#its misogynistic. it ignores their respective values and perspectives

[llycaons]

not that they were on the ships list but some of the boring default m/f ships reminded me of how much I hate wq/jc. like 🤢🤢🤢🤢🔪🔪🔪🔪🔪

[cerullos]

this isn't really in line with the meme but what would a Good series eleven have been like? or how can series twelve turn it around/be better?

hm…………………………re: eleven, the only aspect of eleven’s personality i would change is his needless misogyny, because i don’t think that’s necessarily a “component” of eleven, so much as it is…moffat. and really this would be mostly solved by just eliminating all of the creepy, unsettling scenes where rory and the doctor are mutually possessive over amy or collude somehow in treating her like an object (e.g. vampires of venice when rory thanks the doctor for being needlessly cruel to amy and patronizing her like a child, or when eleven is supposedly only allowed to hug amy for a certain amount of time with rory’s permission lmao and don’t even get me started on the girl who waited). i wouldn’t change some of eleven’s worst tendencies (like his constant, prolonged lies–keeping the ring and rory’s existence from amy in S5, the doppelganger and mystery pregnancy fiasco in S6, etc.) or eleven’s selfishness in valuing amy at least in part for how much she blindly adores him, or even “never let him see the damage. and never, ever let him see you age” and all the kind of hideous implications that come with it. i don’t think eleven is…a good man, and i find that interesting, especially in relation to ten (although the 50th imo horribly wasted that dynamic, which had so much more to give). i like the basic concept of ten in his endless compassion, burdening himself with so much pain that the doctor regenerates into a man who is as equally as selfish as he is loving, who does his best to forget and bury his mistakes instead of acknowledging and atoning for them. 

my issue is literally just that amy isn’t treated as an equal of eleven’s! even putting aside the obvious power imbalance of amy idolizing eleven from childhood, their basic, everyday interactions are weighed so heavily against amy it’s almost painful to watch at times. one way to solve this would be to emphasize and acknowledge the flaws (eleven’s) i mentioned earlier. eleven’s selfishness is alluded to in episodes like the god complex, but always in a way that empathizes with him and absolves him, rather than highlighting amy’s perspective and the ways in which his selfish actions negatively effect her. even when eleven feels pain it isn’t the same as when, say, ten does because eleven always has a loophole…he’s always a hundred steps of everyone else (amy included).

i mean, look at pandorica opens/big bang…rory is furious (rightfully so, obviously) when eleven basically implies amy’s life doesn’t “matter” in the grand scheme of things, but we later find out he’s only saying this because he’s traveling from a future point in time when amy is already alive again and fine. even when he “dies” at the end of big bang, we later learn he knew all along that amy would be able to remember him back into existence. there are no stakes for eleven, he’s too absurdly smart for any to exist. one of the only times he faces consequences is when he loses amy permanently in angels take manhattan, and that’s telling enough in itself. 

compare this w/ clara who’s constantly given teachable moments with twelve even opportunities to outthink twelve! an episode like, say, flatline could never exist with eleven and amy, the dynamic as it is couldn’t support it…eleven beholden to amy, amy acting as undisputed leader. and i’m not saying that amy isn’t smart because she is, and there’s tangible proof of that–but not smarter than eleven–never, not even for a second. that’s the conceit of eleven as a character, untouchable god “the doctor in the tardis, next stop everywhere.” eleven doesn’t defer to amy because it would literally break his character to do so and that imo is the greatest failing of their dynamic. 

the other, obviously, is that amy isn’t given the means to fight back when eleven disrespects or belittles her…and this is just another side of the same coin. amy’s anger is deliberately framed as kind of…impotent. moffat likes the idea of amy as a “spitfire,” but when push comes to shove it’s always expected that she’ll fall into line when the doctor demands it. it’s played for laughs that amy ignores him and does as she pleases (and she does, when the two of them are on friendly terms–like in vincent and the doctor when eleven orders her not to follow) but in life-or-death moments when amy’s life is at stake, she isn’t even allowed to question the doctor’s authority. it’s supposed to be funny when the doctor tells amy to shut up when she says she’s afraid she’s going to die. if rory were to pull that on her, can you imagine how she would react? but moffat deliberately declaws amy around the doctor, and the implications of that are…really unsettling, if you would rather not just attribute it to virulently misogynistic writing (which it also is, of course). clara and twelve have big blowout fights and yet this is pretty starkly absent from eleven and amy’s relationship…she may snipe at him from time to time, but overwhelmingly amy is expected to roll her eyes and huff and storm off and listen. eleven is barely given reason to feel guilty on these occasions, let alone confront or regret his actions. because, again: eleven cannot be wrong. and a doctor that cannot be wrong…inherently has no need of a companion. i mean, think of what donna says to ten: "i think sometimes you need somebody to stop you.” how many times has amy been empowered to successfully “stop” eleven from doing anything, ever. 

the tl;dr on this is that amy needs so much more agency in their relationship than she was given (but what else is new, she needs more agency throughout her run in almost ever aspect of it). i think…there are elements of something really beautiful in their relationship–and amy does love him without qualifications, which is more than can be said of rory, obviously, even if it’s largely because of what eleven represents for her. i think there are moments where eleven regards amy with a kind of reverence, which we see similarly with twelve and clara later, and it’s…touching. if they had expanded on that thread, it might have grown into something that equaled amy’s childhood adoration of eleven–maybe into something that would prompt eleven to value amy’s input a little bit more than he ever seemed to in canon. there’s a lot there that’s good (the basic template is peter and wendy, and i could not possibly love that more if i tried), but the execution is…really poor, really deeply tainted by moffat’s misogyny and it favors eleven to a ridiculous extent. there’s always that sense of discomfort, like the whole relationship is skewed by how imbalanced it is and how frequently amy’s suffering is exploited to fuel eleven’s rage and grief despite the fact that he can’t seem to bring himself to even respect her as a person half the time. 

