Maybe it means nothing

Forty-Fifth Down Under Feminists Carnival

2012-02-11T19:01:00.001+11:00

Hello! I've finally finished compiling the Forty-Fifth edition of the Down Under Feminists Carnival! This edition contains 57 feminist posts from bloggers living Australia and New Zealand, written and submitted to me in January 2012.

Thank you all for the submissions - it's been really good getting submissions on blogs I haven't read. It's been very hard to decide on two posts per blogger - there are so many excellent writers out there! My apologies for being slow - in addition to having a bunch of work commitments show up at the last minute, I've been having a few issues with blogger. Also I did this gradually and may have forgotten to make notes of which links should have content notes/trigger warnings. I've also tried to categorise everything, but of course many pieces don't fit nicely in boxes. Please let me know anything I've missed/got wrong in the comments.

--

Media
Good Gravey takes apart a panicky NZ Herald article about how many takeaways women eat.
http://goodgravey.wordpress.com/2012/01/27/get-back-in-the-kitchen-huh/

You are doing that wrong compares the movie posters for the American and Swedish versions of The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo.
http://youaredoingthatwrong.wordpress.com/2012/01/12/the-girl-with-the-dragon-tattoo-movie-posters-are-you-serious/

Blue Milk writes a detailed analysis of the 2011 and 1971 versions Straw Dogs, centering around the rape scene.

[Content note for discussion of sexual violence]

http://bluemilk.wordpress.com/2012/01/29/rape-scenes-and-how-i-watched-straw-dogs-2011-and-1971/

Anna at Larvatus Prodeo talks about the Melinda Tankard Reist debate.

http://larvatusprodeo.net/2012/01/18/its-complicated/

Melinda Tankard Reist doesn't speak for Helen at the Cast Iron Balcony either.

http://www.castironbalcony.com/2012/01/16/melinda-tankard-reist-doesnt-speak-for-me/

Gladly the Cross-Eyed Bear writes a satiric argument in favour of exorcisms in response to an article against homosexuals and same-sex marriage.
http://thatsmyphilosophy.wordpress.com/2012/01/25/an-argument-in-favour-of-exorcisms-in-the-spirit-of-margaret-court/

Bodies

Jo talks about the effects of "The Biggest Loser"s "Learn to Love Yourself" slogan.

http://alifeunexamined.wordpress.com/2012/01/23/love-yourself-but-only-if/

Megan Wegan at Craft is the New Black is angry and articulate about a Slate article claiming that "small breasts could make a comeback".

http://meganwegan.wordpress.com/2012/01/20/rage-inducing-discussions-of-breasts/

Elizabeth at My Spilt Milk talks about motherhood and breastfeeding, and recent media representations thereof.

http://mymilkspilt.wordpress.com/2012/01/29/breastfeeding-support-less-is-not-more/

Jo at A Life Unexamined would like people to stop thinking her body is about them.
http://alifeunexamined.wordpress.com/2012/01/04/my-body-is-not-there-for-your-entertainment/

Julie Goodwin responds to predictable commentary on her health after wearing swimmers on a cover of New Idea magazine.
http://www.juliegoodwin.com.au/blog/?p=1028

Sleepy Dumpling at Fat Heffalump talks about talking to Target Australia about their plus-size clothing range.
http://fatheffalump.wordpress.com/2012/01/15/talking-to-target-australia/

Sleepy Dumpling at Fat Heffalump is here to let everyone know that nobody needs to explain their body to anyone. (by the way, Fat Heffalump is awesome. I highly recommend reading)

http://fatheffalump.wordpress.com/2012/01/10/its-over-no-more-flogging-the-dead-horse/

Kelly guest posts at My Spilt Milk writes about how disappointing the dominant discourse on obesity and "eating healthily" is.

http://mymilkspilt.wordpress.com/2012/01/02/guest-post-missing-the-mark/

Parenting
The News with Nipples is disappointed by the media misrepresenting the Teenage Parent Trial as for teenage mothers only.
http://newswithnipples.com/2012/01/04/parenting-fun-for-the-whole-family-unless-youre-a-journalist/

Penni Russon wrote a poem about breastfeeding.
http://eglantinescake.blogspot.com.au/2012/01/breastfeeding.html

Blue Milk writes about her daughter and how girls learn to live in a sexist culture.
http://bluemilk.wordpress.com/2012/01/14/learning-to-live-as-a-girl-in-a-very-sexist-culture/

Elizabeth at My Spilt Milk writes about how she finds solace in giving and receiving kindness from and to her mother and daughter.
http://mymilkspilt.wordpress.com/2012/01/05/mother-daughter/

Disability

WillowDove writes a call for action for the International Day of People with Disability.

http://willowdove.com/blog/2012/01/02/the-email-i-wrote-for-international-day-last-year/

Lauredhel raises a resounding "what?" to a legal ruling that let Jetstar off the hook after refusing to allow Sheila King on a flight because there were already two people requiring wheelchair assistance on it.

http://lauredhel.dreamwidth.org/674372.html

Trans*

Good Gravey has things to say about the Libra fail and how to give apologies.
http://goodgravey.wordpress.com/2012/01/05/apologies-apologies/

Anthea at The Hand Mirror points out how dangerous the common failtastic trans* narrative in the media is.
http://thehandmirror.blogspot.com.au/2012/01/deceit.html

Kassie Hartendorp guest posts about Libra's transphobic ad at The Hand Mirror.
http://thehandmirror.blogspot.com.au/2012/01/guest-post-transphobictampons-its-not.html

Books
TigTog at Hoyden About Town links to an article which reflects a little on how the privileging of male narratives over female starts at school.
http://hoydenabouttown.com/20120117.11182/the-reading-iceberg-promoting-serious-male-narratives-over-trivial-female-narratives-starts-at-school/
http://www.theage.com.au/entertainment/books/a-womans-place-20120113-1pyoa.html#ixzz1jaf7BXw6

Kerryn at Still Life With Cat has put together a list of ten random legendary bad girls of literature. There are even more good examples in the comments.
http://stilllifewithcat.blogspot.com.au/2012/01/ten-legendary-bad-girls-of-literature.html

Sexuality

Chally at Zero at the Bone discusses how we disappear children's sexualities, and what that means for queer sexualities.

http://zeroatthebone.wordpress.com/2012/01/24/sexuality-queerness-and-childrens-knowledge-about-themselves/

