#Not In The Right and its not the actual solution to the issue of feminism | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

pillarsalt · 2 months

Note

hi Im the same ex transmasc anon who sent you that aask about rhe tumblr ban thing, I did a lot of reading without forcing myself away this time. (I used to look at radblr sometimes bc I got curious, but when it started making too much sense i would make myself stop reading and tell myself I was being manipulated and try to forget about it..looking back that probably wasnt normal haha,)

I have mixed feelings tho. I don’t regret looking closer, the amount of sexism in the trans community was horrible. I think even radfems don’t understand how bad it was because it was all subtle styff. But seeing it constantly irl and online was terrible for me as a female. It gave me so much internalized misogyny, it made me hate myself and I felt worthless and stupid! and whiny! and annoying! all the time!! unless I was able to be perceived as a man. I felt like I had to be a man to have any respect in the community. I remember being so amazed to see abortion be covered by trans people I followed in even a reblog because it was the first time I saw people in the community talk about female issues at all. Even then it was covered with disclaimers and terfs DNI banners. male,opinions were always prioritized.

I thought this was dysphoria and a sign I was really a man. then I started reading radfem things and its like that feeling instantly lifted. I felt respected, listened to, even though I wasn’t speaking. It was also like all this stuff I’d internalized from being female, all the trauma around sex based oppression, was actually being addressed. in trans circles you get called a terf for acknowledging females face any kind of oppression (they acknowledge sex when it’s to talk about how hard male loneliness is on young trans women, and how the incel to trans woman pipeline happens, though…)

but the reason I have mixed feelings is bc I now feel….dumb? And afraid. And angry. I spend well over a decade being part of this community, half my friends are in the community, I’ve been trans since I was 9. My typings not the best… dyslexia sucks lol. But I like to think I’m smart. Now I don’t know,

And it makes me think totally different of these people I saw as progressive cis male allies, who were so loud about trans rights and hating JKR and terfs. Now they just feel like the same flavor of anti-feminist man I hate.

And the community is so huge and it’s so widely accepted and I don’t know how to deal!

But I am happy to be a woman now. In a healthy way I haven’t been for a long time. thats all that matters.

I'm sorry for everything you were put through. Many girls and women have been sucked into this thinking it will provide a solution for their distress at the social ramifications of the body they're born in, only for more people, namely men, to take advantage of their distress and gain power over them. As you mentioned, even "cis" men get in on the action when they justify intimidating and threatening women with violence in response to perceived transphobia. It's a terrible situation to be in. Made worse when you can't openly talk about with people you're close to for fear of alienating them.

I think you should give yourself more credit. You ARE smart. You questioned what you were told was never allowed to be questioned and realized you were being misled. And what you said about trying to make yourself forget the realizations you've had, that is normal. It's a difficult and scary thing to hold opinions that conflict with those of the majority of your peers. I think it's like the climax of cognitive dissonance -- when what you know is true clashes so hard against what you want to believe, you find it impossible to justify anymore, so you just resort to pretending you never learned the information in the first place. Been there.

I'm just being a stereotype now, but there's a classic Dworkin quote for this:

"Many women, I think, resist feminism because it is an agony to be fully conscious of the brutal misogyny which permeates culture, society, and all personal relationships."

Anyway my point is, don't beat yourself up. I'm really happy to read that you're accepting your womanhood, it's a hard journey but it's worth it to have a good relationship with yourself. And in my experience (at the sage and wisened age of 25) that it gets easier as you get older. You work through mistakes, and that prepares you to handle the next mistake better. You're right, your health and happiness is all that matters, keep striving for that and it will steer you right.

I wanted to give you some reading recommendations, you mentioned you have dyslexia but I believe these two are available in audiobook form if that's up your alley:

Delusions of Gender: How Our Minds, Society, and Neurosexism Create Difference by Cordelia Fine

Invisible Women: Exposing Data Bias in a World Designed for Men by Caroline Criado Perez

There are tons more great books on feminism but these two are my go-tos for hard facts on gender, socialization, and the systematic discrimination against women worldwide through biases that are built into society.

Well uh; TLDR thanks for gracing my inbox, anon :) Hope you keep well.

#ask

46 notes · View notes

sneezewizard · 2 years

Text

This was a highly politicized trial that seemed to blow up due to a collective effort on the right to raise it into a political and a culture war issue. When a bunch of people are suddenly getting very angry about one particular thing online, it always raises a lot of alarm bells for me. And indeed, far-right news outlets spent tens of thousands of dollars pushing ads on this trial. Outrage sells. Which means that if someone or some group of someones is trying to get you to be very angry on the internet, especially at one person in particular, its always important to take a step back and ask why does this person want me to be so angry? I don’t want to get into the specifics of the trial itself. The media circus around it was horrid. I couldn’t follow it very closely. I’m a survivor, and I’ve been cross-examined on the stand trying to get a restraining order, and let me tell you that was one of the least fun fucking things I’ve ever had to do. If someone had decided to turn that into a meme, god I don’t think I would have made it. I’ve also worked in the domestic violence field, and now I work in politics and boy did those two things come together here in a very bad way. This, like recent cultural blowups and panics about various forms of abuse (LGBT hate disguised as anti-grooming discourse, QAnon, etc) are an immense distraction and do an immense disservice to the people actually working to stop abuse. Anti-domestic violence work is inextricable from antipoverty work. Wealthy people are victims of domestic violence, and it's awful when it happens to anyone. But domestic violence is at its most dangerous when people have no other options, and the people needing emergency shelter and resources are not usually like Johnny Depp and Amber Heard. They're often struggling with homelessness, poverty, mental health, addiction, various forms of discrimination, and practically every institutional barrier you could imagine. They often don't have a family or social network that is able to help them. If a survivor has children, that makes leaving even more difficult and expensive. Domestic violence shelters and housing programs are often underfunded, and staff face burnout and secondhand trauma from the work they do all while making basically no money. I knew a girl who worked at an emergency shelter that had a scabies outbreak, and she was so terrified for weeks that she was going to get scabies. She did not make enough money to deal with the ramifications of having to take off work because she got scabies. Domestic shelters in the U.S. (I can’t speak to other countries, but it wouldn’t surprise me if this were also the case) often compete against homeless shelters for funding. So it creates this weird toxic competitiveness that is very detrimental in the long run, all these service agencies pitted against each other for scraps. This is not the first time domestic violence has become a culture war topic to the detriment of progress on the issue. Domestic violence as a point of culture war started with the Father’s Rights groups that formed in the 1970s as a response to feminism, changes in family law, and the burgeoning anti-domestic violence movement itself. And the language around this trial has a lot of the same right-wing, misogynist undertones employed by these groups 50 years ago. Yes, men face domestic violence and this should absolutely be recognized and better addressed, but having the far-right lead out on conversations about gender and domestic violence does nothing but set us back. The policy solutions proposed by Father’s Rights groups never were actually about addressing domestic violence, and generally would have make things harder for survivors of any gender. Turning domestic violence into a culture war topic always sets us back. It ends up obfuscating and misinforming people of the actual issues underpinning domestic violence, which is that we live in a country that makes it hard for people to leave. And the timing here sure does feel ominous. It’s especially alarming to me that this has all blown up on the eve of Roe being overturned, which will be a disaster for people facing domestic violence. Overturning Roe will make this worse. Continuing to gut social services to line the pockets of the wealthy will make this worse. An overly punitive criminal justice system makes it worse. The threat of deportation for undocumented immigrants makes it worse. The threat of defamation suits and the politicization of domestic violence makes it worse. Nothing about the way this trial was covered raised any sort of awareness about this all in a real or productive way. Domestic violence agencies have been fighting for recognition and awareness for decades, and it makes me so disheartened to see tiktok accounts amass millions of views around this trial treating it like some sort of spectacle. We need a conversation around domestic violence that doesn’t involve fancams. If, in following this trial, you have decided that this is an issue you care about, that’s great. But please be aware of the political motivations of certain coverage of the trial. Get involved and support people actually doing anti-domestic violence work. If you are based in the U.S., find your local domestic violence program here and donate, if you can: https://www.womenslaw.org/find-help/advocates-and-shelters Or, donate to NNEDV if you want to support anti-domestic violence policy work on the national level: https://nnedv.org/donate-now/

#domestic violence #politics #rant #sorry #long post #anyway back to writing my silly gay stories #and thinking about fictional silly gay women

17 notes · View notes

citromello · 3 months

Text

In response to the following posts:

Hope this doesn't derail (if it does please tell me I'll delete it) but on top of that this person is also being very stupid about society and feminism. "men are not permitted to talk about their problems" and "men expect emotional labour from women instead of going to therapy" are in fact the exact same problem??? The problem is that society/the patriarchy tells men that they need to ahow strength etc and not talk about their feelings especially with other men or strangers. But since men are yknow, humans, this isn't really sustainable or possible so this burden gets privately put onto the few women they are close with, since women are expected to be helpful and nurturing. The solution to both of these things is to be open and honest about your feelings with all the people around you, and also foster an environment where men are not punished for doing this and taking it seriously. Like even if you only care about women, allowing men to be more public with problems does in fact solve the first problem this person mentioned, its almost like sexism is a complex network of human interactions or something. (to tie this back to trans people this person is calling trans people out on having uuuuuuh correct and helpful opinions about feminism? Oh no how dare you) -- not derailing at all, that’s literally the crux of the issue. ppl will acknowledge that the patriarchy expects men to be hyperindividualistic, stoic, emotionless machines, and acknowledge that that’s bad and toxic, but when men actually express how that toxicity makes them feel, people will turn right around and reinforce the idea that men must deal with their problems only on a private, individual basis, which is literally what the patriarchy tells men they need to do. trans men and mascs aren’t the only ppl talking abt this, bell hooks has written extremely eloquently about this as well.

