Why? Well, for one thing, it seems like a perfect example of the hostile environment women have to deal with when they attend conventions. However, the T-shirt’s manufacturer, Tankhead Custom Tees, has just come forward to explain why the shirt isn’t sexist.
“the fangirl/fanboy shirts can best be explained like this: fangirls/boys =/= fans. Fans are people who like and genuinely respect a fandom, and it’s creators. Fangirls/boys are like those creepy fedora wearing neckbearded bronies, or hetalia fanfiction shippers, who make us all collectively cringe in pain at what they do to the things we love.
No one should ever defend these kinds of people. Seriously, they make the rest of us look bad.”
So, just to be clear here, the shirt isn’t insulting toward all women, just the ones who are the wrong kind of fan. And that’s totally not a gendered insult because bronies (i.e. male fans of a media source that’s traditionally aimed at girls) are repulsive as well. Right?
The idea that it’s OK to be disgusted by certain types of fan is pretty widespread in geek culture, and it’s ridiculous to suggest that this habit isn’t connected to sexist prejudice. In the nonsensical social strata of geekdom, “serious” sci-fi literature fans are somewhere at the top, Trekkies and comic book nerds are somewhere around the middle, and anything women are interested in is invariably right down at the bottom. Popular examples: Supernatural, YA novels with female protagonists, fanfiction, shoujo anime, and pretty much anything that’s popular on Tumblr.
It’s no coincidence that “fangirl” is most commonly used to describe women who read and write fanfiction. By the logic of people who use fangirl as a pejorative term, fans who spend hours reading and collecting superhero comics are at the cool, respectable end of the geek scale, while “fangirls” who write tens of thousands of words of superhero fanfic are embarrassing weirdos. In other words, if you conform to the old-fashioned, male-dominated form of fandom then you’re fine, but if you prefer to join the subculture that was primarily founded on the work of female fans, then it’s acceptable to publicly mock you at an event like WonderCon.
Why can’t there be a male hooter’s equivalent where male servers are shirtless and highly sexualized for their bodies and looks
Male Strip clubs. You’re thinking of male strip clubs.
No. Not a male strip club. A strip club is a strip club. I want a place called Cahones where waiters wear Speedos and are forced to stuff if they don’t fill out their uniform well enough. I want them to giggle for my tips. I want it to be so normalised and engrained in our culture that women bring their daughters there for lunch (because whaaaaaat the wings are good! Geeze sensitive much?) where they’ll give playful little nudges like, “Wouldn’t mind if you dad had those. Heh heh heh.” that their daughters don’t even understand but will absorb and start to assume is just the normal way grown up women talk about grown up men. I want to playfully ask my waiter if I can have extra nuts on my salad and for him to swat my arm with an Oh, you because he knows if he doesn’t his manager will yell at him. I want other men to pretend to like going there so I think they’re cool. I want to go to Cahones during my lunch break at work and when I come back and tell the other women in the office where I went they chuckle slightly and the men around us suddenly feel self conscious and they don’t know why.
“No one asked, at any point, if Mitt Romney might give up on his presidential ambitions because he wanted to spend more time with his litter of grandkids. Fuck, no one even asked in 2012 if Tagg Romney would do less on the campaign trail because he just got two new babies. No one asked because not only did no one care, but because everyone assumed that things would go on as normal because that’s what the fuck people do, men, women, grand or otherwise. The only reason anyone is talking about this is because Hillary Clinton has lady parts. And, no matter how you wanna sputter, “But…no,” it comes out sexist.”—Mitt Romney Became a Grandfather Eight Times While Running for President and No One Gave a Damn (via samuraifuckingfrog)
Think about the first name you were ever called,
and then think how long it took until
you got called a pussy
or a slut,
or a bitch,
or a whore,
all of which are words that fall too close to ‘girl.’
Think about the first time you got called a ‘girl’
and they said it with a sneer.
Like it was a bad thing.
For a boy, it is the lowest degradation to get called a girl.
For a girl, it is the lowest degradation to get called a girl.
Remember, black widow spiders and female praying mantises eat their partners after intercourse.
Remember, it’s the lionesses who hunt.
They come back with bloody muzzles, dragging bloated carcasses as the alpha lion strides around with his mane puffing out.
Remember, it’s only the female mosquitoes who drink blood.
We’re the ones who do the necessary work, dirty our hands,
fuck or fight or both.
