Seriously tho. Why *should* she be asked to smile?
Asking a woman to smile is to make her more approachable. It’s to make you feel more comfortable - not her. I, personally, have zero fucks to give about being approachable to strange men on the street. Women are not here to entertain and please random folks.
Asking me to smile is akin to asking me to jump. Um. For what?
There’s this weird responsibility placed on women to be happy and lady-like and pleasant all of the time. It rids us of being able to express our own range of human emotions.
No one is asking for men and women to not interact with each other. That’s silly. This project is asking for women to be interacted with as if they have agency over their own bodies.
Creator of the Stop Telling Women To Smile project.
The presence of love does not in itself argue
for either equality of status nor fullness of communication.
"Do Gamers Need Anita Sarkeesian’s Feminism?"
Good, short video by Game/Show, PBS, on the attacks on Sarkeesian’s criticism of misogyny in video games. The in-group/outside effects described in the video are in full effect in the comment section.
Feminism gave me a right to speak that I didn’t feel I had beforehand. Without feminism I don’t think I would have started blogging because I would have thought who the fuck am I, why would anyone be interested? Whereas, because of feminism, I now feel I have a duty to speak. For example, when the police came round after the first rape threat and said: ‘Do you want to take this guy to court?’, my first thought was ‘Not really, because there might be awful repercussions and I’m a bit scared’. But because of feminism, I feel I have a duty to take it to court and to see it through.Caroline Criado-Perez: ‘Twitter has enabled people to behave in a way they wouldn’t face to face’ The Guardian
But why should women “deal” with this? I am incredibly lucky to be doing the job I am doing at the moment – and painfully aware of the fact that I would not be able to make music for a living without people on the internet caring about our band. But does that mean that I need to accept that it’s OK for people to make comments like this, because that’s how women in my position are spoken to?
I absolutely accept that in this industry there is comment and criticism. There will always be bad reviews: such is the nature of a free press and free speech. When you put your work out there, you are accepting the fact that people will comment on it, but it is your choice whether you read it or not. (Kathleen Hanna sums this sentiment up nicely in this interview.)
What I do not accept, however, is that it is all right for people to make comments ranging from “a bit sexist but generally harmless” to openly sexually aggressive. That it is something that “just happens”. Is the casual objectification of women so commonplace that we should all just suck it up, roll over and accept defeat? I hope not. Objectification, whatever its form, is not something anyone should have to “just deal with”.
I can recommend the entire op-ed - and Chvrches smash hit Recover.
(Warning: the music might autoplay when clicking on the link)
Kelly, as I’ve written before, is the brains of the Fox News operation, and, occasionally, she stops caring whether the men around her notice. Sometimes it’s an emergency intervention, when a Supreme Court decision or election returns are coming in. And, every now and then, the ideological blindness seems too much for her, and she makes it clear that she’s smarter than the men around her, rather than deftly letting them think they are. She’s done it before on women’s issues, when a Fox commentator called maternity leave a “racket”; perhaps that makes it easier for her colleagues to reassure themselves that it was a girl thing, and pretend, as they fall through the holes in their logic, that the ideological ground under them is still there.Amy Davidson: Megyn Kelly Dominates on Fox (The New Yorker)
This split in reaction is also evident in case studies of hate speech. The typical reaction of target-group members to an incident of racists propaganda is alarm and immediate calls for redress. The typical reaction of non-members is to consider the incidents isolated pranks, the product of sick but harmless minds. This is in part a defensive reaction: A refusal to believe that real people, people just like us, are racists. This disassociation leads logically to the claim that there is no institutional or state responsibility to respond to the incident. It is not the kind of real and pervasive threat that requires the state’s power to quell.
The same could be said/applied to sexist incidents and misogynist hate speech. The backlash about the #Aufschrei-discussion of everyday sexism in Germany is just one current example. The appeasing responses by ‘non target-group members’ came from Internet trolls, journalists and even the German President. The described reactions can also be witnessed in the case of KKK and other racists depictions at Oberlin.