WANG opposes valuing women based on how they look, rather than who they are and what they do. WANG also opposes the prohibitive and narrow beauty standards imposed on women that reflect racist, heteronormative, capitalist, sexist, ageist, cissexist and disableist ideologies.
Women everywhere are expected to conform: to remove their body hair, to wear make-up yet look ‘natural’. To diet, and to wear restrictive clothing. All in order to be considered acceptable, respectable and feminine. If you support women's choice to refuse these regulatory practices, then join WANG! It's not just for the unshaven and undeodorised but for anyone who believes that women should not be reduced to how they look, and that conventional beauty techniques aren't the only route to attractive and socially worthwhile people. People of any/no gender are welcome too, and we support all struggles against the pressure to conform to hegemonic representations.
This tumblr is no longer affiliated with WANG the facebook group.
Ingrid T for “Torrid Has Rebranded to be Just Another Plus Size Store That Sucks" on Bitchtopia (via unknwnpleasures)
The point is, even by sexualizing women to make an ostensibly parodic commentary on how hip-hop sexualizes women, you are still sexualizing women. And even if your dancers are well-treated and knew what their job was beforehand, you’re still mocking those who dance for real in rap videos for potentially a myriad of reasons, and/ or assuming that they don’t know what they’re doing, or that they are victims. That is racially problematic at best. And when you’re the fully-clothed white woman at the center, and your video director is still working with the same slow-mo ass shots as the ones you seem to want to satire (his direct inspiration: “what was the most hip-hop thing you could ever do?”)—well, that shit is definitely racially problematic, and particularly so in a banner year for twerking and white women treating black women as props.
It’s such a shame, because beyond the “ironic objectification” and pretty dunderheaded generalizations about hip-hop, the song could have been good—a real-talk “critique of sexism in the industry,” as Pitchfork enthused. This video says to me that Allen’s feminism applies only to Allen and her ilk. It’s white feminism to the max.
If your only means of body-positivity are sexualizing any and all body types, and claiming you find them sexually appealing and thus are right by you. You’re erasing the fact that the human body exists beyond the purpose of sex, or physical forms of gratification.
If you’re telling me, I should be proud of how I look, because you would sleep with me, than you are directly saying my worth, be it to myself or others, is immediately correlated with my sexual appeal, and thus invalidating my right to not only deny sex, but not wish to affiliate the human form with anything aside from it.
If you are incapable of being more than that, then by all means, go fuck yourself
Please note all the fetish blogs that follow WANG - to put it very mildly, we don’t appreciate you sexualising our body hair.
This blog is about being against partriarchal norms of seeing women as just objects of desire, while you are strengthening these norms by taking our body hair as objects to visually consume and sexualise.
Hello. I started a discussion a little while ago, and I was wondering if the topic could be civilly reopened. It has been pointed out that some women who choose not to shave are frustrated by people telling them their hairy legs are sexy. Their choice to bare hairy legs in public may be motivated, at least in part, by a desire to combat the objectification of women. Being told that that their legs are sexy could be interpreted as “a continuation of this sexualisation of the female body (or parts there of); … it just shifts objectification from one ideal to another.” It was suggested that my arguments and ideas came from a place of ignorance rather than malice, but I know that ignorance can do just as much, if not more harm than malice, so I ask for your thoughts, and your help. Here is my problem:
If I, as a cis male, primarily attracted to women, find female body hair (or any physical trait) attractive, is there a way to express that attraction without working against the cause of gender equality? Is there a way of saying, “I find this sexy/beautiful/attractive,” without saying, “I value you as a sexual object more than I do as a person”? It would seem there is an assumption that when a man expresses any such attraction, he doesn’t value women as whole people, regardless of his actual views. Or, is the problem not in the expression of attraction, but in the attraction itself? Is it wrong to find specific physical traits attractive?
In your response, if you choose to respond, please remember that I am here seeking understanding. If I’ve made some blunder and offended you, please be kind and help me see what I’ve missed.
submitted by operalifelove
I came across a quote the other day something like this, “it is one thing enjoying something that is problematic, it is another thing to argue that because you enjoy it, it isn’t problematic”. So basically, yes, I think it’s a problem for men to find female body hair sexy, I don’t think shaming people for what they find sexy is useful, but its not ok to try and justify it, to say that its ok because its natural, or neutral, or free from context, or outside of power relations, because desire isn’t any of those things. Particular, the way in which men sexualise women isn’t any of those things.
I find it an act of aggression when men sexualise women’s body hair. Because many women who have body hair do it to reclaim themselves for themselves, and to try and help other women be seen as subjects, and not objects. So when men sexualise women’s body hair I see it as them reasserting their dominance and control and ownership – women can’t have anything for themselves, not even their selves, or do anything for other women, because everything they try to do and have, men co-opt and reduce to a thing that is for them. Men sexualising body hair benefits them, it keeps them in an advantaged position, and women as objects of their desire. It’s pretty frustrating. So yes, I think that the only non-objectifying way to find a woman attractive, is to find her attractive as a person, and therefore find everything about her attractive, rather than dismembering people into parts that you can fetishise.
I think its a mistake to think that this type of territory is about ‘offence’. It you say something I disagree with it, I disagree on moral or political grounds. If I disagree with you its because i think you are wrong, and I can give reasons for that, which include that such ways of acting causes people harm, not just because I’m offended. That is to say, it is not the emotional reaction of annoyance or resentment (offence) that is the main consideration when people say problematic things, and to frame it so trivialises my reaction.
secondly, if you say something that i think falls under that bracket, i.e. is a belief linked to a way of acting that causes people harm, then its a bit silly to assume that i should be ‘kind’ to you. I generally try to be measured, but i don’t think i am obliged to be. And to admit that you might be saying something harmful, and then dictate how i respond to you makes you come across as though you think you should have the right to say whatever you want without suffering any repercussions. If people communicate dangerous ideas, I don’t see why they should be able to set the parameters by which people can respond to them, they don’t get to have that control over social interactions, where they can both communicate dangerous ideas and tell people how they can respond.