Tag: misogyny

Or maybe they care because they know the actress isn’t the character and doesn’t deserve this shit? Just a wild idea…

thelastjedicritical:

lj-writes:

And you mean to say people who criticize the Rose Tico character can’t care about the actress? Wow you fail.

And here we are back where it started on here: people claiming that every person who dislikes the character harassed Kelly and that the harassment thus came because people dislike Rose/TLJ. Which in the end lead back to

“Those who dislike the movie are toxic haters” and not “we have to protect the actors from online harassment”

It’s fucking disgusting, conflating the problem of racist and misogynist hatred WOC face with disliking some fictional story/character. Yeah, I’m sure the harassment was due to not liking Rian Johnson’s writing and not because these asshats can’t stand the idea of an Asian woman daring to exist outside prescribed visuals and roles. Not liking the work or characters is the excuse these harassers frequently use, and reylows validate them to score a point.

devilsmadvocate:

bobbymoynihan:

lleuwelyn:

looks more like she has been covering her ears to not listen to anything he had to say so he had to punch the wall to finally get her attention…

im a little bit confused, are you analyzing a stock photo used for an article from a satirical online magazine?

let’s all just take a moment to appreciate how a completely fictional man can exhibit abusive behavior in a hypothetical universe that exists solely to mock this behavior and someone out there will still bend over backwards to defend him.

leg-grestrade:

thelastjedicritical:

Why is it that RL shipping or discussions about  assumed relationships between actors so often turn into sexist shit when a woman is involved in whatever which way? I’ve seen this so often now it’s starting to make my stomach turn…

I’m going to expand on this more elsewhere, but in the case of the most recent nonsense, the main sticking point seems to be that the men involved were in relationships and the woman involved was not. That always seems to bring out an extra layer of sexism. For example, I very rarely see Harrison taken to task for being a married man in his 30s having an affair with a 19 year old, but I routinely have seen Carrie classified as a “whore” “crazy bitch” and “homewrecker” for “throwing herself” at a married man. Ditto with Kristen Stewart when she was photographed kissing that married director twice her age. Barely anyone said anything about him, even when his wife wrote an essay about being betrayed and filing divorce, but people rained down on Kristen like a ton of bricks. There have been some RL shipping situations I’ve noticed where there hasn’t been this discourse, and thinking on it, it’s because neither person involved was married or in a serious relationship.

Don’t get me wrong – no party is okay in the case of cheating. It’s not okay to step out on your spouse and I also believe it’s not okay to pursue someone you know to be in a committed monogamous relationship. But people do come down disproportinately hard on the single, often much younger woman than they do on the older, often married man, and it’s bullshit.

The last anon said about women being look as sex toys is not surprising but also very irrataded disgusted. Bc similar goes to Natalie Portman, back then when she film sw she received a fan Mail and it said sexual uncomfortable things to her and that was a shock when I read that but anyway. It’s best that Daisy won’t return to social media maybe never.

I mean Natalie’s very first fan mail as a child (after Léon, which… yeah) was evidently a male “fan’s” graphic fantasy of raping her, not that it would have made later such instances of sexual harassment easier. I think Daisy leaving was the right choice, too, though it’s sad and unfair because social media can be a powerful tool and it’s not right for women to be driven off it by harassment.

darthlenaplant:

saltandrockets:

if Rey and Kylo were both women or both men, the Force bond wouldn’t be considered sexual.

like, Harry and Voldemort also had an involuntary, unwanted psychic bond, but nobody sexualized it.

take off your hetero goggles.

THIS TEA IS TOO DAMN HOT!

People who are pointing out the harry voldemort shipping in the notes are making a false equivalence. No one was seriously saying Harry and Voldie were going to be/had to be/was canon, no one was harassing creators desperate for “proof” that it was canon. Pottermort or Tomdickharry or whatever that godforsaken ship is called always was and always will be treated as the disturbing crackship it is, as opposed to reylo which is just as disturbing and cracky (if not cracker) but gets treated as though it has actual currency. It does not, except in the context of a heavily misogynistic culture where the violent and abusive treatment of a woman is sanitized and romanticized.

gothhabiba:

neoyorzapoteca:

Leslie Jamison, “I Used to Insist I Didn’t Get Angry. Not Anymore.”

