Posts Tagged: gender politics

Text

There’s been a lot of good words written about the seductive power of abusers vis-a-vis Sherlock and Moriarty in Elementary, and how tempting it is to go back, and all of that is relevant and important.

But at the same time, I really hope for a Moriarty redemption, or at least a continuation of the character in new and interesting ways.   And I’m a tiny bit suspicious, because where fandom and media so often seem to see the redemption of male characters as a Major Plot Point and Character Arc, that Moriarty female characters are not given the same chance*.  I realize that the Elementary and MCU fandoms are not necessarily the same people, but I’m kind of eyeing Tumblr askance in general for so much Loki love but so little willingness to let Moriarty join The Light Side.

(Also I fucking love her she is so perf and I ship it really hard and these LETTERS ARE NOT HELPING, so, like, there’s that.  I’m biased.)

* One of the things that I find really interesting about Glen Cook’s Black Company series is that it’s, I think, the only one I’ve ever read where the Big Bad, and I mean the BIG Bad, not just a minor lieutenant, is a woman and then is Redeemed.  Except she doesn’t exactly join the forces of good afterward, because it’s Glen Cook, so there are no forces of good.  She just joins The Black Company.

Quote

"Teachers are often unaware of the gender distribution of talk in their classrooms. They usually consider that they give equal amounts of attention to girls and boys, and it is only when they make a tape recording that they realize that boys are dominating the interactions.

Dale Spender, an Australian feminist who has been a strong advocate of female rights in this area, noted that teachers who tried to restore the balance by deliberately ‘favouring’ the girls were astounded to find that despite their efforts they continued to devote more time to the boys in their classrooms. Another study reported that a male science teacher who managed to create an atmosphere in which girls and boys contributed more equally to discussion felt that he was devoting 90 per cent of his attention to the girls. And so did his male pupils. They complained vociferously that the girls were getting too much talking time.

In other public contexts, too, such as seminars and debates, when women and men are deliberately given an equal amount of the highly valued talking time, there is often a perception that they are getting more than their fair share. Dale Spender explains this as follows:

The talkativeness of women has been gauged in comparison not with men but with silence. Women have not been judged on the grounds of whether they talk more than men, but of whether they talk more than silent women.

In other words, if women talk at all, this may be perceived as ‘too much’ by men who expect them to provide a silent, decorative background in many social contexts. This may sound outrageous, but think about how you react when precocious children dominate the talk at an adult party. As women begin to make inroads into formerly ‘male’ domains such as business and professional contexts, we should not be surprised to find that their contributions are not always perceived positively or even accurately."

-

[x]  (via albinwonderland)


THIS IS DEDICATED TO EVERY FUCK, male or female, THAT HAS TOLD ME I TALK MORE THAN MY SHARE.

(via shandeleers)

(via shandeleers)

Source: colinfirthhasmoved
Text

I think that, if in the context of your heterosexual relationship, something comes up and you say to your boyfriend, “______ feels mean to me,” or, “I don’t like it when you do ______________”, and his response implies that you are emotionally manipulative or ‘crazy’ and demands that you deal with the way you made him feel before you get your own feelings addressed…

You should just go ahead and go nuts.  Punch him in the dick.  Set him on fire.  Reorder his Netflix queue.  Publish lists of his favorite bands in high-school.  Set his torrent download limit to 0.1 kb/second and don’t tell him.  Hide frozen fish in his car.  Cut off his eyelashes in the dead of night.  Eat his pets.  Blindfold him, tie him to the bed and dye his pubic hair orange.  Hide naked pictures of David Hasselhoff in all of his drawers.  Replace his hair gel with lard.  Refuse to address him as anything other than ‘Your Royal Highness Samuel Jackson’.  Insist on referring to yourself as a cougar and calling him your cub in public, regardless of your age difference.  Hide a small surprise (it could be Jell-o, it could be action figures, it could be scorpions!) in every single one of his socks.

Because Jesus fuck, if you’re going to play the male privilege ‘all women’s complaints are crazy’ card, we might as well do something to earn it.  Good!  Feel better?  Got it out of your system?  Great.  Now turn around and walk away, because a man who responds to your relationship issues by throwing around accusations regarding your mental health is not worth your time.

Text

phantomancer:

weirdsociology:

xyrophile:

if i ever find out that one of my friends has been nice-guy-ing me

i will kick his shins once for every nice thing he did in the hopes i’d smooch him

and then i’ll menstruate on his most prized belongings, 

and then i’ll make a blog post about it.

i take revenge seriously

Wait. I don’t understand this “Nice Guy Syndrome”. I mean, if you as a person are interested in someone else as a person, then you would do nice things for this person in the hopes that they will come to appreciate it and you and value you as someone to be interested in as well? It makes a lot more sense to me than being mean to someone in order to get them to like you, but I could just be missing the whole point instead.

