ForeverACharmedOne

I’m over this White Feminist™ idea that naked equals empowered it’s a lot more complex than that.

If you claim to be a feminist and you shame girls for wanting to do traditional things like take their husband’s last name or be a house wife then you are doing it all completely wrong.

Feminism isn’t an elite group who defeats gender norms, it’s a group who accepts ALL women’s choices.

I will reblog this every single time I see it.

OK, so I have lots of thinky thoughts on this and I’ve seen this post enough that I really need to express them. I’m sorry in advance for my long-winded rambling.

First of all, I agree with this sentiment 100%. No one should shame anyone for ANY of their life choices, unless those choices are cruel and/or harmful to others. One of my best friends got married a few years back, and asked me to be a bridesmaid. I happily accepted. We’ve been friends for 20 years, and so she absolutely KNOWS my opinions and thoughts on a range of gender issues. My friend had a super-traditional wedding and took her husband’s last name. I imagine if she’d cared about my opinion on that matter, she would have asked for it. She didn’t, so I didn’t offer it. I’ve never offered it, and don’t imagine I ever will. What matters is that her husband is a lovely guy and they are absolutely equals as partners and parents.

I have another friend who cannot WAIT to be a stay-at-home mom. We’ve been friends for almost 10 years, and this has always been her dream. She adores the domestic arts and is good at them. She’s also great with kids. Her fiance makes enough money for them to live (modestly but comfortably) on one income, and she just told me they’re going to try for a pregnancy soon. I am so freaking excited for her–she’s going to get to do her dream job! What could be better than that?

So, yes. On an individual basis, we support each other and don’t try and impose the way that we want to live on others. That is a matter of basic good will and respect. But! Yes, there is a but. But this whole concept of “choice feminism” has a really dark side that I don’t think is talked about nearly enough. There is a reason why the practice of a woman automatically taking her husband’s last name bothers me as a general practice. There is a reason why the assumption that if one parent in a heterosexual pairing is going to stay home with the kids, it should be the mom. These opinions don’t exist in a vacuum, and on more than one occasion, I have felt pressured to abandon any and all critical thinking on social issues because choice.  

Personally, I think it is really fucked up that a woman taking her husband’s last name is still the default in this culture. That a man choosing to do the same would be considered bizarre at best and a proof that he was whipped at worst. That when women choose to keep their last names, their children often automatically get their husband’s last name anyway, making many women feel like their only choice is between being part of their own family or an outsider in it. That not automatically giving kids their father’s name is very rarely considered. That when a woman hyphenates, their husband often does not. That “it was really important to my husband” is considered a good enough reason for any and all of this. That men are never expected to make sacrifices for their relationships with women the way that women are expected to make sacrifices for their relationships with men. That we are all supposed to pretend that the convention of a woman surrendering her legal identity upon marriage has nothing to do with the fact that women are paid less, violated more, and generally considered less valuable and less human than men.

All I am really saying, I suppose, is that choice feminism should only, only only be about supporting individual human beings without being judgy jerks toward them. It should not be about shutting down the conversation on why certain practices have been–and continue to be– deeply disturbing. Because, unfortunately, I see that happening a lot. And that is nothing but a victory for a misogynistic system that seeks to silence us, confuse us, shut us down, and make us attack one another instead of looking at the real problem. I will never judge or criticize individuals for the choices that they make, even if I find them problematic. If, however, specific social issues and practices come up in conversation, I am sure as fuck going to continue to speak my mind.

That is my choice.

I think if you’re going to support individual women’s choices (which you absolutely should do), you also have to support creating a social environment where those things are actually a choice. Where the alternative is as valid and respected and easy to choose. Otherwise for every woman who chooses to be a stay at home mum because that’s the sort of life she wants there’ll be one (or two, or ten) who’ll “choose” it because the alternatives just aren’t socially available to them. 

Allies, thanks so much for your support, but let’s do it the right way. Mamoudou breaks down how to be a constructive ally:

Not all women got the right to vote in 1920 (x)

If your feminism isn’t intersectional, it ain’t shit.

<b>*SLAMMING REBLOG BUTTON TIL THE END OF FUCKING TIME*</b>

Not to continually be that girl but the whole of social justice (primarily being done in online spaces) needs to be redone. We have to move away social justice (morally) motivated by vengeance and separatism towards one guided by love and solidarity that’s just my raw onion tho

is there context for this

i didnt make the post so obviously i wouldn’t know much but i think a lot of ppl nowadays tend to see social justice as based on accusation and holding everyone to a standard of moral perfection rather than understanding that no one is raised free of social biases and that criticism should come from a place “i want you and the world we share to be better” and not “you made a mistake so now ill pounce on it and weight it with the same equivalence as really horrible acts of oppression”

$$$$

The Spirit of Art and Activism - Yara Shahidi

I wanted my first-year film students to understand what happens to a story when actual human beings inhabit your characters, and the way they can inspire storytelling. And I wanted to teach them how to look at headshots and what you might be able to tell from a headshot. So for the past few years I’ve done a small experiment with them.

