/page/2
Women are safer drivers yet men are getting a reduction in premiums: is the gender directive fair?

Women are safer drivers yet men are getting a reduction in premiums: is the gender directive fair?

[TW: discussion of sexual assault, rape, violence] Just Smith.: More Rape Profiling

bubonickitten:

karkatnepetaotp:

bubonickitten:

stfusexists:

stfusexists:

saltxwater submitted this to me, asking the totally legitimate question, ”How big of a douche does someone have to be to get offended by Sexual Assault Awareness Month?” The answer? This big.

This is what the sign in question looks like:

And you know, I think Sir…

Okay, Just-Smith, I’m not going to reblog this as text because people can click over to your site to read your response…it’s long and I don’t want to take up the entire dashboard.

But allow me to tell you why your analogy that compares women being cautious and suspicious around men because they live in a rape culture and are afraid for their safety and a racist assuming that all black people are criminals is completely off base. It’s completely off base because of the power dynamics that exist in our society. Black people are a marginalized group, so a white person assuming all black people are criminals? That’s an example of perpetuating institutionalized racism.

Now if the situation were reversed, and black people were suspicious of all white people, given the many crimes that have been perpetrated against black people by whites without consequence historically, or the massive amounts of police brutality committed by white cops against black civilians to this day, then it becomes not bigotry, not profiling, but a survival mechanism. If a black person is suspicious of a white person, it isn’t racism because the black person has no privilege; it is simply an assumption made for one’s self-preservation as a marginalized person in society.

The same goes for women, since they are far more likely to be sexually assaulted than by cis men. That’s not to say rape against cis men doesn’t happen; it absolutely does and it is abominable no matter who is assaulting and who is assaulted. But cis men do not walk around every day in fear, knowing that anyone could harass or sexually assault them at any moment. Women and trans men live in the world of Schroedinger’s rapist.

If you’re upset that women are suspicious of you and don’t want to talk to you when you’re a perfectly nice guy, you should be! But not at them. Be pissed at the society that has normalized violence and sexual assault against women to the point that we are taught that that suspicion is the only way to survive. Think of it this way: if I snub you and quickly move away, the worst outcome is that your feelings are hurt. If I give you the benefit of the doubt even when my gut tells me not to make eye contact with or talk to a strange guy in a certain setting, the worst outcome is that you rape, assault, or murder me. 

Now, I don’t expect you to give any credence to this post, because you don’t believe in institutionalized prejudice or privilege of any kind. That’s your business, and I understand that this was a futile exercise. But it’s an important point to make regardless of whether or not you will actually consider it, so thanks for giving me an opportunity to talk about it in depth. 

The only thing I would change —

“Women and trans men live in the world of Schroedinger’s rapist.”

I’d add trans* women to that statement as well, because sexual assault rates against trans* women are also extremely high, and trans* women are women as much as cis women are, and so experience not only misogyny and the oppression that women experience in a sexist society and rape culture, but also transmisogyny and cissexism.

Aside from that… allow me to be completely unsurprised yet horrified that there are people who are actually offended by legitimate attempts to bring awareness to sexual assault. What the everloving fuck.

WHEN TRYING TO BE INCLUSIVE ACTUALLY ENDS UP BEING CISSEXIST: Why the fuck should it mention trans* women specifically as if they’re not included by the term women? Fuck this makes me so mad

I know, I fucked up. I apologized earlier but I want to apologize again. I think I read too quickly and saw the word cis in the bolded section and saw that trans men were specified, and just assumed that trans women weren’t being included, when I really shouldn’t have assumed. I’m so used to hearing people use “women” to mean just cis women in meatspace that I sometimes forget that there *are* people who use the term inclusively as well. I unintentionally ended up third-gendering trans* women here and being cissexist myself, and I’m really, really sorry.

