Misogyny Mishap: Update

We remarked on Charlette Allen’s mysogynistic indulgence, and the remarkable fact that the  WaPo printed it, here.  Thanks to a comment on that post by Roger, we can call your attention to a reply, which the WaPo has printed here.  And since it’s by Katha Pollitt, you know it is good! The article’s title and subtitle:

Dumb and Dumber: An Essay and Its Editors
The question is not why Charlotte Allen wrote her silly piece — it’s why The Post published it.

A sample just in case the author’s name isn’t enough to send you straight there:

The upshot: we ladies should focus on what we’re really good at — interior decoration and taking care of men and children.

Oh, gag me with a spoon. Sure, girly culture can be silly — but what does that prove? It’s not as though men spend their evenings leafing through the plays of Moliere. Susie whips up doggy treats, Mike surfs porn sites; she curls up with the Friday Night Knitting Club, he watches football. Or maybe the two of them watch “Grey’s Anatomy” together — surprise, surprise, about half the show’s audience is male. If you go by cultural preferences, actually, you could just as well claim that women are obviously smarter than men — look around you at the museum, the theater, the opera house, the ballet, the concert hall. Women read more than men, too, especially fiction, which men tend to avoid. (A story about things that didn’t happen? How does that work?) Women even read fiction by men and about men, further evidence of their imaginative powers — while men, if they do pick up a novel, make sure it’s estrogen-free. Who’s really the dim bulb, the woman who doesn’t see the beauty of “Grand Theft Auto,” or the man who thinks Tom Clancy is a great writer?

And now for an important qualification: In a passage copied below, Katha Pollitt endorses a view close to a problematic one of Gloria Steinem’s; namely, that sexism in the USA is worse than racism. We’ve discussed this claim before; it should be rejected. It does seem to me true that the WaPo would not write a comparably demeaning article about Blacks or Asians, but that does not show that, as KP puts it, sexism is the last acceptable prejudice. There are too many ways in which racism is also treated as acceptable, and arguably more than sexism is. So how do we capture what lies behind the fact that respectable newspapers and journalists are printing and uttering offensively mysogynistic pieces, while the awful racism directed toward Obama does not seem to make the op-ed pages yet? Women are the last joke?

Readers are invited to share their answers/observations.

From KP:

A far more important question is this: Why did The Post publish this nonsense? I can’t imagine a great newspaper airing comparable trash talk about any other group. “Asians Really Do Just Copy.” “No Wonder Africa’s Such a Mess: It’s Full of Black People!” Misogyny is the last acceptable prejudice, and nowhere more so than in our nation’s clueless and overwhelmingly white-male-controlled media.

SWIPnews

Chris Cuomo writes that  “the Spring edition of the SWIPnews website is up , and it is chock full of stories and info of interest to you and your readers, including a memorial to Val Plumwood, job listings, book notes, and many links.” Go check it out– we’re about to!

Take Back the Tech

This site is about reclaiming ICT (information and communication technologies) to end violence against women.    TBTT has  an international audience, and on March 8,  International Women’s Day, the site invited its visitors to tell their stories.  The result adds to the rich amount of information already on the site.

You can see some of the narratives collected here.

 (Despite the efforts  of Kathy,** our notice about International Women’s Day is coming to you a day late.  “Philosophers don’t do efficiency,” I say probably too frequently; I’m going to add “or dates.”  Apologies and thanks to you, Kathy, for the wonderful link.)

From TBTT you can go to genderIT.org, which promotes the use of ICT  to “contribute to the economic, political and social empowerment of women, and the promotion of gender equality.”  This is another important site that rewards visits.

————————————————————-

**To see Kathy’s blog, go to our blogroll and click “bideshi blue”.  The link “Bangladesh from our view” takes you to an important project Kathy is administering.

The Sunday cat: Iris!

