Tag: gender

4thwavenow:

Genderqueer? Nah.  

We could use a LOT more videos like this, made by strong, “gender nonconforming” women. Give the vulnerable, brainwashed teens a different channel to surf besides the FTM Transition Network…

These 3 minutes will brighten your day. Guaranteed.

“I hated the feminine gender role society enforces on women. But I loved the role I took instead. And I learned to love my body.”

And mom and dad loved their tomboy–and let her run free.

Everyone should check out her youtube channel

(Source: https://www.youtube.com/)

grey-haired-radical:

Men like Evo-Psych because (despite an abundance of theories
on the evolution of social groups) it basically comes down to this: As far as
evolution is concerned, the only criteria that matters is the reproduction of
the species. By definition, this is a lens that allows them to reduce women and
their value to the role of sexual reproduction. Since this is how/why
patriarchy was invented, it fits so nicely into their rhetoric. It’s not that
they are misogynist for focusing on women as sexual objects, it’s just science. This allows them to ignore the fact that the use of this framework is a choice. 

elizabitchtaylor:

Never forget that Virginia Slims cigarettes- a toxic, highly addictive, cancer-causing product- a product that literally kills people- adopted feminist and women’s-lib rhetoric to peddle their wares… to great success.

Never forget that Virginia Slims cigarettes used feminist language to tap into a new demographic in order to maximize profit and get more people hooked on their dangerous product.

All under the guise of “liberation” “freedom” and “self-expression” for women. 

Sound familiar? Yeah, sounds a lot like the same language makeup companies are using now. 

Corporations don’t care about women’s rights. They don’t care about feminism or “empowerment”. They only care about profits. If they can find a way to sell something to you, they will. 

newfavething:

the single grimmest line i hear in Church discourse on gender is that ‘women are more generous because their bodies are built for giving: for giving life, for giving nourishment’

no. women are more generous because we are taught from birth to please at all costs, to make sacrifices, and never, ever to say ‘no’

confirmed-terfs:

slaybia-majora:

shadycatz:

gaycrime:

wow The Onion is dropping a lot of truth for a work of satire

Wait, so a satire site says the exact same thing as radfems and they get 85,000 notes while we get rape threats???

Yep..

don’t worry I’ll fix it! THE ONION writers are now confirmed as TERFs

This analysis was supposed to be the foundation of feminism now women are ‘cis‘ and female women have privilege over male ‘women‘ because reasons.

tehbewilderness:

never-obey:

neeea:

Fuck this “we’re oppressed for being feminine uwu” bullshit.

If women were oppressed for performing femininity and not for being female, men would be making laws on appropriate shades of lipstick and amounts of eyeliner, NOT OUR FEMALE BODIES.

Unfeminine women would be safe from female oppression and men who wear makeup would be just as oppressed as feminine women. You could literally choose whether or not you want to be oppressed. Just stop wearing dresses and makeup and you’ll be fine!

I can’t opt out of female oppression. Even if I went by male or neutral pronouns and identified as a non-woman, I would still be denied medical procedures including but not limited to abortion and sterilisation, I would still be paid less than my male colleagues, I would still be seen incompetent and unfit for anything but child rearing and housekeeping, I would still get interrupted and silenced by men and I would still have to plan for escape routes and carry a weapon of some sort for protection, just in case. I would still be female and I would still be oppressed simply because of the fact that I am female, no matter how I dress or ~identify~.

It’s also very western centric.

There are countries were girls and women don’t perform what we here see as “feminine”.

That would mean they aren’t oppressed. But they are because OF THEIR SEX!

Gender roles are different in different cultures. This is what makes it clear that gender is a social construct.

campclit:

I just realized why the whole tomboy-》WOMAN transformation trope bothers me so damn much. It’s because I’ve been in that scene too many times in my own life. Getting dressed up for some event or another meant pulling on some dress or another tighter-than-I’d-like oufit, getting color brushed on my face, and getting my hair done in some way. Always a 360 for my father or whoever else was waiting to see, always proud smiles, always talk about how much different- how much older I looked. Always seeing myself in the mirror and not seeing me, always feeling like an imposter, and always wishing I was too sick to go. That trope is bullshit, the culture it’s a part of is bullshit, and I hate femininity make overs. They are bullshit.

There is also the implication that women must become feminine to be an adult.

Gems and Gender

tealish-pink:

Steven Universe’s alien species of Gems are aliens, which means they aren’t human, and they don’t have sex, they don’t have gender. They are sexless. They are genderless. I saw all these posts about how they are non-binary, but no. Gems have absolutely no concept of gender in their society, therefore the concept of a ‘binary’ wouldn’t even occur to them. Genderless. Gems. 

Gems have their own language, and likely that language is completely not gendered. In their original language, they probably wouldn’t have gendered pronouns – no ‘she’ or ‘he’. Just one word that is probably something like ‘they’ to refer to someone that is not themselves. Like many languages in the world right now. 

When they came to earth and interacted with humans, they probably thought our sexual reproduction was the weirdest thing ever, as was anything related to that. In English, we still don’t have an official gender-neutral pronoun, so I’m guessing for the sake of the show, the producers didn’t use ‘they’ to refer to the gems – too confusing. In show, for the Gems, they simply adapted the local language to describe themselves, and the pronoun they might have arbitrarily chose was ‘she’. I highly doubt it’s because they ‘identify’ as female or women – they can’t, really, and they haven’t in the show at all, I don’t think, they always acknowledge themselves just as ‘gems’, because they aren’t human – it was for communication’s sake. 

That’s in show. In our reality, I’m so happy the producers chose to present them as women in our understanding – as in any regular person looking at the show and not thinking too deeply would just see them as female characters. Which is important because female representation of such variety is so desperately needed. How Garnet, Amethyst, Pearl, Lapis, Jasper, Peridot are so different but still are female characters – a girl and woman can be anything, the message is saying – strong, smart, funny, amazing, warlike, muscular, fat, thin, giant, graceful, crude, arrogant, forgiving, tough, sweet, vengeful, weird, etc. 

So I hope they never introduce a ‘male’ gem. Besides, there’s Steven, and Steven is such a great character already. 

Headcannon that the gems never identify as women like human women because they didn’t see themselves as women, but also because they knew they would never understand and experience the life of a human female. 

We see them as ‘gendered’, and interpret what they do as what a female character is doing – which is necessary for the sake of the cartoon and our media – but the gems have never considered themselves so. Everything they are and do is gem behavior. They technically live in a society where there is no gender. Thumbs up. 

This is an excellent analysis. The gems are for the story’s sake women just like how transformers and fictional alien species with no sexes are interpreted to be male (like the Namek from Dragon Ball Z).

Another thing is Steven calls Garnet, Amethyst and Pearl his moms and he calls fusions like Opal and Sardonyx giant women. So you are right that they are seen as women despite not classifying biologically as women or even human (not sure how Rose Quartz and Greg had Steven though). 

Hi I’m sorry if you have answered this before but what does gender critical mean? And if it’s not too much what does it mean to be a gender abolitionist? Thanks, I’m relatively new to a lot of these concepts.

witwitch-deactivated20160508:

“Gender Critical” means I think critically about the idea of gender. That means analyzing the purpose and structure of gender in society, so we can get some real work done.

Gender is a social construct and a hierarchy which places males at the top and females at the bottom. It was created by the patriarchy for the purpose of oppressing women, similar to how race as a social construct was invented to justify white supremacy. Gender prescribes a way of living, with some things designated “for women” and some things designated “for men” (in our Western society–some societies have more than 2 genders, but that doesn’t mean gender isn’t oppressive just because they had more gender boxes to put people in). Gender also prescribes our socialization: gender is why women are socialized to be meek small, submissive, and men are socialized to be dominating, take up space, and entitled.

Gender abolitionist means I want to live in a world without gender. I believe this is the best way to liberate women from misogyny, which is an aspect of gender. Imagine a world where nobody makes any assumptions about your personality, behaviors, hobbies, interests, skills, or manner of dressing just because of your body parts. It means nothing is “for boys” or “for girls” anymore, and everything is for everyone. Imagine a world where nobody tells young girls that their bodies or brains are inferior to males’ bodies or brains, a world where nobody makes assumptions about your capabilities based on your sex.