I have mixed feelings about this. I agree with you on many of your points: that men are unskilled at talking about feelings can be blamed on a culture that makes it so men didn't get as many opportunities to practice this skill, that being angry at men about it doesn't help the broader issue, and that how "this burden gets privately put onto the few women they are close with" is a difficult situation.

But, I think helping someone with a deeply personal issue that they are unskilled at handling is an act of love, and not an easy one. It's hard and awkward and often painful and aspirational. As a result, it makes sense to lean on people who are both more skilled than you at processing feelings and who care about you. It also makes sense to lean on someone who does this as a profession (therapists).

Leaning on random acquaintances, often other women, to help you process deep personal emotions, does not feel like it's the solution. It feels like a wrong-place-wrong-time mistake. I am happy and honored to sit with men close to me as they work through their struggles. I am less happy to do it with people I know only in passing.

This is one of the first date patterns I used to get. I meet up with a guy for the first time, we haven't talked much before. After like 10 minutes of small talk, he swings the conversation onto his unrelenting sense of alienation and loneliness, or some other difficulty. I think it's actually the correct move to resist turning the conversation into a sympathy and support session. Sometimes conversations are supposed to be something else.

Even if swinging to oversharing after a lifetime of undersharing is a very understandable mistake, I think that there is room to acknowledge that neither of these are good long term patterns. Finding the middle ground is not a problem exclusive to men, even if as a whole they might be worse at it. Everyone struggles with it sometimes. There is plenty of space between "no one else cares about your feelings" and "your feelings are everyone's problem". It's important to see that instead of "that's too much" and "that's too little" being conflicting advice, its advice that is working together to point to a middle ground.

#feminism #rant post

0 notes

arifreiko · 6 months

Text

In -depth study: Wave 4 feminism and pollute cases of sexual violence

Introduction Feminism has become a strong social movement in recent decades. Wave 4 feminism or new generation feminism is one of the latest approaches that emerged to fight gender injustice and achieve the actual equality between men and women. In this in -depth study, we will explore wave 4 feminism and its relationship with cases of shocking sexual violence. I. Introduction to Wave Feminism 4 A. Definition and Background Wave 4 feminism is a feminist movement that focuses on issues such as sexual violence, harassment, gender inequality, and equality of reproductive rights. This movement emerged in response to dissatisfaction with the inhibition of changes in gender equality and the sustainability of sexual violence. B. Purpose and Principles Wave 4 feminism aims to create a just and equal society for all individuals, regardless of gender. The main principles include fighting sexual violence, fighting for reproductive rights, eliminating gender stereotypes, and achieving equality rights in all fields of life. II. Cases of shocking sexual violence A. Definition of Sexual Violence Sexual violence refers to every action or behavior that involves coercion, harassment, or sexual exploitation of someone. These cases include rape, sexual harassment, human trafficking, genital mutilation, and other forms. B. Famous cases that highlight sexual violence 1. Case of Harvey Weinstein 2. Bill Cosby Case 3. Case of Larry Nassar III. The relationship between feminism wave 4 with cases of sexual violence A. Support of Wave 4 feminism in cases of sexual violence Wave 4 feminism actively supports victims of sexual violence and fighting for justice for them. This movement has provided a platform for victims to share their stories, raise public awareness about sexual violence, and demand systemic changes that prevent and punish perpetrators of sexual violence. B. Criticism of Wave 4 feminism in cases of sexual violence Some critics argue that feminism wave 4 is too focused on the narrative of victims versus the perpetrators, without regard to the consumption of the police or the principle of presumption of innocence. They also claim that this movement can create an atmosphere of fear and anxiety among men, although not all men are involved in acts of sexual violence. IV. Solutions and actions to overcome sexual violence A. Increased awareness and education Better education about sexual violence and gender equality will help change people’s perceptions and behavior. This can be done through an inclusive school curriculum, community education program, and broad awareness campaigns. B. Strengthening the Law and the Justice System A just and effective court is the key to handling cases of sexual violence. Strengthening the law and the justice system will ensure that the perpetrators of sexual violence are firmly punished and victims are given justice. C. Empowerment of Victims Supporting and empowering victims of sexual violence through emotional support, access to counseling and medical services, and legal defense will help in the process of recovering victims and giving them the strength to fight the impact of the trauma they experienced. Conclusion Wave 4 feminism is a significant movement in the struggle for gender equality and protection against sexual violence. Cases of shocking sexual violence highlighting the need to continue to fight sexual violence and provide support to victims. With an increase in awareness, education, and strict action, we can create a safe and equal society for all individuals, regardless of gender.

Check in full: in -depth study: Wave 4 feminism and cases of shocking sexual violence

0 notes

rf-times · 3 years

Text

My problem with Liberal Feminism* (in its true sense)

TLDR: Differences between Liberal and Radical Feminism by the questions that underpin their ideology - Radical Feminism: what are the needs of women? What is at the root of female oppression? How can we structure our societies from the needs of women? What goals and achievements would emerge out of a society based around women's needs?

Liberal Feminism: How can we incorporate women and their needs into existing institutions? How can we use pre-established means of reform and male interests in women's favour? How can we get women to achieve success as already defined? -

Liberal Feminists have won many big legal reforms for women but it almost invariably has to be done in a roundabout way via loophole rather than through an actual principle of supporting women. And you might say, so what if a law that benefits women passed because it impacted men in a roundabout way? What's the difference if women end up benefitting anyway? The problem is that working within a system where "this isn't fair to women" isn't a good enough reason for reform means that there are rights and protections that we will never be able to properly get or maintain. We rarely get a legal win for women won on the basis that it was unfair to women, it's usually as a side effect to a different issue like patient confidentiality. Even if a law is won because of 'inequality', that still reflects the equal application of laws designed for men. It should also be noted that the application, enforcement and longevity of laws and rights reveal the values that created them. Women's rights, taken years to earn, are stripped back or ignored constantly.

Meanwhile, Radical Feminism asks us to centre the rights of women when considering how to make a society, rather than squeezing them in beside something that men care about. It doesn't look at the needs of women as simply resources given to men that are withheld from us but as a whole holistic and meaningful system of its own that requires its own attention. It asks us to stop viewing male values and solutions as the default to which women can just try to slip into. It asks us to question how men benefit from our labour and why, why discrepancies exist in the first place and how we might be able to build a new system in the long run. A Liberal Feminist looks at male structures as the holy grail to which with some adjustments, women could fit in and run just as capably and smoothly, while a Radical Feminist acknowledges that a system built on defending the interests of patriarchy cannot be reformed to treat women fairly.

So where does that leave us? Liberal and Radical Feminist interests intersect in a lot of different areas. Many Liberal Feminists have achieved great things for women and many Radical and Liberal Feminists have worked together on legal reforms. Ultimately, reforming our system is deeply challenging and hard work. Radicalism is even harder, many become disillusioned with it because Radical Feminism does not offer the clearer steps that Liberal Feminism does, it requires a complete reimagining of our societies, every field influenced by patriarchy, our skills, values and needs (many of which may not become apparent until we are free from oppression) and then a complete restructuring so that men as a class either no longer benefit from women's subjugation and/or no longer have the opportunity to subjugate. How do we do this? How do we implement incremental change to help women as we do this? Patriarchy is both urgent and staggering at the same time, and for that reason, while we work on the big revolutions, there are many worthy liberal and legal reforms to consider as well. (the widespread application of the Nordic Model with exit programs for example is something most Liberal and Radical Feminists would agree on as being a worthy goal). As long we remember, laws under patriarchy will not save us from patriarchy.

*I have in the past used "Liberal Feminist" or "libfem" to mean posi-feminist or choice-feminist (in my defence many choice-feminist women call themselves liberal feminists) but they are in fact very different ideologies. A Liberal Feminist can be anti-porn, anti-makeup, anti-prostitution, etc but she will believe that the best way to address patriarchy is by working within the law and the economy and various other social institutions to reform them.

#my posts #feminism #radical feminism #liberal feminism #libfem #radfem

113 notes · View notes

corkcitylibraries · 3 years

Text

Betty Friedan and Second Wave Feminism in the USA and Ireland

by Deirdre Swain

The Cork City Reference Library holds a large collection of books about feminism, particularly Irish feminism. BorrowBox also possesses a range of eBooks on feminism that were published in the last 7 years. In this article, I will discuss Betty Friedan, a well-known American feminist who was born in February 1921, and the second-wave feminist movement in Ireland. I will then introduce a reading list of books on feminism which are available on BorrowBox. I will also provide a reading list of books on feminism which will be available in the Reference Library once it re-opens to the public.

Betty Friedan and Second Wave Feminism in the USA

The recent TV drama, Mrs. America depicts the struggle to ratify the Equal Rights Amendment in the USA in the 1970s. The popularity of this TV series demonstrates a renewed interest in the women’s liberation movement and certain prominent and influential American feminists, namely Betty Friedan, Gloria Steinem, Shirley Chisholm and Bella Abzug.

February 2021 marks the 100th anniversary of the birth of Betty Friedan, one of these second wave feminists and author of the seminal feminist text, The Feminine Mystique. She was born Bettye Naomi Goldstein to a Jewish family in Peoria, Illinois on 4 February 1921. Her mother, Miriam Horwitz, was an unhappy housewife whose parents, Hungarian Jewish immigrants, did not allow her to go to university. Miriam encouraged Betty to do the opposite, and she strongly supported her daughter’s education. Betty went to university in Smith College, graduating in 1942. She then studied Psychology in the University of California, Berkeley, for a year. Thereafter, she worked as a journalist in New York, writing about the Jim Crow laws and anti-Semitism. Later, she worked as a women’s magazine writer. In 1949, she married Carl Friedman (later Friedan), and they had 3 children. They got divorced in 1969.