Max Rose guest posts at The Lady Garden about his experiences with non-monogamous relationships.
http://theladygarden.org/2012/01/06/guest-post-polywhaterous/

Race

Queen Emily talks about the racism embedded in Australia Day celebrations.

http://hoydenabouttown.com/20120126.11237/hating-australia-day-from-afar/

Kim at He Hōaka is bemused by what sort of things the New Zealand government says it can afford.

http://starspangledrodeo.blogspot.com.au/2012/01/cant-afford-justice.html

Chally at Zero at the Bone writes about reading about race from white and non-white authors as a non-white reader, and her responses to such texts. (yes, this is the third one, but I really couldn't pick two lol)

http://zeroatthebone.wordpress.com/2012/01/10/race-and-the-non-white-reader/

stargazer talks about national days and how they promote racism and discourage global thinking.
http://kiwistargazer.blogspot.com.au/2012/01/26-january.html

A guest poster at The Hand Mirror reviews Colonising Myths—Māori Realities: He Rukuruku Whakaaro.
http://thehandmirror.blogspot.com.au/2012/01/guest-post-review-colonising-mythsmaori.html

Reproductive Rights

Captiver at the ALRANZ blog takes on the idea that abortion is the cause of moral decline.
http://alranz.wordpress.com/2012/01/29/from-our-files-moral-decline-still-just-around-the-corner/

[Trigger warning: sexual violence] Queen of Thorns points out the big difference in the meaning of a headline when one word is removed.
http://ideologicallyimpure.wordpress.com/2012/01/11/the-power-of-a-missing-word-texas-forced-pregnancy-edition/

[Content note: discussions of theoretical rape scenarios] LudditeJourno writes about using the terms unwanted, coerced and forced sex when exploring how how somebody understands an experience.

http://thehandmirror.blogspot.com.au/2012/01/rape-by-any-other-name.html

bluebec boggles at the statistics quoted by Melinda Tankard Reist, and investigates the study she got them from.
http://blogs.bluebec.com/lies-damn-lies-and-statistics/

Blue Milk talks about why "pro-life"is anti-feminist.
http://bluemilk.wordpress.com/2012/01/22/lets-cut-to-the-chase-why-pro-life-is-anti-feminist/

Sex Work

Jane at Because I'm a Whore explains her choice to use the word "whore" for herself.
http://becauseimawhore.com/2012/01/05/i-am-a-whore/

QoT writes about the panic over residential brothels.
http://ideologicallyimpure.wordpress.com/2012/01/22/residential-brothels-the-hint-is-in-the-name/

Dorothy Dentata guest posts at The Lady Garden in response to a Dominion Post article shaming sex work.
http://theladygarden.org/2012/01/29/guest-post-dear-rosemary/

Society
Ms Eloise talks about being the "Feminist Friend" in a group.
http://feminaust.org/2012/01/11/the-feminist-friend/

Chally at Zero at the Bone writes about feeling like a failure when she didn't call out someone's sexist behaviour and how that guilt is part of the same coin that blames women for existing.
http://zeroatthebone.wordpress.com/2012/01/18/youre-never-to-blame-for-someone-doing-wrong-to-you/

Scuba Nurse at The Hand Mirror writes about how it's sometimes intimidating for a newbie feminist to comment in a feminist space.
http://thehandmirror.blogspot.com.au/2012/01/lurking.html

bluebec rebuts the trope that people choose to be offended about things.
http://blogs.bluebec.com/responsibility/

Rachel Rayner guest posts at The Hand Mirror about cupcakes, and how they seem to be becoming obligatory at feminist events.
http://thehandmirror.blogspot.com.au/2012/01/guestie-of-cupcakes-and-feminism.html

Emma at The Lady Garden writes about how we commodify "love" and "sex".
http://theladygarden.org/2012/01/05/not-just-cause-you-insisted/

(A late addition!) Not big on dignity writes a personal account explaining why living as a woman means being a warrior.
http://notbigondignity.wordpress.com/2012/01/28/all-our-lives/

Guides and 101s
Mary at Hoyden About Town writes a helpful guide to soliciting research participants.
http://hoydenabouttown.com/20120108.10701/marys-helpful-guide-to-soliciting-research-participation-on-the-net/

Tammi Jonas talks about responses to responses to disagreement, and the comments talk about the above twitter exchange.

http://www.tammijonas.com/2012/01/04/on-dissent-and-intellectual-honesty/

Scubanurse talks about the concept of spoon theory in relation to feminism.
http://history-herstory-scubanurse.blogspot.com/2012/01/feminism-101-spoons-as-concept.html

tallulahspankhead writes about sluts at The Lady Garden.
http://theladygarden.org/2012/01/04/yet-another-fucking-101/

Ada Camp

Danielle at Scrambled Tofu reviews her experiences at Ada Camp and Haecksen.

http://blogs.gnome.org/danni/2012/01/17/adacamp-and-haecksen/

Scmaltz on Wry attended Ada Camp and was inspired.

http://naomieve.tumblr.com/post/15979150280/adacamp-2012

Unsorted

Tammiois at Raw/Roar talks about morality and how it relates to our bodies and political views.

http://rawroar.net/2012/01/18/a-cosmopolitan-morality/

Imogen at Raw/Roar writes a moving account of her father's life and death, and the suffering of everyone involved.

[Content note - deals with the death of her father by suicide and family violence]

http://rawroar.net/2012/01/21/one-year-on/

Sue Conde is the 20th of January's Friday Feminaust.
http://feminaust.org/2012/01/20/friday-feminaust-sue-conde/

stargazer ponders the working conditions of a manicurist.
http://kiwistargazer.blogspot.com.au/2012/01/soft-hands.html

Some really interesting links at The Lady Garden.
http://theladygarden.org/2012/01/21/sharing-the-love-25/

Blog note

2012-02-04T22:49:00.002+11:00

I'm working on putting together the DUFC this weekend, so keep watching this space. I've got a pretty busy week ahead of me (work commitments), so hopefully I'll get it done soonish.

On talking feminism

2012-01-27T23:09:00.001+11:00

I love having everyone engaged in conversations. However, when discussing feminism, I often end up having the same conversation, again and again.

It could be with a man or a woman, who is often intelligent and educated and interested with the world around them. It's rather tedious to go through the basics of why women deserve equality, why women are equally intelligent to men, how consent is a good thing etc etc over and over.

