“A boy and a girl run around on the grass at the park. The boy tackles the girl. The girl laughs. She gets up and runs away. She loves to run. He chases, she turns and they grab each other, tumble and land in a pile, giggling. After a few minutes, he tackles her again and she lands a bit hard. She is bigger and physical, but he more than holds his own in roughhousing. She pauses for a second. Then she laughs again; she’s still having fun.
Dad gets his attention, and says, “If she’s not having fun, you have to stop.”
He is two. He needs to hear this now, and so does she. And again, and again, and again, so that like wearing a helmet on the bike it is ingrained.”—
I’ve done this with my kids since the moment they could each sign “more” and “all done” around 8 months old. More tickles? Or all done? More kisses? Or all done? More bouncing? Or all done?
When they’re old enough to play with others, you teach them to constantly check in with each other. Are you having fun? Or do you want to be done?
Is the shrieking laughter or fear? ASK.
Is the giggling from joy or nervousness? ASK.
Do you like being smacked with pillows? ASK.
Are you having fun wrestling? ASK.
And keep asking. What was fun five minutes ago might not be fun now.
Both kids know the moment something stops being fun, they need to stop. And they know that their wishes about what is fun and what’s not will be respected by their parents and by each other. They’ve known it since 8 months old.
This truly isn’t a difficult concept. It’s easy to teach it by example and it’s incredibly simple for children to do.
“Accessibility isn’t just about having a ramp,” Garaghty said. “Accessibility is about living in a barrier-free environment, and that means living in an environment where people don’t stare at you, where people treat you respectfully.”—
We live in a really weird era of feminism in which we’re not allowed to criticise any oppressive constructs/industries (marriage, beauty/make up, porn, etc) just because some women enjoy them.
I’m really sick of of opinions and discussions being shut down with “it’s not oppressive if we like it! don’t you know that some women choose to do these things?”
well, heck. don’t you know that men/the patriarchy have a lot to gain in keeping us content and complicit in our own oppression?
I think our generation of feminists have lost the idea of there being an oppressive structure (patriarchy) which moulds and controls the actions of individual women. So when we say “High heels are oppressive, they are a way of controlling women’s bodies, preventing us from being able to run and deforming our feet” a lot of women hear this as “Women who wear high heels are all stupid and not proper feminists. They are gullible stooges of patriarchy!” This is because Western women have been brought up in a culture that emphasizes individualism and personal choices and ignores the coercive social and cultural structures and hierarchies within which those choices are made.
The criticism is not of individual women and the question is not whether individual women do or don’t choose to wear high heels. The criticism is of the patriarchal system that coerces women into wearing high heels and that denies women a genuinely free choice as to whether or not to wear high heels.
last week i was out for drinks with a lady friend and we were discussing the concept of wearing bras that show underneath sheer shirts, which i’ve done before, and in response to this she told me that i was “part of the problem”.
i take a lot of issue with this because i know what she is saying, but because of how she delivered her message, it was very much put onto me, as an individual, for “oppressing myself” per se. now, i know full well that i think i look hot like that due to a coercive patriarchal environment that dictates what is and is not appealing or attractive, i know. i’m aware i enjoy things that are “part of the problem”, but my friend neglected to acknowledge that structural aspect to our oppression and it was literally pinned on me in a way that wasn’t constructive or supportive to other women. she was indirectly calling me a “gullible stoog of the patriarchy” really. she genuinely failed to acknowledge the existence of shitty social structures.
not in a million years would i have looked at her shaved arm pits, pointed at them and told her she’s “part of the problem”, meanwhile she did the same to me. because i know the pit hair thing isn’t on her, it’s our environment, it’s our socialization, and i can’t resent her for that.
SO, if you’re a person that is critiquing the structure that keeps women in their place, by all means do so, without actually attacking other women, as my friend did, because it just isn’t going to create any sort of helpful dialogue about our learned behaviours. i would much rather have a discussion with other feminists about how crappy it is we find ourselves performing our genders (because it really is a matter of self preservation) as opposed to ripping each other apart based on our appearances. there is a proper way to critique one another in a positive light!
“One young woman, who got in a heated argument with a men’s rights activist at a protest in Canada, was subsequently dubbed as “little red frothing fornication mouth” by AVFM and had all of her private contact information published by MRAs. She received hundreds of elaborate threats of violence. One anonymous commenter invited her to “enjoy being anally defiled.” Another gloated: “I would actually cum cutting that bitch’s throat.” Another outspoken feminist told me personally that she had to get the FBI and the state police involved when AVFM targeted her. Authorities found the threats she received so credible that they advised her to leave home for two weeks, taking her husband and young child with her. Increasingly, men’s rights activists target women offline as well. Last month, members of the organization Men’s Rights Edmonton hung large “wanted”-style posters of a professor all over the University of Alberta campus, calling her a bigot. Her crime? She was involved in the university’s anti-rape campaign.”—
Some examples of how “men’s rights activists” are threatening and intimidating feminists. There is absolutely no justification for this kind of behavior, and I urge all anti-feminist men (and anti-feminist others) to at the very least not stoop to the level of threatening atrocities or publishing someone’s personal information. I may not agree with your points of contention when it comes to the feminist movement, but that will never cause me to harm you or your family. AVFM and similar MRA groups need to be stopped, for the safety of society as a whole.
“All trans women’s experiences are women’s experiences because a woman is experiencing them.”
I do sincerely wonder how many of the cis and CAFAB trans rebloggers actually get what I meant when I wrote that.
All experiences had by every trans woman are women’s experiences.
All of them.
Even her pre-transition experiences still are women’s experiences. The experience of passing for male and denying that you can be anything else? Falls fully into the range of women’s experiences, because it is a thing experienced by women.
A trans woman’s experiences don’t start counting as women’s experiences when she begins to be routinely read as cis. Or when she presents herself as a woman, read as cis or not. Or when they match up to some arbitrary degree in some arbitrary way to cis experiences (and then not when they are unique). Or when she decides to transition.
Trans womanhood is not an imitation of cis womanhood, to be validated only to the extent it is successful as an imitation.
Many things are experienced by both trans and cis women, but trans women’s experiences are women’s experiences, no matter how many observers would say a cis woman wouldn’t experience it.
college is catered towards the able bodied and able minded. school applauds people who can stay up all night, skip meals, and work endlessly. that kind of extreme contribution is expected. why are disabled people being squeezed out of academic institutions? why should I feel inferior because of some arbitrary and ridiculous standard?
jennifer fucking lawrence doesn’t think that bisexual women can have sex with men or have kids, and then referred to bisexuality as a “lesbian phase”
but she said that she likes food! shes so quirky and relatable you cant criticize her! she makes funny faces sometimes! did i mention she likes food!
oh godammit really
This was also news to me although I already knew about her racist fuckery, so…
And then when I was looking this up I discovered a bunch of awful things she’s said about mental illness, specifically OCD and eating disorders—so a lot of her “body positivity” unfortunately comes with a gross streak of policing other people’s bodies and basically mocking their responses to social/institutional trauma.
Jennifer Lawrence has been quite problematic in the past, and will probably continue to be problematic, and it’s important to recognize that. But I still love her when she’s not being problematic.
STARS. THE FINAL EXPLORE-Y PLACE. THESE ARE THE TRIP THINGS OF THE SPACEBOAT ENTERPIPES. ITS FIVE YEAR JOB THINGY: TO HANG OUT IN STRANGE NEW PLACES, TO HAVE DINNER WITH ALIENS AND SHIT, TO VAGUELY WANDER IN THAT DIRECTION LIKE NO ONE HAS DONE BEFORE.