Feminism reborn - It's not changed, it's just different

[Guest Raidne]

On the one hand, I don't think that there's any mythic sisterhood that requires me to treat any particular co worker better just because she is a woman.

Oh dear gods no. That's straight up passive sexism, IMO. I'm absolutely with you there - women absolutely can compete on merit alone, and they shouldn't be granted the "favor" of not having to do so.

What I am talking about is what Hanna Rosin said back up in post #181 about needing to say snarky things about women journalists who accomplish something that makes her jealous - does Rosin need to poke fun at the way her male colleagues dress when they beat her out for something? Rosin says that if it's a man, at least she can chalk it up sexism. Hey, Hanna, why don't you just chalk it up to the ability of the other person? Or even just fit? Or anything having to do with the person's merit as a writer? Not that there aren't plenty of men who missed the point there also (paging Pete Campbell), but I doubt you'll see them writing openly about how much better it makes them feel to call up their friends and rip on the guy for his off-the-rack suits and cheap shoes.

By the data, I believe it bothers men more if a woman beats them out for that promotion, also (though I've never really seen that up close and personal), but just like Rosin, at least they can claim it was reverse sexism? But what that means is that more women and men would rather be beaten out by a man. And that's not ever going to be a good thing for women.

That doesn't create any duty for women to band together and even things out, but surely a feminist writer can be expected to not trash the woman who got what she wanted any more than the man? To give an example from my office, there is a woman who rather recently managed to negotiate the highest starting GS level I think anyone has started at here in recent memory through some hard negotiation. For that reason, it was announced by a few other women in my office that she is a horrible person who should never be associated with (I believe the words "cold devious bitch" were used?). I don't think a man would have faced that same reaction.

[Mlle. Zabzie]

Yeah, ok. I'm with you. Back to the double bind. (Good for the new coworker. Take her out for lunch :))

[Guest Raidne]

So what's your issue with Hanna Rosin? All I've got are some objections I remember having to The End of Men and this appalling blog post - is there a theme?

On the women helping other women thing, I do think it's in all of our best interests to trade our "this worked for me" story, a la Lean In. Even if you're good at self-monitoring, you still need to know what's worked for different people. All we know right now is that trying to strike the perfect balance is correlated with getting somewhere, yeah?

[karaddin]

Another one more suited to the dead "Women and minorities in Geek culture" series, this piece discusses Facebooks changed policy regarding hate speech based on gender combined with how the youtube "Report offensive content" mechanism was used to briefly get the second

video taken down.

Finally more from Anita Sarkeesian who just seems to attract geek hate, twitter responses to her expressing disappointment that none of the games showcased at E3 feature a female protagonist.

Think we can leave that in here or need to start a new version of that thread?

[Mlle. Zabzie]

So what's your issue with Hanna Rosin? All I've got are some objections I remember having to The End of Men and this appalling blog post - is there a theme?

On the women helping other women thing, I do think it's in all of our best interests to trade our "this worked for me" story, a la Lean In. Even if you're good at self-monitoring, you still need to know what's worked for different people. All we know right now is that trying to strike the perfect balance is correlated with getting somewhere, yeah?

I found a fair bit to object to in The End of Men (though I haven't read it for a couple of years, and given that I have the memory of a goldfish and have been around the bowl a few thousand times since, I'd have to go back and re-read to give you specific examples). I thought that the premise was intentionally sensationlized and that it set up a conflict that didn't need to be there. I then remember reading all of the discussion and interviews around it and thinking that she didn't really seem to like people, men or women. Now, every piece I read by her (including her commentary on Mad Men (lol)) sets my teeth on edge. Make sense?

I agree with you on sharing "what worked." I do participate in those sorts of panels and mentorship circles. I've learned amazing things from them (e.g., a senior litigator in one of my circles took pity on me one day - she took me aside and very nicely told me that the way she managed to be put together every day when she had two small children was to hire a personal shopper/stylist (and some stores will even supply the service for free :)) It was much more subtle than I'm making out, but anyhow, it was amazing lovely advice that I now pass on to people. I also got lots of advice on positioning - e.g., mannerisms, etc., which basically boil down to "be bold but not obnoxious" that I've tried to live by - best advice there was "say yes to opportunity then figure out how to make it work later.").

[Guest Raidne]

There used to be a leadership development group in my office for women, but someone filed a Title VII complaint on the grounds of reverse discrimination.

You can't make this shit up.

[Mlle. Zabzie]

There used to be a leadership development group in my office for women, but someone filed a Title VII complaint on the grounds of reverse discrimination.

You can't make this shit up.

:lol: :lmao: :rofl: OH MY. That is fabulous. I'm actually a little conflicted about our women's leadership initiative. On the one hand, it has been helpful in the "share what works" arena. On the other, it risks ghettoizing the issues.

[Shryke]

There used to be a leadership development group in my office for women, but someone filed a Title VII complaint on the grounds of reverse discrimination.

You can't make this shit up.

MRAowned!

