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.
Tuesday, March 29, 2011
Tuesday, March 22, 2011
rape jokes
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.
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.
Saturday, November 20, 2010
On Diets and Weight Loss
[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?
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?
Thursday, November 18, 2010
On Women in Technology
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:
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
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")
Anita Borg Institute research index:
Feminism 101 has a lot of clarifying articles:
If you're feeling very ambitious, I recommend reading all the articles here:
Enjoy some weekend reading!
Eddy
Sunday, November 14, 2010
No, you may not call me "sweetheart"...
... 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.
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.
Wednesday, September 8, 2010
On friends who won't engage with reason...
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):
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:
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:
Then comes this post:
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:
... 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:
"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.
Saturday, April 3, 2010
On Hair
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)