Excellent TED talk by Jackson Katz, one of the folks behind the bystander approach. Watch it. Then ask your friends to watch it.
Reflections from Deborah Copaken Kogan April 29, 2013
This is a powerful essay from Deborah Copaken Kogan–well worth a full read, but here’s a snippet:
This is what sexism does best: it makes you feel crazy for desiring parity and hopeless about ever achieving it. A few months later, after delivering a lecture on the media-invented “mommy wars” at the Sun Valley Writers’ Conference, a song pops up on my iPhone as I’m walking back to my hotel room: Bob Dylan’s “Like a Rolling Stone.” “When you ain’t got nothing,” Dylan sings, “you got nothing to lose.”
Yes, I think. Yes.
I suppress the three words that have haunted me my entire adult life—”They’ll smear you”—and choose Dylan’s instead. . .
American novelists are dudes, according to wikipedia April 25, 2013
From a recent NY Times Op-Ed:
I JUST noticed something strange on Wikipedia. It appears that gradually, over time, editors have begun the process of moving women, one by one, alphabetically, from the “American Novelists” category to the “American Women Novelists” subcategory. So far, female authors whose last names begin with A or B have been most affected, although many others have, too.
Apparently, women novelists from the original list are being moved systematically (in alphabetical order) to the “American Women Novelists” category. An explanation at the top of the “American Novelists” explains that the main list of novelists was getting too long, and so as many names as possible are being moved to subcategories. Naturally, prominent male novelists are also being moved off the main list and onto the “American Man Novelists” category, and the original list has been left only with those who reject a binary gender identification. Except ha, no, of course not.
Because, of course, if the likes of Jane Austen, George Eliot, Emily Bronte, Willa Cather, and Harper Lee taught us anything, it’s that women will forever be second-rate, subcategory-only novelists.
[Thanks for the tip, S!]
Nature (a follow up) April 9, 2013
Earlier we posted about the special issue of Nature for International Women’s Day, and there are some follow ups in the most recent issue. I thought readers might be especially interested in the letter from Tina M. Iverson (Vanderbilt), Sexism: A revealing experiment; the variance, corresponding to when her first name was available to reviewers, in her personal experience obtaining grants fits very well with the data on implicit bias we often discuss.
Surely, the sample size is small, and the replicates low, but the results are still striking and fit well with a larger pattern.
Men Writing About Sexism (Well) and the Phenomenology of Doing Feminism April 6, 2013
This recent article from the video game site Rock, Paper, Shotgun (RPS) is a well-written article about sexism in the gaming industry. (All quotes below are from the article.)
Game Developers Conference 2013
Even if you are not particularly interested in the intersection of feminism and video games, the article touches on an emotionally charged sub-topic: the phenomenology of social justice, a.k.a., the weird psychological and epistemological stuff that happens when we partake in these discussions.
“In having written about the subject of women and games over the years, I’ve received a significant amount of abuse. (I’m not going to fret about saying, “But of course not as bad as…”, because of course it’s not as bad as…) Most of the abuse I receive is lazy insults, and until recently I tended to assume them fairly innocuous. Some has been extreme, such as forum threads dedicated to associating my name with acts of child molestation to skew Google results, personal threats, and deeply personal insults. All of it has one purpose: to intimidate.”
It is reassuring and interesting when other people talk about the psychological effects of the backlash for talking about the -isms. Also, it’s impressive when a guy writes about the backlash he receives and I find myself genuinely sympathetic because he ‘gets it’.
“Generally the motivation for my writing any sort of polemic on RPS is because I’m angry about something – constructively angry about something a person should be angry about – and I want to see positive change. That’s what causes me to start typing, including this piece. But as I go along, those words creep in. “You’re just saying this to win the approval of others.” “You’re just trying to make girls like you.” “You think women need you to stand up for them.” And so on. They get to me. They’re getting to me right now. They’re evil spells, cast to insidiously infect.”
So I want to ask people about their own experiences with studying the -isms. I find the phenomenal and psychological aspects of engaging in social justice projects fascinating because I am going through a (for lack of a better term) paradigm shift in how I understand the norms of human action. In short, I’m shedding the worldview of pull-your-self-up-by-your-bootstraps atomized individualism that I grew up with and adopting a more…sociological?…understanding of human interaction. Things I used to hold as mantras I now see as false: It does matter what other people think of you; words can do more than break bones–they can rend souls; and there is no such thing as a self sufficient person–only a really privileged person who gets to enjoy the illusion of self sufficiency.
Have other people experienced things like this? Do you look back five or ten or twenty years in the past and realize you had a completely different understanding of how the world works? Do you struggle with managing the psychological aspects of using feminism in your work? (e.g. intimidation, isolation, social disapproval, wondering if you are insane or totally misled, etc.) I find these things creeping in whenever I write or say anything about the -isms. They get to me. It helps to know they get to other people, too.
“Hijacking feminism” April 4, 2013
An Op-Ed by Catherine Rottenberg: “Hijacking feminism”
“Yet the ideal for both women [Sheryl Sandberg and Anne-Marie Slaughter] remains the same – having a very successful career and a heteronormative family and being able to enjoy them both.
This, unfortunately, is how the “truly liberated” woman of the 21st century is increasingly being construed. What is particularly troubling about this feminist moment – especially since both women espouse liberal ideals – is exactly how little emphasis either Slaughter or Sandberg ultimately places on equal rights, justice or emancipation as the end goals for feminism.”
“ Zillah Eisenstein calls this imperial and trickle-down feminism.”
Lewis’ Law
“As I’ve just told @alicetiara, the comments on any article about feminism justify feminism. That is Lewis’s Law.”
A recent article entitled, “Donglegate: Why the Tech Community Hates Feminism” referenced Lewis’ Law, which is explained above. What do people think?
Also, I really hope the article linked above is mistaken about the increased popularity of MRAs.
Also also, Lewis’ Law, if sound, definitely applies to the article linked above.
Gendered Inspirations March 25, 2013
The eternally fabulous Helen Mirren caused a stir at last night’s Empire Awards when she noted that director Sam Mendes cited only men when naming his inspirations. Mendes made a speech upon receiving his “Empire Inspiration” award (apparently that’s a thing) in which he discussed filmmakers who have inspired him through his career, but all the filmmakers he mentioned were male. When collecting her own award (for “Empire Legend” – apparently that’s also a thing), Mirren remarked:
I don’t want to unduly pick on Sam Mendes, but when he spoke about his inspirations earlier this evening, I’m afraid not a single one of the people he mentioned was a woman. Hopefully in five or 10 years, when Sam’s successor is collecting their Inspiration award, the list will be slightly more balanced in terms of its sexual make-up. In the meantime, this one is for the girls.
In addition to being intrinsically awesome, I take it that this is proof that Helen Mirren tacitly endorses our Gendered Conference Campaign, right? RIGHT???
Kakenya Ntaiya and the Kakenya Center for Excellence March 19, 2013
Kenya ranks #130 in the 2012 Gender Inequality Index and ranks #145 in the Human Development Index. (Also, click here for a PDF of Kenya’s composite indices for the 2011 Human Development Report.)
Despite serious problems represented by these figures/values, Kakenya Ntaiya and the Kakenya Center for Excellence arguably provide many of the kinds of action, growth, hope, and promise that we need most in this world.
Woman challenges tradition, brings change to her Kenyan village (CNN Heroes story from March 14, 2013)
(Please check this out. Well worth our time. Every single minute – only 15 minutes, 42 seconds. Really gets going, truly inspiring, in the second half.)
Recent Comments