install theme

I got the following in the mail this week from

A recent study of mainstream magazines targeted at women, from Vanity Fair to Cosmopolitan, revealed a shocking lack of representation for women of color. Of the magazines surveyed since September 2012, over 82% of covers featured only white women. Marie Claire and Glamour, who combine to reach more than 4 million subscribers in the United States alone, each featured only one person of color in that time span.On magazines targeting men, it’s no better. Maxim had exactly zero women of color on its cover during the same time period. Furthermore, The New York Times reported last week that just 6% of models walking the runways during 2012’s “Fashion Week” were black.  The limiting ideal of beauty perpetuated by the media not only exalts particular body types and age groups, but dictates which colors of skin are considered beautiful and which are not. This impacts how all of us, including girls and boys, value ourselves and others.On Monday, a globally trending conversation on Twitter further pointed out the need for more inclusion and intersectionality in the movement towards gender equity. We can contribute to this change this week by asking publications like Marie Claire and Glamour to pledge to include more women of color on their covers in 2014.Tweet them today. Or contact the magazines here and here.Together, as a unified and diverse movement, our voices are louder and more effective!  
Onwards,Jennifer Siebel Newsom & The Team

My first reaction was “Really? Who the hell is actually “shocked” by this?” If you’re “shocked” by this you need to wake the hell up. Seriously. 

My second reaction, is of course, to blog about it. Because, as fucking stupid as shit as it is to start out by saying “shocking lack of representation for women of color”  without meaning it to be intentionally sarcastic, the message behind the email is definitely one worth sharing. Hopefully the links are intact and working properly so you guys can do your thing to help in this. 

"One factor that makes interaction between multi-ethnic groups of women difficult and sometimes impossible is our failure to recognize that a behaviour pattern in one culture may be unacceptable in another, that is may have different signification cross-culturally … I have learned the importance of learning what we called one another’s cultural codes.
An Asian American student of Japanese heritage explained her reluctance to participate in feminist organizations by calling attention to the tendency among feminist activists to speak rapidly without pause, to be quick on the uptake, always ready with a response. She had been raised to pause and think before speaking, to consider the impact of one’s words, a characteristic that she felt was particularly true of Asian Americans. She expressed feelings of inadequacy on the various occasions she was present in feminist groups. In our class, we learned to allow pauses and appreciate them. By sharing this cultural code, we created an atmosphere in the classroom that allowed for different communication patterns.
This particular class was peopled primarily by black women. Several white women students complained that the atmosphere was “too hostile.” They cited the noise level and direct confrontations that took place in the room prior to class as an example of this hostility. Our response was to explain that what they perceived as hostility and aggression, we considered playful teasing and affectionate expressions of our pleasure at being together. Our tendency to talk loudly we saw as a consequence of being in a room with many people speaking, as well as of cultural background: many of us were raised in families where individuals speak loudly. In their upbringings as white, middle-class females, the complaining students had been taught to identify loud and direct speech with anger. We explained that we did not identify loud or blunt speech in this way, and encourage them to switch codes, to think of it as an affirming gesture. Once they switched codes, they not only began to have a more creative, joyful experience in the class, but they also learned that silence and quiet speech can in some cultures indicate hostility and aggression. By learning one another’s cultural codes and respecting our differences, we felt a sense of community, of Sisterhood. Representing diversity does not mean uniformity or sameness. "


Bell Hooks, Feminist Theory: From Margin to Center (pages 57-58)

Crucial to communication.

(via nezua)

(Source: ceedling)


We do a much greater disservice to girls, because we raise them to cater to the fragile egos of men. We teach girls to shrink themselves, to make themselves smaller. We say to girls: ‘You can have ambition, but not too much. You should aim to be successful, but not too successful, otherwise you will threaten the man. If you are the breadwinner in your relationship with a man, you have to pretend that you’re not, especially in public otherwise you will ‘emasculate’ him.’

