womenby

cross-posted from: https://hexbear.net/post/3121683

piped: https://piped.video/watch?v=qkNP2KveLVE

nice video on an enby's experience with being queer and neurodivergent through their gender expressions and problems with holding conversations and social anxiety. they use a text-to-speech system to talk as they prefer using it over their actual voice

Activist and writer Ida B. Wells-Barnett first became prominent in the 1890s because she brought international attention to the lynching of African Americans in the South. Wells was born a slave in Holly Springs, Mississippi, in 1862. At the age of sixteen, she became primary caregiver to her six brothers and sisters, when both of her parents succumbed to yellow fever. After completing her studies at Rust College, where her father had sat on the board of trustees before his death, Wells divided her time between caring for her siblings and teaching school. She moved to Memphis, Tennessee in the 1880s.

Wells first began protesting the treatment of black Southerners on a train ride between Memphis and her job at a rural school; the conductor told her that she must move to the train’s smoking car. Wells refused, arguing that she had purchased a first-class ticket. The conductor and other passengers then physically removed her from the train. Wells returned to Memphis, hired a lawyer, and sued the Chesapeake and Ohio Railroad Company. The court decided in her favor, awarding Wells $500. The railroad company appealed, and in 1887, the Supreme Court of Tennessee reversed the previous decision and ordered Wells to pay court fees. Using the pseudonym “Iola,” Wells began to write editorials in black newspapers that challenged Jim Crow laws in the South. She bought a share of a Memphis newspaper, the Free Speech and Headlight, and used it to further the cause of African American civil rights.

After the lynching of three of her friends in 1892, Wells became one of the nation’s most vocal anti-lynching activists. Calvin McDowell, Thomas Moss, and Henry Stewart owned the People’s Grocery in Memphis, but their economic success angered the white owners of a store across the street. On March 9, a group of white men gathered to confront McDowell, Moss, and Stewart. During the ensuing scuffle, several of the white men received injuries, and authorities arrested the three black business owners. A white mob subsequently broke into the jail, captured McDowell, Moss, and Stewart, and lynched them.

Incensed by the murder of her friends, Wells launched an extensive investigation of lynching. In 1892, she published a pamphlet, “Southern Horrors,” which detailed her findings. Through her lectures and books such as A Red Record (1895), Wells countered the “rape myth” used by lynch mobs to justify the murder of African Americans. Through her research she found that lynch victims had challenged white authority or had successfully competed with whites in business or politics. As a result of her outspokenness, a mob destroyed the offices of the Free Speech and threatened to kill Wells. She fled Memphis determined to continue her campaign to raise awareness of southern lynching. Wells took her movement to England, and established the British Anti-Lynching Society in 1894. She returned to the U.S. and settled in Chicago, Illinois, where she married attorney and newspaper editor Ferdinand L. Barnett in 1895.

Wells-Barnett also worked to advance other political causes. She protested the exclusion of African Americans from the 1893 World’s Columbian Exposition in Chicago, and three years later, she helped launch the National Association of Colored Women (NACW). In 1909, Wells was a founding member of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP). Wells was also active in the women's suffrage movement, however her unrelenting advocacy for racial justice clashed with contemporary, predominantly white suffrage organizations.

Ida Wells-Barnett died in Chicago in 1931 at the age of 69.

• blackpast

Megathreads and spaces to hang out:

• 📀 Come listen to music and Watch movies with your fellow Hexbears nerd, in Cy.tube
• 🔥 Read and talk about a current topics in the News Megathread
• ⚔ Come talk in the New Weekly PoC thread
• ✨ Talk with fellow Trans comrades in the New Weekly Trans thread

reminders:

• 💚 You nerds can join specific comms to see posts about all sorts of topics
• 💙 Hexbear’s algorithm prioritizes comments over upbears
• 💜 Sorting by new you nerd
• 🌈 If you ever want to make your own megathread, you can reserve a spot here nerd
• 🐶 Join the unofficial Hexbear-adjacent Mastodon instance toots.matapacos.dog

Links To Resources (Aid and Theory):

Aid:

• 🌈 LGBTQ+ Resource Post
• 🍉 Resources for Palestine
• 🐌☕ Zapatista Coffee

Theory:

• ❤️Foundations of Leninism
• ❤️Anarchism and Other Essays

June Jordan, born on this day in 1936, was a queer Jamaican-American author, feminist, and educator whose works include Some of Us Did Not Die and Report From the Bahamas. "Poetry is a political act because it involves telling the truth."

