[mormont]

Undead Dungeon Master, on May 21 2009, 16.57, said:

And that right there is where my big break with feminism comes, that's the point where feminism becomes scary. Because how does one demonstrate covert sexism? How does one prove its existence? How does one defend oneself from the claim that one if engaging in covert sexism?

In many ways. You can, for example, analyse pay differentials and notice that (after accounting for the usual excuses of career breaks, etc.) in many jobs women are paid less than men for no objectively justifiable reason. We would then have uncovered an example of either indirect or covert sexism - the two are not the same, of course.

This is not really difficult. It happens all the time with all different kinds of discrimination. In no way is the existence of covert and/or indirect discrimination a controversial topic: legal systems all over the world acknowledge that it exists, that it can be proved, and that it can be defended against. It is dealt with literally daily by courts and lawmakers in most countries in the world. You might as well say you find the existence of corporate liability 'scary' and declare that it is where you part company with capitalist thought.

Quote

In the pseudo-religion of Discordianism there exist a concept called the Law of Fives. "The Law of Fives states simply that: All things happen in fives, or are divisible by or are multiples of five, or are somehow directly or indirectly appropriate to 5...The Law of Fives is never wrong."

The trick to the Law of Fives, the thing that makes it never wrong, is that it is dependent on the imagination of the person seeking to prove it. For example, the number 8 is appropriate to 5 because 2 to the power of 3 is 8 and 2 plus 3 is 5. This is how the Law of Fives works. Or you could take my age, 33. 33 is 2 threes and 2 plus 3 is 5. It really is never wrong, given a flexible enough imagination.

This cuts both ways, of course. One can apply a flexible imagination in discrediting valid criticisms as unfounded, or in rejecting the entire idea of 'covert sexism'. The key issue is whether you are keeping an open mind, or just looking for ways to justify your rejection of opposing views.

Quote

You can compare covert sexism to covert satanism. Ozzy Osborne's music contains covert satanism, just about anyone can see that. You have to be a special sort of paranoid to see covert satanism in Harry Potter. If you really go off the deep end, maybe you too can be like far right Christian Texe Marrs and see covert satanism in new age music and self-esteem boosting programs for schoolchildren.

I can't see any covert satanism in Ozzy's work. Overt satanic imagery, yes. Covert satanism, no. ;)

Quote

But my argument is that equality is an impossible goal because the term is nebulous and vague.

This is incoherent. If 'equality' is nebulous and vague, then we cannot state with any certainty that it hasn't been achieved, because we have no benchmark against which to measure failure or success. Besides which, the implication that because absolute equality is unachievable, we therefore can't talk sensibly about equality at all or that there are not relative degrees of inequality is a straw man of the feeblest construction. It smacks of an ex post facto justification for a convenient belief rather than a genuine critical analysis.

Quote

You are correct, what you just said is complete nonsense, but that isn't remotely what I argued.

It's how your argument comes across, so perhaps you'd like to rephrase it.

Quote

First of all, you've changed the subject from feminism in America/Europe to racism in South Africa. What's up with that?

No, I've made a comparison between the two in passing. The subject firmly remains feminism, and your claim that the elimination of legal discrimination means that feminism is no longer relevant. There has been no attempt whatsoever to change the subject, or to claim that racism and sexism are 'entirely interchangeable'. I've already pointed that out: I can only assume you did not read that post.

Quote

Doesn't work like that with sex. Centuries of preventing women from accumulating property through sexist laws doesn't affect women's ability to accumulate wealth once those laws are removed, because women are not a race.

So have those centuries of discrimination have not created any persistent prejudices that negatively affect women's ability to accumulate wealth?

[Annelise]

ljkeane, on May 21 2009, 12.17, said:

I'm not saying that all women are subject to covert discrimination but I don't think it is too much of a leap to say that centuries of women not being permitted to work in certain fields and generally being assumed to be inferior might mean that there are still some areas were sexism even if it is not overt might occur.

I'm not sure if this fits or adds to the discussion in here, but:

Quote

She’s the 69-year-old speaker of the House of Representatives, second in the line of succession and the most powerful woman in U.S. history.

