prettyyprogressive - Tumblr blog

[prettyyprogressive]

The Great Bimbo Debate

With the recent revival of ‘Bimbocore’, there’s been some questions surrounding it’s controversial elements.

[prettyyprogressive]

Clean girl Dior lip oil pink pilates princess written by a man or a woman check!

I've seen it said on TikTok, every girl is either 'popular' pretty, ‘model’ pretty or 'natural' pretty. Every time I open that God-forsaken app, there's a new insecurity trending that I never would have thought of on my own.

Straws now apparently give you wrinkles, so use this absurd-looking bendy straw that you can never use in public without accruing stares from strangers. Buccal fat is a term I have only just discovered and still don't quite understand. SKIMS are so expensive so the TikTok girlies have compiled a list of dupes because god forbid you ever show a roll or two. Try the iu diet or maybe keto. Buy an ice roller, a jade roller, £50 sun cream, and a serum made from the blood of a human sacrifice because that texture on your skin is not very clean girl Pinterest of you.

I'm absolutely not saying that self-care and enjoying taking care of your appearance are bad. Not at all. I have a regular fake tan and hot oil treatment routine. I love to indulge in that kind of stuff. But it is becoming increasingly obvious that the beauty industry is creating problems that target women for the sole purpose of generating profit.

It's tricking (especially younger) women into thinking that their appearance is worth more than living a fulfilled life and that even the smallest of daily habits will have a negative impact on their appearance and more 'importantly' their value.

Tape your mouth shut when you sleep so you don't get a double chin. Sleep on your back so you don't get an asymmetrical face. Use a corset and shapewear daily to improve your figure and posture. Don't smile or laugh or use a regular straw because it will give you wrinkles.

When I hear rhetoric like this or see another completely useless product designed to 'prevent' or 'solve' an 'issue' that is specifically marketed to women, I just feel so hopeless. What products are men guilt-tripped into buying that will help them to become the current most popular micro-trend the internet is fixated on and will move on from in a few weeks?

Let women live in peace.

[prettyyprogressive]

Matt Hancock is not a celebrity. He’s not just a funny posho that we can all just point at and laugh. He’s sinister. He’s responsible for thousands of deaths during the pandemic all while breaking Covid rules and having an affair, whilst we were forbidden from seeing our loved ones. Him going on I’m a Celebrity is a joke and makes a mockery of British politics. The same tactic of creating a harmless, bumbling idiot persona for Boris Johnson was the reason why he got into power. Shame on anyone who’s fallen the facade again.

[prettyyprogressive]

Yet again, Rishi Sunak proves how evil he and the tory cabinet are.

Sunak plans to review the Equality Act to remove trans rights. He aims to remove legal protections that keep trans people safe in the UK. Under the Equality Act, trans people have safe access to same-sex public bathrooms, hospital wards, and shelters and are protected from workplace discrimination. Rishi Sunak wants to take these rights away from trans people in the UK. This is being done as an attempt to 'safeguard women and children', but that is a weak excuse for blatant, unapologetic transphobia.

If you are not appalled, you should be. We did not vote for this.

[prettyyprogressive]

Another eye roll moment in UK politics. Kemi Badenoch has been appointed Minister for Women and Equalities. Does Kemi care about equality? Of course she doesn’t.

Our new equalities minister doesn’t believe trans women are women, disagrees with gender neutral bathrooms, and her voting records show she’s been absent voting on issues such as same sex marriage, has never voted on equal gay rights and generally voted against laws that promote equality and protect human rights.

[prettyyprogressive]

Last year, our new prime minister (then chancellor) Rishi Sunak, axed a £20 a week increase to universal credit pushing even more families into poverty. Luckily, he was granted planning permission for a private swimming pool and gym for his £1.5m Yorkshire mansion!

With rising energy bills, rent, and mortgages and the increasing reality of families experiencing homelessness and poverty, how is it fair that a man worth £730m is in charge of guiding us through one of the worst financial crises in British history? He serves the rich and only the rich. It is a kick in the teeth to all working-class people. Enough is enough. GE now.

[prettyyprogressive]

Rishi Sunak is the man who bragged about taking public money away from deprived areas and using it to help wealthier areas. He’s our prime minister. General election now.

[prettyyprogressive]

General Election Now!

This morning, Liz Truss resigned as prime minister after succeeding Boris Johnson in early September. She was in office for an abysmal 44 days.

If you're not clued up on British politics, I'll briefly explain this current mess. After Johnson's diabolical PM stint, he confirmed his resignation on the 7th of July 2022. Then the Tory leadership contest began, which saw candidates fight to convince other Conservatives to vote for them. In the end, Liz Truss won and became prime minister on the 6th of September 2022. That brings us up to today, Liz Truss has resigned and now holds the title of the shortest-running PM in British history.