In her writing, Jordan explores issues of gender, race, capitalism, privilege, immigration, and representation. Jordan was passionate about using Black English in both her writing and her classroom, teaching her students to treat Black English as its own language and as an important outlet for expressing Black culture.

As a professor at Berkeley, Jordan founded the "Poetry for the People" program in 1991. Its aim was to inspire and empower students to use poetry as a means of artistic expression.

Although not widely recognized when first published in 1982, Jordan's essay "Report from the Bahamas", has since become an important work in gender studies, sociology, and anthropology.

"Poetry is a political act because it involves telling the truth."

• June Jordan

June Jordan - Poetry foundation

Megathreads and spaces to hang out:

• 📀 Come listen to music and Watch movies with your fellow Hexbears nerd, in Cy.tube
• 🔥 Read and talk about a current topics in the News Megathread
• ⚔ Come talk in the New Weekly PoC thread
• ✨ Talk with fellow Trans comrades in the New Weekly Trans thread

reminders:

• 💚 You nerds can join specific comms to see posts about all sorts of topics
• 💙 Hexbear’s algorithm prioritizes comments over upbears
• 💜 Sorting by new you nerd
• 🌈 If you ever want to make your own megathread, you can reserve a spot here nerd
• 🐶 Join the unofficial Hexbear-adjacent Mastodon instance toots.matapacos.dog

Links To Resources (Aid and Theory):

Aid:

• 🌈 LGBTQ+ Resource Post
• 🍉 Resources for Palestine
• 🐌☕ Zapatista Coffee

Theory:

• ❤️Foundations of Leninism
• ❤️Anarchism and Other Essays

One subject within feminism that I, unfortunately, decided to take a look at common discourse for is whether men can be feminists or not.

Right from the get-go, I noticed that this discourse is insanely binarist, cisheteronormative, and non-intersectional. It's typically a separatist tendency to put forth that men cannot be feminists due to them lacking the experience of life as a woman, but this has many flaws:

1. It's a matter of semantics: This is just a convoluted effort for feminists who do not actually understand feminist theory and ideology to tie support for a tendency to being personally impacted by that tendency. If a man supports woman's liberation, whether or not you call him a "feminist" is just within a label, but his ideas are in the direction of such a tendency, just like how one can oppose something like sinophobia without being Chinese. Feminism is often defined by an ideological stance that supports women's liberation, regardless of one's experience (or lack thereof) with womanhood.

2. It's grossly essentialist: This idea that men have to distance themselves from having sympathy to feminism as a movement pushes for this bitter idea that men are inherently to be oppressive or repulsed by women's rights. Aside from the fact that this isn't true, it's also very unhelpful and even dangerous, as it doesn't encourage privileged men to reexamine how they can be better. Essentialism is inherently anti-feminist because it turns patriarchy from a systemic concern into a personal concern, which has no capacity to advance women's liberation, and speaking of this, another issue it has?

3. It's binarist, cisheteronormative, and inconsiderate of intersectionality. As I've hinted at already, this is a deep concern for me. Queer cis men, such as gay and bisexual cis men, are negatively impacted by patriarchy directly, even though they are not women. Patriarchy is a structure that works hand-in-hand with queerphobia to keep heteronormative ideas in place, and feminists, especially if they are queer themselves, should know this. Of course, this also starts being a very fuzzy area for trans men and trans women.

Trans men are undeniably men who go through an experience where patriarchy is hindering them more than it does your typical cis man. Of course, trans women do not benefit from this either, as essentialism is a tool of patriarchy, not a tool against it as I stated in the last point. Essentialism is why patriarchy hates trans people. Whether you are a trans man, trans woman, or non-binary (✋🏿), you are defying this essentialist standard that the sex you were assigned at birth tells you where you sit in this crudely constructed gender hierarchy.

