gnarlywavedude

[gnarlywavedude]

The thing about freeing the nipple is that it's not even about if you have breasts or not (already arbitrary but I digress) it's fully just gendered oppression. There is no ontological difference between Male Nipples and Female Nipples and all of it crumbles apart if you like, think even a little about people who aren't cis + perisex & how people try to apply these rules to them

[gnarlywavedude]

Even people who like wearing makeup are much better off in a world in which wearing makeup is not considered the norm. Only then are they actually free to wear makeup in whatever way they desire.

[gnarlywavedude]

I think its really funny when people get mad at the pro-hairy pussy posts on this site (yes including posts hating on bald pussy) and take an angle of “wow everyone is being so weird about shaving now and its so wrong to judge peoples choices like this” because like. Okay. Either you dont fuck or go outside, or you have been doing whats expected of you so long you have no idea how people who dont make the same choice as you are mistreated. Because so many people ESPECIALLY MEN are still convinced simply having body hair is unhygienic and will shame and dehumanize anyone who has it in the most vile and unnecessary way. Like youre seeing so many of these vehement bush or die posts BECAUSE PEOPLE ARE PUSHING BACK AGAINST THAT NOTION its not happening in a vacuum but once again tumblr users are out of touch with what actually happens on planet earth

If you like shaving: congrats, there are millions of people who would not accept you any other way

[gnarlywavedude]

Bi-donna you moved me

[gnarlywavedude]

A real-life law change in India provided a wonderful control experiment for researchers: in 1993, the Indian government passed a constitutional amendment to address the dearth of female leaders in local politics. In each five-year election cycle, one their of villages were randomly selected to appoint a female pradhan or chief.

The result? After two cycles of having a female pradhan in a village, perceptions of women in leadership improved among both male and female villagers. What is more, parents' aspirations for their daughters increased: they were 45 per cent more likely to want their girls to progress beyond secondary school than parents in villages that had never had a female leader. Meanwhile, the girls themselves had greater ambitions, did better at school and shared household chores more equally with their brothers.

– Mary Ann Sieghart (2021) The Authority Gap: Why Women are Still Taken Less Seriously Than Men and What We Can Do About It, p. 306.

[gnarlywavedude]

Be gay do crime but in Barvaria and we're putting these everywhere

[gnarlywavedude]

How long do you really have to get an abortion?

[gnarlywavedude]

[gnarlywavedude]

It's not like there aren't people for whom 'I wear makeup because it's fun and I like it' is a true statement - I am one of those people. I love combining weird colours in obnoxious ways on my face and then making my friends and colleagues look at the bizarre and garish paintjob I have made. It is an expressive form and I'll never talk down to expression as such.

But if you really are like me - if you really wear makeup simply because you like it; then people not wearing makeup, or talking about how they shouldn't have to wear makeup, or expressing their preference for not wearing makeup - those people are not a threat to you. They are not impinging on your actions in any way. They have nothing to do with your enjoyment of makeup, since your enjoyment comes from it being fun, right?

And if your enjoyment of makeup is really not dependent on the normative expectations of others, you'll know that. If you find yourself reacting defensively when people talk about how they personally don't like makeup or the makeup industry, if you think people who don't like makeup are being unreasonable, if you bristle when people do not automatically vocally approve of what you do...

Then maybe you're not actually wearing makeup just because you like it.

[gnarlywavedude]

Extreme misogyny will be treated as a form of extremism under new government plans, the Home Office has said.

Yvette Cooper, the home secretary, has ordered a review of the UK's counter-extremism strategy to determine how best to tackle threats posed by harmful ideologies.

The analysis will look at hatred of women as one of the ideological trends that the government says is gaining traction.

Ms Cooper said there has been a rise in extremism "both online and on our streets" that "frays the very fabric of our communities and our democracy".

The review will look at the rise of Islamist and far-right extremism in the UK, as well as wider ideological trends, including extreme misogyny or beliefs which fit into broader categories, such as violence.

It will also look at the causes and conduct of the radicalisation of young people.

Ms Cooper said the strategy will "map and monitor extremist trends" to work out how to disrupt and divert people away from them.

It will also "identify any gaps in existing policy which need to be addressed to crack down on those pushing harmful and hateful beliefs and violence", she said.

Ms Cooper said that action against extremism has been "badly hollowed out" in recent years.

The work will inform a new counter-extremism strategy, which was promised in Labour's manifesto and which the Home Office says will "respond to growing and changing patterns" of extremism across the UK.

Link | Archived Link

[gnarlywavedude]

on the musk app, there’s an interesting conversation going on about nuns. the sex positive liberals are saying it’s progressive and freeing to sexualize nuns, because catholicism is all about purity. if you criticize the fact that these liberals are simply reifying the male supremacist ideology of the very complementarianism that exists within religious doctrines, by praising the act of “defiling” women, they call you a “puritan.” while upholding religious “defilement” of women may appear to be rebellious, the function still fits well within the parameters of patriarchal regimes.

either the woman is a form of property that is groomed or socialized into covering up because her bare skin is religiously “impure,” or she’s a “defiled” form of property and praised for accepting and desiring male sexual domination because it appears to disrupt a religious norm. her function as property is not subverted in either scenario. heterosexualism as a regime that demands male domination and female submission remains in tact. liberals are easily duped into supporting misogyny if it is lazily obscured by the backdrop of an orgasm and dressed up in feigned “radical” posturing to present themselves as more enlightened than their conservative rivals.