[Sci-2]

Another one more suited to the dead "Women and minorities in Geek culture" series, this piece discusses Facebooks changed policy regarding hate speech based on gender combined with how the youtube "Report offensive content" mechanism was used to briefly get the second

video taken down.

Finally more from Anita Sarkeesian who just seems to attract geek hate, twitter responses to her expressing disappointment that none of the games showcased at E3 feature a female protagonist.

Think we can leave that in here or need to start a new version of that thread?

I swore I made a new thread for this? [Apparently not. Argh.]

It's up to you - I think there's enough divergence in these topics to warrant two threads?

If you make a new thread let me know, I'll go through these links and post a reply there.

Otherwise I'll post my thoughts in this thread.

[karaddin]

I swore I made a new thread for this? [Apparently not. Argh.]

It's up to you - I think there's enough divergence in these topics to warrant two threads?

If you make a new thread let me know, I'll go through these links and post a reply there.

Otherwise I'll post my thoughts in this thread.

I think there is enough divergence to justify a separate thread, but I don't have the motivation to start it :P Happy for you to though! Rather than spending another 90minutes crafting an OP like my last couple of threads, I figure next time the urge strikes me I should spend the time doing a second draft of an article I'm thinking about trying to get published here instead. Although I was pondering doing a thread on the growing disconnect between (primarily) conservatives and reality/scientific findings.

[Guest Raidne]

Amen, sister.

As to "why is it so easy"? I think that there are a lot of women who just haven't let high school go. They feel the need to group together, to gang up on "outsiders". Did you know that the female version of aggression is exclusion?

I've experienced this twice in my career, and it isn't fun.

What did you actually do? Why did it happen? Any tips on avoiding it? Because you are stoking my worst fears when you say "twice."

Also - maybe a better question for you: do you feel that the advice in "Making Friends and Influencing People" works with pretty much all men but only about half of women? It's sort of like there is some percentage of women who still adhere to the "consensus over all," group-centered model of female relationships, and those who don't.

To pull out what is quickly becoming a stereotype, consider Sex and the City vs. Girls. I would be miserable if my friends expected to have as much say in all the decisions I make in my life as the SaTC crew, whereas the characters in Girls don't even necessarily tell each other about their major life decisions. And when there is that all-female group dynamic, it's generally because one person really, really wants it that way. Like Samantha would ever give a shit about what's going on with Charlotte if Carrie didn't her?

This is NOT to say that all groups of female friends are like this - my sister absolutely has a group of female friends that does NOT fit this model. There is no obligation to invite three other people if you make plans to have brunch with two, etc. Sometimes it just happens organically. And mobbing does not always involve the efforts of an all-female group, or even start with with the actions of a woman - but a significant portion of the time, there's a group because someone thinks of themselves as the Queen Bee and wants it that way, and the data does say that when the bully or instigator is female, the target is 8 times more likely to be female.

But, anyway, my issue is that I just don't think that the tips in MFaIP really work with the consensus driven, all-female group dynamic. True? And the gods know I have no earthly idea what does work.

Surely someone here knows something about this? How is one supposed to behave in that kind of group dynamic if it's an unavoidable part of an office culture?

[Commodore]

Women are more empowered when they dress modestly.

Interesting video discussing the evolution of the swimsuit.

The speaker notes studies where men are shown pictures of scantily clad women, and the parts of the brain that see others as people completely shut down, while the parts of the brain that see things as objects and tools lights up.

here is her clothing line, very cool

http://www.reyswimwear.com/

[Theda Baratheon]

''objects and tools''

/shudders.

[Edda van Heefmstra Ruston]

I'm all for providing women a choice with being as modest as they want to be. However, I don't like that phrasing. It's not that women are more empowered by being modest so much as men's brains start shutting down when they see women in certain clothing. Even then, I don't really buy that it's inherently genetic and completely devoid of socialisation. That is, men are either not encouraged to get over it (if it would happen absent any societal influence) or are actively encouraged to see "scantily-clad" women as objects. All that nonsense about cats and meat, and all of that.

[Commodore]

I'm all for providing women a choice with being as modest as they want to be. However, I don't like that phrasing. It's not that women are more empowered by being modest so much as men's brains start shutting down when they see women in certain clothing. Even then, I don't really buy that it's inherently genetic and completely devoid of socialisation. That is, men are either not encouraged to get over it (if it would happen absent any societal influence) or are actively encouraged to see "scantily-clad" women as objects. All that nonsense about cats and meat, and all of that.

agreed, you would have to do studies across multiple cultures with different aesthetic variations to say anything conclusive

[Sci-2]

I'm all for providing women a choice with being as modest as they want to be.

Yup, "prude" and "slut" are just control words, and what they represent are just points on a spectrum.

Even then, I don't really buy that it's inherently genetic and completely devoid of socialisation.

Even if it were genetic, I'm also guessing that when men see physically weaker men some part of them thinks they should be able to control the less athletic person.

Doesn't mean we should let society be run that way.

