me What Would Scooby Doo?

Hufflepug grumpy cat baby sloths pretty flowers
Posts tagged heterosexism.

Why do people continuously point out that women in video games and comic books are hyper-sexualized?uali

misandryinvideogames:

amazingatheist:

You realize that the main market for this stuff is teenage boys, right? You realize that it’s made for what THEY enjoy, not to reflect anyone’s dark agenda. Teenage boys like girls with big tits who act slutty, and that’s reflected. Simple market forces. Nothing nefarious. You don’t see me complaining about how emasculated men are in Romantic Comedies. You know why? Because those movies are made for women.  

S I G H

What the fuck even.

(via )

amazingatheist   296 06.30.12

Straight folks in queer spaces

historicalslut:

I’ve been having conversations with my friends about this recently. I also just read an article in Bitch magazine 2 weeks ago about this. The article focused specifically on gay bars but I’ve noticed this is other queer spaces as well. Straight people coming into these spaces without any thought of why the space exists in the first place. I was talking my friend about this and he didn’t get it. He was like “My girlfriend goes to gay clubs with her straight friends all the time.” That just rubs me the wrong way. I was talking to my other queer friends about this and it made them uncomfortable as well. I’ve had bad experiences in safe spaces (from support groups to activist groups) because straight folks came in and acted like the place was theirs. They came in and acted like they knew what was best for the queer people there and wanted to take charge of the meeting, events, etc. I was talking with a couple of friends and my one just said “These are our spaces. I’m uncomfortable with straight people thinking they have a right to be there.” I’ve invited straight friends to queer events before but I knew they wouldn’t be a douchebag. They understand what it means to be an ally and know when to shut the fuck up and sit down. They understand its not their space and they were invited there. One thing that really struck me about the article was a quote (which I am paraphrasing) were the women said when straight women come to these clubs straight men follow and we are pushed out. Someone else talked about not feeling as safe in the clubs/bars anymore. Which made me think back to some of my experiences with straight people coming into queer only spaces and making it uncomfortable.

I’m not really sure where I am going with this. While I don’t think straight people should be banned from queer spaces, I do think straight people need to learn to check their fucking privilege. I think straight people need to think of why we need gay and lesbian bars. I also think straight people should think about why they want to go to a gay/lebian bar/club and other queer spaces. Is it because their queer friend invited them? Is it because their friend is uncomfortable going to a bar/club alone? Is it because they think its cool? Is it because they want to get involved in activism? If the answer is “it would be cool,” chances are you probably shouldn’t be going. I’ve noticed when straight people are around, the environment changes and it feels less open/safe. Now that is not always the case, I’ve been involved in meetings with allies and it would have felt as safe/open without them.

I guess my point is, straight people have to realize queer spaces are not for them. I know, what I am saying is not radical, however it feels like it is. The fact my friends response to me when I basically said I think its bullshit straight people feel entitled to queer spaces was “chill out,” tells me maybe that is a radical statement. Queer spaces exist for a reason, because queer folks are not accepted by the mainstream culture, unless you are a cis white gay (usually male) couple who wants to get married. Is it really too much to ask for us to have our own spaces?

(via coffeewithants)

lipsredasroses   118 06.18.12

dandelion-junk-queen:

auditoryassault:

I hate the word homophobia.

It is not a phobia.

You are not scared.

You are just an asshole.

a+

hey, a better word for what [people saying homophobic things] are actually talking about: heterosexism!

(via calebxblackwell-deactivated2013)

auditoryassault   195749 05.08.12

tyleroakley:

If North Carolina’s Amendment One passes, it will put into law that “marriage between one man and one woman is the only domestic legal union that shall be valid or recognized in this State.” Here is who wants the Amendment to pass. Currently, the polls say that the Amendment WILL pass. Please reblog and urge your friends and family to speak out and vote AGAINST Amendment One.

