tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-48471233762288277542024-03-08T04:00:25.697-08:00In a Perfect WorldThe title of this blog springs from a comment I made in a feminist discussion about things that would be different in a world where people were treated equally. Don't expect it to be a theme, especially after how hard it was to get a domain. Sheesh.Alliehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11755847324476240436noreply@blogger.comBlogger19125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4847123376228827754.post-78053764400611010092007-11-07T14:22:00.000-08:002007-11-07T14:51:37.901-08:00World of MenzcraftOk, you know it's bad when I'm driven to blogging about it... Hi again folks!<br /><br />I'm in a community on lj for female World of Warcraft players. I haven't seen any hard stats out there, but the general consensus is that the player base is 15-30% female. I have been lucky enough to mostly avoid harassment, but I vividly recall getting into audio chat with a group containing another woman and her incredible excitement that I was a woman. "Oh my god, another female voice! You have no idea how long it's been since I've heard one on WoW!" She pretty much summed it up -- some weeks, our ten-person raid group contains one other woman, sometimes I'm the only one. This is pretty representative.<br /><br />Someone <a href="http://community.livejournal.com/wow_ladies/3787365.html">posted</a> to the lj community that they were starting a guild for girls, and couldn't decided whether to let men in at all, and asked for advice from people in more high-profile all-female guilds. There's been some good discussion from those folks, but two times now, a male has chipped in with a dissenting viewpoint. First, there was "As guy [sic], I'm not to big on gender specific guilds, I understand that people want these type of guilds as it would be easier to identify with one another." Which shows some basic ignorance of where he is posting, a complete lack of understanding of how it might be different for women, and a big honking blind spot to his own privilege. About par for the course, and not actually rude.<br /><br />But then we get, from someone not actually mentioning his gender (I checked his profile after reading the comment, strongly suspecting), "However, exclusion based on "just because you're a guy"...or even worse, admitting "some" guys and holding them to a different standard is pretty ridiculous. Guilds are meant to promote teamwork and unity and cooperation and community for all the members...not just the ones you like best.<br /><br />I'd suggest if you want your own private club, go ahead and make it...that's your right...but consider what it is you're trying to accomplish with it before you decide to keep people out for no apparent reason other than "just because"."<br /><br />Snotty tone, check. Complete blindness to irony, check. Sticking nose in where it doesn't belong, check. Three strikes, this guy is out.<br /><br />And what is with men saying "yeah, men are obnoxious, women are better to play with" immediately before revealing their own prejudices? Do they think if they pretend to agree with us, we won't notice when they switch over to being jerks?<br /><br />Arrrrgh. I'm trying to keep my responses low-key as well as civil, given that this is not supposed to be a feminism-oriented community, but this is driving me nuts!Alliehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11755847324476240436noreply@blogger.com9tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4847123376228827754.post-51902384002445895732007-06-28T19:23:00.000-07:002007-06-28T19:26:39.186-07:00too tiringUgh. It's gotten to the point where, if people around me start talking about feminism, I just pretend that I'm not in the room anymore. It just...doesn't seem to be worth it, to pipe up, because I know the discussion will get more heated than I want to deal with, and I don't ever seem to get anywhere.<br /><br />It's pretty sickening how these conversations always break down along gender lines too. And I thought I hung out with Enlightened Guys. Sneer all you like about how your testicles disallow you from the conversation, but you just don't get it.Alliehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11755847324476240436noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4847123376228827754.post-86964400395231607192007-06-03T21:04:00.000-07:002007-06-03T21:18:26.588-07:00"spotting"A phrasing that particularly angers me:<br /><br />(From someone <a href="http://blog.iblamethepatriarchy.com/2007/05/26/thyreocorid-bug-of-the-week/#comment-65700">posting as "V."</a> on <a href="http://blog.iblamethepatriarchy.com/2007/05/26/thyreocorid-bug-of-the-week/">I Blame the Patriarchy</a>)<br />"And though I am neurotypical, I can spot a person with an autistic spectrum disorder a mile off–in other words, broadening the category hasn’t lessened my ability to distinguish ASD from nerotypical."<br /><br />Well, gee, where were you the first seventeen years of my life to tell me the reason my grades sucked was ASD?<br /><br />Backing off from my particular take on this instance of the "I can always <b>just tell</b>" (and the comment doesn't seem to be particularly egregious in any other way), this kind of othering really irks me. "I can always spot those queers/trannies/crips/auties/ferriners/what-have-you because they're not Real People like me." This establishes a fundamental difference between the speaker and these other folks and in my experience once you have a fundamental difference, a value judgement is not far behind.<br /><br />To be fair, there are some categories that have defining and un-hideable features, be they physical or non. But there are very, very few of them that have nary an exception, nary a variation that might give an onlooker pause. Sure, there are people with ASD who can't "pass" to save their lives (and for many of them, this is very literally what they're trying to do). And then there's me, who despite intensive IQ testing at the age of eight (showing the exact same pattern that would later be the key to my diagnosis) went Stealth NT for almost two decades, figuring there was something wrong with me all along. There's enormous numbers of people just like me, who eventually figure out that maybe they're Asperger's or NLD or ASDNOS or in some other way not NT after a lifetime of almost fitting in. But if they'd just talked to the right people, those ones who can Always Just Tell, they'd've been spared all that because it was so obvious!<br /><br />Hindsight bias is a wonderful thing. Give a bunch of people two opposite conclusions and the same data and they'll both find incontrovertible support for their conclusion. It's easy to look back and say "oh, it's so obvious, of course s/he is X, this and this and this happened". But somehow it never seems as obvious before you find out the answer.<br /><br />Maybe I need a tag for "things that piss me off". Seems like everything would get it though, making it less than useful.<br /><br />The funeral was very nice. I'm still across the country, but less depressed by Serious Blogs than I had feared.Alliehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11755847324476240436noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4847123376228827754.post-36038469062325531912007-05-30T10:23:00.001-07:002007-05-30T10:25:40.713-07:00deathMy grandmother died this morning. I don't deal very well with death, it never seems real to me. The funeral will probably be Friday or Saturday, across the country. I'll probably be avoiding blogs for a bit, serious topics are kind of depressing right now.Alliehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11755847324476240436noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4847123376228827754.post-14012582244554452062007-05-27T12:35:00.000-07:002007-05-27T12:39:10.408-07:00unmarked casesI read and loved <a href="http://lettersfromgehenna.blogspot.com/2007/05/marked-case-of-equal.html">this post</a> of Dw3t-Hthr's when it was first posted, but I didn't realise at the time just how *useful* the concept is. I've since discovered myself referring to unmarked cases like everyone knows what I mean, so I figure I'll put up a link so that people have a chance in hell of understanding me. Also, it's a super post and you should read it even if you plan to never encounter my writing again.Alliehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11755847324476240436noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4847123376228827754.post-5310446122543048052007-05-26T03:27:00.000-07:002007-05-26T03:31:15.275-07:00and alsoIn a sort of lead-up to Renegade Evolution's <a href="http://renegadeevolution.blogspot.com/2007/05/blogging-for-sex-education_25.html">blog for sex ed day</a> (the fourth), I'd like to extend the following to y'all, as I did on my livejournal:<br /><br />Ask me questions about kinky sex (I figure if you're reading my journal, you know the basics). I am not an expert, but I <s>play one in the bedroom</s> have a decent grounding and some ideas on where to look for more info. I promise, I will answer all questions with at the least, a couple links from google that seem not to be bullshit, and personal experience if I have it (though some stories need to be cleared with the boyfriend first). Hell, ask me about lube brands or where to buy restraints or positions or anything! I live to serve <s>no not like that!