Girl guidance July 31, 2007

Lots in the news recently about the list of things that Girl Guides in the UK have reported as wanting to have training or acquire skills in – full details here.

Interesting results: of the 16-25 age group, 80% said they wanted more sex education (perhaps this will help); in the 10-15, 68% wanted to learn how to stand up to boys; 65% self-defence.

Initially positive news, I thought – good that the Guides are responding to the voiced concerns of their members. And indeed, the report claims that the survey was conducted because ’we prioritise giving girls the skills, experiences and opportunities they need to reach for new aspirations and succeed in the modern world’ (so says Chief Guide Liz Burnley).

….However, I hate to say it, but further investigation lead me to the following conclusion about the best way to get equipped with skills for the modern world: join the Scouts (female members permitted)!

Just take a look at the respective list of activities badges, here and here. As a Guide, one can take badges in camping, science, team leading. Not bad, I thought, til I noticed that as a Scout, one could take badges in many more topics, with much greater specificity: for example, in aviation skills, meteorology, dragon boating, public relations.

And there’s some annoying gendered badges: for Guides, cook and ’finding your way’ badges; for scouts, chef and orienteering badges.

Further, one might think that a more general point is in the offing: each organisation representing a distinctive strategy for gender equality. One same sex organisation, which provides activities in a way that seems to rely on gender differences, with the projects accordingly attuned (the site tells us: “there is one element that remains central to the ideas and ambitions of Girlguiding UK: the ‘girl’.” I find that way of putting it kind of disturbing!); on the other hand, an organisation for both sexes, aiming for ‘A more balanced and natural environment in which young people can develop … [with] a more diverse range of skills, qualities and interests’. (see the incredibly level-headed training document on mixed scouting here).
Interesting to think about how the gender perceptions of younger generations are being formed, given these will be the feminists of the future (one hopes)!

Compulsory Heterosexuality July 31, 2007

Just about the clearest case you could have.  A judge in Spain (yes, Spain– with the great laws on gay marriage) has ordered a lesbian to either find a male partner or give up custody of her child. His explanation:

It is understood that (a parent’s) drug addiction, child abuse, prostitution, belonging to a satanic sect or heterosexual affair would negatively affect the children and serve as a reason for a change of custody,” he said. “Well, it’s the same with homosexuality. 

The good news: a judicial watchdog is now looking into the case. (Actually, the article says that the judge is being probed, but I thought that was a bit ambiguous.) Apparently the judge has made some other controversial rulings, like not allowing lesbians to adopt and ordering the arrest of topless sunbathers despite the legality of topless sunbathing. Many thanks to reader Esa for passing this one on!

Redefining beauty July 30, 2007

Feminists talk a lot about the need to reshape and broaden ideas about what sorts of bodies are beautiful. But actually doing this is much more difficult. This dance troupe , Danza Voluminosa, sounds like it may actually be helping to accomplish this, by showing ways in which large bodies can be graceful and beautiful.

Nicer Gifts for Spiderman Fans July 29, 2007

Like the gift of sensible advice about safe sex.  Yes, really– back in the 1970s Spiderman teamed up with Planned Parenthood, and together they worked to save the world from an evil genius hoping to profit from unplanned pregnancies.    Sure beats laundry statuettes, huh? Yes, we’ve actually reached the point where kids can get more accurate information about sex from thirty-year-old comic books than from sex ed classes.  Many thanks to Mr Gender (formerly known as ‘H’) for passing this on to me!

When Brains Explode July 28, 2007

Dinesh  D’Souza really doesn’t know what to do when faced with consistency.  How else to explain this column, devoted to the amazing fact that feminist advocates of affirmative action actually stand by their commitment to diversity even when it means occasionally favoring men over women?  No matter how many times I read the column, I really can’t tell whether he thinks this form of affirmative action is good or bad.  (Though it is clear that he views universities as heterosexual dating services, a view he takes to be shared by students and admissions personnel.) Many thanks to reader Zack for passing this one on to us.

Travelodge, porn, objectification July 27, 2007

Comment here, from Zoe Williams, on Travelodge’s decision to remove the ‘adult’ channels from its services.

