lesighh

(((((((((TW violence against women))))) I’d very much like to punch a feminist.

lesighh:

assbutt-in-the-garrison:

thattallsummonerguy:

olisaurusrex:

true-blue-brit:

I’d never, ever hurt a lady but I’d be happy to punch a feminist.

It’d bring me great joy.

image

I’m 6’2 and weigh 180lbs

ready when you are

Or if you’d like to have some more options….
image

I’m 6’4”
228 pounds
and have 9 years of combined martial arts training and 3 years of being a Line Backer in football.
Just in case you are looking for variety.

image

this took an unexpected turn.

HEY, YO, PRETTY SURE THE PROPER RESPONSE TO THIS IS NOT FOR ~FEMINIST~ DUDES TO TRY TO OUT-MASCULINE EACH OTHER. 

OP is trying to say that being a feminist makes a woman not really a woman. OP is justifying violence against women by removing/failing to recognize the womanhood of women with different political beliefs than him. That’s gross. That’s fucked up. And the answer to that is NOT for dudes to be manly at each other.

So why don’t you come after me, OP? I’m a feminist and a woman, two things you apparently hate. I’m not going to post my stats or a pic of me looking tough. I’m not an athlete. I’m not physically strong. What I am is angry and carrying keys, so you come after me, and I will claw your fucking eyes out.

apolloadama
imnotamisandristbut

A List of “Men’s Rights” Issues That Feminism Is Already Working On

Feminists do not want you to lose custody of your children. The assumption that women are naturally better caregivers is part of patriarchy.

Feminists do not like commercials in which bumbling dads mess up the laundry and competent wives have to bustle in and fix it. The assumption that women are naturally better housekeepers is part of patriarchy.

Feminists do not want you to have to make alimony payments. Alimony is set up to combat the fact that women have been historically expected to prioritize domestic duties over professional goals, thus minimizing their earning potential if their “traditional” marriages end. The assumption that wives should make babies instead of money is part of patriarchy.

Feminists do not want anyone to get raped in prison. Permissiveness and jokes about prison rape are part of rape culture, which is part of patriarchy.

Feminists do not want anyone to be falsely accused of rape. False rape accusations discredit rape victims, which reinforces rape culture, which is part of patriarchy.

Feminists do not want you to be lonely and we do not hate “nice guys.” The idea that certain people are inherently more valuable than other people because of superficial physical attributes is part of patriarchy.

Feminists do not want you to have to pay for dinner. We want the opportunity to achieve financial success on par with men in any field we choose (and are qualified for), and the fact that we currently don’t is part of patriarchy. The idea that men should coddle and provide for women, and/or purchase their affections in romantic contexts, is condescending and damaging and part of patriarchy.

Feminists do not want you to be maimed or killed in industrial accidents, or toil in coal mines while we do cushy secretarial work and various yarn-themed activities. The fact that women have long been shut out of dangerous industrial jobs (by men, by the way) is part of patriarchy.

Feminists do not want you to commit suicide. Any pressures and expectations that lower the quality of life of either gender are part of patriarchy. The fact that depression is characterized as an effeminate weakness, making men less likely to seek treatment, is part of patriarchy.

Feminists do not want you to be viewed with suspicion when you take your child to the park (men frequently insist that this is a serious issue, so I will take them at their word). The assumption that men are insatiable sexual animals, combined with the idea that it’s unnatural for men to care for children, is part of patriarchy.

Feminists do not want you to be drafted and then die in a war while we stay home and iron stuff. The idea that women are too weak to fight or too delicate to function in a military setting is part of patriarchy.

Feminists do not want women to escape prosecution on legitimate domestic violence charges, nor do we want men to be ridiculed for being raped or abused. The idea that women are naturally gentle and compliant and that victimhood is inherently feminine is part of patriarchy.

Feminists hate patriarchy. We do not hate you.

If you really care about those issues as passionately as you say you do, you should be thanking feminists, because feminism is a social movement actively dedicated to dismantling every single one of them. The fact that you blame feminists—your allies—for problems against which they have been struggling for decades suggests that supporting men isn’t nearly as important to you as resenting women. We care about your problems a lot. Could you try caring about ours?

