ok, because i just like this woman

[seabeyond]

The third wave, which is the wave I’ve found myself in (I was born in 1979 so I had little choice in the matter), seems decidedly marked by what could almost be viewed as a backlash against first and second wavers. Certainly it isn’t fair to paint the entire third wave as ungrateful, burlesque-loving, Slutwalking, post-modernists, as there has certainly been valuable theory and critiques to come out of this generation of feminism, but when I imagine us looking back at this particular wave, I am sometimes overcome by a sinking feeling that very much resembles embarrassment.

While radical feminists, bra-burners, and hairy, man-hating, lesbians (which, for the record, are super awesome caricatures, in my opinion) seem representative of second wave feminism, what we’ve been stuck with, in the third wave, are half-naked, stiletto’d, women and girls, stripping on-stage and calling it empowerment, or marching through the streets calling themselves sluts under the guise of “sexual freedom.”

Amid a culture that hypersexualizes women and girls, so much so that we seem to have lost any understanding of the word “objectification,” are blessed with the ability to ignore the ever-increasing violence of the porn industry in favour of conversations of the “grey areas,” and seem overly committed towards engaging in desperate attempts to derail every conversation into one about the supposed existence of “feminist porn,” it can feel as though the third wavers are a somewhat confused bunch.

*

International Women’s Day exists because women are not yet free. Because women are raped and murdered and abused by men around the world. It exists because sex sells, which means that people are making money off the backs of women. Like, at our expense, not to our benefit. If you think men and the media are going to get on board with Slutwalks and the strip-clubs-as-empowering-spaces-for-women messages and with hot, naked, lady protestors, a la Femen, well, you’re right. They will. Because none of those things challenge male power or privilege. This is the stuff privilege is made of. And you may well feel powerful with the eyes and attention of the world glued to your breasts, but I’m afraid I just can’t imagine how it’s going to make women any more safe from violence and I’m afraid I just don’t see stilettos and boobs as the things that, in the end, take down the patriarchy.

http://www.feminisms.org/4685/its-international-womens-day-are-our-foremothers-rolling-in-their-graves/


edit to include.... the problem here is no one knew the forum was opening today. and the people that have the "vision" for the forum arent around. i promise you, my expertise is not in the academics of feminism. so this thread is pure fun until the women come in and take over

[seabeyond]

1. here is another article..... this is why i like her

On Friday, The Globe and Mail published an article so offensive, so backwards, and so nauseating that the only reaction I could muster over the last 48 hours was fuming, spitting, red-faced anger. They smartly (if intelligence is calculated based on page views and the ability to get pervy dudes on-side, which clearly The Globe and Mail believes is the case) titled the piece: Why men can’t – and shouldn’t – stop staring at women. Criticism of the article could almost begin and end with the title.

One of the things we’ve learned from feminism is that, while men have long enjoyed arguing that biology accounts for misogyny, having used scientific arguments to “prove” that, for example, male dominance, rape, male violence and of course, the objectified, sexualized female body is “natural”, things are not quite so clear cut. Similar arguments have been used by white men to justify racism and slavery. As such, it seems reasonable to assume that those doing the “science” and those communicating to society what is and is not “natural” based on said science have some level of control over what we come to believe, as a society, is true, factual and, of course, “natural.”

I’m gonna go ahead and make some assumptions about the series of events which led Brown to write such a thoughtless and offensive article in the first place:

1) Brown leaves house

2) Brown stares at 20 year old ass

3) Brown sexualizes 20 year old ass

4) Because Brown is turned on and, as we’ve learned many times over, anything that provides erections is GOOD and TRUE and NATURAL and JUSTIFIED he is led to not only defend and justify his pervy behaviour but also find other men and women to argue that, in fact, he is doing women a favour by staring at and sexualizing 20 year old ass.

5) The Globe and Mail is run by like minded dudes and still believes that white men should have the space to write 1500 words on why 58 year old dudes have the right and obligation to stare at 20 year old ass and, one would assume, have few to no feminist minded women on their staff (or, at least, in any positions of power on their staff) to say: “Hey guys! This article is gross!” And it goes to print. Easy peasy.

http://www.feminisms.org/4733/why-my-body-doesnt-exist-for-your-viewing-pleasure-an-open-letter-to-ian-brown-and-friends/

[seabeyond]

2. last one

Last edited Wed Mar 28, 2012, 09:03 PM - Edit history (1)

This week’s faux-feminist round-up is not so much a round-up of faux-feminism as it is a round up of feminist responses to a, now notorious, ******bag who pretends to care about the status of women. Like, beyond his own penis. Steven Greenstreet, this list is all about you (is that your ego I hear exploding from your chest? Or just your tiny brain working overtime trying to figure out WHY O WHY THE LADIEEZ ARE SO GROUCHY!).

In reality, this list is more for my own referencing convenience, as well as for anyone who needs a convenient way to source the numerous explanations of the science behind the extreme ignorance, self-righteousness, and sexism of Greenstreet. The following links provide an excellent summation of the particular ways in which the Hot Chicks of Wall Street website and video are, in no way pro-woman and why Greenstreet is anti-feminist and anti-equality.

*

I joke but, in all seriousness, these are the kinds of men who imagine themselves to align with progressive movements which purport to be working towards a more egalitarian society. They present an actual danger to women and to radical movements and are detrimental to the left as a whole.

The danger of such dudes is not only the in rage they inspire, but in that they try to disguise themselves as progressive men. These are the men who claim to love women, while they harass them, to respect women while they coerce them into sex, or who claim that objectification is empowerment. Sexism and misogyny on the left is nothing new, but it is about time we recognized it as such and it is about time our allies stop accepting this kind of behaviour.

http://www.feminisms.org/category/faux-feminism-2/

[Tumbulu]

3. I like her too- thanks for posting

I could not agree more.

We really have such a disaster on our hands now a days.

One more reason to be grateful for this new group!

[MadrasT]

4. "Objectification is not empowerment"