That gender hierarchy vanishing would benefit all of these aforementioned queer people, including the ones that are men. Hell, dismantling patriarchy would even benefit many cishet men because of the toxic standards that it sets up. Even if you are a cishet man, for instance, if you are emotional and sensitive, you are being put down for being that way because of patriarchy.

Ultimately, I'm not really surprised that the privileged white feminist types would be the kind of people to think that feminism is only a movement that can be supported by people like them. After all, these are the same people who neglect factoring in intersections of things like race, class, and queer identity simply because it doesn't bother them personally. Oftentimes, it seems like these kinds of shortsighted and non-intersectional feminists do not want patriarchy to end; they want how they are personally inconvenienced by patriarchy to end.

As a black, non-binary transfeminine person, a lot of feminist talk scares me because it leaves me in this weird question mark zone, where I'm saying to myself "Where exactly do you all think I factor into this discourse because you seem to be only focused on binarist cisheteronormative ideas without a single hint of intersectionality in your feminism?"

Unfortunately, I just so happen to realize that, regardless if me or someone else, people outside of the typical lens of a non-intersectional feminist are erased, and on the rare one-off occasions in which we are directly brought up, intersectionality will, ironically enough, be called a "divisive distraction," and in some instances, people like me are met with mask-off bigotry.

Obviously, I'm not saying you shouldn't be wary of cishet men from a systemic standpoint. The privilege that patriarchy grants them can corrupt their behavior and thought patterns just like how white supremacy and settler mindset does the same for cracKKKers. However, this type of shortsighted stuff I'm worried about isn't from a systemic standpoint; it's from an essentialist one, and it's getting to be so damn essentialist that it's unhelpful.

To close out with an analogy, as a black person, I will hiss at cracKKKers all day because of how white supremacy has systemically poisoned their mind and their own view of their privilege, but in this process, I will never start supporting "scientific racism but for black people" (black supremacy). This is because I know that essentialism is a part of the problem, not a tool to be used against it.

Anybody got readings on why men do extreme antisocial gender-based violence? They're enforcing male domination, sure, but why do some whistle and some commit overtly sexual and/or violent acts? I'd like to understand more about this, because when women tell me about being victimized my first reaction is "wtf was his problem, how does this shit happen" which is decentering their perspective instead of empathizing with them and being a good friend. I want to understand this so that it isn't a "curiosity" to me; I've read a bit about sexism in relationships and found that I was able to give better advice or comfort in such situations once it was old hat. Most men haven't been stared at by a stranger, let alone touched/etc., so it is difficult to imagine.

I've done a little googling and come up dry. Some people try to survey perpetrators of street harassment and then ask them what they're doing, but the men are fucking liars and so insights will be limited. E.g. Herrera and McCarthy got this schlock:

Men in our sample reported higher levels of street harassment than in other studies (e.g., Kearl, 2014, 2018): 70% of men said they had been told to smile, 63% said they had been called ‘sexy,’ 53% said kissing noises had been made at them, and 46% said they had been called “hey baby” and being followed.

probably even harder to find a bunch of men who will admit to flashing or stalking or something and then get them to honestly report their material circumstances and motivations. So pls send theory if you have anything, Marxist preferred: who are these guys, where do they come from, and wtf do we do with them?

Crystal Eastman was a lawyer, journalist, feminist and socialist. She was born in Marlborough, Massachusetts in 1881. Her parents were both Congregational Church clergy and were the pastors at a church near Elmira, New York. Her brother was Max Eastman, editor of THE MASSES.

She graduated from Vassar College in 1903, received an MA in Sociology from Columbia University in 1904 and graduated second in her class from New York University Law School in 1907.

Miss Eastman’s first job was to investigate labor conditions for the Pittsburgh Survey sponsored by the Russell Sage Foundation. Her report “Work Accidents and the Law” became a classic and resulted in the adoption of the first workmen’s compensation statue in the United States. She worked as an investigating attorney for the U.S. Commission on Industrial Relations during the Wilson administration.

