posted on 15.04.13

becauseiamawoman:

“One illustration of why: when I first became a feminist twenty years ago, I had an old-school feminist (wearing bright pink lipstick, mind you) ask, “What’s a feminist like you doing wearing a miniskirt?” I said to her, “I got out of the patriarchy because it was always telling me what to do. I’ll be damned if I let anyone else do it, either.” I told her that automatically rejecting everything the patriarchy demanded was allowing the patriarchy to control you just as much as if you did everything it ordered. As long as you were simply reacting, you were still granting the patriarchy all the power. Part of feminism, to me, was the freedom to choose for myself after carefully thinking out the issue, and I wasn’t going to cede that power to ANYONE, ever again. Besides, damn it, I had good legs, and I wasn’t above showing them off.”

Minna Hong (via thefemcritique)

(Source: arewomenhuman.me)

posted on 26.03.13

jordanmcdeere:

“Regardless of individual men’s behavior, the facts of patriarchy give women ample reason to resent men collectively simply because “male” is a privileged social category in relation to which women experience oppression. This is quite different, however, from holding individual men accountable for the existence of patriarchy and blaming them simply for being men. In other words, when a woman says, “I hate men,” this doesn’t necessarily mean she hates me, Allan. But, living in a society dominated by individualistic thinking makes it easy to lose sight of the crucial distinction between men as individuals and men as a category of people. […] Women’s anger is an important engine for change, and if women have to tiptoe around worrying about whether it might hurt a man’s feelings, they’re going to be silenced.”

— Allan G. Johnson, The Gender Knot (via pedagogyoftheoppressed)

native-detroiter:


lilliputianhitcher:


shitstraightwhiteguyssay:


Excuse the sloppiness. I feel like people are more inclined to read things when they’re a picture, so I made this to give a really BRIEF and SHALLOW explanation of why “reverse sexism” is a bullshit way of describing what’s actually happening: patriarchy backfiring against men. There is a lot more to it than just this, though.
Source for women in advertising: http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/jan/20/ipa-women-in-advertising
Edit: sorry it’s so small, click for big version


it’s amazing how literally no one seems to get this



posted on 22.03.13

native-detroiter:

lilliputianhitcher:

shitstraightwhiteguyssay:

Excuse the sloppiness. I feel like people are more inclined to read things when they’re a picture, so I made this to give a really BRIEF and SHALLOW explanation of why “reverse sexism” is a bullshit way of describing what’s actually happening: patriarchy backfiring against men. There is a lot more to it than just this, though.

Source for women in advertising: http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/jan/20/ipa-women-in-advertising


Edit: sorry it’s so small, click for big version

it’s amazing how literally no one seems to get this

posted on 01.03.13

thepoopqueen:

if you don’t know that the problems men face and the ideals put upon them were created by patriarchy which is an idea that men came up with, then these aren’t conversations that you should be having

posted on 07.07.12

thefremen:

Male privilege may be more obvious in other cultures, but in so-called Western culture it’s still ubiquitous. In fact, it’s so ubiquitous that it’s invisible. It is so pervasive as to be normalized, and so normalized as to be visible only in its absence. The vast, vast, vast majority of institutions, spaces, and subcultures privilege male interests, but because male is the default in this culture, such interests are very often considered ungendered. As a result, we only really notice when something privileges female interests.”

Lucy GillamWhen Worlds Collide: Fandom and Male Privilege (via touchoftea)