i think this is the gist behind some liberal misuse of “puritanism” as an accusation, especially online among the real kink community and the fandom nerds who just want to assuage their guilt for writing simulated child pornography about their favorite shonen anime boys on fanfiction websites. puritanism is an ideology that demands female submission, where women can’t sue for divorce, where they must defer to their husbands if they’re married, where sex is a fundamental right of husbands, etc. liberals don’t oppose “puritanism” on the basis of its foundational, male supremacy, they oppose it because it is simply too divergent to their preferred expression of male supremacy.

they too are content with a system of patriarchy that is different only in aesthetics—by upholding “consent” as a device that completely neutralizes critique of power dynamics and renders said dynamics invisible. consent purifies, if you will, all sexual violence and social domination. they don’t want an antidote to it all, they want to be the next arbiter of it all. if you catch my drift. liberals just want a secular form of male supremacy. they want to replace, reproduce and re-articulate the sexist norms of religion in a way that is palatable to their own ethics yet still sexist, and i think it’s important for feminists to do the hard work of unraveling what this looks like with as much fervor as they do with right-wing enforcers of the same system. where’s that classic post that says “left wing, right wing, the whole bird hates waman.” i fear the author was a prophet. 😎

[gnarlywavedude]

im thinking of jobs that involve contact with the private area. doctors, beauty salons, tattooist/piercer. they all wear gloves and work in sterile environments, also the worker is clothed.

im thinking of jobs that involve saliva. also doctors, covid test stations. again, sterile environment, worker is clothed, probably even wearing a mask, and gloves.

im thinking of jobs where the worker has to get naked. actors and actresses, models. they are at least supposed to have a coach on set and an agent supporting their safety.

none of this is implemented in prostitution and never will be because it destroys the illusion of it being about sex and not money and power exerted through it. sex cant be regulated or professionalised and thats beside the point that with all possible regulations it is still unwanted sex.

[gnarlywavedude]

GOOD NEWS GYNS

A potential cause for endometriosis has been found, called fusobacterium

In the study, mice with the bacteria were able to be treated successfully with an antibiotic and it massively lowered quantity and severity of endometrial lesions

The bacteria was found in most women w endo that were tested, compared to 10% of women without endo.

FINALLY, good news in women’s healthcare!

Hopefully only a few years out from an actual treatment for endometriosis!

Link to the study:

[gnarlywavedude]

I have argued in this book that women's marginalization in the process of History-making has set them back intellectually and has kept them for far longer than was necessary from developing a consciousness of their collectivity in sisterhood, not motherhood. The cruel repetitiousness by which individual women have struggled to a higher level of consciousness, repeating an effort made a number of times by other women in previous centuries, is not only a symbol of women's oppression but is its actual manifestation. Thus, even the most advanced feminist thinkers, up to and including those in the early 20th century, have been in dialogue with the "great men" before them and have been unable to verify, test and improve their ideas by being in dialogue with the women thinkers before them. Mary Wollstonecraft argued with Burke and Rousseau, when arguing with Makin, Astell and Margaret Fell might have sharpened her thought and radicalized her. Emma Goldman argued for free love and a new sort of communal life against the models of Marx and Bakunin; a dialogue with the Owenite feminists Anna Wheeler and Emma Martin might have redirected her thinking and kept her from inventing "solutions" which had already proven unworkable fifty years earlier. Simone de Beauvoir, in a passionate dialogue with Marx, Freud, Sartre and Camus, could go as far with a feminist critique of patriarchal values and institutions as it was possible to go when the thinker was male-centered. Had she truly engaged with Mary Wollstonecraft's thought, the works of Mary Astell, the Quaker feminists of the early 19th century, the mystical revisioners among the black spiritualists and the feminism of Anna Cooper, her analysis might have become woman-centered and therefore capable of projecting alternatives to the basic mental constructs of patriarchal thought. Her erroneous assertion that, "They [women] have no past, no history, no religion of their own," was not just an oversight and a flaw, but a manifestation of the basic limitations which have for millennia limited the power and effectiveness of women's thought.

-Gerda Lerner, The Creation of Feminist Consciousness

[gnarlywavedude]

Shelley Beattie. A top three Ms. Olympia contestant at 5'10" (179cm), she was deaf from an early age. When she became an American Gladiator, spectators would stomp their feet to show approval for her instead of clapping.

[gnarlywavedude]

Will those who were glad the French could vote out fascism speak up about this now

[gnarlywavedude]

one of the most interesting art history mysteries is the changing face of isabella d'este; a marquise of mantua, highly educated brilliant intellectual classical humanist, dance choreographer, musician, song composer, knew virgil by heart, super important patron of the high renaissance. all the money and power a renaissance woman could have. these are her commissions:

Literally all portraits. for all her skills and genius and court status, her highest priority was her looks. never seen or described in poems without a full face of thick lead skin bleaching foundation and sometimes with bleached blonde hair. She was constantly obsessed with being too thin, too fat, not fat enough, too thin again. known to stare at a mirror for hours.

when leonardo sketched her at age 26, they mutually rejected each other. he wouldn't condescend to her intelligence and status by painting an imaginary 13 year olds heavily made up face on her body. she wouldn't allow a painter not to "idealize" her beyond recognition.

So a huge problem for art historians now is that nobody can agree on which portraits are supposedly her, because none of the sitters appear to have the same face, hair color, or even age. None of the portraits look like her, because none of the portraits are of a real woman.

When she was 62 years old and heavily scarred from the lead makeup, she sat for this Titian: