women’s rights

Yes, feminism is still necessary

Tony Thompson, , 1 Comment

Are you having a good day?

Are you smiling, happy, or content?

Are you fed-up with feeling this good and need a good old-fashioned headache?

You can eliminate your good feelz by taking the plunge into the Women Against Feminism Tumblr. There, you’ll find stories of women who don’t need feminism because they think feminists are man-hating ideologues, god created men and women separately, the gender wage gap doesn’t exist, and much, much more utter tripe. It’s sad and frustrating to read the entries, bc it’s clear these women have a fundamental misunderstanding of feminism. They haven’t taken the time to learn about feminism, and rely upon a distorted caricature of what feminists fight for. Feminism isn’t about disparaging men, playing the victim, or rationalizing the choice of women to be sexual beings. If they took the time to research feminism (or talk to actual feminists), they’d quickly learn they’ve been criticizing a strawman:

Feminism is a range of movements and ideologies that share a common goal: to define, establish, and achieve equal political, economic, cultural, personal, and social rights for women.

Contrary to the bleatings of anti-feminist women and MRAs, women across the world still need feminism. Whether its pay inequality, domestic violence, sexual harassment, or rape, women and girls continue to experience staggering amounts of discrimination, oppression, and bigotry based on their gender. Here are five examples demonstrating why feminism is still necessary (Trigger Warning: sexual assault, rape):

Continue reading “Yes, feminism is still necessary” →

Yes, feminism is still necessary
{advertisement}

Feminist Link Round Up 12.14.14 (Trigger Warning)

Tony Thompson, , 3 Comments

A round-up of links related to the ongoing global battle for women’s equality.

Continue reading “Feminist Link Round Up 12.14.14 (Trigger Warning)” →

Feminist Link Round Up 12.14.14 (Trigger Warning)

"Women are not the equal of men" says President of Turkey

Tony Thompson, , ,

That’s bad enough on its own.

That statement becomes even more ugly when you consider where President Recep Tayyip Erdogan uttered those words:

Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan once again waded into controversy on Monday when he told a mostly female audience at a summit on justice for women that women are not equal to men.

That’s right. At a summit on justice for women, those selfsame women have just been told by their President that they are not equal to men.  Surely the President has a strong argument (backed by Olympic-sized swimming pools of evidence) in support of his belief, no? An argument so strong that his critics have no choice but to concede defeat.

Not so much:

“You cannot put women and men on an equal footing,” he said. “It is against nature. They were created differently. Their nature is different. Their constitution is different.”

The good ole argument from nature as justification for denying women equality.  No one in the history of…well…ever, has heard that one (<—snarcasm).  In his eyes,  women can never hope to be the social, political, or economic equals of men.  Because, biology.  But he does think there is something women are good at.  A role that women excel at and which they are born for:

Erdogan, a devout Muslim, said women’s role in society is clear:

“Our religion has defined a position for women: Motherhood. Some people can understand this, while others can’t,” he said. “You cannot explain this to feminists because they don’t accept the concept of motherhood.”

All you women who want to chart the course of your own lives? All you women who want to be mothers and have a career?  Tough luck according to President Erdogan. You are bound by biology and the religion of Islam to be nothing more than mothers.

 ::remembers that Turkey is supposed to be a secular democracy::

I’m sure the women of Turkey have nothing to worry about. I’m sure the President was just voicing his beliefs, and his religious beliefs have no role in crafting public policy. Right?

"Women are not the equal of men" says President of Turkey

“Women are not the equal of men” says President of Turkey

Tony Thompson, , ,

That’s bad enough on its own.

That statement becomes even more ugly when you consider where President Recep Tayyip Erdogan uttered those words:

Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan once again waded into controversy on Monday when he told a mostly female audience at a summit on justice for women that women are not equal to men.

That’s right. At a summit on justice for women, those selfsame women have just been told by their President that they are not equal to men.  Surely the President has a strong argument (backed by Olympic-sized swimming pools of evidence) in support of his belief, no? An argument so strong that his critics have no choice but to concede defeat.

Not so much:

“You cannot put women and men on an equal footing,” he said. “It is against nature. They were created differently. Their nature is different. Their constitution is different.”

