#domestic inequality

[heterorealism]

[loser-female]

Disclaimer: I'm doing a night shift so yeah, mistakes and all that jazz have a reason to be.

OOP post was about the difficulty of having a romantic relationship with a man because he was misogynistic.

Here are responses that bothered me and I've decided to make another post to highlight how damaging this is on feminism and women. Under the cut because this is stupid long.

For context, I'm in a relationship with a man and I'm in several women-majority groups.

Women and feminists are NOT a rehabilitation center for misogynistic men - and this is such dangerous advice because when I see a woman complaining about the relationship she has... It's ALWAYS, and I mean ALWAYS watered down to not make the man look like the abuser he often is.

Don't settle for an asshole - right, because a man's misogyny is a woman's fault. And because we all know men go around with a misogyny level tattooed on their face, so women know they can avoid it and if trying to fix him could work.

The fact that men can be better is irrelevant to the questions OOP was rising. She deserves a better partner *now*, not to invest herself in a building-a-boyfriend project that won't work.

And there is more than that: even if you date the perfect man the relationship will always be unbalanced in his favour.

This is because women in relationships are seen as less productive, less "trustworthy" than men in relationships, for which it's the opposite. And the woman is always assumed to earn less, to do all the housework and childcare.

OOP complaints about this are absolutely valid.

And this "but there are better men!" Is actively undermining the efforts of the literal 4 feminists left to fight domestic inequality.

Because that's an issue no one cares about. Mainstream feminism tells women men have changed (they have not, they just adapted their misogyny), so it's "safe"to date men and when this doesn't work any criticism on 2023 misogyny goes down the toilet, because "stereotyping an entire gender is wrong", shutting down any conversation about domestic inequality.

Which, if you call yourself a feminist of any kind, should be aware about. Especially how it ties directly with domestic violence.

Then the comment that enraged me.

Acknowledging misogyny or inequality in a relationship doesn't mean having a victim mentality.

Also, radicalisation ≠ radical feminism (what the hell even, but okay, what this is supposed to mean. Online radicalisation is a serious issue, but generally speaking we are talking about terrorists. People you don't like ≠ terrorists. The manosphere is a recruitment center for right wing domestic terrorists, this why the intelligence pays attention to it, because -at least in the europol reports - it's the primary concern for authorities. Radical feminism = addressing the root of the problem, patriarchy, by dismantling the current power status. But whatever, why I even waste my time like this.)

People of all genders can be shitty - well, we have several studies that show us what "gender" is shittier, like we have numbers. I don't know what the reasons are for these numbers, but it doesn't matter, because this is not the point. The point was that a relationship between a man and a woman, even if you are a rich housewife from the suburbs of IDK what city is cool now in the US, is still unbalanced. And this cannot be fixed by picking a "better man", because it's not necessarily about finding a better man, a good man doesn't erase patriarchy or other men's misogyny.

More importantly: what is a better man?

That's a question that is rarely answered in a genuine way. A lot of people say that a good man is a leftist, other a Christian...

Because, well, it's not like we have a scale of measurement of misogyny. We draw our conclusions from the past experiences (although things like trauma influence them), from the people around us, from the culture we are in and our personal values. "Look out for good men" is not a solution to OOP problem, is not a solution for *any* problem, as it isn't denying that there is, in fact, a problem.

It's also funny that the author of this comment thinks that the acknowledgement of unfairness in a relationship with a man means isolation. You know what is even more isolating? Having people that calls themselves feminists (!!!)deny your personal experience to protect an imaginary man feelings.

Conclusion:

The replies to a perfectly normal post like "I hate that my boyfriend is misogynistic" have been incredibly sexist, not surprisingly, coming directly from the victim blaming repertoire of "not all men", "you could have chosen better", "don't play the victim". It misses "you're crazy" for an inch, with zero acknowledgement of the hurt OOP was experiencing (and no, "your feelings are valid BUT" is not acknowledging anything) and the fact that... it probably was just a vent post, which makes the "NAM" preaching 10 times worse, adding this to focusing on OOP's actions like she was personally responsible for her boyfriend bad behaviour or, to me even worse, guilty of passively (according to these comments) accepting it or not trying enough.

Which is bad.

(yes I was bored. Nothing happened tonight. Now I go to sleep)

[liberaljane]

Reproductive labor is work -- typically designated to women -- that is required to sustain human life. It's unpaid, and is often invisible or unnoticed.

This includes tasks like cooking, cleaning, caring for children and more necessary to raise future generations. It's time to bring visibility to this labor, and acknowledge it for what it is: work. Far too many women and fems take on the bulk of household and domestic tasks in addition to having full time jobs -- also known as the 'second shift.' It's time to end gender inequality at home.

