276 replies to this topic

[Lyanna Stark]

Nukelavee, on 24 June 2012 - 09:19 AM, said:

Just as a bit of background - My outlook, the reasons I pick the points I do, stem from university.  Feminism is a huge part of fine art, and my faculty was totally dominated by feminists.  The problem was that that meant everything had to be related to feminist theory, which discriminated against everybody, male and female, that didn't want their work to be about it.  Note - I don't simply mean we were guided away from patriarchal dominance and values, we were being forced to create bodies of work that suited an agenda.  It was discrimination, and it was censorship.  (actually, it was even worse, because there was also pressure to embrace post modernism and ignore the traditional in terms of style, subject, and media)

Then you were surrounded by feminists, hence a bias that people are more feminist than the average.

I, on the other hand, studied (mostly***) science at Uni and was surrounded by men's men, outdoorsy people and people who were good at Maths. Being a feminist there was about as common as being gay, and just as likely to come out in the open (i.e. we all hid that at the time).

Now perhaps you can understand that your experience is not universal.

I used to live in the same town as Happy Ent for instance, and got the shock of a lifetime when I ventured out in the sticks to work and got asked stuff like "So when are you planning on having kids?" in job interviews. University towns with lots of highly educated people will normally be totally different places to smaller towns and people's views on basic equality vastly different (I have lived in two countries and 9 different towns and the trend held fairly true for all of these).


*** I also took a couple of other courses in different department, mostly focused around finance and technology and it was the same there as in science. Up to and including an economy professor who made a point of staring down people's décolletage if any were present.

[IheartTesla]

Happy Ent, on 24 June 2012 - 10:03 AM, said:

Instead, the argument is that by virtue of being a woman, the female police officer will be treated differently. She could be Jaime Lannister with Teats, but by virtue of societal stereotyping the potential conflict has a better chance of being resolve verbally, because she’ll be treated as a woman, not as herself.

Thanks for clarifying that.

However, my annoyance is more about treating these variables in isolation, as if there is only that one aspect to whatever job we are talking about. If I were to model police work, it would go something like (in the spirit of Kahnemann)

Success at police work = IQ+skill at conflict resolution-testosterone level - affinity for donuts+size of tazer+(luck)

Eliminating a subset of the general population because they are lower than average in one of the above criteria is not useful.

Edited by IheartTesla, 24 June 2012 - 11:08 AM.

[Apoapsis]

Lyanna Stark, on 24 June 2012 - 10:44 AM, said:

I used to live in the same town as Happy Ent for instance, and got the shock of a lifetime when I ventured out in the sticks to work and got asked stuff like "So when are you planning on having kids?" in job interviews.

Because they assumed you were going to have kids, or because they asked in the first place?

[kalbear]

In the us it's against the law to ask something like that.

[Lyanna Stark]

Apoapsis, on 24 June 2012 - 11:29 AM, said:

Because they assumed you were going to have kids, or because they asked in the first place?

Both, since neither is their business.

Kalbear, on 24 June 2012 - 12:37 PM, said:

In the us it's against the law to ask something like that.

It is in Sweden too. Doesn't stop them from trying to weedle it out of you though. And at the time, I actually didn't know it was against the law. I did check it afterwards though.

The thing is, it had never occurred to me before that it would even be brought up. I had a first hand encounter that sexism is alive and strong and was totally unprepared for it.

It doesn't even need to be bigger things like this, just that the people I ended up working with always called for a guy when they had problems with the printer or computer and it took me months to prove I could do it just as well as he could, and most of the time faster, too. While also not making them feel inferior (I tend to take the time to explain to people how things work instead of revelling in that smug feeling of being needed that some seem to like so much.)

Edited by Lyanna Stark, 24 June 2012 - 12:47 PM.

[Nukelavee]

Quote

Now perhaps you can understand that your experience is not universal.