The good ole argument from nature as justification for denying women equality.  No one in the history of…well…ever, has heard that one (<—snarcasm).  In his eyes,  women can never hope to be the social, political, or economic equals of men.  Because, biology.  But he does think there is something women are good at.  A role that women excel at and which they are born for:

Erdogan, a devout Muslim, said women’s role in society is clear:

“Our religion has defined a position for women: Motherhood. Some people can understand this, while others can’t,” he said. “You cannot explain this to feminists because they don’t accept the concept of motherhood.”

All you women who want to chart the course of your own lives? All you women who want to be mothers and have a career?  Tough luck according to President Erdogan. You are bound by biology and the religion of Islam to be nothing more than mothers.

 ::remembers that Turkey is supposed to be a secular democracy::

I’m sure the women of Turkey have nothing to worry about. I’m sure the President was just voicing his beliefs, and his religious beliefs have no role in crafting public policy. Right?

“Women are not the equal of men” says President of Turkey

You say you don’t care about diversity. Well then…

meshorer,

I just read this at wheelrtumblr.com, and it’s so full of win:

 i.d.c.

“personally idc about the diversity. A good story is good no matter if it’s all white males or a multi gender rainbow”.

— A comment made by a person on Twitter. There is evidence that this person is straight, white, and male, but I don’t want to presume.

“idc” means “I don’t care”.

My response to this?

OK!

I’m so glad you’ve decided to take a position, and while I’m sorry you’re not pro-diversity, I support your right to abstain and cede your place in the conversation.

That’s what you did, right? You said you don’t care. As long as the story is good, you don’t care.

But I do care about diversity. I super care about diversity. So if the stories are good and the characters are diverse, we can both be happy.

So, from now on, let’s not have any straight white male leads in stories. None. Zip. Zilch. Not in movies, not in TV shows, not in popular fiction, not in comics. If all the leads in all the stories are women and/or people of colour and/or LGBT, we’ll still have the same ratio of good stories to bad stories, but we’ll also have more diversity.

So you get good stories, which is what you care about, and I get diversity and good stories, which is what I care about. It’s win-win.

But… wait.

No, I don’t want there to be no stories starring straight white men. Some of my best friends are straight white men. I wouldn’t want to live in a world where straight white men didn’t have any heroes that look like them.

I don’t think anyone should be without heroes.

So, here’s a solution. We’ll set aside some heroes for straight white men. Protagonists that they can call their own.

They can have James Bond.

And Harry Potter.

And Sherlock Holmes.

And Peter Parker.

They can have Bilbo Baggins. James T. Kirk. Philip Marlowe. Dirk Pitt. Bertie Wooster. Tarzan. John McClane. Arthur Dent. Mack Bolan. Marty McFly. Clark Kent. Roland Deschain. Jason Bourne. Don Draper. Odysseus. Jerry Seinfeld. Robert Langdon. Perry Mason. Indiana Jones. Flash Gordon. Jack Bauer. Don Quixote. Luke Skywalker. Raylan Givens. Jack Sparrow. Harry Dresden. Homer Simpson. Remo Williams. Sam Beckett. The Doctor, versions one-through-twelve. Rocky. Rambo. Robin Hood.

They can have Batman.

They can even have Walter White.

It seems like maybe there are enough straight white male heroes to last a while.

So this is where we’ll draw a line. Straight white men get to dominate fiction up until now.

And the rest of us? The women, the people of colour, the LGBT folk?

We’ll dominate everything made after now.

Does that seem fair?

Wait! Why am I asking you?

You don’t care about diversity! You only care that the stories are good!

So, we’re good.

Glad we could do business.

You say you don’t care about diversity. Well then…

You say you don’t care about diversity. Well then…

meshorer,

I just read this at wheelrtumblr.com, and it’s so full of win:

                                          i.d.c.

“personally idc about the diversity. A good story is good no matter if it’s all white males or a multi gender rainbow”.

— A comment made by a person on Twitter. There is evidence that this person is straight, white, and male, but I don’t want to presume.

“idc” means “I don’t care”.

My response to this?

OK!

I’m so glad you’ve decided to take a position, and while I’m sorry you’re not pro-diversity, I support your right to abstain and cede your place in the conversation.

That’s what you did, right? You said you don’t care. As long as the story is good, you don’t care.

But I do care about diversity. I super care about diversity. So if the stories are good and the characters are diverse, we can both be happy.