If you’re upset that women are suspicious of you and don’t want to talk to you when you’re a perfectly nice guy, you should be! But not at them. Be pissed at the society that has normalized violence and sexual assault against women to the point that we are taught that that suspicion is the only way to survive. Think of it this way: if I snub you and quickly move away, the worst outcome is that your feelings are hurt. If I give you the benefit of the doubt even when my gut tells me not to make eye contact with or talk to a strange guy in a certain setting, the worst outcome is that you rape, assault, or murder me. 

shipwreckedsailors:

might have to put some of these up around campus

shipwreckedsailors:

might have to put some of these up around campus

(via panatrophy)

Female Orgasm

"Those who rave about the wonders of manipulating that little area inside the vagina sometimes claim a G-spot orgasm is much more powerful and stupefying than a mere clitoral orgasm. Some of these G-spot women even say they ejaculate copious fluids. It’s like comparing the eruption of Mount Vesuvius to the low water pressure of a drinking fountain. The hidden message isn’t so hidden. "Real" orgasms come from the G-spot, and women who don’t spurt lakes full of fluid are far inferior to women who do. Why enjoy an inferior clitoral orgasm when you can burst like Mount Vesuvius?

If such denigration of women’s sexuality sounds familiar, you can thank Sigmund Freud, who used similar comparisons to describe the “mature” vaginal orgasm to the “immature” clitoral orgasm. What makes a vaginal orgasm “mature”? The penetration of the almighty penis, of course. A woman needs clitoral stimulation to become sexually aroused and to climax, and—most importantly—she doesn’t need a man to have a clitoral orgasm.”

On the day when it will be possible for woman to love not in her weakness but in her strength, not to escape herself but to find herself, not to abase herself but to assert herself—on that day love will become for her, as for man, a source of life and not of mortal danger.
– Simone de Beauvoir
rabbleprochoice:

 
I disagree.
There is not a sliding scale for fetus values. 
You don’t get five Jesuses and a Holy Spirit for a fetus that was conceived consensually and a Hail Mary for the fetuses that were conceived via rape.
The pro-life argument is black and white; that’s what being pro-life means. Being pro-choice includes the spectrum of gray situations that people like to claim as exceptions to their pro-life views. But the problem is that if a person claims to be pro-life, the actual definition of that movement is that youdon’t think any abortions should be allowed, ever. If you think an abortion is justified in a specific situation but not for anything else, you do not fall under the very limiting umbrella that is the pro-life movement. 
You either think ALL fetuses are priceless in value and none of them should ever be aborted or you don’t think that and pro-lifers would claim you’re a horrible person because of it. You can’t be pro-life and support abortions for specific situations; that’s just not what being pro-life means.
This line of thought is uncomfortable for people because they don’t want to acknowledge that they do think there is a sliding scale for fetus values if they identify as pro-life with exceptions for rape, life of the pregnant person, or incest. That sliding scale has everything to do with sex and sexuality and the idea that it is bad. I have yet to hear an argument that doesn’t eventually boil down to this line of thinking.
Either fetuses are expendable or they are not. You absolutely cannot say that one fetus is more valuable than the other simply because of how it was conceived because that’s irrelevant once the fertilized egg implants into the uterine wall and begins to gestate.
You can’t claim that one abortion is acceptable and another isn’t without also acknowledging that you think some fetuses are less valuable than others and if someone was actually pro-life then they wouldn’t have a sliding value scale for fetuses because that’s not what it really means to be pro-life.
For a more facetious post about the levels of being pro-choice, you can go here (this is a post I wrote that was facetious and sarcastic).
Love,
Rabble
(I decided to make this rebloggable)

rabbleprochoice:

I disagree.

There is not a sliding scale for fetus values. 

You don’t get five Jesuses and a Holy Spirit for a fetus that was conceived consensually and a Hail Mary for the fetuses that were conceived via rape.

The pro-life argument is black and white; that’s what being pro-life means. Being pro-choice includes the spectrum of gray situations that people like to claim as exceptions to their pro-life views. But the problem is that if a person claims to be pro-life, the actual definition of that movement is that youdon’t think any abortions should be allowed, ever. If you think an abortion is justified in a specific situation but not for anything else, you do not fall under the very limiting umbrella that is the pro-life movement. 

