#SOMETHING SOMETHING WOMEN WHO SUPPOSEDLY WANT FEMINISM EXCEPT NOT AS A MEANS TO EQUALIZE GENDERS BUT TO UPLIFT THEMSELVES TO MENS STANDING | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

magimerlyn · 9 months

Text

So i just saw the Barbie movie

Visually, it was stunning, but the storyline was meh at best

Spoilers from this moment on

My biggest complaint is that the movie has a very surface level understanding of feminism and the patriarchy, or more specifically the problems inherent in a society where only one gender is allowed to be more than an accessory

Barbieland is a matriarchy, and at first it seems wonderful, they have a black president Barbie, they have an all-Barbie supreme court, their nobel prize winners and great scientists and doctors are all Barbies

Great, right? And it makes sense, an all-Barbie society would naturally be led by women.

Except it's not an all-Barbie society.

Which is where the film's view of a feminist utopia falls apart, because there's Midge, who lives on Barbie's street but never leaves her yard, there's Allan, who's literally the only one of his kind, and then there's the Kens.

The Kens don't have real jobs, Ryan Gosling's job is supposedly "beach," which does not mean lifeguard, there is a Ken who appears to be a lifeguard, but the water's fake so all he does is sit on the tower and use binoculars. Instead, every Ken has one responsibility: be Barbie's boyfriend.

Now in the real world, women weren't able to open a bank account on their own without a husband until 1974. We generally don't think of women having entered the workforce until the 40's in America, when the men went off to fight in the war effort. And even today, there's an implication that you're a failure of a woman if you can't get a partner.

The Kens don't have an identity outside of "Barbie's boyfriend" which leads Ryan Gosling's Ken to flounder from pretty much the moment we meet him because Barbie is clearly not interested in him. (She doesn't actually communicate this to him at all either until the very end of the movie) The fact that being called "sir" by a woman who was asking him what time it was translated in his mind as her seeing him as an authority figure is sad and kind of pathetic. So when he saw other men doing things that weren't connected to their partners, like driving trucks, drinking beers, and riding horses, it's not surprising that he equated those with having an identity of his own.

But herein lais my second major complaint with the movie: how Ken is radicalized.

Trucks, beer, and horses are not what makes someone do what Ken does. Possibly seeing a world where men are in charge would compel him to try to take over Barbieland, but it's specifically the way that he and the other kens objectify and mistreat the Barbies that felt very strange with what we were shown that he saw. I think if we'd seen him hear something like an Andrew Tate podcast or something it would make more sense, especially with how his basic desire is for Barbie to want to be with him the way he wants to be with her, as well as why the patriarchyhe brings back is so violent and how similar it is to real-world patriarchy.

Barbieland's matriarchy is not violent in its oppression of the Kens, its more that the Barbies don't see the Kens as being equal to them. Which is still oppression. It's arguably a more benign form, but it's still oppression.

So when the Barbies reinstate their matriarchy with no changes except for bringing Weird Barbie back into the fold again and giving the Kens the possibility of a minor court judge one day, it's really frustrating because the film is basically saying there that there were no problems with the original system, when clearly there were if Ken was able to radicalize all the other Kens in literally one day. It's saying that as long as women are in charge, everything is perfect.

The narrator even says "one day, the Kens might even have as much power as women do in the real world."

When so much of the cast and crew was talking about how this was a great feminist movie, I'm just disappointed by how surface level it actually was.

#barbie spoilers

6 notes · View notes

kukkotar · 4 years

Text

Maternal gift-giving

"At the beginning of my research on motherhood—then a young mother in my twenties myself—I realized that there is something deeply wrong with family and motherhood and the way motherhood is presented in the media and in politics. The public discourse is dominated by two subjects. One is about work and family, that is, the economic view; the other is about procreation—birthrates and their political implications. Within both debates, mothers as such do not appear …

'Having it all' is supposedly the objective (e.g., Sandberg) for women who want both children and work. In Europe this debate is dominated by the social democratic viewpoint and its concept of freeing women by including them in the workforce and encouraging a career. … This economic discourse is based on the concept of liberal feminism's understanding of equality (with men) without questioning neoliberalism or its philosophy, rules, and practices.

