ismnotwasm
ismnotwasm's JournalGood Fun With Bad Words: Five Familiar Woman-Specific Slang Terms
Good Fun With Bad Words: Five Familiar Woman-Specific Slang Terms And Their Lesser-Known Historical Origibs
Pussy
Ah, pussy. Good old reliable pussy. Like many of the words on this list, "pussy" has layers of meaning and connotation. In a concrete sense, "pussy" refers to a vulva and vagina. In a slang sense, its often used against men as a term of derision, usually to indicate that the dude in question is an ineffectual wimp.
Because supposedly nothing is more offensive to men than being told they are like women in any way whatsoever.
Pussys precise origins are unclear; what we do know is that its a very old word. It has evidently been used as an affectionate term for women (and possibly effeminate men) since the 1580s, and is thought to be originally connected to puss as a call-word for cats.
Most etymology sources seem to agree that the connection with genitalia specifically, rather than women in general, came later. Once upon a time, you might call a sweet girl a "pussy" like you would call her a doll today. (Alternatively, some argue it may have stemmed from the Old Norse word for pocket, which apparently provides the origins for the Low German word for vulva, puse.)
http://www.xojane.com/fun/bad-words-misogyny-edition
It's also homophobic.
“WE LIVE IN A COUNTRY FULL OF RACISM, BUT NO RACISTS; RAPE, BUT NO RAPISTS.”
Same goes for rapewe believe its a horrible thing that definitely happens, and to be sure, no one is in favor of it. So when feminists talk about rape culture, theyre just being their usual, hysterical selves, exaggerating to the point that reasonable people cant take them seriously. But as soon as someone says they were rapedwhether its a woman in college, a male celebrity, or an 11-year-old girl, we react with disbelief, immediately trying to reframe the story as an unfortunate individual misunderstanding. Or, if you insist on finding a pattern here, the unfortunate result of the victims bad choices.
We live in a country full of racism, but no racists; rape, but no rapists. And the common denominator is power. To believe a rape survivors word over that of her male classmate, colleague, teacher, or superior officer is to upset the natural order of things, privileging the voice with less cultural authority over the one we expect to have all the answers. Likewise, believing Dorian Johnsons testimony over Darren Wilsons means rejecting lessons weve been taught from childhood, both explicitly (the police are there to help you) and implicitly (White people are more trustworthy than Black people).
We will go to truly amazing lengths to stick to this pattern of individualizing the problem and/or finding ways to blame the victim. As Katherine wrote recently, in piece that also connected these victim-blaming dots, thats because to do otherwise would challenge our belief in the just world hypothesis the fantasy that we live in a fundamentally just world in which terrible things must happen for a reason which serves as a security blanket we wrap tightly around our eyes.
http://feministing.com/2014/12/11/we-live-in-a-country-full-of-racism-but-no-racists-rape-but-no-rapists/
The Real Lolita
(Very long article, but an interesting one)
It would be easy, the girls told her. Nobody would suspect a girl like Sally as a thief. Despite her mounting dread at breaking the law, she believed them. On the afternoon of June 13, 1948, she had no idea a simple act of shoplifting would destroy her life.
Once inside, she reached for the first notebook she could find on the gleaming white nickel counter. She stuffed it into her bag and sprinted away, careful to look straight ahead to the exit door. Then, right before the getaway, came a hard tug on her arm.
Sally looked up. A slender, hawk-faced man loomed above her, iron-gray hair peeking out from underneath a wide-brimmed fedora. His eyes, set directly upon Sallys, blazed a mix of steel blue and gray. A scar sliced across his cheek by the right side of his nose, while his shirt collar shrouded another mark on his throat. The hand gripping Sallys arm bore the traces of an even older, half-moon stamp forged by fire. Any adult would have sized him up as well past 50, but he looked positively ancient to Sally, who had turned 11 just two months before. Sallys initial nerves dissipated, replaced by the terror of being caught.
http://penguinrandomhouse.ca/hazlitt/longreads/real-lolita
In 1911, Albert Einstein Told Marie Curie To Ignore The Trolls
http://io9.com/in-1911-albert-einstein-told-marie-curie-to-ignore-the-1668014759
Who knew they would proliferate?
Women in heels have more power over men, study finds
(File under "Dumbass Study of the Week"
Gueguen's study had 19-year-old female volunteers wearing black shoes with heels that were 0.5cm (0.2 inches) or 5cm (2 inches) or 9cm (3 1/2 inches) high. Then they asked men between the ages of 25-50 for help in various circumstances.
One situation involved a woman asking passers-by: "Excuse me, sir. We are currently conducting a survey on gender equality. Would you agree to answer our questionnaire?" Flat heels got a 46.7% answer rate, medium heels a 63% rate and the highest heels a whopping 83% success rate from the men.
Nowadays, the most fashionable heels on the runways and in nightclubs are higher still - with spiked heels commonly measuring 10 cm (4 inches) and extreme heels, dangerously, above 13 cm (5 inches).
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/women-in-heels-have-more-power-over-men-study-finds/
Too easy to pick this apart, but frigging CBS picks it up as though it has actual validity. In Actuality, a larger study using a wider age range, color, shapes and sizes of women, my guess is the results would be different.
On Rolling Stone, lessons from fact-checking, and the limits of Journalism
This weekend, I wrote 3,000 words about this debacle from my perspective as a feminist and fact-checker. About everything Rolling Stone did wrong and everything thats wrong with the conversation were having about it now. In the end, I looked at them, all these fucking words about journalistic standards and the purpose of fact-checking and blah blah blah, and realized that to say what I had to say about what is wrong here I would need thousands more because here I was writing about journalism, while Jackie was getting doxxed and on some college campus or off some college campus somewhere in this country another girl was being raped.
