I unpacked three shirts and I’m already too tired to go on
I unpacked three shirts and I’m already too tired to go on
it’s so bizarre that gay marriage is heteronormative but bi/pan people in straight relationships is apparently the definition of queer
russian literature: a summary
ivan ivanovich ivanov is an upper middle class student who is madly in love with maria petrovna petrova!
BUT maria petrovna petrova loves dmitri dmitrivich dmitrov who is a nihilist upper middle class student!
ivan ivanovich ivanov goes through a long soul-searching journey before realizing all life is petty and meaningless and eventually dying alone and unloved of tuberculosis
while dmitri dmitrivich dmitrov marries maria petrovna petrova
The London magazine City Limits described LGSM members visiting Dulais: ‘Welcomed into the miners’ homes for the weekend, whole families apparently started discussing gay rights and human sexuality over the tea-table’. The discussions in Dulais started before LGSM members arrived, and one member of a support group admitted that they were expecting ‘a bunch of weirdos’. Another Dulais woman commented that ‘it’s had to take the strike for us to get more friendly’ with lesbians and gay men. Apprehension could be mutual; one correspondent to Capital Gay (a free weekly newspaper based in London) claimed that the mining communities ‘encapsulate all the sexist, patriarchal and anti-gay views which threaten us …’. The experiences reported by LGSM visitors challenged such views: ‘to imagine that we would have been welcomed, really, so warmly. I mean, all the myths and all the barriers of prejudice were just broken down when we went down to the valley’.
LGSM travelled to Dulais with funds raised primarily at lesbian and gay venues and events. This engaged lesbian and gay people in the arguments around the strike, and made it clear to mining communities that the money they received was not just collected by lesbians and gay men, but also donated by them. Jackson claimed that the collections ‘got quite a lot of support. I mean, mainly from pubs like The Bell, which is a pub that is mainly used by young people and unemployed people, quite poorly paid young people …’. Customers of The Bell had contributed approximately £1500 to LGSM by the end of 1984, twice as much as was collected from any other venue. The next two largest sums came from Gay’s the Word bookshop and the Fallen Angel bar, both of which hosted LGSM meetings; the bookshop also accepted donations for LGSM. Both venues were a focus for lesbian and gay activists, and ‘Defend Gay’s the Word’ was a major campaign in London at the time, following book seizures and prosecutions for ‘indecency’. Their prominence in the group’s activities highlights LGSM’s efforts to link themselves to that milieu."
Solidarity and Sexuality: Lesbians and Gays Support the Miners 1984–5, Diarmaid Kelliher
I think the ‘women are required to do femininity and simultaneously punished for it’ bit sums up 90% of sexism in one sentence. (via shashirosa)
what??? lmao. this is so wrong. women are not rewarded for being masculine. women are sometimes favored for being “one of the guys” i.e. not being emotionally complicated, but they’re still expected to appear feminine. women get murdered and assaulted for dressing and acting “masculine” or for not conforming to gender. also i’m trying to figure out how being a lawyer or surgeon is masculine, lmao.
feminine things are devalued because they’re associated with women, not because they’re feminine. femininity is entirely a construct anyway. the basis of any bias against “feminine” things is bias against women, pure and simple. women can’t escape from sexism by being masculine because sexism is about men hating women, not about men hating femininity.
"femininity is entirely a construct anyway. the basis of any bias against “feminine” things is bias against women, pure and simple"
yeah those two sentences right next to each other gave me a fucking headache. you can’t say femininity is a construct and then say that if someone doesn’t like it then that means they’re against women because the latter is implying that femininity is innate to being a woman. and not only can you not have it both of those ways but it is a falsehood to suggest that “woman = feminine/femininity”.
and these basic things should not have to be explained.
^zombiegraycat’s commentary is great, as usual
idk i read that second sentence in terms of like a criticism of compulsory femininity/forced gender roles is different than dudes professing a bias against feminine things because they don’t want to be associated with the things that society associates with women, even if in reality those things aren’t innate to being a woman
but yeah there is for sure a dissonance between those two sentences
you don’t understand what this kind of social construct is. constructs are sets of ideas, beliefs, “scientific” “knowledge” etc surrounding oppressed groups which emerge as a means to oppress them. they’re not loose ideas that harm everyone and emerge in common consciousness for no reason. constructs facilitate oppression in a number of different ways. they dehumanise oppressed people, for example, but they also create ideological restraints on what oppressed people can think of themselves and of their worth. we know that, for example, the concept of race appeared to facilitate the exploitation of people of colour because this is really well backed up by historical evidence. but because the concept of femininity is so old, we don’t have historical evidence from when it emerged to see more clearly how it’s associated with the (material, institutional) exploitation of women.
but it’s clear as day that femininity is associated with women because 99.999% of the time when femininity is represented, it’s associated with women. it’s ridiculous to say that because in a small number of instances femininity is associated with men, men must be just as oppressed by the concept of femininity as women are, that the concept of femininity is part of an axis of oppression of its own, entirely different from gender / sex based oppression - that right now, in the real world, men don’t oppress women, rather masculine women oppress feminine men. it’s equally ridiculous to say that because femininity is a construct, it can’t be a construct associated with women because women are not innately feminine. constructs are not innate behaviour by definition. again, constructs are meant to target specific oppressed groups, they don’t emerge out of the blue, they don’t oppress everyone. naming oppression doesn’t mean you accept it as innate.
in short, concepts = imposed on oppressed groups of facilitate their oppression; femininity = most representations associate it with women
=> femininity = probably a means to oppress women