a ” friend” of mine on facebook ( I’m close to deleting this person) was making a while fuss about how his 4 year old son, picked out a bright pink leash for they male dog. he went on a rant going ” this is his mother’s fault !, its a boy dog, why did I let him choose “
Sport is apparently still in the dark ages. I tweet one thing about football fans invading the pitch at the national stadium and I’m greeted by several men responding or quoting the tweet as “Your GF’s back on Twitter” and “Thanks for that, Emma” along with taking several screenshots of when I either block them or delete the tweet to joke about, to then find out a twitter account had been retweeting all posts from “women/football journos/easily offended” despite there being hundreds of male fans criticising the incident. If you’re a female football fan with an opinion, you’re not only a football fan but you’re ridiculed for your opinion as you’re a women. No, I am a football fan first and foremost, I have the same knowledge as a male football fan.
Im only 14 and I have to deal with cat calling, whistilinf and groping everyday. Men stuck their heads out cars and say “wow! Let me chat to you real quick” or “mami” or “sexy” or “big tits”. I’m scared to walk the streets with my family in case this happens. Try try to get my number, older men say their 15 even though they are really not.
I’ve heard lots of girls say they want their future boyfriends to be taller than them, when asked why they usually don’t have an answer other than “it would look weird” Story from my mum: a friend (who is pretty tall and loves high heels) used to have a boyfriend who told her she couldn’t wear heels, because they would make her taller than him Also saw a woman sell her high platform shoes online, because they made her taller than her boyfriend
Advert on a local Facebook group for “Man with a van” for picking up some kitchen units. Really? I have a van, but you clearly don’t want my help.
Two bugging microaggressions today and I’ve only been reading for five minutes The first is a book on pre raphaelites which only barely mentions Christina Rossetti and spends one of two paragraphs discussing what she looks like – very plain, a bit severe – and how this “would of course have affected her personality” – also severe. She happened to be a far greater poet than her contemporaries and I doubt she gave a crap what she looked like or that it would have caused her to be a reclusive poet. She’s a completely normal looking young woman but of course if you put her next to two of the most stunning models of the age she’s not going to look good, the point is she wasn’t a model. This seems to be completely missed by the author who waffles on for one of only two paragaraphs about how unfortunate the Woman’s looks are. Never seen any discussion of what her male contemporaries or any other male poets look like or how it affected them, even though Larkin never stopped talking about how he hated his looks and Auden looked a state and repeatedly mentioned it. Can think of plenty of other examples of male writers bemoaning their looks but not Christina Rossetti, so can’t think why waste a paragraph on it. The irony is the really unfortunate one was Lizzie siddal, her sister in law who was sick her whole life and committed suicide because she was miserably unwell. Maybe that’s why Rossetti was a bit sober – sick of being patronised and worried about her sister in law? Think most women would rather have been the average looking talented, healthy one one instead of the pretty, vulnerable but horribly ill one. Now just opened the oxford book of letters and have been treated to Dorothy osbourne who is described in terms of her looks in the first three sentences ” she lost her beauty to smallpox” – which is not what the letter is about. Which bit do these editors not get? Female intellectuals of the age often mocked the looks obsession in their work and were often more than happy that their talents lay elsewhere. The ones whose work survived were usually rich and well connected enough not to have to worry anyway, but the modern editors still promote what they looked like over their work, even when it survives. I meant to write about frank kermode before, as I’ve seen this in his other work on Shakespeare, it’s one thing to mention females being unhappy with their looks if they are, (understandable given the age) another entirely to add your commentary to those who didn’t care. I guarantee if you mention this you’ll just be called a nit picker as writers like kermode are idolised.