In 1957, Betty attended the 15th anniversary of her graduation from Smith College. At this reunion, she conducted a survey on her former fellow students (females) to explore the direction of their lives since graduation. She was perturbed by the amount of discontent among them. This revelation about the lives of her peers led to the writing of her book, The Feminine Mystique. This publication recounts the dilemma of suburban housewives, who are expected to spend all of their time on domestic duties and the rearing of children. They are overshadowed constantly by the thought, “Is this it?” They feel guilty for not being satisfied with their role, but they cannot deny the fact that they are unfulfilled. The “feminine mystique” of the book’s title is the societal assumption that household duties and motherhood alone will give women a sense of achievement. Friedan coined the phrase “the problem with no name” to describe women’s unhappiness with and inability to live up to this feminine mystique. She contended that women could have a successful career as well as a family.

The book sold three million copies and resonated with many suburban women because it showed them that they were not alone in their feelings of dissatisfaction. It was also strongly criticised for its homophobic language and for excluding Black and working class women. It spoke from a standpoint where every American housewife was white and middle class. Her solution to the problem of “the feminine mystique” (delegating housework) were also criticised for being inadequate and for failing to tackle the problem fully.

Friedan was aware of some of the shortcomings of The Feminine Mystique, and she wrote a second book to tackle some of the problems not resolved in the first one, including the double enslavement of working women who still had to do all the housework. The title of this book is The Second Stage. She also wrote numerous other books, including It Changed My Life: Writings on the Women’s Movement, which was published in 1976 and Beyond Gender: the New Politics of Family and Work, which was published in 1998.

Betty Friedan was a women’s activist and fought for reproductive rights, equal pay, equal representation and equality in hiring. She co-founded the National Organisation for Women (NOW) in 1966. In 1969, she launched the National Association for Repeal of Abortion Laws (NARAL Pro-Choice America). She co-founded the National Women’s Political Caucus (NWPC) with Gloria Steinem, Bella Abzug and several other women in 1971. The NWPC is a US organisation which supports and trains women who seek elected and appointed offices in all levels of government. Betty was quick-tempered, and she tended to lash out at people, including other feminists such as Gloria Steinem, even though they had similar aspirations for women. She was also quite disparaging in her treatment of lesbian women, referring to them as “the lavender menace”.

Later in her life, Friedan became a Zionist and fought to expose Anti-Semitism in the women’s movement. She received the Eleanor Roosevelt Leadership Award in 1989 and was awarded honorary degrees by the State University of New York and Columbia University. She died on her birthday, 4 February, in Washington DC in 2006, aged 85.

What advances for women were taking place in Ireland during the time of Betty Friedan’s activism in the United States?

The Irish Women’s Liberation Movement

In the summer of 1970, five women met in Bewley’s café in Dublin and decided that it was time for some drastic changes in Irish women’s lives; time to fight for equal rights. That day, these women held what was to be the first meeting of the Irish Women’s Liberation Movement (IWLM) group, the first radical women’s liberation group in Ireland. Although the group lasted little more than seven months, its legacy changed women’s lives significantly and positively. As proof of the success of the IWLM, the two injustices that this group fought hardest against – the marriage bar, which was abolished in 1973, and the illegality of contraception – are unimaginable in today’s world.

Margaret Gaj owned the restaurant, Gaj’s, on Baggot Street, where the IWLM would meet every Monday night. Margaret Gaj was passionate about women’s rights. Her circle of friends included Sinn Féin official Máirín de Búrca, journalist Mary Maher, who was interested in socialist issues, Máirín Johnston, who was a member of the Communist Party and who was also active in the Labour Party and Dr. Moira Woods, who was in an organisation called Irish Voice on Vietnam, which protested against the war in Vietnam. These five women started the IWLM group that day in the summer of 1970 in Bewley’s café, but around a dozen women were actively involved in the founding of this women’s organisation, the majority of them journalists. Nell McCafferty and Mary Kenny, both journalists, were two prominent founders of the IWLM.

Chains or Change was the title of the IWLM charter. It was put together in the form of a booklet which detailed the goals and ideals that the IWLM strove for. There were 6 demands: equal pay; an end to the marriage bar that kept women from working after they got married; equal rights in law; justice for widows, deserted wives and “unmarried mothers”; equal education opportunities; and the legalisation of contraception. Neither abortion nor divorce were mentioned at all in Chains or Change. When the most basic civil rights for women were being fought for, abortion and divorce did not even arise because they were not considered to be a priority. The booklet was a milestone in the history of women’s rights in Ireland, because it was the first time that anyone had published a comprehensive list of the injustices that church, state and social code perpetuated against women.

Nell McCafferty

Nell McCafferty was born in Derry. She got her degree from Queen’s University in Belfast and trained as a teacher, but she could not get a job in Derry, because the Protestant schools knew she was Catholic, and the Catholic schools did not think she was a real Catholic but, rather, a communist. She moved to Dublin to work as a journalist for the Irish Times. Nell writes in her autobiography of an incident from when she first moved to Dublin; she wanted to buy a record player on hire purchase but was told that no woman could sign an agreement without the co-signature of a male guarantor. A male stranger signed for her because she did not know any men in Dublin. This man was unemployed, and her own earnings amounted to five times more than his welfare entitlements.

Nell was a founding member of the Irish Women’s Liberation Movement (IWLM). In the IWLM, Nell was someone who could be depended upon to put forward forceful arguments that were backed up by accurate facts, and she could convey them both in writing and in person.

Nell’s journalism was objective, and she used it to bear witness to the struggles of the oppressed. She did not even have to give her opinion; her writing style and her description of what she observed in society were enough to expose hypocrisy and injustice without her having to comment on the issues herself. As well as being a feminist activist, Nell was also a civil rights activist on issues in Northern Ireland. When she started to work at the Irish Times, she joined the “women’s page” staff. Initially, she was fearful that this would involve writing about fashion, cooking and babies, but it actually enabled her to write on issues regarding women’s liberation and women’s rights.

The Contraceptive Train

In May 1971, the IWLM founders organised what became known as the “contraceptive train”, which was a protest against the fact that contraceptives were illegal in the Republic of Ireland. Nell McCafferty said that she had got the idea for the contraceptive train when she was in Northern Ireland at a civil rights march. The march went from North to South, and at the border, a student activist called Cyril Tallman held up a copy of Edna O’Brien’s novel Country Girls in one hand and a Durex condom in the other, saying that both were banned in the South. Nell was initially indignant about the condom, but the following year when the IWLM was talking about contraceptives, Nell got the idea of reversing the journey from Dublin to the North.

There was a ban on contraception in the Republic of Ireland, which was enshrined in the 1935 Criminal Law Act. This made the importation, distribution and sale of contraceptive devices a criminal offence. Advertising contraceptives was also illegal. The contraceptive pill was available in Ireland only on prescription, as a “menstrual cycle regulator”.

There were 47 founders and members of the IWLM on the contraceptive train on 22 May 1971, just enough to fill two carriages. However, when Nell McCafferty asked for a packet of contraceptive pills in a Belfast pharmacy, she was asked for a prescription, and the same happened when she asked for a coil, loop and Dutch cap. It turned out that the only contraceptives that were available in Belfast without prescription were condoms and spermicidal jelly. Nell was not happy with the prospect of taking a stand at Dublin customs with just condoms and spermicidal jelly, so it was decided that packets of aspirins would be bought, since they were similar enough in appearance to contraceptive pills that it was hoped they would pass for same! When the women arrived at customs in Dublin, the customs officers told them they were breaking the law, but let them through, because arresting them was not an option for them. The contraceptive train accomplished what it set out to do; the state refused to lift the ban on contraceptives, but it also failed to enforce it. The IWLM exposed this hypocrisy and proved that women would be free to import contraceptives from the North into the Republic from then on without any interference from law enforcement officials. Nell McCafferty made a statement at the train station, and two of the women went on the Late Late Show on TV to talk about the experience.

Mary Robinson failed in March and May of 1971 to get the Senate to add her Contraceptive Bill to its order paper. Despite Mary Robinson’s and the IWLM’s efforts to legalise contraceptives, it was not until 1979 that the government passed the Family Planning Act. This Act allowed solely married couples to get access to contraceptive devices other than the pill with a prescription. Family Planning clinics were already selling condoms, but the government was turning a blind eye to this because they were accepting “donations” in exchange for the condoms. In 1990, the Irish Family Planning Association was fined £500 for selling condoms in the Virgin Megastore in Dublin. Finally, in 1992, the government extended legislation to allow supermarkets and retail stores to sell condoms. The contraceptive train literally set the wheels in motion regarding the legalisation of contraceptives, but it took a long time before the law was changed for the benefit of women.

References

-Code, L., ed. (2000). Encyclopedia of Feminist Theories. London: Routledge.

-Parry, M. (2010). ‘Betty Friedan: Feminist Icon and Founder of the National Organization for Women’, American Journal of Public Health, 100 (9), pp. 1584-1585.

-Shteir, R. (2021). ‘Why We Can’t Stop Talking about Betty Friedan’, New York Times, 3 February. Available at: https://www.nytimes.com/2021/02/03/us/betty-friedan-feminism-legacy.html (Accessed: 9 February 2021).

McCafferty, N. (2004). Nell: a Disorderly Woman. Dublin: Penguin Ireland.

Stopper, A. (2006). Mondays at Gaj’s: The Story of the Irish Women’s Liberation Movement. Dublin: The Liffey Press.

Reading list of books on feminism

Available on BorrowBox:

-Dear Ijeawele, or a Feminist Manifesto in Fifteen Suggestions, by Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie (published in 2017): https://fe.bolindadigital.com/wldcs_bol_fo/b2i/productDetail.html?productId=HCU_469861&fromPage=1&b2bSite=4813

-Feminist Fight Club, by Jessica Bennett (published in 2016): https://fe.bolindadigital.com/wldcs_bol_fo/b2i/productDetail.html?productId=PRU_398091&fromPage=1&b2bSite=4813

-Feminists Don’t Wear Pink (And Other Lies), by Scarlett Curtis (published in 2018): https://fe.bolindadigital.com/wldcs_bol_fo/b2i/productDetail.html?productId=PRU_574840&fromPage=1&b2bSite=4813

-Give Birth Like a Feminist, by Milli Hill (published in 2019): https://fe.bolindadigital.com/wldcs_bol_fo/b2i/productDetail.html?productId=HCU_655895&fromPage=1&b2bSite=4813

-We Should All Be Feminists, by Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie (published in 2014): https://fe.bolindadigital.com/wldcs_bol_fo/b2i/productDetail.html?productId=HCP_402800&fromPage=1&b2bSite=4813

Available in the Reference Library, Grand Parade

-Code, L., ed. (2000). Encyclopedia of Feminist Theories. London: Routledge.

