Privacy is a privilege. It is rarely enjoyed by women or transgender men and women, queer people or people of color. When you are an Other, you are always in danger of having your body or some other intimate part of yourself exposed in one way or another. A stranger reaches out and touches a pregnant woman’s belly. A man walking down the street offers an opinion on a woman’s appearance or implores her to smile. A group of teenagers driving by as a person of color walks on a sidewalk shout racial slurs, interrupting their quiet.
For most people, privacy is little more than an illusion, one we create so we can feel less vulnerable as we move through the world, so we can believe some parts of ourselves are sacred and free from uninvited scrutiny. The further away you are from living as a white, heterosexual, middle-class man, the less privacy you enjoy – the more likely your illusions of privacy will be shattered when you least expect it."
— David Rowe, Biology and Crime (via approachingsignificance)
Here’s a sure-fire way to know that you hate women: when an incident of intimate partner violence in which a man knocks a woman unconscious gains national attention and every question or comment you think to make has to do with her behavior, you really hate women. Like, despise.
There is no other explanation. There is no “I need all the facts.” There is no excuse. You hate women. Own it.
Now, you probably don’t believe you hate women. You probably honestly think you’re being an objective observer whose only interest is the truth. You are delusional.
We have this problem in our discourse around the most important challenges we face where we feel we have to be “fair to both sides.” But sometimes, one of those sides is subjugation and oppression. If you’re OK with legitimizing that side in the interest of “fairness,” you’re essentially saying you’re OK with oppression as a part of the human condition. That’s some hateful shit."
Two other women, also breast cancer survivors, said their husbands left them after they were diagnosed. Both had to have mastectomies (in case anyone doesn’t know, this is the surgical operation to remove one or both breasts).
The first woman said her husband told her that he would rather see her dead than see her lose her breasts. The second woman had her operation and waited all day to be picked up by her husband, who never arrived. By nightfall, one of the nurses offered to give her a ride, and she came home to find the house empty.
Obviously, these are extreme cases of a man’s reaction to his wife’s breast cancer, but this is what I see when I see the “I ♥ Boobies” bracelets. I see love of the body parts, not the person being treated—not the patient, not the victim, not the survivor."
oh my god this is heartbreaking
At the Center for Inquiry’s Women in Secularism conference this may, Soraya Chemaly gave a presentation discussing how the free expression of women online is being threatened. Part of her presentation was on the ways women are uniquely targeted, but the part that brought the most clarity to this issue for me was the section of her talk where she discussed how our societal definitions of violence are gendered.
Violence, threatened violence, and implied violence that targets men is recognized, validated, and taken seriously. These threats are real threats. Violence, threatened violence, and implied violence that targets women is not recognized. Instead it is redefined to be something else. It is a reaction to a provocation. It is an interpersonal disagreement that has inconveniently demanded public notice. It is the cost of being online. It is anything other than what it is: violence, threatened violence, and implied violence.
When we demand that misogynist harassment be taken seriously, we are saying that the implied violence and threats of violence against women be recognized in the same way that implied violence and threats of violence against men are recognized. We demand that rules regarding harassment be written to detect both kinds of threats equally. We demand that the tools to deal with harassment work as well on the abuse that targets women* as on the abuse that targets men."
— Stephanie Zvan, ‘Are Men Reallu Harassed more than Women?’
History is not a long series of centuries in which men did all the interesting/important things and women stayed home and twiddled their thumbs in between pushing out babies, making soup and dying in childbirth.
History is actually a long series of centuries of men writing down what they thought was important and interesting, and FORGETTING TO WRITE ABOUT WOMEN. It’s also a long series of centuries of women’s work and women’s writing being actively denigrated by men. Writings were destroyed, contributions were downplayed, and women were actively oppressed against, absolutely.
But the forgetting part is vitally important. Most historians and other writers of what we now consider “primary sources” simply didn’t think about women and their contribution to society. They took it for granted, except when that contribution or its lack directly affected men.
This does not in any way mean that the female contribution to society was in fact less interesting or important, or complicated, simply that history—the process of writing down and preserving of the facts, not the facts/events themselves—was looking the other way.”"
— Tansy Raynar Roberts