[Theda Baratheon]

Women are empowered when they are allowed to wear whatever the hell they want to wear, not what they're expected to. If someone wants to wear a skirt because they feel fierce and fabulous in a skirt, then wear the skirt! If someone wants to cover their whole bodies because they feel fabulous that is how they want to dress, then let them cover their bodies!

All this what's better nonsense, or even Western Feminists telling women of certain cultures that they're ''so oppressed'' grinds my gears, let people think for themselves and wear what they will.

I'm all for providing women a choice with being as modest as they want to be. However, I don't like that phrasing. It's not that women are more empowered by being modest so much as men's brains start shutting down when they see women in certain clothing. Even then, I don't really buy that it's inherently genetic and completely devoid of socialisation. That is, men are either not encouraged to get over it (if it would happen absent any societal influence) or are actively encouraged to see "scantily-clad" women as objects. All that nonsense about cats and meat, and all of that.

Definitely agree. I don't like the phrasing at all, and feel that this idea of seeing a ''scantily clad'' woman as a ''slut'' is still very evident and is used a lot in rape apology, ''well she shouldn't have been wearing provocative clothing''

[Commodore]

Women are empowered when they are allowed to wear whatever the hell they want to wear, not what they're expected to

She is saying women are empowered when they are seen as human beings and not objects. And dressing a certain way biochemically causes men to see women more as the latter.

That does not mean they should be treated as objects, but the brain is more likely to perceive them that way. Brain chemistry doesn't care about "should", or the right and wrong of things.

[litechick]

Yeah, to get good data it seems like you would have to compare the brain response of men from nudist resorts--men for whom nudity is not hardwired to sex.

I have often thought that we might all be better off if we could break the connection between skin and sex.

[Seli]

I have seen an interesting reaction/rebuttal to that video yesterday, by someone who -as so far as it matters- seems to come from an LDS environment.

full article is here: http://toeveryonetha...h-on-woman.html

...I think, however, that this presentation swings too far in the other direction, and I am disappointed with its message, especially when I see it in the context of a rising emphasis on modesty that also devalues women, though more insidiously. Though it is indeed objectifying to teach a woman that her value lies in wearing fewer clothes and showing off her body so as to turn on the boys around her, it is also objectifying to teach a woman that her value lies in wearing more clothes and covering up her body so as to keep the thoughts of the boys around her pure. The better message is this: wear what you want, like, and feel comfortable in, not for its effect on other people, but so that you can be happy and free as you go about doing many good things in the world. And stop judging other people for what they wear as they go about living their lives, because it’s none of your business and it’s not about you.

...

The study in question, presented by Dr. Susan Fiske at Princeton, was conducted using a sample of 21 male Princeton undergraduates (note that in this type of research, an acceptable sample size is 30+, and that the more data points you have, the more reliable your findings). These men were asked to fill out surveys that gauged if they harbored "benevolent sexism" (i.e. women should be protected by men, women should not work outside the home) or "hostile sexism" (i.e. women are incompetent and inferior to men, women are trying to take away the rights of men, etc.). They were then shown brief flashes of pictures of fully clothed and swimsuit-clad men and women, and their brains were scanned for activity. Note that all the swimsuit-clad women were wearing bikinis. The researchers did not use pictures of women in "various states" of undress, or with "varying amounts" of clothes, as some articles have suggested, and there were no one-piece swimsuits to compare--there were only two conditions: fully clothed and in a bikini. Please also note that the images of women wearing bikinis did not have heads.

As for the men's reactions, the researchers found (via brain scans) that those men who harbored strongly hostile sexist views also saw the bikini-clad women as less human, and did not have brain activity in the part of the brain responsible for evaluating another person's thoughts and feelings. Note that this refers to a small subset of the already-small sample size: only the men harboring the most hateful attitudes towards women.

...

I also take issue with the speaker’s highly selective overview of the history of women’s swimwear. She skips over the Romans, who bathed nude and are depicted in murals wearing clothing very similar to a bikini. She skips over the many cultures in which topless and nude bathing are seen as perfectly respectable and natural. She lingers smugly over the bikini creator’s introduction of his invention, noting that the model who introduced it was a “stripper,” as if to tar all women with the same brush, neglecting the fact that all change is seen as scandalous when it first appears—after all, not so long before the bikini, women had been wearing horse-drawn houses to go swimming. Times change. Culture changes. And acceptable dress standards are bound up in culture—and they change, too. Pioneer women would find capri pants scandalous. That doesn’t mean we need to compare bare ankles to stripping. Your great-great grandmother would find your one-piece swimsuit inappropriate, while you label it perfectly modest. But we live in different times and cultures, and there are no absolute rules for determining what is “modest” across all time and space. (As proof, I would note that the speaker, believer in modesty, is dressed in a perfectly lovely outfit, one that would nevertheless get me labeled “immodest” and kicked out of class at BYU—for showing my shoulder. So if you’re about to argue that “the world changes, but the Lord’s standards of modesty never change,” you may want to re-think your argument. And your spokesperson.)

...