But when you see Nancy Pelosi, the Republican National Committee wants you to think “Pussy Galore.�

At least that’s the takeaway from a video released by the committee this week – a video that puts Pelosi side-by-side with the aforementioned villainess from the 1964 James Bond film “Goldfinger.�

The RNC video, which begins with the speaker’s head in the iconic spy-series gun sight, implies that Pelosi has used her feminine wiles to dodge the truth about whether or not she was briefed by the CIA on the use of waterboarding in 2002. While the P-word is never mentioned directly, in one section the speaker appears in a split screen alongside the Bond nemesis – and the video’s tagline is “Democrats Galore.�

The wisdom of equating the first woman speaker of the House with a character whose first name also happens to be among the most vulgar terms for a part of the female anatomy might be debated – if the RNC were willing to do so, which it was not. An RNC spokesperson refused repeated requests by POLITICO to explain the point of the video, or the intended connection between Pelosi and Galore.

http://www.politico....0509/22882.html

[Undead Dungeon Master]

mormont, on May 23 2009, 06.53, said:

In many ways. You can, for example, analyse pay differentials and notice that (after accounting for the usual excuses of career breaks, etc.) in many jobs women are paid less than men for no objectively justifiable reason. We would then have uncovered an example of either indirect or covert sexism - the two are not the same, of course.

Every analysis of the data I've read indicates that women are paid equal to men, or more. In order to create the illusion of a wage gap, one must include women of the Boomer generation who entered the workforce pre-feminism. Then the discrepancy is about 3:4, with women earning 75 cents to a man's dollar. Correct for different life choices -- women leaving the workforce to have children for example -- and the difference becomes a mere 5 cents.

And if one only considers women from my own cohort, then women get paid on average five cents more than men per dollar.

Quote

This is not really difficult. It happens all the time with all different kinds of discrimination. In no way is the existence of covert and/or indirect discrimination a controversial topic: legal systems all over the world acknowledge that it exists, that it can be proved, and that it can be defended against. It is dealt with literally daily by courts and lawmakers in most countries in the world. You might as well say you find the existence of corporate liability 'scary' and declare that it is where you part company with capitalist thought.

You're talking about discrimination in the workplace. I'm talking about covert sexism in advertising, or movies, or TV shows, in arenas such as that. As you say, legal systems all over the world are already set up to deal with that sort of discrimination. So feminists won that battle.

Your analogy makes no sense at all, in fact none of your analogies make any sense.

Quote

This is incoherent. If 'equality' is nebulous and vague, then we cannot state with any certainty that it hasn't been achieved, because we have no benchmark against which to measure failure or success.

If it's so incoherent, why do you seem to have gotten the point?

Quote

Besides which, the implication that because absolute equality is unachievable, we therefore can't talk sensibly about equality at all or that there are not relative degrees of inequality is a straw man of the feeblest construction. It smacks of an ex post facto justification for a convenient belief rather than a genuine critical analysis.

So talk sensibly about equality. I don't think you can, because I don't think anyone can. But feel free to prove me wrong.

Look, you're the person who is claiming it is possible to achieve equality. I used to believe that too. I don't believe it now for one simple reason: One day I realized I had no idea what equality actually meant, what it would look like. No one could explain it to me.

Can you explain what equality would look like? Because currently the term is nebulous and vague, thus we cannot state with any certainty that it hasn't been achieved, because we have no benchmark against which to measure failure or success. Thus equality currently appears to be impossible to achieve.

Quote

So have those centuries of discrimination have not created any persistent prejudices that negatively affect women's ability to accumulate wealth?

Maybe, maybe not. I certainly think that personal qualities of individuals have far more impact on their ability to be successful than social prejudices. Everyone faces discrimination.

Let me tell you a little story about my parents. At the age of 19 my dad was six foot one, with blond hair and blue eyes. He came from a well-to-do family, his father a war hero and important man in the defense industry. He was the recipient of every form of privilege you can imagine. Everyone expected great things of him, and everyone made sure that he got what he needed to get ahead. Life was handed to him on a silver plate.

