Feminism reborn - It's not changed, it's just different

[Sci-2]

If Facebook is serious about gender-based hate, why is it still hosting revenge porn?

After a targeted campaign by feminist groups, Facebook finally listened. They made a public commitment to improve their handling of gender-based hate.

I wonder, then, why "revenge porn" pages are sitting on the site.

By unhappy accident, I stumbled upon one last week. After less than five minutes of investigation via the Facebook search tool, I’d found 22 more. (Having continued to search over the past few days, it was creepily easy to keep finding new pages.)

Pages with the declared intention to (quote) "Expose all the slags and sluts" and "Inbox pictures of your nude ex and get them back for the bad things!" Want to get back at your girlfriend for leaving you? Upload a photo she gave you in private and let strangers help you abuse her.

[Theda Baratheon]

Facebook really is a shit hole to be honest, definitely not a great place if you're a feminist.

Came across a page dedicated solely to Rape Jokes the other day with thousands and thousands of followers, was not impressed.

Also not impressed when I see some of my facebook ''friends'' have liked the bile such as ''Uni Lad''

I have a friend at the moment who keeps making statuses on feminism and it warms my heart.

[TerraPrime]

Facebook really is a shit hole to be honest, definitely not a great place if you're a feminist.

Came across a page dedicated solely to Rape Jokes the other day with thousands and thousands of followers, was not impressed.

Also not impressed when I see some of my facebook ''friends'' have liked the bile such as ''Uni Lad''

I have a friend at the moment who keeps making statuses on feminism and it warms my heart.

I am ruthless and merciless in pruning off "friends", or plain just refuse to accept invites from people I don't know. It makes FB mroe tolerable.

[Starkess]

I'm snipping this out 'cause it makes a lot of sense. I'm not entirely sure if it does without the entire context, though. I'm sure I'll get a better sense as I progress through the book, but is there a binary at the bottom of Serano's subconcious sex notion or does the possibility of the wiseass saying, "Yes," not being a wiseass exist?

It's possible that the "yes" might not be a wiseass but someone who has less solidity in their subconscious sex, as she terms it.

I think I get what she is saying. I hate it when people try to use the "Well, if sexism is so bad, you would rather be a man, wouldn't you?" argument about why sexism doesn't exist. Just because I think that women and men lack equality in some areas doesn't mean that I want to be a man. Being a woman is part of being me. And so I guess that would be my "subconscious sex" asserting itself, even as a cissexual.

[karaddin]

It's possible that the "yes" might not be a wiseass but someone who has less solidity in their subconscious sex, as she terms it.

I think I get what she is saying. I hate it when people try to use the "Well, if sexism is so bad, you would rather be a man, wouldn't you?" argument about why sexism doesn't exist. Just because I think that women and men lack equality in some areas doesn't mean that I want to be a man. Being a woman is part of being me. And so I guess that would be my "subconscious sex" asserting itself, even as a cissexual.

Love this post Starkess. It's exactly why I gave up being a man despite already being aware of all the sexism, knowing it was going to cost me on both that front and transphobia front.

[Theda Baratheon]

I am ruthless and merciless in pruning off "friends", or plain just refuse to accept invites from people I don't know. It makes FB mroe tolerable.

I am now, not long ago deleted 500+ people from School, College, random friends of friends or strange internet people who just added me on there and I accepted and forgot to delete. Now I don't accept anyone unless I know them.

My FB looks much nicer than it did with all the idiots from School liking some sexist or racist page. Ugh.

[Robin Of House Hill]

I am ruthless and merciless in pruning off "friends", or plain just refuse to accept invites from people I don't know. It makes FB mroe tolerable.

I don't need to. I only have one friend on FB. I used to have another, but he was from the Middle East and our political differences were so great that it was better if neither of us saw what the other had to say. So, we unfriended each other.

[Shryke]

I am now, not long ago deleted 500+ people from School, College, random friends of friends or strange internet people who just added me on there and I accepted and forgot to delete. Now I don't accept anyone unless I know them.

My FB looks much nicer than it did with all the idiots from School liking some sexist or racist page. Ugh.

How do you even have that many people to delete in the first place?

[Lyanna Stark]

If Facebook is serious about gender-based hate, why is it still hosting revenge porn?

I agree that Facebook has several issues it needs to sort out. The same goes for Instagram and many other places.

However, one thing I've noticed a lot lately is when sexism is brought up, there are comments of "Oh no this again", "A worn out topic", "Can't we talk of anything else?" and similar. While face palm inducing, it is also, to me, a sign that sexism is talked about. Even if the gender hate is massive online, people are fighting back and bringing awareness, even if it is an uphill battle.