Autostraddle (via notaprincessdestinedtobeawitch)

Guys. You need to read this.

(via abaldwin360)
setilamarr

The Power of Feminism in a Place of Privilege

iamafuckfeast:

Do whatever the fuck you want to do all the god damn time and then chalk it up to gender.

Respect to the feminists who sacrificed the corner office for the crib and the baby carriage.

Respect to the feminists who sacrificed their marriage for the corner office.

Respect to the feminists who file sexual harassment lawsuits, win, get that fucking money, and live a life they love.

Respect to the feminists who marry rich men, live off their fortunes, do whatever they want and don’t let anyone call them a bitch.

Respect to the feminists who fuck whoever and whatever they want, and when people call them sluts, they say, “Yeah I am!”

Respect to the feminists who married poor, lived poor, and died poor, but had the tenacity and the strength of character to suffer through it.

Respect to the feminists who enjoy doing housework.

Respect to the feminists who started a family instead of going to school, what you’re doing is admirable.

Respect to the feminists who fuck men for money.

Respect to the feminists who suffered through rape but didn’t let that stop them.

Respect to the feminists who fucked their way to the top.

Respect to the feminists who strive for physical beauty.

Respect to the feminists who left their first husband for their second husband.

Respect to the feminists who left their second husband for their third husband.

Respect to the feminists who don’t go on diets.

Respect to the feminists who dropped out of college for no particular reason.

Respect to the feminist who call their exboyfriends 17 times when they’re drunk at night, and then lie about it the next day.

Respect to the feminists who don’t get caught stealing.

Respect to the feminists who do and say things that other feminists don’t like, but fuck it!

Respect to the feminists who have never experienced real struggle in their lives ever due to gender, for any reason.

Respect to the feminists on their periods.

Respect to the feminists who, at the end of the day, are happy with themselves, happy with their decisions, and proud of the legacy they have left for other women.

YOU GO GIRL

drbrucebananer
drbrucebananer:

i understand that. i stand by what i said before. it’s homophobic and anti-woman. feminism is for women, including aggressive man-hating lesbians. what are your goals as a feminist? is it to support women—all women—in achieving equality? or is it to make ‘feminism’ acceptable within the existing patriarchal power structure? if it’s the latter, it defeats the purpose of feminism in the first place. feminism cannot be accepted by patriarchy, because it is a system designed to keep women down. if your feminism is acceptable, it does not actually do what feminism is supposed to do, which is destroy that system. 
if the goal is to achieve social equality for all women, then we need to look at which women are least acceptable, most threatening, most devalued. Women of color, trans women, disabled women, fat women, queer women, angry and hostile women—women deemed worthless or dangerous to patriarchy/kyriarchy—these women are most in need of pro-woman movements, and projects like yours only kick them in the teeth. why bother trying to break these stereotypes unless there is something wrong with being that sort of woman? 
what i want to ask you this: why is your project focused on showing that feminists can be socially acceptable (which is to say, people who already hold a great deal of systemic power over, for example, aggressive lesbians) rather than on accepting and supporting women who are most disadvantaged by this system? why does it seem that your project is more about preserving the privileged status of a few than dismantling the system that allows that privilege in the first place? why does your project imply that ‘equal rights’ is somehow not necessarily the goal of feminism in the first place? 
idk man, idk. i started identifying as a feminist because i care about women, because i thought that feminism was about fighting for the right of all women to be valued and respected as human beings. but if it’s about fighting for people to be able to, what, call themselves feminists while remaining in the good graces of patriarchy? then i feel like i got no choice but to oppose that shit as nothing but an especially perverse twist of the system itself.

