darkestgreen:

thebestworstidea:

resilientkate:

softgore:


“This piece was primarily a trust exercise, in which she told viewers she would not move for six hours no matter what they did to her.  She placed 72 objects one could use in pleasing or destructive ways, ranging from flowers and a feather boa to a knife and a loaded pistol, on a table near her and invited the viewers to use them on her however they wanted.  
Initially, Abramović said, viewers were peaceful and timid, but it escalated to violence quickly.  “The experience I learned was that … if you leave decision to the public, you can be killed… I felt really violated: they cut my clothes, stuck rose thorns in my stomach, one person aimed the gun at my head, and another took it away. It created an aggressive atmosphere. After exactly 6 hours, as planned, I stood up and started walking toward the public. Everyone ran away, escaping an actual confrontation.”
This piece revealed something terrible about humanity, similar to what Philip Zimbardo’s Stanford Prison Experiment or Stanley Milgram’s Obedience Experiment, both of which also proved how readily people will harm one another under unusual circumstances.” 
This performance showed just how easy it is to dehumanize a person who doesn’t fight back, and is particularly powerful because it defies what we think we know about ourselves. I’m certain the no one reading this believes the people around him/her capable of doing such things to another human being, but this performance proves otherwise.”

this is why performance art is important


So every single person who told me ‘ignore them they’ll go away’ and ‘you can’t let them know they bothered you’ and ‘They’ll stop if they don’t see you react’ and all that bull shit, my entire school career, I want you to look good and hard at this.
I want you to think about what you said.
What you keep saying.
What you are telling your children.
You are making them powerless.

that last comment. actually crying.

darkestgreen:

thebestworstidea:

resilientkate:

softgore:

“This piece was primarily a trust exercise, in which she told viewers she would not move for six hours no matter what they did to her.  She placed 72 objects one could use in pleasing or destructive ways, ranging from flowers and a feather boa to a knife and a loaded pistol, on a table near her and invited the viewers to use them on her however they wanted. 

Initially, Abramović said, viewers were peaceful and timid, but it escalated to violence quickly.  “The experience I learned was that … if you leave decision to the public, you can be killed… I felt really violated: they cut my clothes, stuck rose thorns in my stomach, one person aimed the gun at my head, and another took it away. It created an aggressive atmosphere. After exactly 6 hours, as planned, I stood up and started walking toward the public. Everyone ran away, escaping an actual confrontation.”

This piece revealed something terrible about humanity, similar to what Philip Zimbardo’s Stanford Prison Experiment or Stanley Milgram’s Obedience Experiment, both of which also proved how readily people will harm one another under unusual circumstances.”

This performance showed just how easy it is to dehumanize a person who doesn’t fight back, and is particularly powerful because it defies what we think we know about ourselves. I’m certain the no one reading this believes the people around him/her capable of doing such things to another human being, but this performance proves otherwise.”

this is why performance art is important

So every single person who told me ‘ignore them they’ll go away’ and ‘you can’t let them know they bothered you’ and ‘They’ll stop if they don’t see you react’ and all that bull shit, my entire school career, I want you to look good and hard at this.

I want you to think about what you said.

What you keep saying.

What you are telling your children.

You are making them powerless.

that last comment. actually crying.

I claim that the verbal separation of forced prostitution and prostitution by choice is a cover-up to maintain the status quo:

a) On one hand, johns need exactly this inscrutably large market to “score” in general and also to get enough “fresh meat” from “every corner of the world” (“an entente cordiale from below” as Dona Carmen [German pro-sex-work lobby group] puts it) and on the other to do this for affordable prices (unless eventually there will be sex covered by health insurance companies or job centers - I can imagine almost everything by now).

b) Whoever propagates a right to sex on a living subject also knows that falling back on “volunteers” does not suffice to implement it. Even now it is hardly possible to meet the enormous “demand”. On that account a neoliberal reasoning is needed according to which it is supposed to be legitimate to say that discriminated Roma women without an education had better free themselves from poverty on their own (instead of simply paying them the social benefits they are entited to as allowed for by EU law)*. This way an economic choice under pressure turns into an emancipatory act and a constant (ab)user of other’s sexual organs into a well-meaning “humanitarian worker”.

c) “Happy sex workers” intimately know that forced prostitution can only be fought by fighting against prostitution in general and that a separation between the two will not be possible in practice, even given the strongest efforts. Therefore they put their rights before those of people who do not feel as comfortable in prostitution as themselves and reject their stories (to the point of defaming survivors of prostitution as “liars”).

