fuckyeahfeminists:

When white liberal feminists label Beyoncé as anti-feminist, they are simply perpetuating the same racist partiarchy they’re supposed to be combating.

Beyoncé is at the center of her own media empire, no small feat for a woman of color in a racist, patriarchal society. Equally important, she embodies empowered sexuality. When she dances, the passion and commitment exudes in her every step. Her body is her own; she owns it and uses it as she sees fit. When she wears a unitard or “skimpy” outfit, something many dancers wear, mind you, she is showing off her impeccable body, her temple, her source of strength, and all that it can do. She is forcing those of us who are clinging to our puritanical notions of propriety to sit down, shut up, and watch raw, unbridled talent and skill. And yes, she is a feminist while doing it.

When white women get to decide who is “feminist enough,” particularly around women of color, they are perpetuating racism. They are policing the boundaries of who is acceptable and who isn’t. This is nothing more than a tool of racist patriarchy wrapped in feminist rhetoric. Yes, racist. It is decidedly racist the way white mainstream feminist organizations police women of color’s feminist credentials, the way white liberal feminists reduce Beyoncé to a gyrating slut with a potty mouth. 

If white feminists want to be seen as inclusive, as truly revolutionary, as working to end alloppressive power systems, they must stop perpetuating those oppressions themselves. Exclusionary boundaries of who is an acceptable feminist and who isn’t does nothing for feminism except perpetuate racism, heterosexism, cissexism, classism, and other forms of bigotry and oppression. The incessant questioning of Beyoncé’s character and choices is simply a reflection of the latent bigotry that exists in feminist spaces.

Until white feminists stop policing women of color’s feminist credentials, they are doomed to repeat the same racist patriarchy we are supposed to be combating. 

love this! recommend reading the whole thing at the source.

(via dgodinez17)

@Anti_Intellect

This is from a few of his tweets this afternoon, and he’s a great person to follow on Twitter. Brilliant. Daily.

Anyway, I answered the first part of his tweet by saying “She’s like Obama. They challenge and reaffirm patriarchy. Most Black people do. And then, some ONLY reaffirm, which sucks.”

He then went on to mention that she “fence straddles” which is a term I’ve used myself at home when discussing this with one of my sisters. I think many Black celebrities are somewhere in the middle, moving away and challenging certain damaging things and affirming others…figuring themselves out. (Of course some Black celebrities refuse to challenge anything, and some of their fans are the same way, so there’s that…)

I think there are many Black people, in general, who are aware of the damage caused by internalized White supremacist thinking, patriarchy, racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, classism, colourism and more, and challenge it in many ways, but affirm it in others. Feminism is a continuum. No one wakes up as bell hooks, including bell hooks. She was Gloria Watkins before too, figuring this feminism thing out. She herself writes in each subsequent book how she evolves.

(via gradientlair)

(via sugarbooty)

Tim Holt on why we still see the number of females in STEM fields fall way behind their male counterparts. Also see how geography paved the way for women in science.

(↬ gender and science)

(Source: explore-blog, via kyidyl)

Sara Yasin, Is the Hijab Worth Fighting Over?

(via rcabbasi)

(via cyaziris)

(Source: raxn, via tumblinfeminist)

scienceing:

One half of the humans are female, so one half of the scientists should be female.

- Bill Nye at the Storytelling of Science at ASU

Yes, exactly. We need more girls going into science! Now there aren’t many Nobel Prizes being given to women, mostly because society pushed them away from science decades ago. But now that can all be changed, if more girls go into science. 

whyilostmyfaith:

thefrogman:

I believe that there are a small group of women who hate men just for being men. I believe that the textbook definition of the word misandry fits that description. I believe there are bad things that happen to men. I believe those issues should be addressed. I do not believe that a fringe group of women who hate men can be blamed for those issues. 

Misandry was a dead word until recently. A group of men who feared the progress of feminism revived the word and used it to undercut the movement. They like having the power being a man provides and they don’t want to lose that. So they created a movement, found a bunch of legitimate issues that affect men, and tried to blame women for those issues. They called this misandry. It’s like conservatives using buzzwords like “death panels” to make people fear health care. They let people assume it meant Obama wanted to kill your grandma. They let their cute little phrase infect the minds of good people and convince them of falsehoods. 

People are telling me that men cannot report rape without getting laughed at. They say this is misandry. It is the fault of women who hate men. But that just doesn’t make any sense to me. When I seek a logical explanation, it seems more likely that this is because men are supposed to be strong and women are supposed to be weak. And rape has been viewed as something that happens mostly to women. So if it does happen to a man, they must be weak. How did this idea of men=strong and women=weak start? I’m pretty sure it wasn’t because of misandry. It is an ancient patriarchy collapsing in on itself. 

Feminism is about fighting inequality. It’s about erasing the strong/weak perception ingrained into our society. Misandry, as the term is often used today, is about trying to blame women for anything bad that happens to men.

If you want to fight to fix issues that affect men, go for it. But I would really consider distancing yourself from this term. It is used to evangelize folks into a movement that is very problematic. A group that can’t handle scrutiny of their comic books and video games, so they send death and rape threats. A group that calls women sluts and think they ask for rape if they show too much cleavage. Those are the people who coined this term, and you should want nothing to do with them or their language.

This is one of the best responses to this sort of question I’ve ever seen

(via rayraymoo)

vmthecoyote:

cumaeansibyl:

ladies-andtramps:

ive noticed that tumblr has this white women vs. black women thing going on and i mean

cant we all just be women without a skin color attached to our identities…?

I’ve noticed this too.

I’ve noticed that when black women try to talk amongst themselves about experiences unique to them, there’s always one of us white women who just HAS to jump in on it and make it about us. I’ve noticed that we white women consistently refuse to acknowledge the effect of racism on black women’s lives and the effect of white privilege on our own. I’ve noticed that black women do nothing to invite this kind of disrespect, and when they object to it, we turn around and cry out that we’re being attacked when we started it.

I can’t be a woman without a skin color attached to my identity because I always have my white skin and that always affects how people treat me. Just as it’s impossible to get rid of one’s skin color for real, it’s impossible to detach it from one’s identity, because it shapes one’s entire life. Being a black woman in the world is a different experience from being a white woman. I know that because I listen to what black women say, but I can never know what it’s like, and I have a responsibility to respect black women’s ongoing conversation about that experience by staying out of it and not trying to claim a share.

Please don’t talk about this like it’s an equal conflict where both sides need to contribute toward a resolution. We always start it and we’re the ones who need to stop it.

^

(Source: lionsandmicee)

josephdreamboatlevitt:

Here’s a fun idea for a t-shirt!