maya's (l)inklings

“

There it is. Right there. For anyone who ever doubted, for those who continue to doubt that women’s liberation and the fight for socio-economic justice are part of the same struggle against complicity and complacency. Dare to speak your mind? Dare to make trouble? Dare to wear a short skirt, a hoodie, a bandana, a placard, an ingenious costume in the shape of a tent? Well then, you deserve to be hurt and humiliated. You deserve to be frightened and bullied and beaten. Sit down, shut up. Get a job and work till you drop like the rest of us, and if you can’t get a job then get on your belly and beg like the rest of us. You deserve it. You asked for it, by daring to make your desires known, by showing your anger, showing your heart, showing your skin. Be quiet and do as you are fucking told. Bitch. Scrounger. Benefit scum. Hippy. Whore.

The most dangerous thing in the world for the one per cent is desire. Unsanctioned desire, desire for things that we can’t be made to buy, things like power and sex and and social justice, is always dangerous when it can’t be controlled. The only possible solution is to punish the desire and blame the victims for inviting that punishment.

— Laurie Penny on the Occupy movement, desire, and victim-blaming.

“ While white women often want to deploy “woman” as a universal category and have the nerve to get angry and defensive when Black women like myself point out differences in our experiences, it is Black women themselves who have demonstrated what it really means to care about women as a group. For we put our bodies and our psyches on the line to show up at events called “Slutwalks” knowing that we are both more vulnerable to the same violence that brought other women there and yet that we have little social privilege and power to reclaim the terms in the ways that many of the others marchers do. But we show up anyway, and in showing up, white women feel like they are being inclusive, when in fact, I would argue that most Black women, are showing up in spite of, not because of, Slutwalk’s inclusivity.

— Crunktastic on SlutWalk, black women’s critiques, and that racist sign.

You should read this book about boys' friendships.

“ I would rather see a bunch of imperfect people fucking up for the right reasons than see a bunch of perfectly competent, brilliant people doing nothing because they don’t want to take a risk or represent feminism ‘incorrectly.’

— Sady Doyle’s take on Rebecca Traister’s piece, which is close to mine and, for that matter, is close to Traister’s own.

“ The false notion that feminism has ever been a unified front has actually been a weapon of anti-feminists, who like to portray themselves as bravely storming its walls. In fact, feminism has been a banner hoisted rather loosely by those who share an extremely broad and righteous goal, but who also are engaged in bubbling, raucous, often fractious discourse. In fact, in my opinion, disagreement, differing perspectives, competing priorities — these are not just the inconvenient side-effects of feminism, they actually often give it its form, its momentum, the energy to keep moving forward and changing and growing. We should be glad of them, even as they leave us exasperated and frustrated and sometimes at odds with those we respect most.

— The brilliant Rebecca Traister in dialogue with some of the writers of Feministing, including me, on her recent New York Times Magazine piece on SlutWalks.

“ My old lipcolor could barely keep up with my busy schedule. In the time that it took me to notice the wide discrepancy between my salary and that of my male peers, I’d have to reapply. In the seconds to count the number of women in high political offices, seated on corporate boards, or featured in film & television over the age of forty, my lipcolor would become as invisible as this glass ceiling just inches above my head. L’Oreal: because I’m worth it. And because holding myself to an impossible standard of beauty keeps me from starting a riot.

—

Maria Bamford, “How to WIN!” (via ammrva)

I. LOVE. MARIA. BAMFORD.

Ugh, she’s brilliant.

(via note-a-bear)

(Source: yrwelcome)

Really, Der Zeitung?

“

First of all, “depression, anxiety, low self-esteem, and violence” are not “the negative effects of gender.” They are the negative effects of the Patriarchy, and conformity thereto. That’s not a matter of semantics; that’s the whole fucking point.

It isn’t being male, nor being a man, that is a problem, but believing that to be male, or to be a man, is to have to project a very specific and rigid definition of masculinity—which defines itself in contradistinction to the feminine, thus forcing men to conceal and deny any part of themselves that anyone could call feminine; which limits men’s emotional spectrum to anger; which forces men to exist in a permanent state of insecurity, constantly monitoring the boundaries of their masculinity and engaging in displays of bravado to prove their self-worth; which considers sheer brawn and physical toughness the only acceptable kind of strength, while the kind of strength which informs one’s character, what might be described as emotional strength, the kind of strength that means walking away from a fight, or being patient, or showing empathy, isn’t allowed to play much of a role at all in the definition of masculinity—which leaves men, whose physical attributes of masculine strength will wane with time and age, keenly aware that their masculinity is ever threatened by their own mortality, because they haven’t been encouraged to cultivate a compassion and resiliency that can’t be measured in kilos or KOs.

That’s not about being a man. That’s about being a man in a Patriarchy, who’s never been offered an alternative paradigm.

— Melissa gives a great response to this article on the negative effects of trying to adhere to traditional masculinity.

“ Well, let’s see: Dudes who couldn’t find a clitoris with GPS and GoogleMaps? Women who are taught to be self-conscious about their bodies and especially their lady-bits? Dudes who assume that if they put it in they’ve done their part? Women who don’t feel the same sort of entitlement towards sexual enjoyment as men? Men who see sex as something that they “get” rather than as a dynamic and highly variable set of acts between two people? Women who are raised believing that being too sexual is slutty, but that sex is something that they have to do for men, and that sex is centered on male pleasure? The construction of sex as between men and women, and something men do to women, and purely penetrative, and beginning when the dude enters and ending when he ejaculates? The many wonderful but sometimes frustrating complications of the human brain and body?

— Jill Filipovic takes a stab at answering the question “Why do so many American women have difficulties in bed?” Others in response to same question: Feminism.

“ I also think that labeling–and disparaging–some sex as “casual” contributes to a culture in which sex is too often treated casually. It’s a self-fulfilling prophecy. We set up a two-tier system in which sex within a committed relationship is privileged and casual sex is considered shameful, dirty, and less-than. We tell young people that sex with someone you love is special and wonderful but casual sex is “just” sex. It’s no wonder then that some of them see sex as a conquest, instead of a partnership–a “jaded, cynical, stoic exercise,” instead of an intimate experience you share with another human being. I suspect if we affirmed that all kinds of sexual relationships, from one-night stands to lifelong marriages, can–and should–be positive, healthy, joyful experiences, a whole lot more of them would be. So memo to all those hook-up culture hand-wringers: stop harping on so-called “casual sex.” If it’s actually casual, you’re probably just doing it wrong.

— I agree so much with Susie Bright. Can we please stop talking about so-called “casual sex”?