Manuela Schon on the practical use of differentiating between forced prostitution and prostitution by choice ("Prostitution, Postfeminism and Neoliberalism" [German])

*Apparently, the young feminist magazine “Missy” from Germany had this to say: “Perhaps to work as a sex worker in Germany really does feel self-determined from the perspective of a Roma woman who lives in squalor and is being racially persecuted” and “…perhaps it would be better to leave it to those less privileged as ourselves to determine where the limits of their human dignity can be drawn”.

I am constantly perplexed and annoyed by the persistent bias against female bosses. Even many feminist women will unleash a torrent of misogynist tropes at the mere mention of female colleagues: Women are terrible bosses; female colleagues are the worst; women are back-stabbing, catty, two-faced, incompetent, etc.

This has not been my experience. I have had multiple female bosses, and I have loved working for all of them.

My first job out of college started as a temporary position at a reception desk. When I started, the president (a man) and vice-president (a woman) of the firm were traveling out of the office for a few days. I was told they’d be calling in for messages, and I was warned—repeatedly—that the vice-president, Helene, was a dragon lady, a bitch, a holy terror. The nicest way it was put to me is that she was “difficult.” I was admonished to be very careful about how I gave her messages to her, because she would destroy me if I made a mistake.

I made sure to provide her messages in precisely the way I’d been instructed, and she was perfectly polite to me over the phone. But, by the time she was due back in the office, I’d been warned about her so many times, in so many blunt and nasty ways, that I was, frankly, terrified of her.

Helene returned to the office one morning, an hour late as I would discover was her habit. She was a beautiful, fashionable, confident woman. She introduced herself brusquely, but welcomed me to the team. I was intimidated by the sheer force of her presence, but she seemed nice enough. I waited for the other shoe to drop, for the dragon lady to reveal herself.

That day never came.

Within a couple of months, my position had been made permanent, and I was quickly promoted to an assistant position in Helene’s department. Helene was tough. She had high expectations of me. But she was also an incredibly generous mentor. I was eager to learn, and she was keen to teach me. She wanted things done a certain way, but she was open to suggestions and encouraged me to challenge her. And if I ever came up with a better way to do something, she was grateful for the idea and let me know she was proud of me. She never took credit for my ideas; to the contrary, she championed me.

By the time I left, I was the director of her department, and I had my own office overlooking Lake Michigan. From reception to an executive office in five years. And it was in no small part because of Helene’s eminent willingness to teach, support, and empower me.

The thing is, Helene could indeed be “difficult.” But not with me. She was “difficult” with the male executives who treated her like shit, with the male staff who undermined her authority. She was “difficult” with people who treated her, the only female executive at the firm, fundamentally differently than they treated the men.

Funny that I developed a reputation for being “difficult,” too.

This has been my experience working for and with “difficult” women. I’m sure there are shitty female bosses in the world; of course there are. But lots of what supposedly constitutes a “difficult” female boss, or colleague, is frequently a reflection of dynamics to which she’s reacting.

Dynamics like the one in which people reject female bosses, instead of rejecting workplace misogyny.
Melissa McEwan, Who’s the Boss? (via dee-lirious)

Technology’s Man Problem →

anyonebutamy:

“It’s a thousand tiny paper cuts,” is how Ashe Dryden, a programmer who now consults on increasing diversity in technology, described working in tech. “I’ve been a programmer for 13 years, and I’ve always been one of the only women and queer people in the room. I’ve been harassed, I’ve had people make suggestive comments to me, I’ve had people basically dismiss my expertise. I’ve gotten rape and death threats just for speaking out about this stuff.”

The world doesn’t need more ‘successful people.’ The world desperately needs more peacemakers, healers, restorers, storytellers and lovers of all kinds. It needs people to live well in their places. People with moral courage, willing to join the struggle to make the world more habitable and more humane. These qualities have little to do with ‘success’ as our culture defines it.

Dalai Lama (via acontemplativedrunk)

I believe this to my core. The temptation to pursue security can be paralyzing, tbh.

(via gospelofthekingdom)

It’s not a temptation. Try doing something ELSE when you know you have nothing to fall back on. The only time I was ever able to passionately throw myself into the study of anything that wasn’t immediately marketable (as in, wouldn’t have any employment/trade application within a year) was when I was 20 and in college, and when my ex-husband was putting me through school. Very brief times in my life.

Yes, I wished forever that I could’ve studied all those academic subjects that I wanted to study in school, passionately pursued the study of a language, gone into illustration/animation, etc, but I have nothing to fall back on, and I’ve always known that. Even when I went back to school to finish my AA in graphics, it was still largely about “marketability” and I didn’t get to take all those pottery, painting, etc classes I’d like to take.

My entire adult life has been about becoming and staying marketable/employable and I haven’t had time to do anything but dabble in anything else. 

I haven’t pursued my “passions” in a long time, and don’t even know what they are anymore.