</s> your educational needs, because lack of knowledge bothers me. Anonymous comments are perfectly welcome. No shame need be involved.<br /><br />I don't know a whole bunch, have a lot to say about, or even feel very qualified to talk about sex ed in schools, so I'll just perform some. I always wanted to be a teacher growing up...let me educate you!Alliehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11755847324476240436noreply@blogger.com11tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4847123376228827754.post-67052845826713235802007-05-26T03:09:00.000-07:002007-05-26T03:26:56.928-07:00change and controlJoel over at NTs Are Weird has <a href="http://thiswayoflife.org/blog/?p=177">a post up</a> about anxiety, control, and change that really made me think. I think best in writing, so here we go. (Disclaimer: this is about *me* and my own experiences. I do not claim to represent Joel or anybody else regardless of diagnosis. Now hopefully I can keep myself from the urge to disclaim every sentence individually)<br /><br />I commented, "I hadn’t thought about the relationship between change and control before. I’m not so fond of change myself, but I hadn’t previously tied it to how much I don’t like feeling helpless when things are out of my control. It makes a lot of sense to me that when I’m in a familiar environment or I have a routine, I expect to only come up against things I have control over, problems I have already solved, and this reduces my anxiety greatly."<br /><br />This is part of it, for sure. I like to forget about my anxiety, dismissing it as something I overcame in high school (cognitive-behavioral therapy did *a lot* to help me get over my nasty social anxiety) or something that only happens when I'm really stressed, but my recent sojourn off my anti-depressants made me realise that I do have anxiety <i>(Tangent: normally I hate that "have x" construction, because it distances the person from the condition, and in the case of mental, emotional, and congnitive stuff often seens to me to be avoidance of responsibility for one's own actions: "I do thus and so because I have x/because of my x". In this case, however, I would say that it is not true that I "am anxious" because it's sporadic, situational, specific. I may be deluding myself. Who knows. End tangent.)</i> And it's worse when I'm in new situations or when I'm not in control of something.<br /><br />I've also been realising lately the number of other ways in which my dislike of change surfaces. I like to do things in large chunks, with minimal switching between them. I am beginning to wonder if some of my sleep habits are down to this -- I don't want to go to bed (like right now for example, *cough*) because I'm "on a roll", there's something interesting me that I don't want to let go of, and telling myself that it will be there in the morning is wholly unsatisfactory (and half the time untrue, as I move on to something else).<br /><br />I don't shower often enough because to do so involves stopping whatever I'm doing, going to shower, and then starting something up again. (Also, the physical sensation changes in temperature and wet/dry ness bother me, and I hate hate hate putting clothes on when I'm damp. Not to mention my thick, waist-length hair takes all day to dry. Tangent.) I realise as I think over this that one of the things the psychs keep saying is that I have "problems with initiation" -- with starting things. And maybe it's not only that I have trouble starting the "go take a shower" process, but also that I know I'll have to initiate something else after, that there's actually a whole mess of things that go along with stopping what I'm doing, and that my inertia is a reaction to this.<br /><br />This inertia really frustrates me sometimes. It's not just that I have trouble starting schoolwork or unpleasant chores. I have trouble showering. I have trouble putting down my book to get up and do something else that I *want* to do, that I chose to do and have been telling myself to do all week. I have trouble making myself food. And yet I realise that part of me thinks of it all as "laziness", the part of me that thought too hard about test scores and my "academic potential". Sigh. I am slowly, slowly, working on excising that part of myself and coming to understand my shortcomings as part of myself, but it's hard.<br /><br />Again, I seem to have strayed from my topic. Perhaps I will come back to this, pick out subtopics (this turned out to be broader than I'd thought) and write more in-depth on things.Alliehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11755847324476240436noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4847123376228827754.post-50251845673309047592007-05-18T13:19:00.000-07:002007-05-18T13:21:20.325-07:00durr, what she saidKim at Bastante Already has <a href="http://bastantealready.blogspot.com/2007/05/so-much-depends-upon-skin-tag.html#links">a really good post</a> up about appearance, and how unacceptable it is for women to like theirs. I don't have any clever words right now, so go read hers.Alliehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11755847324476240436noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4847123376228827754.post-65387890141127732842007-05-17T20:04:00.000-07:002007-05-17T20:24:39.169-07:00Speech patternsInternet debate has prompted me to wonder about the differences in the ways men and women speak. Not the tonal variation kind of thing (women are more likely to express emphasis with variation in tone, men speak in more of a monotone and emphasise with volume or handwaving or what have you), but choice of words and more macro stuff. A preliminary google was not that helpful, so I'll go off my own perceptions here. Obviously other people may disagree with me, I've conducted no formal studies.<br /><br />First off, read that last sentence again. I'm apologigizing for what I'm about to say, and pre-emptively hedging. I often find myself wanting to make an extensive disclaimer before I weigh in on charged subjects, just in case <s>I'm wrong</s> someone disagrees with me. It's foreign to me to assert my own correctness. I'm more likely to say "I disagree" than "you're wrong" no matter how sure I am of the subject. It seems extremely rude to me to say the latter. I feel like I need to protect my interlocutor's feelings even when they're flat-out mistaken. This leads to a lot of minimizing language like "might", and statements about why I might be wrong. It's of course possible that this isn't a female thing, but related to some other reason that I'm not all that assertive, but I'm guessing that it's a gender thing. Men who are assertive are strong, whereas women who are assertive are bitchy or bossy.<br /><br />Another thing is questions. There was a day at the looney bin when I was forbidden to ask questions (thinking about this pisses me off, but is not the point), and it brought my attention to how often I do. Not just as requests for information, but as alternatives to, say, commands. "Could you do x?" as opposed to "please do x". Once again, it feels rude to use the imperative. And "would it be possible to y?" rather than "we should do y". It's hedging again, I think, and it also leaves the other person the opportunity to say no. It's like I'm building in a grammatical method of shooting me down -- it would be ruder to say "no, we shouldn't do y" to the latter than to say "no, it's not possible" because, well, that's a valid answer to the question. And really, thinking about it, I classify statements as a more male way of talking than questions.<br /><br />Upon a secondary google as I write, I find the following on tag questions:<br /><br />"Lakoff (1975) observed that, in certain contexts, women use question tags more frequently than men do. She defines the tag-question as 'a declarative statement without the assumption that the statement is to be believed by the addressee: one has an out, as with questions. [The] tag gives the addressee leeway, not forcing him [sic] to go along with the views of the speaker.' (Lakoff 1975:16)" (from <a href="http://www.linguistik-online.com/1_00/KUNSMANN.HTM">this site</a>)<br /><br />[An actual definition of tag questions is that they're those little, two-word questions that one tacks onto the end of a statement: "You are coming <i>aren't you</i>?" "It sure is wet out, <i>isn't it</i>?" "He can do this, <i>can't he</i>?"]<br /><br />Evidently further studies have been contradictory on which gender uses tag-questions more, but I would tend to agree with the bit I quoted above on the general motivations behind this kind of language.