I think all those times I've said "I understand my experience is not universal" kind of already stated that.  Why do you feel the need to state things as though I'm ignorant, when I have already stated them?

Now, having said that - do you understand that I was saying "Lyanna, admit to knowing that your experience isn't universal"?

Now - actually, we have had very similar experiences with sexism, except, yours targeted females, mine targeted males.  Both of us have seen what happens, how it feels, to be on the receiving end of being talked down to and discounted, because of our gender.

Now, where you are wrong is that I have a bias that more people are feminist than not, or that they are more common.  Not so.  My bias (and I know it exists, thanks) is that most feminists don't care about equality so much as they care about their team being on top.  It makes me more critical (sometimes unfairly) of statements by feminists, less tolerant of their use of language or examples, because I've seen the outcome of that sort of one-sided situation.

Which, again, is just like yours.

So, like TP and yourself (and others), I'm concerned with the language that is used, and how it is used.  Further, I'm aware that there really isn't a difference between a male sexist, or a female one.

Also, as a preemptive point, no, I don't except any form of "well, you've been on top for so long, we deserve to be able to trample you" as a defense.  Accepting that everyone should be on the same level with rights and privileges is one thing, excluding or dismissing one groups right to comment or question the other isn't.  Accusing people who don't fully agree on all details with you of sexism or ignorance is no different than saying "girls can't do math".

Like the penis letter...think about that.  "We need strong dads" leads her to reducing males to penises.  Sure, she's making a point, but...how would you take a similar scenario where some dad writes back after a bake sale memo asking for moms to make their secret recipies saying "I didn't know you needed breasts to bake?".  Would you give him teh same accolades for reducing your gender to tits?

[Lyanna Stark]

Nukelavee, on 24 June 2012 - 12:58 PM, said:

Like the penis letter...think about that.  "We need strong dads" leads her to reducing males to penises.  Sure, she's making a point, but...how would you take a similar scenario where some dad writes back after a bake sale memo asking for moms to make their secret recipies saying "I didn't know you needed breasts to bake?".  Would you give him teh same accolades for reducing your gender to tits?

Why does a dad need to write it? I would have written it myself.

[BigFatCoward]

IheartTesla, on 24 June 2012 - 11:08 AM, said:

Success at police work = IQ+skill at conflict resolution-testosterone level - affinity for donuts+size of tazer+(luck)

i think you massivIy overestimated 'IQ+skill at conflict resolution-testosterone level - affinity for donuts+size of tazer'

and seriously IQ is also not that important.  being raised in a shithouse town/city is very important.   poacher turned gamekeeper is the key.

[IheartTesla]

I probably did.

Although one thing I learned from the Kahnemann book is that linear models do as well (or better) in explaining sociological phenomena as more complicated ones. And luck is a big factor  in success as well. This was just my homage to him.

[NestorMakhnosLovechild]

Nukelavee, on 24 June 2012 - 12:58 PM, said:

Like the penis letter...think about that.  "We need strong dads" leads her to reducing males to penises.  Sure, she's making a point, but...how would you take a similar scenario where some dad writes back after a bake sale memo asking for moms to make their secret recipies saying "I didn't know you needed breasts to bake?".  Would you give him teh same accolades for reducing your gender to tits?

Reality check. She's not "reducing males to penises" -- she's reducing the request (for men, excluding women) down to its basest, constituent part to highlight its absurdity. If a penis isn't necessary to do the job, why are you demanding it as a prerequisite for participation? Basic reading comprehension.

[Merentha]

BigWeirdB, on 24 June 2012 - 01:43 PM, said:

i think you massivIy overestimated 'IQ+skill at conflict resolution-testosterone level - affinity for donuts+size of tazer'

and seriously IQ is also not that important.  being raised in a shithouse town/city is very important.   poacher turned gamekeeper is the key.

In the US, high IQs can disqualify you from police service.

edit:  http://abcnews.go.co...36#.T-fJarUgNnk

Edited by Merentha, 24 June 2012 - 09:14 PM.