Seriously I’ve just seen this headline on the front page of the huffington post online newspaper “Why are girls so nasty?” Seriously?? Men killing and raping and causing mayhem and that’s the headline? “why are men so nasty” would be sexist but at least the statistics would prove a point…. Looking forward to “why are blacks so nasty” wonder if they might think that a bit biased to print though… apparently totally ok to keep poisoning girls
I’ve spent a lifetime studying comparative religion, grew up in a Christian faith group, practised prayer and meditation, had Muslim friends, boyfriend at bible college and another was a PhD philosophy student, helped both with their essays, have also studied Buddhism and even tried a little Buddhist meditation and I still get moronic male atheists mansplaining religion to me, or just mocking and shouting. Even though I don’t bring up the subject I’m treated like an idiot by religiously illiterate males. Who then get annoyed when it turns out I know about particle physics too. And the enlightenment (which sprang from Christianity) They can’t even tell the difference between Torah and New Testament when they misquote the bible. Massive error. They start arguments based on the fact that I’ve given up something for lent or I mention my dad met someone from church. Female atheists just say oh I’m heathen but they don’t assume they know more than me or freak out because my family is church going. If you are atheist unless you are strongly ex fundie Christian you probably know less than the religious person you are talking to, who is probably not looking for an argument since Christianity always tells Christians not to argue their faith if people don’t agree. You are supposed to let it go and let live since the objective is to live a peaceful life. In general Christian groups don’t argue across gender either, so no self respecting Christian woman would want to justify her beliefs to an atheist male or male a public display of herself. Now why is that hard to grasp? Stop being bullies, atheist men. Stop trying to “logically take down” the woman on a subject you know nothing about. They are all over the TV media and news, too, you can tell they literally know nothing about religion. They seem to know a lot about male gaze pornography and their right to sex though… And stop assuming you know more. It takes decades to study religion and even then that’s not the same as practising it. I don’t get superior about Hinduism and say it’s crap because I don’t know anything about it.
Fifteen minutes into big new Netflix show OA, which I was enjoying, we see a young woman being shagged from behind then afterwards drop to her knees to give the guy a blow job – during which he stops her because he says he’s not going to come again. This is supposed to be for her sexual satisfaction – though I think we can all see this is in fact an obvious inclusion of a male fantasy view. No surprise it’s from a male director. It comes out of nowhere and ruined the show for me, this casual display of sexual dominance of women, male imposition of an insane version of female sexual satisfaction, and the apparent need to always include very young very naked women in every TV series.
“Girls love practical work. They engage with everyday examples, but it depends on the context because topics such as cars might switch them off.” Head of the Physics Department in a Girls school quoted in a document about encouraging girls to study physics at A Level and beyond. I despair. Girls switched off by cars? Oh really? (Cue “O RLY?” snowy owl meme here LOL). What about the female trainee mechanics that I met? What about female racing drivers? What about women who watch TV programmes about cars? What about female relatives who check the oil and ferry themselves/their shopping/their families about in cars? Lots of women rely on cars as a mode of private transport! Lots of women have to get from point A to point B every day using a car. They have to buy fuel for said car and work out approximately how long the journey will take and what speed they can drive. Sometimes women travel by aeroplane, bus, train, hovercraft, taxi, boat, catamaran, bike, motorcycle, canoe, barge etc…all modes of transport involve physics, even walking! I had toy cars as a girl that I played with. I pushed them along and made them run down ramps made out of hardback books. Oh how I unfeminine of me LOL! While it is true that I as a female didn’t study pure Physics at A Level (due to lack of time and scheduling, I was considering at one point, but doing 4 A Levels including Maths was enough for me), it isn’t true that I never studied any mechanics at all. Some of Pure Maths at A Level overlaps with Physics and Mechanics. I remember my female Calculus Maths teacher (shocking that she was a woman I know) teach us (gasp!) rates of change and differential equations. You know, stuff that a lot of people find quite hard to learn. This may disturb you but she taught us the chain rule and differential calculus applied to graphs showing the motions of cars. Even racing cars. She did this all while wearing a floral dress and she had long flowing hair. She wore perfume and earrings. She was a Mum too. She drove a car. She was a brilliant teacher who made complex physical maths/science concepts crystal clear, she also made the lesson exciting and thanks to her, I got a A grade for the module she taught me. Oh the shock and the horror! (Sarcasm) This may sound like a whacky idea on my part, but how about teaching everyone the same thing in Physics/Maths class? So people that are male, female, intersex, gender-fluid, trans or other all learn the same stuff. I am not a teacher so I admit that I have zero teaching experience, however, isn’t that what Miss Frizzle did on the magic school bus? She said: “Seatbelts everyone!” She didn’t say: “All boys move to the left side seats of the bus do this tailor made physics worksheet with cars and all of the girls move to the right side of the bus do this physics worksheet about ponies.” She taught everyone together about the same stuff. I know that the concept of a magically transforming bus was rather unscientific and it was just a silly kids’ cartoon show, but do you get my point here? Neglecting to teach girls about car physics is sexist because if a teacher assumes that the girls will be “switched off” by cars then is a disservice to young women who may want to become mechanics or Physicists in the future. It is also a disservice to women who want to get from point A to point B using a vehicle whether riding in one or driving.