BOOM. Dr. B B laying the SMACKDOWN
if yr feminism doesn’t include angry, man-hating lesbians, I DON’T WANT IT

drbrucebananer:

i understand that. i stand by what i said before. it’s homophobic and anti-woman. feminism is for women, including aggressive man-hating lesbians. what are your goals as a feminist? is it to support women—all women—in achieving equality? or is it to make ‘feminism’ acceptable within the existing patriarchal power structure? if it’s the latter, it defeats the purpose of feminism in the first place. feminism cannot be accepted by patriarchy, because it is a system designed to keep women down. if your feminism is acceptable, it does not actually do what feminism is supposed to do, which is destroy that system. 

if the goal is to achieve social equality for all women, then we need to look at which women are least acceptable, most threatening, most devalued. Women of color, trans women, disabled women, fat women, queer women, angry and hostile women—women deemed worthless or dangerous to patriarchy/kyriarchy—these women are most in need of pro-woman movements, and projects like yours only kick them in the teeth. why bother trying to break these stereotypes unless there is something wrong with being that sort of woman? 

what i want to ask you this: why is your project focused on showing that feminists can be socially acceptable (which is to say, people who already hold a great deal of systemic power over, for example, aggressive lesbians) rather than on accepting and supporting women who are most disadvantaged by this system? why does it seem that your project is more about preserving the privileged status of a few than dismantling the system that allows that privilege in the first place? why does your project imply that ‘equal rights’ is somehow not necessarily the goal of feminism in the first place? 

idk man, idk. i started identifying as a feminist because i care about women, because i thought that feminism was about fighting for the right of all women to be valued and respected as human beings. but if it’s about fighting for people to be able to, what, call themselves feminists while remaining in the good graces of patriarchy? then i feel like i got no choice but to oppose that shit as nothing but an especially perverse twist of the system itself.

BOOM. Dr. B B laying the SMACKDOWN

if yr feminism doesn’t include angry, man-hating lesbians, I DON’T WANT IT

i-gloriana

1) Be willing to confront instances of transphobia, cissexism, cisnormativity, cis-centrism, cis privilege and other forms of destructive bias where you find them (especially when you find them within feminist, activist or queer spaces), not through “call outs” or other toxic, self-defeating or abusive strategies, but by taking the opportunity for genuine discourse.

2) Don’t take a purely passive, reactive approach. Rather than waiting for things like someone saying something overtly cissexist, or a trans person bringing up a particular concern, be willing to proactively introduce trans issues, or trans-relevant aspects of broader issues, to feminist discourse. Likewise, proactively treat possible consequences, perspectives and concerns relevant to trans people and trans experiences as being not only significant but essential to all feminist issues and conversations.

3) Don’t assume any given issue is strictly, or even primarily, relevant to cis women. All feminist concerns are also transgender concerns, and vice versa. There are no feminist dialogues in which trans voices “don’t belong”, or to which trans voices have “nothing to add”. There are no social issues related to gender that don’t have consequences for trans people.

4) Proactively seek out transgender voices, perspectives and input on all issues, not simply what you regard as “trans issues” or situations where the value of such perspectives is immediately obvious to you. Come to us, rather than waiting for us to come to you.

5) Don’t treat the larger social conflict of gender as being dialectic or binary in nature. Don’t assume a unidirectional model of gender-based oppression.

If you have a printer, print this out. If you don’t have a printer, befriend someone who does, and print this out.

petitsirena
gmonkey42:

feministdisney:

When someone says something like what Frog Naveen did, our first reaction is often to re-assert to them the ways in which we identify with what they accept as normal and “correct”:  “I’m straight, I shave, I’m thin, look at my face, I would be considered attractive by society’s standards.”
Instead of just this knee-jerk reaction, turn the spotlight back on the individual by asking why these things matter in the first place: Would feminism be less “valid” if the movement was completely comprised of queer, hairy ugly girls?    Why do they encourage us to differentiate ourselves from our feminist sisters?  
Their assumption thatthese identities are less worthy feminist voices, and that we would implicitly agree by choosing to distance ourselves from “the unideal feminist,” highlights the work feminism still needs to do.

YES. This reminds me of when Rush Limbaugh said “feminism was established so as to allow unattractive women easier access to the mainstream of society.” Aside from the fact that it wasn’t, why the fuck shouldn’t ugly women have access to mainstream society? Ugly men sure do.

gmonkey42:

feministdisney:

When someone says something like what Frog Naveen did, our first reaction is often to re-assert to them the ways in which we identify with what they accept as normal and “correct”:  “I’m straight, I shave, I’m thin, look at my face, I would be considered attractive by society’s standards.”