So, from now on, let’s not have any straight white male leads in stories. None. Zip. Zilch. Not in movies, not in TV shows, not in popular fiction, not in comics. If all the leads in all the stories are women and/or people of colour and/or LGBT, we’ll still have the same ratio of good stories to bad stories, but we’ll also have more diversity.

So you get good stories, which is what you care about, and I get diversity and good stories, which is what I care about. It’s win-win.

But… wait.

No, I don’t want there to be no stories starring straight white men. Some of my best friends are straight white men. I wouldn’t want to live in a world where straight white men didn’t have any heroes that look like them.

I don’t think anyone should be without heroes.

So, here’s a solution. We’ll set aside some heroes for straight white men. Protagonists that they can call their own.

They can have James Bond.

And Harry Potter.

And Sherlock Holmes.

And Peter Parker.

They can have Bilbo Baggins. James T. Kirk. Philip Marlowe. Dirk Pitt. Bertie Wooster. Tarzan. John McClane. Arthur Dent. Mack Bolan. Marty McFly. Clark Kent. Roland Deschain. Jason Bourne. Don Draper. Odysseus. Jerry Seinfeld. Robert Langdon. Perry Mason. Indiana Jones. Flash Gordon. Jack Bauer. Don Quixote. Luke Skywalker. Raylan Givens. Jack Sparrow. Harry Dresden. Homer Simpson. Remo Williams. Sam Beckett. The Doctor, versions one-through-twelve. Rocky. Rambo. Robin Hood.

They can have Batman.

They can even have Walter White.

It seems like maybe there are enough straight white male heroes to last a while.

So this is where we’ll draw a line. Straight white men get to dominate fiction up until now.

And the rest of us? The women, the people of colour, the LGBT folk?

We’ll dominate everything made after now.

Does that seem fair?

Wait! Why am I asking you?

You don’t care about diversity! You only care that the stories are good!

So, we’re good.

Glad we could do business.

You say you don’t care about diversity. Well then…

So what *IS* your problem with the word 'feminist'?

meshorer

fantaszing said: would you consider yourself feminist?

thisfeliciaday:

Yes.

Feminist: One who supports the cause of feminism.

Feminism: The belief that men and women should have equal rights and opportunities.

Pretty simple to support, huh? Man or woman. I think the only reason a person who believes in equality of the sexes would NOT call herself/himself a feminist is because of people who have distorted the perception of the word as a dirty and shameful label the past few decades. But if you reject the word based on how THEY have shaped the perception of it, in an insidious way, you’re letting them define you.

Go back to the REAL definition of the word, not THEIR distorted definition, and see if it is something you believe in. And can be proud to call yourself. Man OR woman. And go from there.

Because, if you break it down, if you are NOT a feminist, then you do NOT believe in equal rights for men and women. Is that what you believe? Or is it that you’re rejecting what the label has been distorted into?

It used to be that “geek” was a dirty word, too. A shameful label. Not anymore, thank goodness.

“Feminist” needs a transformation like that too. It’s overdue.

via Jamie McKelvie

So what *IS* your problem with the word 'feminist'?

So what *IS* your problem with the word ‘feminist’?

meshorer

fantaszing said: would you consider yourself feminist?

thisfeliciaday:

Yes.

Feminist: One who supports the cause of feminism.

Feminism: The belief that men and women should have equal rights and opportunities.

Pretty simple to support, huh? Man or woman. I think the only reason a person who believes in equality of the sexes would NOT call herself/himself a feminist is because of people who have distorted the perception of the word as a dirty and shameful label the past few decades. But if you reject the word based on how THEY have shaped the perception of it, in an insidious way, you’re letting them define you.

Go back to the REAL definition of the word, not THEIR distorted definition, and see if it is something you believe in. And can be proud to call yourself. Man OR woman. And go from there.

Because, if you break it down, if you are NOT a feminist, then you do NOT believe in equal rights for men and women. Is that what you believe? Or is it that you’re rejecting what the label has been distorted into?

It used to be that “geek” was a dirty word, too. A shameful label. Not anymore, thank goodness.

“Feminist” needs a transformation like that too. It’s overdue.

via Jamie McKelvie

So what *IS* your problem with the word ‘feminist’?