The conversation usually gets heated, because someone is being asked to look at things with a different perspective than the one the dominant culture prescribes. Then since I don't always know the answers and I'm not exactly the most eloquent person around, I end up spending a lot of energy explaining what I mean and why what the other person said wasn't helpful/wasn't new/was completely wrong, and finding resources to back me up.

This conversation, quite honestly, is nearly always exhausting for me. Me being me, I have a tendency to avoid it for as long as possible, whether or not that is really to my benefit.

Sometimes though, I like to poke the status quo, and see if I can disturb it a little. Say, by posting a link I find useful to <insert social media site here>. Usually, because the filtering I have on who gets to see my stuff on social media, this begets some good and educational conversation. Unfortunately, there's almost always one who misses the point/feels like being a smartass.

Now, that would be OK if they weren't obnoxious about it and listened to what I'm saying to them. Usually, though, they get defensive, and escalate the discussion by objecting to my arguments on the point I disagree with them for, especially by taking the arguments very personally, becoming defensive and presenting absurd hyperboles which are not at all what I'm trying to say (for example, "please don't do that [say the tone of X feminist article was too angry]" has been interpreted as "you should never talk about any of sexism, racism, homophobia etc because I'm a straight, white man")

As an FYI, if I ask you to stop doing something in a particular conversation. STOP. Think about it for a while. If you're still confused, and you are close enough to me to be able to talk to me in private or private message me, do so. Every message or unquestioning spouting of mainstream opinion which continues the conversation in my space after I've asked you to stop just makes me think you're a bigger douchebag than before.

Well. At least conversations like these places an extra filter on who I should include in my life/on my social media when that happens. Let it be known that I'm judging all of you by your response to stuff ups.

Tone arguments

2012-01-22T14:35:00.003+11:00

I've been considering whether or not I should post this, because the person it concerns knows of this existence of this blog, but what the hell. The person this post concerns has probably already written me off as some kind of crazy bitch who is dismissing him because he's a man, rather than disagreeing with him over the relevance of a particular type of argument in a discussion. And for the record, I absolutely believe that men should be involved in discussions of feminism. They just need to actually listen to what women are saying before they speak. Yeesh.

----

[This post contains sarcasm]

I was having a bit of a discussion about this post with some people on Facebook, until one guy I know decided to tell us all about how he thought the way the post was written was wrong. In his opinion, this post was written in a way which will "make guys become angry and spiteful". Apparently "it's such a shame she "just" wrote a rant post when she has "such a large" audience".

Oh my, haven't we heard that one before. Time to invoke the spoiling the afternoon part of the Terrible Bargain, and see what happens?

I gave him the 2-second 101 "it's not about you or "the guys", and she can write however she damn well pleases because there will always be somebody who gets pissed off. I ask him to please not derail my discussion.

Too late. Totally unpredictably, he gets defensive and escalates his derail.

Apparently, he's "simply" discussing how the blog "could have been better", and I'm derailing "his" discussion by saying "please don't do that". Apparently there's no "big picture" where he's trying to derail "the system".

What is this I don't even ...?

Better for whom? Him? Because well... the author of the post obviously knows who he is and how to write in a way that will make him happy. Oh. Whose wall are we having this discussion on again? There's no big picture where women's opinions are often dismissed because they're too angry, too nice, too emotional, too detached, too simplistic, too complicated... really?

Apparently now I'm dismissing his opinion by telling him to stay on topic or I will remove his comments. Apparently I should let discussions on my facebook wall go on whatever tangent they go, regardless of whether I like where it's going. Yes, his derail is now 100% complete.

Welcome to The Tone Argument 101, posted on my wall with a tag for each of the derailer and his supporters (people who "liked" his posts). Of course, this is the opportune time to make a new tone argument; about how he think's I've been too harsh on him because he's a man (I asked him to check his privilege when talking about women's writing) and wah wah wah, it's all about him and his hurt feelings and how he's a feminist so I should shut up and listen to him.

Yes, that's totally how it works. Oh wait. No it isn't. In the slightest.

I know someone who doesn't know how to stop digging. Because. Because.

He has a problem when people want to end an argument "suddenly". Apparently I shouldn't direct comments on my facebook wall, and let people go off on whatever tangent they like. And wah wah wah, yes, it's still about how I'm derailing him, in a conversation I started on my wall. And about how "I'm right and he's wrong". And asking me if he should "just stop talking about feminism and sexism and homophobia and racism" etc and make all topics taboo". (As if! But you should listen to women, and homosexual people, and people of colour when you do talk about those things!)

Yeahhhhh.

Apparently I'm the one being angry and defensive. All for saying "please don't do that".

Yikes.

2012-01-17T20:23:00.001+11:00

A guy friend of mine recently started calling every female friend of his "sweetheart" and "darling". Gah! Here's my opinion (again!) on people shouldn't do this:

It's overly familiar. This is the sort of language used to talk with a partner. People don't just get to be familiar with another person because of some combination of their genders. People have to earn that privilege. To behave as though someone is close to when they're not is to presume that you already know what they are comfortable with, which is a dangerous assumption to make.

It's patronizing. It's something you might use to talk with a small child. Need I say more?

It suggests entitlement. Entitlement of my affection, or entitlement to receive their affection. Which is hella creepy.

Ugh.

Forty-fifth Down Under Feminists Carnival

2012-01-15T00:52:00.001+11:00

I'm going to be hosting February's edition of the Down Under Feminists Carnival, hooray! Please send submissions via email as the blogcarnival submissions form is still not working. Submissions to wilddamon [at] gmail [dot] com.

Submissions must be of posts of feminist interest by writers from Australia and New Zealand that were published in January. I'll close submissions on February 2nd, so please submit your links by then! Spread the word!

Nooo

2012-01-11T14:04:00.000+11:00

I think I might suppose to be pleased that a coworker gave me a rose and with a sweet little note. All I'm thinking is "nooooo, not again!".

"you should have punched him in the face"

2011-12-18T10:25:00.001+11:00

[TW for harassment and discussion of real and imagined violence]

Ok, so I've been known to talk about the time a guy cornered and then leaned over me, so I punched him in the face. Whatever. That was an appropriate action to deal with that particular guy in that particular situation. It had the desired effect of getting him away from me immediately.

