The Cupcake Went Feminist

feministdisney:

waltdisneyconfessions:

“I strongly believe in gay rights, but I really hate that people want Disney to have a gay couple. I think it would just be so wrong to incorporate into their movies. I can’t even explain why to myself, but I just really hope it never happens.”

This post generated a lot of discussion, and I think a lot of the responses (that agreed with the original) highlight that gay marriage is not, and never has been or will be, the end all to queer acceptance and equality.   Even though it is a useful indicator of where society stands on the issue, most of the people that replied with “But no, we shouldn’t have gay characters” propped up their hatestatements with, “But I believe very strongly in gay rights.”   

To highlight some of the bullshit reasons people decided to defend this, and I’m not going to even respond to them, I’m just going to assume that they stand alone in their ridiculousness:

“This has been bugging me for a while, and the comments this post is getting are annoying. Im all for gay rights too, both Steff and I are. But do you actually think Disney is going to make a gay couple? I hope they don’t either. It would cause so much controversy, people would honestly go for Disney’s throat. It would wound the company. It’s a hideously stupid idea in my eyes.  Right now, we should be at that point where being gay isn’t looked twice at, but we’re not, so we can’t just do things like that. I wish people would stop complaining about it. The genders of the lovers in Disney shouldn’t exactly even be important anyway. No need to focus on that, that is not what Disney is trying to teach you. ” -princecarlandprincessellie

Same. I have nothing against gays or anything. But I just don’t think it’s very Disney classic ish. It’s cool the parks have days just for gays. But our society is not ready for it. Maybe least another 50 years.-littl3m3rrmaid

I totally agree, I’m totally for gay rights- My own mother is a lesbian- I just don’t think disney would be right with gay couples. Simple as. And it doesn’t mean I’m some homphobe. -a-moment-to-be-real

Omfg. Isn’t it a little ridiculous that just because they don’t want a disney movie means their homophobic?   That’s just stupid. -ohjessiebelieveme

I agree. o-o; Especially when this subject of sexuality is WAY too sensitive and controversial of a subject to touch on in this time of era. Plus, people constantly suggesting movies put non-hetero couples in their movies seems a bit forceful…let the producers and directors make their own choices, sheesh. It’s like telling an artist what to draw, and trust me, it takes INSPIRATION for an artist such as I to even draw. :I;  In a way, making movies is also an art. Don’t shove it, just wait until they’re inspired… :U -wk777-personal

same for me, i mean its a good idea and all, im all for gay rights, but seeing as these movies are mainly for kids, i think they would just get confused. And they couldnt really do the whole romance thing, because i have a 7 year old sister who gets really upset and uncomfortable when she sees two men/women kissing. -keep-calm-and-never-grow-up

To highlight a few good points (there were a lot, I read through most of them, actually :P, good work everyone):

I think they are saying they don’t want to see politics in Disney movies, (believe in gay *rights*) when a gay person takes a role in pop culture it is made political. However, the more gay and lesbian (trans, poc, disabilities etc) are seen in pop culture the more norm they seem and the less political they are (but they are also more powerful politically as well). -bubbaandbubbalicious

“I’m all for gay rights and I’mma let you finish: but if they ever put a gay couple in a disney movie that will be sooooo wrong.”  -sophisicatedlesbian

no look we have to wait for gay people to become accepted before we try and change things so they’re accepted -sxizzor

okay you strongly believe in it and then you go onto say it’s wrong for Disney? Disney has always been about acceptance and love.. but gay love wouldn’t fit into that?! Please. -simplegilly

Soooo……..

niaili:

When you call someone a douchebag, what you’re literally saying to them is,

“You think you’re so great, but your existence is actually totally unnecessary and your main function is probably toxic. Also you shouldn’t be allowed near anyone’s genitalia.”

Why I’ve been increasing the use of this insult these days and wishing people would use it to replace the more racist/homophobic/sexist insults we’ve become accustomed to.

(via alejjj)

Nah bra.  You’re the opposite of wrong.  Just plain vomit wrenching I’d say.

I think I’m gonna start calling these my facebook fun posts.  Posts that display all the bullshit that pops up on my facebook.

Menstrual cramps are in overdrive today.

blllleeerrrrr……

abbeymonster:

This dress was inspired by the student in my sociology class who thought that all feminists were hairy and butch. I just want to make sure that everyone knows that a feminist can wear whatever the fuck she or he (or both or neither) feels like wearing. My sociology professor loved the dress and she gave me extra credit! I used a potato stamp to make the print, I used a vintage pattern to make the dress, and I embroidered the phrase “This is what a feminist looks like” on the bodice.

LOOOOVEEEEE!!!!!!

(via loveisaparallax)

aboyscoutandabrownie:

whoneedsfeminism:

I just listened to a story on NPR about the secret service agents who hired prostitutes in Colombia, and one of the guests defended the agents by saying essentially “boys will be boys” and a caller defended it by saying “I was in the military and that’s just what we do.”  