So instead of saying the million things, Ill try to say just one. Or a couple.
In their statement, Rolling Stone admits to just one mistake: agreeing to honor Jackies request that they not contact the accused men because she feared retaliation. They write, We should have not made this agreement with Jackie and we should have worked harder to convince her that the truth would have been better served by getting the other side of the story. Thats not actually a full accounting of their failure here. In reality, Rolling Stone not only didnt contact the men, as Jackie requested, but also seems to have not done anything else to verify the most basic factual details of Jackies account and also wasnt transparent about what they had and hadnt been able to independently verify. In doing so, they failed to uncover the discrepancies in Jackies account before it was published discrepancies, mind you, that are the kind of discrepancies youd expect to find when fact-checking a first-person account of a traumatic rape survivor and that in no way offer damning evidence that her whole account is not true. In doing so, they left Jackie without the primary benefit the tremendous gift that the fact-checking process gives to journalists and their sources: the assurance that if the story is challenged and Rolling Stone had to have anticipated it would be because rape survivors are always, always doubted an institution has your back. It was as much a feminist failure as it was a journalistic one that they didnt do their due diligence to ensure they were ready to stand by Jackie when the inevitable happened.
But what I really want to talk about is the explanation that is emerging in the media world for this royal fuckup. Rolling Stone themselves offered up an appealing scapegoat: Jackie. Especially in their original statement, which has now been edited, Rolling Stone shamefully tried to lay their journalistic failures on their source, saying they had trusted Jackies account and found their trust in her was misplaced. (Theyve now edited the statement to acknowledge that their mistakes were their own, not Jackies.) Id argue they also implicitly scapegoat feminism with its sensitivity to survivors needs and tendency to believe survivors as the default. After all, as anyone who has worked in journalism knows, your trust in a source doesnt actually have anything at all do with how you go about fact-checking a piece. The first rule of fact-checking is never trust anything not your reporters, not the spelling of your own name, not whether the sky is blue. No, the problem was that Rolling Stone decided to make a judgement to ditch their normal and, by all accounts, normally very rigorous fact-checking process because they were trying to be sensitive to the unfair shame and humiliation many women feel after a sexual assault.
http://feministing.com/2014/12/08/on-rolling-stone-lessons-from-fact-checking-and-the-limits-of-journalism/
The Feminist Killjoy Gift Guide
Shopping for that special feminist someone in your life? Or maybe just looking to gift something to yourself because no one else is going to get you what you really want? Or maybe youre just looking to support some awesome indie artists this holiday season. Whatever it is youre here for, weve got you covered!
http://bellejar.ca/2014/12/08/the-feminist-killjoy-gift-guide/
American Racial Incident Bingo
(These things tend to be facile, but I thought this hit the high notes)
I have the answer!
Why so many are rape apologists and sexists and misogynists at the same time actually defend their stance, say feminist are overreacting and derail conversations about oh, say gamergate or threats against women who critisize sexist shirts by implying-- or out right saying-- there are more important things to address. How they can defend certain actions, and at the same time say "lighten up" oh and do a little women blaming at the same time-- mustn't forget that.
And most delicious, how they can defend all that, while calling Juien Blanc a creep.
The answer? They're all fans of Tucker Max!
The coffee shop I suggested we meet at was full, so Tucker Max and I ended up settling in for beers next to a pool table at the back of a dark dive bar off Ninth Avenue. While hes not above having a beer at 2 p.m., Max assures me he has tamped down on the hard-partying life he became famous for. Im almost 40 years old, and even to this day Ill meet someone and theyll be like, I dont understand. Why arent you drunk and screaming curses at people? he said. Im like, its 10:30 in the morning at Whole Foods. What the fuck is wrong with you?
Clad in comfy gray sweats and a black zip-up, the once-controversial author is older and softer round the edges, but he still has the cheeky, shit-eating grin recognizable from the covers of his controversial, best-selling books I Hope They Serve Beer in Hell and Assholes Finish First. These debased accounts of Maxs alcohol-fueled sexual conquests became required reading (or hate-reading) for a certain generation, selling millions of copies and turning Max into both a villain and hero, depending on whom you ask.
Nowadays, Max has grown up a lot he has a fiancée and a baby son and has publicly retired from the fratire genre to concentrate on a spate of entrepreneurial ventures (plus theoccasional ill-advised publicity stunt), including a new publishing start-up called Book in a Box, which is ostensibly what we were meeting to talk about. Yet retirement aside, Max still has plenty of thoughts about the stories that made him famous. Salon spoke to Max about the pervasive influence of his books, allegations of misogyny (false, he claims) and the narrative about sexual assault in media today. In Tuckers opinion, any enmity that feminists might have toward him is misplaced. As he says of Bill Cosby: Thats a dude who deserves to be attacked That shit frustrates me a lot because thats a real villain. Lets all go after the real bad guys.
http://www.salon.com/2014/11/26/tucker_max_on_cosby/
He gets rich from being an blithering idiot asshole, "mellows out" has the near proverbial "awesome fiancé" and this interview...this unbelievable interview, reminds me so much of so many threads and arguments we've had here over the years-- it's like he's been DU's misogyny/sexism couch. Plus he won MRA AND derailment bingo-- those MRA guys he professes to detest.
This Is Why Feminism Does Not Need Rebranding
Well be taking a look at the broader results of the survey in another post, but I wanted to respond to one of the bigger talking points: despite the fact all but a handful of respondents believe in gender equality, a majority also believe that the name feminism should be replaced with something else.
http://www.buzzfeed.com/danieldalton/why-feminism-tho
I think the actual definition of feminism says it all
Profile Information
Gender: Do not displayMember since: Mon Aug 23, 2004, 10:18 PM
Number of posts: 42,014