She married Wallace Benedict and settled in Milwaukee. While there she managed an unsuccessful 1912 Wisconsin suffrage battle. Her marriage ended in divorce and she returned to New York where she helped to found the militant Congressional Union which eventually became the National Women’s Party. After the passage of the landmark 19th Amendment in 1920 which gave the right to vote to women, she and three others wrote the Equal Rights Amendment first introduced in 1923.

Eastman was a strong anti-militarist and was one of the founders of the Women’s Peace Party which is now the oldest women’s peace organization—The Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom. She argued against America’s going to war against Mexico in 1916, campaigned against the draft, and lobbied against American participation in World War 1. When the U.S. entered the First World War she and Roger Baldwin and Norman Thomas organized the National Civil Liberties Bureau to protect conscientious objectors. This organization would become the A.C.L.U.

In 1916 she married Walter Fuller, an English editor and anti-war activist. They lived at 71 Mt. Airy Road and had two children, Jeffrey and Annis.

She was a contributor to THE MASSES and after it stopped publication in 1917 she and her brother Max co-owned and published The Liberator, a radical journal of politics, art and literature.

At the close of World War 1 her husband, Walter Fuller, returned to England to seek work. For the next several years Crystal and her family would live part of the time in England and the rest in New York where she was blacklisted and rendered unemployable during the red scare of 1919-1920. During the following years her only paid work was for the feminist journals Time and Tide and Equal Rights.

Suffering from painful nephritis for many years, Crystal Eastman died in 1928.

Megathreads and spaces to hang out:

• 📀 Come listen to music and Watch movies with your fellow Hexbears nerd, in Cy.tube
• 🔥 Read and talk about a current topics in the News Megathread
• ⚔ Come talk in the New Weekly PoC thread
• ✨ Talk with fellow Trans comrades in the New Weekly Trans thread

reminders:

• 💚 You nerds can join specific comms to see posts about all sorts of topics
• 💙 Hexbear’s algorithm prioritizes comments over upbears
• 💜 Sorting by new you nerd
• 🌈 If you ever want to make your own megathread, you can reserve a spot here nerd
• 🐶 Join the unofficial Hexbear-adjacent Mastodon instance toots.matapacos.dog

Links To Resources (Aid and Theory):

Aid:

• 🌈 LGBTQ+ Resource Post
• 🍉 Resources for Palestine
• 🐌☕ Zapatista Coffee

Theory:

• ❤️Foundations of Leninism
• ❤️Anarchism and Other Essays

Obviously proper soup is better, but I’d never heard of this option.

Hope this is the right community for this content.

On this day in 1857, New York City garment workers protested against inhumane working conditions, low wages, and for equal rights for women, an event that is commemorated annually as International Women's Day. Their protest was attacked and broken up by police, but the labor action led to the creation of the first women's labor union.

On the same day in 1908, 15,000 women marched in NYC for shorter work hours, better pay, voting rights, and an end to child labor. The slogan "Bread and Roses" emerged from the protest, with bread symbolizing economic security and roses for better living standards.

International Women's Day in 1917 was also the date of the Russian February Revolution, in which workers celebrating International Women's Day joined protests and riots against food rationing, with more than 50,000 people in the streets. The protests grew quickly and developed revolutionary fervor, eventually overthrowing the monarchy.

International Women's Day (then International Working Women's Day) was introduced during the 1910 International Conference of Working Women in Copenhagen, Denmark. Clara Zetkin, a German socialist, suggested a holiday honoring the strike of garment workers in the U.S. The proposal received unanimous approval from the 100 women from 17 countries.