But what if we questioned the premise itself— why should a woman’s success be a threat to a man? What if we decide to simply dispose of that word? And I don’t think there’s an English word I despise more than ‘emasculation.’



Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie, TedxEuston (x)

All of the truth. She’s incredible!

(via blackinasia)

(Source: owning-my-truth)






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. 

How the fuck does Bill Nye expect this to happen? What do you want to do, force women to enroll in science courses, regardless of whether or not they want to do it? Just for the sake of having “enough” women? Why the fuck do these fractions matter so much? It’s not like people are holding guns to our head and threatening to kill us if we become interested in science.
Maybe, just maybe, a lot of us DON’T FUCKING WANT to be scientists. Is that a crime?

Hi there, princess-munchkin. Female engineering student here. 
Bill Nye is not saying that you HAVE to be a scientist, and you are right that no one is holding a gun to my head because I am interested in science, but let me tell you some of the struggles of being a woman in the STEM fields. 
1) Because I am a woman, I am not expected these fields. I first fully realized this when I was in high school, on my robotics team. See, although my robotics team was about 50% female, most of the women were part of the “business administration” side of things: finance, marketting, PR, membership, etc. Was this a problem? Absolutely not. But I was there to be an engineer, and specifically, to be the robot programmer. This was met with a lot of hesitation at first from some of the other students (all of whom happened to be male. This is not necessarily a bad thing.) You see, all of the robot programmers before me were guys. Computer programming is just a thing that guys do, or so they thought. Even after I had proved myself to the mentors on the team, many of the students still underestimated my abilities. There were rumors going around that I wouldn’t have been able to program the robot at all if the lead software mentor wasn’t there to help me. This was just flat-out false, but it wasn’t until I won an award for the team that the other students actually saw my merit. 
2) There is not a lot of encouragement for women to go into these fields. I first noticed this when I was in elementary school. I was always interested in math, science, you name it, but many of my teachers and family members pushed that to the side for a long time. When I asked for legos for christmas, I would get ballet slippers. In fact, for a long time, I was training to be a professional dancer. I loved to dance. I loved math more, but no one seemed to notice that about me. It wasn’t until I had a long conversation with one particular teacher in high school that I decided to look into engineering. I had never even considered it as an option before, because no one decided to encourage me to pursue my interest in science. If it hadn’t been for that teacher, I would probably not be at the school I am at right now. 
3) For a long time, Engineering/Science/Math WAS a “boys only” club. Let me tell you when some of the top technical schools and societies started letting women in:
RPI, The oldest tech school in the country, founded in 1824. Started admitting women in 1942 to “replace men called to war.” Campus housing for women wasn’t constructed until 1966. 
Tau Beta Pi, the Engineering Honors Society - Founded in 1885. Started admitting women in 1968.
Caltech - Currently rated #3 in undergraduate engineering. Founded in 1891. Started admitting women in 1970. 
Georgia Tech - Currently rated #5 in undergraduate engineering. Founded in 1885. Started admitting women in 1952. 
Do you see the implications of this? Engineering has been a part of our society since around the late 1800s (in the case of RPI, since the 1820s), but women weren’t even allowed in for the most part until the 1950s, regardless of their merit. 
4) Because of the fact that it was a “boys only” club for such a long time, there are not a lot of women engineers and scientists to look up to. When you’re reading your physics, chemistry, and math text books, the majority of those theories were came up with by men. It is true that much of our history was written by White Men, but this does not mean that the fact that there are few women scientists to look up does not matter. 
So, as you can hopefully see, princess-munckin, or anyone else that shares the opinions of princess-munchkin, Bill Nye was not arguing that women that are not interested in STEM should go into those fields anyway. But he IS arguing against all of the systematic barriers set up against women who ARE interested in engineering and science. There are several women out there who are just as good as the boys at math and science, but will never pursue their interests because it just doesn’t seem like an option. That was me for a long time. I am super grateful for the fact that I fought against that, and that I ended up where I am. 
if you don’t like science, fine. Don’t be a scientist. But if one day you have a daughter and she shows interest in being a scientist, PLEASE encourage her. Because Bill Nye is right, there needs to be more women scientists in the world. 

A+ comment

^ I think the above commentary is important as well for how we can apply it to larger conversations about inclusion. If a group is vastly underrepresented in any field, a reply of, “well clearly they’re not interested so why force them to be interested?” is too glib. That ignores a lot of the reasons leading up to why X group might not be interested at that final point (adulthood etc) or ignore why interested people in X group might still be turned away from Y field regardless of their interest/qualifications.






“The monetary cost for a rape victim to receive treatment at a hospital in the United States.”


what the actual FUCK

I wish I could even be shocked

Just gonna keep reblogging this

Why in the world are the two Plan B tabs $94 each? 

the concept of virginity



  • is heteronormative
  • excludes males
  • disrespects rape survivors
  • objectifies females
  • reduces women to how men perceive them sexually
  • erases female sexuality
  • reinforces oppressive ideals of femininity and masculinity
  • in itself, doesn’t even make sense
  • reduce sex to male penetration
  • weaponize penetration as a depreciation against women

(Source: femminista-fatale)




I love Anita Sarkeesian and Feminist Frequency. LOVE. So I get really upset at the bullshit that gets hurled her way for daring to be a woman with an opinion on the internet. THE HORROR.
So I thought I’d poke fun at the astonishing unoriginality of Anita Sarkeesian’ critics with a sarcastic flow chart, because who doesn’t love sarcastic flow charts?. (For a full explanation, check out my post here on Gaming as Women.)


My brain hurts.

The 8 White Identities, by Barnor Hesse. Breaking down the white gaze.

Men And Feminism: Where’s Is The Love?


Some people really have a problem with referring to him- or herself as a feminist. Generally, even if someone still believes in gender equality, they still tend to get defensive when someone calls them a feminist. This is clear in first segment of an article published in the Guardian written by a man who, when asked by a fellow journalist to answer some questions about male feminism, agreed to speak, but was adamant about not being labeled a “feminist.” He asserted that being called a feminist was “in roughly equal measures as a compliment and an insult.”

I find that the term “feminism” is wildly misinterpreted over and over again. If you really consider it, feminism provides a counterpoint to patriarchy and the standardization of gender roles, which affects men too. 

Men are expected to be strong, aggressive moneymakers who go out and make a difference in the public sphere, while women must remain docile caregivers confined to the home. Feminism allows men to make the sandwich and women to win the bread - allowing families a modern flexibility that the patriarchy makes impossible. 

These prescribed gender roles are breeding grounds for misogyny and misandry alike. By forcing men to become only public actors, the patriarchy forces women to become singularly acted upon - objects rather than subjects. Women in this way have become a social body entirely objectified (in the grammatical sense) by the male political body, forcing a public debate of these roles in the wake of advances in healthcare, women’s rights, etc. Feminism is the discussion of the flux in gender roles, affecting people beyond the assignment of their x and y chromosomes. 

via cleveille 

This article is gross for a lot of reasons but it also displays this sort of weird naivety. 

Men are the patriarchy. The patriarchy is more than a sort of hovering cloud that controls us, it is made of people and the systems that men created and fight to protect. The patriarchy is statistics of women who have been abused and raped by men, and when women tell our stories, those men who have hurt us or stood by and done nothing - those individuals are the patriarchy too.

Men will get angry at you for identifying as a feminist, not because we’re too mean or too angry or not fuckable enough (though, that’ll piss them off) because how dare you challenge a system wherein men are the beneficiary.

There’s no rebranding of feminism that will stop men from hating women. There’s only the progress that women’s rights activists can make. 




on masculinity in the context of feminism 

thank you, this is a really inspiring one!

that means so much to me <3