We’re often the smaller sex, which makes us a harder target
as we slink close and sink our teeth in.
Remember: we’re deadly.
You should be proud to be called a girl.
”—'Most Female Killers use Poison,' theappleppielifestyle. (via scrlett)
its weird that guys get so touchy when you accuse them of sexism like “im not sexist wtf????” when they should really be worried about “ive been acting sexist wtf????” like dude youre not the victim of an accusation the accusation is the result of your behavior
literally every person born into a position to oppress has behaved like this and its gross
A new CDC report finds significant progress in reducing teen pregnancy, but finds sexual education seriously lacking.
Sex education doesn’t start at 6th, 9th or 11th grade. Comprehensive sexuality education is a life long process. Teen are not being shielded from sexual messages from their peers, their media or society; so why shield them in schools? Age appropriate sex ed K-12 would ensure that 100% of teens get the information they need to make the best sexual decisions for THEMSELVES.
okay so there’s a post going around that says a lot but basically boils to this: “Instead of saying “the mentally ill man,” say “the man with a mental illness. Putting someone’s characteristics (especially negative ones) before them is dehumanizing and rude. Don’t do it.”
ding dong this is wrong for a lot of reason and i see it reblogged by people i like and respect in a well meaning fashion who seem to truly not get why it is bad
basically to put this simply and in a short bulletted fashion
things like ‘disabled’ and ‘autistic’ and ‘mentally ill’ and ‘chronically ill’ etc are not negative things they are adjectives and they exist for a reason
deliberately separating them separates the disability from the person like no i am not a person ‘with’ autism i am an autistic person i am a whole person whether i am autistic or not and separating that is what is dehumanizing
it’s telling you that neurotypical/allistic/abled/etc people are the ‘people’ like that they are the baseline, the ‘norm’ and that anything else is extra or different or somehow wrong or a problem
oh my god that is not a “”“”negative”“”” characteristic being mentally ill/physically ill/etc is not a negative thing and disabled people are told this all the time we are told that we are lesser and wrong and broken and that is a harmful negative that must be stopped
i am sure there’s more
silversarcasm (one of my fave blogs, she talks about ableism a lot) has mentioned this before multiple times
Am I the only one who’s noticed that a lot more cisphobia, heterophobia, and misandry occurs on this site than transphobia, homophobia and misogyny?
That kinda makes social justice warriors who fight on these matters redundant.
You’re kidding, right? Right?
Fandomsandfeminism, I’ve been following u for a while, and your posts have recently been making want to scratch my own face off. You’re very much an extremist. You hate on anything that even resembles an oppressor even if they’re not actually oppressing people. Your approach seems very extremist. Instead of trying to educate people you automatically label people who have any sort privilege as oppressors, even if they are not. I agree with OP, I see more the reverse on this website.
That isn’t to say that homophobia, transphobia and misogyny don’t exist - those are very very prominent, horrible problems in our messed up society…it’s just the people on this website try so hard to fight for equality that sometimes they forget what the meaning of equality actually is and instead of trying to educate they try to oppress the ‘oppressors’ and, honestly, it’s a load of crap and it’s reason people don’t take this website seriously. Sjw have become a complete joke because of extremist shitty behaviour.
BTW I AM NOT SAYING RACISM, HATE OF LGBTQ+ PEOPLE, MISOGYNY ETC ETC DOESN’T EXIST. JUST THAT TRYING TO OPPRESS THE OPPRESSORS ISN’T GONNA GET U ANYWHERE. OKAY. EDUCATE DON’T OPPRESS.
If I may take a moment to quote the lovely MLK Jr. ”The question is not whether we will be extremists, but what kind of extremists we will be… The nation and the world are in dire need of creative extremists.”
I don’t really, honestly, truly CARE if you think that I’m too “extreme” when it comes to caring about structural inequality and oppression in our culture.
Only the privileged and the ignorant have the luxury of moderation.