Megathreads and spaces to hang out:

• ❤️ Come listen to music and Watch movies with your fellow Hexbears nerd, in Cy.tube
• 💖 Come talk in the New Monthly queer thread
• 🧡 Monthly Neurodiverse Megathread
• 💛 Read about a current topic in the news
• ⭐️ October Movie Nominations ⭐️

reminders:

• 💚 You nerds can join specific comms to see posts about all sorts of topics
• 💙 Hexbear’s algorithm prioritizes struggle sessions over upbears
• 💜 Sorting by new you nerd
• 🌈 If you ever want to make your own megathread, you can go here nerd
• 🐶 Join the unofficial Hexbear-adjacent Mastodon instance toots.matapacos.dog
• ☮️ you can join the upcoming anti war rally this march

Links To Resources (Aid and Theory):

Aid:

• 💙‎Comprehensive list of resources for those in need of an abortion -- reddit link
• 💙Resources for Palestine

Theory:

• ❤️Foundations of Leninism
• ❤️Anarchism and Other Essays
• ❤️Mega upload with theory for many tendencies

A common incel argument I've seen pop up lately is how men are "scammed out of their money" in divorce.

Misogyny never changes, does it? "WoMans ToOk mUh MonEys" has to be the oldest one in the book.

Genius patriarchal society planning there, make it more difficult for women to support themselves by not allowing them into the workforce or even vote for thousands of years and then cry about it when woman might actually need that money that you probably owe her anyway for all that fucking thankless labour she does around the house.

And let's be real, chances are in 2022 she works a job for her own money anyway so that's her assets and money as well that you're splitting.

How dare women want their own money that they're entitled to! The gall!

Please, men of Hexbear. Restore my faith in the dude gender because this shit gets me down in the dumps :yea:

Basic summary: Conservative women alienated from labor like to write blogs about "obeying men" in their free time. Cottagecore is kinda problematic (but also controversial due to some of its audience being queer), and has a lot of connections to some really disparate subcultures. There's some tenuous link between conservative tradwife culture and western lolita subcultures. Someone in the comments of the video notes that religious tradwife stuff feels eerily similar to 24/7 kink dynamics.

The message I got out of it is that women who embrace patriarchy and get into "traditionalism" seem to be attempting to reject the modern form of capitalism where all adults in a household have the value of their labor extracted (feelsbadman), but they're doing so in the most counterintuitive way possible.

Normally I don't interact with reddit but I saw this and found it interesting. This post is dripping with the alienation women feel from patriarchal norms and it feels like women in general have a bit of radical frustration brewing.

Easier that way. When men are together and no women are around you probably wouldn't believe the things that come out of the mouthes of your brother, father, lover, son, etc. I work with all women and am one of 5 guys, which 0 are on my shift with me. Anytime politics or religion or anything comes up like it does all day every day I just shut my mouth and agree with whatever they say or pretend to be aloof and like they are teaching me something. Much easier that way because being factually correct and being "right" are two totally different things and sorry ladies but we all know which one of those you strive to be.

For the pussy

To get laid

I DID IT ALL FOR THE NOOKIE

Sometimes it's just about getting laid

I keep reading "I will hide my support of parties that support various forms of misogyny until I get the thing I want from the people affected by that misogyny" and Jesus fuck you could consider maybe, just fucking maybe, if you have to be dishonest to get what you want maybe you're on the wrong damn side. Somehow being a lying selfish asshole has become virtue signaling to other men which is exactly how societies fall apart or go to civil war. It's not because you have a dick. It's because you're an asshole that you have to lie to get pussy.

Men don't, Republicans do.

You know why.

Because their opinions if expressed would make a vagina dry up faster than the Sahara Desert.

To get laid.

We're willing to listen to your delusional bs, inflated sense of self-importance and narcissism for the brief access to your clam.

There’s only one reason and it’s pretty obvious.

This sounds exclusive to people with conservative political views. In which case they are aware women won't like their actual opinions, so they decieve someone into sleeping with them.

Because they're trying to have sex, not debate how ridiculous the Democratic party has become.

To get laid. I won't tell women around I think immigrants can GTFO because women are sensitive and that's irrilevant for my goal.

Because our views on politics aren't that important, but some people think they are. Just because I think something today doesn't mean I'm willing to die for it or even that I'll have the same idea tomorrow.

We do it to get laid.

Because the competition is lying as well. Gotta keep up.

Cause they trying to get that punani

Is this a real question?? Like really??

Because he knows no woman would be willing to.sleep with him if they know how he really feels

I don't lie about anything. I am also not very successful with pursuing women. Anecdotal evidence but take it for what you will