[Happy Ent]

Merentha, on 24 June 2012 - 09:11 PM, said:

In the US, high IQs can disqualify you from police service.

Hehe. Very nice. Also nice to see a cutoff point in print (IQ 104), which strikes me as very high. I wonder if this is correct.

Steve Sailer has been trying for years to get the US military cutoff, and speculates that it is in the high 80s and falling.

[Salome Sand Witch]

Nukelavee, on 24 June 2012 - 12:58 PM, said:

My bias (and I know it exists, thanks) is that most feminists don't care about equality so much as they care about their team being on top.  It makes me more critical (sometimes unfairly) of statements by feminists, less tolerant of their use of language or examples, because I've seen the outcome of that sort of one-sided situation.

This reminds me of when I was in University, and to make a point to raise awareness, a women's studies class sold "Texas style donuts" charging men $1 and women $.69 (the national average of women's wages compared to men doing the same jobs at the time).  All I heard was male students complaining bitterly that they were being "punished" over something they had no control over (and that was the least obnoxious of the comments).  I thought to myself, are you kidding me?  You're seriously complaining over 1 incident of only .31 cents difference only if you CHOOSE to buy 1 item?  Where's the outrage over every dollar earned missing $.31 for individuals' entire careers?

The reality is, academics are often viewed through lenses of popular scholarship trends of the time. From my experience of Canadian Universities,  "Critical Feminist Theory" was only just emerging 30ish years ago, and hit its heyday in the 90's. (And yes, I read far more "feminist" plays than I ever would have even 10 years previously - and for the record, I don't necessarily like most of them).  But, scholarship is always revisiting canon through lenses of popular critical trends of the time - and in any fine arts program that I know, you don't just get to do what you want, you are provided a structure through which you explore the art - whether you personally feel compelled to do your art that way or not.

I must admit, I don't know any "feminists" that want their team to be "on top" - but I do know many people who get overwhelmed, burnt out, and depressed, when they actually start critically exploring the (very real) injustices and atrocities committed against women world wide.  (I think it would be hard for you to genuinely hold the position that gender based infanticide, acid attacks, systematic rapes, work inequality etc. don't happen on a global scale.  Heck - even with what's going on right now in the States with state legislatures trying to reduce accessibility to reproductive health for women including even access to birth control!  Not to mention, Harper systematically reducing or completely defunding programs focused on women's advocacy, including women's health)

With that said, I can see how the academic feminists may have seemed no fun, especially considering how it was a relatively new field of study in the beginnings of defining itself.  And you may have genuinely been the target of reverse gender discrimination (perhaps in a unique pocket of Canada that was on a more extreme scale).  However, I can virtually guarantee you, the levels you have experienced are likely quite minimal compared to what I (and many others I know) have experienced by encroaching on male dominated fields (including in my own experience, and experiences of others I know, sexualized intimidation, inappropriate physical touch, and even threats of physical violence, and rape!)  Even when professional success is achieved, there can be additional outside discrimination. A friend of mine working in the oil & gas industry, went through a divorce, and despite the fact that the judge (an older man in Alberta) acknowledged that she was the victim of domestic violence at the hands of her husband, he was STILL awarding custody of the kids to her husband because she had a "smart mouth" and wouldn't be at home because she was out working in a field she shouldn't be in!  (Yes, this was in the '80's, and he was an older judge, but there was no process of appealing that decision at the time.  Not sure if there's one now, actually).

I know it may seem extreme, but the reality is, we do experience it, and often some of us experience aspects of it daily despite our capabilities.  Nuke, if you honestly experience derision, insults, threats of physical violence, and are demeaned despite your talents and ability to do your job well, I am truly an advocate for you too.

Edited by Salome Sand Witch, 25 June 2012 - 03:55 AM.