[leatherbeacon-blog]

Leather Series - Spaces for Women and "the other" - Part 1

Let me tell you a story of a person of color walking into a leather bar full of leathermen. They look around the room and see a bunch of white, cis gay men in leather. While they are turned on by the leather and kink on display, they don't see anything close to representing who they are. They aren't seeing people of color, they aren't seeing women, they aren't seeing trans folk or femme folk. They look around and don't see themselves. They don't see a space for them. They look on stage and hear a leatherman giving a speech about honor, integrity, respect, finding a home, a tribe, a community. They are hearing that leatherman talking about a tribe and community of only white cis gay men. So that person walks out of the bar, never to return again. Now imagine that same person walking into a leather bar and seeing a bar full of men, women, Asian, black, Latino, Middle Eastern, indigenous, cis, trans, Bi, pan, femme folk, all in leather, all having a kinky fun time. Then that person sees a leatherperson on stage giving a speech about tribe and community, about finding a home. That person who walked into the bar is nodding along because they can look around the room and see themselves reflected in the faces of every leatherperson in the bar. So that person stays in the bar because they are home. The leather community from its formation was a community for white men. Plain and simple. Vanilla bars and leather bars prohibited men of color from even gaining entrance to the bars, let alone having a voice in the community. Over the years, men of color have gained access and our voices have been heard. But let's not be naïve and think that racism, prejudice and ignorance has passed or been removed from the leather community. Let's not pretend that gay men can't be just as misogynistic as straight men, if not more. We look at the very community who stood by our deathbeds during the AIDS crisis and say to their faces "you are not welcome in our bars, events, spaces". Where is the honor, integrity and respect in that? Is that our code as leathermen? What's even worse is when we do "let" them into our events, we then restrict their access to the events. We'll say "you can come to our event and pay the same registration fee, but you won't be able to attend all the workshops, you won't be able to attend the pool party and oh the seven play spaces we have? You can't play in any of them." Profiting off of a community without giving them access or even one small fucking room to use as a play space is wrong. There is no honor in that. There is no integrity. There is no respect. The excuse men use for excluding them is that women don't understand our history because they weren't there at the beginning. Yes, Leather started with gay men, white cis gay men. The only reason any other people group besides white cis gay men may not have the same understanding of Leather, isn't because of inability or capacity, it's because the leather community was exclusionary from its inception. You can't say "such and such people group doesn't know our history" when they were explicitly excluded from your history. Are we so desperate to hold onto supposed "old guard" values that may or may not have existed that we will go out of our way to refuse space to women, femmes, trans, or any form of "other?" What are we afraid of? Are we afraid that adding seats to the table will remove yours? Are we so afraid of vaginas or femme presentation that somehow we will no longer be attracted to men? Do women have that much power of you? Do you forget how to use a flogger in the presence of a woman? Can your hand no longer grip to jerk off a guys cock? How fragile is your sexuality/leather/kink that the presence of a woman at a play space will render you incapable of engaging in a scene with another man? Ok stop, I can see you furiously typing away "but Beacon, does that mean every single time I want to have some guy friends over and play that I have to have women there too?!" Individual, private parties are just that, private. What you do is up to you. If you want it male only, that's cool. If women want a women only party, that's cool. But if you are throwing a large leather event with multiple play spaces and the event is open to men, women, GNC, then you better have play spaces for men, women and GNC. If you are going to profit off of a people group, you need to have space for that people group. It's really that simple. There is a lot of discussion about spaces for "the other" I'm not sure if this is a new discussion or if I'm just now listening. Creating spaces for "the other" doesn't diminish or eliminate the spaces that already exist. It adds to them. It adds people to the leather community. It adds different perspectives and experiences and ways to engage in kink. It makes the community better. Creating spaces for women, minorities, trans folk, GNC and femme folk is what makes the leather community greater than it once was. We don't need to go back, we need to go forward together.

[pankopop]

Sono Chi No Sodomy

Renegotiating Gender Politics of Anime and the Complex Queerness of Jojo’s Bizarre Adventure

Now, I’ll be the first to admit I’m a dumb baby newcomer to anime. And I’m not gonna pretend that I have any authority at all here. I think letsplayer Arin Hanson once tweeted about “The Weeb” being like chicken pox – you’ll be okay if you get it early but if you contract it in your twenties you’re basically doomed.

When I was 13 I never let my sister off the hook for being into Inuyasha. One day, I walked into the anime club at my highschool and just belly laughed at the dorks who dared to enjoy things. I’m a recovering fuckhead, and boy do I feel bad about the assholey things I thought and said.

The sneerishness stemmed from this idea that ALL anime was sexist, racist, and sexually obsessed with underage girls. To me, the entire country of Japan was ideologically written off as an ethical dystopia. That was when I still thought of myself as a real hard manly masculine boy, with long hair and motorhead on loop loud enough to drown out any opinions but Lemmy’s. I had things to prove! Boycott Japan! I’m very insecure!

Of course, things have changed (I hope). It took me many years of hurting and deriding really wonderful people to come to terms with how fucked up my thinking was. Studio Ghibli flicks became something to share with my partner, and then I happened to sit in on a pal watching subbed Attack on Titan. I had realized how much incredible stuff, how many fantastic worlds I was missing out on. How I didn’t need to worry about authentically being my true analog self if I was just fucking enjoying something.

***

When I first heard of Jojo’s Bizarre Adventure, it was through the tweets and tumblr posts of femmes and queer folk. That should have been a tell…

I had previously looked into the entirety of the Fatal Fury anime films because of cartoonist/roadwarrior/bisontaur Coelasquid waxed on about the pretty bara boys. That was kinda my first introduction to enjoyably dumb thousand-punch-a-second anime, but I was more interested by the way in which Coelasquid read into the schlock, seeing more complex narratives and richer characters than at face value. I began to see this blatantly masculine-centric misogynist text as more complex than what was intended.

Fragile and Close to the Edge were cornerstones in my musical childhood, so the roundabout meme (playing on the first couple series’ “to be continued” sepia freeze frame) was enough to get me interested. Also, I had just finished One Punch Man, and that left a big ol’ fist-shaped hole in my heart, so I was down for some new hyper weeb fighty fights.

Eventually I took it upon myself to find some Jojo episodes, starting S1E1. I got about six episodes in, and kinda lost interest. I think I got to about the episodes that involved the warriors devout to Mary queen of Scots. I can’t remember exactly why I fell off the wagon (anime Queen Mary really spoke to me). I probably had shit to do, and life gets in the way. Excuses excuses.

It was around this time that Lego Bionicle had received its half-hearted and ultimately futile reboot. By way of a 4chan /toy/ thread I came across the tumblr bionicle fandom, and then was redirected to someone’s twitter which had some fireemoji 100emoji fireemoji shitposts. She also posted jojo stuff non-stop. Which was cool. I didn’t mind not “getting it”; it was all so absurd that it was kinda just a joy to have on the feed.

It also piqued my interest as to why someone so into a weird niche robo-tiki fandom would be into this big boy barafest. In Bionicle, there were very few female characters. The extant few were actually pretty well written, but this left a big population of masculine heroes with a fandom hungry to ship romance into. I remember one person posting “If they didn’t want bionicle to be so gay, then why did they write men almost exclusively?”