(via thosedogsthatlovetherain)

friendlyangryfeminist:

There is general agreement that once a man is in the friend zone, that it is difficult to get out. A platonic relationship has formed without sex and can continue indefinitely.

The horror! 

Accordingly, dating advisers and coaches have suggested that one should never get in the friend zone to begin with. Several advisers urged men, during the initial dates, to touch women physically in appropriate places such as elbows or shoulders as a means of increasing the sexual tension.

Yeah, man, just touch women without their permission because damn they owe you sex.


(via queerrose)

"That’s how sex is presented to boys - it’s not intimacy; it’s not the loving, egalitarian [part] that we get something out of, it’s something we do to the other. We raise women to survive in a rape culture, because we raise women to know these things. We do nothing to talk to men about not raping. But we do talk to women about how to protect themselves, which is further why we place the blame on women when something happens. ‘Well didn’t you know not to do that? Didn’t you know not to wear that dress? Or didn’t you know not to walk down that street at that hour of the night?’"

— Feminist Don McPherson, on rape culture and educating boys to not rape. (via misswallflower)

(via mckeegles)

musclesbetter:

I’ve never seen a man holding a door open for a woman as a sexist issue and I’ve never seen it as a thing men do exclusively for women. I always have and always will hold doors open for people and say thank you when it’s done for me because holding a door open for somebody is just manners, not some big misogynistic problem.

NOPE. NOPE. nope. I don’t have the spoons to fully support what I want to say about this issue right now but maybe I’ll come back to it later. To be fair, musclesbetter can have that opinion/thought, I just don’t agree with it and feel like it is shortsighted not to view a man holding a door open for a woman as a sexist issue.

TO BE CLEAR: what I am focusing on is “the trend of [or the expectation of] men opening doors for women” NOT “anyone opening a door for anyone else who happens to be walking behind them / who is carrying a big thing in their arms and can’t open the door by themselves”. This specific subset of door-opening actions taking place by one group of people (men) for another group of people (women) CAN be thought of as sexist and misogynist because those actions ARE gendered. The feeling behind ~men opening doors for women~ stems from the general idea that women are lesser than men, that women need to be taken care of by men, and that women aren’t capable of doing things on their own (misogyny!). This does not mean that every time a man opens the door for a woman, he is thinking to himself “A lesser human! I must save her from the terrible door!!!” Usually opening a door for someone else is a nice gesture. It is important to think about the culture/society/atmosphere/situation in which that tradition started and continues in though.

If this were a completely innocent, non-sexist thing, everyone would be able to open doors for everyone. It wouldn’t be a ~thing~ for men to open doors for women, right? Everyone would just open doors for everyone else and there wouldn’t really be a need to gender that specific activity. This is NOT how it is right now — have any women ever tried to open doors for men? In my experience, there is usually a moment of hesitation on the man’s part and then they will wait for me to go through the door first, stand there awkwardly for too-long-a-moment and then walk through, or refuse to walk through the door. What the fuck, I’m opening the door for you! I’m trying to be polite! Oh wait, it probably carries a different meaning since I’m often perceived as a woman.

Maybe more on this later?

EDIT: http://www.gaelick.com/2011/11/attn-glinner-and-pals-do-not-confuse-manners-with-misogyny/18913/ This looks like a good article. I haven’t read it all the way through but they point out the history behind chivalry and what it means and such.

(via mckeegles)

"But most of all, stop thinking that what people so loathingly refer to as the “friendzone” is some sort of purgatory women put “nice guys” into. My friendship is not a crappy consolation prize that you’re left with if I deny you a sexual relationship– and my body is not your reward for good behavior."