[Nukelavee]

Quote

I know it may seem extreme, but the reality is, we do experience it, and often some of us experience aspects of it daily despite our capabilities.  Nuke, if you honestly experience derision, insults, threats of physical violence, and are demeaned despite your talents and ability to do your job well, I am truly an advocate for you too.

The thing is, most people experience that, to some extent, regardless of gender or race.  I think all of us agree some automatically get it worse.  I don't want you to think that I am equating 4 years at University with a lifetime of sexism, because I'm not; I just wanted to avoid getting "you can't know".

So, yeah, UWO (visual arts), was a pretty unique pocket.

As a quick aside -  

Quote

But, scholarship is always revisiting canon through lenses of popular critical trends of the time - and in any fine arts program that I know, you don't just get to do what you want, you are provided a structure through which you explore the art - whether you personally feel compelled to do your art that way or not.

  deserves it's own thread, really.

But, in short - that's something I see as a huge flaw in fine arts, that the established artists dictate practice and style to the students.  There's a difference between nuturing an awareness of issues and movements, and compelling people to stay within them.  There's a huge issue if, instead of balancing the range of views, you purge a department of those whose outlook isn't in lockstep with your own, and replace them with people's who's views are "right", but who are wrong for the role they are given.

Basically, when you have a drawing course with a prof who is ideologically sound, but starts the year with "I see drawing itself as obsolete and pointless", and "I frown on figure studies and other depictions in general, and don't think men should be allowed to deal with the female form at all..", it's gone beyond what you discuss.

On the other hand, my next drawing prof was also a woman, and a staunch feminist.  The difference was she didn't dictate to students what they could work on, she wasn't telling us anything thing, she actually took the effort to explain the issues, to allow us to integrate what she saw as important with what we saw as valid.

To be honest - it was a pretty toxic atmosphere for most people, students, faculty, men and women.  There's nothing good about witnessing an argument between profs over heavy handed agendas, and hearing one woman call another a failure as a female artist for not staying in line with one groups desire.

(Oddly, at the time, I was dating the head of the student Women's Issues Committee.  And then not dating, but still close to.  Made for interesting discussions and realizations all around)

But yeah, that was the early 90's.

Again- don't take this to mean I'm denying sexism exists, I'm saying I'm very sensitive to, and critical of, the way it is discussed/approached, the tone, if you like.

[Raidne]

Nuk, it is my personal POV that whatever you experienced within academia in a post-modern arts department has really about nothing to do with whether an email sent out to families in a school system that promoted sexist stereotypes was sexist.

It's not like I could say something like "Look, maybe the email saying that funding for the class trip was low and asking white parents to chip in an extra donation this year was racist and maybe white parents had just been underpaying in years past? We'll never know, okay? But I can tell you that I have the particular viewpoint I do after being stuck in a Critical Race Theory Department for 4 years in college so it's just not as black and white (See! They would have found that offensive!) as you think it is."

[Nukelavee]

Raidne -problem is, you're connecting my last few posts with the OP directly, and overlooking everything in between.

Plus, I'm likely making a mistake in assuming that other people keep in mind all teh discussions with the same people on similar topics, and keep track of trends in the overall dialogue.  So, next time racism is a topic, I'll be reading any given member's posts in light of what they have previously said, for me, teh new topic will just be a continuation of Lin and Martin/Zimmerman, and so on...

So, really, I'm addressing the thinking behind the topic and the discussion, including the idea that somebody is fit, or not fit, to weigh in on it.

and, again

Quote

Again- don't take this to mean I'm denying sexism exists, I'm saying I'm very sensitive to, and critical of, the way it is discussed/approached, the tone, if you like.

.

In other words - nobody gets a free pass or should expect to be unquestioned on any topic, regardless of their position, or inclusion in the offended demographic.

[Raidne]

Oh, well, you don't have to argue your credentials to have an opinion, IMO, in any case. But if you think the email doesn't promote sexist stereotypes, I think you are just as wrong regardless of your background, which may very well bias you toward playing Devil's advocate.