“Alright”, I thought. “If they’re on the same wavelength regarding avatar-but-robots, Jojo might be cool.”

So I picked up where I left off, and was hopelessly hooked. I finished part 1, was admittedly chuffed by some pretty fun plot twists, and I absolutely got into Joseph Joestar in the part 2. The outfits, posing, and artistic obsession with lips, hips, and eyes were all so decadent, and the absolute disregard for toning it down really got me into the series.

Simultaneously, I was watching Steven Universe and absolutely adoring the story for its inclusive, positive social activist platform and it’s kindness. Each episode basically became my time for cry. I was also finishing up a cultural anthropology degree that would sustain that allowed me to unpack all the self-loathing I had as a teenager. I came out of that degree a kinder, more open minded person.

I was in a mire of anti-bigotted pink futurism. So why the fuck was I so into this show about big muscular boys punching big muscular boys? Well for one I started realizing things about myself but ALSO:

In some sense, the absence of women as plot characters had left the shipping possibilities open. As previously mentioned: all men, all gay. I noticed hard aesthetic resemblance to hyperbutch homo-ero british and American schlock portraits of the 60’s and 70’s. In many ways, yes, it is a male power fantasy. But in other ways it is absolutely a bergerian spectacle of pecks and soft lips and sad eyes and thighs and midriff and chiseled V. It’s an animated pinup mag.

I saw more porn of the characters than battle portraits. The fanart knew what was up. The fanfiction was dripping. Jojo is so sexually charged, and more importantly, sexually charged for a specific audience.

Now you could probably write a paper drawing a lineage from Charles Atlas through the dark ages of comics and into jojo, but I feel that’s more of an artist-centric industry perspective. The fact that Jojo sits comfortably in Shonen Jump, with a reader base insistently for boys, raises some exciting questions. I mean, it’s definitely not classically bishounen - there’s no accessible femme softness playing into romantic hetero dating scenario.

I think what, in the very least, feels revolutionary about Jojo is its unapologetic, unspoken, and hard sexualization of male forms. There’s really not a lot of actual fighting going on - so much frame time is spent ogling these tight bodies. You know this sexuality is for someone, and that someone is heckin’ queer and/or heckin’ female.

Furthermore, this powerful sexual decadence is fairly uncommon for non-hetero male eyes. It’s cruder and far more raw than your average bit of media meant to titillate boy-lovers. I can really only think of Magic Mike XXL as an equivalent.

This isn’t what your average dudebro wants to be. There are examples of male power fantasy you could point to, but deep down you know: jojo is for the loins of the spectator. There’s something incredibly subversive about putting the power of sexual spectatorship in the hands of women and queer folk. Tailoring to that spectatorship.

Yeah okay. That could just build off of the cliché of the big beefy hunks that naughty suburban blondes get flustered over after their 4th glass of white wine. But hear me out: Jojo’s not at all getting his beautiful body out of this queer reading.

For example: there’s a theme of piercing in Jojo. Bits of wood and shrapnel in bodies, the Pillar Men’s betrothals to Joseph (which y’know, gg ez), Dio’s obsession with fingering people’s necks… etc. Unlike the invincible bulletproof armour-bodies of Superman, Goku, etc etc, these bodies are fleshy and soft. They are vulnerable, even if the character himself is stoic enough to tough it out.

Men’s bodies, in the patriarchal scheme of things, are not supposed to do that. They should be hard, to pierce the bodies of the subjugated (read emasculated/females) that defy them. But here we are, Araki, with the men who can be penetrated, curiously burning gender roles and expectations with violence in a very violent narrative. Far from subtle, sure, but it’s nothing to ignore.

If the Jojoboys were really just a heteronormative eye candy for thirsty women, I don’t feel like male penetration would have been as pervasive. The male would be doing the penetrating, but no real males would be penetrated, especially not the protagonists.

To build on that, the garish, revealing fashion doesn’t point to male power. There are no massive pauldrons or chestplates, everything is laid bare, sensuous and exposed. These adjectives tend not to be associated with hegemonic masculinities. Nor is the world of textiles and high fashion seen as a socially acceptable male venture, as much as a trivially feminine pastime. There is genderfuckage abound in this hard boy cartoon.

***

I overheard someone talking about how they tried watching Jojo and they couldn’t understand for the life of them why any self-respecting femιnist would be into this mess of tropes. I’m not gonna argue against that. The whole argument for Jojo as a progressive show sounds like someone covering their ideological ass. I’m in no way suggesting that Jojo does the same work for femιnism that shows like Steven Universe and Avatar/Korra might be doing.

The point I’m trying to bring home is that I came of age thinking that anime was inherently sexist. That idea came from a whole lot of not listening to the people who were actually experiencing real sexism. Especially in those incredible cultural circumstances where the distinctions between content creator and content interpreter become blurred, it’s always worth it to investigate what identities, intentions, and libidos are involved. Something that seems like run-of-the-mill propaganda might actually be backfiring in a more progressive direction than media with actual progressive intentions.

[sheminecrafts]

Bumble chief responds to reports of misconduct at parent company

Following an extensive report in Forbes about Bumble’s parent company and its billionaire founder Andrey Andreev, the female-first dating app’s founder Whitney Wolfe Herd has issued a statement.

While Wolfe Herd says she was “mortified by the allegations” and “saddened and sickened to hear that anyone, of any gender, would ever be made to feel marginalized or mistreated in any capacity at their workplace,” the exec also detailed that “Badoo is currently conducting an investigation into the allegations, as well as compiling documentation to expose the factual inaccuracies that exist within the article.”

Wolfe Herd’s statement is provided in full at the end of the article. We’ve reached out to Forbes for comment.

The Forbes report, titled “Exclusive Investigation: Sex, Drugs, Misogyny And Sleaze At The HQ Of Bumble’s Owner,” focused largely on Badoo founder Andrey Andreev and the toxic culture at his company alleged by former employees. The report alleged an early culture at Badoo that ranged from “Ketamine infused afterparties” to engineering updates named after porn stars, and a video shared internally of an employee receiving oral sex.

The allegations went beyond portraying a sexist work environment and detailed racist attitudes of the Badoo founder:

While Badoo’s popularity grew in Europe and Latin America in the early 2010s, adoption was slow in the U.S. The American user base then was mostly Latino. Andreev would complain when he saw too many dark faces on the app—he believed it lowered the value of the brand and made it look cheap, says a former employee who worked on marketing campaigns. “Andrey was always making it clear that white was better,” says the former high-ranking executive. “If someone were to arrive a little bit late to the office and they were Latino or African, he would make comments like, ‘Well, what can you expect,’ as if people who were not white were not hardworking.”