Some troubling shit always occurs.

It works like this: I bring in my giant file of head shots, which include actors of all races, sizes, shapes, ages, and experience levels. Each student picks a head shot from the stack and gets a few minutes to sit with the person’s face and then make up a little story about them. 

Namely, for white men, they have no trouble coming up with an entire history, job, role, genre, time, place, and costume. They will often identify him without prompting as “the main character.” The only exception? “He would play the gay guy.” For white women, they mostly do not come up with a job (even though it was specifically asked for), and they will identify her by her relationships. “She would play the mom/wife/love interest/best friend.” I’ve heard “She would play the slut” or “She would play the hot girl.” A lot more than once.

For nonwhite men, it can be equally depressing. “He’s in a buddy cop movie, but he’s not the main guy, he’s the partner.” “He’d play a terrorist.” “He’d play a drug dealer.” “A thug.” “A hustler.” “Homeless guy.” One Asian actor was promoted to “villain.”

For nonwhite women (grab onto something sturdy, like a big glass of strong liquor), sometimes they are “lucky” enough to be classified as the girlfriend/love interest/mom, but I have also heard things like “Well, she’d be in a romantic comedy, but as the friend, you know?” “Maid.” “Prostitute.” “Drug addict.”

I should point out that the responses are similar whether the group is all or mostly-white or extremely racially mixed, and all the groups I’ve tried this with have been about equally balanced between men and women, though individual responses vary. Women do a little better with women, and people of color do a little better with people of color, but female students sometimes forget to come up with a job for female actors and black male students sometimes tell the class that their black male actor wouldn’t be the main guy.

Once the students have made their pitches, we interrogate their opinions. “You seem really sure that he’s not the main character – why? What made you automatically say that?” “You said she was a mom. Was she born a mom, or did she maybe do something else with her life before her magic womb opened up and gave her an identity? Who is she as a person?” In the case of the “thug“, it turns out that the student was just reading off his film resume. This brilliant African American actor who regularly brings houses down doing Shakespeare on the stage and more than once made me weep at the beauty and subtlety of his performances, had a list of film credits that just said “Thug #4.” “Gang member.” “Muscle.” Because that’s the film work he can get. Because it puts food on his table.

So, the first time I did this exercise, I didn’t know that it would turn into a lesson on racism, sexism, and every other kind of -ism. I thought it was just about casting. But now I know that casting is never just about casting, and this day is a real teachable opportunity. Because if we do this right, we get to the really awkward silence, where the (now mortified) students try to sink into their chairs. Because, hey, most of them are proud Obama voters! They have been raised by feminist moms! They don’t want to be or see themselves as being racist or sexist. But their own racism and sexism is running amok in the room, and it’s awkward.

This for every time someone criticizes how characters of color and female characters of color especially are treated in text and by subsequent fandoms.  It’s never “just a television/movie/book”. It’s never been ”just”.

“…and by subsequent fandoms.“ <— bless this addition.

This one is always worth reblogging. When I say, “Representation matters,” it’s not just the presence of PoC, women, PwD, LGBTQIA, in narrative, it’s the roles are those characters are occupying.

The hall of mirrors that is the interplay between fiction and real life becomes a negative feedback loop with real consequences, because we internalize things and then we act them out.

Storytelling is a powerful thing. What stories are we telling, and why?

How media clearly reflects the sexism and the racism we cannot see in ourselves.

Change the paradigm. Change the stories. Change the world.

Watch: John Cena continues, “So, let’s try this one more time. Close your eyes.” 

Here’s a lil cute 3 min video for you white folk on how white privilege is real, and how you can use it for good :)

This is insanely eye-opening.

Love this.

Director Susanne Bier on Women in Hollywood – Vulture (via jasmined)

If a problem a marginalised community faces seems simple to you and you’re pretty sure you know exactly how to fix it, but you’re not part of that community, chances are you don’t understand the complexity of the issue. Especially if your solution is for the marginalised community to change their own behaviour.

So if you ever feel the urge to tell someone how to solve the problem of their own oppression, this is a good time for listening and a bad time for you to be talking.

Holy fucking shit

I wanted my first-year film students to understand what happens to a story when actual human beings inhabit your characters, and the way they can inspire storytelling. And I wanted to teach them how to look at headshots and what you might be able to tell from a headshot. So for the past few years I’ve done a small experiment with them.

