"Let me tell you something, man-to-man. The fact that you or I haven’t beat a woman? That counts for nothing. The fact that you and I have even been so good as to nice to a woman when it wasn’t strictly called for? That’s not enough to qualify you (or me, or anyone) as a non-arsehole. You know why? Because women get that stuff for free. It’s a matter of course. It’s not something that requires a special effort and a pat on the back for us, every time we do it. “You know what, I have been on the road dozens of times, and I never once deliberately tail-ended someone, and even when someone else blew their horn when they got cut off, I totally agreed with a nod and sympathetic look”. The whole problem that feminism looks at is that the experience of being a woman just isn’t judged as being important or noteworthy. But hey, us guys, look at us, right? We’re nice to people for no reason! Doesn’t that make us great!
Here’s the dirty secret: nice, polite, friendly, politically progressive guys like you and me can reinforce and perpetuate sexism, in fact we often do. So let’s stop pretending that we have some sort of free pass because of our inherent niceness and instead when a woman says “you are behaving in a way that supports sexism” respect her perspective. Because your perspective on sexism? My perspective on feminism? Feminists don’t have to respect it. That’s not how it works because, uhh, we’re not women. So talking about how important it is that feminists “respect” our ‘oh, but as a really nice man I think sexism is bad’ perspective is just bullshit."
—
Above the fold
Just so you know, this kind of brought tears to my eyes. Thank you for getting it. Thank you for speaking up.
(via robot-heart-politics) (via vindyc)
(via lemdi)
"I HATE women who bitch about feminism while benefiting from it."
— greengrey
nihilistidealist:
(via allecto)
riot grrl reblog
Pretty sure this is from an old issue of Bust that I have actually been trying to find because I have always wanted the sweater Kathleen is wearing and I thought maybe whoever makes it would be online by now.
Soldier father accused of 'waterboarding' daughter, 4, because she can't recite alphabet | Mail Online
clingtomymouth:
Tabor, a soldier at the Lewis-McChord base in Tacoma, Washington, was arrested after being seen walking around his neighbourhood wearing a Kevlar military helmet and threatening to break windows.
Police discovered the alleged waterboarding when they went to his home in the Tacoma suburb of Yelm and spoke to his girlfriend.
She told them about the alleged torture and the terrified girl was found hiding in a closet, with bruising on her back and scratch marks on her neck and throat.
Asked how she got the bruises, the girl is said to have replied: ‘Daddy did it.’
During a police interview Tabor allegedly admitted grabbing his daughter, placing her on the kitchen counter and submerging her face into a bowl of water.
Sergeant Rob Carlson said the punishment was carried out because the girl would not recite the alphabet.
Police have not revealed Tabor’s military service, but his base is home to units that have served in Iraq and Afghanistan.
I totally see how this would help a kid learn.
Rape Culture: Still Not Funny « I Am Not Cake
“If I should be assaulted, I will be asked to explain my choice to be at the location of the assault, especially if I am alone. Unless a secondary charge of break and enter applies – a separate crime that will be treated differently and without bias – my assailant will not.
If I should be assaulted, I will be asked to explain my clothing choices. My assailant’s clothing will be considered irrelevant.
If I should know my assailant by name, I will be asked to detail all previous interactions with him. I will be asked to prove that no previous interaction could be held up as “leading him on”. If my previous interactions appear to do this, my assailant will be seen as less responsible for his assault on me. My assailant’s previous actions will count against him only if I have demonstrably never interacted with him – that is, only if he has engaged in provable stalking.
If I should be assaulted whilst alone with a man I have chosen to accompany, whether it be to a car for a lift, on a first date, or a quiet corner at a party or nightclub, I will be asked to explain why I chose to be alone with him. My assailant will not be asked to explain what intentions he communicated to me when I made my decision.
If I should be assaulted whilst intoxicated, mildly or otherwise, I will be asked to explain why I chose to become intoxicated. My assailant’s actions will be judged less harshly if I am intoxicated. My assailant will not be asked to justify his intoxication, and his actions will be judged still less harshly should he be so.
If I should be assaulted after I have engaged in consensual romantic contact with my assailant, such as kissing or touching, I will be asked to explain why I chose to do so. I will be asked to explain why I chose to stop. My assailant will not be asked why he chose to continue.
If I should be assaulted under any circumstances, I will be asked to prove that I clearly, loudly and verbally said the word, “No,” or the word, “Stop.” I will be asked to prove that my assailant heard and understood me. If I indicated my lack of consent in any other way, such as screaming, running, crying, freezing, scratching, kicking, hitting, speaking words other than “no” or “stop”, or if I said the words “don’t” and “stop” close to one other, or if I was not loud enough when I spoke them, my assailant will be judged less harshly. This is especially so if I have given consent to a certain act, but not to another. My assailant will not be asked to prove that I clearly, loudly and verbally said the word, “Yes.”