The time for that will unfortunately be after I retire, if I ever get to retire, which is unlikely. I will probably be working my entire adult life. I don’t really anticipate living very long after that’s over as I’m not sure how I’ll afford to stay alive. 

I realize this was really depressing. But. Being able to be an “interesting, fun” person is a class privilege. 

(via the-orb-weaver)

Phallometric procedures can detect sexual arousal to coercive sex in adjudicated rapists. Could such procedures detect similar patterns among men who report being rapists?

In other words, do self-identified rapists differ sexually from men who do not report having been sexually coercive? A small number of studies suggest that they do.

In these studies, large groups of men, (usually college undergraduates), filled out questionnaires about sexual behavior, and a proportion were invited to participate in a phallometric study. Some men reported they had been sexually coercive and some reported they had not. Most of the sexually coercive men reported engaging in coercive behavior that would not meet most legal definitions of rape.

Malamuth (1986) found that a rape index was the strongest correlate (among a large number of variables) of self-reported sexual coercion. Bernat, Calhoun, and Adams (1999) and Lohr, Adams, and Davis (1997) found that sexually coercive men were more aroused to rape scenarios than non-coercive men. Lalumiere and Quinsey (1996), however, found no difference between coercive and non-coercive men. [OP Note: This lack of difference in research results can be interpreted as a social negative, considering phallometric studies reveal the rate of male arousal, and if there’s no difference in the rate of arousal between men that rape and men that do not rape while being exposed to descriptions of rape or imagery depicting it, then this can be interpreted as a very severe example of what happens when a culture fetishizes rape].

Another way to look at this question is to study men who report an interest in rape or report that they often fantasize about it.

Malamuth (1981) and Malamuth and Check (1983) found that men who said they might engage in rape if there were no adverse consequences to themselves showed higher arousal to rape scenarios than men who denied any such tendencies.

Seto and Kuban (1996) examined the responses of eight men who admitted to sadistic sexual fantasies but who denied acting on these fantasies. These men produced a rape index that was not only higher than community controls, but also higher than men who had actually committed rape but who denied such fantasies.

Altogether, these findings are consistent with the expectation that individual differences in men’s propensity to rape (or sexual coercion) are associated with sexual arousal to depictions of such activities.

More research-based reasons on why I would never trust a man who fetishizes rape (besides already reasoning against it with feminist ethics).

"Are Rapists Differentially Aroused by Coercive Sex in Phallometric Assessments?", Martin L. Lalumiere, Vernon L. Quinsey, Grant T. Harris, Marnie E. Rice, and Caroline Trautrimas; Centre for Addiction and Mental Health, Queen’s University, Mental Health Centre Penetanguishene, York University.

(via gynocraticgrrl)

"But it’s just a fantasy!"

totalhipsterdickbag:

I’m really sick of all the trans assholes on this site derailing feminist conversations, because when we’re constantly trying to define what a woman is and talking about what females have in common then it takes valuable time away from us talking about our differences.

Lesbian women are different from bisexual women who are different from straight women and we have to acknowledge and discuss the privileges we as non-lesbians possess and we have to stop yelling at each other and maybe be quiet and listen.

White women and women who pass as white have privilege over women of colour, and wealthy women have privilege over poor women and women in het relationships enjoy many privileges from their proximity to a man, and so on.

There are so many posts on tumblr written by people who have privilege in society that go “well I’m sooooo sorry for being straight/white/ rich” whatever and its such bullshit. People here don’t want to listen to you, Ms Privilege, because they spend the whole of their lives having your narrative shoved down their throats, and this is where they can come and not have to put up with it.

Tumblr is this shitty site full of weirdos and losers and asshole and unfortunately it’s also one of the few safe place for people to come and discuss the oppression they face in society, where you’re guaranteed an audience (unlike wordpress or blogspot, which require significantly more effort to gain a following on). So when you act all injured because someone with fewer privileges than you dared not to give a shit about your opinion, it just really reinforces the fact that you are used to being in a position of power.

Anyway, my point it that as radical feminists, it’s easy to feel like a victim on this site because of all the TERF/RADSCUM talk, but ultimately we are all different and we should acknowledge those differences so we don’t lose sight of the fact that there are people in our group with way more privilege than others in our group and we don’t all have the same experiences.

Study suggests police systematically undercount rape reports →

the-fly-agaric:

goddessofstupidity:

this is horrifying without end. This professor goes as far as to say that all progress of the last 20 years could be purely statistical manouvering! (in the US ofc. god I wish I knew data about germany and european countries)

me too, the only statistic I can find is that 400-500 rapes are reported each year (I live in Denmark), and that experts estimate that 2000-3000 rapes happens each year, and some amnesty says 2000-10000. I mean, how is this supposed to give any real image of the issue?

I can really only go by what I hear from my fellow women, and that says enough.