MRA's notion of equality is men having more of their traditionally disproportionate power maintained and recovered. Wanting something that's traditionally feminine is outside the scope of that agenda.
I wish I could have parental leave.
Edit: who wouldn't want to spend time with this?
EDIT: on official Android app, and I do not visit "adult" subs. See Play store app at https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.reddit.frontpage
Contacted the ad department - email at .
I expect they won't do jack, but it was worth a try. Totally cool that underage kids might be referred to the site by Reddit! It's all good! /s
While I am contributing to the problem for now, I'm hoping this gets picked up and people pressure their stupid, unethical ad team.
Please let me know if you have a better Reddit company contact to send this too. Thanks!
How would this hurt her cause or stance at all? I can't think of any way the pictures would denigrate or make hypocrisy of her statements. Seems like a losing proposition to release them.
EDIT: Turns out, it was a hoax. Shame on me for not picking up on it.
I think it's strange the author never pointed out that the arguments she was using to explain feminism for WoC are incredibly similar to the arguments needed to explain to men why they don't get to say they understand the struggles and experiences of women in general. Right on down to the first point about asking WoC to change their conversation to benefit the feelings of white feminists and the part about showing you're different, rather than just saying it.
I'm not making this comment to mock white feminists, but I think it's important to recognize the fallibility of the human mind. You can study the theory and spend all day correcting the fallacies of anti-feminists or misguided feminists, but that doesn't prevent you from turning around at the end of the day and unknowingly exerting your privilege over a minority. We should always remember that we have been imperfectly socialized and thinking we're above fallacies is the easiest route to committing them.
As an aside, can someone explain to me what was wrong with Tiny Fey's quote? I'm not a fan of her, but it seems like the points about JLo and Beyoncé were a misdirection that mocks people who complain about how they changed the public opinion of beauty.
> Anti-feminism and anti-feminist aren't the same thing.
Actually, I believe they pretty much are:
> How does posting the question here answer that question?
It's a good way to get input and it doesn't look like I'm going to get censored here for asking. Also, there's the advantage of getting input in regards to how everyone feels about the mod situation which should be valuable information to those in charge. (ie. if a vast majority is against something, perhaps the idea wasn't the best one)
> There are threads about this subject in at least 2 other subreddits, and I feel bad about taking up this wall space here when imho this has nothing to do with feminist issues.
How does this not have anything to do with feminist issues? It's about an anti-feminist becoming a mod in a feminist subreddit. That seems pretty involved with feminism to me. It raises issues such as, should we trust someone who is very anti-feminists and has a mission statement that involves getting rid of feminism completely. Is it a threat to the well being of the subreddit. Etc.
If you have questions about it too, why would you fight me and try to hinder my attempts to get more information and more input to see what the general consensus was and to see if there was a large enough number of people who didn't approve of the mod situation to make it worthwhile to look into trying to change? It seems counter-productive.
MeFi's comment threads are better written, higher signal-to-noise, and notably, the Schrodinger's Rapist thread and the threads it spawned, are better than any discussion of that article I've seen here, or anywhere else. Where do you usually go?
>Global Ikhwan, an organisation founded by former members of the banned Al-Arqam Islamic group, is behind the formation of the club. It had also launched the Ikhwan Polygamy Club two years ago.
This is a religious fundamentalist group. More on Global Ikhwan and the Polygamy Club in the New York Times.
Actually, where I am from "kid" increasingly means "young man" (e.g. "I met this kid at this bar..."). It's still gender-neutral when referring to children, as is its origin.
>Come to think of it, I have seen this happen and no one really batted an eye - as in "this guy's tryna get me to go out tonight" and the "guy" is a girl.
Huh! Never heard that use. Interesting.
>the f-word for gay people has a horrific origin
This is a very popular etymology, but it is a false one according to the one etymological dictionary I've consulted. There "faggot" as pejorative for "gay" comes from "fagot", which is earlier pejorative for "woman".
>My point wasn't that language isn't something to watch or change, it was that in this particular case I think it is already fixing itself. That's what I meant by fine line.
>Likewise, "guy" was just a reference to Guy Fawkes. Nothing inherently masculine about it. So if they are becoming gender-neutral, why not let them and use them that way?
I see your point! I'm less optimistic than you about it fixing itself, because I've only heard "guy" used to refer to men (and it's a masculine name in French and Italian). But I'll be happy if you're right!
It's cool. :)
It really takes a concerted effort to reclaim something. And usually when it is reclaimed, it's something like queer or fag - which are permanent states of sexuality, rather than something that is subjective. I've read for example a woman calling another woman a slut for swallowing after giving her husband oral.
Slut in its original meaning meant dirty and lazy so I don't see any reason to reclaim the word at all. It's inextricably linking sex with a woman's purity.
Some additional information will help but I have some initial suggestions:
>I gave my reasons for not agreeing with the legal definition, such a definition varies from place to place and is not an unbiased source.
The police are not unbiased? Incredible!
Ok, let's try the Oxford Dictionary:
The crime, typically committed by a man, of forcing another person to have sexual intercourse with the offender against their will:
Don't like dictionaries? OK let's try Rape Crisis England and Wales:
The Act extends the definition of rape to include the penetration by a penis of the vagina, anus or mouth of another person.
So yes you ARE redefining a word and I'm going to believe and use the definition used in the dictionary, before I'm going to believe some stranger on the internet.
Now, as to numbers, again I am saying while males raped by females have my sympathy the number when compared to females raped by males and males raped by males is miniscule and YOUR supplied numbers back that up.