The people did not vote for this. In fact, the latest YouGov figures proves that many don't even want a Conservative government.

Another Tory leadership race would be incredibly undemocratic. For the last 12 years, the UK has been plagued with austerity. Tories have failed to protect public health, failed to protect the country's most disadvantaged children, and only serve to help the richest thrive. Not to mention the laundry list of sex scandals and the nefarious acts committed by the people in charge of running this country.

The people have had enough. Another Tory leadership fiasco will mean a group of privileged people picking which of their mates will screw over the working class for the next few months. Normal people have no say. It's time for a general election. Let the people have their say.

[prettyyprogressive]

god this is stunning. the connections to greek and irish mythology, the commentary on the occupations of ireland and palestine, the conflict over jerusalem, women’s rights, sexual assault, gender…all encompassed in the most sorrowful, haunting song i’ve ever heard in my life. someone sedate me

[prettyyprogressive]

Swan upon Leda - a new feminist hymn

On the 7th of October 2022, Irish singer-songwriter Hozier released the first song from his forthcoming album, Unreal Unearth, and it couldn’t have come at a more appropriate time. With the overturning of Roe V Wade in the US earlier this year, Swan upon Leda offers solidarity to women in a time of unrelenting uncertainty and bleakness.

Upon the announcement of the song’s release, Hozier took to Instagram to explain his reasonings behind writing Swan upon Leda. In the post, he shared that he listened to Egyptian author and journalist Mona Eltahawy speak in Dublin. He wrote, “Eltahawy once referred to the global systems that control and endanger women as the world’s ‘oldest form of occupation,’” After hearing the shattering news of Roe V Wade being overturned whilst in a recording studio, Hozier said that was another strong motivation behind the song and its visceral lyrics.

Hozier cleverly uses Greek mythology to illustrate how modern society still subjugates women, just as it did back in ancient times. In the original story of the Swan and Leda, Zeus transforms into a swan and assaults Leda to punish her for becoming Queen of Sparta. The use of this particular Greek myth is significant as it shows how the oppression of women has been a constant throughout history; it happened in ancient Greek society, and it still happens today.

Swan upon Leda solidifies Hozier’s title as an expert protest song writer. His lyrics hold an inexplicable sense of grief that make the song feel like a requiem. The chorus in particular feels like a punch in the gut:

But the gateway to the world

Was still outside the reach of him

What never belonged to angels

Had never belonged to man

The ‘gateway to the world’ refers to childbirth, and it is not in the realm of men. Hozier regularly uses religious imagery in his work, and this is prevalent in this song. Biblically, angels are not born or reproduced, they are simply created. Essentially, Hozier is making the statement that men nor religion should have control over the female body – it doesn’t belong to them.

Musically, Swan upon Leda is beautiful. The vocals are soft, almost hushed, which reflects how many abortions are carried out in secrecy, something that society tells women they must keep quiet about. Yet, the layering of vocals, especially towards the end of the song, creates a sense of solidarity that feels like an embrace in a time of immense grief and anger.

I strongly urge strident feminists to listen to Swan upon Leda. It’s not the kind of feminist anthem you would expect, especially as it was written by a man. It isn’t a manufactured, shallow, girl boss power anthem, it is a gut-wrenching portrayal of the gritty reality of modern women. Whether it be the American women fighting for their reproductive rights, or the Iranian women fighting for their right to not wear the hijab, Hozier spotlights one of the most pressing women’s issues in the world today – fighting for the right to choose.

[prettyyprogressive]

Quick PSA,

You can fight for a woman's right to wear a hijab and also fight for another woman's right to NOT wear one if she doesn't want to - and you'd still be fighting for the same thing, a woman's right to choose.

You're still fighting for her freedom.

[prettyyprogressive]

Credit to @macrosbudt, who created the original post and gave permission to repost. I'm trying to blaze this. If it doesn't work, that means the moderators rejected it.

Edit: Yeah, they rejected it. This is at least the 3rd time they've decided to reject a post about women being oppressed.

[prettyyprogressive]

My problems with true crime

Despite being only 3 episodes deep in the new Netflix Dahmer series, it already has me questioning the new wave of true crime media and the intentions of avid true crime consumers.

Being someone who has been interested in true crime for quite a few years, I found DAHMER - Monster: the Jeffrey Dahmer Story to be incredibly distressing. I have seen documentaries about it, so I know most of the case details, but this new portrayal is upsetting for many reasons.