You either think ALL fetuses are priceless in value and none of them should ever be aborted or you don’t think that and pro-lifers would claim you’re a horrible person because of it. You can’t be pro-life and support abortions for specific situations; that’s just not what being pro-life means.

This line of thought is uncomfortable for people because they don’t want to acknowledge that they do think there is a sliding scale for fetus values if they identify as pro-life with exceptions for rape, life of the pregnant person, or incest. That sliding scale has everything to do with sex and sexuality and the idea that it is bad. I have yet to hear an argument that doesn’t eventually boil down to this line of thinking.

Either fetuses are expendable or they are not. You absolutely cannot say that one fetus is more valuable than the other simply because of how it was conceived because that’s irrelevant once the fertilized egg implants into the uterine wall and begins to gestate.

You can’t claim that one abortion is acceptable and another isn’t without also acknowledging that you think some fetuses are less valuable than others and if someone was actually pro-life then they wouldn’t have a sliding value scale for fetuses because that’s not what it really means to be pro-life.

For a more facetious post about the levels of being pro-choice, you can go here (this is a post I wrote that was facetious and sarcastic).

Love,

Rabble

(I decided to make this rebloggable)

hehe I totally remember Fausto-Sterling from my gender and society class and routinely bring it up in conversation

hehe I totally remember Fausto-Sterling from my gender and society class and routinely bring it up in conversation

(Source: feministryangosling)

Women are safer drivers yet men are getting a reduction in premiums: is the gender directive fair?

Women are safer drivers yet men are getting a reduction in premiums: is the gender directive fair?

airellia:

Basically.

airellia:

Basically.

(via viviopsis)

[TW: discussion of sexual assault, rape, violence] Just Smith.: More Rape Profiling

bubonickitten:

karkatnepetaotp:

bubonickitten:

stfusexists:

stfusexists:

saltxwater submitted this to me, asking the totally legitimate question, ”How big of a douche does someone have to be to get offended by Sexual Assault Awareness Month?” The answer? This big.

This is what the sign in question looks like:

And you know, I think Sir…

Okay, Just-Smith, I’m not going to reblog this as text because people can click over to your site to read your response…it’s long and I don’t want to take up the entire dashboard.

But allow me to tell you why your analogy that compares women being cautious and suspicious around men because they live in a rape culture and are afraid for their safety and a racist assuming that all black people are criminals is completely off base. It’s completely off base because of the power dynamics that exist in our society. Black people are a marginalized group, so a white person assuming all black people are criminals? That’s an example of perpetuating institutionalized racism.

Now if the situation were reversed, and black people were suspicious of all white people, given the many crimes that have been perpetrated against black people by whites without consequence historically, or the massive amounts of police brutality committed by white cops against black civilians to this day, then it becomes not bigotry, not profiling, but a survival mechanism. If a black person is suspicious of a white person, it isn’t racism because the black person has no privilege; it is simply an assumption made for one’s self-preservation as a marginalized person in society.

The same goes for women, since they are far more likely to be sexually assaulted than by cis men. That’s not to say rape against cis men doesn’t happen; it absolutely does and it is abominable no matter who is assaulting and who is assaulted. But cis men do not walk around every day in fear, knowing that anyone could harass or sexually assault them at any moment. Women and trans men live in the world of Schroedinger’s rapist.

If you’re upset that women are suspicious of you and don’t want to talk to you when you’re a perfectly nice guy, you should be! But not at them. Be pissed at the society that has normalized violence and sexual assault against women to the point that we are taught that that suspicion is the only way to survive. Think of it this way: if I snub you and quickly move away, the worst outcome is that your feelings are hurt. If I give you the benefit of the doubt even when my gut tells me not to make eye contact with or talk to a strange guy in a certain setting, the worst outcome is that you rape, assault, or murder me. 

