Study debunks notion that men and women are psychologically distinct

meloromantics:

oddpicturesoddpeople:

sinidentidades:

The Journal of Personality and Social Psychology has dealt a devastating blow to the notion that men and women are fundamentally different when it comes to how they think and act.

“Although gender differences on average are not under dispute, the idea of consistently and inflexibly gender-typed individuals is,” Bobbi J. Carothers of Washington University in St. Louis and Harry T. Reis of the University of Rochester explained in their study. “That is, there are not two distinct genders, but instead there are linear gradations of variables associated with sex, such as masculinity or intimacy, all of which are continuous.”

Analyzing 122 different characteristics from 13,301 individuals in 13 studies, the researchers concluded that differences between men and women were best seen as dimensional rather than categorical. In other words, the differences between men and women should be viewed as a matter of degree rather than a sign of consistent differences between two distinct groups.

You mean human beings, like everything else, living and mineral, in nature exist on a series of both parallel and intersecting spectrums, and there is no such thing as a definitive binary or black/white divide?

MRAs, RadFems, and EvoPsych people everyone will be horrified to find this out.

radfems would not be horrified because this is what we’ve been telling people for forever

radical feminism seeks to abolish gender, as in the set of social conditions and structures that position female children as less than and raise them to be submissive and ornamental

abolishing this social construct means acknowledging that there is no fundamental difference between men and women psychologically [and very few noticeable physical differences: sex characteristics are obvious, but without the structure of gender telling women that they shouldn’t become muscular because men would no longer find them attractive, or that men who don’t have muscle tone in certain places are weak] and that differences that arise are a result of upbringing and social conditioning. 

this is, quite basically, what being gender-critical means. this news is scientific support of radical feminist theory, and the fact that someone thinks radical feminists would be “horrified” at this news means that liberal feminists’ straw-feminist smear campaign and silencing tactics against radicalism have been very successful.

(via plansfornigel)


"Anyone who suggests that a class of females should exist to absorb male sexual aggression is, by definition, expressing a misogynistic view."

Rachel Moran, Why Jim the Johns Article Made My Skin Crawl (via irathientlover)

(via ibt-w)


(Source: sarahseeandersen, via youmakegandhicry)


femslashgoggles:

thefingerfuckingfemalefury:

rosalarian:

itswalky:

Shortpacked!: Frajer

In which David Willis invents something even better than the Bechdel Test.

LESLIE IS ACTUALLY ME
I NEED EITHER CANON LESBIANISM OR ENOUGH FEMSLASH FUEL THAT I CAN TOTALLY CREATE HEADCANON LESBIANISM

David Willis didn’t invent anything new. The Bechdel Test is suppossed to show whether a lesbian could enjoy a piece of entertainment or not. Straight feminists just hijacked it. Don’t give credit to a man for something lesbians have come up with and is a tool most of us use to navigate through mainstream tv/movies.

femslashgoggles:

thefingerfuckingfemalefury:

rosalarian:

itswalky:

Shortpacked!: Frajer

In which David Willis invents something even better than the Bechdel Test.

LESLIE IS ACTUALLY ME

I NEED EITHER CANON LESBIANISM OR ENOUGH FEMSLASH FUEL THAT I CAN TOTALLY CREATE HEADCANON LESBIANISM

David Willis didn’t invent anything new. The Bechdel Test is suppossed to show whether a lesbian could enjoy a piece of entertainment or not. Straight feminists just hijacked it. Don’t give credit to a man for something lesbians have come up with and is a tool most of us use to navigate through mainstream tv/movies.

(via monosexuals)


Anonymous said: I really think your "handy translation guide" post is very heartening. To accurately describe the queer community's misogyny, narcissism and homophobia is really very helpful to clear out the gaslighting lesbians are constantly exposed to, and I applaud you for putting lesbians first and posting things that are truly helpful to us.


Anonymous said: If you don't want to date/talk to/ acknowledge bisexual women that's fine, but do you have to be so cruel about it? Bisexual women are victims of the patriarchy, too. If you had the option to opt out of homophobia, wouldn't you?

"If you had the option to opt out of homophobia, wouldn’t you?"

ahhh, finally, a refreshing bit of ”bisexual activism” at it’s finest.