The other subject on the daily agenda is the reproductive one—abortion legislation and practice, birthrate decline in Europe, and reproductive technologies. All these debates are dealt with in a moral and normative manner. Women's bodies and procreative ability are objects of discussion, though not debated with women themselves. ...

The low birthrates in Europe since the 1980s also brought a new incentive to accelerate population politics. The norm of the two-child family is constantly pursued and propagated in politics, media, and—not the least—by the economic demands of a higher amount of human resources. … We thus realize that motherhood is central to political and economic debates, but not so for the mother herself with her needs, accomplishments, or constant giving. Maternal gift giving is not labelled as such, and is thus nonexistent in political and economic terms. …

My thesis is that the idea of motherhood today—which I call 'patriarchal motherhood'—is based on the historical matricide, which can be retraced in myth, psychology, science, medicine, law, politics, philosophy, and religion. The mother is still alive—as she is still required as breeder, caretaker, and worker—but the conditions and the constraints in which she is living are the result of a violent transformation. …

A key term here is patriarchy … [it] consists of the Latin term pater (meaning father) and the Greek term arche (which can mean dominance or beginning). It is the father who wants to replace the mother as the origin and creator. That is done in material form, but also by means of symbolism and myths, such as that of Zeus who 'gives birth' to his daughter Athena out of his head. What the historically younger version of that myth conceals is that before supposedly giving birth, he had swallowed the goddess Metis who was pregnant with her daughter. Thus, like today, patriarchy depended on absorbing maternal potency to imitate the creation of life. ...

During the last decades, Michel Foucault's postmodern approach and critical theory of modernity was applied to feminist theory and ousted feminist social science approaches. Judith Butler and others developed the theory of gender performativity, denying that there is anything natural in the female body, thus rendering it impossible to talk about women in a collective sense. Furthermore, this concept, widely accepted in academia, has caused a shift toward individualizing the 'female problem,' and leaving a systemic view behind. In a 'gender neutral' world, the collective understanding of women is vanishing and political activism against structural injustice and violence is rendered impossible.

By favouring an individualistic view and an 'identity approach,' 'womanhood' is reduced to a rhetorical problem and feminism is losing is transformative power. It may be speculation as to whether this was, in fact, the aim of the theory of gender performativity, but what we do know for sure is that this approach contributes to the patriarchal project of abolishing the mother. …

I am unable to even find a word that can describe the 'constant weaving a net' that women provide on a daily basis. It contains the world of emotions in which mother and child are immersed from the day of birth; the sharing of time; the process of cooking and sharing meals; and the female and maternal network that comprises mothers and friends. Maternal culture is embodied by the whole sphere of artisanal and handcraft activity by sharing circles and creating spaces by its acts of production. ...

Motherhood was historically split into physical (the womb) and caring functions (which were oppressed, ridiculed, and exploited). … There is an ultimate goal, namely to get rid of the mother altogether. It is her body and her creative potency which has to be eradicated, at which time the male creation puts itself in her place, turning female creativity on its head. Her vividness is to be eradicated, and pregnancy is to be turned from a supposedly uncontrolled, wild, and unpredictable act to a calculable, controlled, and measurable one of modern technology. …

Patriarchal motherhood must be understood as an institution, as the mother's body, her work, and her creative potency are transformed into a kind of administrative unit. By providing food, housing, and care, the mother and housewife embodies economy in its true sense. This is the shadow economy upon which the official economy is based …

The frame in which maternal life is permitted is the nuclear family, a concept created in the beginning of patriarchal times to impede woman's free sexuality and pregnancies regardless of the father. Within marriage, procreation became transformed into a controlled and supervised duty. Since then, a non-married mother was considered to be a shame, and the married mother a blessing. The seizure of 'illegitimate' children was common throughout Europe until the 1970s. Over time and space, the family was normatively shaped in manifold ways, but its aim of preserving control over the reproductive process never altered.