If I should be assaulted, but not physically injured or not visibly physically injured, I will be asked to explain why I consider my assailant’s act to be assault. My assailant will be treated less harshly if I am not visibly injured.
If I should be assaulted, various people will attempt to convince me that my experience does not count as assault, or that my experience is not serious enough to pursue criminally, legally or otherwise officially. These people may be my family, my friends, law enforcement personnel, medical personnel, legal practitioners, employers, media, members of the public, and my assailant himself. The same people may try to convince my assailant that what he did was not assault.
Should my assault take the form of rape, and should the media report on it, it is likely that the word ‘rape’ will not be used in reporting. Instead, articles will state that I ‘had sex with’ my rapist. It is likely that articles will focus on me and my actions, not that of my rapist. In some articles, if it is acknowledged that I was raped, there will be no mention of my rapist at all. Instead, the article will state that ‘a woman was raped’. My rapist will not have his actions examined by the media.
Should I be assaulted by one or more young boys or teenagers, especially if I am a young woman of similar age, their actions may be explained and accepted as “boys will be boys,” or “sowing wild oats”. If their assault on me is their first sexual experience, this will be especially true. My assailant or assailants’ actions will be judged less harshly, and in some circles, congratulated. I will be called a slut.
Should I be assaulted, and my appearance is such that I am not considered to be sexually attractive, due to my age, weight or physical features, I will be told I should be grateful for my assault. Some will tell me I am engaging in wishful thinking, and that my assault could not have happened. My assailant may be ridiculed for his choice of victim, unless he was intoxicated when he assaulted me. I will feel humiliated, and my assault will still have happened.
Should I be assaulted, and also suffer a preexisting physical or intellectual disability, I may struggle to communicate what has happened to me. If I cannot speak, the tools provided to me to communicate with others may lack ways to articulate sexual assault. I may be considered to be confused about what happened to me. Depending on my disability, some may consider me “lucky” to be assaulted. My assailant, if convicted, will be reviled more than if I did not suffer a disability. Why is this?
Should I be assaulted by a person who is regarded as a celebrity, the fact of their celebrity will be used as an argument or proof of why my assault could not have occurred. I will be asked to explain why my assailant, widely believed to be “a nice guy”, would assault me. I will be asked to explain why my right to justice is worth more than my assailant’s career. I will be asked to prove that I am not pursuing my complaint for monetary gain. My assailant will be presumed innocent, or presumed above the law.
Should I be coerced or threatened before I am assaulted, so that I am silent or so that I perform the acts demanded of me out of fear, I will be asked to explain why my compliance under threat does not amount to consent. My assailant will not be asked to justify his threats to me.
If I should have a previous sexual relationship with my assailant, no matter how long ago or how briefly, I will be asked to explain my sexual life in minute detail. If my explanation includes a suggestion that I may enjoy or have a history of rough sex, my assailant’s actions may be judged reasonable and my accusation unfounded. My assailant will not be asked to detail his sexual history.
If I should decide to report my assault, aware of the above, I will be one of 15% of assaulted Australian women who choose to do so every year. I have a 17% chance of seeing my assailant convicted. Should my case go to trial, it is likely that I will be asked all of these questions when I am on the witness stand. My assailant and his legal team will try to convince the jury of my peers – the same peers who fill comment threads with victim-blaming statements all over the internet – that I am a slut and deserved my assault, or that I am lying about being assaulted, or that I wanted to be assaulted, or that I consented to the assault and later changed my mind.
To disprove “beyond reasonable doubt”, all my assailant must do is convince some of my juror peers that any of these may be true. Convincing evidence may not need to be presented.”
bonesarecoralmade: (via clingtomymouth) (via tissie)
"Pam’s story certainly is moving. But as a guide to making abortion decisions, it’s misleading. Doctors are right to worry about continuing pregnancies like hers. Placental abruption has killed thousands of women and fetuses. No doubt some of these women trusted in God and said no to abortion, as she did. But they didn’t end up with Heisman-winning sons. They ended up dead. Being dead is just the first problem with dying in pregnancy. Another problem is that the fetus you were trying to save dies with you. A third problem is that your existing kids lose their mother. A fourth problem is that if you had aborted the pregnancy, you might have gotten pregnant again and brought a new baby into the world, but now you can’t. And now the Tebows have exposed a fifth problem: You can’t make a TV ad."
— From “The Invisible Dead: The grisly truth about the Super Bowl abortion ad” By William Saletan at Slate (via marthaq) (via unclesean)