Anonymous said: I really think your "handy translation guide" post is very rude. To accuse people of misogyny and narcissism and just overall put your own prejudices and stereotypes of whatever sexual orientation they identify as is just not okay, and I just think you shouldn't have posted it because it was very mean and derogatory to the people that those "translations" apply to.

it is unfortunate that you are unable to see beyond the tone of the post to understand that lesbians like myself are sick of being shit on by other women in the so-called “queer community”. if you read closely, you’ll notice that these joke translations only point out some ways in which other women can enact homophobia and misogyny against lesbians, regardless of their self-identification.

p.s. you’re damn right it was very mean. that’s why they call us lesmeans


Male Identified

redressalert:

Male identified did not used to mean “identifying as a male.” It did not used to mean ftm. It used to mean any woman who was watching herself through an internalized male gaze and performing for it; a woman who was contorting herself to conform to male expectations; a woman who was assimilated into malestream culture and did not have a sense of herself outside of being in relation to men. In other words, a woman with a raging case of internalized misogyny. A woman who will see the humanity in a man before recognizing any in her sisters or in herself. Sometimes, it specifically meant a woman who played men’s games by their own rules for her own individual advantage; perhaps in a nontraditional “power” career.

This woman was considered an undesirable element in women’s communities because she could not be counted on to act in her own interests, let alone be in any kind of solidarity with other women. As I understand it, this concept was both extremely useful and the basis for divisive, damaging purity politics. Every woman has internalized misogyny. We might wear it differently and manage it differently. We can try to unpack it, address it, and mitigate it; or, conversely, we can just act it out and call it an “empowered choice”—but nobody’s exempt and nobody’s pure.

When the term was originally coined, women who wore makeup and heels, for example, were considered “male identified.” One the one hand, this reflected an important shared critique of disfiguring “beauty” practices such as wearing “shoes” not shaped for human anatomy and spreading chemicals onto one’s sense organs. As a group, lesbian feminists were refusing to participate in their own subjugation. On the other hand, these markers of submission are not something any woman does outside the context of a devil’s bargain—regardless of how much she may tell herself otherwise.

To locate the source of the problem in other women is to ignore the real root; to assume that a woman lacks the “right” consciousness because of the strategy she’s employed to navigate a hostile world is not a deep enough recognition.

“Male identification” now, in the Age of Identity, primarily means something far more literal. While there are still plenty of women, including lesbians, maintaining the previous version—the kind that helps you pass for straight, and signals to men that you accept their rules—this kind is not called “male identification” anymore. Now it may be called “empowerment,” “femme,” or “I’m just me;” it may be called “cis” and falsely naturalized as the essence of womanhood—but it is never recognized as male identification. This is important—the whole project fails if the traditional kind of “male identification” is recognized as such. Instead, that truth is obfuscated whenever it’s posited as an axis of oppression (“femmephobia”) that supposedly cuts across all sex/gender positions. How better to alienate a woman from herself than to re-frame her oppression to obfuscate the agent, aligning her with the likes of arch-MRA (“men’s rights advocate”)/mtf Julia Serrano, rather than with other women.

Male identified is now used to mean a literal attempt to assume the social position of a male and, often, to modify one’s body to be either as male-like as possible or as “queer” as possible—where “queer” necessarily implies unfemale. This male-identified woman is considered a very desirable element in “queer” social scenes, but in an objectified way. She (usually called “he”) doesn’t wear makeup and heels—unless she’s sufficiently bodily-modified so as to render this a facsimile of “queer male” performance. If she’s striving to be male-like, and partners with same, they call themselves “faggots.” She may call herself genderqueer, a boi, “masculine of center,” or any number of the rapidly-proliferating terms meaning “anything but female.” This is not about women rejecting male-defined femininity (which was the project of the women who coined the original term “male identified”); instead, it is about striving for male-defined masculinity. In its way, it is just as put on, artificial, and ultimately damaging as its inverse.

There is no “masculine of center” in a patriarchy—masculine means pertaining to males, and males are the center of dominant culture—and also, in one way or another, the center of any women’s subculture that does not consciously and actively resist this paradigm.

Having lost the “sex wars” and otherwise been beaten down by the backlash, lesbian feminists no longer inform the group values of what used to be the women’s/lesbian community. There is no women’s movement now, and there hasn’t been one in my lifetime. Women have been moving; some never stopped, and some younger ones began, mostly on their own, feeling their way to the same truths as their predecessors. But it’s a fringe, and it’s not leading the general trend.

