Qu'est-ce Que J D?
Rap Game Dworkin Apologist

queerandpresentdanger replied to your post: queerandpresentdanger: invinciblemonsters…

ew i just googled her cause i had literally never heard of it not so sure i should be proud of that now :/

For about six or seven years my perspective on her was totally informed by angry sex-positive feminists who took exception to her (perceived) radical misandry, her (perceived) overtones of lesbian separatism, her (legit) theories that consent might not be possible when sexual acts are undertaken in a patriarchal culture.  She’s most famous for saying extremely contentious things, and for crusading against pornography.  Somewhat successfully, albeit in a way that she never intended or supported.

A lot of people find it hard to forgive her for that last thing, but then a lot of people also find it hard to admit that pornography such as it exists in the mainstream of our culture causes at least as much harm as the TV shows or magazines they recognize as harmful and oppressive.  She herself was opposed to obscenity legislation, because it tends to be essentially misogynist, but her testimonies were used (against her preference, and over her protests) to bolster some laws of that type in Canada.  Also I never hear the same people tarring Gloria Steinem or Adrienne Rich with that brush, but she moved in concert with them at times.

I don’t agree with everything I’ve read from her - far from it.  But I think she’s one of the most important people for men to listen to who purport to care about feminism, because she doesn’t give a fuck about how we feel about ANYthing and that’s really important.

And she gave this speech, and I’ll be grateful to her for it for the rest of my life, and I feel sick that I didn’t learn what was important and necessary and healing about her until after she died in 2005:

TAKE BACK THE DAY: I Want A 24-hour truce During Which There Is No Rape (1983)

I don’t actually know her relationship to academia.  I never pursued a university education.  I knew about her because I read a collection of sex-positive essays that trashed her when I was a teenager, and I was wrong about her because I was a young man who didn’t want to look at sex and porn too critically.

She deserves better than to be written off, even if one doesn’t end up agreeing with her.

thefemcritique:

amandahess:

important 2012 polling numbers released.

UNBELIEVABLE. but sadly real 

This is a poorly worded question, and I don’t doubt that some sexism played into how many people chose to vote “Yes,” but I don’t read the meaning here as whether a stay-at-home mom should have to get permission from her husband to get ANY credit card.
I think that - without selling short the enormous contribution made to a household by a partner who opts for domestic labour over paid labour outside the home, and the direct impact that has on what the other partner can earn - if we phrase it just to say that Partner A should require the permission of Partner B to get a credit card attached to any accounts that hold obligations for Partner B whatsoever, even in addition to obligations for Partner A, then the obvious answer is yes.
"Husband’s permission" is a loaded phrasing because "husband" is a word that means caretaker, provider, and more or less boss; where "wife" means helper, companion, and more or less servant.  It’s a sexist & paternalistic concept altogether.  But say I’m married - whether my partner is earning and I’m not, or they are and I also am, what part of couplehood means that I ought to be able to get a credit card on their account WITHOUT THEIR PERMISSION?
That said, I’m not optimistic enough to assume that very many people clicked yes for the reasons I described.  More likely they WERE considering domestic labour a free ride, or men to be the masters of their households, or something else dismal.  Hell the question may even have been intended to cater to those biases.
But it’s not really what the question ASKS.

thefemcritique:

amandahess:

important 2012 polling numbers released.

UNBELIEVABLE. but sadly real 

This is a poorly worded question, and I don’t doubt that some sexism played into how many people chose to vote “Yes,” but I don’t read the meaning here as whether a stay-at-home mom should have to get permission from her husband to get ANY credit card.

I think that - without selling short the enormous contribution made to a household by a partner who opts for domestic labour over paid labour outside the home, and the direct impact that has on what the other partner can earn - if we phrase it just to say that Partner A should require the permission of Partner B to get a credit card attached to any accounts that hold obligations for Partner B whatsoever, even in addition to obligations for Partner A, then the obvious answer is yes.

"Husband’s permission" is a loaded phrasing because "husband" is a word that means caretaker, provider, and more or less boss; where "wife" means helper, companion, and more or less servant.  It’s a sexist & paternalistic concept altogether.  But say I’m married - whether my partner is earning and I’m not, or they are and I also am, what part of couplehood means that I ought to be able to get a credit card on their account WITHOUT THEIR PERMISSION?

That said, I’m not optimistic enough to assume that very many people clicked yes for the reasons I described.  More likely they WERE considering domestic labour a free ride, or men to be the masters of their households, or something else dismal.  Hell the question may even have been intended to cater to those biases.

But it’s not really what the question ASKS.

“When I know that I have an audience that really is my core audience I’ll add a line [to a certain joke]: So that answers the question: ‘Hari Kondabolu can you write a feminist dick joke?’ Yes. ‘But Hari Kondabolu can you write a joke that doesn’t essentialize gender?’ I’m working on it,” he says. When I can use that line in front of a real, true crowd who gets what I’m doing, and at least if they don’t are willing to try and listen, is great, but in a mainstream club setting, that joke is too ‘inside;’ it shouldn’t be but it is. When you push things forward in mainstream settings you need to find ways to slip things in otherwise it goes right over [their heads] so it’s tricky because I try to do both, but when I’m in my setting, with my audience, this is how I push.”
Hari Kondabolu photo from The StrangerHari Kondabolu, in an interview with(?) Racialicious contributor Caitlin M. Boston, comprising part of her excellent article “Race + Comedy: Hari Kondabolu Balances His Conscience With His Craft.”
nowavefeminism:

In case you wanted the post that started it all for your bedroom wall or something. (There’s transparent files to if you wanted to pretty it up in photoshop and a pdf file if that’s your thing.) 
Click through for the download!

I am moved less and less over time by these grand statements against what is perceived by a lot of anti-oppression activists as mainstream/establishment feminism… I feel like this all got pointed out really well in the 70s and although the feminist hegemony (good lord) didn’t disappear, it is no longer uncommon to be working on feminism with an intersectional point of view, and whether or not it is universally on point is more to do with the individual’s analysis than it is to do with it having occurred to no-one yet that “my feminism will be intersectional or it will be bullshit.”
I feel like a lot of people think they are the first person to realize that there’s more to feminism than feminism.
Maybe I’m wrong - maybe I just have the privilege of a perspective that’s informed more by people who approach feminism that way than, like, second-wavers, and that skews my awareness of what kind of grand statements are necessary.
Also I’m old.  Maybe that’s a thing.
I guess I don’t know.  When I read this I just find myself thinking… what does this person mean by “waves?”  Who are the fuckheads that “run” feminism?  Are they not just reiterating the goals generally ascribed to 3rd-wave feminism, but insisting that they want them to actually be successful for everyone this time around?  When they say “feminism the way it is now,” do they mean “feminism the way it was literally forty years ago?”
Like let’s say… there’s cookies.  And I find that everyone burns cookies… no-one cooks them right, they’re always charred on the underside and hard as a rock.  The recipe says five minutes then rotate then another two minutes, and everyone does another five minutes, and they ruin the cookies almost every time.  Does it make sense for me to say I want a new thing that’s not cookies… and the definition of it is cookies, but baked for the right amount of time, which is already in the recipe?
I think it is kind of narcissistic to make up a new name for cookies instead of just working to get them cooked right.

nowavefeminism:

In case you wanted the post that started it all for your bedroom wall or something. (There’s transparent files to if you wanted to pretty it up in photoshop and a pdf file if that’s your thing.) 

Click through for the download!

I am moved less and less over time by these grand statements against what is perceived by a lot of anti-oppression activists as mainstream/establishment feminism… I feel like this all got pointed out really well in the 70s and although the feminist hegemony (good lord) didn’t disappear, it is no longer uncommon to be working on feminism with an intersectional point of view, and whether or not it is universally on point is more to do with the individual’s analysis than it is to do with it having occurred to no-one yet that “my feminism will be intersectional or it will be bullshit.”

I feel like a lot of people think they are the first person to realize that there’s more to feminism than feminism.

Maybe I’m wrong - maybe I just have the privilege of a perspective that’s informed more by people who approach feminism that way than, like, second-wavers, and that skews my awareness of what kind of grand statements are necessary.

Also I’m old.  Maybe that’s a thing.

I guess I don’t know.  When I read this I just find myself thinking… what does this person mean by “waves?”  Who are the fuckheads that “run” feminism?  Are they not just reiterating the goals generally ascribed to 3rd-wave feminism, but insisting that they want them to actually be successful for everyone this time around?  When they say “feminism the way it is now,” do they mean “feminism the way it was literally forty years ago?”

Like let’s say… there’s cookies.  And I find that everyone burns cookies… no-one cooks them right, they’re always charred on the underside and hard as a rock.  The recipe says five minutes then rotate then another two minutes, and everyone does another five minutes, and they ruin the cookies almost every time.  Does it make sense for me to say I want a new thing that’s not cookies… and the definition of it is cookies, but baked for the right amount of time, which is already in the recipe?

I think it is kind of narcissistic to make up a new name for cookies instead of just working to get them cooked right.

feminism is not a dirty word. it does not mean you hate men, it does not mean you hate girls that have nice legs and a tan, and it does not mean you are a ‘bitch’ or ‘dyke’, it means you believe in equality.

garconniere:

i’ve seen this more times than i can count.

it’s a quote by kate nash from 2008 that often makes the rounds on tumblr. most recently i saw it done up on queerveganfeminist’s tumblr.

i get that these kinds of quotes can be a “gateway drug” to feminism and/or critical thinking for lots of young folks… but lately i am just so TIRED of seeing and hearing them.

because you know what?

sometimes feminism DOES mean you hate men.

sometimes feminism means you ARE a bitch.

sometimes feminists ARE hairy angry dykes…

and they’re fucking allowed to be. i know that’s not really the message they are trying to presenting but it just feels watered down to me. i know the goal is to challenge the stereotype that only one kind of (lesbian-man-hating-fat-ugly-angry-hairy-butch-dyke) woman can be feminist, and that that idea is problematic and prescriptive… but consistently, when i see young women challenging that, they still tend to have an inherently negative tone about feminists who happen to be hairy. or butch. or angry.

i think that’s why i can’t handle this shit.

i think that’s why i miss the friends i had who would laugh about this shit with me. friends who would create zines like “dirty (un)feminist secrets.” it’s why i still hunt for moments like that online, it’s why i connect with rgr-pop’s and k’s and cassie’s ways of mocking this sanitized version of feminism with their own dark humour or unbridled rage.

perhaps it’s because i’m conscious that even at twenty-six, i’m still unlearning. still unlearning the sexist-racist-homophobic bullshit that i was immersed in on so many occassions as a kid. still unlearning that i don’t need to apologize. i’m pissed that i can still remember the number of times i apologized to men for not wanting to have sex. or for wanting to have too much sex. apologized to women for having slept with men, or vice versa. apologized for getting “too drunk.” or wearing too short of a dress. or for swearing in public. or for my body, my hips, my body hair. for my vulgarity. for being loud. for being angry.

i don’t want anyone to have to apologize for simply learning how to be themselves.

i understand that these quotes are, for some people, their own way of resisting that, and that taking the time (especially when you’re young) to put those frustrations into words, art, zines, and share them with everyone can be cathartic and productive.

but the number of times fellow feminists have asked me to “tone down” my anger? that talking about race is “getting us off topic.” that my suggestion that we use a different chant instead of “stand up fight back” for a less ableist chant is marked as “sidetracking” or “besides the point.” that other queers, activists and critical folks have used my femme presentation as a way to discredit the work i do? successfully?! of course i’m going to be fucking angry.

it’s why i “get” the humour behind memes like “is this feminist” and need to let myself laugh my ass off every once in a while at a movement i often consider myself a part of. it’s why i laugh at almost all of rgr-pop’s response to whoneedsfeminism. i get, to a certain extent, the message that the creators of projects and quotes and zines like this are trying to convey (discrimination/oppression/subjugation based on gender should be challenged) but i can’t handle the simplification of an incredibly complicated interconnected system. no one is challenging white privilege with these statements. no one is talking about how we can fight the good fight together. instead it just feels divisive and glossy. if it were as simple as quotes like this purport the fight to be, we wouldn’t need a century of “capital F” feminism and a million fucking waves and STILL be bringing up the need for intersectional analysis, and STILL be fighting transphobic assholes who actually dare to call themselves radfems, etc. etc.

goddamn. i just feel like everyone wants these guidelines of what is and isn’t feminist so they can simultaneously reward themselves and punish/chastise others (but in the most unproductive of ways).

bolded section = the kind of feminist I am.

As Black women, we do not have the privilege or the space to call ourselves “slut” without validating the already historically entrenched ideology and recurring messages about what and who the Black woman is. We don’t have the privilege to play on destructive representations burned in our collective minds, on our bodies and souls for generations. Although we understand the valid impetus behind the use of the word “slut” as language to frame and brand an anti-rape movement, we are gravely concerned. For us the trivialization of rape and the absence of justice are viciously intertwined with narratives of sexual surveillance, legal access and availability to our personhood. It is tied to institutionalized ideology about our bodies as sexualized objects of property, as spectacles of sexuality and deviant sexual desire. It is tied to notions about our clothed or unclothed bodies as unable to be raped whether on the auction block, in the fields or on living room television screens. The perception and wholesale acceptance of speculations about what the Black woman wants, what she needs and what she deserves has truly, long crossed the boundaries of her mode of dress.

An Open Letter from Black Women to SlutWalk Organizers  (via blck-grrl)

(added by me, rljd: not to take away from the particular ways in which race contributes to the above complications, but I think it gets overlooked that a lotttttttttt of white women and/or feminists feel qualms and outright resistance to the reclamation of that word that could be expressed in many of the same sentences.  Ottawa’s SlutWalk had a few excellent speeches about how while it’s good to reject judgement based on the criteria that informs that term, embracing the term as a response may not be empowering for everyone.  I was really relieved because although the central issue was dear to me, the rhetoric hinging on reclamation made me worried about what precisely I was putting my muscle into by marching.  I was very glad at the complex approach by some of the Ottawa organizers.)

I watched this Gloria Steinem documentary the other night and never realized how violently feminism was opposed. I never realized these things because true history gets suppressed.
Killer Mike, talking about his track “Don’t Die” off his new album R.A.P. Music.
IN DEFENSE OF THE HOT MESS / A CALL FOR LADY ANTIHEROES

garconniere:

findesiecle:

Lately I’ve been really into weird concepts of something like failed, desperate, self-conscious deliberate performative femininity? Part of this is evidenced by the fact that I’ve been doing my hair in big curls with my kinda-crappy-blonde-dye-job and wearing a ridiculous faux-leopard coat with ripped tights and messy eyeliner, and part of it comes together more in at least 47 different e-mail conversations about books and movies with “unrepentantly fucked up” lady characters that I’ve been having with at least 5 different people of late.  Some of these ideas have been written very eloquently by other folks already, and some of it is obvious and some of it is still vague, and all of it is definitely not “complete,” so, like, go at it in the comments, y’all, I wanna know what you’re thinking.

It begins, I think, with my ongoing frustration that when we are presented with male characters (or personas, or even real persons) who are basically bad people with one redeeming quality (still sleeps with a teddy bear, is a brilliant filmmaker) we let that one redeeming quality, you know, redeem them, and are collectively charmed by their fucked-up-ness.  But I have a really hard time coming up with similar female examples: all of the ones I can think of we have opted to either lambast or concern-troll instead.  And we always need to redeem them. They always need to learn something or be rescued, which we all know is basically the opposite of how the world really works.  Kids, I am a hot mess, and almost all of the women I admire and love and am fascinated by are also hot fucking messes, and I so rarely see that represented in a real, nuanced, and fascinating way.  To simplify: I am eternally tearing my hair out over the fact that I desperately want more female antiheroes. In books, film, pop culture personas, whatever.  And I’ve been seeing this idea come up again and again lately.

As a brief list of some of what I’m referencing: There’s this Lana Del Rey album review, which is kind of the most astute thing I’ve read on her yet, and which hit the nail on the head of my bizarre, obsessive preoccupation with her and her aesthetic — though it condemned her where I obviously am fascinated instead.  There was that Marie Calloway brouhaha, and the fantastic response to it all from Kate Zambreno, which also lead to The Rejectionist’s interview with her here.  There were a bunch of folks over at Emily Books who managed to somehow misread a lot of lesbian moralism into Eileen Myles’ Inferno, when I thought it was just a book about, like, someone very funny and intelligent and unapologetic, who also lived a life that reminds me an awful lot of my life now. There was Charlize Theron in Young Adult, who would have been way fascinating if not for Diablo Cody’s frustrating insistence on de-nuancing her characters in favor of twee trope-tastic banter.  There’s Cat Marnell at XOJane and the no-nonsense-it’s-okay-to-be-human writing at Rookie.   Sarah’s and my Rayanne Project (which sort of fizzled out probably partially because I am a little bit too much of a whacked-out womanchild to coordinate and motivate folks to write me things like that, but the stuff that’s up there is still amazeballs!)  The Amy-Winehouse-inspired couture collection that Gaultier showed yesterday.  Courtney Love, like, in general.

I am really into this, you guys.

Read More

this is so good i had to read it twice.

the second time? it made me cry.

i want those antiheroes too. i wanted those antiheroes when i was a teenager, and i wanted them five years ago, and i want them today and tomorrow.

i wish i could have read something like these when i was twenty-one and heartbroken. heartbroken because my best friend called me a slut, told me i was sleeping around because i wasn’t over my ex-boyfriend, the only reason i was sleeping with women was because i wanted approval from boys, that i wasn’t really in love with the person i was in love with and that an open relationship was just a code word for whore. i tried to tell her, drunkenly, angrily, no, i sleep with women because i find them attractive, and want to sleep with them. my sex life isn’t about me not being “over” something, anything. my drinking is about me wanting to get drunk, and just because sometimes when i get drunk i go home with people i don’t know very well and sometimes have awesome sex with them does not mean i am trying to block out some traumatic experience, or that i am desperate for approval.

after a lot of time had passed i realized so much of what she said to me wasn’t, in fact, about me at all. it was about these boring tried and untrue tropes we have for women who don’t fit into a tiny little box of what a “good” girl is supposed to be. it was the first time in my life i realized how pervasive the idea that “women have sex for any number of other reasons than sexual pleasure” is. that women have sex because “they want to feel loved.” that women have sex with strangers because they were abandoned by their daddy/sexually abused/etc. etc. etc.

how many aspects of our lives, of our experiences, are judged based on how messy we look, how messy we are? how many of us LOOK messy because it is the only way we can look in the mirror and feel like it is an accurate reflection of how we feel on the inside?

i love that meg talks about this in a way that is clear, that is awesome, that makes me want to hop on a bus to nyc and conquer the world in ripped fishnet stockings and smeared makeup and greasy unwashed hair. you should read it.

BANG BANG BANG BANG BANG BANG!

(that’s the sound of me reading these two texts and making gunshot fingers in the air to signal enthusiastic approval)

lyngay:

Vintage feminist button that Jesse found on the street. It was fate.

It jumped off of someone else’s shit and waited patiently in the middle of the sidewalk for me to come along!

lyngay:

Vintage feminist button that Jesse found on the street. It was fate.

It jumped off of someone else’s shit and waited patiently in the middle of the sidewalk for me to come along!

I don’t know about you, but I’m the kind of Canadian citizen who - even though I’m all for some kind of smashing the state such as it is - has a favourite Member of Parliament.

Her name is Megan Leslie and she’s the Honourable Member for the riding of Halifax.  Yesterday she stood in the House to make an early member’s statement for International Women’s Day, and it was a reprisal of her now familiar move of breaking away from the pat, complacent, parrot-y speeches that people tend to make on these magnetic occasions whereupon it is admitted to some extent that gender parity is not something we accomplished already… and takes the public to task.

She names real problems and doesn’t gloss over the harm they do, and she isn’t apologetic or mealy-mouthed about it.  She’s among my heroes, in fact.

In this case, she wipes the grin off of the shitty classic rock station, Q104, that I grew up with in Halifax, and points out what is intolerable (and yet RESOUNDINGLY TOLERATED) about their hideously objectifying “The Male Is In The Czech" mail-order bride giveaway contest.

Actual International Women’s Day is today, so please take one minute and four seconds to check her statement out here.  I wish the video were longer, because when the honourable members all around her take to their feet to applaud my heart jumps into my throat and I just want to watch it over and over.