Also the European/North American idea of motherhood and the nuclear family is an export good to non-western societies. It is communicated or violently imposed by means of religion (missionaries), economics (private property, creation of a new workforce), or political measures (introduction of paternal family name) on non-patriarchal societies—for example, the Khasis in Assam, India, or the Mosuo in South China. …

A characteristic of mothers' lives in patriarchy is the constant state of being overworked and exhausted, not only when the mother is single, but also when she is in a relationship. Statistics prove time and time again that working mothers are usually subject to an imbalance of childcare and household work. Today paid employment is an economic necessity to maintain the household; the leftist slogan of gaining freedom through employment is and was never true. Female salaries are low and usually considered an add-on to the main income of the male, which is still considerably higher. Female employment was and is seldom self-realization, but simply a matter of survival. Thus mothers gain exhaustion instead of the promised freedom of economic independence. …

In making the burden of the constant care, responsibility, management, and raising of each child the responsibility of an individual, society rids itself of any understanding of common sharing. … Instead of sharing work with others, mothers perform their day-to-day tasks in 'solitary confinement' (Rich) according to detailed instructions on carrying out motherhood. … The mother is led to believe that she should not care about or prioritize her own needs, that neglecting herself is normal, and that her notion of constant failure and guilt is natural. The patriarchal mother is also unaware of the norms that make sure that she will never be able to keep up with expectations.

In this sense, the perverted mother shall follow an ideal of a heterosexual relationship that is supposedly the best place for her children and herself. It is presented as 'natural,' as children are conceived by a man and a woman. In this 'natural' pairing, men and women are kept together in a lifelong unit as a nuclear family. The patriarchal mother is made to believe that a lasting romantic relationship in marriage is the norm. The truth contradicts this all the while: the family is the most dangerous place for women and children because of sexual, physical, and psychological abuse, and danger of a violent death. A lifelong loving relationship is the exception while unhappy unions, divorces, and separations are the statistical norm. …

The perverted mother has to be kept under control and under psychological, pedagogical, legal, and medical observance. She has to function within that framework and within the nuclear family. If she fails she is punished socially and legally. In other words, she represents the essential role of the family machine—a kind of family caricature, free of spontaneity and liveliness, an entity of constraints and of duty to society and nation. The world of the creative mother-child culture is belittled, devalued, supposedly old fashioned, unnecessary, and undesirable. These efforts are vilified and reduced to providing fast food, getting the children ready for school in a militaristic manner, organizing and managing them, and turning them and the mother herself into factory inmates. …

We have to become aware of our own colonized mind. We have to stop believing that mothers ought to be in an isolated state. We have to give up the idea that individual motherhood is the norm.

We also have to realize that the nuclear family is the worst place to live in peace and to raise a child. We also have to consider the next generation and not fall into the trap of raising our children with the wrong pictures of the holy and sane family that are portrayed in the media and popular culture. We have to sustain them in finding their autonomous ways to a satisfying life, raising children in community, and having a healthy personal sexual life and romantic relationships that may vary over the course of time.

What should be our model for this new understanding of a freed personal life? In fact, the solution is old and the models are still in place. The answer is matrilinearity, which has been in practice since the beginning of civilization all over the world, and in some (mostly remote) areas of the world still exists, although the attempts to patriarchalize these societies are increasing. …

Starting to live by way of matrilinearity means:

▴ Understanding motherhood as a collective caring principle carried out by many—thus the opposite of an idealized isolated mother image. Motherhood itself, from the time of pregnancy, is to be understood and respected as the embodiment of connectedness.