Quoted on-record was the company’s former CMO Jessica Powell, who said she was fired because she didn’t fit into the company’s “patriarchal” environment. The Forbes report further detailed:

“While serving as the company’s CMO, I was told to act pretty for investors and make job candidates ‘horny’ to work for Badoo,” Jessica Powell, Badoo’s chief marketing officer from 2011 to 2012 says in an email. “I was once even asked to give a designer candidate a massage.” She says she refused to do so, adding that “female employees were routinely discussed in terms of their appearance.”

“When female staff spoke up, their concerns were ignored or minimized,” she adds, decrying a “misogynistic atmosphere.”

Wolfe Herd’s comments showcases a broader effort to distance the Bumble brand, which is closely aligned with her own personal brand, from the allegations against Badoo and its founder. It is difficult to separate Badoo and Bumble from a business perspective, as both fall beneath Andreev’s recently created MagicLab parent company, and Andreev reportedly owns 79% of Bumble.

Though Wolfe Herd’s comment strikes a conciliatory tone, “I would never challenge someone’s feelings or experiences,” regarding former employees that alleged negative experiences at Badoo, the company’s billionaire majority stakeholder Andrey Andreev was more direct in his response to those quoted on-record: “There are many ways to promote a fictional book in order to attract attention, and Jessica is a very talented marketing professional,” he said in a statement to Forbes, noting that Powell had recently released a satirical novel.

Responding to Andreev’s statement on Twitter, Powell said, “We’ve all seen the way people try to cut down women who come forward, the way companies craft false narratives of bad behavior and try to make it seem like we were bad at our jobs or troublemakers and should not be listened to.”

A statement from MagicLab given to Business Insider aimed to discredit Forbes reporter Angel Au-Yeung: “We are extremely disappointed in the reckless reporting of the Forbes reporter. Not a single current employee is quoted, our fact-check corrections were largely ignored, and the journalist refused to talk to dozens of former and current employees who came forward to counter the sensationalist narrative of only a few former disgruntled employees.”

The statements from Andreev, MagicLab and Wolfe Herd utilize language that simultaneously takes responsibility for “anything that could have taken place” and portrays a desire to hear from marginalized employees — while also seeking to introduce doubts about the story and its sources.

For Bumble, the association with the alleged toxic culture and Andreev’s alleged discriminatory attitudes in this report could be dangerous to the brand largely because of the reputation Bumble has publicly built for itself as being a platform that puts female safety at the forefront.

“…I would never challenge someone’s feelings or experiences. I offered to the reporter to extend my contact info to anyone who felt their experience was negative and said I would be an ally and open ear to them. That offer still stands,” Wolfe Herd said in the statement. “As a woman who has been through dark times, please know that I am deeply sorry for anything that could have taken place that made anyone feel uncomfortable before my time building Bumble. And know that I feel personally responsible by association for the well-being of each and every team member in the group, regardless of what company or what office around the world, from the past or the present.”

Wolfe Herd’s full statement:

All of us at Bumble are mortified by the allegations about Badoo (Bumble’s majority owner) from the years before Bumble was born, as chronicled in the Forbes story. I am saddened and sickened to hear that anyone, of any gender, would ever be made to feel marginalized or mistreated in any capacity at their workplace. From my time speaking with the reporter, I was only able to share my personal experiences, which have been nothing but positive and respectful, ranging from 2014, before Bumble existed, and during the 5 years since. To this day, we at Bumble have never seen or heard of any of this behavior from any team members, and if we had we would have never tolerated it. However, I would never challenge someone’s feelings or experiences. I offered to the reporter to extend my contact info to anyone who felt their experience was negative and said I would be an ally and open ear to them. That offer still stands. As a woman who has been through dark times, please know that I am deeply sorry for anything that could have taken place that made anyone feel uncomfortable before my time building Bumble. And know that I feel personally responsible by association for the well-being of each and every team member in the group, regardless of what company or what office around the world, from the past or the present. Badoo is currently conducting an investigation into the allegations, as well as compiling documentation to expose the factual inaccuracies that exist within the article. I’d like to take the opportunity to clarify that I was never copied on any email from these allegations, as Forbes suggested. I learned of the majority of these allegations at the same time as the public. We at Bumble remain fiercely committed to our mission, while being openly apologetic to anyone who feels our mission is compromised. We assure you that we would never conduct business in a manner contradictory to our values and would never tolerate the type of toxic behavior described by Forbes.

from iraidajzsmmwtv https://ift.tt/30w4LVP via IFTTT

[oneimageblog-blog]

White Privilege and its Role in the War on Terror

     There are many women who claim to be feminists by advocating the rights for oppressed and marginalized women. However, the way they present the problems and the solutions they offer have large consequences for the women they are fighting for. Additionally, how the media chooses to project these feminists further marginalizes certain groups. Particularly in Western media, attention is given to feminists who support the Orientalist view and frame the struggle of women against a patriarchal Islam as the only root of oppression, while ignoring any socio-culture-historical influences. Giving popularity to these feminists only means that they are seen as a credible resource to discuss issues of women in Islam. Those who challenge the US’s involvement in the East in creating conditions that exploit women and lead to oppression are not only silenced, but are shown as irrational and alienated. Hence, feminists are grouped into “good” and “bad” feminists.

     Ayan Hirsi Ali is a Somalia-born activist that resided in Kenya, Saudi-Arabia, Ethiopia, and in Holland as a political refugee before finally moving to the US. She believes that the US is a utopia for women as they are given all their rights and freedoms, while the Muslim world is extremely misogynist and patriarchal. She rejects the idea that women can find emancipation from re-readings of the Quran, believing liberation requires freedom from religion[1]. Popularized in the Western media as a great fighter for Muslim women’s rights, she reinforces the Orientalist view while reducing the number of spaces in which women can feel safe.

     Hirsi Ali has been the center of controversy many times. In 2003, her film with Theo Van Gogh, Submission, received great backlash from Muslims, who found it inappropriate to write Quranic verses on a body and inaccurate to depict women as victims of Islam. People argued that she only considered certain interpretations of the verses, and showed all women to be victimized using these interpretations. She ignored those women who found emancipation using the same verses by taking a different meaning. Yes, some women have been victimized using certain interpretations, but the key word is some, not all, as she aims to show. Furthermore, by writing Quranic verses on the body, she has offended a large majority of Muslims who believe that this is prohibited in Islam. This great religious insensitivity led to the murder of Van Gogh[2]. The Western media, in turn have only supported her. And why should they not? Hirsi Ali, comes from a Muslim background and uses her personal experience to show that Islam denies women’s rights. This gives the US a legitimate reason to intervene in Muslim countries on the basis of women’s freedom, while working quietly on their own political agenda.