Men who are supposed to be representing our country but instead are hiring prostitutes are defended because they “can’t help it” but if I express frustration or anger in any situation I’m told to stop being “hysterical”

Yeeeeah, this is pretty problematic.  Aside from the whole potential cheating dynamic, which is between these men and their partners if they happen to have them, what is so bad or immoral about hiring sex workers?  Doing that and “representing our country” should not be mutually exclusive.

I agree that in general, the “boys will be boys” excuse needs to die a fiery death, but personally, I need feminism because of posts like these in which hiring a sex worker is considered some sort of dirty thing to do.  It’s a totally legitimate career and wouldn’t be illegal if our culture didn’t have such an unnecessary taboo against sex in general and sexual women in particular.

“It’s a totally legitimate career” <—- This might be where the problem lies.  I don’t have speakers on this computer so I’m unable to get all the details from the link, but it doesn’t specify in writing whether these agents visited a legitimate business or not.  If these agents visited a place involving human trafficking then I do find that a problem.

When the movie Taken came out it happened to coincide with one of my friends revealing to me that she was leaving her husband in the Navy after discovering that during a leave to the Philippines he a few others rented out a hotel room and purchased services with a few prostitutes.  I remember feeling very disturbed about this, not so much because he had a wife and three kids (though that itself is a vomit inducing fact), but because I kept wondering whether these were women who chose this as a career/job or whether these were but a few of many women in many parts of the globe that are kidnapped and coerced into prostitution.  And hey guess what?  If these ladies are forced into this work then when a client has sex with her, she is being raped.  

After I found out about all this I consulted with one of my friends in the Army to get a second opinion (cause yes, I wondered if I was being “oversensitive” or “hysterical” assuming someone forced into prostitution was technically being raped).  Having done a tour in Korea, she said she actually agreed with me.  She explained to how it wasn’t unheard of for mafia in Korea to kidnap and force women to sign a contract that would not allow them out of prostitution work until a certain debt was paid off.  The kicker was that in addition to the debt they were charged for basic living expenses and threatened with violence to never leave.  One of the problems that the Army faces is trying to prevent GIs from buying out their contracts for their freedom, mainly cause I guess the US doesn’t want to give the impression that it support the mafia (and honestly though it may be helping the individual it seems to only contribute to the overall problem).  This is one of the reasons why I support legalizing prostitution, since it’s not just overseas, but the same thing happens here as well.

I think I just ranted much more than I needed to, but to simplify, I don’t see much wrong with military/service agents hiring legal and fully consenting prostitutes, I DO see something terribly wrong about hiring illegal non-consenting prostitutes who are basically being raped and people writing off as “boys will be boys” or “that’s what we in the military do.”

countingcookies:

Read ‘em and weep

(via lacigreen)

newwavefeminism:

How do you feel about this whole situation with time, this image and the mother defending her brand of attachment parenting? She elaborates her perspective more in this article, where she describes co-sleeping with her 3 year old and allowing her son to choose when we wants to self wean off of her breast milk.

I find it VERY interesting that the person who wrote the book on attachment parenting, Dr. Bill Sears - a doctor who explains it as “natural motherly instincts” and is telling mothers everywhere how to be the right type of “natural” mom ISNT EVEN A WOMAN.

What does everyone think about this entire situation?

I’m not familiar enough with the details of this parenting method to really give any critique, but the cover in itself seems problematic. 

First with the photo.  It’s no surprise that the public will have a visceral knee-jerk reaction cause we still raise society with the idea that breasts are purely sexual objects and that any public exposure equals automatic obscenity.  I feel that this is something that should be rectified.  Breastfeeding is something that is natural and has many healthy benefits and women shouldn’t be shamed for having to do it in public (hey if I can eat in public, why can’t a baby?).  But I kinda feel this cover is giving some mixed messages.  The parenting style is meant to encourage nurturing amongst parent and child but the photo doesn’t really read that way to me.  The photo has the mother appearing to be stand-offish.  She simply stands there having her son support himself on a chair to get a meal with a rather nonchalant attitude emitting from her body language.  This seems to be the opposite of what’s trying to be achieved, that the parenting style encourages intimate and nurturing emotional connections with your child.

Then there’s the tagline, “ARE YOU MOM ENOUGH?“  Sorry, but I don’t think there’s anyway to misconstrue that.  Them’s fighting words there.  Pair this with that photo (hey, even the boy is wearing camo pants), and I feel like I need to enter some hardcore mommy boot-camp in order to be a proper parent.  Certainly not giving the impression of nurturing.  And as the article points out, the mom isn’t pleased with the photo, and it doesn’t reflect how she actually goes about breastfeeding her child. 

So yeah, TIME magazine will be getting the evil glare from me.  The cover they chose probably doesn’t have much to do with the parenting they’re discussing (and they may even be vilifying it) and furthermore a feel they are only helping to hinder the acceptance of public breastfeeding just to get people to turn heads and read their issue.

delacroix:

Dear fitspo community, 

1. Body shaming is an incredibly shitty thing to do.
2. There’s nothing wrong with eating a cheeseburger. A healthy diet is about moderation, not about guilt and extremism.
3. It’s not even remotely that simple.

Bolding done by me for emphasis…..and I totally love delacroix for this.