I was super excited to work with @Momcozy, who is working to provide comfort and companionship to parents from pregnancy through your child's early years. ❤️ parenthood is already hard enough, why not be comfy? their hands-free pump allow for on-the-go feeding and is designed with your body in mind.

There should be NO moral judgment given to how people choose to feed their children. Formula & chestfeeding are both valid. You have to do what’s best for you, your baby and your life

💚 Wanna try their products yourself? Momcozy is offering 10% off with code LIBERALJANE

* * Image description: Digital illustration of six parents doing different jobs related to chestfeeding. Around the circle shows, 'pumping, bottle warming, feeding, cleaning, storage and burping.' In the center there is text that reads, 'every mom is a working mom.'

[contemplatingoutlander]

The Conservative Supreme Court Vision That Means Inequality for Women

“I'm trying to understand if there’s a flaw in the history and traditions kind of framework to the extent that when we're looking at history and tradition, we're not considering the history and tradition of all of the people but only some of the people, as per the government's articulation of the test?”

--Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, regarding United States v. Rahimi

This is a gift🎁link that anyone can use to get past the NY Times paywall to read this entire column about how the championing of "a history-and-tradition-bound method of constitutional interpretation" by the conservative SCOTUS justices will most likely limit women's rights. As the authors Melissa Murray and Kate Shaw point out, at the time the Constitution was written, "the principle of 'coverture' [that] gave husbands legal authority over their wives" was part of common law. So (perhaps by design) an originalist constitutional interpretation will result in second-class status for women.

The requirement that present-day gun laws resemble gun laws of the distant past prioritizes history and tradition in much the same way the Dobbs court looked to the historic regulation of abortion, pregnancy and birth to support the view that the Constitution did not protect a right to abortion. [...] The history-and-tradition methodology privileges laws enacted in eras like the 1780s, when the original Constitution was ratified, and the 1860s, when the 14th Amendment was drafted and ratified — moments in time when neither women nor people of color were able to fully join the political community and played no official role in enacting laws. Should a method that privileges eras of extreme democratic deficit be relied upon to determine contemporary constitutional meaning? [...] As an amicus brief...explains, in common law, the principle of “coverture” gave husbands legal authority over their wives, including the prerogative to “correct” or “chastise” through force or violence. There is active debate regarding how domestic violence was perceived in the 18th and 19th centuries. But arguing on these terms still embraces a fundamentally antidemocratic principle — that history alone, at whatever level of generality, can determine whether contemporary laws are constitutional. Although the history of domestic violence enforcement was extensively discussed and debated in the briefs, it was only glancingly referred to in oral argument. This too is notable. If the terms of the debate are history and tradition, whose history and traditions will get priority? [color emphasis added]

[machinavocis]

.

[cruelsister-moved2]

at the end of the day like it's not lesbians' job to resolve contradictions for you!! if you don't know how to square loving men with genuine unflinching opposition of the patriarchy, there are literally GENERATIONS of straight and bi feminist women who have been discussing this. but instead, for some reason, this is lesbians' responsibility, so our criticisms of men are met with unique discomfort, because they aren't underpinned by the assurance of partnership with a man to prove that we acknowledge men's humanity (as if lesbians don't have male friends, family members, children, students, comrades, etc + as if there aren't millions of heterosexual women who genuinely despise their partners).

when I relate a criticism of the patriarchy, and of men, it's not MY job to explain how that squares with the domestic harmony you and jakey share. I'm not persecuting that harmony when I don't have an answer for you:I don't have those answers because, as a lesbian, I don't need them, and frankly I don't envy you the task. there are people with these answers, but expecting lesbians to both have them + spoonfeed them to you every single time we open our mouths is starting to feel like a double standard when the vast majority of straight women don't have them either 😭

[ablackwomansurvivingrape]

Organisations against gender-based violence call for drastic action after brutal attacks in KZN

It has been a grim start to Women’s Month in KwaZulu-Natal with gender-based violence (GBV) sharply in focus after the horrific murders of women and girls in the past few days.

Two matric pupils were killed and dismembered by a man who attacked them with an axe in Ngwangwane village, in the Nkosazana Dlamini Zuma Municipality near Creighton in southern KZN at the weekend.

The families and friends of murdered Grade 12 pupils Nqobile Amanda Zulu and Minenhle Amahle Buthelezi were trying to come to terms with their deaths. The man who allegedly attacked them in their rented house was arrested and is due in court next week.

In Durban, a Mangosuthu University of Technology (MUT) student was murdered on Sunday, allegedly by a fellow student.

The murders have prompted organisations against GBV to call for more focus to be placed on educating men and boys about respecting women, and for better responses to such crimes by the justice system and law-enforcement authorities.