The cutting edge of the new “women’s” community is made up of male-identified women of all kinds, who ultimately serve and boost male agendas including the erasure of lesbian into “queer;” the rise of “gender identity” derails over sex-based analysis; the normalizing and defense of porn;  the practice of sadomasochism; the framing of so-called “sex work” as an empowered choice to the detriment of most women who have no choice to speak of; and the idea that feminism means adopting MRA talking points like “but women rape, too.”  

Who are these “male-identified” women who have taken over? They are us. Like I said, nobody’s pure. It is nearly impossible to resist aligning with male power for survival, and it is impossible to resist alone. At the moment, most of us are more or less alone, as far as I can tell.

It’s not about who is doing it; you might as well ask which of us never internalized any misogyny. We are all doing it in some way, to some degree. If we can’t acknowledge this, we can’t change it. Even if you (very unpopularly) managed to maintain the purest feminist ideals on every matter, you might use them as a club with which to beat other women who you see as falling short; you might locate the source of internalized misogyny in other women, rather than recognizing with compassion or understanding the push they are reacting to; you might decide that other women are your oppressor on the basis of them negotiating their internalized misogyny in a different way than you do—and then, even with “pure” politics, you would be male-identified. The purity concept itself, that self-aggrandizement that holds you apart from others—is only another form of male-identification.  We have to see each other.

But very few feminists even strive for any such ideals, however imperfectly, these days. I-ndividual choice and moral minimalism are the order of the day; perhaps in reaction to the purity politics of the previous era, we have swung entirely in the other direction. It is heresy to question an individual woman’s choices from a community-impact perspective; it is an offense (sometimes punishable by exile) to suggest considering the needs of the group above or even alongside those of the individual—and, in fact, it is increasingly rare to even think of lesbians per se as a group at all. Where “community” is invoked, it’s in the context of an ever-broadening alphabet-soup coalition, wherein the “L” supposedly represents a relative degree of privilege and power and must therefore take a deferential posture. An attitude of submission, in sacrifice to the “greater” (read: male) good. Thus our “community” is eaten away from both sides; from a belonging contingent on male-defined “knowing our place”—to an overwhelming individualism within the “queer” versions of what were once lesbian spaces.

From this position, too many of us believe that our only course of action is to choose which variety of male-identification we want to commit ourselves to. To choose each other seems impossible.

If lesbians won’t stand up to this garbage, who is going to? If lesbians are trading feminism for male-identification, what hope can there be?

Male-identification keeps us alien from ourselves, separate from each other, and hooked into male carrots-and-sticks instead. This is not what satisfies a lesbian. This is not what we are made for.

What lesbian can ignore the call of deep recognition with another woman?

We have to give ourselves to each other. We have to stop being afraid of the truth of ourselves. And it is irresistibly satisfying  to love ourselves and each other in this way.

So I have hope for our lesbian future; hope that lesbian feminists and other women-identified- women can lead the way to a livable world for us all. If someone like me, who was once male-identified in the most literal sense, can come through it and be changed such that I can never again be duped—then it is possible to turn this tide. Thousands upon thousands of women acting against themselves and the larger  group interest feel a dissonance in their gut. They may try to kill it, but the more clearly we say what we know—without making any other woman into The Enemy—the harder it is to ignore.


first non-radical sex vs gender graphic i’ve seen that includes the hierarchy of gender roles! (via @DIF_Morelos)

first non-radical sex vs gender graphic i’ve seen that includes the hierarchy of gender roles! (via @DIF_Morelos)


(via firstwavefeminist)


Friendly reminder to all you third waver shits

the-uncensored-she:

femalesupremacist:

Remember, if you have ever:

  • Called a rape crisis hotline;
  • Taken refuge in a domestic violence/battered women’s shelter;
  • Used legal birth control;
  • Had a legal abortion;
  • Worn pants to school or in the workplace or on the street;
  • Been able…

(via crystaltokyojupiter)


drbrucebananer:

0% of people literally think you are a lesbian because you have short hair, they are trying to offend you and the offense you need to take is in support of actual gay women, not your straight identity

(via monosexuals)


(Source: axelkatten, via temporaryproblematicurl-deactiv)


konahin:

The Anatomy is back! The Uterus (WIP)

konahin:

The Anatomy is back! The Uterus (WIP)

(via shamelesslyunladylike)