HT to this diary!
If you feel like voting on this, here are some links:
Of course, these polls are being freeped – there are lots of partisan calls on the ‘net for people to get out and vote.
“I know that I don’t look like everybody else on television,” she recently told The Washington Post. “Women on television are over-the-top beauty-pageant gorgeous. That’s not the grounds on which I am competing.” – Rachel Maddow (pictured below)
Originally I was going to write about this older article in which MSNBC and Air America pundit Rachel Maddow talks about surrendering to wearing “lady clothes.” But in doing a Google search today on her, I came across another article, “The High Heel Vote,” in The Independent on how the US election is is “really all about women.” (The connection is the quote at the top, to which I’ll get in a moment.) (more…)
The Kitchen Chick sent me this fascinating article, on a new study which claims to show that the most significant pay gap is between men with traditional views on gender roles and *everybody else*, including men with non-traditional views. My first thought about how to explain this was that men with non-traditional views are more likely to be putting in substantial amounts of time on childcare– so they might work in lower-paid, more family-friendly work, or work fewer hours. But these possibilities have been ruled out: The authors have carefully compared people working in the same jobs, for the same hours and the same length of time. The explanations they suggest are that traditional men might be tougher salary negotiators, or that employers discriminate against those without traditional views. If the latter, then maybe there needs to be a new protected category for discrimination law? Other thoughts?
Question: In what ways does this interview reflect white privilege? (For help with the concept, see the immediately preceding post.)
Also, I’d love to hear how this interview strikes others, maybe especially those who teach. From my professorial perspective, I’m tempted to say that she looks as though she’s gobbled down a lot of material, but hasn’t yet thought about it.
For the second part, see:http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/09/25/eveningnews/main4479062.shtml
From Tim Wise at Buzzflash (Thanks Rebecca):
For those who still can’t grasp the concept of white privilege, or who are constantly looking for some easy-to-understand examples of it, perhaps this list will help.
White privilege is when you can get pregnant at seventeen like Bristol Palin and everyone is quick to insist that your life and that of your family is a personal matter, and that no one has a right to judge you or your parents, because “every family has challenges,” even as black and Latino families with similar “challenges” are regularly typified as irresponsible, pathological and arbiters of social decay.
White privilege is when you can call yourself a “fuckin’ redneck,” like Bristol Palin’s boyfriend does, and talk about how if anyone messes with you, you’ll “kick their fuckin’ ass,” and talk about how you like to “shoot shit” for fun, and still be viewed as a responsible, all-American boy (and a great son-in-law to be) rather than a thug.
For more, go here.
And I might also add, white privilege means your pastor can say nutty things (like affirming a belief in witchcraft, in your presence, on camera, while blessing you) without it running round the clock on the news.
Another blow to a traditional conception of “the man of reason.”
Honey bees can count up to four. Truly. See below. So much for Descartes’ idea that using numbers requires an immaterial substance…or, alternatively, bees may have souls??
Evidence for counting in insects, Animal Cognition, May, 2008, by Marie Dacke and Mandyam V. Srinivasan.
Abstract Here we investigate the counting ability in honeybees by training them to receive a food reward after they have passed a specific number of landmarks. The distance to the food reward is varied frequently and randomly, whilst keeping the number of intervening landmarks constant. Thus, the bees cannot identify the food reward in terms of its distance from the hive. We find that bees can count up to four objects, when they are encountered sequentially during flight. Furthermore, bees trained in this way are able count novel objects, which they have never previously encountered, thus demonstrating that they are capable of object-independent counting. A further experiment reveals that the counting ability that the bees display in our experiments is primarily sequential in nature. It appears that bees can navigate to food sources by maintaining a running count of prominent landmarks that are passed en route, provided this number does not exceed four.
This is the featured video on youtube just now. See Jender’s earlier post or go here for the donation site. As you will see, the next issue is safe, but more donations will mean the magazine can devise better strategies.
As Scientific American remarks, this is a case where we have experimental results waiting for an explanation. It’s very tempting to make some up, but I’ll have to have more coffee before I can do that.
A group from the Southern Cross University in Australia published a fascinating result in the journal Current Biology, after they manipulated the light points of walkers, making figures appear more feminine or masculine.
If they made the point-form body appear male, subjects perceived that figure as walking toward them—regardless of its actual direction. If the walker seemed female, the subjects reported it was walking away from them.
Curiously, gender-neutral figures tended to appear to be moving toward the viewer. “It was only when walkers had characteristics consistent with being female did the observers begin to perceive them more often as facing away,” the researchers reported.
And the article’s abstract:
[Correlated changes in perceptions of the gender and orientation of ambiguous biological motion figures
Anna Brooks, Ben Schouten, Nikolaus F. Troje, Karl Verfaillie, Olaf Blanke, Rick van der Zwan. Current Biology, Volume 18, Issue 17, Pages 1269-1354 (9 September 2008)]
The sensitivity of the mammalian visual system to biological motion cues has been shown to be general and acute. Human observers, in particular, can deduce higher-order information, such as the orientation of a figure (which way it is facing), its gender, emotional state, and even personality traits, on the basis only of sparse motion cues. Even when the stimulus information is confined to point lights attached to the major joints of an actor (so-called point-light figures), observers can use information about the way the actor is moving to tell what they are doing, whether they are a male or female, and how they are feeling. Here we report the novel finding that stimulus manipulations that made such walkers appear more female also had the effect of making the walkers appear more often as if they were walking away from rather than towards observers. Using frontal-view (or rear-view) point-light displays of human walkers, we asked observers to judge whether they seemed to be walking towards or away from the viewing position. Independent of their own gender, observers reliably reported those figures they perceived to be male as looking like they were approaching, but those they perceived to be female as walking away. Furthermore, figures perceived to be gender-neutral also appeared more often, although not exclusively, to be walking towards observers.