<br /><br />Any input?Alliehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11755847324476240436noreply@blogger.com104tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4847123376228827754.post-661886869009487672007-05-15T16:59:00.000-07:002007-05-15T17:09:03.733-07:00Tinky-Winky has something to sayIn an attempt to bring good out of bad, I've just donated some money to Planned Parenthood in honor of Jerry Falwell's death. I would put forth that this is a very good time to donate to your favorite <a href="http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/09/14/Falwell.apology/">pagan, abortionist, feminist, gay or lesbian</a>-type cause. Seeing as I'm about three and a half of those, myself, I'm pretty glad that Falwell's toxic brand of "religion" is down one leader today.Alliehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11755847324476240436noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4847123376228827754.post-60828184308217996242007-05-14T13:43:00.000-07:002007-05-14T13:59:39.716-07:00only women can dress sluttilyWell, <a href="http://msn.careerbuilder.com/custom/msn/careeradvice/viewarticle.aspx?articleid=691&SiteId=cbmsnhm4691&sc_extcmp=JS_691_hotmail1>1=9965&cbRecursionCnt=1&cbsid=3d03a5f763444b3ab30f7fde9dedafee-232476073-XF-2">this article on MSN</a> cheeses me right the fuck off. It's an article in the "career advice" section about how "risqué outfits" can hamper advancement in the workplace. It addresses only women. It talks about push up bras and short skirts, gives cases of women who've been in court about their advancement and their dress. Mentions men only in an attempt to pretend that the article includes them.<br /><br />And this is in the "general career" section, and purports to be gender-neutral. That's what pisses me off -- I totally agree that dressing sexily is not appropriate for most office workplaces, and that it's probably even grounds for not advancing. But the disgusting gender bias of the article really gets to me.<br /><br /><i>According to Eric Matusewitch, deputy director of the New York City Equal Employment Practices Commission, the courts consider "sexy" attire to be clothing that is particularly revealing and of extreme fit, as well as excessive use of makeup.</i><br /><br />Do men have to worry about "revealing" clothing? There's not a whole lot of a man's body that's considered inappropriate to show -- the chest is fine, for one. "Extreme fit" can apply to men as well, sure, tight jeans would be "too sexy", but I'm guessing this one is aimed mostly at chests. And as for the last, I doubt they even considered men when writing in "excessive makeup" (which, I guess, would be any).<br /><br /><i>To those who argue that this discriminates against women, Matusewitch replies, "The code applies equally to both sexes. So, if employers require men to dress conservatively, they can require women to avoid tight, flashy and revealing outfits as well."</i><br /><br />If the code applies equally to both sexes, why is there not a single mention in this article about how men have this problem, or how men can avoid dressing inappropriately for the office? Also, look at the language here: men should "dress conservatively" -- one word, and a positive action. Women should "avoid tight, flashy, and revealing outfits" -- three words, and it's a "do not". Real equal.<br /><br />Despite this article's attempt to seem generic (it's not until the third paragraph that the word "women" is mentioned), the list of guidelines consists of the following categories: skirts ("too little is too much"), tops ("a bra should be worn"), dresses ("acoid overly-snug fits"), pants ("shun [styles] that expose the midriff"), shoes ("heels should be no higher than two inches" with the assumption that heels will be worn), hair ("avoid the teased, over-processed look" ?!), and makeup ("avoid heavy eyeliner or evening lipsticks").<br /><br />I'm not even going to get into the shame and body-hatred inherent in the closing "If you want a job, dress the part. If you want to show off your body... well, that's what your free time is for."<br /><br />UGH! MSN, if I ever had respect for you, it's so gone.Alliehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11755847324476240436noreply@blogger.com5tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4847123376228827754.post-64303628299859123412007-05-11T23:35:00.000-07:002007-05-12T00:09:35.045-07:00contextI just read <a href="https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=31330468&postID=3449708020016117633">RE's post</a> about class and how she grew up. Combined with a prompt on I wanna say <a href="http://fetchmemyaxe.blogspot.com/">Fetch Me My Axe</a> about parents and how they've shaped how we think, I'm now thinking about the ways in which I'm a product of my upbringing.<br /><br />First off: rich white American. I often feel a sense of distance towards a number of social concerns because I've never been there. I've always had enough to eat, I've always had somewhere to live, I had a good education. Hell, I've never in my life been beaten up. I've never been harassed on the bus. <a href="http://seamonkey.ed.asu.edu/~mcisaac/emc598ge/Unpacking.html">Bandaids match my skin color</a> It really blows my mind to think about how things are overseas, where things like having clean water are a concern. I pretty much can't imagine them; I have always been comfortable. It seems like a different world.<br /><br />My parents both have graduate degrees in the sciences. I grew up in a house full of books, and learned to read before I went to kindergarten. Nature and nurture conspired to make me the kid grade-school teachers love. Intellectual curiosity was fostered, and I never got yelled at for asking questions. My parents put a high value on education. This was both good and bad, really. I wound up internalizing the academic barometer for success in a big way. Maybe this works for some people and they feel great about themselves. Not for me. Every time I didn't finish something on time, every time I did poorly on an assignment, I knew I was disappointing my parents and my teachers, and I felt like a bad person. Four years since my learning disability diagnosis, three years out of a hellishly stressful high school environment, and I'm just starting to break free of this mindset. I am finally starting to realise that no individual action defines my worth. I don't think I have to be The Best at everything. I point to this mindset as a significant cause of my daddy issues, my eating disorder, my academic anxiety, my general inability to have any sane perspective on myself.<br /><br />My mother is the child of an alcoholic. She is spectactularly good at sticking her fingers in her ears and ignoring anything bad. She sees what she wants to see despite any evidence to the contrary. Not only did I inherit this ability (which sucks) but I was shaped by it big-time. I wound up with the idea that I need to take care of all my shit on my own without help. I wound up feeling like bad things need to be a secret, like I need to shield people from things in my life that might upset them. Amazingly enough, this extends to therapists! It's very hard for me to ask for help. I often feel like my negative emotions are insignificant, overreactions, whining, or otherwise invalid and not to be brought up in polite company.<br /><br />I think I got my LD from my father. All of his social skills were learned intellectually, by rote, after long practise in a managerial job. In thirty years I may be the same. I don't know if growing up with him, not having the usual interactions, influenced anything, or if my neurology makes it moot. I suddenly wonder if his amusing overplanning, the colored file folders he brings on every trip with printouts of his rental car, hotel, flight information, and any interesting tourist sites, is all just overcompensation for organizational skills as sucky as mine. I wonder if he gets so cranky when he's planning and leading things because it doesn't come naturally and it wears. Hopefully in thirty years I will not be like this. I am lucky here: I can rely on my boyfriend for these things and it's socially acceptable. My father is The Man Of The House. Maybe he doesn't want to be, maybe after taking care of his four younger siblings as a child he's stuck in a role he never wanted but doesn't know any alternatives to.<br /><br />[This part is a bit of a tangent] I took a year off from school between high school and college. I hadn't realised previously that I could have a life that did not revolve around school. I didn't know there were alternatives. You go to school, you go to college, you Get A Good Job. Then what? I think next on that calendar is dying. I don't like that plan anymore. I see a big contrast between how I live now, even when I am in school, and the way I approached life before. Freshmen who didn't take time off seem to be different. Or maybe other people realise how to live on their own, and I was just slow to pick up on it. I think some people do, but so many remind me of myself in high school, fitting a life in around the edges of class and work.