When the Vietnam War broke out, my dad volunteered because this is what was expected of him. He was pushed towards the Green Berets, because this was the most prestigious unit in the army and he was a very heroic figure. His experiences in the war left him deeply traumatized, and he became an alcoholic. When he returned from the war he was briefly married (and thus begot me), until his drinking destroyed that. Then he spent a few years living out of his car, sliding deeper and deeper into a hole. Eventually he married a very wealthy widow, and went into a sort of early retirement. All the privilege in the world, but he's ultimately a failure.

My mom's father was also an alcoholic, which may be why she married my dad. A mean man, he favored his son and had no use for a daughter. She was a dark haired Italian girl with a large nose living in a part of the South where they were still burning crosses on Catholic's lawns. While she was very talented, her father refused to pay for college, and there were no scholarships available. Despite this, she managed to work her way up through a series of jobs to a position at an advertising firm.

Over a twenty year career she wracked up accolades and awards, becoming a top earner, until the recession of the early 90's made being a top-earning creative type the wrong thing to be (my step-dad's two decade long career as an award-winning commercial oil painter was also ended by the recession, and the advent of cheaper digital art). Then she and my step-dad started their own business, and now they are filthy rich.

The point? Privilege is no guarantee of success, and can just as easily destroy a man -- my father drinks and hates himself because he has never been able to live up to the impossible expectations people had of him. And discrimination is no guarantee of failure, as my mom has proven throughout her life.

In the end, it matters far more who we are than who people think we are.

This post has been edited by Undead Dungeon Master: 23 May 2009 - 11:13 AM

[Anatole Kuragin]

Thor85, on May 23 2009, 08.09, said:

I'm a werefeminist actually. I turn into a total male feminist when I'm first dating a girl. Then when I get comfortable with her I go back to my normal asshole self. Is that weird?

Sometimes when I'm trying to impress present girls I'll make comments like "that's disrespectful to women" whenever my friends use words like "chick" "babes", etc. whether I actually give a shit or not. :dunno:

[ztemhead]

I was wondering if anyone had mentioned this yet?

It seems rather appropriate for a bunch of sci fi/ fantasy geeks, though the first mention I heard of it was today.

Next year I expect you'll all be there, contributing to the dialogue?

[Undead Dungeon Master]

ztemhead, on May 23 2009, 20.01, said:

I was wondering if anyone had mentioned this yet?

It seems rather appropriate for a bunch of sci fi/ fantasy geeks, though the first mention I heard of it was today.

Next year I expect you'll all be there, contributing to the dialogue?

The first thing I do is check the schedule, see what kind of events they have.

First thing I see is a entry called "Warrior Women," which hey just happens to relate to a lot of stuff I write, I so I click it.

Name Warrior Women in Current Fiction—Do They Exist, Really?
Description The kickass heroine is everywhere, but how kickass is she really? Is she a true warrior woman like the original Valkyries, or has she, like them, been stripped of her power and relegated to "looking the part" while doing the modern–day equivalent of not dripping ale on the hero?



What? The original Valkyries? The original Valkyries were little more than a psychopomp, transporting souls to Valhalla. That was just some bullshit they told warriors. "Oh yeah, when you die beautiful maidens come down from the sky and carry you off to a beerhall where you feast for eternity."

Valkyries are just the original 72 virgins.

And hello, what? Xena motherfuckers, do you speak it?

This post has been edited by Undead Dungeon Master: 23 May 2009 - 10:16 PM

[Aoifstrifiammante]

Xena? Seriously? She's smart, she's competent, and she's also the live-action version of the chainmail leather bikini warrior. (The whole thing's tongue-in-cheek, so I'm sure that's deliberately part of it, as was the whole "are they aren't they" lesbianism thing.)

She's also the main character of one TV show that ended almost a decade ago. Can you think of any others more recent than that? (I can; I know* they exist. I'm just wondering why you picked Xena as your example.)

*ETA: I also know that what I consider actual warrior characters, as opposed to just the standard hero-reflector, may be different to what those attending that panel might think. Please note that I deliberately left this section ungendered -- there are plenty of male hero-reflectors as well as female ones.

This post has been edited by Eefphrodite: 24 May 2009 - 12:49 AM

[Undead Dungeon Master]

Eefphrodite, on May 23 2009, 22.47, said:

Xena? Seriously? She's smart, she's competent, and she's also the live-action version of the chainmail leather bikini warrior. (The whole thing's tongue-in-cheek, so I'm sure that's deliberately part of it, as was the whole "are they aren't they" lesbianism thing.)

