be just as abusive and manipulative, if not more, than emotionally stunted men
MYTH #4:
He holds in his feelings too much, and they build up until he bursts. He needs to get in touch with his emotions and learn to express them to prevent those explosive episodes.
My colleagues and I refer to this belief as “The Boiler Theory of Men.” The idea is that a person can only tolerate so much accumulated pain and frustration. If it doesn’t get vented periodically— kind of like a pressure cooker—then there’s bound to be a serious accident. This myth has the ring of truth to it because we are all aware of how many men keep too much emotion pent up inside. Since most abusers are male, it seems to add up.
But it doesn’t, and here’s why: Most of my clients are not unusually repressed. In fact, many of them express their feelings more than some nonabusive men. Rather than trapping everything inside, they actually tend to do the opposite: They have an exaggerated idea of how important their feelings are, and they talk about their feelings— and act them out—all the time, until their partners and children are exhausted from hearing about it all. An abuser’s emotions are as likely to be too big as too small. They can fill up the whole house. When he feels bad, he thinks that life should stop for everyone else in the family until someone fixes his discomfort. His partner’s life crises, the children’s sicknesses, meals, birthdays—nothing else matters as much as his feelings.
It is not his feelings the abuser is too distant from; it is his partner’s feelings and his children’s feelings.
-Lundy Bancroft, Why Does He do That
Sexualised media (ranging from sexual depictions in film and TV through to pornography) has significant and consistent effects on people’s aggressive attitudes and behaviours towards women. That’s the conclusion of this new meta-analysis.
Media impacts behavior. This is why advertising is a billion-dollar industry.Pornography advocates propose that depictions of sexual violence are the ONLY type of media to exist in a vacuum, despite decades of evidence to the contrary.
A new law in Afghanistan means women cannot speak in public or sing in their own homes. They treat us like cows, says Haniya Frotan
something i think is rarely mentioned is that the only reason these things keep happening with little to no resistance is because the men in these women's lives are complicit. everywhere you see women suffering or silenced, whether it's with the sexual cyber crimes south korean men are committing against women, what's going on in india, the attacks in new york or the femicide in the UK, etc, all this is happening because other men are allying with these criminals rather than the women they allegedly care about.
it is their brothers, fathers, husbands, boyfriends, schoolmates, colleagues that make this enforcement possible and promote this suffering to an even larger scale. none of this would be possible if the men that "loved" these women were resistant to it. none of it would be possible if the men closest to women were not women's number 1 enemies.
name the oppressor and all his allies. name every traitor of women.
I wish I could find it, but there was a reddit r/relationships post going around radblr where a woman was talking about how her boyfriend whole heartedly admitted he would have her as his "slave-wife" if they were living under Taliban law. He tried to back track and say he was kidding but there's no denying the majority of men feel this way. Our oppression benefits men, the feminist essay I want a wife illustrates how much they benefit from marriage with a woman and how much responsibility women take on after marriage. Now imagine them having sole control of EVERY facet of our lives even our voices.
when are people gonna wake up and realize that misogyny isn’t some mystical hypothetical concept, and that it’s actually the deadliest form of oppression that exists? misogyny is the reason women are murdered by their male partners millions of times everyday in femicide, misogyny is the reason female infants are murdered the second they come out of the womb, misogyny is the reason little girls are denied education simply on the basis of being female, misogyny is the reason the female body is able to be commodified by males for sex (as well as for birth, in surrogacy), misogyny is the reason young girls are taught to run a sharp razor against their skin and participate in feminine practices the second they start puberty, misogyny is the reason women are denied autonomy and are brutalized under islamic regime, misogyny is the reason males are responsible for nearly 100% of all sex crimes (rape and sexual assault) committed (as-well as the reasoning for sex crimes being one of if not the most common type of crime done to women & girls, especially when at a young age), misogyny is the reason male health issues have so much more documented research then female health issues, misogyny is the reason young women and girls have their genitalia mutilated for “cultural/religious” purposes, misogyny is the reason males systematically rape and sexually abuse women and girls during conflicts and war, misogyny is the reason menstrual products are costly material items that many homeless women out there don’t have access to & also why women/girls are ostracized in many cultures for starting their periods, misogyny is the reason women are taken less seriously compared to men in literally every profession, misogyny is the reason gender non-conforming lesbians are being chemically castrated and having their breasts cut off by doctors in the name of trans ideology (on the largest scale we’ve ever seen), misogyny is the reason incestuous abuse is one of the most common types of sexual abuse and is nearly always committed by fathers/uncles/grandpas, misogyny is the reason catcalling women and young girls has somehow managed to become a socially acceptable form of sexual harassment, and misogyny is the reason women and girls are blamed by men for half of the issues on this list occurring.
all of these issues are caused by misogyny, and perpetuated by males.
i know it’s a difficult reality for most people to come to terms with, but these are the realities for hundreds of MILLIONS of women and girls around the world.
misogyny can’t being trivialized, it’s evil, and deadly.
it's bleak how most of the things people think will assuage and temper men are the things that embolden them. "prostitutes exist so men don't rape us" the human trafficking industry that is prostitution is an ever-growing industry that produces propaganda that enables men in society to rape MORE not less. by objectifying women and children, it puts all our heads on the chopping block. "he just needs to settle down and get married" most femicide, rape and domestic violence are committed by husbands/boyfriends. "if men just had daughters/sisters they'd see women as human" as a daughter and sister, i can confirm that we're extra caretakers of said men, and that our kindness is taken as proof that "good women" are subservient and domestic helpers.
if you want to de-radicalize men, you have to actually just stop tolerating misogyny in any form no matter what woman it's done against. stop trying to dialogue with men and start socioeconomically punishing them. people want to act like "separatism doesn't solve anything" when governments and companies only started paying attention when they saw birth and marriage rates drop. it is not women's job to save men from themselves and some feminists still don't get that. pandering to men always results in LESS rights for us. we have to become radically INTOLERANT.