Fast forward in time to now. I went to the Opeth concert at the Enmore Theatre on Friday night, and holycrap the audience was obnoxious. People were yelling for the band to "play metal", and other people were yelling at the yellers to "shut the fuck up". People also threw a few bottles onto the stage. I'm not sure whether the "play metal" yellers had been listening to the concert... perhaps they were mis-informed of what "metal" is. In any case, the band usually has a setlist they go through. I suppose some bands take requests from the crowd, but getting mad when they don't play your personal request smacks of an incredible sense of entitlement.

Anyway, the final piece of obnoxiousness that I wanted to talk about was the guy behind me who kept touching my ass.

(Seriously dude. WTF was that about? What exactly do you get from lightly stroking the back of my jeans?)

There are two main questions/comments I've got from people I've talked to about it: Did I report it and maybe I should have hit him. (Is my faith in humanity so low that I'm mildly surprised (and glad) that none of my (male) friends have questioned that it really happened?)

I'm pretty sure that if I'd tried to report that to someone (assuming I knew who to tell and could pick out the random dude standing behind me in the dark), I'd be unlikely to be believed or blown off. Assuming I was believed, if they questioned the guy, he'd probably have sudden onset of amnesia, and/or claim it must have been an accident, because it was crowded and everything. Further assuming that authorities decided to believe me, I don't even know what action is appropriate in this case...

The second common response was a variation on "why didn't you hit him?". There are many reasons for this one; he was much bigger and taller than me, so if he hit me back I'd be in big trouble. Starting a fight with someone stronger than you is generally a bad idea. He may or may not have socialisation against hitting women, however I don't know which, and he was drunk, lowering any inhibitions he might have anyway. Secondly, the crowd was already ready to brawl. I wouldn't want to be the first to start that. I just wanted to watch the damn concert without obnoxiousness from the crowd. Thirdly, where would he go after I hit him? We're standing in a crowd thick with people. If I hit him and it doesn't cause him to leave, then he's... still standing behind me. (Say I hit him, and he's not hurt and laughs it off, and stays standing where he is.) That strikes me as an even less ideal situation than the first. Would he try and goad me into doing it again? If I hit him, what would the response of the combination of his and my friends be (knowing that none of them would have been able to see the ass-touching in the dark)? There are probably more reasons than I can think of for why hitting him would have been a poor move on my part. (Many of them went through my head when I was deciding how I'd respond.)

So what did I actually do? I swapped places with one of my male friends, and my ass was not touched by any assholes behind me for the rest of the concert. Personal problem solved. Cultural problem of entitled douchebags really not.

[H/T to Geek Feminism who had a re-post of a piece on just this sort of mater recently]

Haircut

2011-12-03T20:29:00.000+11:00

I go to the hairdresser occasionally to get my hair cut and dyed, as one does. I like to dye my hair bright colours, and starting from a black base, the bleach+colouring process is quite drawn out, taking a whole afternoon in the salon. Normally I quite enjoy having my hair played with (probably a throwback when we used to braid each other's hair when I was in primary school), but today I had a weird and unpleasant experience, somewhat reminiscent of this story.

I made an appointment and went to the hairdresser as usual. When I got in, there were a couple of other people getting their hair cut, so I had to wait. There was also a man, perhaps in his 30s (I'm terrible at estimating people's ages), waiting for an appointment. He stared at me when I came in, to the point of discomfort. When I asked him "what?", he exclaimed "she needs a champagne!" and offered me a glass of one. I turn it down, not having had much to eat because I was feeling a little under the weather after going out on Friday night.

After we got moved to the chairs to get our hair done, he makes all sorts of crude jokes about "titties" and his pubic hair. Gross. At some point he asked me if I was religious (huh?), and when I replied in the negative, he says something about how that makes all his jokes acceptable (wrong. I still think they were in bad taste). [TW] Then he went on to talk about how somebody electrocuted their wife/girlfriend and how he thinks they could have got away with stabbing her in any other country (WTF?!). [/TW] I interjected with something like "nobody should get away with that", and pulled out my phone and did my best to ignore his chatter after that. Finally, he left and I was pleased to be left the fuck alone.

Well. It turns out that he paid for my hair cut + colour when he left. I have no idea why he did that (to make up for being an obnoxious slightly drunk jerk? Some misguided attempt at being a gentleman? Was he trying to flirt with me? Was he feeling a bit threatened by an obviously young woman getting a haircut in an expensive salon without an attendant male?). WTF? Obviously I'm not going to accept a ($70) favour from him, and this whole thing makes me pretty uncomfortable, so I think I made the right decision by giving the hairdresser money and telling them to give him his money back. That way it's not my problem any more, in a way that if I had accepted the favour it would be. I'd have to thank him or something if I ran into him on the street (the location he said he lives is near me) and act grateful for his making me uncomfortable. I may need to deal with being called a bitch for not accepting his favour, but I think I prefer that to feeling like I owe somebody something.

attention

2011-09-07T22:36:00.001+10:00

"As hard as you all work to avoid us, guys will do stupid things to get women's attention"

Well, how about this. If I want someone's attention, I don't go and stamp on their toes. I don't do that because it's generally seen as a Rude and Not Nice thing to do. Even if I really want your attention.

When a stranger yelling "nice ass" at a woman is also seen as a Rude and Not Nice thing to do (as opposed to a compliment) to get their attention, we will have made progress.

Fail.

2011-09-06T11:35:00.000+10:00

The ads I was served for the email notification about a comment on my previous post.

Head, meet desk.

On feminism and privilege

2011-09-06T03:40:00.000+10:00

I don't get to not care about feminist issues. I don't get to say "I don't care because it's too hard." I don't get to look away, because these are the things which affect me every day.

I can care about individual issues without a feminist framework, but that doesn't lessen their impact. Without a feminist framework to draw the links between the types of privilege I do and don't have, the future seems bleaker. Without feminism, I see no predictable way to change the way I, and people like me, are treated as less every day.

Without feminism, I see no change to the levels of harassment I face online and in meatspace. I see no change in the rates of gender based violence. I see no change in how seriously I am and will be taken as a professional. I see talent being lost at every turn.

Without feminism, I see no point in continuing to live in this society.

But.

I can't opt out of society, and I can't opt out of caring about how it is broken. Especially, especially in the myriad of ways which affect me personally.