-McCafferty, N. (1984). The best of Nell: a selection of writings over fourteen years. Dublin: Attic Press.

- Stopper, A. (2006). Mondays at Gaj’s: The Story of the Irish Women’s Liberation Movement. Dublin: The Liffey Press.

-Pierse, Mary S. (ed.) (2010). Irish Feminisms, 1810-1930. Abingdon: Edition Synapse/Routledge (5 volumes).

-Owens, R. (2005). A social history of women in Ireland, 1870-1970. Dublin: Gill & Macmillan.

-Connolly, L. and O’Toole, T. (2005). Documenting Irish Feminisms: the Second Wave. Dublin: The Woodfield Press.

-Connolly, L. (2002). The Irish women’s movement: from revolution to devolution. Dublin: Lilliput Press.

-Rose, C. (1975). The female experience: the story of the woman movement in Ireland. Galway: Arlen House.

#corkcitylibraries #feminism

10 notes · View notes

thekotaroo · 4 years

Text

Profiles of Pride: June 18th! 🏳️‍🌈Ernestine Eckstein🏳️‍🌈

Ernestine Eckstein (April 23, 1941 – July 15, 1992) was an African-American woman who helped steer the United States Lesbian and Gay rights movement during the 1960s. She was a leader in the New York chapter of Daughters of Bilitis (DOB). Her influence helped the DOB move away from negotiating with medical professionals and towards tactics of public demonstrations. Her understanding of, and work in, the Civil Rights Movement lent valuable experience on public protest to the lesbian and gay movement. Eckstein worked among activists such as Phyllis Lyon and Del Martin, Barbara Gittings, Franklin Kameny, and Randy Wicker. In the 1970s she became involved in the black feminist movement, in particular the organization Black Women Organized for Action (BWOA).

Eckstein began attending meetings of the New York Mattachine Society soon after she arrived in New York City, which led her to its sister organization DOB. In 1965, debates around the direction of the homophile movement were heating up. That same year Eckstein marched in Philadelphia at the first Annual Reminder Day and in front of the White House as the only person of color demonstrating. The original Mattachine Society's “old guard” leaders (versus the independent Mattachine Society of Washington who initiated the 1965 protests) wanted to continue pursuing homosexual rights via negotiations with doctors and psychologists while the younger activist wing desired to take the issue of equal civil rights for homosexuals to the people through lobbying government officials and demonstrating. Psychologists considered homosexuality to be a mental illness until 1973, when it was removed from the Diagnostic and Statistics Manual in the third edition; until that point, homosexuality was perceived as a mental illness and therefore something to ‘fix’. This debate was equally strong within the DOB; Eckstein's appointment as DOB New York chapter Vice President indicated a strategic push by the activist wing. Marcia M. Gallo writes, “Her plan was to reach out to women who saw the gay struggle as linked to other civil rights issues and hope that during her time as vice president of the local chapter she would help build a more social action oriented group".

During the time that Eckstein was involved in DOB, until 1968, the “old guard” was still controlling the organization. In June 1965, DOB actually pulled out of the East Coast Homophile Organization (ECHO) because the coalition was increasing its involvement in protests for lesbian and gay rights. Eckstein was an important lesbian representative of the activist wing. She understood that she was living through a huge tactical shift for lesbian and gay activists and that it was an uphill battle. She said, “I think our movement is not ready for any forms of civil disobedience. I think this would solidify resistance to our cause. This situation will change eventually. But not now".

Eckstein believed that there should be a concentration on, “the discrimination by the government in employment and military service, the laws used against homosexuals,” and, “the rejection by the churches".

Eckstein, like the founder of the Black Panther Party, Huey Newton, saw the connection between black American's struggle for equality during the Civil Rights Movement and the lesbian and gay struggle for equality and fostered the connection. To this day, many groups still do not acknowledge the connection between gay rights and rights for people of color. It was not until 2012 that Ben Jealous, President and CEO of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) declared, "Civil marriage is a civil right and a matter of civil law," confirming that LGBT rights are now acknowledged as civil rights struggles by the NAACP.

Eckstein's involvement with political activism started in the Civil Rights Movement at Indiana State, as a NAACP chapter officer. But Eckstein understood organizations like NAACP as, “structured with the white liberals in mind” and joined more progressive organizations like Congress on Racial Equality (CORE) once she moved to New York.

Upon moving to the west coast, Eckstein joined the radical, activist group Black Women Organized for Action (BWOA). BWOA was a San Francisco organization collectively co-founded in 1973 by fifteen women including Aileen Hernandez, Patsy Fulcher, and Eleanor Spikes. The organization, “formed in the San Francisco Bay Area in response to the lack of representation of Black women in local women's organizing". The group emerged from Black Women Organized for Political Action (BWOPA). BWOPA, which functioned in an auxiliary fundraising role for men of color running for office, and had many members who wanted to shift to a space explicitly defined by Black women's concerns. “Though members had strong roots in the Civil Rights Movement … more so than any of the other organizations, BWOA exhibits a clear link to the Women's Movement". BWOA was among the first Black feminist organizations in the United States.

The fact that Eckstein chose to join BWOA reflects her radical political beliefs. The organization had a truly progressive model of collective responsibility and political philosophy. “The organization was structured so that leadership, work, and community involvement were shared among members willing to participate, and “a system of, three coordinators for a three-month tenure” was utilized. This created an emphasis on fostering Black women as leaders while simultaneously avoiding a hierarchy among Black female activists. This was a rare structure in comparison to sister organizations.

The three-month terms were a part of the organization's larger political perspective that did not mandate that its members hold specific stances on political issues. Historian Kimberly Springer writes, “Members were free to choose the activities in which they participated and they were not obligated to subscribe to an organizationally-dictated political perspective. …The survival of Black communities … did not depend on one solution but on the conscious, consistent political awareness of the communities' members"

The organization's careful use of terms such as “Feminist” and “Black” that could potentially alienate or divide their membership encouraged the non-hierarchical atmosphere. Springer writes: “The BWOA subverted discrimination within Black communities based on color, physical appearance, or class by welcoming all Black women into the organization. The organization focused on activism, rather than social constructions of beauty or social class. ... BWOA’s avoidance of the label ‘feminism’ while practicing feminism was indicative of future developments in Black feminist organizing".

The BWOA lasted from 1973 to 1980 with a 400-person membership at its height. There was no one factor that caused the group to stop meeting actively, but the rise in conservatism with the election of Ronald Reagan as President in 1980 caused members to “determine that 1960s strategies would not be effective".

#Ernestine Eckstein #Profiles in Pride!#Pride Month #LGBTQIA+#LGBTQIA+ Rights #LGBTQIA+ Pride #June #June 18th #Activism #BWOA

48 notes · View notes

intergalactic-zoo · 3 years

Link

Whoopsie, went a whole year without posting.

I very much enjoy the Arrowverse shows, even though the only episodes of Arrow I've seen are the crossover tie-ins. Legends of Tomorrow is a constant delight, Black Lightning is incredible, The Flash is good superhero melodrama, and Supergirl is fine. It's fine. It's generally mostly fine.

Look, Supergirl started out strong on CBS, but since it moved to CW, it's been plagued by recurring problems. The cast is stellar. I love every actor and character on that show. Dreamer is a revelation, and I want to see her ongoing comic series (where maybe her powers will be slightly more clearly developed).

But the politics? The recent episode dealing with violence against trans women (and trans women of color in particular) was a welcome and refreshing shift in the show's usual tone of Peak Liberal White Feminism. For a show that has its heart so clearly in the right place, tackling real-world issues like internment camps for immigrants and the radicalization of cishet white men into fascist paramilitary organizations, it has also featured a hero who, up until last season, was consistently working with a government organization and adopting center-left approaches that openly demonized actual leftists and ignored intersectionality in favor of a lily-white worldview.

Buckle in, comrades. This is an anarchist blog now.

There are other problems as well. The way they derailed the Kara-Jimmy relationship to pair her with Mon-El for a season, then fumbled around to find something to do with his character until he left the show, feels more than a little casually racist. I think there are legitimate queerbaiting complaints to be had about how they've handled the Kara/Lena relationship. Alex's shifting desires and priorities have felt less like character development and more like trying to figure out where she fits in the show now.

There's a lot of good, too, especially with some of this most recent season's course corrections. Killing Dean Cain's character offscreen was a hilarious solution to that unfortunate problem. I appreciated Brainiac-5's evolution that gave him a more comics-accurate Coluan appearance and removed some of the played-out "smart guy doesn't understand emotions" character type. I like that every time Lena says "Non Nocere" it makes me think of standing in a Buffalo Stance.

And I've liked Tyler Hoechlin and Bitsie Tulloch as Superman and Lois Lane, on the occasions where they've appeared. Tulloch isn't my favorite Lois, and I wish Hoechlin's costume had the trunks, but they've been quite good when they've shown up. And, you know, this is the first live-action Superman show with tights and flights and the word "Superman" in the title since 1997. I am, unexepctedly, excited for that.