“What is interesting, is that the Frida Kahlo venerated by American feminists is a very different Frida Kahlo to the one people learn about in Mexico, in the Chicano community. In her country, she is recognized as an important artist and a key figure in revolutionary politics of early 20th century Mexico. Her communist affiliations are made very clear. Her relationship with Trotsky is underscored. All her political activities with Diego Rivera are constantly emphasized. The connection between her art and her politics is always made. When Chicana artists became interested in Frida Kahlo in the ‘70s and started organizing homages, they made the connection between her artistic project and theirs because they too were searching for an aesthetic compliment to a political view that was radical and emancipatory. But when the Euro-American feminists latch onto Frida Kahlo in the early ‘80s and when the American mainstream caught on to her, she was transformed into a figure of suffering. I am very critical of that form of appropriation.”—Coco Fusco on her Amerindians piece from 1992 with Guillermo Gómez-Peña (via tofunkey)
“Collective movements for social justice do not gain traction through niceness. American women did not gain the right to vote by skipping down Pennsylvania Avenue while whistling cute songs about suffrage: they picketed, they marched, they yelled, they were arrested. Abusive partners and rapists will not be stopped by women having heart-to-hearts with their violators over coffee, because ghosts cannot talk and broken fingers cannot lift a latte. The patriarchy cannot be shattered by good vibes. In order to bring about change, old and oppressive structures must be destroyed. Destruction is not negative if what will grow from the rubble is something that will create a safer, healthier, stronger society.”—
im not going to censor myself by saying that most cis people are transphobic instead of saying all of them are
that allows cis people to sigh with relief and think “yes, only most of us are transphobic, and i am one of the good ones” rather than actually considering their thoughts and actions and really asking themselves, ” do i do that?” “am i transphobic?”
“I detest the masculine point of view. I am bored by his heroism, virtue, and honour. I think the best these men can do is not talk about themselves anymore.”—Virginia Woolf, The Pargiters: The Novel-Essay Portion of THE YEARS (via univorso)
“That both Mitt Romney and Phil Robertson have and love black grandbabies should remind us that racism is not primarily about individual attitudes. White folks can love individual black people and still build a world that is inhospitable to black folks. In fact, individual and exceptional black achievers are necessary to maintain the lie of racial progress. Their presence has very little to do with systemic change, though.”—Brittney Cooper, White Supremacy Wins Again: Melissa Harris Perry and the Racial False Equivalence (via checkprivilege)
“So let me see if I understand this. In other words, if we put black people or POC in the film, then people would notice it, and that would have been like really, really distracting, taking people out of the film. So instead, we got a whole bunch of white British, American and Australian actors to represent all mankind, because it‘s just a lot easier?
And, furthermore, putting people of color in the film would have somewhat diminished the biblical Noah, making it look, God forbid, like some kind of Star Trek movie?
Sorry I’m all confused here. I was thinking that, if you want to represent all mankind in a film, then wouldn’t it make sense to have a cast that did actually represent all of mankind, in every color and hue, instead of having an all white cast, and telling audiences to just squint their eyes, and pretend that he’s another race, because it’s all just a myth after all? So black people can’t be mythical too? Nope, I guess we’re too real, too urban.”—
Do you REALLY want the truth from real sex trafficking survivors? Because those of us sex trafficking victims/survivors who HAVE BEEN trying to speak out about how wrong this whole shit show is have NO money to even live on let alone mount a media campaign to protect our interests as we are NOT a $32 billion dollar a year industry—unlike the rapists, pimps and traffickers you seem hell-bent on protecting.
We have NO resources, NOTHING to enable us to protect ourselves when we DO speak out about what was done to us and then we get stalked, harassed, libeled, discredited, and threatened for speaking our truths.
This has happened to EVERY survivor who wants the Nordic model AND solid economic supports for women wanting to exit the commercial rape trade. And as a sex trafficking survivor, that is EXACTLY what prostitution is: COMMERCIAL RAPE.
So let’s be honest, shall we? You people who continue to stand on YOUR privileges (middle/upper class privilege and/or male privilege) to shout survivors down and subvert OUR human rights (yanno, like the right to NOT be pressed into commercial rape) don’t want to hear from the 90% who want out but can’t exit and you damn well don’t want to hear from destitute survivors like me who ARE out and who have had to resort to eating out of garbage cans and sleeping in cars for YEARS after escaping because of NOT being allowed ANY OTHER PLACE IN SOCIETY EXCEPT THE GUTTER AND AN EARLY GRAVE rather than go back to what your side glibly euphemizes as “a job like any other.”
You would prefer us to be PERMANENTLY silenced by being left to DIE from poverty, or DIE at the hands of violent abusive johns (either from deadly incurable STD’s since the majority of johns REFUSE to wear condoms and DELIBERATELY infect their victims, as revealed by Dr. Jay Silverman from Harvard Medical College in his 2007 report published in JAMA) from being economically forced to return to the very same sexual slavery hell we have fought so damn hard to ESCAPE from (often with NO help at all from ANYONE else in society, mind you).