Idk I think Job's wife really went off when she told him to curse God and die. It's interesting how there's no oxygen for her suffering in the narrative. She lost her children too. She lost her home too. Her health was taken from her too. Everything she had was stripped away by God. And yet there's no compassion for her. Not in the narrative nor in the commentaries or the sermons. She isn't even named.
Completely true, however I think there's another important thing to mention here - not only did the events of the story also directly effect her, and despite that no concern or empathy is given to her - but also none of it had anything to do with her. It was all about Job. It all happened because of him and him alone, right? As far as I remember, the story is all about god testing Job and his faith.
So, neither god nor Job really gave a shit about how Job's wife would feel on having her own children and family and home and life uprooted and taken away like this. To the males of patriarchal religious myths, wives are an afterthought and part of their own property. God doesn't think of the unfairness of hurting Job's wife for his religious test because he doesn't see her with the personhood he gives Job; he sees her as a part of Job's possessions and therefore her own character and her own desires about her own children don't matter in the end. She isn't named, she isn't consulted; no quarter is made for how his sadism to Job will also harm her.
Of course, this is because this god and his behavior was written by the misogynistic men who thought up the myth. And yes - in like turn, all the misogynistic men who follow the religion to this day approach the myth with the same mentality and the same blindness to female experience and humanity; and none of these pastors and theologians who claim to analyze all these biblical stories every way under the sun ever see this tremendous flaw.
De Wallen, the infamous red light district in Amsterdam, Holland, is under threat. Many of its window brothels, in which women are displayed like carcasses for the entertainment of sex tourists, are closing down. Most legal street prostitution zones across the country have closed, and soon they will all cease operation.
A number of politicians and law enforcers are now accepting that legalised prostitution has been an unmitigated disaster. There is currently a proposed law being considered by the Dutch Senate which, if passed, would result in punters being criminalised if they pay for sex with a trafficked, pimped or otherwise coerced woman.
These changes are the result of a vibrant sex trade abolitionist movement emerging in Holland.
The Dutch legalised their brothel industry in the year 2000. The government promised that this would result in safety for the women, and an end to trafficking. It claimed that everything would be above board, safe and clean. The opposite happened. Sex tourism is now a major industry, with British men being one group of Europeans visiting the city to pay for sex. A number of punters I have interviewed told me that they wouldn’t have dreamt of using prostituted women back home, but that being in Holland gave them permission to do it.
The illegal and unlicensed sex trade has boomed under legalisation, trafficking of women has risen dramatically, demand is on the rise and the women are certainly no safer than they were when pimping was illegal.
I have been visiting Holland over the course of 15 years, researching the consequences of legalisation.I have interviewed sex buyers (including one who told me he first paid for sex when he was 12 years old), women in brothels, pimps and pro-legalisation lobbyists that make a profit off the backs of prostituted women.
Xaviera Hollander is a big part of the propaganda machine that promotes the notion that prostituted women under legalisation are having a great time. Hollander is known for her memoir, The Happy Hooker: My Own Story, which sold by the millions. I visited her at her home in Amsterdam, to ask if she thinks the women are happy under legalisation. She admits to me that trafficking is on the rise, and that legalisation is far from effective in removing criminality from the sex trade. Coming from a former pimp, this is quite something.
There are large numbers of tour guides offering tours around Amsterdam’s red light areas. I took one of these tours last year, and was told that legalisation is a perfect model, that the women are safe and happy and the public accept the window brothels as part of the architecture. I asked the guide where he got his information from, and he told me that the Prostitution Information Centre (PIC) provide, for a fee, information for all of the tour companies. The PIC is run as a business by women who claim to be “sex workers”. In fact they appear to be nothing of the kind, being a company charging for this advice and therefore profiting from prostitution.
What once looked like a revolutionary approach to prostitution is now clearly seen as a disaster, by all except those who seek to make a profit from prostitution.
Jolanda Boer is a senior public prosecutor specialising in human trafficking. Over the past decade Boer has dealt with more than 100 such cases in Amsterdam. “There have been cases where the girl has been raped by their pimps and threatened into working behind the windows. The women are not in a position to freely tell people when something is going wrong. But of course they’re smiling because if you don’t you’re not going to get a client,” says Boer.
On Saturday I spoke to a packed room about my book on the global sex trade. The event was held in the red light district, in a building that had previously been a Chinese massage parlour offering “happy endings”. I had expected some kind of protest, or infiltration by the pro-prostitution lobby. But every person in the room was there because they recognised that prostitution is a human rights abuse, harmful to the women involved, and that legalisation has been disastrous.
The following day I was in Den Haag, home of the Dutch parliament, launching my book in front of dozens of concerned citizens, all of whom have had enough of Holland being held up as a perfect model in dealing with prostitution. After the launch, dozens of us marched along the local red light district, holding up banners and placards with slogans such as “Shut down the sex trade” and “Enough is enough”. It was the first ever public demonstration against legal brothels.
The Dutch empire is crumbling. Over one-third of all window brothels have closed, and more will soon lose their licences. A group of 10 Hungarian traffickers are currently on trial in Den Haag, and much of the reporting of the trial links trafficking of women to the legalised regime. There is still a long way to go, but now that feminists are daring to speak out against the disastrous Dutch model of legalisation, there is no going back.
Fucking finally. As a trafficking survivor I can attest that place might as well be an open air slave market. Been there too many times as a trafficked child and none of this SWAW propaganda saved me or anyone else