Besides that, it's a different take on the characters. Lois gets second billing, but rather than being a will-they/won't-they romantic dramedy, it's centered on Clark and Lois as an established couple and experienced parents of teenagers. Personally, I'd prefer the kids to be younger—Crisis changed their single infant into two teenage boys—but I suppose there are some story and tone reasons to prefer teenage kids. Overall, I think a lot of the choices are really savvy: setting the story in Smallville immediately sets this show apart from urban Supergirl, and the teens who cut their sci-fi melodrama teeth on Clark and Lois and Lex in Smallville are now in their thirties, settling down and having kids of their own. This show has the potential of tapping into that 20-year nostalgia cycle for the mid-2000s.

But...well, my excitement has been dampened somewhat in the lead-up to the premiere. Naturally, there's the stories Nadria Tucker has told about experiences in the writers' room, how they dismissed concerns about racism and sexism, about "#metoo jokes" and the like. There's also the optics; Supergirl is coming to an end next season, and it's hard not to feel weird about the diverse, female-dominated show about found family being more-or-less replaced with the nuclear family show whose principal cast is four white people, three of them dudes. I never really watched the trailer, but the response to it on my social media feed was largely negative (though for whatever reason, my social media feed is heavy on people who apparently aren't happy if Superman's not snapping necks in a rubber suit). On the other hand, I've seen really positive responses from two of the Superman fans I respect the most, Charlotte Finn and David Mann. And that clip of Hoechlin in the Fleischer suit and the Action #1 pose? Yeah, that's pretty cool.

So I'm not sure what to expect as I finally hit up the ol' TiVo and watch the two-hour Pilot. But I'm about to find out.

#IFTTT #Blogger #TheFortressOfSoliloquy

2 notes · View notes

evilelitest2 · 4 years

Note

Just curious, would you be willing to concede that some of the ppl that engaged in Gamergate on the proside actually thought it was about ethics? Saying this as someone who started as a lowkey conservative christian, who became an atheist due to some of Sargon’s content, luckly avoided alt-right, and became sold on left’s arguments from a mix Hannah and Jake’s content, support from my SO and am now going full communist prointersectionalism and disgusted by Sargon and his ilk.

Well first off, kudos for getting out of that Right wing Cult, well done.

I think that people will often believe that it is about ethics at the time, they aren’t openly lying, the problem is that when people are pissed off, they tend to take those feelings of anger and mentally turn them into a moral cause when it isn’t one. So for Gamers who were pissed off at the the pretense of women and minorities in the game space but maybe not consciously, taking that insecurity and voicing it as Ethics helped them contextualize their rage. I really recommend Innuendo studios “Why are you so Angry” video series on Gamergate

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6y8XgGhXkTQ

So plenty of Gamergaters thought to themselves that it was about Ethics in Games Journalism, but it was really telling at the time (Speaking as somebody who was there) they almost never actually talked about the actual issues of ethics and journalism. Like there were many people in the gaming world who had been complaining about the failings of Games Journalism for years prior to Gamergate and they were generally targets of GG (Jim Sterling and Brianna Wu being two examples), or who so much of GG focused on Anita Sarkeesian who is not a Games Journalist. Cause the actual problems with Games Journalism aren’t related to “SJW” or Feminism, its about how most journalist outlets get paid by major companies.

In fact Angry Joe noted that when he had forums which discussed actual problems with Games Journalism, Gamer Gaters would inevitably violation his forums standards of behavior, because they would focus much more energy on bitching about feminism than actual issues with Games Journalism. Especially cause Zoe Quinn’s story...didn’t actually relate to games Journalism. (I know you know this already, so don’t take this as me lecturing you)

This is why btw so much of Right Wing content focuses on trying to get their audience pissed off and keep them pissed off, I’m sure you remember from Sargon how much of his videos are about getting his audience angry, because when people get pissed off they tend to seek out simple solutions for their anger, which the Right is really ready to provide.

one last note as somebody who is left wing but is NOT a communist, I will say be careful when it comes to deradiclizing yourself from the right, it can be really tempting to jump from Far Right conservatism to the Far Left because they are still basically drawing on the politics of anger. Contrapoints talks about this in terms of her reputation as a person who deradicalizes the Alt Rights and how she thinks she just radicalizes them in a different direction. LIke being far left wing is obviously better than being far right, just be careful to cause there can be some similar sort of cultist groups on the left, though as always, the left is much better

And again, good job on growing out of multiple forms of conservatism

#ask EvilElitest #Gamergate #anita sarkeesian #Zoe Quinn #Conservatism

7 notes · View notes

shansen21ahsgov · 4 years

Text

Blog Post #3: Political Party Action

Republican

The greatest asset of the American economy is the American worker. Legal immigrants are making vital contributions to every aspect of national life. They are committed to American values and they strengthen, enrich our culture, and enable us to better compete with the rest of the world. They are specifically grateful for the thousands of new legal immigrants, many of them not yet citizens, who are serving in the Armed Forces. They agree that American’s immigration policy must serve the national interest of the United States. Illegal immigrants endangers everyone, exploits taxpayers, and insults all who aspire to be an American legally. Our highest priority must be to secure our borders and all ports of entry and to enforce our immigration laws. This is why we support building a wall along our southern border. They endorse the SAVE program in which it ensures that public funds are not given to illegal persons in the country. The Republicans believe that sanctuary cities violate federal law which is why they should not be eligible for federal funding. States have the constitutional authority to take steps to reduce illegal immigration. They condemn the Obama Administration’s lawsuits against states that are seeking to enforce federal law. From the beginning, our country has been a haven of refuge and asylum. This should continue but with major changes. Asylum should be limited to cases of political, ethnic or religious persecution. To ensure our national security, refugees who cannot be carefully vetted cannot be admitted to the country, especially those whose homelands have been the breeding grounds for terrorism. I agree with wanting to strengthen our border and protect the citizens of the U.S. I also agree that public funds should not be going to undocumented immigrants and instead to people who are actually citizens. I agree that illegal immigrants endanger parts of society, exploits tax money and insult all who aspire to come to America, legally.

Democratic

The bedrock American idea, that we are one, has been a part of our country from its earliest days. The Trump administration has repudiated the idea and abandoned our values as a diverse, compassionate and welcoming country. They say the Trump administration has been cruel in the extreme. The Democrats say that Trump has been forcibly separating families, putting children in cages, endangering lives by denying Covid-19 tests and banning people from travelling to the U.S. based on their country of origin. Democrats believe “America can do better.” Democrats will reinstate protections for Dreamers and the parents of American citizen children. Democrats believe that the fight to end systemic and structural cruel racism in our country extends to our immigration system. Democrats believe they should rovide a path to citizenship for all illegal immigration in our county. They want to promote workers right because they know that abusive employers make all workers suffer, most importantly immigrants. Democrats will address the root causes of immigration which are violence and security, poverty and corruption, lack of education and economic opportunity. They want to renew American diplomacy as our tool of “first resort” and rebuild our partnerships and alliances. I agree and disagree with these policies. I do not agree with the things they have been saying about the Trump administration and I feel like they are very bias in their writing. All the other platforms did not mention another party except this one.

Green

Immigration and the large number of undocumented immigrants in the U.S. has become a ot political issue. The Green party thinks that if it were economically possible to provide for their families, many would choose to remain in their native countries. Any immigration policy should be seen as a way to address all people humanitarian needs. The Green party stands for social justice for all those living in this country regardless of their immigration status. Above all, policy and law must be humane. The party accepts as a goal a world in which persons can freely choose to live in and work in any country he or she desires. Although they believe countries do have the right to know the identity of the person seeking to enter and also the right to limit who can come in to protect public safety. They think there cannot be any true solutions to the conflicts created by immigration until we are able to organize globally the campaign to drive down workers living standards everywhere. They will work toward the goal of curbing the power of multinationals. I agree that if it were economically possible people would probably want to stay in their native country. I do not agree that undocumented immigrants should be receiving the same economic and political justice and people who actually are citizens.

Libertarian

The Libertarian party does not mention immigration on their platform. Their preamble identifies that they “seek a world of liberty: a world in which all individuals are sovereign over their own lives and are not forced to sacrifice their values for the benefit of others.” They defend each person's right to engage in activity that is peaceful and honest and they welcome the diversity that freedom brings. The world they seek to build is one where “individuals are free to follow their dreams in their own ways, without interference from government.” Their ultimate goal is “a world set free in our lifetime.” It is confusing to me why this party does not identify immigration because one of their main goals is to allow freedom for all, and I am confused whether they are talking about worldly or just in the states. They promote diversity and they say that freedom also promotes a diverse culture, so I can infer they are promoting immigration in order to continue that diversity.

Peace and Freedom

The Peace and Freedom Party calls themselevs “Californias feminist socialist party.” This party was born from the civil rights and anti-war movements of the 1960s and is committed to socialism, democracy, ecology, feminism, racial equality and internationalism. They say they represent the working class and those without capital in a capitalist society. Their goal is to organize toward a world where cooperation replaces competition and a world where all people are fed, clothed and used. They want all women and men to have equal status and all individuals may freely do what they desire. They want a world of freedom and peace where every community retains cultural integrity and lives in harmony with others. On the topic of immigration, they say that immigrant workers are hounded by government authorities, worked and housed in substandard conditions and blamed my Republicans and Democrats for society's problems. They call for open borders, they demand an end to deportation of immigrants, and full political, social and economic rights for resident non-citizens.

Which party position do you identify with the most? Is that surprising?

I identify most with the Republican party position. It is not surprising to me, I have always been very interested in immigration and have always found myself connecting most with the policies of the Republican party. I like how they state that the foundation of the American society is the American worker. A lot of people pin Republicans as people who do not like immigrants and immigration but in the platform it literally states that “immigrants are making vital contributions to our way of life.” I agree with this and I connect with their stance on immigration and what to do about undocumented immigrants.

Would you vote for their presidential candidate?

I would vote for the Republican presidential candidate because I think we as a country should vote based on policies the candidate has provided over personal emotions. I think this plays a major part in the large split between the two parties. As well, I think the Trump administration has taken strides to secure America and better the American citizens through their immigration policies.

Was your civic action issue a topic during the debate?