LA LA LA LA LA I'm not listening. Sorry, the show had way too much beefcake on display for me to listen to anyone complain about the cheesecake. Anyways, there's nothing wrong with cheesecake.

ETA: Also, the "subtext" was not intentional at first. It was only when the producers realized they were developing a rabid lesbian fan base that they began to push the subtext further and further into the text. By season six I think you'd have to be in denial to pretend it wasn't explicit.

Quote

She's also the main character of one TV show that ended almost a decade ago. Can you think of any others more recent than that? (I can; I know* they exist. I'm just wondering why you picked Xena as your example.)

I've been watching it, one season per week, for the last six weeks. I'm on season six right now. She's also way more recent that Valkries, and totally a true warrior. I seriously don't know how anyone could call her anything else. She's totally UberBadass and unstoppable. I mean...she killed the Greek pantheon, was the Queen of Hell, chessmastered Lucifer into falling from grace, cleared the path for both Christianity and Taoism, was the mother of a savior, died and came back from the dead like eight times (seriously, she's used DYING as a tactic to defeat an enemy twice in sixth season alone, and I'm only six episodes in).

That's how bad ass Xena is. Even when you kill her, that's STILL part of her plan and she's still going to kick your ass.

More to the point, I don't know how anyone could ever consider Xena a hero-reflector. The only regularly occurring male characters are perpetual buttmonkey Ares and Joxer, the warrior whose one kill (canon, it was his only kill ever) was an accident (the guy ran into his sword).

This post has been edited by Undead Dungeon Master: 24 May 2009 - 01:08 AM

[Red Sun]

Undead Dungeon Master, on May 24 2009, 05.16, said:

The first thing I do is check the schedule, see what kind of events they have.

First thing I see is a entry called "Warrior Women," which hey just happens to relate to a lot of stuff I write, I so I click it.

Name Warrior Women in Current Fiction�€�Do They Exist, Really?
Description The kickass heroine is everywhere, but how kickass is she really? Is she a true warrior woman like the original Valkyries, or has she, like them, been stripped of her power and relegated to "looking the part" while doing the modern�€“day equivalent of not dripping ale on the hero?



What? The original Valkyries? The original Valkyries were little more than a psychopomp, transporting souls to Valhalla. That was just some bullshit they told warriors. "Oh yeah, when you die beautiful maidens come down from the sky and carry you off to a beerhall where you feast for eternity."

Valkyries are just the original 72 virgins.

And hello, what? Xena motherfuckers, do you speak it?

But aren't the points you are bringing up here, what could be brought up during the discussion? For example: Are the Valkyries really Warrior Women or just the norse equivalent of the 72 virgins? Where is the real archetype of the Warrior Woman? (I guess, looking at the Amazons would be more usefull than looking at the Valkyries.) Aside from the fact, that we barely know the real meaning behind the Valkyries, because everything we know about norse religion is filtered through Christian authors.

And I think Xena would be a good example to discuss.

I have seen some other topics from the programm of that con, and I think it's the diversity of matters that makes it so interesting.

This post has been edited by Red Sun: 24 May 2009 - 01:35 AM

[Undead Dungeon Master]

Red Sun, on May 23 2009, 23.15, said:

But aren't the points you are bringing up here, what could be brought up during the discussion?

Sure, but the way it's written I'll bet you a dollar the person hosting it is a nutter who subscribes to some bizarre ahistorical ideas about what the Valkyries were. I'm thinking the kind of person who thinks Elves are or were real, the sort who fights astral battles every weekend to save the universe.

You know the type.

[Red Sun]

Undead Dungeon Master, on May 24 2009, 08.25, said:

Sure, but the way it's written I'll bet you a dollar the person hosting it is a nutter who subscribes to some bizarre ahistorical ideas about what the Valkyries were. I'm thinking the kind of person who thinks Elves are or were real, the sort who fights astral battles every weekend to save the universe.

You know the type.

Maybe, probably, but I don't know, and neither do you. In the worst case, I could always point out the mistake, and it can be an input to the discussion. I do this with regards to witch burnings and other historical problems when they are brought up by students.