Instead of just this knee-jerk reaction, turn the spotlight back on the individual by asking why these things matter in the first place: Would feminism be less “valid” if the movement was completely comprised of queer, hairy ugly girls?    Why do they encourage us to differentiate ourselves from our feminist sisters?  

Their assumption thatthese identities are less worthy feminist voices, and that we would implicitly agree by choosing to distance ourselves from “the unideal feminist,” highlights the work feminism still needs to do.

YES. This reminds me of when Rush Limbaugh said “feminism was established so as to allow unattractive women easier access to the mainstream of society.” Aside from the fact that it wasn’t, why the fuck shouldn’t ugly women have access to mainstream society? Ugly men sure do.

petitsirena

ihaveabsolutelynoidea:

legitimate criticisms of feminism:

-transmisogyny and the lack of inclusion of transwomen

-the racist history behind it and the lack of inclusion of woc

-ignoring and invalidating women with disabilities

-pretty much anything that falls under lack of intersectionality

-internalized misogyny and girl hate

-promotion of political lesbianism

-radscum

illegitimate criticisms of feminism:

-a feminist was really mean to me once

-they’re sexist against men

zoearcher

Dear Hollywood:

zoearcher:

Please stop:

  • Killing naked ladies and/or ladies who like sex
  • Killing off the secondary characters who aren’t white
  • Making the protagonist of every film, regardless of setting, a white male
  • Making the protagonist of every romantic comedy a heterosexual, thin white woman
  • Making couples the same race
  • Failing to recognize that more than half the population in the United States is female
  • Casting white actors in film adaptations where the original characters are not white
  • Attributing films that don’t do well to the notion that film is “female-centric” or starred someone who isn’t white; Battleship did terribly, yet no one attributed its failure to Liam Neeson
  • Having ensemble casts in action films where there is one woman as part of the group and one person who isn’t white
  • Casting fantasy films with all white actors, unless they come from the “East”
  • Largely ignoring the existence of gay characters entirely, except if they provide comedic relief and/or dispense sage advice, all without ever being physically demonstrative with their partner
  • Giving us the same tired shit

No love,

Zoe

fuckyeahwomenprotesting
This is a very complex question, but I believe one of the reasons White women have such difficulty reading Black women’s work is because of their reluctance to see Black women as women and different from themselves. To examine Black women’s literature effectively requires that we be seen as whole people in our actual complexities - as individuals, as women, as human- rather than as one of those problematic but familiar stereotypes provided in this society in place of genuine images of Black women. And I believe this holds true for the literatures of other women of Color who are not Black. The literatures of all women of Color recreate the textures of our lives, and many White women are heavily invested in ignoring the real differences. For as long as any difference between us means one of us must be inferior, then the recognition of any difference must be fraught with guilt. To allow women of Color to step out of stereotypes is too guilt provoking, for it threatens the complacency of those women who view oppression only in terms of sex.
Audre Lorde, “Age Race, Class and Sex: Women Redefining Difference,” 241 (via femmenoire)
apolloadama

delladilly:

so here is the thing about ariel, is that she always dreams of being on land with feet, is explicitly canonically unhappy with her body & choices way before meeting prince eric. ariel wants to read and learn and dance and stand for herself. she has this extensive meticulous collection of all the shit she wants to learn, and king triton destroys it. so she is essentially, i think, moving from a male-dominated space in which her safe personal spaces are negated and her opinions and desires are dismissed to one in which she shares power and is (LITERALLY!!!!) given free reign. like, prince eric is essentially a narrative device allowing ariel to choose her own future & self. if she can make him fall in love with her, she can stay NOT ONLY with him BUT ALSO on land, where she has always wanted to belong, notably away from her father— who ok, is frightened for her safety, but who also terrorizes and belittles her.

and yeah, she exchanges her voice to make that transition, but those are the choices marginalized people are forced to make. this is how identity works in structural oppression— ok, you can have the body you want and live with the lover you choose, but you give up some of your rights. you give up some of your social respect. you give up your voice. (whoops i queered it.)(and ariel still is never without personal expression; on her day out with eric, they do straight up everything she wants and eric is totally cool with her being in charge. JSYK.)

