Sunday, February 10, 2013

I’d like you to remember the last time you found it difficult to give an explicit “no” to somebody in a non-sexual context. Maybe they asked you to do them a favour, or to join them for a drink. Did you speak up and say, outright, “No?” Did you apologise for your “no?” Did you qualify it and say, “Oh, I’m sorry, I can’t make it today?” If you gave an outright “no,” what privileged positions do you occupy in society, and how does your answer differ from the answers of people occupying more marginalised positions?

This form of refusal was analysed in 1999 by Kitzinger and Frith (K&F) in Just Say No? The Use of Conversation Analysis in Developing a Feminist Perspective on Sexual Refusal. Despite the seeming ambiguity in question/refusal acts like, “We were wondering if you wanted to come over Saturday for dinner,” “Well, uhh, it’d be great but we promised Carol already,” they are widely understood by the participants as straightforward refusals.

K&F conclude by saying that, “For men to claim [in a sexual context] that they do not ‘understand’ such refusals to be refusals (because, for example, they do not include the word ‘no’) is to lay claim to an astounding and implausible ignorance of normative conversational patterns.”

Under Duress: Agency, Power, and Consent

Like I’ve said before. There’s no excuse.

(via home-of-amazons)

(Source: dragonsupremacy)

liberalsarecool:

#fdr
Hitler came to power against the strong feminist movement in Germany, padlocked the family planning clinics, and declared abortion a crime against the state—all views that more closely resemble Rush Limbaugh’s.

Gloria Steinem, responding to the term “feminazi”, coined by conservative radio host Rush Limbaugh in the early 90’s. (via malefeminist)

Also, can we all mention this every time some dope starts talking about how Hitler took away all the guns.

(via goodreasonnews)

(Source: )

But it’s worth remembering that the Kochs and others are generally very interested in advancing the cause of the gun industry, even though that would seem to have nothing to do with the plutocrats’ economic interests. Why? A libertarian fondness for the Second Amendment? Or perhaps a desire to keep part of the population angry at “gun-grabbers” so they don’t notice that the rich are really robbing them blind? Hard to say. No More Mister Nice Blog (via azspot)
As much as we get praised for loving our full bodies, many young white women would rather be dead than wear a size 14. They nod their heads and say how great it is that we black women can embrace our curves, but they don’t want to look like us. They don’t adopt our presumably more generous beauty ideals. White women have even told me how lucky black women are that our men love and accept our bodies the way they are. I’ve never heard a white woman say that she’s going to take her cue from black women and gain a few pounds, however. In a way it is patronizing, because they’re basically saying, “It’s OK for you to be fat, but not me. You’re black. You’re different.”

In this society we have completely demonized fat. How many times have you had to tell a friend of yours that she isn’t fat? How many times has she had to tell you the same thing? Obviously, when people have unrealistic perceptions of themselves it should not go unnoticed, but in this act, while we are reassuring our friends, we put down every woman who is overweight. The demonization of fat and the ease of associating black women with fat exposes yet another opportunity for racism. If we really want to start talking more honestly about all women’s relationships with our bodies, we need to start asking the right questions.

Sirena J. Riley, “The Black Beauty Myth” (via wretchedoftheearth)

Fat Black women are HATED.

HATED.

All those mammy movies are not made to do anything other than HATE US.

We don’t get to be anything other than somebody’s servant/butt of the joke.

(via sourcedumal)

tishpish:

braindeadmegaphone:

It’s going to be a good episode tonight by the look of it.

Even with fluffly slippers, Neil kicks arse.

tishpish:

braindeadmegaphone:

It’s going to be a good episode tonight by the look of it.

Even with fluffly slippers, Neil kicks arse.

Saturday, February 9, 2013

(Source: bryko)

vasundharaa:

no0000oo00oo

*insert fictional character here* has coloured/pale eyes!!! there’s no way they can PoC!!! it’s not accurate!! stop sacrificing integrity for your political correctness whaaa whaaa

PLEASE SHUT UP FOREVER

Everyone in our country has the right to hold any, or no, religious beliefs as they consider appropriate to suit their lives. This is a basic constitutional right, and more importantly, a basic human right to which all are entitled. Many of the framers of the U.S. Constitution were well aware of the dangers of entangling religion with governmental activities and public policy. So I again ask, why are we instituting religious invocations and benedictions at presidential inaugurals, and at congressional and other governmental ceremonies? In actuality, how “separate” have we crafted religion and government in the United States? Warren J. Blumenfeld: Why Religious Invocations at Presidential Inaugurations? (via azspot)
Being touched by a stranger and told that I was beautiful didn’t make me feel more beautiful; it made me feel unimportant. It made me feel like what I wanted – to go from home to work with a quick stop at Starbucks on the way, without being harassed – didn’t matter. What mattered most was that this man had an opinion about me, so I had to hear it whether I wanted to or not. He wanted to touch me, so I was going to be touched, by a stranger, whether I wanted it or not. Why do strange men think they’re allowed to touch me?  (via transformfeminism)