MUT student Xolile Mbatha, 23, an electrical engineering student, was killed at the Ark Royal Residence, allegedly by a male student who fled the scene.

Professor Marcus Ramogale, MUT acting vice-chancellor and principal, said the university would be boosting its campaign against GBV.

“I am at a loss for words to describe this dreadful act performed by a fellow male student at the Ark Royal Residence, one of MUT’s externally leased residences,” Ramogale said.

He added that MUT had made counselling services available through the Student Counselling Unit.

Police spokesperson Lieutenant Colonel Nqobile Gwala said Mbatha had been stabbed to death and the murder was being investigated by Point SAPS.

Kavya Swaminathan, of the Tears Foundation, said that there were several factors contributing to the rising levels of GBV: the country was a patriarchal society, there was a lack of education, a high unemployment rate, and other economic and social challenges.

“Social awareness and education, especially educating our youth, is vital when it comes to combating this type of abuse. (The foundation) takes this educational stance very seriously. We will soon be launching an expansion to our already existing emergency service. The purpose of the expansion will be to provide direct education to the youth on such topics as pregnancy, reproduction, safe sex practices and more.”

Swaminathan added that perpetrators of GBV must face more serious consequences and said that the police and justice authorities had set a bad precedent – victims are often turned away, protections orders are not issued or enforced and victims can also wait years for DNA confirmation, prolonging their cases.

Thandiwe McCloy, communications manager at People Opposing Women Abuse (Powa), agreed that patriarchy and gender inequality were at the root of GBV.

She said there needed to be more investment in programmes targeted at men. “These programmes could go far in assisting men to deal with their behavioural issues and negative attitudes towards women.”

McCloy added that the justice system was highly inefficient and there was often a lack of proper investigations and delays in catching perpetrators of GBV.

“We need to confront social and cultural attitudes and beliefs – such as those stating that men have the right to more power than women. Relationships within the home affect every relationship outside the home, so it’s important to raise children in non-violent households where abuse is not tolerated. In this way, they are less likely to normalise abuse and stay in abusive relationships or become abusers when they are older.”

Javu Baloyi, spokesperson for the Commission for Gender Equality, said the public needed to report abuse.

“We also call upon schools to educate boys from a young age to respect girls and women. This education should be done as part of the life orientation syllabus as this is the only way society will change and women will be protected.”

[megmelodia]

This is something that isn’t often addressed with the housing crisis. Landlords and property management firms require applicants to make 3 times the monthly rent. Most people can’t afford this on their own anymore, even for a small apartment.

Restrictions are increasing, rent is increasing but wages have remained stagnant. Where does this leave someone trying to exit an abusive situation? They may end up couch surfing, living in their car, or on the streets if they try to leave. This may be an impossible situation if they are disabled, or have children.

spot on!!!!!

[heterorealism]

[prickly-paprikash]

Kendrick doesn't just hate Drake as a person. He hates the very idea of Drake.

Hip-Hop is rooted in revolution. In defiance. These are the songs of an oppressed group of people, and decades upon decades people have hated it. Accused of being meaningless and invalid. Media outlets took steps to belittle hip-hop and make sure it isn't recognized as an art form and as a means to fight back.

2Pac spoke of wealth disparity and inequality. Tupac was literally a member of a communist organization when he was younger and never stopped speaking against capitalism.

Lauryn Hill spoke of the struggles a woman faces. Not just women, but black women. Salt-N-Peppa. Queen Latifah. MISSY FUCKING ELLIOT.

N.W.A made sure people knew about police brutality and violence against the Black community.

And now, in this day and age, we're also experiencing an explosion of Queer Hip-Hop. Lil Nas X is at the forefront of this. Lil Uzi Vert came out as non-binary and uses they/them pronouns, even when they knew that a lot of their fans would never use it or even respect them for it. Auntie Diaries, a song about a young man who grew up in a transphobic environment and bought into those beliefs, but could never fully do it because his Uncle loved him so much and taught him a lot of life lessons, and that wisdom translated to him accepting his cousin as a woman as well.

Drake is none of that.

He's the perfect representation of what people think hip-hop is. Flexing. Posturing. Objectifying women. A fucker so insecure he bought 2Pac's ring just to feel like he's part of the black community. Rejected by Rihanna publicly. Tried to groom Millie Bobby Brown. Kissed and inappropriately touched an underage girl during his concert. His songs have inspired so many young boys to treat girls like shit. His belief that the amount of rings and chains and cars he has is the true meaning of success.

