Josephine Baker (June 3, 1906 - April 12, 1975)

We were together. I forget the rest.

source: annalaura_art

I’ve been seeing my mutuals (on my main) reblogging that “transwoman transition masterpost” over and over and it finally hit me what was bothering me about it, especially the passing socially tips section that summarized went somewhat like;

“Emulate your ciswomen friends, choose a friend you like the most, how they talk, act, walk, stand, how women they act in movies, choose what woman you want to be, elegant, sexy? Makeup is a must, shaving is a must, women talk with emotion, Look at how women act in their idle time etc”

It consisted of all of the stereotypes in the book, all of the concepts we as feminists have been fighting for years to stop associating with womanhood being once again being romanticized and normalized and promoted under feminism

And it just reeks of male gaze male gaze male gaze, it profits off it, validates it’s enforcement on us, tells males how to mimick us and continue to perpetuate so many actions we do subconsciously and compulsory because of our own female socialization and gender roles, our “mannerisms” and “habits” etc i get flashbacks from reading the Reddit tips on “how to pee like a woman where it’s advice was to listen in on ciswomen urinating in public bathrooms, and how it echoes the way some men fetishize women peeing.

Then they have the audacity to tell us it’s us that are demeaning ourselves by knowing it’s our body that makes us women and not these compulsions? It’s misogyny and sexism plain and simple, And it just makes me so much more hyper aware now that not only do we have the sexual male gaze from straight non dysphoric men to deal with but now the transwoman male gaze, looking for the best way to mimick our behaviors and enforce gender stereotypes in a way we are not allowed to question or be bothered by

Virgins and heroes: The socialization of women thru literature.

In early 1970s romance novels, no sometimes meant yes and a rapist could figure as a hero. And if you are in your middle ages, this is what planted in your mind those sexual scripts of "rape fantasy'. The Hallmark Channel only makes it softer.

Forty years ago public discussion was just beginning about equality in the workplace, domestic violence, sexual harassment, reproductive rights and other issues affecting women. Romance novelists quickly joined the discussion, grappling with these same issues through the lens of love.

Heather has no understanding of her sexuality and no power of consent. She has two bad choices: First, she can either be raped or kill her sexual aggressor; later, when Brandon rapes her, she can resist or learn to love her rapist. From this unpromising beginning, romance narratives quickly shifted in their exploration of women’s sexuality and the nature of consent.

In early 1970s romance novels “no” sometimes meant “yes” and a rapist could figure as a hero. By the end of the 1970s “no” meant “no” and a rapist could no longer fill the hero slot.

Keep reading

Although misogyny necessarily plays its part into the whole JKR debacle, I think the 'vitriol' as you said is mostly caused by the fact that a large portion of the haters grew up with the Harry Potter books whilst they haven't, for example, ever seen a Polanski film in their life. And JKR in a way could be a sort of parental figure to them. You know, as ~problematic~ as Freud may be, he was onto something when he spoke of one's need to symbolically kill the father; and the same people who practically worshipped the HP novels growing up had already begun dismissing them as child's play when the Rowling vs. Transactivists affair started. To quote another writer here, the issue crystallised at that point.

@helshades

It's so funny that you're bringing that up because I had this exact conversation with my man around a week ago. As I said in the tags of the post that prompted those couple of rants of mine, he's currently reading them for the first time at the rip old age of 35. A result of him giving Philosopher Stone to his pupils this year (HP so bad, primary schools use them to get kids to read, apparently) and making a point of doing everything he asks of them and that include learning all the poetry by heart, and therefore reading all the books as well. After finishing PS, he asked for the rest since he was surprised at how much funnier it was than the movie.

Anyway, I don't exactly remember how we ended up talking about JKR and the discourse currently surrounding her, but he made the exact same point as you, he mentioned how interesting it was that Freud might actually have had some interesting ideas hidden in his work somewhere in there, and that some people do need to "kill the mother / father" in order to grow up and leave childhood behind. I pointed out to him that it was rather obvious and blatantly observable all around us, but that, as per usual, people took that point way too literally, imagining that it meant killing your actual mother/father and marrying the other one so to speak; when a father or mother figure doesnt even have to be someone close to you nor someone you know at all - just a person or even a concept that shaped you enough when you were younger, that you are now feeling the need to "rebel" against in order to mature.

Which really goes back full circle to the point I constantly make when it comes to HP and how people are unable to read (just because you can decipher doesn't mean you can read, I will stand by that, always), and how really, most discourses and analysis surrounding it are people fancying themselves smart by what they believe is "deconstructing" something they loved in childhood, when in reality it's 8 grade level analysis (if I'm generous) and honestly just look like they're going through their teenage phase of explaining to mum why she actually sucks.

Still though, I'll keep believing that if Joanne Rowling had been Jonathan Rowling, there wouldn't be quite the same level of vitriol directed at her and that her being a woman plays a role in how confortable and justified people feel in robbing her of her achievement and devaluing her work.

You Are Not Wasting Time; It Was Given To You As A Gift, Freely and Generously; Is Rain Wasted Because It Falls On Gardens, Grass, Disgruntled Birds, and Umbrellas All The Same?

A lot of famous women have never studied feminism in any sort of academic environment + largely get their “feminism” from social media. No theory, no critical analysis, just liberal feminism + Instagram quotes.

Watching one of your own get humiliated, tortured, objectified and dehumanized is abuse and a threat. Every woman who’s been exposed to depictions of women being used, brutalized, raped and objectified has felt it on her skin, it was abuse to her, threat to her entire kind, and to her personally. She was being told, in that moment, what the world does to women, what it would do to her. The rest of her life is then just waiting for her to be forced into it, or doing it willingly in hope it wont be so brutal. This is what living on earth is for women. Watching our own being tortured and waiting for our turn.

This is what pornography is doing to us. It’s what media is doing to us. It’s what photoshopped, unnatural and objectified depictions of women are doing to us. It’s what objectifying via makeup is doing to us. Every image and video of women who are presented as something to be used and consumed, is abuse to womankind.

"Why do we romanticize the dead? Why can't we be honest about them? Especially moms. They're the most romanticized of anyone.

Moms are saints, angels by merely existing. NO ONE could possibly understand what it's like to be a mom. Men will never understand. Women with no children will never understand. No one but moms know the hardship of motherhood, and we non-moms must heap nothing but praise upon moms because we lowly, pitiful non-moms are mere peasants compared to the goddesses we call mothers.

Jennette McCurdy, I'm Glad My Mom Died

This book is difficult to read, but it has so many gems like this one. Of course, there are people still saying that she shouldn't talk like this about her mother, as if the person who abused her in more ways than one is owed that level of grace in death. If her mother was still alive, she still wouldn't be free to talk about her experiences without judgement. Mothers are deified just for popping out a few kids, even if they turn out to be severely maladjusted. Jeanette has already made it clear that she doesn't intend on having kids in the near future, which many people seem to have an issue with. They think having kids means that she has healed from her trauma, which is a sinister mode of thought. Her refusing to do so already make her more sensible in my eyes compared to the women who will still have kids and wind up continuing that cycle of abuse, rather than healing from it and staying childfree.

And it's funny how mothers and fathers can come online and complain about their kids and even outright say that they hate them just for being born (TikTok is a breeding ground for these attention-seekers). However, when their kids call them out on how terrible they were as parents (or will even cut them off completely) they aren't given that same freedom to do so without the backlash of being "ungrateful".

And people are wondering why the number of parricide cases have been sky-rocketing lately...