Brave Iris, a Bengal kitty cat,  in the cockpit of a Cessna 172:

Sweet Capt Jim, Iris’s human companion, saw concerns about the noise and has given her ear muffs:

And for  Iris and a seal watching one another, try this:

Fact for the day: Beguinages

File this under “stuff I didn’t know”. A fascinating bit of women’s history (from CNN’s travel section, amazingly enough):

centuries ago, this hamlet in Leuven — a university town, 20 miles east of Brussels — was a beguinage, a sort of commune for unmarried, religiously-inclined women known as beguines (pronounced Bay-Gueens). Beguines — most likely derived from the Flemish word beghen, which means to pray — were women in the Low Countries who, beginning in the 12th century, chose to live neither under the care of a man nor the vows of the church. Theirs was, in essence, a feminist movement and its remarkable architectural legacy is still evident in cities across the Netherlands and Belgium….Beguinages were home to generations of religious women who sought to live a more independent life than that of women who married against their will. They made their homes, catered to the sick and poor, and sought to serve God without separating from the rest of the world. As Catholic women devoted to prayer and good work, beguines lived simply, wore loose robes and headwear similar to nuns’ habits. But nuns they were definitely not. Beguines took no religious vows. They could leave and marry, if they chose. They could own property and took no alms. Women of all classes were welcomed. They carried on professions, often in the textile industry. They elected women to be leaders — Grand Dames — and each Grand Dame was often assisted by an elected council. Each beguine was expected to support herself and make a tangible contribution to the beguinage, either through labor or rent income.

Thanks, Jender-Parents!

Trading housework for sex?

From the AP’s article “Men Who do More Housework Get More Sex”

American men still don’t pull their weight when it comes to housework and child care, but collectively they’re not the slackers they used to be. The average dad has gradually been getting better about picking himself up off the sofa and pitching in, according to a new report in which a psychologist suggests the payoff for doing more chores could be more sex.

The article reports on what sounds like an all-around good trend: more equitable division of household labour and more sex. What’s not to like? Well, one thing not to like is the assumption that sex is a reward for men– a thing that women give to them in exchange for labour. Has it ever occurred to the article’s author or the headline writer that sex might be, well, desired by both partners? Or that if it’s happening and it *isn’t* desired by both partners that’s something *bad*? (Thanks, Jender-Parents!)

Misogyny Mishap at the WaPo

So the Washington Post decides to print a revolting article about women called, “We Scream, We Swoon. How Dumb Can We Get? .”

You haven’t screamed or swooned recently? Well, some women have at Obama’s rallies and so all women are that type of person. That is the caliber of argument we’re talking about. The Washington Post apparently says it was tongue in cheek.  An interesting response, since a common claim of verbal abusers is “I was just joking; she doesn’t have any sense of humor.”

But here’s the nice thing: lots of really smart women AND men have written comments are the article. Going by the comments, many women are way too smart to buy into the denigration and many men don’t want to see it. Here are some representative bits:

On Hilary’s inability to perform well in a debate, as evidenced by her going on about boring policy details:

semitransparent wrote:
Geez, what WAS Hillary thinking in droning on about the boring policy issues that define our country? Man, how stupid can she be to actually take her political stances seriously!  She should just get back to the kitchen and let  intelligent men like George W. Bush tackle the cerebral matters.

cthomas_sf wrote:
We Snarl. We Kill. Why are Men so Dumb?

Would you print that op ed? As a man, I look forward to the day when the
Washington Post will have an equal representation of men and women at the helm
and on the editorial board so that this type pandering essay will find its
appropriate place in the recycling bin.

JennJ99738 wrote:
After reading the transcript of Allen’s “discussion” this morning (I’m in the
Pac time zone), I cannot believe she is a graduate of such a prestigious
University. Someone should really check whether she graduated from Stanford. She
is lazy in her responses and some of her responses were just nonsensical. Humor
is obvious? Obviously not. Or she simply can’t write funny. Women weren’t or
aren’t historically disadvantaged? The more I read, the clearer it became that
this piece was not meant to be funny. It was a serious piece written by an ultra
right wing misogynist.