No, no, that’s genuinely being nice, as well as interested in someone, which is different.  Nice Guy Syndrome (tm) is doing nice things exclusively with the ulterior motive of expecting sexual favors from (usually female) friends because, “I DID SO MUCH FOR HER.”  It’s usually combined with an unwillingness to actually express interest in verbal terms (“SHE SHOULD KNOW BECAUSE I DID ____ FOR HER”) and a total disinterest in pursuing friendship if the person in question turns out not to be interested in you (“WHAT A BITCH, CAN YOU BELIEVE I BOUGHT HER DINNER AND LET HER CRY ON ME ABOUT HER EX AND SHE DIDN’T EVEN HAVE SEX WITH ME.”  Uh, yeah, dude, she thought you were actually a friend and not just a doucheface.)

This may not be something that men interested in other men run into as much?  I don’t know.

Source: untongue
Text

xyrophile:

if i ever find out that one of my friends has been nice-guy-ing me

i will kick his shins once for every nice thing he did in the hopes i’d smooch him

and then i’ll menstruate on his most prized belongings, 

and then i’ll make a blog post about it.

i take revenge seriously

(via liquidiousfleshbag)

Source: untongue
Text

budgiebazooka:

vanboobsenstein:

davidhantz:

I’m a man of self respect. I want woman to have the same self respect. Flaunting your tits so that they are almost falling out of your shirt is not attractive. You know what’s attractive? Intelligence. Self Respect. True beauty. Not any of this whore shit.

I’m unclear on how the positioning of my breasts is indicative of my self-respect or intelligence. 

Also, you do understand that women don’t base their own self-respect on how much you respect them, right? Like, I have plenty of self-respect. I don’t care how much you respect me. Those are totally different things. 

wait hold on i don’t understand what True Beauty means

Can we all just make a Lysistrata-like pact to never ever sleep with motherfuckers who think that body policing is okay again?

If you think my self-respect is bound up in your opinion of how I present myself, you, sir, can suck my enormous cock.


In retrospect I’ve decided it’s not even worth it because “I HIGHLY DISRESPECT WOMEN WHO” and okay buddy that’s it you’re done get the fuck off my planet.

Photo Set

the-absolute-best-gifs:

Romance and Sex Questions in an Airport [x]

Follow this blog, you will love it on your dashboard

John Green, you seem like such a quality human being, and you write like a fiend.  Please let me gently touch your adorable face.

(via thebrokenlyre)

Source: this-isakindness
Photo
Photo
mirandaadria:

I am so sick of this image, so I decided to put my own stamp on it. Holy cow, every time I see someone talk about how this is so “logical” and how it makes “so much sense”, I want to bang my face against the keyboard. No, this is not logical. It’s not logical at all. It is trying to compare apples to oranges.
Yes, a single living cell has life. Believe me, I am aware of this notion. However, that does not mean that any single cell has the right to occupy the body of an already born sentient being without their permission. This is why a living cell found on some distant, unknown terrain, and a single cell found inside a pregnant person’s body cannot be compared. Just because it is alive does not mean it automatically gains the same basic human rights as an already born person. Simple as that!
By the way, having human DNA means nothing! My hair has human DNA, but no one is bitching and moaning to me every time I brush my hair and a handful of hair comes out. My nails also have human DNA, but no one complains when I clip them. Hell, even my menstrual cycle has human DNA in it, but that’s something that’s too icky and gross for even grown ass men to discuss sometimes.
I just… UGH…

Cancerous cells have life too, so if you subscribe to the logic put forth by the original image, NO CHEMO OR RADIATION THERAPY FOR YOU EVER.   Oh, and don’t think about extracting that botfly larvae from your subdermal flesh because it’ll die you know.  Jesus but conservatives are so bad at following the logical implications of a thought. 

mirandaadria:

I am so sick of this image, so I decided to put my own stamp on it. Holy cow, every time I see someone talk about how this is so “logical” and how it makes “so much sense”, I want to bang my face against the keyboard. No, this is not logical. It’s not logical at all. It is trying to compare apples to oranges.

Yes, a single living cell has life. Believe me, I am aware of this notion. However, that does not mean that any single cell has the right to occupy the body of an already born sentient being without their permission. This is why a living cell found on some distant, unknown terrain, and a single cell found inside a pregnant person’s body cannot be compared. Just because it is alive does not mean it automatically gains the same basic human rights as an already born person. Simple as that!