<br /><br />It's late, I'm getting distracted from my topic, I'll leave it here.Alliehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11755847324476240436noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4847123376228827754.post-13305107304244656782007-05-02T22:08:00.000-07:002007-05-02T22:29:24.485-07:00so I like sex, ok?I'm not sure how to make this deep, or anything. But I've run across a couple of things lately that make me feel like I should get this out there, for such limited values of "out there' as I have available, anyway.<br /><br />I like sex. I, in fact, like sex with men, and with penises. I don't think this makes me not a feminist. I don't think enjoying penetrative sex means I'm buying into patriarchal gender opression. I, actually, don't even think that enjoying being tied down or hit with the variety of toys I keep in a white chest means I'm buying into etc. I can see why one might assume that, but there are a couple of things that always bubble frustratedly to my lips when reading such assumptions.<br /><br />There are, out there in the wide world of everybody's-not-exactly-the-same, men who like to be tied down and beaten by women. There are men who do this with other men, and women who do it with other women. There are couples of whatever gender combination who swap back and forth who's getting hit -- this was my first introduction to kinky shit, as a matter of fact. I'm not saying that there aren't women who like to bottom because they've been fucked up in some way, or because they think that's their only option aside from lights-off-missionary-position. Ditto men who top. But I find it unfair to dismiss <b>all BDSM</b> based on these cases when others exist. I suppose it's hell on your arguments to acknowledge that there are people who enjoy both sides of power and sensation play though, since that makes it separable from opression. Oh well, those people are all freaks anyway, and shoudl be ignored. We know what's best for them.<br /><br />Not to mention nonsexual BDSM. I enjoy being hit on the back with really heavy thick floggers (really, it's like massage). So every so often, usually after my college's fetish club has an informational meeting, I meet up with the current girlfriend of an ex of mine and she whacks me. All clothes remain on, and there is actually no power dynamic involved. She stops when I ask her to, or moves or lightens up. Because I enjoy the sensation, and she likes hitting people. She thanks me afterwards, which always makes me a bit confused since I feel like I got most of the fun out of it.<br /><br />I can't say much on the topic of porn, really. I've posed for naked pictures, and felt like I was getting away with something to be paid for it. I'm cool with the idea that people I don't know might jerk off to them, though I'd prefer if they wouldn't actually tell me about this, as in the case of one particularly obnoxious guy at my college who found me on facebook. If it's objectifying, it's a type of objectification I'm ok with participating in, especially considering that I'm sure I get objectified walking down the street, and at least this time I got paid. I enjoy looking at porn, though most of it is unappealing to me. I still don't think this makes me not a feminist. Sure, maybe in that perfect world, there wouldn't be any porn, but until then, I'm living in this world, and I'm not enough of an idealist to think that attempting to get rid of porn is better than accepting it as a reality and working to make it better.Alliehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11755847324476240436noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4847123376228827754.post-5549737970939707062007-04-30T08:48:00.000-07:002007-04-30T09:07:18.148-07:00peevedSo I've been link-hopping through the blogosphere (which sounds a lot cooler and more space-age than it actually is) since my allergies woke me up this morning, and have encountered some really good stuff. And some stuff that I disagree with that's also really good, and some stuff that I disagree with that I think is not so good.<br /><br />Having a pool of devoted readers who jerk you and each other off in your comments is not good. Having a pool of the above who also jump on anyone who dares express an opinion on a feminist blog and have a penis at the same time is worse. The thread I'm thinking of had a chap come in and ask what seemed to my socially-deficient eyes to be honest questions and attempt to add to the conversation from a male perspective -- maybe a feminism-clueless male perspective, but not a hostile one. You'd think this would be a good thing. But no. The thing that really gets me is the male regular commenter and his attitudes. Since politeness and discussion were obviously not the virtues that got him accepted there, what were? Toadying? Sticking extremely close to the "party line"? I mean, I could understand a blog with a comments policy that asked men to not involve themselves; lame but could be necessary, given the state of the world. But to jump all over (and ban) a man for engaging in discussion without such a policy bugs me. Maybe this is my lack of social skills, but I like to know the <s>double</s>standards before I head someplace. I do poorly with figuring out rules on the fly.<br /><br />I like polite dissent. I think it's the best way to learn things. Disagree with me? GREAT! If you can phrase the comment such that you avoid both ad hominem attacks and a snotty tone of voice, odds are I'll like talking to you, or at least consider you a worthy participant in debate. I don't want to be told that I'm so super at phrasing things, that I have the Best Ideas, any of that. It gets slimy real fast. And god knows I'm wrong often enough.<br /><br />I'm now trying to nail something down -- what struck me as "toadying" there, when comments other places are often just as consistently positive and don't bother me? Maybe it was the exclamation marks. Or the sense of quota-meeting. I know that I do occasionally feel compelled to say a particular thing in a comment, and it comes across like that. (Just recently I asked somebody in lj about the user icon they had used, but felt like I had to add in birthday congratulations to the people named in the post so as not to be rude and off-topic. That kind of "compelled".) Maybe that was it -- the feeling of "to get this comment past moderation/approved by the other commenters/not flamed to shreds, I must say foo and avoid bar at all costs". The fact that total agreement means that after fifty comments nobody's learned anything more than after five, that no new points get made. (By this point I'm generalizing and no longer applying literally to the blog I was thinking of at first, in case anyone was getting offended.)<br /><br />In short, I don't think it's really conversation if you're all saying the same thing.Alliehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11755847324476240436noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4847123376228827754.post-57224563584442054932007-04-28T13:17:00.000-07:002007-05-12T00:10:04.704-07:00more introductionsSo now that I've done an overview of my feminism, I'll start in on the other things in my little bio.<br /><br />My interest in mental health issues comes from having them. My mother sent me to therapy at age eight, because I was depressed. Amusingly enough, spending so much time (10 years, really) with the same therapist was a really bad move -- I got to know him so well that I came to see him as another person that I had to keep up a front for. So I didn't tell him how everything went to shit in high school. I went from a small, close-knit middle school where I knew everybody to a comparatively big and scary high school. My social skills are not the greatest today, after years of practice and extensive therapy that actually helped. They flat out sucked then. I didn't have a whole lot of friends, or in fact talk to anyone. I started cutting myself. Eventually I started to starve myself. I was miserably depressed. By that point I had close friends, but there was a lot of unhealthiness there and they had their own issues, so we all, as Pigeon in a guest post on <a href="http://takingsteps.blogspot.com">LL's blog</a> put it, "signed off on each other's behavior".<br /><br />Eventually (April of my senior year), it got to the point where I scared myself. I got dizzy and eating didn't help, I spent an afternoon in bed because I couldn't walk across the house. I told my mother. My parents, especially her, are masters of sticking their fingers in their ears and pretending nothing is wrong (I inherited this one but good), so every time I told them I was "fine", they believed it. After I told her, I got put on medication, which (after a few tries and some nasty side-effects) helped. I got into more therapy, which both helped and made my life really hard. I was taking a full class load at a tough prep school, driving myself there and to five hours of therapy and tutoring a week, and all my friends lived half an hour away. I was run ragged. My grades plummeted, not that they'd been great before. The learning disorder I'd recently been diagnosed was something nobody, not even I, knew how to get accomodations for. I call the second half of my senior year "my nervous breakdown".