▴ Family and kinship is defined through the maternal line, not by marriage. Like Russian nesting dolls, the offspring of the maternal body form a linear tradition that can never be denied. Family is about belonging to and sharing with a specific group or clan. When the father tried to make himself symbolically and in reality the head of the family, he turned the logic of matrilineally completely on its head.

▴ The maternal brother is the social father of his sister's children. He is the support of all the mothers in the family. So the maternal line also includes men, but not husbands or lovers. Sexual relationships are considered a private, very personal matter, and thus not an integral part of the familial community system. Love within the family has a completely different character and importance than the desire for a lover. For the Mosuo, who practice visiting marriages, the idea of building a life on mutual sexual attraction seems completely incomprehensible and irresponsible.

▴ Housing in a close vicinity is an important factor for the interdependence of the community and family. By forming a net of relationships, mutual support can help children grow up safely in an enduring community.

▴ Contrary to the Western concept of ego, which can only be developed by matricide, there is no need of a violent act in order to be an independent person. The idea of the 'mature ego' is usually equated with an attitude in which the objective reality is thought of as being radically separated from the subject. Instead of 'cutting the cord' as is demanded in European and North American cultures (or else risk the accusation of having failed in 'adult life' if you return to your parents' house), adult children and grandchildren in matrilinear families are still connected to their maternal home by a movement of back and forth, continually leaving and returning."

Mariam Irene Tazi-Preve, from her essay, "The Perversion of Maternal Gift Giving: Initiating the Matrilinear Motherhood NOW Movement," published in The Maternal Roots of the Gift Economy, edited by Genevieve Vaughan, 2019,

#mariam irene tazi-preve #gift economy #motherhood #maternal lineage

3 notes · View notes

nothingman · 7 years

Link

For years, Reddit’s r/TheRedPill forum has been one of the worst corners of the internet. It’s the home of the pickup artist movement, it gave Milo Yiannapolis a fawning fanbase, and it’s the hub of the perceived “manosphere”–a community built around the “men’s rights” philosophy that feminism is a sham built to oppress men.

Reddit is deliberately designed to protect anonymity. But that doesn’t mean users don’t also have to work to protect themselves–something that someone probably should have told Robert Fisher of New Hampshire, who has just been outed by The Daily Beast, via a trail of usernames and custom URLs with ties to Fisher’s email address, as the creator of the misogynistic forum.

Fisher, by the way, also happens to be a member of the New Hampshire House of Representatives, not that the connection is very surprising. If I had to name the two communities most vocal in their loathing of women, I’d probably go with Red Pill dudes and the GOP.

In addition to Red Pill, Fisher’s reported aliases had also written and published a pickup artist site, a blog attempting to “Explain God,” and one site titled “Existential Vortex.” He also was or maybe still is a singer-songwriter and kazooist in an “indieelectronic” band. Basically, he sounds like exactly the sort of bro-ish college kid, straight off a few frat party rejections and his first philosophy class, whom you would expect to found a misogynistic Reddit forum with a name referencing The Matrix. (Except Fisher had, at the time of Red Pill’s creation, aged out of the follies of youth excuse. He’s 31 now.)

Fisher’s reported “Pk_atheist” alias started the subreddit in October 2012, just before he lost his first election—one he ran as a Democrat. He won his seat in November of 2014, by which time the subreddit had grown to 83,000 members. He had already stepped down as a moderator in early 2013, but continued to be active in the community.

The Daily Beast writes that “within hours of contacting Rep. Fisher, and after delivering by email a summary of his apparent connections to The Red Pill kingpin, his two primary Reddit usernames had been wiped, and four blogs connected to him were deleted or made private.”

[Update: His own colleagues, on both sides of the aisle, are already calling for his resignation. Fisher responded with a statement asserting he is “not disappearing,” adding, “I will continue to stand strong for men’s rights and the rights of all.”]

But the internet doesn’t let you hide from your awfulness that easily. Through archived posts and comment threads, we have way too clear a window into this man’s mind and his motivations for starting this giant sexism feeding ground. Here are just a few direct quotes.

Content warning for, well, for everything Red Pill is about. (Misogyny and rape denial abound.)

–If you want the short version of his views on women: “I find women’s personalities in general to be lackluster and boring, serving little purpose in my day to day life. So I usually only compare body types.”

–“Because when I told myself I thought they were smart, I really had the footnote in the back of my head … smart … for a woman.”

–“I don’t hate women. I just understand what use they are to me. Stimulating conversation is not one of them.”

–“Understand that in the old days, women were not brought up the way they are today. Before feminism, there was less freedom, and therefore it was not necessary to teach women consequence. Consequence was strictly a man’s game.”

–“Women are not oppressed- they’re literally free from a lot of the responsibilities men are- to the extent where women have no need for the functioning every-day knowledge that most men have by the age of 18 … If you took the conversation skills, the sub-par intelligence, the lack of curiosity and put it in a man’s body- would you hang out with that guy? No! Would he be successful? Hell no! Those things are useless without a woman’s body attached.”

–In a post with “seduction” advice, he proposes “There’s a good girl voice inside each woman telling her that she needs to make sure to be proper and avoid being a slut.” He follows up with a lot of tips on how to invade the “good girl’s” personal space and trick her into letting out the “slut.”

–In response to a question about the Free the Nipple movement: “Hot women are a cartel, and they will continue to keep prices as high as possible. Anybody “freeing” their nipples will either be low-quality, or they will have a smear campaign against them to make them seem low-quality, despite the equality implications supposedly working for the cartel.”

–He defended being sexually attracted to teenage girls. “15 year old girls have boobs. Puberty doesnt strike at 18 overnight. Secondly, not creepy- 15 year old girls and guys are commonly sexually active. Its just illegal.”

–In one of his many comments alleging women frequently falsely accuse men of rape, he says he has a video camera in his room, presumably to record his exploits for proof of innocence.

It’s bad enough that someone could hold all of these beliefs, let alone feel confident to enough to put them out in public (even if anonymously so). Add to that the fact that there are, as of now, nearly 200,000 subscribers to the subreddit.

But nothing is scarier than knowing that this is what at least some (and some is too many) of the men who make our country’s laws think about women. And if you think Fisher’s purported Reddit persona is all talk, it’s not. It’s clear that his misogyny infects his platform.

Taking a quick look at Fisher’s terrible, stock-photo-filled campaign website, you can see the threads. In the site’s “Family” section (complete with a stock picture of what I assume is a random family of strangers, so you know he really cares), he says he wants to “strengthen the family.” But all that seems to mean to him is something about the family court legal system. He writes, “It is long over-due to bring oversight and accountability to our family courts. Every parent deserves justice in our courts regardless of race, gender, ethnicity, or orientation.”

This obsession with family courts looks to date back to 2012, when his colleague and fellow men’s rights activist Joshua Youssef began publicly decrying the “feminist judicial tyranny” over a custody battle with his ex-wife. A reddit username the Daily Beast attributes to Youssef posted a lengthy rant about the “corruption, deception, greed, lawlessness, and feminist entitlement-mindedness, of the family court” to /theredpill, with Fisher in the comments defending him.

Remember that comment about “low quality” women exposing their nipples? Another one of New Hampshire’s Reps, Al Baldasaro, insulted the physical appearance of a female legislator who was fighting a bill, written by an all-male team, which would have outlawed breastfeeding in public.

Just four days after the 2014 election that put him in the New Hampshire House of Representatives, with only 100 subscribers, Pk_atheist wrote a manifesto of sorts, explaining the point of the, as of then, two-week-old forum.

“Our culture has become a feminist culture,” he wrote. “A president cannot be elected today without succumbing to the feminist narrative and paying them tribute. How many times has Obama given credit for his manhood to his wife? How many times has the debate hinged on women’s pay gap – which is a myth that gets lip service because if you don’t you’re a misogynist!”

Yet he maintained, “It’s too easy to blame feminism for our troubles.” He’s all for equal rights, he says, although he takes care to specify, “Equal rights are something I strongly am in support of. For men and women.” As opposed to unequal equality, I suppose.

His big message is that feminism has led not to equal rights, but to female domination. Women, as he puts it, control the conversation. “I am here to say, for better or for worse, the frame around public discourse is a feminist frame, and we’ve lost our identity because of it.”

Therefore men, he proclaims, need to take back this role of central dominance from women. The Red Pill is “men’s sexual strategy,” designed to counter feminism, which is, apparently, nothing more than a sexual strategy itself.

This, through the Daily Beast’s sleuthing, appears to be Robert Fisher’s worldview. This is a man who gave a space to hundreds of thousands of others looking to blame and conquer women, while simultaneously being elected into public office, where he has the ability to affect real policy.

Here’s the kicker, and keep this in mind the next time you think your vote doesn’t matter: In Fisher’s small New Hampshire district, he won his re-election by only 700 votes. He won his first election in 2014 by 276 votes. Squashing the internet’s rampant misogyny is a challenge too big for any one of us, but if you’re eligible to vote, you can do your part to keep immature, idiotic monsters like this one out of office.

(via Daily Beast, image: Shutterstock)

Want more stories like this? Become a subscriber and support the site!

—The Mary Sue has a strict comment policy that forbids, but is not limited to, personal insults toward anyone, hate speech, and trolling.—

via The Mary Sue

#IFTTT #Feedly #Nothingman uses feedly

4 notes · View notes

jenbrookmodel · 7 years

Text

Cathy Keen

Artist statement on The Act project: click HERE

Cathy Keen, Lapdancer

With seventeen years’ experience under her rhinestone bikini belt, Cathy Keen’s interpretation of female power leaves us questioning what society has taught us. The thirty-six year old began erotic dancing in order to pay university fees. However nearly two decades on and with regular clients forming lasting bonds (so much, that she has met a few of their wives), she says that the choice to work in the sex industry is what defines feminism; she is not a victim of force.

Cathy tells us of the underground world, that despite dipping in and out of for many years, has never truly left her. As a property developer for three years, boasting a bachelor's degree to her name, brains and drive are not something Ms Keen lacks. Yet the flexible hours, generous wage and supportive family-like environment of the strip club can never be quite matched by the unsatisfying normality of the 9-5 corporate world.

She recalls the beginnings of her dancing days derived from casual hostessing; ��We drink with customers and take commission from their bill so they don’t feel like they’re paying for our company.” Whilst it sounds all champagne on ice and wild parties to us, Cathy explains the psyche of the club’s clients, the relationship with her regulars and the role she has acquired as an unqualified therapist.

“In between these four walls...” *points to the black paint between the glistening coloured spotlights of the dark club* “...I connect with people in a way I cannot beyond that steel door. I can slide underneath the exterior shell we build up in the ‘real’ world. You’re automatically unarmed inside here”.

The plot thickens.

“My job specification isn’t just dancing and stripping. I’m a listener; an agony aunt. I am a constant companion to those who feel alone. I’m not going anywhere or too bored to listen. I’m an outside ear who can provide support and comfort. As a dancer, it’s not like escorting because we can’t fulfill those who come here with sexual frustrations. We just tease and we help those who want to be heard. I actually prefer international rules, which means there can be physical, but not sexual contact. That way I can sit on the client and get close - and as long as they’re respectful of boundaries, you can connect on a deeper level that way; something that truly lends something else to the experience. It’s not graphic, more sensual actually.”

As an advocate for ‘international rules’, we feel obliged to ask the question if Cathy feels attracted to her clients, or indeed if she has ever met a boyfriend at work.

“I don’t have to be attracted or feel chemistry to feel some sort of connection. In fact some are just like mannequins to me. But I do try to ‘like’ all of my customers to make it a positive experience for them. I think that’s really important. I’ve been on two dates with clients. One was terrible and the other was much later in my career and I was deeply connected to that person. Men often try to ask for more - I’m probably propositioned most nights. They’re actually quite creative and eloquent with pushing their luck! I understand though, they want to feel like they got something more, as though I’m providing more than my job requires. I’ve been offered large sums of money for sex in the past, but I’ve never felt the need to go that far. I’m sometimes paid £600 per hour just to talk, so I wouldn’t be tempted by much. Plus I have a good lifestyle where a few grand isn’t going to change my life dramatically. It’s important to know that the girls who do ‘extras’ are tempted by proximity because they want to, not because they have to. Those girls don’t tend to last long as a dancer.”

On the topic of money, what Cathy earns is of course the elephant in the room topic we want to delve into. In the company of such an honest and open character, we waste no time in asking her to expand on the subject.

“There are two types of girl in the stripclub - 'good time' girls and girls who want to earn as much money as possible for doing as little as they can. In my experience, strippers are more like the latter - divas! With regards to wages, on a really quiet night if nobody shows up, you can end up in debt to the club. This hasn’t happened to me in a long time, but it can. However, some girls will earn £20,000 in one night if they’re with a customer who is in love with them and willing to part with that kind of cash. I once made £7000 in one night from a regular who didn’t even buy a private dance. Instead I spent time in the VIP suite keeping him company, hoarding his attention all night.”

Since we’ve covered sex and money, our conversation progresses onto drugs. The industry is presumed rife with recreational drug use, supposedly to ‘zone out’ of the infliction of ‘horrors’ from the sex trade. Yet every woman we have encountered thus far, has not once described themselves in need of escapism.

“Drugs play a part in my recreational life. But if we’re only talking work, then no. Even on a separate level to professionalism, drugs shut me down emotionally so I can’t take them at work for that reason. When I’m on a night out, I don’t have to watch my P’s and Q’s or take money from people - I can relax on drugs, but not at at the stripclub. It pays to be focused in the work environment. I can’t imagine that’s exclusive to my job.”

Although there have been times when Cathy has felt like she has no other options, where her lack of professional skills have almost strangled her, she goes on to tell us how much freedom she has had in her life built from dancing; the liberations of independence and self-sufficiency.

“I’m a wife, a mother and trained property developer now, but I look back over the last decade and I remember all the places I’ve been, the cars I have driven and the people I have met. I know it all sounds very materialistic, but it’s more about life experiences to me. I cannot express how intense the comradery is here; the sisterhood amongst the dancers is like no other. We know each other and recognise fragile states and we work through them together. We’re family.”

As a wife and a mother, we had to ask Cathy about her own family. Having already touched upon the pro’s of flexible working hours, we are curious to know if her controversial occupation has ever been an issue to those closest to her. “I was already dancing when I met my partner, so it’s never been a problem because it’s always been a part of me. He knew who I was from the start. Strangely enough, when I had my son, it made me think I was only living for him. But dancing allows me to do something for me and recognise my femininity. I am proud to be independent, but does that make me a feminist?”

“I don’t like to label myself as a feminist because it socially represents the women who have fought to end my line of work - but taking my clothes off for money empowers me. I’m not a victim of anything or anyone. I feel empowered by everything I do. Men enjoy how I look, like I enjoy how other women look, but I’m not sexually attracted to them. Feminists tend to think dancing goes against the equality that women have fought for, but when I can choose to do a job that I enjoy and still earn a substantial wage from doing it - can taking my clothes off really be anti-feminist? There is a kind of ethereal quality to femininity that you are encouraged to promote in a strip club; a type that women aren't allowed to display in a normal workplace. I enjoy being able to project my gender openly without being judged for it and being supported by not only men, but also the women around me.”