By the way, having human DNA means nothing! My hair has human DNA, but no one is bitching and moaning to me every time I brush my hair and a handful of hair comes out. My nails also have human DNA, but no one complains when I clip them. Hell, even my menstrual cycle has human DNA in it, but that’s something that’s too icky and gross for even grown ass men to discuss sometimes.

I just… UGH…

Cancerous cells have life too, so if you subscribe to the logic put forth by the original image, NO CHEMO OR RADIATION THERAPY FOR YOU EVER.   Oh, and don’t think about extracting that botfly larvae from your subdermal flesh because it’ll die you know.  Jesus but conservatives are so bad at following the logical implications of a thought. 

(via darkthoughtsbrightdays)

Source: mirandaadria
Quote

"There are the occasions that men—intellectual men, clever men, engaged men—insist on playing devil’s advocate, desirous of a debate on some aspect of feminist theory or reproductive rights or some other subject generally filed under the heading: Women’s Issues. These intellectual, clever, engaged men want to endlessly probe my argument for weaknesses, want to wrestle over details, want to argue just for fun—and they wonder, these intellectual, clever, engaged men, why my voice keeps raising and why my face is flushed and why, after an hour of fighting my corner, hot tears burn the corners of my eyes. Why do you have to take this stuff so personally? ask the intellectual, clever, and engaged men, who have never considered that the content of the abstract exercise that’s so much fun for them is the stuff of my life."

-

Melissa McEwan, of course, on the terrible bargain.  (via albinwonderland)

YES

(via abp)

DROPPING FUCKING TRUTH BOMBS EVERYWHERE

(via darkthoughtsbrightdays)

Source: sanitywatchers
Text

liquidiousfleshbag:

losertakesall:

maritsa-met:

bricksandmortarandchewinggum:

I’m linking to Jezebel because this take down, by Lindy West, of the Esquire article, Why We Cheat: An Honest Appraisal, is so hilarious and awesome. 

You will not be sorry you read it.

Everyone should read this it is awesome

JACK KEROUAC’S VAGINA

Oh god this is actually wonderful.

I contain multitudes. I am like the Walt Whitman of unrepentant husband-banging.

/ded

Source: bricksandmortarandchewinggum
Photo

“I’m not ashamed to dress ‘like a woman’ because I don’t think it’s shameful to be a woman.” - Iggy Pop

Iggy Pop is such a bad ass. There’s an interview I watched where his manager talked about having to bail him out of jail. The manager shows up and Iggy is drunk, disorderly, and wearing a dress. His manager asked “Ig, why are you wearing a womans dress?” and Iggy replied “I beg to differ, this is a mans dress.”

It’s like Eddie Izzard says - ‘They’re not women’s clothes. They’re my clothes. I bought them.’

(via former-amalockh)

Source: m0su
Photo
Text

tzikeh:

weirdsociology:

tzikeh:

weirdsociology:

A follow-up to this post.

In an interesting twist, Lucy Liu has been tapped to play Watson in the American version of Sherlock Holmes, “Elementary”.

I don’t know how I feel about this (I think maybe I don’t care?), but the fact that someone, somewhere, decided, “Let’s change a character in a male-dominated story to female!”… and they decided not to gender-swap the Guile Hero/Jerkass Woobie main character? Shocker.  Oh look, another ‘head’ main character remains a male! 

THIS IS NOT MY SURPRISED FACE, GUYS. 

Okay, look.

Not only did they cast a woman as Watson, they cast a woman of color. Not on cable, but on network tv. And not just on network tv, but on CBfuckingS. You’re saying that, while you don’t care so much, you’re pissed off that it wasn’t Holmes that they did this with instead of Watson?

Casting a WOC in a lead role on a network show—in a traditionally male role at that—is Huge Liek Woah. But, you’re still dissatisfied. Should she also be a dyslexic lesbian with one arm? What, exactly, do you want from them?

I don’t mean to single you out; all the complaining has been bugging me, and your post was kind of the last straw. It’s not just you, I promise.

Hi Tzikeh!  I’m not sure you understood the context for my post— I’m actually not complaining about the recasting of Watson in the context of feminizing the character overall; I really don’t have a problem with that.  I’m complaining about the LACK of Jerkass Woobie/Guile Hero women in general, and I think my post only really makes sense in the context of this massively overwrought thing that I wrote a while back.

 And I can understand that, seriously. But using an example of a network show that has done something pretty awesome in order to highlight your (quite valid) complaint minimizes the cool thing that the network has done here. It’s akin to saying “Sure, this band has a female lead singer and a female bass player, but WHERE ARE THE FEMALE DRUMMERS? HUH? HUH? of course they don’t have a female drummer. Typical.”

In that way, the post felt very dismissive of the network’s choice. if I’ve misread, then I apologize for not understanding.