<br /><br />My therapists and parents started talking about inpatient treatment. We flew out to Utah, one of the few states in the US where it's legal to hold minors against their will for treatment, and looked at a few programs. They were way more drastic and way scarier than I had thought. I freaked out and told my parents I didn't want to go. They wanted me to go. We had a lot of arguments that didn't go anywhere. I convinced myself there was something else I could do, that I wouldn't wind up in one of them.<br /><br />The morning after my younger brother's birthday in June, I was woken up at three in the morning by a couple of people whose job it is to take kids to the airport for things like this. My folks said goodbye and didn't go to the airport, which hurt. I got on a flight with one of these people. She let me use her cell phone at Salt Lake to call my boyfriend. Then I got handed off to the looney bin people.<br /><br />I spent ten weeks in the high desert in Utah in what's called a wilderness treatment program. We hiked, set up shelters from tarps, dug holes in the ground to shit in, cooked ove propane stoves and fires. It was extremely hard for me, and looking back, not all of it was just shock and self-centeredness. I was very underweight and, I know now, very anemic. Hiking was fucking difficult. Some of my difficulties adjusting and learning new skills, I now put down to my LD -- I don't learn things the way people expect. I have an unituitive skillset and I didn't mesh with what they were doing. A lot of it, however, was just me. I was in serious denial when I got there. I cried for a week or two. Solid. I had a lot of dreams where I was back home, and it was very hard to wake up from them and be in Nowhere, Utah, in a blue tarp tent. I didn't try to hurt myself or run away, it wouldn't have gotten me anywhere.<br /><br />I did, I suppose, enjoy some of it. I made friendships, of a type, with the other girls there. A particularly impossible day hiking led me to a feeling that I can only describe as "divine serenity", something I've experienced a few times since and consider incredible. I learned a lot. I lost a bunch of bad habits (which I promptly regained upon reentering my circle of friends). My communication and introspection skills went through the roof. I forgave my parents for sending me. I think.<br /><br />I got out on my eighteenth birthday because it would have been illegal for them to keep me any longer. I spent some time with my parents and promptly got the fuck out of Dodge. I now live in Portland. I rely on my parents financially, but I hardly ever have to see them and they have very little control over me. This works a lot better than when we lived together. There was a period of a year or two after I got home when things continued to be pretty crappy for me, but after a certain person moved away, I discovered that it was a lot easier to engage in healthy behavior without a nutjob around (yes, this is supposed to be funny). My experiences with that person (toxic is a good word) have made me very sensitive to manipulative behavior and self-deception. I consider myself stronger for it, but, like the looney bin, wouldn't do it again given the choice.<br /><br />I have some stuff written up about my time in Utah that I'll probably post later, but this is plenty long now. I'm very willing to talk about this, I'm pretty zen about the whole experience, so if you have any questions, feel free to ask.Alliehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11755847324476240436noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4847123376228827754.post-25710205187416260742007-04-26T15:49:00.000-07:002007-04-28T13:15:55.615-07:00the next lj threadSo shortly after the last conversation, I posted something else in my lj that engendered some great discussion. And I really hope I don't have to do much more of this because I feel like a hack every time I format this way. Irrelevant conversations about user icons, and an irrelevant subject line that got repeated a jillion times have been removed; I have only removed whole comments, though, so any that had some relevance got left in, even if they're talking about Zelda as well ;). I've taken out last names and changed first names to lj names. Once again, feel totally free to yell at me if I'm misrepresenting anything or otherwise being bad.<br /><br />Ok, so right now all the comments should be at the same level. I'll try to put in something if they're a response to something a ways back, but in general it should make sense, I hope.<br /><br /><b>Possibly relatedly</b><br />When did "women" become an adjective? Am I nuts, or does it bother anyone else to see "women college grads" or "women lawyers"? I mean, is "men lawyers" also now grammatical? Possibly worse is when someone is going for that but goofs the spelling, and you get "woman lawyers" (definitely worse is "lady"!). What's wrong with "female" anyway?<br /><br />Definitely relatedly, I am cranky all over your friendspage. Uh, lol? Do let me know if I need to create a filter or another blog or something so you don't have to see it. In the meantime, I shall continue to pretend that everything I do is seen as endearing by my wide readership, because that's lots of fun and sometimes even true. If you take "wide readership" to mean "my housemates". Ok, "msbunburyist and my boyfriend".<br /><br /> <br />mela_4_me<br />2007-04-25 06:22 am <br />When did "women" become an adjective?<br /><br />I agree completely with you. People have become so extremely oversensitive to being politically correct that they have gone overboard. The Women's movement has been screaming for recognition for women to the point that it has become an insult to women. Yes, I agree, it is ridiculous....Why say "woman lawyer" if you don't say "man lawyer"? Just as ridiculous is the extreme political correctness people are insisting on for long-standing words. "Postman" now has to be "Mail Delivery Personel", a "Manhole cover" is now a "Personhole cover", and the "Trashman" is now an "Environmental Waste Engineer".<br /><br />People are creatures of habit....and once they are forced into a habit, whether it is ridiculous or not, they will stick with it.<br /><br /><br /> <br />flawlessnight<br />2007-04-25 09:33 am <br />No! Feminists hate it too! It's an outgrowth of things like "lady doctor", which a long time ago actually differentiated you from a real doctor. This is the patriarchy, not the women's movement at all.<br /><br /> <br /> <br />kestrelct<br />2007-04-25 09:46 am <br />Good point, thank you for mentioning that.<br /><br />I also agree that the over-PC movement is both annoying and a bandaid on the sucking chest wound that is actual gender discrimination. Just because they're now "waitpeople" doesn't mean that right now, a waitress is not getting her ass grabbed by a trucker who thinks he can get away with it.<br /><br /><br />mela_4_me<br />2007-04-25 10:01 am <br />Agreed, completely.<br /><br /><br /> <br />mela_4_me<br />2007-04-25 10:01 am <br />*nods*<br /><br />Yes, you are right, I agree with you completely. The political correctness in differentiating did begin, as far as the feminists went, (I hate word Feminists, it has been given such a negative connotation because of a few fanatics that made it look like a bad thing) with stuff like "Postal Employee" or "Mail Delivery Personel", but it did begin in a negative way with "lady doctors", etc. One way or another, whether it began as changes for the positive, or people trying to differentiate in a negative manner, it is still a habit for most people. And it has definitely gone overboard, no matter which way you look at it.<br /><br /><br /><br />msbunburyist<br />2007-04-25 08:15 am <br />Awww, you're so cute.<br /><br />;)<br /><br /><br /><br />kestrelct<br />2007-04-25 09:46 am <br />Rar. Fear me.<br /><br />Blame katealaurel, she started me reading <a href="http://feministe.us/blog">Feministe</a>.<br /><br /> <br /><br />katealaurel<br />2007-04-25 12:10 pm <br />Bwahahahaha!<br /><br /><3.<br /><br />...and ditto msbunburyist.<br /><br /><br />kamili<br />2007-04-25 08:50 am <br />We love your cranky.<br /><br /><br /> <br />azurelunatic<br />2007-04-25 09:15 am <br />Yep!<br /><br /> <br /> <br />flawlessnight<br />2007-04-25 09:36 am <br />1. Bitchiest LOL EVER. *awards a prize*<br />2. It REALLY bothers me. It's like, why do you need to qualify that? Can't I be a competent professional AND a woman? Is that so damn hard?<br />3. The physics department has a poster up honoring "women scientists". *headdesks*<br />4. On a related note, the physics department <i>[Allie sez: at a small liberal, liberal-arts college in the Pacific Northwest, where a number of these commentors attend or have attended and from which I am on leave; following talk about "the biology department" and such is also referring to this colllege]</i> from has hired only two women EVER. Mary J---- in 1988, and Danielle B--- in I think 2004 who left after one year.<br /><br /><br /><br />kestrelct<br />2007-04-25 09:43 am <br /><i>Danielle B--- in I think 2004 who left after one year.