     Hirsi Ali has been religiously insensitive to many issues that have occurred. During the Charlie Hebdo magazine outrage relating to satirical cartoons of Prophet Mohammad, many news channels contacted Hirsi Ali to write about the issue. She argued that the cartoons should continue to be published so “Muslim immigrants who come to the West understand that our rules protect satirists from jihadists, and not the other way around”[3]. This statement argues that every Muslim is a jihadist, claiming that Islam is a violent religion. Furthermore, she is blind to the fact that Muslims do not portray the Prophet with images due to respect and the fear that people might start worshipping him instead of Allah. There is a fine line between satirical and disrespect that Hirsi Ali simply ignores to see.

     In 2014, Brandis University invited Hirsi Ali to receive an honoury degree as they were pleased with her work on women’s freedom. However, after facing a backlash from the staff and students at the university who claimed Hirsi Ali to be advocating Islamophobia, the university revoked their offer on terms that they “cannot overlook certain of her past statements that are inconsistent with [the university’s] core values”[4]. The university identified the problem as something of in her past, not in her present where she continues her accusations on Islam while projecting inaccurate ideas. This is not to say she is incorrect in her experiences and what she believes, however, projecting her own biased interpretations as the only true meanings is not only inaccurate, but also serves to marginalize those who differ in their views. She is widely liked by the Western media who always invite her to talk about issues of women in Islam. By giving her this space and denying others the chance to spread their perspectives among the audience, certain ideas of Islam are created while other feminists are criticized as being incorrect. She may call herself a feminist, but she is not giving women the chance to speak, as she claims to represent them. This is highly problematic because it stumps the different types of change that can occur. Hirsi Ali believes that emancipation cannot be derived from Islam. Being a woman who was previously a Muslim, she abuses her traumatic experiences to create a podium on which she applies interpretations of her experiences to all women. This leads to an even bigger divide between Western and Eastern feminists, as there is a failure to understand different cultures.

     If the media gives space for those who represent Islam to talk about the War on Terror, then they must be allow equal space and resources to voices that blame US policies without portraying them as enemy outsiders. Sunera Thobani, former president of the National Women’s Action Committee in Canada, delivered a speech shortly after 9/11 which blamed US policies that allowed religious extremism to flourish in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Instead of the media exploring further into her claims, they simply disregarded her as an “angry woman of color”. She was constantly portrayed as a non-white immigrant, to emphasize that she was not Canadian and hence could not speak for or represent Canadians. They demonized her, calling her unpatriotic for her anti-imperialistic views, and was considered a bad Muslim feminist due her support for “backward” and “regressive” Islamic ideologies[5]. How is it that any feminist that calls Islam patriarchal and oppressive is instantly taken-up by Western media to represent all Muslim women, whereas those who point to even the slightest faults of the West or consider Islam egalitarian are demonized and are stripped of their feminist status? Why can one represent, while the other cannot? After all, everyone faces so many different experiences and has different ideals that it would make sense to have a variety of representations to be truly inclusive. However, it all boils down to the media who wants to promote certain views so that certain political motives can be achieved.

     Much like the varying degrees of attention these feminists received, so too did female US soldiers. When they were rescued from Iraqi forces, it was the story of Jessica Lynch (although much of it fabricated) that came to attention, and not the more truer one of Shoshana Johnson.

     Jessica Lynch was seen as an ideal femininity figure as she represented the freedom and equality women have in the West. Not only that, but she reinforced the Orientalism view by showing that the threat of the Muslim man extends not only to Muslim women, but also to Western women. In comparison, Shoshana Johnson, an African American, was not mentioned as much because she did not represent the pure White identity of the US like Jessica did[6]. These situations show that there is inequality within the US, largely due to White privilege. So if liberated women living in the US are struggling to find a voice and place in Western society, then can the West truly accept liberated Muslim women as equal members in society? This appears to be unlikely, so what then is the purpose of the War on Terror have, other than creating chaos?

The US is not perfect as it always likes to claim. If you are not White, then you can expect to be oppressed[7].

Jessica Lynch was manipulated by the US media and government to make them appear as more liberated than the rest of the World[8].

References

[1] Schrock, R.D. (2016). Fictions of All-Encompassing Precarity in the Works of Ayaan Hirsi Ali. Frontiers: A Journal of Women Studies, 37(1), 66—89.

[2] Schrock, 2016.

[3] Schrock, 2016.

[4] Schrock, 2016.

[5] Zine, J. (2006). Between Orientalism and Fundamentalism: The Politics of Muslims women’s Feminist Engagement. Muslim World Journal of Human Rights, 3(1), 1—26.

[6] Khalid, M. (2011). Gender, Orientalism and Representations of the ‘Other’ in the War on Terror. Global Change, Peace & Security, 23(1), 15–29.

[7] Jones, C. (2016, July 8). Check Your Privilege. The Independent: A Voice for Utah. Retrieved from http://suindependent.com/dallas-sniper-political-cartoon/

[8] Keele, M (2003, November 12). Private Jessica Lynch. Intoon. Retrieved from http://www.intoon.com/cartoons.cfm/id/3436

[factpatrol-blog]

'Rap on Trial': Why Lyrics Should Be Off-Limits

On the afternoon of March 16th, 2017, aspiring rapper Anthony Murillo stood to hear the jury's verdict – the culmination of a weeklong trial in which prosecutors argued that he had used a rap song to threaten two female students at his Santa Maria, California, high school.