While I absolutely love the 90s music, I was absolutely shocked the other day when they had a "Back to the 90s" program on TV and some of the songs...wow, I never reacted then to how incredibly sexist they were. (Not to say a majority was, but that this type of stuff was even played on mainstream radio, it probably would not today. One especially that loosely translates to "Bitch, she's sticks like a chewing gum" and then going on to describe that bitches like her is "what makes guys go gay" ).

Sometimes it feels like we are drowning in gender hate online, but I don't think it exists in a vacuum. As horrible and hateful as it is, it exists a lot due to feminism becoming a force to be reckoned with, and people feel threatened that the status quo will be changed.

[brook]

How do we sell women's clothes and market an elite sporting event at the same time? Apparently by objectifying the hell out of a champion athlete. I think this one bothers me more than most of it's type because it just doesn't make any sense coming from a brand that exclusively markets to young women and teen girls.

[MinDonner]

Or, you know, Arya. ;) A really good counterpoint of someone who is most definitely a tomboy but without devaluing other women, or, for that matter, the "feminine," is Brienne, which is maybe part of why I've always found that character so interesting.

Arya, for all the problematic things about the Tomboy trope, at least does not actively go around saying things like "You can't do XYZ because you're a girl!". But I reread the Famous Five books a few years ago and was absolutely astonished at the hatred on display in there, almost exclusively from George ("don't call me Georgina!") towards Anne and all things female. George, honest to god, loves to hear things like "you're almost as good as a boy!" and "girls can't be brave!"; the boys are just paternalistically patronising, it's only the wussy Anne character (who I feel so, so sorry for) that occasionally gets to say "but sometimes girls can be brave too?" before getting shouted down. Awful, toxic stuff.

[Guest Raidne]

Fair enough, Arya is more stuck in the "an unfeminine girl is just an inadequate boy" trap in the eyes of others. Though I suppose most of them eventually know better.

[litechick]

I'm trying to put my finger on why this exceptionalism concept bugs me. I have no idea whether I will be successful but I'm just going to throw it out there.

My assumption is that social change takes place on a sort of bell curve--slow to gain momentum, then increasing rapidly, then tapering off until only a few hardcore holdouts remain. I would say we are still high on the curve but we are on the descending side of it.

When I think of women pioneers I think of Marie Curie, Billie Jean King, and Amelia Earhart. They all broke barriers to female accomplishment, proving that a woman could do things previously assumed to be the province of men only.

They were exceptional. The lesson isn't that any woman can do what they did, the lesson is that it is possible for a woman to excel in these areas. Once you open the door to the possibility of women in these fields, more and more can break in. It will no longer be necessary to be exceptional, the average women can have the same opportunities as the average man.

Frequently I find myself thinking of Shannon Faulkner. She broke through but ultimately didn't make it at the Citadel. She made it possible for other women to reach the goal she set for herself. Perhaps this is a weird track jump on the thought train but I relate her to Frodo, "I fought to save the Shire and it has been saved--but not for me."

My point here is that where women are a tiny minority in a field, the women who are there are exceptional. That is not meant to validate the sexist notion that "women" are still incapable and only "exceptions" can survive, it's meant to acknowledge that average people don't break barriers. Average people need leaders and role models to pave their way.

I don't know how to make that distinction in everyday life.

If someone were to say "Only exceptional women can do XYZ" that is usually wrong but it is also wrong to make the argument that the average woman can do XYZ. In a sense, the proper argument is that women should be allowed to be just as mediocre as men.

Ever since the beginning of this particular line of feminist threads I have pondered the initial question re: Failings of Feminism. For me the Failing of Feminism is the Elephant in the Room syndrome. Feminism claims that women are just as capable as men and gender stereotypes are wrong. It's difficult to make this argument with a straight face when one is surrounded by examples of women who are not capable and fit any number of ugly gender stereotypes.

Catty bitches exist. "Oh dear, I broke a nail!" chicks exist. Gold diggers exist. Over and over again I watch women literally hobble themselves. For every argument about female competence, there is a Kim Kardashian rebuttal.

I like to use Jessica Simpson as an example because I believe that she is not naturally stupid, she just received so much positive reinforcement for stupidity that she embraced it and cultivated it. That cuts no ice at all with sexists though. As long as she doesn't get the phrase "Chicken of the Sea" she will be used as an example of beautiful idiocy. There can be no question--Men love beautiful idiots. (Yes, of course, not the men here--men in the general sense.)

There was a time when women were riding the high side of the bell curve but a consequence of being on the downside is that you have to face the issues of average women who are poor role models. Until we can come up with a convincing rebuttal to catty bitches, we are stuck.

