Sexual intimidation has never been about women’s bodies.
Men do not harass, assault or rape women because they are attracted to the female body and can’t control themselves. They can.
Humans use sex as a way of asserting dominance over the other and creating a power imbalance. Men do this to women because they are socialized to believe that, unless they hold power over women, they aren’t men enough. And humans want to be accepted by society and fit into their assigned gender role, because they are scared of being rejected. So men seek to uphold their power over women in any way possible. And an effective way of doing it, is by using sexual harassment, assault or rape.
A recent US study conducted that women in higher positions of power experience more sexual intimidation from their male colleagues and employees than women in lower positions. And that’s because men’s power over those women becomes threatened.
However it’s not only women who experience this, it’s also men of colour and “feminine” men (not entirely sure what they meant with that, but i’m assuming gay men and femme presenting amab people.). They also get sexually intimidated by their STRAIGHT male coworkers. Which is not me invalidating women’s experience. It is me stating that a woman’s body and sexuality has absolutely nothing to do with the harassment they face.
That it why you hear so many women say “I got assaulted wearing a hoody and loose pants” or “I get catcalled no matter what I wear” because it’s NOT about them showing skin EVER.
Women don’t get sexually harassed because of their sex, but because of their gender.
Edit: Wait I actually think I understand what you guys mean. If sexual abuse is not a woman specific form of oppression, then why does it happen to women more than it happens to men from oppressed groups? Which is a valid counterargument that I probably should have considered. Hmm.
Because I've been asked a million times a year since middle school:
I am not a Zionist. I would like to go to the state of Israel in the same way that I would like to go to Paris. I would like to visit the Kotel in the same way that I would like to see the Paris Opera Ballet. It has meaning for me as a place to travel to. I do not remotely consider it my home.
What I do feel DEEPLY is the impulse to build a Jewish home, a place where, finally, being Jewish would not make us other.
We are carrying thousands of years of being other on our backs and it is exhausting. We just want to go home.
I can't say what my position would have been of I were the age I am now in the 1940s, because I wasn't and I don't know. Many of those zionists were young, idealistic college kids who had just felt the full weight of that otherness drop, so they decided to build a Jewish home. I do vibe with that, and with the restless need to do something that drove them to put in the work.
The state of Israel as it is today does not uphold this impulse, or the idealism that tried to make it a reality (y'know, before it gave way to settler colonialism).
Now, we could get into my personal opinions about statehood and countries in general, and in doing so explain my solution to the problem that you've probably noticed with my reasoning above, but this post is getting long so we won't.
If you actually want to hear more, ask me -- I'm more than happy to continue this discussion. If you just want to yell about how wrong I am without listening to what I have to say, though, please go do it in a place where I can't hear you.
So, this summer I’m going to be working for a federal judge, which I’m really excited about!!! BUT it took me awhile to decide I was going to accept the job because apparently there’s a rule for everyone who works for a federal judge that you can’t post anything ‘political’ on social media (obviously tumblr doesn’t count), you can’t wear anything ‘political’, you can’t donate to any political causes where your name would be on a public list, and you can’t go to any protests or marches that might be ‘political’. And the word ‘political’ includes things that absolutely shouldn’t be, like BLM stuff.
So yeah, I’m excited for this opportunity and I think I’ll learn a lot, but this is gonna be so hard, even if it’s only for a few months. I just went though my Instagram and changed my profile picture from the BLM-themed one, deleted by BLM highlight, and archived a couple posts and I feel like a sellout. Like I know I’m not one and this is only temporary anyway but it was a not a good feeling
if I could make one change to the internet's political discourse to bring some sanity to it, it'd be to make a filter that replaces 'capitalism' with 'neoliberalism' because 99% of the time when people are criticising the excesses of capitalism, they're actually criticizing things that are happening due to neoliberal economics prioritising business over people's lives
Shared with me by @lieutenant-hel-odinsdottir
Repare in the similarities of the dads.
Family Still Seeks Answers After 16-Year-Old Mikayla Miller Found Hanging From Tree In Massachusetts Woods
Bossip Video #SayHerName Mikayla Miller’s promising life deserved better than a violent end. Source: Boston Globe / Getty While we mourned the news of police senselessly shooting and killing 16-year-old Ma’Khia Bryant, the Hopkinton, MA police department was very quietly investigating the death of another 16-year-old Black girl. Calvina Strothers had been begging Hopkinton authorities to help…
View On WordPress
The sanctity of life is a core Catholic belief around which moral behavior is to be structured. What it means to be pro-life, therefore, requires careful discernment. For some, like theologian George Weigel, the term pro-life must be exclusively focused on the fight against abortion. Weigel defined pro-life activism as "the cultural marker of serious Catholicism in America," rejecting any movement in the direction of a more generous "seamless garment" approach to life issues. For the 100 Catholic leaders who signed a 2015 statement on immigration reform, however, defending life means recognizing "the image of God in the migrant at the border, in the prisoner on death row, in the pregnant woman, and in the hungry child.” Serious Catholics should reflect on how pro-life activism can possibly be a limited concept. The "seamless garment" stance, conceived by Cardinal Joseph Bernardin in 1976, wove together the great social wrongs of that hour: abortion, the death penalty, and the willingness of superpowers to wage nuclear war on a small planet. Little could be gained by rescuing the unborn child, only to annihilate the civilized world. If he were defining the seamless garment today, Bernardin might include racism and gender bias; the plight of migrants, refugees, and displaced people; inequities in health care, education, taxation, and opportunity. Most of all, Bernardin would add the rousing cry of Pope Francis to care for planet earth, our common home. A pro-life activism that acknowledges this seamless garment makes one a very serious Catholic.
It doesn't matter how strong your opinions are. If you don't use your power for positive change, you are indeed part of the problem.
Coretta Scott King