Man-Hating 101

bigfatfeminist:

The following sentiments in no way mean that an individual is “man-hating,” ever:

• “Men make me scared.”
• “Men make me angry.”
• “Men who treat the word ‘rape’ like slang or make rape jokes make me scared/angry.”
• “Men have privilege that oppresses me.”
• “Male privilege makes me angry.”
• “When men catcall me, that makes me scared/upset/angry.”
• “When men give my body attention that I don’t want, that makes me scared/upset/angry.”

And please remember, someone saying “I hate men” usually means any or all of the above. If I say “I hate men” it does not actually mean that I hate my father, or my boss, or my friend Kyle, or my cousin Josh. It just means that men, as a generality, make my life as a woman very hard.

This principle can be applied to anything. When POC say “I hate white people,” it does not mean they hate individual white people. When queer people say, “I hate straight people,” it does not mean they hate individual straight people. When trans* people say “I hate cis people,” it does not mean they hate individual cis people. When differently-abled people say “I hate able-bodied people,” when aneurotypical people say “I hate neurotypical people,” when anything like this happens — it’s not about an individual. It’s about an oppressive system.

This is different from Rick Santorum saying “I hate gay people” because Rick Santorum is in a place of privilege. His male privilege, white privilege, cis privilege, and heterosexual privilege all mean that he is not oppressed by gay people. At all. Gay people repulse him, so his homophobia comes from a place of believing gay people are “less than” he is.

An individual can benefit from one kind of privilege and lack another, and these do not cancel one another out. A gay man saying “I hate women” is being misogynistic, because his male privilege means that he is part of an oppressive party against women. A straight white woman saying “I hate black people” is being racist, because her white privilege means she is part of an oppressive party against black people.

Now, I am wary of blanket statements of hatred for my own reasons, but I recognize and respect their value as a way of expressing feelings that oppressed people might otherwise have no ability to express. And I think that expression is incredibly important. There is a huge difference between productive expressions of anger and reductive expressions of bigotry. It’s important to recognize the difference.

(via briennethebeauty)

life rules

- you are never as awkward as you think you are
- you are never as annoying as you think you are
- you are never as boring as you think you are
- your compliments are never as creepy as you think they are 
- you are way more wanted than you give yourself credit for
- chin up, dude　

(Source: clumsyoctopus, via briennethebeauty)

"

Men who want to flirt with women have to realize: Women live in a state of continual vigilance about sexual safety. It’s like having a mild case of hay fever that never goes away. It’s not debilitating. You’re not weak. You’re not afraid. You just suck it up and get on with your life. It’s nothing that’s going to stop you from making discoveries, or climbing mountains, or falling in love. Sometimes you can almost forget about it. It doesn’t mean it’s not there, subtly sucking your energy. You learn to avoid situations that make it worse and seek out conditions that make it better.

If a female stranger is wary around you, it is not because she suspects you are a rapist, or that all men are rapists. It’s because a general level of circumspection is what vigilance requires. Don’t take it personally.

If this frustrates you, try to remember that women are blamed for lapsed vigilance. If a woman does get raped, everyone rushes to see where she let her guard down. Was she drinking? Was she alone? Was she wearing a short skirt? Did she go to a strange man’s room for coffee at 4am?

A woman must be seen to be vigilant as well as be vigilant. If she is deemed insufficiently vigilant, she will be at least partly blamed for any sexual violence that befalls her. If she’s regarded as downright reckless, that “evidence” can be used to completely exonerate her rapist. If it comes down to a he said/she said dispute over whether sex was consensual, as so many rape cases do, the dispute becomes a referendum on whether the woman seems like the sort of reckless person who would have sex with a stranger.

If a woman does go back to a strange man’s hotel room at 4am, even if she only wants a coffee and conversation, she’s more or less given him the power to rape her. No jury is going to believe she went up there for anything but sex. So, don’t be surprised if a stranger reacts badly to that suggestion.

"