and ariel’s voice is meant to be not only her communication but also her beauty— how many times under the sea did we hear TRITON’S SILVER-VOICED DAUGHTER, like she was corralled and praised explicitly (solely!) because of her singing ability, to the point where her reaction to giving up her voice was not “how will i communicate” but “why would he love me.” wow!!! children’s texts about the social valuation and manipulation of women’s bodies!!!! and the little mermaid is explicitly about the bargains ruthless precious ariel chooses to make in order to get what she has always wanted— feet and freedom. she doesn’t change her body for a man; she changes it for herself. 

and while we should mention about how the structural progression of beauty & the beast is deeply fucked up, belle gets the fuck out of the castle until the beast changes his behavior to her and, like ariel, negotiates for authority in a space where her desire for knowledge is celebrated and supported. you’ll remember she was otherized & mocked in the village whereas the beast a) gave her a library and b) did everything she ever said ever. (i also think it’s relevant to talk about classism in beauty & the beast, like belle is all GUYS I READ THIS BOOK and they’re like GIRL WE HAVE SHIT TO DO.) in the village she was relegated to the women’s spaces which consisted of STOP READING, GET MARRIED, REPRODUCE, like you have to be practical and useful and obedient to be a Good Woman

and her choice still entails marriage, but marriage which is not a domestication but rather an avenue to social and personal power. people forget that belle is just as wild and selfish and opinionated as the beast is; she is also an outcast. and yes, the plotline can support a romanticizing of abusive relationships, a social narrative of good women making bad men better, i am not arguing that it’s not thematically fucked up. the story, following the fairytale, focuses on the beast’s ~transformation~, but belle also changes; this is also a story about two people society has deemed monsters recognizing each other’s worth and beauty and learning to be tender to each other and to accept affection themselves. i don’t think it’s very helpful, in analyzing this story, to reduce it to good-woman-makes-bad-man-better without examining the woman as a character herself and what she gets out of it. belle is not your plot device. all of belle’s decisions in this movie are based on what she wants and values. she’s not here to redeem anybody. 

jasmine is sort of an outlier in that her movie is not actually about her! this is disney’s first movie aBOUT a BOY?!?!? and so like yes, obviously, in the film ALADDIN, we focus on… aladdin… and the thematic and narrative climaxes are based on aladdin’s character and choices. but that does not inherently mean that jasmine is abused by the narrative. i also think it’s really relevant first to talk about the ways that she’s exotified— jasmine, disney’s first woc princess, has a gendered oppression more linked with her specific culture than any white princess’ gendered oppression of equal or greater value. that’s not okay. and jasmine’s personal sub-arc is primarily about the way that she is valued for her sexuality and the way that she argues for and regains control of herself as sexual being.

jasmine is one of the least passive princesses of the entire disney canon, y’all. the entire plot is set in motion when jasmine runs away because she doesn’t want to marry any of her current options, and she comes back when that goes to shit, but she’s still not willing to obey anyone. this super hotcake prince ali comes into town and she’s like you’ve got the moves, but have you got the touch???, and it turns out he does!, and she’s real into it so she’s like welp get ready to be the sultan and aladdin is like hey to the what, but jasmine’s made up her mind. jafar tries to hypnotize her into loving him and she uses his conception of her sexuality against him. she straight up femme fatales him. she is not some prize to be won.

it is jasmine alone who bestows political power: jasmine may not be able to inherit or rule alone, but she will rule, and she is determined to choose herself with whom. her personal sexual authority and political authority are inextricably linked, of which she and the movie are both cognizant. it’s fucked up, especially within the context of all the white princesses, that her body is so explicitly commodified. but that doesn’t negate her authority over her body and the way she weaponizes it. and there’s a lot of ~feminist criticism~ that’s like JASMINE TEACHES WOMEN THAT THEY’RE ONLY VALUABLE FOR THEIR SEXUALITY, but i think feminist criticism is also examining the ways women find power in their social spaces, the ways they express or attain their own desires by manipulating their contexts. jasmine also teaches women that they are in charge of their sexuality, that their bodies are theirs alone. 

which is all to say, there is a lot of feminist criticism to be made of the disney princesses, but that’s not where feminist analysis has to end. these are still children’s movies about women’s choices, y’all. there are not a lot of those these days.

drbrucebananer
destronomics:

firelordazula:

greenscrewdriver:



urlgrayhot:



strbrryseason:



01. because women can’t like action or science fiction without there being any ~female~ things tied into it.