For all the men screaming that they experience this all the time, please point
me to a WaPo piece, or a piece in any major American newspaper, stating men are
stupid. I must have missed it. Give me a break.

adfeminem wrote:
I teach critical thinking, research strategies and composition. Thank you,
Charlotte Allen & The Washington Post, for completely undermining my lectures
about evaluating the reliability of sources in research. I used to teach
students that articles published in a source with a print counterpart–long
established newspapers like WaPo for example–were held to a higher standard
than those published only on the web. Clearly that’s no longer the case.

somniculus wrote:
I’m curious as to why a successful (sort of) female columnist for one of the
most widely-read newspapers in this country is calling all women back to the
kitchen…is the female talent pool too rich for Ms. Allen to survive in her
current career? Because seriously, satire is not her bag. This column was not in
the slightest witty, amusing, thought-provoking or informative. There wasn’t
even a meaningful comparison between men and women’s differing skills. What was
meant to be satire rather has come across as a disturbing spectacle of
“introspective” misogyny.

and a perhaps too charitable disagreement with the article’s author:

lg3060a wrote:
While I understand and applaud the author’s attempt to identify reasons why
women are seen as the “losers” in business, politics and elsewhere…i think the
author’s article may have inadvertently contributed to that misunderstanding. By
saying things like…men don’t do this, men don’t do [that thing that a woman
does], she’s simply identifying male behavior as the appropriate standard.
Instead of shunning “female behavior” lets try to understand where it comes
from, why women’s values are important, and the influential role WE truly play
in politics, business, and society.

Have you written something on war and/or peace?

Then consider submitting it (quickly!) for the Sharp Prize.  Here’s what Carol Gould wrote to the (US) SWIP  mailing list:  

Please consider submitting an essay for consideration
for the Sharp Prize on issues relating the philosophy of war
and peace. I’m chair of the committee this year and it
would be great to have some submissions from feminist
philosophers. Here’s the info (note that you need to act
quickly!):

FRANK CHAPMAN SHARP MEMORIAL PRIZE

Most recent awardee: 2007 Jeff McMahan, “The Morality and
Law of War”

Deadline for submission for 2009 Prize: March 15, 2008.

Summary

This prize is awarded to the best unpublished essay or
monograph on the philosophy of war and peace submitted for
the competition.

Process: The winning entry is selected by a committee of 3-6
members, appointed by the Chair of the APA’s Committee on
Lectures, Publications, and Research, in consultation with
LPR committee members.

Frequency: Every 2 years (odd years)

Award Amount: $1,500

Last Award: 2007

Next Award: 2009

Background

The Frank Chapman Sharp Memorial Prize was established in
1990 with funds donated by Eliot and Dorothy Sharp and
several other members and friends of the Sharp family to
honor the memory of Eliot’s father. Frank Chapman Sharp was
President of the Western Division of the APA in 1907-08 and
was a member of the philosophy faculty at the University of
Wisconsin from 1893 until his retirement in 1936. Dr. Sharp
was born in 1866 and died in 1943.

Submission Procedures

APA Members and student associates are eligible to submit
unpublished essays or monographs for the prize. Manuscripts
should be between 7,500 to 75,000 words (between 30 and 300
double-spaced typed pages), and not published OR committed
for publication at the time of the award. Undergraduate
entrants must be philosophy majors (or something close);
graduate students must be enrolled in, or on leave from, a
graduate program in philosophy. Authors must be current
members of the APA in good standing. Send four (4) copies of
the paper, with the title and author’s name and affiliation
on a separate page. Any identifying references in the body
and footnotes of the manuscript should be removed. Deadline
for submission: March 15, 2008. Submissions should be sent
to: Sharp Memorial Prize, American Philosophical
Association, 31 Amstel Avenue, University of Delaware,
Newark, DE 19716.

Hyperbolic Crochet Coral Reef

If you enjoyed Jender’s earlier post on the work by Daina Taimina, a Cornel mathematician, to realize a crocheted hyperbolic space, do check out a related article in today’s NY Times. 

In part inspired by Dr Taimina, Margaret Wertheim, a science writer, and her twin sister, Christine, who teaches at the California Institute for the Arts, came up with the idea of creating a woolly homage to the Great Barrier Reef about two and a half years ago. The Wertheims, 49, grew up in Queensland in Australia, where the approximately 135,000-square-mile reef — and the billions of tiny organisms that it comprises — is located. But the Hyperbolic Crochet Coral Reef … is much more than a warning about global warming. It marks the intersection of the Wertheims’ various passions: science, mathematics, art, feminism, handicrafts and social activism.