I’m not bitching about their choice to feminize (I.. don’t know if that’s the right word, maybe gender-swap is better?)

Yeah, I’d go with gender-swap, or simply “cast a woman in a man’s role.” “Feminize” has a negative connotation (sadly.)

Watson or make her a person of color.  In fact, I think maybe that’s pretty cool?  I don’t know, I haven’t read the opposing arguments yet.

Fair enough.

I’m not mad about this, specific, choice to gender-swap Watson, I’m disappointed in an overall trend that ‘head’ characters in serious dramas are almost universally male and was using this as a supporting piece of evidence for a previous argument….I didn’t intend to minimize anyone’s appreciation of the progressiveness of making Watson a WOC; I don’t think that the fact she isn’t Holmes makes it necessarily less progressive,  

I totally get that. But progress toward gender equality in media is slow, and using a strong step in the right direction to point out a continuing negative needled me. That this isn’t what you’re looking for in a TV show is… I get it? But… hm. I’m not sure how to phrase this. It’s like complaining about a slow song because it isn’t fast, a fast song, and you want a fast song. Well, then this isn’t the song you’re looking for.

I’d be interested in your take on it.

Here it is! :D

Yeah, and I can totally see how perhaps my post came off as minimizing (particularly) the POC aspect, which, to make it clear, I think is probably (always a qualifier since I still haven’t done my research!) pretty effin’ great!  I had hoped that the linking to the previous rant would make it very clear I was speaking to solely the lack of ‘head’ characters who are women and not the race aspect at all.

Still, I think it’s possible to acknowledge that things can be both an improvement and still sort of a token gesture that hints at a larger system of inequality.  To take the band metaphor further, I would argue it’s more like a super-commercial made-for-radio band wherein most of the members are male, but there’s a female lead singer.  Sure, that’s definitely better than no women in the band, but at the same time, that doesn’t mean that the female lead singer wasn’t recruited for her particular role at least partially because we as a society find it the most consumable and comfortable to see women in certain roles.  And, to change metaphors completely and switch back to fictional narratives, one of those roles is the ‘heart’ character, of which Watson is a perfect example.  I don’t think my criticism can be compressed into exclusively a “I don’t like Elementary because it’s not the show I want it to be [or a slow song when I want a fast one],” because it is, I think, at least in part “not the show I want it to be” because of reasons of structural inequality and the way women are portrayed in the media and popular narrative.  

At the same time, I can recognize that NBC certainly did a brave and I think probably a good thing by gender-swapping and diversifying the character.   So excellent!  I really am pleased about that.  It’s just not quite as far down the road as I would like to see us (and I freely admit that I have a stake in this because I idolize ‘head’ characters and about a year ago I realized that all of my fictional heroes were men and so, yeah, for me it’s 100% personal.)  I think it’s reasonable to be both generally happy about a small step* and simultaneously disappointed that this step didn’t go in the direction/as far as I might have hoped.

So I don’t think it has to be totally one way or the other.   I think perhaps we could agree that, if given the chance, we’d slap NBC on the back and say, “Excellent call!  Let this be the beginning of an era of equal representation?

(And then I can go and find a writer and refuse to stop jumping up and down on them until they can conceptualize the idea of writing a nearly-godly hyper-intelligent social-engineering emotionally-unavailable grade A badass of a woman and then I can run away with that script and never stop kissing it.  I may starve to death but it’d probably be worth it.)

But seriously, thank you very much for taking the time to respond and do so in such a thoughtful way.  You really have made me re-evaluate how I expressed myself, and the implications (some of which were highly unintentional but definitely still present!) of such.

*I think maybe part of the problem was I said, in a fit of poor wording, (“I don’t care”) about the recasting?   A much, much better choice would have been, “I don’t have an opinion yet because I haven’t looked into the implications apart from this one thought,” which is really what I was trying to convey, and my phrasing was exceptionally poor at saying that.  You know how it is— it makes sense when you’re writing it!  And then you read it later…

Source: weirdsociology
Text

A follow-up to this post.

In an interesting twist, Lucy Liu has been tapped to play Watson in the American version of Sherlock Holmes, “Elementary”.

I don’t know how I feel about this (I think maybe I don’t care?), but the fact that someone, somewhere, decided, “Let’s change a character in a male-dominated story to female!”… and they decided not to gender-swap the Guile Hero/Jerkass Woobie main character? Shocker.  Oh look, another ‘head’ main character remains a male! 

THIS IS NOT MY SURPRISED FACE, GUYS. 

[edit] I think perhaps this post is getting a bit misconstrued as me not appreciating the gender-swapping of Watson.  Please see above for a more complete explanation.