“People find me sexually attractive for my body and sexuality is a great power, not a terrible weakness. I don’t necessarily want to be considered a feminist because I find the inequality between men and women very beautiful. Men have strengths as well as weaknesses, as do women, both in very different ways (with exceptions to the rule). If you try to fight a man in a man’s way, you won’t win...because he’s a man. In the same way a man can’t fight a woman in a woman’s way...because she’s a woman. To me, feminism isn’t about a small group of women deciding what they think is best for womankind as a whole, it’s about being able to make a choice - and stripping is something I want to do. Surely that’s the definition of pro-feminism.”

Standing before us in a red lace bodice, her naturally small breasts and admirable fitness physique already contradicts our misconceptions before she speaks. When she opens her mouth, Cathy is an educated graduate, a mother and a monogamous lover with wisdom beyond her youth-full years. With a captivating understanding of true femininity, culture, society and equality beyond many politician’s capability, clever Cathy is all woman.

Writer: Jen Brook

Photographer: Julia Fullerton Batten

From the internationally published art series, The Act, 2016.

Catch Julia talking about her work and The Act, at The Photography Show, on Tuesday 21st March.

** Follow me on Facebook at www.facebook.com/jenbrookmodelling Instagram @jen_brook_ & my website www.jenbrook.com **

#lapdancer #kathy keen #julia fullerton-batten #the act #art #art project #writer #jen brook #fine art #photography #published #author

19 notes · View notes

evelyn-blackburn-blog · 7 years

Text

Beyond horizon😮😮😮😮😮 towards a new world🌍🌎🌎

Feminism, usually misquoted and misinterpreted by people. Few people thinks that feminism is about’ female superiority’, if it’s about female superiority than what different is it from’ male domination ’. Feminism is not a fight for superiority, it’s about equality, equality for not only women’s but for men’s and other sexes too. Yes, women’s are not the only one who have been the victims of this domination or say ‘patriarchy ‘men have suffer too, they have been forbidden of many things that they might want to do or express, for say, it’s always been said don’t be emotional, you are man ’, what does that mean, being a man means you need to become callous towards what you are feeling, you have to give a backseat to your conscience and emotions 😢😢😢😢. In that sense I feels that men have been through rough patch too, they may haven’t live that perilous life like women’s do and may not meet the fatal endings like women but they certainly are the victims. We all are human beings, just the change of few things in our body, can��t take that dignity from us and deny us a respectful life. If a man can go shirtless and can showoff his abs than why can’t a woman can go bra less and showoff her bust, it’s her body and it should be her decision whether she wants to conceal or not, others have no consent in this, they should learn how to keep their nose to themself. If a man wants to cry or dance then why can’t he 😢😭😭😭😭😢, are we here in this world to make each others life hell !!!!…… This fight is not about going bra less or crying and dancing, it’s about choice in life, we should be able to do what we want to. Our sexes should not be the criteria of what we have to do or how we supposed to live our life. Our sex is something that can’t be choose but the ‘gender roles" are something that society impose on us. Our fight is against these supposedly “gender roles and duties “that forces us to be someone and do something that we don’t want to, it confines us and burns our wings to ashes. It’s our life and we should be the only one who have consent in it. We should be free to speak our minds. We can’t live an expressionless 😑😑 life….!!!! I also dissent with this term 'feminism’ , if it’s about equality of all sexes then why include the term 'feminine’ in it,… Why it can’t be something that represent all sexes. I feels that” androgyny “is correct for it. For me this word describe the coupling of all sexes, signifies that all the sexes are equal, a perfect coupling of all sexes. We are moving towards a new world and its an “androgynous world”, to move beyond the horizon we need to shred these vestiges of yesterday. We have to leave this mindset of domination and should move toward companionship and fellowship. Now it’s the high time that we give the due to all the sexes and give recognition, liberty and rights to everyone. Nothing is permanent in this wicked world so it’ll be good to reconcile with each other and except these differences with wide arms. These differences gives us edge, so it’ll be better to come together and become two sides sword than a blunt dagger 😎😎😎😎 :-)……,,,

3 notes · View notes