Interesting assumptions on the part of both Travelodge and Williams. In the first instance the company appears to assume that:

•  women fall into the ‘family’ category of the clientele
• the ‘business’ category of the clientele are men
• these are the pornography users

On Williams’ part:

• the culturally standard attitude towards pornography is to see it as ironic
• that pornography is homogeneous, both in kind and in consequence (suggested by her question: ‘How degrading is porn, then, and for whom?’. Answer, surely: ‘it depends on the pornography’. Even if one thought all pornography degrades women, one might think that there may be differences, according to the porn, on how it degrades, or how much it degrades, or which specific individuals, in addition to all women, are degraded by the particular piece of pornography).

I was also intrigued by her comments on objectification, in particular:

‘The rhetoric of objectification relies on the idea that it’s one-way traffic, that only men objectify, and only women are objectified’.

This may well be the way that ‘the rhetoric of objectification’ is presented. But even if one accepted the alternative that she proposes (‘So, say women do objectify men to the same degree, on the same grounds as they themselves are objectified’ [NB: given cultural norms about sexual attractiveness, I think this unlikely - see, e.g. the differences in what is taken to be an asset in the article in this post]) one might think that context mattered in a way that made it worse for women than men. Namely, in a context of gender inequality, ‘equal’ objectification, to the same degree and on the same grounds, may mean different things, or have different consequences, for men and women.

This kind of view is argued for by Leslie Green - his paper “Pornographies” (8 Journal of Political Philosophy, (2000), pp. 27-52) addresses the meaning of objectification for both women, and gay men (the meaning being quite different in each instance, he argues, due to the different cultural backdrop).

Perhaps these kinds of considerations are pertinent to the wonderings about why some objectifying body furniture (bits of women’s bodies) seem creepy whilst others don’t (hand door knockers)?

Anyway – no more pornography in Travelodge.

Sporting events for women July 26, 2007

Women in St. Petersburg took part in a high-heel sprint, to win a shopping voucher. More information and pictures can be found here.

Thinking Blogger Award July 25, 2007

We’re very pleased to report that we’ve received a Thinking Blogger Award from Thought, Interrupted by Typos.   We’ve been thinkers for some time, but we’re really new to the blogging, so it’s especially nice to be appreciated! Thanks, Thought!

 The rules are as follows:

• If, and only if you get tagged, write a post with links to 5 blogs that make you think.
• Link to this post so that people can easily find the exact origin of the meme.
• Optional: Proudly display the ‘Thinking Blogger Award’ with a link to the post that you wrote (there is an alternative silver version if gold doesn’t fit your blog).  

It’s taken us a disgracefully long time to figure out 5 blogs to link to, and to work out how to put our award up.  (Actually, even formatting all the links was a struggle.  We’re new to this.) But now we’re finally ready!  Here are our five somewhat eclectic choices: 

• From Monkey:
  • A Muslim a Day The blog is run by an American Muslim, and the aim is to post a photograph of someone Muslim every day to show how diverse Muslim people are, and to put some human faces to the word, in an effort to combat prejudice.      
  • Afrigadget The wonderful Afrigadget shows Africans turning old junk into gadgets.  Great source of inspiration for recyclers and re-users all over the globe. 
•  From Stoat:
  • Mudd Up! It is predominantly a music blog – and well worth a listen – but the writer, djrupture, is quite provocative in his commentating on the goings on of themusical world, and prone to bringing a bit of philosophy into the mix – note his recent post appealing to speech act theory as a way of understanding recent music-world behaviour… Definitely a thinking blogger.    
• From Edna: 
  • Ethicurean  A blog about the ethics of food,agriculture, agribusiness, and sustainable eating.    

• And, finally, me.  I’ve had a really hard time thinking about what blog to nominate.  I wanted to give the award to a feminist blog, and there are so many great ones out there. So today I settled on:
  •  The F-Word  A great feminist blog with some excellent writing as well as important news items.