You may be able to choose to not care, but make that choice knowing that by making it, you are choosing to be part of the problem. People who are uninformed and perpetuate discrimination are almost (but not quite) excusable, but people who do it knowingly? They are not only part of the problem, but are preventing change. People who know better but do not challenge discriminatory views make it harder for change to happen. People who choose not to care are choosing to continue inflicting pain on others less well off than them, while having the power, time and energy to make it stop, because they are not wasting cycles on fending things off all the time. They are not using extra brain space on predicting whether the people around them care enough about consent not to rape them. They are not the ones fighting stereotypes about being lazy, suspicious, criminal, hysterical or less intelligent. In fact, perhaps because they are not burdened the stereotypes, they may even have a higher chances of actually bringing about change.

---
Links selected more or less at random from my feeds.

Anger

2011-06-06T20:50:00.000+10:00

[TW for rape jokes]

It's funny how an idiotic comment from a stupid dipshit can ruin your day. I was having a great time at a judo lesson when a dipfuck pulled out the "it's not rape if you yell surprise!" joke, followed up by "let's just say she woke up and was surprised to be having sex".

I have no idea who the asshole is, but I whipped around and said "that's absolutely disgusting!". He tried to recover by saying something about how that joke is mis-credited. I responded with "I don't care who said it first. That's a disgusting thing to say and you don't say it around people." He spluttered a bit... and I turned back to putting the rest of the stuff back in my bag.

I'm horrified that he thought that sort of joke is remotely acceptable, let alone in a room with several women in it. I'm really glad I spoke up, yet I'm disappointed nobody else who was staring at us for the conversation jumped in to agree with me. I feel like I could have articulated the response better, but I was too shocked.

I just want to shake every person who says it and yell "why?" in their face.

Why? Why do you find the rape of women, especially the rape of unconscious women funny?
Why do you think that the women in the room won't object?
Why do you think that joking about hurting women is acceptable?
Why? Why can't you see that what you are saying is enabling a culture where people think it is acceptable to ignore women's boundaries? Why don't you realise that what you are saying enables a culture where people think that raping a woman isn't a big deal? Why?

The clothing issue: hypocrisy [part one]

2011-05-16T23:37:00.000+10:00

Thoughts about clothes: I have many of these, given that the SlutWalk Sydney is impending, but also in general...

On hypocrisy:
One of the things I have been doing at work is gently pushing the people who order our work shirts to consistently order both men's and women's sizes. This is difficult, because all too often we end up with "unisex" sizes, which usually turn out to be men's sizes with a different label. If we're really lucky, there might be a unisex XS which might fit me, but generally it stops at S (which is marginally too big for me and probably some of the women I work with).

I think this is a problem which is overlooked because of the scarcity of women in engineering in my office (~5%), however it has also occurred when women from other departments have been included. It has also occurred in other contexts (our engineering class shirt, band tshirts). The complaint of not getting appropriately sized shirts is also often dismissed as "oh noes, the free stuff isn't perfect". Other arguments against provision altogether have been brought up, such as "economics" of doing a small run in women's sizes (read: it costs too much to be inclusive) etc etc. Another issue I've seen is that women's shirts are sometimes of significantly lower quality, causing the women to choose mens shirts anyway - prompting an outcry of "but see, they didn't want them after all!". Yet another issues I've seen is of the women's shirts having a special "women's design" on them (usually pink, and/or with hearts or flowers), which predictably sell badly/have many left over because many women will find this patronising (woman =/= little girl =/= love of all things pink and pretty), and reject them.

All in all though, I think most of the arguments against buying women's sizes when providing a [team, class] shirt fall rather flat considering a few things: the providers of the shirts usually want to appear welcoming and diverse, and/or want to increase the participation of women in [tech, engineering], are either self-pay or not strapped for budget, and also have at least a few women pointing out that they aren't being included.

Summary; it's actually not that hard to be inclusive when printing shirts. A safe option is to go with the same design, printed on shirts in both mens and womens sizes. Easy.

Anyway, that's not where I was originally headed with this post. For many reasons, I often prefer to wear shirts which are technically "mens" sizes. And so I feel like a hypocrite if I say, "so now I've successfully got these shirts in women's sizes, I actually want one in a men's size". I kind of feel like I'm being a bad leader by not setting an example, and saying "lol! Tricked you!" or something. It's totally not what I've been intending with this - I really do think that being inclusive and providing shirts in all the appropriate sizes (big sizes are often neglected too) is important!

I guess it's a feeling I need to think about and explore more before I can fully unpack why I feel it and decide what I want to do about it. Outside opinions welcomed.

I'm a what?

2011-03-29T23:00:00.000+11:00

Before I begin this post, I would like to briefly state that I have never formally studied feminist theory or the social sciences beyond the compulsory courses I did in early high school. If something is grossly wrong (which I hope is not the case), I will welcome well-reasoned corrections (i.e. don't just tell me I'm wrong, tell me why I'm wrong).

There has been a lot of talk lately of a certain author of a comic called Dilbert, who goes by the name Scott Adams. This Adams recently wrote a blog post, on the request of his readers, about a concept called Mens' Rights. Unfortunately, he did it in a way which was insulting to pretty much all of humanity, and unsurprisingly triggered a shitstorm. From what I can tell, some people have been nasty to Adams in return, rather than refuting the many incorrect "facts" which he presents. I personally don't think he necessarily deserves to be called names for believing commonly believed stereotypes about men and women, even though his use of said stereotypes is odious. That being said, his childish copy-paste reaction on a number of feminist blogs which critique the original post, and his blanket dismissal of other people's feelings and opinions on the matter deserve the utmost contempt.

Adams is of the opinion that his original blog post mocks the "Mens' Rights Activists" (hereafter referred to as MRAs). And so it does, to some extent. By calling them "pussies" and not saving their energy for more important battles. And then he justifies this by suggesting that you deal with women in the same way you would a petulant child demanding candy or a flailing mentally disabled person who hit you in the face. He says that he's not comparing these groups of people, but then compares them again, repeating that you should deal with them in "disturbingly similar" manners, justified by saying that you should only fight in battles you know you're going to win.

Er. Pardon me, Scott Adams. This paints women as irrational beings which men can only deal with by ignoring as much as possible. At risk of being dismissed by critics for being hysterical, this shit really pisses me off.