</i><br /><br />...because she couldn't deal with the misogynists in the rest of the physics department.<br /><br />flawlessnight, I think you have an obligation to be famous as a physicist, and more than just the token chick on staff. Girls can be hardxcore science nerds too!<br /><br /> <br />dragonmagelet<br />2007-04-25 10:15 am <br />To continue bitching out the science department, they won't let us bare our shoulders in Chem lab (allegedly because it's unsafe, but I'm pretty sure it has more to do with not distracting our more serious male colleagues) :P<br /><br />I think this dilemma becomes slightly more complicated when compared to other languages, like German, which have gender built into them. Is that also sexist? And if not, doesn't the "woman" or "female" qualifier simply compensate for the English language for the sake of clarity? I'm certainly on the fence about it.<br /><br />I'm waiting for the day when they stop asking for gender (or race, for that matter, but that's another discussion, although they often qualify the same sorts of things that way. If I may quote Chris Rock on Barack Obama, "He's so well spoken!") on ANYTHING because no one cares a lick unless they might want to fuck you. And even then, just because they might not have encountered said genetalia before. Srsly, guys. The differences aren't all that big. <br /><br /> <br />kestrelct<br />2007-04-25 10:38 am <br />I have less of an objection to "female" because it's at least a damn adjective. This post was borne (uh, shit, do I mean borne or born? what an embarrassing place in the sentence to not know that) more out of my inner grammar freak than the inner feminist, who got her metaphorical rocks off in the previous post.<br /><br />I can't decide whether to cut English some slack on not having gender built in and for assuming that mixed groups and unnamed things are male by default. I think, and i did just realise this, that I'm cool with the "female" qualifier *only if* it's relevant and/or one would use a "male" qualifier. Kind of how I'm extremely unlikely to point someone out as "the white guy over there" but have been known to include races other than my own in a short physical description -- <b>it's the assumption of defaultness when not mandated by language that gets me</b>. I like that point. I'm going to bold it so it stands out in this big, unparagraphed mess. That people say "woman lawyer" because they feel like it's unusual, that lawyers are by default male (is a sentence fragment). I guess "male nurse" falls into the same category (but at least nobody f'ing says "man nurse"!!) but it offends me less because I'm a <s>man-hating lesbian hellbent on my political agenda</s> <s>holding some unfair double standards myself, never said I was perfect, guys</s> Ms>distracted by rampant sexism against women</s> oh hell I don't know.<br /><br /> <br />dragonmagelet<br />2007-04-25 10:44 am <br /><3 you :D<br /><br /> <br /><br />kestrelct<br />2007-04-25 10:49 am <br />Yay!<br /><br />If I collect enough hearts, I unlock a secret area of the game, did you know?<br /><br />Aaaaand fuckijustlostthegame.<br /><br /> <br />nietzscheansmut<br />2007-04-25 12:49 pm <br />No, but it makes you harder to kill. Didn't you realize that this was a Legend of Zelda game?<br /><br />And it's all good with the cranky. I think most of us who read this (myself very much included) have done the same sort of thing at some point.<br /><br /><br /><br />katealaurel<br />2007-04-25 12:17 pm <br />Interestingly, languages like Latin that have gender built in often assume that groups are male much more explicitly than non-gendered languages. When I was in first-year Latin in seventh grade, they told us that if we have a group of people in Latin, and at least one of them is male, the entire group should be referred to with male nouns and adjectives. (With objects, of course, you refer to them by whatever gender the object is.) Hence "alumni" for groups of "alumni and alumnae".<br /><br />Also, languages that explicitly gender words make some weird assumptions. The Latin "virtus", for example-- virtue-- is a feminine noun, but is made out of the word "vir"-- man. So.. manhood is feminine. Right.<br /><br />On the whole, I get the impression that gendered languages tend to describe abstract concepts-- particularly ideals and virtues-- as feminine. However, grab a linguist to check on that.<br /><br /> <br /><b>in which I geek too much</b><br />dragonmagelet<br />2007-04-25 03:00 pm <br />Yeah, as I recall from German, French, and Latin, European languages seem to mostly do the absract concepts bring feminine thing (la beauté, die Liebe, etc). I assume they grabbed it from Latin, with whom the virtus thing is freaking notorious.<br /><br />The Latin argument loses validity because it, you know, DIED long before women's rights. In modern foreign languages, it's true they do tend to assume the masculine when talking about a mixed group (des amis or die Freunde, for example), but on the other hand they went out of their way in many cases to feminize many professions (I know that "professor", for example, only recently and only in Quebec gained a feminine form), yet there seems to be no stigma attatched to this qualification, at least not in Germany as far as I know. In short, I get the impression that a naturally gendered language gets people less up-in-arms about gender neutrality and discrimination and unnecessary qualification and etc.<br /><br />(On another note, the first place I heard the term "alumn-" was when I was in the San Francisco Girls Chorus School, from which we actually did only have alumnae. At this time I was also taking Latin, in which I learned the proper latin pronunciation for "ae" as well as "i", so I got fair confused when I got to high school and people started talking about "alumni" and pronouncing it the same way you're supposed to pronounce "alumnae", which is how they prounounced it at SFGC, despite the fact that they clearly meant the masculine form...gaaahhhh. I still think we should be inviting "uh-LUM-nee" back to visit the college, but it just sounds too silly)<br /><br /> <br /><b>don't be a pedant unless you know what you're talking about</b><br />katealaurel<br />2007-04-25 03:14 pm <br />[Allie sez: Kate, your formatting here for quotes is being replaced by italics because I'm lazy]<br /><i>as I recall from German, French, and Latin</i><br />German, of course, is not nearly as closely related to French and Latin as those two are to each other. I'd be cautious about making any argument that relies too heavily on generalizations between all three.<br /><br /><i>but on the other hand they went out of their way in many cases to feminize many professions</i><br />The problem is that while there may not be a stigma overtly attached to feminization of professional nouns, the feminization itself contains an implication that a normal "professor" (for example) is not female. If we have to create new words to account for the presence of women in these professions, it implies that women were not present in them to begin with-- or worse, don't belong there.<br /><br />Naturally gendered languages may raise less hue and cry about the problems of gendering nouns, but that doesn't mean that they don't exhibit linguistic evidence of discriminatory thought.<br /><br /><br /><b>...</b><br />dragonmagelet<br />2007-04-25 03:50 pm <br />Uhm, hi. *waves* No need to insult my intelligence, here. It's just the internets.<br /><br />The whole reason I was bringing up the question of gendered languages is because I wasn't sure how I felt about it. As I understand it the LACK of a feminized form of "professor" in French is under some debate, as THAT is considered to be discriminatory by some people, which is counterintuitive given the overall message of the original post. Also, as I understand it that attitude, that "if we have to create new words to account for the presence of women in these professions, it implies that women were not present in them to begin with-- or worse, don't belong there", seems to be a largely AMERICAN attitude because we don't have gendered nouns in English. The feminization of professions in most European languages (the French le professeur standing out as a notable exception) seems to be a part of gender equality, rather than the opposite. Would it be better if they continued refering to ALL professions in the masculine? That seems to be the attitude in the environment of gendered languages. That's the point I was trying to make.