Sacrificing Privilege By far one of the most challenging obstacles to building a meaningful dialogue about privilege is the extreme ease with which we’re able to take it for granted. Quick: when was the last time you thought about proprioception? Unless you’re a neurologist, or read a lot of Oliver Sacks, the answer could very well be “never, I guess”. We don’t think about it because we’ve never gone without it. Privilege can work similarly. But for things like race and gender, we have them, we always have them, they’re a part of us. When the subject of male privilege comes up, in addition to the many cognitive distortions that can get in the way of acknowledging it, like the basic human emotional need to believe we deserve everything we have, men are also limited by their set of lived experiences and observed reality in being able to see that they do indeed possess certain social privileges, and that their lives are in many ways easier than those of others. They aren’t negligible, either. Basically? Damn.
Därför är Millenniumtrilogin inte feministisk - Artikel av Sebastian Marquez von Hage Språklärare med bakgrund som lärare i filmkunskap. Den Millenniumindustri som byggts upp kring Stieg Larssons böcker tycks bara bli större och större. På svenska kultursidor har Stieg Larssons feministiska budskap varit ett återkommande ämne. Man har ofta byggt vidare på den idag närmast mytologiska bilden av Larsson som en journalist och författare som kämpade mot främlingsfientlighet och kvinnovåld. Samtidigt bygger en stor del av böckernas framgång på ett sensationslystet innehåll där den exploaterade kvinnokroppen står i fokus. I och med premiären av den amerikanska filmversionen av Män som hatar kvinnor har tidningarnas kultursidor återigen fyllts av artiklar där feminism och den kvinnliga protagonisten Lisbeth Salander ställts i centrum. Jag håller med Axelson i hans analys av den omtalade scenen, men ställer mig tvekande till det feministiska budskap som Axelson liksom många andra kulturskribenter gärna vill lyfta fram. Trackback URL: @ Alma
Where Does Validation Come From? A couple of weeks ago, I was interviewed by Hugo Schwyzer for his article He Wants to Jizz on Your Face, but Not Why You Think. Without stepping into the latest internet uproar about Hugo and the various things people are saying about him online (feel free to google it, if you like), I think there’s actually more to be said about the topic of that post. Hugo’s thesis was that, while facials can certainly be an act of degradation, they can also be interpreted as “men’s desire for that same experience of being validated as desirable, as good, as ‘not dirty.’” For some people, male sexual desire and male bodies are seen as dirty, disgusting, or unpleasant and men who have internalized these ideas might seek a variety of paths to redeem them. Those can take a variety of forms. Some of the responses to that post have argued that US culture glorifies penises and denigrates vulvas and vaginas. The notion that it’s women’s job to civilize or redeem men is nothing new.
Sexuell frihet - inget för män? Många genusdebattörer (däribland jag) pratar ofta om att kvinnors sexuella frihet begränsas av normerna i det samhälle vi lever i - att det inte alltid ses med fullt lika blida ögon när man som kvinna har sex med många partners, har en tidig sexualdebut etc. Men vad man inte pratar om lika ofta är hur normer begränsar den manliga sexualiteten. När jag kom ut som bi var jag vuxen och rörde mig i en mycket tolerant miljö, vilket gjorde att det knappast blev något dramatiskt avslöjande utan snarare ett konstaterande med ett "jaha?" som svar från min omgivning. När jag väl pratade med andra om om min sexuella läggning öppnade sig dammluckorna för berättelserna om gråzonsupplevelserna. När jag under Pride förra året lyssnade på ett bi-seminarium och frågan ställdes hur man skulle kunna engagera fler i den falnande bi-kampen insåg jag att jag faktiskt inte hade något intresse för det. Men var kommer männens sexuella frihet in i det här? "Siffrorna för de unga kvinnorna är slående höga...
Friday Feminism: Blogging while Feminist – a 3-comment rule? « Finally, A Feminism 101 Blog I was reading something over at Pharyngula today where PZ Myers was alerting his commentors to brace for an influx of creationist debaters following a particular story getting picked up by both Digg and Reddit, and he reminded them of his 3-comment rule for dealing with newbie debating opponents. Don’t attack without mercy until they’ve made stupid claims in at least 3 separate comments. PZ recommended this to his readers when he found that the regulars in the comments threads were getting a bit too zealous for his taste, and the discussions were descending into vitriol spitting contests without enough leavening of actual interesting discussion. I am all for vigorous, unhindered language and the expression of strong opinions, and I think dumb ideas need to be dealt with harshly, but we also need to allow opportunities for those ideas to be fully expressed. if it keeps up all we’re going to have left are the twitchiest, most psychopathic contributors. So what do you think?
Technicolor About consent, or, the legalization of women’s humanity « I Blame The Patriarchy The Problem with consent Although this condition does not obtain with regard to any other crime you can think of, when it comes to rape, women are currently considered to exist in a state of perpetual “yes!”. This is because “yes!” There are rules about what sort of woman can even attempt to make the “I said no” argument in court. Prostituted women are indistinguishable from sex itself. The Twist-Solution My wacky consent scheme flips it around. Women can still have all the hetero-sex they want; if they adjudge that their dude hasn’t raped them, all they have to do is not call the cops. Presto! The cessation of rape would be immediate. I have an idea for a great new product, too. I revisit my wacky consent scheme annually whether it needs it or not.
Greta Christina's Blog