[Discussion] Feminism and social justice, plus FAQ!

This thread is for discussing feminist issues--from the narrow meaning (a movement for social justice in terms of gender equality) to the broader meaning (a movement for social justice, period), and from the scope of issues in gaming and geek culture to kyriarchy in general.

Basic questions are allowed here for now, we will split out a Q&A thread should it become necessary.

ClockworkHouse wrote:
We are told that the neutral detachment of “rational” and “objective” white men is the golden mean, and that outrage and anger undermine our ability to be heard and understood by those neutral, self-appointed judges.

Now where have I seen this conversation before?

*self-edit - you’re right

There were pictures of just him, but I appreciate the “in the moment” commentary.

Too soon, Wink! Too soon!

Spoiler:

But touché.

Clover, I completely, wholeheartedly understand. Still, I miss you. <3

Wink_and_the_Gun wrote:

Totes calm and rational:

Ugh, that sure was a couple weeks of involuntary proxy trauma.

Vox: “I’m in so much pain”: how the Kavanaugh hearings are re-traumatizing survivors

USA Today: End 'trauma porn': After Kavanaugh, survivors say it's time to take care of themselves – and vote

Forbes: Retraumatization From Kavanaugh Coverage: You Are Not Alone

Vice: Why Other Women's Trauma Can Feel Like Your Own: Experts say national events like Christine Blasey Ford's testimony can make trauma and the reliving of it a collective experience.

So... I hate to go for the teachable moment so soon, but here we are three posts later. It must be nice and convenient, as a dude, to stroll into this thread and drop an image like that as a joke, with no further thought, and then leave and go about your life.

It also happens to be common knowledge among the women here (and anyone else who has happened to be paying attention in here or the previous rape culture thread, because we've discussed it at some length) that the women of GWJ sport a far-higher-than-statistically-average amount of bad sh*t in our collective rearview mirrors.

Eleima tried to let you down easy with the "too soon", so I'll take one for the team: if you're going to post in here, especially if you're hoping to go for the quick laughs, realize that you are not a subject matter expert.

Your post (probably unintentionally) was for an audience of men, not us. That is bullsh*t, and an ideal example of why I've mostly left for greener pastures. If you're going to make frowny faces about that, do better.

DO BETTER.

(btw, in the interest of making invisible emotional labor more visible, I just spent 15 minutes writing that out for y'alls benefit and now have to go calm myself down for a bit when I should be getting ready for work and doing actual useful sh*t, so you can stick your $20 in the tip jar.)

You're damned skippy I'm right.

You know, I was thinking... I made a point about the background of women/femmes in the GWJ community specifically, but that shouldn't actually matter.

The political context was so hot on the ground at the time, to anyone who would deign to pay attention to the news, or Twitter, or possibly the conversations of women around them (though there's a good chance you would not have been privy to those, in an effort to not invite unwanted comment)... that it shouldn't be necessary to know anything about any one of us personally to feel like maybe that's not super awesome joke territory.

It's not punching up, even though you're making fun of Kavanaugh. You know why? Because he won. The joke is on all of us who thought enough people would give a sh*t, that optics would matter. They don't. The optics have become jokes too.

A young woman assaulted and murdered around the corner from my house.

A young man has been arrested today in connection.

So angry at every f***head in the system that created this person.

And the (overwhelmingly old men) with comments of "they should bring back the death penalty" etc.

Just no.

Oh my gosh, that’s so horrible. I’m so sorry, Mermaidpirate.

(((((((((((Mermaidpirate)))))))))))))))))))))

Mermaidpirate wrote:

A young woman assaulted and murdered around the corner from my house.

Let’s take a ride in the Wayback machine, shall we?

Mermaidpirate wrote:

Going to be permanently on alert about my neighbour (M) who came knocking on my door at 10pm asking to come over because he's a neighbour. I said no and then he asked if he can come over some other time and I said no, and of course immediately I panic and wonder if I should have hedged and said maybe some other time, whether I was too obviously patronising when I was asking if there was anything else so he would leave.

Wish I could feel ok and safe to tell him to 100% f*** off.

So sorry, MP; that’s some scary stuff.

This man who was arrested wouldn't happen to be the same neighbor, would he?

No. Not sure that he'd be capable of something like that but I wouldn't 100% rule it out. I don't think he's actually ill intentioned, just doesn't have the capacity to understand I'm not going to change my mind if he explains more.

I am not sure if this is the right thread, and will move if needed, but someone set up a website that lets you know if a tv show or movie has any affiliation with anyone who was accused of sexual assault.

Dr.Incurable wrote:

I am not sure if this is the right thread, and will move if needed, but someone set up a website that lets you know if a tv show or movie has any affiliation with anyone who was accused of sexual assault.

First show I typed is was "Bull" and it came of Fresh Tomatoes with the actual sexual predator on the background, so maybe it needs some time to get up to speed.

Additionally it seems to be restricted to allegations of sexual misconduct and not domestic violence or violence towards women, as Braveheart and Into the Wild came up clean.

It's a good start though, hopefully they'll add albums also.

Dr.Incurable wrote:

I am not sure if this is the right thread, and will move if needed, but someone set up a website that lets you know if a tv show or movie has any affiliation with anyone who was accused of sexual assault.

Oh yeah, I think it was Demyx who posted it a while ago.
It’s telling that there’s so few that are “safe”, even if it is indeed missing some major issues...

Eleima wrote:
Dr.Incurable wrote:

I am not sure if this is the right thread, and will move if needed, but someone set up a website that lets you know if a tv show or movie has any affiliation with anyone who was accused of sexual assault.

Oh yeah, I think it was Demyx who posted it a while ago.
It’s telling that there’s so few that are “safe”, even if it is indeed missing some major issues...

