"spotting"

A phrasing that particularly angers me:

(From someone posting as "V." on I Blame the Patriarchy)
"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."

Well, gee, where were you the first seventeen years of my life to tell me the reason my grades sucked was ASD?

Backing off from my particular take on this instance of the "I can always just tell" (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.

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!

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.

Maybe I need a tag for "things that piss me off". Seems like everything would get it though, making it less than useful.

The funeral was very nice. I'm still across the country, but less depressed by Serious Blogs than I had feared.

unmarked cases

I read and loved this post 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.

durr, what she said

Kim at Bastante Already has a really good post 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.

only women can dress sluttily

Well, this article on MSN 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.

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.

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.

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).

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."

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.

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").

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."

UGH! MSN, if I ever had respect for you, it's so gone.

so that thread

The thread that, basically, got me interested in making this blog, is here. 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 ;)

Shit, and I was hoping to sleep. Between this and a personal issue I'm full of adrenaline...