I hate the reboot. I do. I love it for some reasons but I hate it. Arg I really can’t. 



OUCH WOW WHAT FUCKING YEAR DO YOU THINK THIS IS LINDELOF
I FUCKING TRUSTED YOU MAN
~LOL HOW DO WE WOMEN? MAYBE WE SHOULD BABBY. YES BABBY GOOD IDEA, BRING WOMEN. ALL WOMEN BABBY. WOMEN DoN’T STORY OR CHARACTERS THAT IS FOR MANS. YES GOOD JOb WELL DONE MANS.
AND THIS WAS FIVE MINUTES INTO THE FIRST MEETING?
GENE AND MAJEL OUGHT TO COME THE FUCK BACK AND SLAP YOU ALL




….lmao is this a real thing
i really don’t understand where this myth that women don’t enjoy star trek came from? like, what sort of cave of delusion do you live in
who do you think dressed up for cons and published zines and drew fanart and wrote all the fanfiction and coined the term slash back when star trek was not a franchise but a little-watched sixties TV series that was cancelled after three seasons
we helped keep this thing going and we’ve been here all along, you’re just not looking

It’s been ages now, but I was an intern at a magazine when Star Trek (2009) was doing its press tour. I transcribed a similar quote from Lindelof, and in the process lost it very, very quietly in my cube. Then made my way to the reporter’s office, closed the door, and lost it loudly. 
I mean, ffs. Who does he think SAVED THE SHOW? Who crafted one of the first successful letter writing campaigned? Who organized one of the first, legitimately successful TV Show-Specific cons? People who had a lot of time on their hands (in part by many of them being stay-at-home moms), and a lot of energy, and a lot of enthusiasm? Women.
Star Trek simply wouldn’t exist, much less exist as a property highly dependent on the enthusiasm of a small number of fans with highly soluble wallets — hell, modern fandom as we know it wouldn’t exist (we pre-date Star Wars after all) if it wasn’t for the geek culture women pioneered and crafted.
And him being so blind? And so dismissive at, well, frankly, the people that make his entire career, much less this specific job, possible? Man, I’m angry all over again.

destronomics:

firelordazula:

greenscrewdriver:

urlgrayhot:

strbrryseason:

01. because women can’t like action or science fiction
without there being any ~female~ things tied into it.

I hate the reboot. I do. I love it for some reasons but I hate it. Arg I really can’t. 

OUCH WOW WHAT FUCKING YEAR DO YOU THINK THIS IS LINDELOF

I FUCKING TRUSTED YOU MAN

~LOL HOW DO WE WOMEN? MAYBE WE SHOULD BABBY. YES BABBY GOOD IDEA, BRING WOMEN. ALL WOMEN BABBY. WOMEN DoN’T STORY OR CHARACTERS THAT IS FOR MANS. YES GOOD JOb WELL DONE MANS.

AND THIS WAS FIVE MINUTES INTO THE FIRST MEETING?

GENE AND MAJEL OUGHT TO COME THE FUCK BACK AND SLAP YOU ALL

image

….lmao is this a real thing

i really don’t understand where this myth that women don’t enjoy star trek came from? like, what sort of cave of delusion do you live in

who do you think dressed up for cons and published zines and drew fanart and wrote all the fanfiction and coined the term slash back when star trek was not a franchise but a little-watched sixties TV series that was cancelled after three seasons

we helped keep this thing going and we’ve been here all along, you’re just not looking

It’s been ages now, but I was an intern at a magazine when Star Trek (2009) was doing its press tour. I transcribed a similar quote from Lindelof, and in the process lost it very, very quietly in my cube. Then made my way to the reporter’s office, closed the door, and lost it loudly. 