Toxic article in the NY Times?

Here we go again.  At least this time is isn’t about Hillary Clinton.  Instead, “Teaching Boys and Girls Separately” focuses on the work of Leonard Sax, a family physician who is not trained in education or neuroscience.  But, the NY Times tells us, Sax claims that boys and girls are neurologically very different, so different in fact that they should be educated very differently.  “Sax’s book and lectures also include neurological diagrams and scores of citations of obscure scientific studies…”

After nearly four pages of anecdotes that support Sax’s view  and lots of statements about the vast amount of research being done on the differences between boys’ and girls’ brains, the article brings in Jay Giedd, chief of brain imaging at the Child Psychiatry Branch at N.I.M.H.  Since he, and the other genuine experts cited are quite likely to be right about what the science shows, Sax’s views should be rejected:

Giedd says, is that when it comes to education, gender is a pretty crude tool for sorting minds. Giedd puts the research on brain differences in perspective by using the analogy of height. “On both the brain imaging and the psychological testing, the biggest differences we see between boys and girls are about one standard deviation. Height differences between boys and girls are two standard deviations.” Giedd suggests a thought experiment: Imagine trying to assign a population of students to the boys’ and girls’ locker rooms based solely on height. As boys tend to be taller than girls, one would assign the tallest 50 percent of the students to the boys’ locker room and the shortest 50 percent of the students to the girls’ locker room. What would happen? While you’d end up with a better-than-random sort, the results would be abysmal, with unacceptably large percentages of students in the wrong place. Giedd suggests the same is true when educators use gender alone to assign educational experiences for kids. Yes, you’ll get more students who favor cooperative learning in the girls’ room, and more students who enjoy competitive learning in the boys’, but you won’t do very well. Says Giedd, “There are just too many exceptions to the rule.”

Would we see an article on an advocate of child beating that waits until page 4 to tell us that the experts say it would yield unacceptable results? One might think that there’s a difference here, that single-sex schools are not harmful. But the question we are focusing on is not about the practice; it is about the rationale. And that can be harmful:

In two studies, using both correlational and experimental designs, we found as predicted that the biological gender theory was linked to stronger gender self-stereotyping tendency (as reflected by greater endorsements of negative feminine traits and slower reaction time in denying stereotypic feminine traits).

From:
“Beyond nature and nurture: The influence of lay gender theories on self-stereotyping.”
Coleman, Jill M.
Hong, Ying-Yi
Self & Identity; Jan2008, Vol. 7 Issue 1, p34-53.

Since I haven’t read Sax’s work, I cannot present my own analysis. However, the following review from Amazon.com might serve as a warning for those of us who – as I have – encounter references to Sax in professional conversations.   It looks like we’ve got Baumeister all over again:

I could not believe the consistent slant of sexism in this book. Let’s start with Sax’s statement that women would receive pay equal to men, if they only had the guts to ask for it, like men do. He sights a study about how often recent males grads ask for raises as opposed to female grads who don’t usually ask. What he never even considers is the response of the employer. Do women who ask for raises get them as often as men? Are men who ask viewed as “ballsy” by their employers while women are viewed as “needy and grasping”?

Sax concludes that women are biologically designed to take fewer risks than men and we need to be trained in “dare taking” as young girls, because being too cautious can be detrimental to our success in the business world. Women should be trained against our nature, so it will go better for us. Oddly enough, when later he makes a case that most “normal” men are biologically designed to associate aggression, violence and rape with arousal and sex there is no suggestion that perhaps men should be trained against this nature. Girls should be trained at an early age to jump off chairs onto mattresses but boys don’t need to be taught that violence against women is not acceptable sex practice. That is the way men are made. Girls should be taught how to say “no” more firmly.
…
Any respect I had for Sax at the beginning of this book was lost by his lack of insight into his own gender bias. He repeatedly looks at research and studies at a surface level that serves his own agenda, never asking the deeper questions of a thinking man (OR woman). If this book and Sax represents the frontline in the emerging science of sex differences, we’re in big trouble people.

No, it is not the frontline in any emerging science of sex differences.  The Times article would have been better as one about the misuse of science in developing educational practices.