Women are adults, and deserve equal treatment with other adults in the human race. Treating women like children because "it's just easier that way" is a kind of cop-out, don't you think? I don't have any studies, but I would think that treating women like the fully rational beings they are would actually be easier for everyone - they would no longer have to deal with the frustration of constantly being reminded that they are considered less-than because of circumstances they have no control over, and everyone would be less likely to need to deal with the messed up relationships which result from systemic power imbalances like this.

Let me re-finish Scott Adams' statement on battles.

"If a woman tells you that she's earning 80c to your dollar, you don't argue with her." You do something about it. You don't save your energy for more important battles, because this one is important (and contrary to popular belief, you can care about multiple issues concurrently). That may not be the path of least resistance, because social change is difficult. But instead of just resignedly saying "life is unfair", you can vote for political parties which prioritise gender equality. You can excise language which uses the feminine as an insult from your vocabulary (because a girl being called "such a girl" shouldn't be insulting!). You can support girls in pursuing careers traditionally reserved for men (which are also better paid). You can support equalising the pay rates of traditionally "masculine" and "feminine" professions (because teachers are surely as important as lawyers). You can support women you know in negotiating better pay or getting promoted, and you can do equal work in your home so the women in your family don't take on a "second shift" which might prevent them from committing to their outside employment fully.

Even if the beginning of Adams' original post is ignored, on the grounds that it is the opinions of the MRAs he's mocking (and in the interest of making this post slightly shorter), not only does the original post insult women, it also insults men. Saying that men are apathetic, brow-beaten and constantly desirous of sex is pretty insulting to them. I, for one, know that they are certainly capable of more. That's not to say that there aren't real societal problems which men also need to navigate - such as uneven prison sentencing, toxic definitions of masculinity and parental rights - but Adams' post manages to trivialise those issues as well, using examples like who gets served first at a restaurant or opening jars.

Now that I've done an incomplete analysis of Adams' original post, lets move onto his response to the responses his first post got from around the internet.

He begins by explaining how his post was supposed to be funny, and how everyone seems to be worried about issues he doesn't think are important. Next he claims that people were "changing its context" by taking it too seriously, and how he didn't realise how seriously people would take it. He continues by dismissing everyone who was offended by it as excessively "emotional" and accusing feminist bloggers of being combative ("the with us or against us instinct took over"), and finishes off by dismissing people who were offended by it as being merely offended "by their interpretation" of it.

I'm pretty sure his post is essentially based on excerpts from derailing for dummies 101 - let me recap.

It was just a joke on the internet!
I made it because I was sick of all these people complaining about how they've been discriminated against in some way ("I'm been experiencing a wicked case of "whiner fatigue."")
Don't you have more important things to worry about ("THOSE are problems. Your thing: Not so much.")

Adams clearly has a low opinion of people's ability to change their opinion on things/analyse to their environments ("I don't believe humans can be influenced by exposure to better arguments") - maybe he's projecting - so he claims he's just presenting a "different" opinion, since exposure to a broad range of ideas is supposed to be good for you. See also "But being offended is good for you!".

People dissected the post and analysed it - and in doing this they apparently inflated how clever they were - see "You're being too intellectual/not intellectual enough" ("...crowed that I don't understand how the Internet worked, I would politely suggest that perhaps I do.") He claims that they wouldn't be able to understand the post because their analysis of it "changed the context", by which I suppose he means "you're interrogating from the wrong perspective".

He also protests his being labelled an asshole, and in the same sentence accuses people (feminists?) of stereotyping all men as such ("I was presumed an enemy and labeled a misogynist. I was also labeled an asshole, which I have come to understand is a synonym for male") - see also "But I'm not like that, stop stereotyping!".

He characterises all the responses around the original post as people getting "excited" about it, and states the oft-repeated "fact" that emotions destroy rationality. See "You're being over emotional" and "You've lost your temper so I don't have to listen to you". I suppose he wouldn't agree with me in my belief directed emotion is actually conducive to motivating one to change one's circumstances.

Finally, he repeats his assertion that men are apathetic except when it comes to dealing with each other (wtf?), uses the feminine as an insult (again!), and apologises without actually apologising - he apologises on behalf of women for getting their own interpretation of his post wrong (wtf), and even manages to get another little jibe in at feminists in the last sentence ("even feminists..."?).

As far as I can tell, both posts are rehashing some pretty insulting existing stereotypes about men and women, and the second was "la la la I'm putting my fingers in my ears and I'm not listening to other people telling me that I'm wrong and I'm certainly not apologising to you people for being offensive even though I know I was being offensive". I'm hearing a man who is both aware that he is not engaging with his critics, and is also unwilling to engage.

rape jokes

2011-03-22T01:51:00.000+11:00

So, a dude I know re-tweets a rape joke on twitter, and I call him out.

He responds with

"I'm sad the joke offended you. I also believe that my 30+ followers are smart enough to know I despise rape. I do have a dark humour though. It's why I like cyanide and happiness. I did read the blog post [you linked me to]. I've read similar articles in the past. I agree with them.",

then totally un-ironically links me to this video.

My response: "Who is hurt and erased by that joke? It's not rapists. Thanks for the backhand compliment on my intelligence, btw"

So. Dark humour. Dark humour differs from straight forward obscenity in that it is more subtle and does not necessarily have the intent of offending people. In obscene humour, much of the comedy is elicited through shock and revulsion, whereas dark humour often includes elements of irony, or even fatalism. Topics and events that are usually regarded as taboo, specifically those related to death, are treated in an unusually humorous or satirical manner while retaining their seriousness; the intent of black comedy, therefore, is often for the audience to experience both laughter and discomfort, sometimes simultaneously.

To talk further, one must know the original joke. TW for discussion of rape, obviously.

"I came, I saw, I conquered -Caesar. I saw, I conquered, I came -rapist"

... in an unusually satirical manner while retaining their seriousness. Nope. Not seeing much unusual about this. "I saw" - The magic power of "some people" to cause another to irresistibly do violence to them. Check. "I conquered" - People as obstacles to be overcome. Check. "I came" - Because rape is tooootally the same sort of thing a sex, where people orgasm and stuff, when it's really masturbating to someone else's pain. This joke is toooootally retaining the gravity of rape and how it is traumatising and painful and so fucking common and usually dismissed as being the victim's fault or something that "just happens" and is under reported and rarely convicted when it is reported.