<br /><br />I was mostly taking issue with your reply because it relied heavily on the trends of a dead language, which seemed somewhat irrelevant. I apologize if this came off as dismissive or...uhm...if it made you sad, or whatever :(<br /><br />I thought, too, that German would be almost entirely unrelated to Latin (which I took for six years). It's what I had been told about the language. Now that I've taken almost a year or it, however, I see a lot of connections between the two, some which do not appear even in French (which I took for three years). Most (almost all, in fact) of the words, it's true, are Germanic rather than Latin in origin, but the structure is very reminiscient of Latin. Specifically, German still has neuter nouns, which French does not have, and also shares the trend towards feminine abstract nouns, which Latin and French also share. Which is what we were talking about. It's possible--likely even! I'm not a Linguist, I don't know--that Latin had zero influence on German and the commonalities are just coincidence. That doesn't mean the commonalities aren't there. I was making comparisons between them because they're the only languages I've taken.<br /><br />Frankly, I DON'T know that much about linguistics. I've only taken three languages, and I don't know very much about the politics/political correctness/whatever of other countries. I was just putting out there what I did know, and hoping it would spark some discussion. I didn't intend for any of this to get nasty :P Maybe this response was excessive, for which I do apologize, but I do my best to know what I'm talking about, so forgive me if I took offense when accused of ignorance.<br /><br /><br /> <br />kestrelct<br />2007-04-25 05:01 pm <br />Oh crap guys, now I have to read all this.<br /><br />Also, please play nice and try to stay calm. Like clams, the way I typed it first. Just because it's almost <i>[the end of the year blowout party]</i> doesn't mean stress has *actually* taken over anyone's brain.<br /><br /> <br /><b>*sheep*</b><br />dragonmagelet<br />2007-04-25 05:04 pm <br />*shuffles*<br /><br />[this is in response to dragonmagelet's "bitching out the sciences" comment] <br />beckyzoole<br />2007-04-25 11:01 am <br />It really may be for safety reasons -- when I was in Chem lab, all students had to wear those white coverup coats. We had a man professor, and a man TA too.<br /><br />The word I hate is "coed" to mean a female college student. Bwa?<br /><br /> <br /><br />kestrelct<br />2007-04-25 11:04 am <br />Because the default state of higher education is male, obviously, and coeducationalizing (+1 made up word point to me!) involves introducing wimmins, who must obviously then be "coeds" because they bring it with them...?<br /><br />I only ever see that term in porn.<br /><br /> <br /><br />katealaurel<br />2007-04-25 12:14 pm <br />"H0TT c0LL3GE CO3DS WANT Y00!", you mean?<br /><br />I've actually seen it in serious articles-- like in the NYTimes-- before, but I've no idea how I'd go about digging one up except for long and laborious internet sleuthing, which is great for procrastination but not-what-I-need-to-be-doing-right-now.<br /><br /><br />pendragoness<br />2007-04-25 12:54 pm <br />To continue bitching out the science department, they won't let us bare our shoulders in Chem lab (allegedly because it's unsafe, but I'm pretty sure it has more to do with not distracting our more serious male colleagues) :P<br /><br />awww come on. I know this is facetious, but still. You can't wear sandals or come in without safety goggles either...<br /><br /><br />[Allie sez: This is in response to my comment about the misogynists in the physics department]<br />flawlessnight<br />2007-04-25 03:49 pm <br />Actually it's because they said they'd buy her a $20,000 piece of equipment she needed for her research and then they didn't.<br /><br />Yeah, I kinda do. Of the last like 100 Nobel Prizes in physics, like 98 of them have been men, and the last two were Marie Curie and some other chick. It's my duty to out-badass all the men on staff. :) And out-badass them I shall!<br /><br /> <br /><br />kestrelct<br />2007-04-25 05:08 pm <br />What, other than [A Physics Major Who Lives In My Basement And Got To Use Danielle's Super Nice Lab All By Himself]'s Thesis Lab?<br /><br />The bulletin board in the physics hallway just reinforces my ire and my determination that WOM(A/E)N IS NOT A DAMN ADJECTIVE! It's a fucking noun! English is crying!<br /><br /><br /><br />pendragoness<br />2007-04-25 12:57 pm <br />re #4 <i>[in flawlessnight's list]</i>: forgive me if I'm wrong, but I'd imagine the pool of qualified physicists for professor positions in the particular generations from which they are hiring is kind of skewed towards men. Not because women aren't capable of being qualified physicists, but just because in the generations from which our professors grew up, there wasn't as much encouragement for women in the sciences.<br /><br /><br /> <br />aris_tgd<br />2007-04-25 03:04 pm <br />I'd also point out that the chemistry department, while full of male professors, has had an abundance of female students over the past few years. I believe there was one year recently wherein all the graduating seniors were female.<br /><br />And that's not even pointing out the Reactor of Awesome <i>[Allie sez: a mostly-student-run small nuclear reactor in the basement of the psychology building at said college, which the admissions department is fond of pointing out produces the most licensed female reactor operators of anywhere every year]</i>, wherein there are about 11 female senior operators and only 5 or so male ones this year.<br /><br /> <br /> <br />flawlessnight<br />2007-04-25 03:55 pm <br />Wow, really? That's awesome!<br /><br />Physics has historically been the most male-dominated of the sciences. Like, I don't even know if I KNOW any male Bio majors, and I know a LOT of female chem majors, but even though there are more female physics majors now than ever before, I think we're still at like a 60/40 split.<br /><br /> <br /><br />djibril24<br />2007-04-25 07:55 pm <br />There are plenty of male bio majors, but it does tend to be skewed towards women.<br /><br /><br /><br />pendragoness<br />2007-04-25 04:08 pm <br />To quote R---- <i>[no idea who this is but figure it's polite to take the name out]</i>, "we're the only reactor run by hot chicks!"<br /><br /><br /> <br />flawlessnight<br />2007-04-25 03:52 pm <br />Yeah, pretty much.<br /><br /> <br />pendragoness<br />2007-04-25 04:07 pm <br />I mean, it's sort of an obvious idea, but still, what I meant is that I don't think it's anything particularly chauvinistic NOW, it's just dealing with the way things have historically been.Alliehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11755847324476240436noreply@blogger.com68tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4847123376228827754.post-85681365900358759462007-04-26T15:31:00.000-07:002007-04-28T13:16:55.465-07:00the thread from my ljSo this is the thread-from-my-lj, where I copied a long comment I had made in the aforementioned blog, and got some comments there. I'm going to attempt to format it readably (livejournal has threaded comments, which I only realised I loved once I came over to blogger where it's not so and it's much harder to keep up sepearate conversations), but I'm currently unsure of my ability to do that. Let me know if Word introduced any of its crappy formatting shit or if I fucked my HTML or if this is in some other way messed up. All names here are <a href="http://www.livejournal.com">LJ</a> usernames; I'm kestrelct. If anyone would like their name or comment removed, let me know. I've edited only for formatting and to change a real name to an lj name, once again, let me know if I screwed you up.<br /><br />And oh shit, please bear with me while I try to remember HTML. I forgot you could have a multi-paragraph unordered list item and the first incarnation of this formatting was hideous. Yes, that's why they all have bullet points; I know no more elegant way to indent than ul. *cries in shame*<br /><br /><br />In response to a comment (which was in response to a comment, and had all gotten rather off-track from the original post) on another blog <span style="font-style: italic;">(I’m genuinely curious: What, exactly, would have to change for you to believe that “society” *did* behave as if women were people?).</span><br /><br />I'm not <a href="http://meandmyredstapler.blogspot.com/">Red Stapler</a> , but I'll take a crack at this. A society -- and by this I mean, approximately, the prevailing attitudes and practises in the United States, since that's where I live -- where women were treated like people, like equals, would look something like this to me:<br /><br />We'd have an approximately equal number of male and female presidential candidates. And Supreme Court nominees, and congresspeople, and state governors...<br /><br />An equal number of men and women would be raped every year (and that number would, I'm guessing, be rather smaller than it is now). Ditto the numbers on sexual violence perpetrators. If there were a disagreement on the consensuality of a sexual act, one party's word would not be taken over the other's as a matter of course without other evidence.<br /><br />Advertisements would be equally as likely to use a man as a woman in an attempt to use sex to sell the product, and they'd be dressed equally skimpily.