— Taylor Callobre, The “Good Guy” Myth (via alionoftherock)

(via sociolab)

People: You are the only person standing between you and your dreams.
Me: omfg that's such a relief I thought it was me and like 23984792137984753 homophobic and cissexist and racist people I feel so much better now thx you've fixed me here's a cookie.
1927 04.15.12
tahlalaliaaa:

kiskex:

Distinguished sociologist Erving Goffman noted that women in photographs are often portrayed in compromising or submissive situations such as having the head turned upwards to expose the neck or in a contorted stances often with light self-touching. Such poses invite the gaze of the viewer and make the subject of the photograph seem vulnerable and exposed to sexualization. 

tahlalaliaaa:

kiskex:

Distinguished sociologist Erving Goffman noted that women in photographs are often portrayed in compromising or submissive situations such as having the head turned upwards to expose the neck or in a contorted stances often with light self-touching. Such poses invite the gaze of the viewer and make the subject of the photograph seem vulnerable and exposed to sexualization. 

(via panpressedin)

coshledak:

little-hiding-owl:

crackedouttheories:

little-hiding-owl:

waltdisneyconfessions:

“I think the people hoping for a lesbian princess need to be reminded that Disney movies are aimed at kids. I don’t think there is anything wrong with being gay, but to push the idea at kids before they understand what that means will only confuse them. Also as a parent, I would be pissed at Disney for addressing such controversial topics in a movie intended for children”.

Because kids are clearly not smart enough to comprehend two people falling in love.
Or self-aware enough to know they want to rescue and marry a princess instead of being rescued by a prince.
I mean god, thank goodness Disney doesn’t already have hundreds of movies that address romance.
That would just be inappropriate.

Sexual harassment/assault in Hunchback of Notre Dame
Racism in Hunchback of Notre Dame/Pocahontas/Atlantis/The Little Mermaid/Song of the South (and if anyone is wondering about Mermaid, there is bigotry and racism from merfolk towards humans).
Across the board sizism in all movies (no princesses that would not be deemed anorexic. Very few female characters who wouldn’t).
Interracial marriage/coupling (and if you don’t think this is still controversial, you’re clearly not Southern).
Date rape in Sleeping Beauty.
Necrophilia in Snow White.
Physical/psychological abuse in Cinderella/Beauty and the Beast.
Cultural appropriation and othering in any movie which depicts people of color, such as Mulan, Pocahontas, Aladdin, Hunchback of Notre Dame.
Calling characters by racial slurs in children’s movies (gypsy is a racial slur, used in Hunchback of Notre Dame. Indian is considered by some to be a derogatory term and is used in Pocahontas.
Kidnapping, emotional abuse and Stockholm syndrome, found in Tangled and Beauty in the Beast.
Murder. So many murders.
Sexism. So much of it.
Villainizing/stupidifying fat people, such as Ursula, Madam Mim, Arthur’s Dad, Le Foe, and Lawrence.
Queer coding villains, such as Scar, Rattigan, Ratcliffe, and Ursula and Sher Khan 
Clearly, Disney has never shown anything controversial  to kids before. Ever. 
And if you’re like “But, even though a lot of those things are controversial now, they are traditional in fairy tales and hearken back to historical values of that time,” then to that I say “Bullshit” for at least three reasons.
 A lot of these stories have little or nothing to do with any version of the original fairy tales, except having a name in common. For example, the cultural ideal hasn’t always been thin. That’s a modern value.Marrying for love is a modern value. If this had been the olden days, then Jasmine and Pocahontas would have been shit-out-of-luck and married their pre-destined sweethearts.I guess you could make an argument that the white settlers would call the Native Americans “Indians” and the citizens of Paris would call the Walking People “gypsies,” because hey, historically, they probably called them that and much worse. But you can’t pick when and where you’re going to be historically accurate, because at that point you’re just tailoring it to your best idea of what that story should be, not what that story was
LGBTQ people have been around forever. Look it up. There’s a whole history. So if you’re going to go off the traditional bit, then if Disney ever does a Greek tale again, they better include Sappho or all the girl-fucking that Artemis did. And if they ever do anything about the Middle Ages again, through a bone to all of the spiritual marriages that happened between every kind of couple. 
There are so many villains that have been queer-coded. So many. See above. But you haven’t mentioned how that freaks you out.So why are gays, and mostly gay men, allowed to be bad guys, but two girls on-screen falling in love in a kid’s movie too much for you? 
You know, basically, if you’re saying that a lesbian princess couple would be too controversial for kids, then you’re saying all the rape, murder, pillaging, cultural appropriation, racism, etc that has plagued Disney movies before this is A-OK to show children. Which is really, really interesting. 

coshledak:

little-hiding-owl:

crackedouttheories:

little-hiding-owl:

waltdisneyconfessions:

I think the people hoping for a lesbian princess need to be reminded that Disney movies are aimed at kids. I don’t think there is anything wrong with being gay, but to push the idea at kids before they understand what that means will only confuse them. Also as a parent, I would be pissed at Disney for addressing such controversial topics in a movie intended for children”.

Because kids are clearly not smart enough to comprehend two people falling in love.

Or self-aware enough to know they want to rescue and marry a princess instead of being rescued by a prince.

I mean god, thank goodness Disney doesn’t already have hundreds of movies that address romance.

That would just be inappropriate.

  • Sexual harassment/assault in Hunchback of Notre Dame
  • Racism in Hunchback of Notre Dame/Pocahontas/Atlantis/The Little Mermaid/Song of the South (and if anyone is wondering about Mermaid, there is bigotry and racism from merfolk towards humans).
  • Across the board sizism in all movies (no princesses that would not be deemed anorexic. Very few female characters who wouldn’t).
  • Interracial marriage/coupling (and if you don’t think this is still controversial, you’re clearly not Southern).
  • Date rape in Sleeping Beauty.
  • Necrophilia in Snow White.
  • Physical/psychological abuse in Cinderella/Beauty and the Beast.
  • Cultural appropriation and othering in any movie which depicts people of color, such as Mulan, Pocahontas, Aladdin, Hunchback of Notre Dame.
  • Calling characters by racial slurs in children’s movies (gypsy is a racial slur, used in Hunchback of Notre Dame. Indian is considered by some to be a derogatory term and is used in Pocahontas.
  • Kidnapping, emotional abuse and Stockholm syndrome, found in Tangled and Beauty in the Beast.
  • Murder. So many murders.
  • Sexism. So much of it.
  • Villainizing/stupidifying fat people, such as Ursula, Madam Mim, Arthur’s Dad, Le Foe, and Lawrence.
  • Queer coding villains, such as Scar, Rattigan, Ratcliffe, and Ursula and Sher Khan 

Clearly, Disney has never shown anything controversial  to kids before. Ever. 

And if you’re like “But, even though a lot of those things are controversial now, they are traditional in fairy tales and hearken back to historical values of that time,” then to that I say “Bullshit” for at least three reasons.

  1.  A lot of these stories have little or nothing to do with any version of the original fairy tales, except having a name in common. 
    For example, the cultural ideal hasn’t always been thin. That’s a modern value.
    Marrying for love is a modern value. If this had been the olden days, then Jasmine and Pocahontas would have been shit-out-of-luck and married their pre-destined sweethearts.
    I guess you could make an argument that the white settlers would call the Native Americans “Indians” and the citizens of Paris would call the Walking People “gypsies,” because hey, historically, they probably called them that and much worse. But you can’t pick when and where you’re going to be historically accurate, because at that point you’re just tailoring it to your best idea of what that story should be, not what that story was

  2. LGBTQ people have been around forever. Look it up. There’s a whole history. 

    So if you’re going to go off the traditional bit, then if Disney ever does a Greek tale again, they better include Sappho or all the girl-fucking that Artemis did. And if they ever do anything about the Middle Ages again, through a bone to all of the spiritual marriages that happened between every kind of couple. 

