And it’s not just pop per-se: popular cultural morés in general often present as being at odds with female biology even whilst commodifying (female) sexuality embodied therein…
Pornographic representation of in-vaginal ejaculation is so novel it occupies its own, minority-interest ‘kink’ category (‘creampie‘, if you’re interested): the converse ubiquity of ejaculation on faces and/or breasts (as far as possible from the vagina, note) and anal sex.
Public breast-feeding remains a matter of consternation and misunderstanding, despite those practicing it having ‘enjoyed’ http://www.maternityaction.org.uk/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderfiles/breastfeedingpublicplace.pdf since 2010; restrictions on its portrayal via social media. Showing breasts is only a (moral, if not actually legal) crime it seems, when they’re actually functioning as breasts; rather than as a sexual fetish.
The increasingly visible recourse to accusations/diagnoses of Transphobia/Cissexism within public discourse, with the tacit purpose of disabling such discourse: embodying the increasingly-fashionable Post-Modern notion that female-ness is a psychosexual ‘identity’ divorced from reproductive biology, and that any suggestion to the contrary is offensive, albeit to a small minority.
The longstanding trend towards employing girls/women with ‘masculine’ (i.e. tall, lean, not-so-curvy) physiques as models in fashion.
What is it ‘we’ don’t want to see? You’d think femaleness were a terrible thing indeed, that we might be blinded by the light of it. ‘This little wound women have… it frightens me.’ spoke the artist-seducer Reynolds in Anaïs Nin’s A Model’ . Seems it frightens a lot of people. Maybe it should?
From The Fader article:
‘Why is pop scared of pregnancy? Aside from the fact that women are so often presented as objects not subjects available for consumption in their own music videos—an illusion that’s broken by the sight of a pregnant bump—perhaps it’s something to do with that old nightmare of “having it all.” Ever since the sexual revolution of the ’60s and ’70s—when sexual morals shifted, independence celebrated, and more women began to enter the workplace—women have been split into workers and nurturers.’
‘Having it all‘ is a phrase once often deployed to knock down women who dared to step outside of their male-prescribed, supposed limitations, especially if they performed too well. Overt, incontestible evidence of female reproductive power is an affront to those of us who claim to have the red telephone to woman-central at our fingertips. Whilst some of us non-females show aptitude as both workers and nurturers, there’s still that one thing we can’t do. And it’s no coincidence that artists such as Cherry and Björk who unashamedly bare – and revel in – their femaleness are also high-achieving and indisputably icons. Bjrk writes of
‘”(the) “biological” process of heartbreak: “the wound and the healing of the wound.” But, let’s be real: it also looks like a vagina! Which is, of course, the anatomical source of the family unit that she mourns on “Family,” following the breakdown of her relationship. Where do I go to make an offering, she sings, To mourn our miraculous triangle: father, mother, child.'”
(Which the Po-Mo set might seize on as homophobic, unjustly: even Elton in full indignance is grounded enough to realize he can’t have his kids without female participation. There’s good reason to interrogate the wisdom of IVF and other ‘reproductive technologies’ but that’s a debate for another day.)
When Marillion‘s Steve Hogarth wrote the words for The Wound he was in the same metaphorical space, I think; albeit from a necessarily incomplete, male perspective:
Finally, here’s a good – and apposite – one from the vault:
Interesting article by Julian Vigo gives a concise, balanced overview of the long-running divide between radfems and liberals around gender; explains why the former perspective is much-needed and why, even if you’re neither you maybe ought to be listening…
Since January of this year, the word ‘transphobia’ has been bantered about in mass media and social networking circles to such intensity that its definition has been expanded and in some instances grossly misrepresented. ‘Transphobia’ has been used in recent months to indicate everything from the range of negative attitudes and actions towards transsexualism and transgender people to the overt censorship of any expression that takes issue with the theoretical and political expressions of the transgenderism or certain trans activists. Even to undertake a strictly political analysis of the trans community one risks being labeled ‘transphobic’ especially if one is a radical feminist. As a result of this assault on dialogue, the true violence of transphobia (ie. assault, rape, murder and many other forms of discrimination) is cheapened and…
View original post 1,564 more words
Facebook‘s Lulu app allows women and girls the opportunity to ‘rate’ the guys in their life, share the information with other FB users and recommend suitable guys to your friends. It’s only accessible if you list your gender as ‘female’ in your account. Harmless gossippy fun, or something more sinister? The writer of this Girls Globe article is pretty cynical about it, and a good few guys are up in arms; but…
Given the volume of creepy, nasty, sexist crap guys are wont to post about women all over the web, I’m not sure we’re in much of a position to get too butthurt over something as relatively innocuous as a rating out of 10 – though I’m less than surprised that some have and will. I bet MRAs will be hopping mad…
A couple of thoughts: FB and other sites and apps have been notoriously sloppy when it comes to cracking down on sexism directed towards females – be interesting to see how they react to this. And given that the app is only accessible to FB users listing their gender as female – though non-female users will, as the author says no doubt attempt to hijack proceedings by altering their settings and/or creating pretend-female sock-puppet accounts – it’s hard to predict how this will intersect with currently-fashionable conceptions of ‘gender-as-spectrum’. My understanding is that most ‘Transwomen’ come from a background of living as het men, ‘Transwomen’ as Lesbians, so I wouldn’t expect to see much of an uptake from that quarter; but who knows? And if this app lasts beyond the initial novelty phase, and gains traction as a way of sharing useful information – like which guys are genuinely creepy and dangerous – rather than locker-room gossip then it (and similar platforms) might have real ‘feminist potential’ as it were. Mind you, this may well already be happening for all I know, which I don’t, which is no doubt the idea. I’d like to think so – I feel the potential of the www to provide opportunities for safe space and organising, especially for women and otherwise-marginalised groups, rather than big business, is its best asset. It’s potential for paving the way for grassroots democracy and egalitarianism has scarcely been tapped thusfar, but progress is being made all the time.