Director, Ryan Murphy, claims to have created the show in order to "give victims a voice". This attempt has fallen flat on its face, for me. The idea of portraying victims as real humans who lived real lives was completely disregarded within the very first episode. In a scene where police officers are explaining to Dahmer's father what they had discovered in his apartment, they list off a whole host of gruesome items. This is done to make the audience uncomfortable, which completely contradicts the original intention of the show. Murphy reduces the victims to dismembered body parts for shock value.

This is one of many issues I have with the series. Murphy wants to seem sincere in his efforts to pay respects to the victims and their families. But can you really be respectful when you're recreating scenes of some of the worst trauma imaginable in the name of 'entertainment'? I have no affiliation with any victim or family involved in the case, but I found the series deeply harrowing, so I cannot imagine how the victim's families feel, seeing another portrayal of their relative having their life torn away from them.

Putting the ethics of the director aside, I'd like to comment on audience reactions. I've seen a flood of memes and TikToks being made about the series, attempting to make the topic seem more light-hearted, which I feel is inherently tone-deaf. People who have no association with victims or their families feel entitled to make the subject matter a little easier and fun to talk about. Not everything needs to be made more comfortable to talk about, especially not the murder of multiple men.

One more thing I have noticed on social media is flexing. People bragging about how they were not phased by seeing young, mainly people of colour, being horrifically murdered. One TikToker made a video saying 'when you watch the Jeffrey Dahmer series without being grossed out' with the caption 'Honestly, I'd watch it again, I was hooked' with laughing-crying emojis. I can't be the only person mortified at that claim? How de-sensitised has true crime made us that we find brutal murders something to laugh about.

Maybe I am a snowflake, but this new series has really put the ethics of new-wave true crime into question. There have been countless adaptations of the Jeffrey Dahmer case, do we need any more, really? Who is it benefitting? It is surely not made for those who carry the trauma of having a loved one taken from them in the worst circumstances possible. New true crime no longer serves to educate or share the stories of victims. It satisfies the twisted curiosity that has been normalised and lines the pockets of content creators and film studios.

[prettyyprogressive]

Misogyny V Misandry

Recently, I've been seeing a lot of men, especially young men's rights activists, talk about misandry. They claim that misandry holds the same weight as misogyny and some claim that it may be worse than misogyny, as it is widely 'acceptable to hate men' in today's society.

Personally, I completely, fundamentally disagree. I actually don't believe in the existence of misandry. That isn't to say I don't believe there are absolutely no women in the world who actually hate men, I can just identify that misandry does not subjugate and oppress men in the ways that misogyny does to women.

Some arguments that are made by men who claim to be victims of misandry include (but are not limited to); mothers receiving full custody of children more often in divorce proceedings, men being more likely to die in dangerous occurrences in the workplace and the male suicide rate is higher than women's. These can easily be debunked as they are common-sense narratives.

First, mothers are more likely to win custody in divorce battles as a result of the patriarchy. We're taught that by default, women are nurturing and natural caretakers. The patriarchy gave us clear-cut gender roles to fill. Not even just gender norms though, women on average are more likely to seek out custody in the first place. Next, women and girls are less likely to be encouraged to pursue traditionally masculine trades such as construction or engineering. Women make up only 11% of the construction industry, so is it any wonder that most reported accidents at work are from men? The male suicide rate argument can also be explained by the patriarchy. If women are the emotional, nurturers then men are the opposite; unemotional breadwinners. The patriarchy puts pressure on men to not show emotion as they will be perceived as weak or effeminate, so men tend to bottle up their emotions, leading to depression and suicide. On top of this, the male suicide statistics silence another important part of the debate. Although men are more likely to commit suicide, looking at the Samaritans' Gender and Suicide research, we can see that on average, women tend to attempt suicide more often and are unsuccessful.

Now, these common-sense narratives can be easily explained by the patriarchy, yet men's rights advocates will still blame women for these issues. I acknowledge that yes, these are all valid issues, but I don't accept that they are the fault of women.

The dictionary definitions of misogyny and misandry are very similar in ways, which are used in many arguments for the existence of misandry. Just because they are similarly defined, does not mean that they are the same. 9 in 10 rape victims are women; nearly 99% of perpetrators are men; 95% of sex trafficking victims in Europe are female; 1 in 2 women have experienced sexual harassment. With statistics like these, I feel it is justified for women to hold some negative feelings towards men.

So, to conclude, yes misandry might be a dictionary-defined word, but let's not pretend that it has the same detrimental effects as misogyny. Misandry is symptomatic of misogyny. Misandry is a result of centuries of oppression, but it is not a constructed social force that is built to subjugate and oppress men.

[prettyyprogressive]

"Abolish gender!"

NO.

liberate gender

Free gender from the confines of the patriarchy and give it to everyone in whatever ways they want it.