Some troubling shit always occurs.

It works like this: I bring in my giant file of head shots, which include actors of all races, sizes, shapes, ages, and experience levels. Each student picks a head shot from the stack and gets a few minutes to sit with the person’s face and then make up a little story about them. 

Namely, for white men, they have no trouble coming up with an entire history, job, role, genre, time, place, and costume. They will often identify him without prompting as “the main character.” The only exception? “He would play the gay guy.” For white women, they mostly do not come up with a job (even though it was specifically asked for), and they will identify her by her relationships. “She would play the mom/wife/love interest/best friend.” I’ve heard “She would play the slut” or “She would play the hot girl.” A lot more than once.

For nonwhite men, it can be equally depressing. “He’s in a buddy cop movie, but he’s not the main guy, he’s the partner.” “He’d play a terrorist.” “He’d play a drug dealer.” “A thug.” “A hustler.” “Homeless guy.” One Asian actor was promoted to “villain.”

For nonwhite women (grab onto something sturdy, like a big glass of strong liquor), sometimes they are “lucky” enough to be classified as the girlfriend/love interest/mom, but I have also heard things like “Well, she’d be in a romantic comedy, but as the friend, you know?” “Maid.” “Prostitute.” “Drug addict.”

I should point out that the responses are similar whether the group is all or mostly-white or extremely racially mixed, and all the groups I’ve tried this with have been about equally balanced between men and women, though individual responses vary. Women do a little better with women, and people of color do a little better with people of color, but female students sometimes forget to come up with a job for female actors and black male students sometimes tell the class that their black male actor wouldn’t be the main guy.

Once the students have made their pitches, we interrogate their opinions. “You seem really sure that he’s not the main character – why? What made you automatically say that?” “You said she was a mom. Was she born a mom, or did she maybe do something else with her life before her magic womb opened up and gave her an identity? Who is she as a person?” In the case of the “thug“, it turns out that the student was just reading off his film resume. This brilliant African American actor who regularly brings houses down doing Shakespeare on the stage and more than once made me weep at the beauty and subtlety of his performances, had a list of film credits that just said “Thug #4.” “Gang member.” “Muscle.” Because that’s the film work he can get. Because it puts food on his table.

So, the first time I did this exercise, I didn’t know that it would turn into a lesson on racism, sexism, and every other kind of -ism. I thought it was just about casting. But now I know that casting is never just about casting, and this day is a real teachable opportunity. Because if we do this right, we get to the really awkward silence, where the (now mortified) students try to sink into their chairs. Because, hey, most of them are proud Obama voters! They have been raised by feminist moms! They don’t want to be or see themselves as being racist or sexist. But their own racism and sexism is running amok in the room, and it’s awkward.

This for every time someone criticizes how characters of color and female characters of color especially are treated in text and by subsequent fandoms.  It’s never “just a television/movie/book”. It’s never been ”just”.

“…and by subsequent fandoms.“ <— bless this addition.

This one is always worth reblogging. When I say, “Representation matters,” it’s not just the presence of PoC, women, PwD, LGBTQIA, in narrative, it’s the roles are those characters are occupying.

The hall of mirrors that is the interplay between fiction and real life becomes a negative feedback loop with real consequences, because we internalize things and then we act them out.

Storytelling is a powerful thing. What stories are we telling, and why?

Nope!

Brain studies find that concern for justice and equality is linked to logic, not emotion.

By Lisa Wade, PhD

A new study finds that people with high “justice sensitivity” are using logic, not emotions.  Subjects were put in a fMRI machine, one that measures ongoing brain activity and shown videos of people acting kindly or cruelly toward a homeless person.

Some respondents reacted more strongly than others — hence the high versus low justice sensitivity — and an analysis of the high sensitivity individuals’ brain activity showed that they were processing the images in the parts of the brain where logic and rationality live.   “Individuals who are sensitive to justice and fairness do not seem to be emotionally driven,” explained one of the scientists, “Rather, they are cognitively driven.”

Activists aren’t angry, they reasonably object to unjust circumstances that they understand all too well.

Image borrowed from Jamie Keiles at Teenagerie, who is a high sensitivity individual.

Lisa Wade is a professor of sociology at Occidental College and the author of Gender: Ideas, Interactions, Institutions, with Myra Marx Ferree. You can follow her on Twitter and Facebook.

this is shit we already knew but now i have a citation 2 link 2 next time yr in an internet fight

go get ‘em kids!!!

Author Helen Oyeyemi on the Politics—or Not—of Writing Black Female Characters | Broadly

THIS INTERVIEW!!!!!!!!!!!

(via housingworksbookstore)