Additional Edit: This is my fault. If this post gains more views, then it would be remiss of me not to add to this. It was my fault to begin with, not stating this beforehand because while I did know, I got lost in celebrating Hip-Hop in a place that doesn't usually do so, and rightfully so.

2Pac did fight for wealth equality and better social living for the black community. He also has a long, long history of battery, domestic abuse, and sexual harassment against women. Specifically against women of color. He made a song to celebrate his own mother, but outright refused to give the same show of respect to other women in his life. His hypocritical nature was brushed off in later decades, just the way I did now.

N.W.A is the same. Sexual assault charges, violence—they spoke of Police reform, but refuses to give the same treatment back towards the women in their lives.

50 cent refuses to backtrack on any of his misogynistic lyrics.

Modern rappers of today, such as the dead XXXtentacion. 6ix9ine. Kodak Black.

I do love Hip-Hop. I love rap. And the music itself has always been anti-authoritarian at its core, because those are its roots. And I was happy that circles that did not normally know of it or enjoy it were getting into it, even for one thing like this rap feud.

Lil Nas X, Little Simz, Childish Gambino, Missy Elliot, Queen Latifah, Lauryn Hill—rappers who have at the very least consistently tried to put their money where their mouth is. Who have tried to act in accordance to what they rap and write and sing for.

@shehungthemoon @ohsugarsims finnthehumanmp3 were the ones who rightfully clarified in the comments. I know an apology won't correct my hypocrisy or my stupidity. I should have added all of this before making this post, but I wanted so badly to celebrate a genre of music but failed to do my due diligence in showing a better, holistic view of it. If anyone felt triggered, offended, troubled, frustrated or any other intense negative emotions surrounding this, please do block me. I'm sorry.

[bilboyagathechickenfootedhobbit]

Here’s a thought: if men didn’t attack and rape us and oppress us for literally all of human history, if they didn’t mock our pain and masturbate to our torture, if they didn’t laugh with their buddies about the violence inflicted on women, if they stopped selling our bodies like commodities, if they just LEFT US ALONE FFS, then maybe, JUST MAYBE, we might have something nice to say about them.

Don’t you dare tell us women are responsible for mens self-confidence. The only person EVER responsible for your self-confidence is…..you’ll never believe this….your fucking SELF.

'women aren't responsible for male loneliness' sure but i think the fact that you in particular can't say a positive thing about a man and only publicly talk about how much they annoy you has a lot to do with the self-confidence issues that root at this loneliness

[zvaigzdelasas]

That's official then - I'm not voting democrat. [19 Aug 24]

[howifeltabouthim]

'Had he deigned to discuss it with me!' Alice had so often said. 'But no; he will read his books, and I am to go there to fetch him his slippers, and make his tea for him.'

Anthony Trollope, from Can You Forgive Her?

[radfem-pow]

Consequences of misogyny: Rape, murder, domestic violence, harassment, economic inequality, forced unpaid labour, discrimination.

Consequences of misandry: Men get offended by words.

[probablyasocialecologist]

As environmental, social and humanitarian crises escalate, the world can no longer afford two things: first, the costs of economic inequality; and second, the rich. Between 2020 and 2022, the world’s most affluent 1% of people captured nearly twice as much of the new global wealth created as did the other 99% of individuals put together, and in 2019 they emitted as much carbon dioxide as the poorest two-thirds of humanity. In the decade to 2022, the world’s billionaires more than doubled their wealth, to almost US$12 trillion. The evidence gathered by social epidemiologists, including us, shows that large differences in income are a powerful social stressor that is increasingly rendering societies dysfunctional. For example, bigger gaps between rich and poor are accompanied by higher rates of homicide and imprisonment. They also correspond to more infant mortality, obesity, drug abuse and COVID-19 deaths, as well as higher rates of teenage pregnancy and lower levels of child well-being, social mobility and public trust. The homicide rate in the United States — the most unequal Western democracy — is more than 11 times that in Norway. Imprisonment rates are ten times as high, and infant mortality and obesity rates twice as high.

[...]

Our work has shown that the amount spent on advertising as a proportion of gross domestic product is higher in countries with greater inequality. The well-publicized lifestyles of the rich promote standards and ways of living that others seek to emulate, triggering cascades of expenditure for holiday homes, swimming pools, travel, clothes and expensive cars. Oxfam reports that, on average, each of the richest 1% of people in the world produces 100 times the emissions of the average person in the poorest half of the world’s population. That is the scale of the injustice. As poorer countries raise their material standards, the rich will have to lower theirs.

[...]

The scientific evidence is stark that reducing inequality is a fundamental precondition for addressing the environmental, health and social crises the world is facing. It’s essential that policymakers act quickly to reverse decades of rising inequality and curb the highest incomes.

[heterorealism]