Ooops. I thought I looked back far enough, I didn't see Demyx's post. Sorry!

Understandable, this was a while back!
And now that I think of it, I think it might have actually been Yellek. Demyx has been gone too long, and it must’ve been about a year ago or so.

there was another site that gave specific on problematic individuals as well but i can't remember what that was off the top of my head. i'll see if i can track it down.

ah, here we go..

this is what i was thinking of. Not a very extensive list, but some eye-opening stuff in there from what i recall. (Martin Freeman in particular)

pyxistyx wrote:

ah, here we go..

this is what i was thinking of. Not a very extensive list, but some eye-opening stuff in there from what i recall. (Martin Freeman in particular)

There seems to be a lot of sensitivity regarding cultural appropriate on that site. Where is the line between cultural appropriation and simply liking something? I'm seriously asking because I guess I just don't understand.

For instance, Miley Cyrus is called out numerous times for cultural appropriate for her tattoos and for various outfits. But what if she just really liked those symbols or felt she had a connection to them? Because they come from another culture means she can't wear them or have ink of them?

Nevin73 wrote:

Where is the line between cultural appropriation and simply liking something?

Maybe this isn't the right thread? The issue may warrant its own [resurrected?] thread.

The Trump Administration Quietly Changed the Definition of Domestic Violence and We Have No Idea What For

The previous definition included critical components of the phenomenon that experts recognize as domestic abuse—a pattern of deliberate behavior, the dynamics of power and control, and behaviors that encompass physical or sexual violence as well as forms of emotional, economic, or psychological abuse. But in the Trump Justice Department, only harms that constitute a felony or misdemeanor crime may be called domestic violence. So, for example, a woman whose partner isolates her from her family and friends, monitors her every move, belittles and berates her, or denies her access to money to support herself and her children is not a victim of domestic violence in the eyes of Trump’s Department of Justice. This makes no sense for an office charged with funding and implementing solutions to the problem of domestic violence rather than merely prosecuting individual abusers.
NathanialG wrote:

The Trump Administration Quietly Changed the Definition of Domestic Violence and We Have No Idea What For

The previous definition included critical components of the phenomenon that experts recognize as domestic abuse—a pattern of deliberate behavior, the dynamics of power and control, and behaviors that encompass physical or sexual violence as well as forms of emotional, economic, or psychological abuse. But in the Trump Justice Department, only harms that constitute a felony or misdemeanor crime may be called domestic violence. So, for example, a woman whose partner isolates her from her family and friends, monitors her every move, belittles and berates her, or denies her access to money to support herself and her children is not a victim of domestic violence in the eyes of Trump’s Department of Justice. This makes no sense for an office charged with funding and implementing solutions to the problem of domestic violence rather than merely prosecuting individual abusers.

That is ignorant and unacceptable.

I'll tell you why. It's because he's guilty of it. I'd stake quite a bit on that.

Eleima wrote:

I'll tell you why. It's because he's guilty of it. I'd stake quite a bit on that.

Oh for sure. It also probably gives cover to any number of others.

Speaking of which...
Domestic Violence Is The Most Common Killer Of Women Around The World (HuffPost)

The U.N. Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) released the “Global Study on Homicide: Gender-related Killing of Women and Girls” on Sunday to coincide with the International Day for the Elimination of Violence Against Women. The report analyzed the violence perpetrated against women worldwide in 2017, looking at intimate partner violence and family-related killings such as dowry- and honor-related murders.

Last year, 87,000 women were murdered around the world, and more than half (50,000 or 58 percent) were killed by partners or family members. Over a third (30,000) of those intentionally killed last year were murdered by a current or former intimate partner. This means that, globally, six women are killed every hour by someone they know.

Tell me again why we don't need feminism?

There's a lot that's been going on lately, but I haven't really had the strength to relay it here. It's just that freaking depressing. I do want to repost a tweet from Emrazz, notable feminist on Twitter:

Women, imagine that for 24 hours, there were no men in the world.
No men are being harmed in the creation of this hypothetical. They will all return. They are safe and happy wherever they are during this hypothetical time period.
What would or could you do that day?

Just take five minutes, dudes, to read the replies to this tweet (and that won't even begin to cover a tenth of them). Just take five freaking minutes to imagine how different our world would be. How easier our lives would be. Take stock of that.

And for the rest of us. Here's one image that speaks volumes.
IMAGE(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Dyr-MbkWwAA9Av8.jpg)

Eleima wrote:

I do want to repost a tweet from Emrazz, notable feminist on Twitter:

Women, imagine that for 24 hours, there were no men in the world.
No men are being harmed in the creation of this hypothetical. They will all return. They are safe and happy wherever they are during this hypothetical time period.
What would or could you do that day?

Imagine if everyone used social media the way the women do in that tweet thread. Every male response I saw in that thread was dismissive or openly hostile (maybe some I didn't notice weren't like that). While the guys were either hostile or trolling, the women were supportive and relating their own experiences to enrich the thread. Again, there may have been some hostile tweets from women or some supportive tweets from men, but I didn't notice any. And even if there were, they were whispers in a room full of people shouting at a group that was just trying to have a conversation.

That thread is not just a thought experiment, it is a perfect demonstration of what could happen for 24 hours if all the men disappeared. Reading it with every message from a man removed would give a glimmer of an example of what Twitter might be like in that scenario.

There is a delicious irony in the subject of that thread expressing every extreme sexist's worst nightmare about feminism... "They want to get rid of all the men!" Sadly, those kinds of men won't see past the subject to learn what the discussion is really about. They are too self-absorbed to listen and learn.

There were some supportive posts from men, usually saying something like how they would be willing to disappear for a day, but the majority did seem to be the dismissive or hostile type.