 

Men in cat carriers July 25, 2007

   This Fay Weldon article, “Bag yourself a ‘must have’ male” initially sounds like another one to help Monkey in her quest for a rich man. But no, it actually addresses quite a different issue: how men are debasing themselves now that women have all the power. You might think the claim that women have all the power would be the main story– it’s news to me, certainly. But instead it’s not even argued for, just assumed:

The gap between men and women has narrowed so much over the decades that the sexes are intrinsically the same, and it’s happening so fast that it makes us uneasy. Equal pay, equal opportunities, Health and Safety makes wimps of us all… what’s the difference between the male and the female? Except, of course, that women occupy the moral high ground, live longer, look better longer, are more employable and need men less than men need women.    

The result of women having all the power?

Now women want to be stick-like and beautiful to please themselves or impress other women – not men. Women like to have partners: they don’t need to have partners. And so it is the man who has to make the effort to please.    

And what does the man do? He uses hair products and cosmetics, diets, and has surgery– all in a desperate quest to please. Heck, he’ll even climb into the cat carrier if that’s what she asks. (Maybe that’s why folks care about the sex of their vets?) Damn, it’s good to be a woman. So, why am I even bothering with this rubbish, completely unsupported as it is by any facts or arguments? Because it’s useful to look at the trope it employs. It takes for granted the claim that women have all the power, smuggling it into the supposedly shared background of the conversation. (The bit about men debasing themselves isn’t like this: stats are given re male plastic surgery.) It becomes impossible to understand the article if one doesn’t take the presupposition on board. The cooperative, well-trained conversationalist (which nearly all of us are) has to fight rather hard to avoid taking on presuppositions like this (see David Lewis on scorekeeping). It’s a powerful technique.Also, it’s important to realize that lots of people *do* share the background presuppositions of the article. This is what we’re starting from with lots of people, including our students, and that’s worth bearing in mind. (Many thanks to S for enriching my life with this one!)

EOC folds. Bad news/good news? July 24, 2007

News here that the Equal Opportunities Commission, in the UK, is folding, to be absorbed by the Commission for Equality and Human Rights.

Some find this cause for concern: statistics indicating the extent to which discrimination and various gender ‘gaps’ remain rife leading to worries that the all purpose equality body will give insufficient attention to addressing specifically gendered inequalities.

On the other hand, the attitude expressed here is more optimistic. In particular:

‘The hope in the EOC is that, with a man heading up the new equality body, there will be more credence given to the idea that the agenda of equal opportunities is as much to do with men as women…  For too long gender equality has been seen as women’s special pleading’.

(Thoughts echoed in recent post and comments here)

Irrelevant sex/gender information July 23, 2007

So… took the cat to the vet for the first-time last week.  Happened to see a female vet.  I needed to make a follow-up appointment for Friday, and couldn’t do the time that she was on duty.  So I asked if we could see a different vet.  The receptionist said that there was another female vet available Friday evening, which we also couldn’t do.  She said there was yet another female vet available on Thursday, at another inconvenient time.  I was puzzled that she kept mentioning the femaleness of the vets, but then thought maybe some people prefer female vets (as I prefer female gynecologists, although the reasoning is a bit harder to discern).  So I explained that I didn’t mind a male vet.  She said “Oh, but all our vets are female. The male vet’s on holiday.”  Marilyn Frye, in “Sexism”, discusses the tendency to act as though sex/gender is relevant when it really isn’t.  This seems like a really striking example of that.

Shameless Self-Promotion Opportunity July 22, 2007

An idea shamelessly stolen from Feministing. Have you written something you think our readers might be interested in? Announce it in the comments to this post, with link if possible.  

Advertising to Men July 21, 2007

Following the earlier post and discussion on affirmative action for male feminists I thought I would post this piece of advertising aimed at men, since I think it raises something about the experience of being a man that is of interest to feminism.

This product is directed at construction workers, the kind that stereo-typically wolf-whistle and leer at women. One of the things I think is interesting is that just as advertising aimed at women (of the kind mentioned here) seems to make women view themselves in terms of their appearance and attractiveness to men, this kind of advertising does something similarly unhelpful.