So how about asking the the REAL question here: Whom does the Grail serve?
FACT: Only 15% of men are johns. At least 60% of them are married or are in a long-term relationship. Most are white and from the middle and upper classes. And many of them already have plans in mind to seek out women and girls specifically to TORTURE OR KILL when they seek out prostituted women—as revealed by recent john busts in Ottawa, Canada and also in the state of Virginia in the US where one john seeking a trafficked 14 yr old “for sex” was found to be carrying a loaded gun.
WHY are you more interested in protecting the profits of pimps, brothel owners, traffickers and johns—RAPISTS AND KILLERS—whose money and male privilege entitles them to do this shit with society’s full blessing and support and protection than you are in protecting the human rights of the VICTIMS of the commercial rape trade in the name of supporting women’s autonomy?
Is it because you think it’s perfectly OK to sacrifice an entire class of women and kids (and even young men too) as human shields to bear the brunt of life-threatening poverty due to job discrimination against racialized groups and poor, unvalued women (made worse by the lack of a social safety net thanks to Welfare Reform) and to bear the brunt of male sexual violence and cruelty just so that YOU can continue to unjustly benefit from it?
Or is it because you are really a paid shill for those at the apex of this trade in human flesh and blood and possibly have BLOOD MONEY in your bank account to protect?
Want to hear from some MORE survivors? How many MORE victims of the commercial rape trade do you need to hear from before you decide that OUR claims for some restorative justice and human rights are valid?
I tagged some brother and sister survivors as well as a male anti-trafficking ally. Whether they choose to participate in a convo dominated by johns, pimps and their cheerleaders where they know that they can expect to just get stomped into the ground yet again by those with privilege who don’t give a fuck about us is another matter.
I spoke out. You heard from me, a REAL sex trafficking survivor. If you will NOT listen or give a crap about me and my quest for justice and human rights, or Rebecca Mott’s or Rachel Moran’s or Stella Marr’s, then you won’t give a shit about what the rest of my fellow survivors have to say either. Your side never has. Which is why the Happy Hooker myth and the Pretty Woman Hollywood fantasy continues to dominate the public discourse in this matter at the expense of trafficking victims’ human rights.
There is NOTHING “objective” about this issue. Side 1 believes that a class of women and girls should continue to be set aside to be dehumanized and sacrificed as human shields to bear the brunt of poverty and male sexual violence and entitlement and allowed NO OTHER PLACE in society other than the gutter and an early grave, while Side 2 believes that women are human beings that deserve lives with dignity, to NOT be stripped of basic human rights by being reduced to disposable commodities for the sake of maintaining male privilege.
anonymous asked: can you please explain how lucy is racist - i’m not saying it isn’t, i just havent seen the film yet or heard anything about it being racist. I was really excited to see it because it’s an action film with a female lead without an unnecessary love interest motivation…
lovely anon, i was so excited about the movie too. i love scarlet and it looked really amazing (apart from that stupid 10% brain thing, i don’t really like that trope) but then i started to realize how racist this movie is. we’ve only seen a trailer, couple of minutes and there are so many racist undertones.
this really says it.
people really see this movie “Lucy” as a step in the right direction to more representation because somehow it’s revolutionary to have a white person as the (anti)hero killing people of color? People really think that one has to see the whole movie in it’s entirety to say that it’s shit? Other than swapping a white man for a white woman, it’s the same shit of invoking negative tropes and cliches against Asian men in modern movies that we’ve been seeing in the past couple of years since the Red Dawn remake. (source)
because, lets be honest, it’s true. i am all in for female lead in super heroes, and i am not the one who is angry because she’s not a POC. the way everyone else is portrayed, the way how it still hold onto those stupid tropes of asian/POCs as villains just disgusts me. maybe its even worse for me because i’m asian i dont even know.
the upcoming movie lucy will feature the age-old racist narrative of pure white woman (scarlet johansson) being violated by scary, brown men. and the new white feminist trope of women gaining their power by violently eliminating brown men. who needs the white male savior when we now have white female saviors, taking it into their own hands to save their whiteness from all that non-whiteness. so radical. (source)
feminism, hell yes. only white feminism? no. i am not here to see white female saviors kicking POCs ass, who look like they’re really poorly written. did someone who was involved with this movie even made effort?
let’s have a look in this picture. we see the white female lead and the asian antagonist. we see chinese writing in the background.