Ironic? Not really. Some moving around of words. Yes. Fatalism? Perhaps, in a nasty kind of way where rape is inevitable and rapists unstoppable. Retaining seriousness? Not at all.

Sounds to me like you're using "dark humour" as an excuse to be an asshole. Well isn't that ironic.

So you despise rape? Show me. Show me by thinking about what you're about to retweet before clicking that button. Show me by not telling me that I am "oversensitive" if I am offended by something. Show me by apologising for offending me, without attaching a "but this is why you shouldn't be offended". Show me by telling people off for not being sensitive enough if they say something hurtful. Show me by calling out other men who make joke which hurt rape survivors when I'm not there. Show me that you can be trusted, because these jokes make me assume otherwise.

On Diets and Weight Loss

2010-11-20T21:22:00.000+11:00

[Trigger warning for discussion of disordered eating]

I tend to avoid conversations about weight, fat and weighing yourself because I have, and have since I was a teenager, thought that what really matters is whether you are healthy. Of course, I have the privilege of being able to avoid such conversations on account of my being thin without putting in constant effort.

However, it is impossible for me to avoid it completely, as occasionally a person who I am talking to will begin such a conversation.

So recently, I was having a conversation with one of my female coworkers. I think we had been talking about buying t-shirts or something, and thus got led onto the topic of weight and fat. At first, she was lamenting the fact that the t-shirt she would have to buy was a bigger size than me, so I was pointing out that it is because I have a very narrow ribcage and shoulders. Somehow we got onto the topic of one of her friends, who is fat. I don't think she was even particularly fat, at size 18 (in Australian women's), but she put tremendous effort into weight loss.

Apparently she stopped eating every second day, and ate reduced quantities on the days that she did eat. She did this until she starved her way down to a size 12.

I expressed my horror that she would do something like that to her body, just for an impossible aesthetic standard that society imposes. I expressed that starving herself is extremely unhealthy, and could have numerous side effects like vitamin deficiency, anaemia, difficulty concentrating, etc. I expressed that I thought that she would gain the weight back and more when she started eating normally again, since the body would interpret the deprivation as a famine, as what it really is, as starvation, and thus lower her metabolic rate to store more reserves for future famines.

I expressed these things, only to be told that "I don't understand because I'm thin", and "I don't understand what it's like to need to do this to attract a husband".

You're right, I don't fully understand the pressure that fat women get to loose weight in our society because I haven't experienced it. However, I believe I am qualified enough to speak about the unhealth of starvation, even though I haven't experienced that. I believe I am fully qualified to be horrified at our society that shames fat people so ruthlessly that people are driven to starvethemselves, that they are driven to harm their bodies in pursuit of an impossible ideal. I can also express my sadness at society for placing a woman's worth on her marital status, and on her physical appearance. I can express sadness that damaging ones body is seen as necessary in order to achieve that worth through the necessity of being thin.

How did society get this broken, and how do we fix it? Where can we start? What can I do as an individual?

On Women in Technology

2010-11-18T21:25:00.000+11:00

This is the reading packet I sent to a man who questioned the need for the Anita Borg Memorial Scholarship for women in Computer Science and related fields. I had the privilege of meeting and congratulating the finalists for this year's scholarship.

The Anita Borg Scholarship:

http://www.google.com.au/anitaborg/

Dr. Anita Borg (1949-2003) devoted her adult life to revolutionising the way we think about technology and dismantling barriers that keep women and minorities from entering computing and technology fields. Her combination of technical expertise and fearless vision continues to inspire and motivate countless women to become active participants and leaders in creating technology.

As part of Google’s ongoing commitment to furthering Anita’s vision, we are pleased to announce the 2010 Google Australia and New Zealand Anita Borg Memorial Scholarship. Through the scholarship, we aim to encourage women to excel in computing and technology, and become active role models and leaders.

Scholarships will be awarded based on the strength of candidates’ academic background and demonstrated leadership. A group of female undergraduate and graduate student finalists will be chosen from the applicant pool. Each scholar recipient will receive a $5,000 scholarship towards the 2011 academic year.

I'd also like to add:

All the women at the retreat have spent significant amounts of time actively mentoring younger women in eng, organising outreach programs both university women and high school girls. The Anita Borg Scholarship is in recognition of these efforts, in addition to being a high-achieving woman in computer science. As such, I would not have been a good candidate for this scholarship, on account that I did little for the advancement of women at the University of Canterbury, despite the glaring problem of being 1 of 5 females in a pool of about 70 students.

This is the book we studied for the Anita Borg Scholarship Retreat this year:

Unlocking the Clubhouse: Women in Computing by Jane Margolis and Allan Fisher

http://books.google.com.au/books?id=StwGQw45YoEC&lpg=PP1&ots=nlP-IV80uK&dq=unlocking%20the%20clubhouse&pg=PP1#v=onepage&q&f=false

In which the authors do a study by interviewing over 100 CS students at Carnegie Mellon University. I highly recommend this book, as the experiences described by the women who were interviewed are very common amongst the women in engineering whom I have talked to.

Some other interesting links:

On privilege and why you won't have heard of the comments I spoke about ("you're only here because you're a girl", "why are you making your life harder by doing X", "you'll be meeting lots of eligible bachelors at Google")

http://finallyfeminism101.wordpress.com/2007/03/11/faq-what-is-male-privilege/

Anita Borg Institute research index:

http://anitaborg.org/news/research/

Feminism 101 has a lot of clarifying articles:

http://finallyfeminism101.wordpress.com/the-faqs/faq-roundup/

If you're feeling very ambitious, I recommend reading all the articles here:

http://shakespearessister.blogspot.com/2010/01/feminism-101.html

Enjoy some weekend reading!

Eddy

No, you may not call me "sweetheart"...

2010-11-14T21:27:00.000+11:00

... or darling, love, baby, honey, or any other term of endearment without my permission.

That means you, bartender, you, shopkeeper, and you, the random person(s) I nod hello to when I'm walking down the street.

Terms of endearment are reserved for those who you hold dear - not for random people you meet in every day life. You might call your partner "darling" or your child "sweetheart". Why are you cheapening these terms by using them on everyone, rather than reserving them for those you are close to? Are you intending to imply that I, a stranger, am as special to you as your partner? Are you (especially young male offenders) assuming that by the fact that I appear to be a woman, that I want/like the familiarity you imply by calling me "sweetheart"? Are you assuming that I want/like the implicit approval of my "cuteness" or "prettiness" you feel like you are giving? If you're an older man, do you realise that I might find it incredibly creepy? Young women, I think you may be using it to convey community with me, but I'm not sure. Please don't assume that I belong or want to belong to whatever club you are including me in.