Some people try to use the Confederate Battle Flag as a symbol of the bravery and determination of the Confederate Army. It doesn't work because the flag more popularly symbolizes slavery and white supremacy.

I don't know how to break out of the bind wherein we have to accept poor female role models and defend them while also claiming an equality that they obviously lack.

That's the best that I can do in terms of explaining my position. In posting this I have no idea whether I will be pilloried or supported. One thing I do know is that as long as we turn our faces away from the elephant in the room, we can make no more forward progress.

[karaddin]

Catty bitches exist. "Oh dear, I broke a nail!" chicks exist. Gold diggers exist. Over and over again I watch women literally hobble themselves. For every argument about female competence, there is a Kim Kardashian rebuttal.

I don't have a response to your broad post yet, but could you clarify what you mean with the bolded? I suspect you are referring to the way she portrays herself/her public image, but as much as I don't like that image I think she's proven herself a very shrewd and intelligent woman when it comes to business decisions and is one of the most professional celebrities when it comes to pimping their endorsements. She's made a fuckton of money doing so.

[Theda Baratheon]

How do you even have that many people to delete in the first place?

Most of them were from School and College and friends of friends and then there was a lot from all the websites I've ever been on and made friends on, unfortunately the kind of people I wanted to befriend at 13/14 yrs of age are not necessarily the same sort of people I wish to be associated with now :P

And I think quite a few people just added me on facebook and I accepted, lol, it's weird I would never do that now.

[litechick]

I suspect you are referring to the way she portrays herself/her public image

Yes.

[Guest Raidne]

...women should be allowed to be just as mediocre as men.

This is, IMO, THE thing feminism needs to accomplish.

Elephant in the Room syndrome.

For some period of time, for however long the transition takes, you can't argue that denying women access to education, employment, and a thousand other opportunities prevented women from fully actualizing as independent, accomplished individuals and then, at the same time, argue that it didn't and that women are all as independent and accomplished as men.

I think what you are saying is that there is plenty of evidence out there that this transition has not yet ended, and that would not surprise me terribly considering the amount of time we're up against.

(But, on the other hand, there are analogous things you could say about men, too.)

[Sci-2]

The sinister campaign against Page 3

Odd to see stage magic lumped in there, but I thought this was still a good article, especially how it managed to challenge the charge that feminism is about prudishness:

In magic, reality television or tabloid culture, the sex itself isn’t really the problem. There are sexy feminist entertainers in magic, film and theatre, feminist porn producers, and sex-positive groups within feminism. The danger comes from the prevailing culture – a context in which women must be a certain type or play a particular role. Tabloids aren’t misogynistic because they publish pictures of exposed flesh, they’re misogynistic because they relentlessly attack, punish, humiliate and belittle women – whether famous or not – for any aspect of their behaviour, appearance or sexuality that deviates from an incredibly rigid and narrow set of standards. The most disturbing thing about Page 3 isn’t the fact that there are naked breasts on it; it’s that every pair of naked breasts looks the same, expresses the same opinions, and exists in a context where the owners of naked breasts are casually belittled and dehumanised.

[Deedles]

Maybe it shouldn't be taken as axiomatic that women are just as capable of writing books as men?

I completely agree with equal opportunities for both sexes, but that doesn't mean we are all equally good at everything. Obviously there will always be exceptional people at something on an individual level, but there are biological & sociological differences between our genders which on the whole can lend advantages to certain tasks.

I am in no way suggesting men are more intelligent than women - I don't believe that to be the case!

What I'm saying is that perhaps it shouldn't simply be taken for granted that women are just as capable at writing books, just as it shouldn't be taken for granted that women are just as capable of committing crimes...

Shamelessly ripped from the "how many books have you read by a woman this year" thread in Literature. When people say there is no glass ceiling, that ability is all, that nobody prejudged applicants, this is what I hear.

[Sci-2]

Shamelessly ripped from the "how many books have you read by a woman this year" thread in Literature. When people say there is no glass ceiling, that ability is all, that nobody prejudged applicants, this is what I hear.

I'd like to see some real data from Loveboof on this rather nebulous hypothesis. What's the point of even suggesting it without evidence? That's like me saying, without any data or parameters, "Maybe, just maybe, Canadians aren't that good at being comedians..."

It's problematic because people can insinuate anything you [they] want when they don't have to provide evidence.

In any case I don't think any of the pro-feminist posters in this thread have suggested a quota system, so it doesn't really matter if there's some biological distribution where more men are good writers than women.

Even [if] the mean of "good writers" is higher for men, that doesn't mean any particular man or any particular woman can be judged on their gender. So removing the barriers that stand in the way of equality of opportunity suffers little to nothing from such a discovery....assuming you can even pin down what makes a "good writer" scientifically.