Like hundreds of rappers before him, Murillo found himself the target of an increasingly popular law enforcement tactic: using rap lyrics as evidence. In courtrooms across the country, prosecutors are presenting the lyrics as literal statements of fact rather than artistic expression. No other fictional genre is treated this way, a troubling fact that raises important questions about the way racial double standards operate to put rap music, and the people behind it, on trial. Murillo's case dates back to 2012, when two students – referred to as Jane Doe One and Two in court documents, because they were minors at the time – accused Murillo's close friend Shane Villalpando of sexual assault, resulting in his conviction. Prosecutors claimed that after his friend was sent to jail, Murillo – who performs as Lil A – wrote a violent song titled "A Moment for Life (Remix)" and posted it online in order to threaten the girls. Before it was taken down less than a month later, the song was played over 23,000 times. Murillo denied that he ever intended the song as a threat, but he and his attorney, William Makler, faced an uphill battle in court. The jurors were middle-aged and mostly white (Murillo is Hispanic), and as post-trial interviews suggested, nobody on the jury particularly liked rap music. Making matters worse, the song itself is offensive in just about every way to an unsympathetic listener. It is laced with profanity. It is gleefully misogynistic, and full of violent rhetoric. And, most important to the case, it calls out Jane Doe One and Two by their real names, ending with the lines, "You're gonna end up dead… because I'm coming for your head, bitch." Murillo and his attorney maintained that the song, however inappropriate, fell squarely within the traditions of rap music and therefore should not be construed as a true threat. That's where I came in. As a professor of African-American literature and music, I was called as an expert witness for the defense, where my role was to educate the jury about the conventions of rap. I explained that, in the end, it is a kind of fiction – one that, like horror films or country songs, frequently relies on exaggerated depictions of violence. As I told the jurors in Murillo's case, the rhetoric of rap music is both complex and slippery; it is often intentionally hyperbolic as well, drawing on the long tradition of boasting and exaggeration. Add to that how aspiring rappers like Murillo often emulate the hardest, most explicit artists in order to advance their careers, and it becomes all but impossible to take their lyrics at face value. After all, when Eminem calls out his ex-wife by name and says things like, "Now shut the fuck up and get what's coming to you … bleed, bitch!" we know full well that he has no intention of killing her. If he wins Grammys and makes millions of dollars from lyrics like this, why should Murillo get jail time? The jurors ultimately decided he shouldn't; they came back with a verdict of not guilty. Most juries, however, do not. I have worked as an expert or consultant on dozens of cases involving rap lyrics as evidence – but those cases are only the tip of the iceberg. Last year, I began working with University of Georgia law professor Andrea Dennis, who has been studying this topic for a decade, to document the full scope of what we call "rap on trial." Along with our student research teams at the University of Richmond and the University of Georgia, we have uncovered hundreds of cases already – some going back to the early 1990s, but most from the mid-2000s onward. Almost all of the defendants in these cases are young men of color, and they often face devastating punishments. Many are sentenced to decades in prison. Even more alarming is that, to date, we've found more than 30 cases involving rap as evidence where prosecutors sought the death penalty.  Most of these cases are unlike Murillo's. Whereas his lyrics were themselves the crime, charged as a threat, in most others prosecutors use rap lyrics to demonstrate a defendant's involvement in an underlying crime. Take, for instance, the case of Vonte Skinner, who was charged for his role in a 2005 shooting. During Skinner's trial in 2008, the prosecutor read to the jury page after page of his violent rap lyrics, arguing that they were evidence of Skinner's motive and intent. The lyrics included lines like, "I play no games when it comes to this war shit/If death was a jacket, you would see how the floor fits."

During Vonte Skinner's trial in 2008, the prosecutor read to the jury page after page of his violent rap lyrics. He was sentenced to 30 years in prison. All of his lyrics were composed before the shooting – some of them years before – and none of them named the victim or contained details specific to the crime. Beyond the lyrics, the prosecutor's other evidence was essentially comprised of eyewitness accounts from people who repeatedly changed their stories. And yet Skinner was convicted of attempted murder and sentenced to 30 years in prison. In a high-profile ruling, the Supreme Court of New Jersey found, in a unanimous 2014 decision, that the use of Skinner's lyrics was inappropriate. In effect, the Court recognized the distinction between reality and art, author and narrator: "One would not presume that Bob Marley, who wrote the well-known song 'I Shot the Sheriff,' actually shot a sheriff, or that Edgar Allan Poe buried a man beneath his floorboards, as depicted in his short story 'The Tell–Tale Heart,' simply because of their respective artistic endeavors on those subjects," wrote the Court. "Defendant's lyrics should receive no different treatment." Unfortunately, rap lyrics do receive different treatment all the time. In order to get highly prejudicial rap lyrics or videos in front of a jury, prosecutors – often with the help of police "experts" – will effectively deny rap music the status of art. Ignoring its extensive use of metaphor, exaggeration and complex narrative perspective – nevermind that it is told from the perspective of an invented character, usually signaled with a stage name – they present the lyrics to juries as rhymed autobiography. If defense attorneys object to this, they are usually overruled. If they appeal down the line, they usually lose. How is it that rap music is routinely treated this way in court when other art forms are not? It seems easy to blame rap itself; for years, rappers have claimed authenticity in their lyrics. The people most familiar with rap know that these claims are usually part of the fiction – the problem is that judges and juries often do not. Yet there seems to be something else at play. Rap artists are primarily young black and brown men, and research suggests this is important. Multiple studies have demonstrated that when people are presented with identical lyrics containing violent content, they are significantly more likely to regard the lyrics as harmful and threatening if they are labeled as rap rather than country music, a traditionally white genre. Yet another study has shown that violent rap lyrics have the potential to exert a highly prejudicial impact on potential jurors. In the end, that's how rap lyrics are most useful to prosecutors and how they are most dangerous for defendants. They present the accused as the violent, dangerous criminal that many Americans already believe he is, making it all too easy for juries to return a guilty verdict. Over the last decade or so, we've witnessed a precipitous increase in the use of rap as evidence, no doubt as prosecutors realize how effective a tactic it is. If rap lyrics are presented as confessions, as words to be taken literally, securing convictions is easy, even in the absence of more reliable evidence. And thanks to sites like SoundCloud, ReverbNation and YouTube, there are more lyrics than ever available to police, who routinely mine social media for information they can use to justify increased surveillance, to make arrests or to submit as evidence at trial. It's a new spin on a very old tradition, really. For centuries, law enforcement has sought to monitor, contain and punish black speech and dissent – something we've seen in recent attempts by police to surveil Black Lives Matter activists via social media. Just as the Black Lives Matter movement has been regarded by authorities as a threat, so too has rap, particularly as it has insinuated itself into virtually every aspect of popular culture. Its ubiquity means we can't escape it – or the black and brown voices behind it. And that, I suspect, has triggered anxiety and anger among Americans who would prefer to silence those voices. It's not hard to see Michael Dunn's 2012 murder of Jordan Davis – an unarmed black teenager who wouldn't turn down his "thug music" – as an extreme representation of the simmering resentment many Americans harbor toward a music that, in their minds, perpetuates black pathology. Last year, NYPD commissioner William Bratton basically said as much himself, opining on the "crazy world of these so-called rap artists," who, he said, "are thugs that basically celebrate violence they did all their lives." I see some version of this view in courtrooms across the country, and it has resulted in an alarming attack on free speech and artistic expression. To be sure, not all cases are easy. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court is about to consider the conviction of rapper Jamal Knox (aka "Mayhem Mal"), who recorded a version of N.W.A's "Fuck tha Police" in which he identified Pittsburgh police officers by name and directed threatening-sounding lyrics at them. After events like the shooting of police in Dallas, Texas, people are understandably on edge. But it's worth remembering that hip-hop is a form of art, one that has long served as a vehicle for people to express their anger and frustration rhetorically, not physically. It also continues to offer meaningful opportunities for economic advancement, social and political activism and intellectual growth. In the end, like the jury in Anthony Murillo's trial, we have to decide whether such speech is worth protecting. As far as I'm concerned, the answer is obvious. Erik Nielson is Associate Professor of Liberal Arts at the University of Richmond. He is the co-author, with Andrea Dennis, of Rap on Trial, forthcoming from the New Press. Source link Click to Post