[image text: “The phenomenon of female anger has often been turned against itself, the figure of the angry woman reframed as threat — not the one who has been harmed, but the one bent on harming. She conjures a lineage of threatening archetypes: the harpy and her talons, the witch and her spells, the medusa and her writhing locks. The notion that female anger is unnatural or destructive is learned young; children report perceiving displays of anger as more acceptable from boys than from girls. According to a review of studies of gender and anger written in 2000 by Ann M. Kring, a psychology professor at the University of California, Berkeley, men and women self-report “anger episodes” with comparable degrees of frequency, but women report experiencing more shame and embarrassment in their aftermath. People are more likely to use words like “bitchy” and “hostile” to describe female anger, while male anger is more likely to be described as “strong.” Kring reported that men are more likely to express their anger by physically assaulting objects or verbally attacking other people, while women are more likely to cry when they get angry, as if their bodies are forcibly returning them to the appearance of the emotion — sadness — with which they are most commonly associated.”]

antiplondon:

“Teachers are often unaware of the gender distribution of talk in their classrooms. They usually consider that they give equal amounts of attention to girls and boys, and it is only when they make a tape recording that they realize that boys are dominating the interactions.Dale Spender, an Australian feminist who has been a strong advocate of female rights in this area, noted that teachers who tried to restore the balance by deliberately ‘favouring’ the girls were astounded to find that despite their efforts they continued to devote more time to the boys in their classrooms. Another study reported that a male science teacher who managed to create an atmosphere in which girls and boys contributed more equally to discussion felt that he was devoting 90 per cent of his attention to the girls. And so did his male pupils. They complained vociferously that the girls were getting too much talking time.In other public contexts, too, such as seminars and debates, when women and men are deliberately given an equal amount of the highly valued talking time, there is often a perception that they are getting more than their fair share. Dale Spender explains this as follows:The talkativeness of women has been gauged in comparison not with men but with silence. Women have not been judged on the grounds of whether they talk more than men, but of whether they talk more than silent women.In other words, if women talk at all, this may be perceived as ‘too much’ by men who expect them to provide a silent, decorative background in many social contexts. This may sound outrageous, but think about how you react when precocious children dominate the talk at an adult party. As women begin to make inroads into formerly ‘male’ domains such as business and professional contexts, we should not be surprised to find that their contributions are not always perceived positively or even accurately.”

—

[x] (via neighborly)

As a teacher, I give girls what I hope is a lot of attention.  I don’t know if I give girls their fair share, but I aspire to, especially after noticing that boys are willing to use their greater share of teachers’ attention to get girls who they feel aren’t being quiet and docile enough punished.  I have therefore acquired a reputation for “caring more about the girls.”  This has had two marked results: Some straight boys have gotten more hostile toward me, and most girls have gotten more confident around me.  This makes me think I’m doing something right.

Longer thoughts on how this phenomenon relates to sexual harassment in classrooms, if you’re interested: The girls figured out I won’t report them if they hit boys who are sexually harassing them, I’ll only report the boys.  This led to an increase in how often girls got the last word and boys got smacked in my classes, and, also, to a DECREASE IN HOW OFTEN GIRLS GOT SEXUALLY HARASSED.  The sexual harassers seem to have been depending on the sort of “equal blame” and “retaliation is never warranted” and “don’t hurt others’ feelings” perspectives so many schools try to instill in kids; the sexual harassers were usually the ones bringing me into the situation by saying, “Miss, she hit me!  You should write her up!”  Once they figured out I was only ever going to respond, “If you don’t treat girls like that, they won’t hit you,” the girls got more confident and the sexual harassers largely shut the fuck up.

In schools, fighting against sexual harassment is often punished exactly the same as, or more severely than, sexual harassment — a lot of discipline codes make no distinction between violence and violence in self-defence, and violence is ALWAYS the highest level of disciplinary infraction, whereas verbal sexual harassment rarely is.  Sexual harassers, at least in the schools I’ve been in, rely heavily on GETTING GIRLS IN TROUBLE WITH HIGHER AUTHORITIES as a strategy of harassment — creating an external punishment that penalises girls for and therefore discourages girls from fighting back.  Sexual harassers are willing to use their greater share of floorspace to ask to get girls who won’t date them punished.  By and large, teachers do punish those girls when they swear or hit.  Schools condition girls to ignore sexual harassment by punishing them when they speak up or fight back instead.

Once the sexual harassers in my classes understood that girls wouldn’t be punished for rejecting them, they backed off around me.  And there started to be a flip in what conversations I get called into — girls are telling me when boys are being nasty (too loud and dominant), instead of boys telling me when girls are being uncooperative (louder and more dominant than boys think they should be).

(via torrentofbabies)

reblogging again for the wonderful commentary.

(via partysoft)

Holy crud, so glad I read this.  Reblogging for other educators.

(via eupheme-butterfly)

As a girl who would not be shut up and would not tolerate teasing or abuse from boys in my class and was several times sent to such higher authorities for it, reading this is extremely, extremely vindicating. I was lucky, though, because being a particularly bright, advanced student for those grades, they generally took my side and I never got into any severe or lasting trouble. Again ,this was luck, and shouldn’t be the rule.

(via eruditechick)

I was going to write that exact last paragraph; WOW.

(via supersandys-space)