[Aoifstrifiammante]

I never said Xena was a hero-reflector, so I'm not sure why you picked that out of my post. I was probably unclear, though. What I was trying to say was that some of the other characters I consider warriors and strong characters in their own right might go on others' lists as hero-reflectors in warriors' trappings.

I also definitely said nothing about the lesbianism being subtext, so you'll hear no argument from me on that point either.

As for cheesecake -v- beefcake: I don't think there's anything wrong with either, even as the main focus of a character, when there are other options available. Having said that, just because there is beefcake (and I don't consider Xena high on that list, though I never watched it regularly) automatically means that cheesecake is okay. Or the other way around, for that matter. Maybe the show (generic) would be better with neither. (Not Hercules or Xena; that was pretty much the point of those shows.)

Still, you didn't answer my other question. Can you name some other female warriors that are recent? Not just TV, movies or books or other fiction all apply, I imagine.

[Kat]

It's also possible that the people who wrote the panel description are not the same as the moderator and panelists. I don't think I've ever gone to a con panel that fit the description 100% and I have no idea who actually writes them.

And to answer your question, ztem, yes I've heard of it, and I have considered attending, but like almost everyone else on the board, I really go to cons to see people I know. And while I'm perfectly happy discussing feminist SFF online, I'm not really sure I could take a whole weekend of it unless I did nothing but attend panels that were more about what-ifs than theory. Because while I have not admitted to it yet on this forum (though I did in chat yesterday) academic feminists do kind of grate on me after a while. But I suspect this has something to do with my innate distrust of almost all academics in the humanities and social sciences, because I kind of think of all of them as self-indulgent. (Let's see how many people I pissed off with that statement. :P) Anyway, as soon as panels start to sound too much like literary analysis, I start zoning out. At least on the internet I can take lots of breaks without seeming rude.

[Undead Dungeon Master]

Eefphrodite, on May 23 2009, 23.58, said:

Still, you didn't answer my other question. Can you name some other female warriors that are recent? Not just TV, movies or books or other fiction all apply, I imagine.

There's the obvious comic book culprits, from Red Sonja (who fucking Dynamite recently ruined forever by killing her then reincarnating her as goddamn princess) to the ongoing adventures of Buffy in Whedon's Season 8 comic, to...I dunno, there's a ton of titles with female warrior types. It's a popular genre.

On TV you've got Olivia Dunham of Fringe, very much in the Athena mold. Echo on Dollhouse, which is its own way out there meta-commentary on women action heroes. I can't remember the name of the detective on Castle, but she's also in the warrior mold. The Legend of the Seeker has Kahlan, and she's go mad warrior skills, but because of her powers and role comes off of more of a priestess archetype.

I don't read that many current books, I mostly read adventure/fantasy/sci-fi/crime fiction from the 60's and 70's. I like books I can actually fit in my backpocket, and you can get a dozen for $10.

But if you're willing to step into the way back machine, I just recently read the First Lady of Sword & Sorcery C.L. Moore's Black God's Kiss, which features Jirel of Joiry. She's pretty freaking badass, but that was written in 1934.

Quote

Having said that, just because there is beefcake (and I don't consider Xena high on that list, though I never watched it regularly) automatically means that cheesecake is okay.

Why the double standard?

This post has been edited by Undead Dungeon Master: 24 May 2009 - 02:20 AM

[Aoifstrifiammante]

Undead Dungeon Master, on May 24 2009, 07.25, said:

Sure, but the way it's written I'll bet you a dollar the person hosting it is a nutter who subscribes to some bizarre ahistorical ideas about what the Valkyries were. I'm thinking the kind of person who thinks Elves are or were real, the sort who fights astral battles every weekend to save the universe.

You know the type.

Just as an aside, it might help soften your reception if you actually addressed the points of the argument, rather than casting aspersions that your opponent is irrational. It's entirely possible to be mistaken about the Valkyries' original role without holding other opinions that the mainstream finds loony.

ztem, I've heard of Wiscon before, and have thought of going. Each con has a different sort of atmosphere and reputation, and I like what I've heard of Wiscon's. If I were in the US, I'd probably make more of an effort to attend. But when I am limited to no more than one con in a year, I'll choose Worldcon, as 1) it's bigger, so there will be more things to do and attend, 2) it's usually in a location that I'm interested in visiting, and 3) it's where I'll see most of the people I want to catch up with.