[corneliussteinbeck]

How Internalized Misogyny Is Holding You Back

Note: Before digging in, I want you to know that though it isn’t my intention, it’s likely that some things I say in this article might make you angry—and that’s totally normal. Know that my intent is to free you from judgment, not impose more judgment upon you. I encourage you to question your feelings and examine where they’re coming from.

Misogyny. This word has been coming up a lot, particularly over the past year.

What Is Misogyny?

Oxford lists misogyny as “Dislike of, contempt for, or ingrained prejudice against women.” Merriam keeps it simple and too-the-point with an abrasive, “A hatred of women.”

There are many levels of misogyny and specifically internalized misogyny. In its most simplistic of explanations, internalized misogyny is when that contempt, prejudice, and hatred is turned inward, toward oneself. It can also extend toward other women who surround us in our daily lives—a mother, daughter, friend, or lover.

The complexities of internalized misogyny are astounding, and when being examined for the first time, can feel overwhelming. Men and women are affected by it very differently on subconscious levels, and an article like this merely scratches the surface. My hope is that it will serve as an awakening (or reminder) that will help set the course for further conversation and self-examination.

What Does Misogyny Look Like?

Misogyny is tricky; it isn’t always a clear action. In fact, self-proclaimed feminists themselves can sometimes be the worst offenders. When we think of judgment or hatred toward women, it’s not hard to see the extreme outcomes playing out before our eyes. In barbaric and aggressive senses, we’ve been taught that lust’s blame rests in a woman’s hands. There are many religious and ancient texts one can pick from to learn more about the overt and extreme history of misogyny. By default in our society, the blame for anything involving temptation or a loss of control is more often than not placed on a woman and her devious ways or irresponsible choices. It isn’t the overt, but rather the more subtle and subconscious undertones that I want to bring out into the light.

It’s the overall belittling and judgment in which we often may not even realize we ourselves take part. It’s no secret that the current social climate has had its fill of political correctness. Perhaps it’s because “we” think it’s enough to say, “Women can do whatever they want, ok? Get over it. Let’s move on.” It’s not enough.

I imagine that right now, some of you may be thinking, “That’s not me. I definitely don’t have any misogynistic beliefs.” But that’s the thing.

Sometimes these beliefs are so deeply ingrained that we don’t see them for what they are. I encourage you to take a closer look.

How can you know if you are engaging in misogynistic thinking? Here are some questions you can ask yourself that will help you see things from a different perspective:

Do you tend to value, trust, and respect male teachers more than female teachers?

Do you catch yourself saying, “I need a man’s opinion” on various subjects?

Do you not exercise or train the way you want to because you’ve been told that women shouldn’t do certain types of exercise (like lifting weights), or that muscles aren’t feminine or “look ugly” on women?

Do you use phrases like “Real men…” or “Real women…”

Do you compete only against other women for men or women’s attention?

Do you judge women as better or worse based solely on their appearance?

Do you think women are catty or full of drama?

Do you say things like, “I’m only friends with guys because women are/aren’t…”

Do you say phrases like “Men are just like that,” or “That’s just how women are.”

Do you “slut shame” women for the same behaviors you find completely acceptable from men?

Do you feel you aren’t worthy of loyalty in friendships and romantic relationships?

Do you feel unsafe or uncertain when a woman is in charge of tasks?

Do you feel that being on time or being prepared matters less when dealing with women?

Do you think women are physically weak and need to be taken care of by men?

Do you think men should be “Alphas” and women should be submissive?

Do you think there are jobs that aren’t suitable for women or that women shouldn’t be allowed to have?

Do you underplay women’s talents and overinflate men’s?

Do you think all women should strive to achieve one specific body type?

The way in which we view ourselves and our gender can affect how we eat, date, train, prepare for education, and dream. If there was ever a topic in need of deeper examination to truly understand what is going on behind the curtain in our own minds, it’s this one.

My Own Misogyny

Growing up, I rarely identified with women. When I was a kid, society thrust upon me the idea that I had to like pink things, fluffy things, sparkly things, and fragile things. In fact, I hated it all. I was your typical tomboy. While I hate that term now, back then it was the only identifier I knew.

From a young age, I was taught certain ideas about gender traits:

“Female” traits: emotional, overly sensitive, physically weak, less intelligent, followers, easy to manipulate, nurturing, frilly clothing, needy behavior, scared, clumsy, and kind.

“Male” traits: strong, stoic, violent, leaders, manipulative, loners, smart, capable, mean, practical clothing, trustworthy, athletic and dominating.

These are obviously not traits I agree with today. Again, this was how my young mind worked. My life was far from typical or normal. I was a hard-living kid from the streets who learned early on that a good punch and smooth talk saved me a lot more than thigh-highs and platform shoes ever could. Nonetheless, it seemed like being a guy offered way more perks than being a girl. Looking at the list subconsciously presented to us on the day we’re born, it was an easy call. How would I not either, want to be a guy or, at the very least, look to them as leaders and saviors over women?

I was wrong.

In my life — a sociological study in its own right — I have learned that men can gossip, women can save the day, either can manipulate, and both can be kind or cruel.

My theories were gradually ripped apart in the face of my own experiences. Then I studied.

I explored history, gender studies, psychology, and philosophy. I studied my own sexuality, why I like the things I do and why I don’t. I started seeing misogyny (cautious about not confirming my own biases) in everything around me. The stories we tell, the way we say things, and to whom we say them. I learned to think critically, and above all, I learned to acknowledge the sex (not gender) of an individual.

It’s crucial to acknowledge that along with society’s prescribed gender roles comes a certain set of privileges (or lack thereof) that can’t be ignored.

The Importance of Understanding Privilege

A common misunderstanding about privilege is that it can be neatly categorized, like “white men at the top, and women of color at the bottom.” The truth is that privilege exists in varying degrees as it bends and weaves across intersections of society. It is also true that men, especially white men, are still privileged.