Unfortunately, immigration was not brought up in the presidential debate.

2 notes · View notes

phusch21ahsgov · 4 years

Text

Blog post #2, Media Assessment of Issue

In this blog post I will share my analysis of 3 articles from reputable news sources concerning gun control and second amendment rights. One article is from a left-leaning source, one from the right, and one is neutral.

Article #1, Liberal, CNN: Virginia Beach Mass Shooting

Subject: This article is trying to convey the message that there is a direct correlation between the number of guns in america, and the number of gun related homicides and suicides.

Author: Jill Fillipovic authored the article Fewer Guns Mean Fewer Killings, and We All Know it. Filipovic is an American feminist, author and lawyer. She has previously written for feminist blogs such as Feministe, as well as cosmopolitan. She has written for other news sources besides CNN that are quite neutral on the political scale such as Washington Post, New York Times, and Time Magazine. Based on this information she is likely a centrist, however her tone in the article, and heavy involvement in feminist arguments and sources convey that she leans heavily toward the left.

Context: The article was written in june, recently after a mass shooting. This menas that the source will strike a lot closer to home for the citizens of america, as they have recently experienced a tragedy.

Audience: The source was published By CNN, and while CNN only slightly leans left, the source was most likely published for liberal readers, people who advocate for stronger gun control. The source was not very objective, and did not consider other options beside restricting the number of guns in America.

Perspective: This article is definitely subjective, you can tell that the author has a liberal view on gun rights just from the title. The perspective of the author is that we need to remove guns from the hands of civilians, and doing so will prevent gun related homicides and suicides. This is in opposition to the conservative view that removing guns from civilians will increase gun violence

Significance: The author recounts a recent shooting to support her claim, and talks about the lack of action that has been taken by politicians. The verifiable evidence is that no recent laws have been passed, and that the majority of homicides are gun related

Article #2, Neutral, Time Magazine: The Fight Over Gun Control Isn’t Really About Guns

SIGNIFICANCE: The author uses several charts comparing the viewpoints of gun owners and non gun owners to showcase the differing perspective on the issues at hand, these statistics are verifiable facts, and it is interesting to see how the answers differed. Additionally the author includes quotes from people in both political and gun-rights affiliation to further showcase the differing perspectives.

SUBJECT: This article is trying to convey the message that the argument over gun control is actually an argument over the sense of freedom and independence that guns represent to americans. Central to the argument is the author’s ability to look at both sides, and convey the strong feelings and outcomes that come with gun violence by recounting a recent mass shooting.

AUTHOR: The author of this article is Charlotte Alter, a national correspondent for Time Magazine, who’s work has also been published in New York Times and The Wall Street Journal. Her political affiliations are unclear, she likes to cover hot political issues such as feminism, political campaigns, climate change, and gun violence, but it is hard to say what her positions on these issues are, as is demonstrated by her neutral tone in the Time article.

CONTEXT: The source was produced in Las Vegas, on October 5, 2017, four days after the deadly shooting it describes. The effect of this is that the tragedy is still fresh in the minds of the readers, as well as the author as it happened in her backyard. This highlights that there is a problem with gun control in its current state.

AUDIENCE: This source conveyed the horror of the Las Vegas shooting to effectively alert the mass media - the people for whom the source was published - of the horrific effects that guns can have, all while staying unbiased and presenting arguments from both left and right political viewpoints. Time Magazine published this article, and being a relatively neutral source It seems the reliability and objectivity are on point.

PERSPECTIVE: This text Is definitely objective.

Article #3, Conservative, Fox News: Tony Perkins: Solution to Gun Violence Isn’t What You Think

SUBJECT: This article is presenting the idea that the solution to gun violence is not to simply restrict gun ownership laws, but to strengthen morality and religion in our government to stop individuals from becoming the type of person to commit such a crime.

AUTHOR: Tony Perkins is aconservative politician, previous police officer, and christian. His credentials are that he is the president of the Family Research Council, has served two terms in the louisiana house of representatives, and was appointed to the United States Commission on International religious Freedom. As he obviously states, his religious affiliations affect his view on gun violence, and his experience as a police officer prove his credentiality on the subject as he has experienced gun violence first-hand.

CONTEXT: This article was published in October of 2019, this article was not a response to a recent mass shooting, but more of an opinion piece by Perkins, conveying his experiences and opinions he has formed over time.

AUDIENCE: This article was published by fox, a conservative news source, and the article is quite clearly geared towards a religious demographic, meaning it may not be the most objective as it is targeting a more narrow audience.

PERSPECTIVE: This text is subjective, the viewpoint conveyed is that stricter gun control laws will not have a large impact on gun-violence, and instead more emphasis should be placed on religion to increase morality of american citizens, stopping the problem at the source. I don’t fully agree with the argument presented. For one, the proposed solution may infringe on people’s freedom of religion, and while I don’t believe super strict gun control laws will solve the problem, I think certain preventative measures can be taken to decrease the likelihood of giving a gun to someone who is not mentally fit to own one.

SIGNIFICANCE: Perkins cites our founding fathers to back up his claim, stating that the marginalization of faith and religion is directly correlated with the increase in violent people. He also cites verifiable evidence, such as the statistic that 80% of gun crimes are committed with illegal guns.

Between all three of these sources, I found the key similarity was that each article had accounts of gun related violence: The first two articles were published recently after mass shootings and had graphic descriptions of them, and in the third article Perkins recounted his experience losing friends to gun violence as a former police officer. The main difference I found was the tone throughout each article. Time magazine kept a very neutral and calm tone, while CNN and Fox were more opinionated, with Fox being the more opinionated out of those two.

I identified most with Article 2 from CNN, as I agree that these mass shootings are terrible tragedies, but I can see the arguments from both sides as valid. I don’t know enough about the subject yet to make opinionated claims, however I do not believe religion will solve the issue, nor do I believe restricting all guns will completely solve it. Much like the tone of article 2, I am observing, and listening to arguments from both side

2 notes · View notes

dorianthey · 4 years

Text

debunking jk rowling’s “research” one statement at a time:

note: I will not be looking at JK Rowling’s anecdotes. I’ll only be pointing out flaws in data and retelling of events.

Image: “For people who don’t know: last December I tweeted my support for Maya Forstater, a tax specialist who’d lost her job for what were deemed ‘transphobic’ tweets. She took her case to an employment tribunal, asking the judge to rule on whether a philosophical belief that sex is determined by biology is protected in law. Judge Tayler ruled that it wasn’t.”

- Judge Tayler was asked to rule on whether a philosophical belief that gender is determined by biology is protected in law, not sex. This is why he ruled against Maya Forstater.

- Maya Forstater was a visiting fellow, meaning her placement wasn’t permanent and her contract was renewed on a year-by-year basis. The company she was working for, the Centre for Global Development (CGD), took issue with her insistence, both on Twitter and in real life, that she refer to transwomen as men and they believed she was fostering a hostile work enviroment. At the end of her contract, the CGD chose not to renew it. Judge Tayler made it clear that Maya Forstater retained her right to freedom of speech but that there were no grounds for her to demand that the CGD renew her contract.

Image: “Months later, I compounded my accidental ‘like’ crime by following Magdalen Berns on Twitter. Magdalen was an immensely brave young feminist and lesbian who was dying of an aggressive brain tumour. I followed her because I wanted to contact her directly, which I succeeded in doing. However, as Magdalen was a great believer in the importance of biological sex, and didn’t believe lesbians should be called bigots for not dating trans women with penises, dots were joined in the heads of twitter trans activists, and the level of social media abuse increased.”

- Magdalen Berns wasn’t just a “brave young feminist” who also held strong views on “the importance of biological sex”, that was her whole thing. Her YouTube channel and Twitter were built around attacking transpeople under the guise of feminism. She even called Blaire White a “he”. That’s how far gone she was. She wasn’t your average “gender critical” feminist.

- Fun fact: Magdalen Berns also believed that the trans rights movement in the UK was the product of lobbying by Jewish billionaires, so take that as you will.

Image: “The fourth is where things start to get truly personal. I’m concerned about the huge explosion in young women wishing to transition and also about the increasing numbers who seem to be detransitioning (returning to their original sex), because they regret taking steps that have, in some cases, altered their bodies irrevocably, and taken away their fertility. Some say they decided to transition after realising they were same-sex attracted, and that transitioning was partly driven by homophobia, either in society or in their families.”

- Detransitioners are a miniscule amount of the population. Only 8% of people who identified as trans detransitioned (trans people only make up close to 1% of people so its actually 0.08% of the total population) and only 0.3% do so after surgery.

Image: “Most people probably aren’t aware – I certainly wasn’t, until I started researching this issue properly – that ten years ago, the majority of people wanting to transition to the opposite sex were male. That ratio has now reversed. The UK has experienced a 4400% increase in girls being referred for transitioning treatment. Autistic girls are hugely overrepresented in their numbers.”

- A 4400% increase? It’s almost as if once trans people have access to gender clinics, they’re going to try and transition. Of course there’s been 4400% increase. It was unbelieveably difficult to get referred for trasitioning treatment before. The numbers were next to none. Now that its accessable, people are taking advantage of their resources.

Image: “The same phenomenon has been seen in the US. In 2018, American physician and researcher Lisa Littman set out to explore it. In an interview, she said: ‘Parents online were describing a very unusual pattern of transgender-identification where multiple friends and even entire friend groups became transgender-identified at the same time. I would have been remiss had I not considered social contagion and peer influences as potential factors.’”

- Woah, it turns out “entire friend groups” were trans??? It’s almost as if people become friends with people who have similar lived experiences to them. You know how so many LGB kid think they’re the only one who isn’t straight in their friendship group, but then it turns out that the majority of their friends were LGB? It’s the same thing.