[Aoifstrifiammante]

Nice selective quoting. I see you left out my statement of "or the other way around."

[Undead Dungeon Master]

Eefphrodite, on May 24 2009, 00.24, said:

Nice selective quoting. I see you left out my statement of "or the other way around."

I just read too quickly, didn't catch it.

Now I just don't get it.

Are you implying there is something wrong with cake? Everybody loves cake.

Who doesn't love cake? And why are we letting these people dictate what gets served at the party? Screw people who don't like cake.

[Undead Dungeon Master]

Eefphrodite, on May 24 2009, 00.20, said:

Just as an aside, it might help soften your reception if you actually addressed the points of the argument, rather than casting aspersions that your opponent is irrational. It's entirely possible to be mistaken about the Valkyries' original role without holding other opinions that the mainstream finds loony.

There are no points to the argument in the description. Just this very weird, random reference to the "original Valkyries."

Look sorry, I just thought it was funny.

[Aoifstrifiammante]

Undead Dungeon Master, on May 24 2009, 08.52, said:

I just read too quickly, didn't catch it.

Now I just don't get it.

Are you implying there is something wrong with cake? Everybody loves cake.

Who doesn't love cake? And why are we letting these people dictate what gets served at the party? Screw people who don't like cake.

1) Not everybody loves cake.
2) Even people who love cake can admit there are times it isn't appropriate.
3) All cake, all the time is not a well-rounded diet, and, I would guess, would still get boring.
4) I don't see it so much as letting the cake-haters dictate what's served as making sure that cake-haters get something they enjoy too. Maybe even something healthier and more realistic than CAAAAAAAAAKE.

Quote

There are no points to the argument in the description. Just this very weird, random reference to the "original Valkyries."

Look sorry, I just thought it was funny.

So why bring up the saviour of the universe stuff? Just say that you guess -- and it is a guess -- the writer of the description is mistaken about the Valkyries. (Me, I put the originals in the Red Sonja camp. Bloody warriors, going into battle, but still intended for titillation. At least they wore sensible armor, though.)

Plus, as Kat already mentioned, panel blurbs are sort of like book blurbs. The writer may have absolutely nothing to do with the discussion itself, and may have a complete misunderstanding of the content. It will probably give you a general idea of what's inside, but it's hardly complete. Especially when it comes to a (good) panel, where there will be differing opinions represented so that there's actual discussion, rather than affirmation.

[Undead Dungeon Master]

Eefphrodite, on May 24 2009, 01.20, said:

1) Not everybody loves cake.

Whaaaaaaaat? Noooooooo. That's not true. Everybody loves cake.

Quote

2) Even people who love cake can admit there are times it isn't appropriate.

There is no time that cake is not appropriate. You better believe there will be cake at my funeral.

Quote

3) All cake, all the time is not a well-rounded diet, and, I would guess, would still get boring.

Which is why Xena also featured plenty of cheese and ham.

Quote

4) I don't see it so much as letting the cake-haters dictate what's served as making sure that cake-haters get something they enjoy too. Maybe even something healthier and more realistic than CAAAAAAAAAKE.

Really? Because I've never seen the cake-lovers try to destroy health food, but the cake-haters have been jihading all over my fandoms as long as I can remember. Oops, busted the metaphor there.

Quote

So why bring up the saviour of the universe stuff?

Because when I was 23 I lived in a house with four other guys, and one of them believe he could throw chi energy balls and fought astral battles on the weekends in which he saved the universe, so now whenever I suspect that someone is a wingnut pagan new ager type, that's what I say they do.

Quote

Plus, as Kat already mentioned, panel blurbs are sort of like book blurbs. The writer may have absolutely nothing to do with the discussion itself, and may have a complete misunderstanding of the content. It will probably give you a general idea of what's inside, but it's hardly complete. Especially when it comes to a (good) panel, where there will be differing opinions represented so that there's actual discussion, rather than affirmation.

Every panel I've hosted at a con I wrote the panel description for.