Bear with me…

It’s hard to deny that money, location, education, and other factors influence our life experiences and circumstances. Not acknowledging these interwoven factors often leads people to say, “Well, that isn’t fair! How can you say I’ve got it better when they are _____ and have it better than me! I work hard, and I’m not getting anywhere just because I’m _____.”

Privilege isn’t a right, it’s a privilege.

All it means is that, subconsciously throughout our lives and in all forms of media culture, some of us more than others have been psychologically pumped up, groomed, and cheered on in ways we’ve likely never noticed—and we reaped the benefits. Given the opportunity, you could lead due to having an advantage that you may not even be aware of having.

In simplistic examples, people are often quick to say, “Well, obviously that’s not fair, and X individual has an advantage.” Disagreements arise when the topics get more subtle and sociologically nuanced, and people quibble over whether a disadvantage is merely a confidence issue or one having to do with gender. Make no mistake about it, in our society there is an advantage to being a man.

Even at the gym, this subconscious privilege is present. When a man steps up to a heavy weighted bar, before he ever picks it up he already has a remarkable amount of men “with” him. He has superheroes, average Joes, Rocky, villains, athletes, saviors, his brothers, fathers, friends, gods, warriors by the billions—not thousands, not millions, but billions—standing behind him. Thousands of years of history, wars fought over land and sea, victories and stories of champions galore. David, Goliath, Jesus, and God himself. They’re all right there behind him when he steps up to that bar.

Women? Let me make it clear. We have Rosa Parks. Susan B. Anthony. Corazon Aquino. Malala Yousafzai. I could go on but it wouldn’t take you long to see that a common theme of their rise to legendary status was oppression. What do they get for that? More often than not, they get told growing up “You throw like a girl.” “Not bad, for a girl.” “But you’re just a girl.”

Even one of our most popular sports culture movies’ famous phrase is, “There’s no crying in baseball.”

Do you get it? Do you see it? That’s subconscious privilege.

So many movies we watch and books we read subtly suggest that women are less. In these stories, women will appeal to the power and submissiveness of a male dominated society. Women will believe that they are catty, competing, or left wanting. Stories in which women are strong, are an anomaly. It’s so unusual for women to be the strong hero, that when a string of just a few movies with a strong female lead are released, the response from both men and many women often sounds like this: “C’mon. Stop trying to please the liberal agenda. This role would be better with a guy in the lead, and you know it.” (That is an actual comment with 3,203 likes on Facebook about the new Rogue One movie.)

This isn’t about being more masculine or rejecting gender roles. There is nothing wrong with your gender identity relating to something to you. However you are more than your sex or literal genitalia. This is about undoing centuries of oppressive dialogue. It isn’t about ignoring the facts, but instead facing them. This is not about being an angry feminist, conjuring up the tired caricature of the man-hating lesbian who burns her bra and calls the penis a “phallic oppressor.” While that sentence was fun to type, no, it’s not about that. This also isn’t about taking anything away from anyone. What this is about is learning to give to yourself. And it needs to start with the way we treat women (including ourselves).

A Few Exercises For Improving the Language We Use for Ourselves and Others

Instead of, ”I can do anything a man can do,” try, ”I can do anything I want to do.”

It might seem nitpicky, but eliminating the “them” vs “us” narrative, is crucial in the fight for equal rights and against inequality in gender, sexuality, and race. One gender should not be the metric by which we all measure ourselves and others.

Instead of, “I’m like one of the guys,” try, ”I like what I like.”

If women like something that is stereotypically masculine or “manly” things, they are given extra credit for not being “prissy” or “high-maintenance.” They get rewarded for “manning-up” and being the girl who can simply be “one of the guys.”

There is no such thing, not even for men. The notion that a person is defined by liking any one thing or activity because of their gender should be an eroding concept. Instead of focusing on what you should and should not be or like, embrace what you actually like and what makes you feel most “you.” Do that, and you will notice gender stereotypes fade away.

Instead of, “Lift like a man,’ try, “Lift for what you want.”

There is no male or female way of training. There are ways to train which will improve muscular growth. There are ways to train which will improve cardiovascular health. There are even way to train to support your ability to consume mass quantities of hot dogs in one sitting in under 10 minutes. However, there is no one way to train like a man or a woman. If you want to be strong, get strong. If you want to be curvy, be curvy. If you are a 5’4 guy who wants to have better legs in heels, I love a reverse lunge!

Instead of, ”We are all equal,” try… “We are all equal.”

No change. Because that’s the very meaning.

Too often, I see faux empowerment or “feminism.” I’ve seen women chant the virtues of owning their sex and power, but are doing so because they are mimicking a caricature of what they think a man is. Knocking women who want to wear makeup or who want to embrace traditional gender roles doesn’t make a woman empowered. Enjoying sex and bucking conservative society doesn’t make a woman a feminist. It also doesn’t make a woman a feminist to pick only one body type. Feminists come in all shapes and sizes. Muscular, thin, round, tall, short, medium; It doesn’t matter what shape you want to achieve as long as you’re staying true to your desires, rather than pursuing an ideal you’ve been instructed by someone else to pursue because it’s what you “should” be or what you “should” look like.

Phrases like “strong is the new skinny” or “strong is the new sexy” are as limiting as stating that muscular women look “too manly.” Different people find different aesthetics appealing. Whether you want all the muscles, or you just want to feel strong and take care of your bones but prefer a less muscled physique, what is important is that your training goals reflect and satisfy your preference.

Check in with your desires and motivations and where they are coming from. One choice isn’t better or worse than the other if it’s what appeals to you.

A Homework Assignment: Re-examining Your Goals (A.k.a: What Do You Want?)

If reading this article overwhelms and frustrates you, it’s okay. In fact, I wouldn’t be surprised if this subject makes a lot of women feel overwhelmed or frustrated, or both.

Go with these feelings. I want you to put pen to paper (or fingers to keys) and think about the questions and thoughts that come up for you. Does any of this make you want to reevaluate your training goals? Have you been living for you, or for someone else? What do you really want and who is it for—and why?

If you read this and think, “Damn, I’ve been more unfair to myself and other women than I realized…” understand you are not alone. I’ve been there. I don’t want to be presumptuous, but it’s safe to say on some level we have all been there. As we start to see things a little more clearly, we can start working toward examining what it is that we really want, who we want to be, and why.

The post How Internalized Misogyny Is Holding You Back appeared first on Girls Gone Strong.

from Blogger http://corneliussteinbeck.blogspot.com/2017/01/how-internalized-misogyny-is-holding.html