First, and obviously, it helps to impose a male only exclusivity on the construction industry. Second, it helps define maleness and male sexuality as tough, and aggresive (“banging”, “drilling”). And thirdly, I would say it suggests something to men about how to view who (or even what) they have sex with. Banging, Screwing, Drilling are activities that we go around doing to things. When we draw a connection between this and sex, then sex is just something men go around doing to things. You can see where I’m going with all this – maybe this is the way men are taught to objectify women, maybe just as women are subject to the male gaze and self-police, perhaps men are subject to a continued checking of their masculinity and self-police their activities towards women, and so on. Anyway, I just thought this kind of advertising towards men was an instance of why certain male experiences are relevant and interesting to feminism.

Substantive Political Journalism July 20, 2007

Update:  In case you’re interested, Ms Magazine has made it easy to send a letter protesting the detailed analysis of candidates’ cleavage.  

From the Washington Post: 

Showing cleavage is a request to be engaged in a particular way. It doesn’t necessarily mean that a woman is asking to be objectified, but it does suggest a certain confidence and physical ease. It means that a woman is content being perceived as a sexual person in addition to being seen as someone who is intelligent, authoritative, witty and whatever else might define her personality…To display cleavage in a setting that does not involve cocktails and hors d’oeuvres is a provocation. It requires that a woman be utterly at ease in her skin, coolly confident about her appearance, unflinching about her sense of style. Any hint of ambivalence makes everyone uncomfortable. And in matters of style, Clinton is as noncommittal as ever.       

Wow.  What shocking clothing did Clinton wear? This.   Next time your students insist that we no longer trivialize women by focussing on their appearance, show them this article.  It’s WARTIME, and she’s RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT.   And, for God’s sake, she’s not even wearing anything scandalous!  OK, calmer now.  It is actually interesting to look at the messages said to be sent by cleavage:  not *necessarily* “objectify me” (that’s nice), but nonetheless a provocation if there are no hors d’oevres.  Good to know.

Rich men, rich women… July 20, 2007

…and how to bag one, respectively. Useful advice for you, Monkey?Although women after a rich man might find the advice worrying – you’ll have to be willing to be objectified and commodified, it seems. The author notes that:

• ‘Having sold yourself as a Ferrari [to bag the rich bloke], you have to maintain yourself like one. There is a reason Ferrari issues a new model every few years or so (a shiny knob here; a new electrical gadget there; that crucial extra iota of acceleration): it appeals to their core client, and there is never a shortage of beautiful, witty young women coming on to the market.’

But it’s not all bad news for the women: if you don’t manage to upgrade yourself sufficiently often, and find yourself replaced with a newer model, you might nonetheless do well out of a divorce settlement. Finding yourself laden with riches and without a man, the advice on offer about dating millionaire women will then come in handy, no doubt:

• ‘What a clever, professional woman wants in a long-term partner is an equally clever, professional man.  It doesn’t matter if she makes all the money; as long as he has a brain – and uses it. So while the tennis coach or yoga teacher may suffice for a flirtation, he will not cut the mustard around the dinner table.’

Hang on a minute: how come women who date rich men have to be ‘like Ferrari’s’, but men who date rich women have to be ‘more substantial’?A classic example of gendered stereotyping and norm-perpetuating tosh, that does injustice to men and women. Still interested? See news of a training course on how to get a millionaire. Key strategy:’Your favourite words and phrases [should be] … “Yes,” and “I can be whatever you want me to be”.’Moreover women who take this course will 

• ‘learn how to wiggle their hips, kneel in a posture of mock subjugation and eat a banana suggestively by practising in front of a mirror – all with a view to some day applying those techniques to the anatomy of a very successful man’.

Any subscribers? erm…

Please Sponsor My Surgery July 20, 2007

Following Monkey’s post on websites for dating Rich Men , I thought this was kind of interesting. Should a women want breast implants (and why wouldn’t she?), all she needs to do is find a “benefactor” at Myfreeimplants, offer to send him photos, personal gifts(and something which is mysteriously refered to as “and more….”) and he’ll send her money towards helping correct what nature got wrong first time around. The British Association of Aesthetic Plastic Surgeons (or BAAPS – honestly) doesn’t approve of this apparently. Erm… what more to say about this?