I can only conclude that you are sticking to this point and refusing to look at the larger picture of the i.e. the massively larger group, due to some personal prejudice or bias. I don't know if you have suffered such a rape or if you are seeking to minimise the suffering of rapists. If it is the former you have my sympathy but your bias is overwhelming your logical processes, if it is the latter I hope bad things happen to you.
Edit: Oh and no your provided figures most certainly do not say female rapes of males are almost equivalent to male rapes or anything like it.
Edit2: Also your report is for one year (2011) in one country USA. A very small number when considering the global problem that includes countries like South Africa and India where rape is at such huge proportions.
It doesn't have to be the writer's intent, or the fans' consensus, or even what Bella perceives. Abuse is a thing an abuser does to his (or her, but not in Twilight) partner. Edward does things to Bella in Twilight that are abusive, period. It doesn't matter how happy Bella is about them; if she didn't consent to them they're still abusive.
Also, the word "masochist" was originally coined in reference to the fetishes of Leopold von Sacher-Masoch, and from there was a clinical diagnosis and then morphed into the modern term for a fetish. It has never in history meant misogyny. Sorry.
That's not really "emotional labour" but the story of a child who has been molested and emotionally abused throughout her life. Not the same thing.
This is worth reading
I strongly recommend reading the thread this spawned on Metafilter, which has 1300+ of the best comments I've yet read on feminism: http://www.metafilter.com/151267/Wheres-My-Cut-On-Unpaid-Emotional-Labor
> For example, if I'm really drunk and I kill someone on purporse, it's actually manslaughter. I think the same thing applies here.
That's... not actually how the law works. Murder is distinguished from manslaughter by intent, rape is distinguished from sex by consent. In the same way that coercion or inebriation can render a signed contract invalid, inebriation can render implicit consent invalid.
This is not restricted to rape, and it's not something the courts treat casually. "But I got drunk!" is not a get out of consequences free card for regret, the way MRAs insist -- for either party involved.
At least in my own experience, the people who are most troubled by the idea of explicit, unhampered consent are either rapey or uncomfortable with their own agency. https://medium.com/growing-up-goddy/656525db82bb
I am reading this paper Essentialism and Anti-Essentialism in Feminist Philosophy. In the paper it discusses how, in the 90s, there was a particularly strong reaction against essentialism, which might explain why the book reviewer places emphasis on this aspect of Chicago's line of reasoning.
So, disagreeing with her politics= misogyny now? Also the most accomplished female politician? What about Angela Merkel current chancellor of Germany? Or, Isabel Martinez de Peron former President of Argentina, Vigdís Finnbogadóttir former President of Iceland, or Tarja Kaarina Halonen First female president of Finland?
To answer you question, barring America, a female president is not that rare. I was just expressing my opinion, your interpretations of it are up to you.
You can try this browser add-on.
If you don't feel like doing that, the classic Google-fu of putting the first line of a restricted article between quotation marks...
"John Mew is a 91-year-old orthodontist"
...will show you results to an infamous copyright-infringing site that has the entire article copy-pasted.
I'm not directly linking to it for reasons.
This is a book of fictional/magical realism short stories that explore gender, the body, mother hood, historical ideals of femininity, etc from a unique feminist perspective. I loved it.
Was gonna offer to send it to you but realized I gifted my copy to my pregnant dad feminist friend lol
Her Body and Other Parties: Stories https://www.amazon.com/dp/155597788X/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_api_glt_fabc_4RMJ2J570G38XMBSD7XK
In hopes of not being entirely redundant, the show approaches nudity appropriately for the sexual nature of that environment. People have sex... so they get naked for it.
In terms of Game of Thrones and women, I will re-post this for relevance: On Writing Women
>benefit more from having multiple male partners all looking out for her and her offspring's well-being?
This vaguely resembles the Bonobos, who have a much more "free love" situation. In a way it's a pity that we're more closely related to the other chimpanzees, who aren't nearly so peaceful.
Males of most species are relatively aggressive, and have biological and behavioral strategies to prevent being cuckolded: infanticide, sperm plugs, only the alpha male being allowed to mate, etc. They're not interested so much in sharing.
>Similarly, wouldn't successful procreation for a male be more likely if he focused on a smaller family
The point is that a male will often not stick around following the mating; this is true of species like deer & elk, bears, etc.
Species that pair-bond obviously are different in their behaviors & strategies than those that do not. Males that bond will want to prevent competing males from impregnating their females. Being condemned to raising another male's offspring (even if it's "your" female's) means wasting resources at your expense and his benefit. The female isn't nearly so threatened by cheating, so long as the male stays around to help her raise her young. But with an overly promiscuous female, the male can't be sure whose offspring she has, so that represents a risk of wasting time & energy.
This book is a fairly good introduction to sexual behavior from an evolutionary point of view:
There's a great discussion of class/gender roles clashing in marriages in Ehrenreich's Global Woman. The chapter on the subject follows a Vietnamese marriage between a male emigrant to the United States and a native female in Vietnam. In the home country, there's a lot of social rules about marrying up or down among gender, but this woman chose to be a successful career woman, and completely destroyed her dating pool as a result. But the man who emigrated to the US is seen as on her class level because he's living in America—even though he's been unable to find anything other than restaurant kitchen work, and, most unfortunately, holds all the sexist attitudes that men at home do about women being home-makers, second fiddle in family decisions, etc. So it becomes hard for intelligent, self-reliant females to find an equivalent to marry among these cultural restrictions.