I just asked a family member to translate this. They came back with “Keep Clean. Apple, scallop & ginger, orange, tomato, grape” (source)
can this be even more ridiculous? just make your fucking research guys. do they think it looks fancy to have chinese writing on the wall? because its not??? its stupid and it makes me angry and/or wants to laugh.
Okay but why the fuck is this movie set in Asia, filled with Asian villains, with a white female protag? Yes, wow, the lead’s a woman, fantastic, but apart from that it’s not really any different from the other movies made in a long history of having white people kicking the shit out of exclusively Asian villains.
Really, seriously. I just want to know why they had to set it in Asia with a white woman lead. Why not set the damn movie in the US if they want a big name yt actress that badly? Or, why not just cast a Taiwanese actress if they want it to be set in Asia that bad?
Or maybe not do those things to avoid another Orientalist shitshow because those are exactly the thematic cues they’re going for with a vulnerable white woman being abused by morally corrupt Asian men. OH BUT FEMINIST SUBVERSION! THE VULNERABLE WHITE WOMAN KILLS THEM ALL INSTEAD, YEAHHHH GO FEMINISM!
Meanwhile Asian cultures continue to be portrayed as backwards, Asian men continue to be portrayed as vile predators, but hey go feminism right? Nevermind that Asian women get thrown under the bus with this too. (source)
i agree on this so much. just dont motherfucking make that movie in taiwan? and then we have all those white “feminist” who are like: “okay, this movie is amazing, has a female lead in a action/superhero movie and u all still find something to complain about, just shut up”
no. i dont care that she’s a woman if it’s racist. just because you have a female lead doesn’t make the movie amazing. and it sure doesn’t excuse the fact how racist it is. if you really are a feminist, you should know, that feminism not only includes white women. it includes POC women. feminism includes so many more than just that. don’t call yourself a feminist if you can ignore all these things and still watch this movie because *yay female lead*.
white woman literally kills an asian guy because he can’t speak english. LITERALLY. how should i feel as an asian woman? this guy could be so many other people i know in real life who can’t speak english. i could imagine it be my father or other people i know. but no, it’s okay, because she’s a woman. because it looks badass.
she isn’t even in the USA or any other english- speaking state. bUt nO OF COURSE YOU ALL HAVE TO SPEAK ENGLISH. not everything revolves about you. SHE’S the one who is in a foreign country, she should be the one adapting to it and not the other way round. i dont go to USA and shoot people because they can’t speak vietnamese.
that’s just fucking stupid why even.
for once i’d like to be able to post a trailer for a movie i’m interested in because of the female lead without feeling like a sack of shit afterward because someone needed to take a minute and really dissect every scene in the trailer just to outline how offensive it is. (…) we’re taking baby steps here, people. (…) so can’t we just take a minute to sit back and support an actress we like while enjoying an action film? /not sourcing this one because i am not an ass/
how can i enjoy a movie when i am offended.
how do you suppose to want me enjoy a movie when my people are thrown back down so you all can have your female lead
people say that this might take a step. that having this movie will open the doors for WOC. are you serious? do you want us to always be on the second array? do we have to sit quietly back and be all happy that you finally have a movie so we “might have one later too”?
“If you’re a member of a community and have the community’s needs and interests at heart, it’s not asking a lot to shine your spotlight on these issues. You lose nothing, and you have everything in the world to gain — both for yourself and for your community — when you use your voice to call for art that reflects a society in which diversity is simply reality. That is how you become an asset.”—
I rounded up and talked about some of the pieces written recently on diversity and representation in the kid lit world and asked why those who have huge megaphones in the community aren’t helping to amplify those voices.
“We are unequivocally for women’s rights. It’s that simple. We believe every woman should have access to safe, affordable health care, and when that right is threatened, we’re not afraid to tackle those threats head-on.”—
Shout out to Cosmopolitan (yes, that Cosmopolitan) for its new direction: taking on the fight for reproductive health and rights!
“I tell my students, ‘When you get these jobs that you have been so brilliantly trained for, just remember that your real job is that if you are free, you need to free somebody else. If you have some power, then your job is to empower somebody else. This is not just a grab-bag candy game.”—