Affirmative Action For Male Feminists? July 19, 2007

A discussion in comments has led to something I think is worth discussing in its own right.

In the journal rankings discussion, commenter Anon pointed out that Hypatia’s editorial board is overwhelmingly female. This led me to speculate about the possibility that feminist philosophers should not simply take for granted that this is an acceptable state of affairs. Yes, some feminist philosophy draws on the experience of being female. But much of it doesn’t, or needn’t. And work drawing on the experience of being male could also be (and in fact already is) really useful and interesting to feminist philosophy. Ross Cameron, in comments, suggests that actually it’s more important for men to be feminists than for women to be:

In some ways, it’s more important that men be feminists than it is that women be. (For the same reasons that the people you’d *really* like to convince that blacks aren’t inferior to whites are white supremicists, not black people who most likely believe that anyway.)

So, should we try to make feminist philosophy more friendly to men? I think we should, for lots of reasons. But one especially relevant to recent discussions is this: People are more likely to know and respect journals they read. They are more likely to read journals in areas they work in. If men feel unwelcome in feminist philosophy, they’ll be unlikely to read feminist journals. With philosophy’s male/female ratios, how can we possibly hope to mainstream feminism and get widespread respect for feminist work if most of the profession feels sealed out of feminism?

One might argue that men can’t possibly feel like feminism is off-limits to them, given their general dominance of philosophy. But this just isn’t true. Aside from things like stereotype threat and the problems with solo status (see Haslanger), there are major feminist philosophy conferences (UK-SWIP, definitely, and I’ve heard conflicting things about C-SWIP) at which they’re not to permitted to give papers.

Separatism has its place, but that place isn’t very helpful for mainstreaming. So I say: let’s make an active effort to get men into feminist philosophy.

Body Basins… and more July 17, 2007

Over at feministing, news of some strange and disturbing wash basins…

And this took me to their ‘disturbing product poll’. Some of which are very disturbing, such as the T-shirts proclaiming ‘I like my women like like my chicken: battered’, ‘I’m too pretty to do math’ and ‘it ain’t rape if she ain’t awake’. Disgusting.

But perhaps useful in teaching as examples of blatant sexism. And a useful example of the potential illocutionary disablement of ‘no’ here (scroll down).

I then ended up linking to this ’sexy furniture’ company website (click on portfolio and scroll along). It doesn’t seem to me that there’s much sexy about women’s dismembered bodies. Creepy.

More Critical Thinking Fodder: Presuppositions July 17, 2007

Surprise, surprise, Fox has a backlash-y new reality series coming out, When Women Rule the World. Jessica Pozner does a nice job dissecting their press release. But she doesn’t note something which really fascinates me. The whole show is based around the idea that women ruling the world is a reversal of the normal order of things. That is, it’s based around the presupposition that men currently rule the world. But this is what anti-feminists routinely DENY. The most common negative response to feminism these days (at least in the US and UK) is that women already have equality. In its press release, it seems to me, Fox is tacitly admitting that this just isn’t true. To see what I mean, here’s a taste of the press release:

The participants will be brought to a remote, primitive location where the women will have the opportunity to “rule” as they build a newly formed society – one where there is no glass ceiling and no dressing to impress. For the men, their worlds of power and prestige are turned inside-out and upside-down. And for these women, turnabout is fair play!

The Worst of Sociobiology July 15, 2007

This article represents, to my mind, the worst of sociobiological bumf.  It says that “our thoughts, feelings, and behavior are produced not only by our individual experiences and environment in our own lifetime but also by what happened to our ancestors millions of years ago”.  True enough.  But supposedly what follows from that is that human nature is static and human “choices” are largely a product of our biological inheritance, not any thinking we might happen to do. So, for example, men prefer young women (greater reproductive success), blondes (because blonde hair meant, in the past, that the woman was young), long-haired women (because long hair indicates several years of a woman’s health), and big breasts (because big breasts will droop with age, so, if not droopy, they indicate that the woman is young).   This seems to me to be mostly invention.  It also suggests that men are the dupes of their biological drives.  And that men who like short-haired, dark-haired, small-breasted, or even (goddess forbid) non-young women are reproductive dead ends.