- Littman’s paper has been widely discredited for poor data. For one, it doesn’t actually survey trans youth, its surveys parents. On top of that, it surveys parents from biased websites with such charming titles as “4thwavenow”, “transgendertrend” and “youthtranscriticalprofessionals”. Its bad data, plain and simple. She goes on to talk about how Littman was “subjected to a tsunami of abuse and a concerted campaign to discredit both her and her work”. Yeah, that’s because her work was bad. It should be discredited.

Image: “The argument of many current trans activists is that if you don’t let a gender dysphoric teenager transition, they will kill themselves. In an article explaining why he resigned from the Tavistock (an NHS gender clinic in England) psychiatrist Marcus Evans stated that claims that children will kill themselves if not permitted to transition do not ‘align substantially with any robust data or studies in this area. Nor do they align with the cases I have encountered over decades as a psychotherapist.’”

- I like how she doesn’t refer to a study, she just refers to claims a disgraced psychiatrist made.

- Of course, this is just blatantly wrong. Here’s a link to 51 peer reviewed papers that show that gender transition has a positive effect on the wellbeing of trans youth and 4 with mixed or null results: https://whatweknow.inequality.cornell.edu/topics/lgbt-equality/what-does-the-scholarly-research-say-about-the-well-being-of-transgender-people/

- Some studies literally show that parents affirming their child’s gender identity can reduce the chance that they’ll make a suicide attempt in a year from 57% to 4% (http://transpulseproject.ca/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/Impacts-of-Strong-Parental-Support-for-Trans-Youth-vFINAL.pdf). Affirmation and support is so important for keeping trans youth here.

Image: “I want to be very clear here: I know transition will be a solution for some gender dysphoric people, although I’m also aware through extensive research that studies have consistently shown that between 60-90% of gender dysphoric teens will grow out of their dysphoria. Again and again I’ve been told to ‘just meet some trans...”

- The “extensive research” she is referring to is a study that lumped together gender non-conforming (GNC) youth and transgender youth. Wow, cis GNC people exist? Science, you sexy beast, you’ve done it again. Trans people only make up about 1% of the population. Most GNC youth are just going to be GNC, not trans. It all pans out.

- The big study this all stems from also considered all the people who did not respond to the follow-up call (30% of participants) as “desisters”. It’s not good science.

- Something else that I need to say is that not all people who are referred with gender dysphoria in their youth transition then. That’s why puberty blockers exist, so kids can have more time to think about their gender before getting bad dysphoria when they start puberty. Blockers are completely reversible too, by the way. Things start moving again once you stop taking them.

The rest of her piece is largely anecdotal and I will not be “critiquing” her past dealing with abuse and assault. While I can understand people cussing her out on Twitter, I draw the line firmly before trivialising the trauma this woman deals with and thus, I will no longer comment. That being said, keep in mind that not everyone who comments on her anecodotes is attacking her or dismissing her issues.

Here it is. Do what you will :)

#trans rights #trans rights are human rights #jk rowling #harry potter

3 notes · View notes

ms-hells-bells · 4 years

Note

hi, random q (don't feel pressure to reply): what do u know about critical race theory/what's ur opinion? idk what it was but not i swear its everywhere. i just saw ayaan hirsi alis tweets abt it since she was talking abt free speech in academia (julie bindel will join her) so i assume abt not being 'woke' enough(aka being 'transphobic' or 'islamaphobic' for disagreeing) then she starts on this 'blm wants to destroy usa, crt needs to be banned' like wtf? ik she's prowomen but right wing as well?

i’m not incredibly educated on it myself, so if someone else wants to chip in they can

from what i know, critical race theory has two main beliefs that define it:

1. race is a social construct, not genetics based. although based upon the genetic reality of ethnicity and geographic location, race itself is largely arbitrary, contradicting, ever-changing, and dictated by the demographics in power in order to categorise other groups within their hierarchy of superiority/inferiority. colourism also sits as the basis of race, where the darker the skin, the lower on the hierarchy they are, even within the same race.

2. all our major institutions, from government to education to law to medicine, to everything else, are inherently racist because they were formed with these hierarchies and biases intertwined. even on an individual level, all people inherently have racist and colourist biases and beliefs because it’s so deeply entrenched in culture and socialisation that it affects us from the day we’re born. therefore, society and these institutions cannot be fixed as they are, within our current system, they have to be torn down and rebuilt in a bias free and egalitarian manner, largely by the same people that are oppressed under our current system (but even that has issues, so proposed solutions are debated within theory discussion).

as you can see, this theory is parallel to and largely compatible with radical feminism, as it uses similar class analysis and focus on root causes. but some “radfems/gender criticals” disagree with using the same/similar framework for female oppression on race and ethnicity, and would disagree that society and people are inherently racist. it is also intertwined with the anti cancel culture movement. i personally see this as a case of “i’m against this because it hurts me, but this group is too extreme for thinking the same as me, because i don’t get hurt by that system”.

but these people are the types to think actual radical feminism is “too extreme” anyway, and tend to be anti separatism, and strongly dislike PIV, marriage, and motherhood criticism. the “notmynigel” types, if you will. from what i’ve seen, the women who fall into anti critical race theory tend to (but not always!!) be white, heterosexual, and a bit older (think gen x and above). they tend to be very tunnel visioned, only really seeing female oppression and sometimes class (as in monetary class) as the only “legitimate” structural, institutional forms of oppression. they may lean on the libertarian or conservative side, or orbit around those circles, and therefore absorb a lot of the ideas and principles. at least, these are my observations.

it’s ironic that someone anti cancel culture want racial movements and discussions banned. often anti CC people are just as CC as leftists themselves, they’re just mad because things they like are being cancelled. it;s fine if it;s things they don’t like.

1 note · View note

ariainstars · 5 years

Text

Star Wars vs. Pride and Prejudice

Mr Darcy’s famous proposal scene from Pride and Prejudice, here taking place in the rain for further emphasis of his desperate love for her.

“In vain have I struggled. It will not do. My feelings will not be repressed. You must allow me to tell you how ardently I admire and love you.”

Ever since Kylo’s clumsy attempt to convince Rey to stay with him, in the infamous Throne Room scene, I must have stumbled at least a hundred times across the above-mentioned quotation with the assumption of both scenes being parallel to one another, leading to the conclusion that Kylo and Rey also will be together.

How many times, to you think, was I confronted the parallel scene - the one where Elizabeth has to confess that she was prejudiced against Darcy, that she knew too little to judge him, that she felt superior to him although she had no actual justification?

…

That’s right. Not once.

“Did Luke tell you what happened that night?”

“I know everything I need to know about you.”

To me the revelation of Dark Rey in the second TROS trailer was not in the least surprising. The moment I heard Palpatine’s laugh at the end of the first trailer I guessed he was after her. (My husband’s comment was: “Of course Palpatine wants her, not Kylo. What is he supposed to do with that daydreamer?” 😊)

Honestly: I would have been surprised, even affronted, if Rey had never been tempted by the Dark Side. Every Force user is tempted to misuse his powers, in one way or another. And despite the many claims I have read and heard to this issue, though there were a few clues that might have justified calling Rey a Mary Sue, there were at least twice as much already indicating that she, like her equal in the Force, is fragile and immature.

But for some reason - naivety? Wrongly understood feminism? - for years it was widely assumed, in particular among female Reylo fans, that Rey would be the one the save Kylo (alias Ben Solo); that she is good and pure and flawless and that her love would redeem him, or at least push him to redemption due to his desire to be with her. Few seemed to consider that Rey has her own weaknesses to overcome, too.

Personally, I see nothing “romantic” in the idea of a woman redeeming a guy. I don’t know why a girl is naturally assumed to be better than a man and that it is her task to save or inspire him, morally. Nor do I believe that it is a case of “true love” if the man ends up doing everything the woman wants him to do. It would make her his pet, not an equal partner. I know, it is a mistake that women often make, believing they must “help” the man they love: but no one can be saved from himself.

I do wish Ben and Rey to have a future, and of course they cannot be together if they are on the opposite sides of a war: but that must not necessarily mean, as a matter of fact, that Ben just has to see the righteousness of Rey’s and her friend’s cause and switch sides for everything to be wrapped up. The Force needs balance, which meaning that both sides, each in its own way, have a right and a point to exist. The greatest weakness of people who believe to be - and are universally believed to be - “good” usually have a tendency to be in denial. Rey lived in denial almost all of her life, since her parents left her. When Ben confronted her with what she already knew, i.e. that they would never come back, it was very painful for her, but he immediately added that her being “nobody” did nothing to change the fact that to him, she is much.

Even the fans who called Reylo Reverse Anidala often did not want to see that Padmé had believed she could save Anakin with her love, and failed. Of course she failed: because for a balanced relationship, both have to learn from one another. They must influence one another and grow together. The relationship between Anakin and Padmé always was unbalanced because she was not aware of his inner turmoil, and he always felt inferior to her - an ex slave who had married a former queen. And in a dramatic context as the Skywalker family saga, people have to save one another. The team that was glued together in the classic trilogy always did so, that’s why things worked out.

Ever since The Force Awakens we have often been confronted with Rey’s aggressiveness and judgmental attitude. And she ends her last Force connection in The Last Jedi literally looking down on Ben.

There is no reason at all, except wishful thinking, to assume that Rey has nothing dark inside her, or not enough to make her evil. (Yes, in The Last Jedi she kills a few Praetorian Guards, but in self-defense.)

Even most of the fans who kept stubbornly pretending that Rey is secretly Luke’s daughter did not come to this conclusion. But Luke was never 100 % good and pure himself.

When he met Vader for the first time face-to-face on Bespine, he was welcomed with the sentence “The Force is with you, young Skywalker. But you are not a Jedi yet.” Luke immediately proved him right by igniting his light saber first, although Yoda had repeatedly taught him that a Jedi fights only in defense and that violence is not a solution.

Luke paid a high price for his conceit and sense of entitlement: on Bespine all hell broke loose. He came away barely alive, crippled and severely traumatized. But that terrible experience on the long run had done him good: he was much more calm and collected in Return of the Jedi. Luke had learned his lesson. Rey hasn’t, as of yet.