I mean, ffs. Who does he think SAVED THE SHOW? Who crafted one of the first successful letter writing campaigned? Who organized one of the first, legitimately successful TV Show-Specific cons? People who had a lot of time on their hands (in part by many of them being stay-at-home moms), and a lot of energy, and a lot of enthusiasm? Women.

Star Trek simply wouldn’t exist, much less exist as a property highly dependent on the enthusiasm of a small number of fans with highly soluble wallets — hell, modern fandom as we know it wouldn’t exist (we pre-date Star Wars after all) if it wasn’t for the geek culture women pioneered and crafted.

And him being so blind? And so dismissive at, well, frankly, the people that make his entire career, much less this specific job, possible? Man, I’m angry all over again.

drbrucebananer

everythingbutharleyquinn:

(I’ve been writing this off and on for two weeks and just finished it in a drunken fervour so I dunno if it makes any sense)

In a brothel, there’s rarely a lot of conversation going on. Fact is, our jobs are about performing and so the girl’s room is where we chill out and decompress. Girls tend to keep to themselves, move into our corners and do our thing - watch TV, read, play on computers, that sort of thing. It’s not uncivil - but brothels are also high pressure environments and people really need their own space. You get the girls who come in and are uncomfortable with silence and chatter constantly, driving everyone else mad, but generally speaking everyone understands the way it is.

Occasionally there will be bursts of conversation, when people’s moods are in the right place. Those times are fun. There is generally a sense of camaraderie between the girls even if we don’t form lasting friendships (though sometimes we do… and sometimes the friendships are brief as it’s so easy to lose contact with each other… I’ve had friends from parlours I’ve socialised with but whose real names I’ve never known and vice versa… potential consequences of socialising outside of a brothel with other working girls can make it unappealing for girls who have to keep it a big secret too… so sometimes friendships only take place under the brothel roof)…

… okay so the thing is? Me? I’m a politicised whore. Because I happened to meet a bunch of sex worker activists and become friends with them and worked at a sex worker rights organisation for a little while. Almost all of my hooker friends are very strongly politicised and involved in activism on some level. It’s through them I’ve learnt all the lingo, all the buzz words, how to articulate the concepts and ideas of labour rights and the erasure of discrimination against us. I first learned the concept of internalised stigma - as well as the term - through my sex worker activist friends.  I’ve got this whole political framework that I approach sex work from.

BUT.

98% of the women I find myself working with DON’T. By and large they are women who, for any number of reasons, cannot, or do not want to, or do not know they even CAN, interact in an activist or political sense with sex work. Like, I sort of want to emphasise this cos I’m writing this post in response to this bullshit attitude non-sex working anti-sex work “feminists” and others pass around amongst themselves around how sex workers rights as an idea is constructed and brainwashed into sex workers by sex worker activists – who they furthermore all claim to be nothing more than pimps.

These women don’t necessarily even know there IS such a thing as a sex worker rights movement.  They don’t know the fancy lingo that gets passed around online and in academic circles. They don’t necessarily have a knowledge of the framework that operates around sex workers rights and labour rights in general. Like I said, the only reason I even do is because I happened to meet people like that who taught me and that’s generally how it happens.  These women are working hos. They are doing this business cos they have to, because their circumstances in life led them to it and it seemed it was the best available choice to them. Given the options, they’d rather be doing something else.

BUT.

EVEN STILL.

REGARDLESS.

They are not idiots. They are not victims. They are not passive blank slates who are helpless to circumstances. 

Over and over again I have had conversations with sex workers who have never entered so much as their pinkie toe into the sex workers rights movement who nonetheless say the exact same shit. They say politically electric things, insightful, brilliant, amazing, powerful things full of conviction even if they have never read a damned manifesto or attended a bloody protest in their whole lives. 

I mean, it happened this weekend when we were talking about the receptionists (rships between workers and receptionists is often fraught) and I made the observation one in particular had never done this work so she didn’t get it and the floodgates opened and we were all talking about how we could tell she looked down on us, that she pitied us or was contemptuous towards us and our solidarity in identifying that as a group…

… which lead quickly into some incredibly passionate, fierce statements about the work itself. 