  3. There are so many villains that have been queer-coded. So many. See above.
    But you haven’t mentioned how that freaks you out.
    So why are gays, and mostly gay men, allowed to be bad guys, but two girls on-screen falling in love in a kid’s movie too much for you? 

You know, basically, if you’re saying that a lesbian princess couple would be too controversial for kids, then you’re saying all the rape, murder, pillaging, cultural appropriation, racism, etc that has plagued Disney movies before this is A-OK to show children. Which is really, really interesting. 

(via spicedpiano)

"

I’m not married because I don’t want or need the state’s approval of my relationship and I certainly don’t want it interfering if we decide to part.

I’m not married because the history of marriage is ugly and anti-woman; because I don’t like the common meanings of the words “wife” and “husband”; and because even today, and even among couples that call themselves feminist, gender inequality in relationships is known to increase when a couple moves from cohabitation to marriage (and I don’t think I’m so special that I’ll be the anomaly).

I’m not married because I’m opposed to the marriage industrial complex. It’s exploitative, stereotypical, and wasteful.

I’m not married because I value the fact that my partner and I decide to be together every day, even though we don’t have to jump through legal hoops to do otherwise.

I’m not married because I don’t want to support a discriminatory institution that has and continues to bless some relationships, but not others, out of bigotry.

I’m not married because I don’t believe in giving social and economic benefits to some kinds of relationships and not others. I don’t believe that a state- or church-endorsed heterosexual union between two and only two people is superior to other kinds of relationships.

"

[Image: screenshot of a post on facebook with four comments. queerio19’s post contains a link to this video, “Sh*t Homophobic People Say” on youtube.com. the first commenter said “Ann Coulter takes the cake. What a nut.” the second person, in red, said “People are responsible for the choices they make.” queerio19 responded with “Like saying really terrible things about other people’s personal lives?” the person in red commented again with “Yes, some of these are extreme and ridiculous. I see though that these are short clips taken out of the context of whole discussions and usually that is done for propaganda purposes, to stir people up and create sympathy for an agenda. There are grains of truth behind some of what they say but of course, presented like this, the homosexual community will never see or admit them.”]
I posted that video with the comment “Gross!” on facebook yesterday and only got a couple comments on it. The second comment is from an older person I know from contra dancing and I was unsure of what they were trying to say but it seemed to be very heterosexist and homophobic. I’m still unsure of what they were trying to say after their second comment because it sound very roundabout and they never actually come out and say anything that is obviously offensive. Things like this don’t happen very often but they make me want to post a lot of queer stuff all over my facebook to see who actually cares about me as a person, who cares about my personal life, and who will say negative things to me based on their personal views that may be influenced by a number of heterosexist things (religion, mass media, laws, the USA in general, etc).

[Image: screenshot of a post on facebook with four comments. queerio19’s post contains a link to this video, “Sh*t Homophobic People Say” on youtube.com. the first commenter said “Ann Coulter takes the cake. What a nut.” the second person, in red, said “People are responsible for the choices they make.” queerio19 responded with “Like saying really terrible things about other people’s personal lives?” the person in red commented again with “Yes, some of these are extreme and ridiculous. I see though that these are short clips taken out of the context of whole discussions and usually that is done for propaganda purposes, to stir people up and create sympathy for an agenda. There are grains of truth behind some of what they say but of course, presented like this, the homosexual community will never see or admit them.”]

I posted that video with the comment “Gross!” on facebook yesterday and only got a couple comments on it. The second comment is from an older person I know from contra dancing and I was unsure of what they were trying to say but it seemed to be very heterosexist and homophobic. I’m still unsure of what they were trying to say after their second comment because it sound very roundabout and they never actually come out and say anything that is obviously offensive. Things like this don’t happen very often but they make me want to post a lot of queer stuff all over my facebook to see who actually cares about me as a person, who cares about my personal life, and who will say negative things to me based on their personal views that may be influenced by a number of heterosexist things (religion, mass media, laws, the USA in general, etc).

2 01.14.12