Now I am not saying that Rey is a bad person, and I am not trying to justify Ben’s atrocious deeds. But he was isolated, manipulated and terrified since childhood and then let down by the one person in the galaxy he would never have expected it from - his uncle, whose all-encompassing love for his father, forgiveness and pacifism had made him a legend before his nephew was even born.

Rey was in no position to understand the depth of pain and despair that made Ben kill Han, in an insane attempt to overcome the inner conflict that was tearing him apart. As they say, don’t judge someone unless you’ve been in his shoes.

Snoke, a powerful Force user, knew its mechanics very well: “Darkness rises and Light to meet it.” As Rey had “risen” from Jakku while Kylo did more and more evil, so it was to be expected that since he has freed some of the light that still was in him, she will now go down the opposite path.

I am positive that Rey will not remain in the darkness, that in some way or another she will find out again. But the plunge into the Dark Side is extremely important for her because she must understand that she has no right to judge the man who is her equal in the Force.

Ben and Rey have an important task: they have to bring Balance to the Force and thus lasting peace to the galaxy. But they can’t cooperate if they don’t have a common ground, and they will never have a common ground as long as one of them believes he has the right to make choices for the other. Both are convinced of doing right; which is why the darkness is all the more tempting to them. They have not yet matured the sense of responsibility a Force user needs in order to employ his powers the right way.

Though it contains many tropes, this is not Pride and Prejudice or Romeo and Juliet or Cinderella or Beauty and the Beast. It’s Star Wars. Like a royal family in former times, the fate of the Skywalker saga always echoes through the galaxy. They must find peace at last, and for good, for the sake of everybody. The saga won’t be done by Ben and Rey kissing and making up.

And apart from that: it was about time that the saga got its own female villain. I’m all for female empowerment - it must not necessarily be through virtue. *cough* 😉

#star wars #dark side #the force #rey #kylo ren #ben solo #redemption #palpatine #snoke #episode IX #pride and prejudice #beauty and the beast #The Last Jedi #The Rise of Skywalker #reylo

44 notes · View notes

shutterupp31 · 4 years

Text

Toxic masculinity-Whats wrong with our boys?

For centuries men have been condemned for acts of aggression, violence, and sexism, contributing to the ongoing popularity of the phrase ‘toxic masculinity’ which distinguishes these traits as toxic and unhealthy. The American psychological association have even recently introduced new guidelines for therapists working with both men and boys, indicating that early signs of extreme ‘traditional masculine behaviour’ can root themselves in personality traits that encourage outcomes of violence and misogyny, and must be disestablished early.

With the increase in male suicide rates and drug overdoses in the western world, combined with the rise of fourth wave feminism, as you can imagine, the debate on toxic masculinity is becoming all the more relevant amongst both genders. Mass media have blamed toxic masculinity for rape, mass shootings, online trolling, climate change and even the election of Donald Trump.

BUT is the phrase toxic masculinity actually helpful, accurate or universal? Let's discuss.

Like any phrase or term regularly recycled within gender debate, the stereotypes it highlights have divided peoples opinions drastically, a predictable conflict that has most definitely contributed to the terms rise, (Yay politics). On the right we have many conservatives who allege that the charges of toxic masculinity is itself an attack on manhood. With mental health problems amongst males consistently rising, combined with the challenges the men's right movement already face, including paternity rights, homelessness, education to name a FEW, these people argue that it is dangerous and unfair to strip boys of what some would say is a necessity for them to discover their true selves as men in their time of need.

On the other side we see many ‘progressives’ who believe that the detoxification of masculinity is absolutely essential on the road to gender equality.

NOW, i'm sure (I mean I hope) we can all agree that issues including sexism, rape, violence and so on are obviously important and anyone male or female that possess these traits and/or actively defends them, needs help! Research consistently shows that those who hold sexist attitudes are more likely to perpetrate gendered violence. (DUH), but the potential biological and cultural contributions to why these figures are disproportionate amongst men and women is not something I wish to discuss at present, that's a whole other debate.

What I do want to talk about (and what a lot of people aren't talking about) is this ‘painting every male with the same brush’ phenomenon and the extent to which this could be harmful.

My issue with the shift we have seen in which masculinity is rapidly becoming a dirty word, is that it genuinely encourages a narrative in which masculinity is fundamentally toxic.

The assumption that the majority of what can be considered as male specific characteristics, as fundamentally harmful, is becoming increasingly worrying within socialist politics. Traits such as aggression, violence and dominance are more and more often being lumped in with those such as strength, confidence and independence and this is the problem. Yes masculinity can indeed be somewhat destructive, (AGAIN VIOLENCE IS BAD VERY BAD, NON VIOLENCE GOOD VERY GOOD) but both conservative and liberal stances on this issue commonly misunderstand how the term functions.

When people use it, they tend to diagnose the problem of masculine aggression and entitlement as a cultural or spiritual illness, something that has infected today’s men and leads them to reproachable acts. But toxic masculinity itself is not a cause. Over the past thirty years, as the concept has morphed and changed, it has served more as a barometer for the gender politics of its day and as an arrow toward the subtler, shifting causes of violence and sexism.

Acts of violence, aggression and sexism arise for a whole host of reasons, including socioeconomic factors such as education, class, and poverty, NEWSFLASH, not all men that celebrate the idea of being emotionally or physically strong intend to murder and rape the entire female population!

THOUGHT EXPERIMENT TIME

How often do you see women on social media celebrating what it means to be a woman? All the time right? Now, don't get me wrong, this rise of what I'm gonna call ‘girl power culture’ is phenomenally empowering.

But how often do you see men innocently celebrate their manhood or say they are proud to be a man online in the same way?

Very rarely, and if they do they are often immediately attacked for being misogynistic and failing to recognise their privilege by Feminazi’s who fail to read context and get triggered by buzzwords.

Ooooo Controversial? Perhaps, but AGAIN, I'm not failing to recognise that things like lad culture, and boys will be boys culture exist, and perhaps this obvious difference on social media has something to do with the years of oppression against women up until very recently, in fact it probably, most certainly is, however not acknowledging the multiplicity of reasons for these toxic behaviours, and not allowing men to celebrate that they like and may even enjoy being one, in the same way as its widely excepted amongst women, is well, kinda just dumb.

Don't believe me yet? Let's look at the evidence.

First I think it is important to establish where the term originated. Despite the term’s recent popularity among feminists, toxic masculinity did not originate with the women’s movement. It was coined in the mythopoetic men's movement of the 1980s and ’90s, motivated in part as a reaction to second-wave feminism. Through male only workshops, wilderness retreats, and drumming circles, this movement promoted a masculine spirituality to rescue what it referred to as the ‘deep masculine’, a protective ‘warrior’ type masculinity, from toxic masculinity. Men’s aggression and frustration was, according to the movement, the result of a society that feminized boys by denying them the necessary rites and rituals to realise their true selves as men.

The claim of a singular, real masculinity has now been roundly rejected by a new sociology of masculinity. Led by the sociologist Raewyn Connell, this school of thought presents gender as the product of relations and behaviours, rather than as a fixed set of identities and attributes. Connell’s work describes multiple masculinities shaped by class, race, culture, sexuality, and other factors, often in competition with one another as to which can claim to be more authentic. In this view, which is now the prevailing social scientific understanding of masculinity, the standards by which a “real man” is defined can vary dramatically across time and place.

Connell and others theorised that common masculine ideals such as social respect, physical strength, and sexual potency can of course become problematic when they set unattainable standards. Falling short can make boys and men insecure and anxious, which might prompt them to use force in order to feel, and be seen as, dominant and in control, HOWEVER Male violence in this scenario doesn’t emanate from something bad or toxic that has crept into the nature of masculinity itself. Rather, it comes from these men’s social and political settings, the particularities of which set them up for inner conflicts over social expectations and male entitlement.

The popular discussion of masculinity has often presumed there are fixed character types among men, and I think it's become increasingly more important to be skeptical of this in order to understand the situations in which groups of men act, the patterns, and the inevitable consequences, because without doing so ,YOU may be contributing to the reinforcement of the toxic masculinity in which you despise so much, which brings us on to….

The blame game-are you contributing to toxic masculinity?

Where do these sexist attitudes come from? Are men and boys just the victims of cultural brainwashing into misogyny and aggression, requiring reeducation into the ‘right’ beliefs? Or are these problems more deep rooted, and created by the myriad of insecurities and contradictions of men’s lives under gender inequality? The problem with a crusade against toxic masculinity is that in targeting culture as the enemy, it risks overlooking the real life conditions and forces that sustain culture.

It is more than likely that you have somewhat contributed to the reinforcement of toxic masculinity without even realising. Something I see so often is both men and women emasculating men for being emotionally vulnerable and this specific topic is something I personally find alarming. In the same way I defend a man's right to choose how and whether he verbally expresses emotions, I strongly believe that there is work to be done to deconstruct the stigma that is attached to this, when and if they choose to do so.

In similar fashion, in the way we have fought so hard to reject female beauty standards, it's really essential that we consider the male equivalent. Don't think there is one? Ask any man under 5 foot 8, ask any bald man under the age of 30, ask any man who has been shamed for the lack of, or excess of body hair. We have to start recognising that there is a double standard, and without too much speculation, could these expectations and lack of attention we are giving them in comparison to a lot of feminist issues in mass media, be somewhat contributing to the frustration and anger that manifests into these toxic traits we have been discussing. YEAH, FUCKING PROBABLY.

Anyway, in summary what I'm saying is, in the same way that the toxic traits we subscribe to masculinity are not universal amongst all males, the solutions to those issues that we have identified within this culture, are also not universal. Recognising differences in the lives of men and boys is crucial to the effectiveness of efforts to resolve gender violence and inequality once and for all, some food for thought.

Stay kind always, Abbie x

2 notes · View notes