I heard from these women, to a ONE who don’t know the sex workers right movement exists, haven’t heard of Scarlet Alliance, don’t know the first thing about Annie Sprinkle or anything else to do with the official, organised movement, the following remarks:

“Our work is real work”
“This work deserves respect”
“This work means you have to be tough”
“I have learned more about human nature doing this work than anywhere else”
“Before this work I would let people walk all over me now I stand up for myself”
“Now I look at all the people going off to their day jobs and think ‘suckers!’”
“I have met more real people in this work than anywhere else”
“No one has the right to look down on us”
“Now I know the value of my time and my body, now I will never give it away”
“This is honest work”

And so on and so forth. Spontaneous exclaimations, no one there to school them, women actually getting this stuff off their chests because, as I said, most of the time there is little conversation and these are NOT women who have hooker friends, conversations in brothels is literally the ONLY time these women have to be open about what they do and so the only time they can open up about their frustrations and concerns.

And you know, these are single mums with no education, immigrant women of colour with English as a second language, older women, women who have declared bankruptcy, been in abusive relationships, lost their straight jobs

Just because sex workers may not be aware there is such a thing as a ‘sex workers rights MOVEMENT’

does not

mean

they

do not

know

there is

such a 

thing as

sex workers RIGHTS

OR

that they don’t feel rightfully ENTITLED to those rights

they may not be “politicised” in the same sense that I and many of the hookers who interact on the internet are…

… but that doesn’t mean they are fucking stupid.

And basically if you take the position that they are – that the idea of sex workers rights is something that would NEVER occur to them until an organisation fronted by pimps brainwashes it into them – you are a complete and utter fucking misogynist for a start off (women are just too stooooopid to think about our rights unless they’re introduced to us amirite??) but you’re also just absolutely divorced from reality and from the way rights movements even evolve to begin with: CLUE: it’s when ORDINARY average people get pissed off about the way they are treated and formulate ideas amongst each other

Exactly the way this group of working hos did a couple of Saturdays ago. I was the only one who had a frame of reference for an organised movement and bluntly, I don’t spend my shift hours shoving that down other workers’ throats because I know other workers are generally in the same state of mind I am – anxious over money – and not in the mood for political talk. Anyway, I don’t have to introduce that shit, it’s PRE-EXISTING, it may not be put in phrases as neatly turned as they become once they hit the organised movement, but it’s there. That’s what fuelled the movement to begin with. All the organised movement does is create strength in numbers and solidarity and a greater pool of resources to draw from.  Average work a day sex workers are just as smart and fierce and powerful and brilliant as individuals, but our work is so hidden and so stigmatised that YOU DON’T SEE IT.  In fact oftentimes we are deliberately concealing what we do and our deepest perspectives on it because of how ashamed you make us feel.

But just because you don’t see it doesn’t mean it isn’t happening and very very very real.

petitsirena
What is interesting, is that the Frida Kahlo venerated by American feminists is a very different Frida Kahlo to the one people learn about in Mexico, in the Chicano community. In her country, she is recognized as an important artist and a key figure in revolutionary politics of early 20th century Mexico. Her communist affiliations are made very clear. Her relationship with Trotsky is underscored. All her political activities with Diego Rivera are constantly emphasized. The connection between her art and her politics is always made. When Chicana artists became interested in Frida Kahlo in the ‘70s and started organizing homages, they made the connection between her artistic project and theirs because they too were searching for an aesthetic compliment to a political view that was radical and emancipatory. But when the Euro-American feminists latch onto Frida Kahlo in the early ‘80s and when the American mainstream caught on to her, she was transformed into a figure of suffering. I am very critical of that form of appropriation.

Coco Fusco on her Amerindians piece from 1992 with Guillermo Gómez-Peña (via mayalikeskafka

Coco Fusco and Guillermo Gómez-Peña by Anna Johnson, BOMB 42/Winter 1993, ART Interview/performance[bombsite.com]

(via tortillachronicles)