<br /><br />There would not be a significant difference in pay between women and men, overall. I'm not saying all jobs would be evenly split between the genders, but that if you took a slice of people doing similar (education requirements, position in the company heirarchy, experience generally required to reach that position, etc) work, you wouldn't see a difference in pay between men and women. And that the "most traditionally female" jobs would not pay, as a rule, less than the ones with the most men working them. One would be equally likely to encounter women as men at any point in a given hierarchy, and as many men would have a female boss as women would have a male one.<br /><br />It would be equally normal for a man as a woman to be the stay-at-home parent. Women would not be discriminated against in hiring because it was assumed that they would take time off or leave to have children.<br /><br />Women and men who chose to have a lot of casual sex would generally be treated equally because of it. Ditto people who chose to have no sex. Both sexes would receive equal education on and be considered to bear equal responsibility for practicing safer sex.<br /><br />I'm sure there are several more important things that would be different in a country or world where we behaved like the genders were differentiated mostly by their plumbing and not by their intrinsic social status, but I can't think of them at the moment. I hope these provide food for thought on the ways in which women are *not* treated like this right now in the US, and why that might be.<br /><br /> <br />nietzscheansmut<br />2007-04-25 09:08 am<br />I tend to think of these as two separate questions. I do think of women as being treated as people in modern America, but definitely not as equal. In many cases woman are treated as dumber, more fickle, or weaker than men, and that's stupid, but you don't see it justified on the grounds that woman aren't human, whereas you do, for example, in a lot of writing and commentary about black people from around 1850 to 1950 (the term "ape," for instance, crops up a lot).<br /><br />That aside, I think these criticisms are basically dead on. Especially the ones about pay/occupational discrepancies, and the differing attitudes regarding promiscuity/celibacy depending on gender. The only one I'd really take issue with is the one about the number of people of each gender who are raped: that to me is also a matter of plumbing. It's not that there's anything fair or right about it, but it is physically harder overall to rape a man.<br /><br />But yeah, good commentary.<br /><br /><br /><ul> <br /><li>eavanmoore<br />2007-04-25 09:12 am<br />Ditto to everything [nietzscheansmut] said.</li><br /><br><br /><li>kestrelct<br />2007-04-25 09:56 am<br />Ok, the "people" is a good point. It's often used mostly hyperboleically for the shock value, I think.<br /><br />If I substituted "sexually assaulted" and put in a gentle reminder that not all sex is penis-in-vagina, would that flow better? I suppose I use rape as an inaccurate metonymy for sexual assault, not remembering that definitions vary widely. And, uh, totally forgetting about the plumbing issue in my assumption that rape of males will be perpetrated by another male and therefore penetrative, an assumption I'm chucking in my more-perfect world. Thanks for bringing that up.</li><br /><br /><br /><ul><br /><li>nietzscheansmut<br />2007-04-25 12:29 pm<br />I still think it would be uneven in a perfect world by those standards, but it would be a lot less uneven than it is in the current world.<br /><br />I mean, it seems to me we can break sexual assault/harassment down into four basic categories: 1. Verbal harassment (hoots, whistles, and objectifying comments), 2. Unwanted touching (pretty self-explanatory), 3. Uncoerced nonconsensual sex (getting someone into a state in which they wouldn't object to having sex with you whereas they normally would, e.g. very drunk), and 4. Coerced nonconsensual sex (the classic "fuck me or I kill you" rape scenario). The first three would presumably be fairly equal in a world where the genders were equal. The fourth, which is mostly a matter of biological equipment, would still mostly be a crime committed by men.</li><br /><br /></ul><br /></ul><br /> <br />eavanmoore<br />2007-04-25 09:11 am<br />Advertisements would be equally as likely to use a man as a woman in an attempt to use sex to sell the product, and they'd be dressed equally skimpily. We're not there yet, obvs, but we're on our way, and it really bothers me. If naked-woman advertising is a failure to see women as people instead of bodies, then naked-man advertising is no better.<br /><br />It would be equally normal for a man as a woman to be the stay-at-home parent. Women would not be discriminated against in hiring because it was assumed that they would take time off or leave to have children. And there would be no financial penalty for taking time off!<br /><br />No one would attribute a woman's behavior to her "nurturing" or "emotional" character and oppose to it a man's more "rational" and "aggressive" behavior.<br /><br /><br /><ul> <br /><li>kestrelct<br />2007-04-25 09:59 am<br />Objectifying people as sexual objects is lame. Objectifying only women as sexual objects is lame and scary. *shrugs* It seems weird that I'm more comfortable with more people being objectified. Huh.</li><br /><br /><br /> <br /><li>kestrelct</li><br />2007-04-25 10:01 am<br /><i>No one would attribute a woman's behavior to her "nurturing" or "emotional" character and oppose to it a man's more "rational" and "aggressive" behavior.</i><br /><br />People *do* that shit? I sometimes feel a little out-of-touch, being a rich white person from a privileged background. I've only rarely experienced things that I know, intellectually, are common-place for people in other situations, and it throws my intuitions all off.</li><br /><br /><br /><ul><br /><li>eavanmoore<br />2007-04-25 10:04 am<br />Yes, people do that shit. At this moment I'm thinking specifically of an online discussion about female bosses. Someone actually said that a female boss had a more "nurturing" approach, I shit you not.</li><br /><br /></ul><br /></ul><br /> <br />azurelunatic<br />2007-04-25 09:18 am<br />And if two people are in an office with a big shiny desk, the default guess as to "whose office is this" would probably be "um... what does the name plate on the desk say?" rather than "it's his office".<br /><br /><ul><br /> <br /><li>kestrelct<br />2007-04-25 10:03 am<br />And women in tech jobs would never hear "Can I talk to someone who knows what they're doing? Like, a *man*?", or having it assumed that they're a receptionist.</li><br /><br />I keep coming up with more. This could be a whole website, here -- "In a Perfect World..."</li><br /><br /><ul><br /> <br /><li>eavanmoore<br />2007-04-25 10:06 am<br />Mom told me about an older woman who was more comfortable with a male gynecologist. Of all people.</li><br /><br /><br /></ul><br /></ul><br />beckyzoole<br />2007-04-25 10:54 am<br />In a world like that, we wouldn't need to call equality between the genders "feminism".Alliehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11755847324476240436noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4847123376228827754.post-74434313271471243482007-04-25T21:58:00.000-07:002007-04-25T22:03:04.040-07:00so that threadThe thread that, basically, got me interested in making this blog, is <a href="http://toddseavey.com/2007/04/21/aborting-feminism-adding-links/">here</a>. I am not sure if my inability to keep attempting conversation in it is due to severe worldview incompatibility or the fact that the last time I slept was thirty hours ago. I would appreciate feedback on whether I'm totally irrational right now. There's also a very large amount of great food for thought, in fact enough to deserve a couple of posts, rather than an attempt to keep up a dialogue that can't hope to address all the points raised. But then I have this problem with the majority of blog comment back-and-forths ;)<br /><br />Shit, and I was hoping to sleep. Between this and a personal issue I'm full of adrenaline...Alliehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11755847324476240436noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4847123376228827754.post-26297521643470251852007-04-25T16:44:00.000-07:002007-04-25T16:50:28.408-07:00Heeeeere's Allie!So, in response to someone asking to be linked to something in my livejournal, which is privacy-locked, I have finally decided I'll spare the people over there my more politic-y rants, and begin a Real Blog.<br /><br />Please bear with me while I attempt to learn enough CSS to fix the godawful default fonts Blogger thinks look good.<br /><br />As the header says, the title comes from a gedankenexperiment about what would be different in a perfect world, for some definition of perfect. Probably the first thing of substance that will be going up here is the discussion that happened in my lj about it, and I'd love to get a running list going. Also, the subdomain is lame because the better variants were taken.<br /><br />Yes, Allie is my first name. Please, no Catcher in the Rye jokes.Alliehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11755847324476240436noreply@blogger.com3