With respect to cyberspace, as in meatspace, men and their institutions have shown themselves as quick as ever to try and dominate thru sheer force and naked aggression; and as has been observed throughout history, criminals are seemingly the quickest to capitalize on the opportunities offered by new technology. But precisely because the web – and attendant social media – are primarily information media and increasingly, universally accessible, they provide heretofore unprecedented opportunities for building communities of resistance. Wife-beaters, philanderers and paedophiles who previously evaded detection and capture by moving from town to town, country to country might start to find their options limited. Their reputation – or lack thereof – may well precede them, and loss of social status might begin to achieve what historically-ineffectual legal sanctions in concert with wilful public indifference thusfar haven’t.
Lulu in likelihood won’t be the social ‘magic bullet’ to achieve any of this, but it and other emergent social media might well point the way.
It didn’t take time for it to make news in the men’s locker rooms after a group of sweaty, tired football players pulled out their i-phones and yelped—“what the f**k!”
It traveled faster than just some who’s-that-hot-chick thing that forms the usual mode of conversation at post-practice sessions among hefty male athletes who “just need to relieve themselves of some dangerous testosterone.”
“Hey Higgins that’s you,” cried Ralph, pushing aside a towel and making his way to a big, muscly guy who was recruited to the university a year ago for his innate ability to throw a ball. “You’re an impressive 8.6.”
Who cares if Rihanna’s ass just got bigger on screen and Amanda Bynes just passed a racist remark?
A dude who considers himself an alpha-male, a “chick-magnet” and “the big guy” just got rated on an application by a bunch of giggly, gossipy college girls who were once…
View original post 886 more words
Back in 1989 when I was in sixth-form studying for my general studies A-level our tutors did something brave that one could scarcely imagine happening today. For the politics module, they invited representatives of ALL the local political parties, including the far-right BNP to provide a presentation and take student Q&A. All my then tutors were ’60s children and undoubtedly more ‘Germaine Greer’ and ‘Benjamin Spock’ than ‘Enoch Powell’ politically speaking. Nonetheless they gave us students a chance to listen and make up our own minds and for that I can only applaud them. Education is about opening up access to knowledge and allowing people to make of it what they will, utilizing it to the best of their compassion and intelligence. We know when things are being hidden from us and we feel patronized, manipulated; unaccountably angry. Whether we agree with the principles of radical feminism – or nationalism – is beside the point: we’re all hungry for knowledge and experience, and we respond to trust.
Don’t censor. Let us make up our own minds.
And with respect to Keith and her peers in particular – is second-wave feminism the new communism? Does expressing non-liberal views on gender and sexuality put one on a McCarthy-esque blacklist? PC gone mad, you say…
In a shocking last minute decision Lawrence University representatives no-platformed Deep Green Resistance founding member Lierre Keith from her scheduled Earth Day appearance due to previous feminist comments she has made about gender. Specifically, she was banned from speaking at the university due to her belief that Gender is socially created and not biologically innate.
Keith is the author of The Vegetarian Myth: Food, Justice and Sustainability and a well known writer, Radical Feminist, food activist and environmentalist. Her scheduled speech “Stopping Civilization’s Violence to the Earth” was booked as part of Lawrence’s Greenfire Earth Week Speaking Series.
An event organizer contacted Keith on April 11 with the disturbing news that Lawrence University faculty lecturer Helen Boyd (pen name of Gail Kramer) who is identified in emails as “Professor Helen Boyd-Kramer, a well-known transadvocate” was organizing a campaign to censor Keith’s environmentalist lecture. Boyd-Kramer is the heterosexual wife of transgender…
View original post 1,794 more words
More Upworthiness: stirring, heartbreaking, a cue to look deeper…
The internet is a valuable resource for promoting democracy in an often undemocratic world; a safe space for women and the otherwise oppressed and a vehicle for their otherwise-unheard true voices. Resist attempts to close down those spaces and muffle those voices.
To paraphrase an oft-quoted Martin Niemoller:
‘First they came for the women, and I didn’t speak out because I wasn’t a woman…’
Joelle Ruby Ryan presumes to speak for women, with the full backing of the law and the blessing of the intelligentsia. ‘Hers’ is the voice of bigotry, not Radfems such as GallusMag. Embrace the opportunity for dissent; it’s too easy not to…
I am writing this today out of a deep concern for the rights of women, feminists and lesbians to speak publicly about issues that effect us. Specifically, I would like to address the actions of Dr. Joelle Ruby Ryan and his ongoing attempts to harass, bully, censor and silence women and feminists on the internet, and the University of New Hampshire’s apparent complicity in his outrageous and illegal actions which Ryan claims to perform under authority of UNH.
You may notice that this week’s post -where we discussed ‘Transilience’, Joelle Ruby Ryan’s new University of New Hampshire Health sponsored video- is no longer visible. Also missing are your comments in the discussion that followed. The reason for this is that UNH’s Dr. Ryan has filed a false, perjured, harassing copyright claim that he apparently hopes will re-write all previous first amendment rights. Here is a screen cap of the post…
View original post 1,500 more words