Do you not all realise that it is horribly condescending to assume that I would be ok with you using a term of endearment for me without first getting my permission?

Actually, I don't care what your reasons for using terms of endearment for me inappropriately are. I don't like it. Please stop.

On friends who won't engage with reason...

2010-09-08T19:29:00.000+10:00

So I have a friend, who for some reason has started posting the most venomous anti-feminist statements as her facebook status messages. Of course this annoys the heck out of me as they are not exactly flattering to anyone... and the person who I think they insult the most is herself. Unfortunately, she seems to have a bunch of friends (who I don't know) who agree with her and reinforce the stereotypes she is perpetuating. I'm pretty much at a loss because I tried pointing out how her comments weren't very nice, but she insisted that they were "true" and basically accused me of attacking her and not respecting her opinions. She is a very intelligent woman and I don't understand how she can not understand what is wrong with her statements!

I like her as a friend, and I think it would be a huge shame to give up on her, but I'm seriously considering it if she keeps this up. It's rather saddening.

I wrote summaries and brief analyses of my thought processes in our conversations after the fold.

Her statements with my responses (paraphrased if without quotes because I don't remember the original wording and it has been removed):

Women should be paid less because they have wombs and you never know when they will get pregnant and thus you are taking a risk in training them up.

I didn't get a chance to respond to this before she removed it. At least she realised it was wrong if she removed it I guess?
But anywho, my immediate reaction would be to point out that this is tremendously unfair to those who can't/don't get pregnant, and also because people with wombs can't help having them. I guess this one is the easiest to respond to with common sense.

A few days later she posts this:

"I don't understand why I should be held accountable for being emotional and totally unreasonable. Am I not a woman for goodness sake?!"

My response:

"Because assuming that women are totally unreasonable isn't very nice?"

Her: something along the lines of "Oh, but we can be, especially once a month" (She deleted that particular reply, but none of the rest of the thread. Not sure why...)
Somebody else jumps in and tells me I don't want to argue with her because she'll be so irrational it won't make sense.
My response:

What can I say? Being a woman is not an excuse for being unreasonable. I hate those stereotypes because while they allow women to have freedom to express their emotions they are often used to discount our feelings/opinions. Women are not slaves to their hormones, and saying that they are is damaging.

$name, you're an adult, and part of being an adult is being held accountable for your actions. Please don't degrade all women to excuse your own occasional irrationality.

She says "ok", hard to tell what she means by that so I take it at face value and leave it at that. Somebody else posts a reply that says "sarcasm alert!" but I give her the benefit of the doubt.

Then comes this post:

"most girls are manipulative and most guys fall for it time and time again"

Some other women reply and agree with her, saying

"so true! girls are like venom and guys are like venom-seekers... except the gay guys of course, they seek venom-seekers"

Perhaps if that reply hadn't been posted I possibly wouldn't have said anything, but after that I feel almost obligated to stick my neck out. I say:

"Wtf $name, why the sweeping generalisations lately? So basically you're saying that all women are controlling and all men are idiots. Don't you think that saying things like this is insulting/damaging to everyone? Do you really want to build relationships around these assumptions?"

To which she replies:

"If you read my status *properly* you'll find that I never used the word "all", therefore, YOU were the one who misrepresented me and generalized by using words such as "all" and "everyone". I would really appreciate it if you can recognize sarcasm or respect my opinions (like I respect yours even though I don't agree with some of the things you do) because I am going to post whatever the heck I like. If you choose not to, then there are other measures you can take to ensure that my comments don't "damage" you (so dramatic!). And no, I don't think my comment was insulting/damaging to "everyone", just one or two :)"

which somebody "liked"
... I don't think she understood what I was trying to say at all. The difference between "all" and "most" in this context is hardly the issue here - the effect of using them here is pretty much interchangeable. I think perhaps she is trying to derail me as a defensive mechanism? (I feel so cold putting it like that!) "I was being sarcastic" is a pretty unimaginative defense, as are the later parts in which I think she is implying that I am "censoring" her and that I am taking it too personally. Hmm... I attempt to sidestep the worst of the derailing attempt and reply:

$name, the problem is not that I am insulted by your comments (even though I am!), but that such comments perpetuate tired, old stereotypes. Every time we hear things like this, they are cemented further into the back of our minds, and if we hear it often enough we begin to think of it as "truth".

Of course there are measures I could take to prevent myself from being annoyed by your comments, like making your wall posts not appear in my feed or unfriending you. However I think it would be a shame because you are my friend and I would lose touch with you. I am also speaking out because I believe we can all build better relationships with each other if we stop making assumptions about people based on their perceived sex or gender. Yes, I have a personal stake in this battle, but don't you too? As a woman, aren't stereotypes about women being manipulative insulting to you too? Or do you consider yourself an exception?

I don't know how she will respond to this. I need references and backing up by somebody so I'm not the lone voice of dissent. I don't think I was entirely successful with the first paragraph either. Argh, I need someone who is better versed in feminist theory and who is better with words than I.

.... What a train wreck. I'm now horribly frustrated and I think I pissed her off, perhaps ruining my chances of getting her to think about what she is saying. She is also living in a different country to me at the moment so I can't go and talk to her in person, and we're not really close enough for me to make the long distance call. Besides, I'm not the greatest at thinking of arguments on the spot, so I don't know how much that would help anyway. I'm not sure all this is worth the effort.

On Hair

2010-04-03T20:34:00.000+11:00

A dear friend of mine told me I should try wearing dresses, makeup and heels more often, and growing my hair to attract men. I laughed and told her that that just wasn't me, and said that you don't need to do that to be attractive to men. It still made me sad inside that she thinks that external trappings like that are the best way to attract a partner.

Sure, some men find those things attractive, there's no denying that. But I have found much the reverse since I had my hair cut short. Although I have had far less harassment on the streets - sooo much less cat calling, whistling or honking - men that I am already acquainted with seem to find me more interesting. I'm not sure whether this is an effect of suddenly being (openly) single, but it is certainly a desirable effect!

I definitely think that someone should do a study on the length of (female) hair vs. harassment received from strangers.