Now, I don’t expect you to give any credence to this post, because you don’t believe in institutionalized prejudice or privilege of any kind. That’s your business, and I understand that this was a futile exercise. But it’s an important point to make regardless of whether or not you will actually consider it, so thanks for giving me an opportunity to talk about it in depth. 

The only thing I would change —

“Women and trans men live in the world of Schroedinger’s rapist.”

I’d add trans* women to that statement as well, because sexual assault rates against trans* women are also extremely high, and trans* women are women as much as cis women are, and so experience not only misogyny and the oppression that women experience in a sexist society and rape culture, but also transmisogyny and cissexism.

Aside from that… allow me to be completely unsurprised yet horrified that there are people who are actually offended by legitimate attempts to bring awareness to sexual assault. What the everloving fuck.

WHEN TRYING TO BE INCLUSIVE ACTUALLY ENDS UP BEING CISSEXIST: Why the fuck should it mention trans* women specifically as if they’re not included by the term women? Fuck this makes me so mad

I know, I fucked up. I apologized earlier but I want to apologize again. I think I read too quickly and saw the word cis in the bolded section and saw that trans men were specified, and just assumed that trans women weren’t being included, when I really shouldn’t have assumed. I’m so used to hearing people use “women” to mean just cis women in meatspace that I sometimes forget that there *are* people who use the term inclusively as well. I unintentionally ended up third-gendering trans* women here and being cissexist myself, and I’m really, really sorry.

If you’re upset that women are suspicious of you and don’t want to talk to you when you’re a perfectly nice guy, you should be! But not at them. Be pissed at the society that has normalized violence and sexual assault against women to the point that we are taught that that suspicion is the only way to survive. Think of it this way: if I snub you and quickly move away, the worst outcome is that your feelings are hurt. If I give you the benefit of the doubt even when my gut tells me not to make eye contact with or talk to a strange guy in a certain setting, the worst outcome is that you rape, assault, or murder me. 

shipwreckedsailors:

might have to put some of these up around campus

shipwreckedsailors:

might have to put some of these up around campus

(via panatrophy)

Female Orgasm

"Those who rave about the wonders of manipulating that little area inside the vagina sometimes claim a G-spot orgasm is much more powerful and stupefying than a mere clitoral orgasm. Some of these G-spot women even say they ejaculate copious fluids. It’s like comparing the eruption of Mount Vesuvius to the low water pressure of a drinking fountain. The hidden message isn’t so hidden. "Real" orgasms come from the G-spot, and women who don’t spurt lakes full of fluid are far inferior to women who do. Why enjoy an inferior clitoral orgasm when you can burst like Mount Vesuvius?

If such denigration of women’s sexuality sounds familiar, you can thank Sigmund Freud, who used similar comparisons to describe the “mature” vaginal orgasm to the “immature” clitoral orgasm. What makes a vaginal orgasm “mature”? The penetration of the almighty penis, of course. A woman needs clitoral stimulation to become sexually aroused and to climax, and—most importantly—she doesn’t need a man to have a clitoral orgasm.”

lipstick-feminists:

Thanks Facebook!

lipstick-feminists:

Thanks Facebook!

(Source: lipstick-feminists)

On the day when it will be possible for woman to love not in her weakness but in her strength, not to escape herself but to find herself, not to abase herself but to assert herself—on that day love will become for her, as for man, a source of life and not of mortal danger.
– Simone de Beauvoir
rabbleprochoice:

 
I disagree.
There is not a sliding scale for fetus values. 
You don’t get five Jesuses and a Holy Spirit for a fetus that was conceived consensually and a Hail Mary for the fetuses that were conceived via rape.
The pro-life argument is black and white; that’s what being pro-life means. Being pro-choice includes the spectrum of gray situations that people like to claim as exceptions to their pro-life views. But the problem is that if a person claims to be pro-life, the actual definition of that movement is that youdon’t think any abortions should be allowed, ever. If you think an abortion is justified in a specific situation but not for anything else, you do not fall under the very limiting umbrella that is the pro-life movement. 
You either think ALL fetuses are priceless in value and none of them should ever be aborted or you don’t think that and pro-lifers would claim you’re a horrible person because of it. You can’t be pro-life and support abortions for specific situations; that’s just not what being pro-life means.
This line of thought is uncomfortable for people because they don’t want to acknowledge that they do think there is a sliding scale for fetus values if they identify as pro-life with exceptions for rape, life of the pregnant person, or incest. That sliding scale has everything to do with sex and sexuality and the idea that it is bad. I have yet to hear an argument that doesn’t eventually boil down to this line of thinking.
Either fetuses are expendable or they are not. You absolutely cannot say that one fetus is more valuable than the other simply because of how it was conceived because that’s irrelevant once the fertilized egg implants into the uterine wall and begins to gestate.
You can’t claim that one abortion is acceptable and another isn’t without also acknowledging that you think some fetuses are less valuable than others and if someone was actually pro-life then they wouldn’t have a sliding value scale for fetuses because that’s not what it really means to be pro-life.
For a more facetious post about the levels of being pro-choice, you can go here (this is a post I wrote that was facetious and sarcastic).
Love,
Rabble
(I decided to make this rebloggable)

rabbleprochoice:

I disagree.

There is not a sliding scale for fetus values. 

You don’t get five Jesuses and a Holy Spirit for a fetus that was conceived consensually and a Hail Mary for the fetuses that were conceived via rape.

The pro-life argument is black and white; that’s what being pro-life means. Being pro-choice includes the spectrum of gray situations that people like to claim as exceptions to their pro-life views. But the problem is that if a person claims to be pro-life, the actual definition of that movement is that youdon’t think any abortions should be allowed, ever. If you think an abortion is justified in a specific situation but not for anything else, you do not fall under the very limiting umbrella that is the pro-life movement. 

You either think ALL fetuses are priceless in value and none of them should ever be aborted or you don’t think that and pro-lifers would claim you’re a horrible person because of it. You can’t be pro-life and support abortions for specific situations; that’s just not what being pro-life means.

This line of thought is uncomfortable for people because they don’t want to acknowledge that they do think there is a sliding scale for fetus values if they identify as pro-life with exceptions for rape, life of the pregnant person, or incest. That sliding scale has everything to do with sex and sexuality and the idea that it is bad. I have yet to hear an argument that doesn’t eventually boil down to this line of thinking.

Either fetuses are expendable or they are not. You absolutely cannot say that one fetus is more valuable than the other simply because of how it was conceived because that’s irrelevant once the fertilized egg implants into the uterine wall and begins to gestate.

You can’t claim that one abortion is acceptable and another isn’t without also acknowledging that you think some fetuses are less valuable than others and if someone was actually pro-life then they wouldn’t have a sliding value scale for fetuses because that’s not what it really means to be pro-life.

For a more facetious post about the levels of being pro-choice, you can go here (this is a post I wrote that was facetious and sarcastic).

Love,

Rabble

(I decided to make this rebloggable)

hehe I totally remember Fausto-Sterling from my gender and society class and routinely bring it up in conversation

hehe I totally remember Fausto-Sterling from my gender and society class and routinely bring it up in conversation

(Source: feministryangosling)

"On the day when it will be possible for woman to love not in her weakness but in her strength, not to escape herself but to find herself, not to abase herself but to assert herself—on that day love will become for her, as for man, a source of life and not of mortal danger."

About:

We're students at a small liberal arts college in Northern New England.

We are speaking out against patriarchy, misogyny, rape culture, slut shaming, victim blaming, homophobia, fatphobia, transphobia, stereotyping, rigid gender roles, sexist jokes, abstinence-only education, unchecked privilege, fascist capitalist beauty ideals, etc.

THIS IS WHAT A FEMINIST BLOG LOOKS LIKE.

Following: