Feminism - Post-apocalypse version

[karaddin]

21 minutes ago, Xray the Enforcer said:

[mod] Knock it off with the personal commentary. That applies to everyone. [/mod]

In case manky missed the edit answering his question.

[Lily Valley]

On 12/6/2016 at 1:08 PM, TerraPrime said:

<snip>

For higher education, despite graduating as many female STEM undergrads as we do male ones, the number of tenured female professors in STEM still lags behind. In the best-performing disciplines, like Psychology and Biology, we are still seeing only 20 to 30% of tenured faculty being women. The more senior the position, the more disparate the ratio.

 

<snip>

Recently, I also started reading about stereotype threat phenomenon, wherein a minority who's being reminded of the perception of deficiencies associated with their minority status performs worse. In other words, if a group of coeds are taking a math test, and the proctor announces that this is a test where a lot of female students find challenging, then female students will perform worse as a result. When they did it for race, they can see depression of performance even when the call-out was positive. The control groups, where no specific call outs were made, or if the call out wasn't directed at the minority status, then the performance equalized. It's a very disturbing, yet real, phenomenon. So if a female attorney is the first of anything, like the first to head a trial of over $500 million assets, she's might be experience stress above and beyond what a male colleague might experience.

Terra, the lack of tenured faculty in STEM fields is one of my favorite things to point out when I hear the tired old argument about "women being better teachers". 

I have never heard of stereotype threat phenomenon.  Do you or Karra have resources on this?  Links?  This is the type of thing I really want to battle in my classrooms.  My students have responded very positively to the speakers I had in this year.  I have also used this election to steer the conversations in class towards stereotyping, career expectations and (of course) work environment "-ism's".  Since I teach labs and my groups are usually together for a whole year and often share classes, I have an incredible opportunity for social science and educational experimentation.  I'd like to put my students through some of this if Kara's theories are correct and it can be combated.  I'd love to hear both of your feedback on how I can continue to use my classroom to make better informed engineers.

I have seen some real change among my students, peers and neighbors as a result of this election.  I want to talk more about that, especially in regards to the "Open Letter to My Wife" that was posted, but it'll keep until tomorrow.  My pal says, "Stop ignoring your RL  friends".

Zabz:  Here is my "make coffee" recipe

I cup of coffee grounds (A WHOLE CUP.  NOT THAT GARBAGE TEASPOON)

6 cups of water

Wait 5 minutes. 

Fill my mug with 4 of the made 6 cups.

Say, "Oh...right"

Fill the coffee thinger without dumping out the last two cups of nice coffee

Pour the mixture back into the machine

Enjoy my lovely strong coffee

[karaddin]

@Lily Valley are you wanting links to the actual research or is my description sufficient?
 

In my words - Stereotype thread is a phenomenon where a stereotype exists around the competence of a certain group around a specific task or a generalised attribute, eg: girls are bad at maths and the more openly bigoted 'black people are less intelligent' (I only use this as an example because a study I'll reference relates to it). When an individual from such a group is going to be tested on that task or attribute, if they are reminded of the stereotype and/or their membership in that group, their performance will alter to better match the stereotype.

The way this would be tested with girls and maths is quite straight forward. The way it was tested for the second example was having the groups take the same test - half were told they were doing a trivia quiz, the other half were told they were doing an intelligence test. When told they were doing an intelligence test there was a large gap in the results between black participants and white participants, however when told it was a trivia test this gap virtually disappeared. Furthermore the performance of white participants actually dropped slightly in the trivia group, although I can't recall if this difference was deemed statistically significant - if so it points to a boost from a positive stereotype threat rather than a penalty from a negative.

I'm either not remembering the details quite right or I had seen a different study, but the results I described line up with Steele, Claude M; Aronson, Joshua., 2000, 'Stereotype threat and the intellectual test performance of African Americans' in Stangor, Charles [Ed]. (2000). Stereotypes and prejudice: Essential readings. (pp. 369-389). xii, 490 pp. New York, NY, US: Psychology Press; US. In this study it wasn't trivia, it was described as a tool for studying problem solving. The important feature is that one is presenting as diagnostic of intelligence and the other was not.

I have not seen anything really that goes towards addressing stereotype threat, thus far it still seems predominantly stuck on confirming it happens. Haven't read it yet, but also found this that may contain a useful round up https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4713435/

I would note that although I haven't found the study/ies that confirmed this yet, if what I mentioned previously - that awareness of stereotype threat amplifies its effect - then attempts to work around it may wind up being counter productive.

[TerraPrime]

Re: Lily

 

I recommend your first entry to the topic be the book called "Whistling Vivaldi." It is a book written by the researcher who pioneered the study on stereotype threat. The book is intended for general audience so it's easier to digest than following the paper trail yourself. It's a good starting point.

To distill karadin's explanation further, if you're a woman taking a math test, and if during or before the test, you are reminded of your status as a woman, and/or that women in general do more poorly at math, then your performance will be suppressed. This means that sometimes, well-intended prompts can actually backfire.

 

As for classroom interactions, there are so many variables to account for that it is very daunting to set up the  "ideal." I think you're already doing a lot to address the issue, so the following is just sort of my brainstorming, not meant in any way to imply that you're somehow deficient in your classroom. ;-) 

 

Assuming that the ratio is a bit lop-sided in your physics classes, I think directed group-membership like you're doing is critical. Try to even out the groups so that female students aren't segregated away. I would also suggest providing structure to talk about cooperation and collaboration. Shockingly, most college students don't know how to collaborate. I do assign group projects, and so I spend half a lecture talking about productive team work, and offering them guidelines on how to get the most out of collaborations. This way, I forestall most of the calamities of group work. When the group doesn't function well, I can easily see resentment being built up, and race, gender, and national origins are easy fault lines to absorb those types of resentment. In other words, if a group performs well, your students will be more likely to walk away with a positive view of working with a minority member. If the group doesn't perform well, then the white/male students will find it easy to blame the black student, the female student, the foreign student. So, I think fostering productive group work is a proactive step to enhance people's appreciation of diversity.

 

Another thing I try to do is to not be afraid to talk about minority issues in science openly in class. I think it models a behavior where we are not politely ignoring a problem for fear of stepping out of line. I think sometimes, some professors veer too strongly away from the possibility of being perceived to be a leftist indoctrinating their students. This means that they avoid talking about diversity and inclusiveness even when the time and opportunity are right. In my discipline, there are so many historical examples that I can use to talk about gender and science, and I pick them when the time is right. For instance, I talk about Rosalind Franklin and Barbara McClintock, not just for their scientific achievement, but also the ways in which their sex led their work to be sidelined. I also talk about the sexist remarks from Watson and why that's not helpful.

 

Finally, if your campus has a group that promotes diversity and inclusiveness, I'd recommend being a part of it if you're not already. There are 3 different groups on my campus that work on diversity issues and I am on one of them. It's good to be amongst friends sometimes, like in this thread, where you are not constantly defending your premise and you can actually work out remedies.

 

 

Re: karadin

 

That's an interesting bit of new info on erasing negative associations. I can see how you can operationalize it into an experimental design. Hope you can develop the idea into a thesis! :-)

[Lily Valley]

14 minutes ago, TerraPrime said:

Re: Lily

 I can easily see resentment being built up, and race, gender, and national origins are easy fault lines to absorb those types of resentment. In other words, if a group performs well, your students will be more likely to walk away with a positive view of working with a minority member. If the group doesn't perform well, then the white/male students will find it easy to blame the black student, the female student,

This. 

For instance, I talk about Rosalind Franklin and Barbara McClintock, not just for their scientific achievement, but also the ways in which their sex led their work to be sidelined. I also talk about the sexist remarks from Watson and why that's not helpful.

 

I want my group to perform well. There are two or three Young Smart White men in the group, this year, they are the minority.  I want them to have reading material that is unrelated to their grade, but related to my class.

As far as Personally Performing on Campus Panels. LOL.  There's nofuckingway.  I am NOT paid enough to  deal with ACTUAL viper "performance feminists".  No. I do enough for "outreach" and "diversity" in STEM. 

 

[TerraPrime]

5 minutes ago, Lily Valley said:

 

As far as Personally Performing on Campus Panels. LOL.  There's nofuckingway.  I am NOT paid enough to  deal with ACTUAL viper "performance feminists".  No. I do enough for "outreach" and "diversity" in STEM. 

 

Ahahahaha. One of those.

Fortunately, on my campus we only have fuckwit admins who are clueless about diversity and inclusion pretending to be experts on it, and my faculty colleagues are all pretty kickass.

 

[Lyanna Stark]

12 hours ago, mankytoes said:

You've missed my point. You are using language as if we're discussing hard science. If you want constructive debate, you can't around saying "I'm right, you're wrong".

Come on, I'm from a political background, dismissing someone's argument because their "terminology is wrong" is low. It's the argument that matters.

Hmm, I don't understand what you are after. Why do you keep mentioning hard science as an opposite to "language" as if you think "words" have no meaning? Words do have meanings, and this is what we rely on to communicate. If you are using the wrong terminology, i.e. "the wrong words" to describe something, that is by its very nature incorrect. It cannot be correct, because you used the wrong words. Unless you mean to say that I should understand you anyway although you are in fact using the wrong words. Have to disappoint you there unfortunately, my telepathy skills are sorely lacking. Besides, in the area of academic feminism, using at least approximately correct terminology and fairly accurate descriptions of theoretical frameworks are needed, since otherwise we cannot hold any sort of reasonable discussion. It will end up being a discussion of apples and oranges. Hence: words, they have meaning and are important.

12 hours ago, mankytoes said:

I'm not dismissive of transwomen at all, that's another totally unfair accusation. One of my problems with prominent feminists is their transphobia.

I just name dropped Greer because that was the first famous feminist book that came to mind. Jeez, you see what I mean by bad faith? You assume everything is a dig at you, when I was actually trying to be more friendly. Lol I always do that, as you've pointed out I get words mixed up. It's called Wild Swans. And seriously. So good.

 Well Greer is a well known TERF too, and not a great feminist to look to if you have an issue with transphobia, to be sure. She's also terrible and have been discussed in these threads before. I'm unsure why you think that was in bad faith. She's been extremely controversial in feminist circles during the last, oh, 5-6 years or so.

"Wild Swans" on google gets a hit on "Wild Swans: Three Daughters of China" which is a novel. Is this the correct work?

12 hours ago, mankytoes said:

Fair enough, I'll have a further look. As you say, wiki made it sound like a textbook.

If you keep calling up my spelling and grammar I'm going to start doing the same to you. You used the wrong form of "to" in your last post FFS.

Feel free. As English is my second language, I am always looking to improve.

12 hours ago, mankytoes said:

Jesus, I'd need to review, this was eight years ago. It was the first time I'd really read about the whole idea of sex and gender though, and it did stick with me. There's something about hearing ideas and thinking "shit, that's so true, as if I haven't read this before"? 

I guess this is where, I think, a lot of us posting here differ from you. For me, reading de Beauvioir wasn't so much "I have never thought of this before" as instant recognition. She described my lived experience. I had thought of a lot of these things, but never put them in context, or I didn't have the terminology to express what I felt and thought properly. Reading feminist text over two decades has given me the tools, the theoretical framework and the context to properly articulate my own life, and self actualisation. I has taught me that my gut feeling and/or reactions like "this is not reasonable", or that something was unfair and I could not articulate wasn't wrong, there is a reason for it, and research supports this.

This is also something to consider when posting here, and when you get upset in how people are not respecting your feelings on this matter. You are coming up hard against women who've spent over 20 years battling sexism in the work place, as parents and just as people. You are asking us to take *you* seriously and your views seriously, but consider our side. What, in what you have said, should recommend your view to us over our own experiences across decades, the reading we have done, the articles we have poured over.

 

[mankytoes]

10 hours ago, karaddin said:

In case manky missed the edit answering his question.

Fair enough. I mean I thought my response was pretty polite, considering how she spoke to me. I don't know how you expect someone to respond to being talked to like that.

57 minutes ago, Lyanna Stark said:

Hmm, I don't understand what you are after. Why do you keep mentioning hard science as an opposite to "language" as if you think "words" have no meaning? Words do have meanings, and this is what we rely on to communicate. If you are using the wrong terminology, i.e. "the wrong words" to describe something, that is by its very nature incorrect. It cannot be correct, because you used the wrong words. Unless you mean to say that I should understand you anyway although you are in fact using the wrong words. Have to disappoint you there unfortunately, my telepathy skills are sorely lacking. Besides, in the area of academic feminism, using at least approximately correct terminology and fairly accurate descriptions of theoretical frameworks are needed, since otherwise we cannot hold any sort of reasonable discussion. It will end up being a discussion of apples and oranges. Hence: words, they have meaning and are important.

 Well Greer is a well known TERF too, and not a great feminist to look to if you have an issue with transphobia, to be sure. She's also terrible and have been discussed in these threads before. I'm unsure why you think that was in bad faith. She's been extremely controversial in feminist circles during the last, oh, 5-6 years or so.

"Wild Swans" on google gets a hit on "Wild Swans: Three Daughters of China" which is a novel. Is this the correct work?

Feel free. As English is my second language, I am always looking to improve.

I guess this is where, I think, a lot of us posting here differ from you. For me, reading de Beauvioir wasn't so much "I have never thought of this before" as instant recognition. She described my lived experience. I had thought of a lot of these things, but never put them in context, or I didn't have the terminology to express what I felt and thought properly. Reading feminist text over two decades has given me the tools, the theoretical framework and the context to properly articulate my own life, and self actualisation. I has taught me that my gut feeling and/or reactions like "this is not reasonable", or that something was unfair and I could not articulate wasn't wrong, there is a reason for it, and research supports this.

This is also something to consider when posting here, and when you get upset in how people are not respecting your feelings on this matter. You are coming up hard against women who've spent over 20 years battling sexism in the work place, as parents and just as people. You are asking us to take *you* seriously and your views seriously, but consider our side. What, in what you have said, should recommend your view to us over our own experiences across decades, the reading we have done, the articles we have poured over.

That's pretty reasonable, except you're on an internet forum for a book series, not an academic setting. I am not claiming to be an academic feminist, so if you only want to debate with academic feminists on academic terms, I recommend you stop replying to my posts, because I'm not on that level. But neither are 99% of people. Surely you don't want to only speak to that tiny bubble? You want to be able to relate to, and pursuade, the average woman (and man) who hasn't heard of de Bouvouir, can't tell you the difference between sex and gender, etc, right?

I think being a TERF and a misandrist are usually synonymous, because otherwise, why would you care? That's the main question I ask to transphobic people. Why is this something you even engage with? Greer and her ilk deliberately and often use nasty language to trans people. The reason I can think that they would do that is that they find it offensive for a biological man to claim the superior status of being a woman.

Yeah. It isn't a novel though. It's a mixture of biography and autobiography, written by a Chinese woman about her grandmother, mother and herself, from her grandmother being a concubine in the dynasty period, through her mother fighting for the Communists against the Nationalists, and her growing up under Mao. If you have any interest in China's recent history, especially from the perspective of women, you'll love it.

Really? Well I can if you want, but if someone educated uses the wrong form of "to", I assume it's a typing mistake, not that they lack that basic knowledge. That's what I mean by good faith.

That's an interesting point, and I guess that reflects the difference between male and female approaches to feminism. If anything, that indicates to me that it's more important to engage men than women with this material, because we don't have that experience. That's why I find it so strange how often feminists say they want to exclude men entirely. I assume you know that's GRRMs experience, he said he supporters women's rights, then feminists started telling him he couldn't be a part of the movement, so he said, ok, which I guess is a natural reaction.

I don't really care if people respect my feelings. It's more do unto others. If I'd responded the way I've been talked to, this thread would probably be locked, and I'd be banned. I don't like hypocracy, and I don't have much time for special pleading.

I'm not saying you should take my view OVER your experience, just judge it on its' merits.

To come back round to the original purpose of this thread, think back to when Hillary said she couldn't be a part of the establishment, because she's a woman. I think there was such a collective feeling of disappointment from men on the left. This is the identity politics that plays so badly. Don't look at someone's arguments, what they've done, whose money they've taken. Look at what is between their legs.

I'm not saying Hillary was overtly victimising, I think Trump played her, basically. "She wouldn't get five percent of the vote if she didn't play the woman card". He pushed her into that role. We can't have this keep happening, or most of the west is going to be ruled by these types of people. What's really fascinating in terms of feminism is the French election, where we've got a woman standing for the populist right wing. To you think that makes it better, worse, or there's no difference, that it's a woman in that role?

[butterbumps!]

53 minutes ago, mankytoes said:

That's pretty reasonable, except you're on an internet forum for a book series, not an academic setting. I am not claiming to be an academic feminist, so if you only want to debate with academic feminists on academic terms, I recommend you stop replying to my posts, because I'm not on that level. But neither are 99% of people. Surely you don't want to only speak to that tiny bubble? You want to be able to relate to, and pursuade, the average woman (and man) who hasn't heard of de Bouvouir, can't tell you the difference between sex and gender, etc, right? 

That's an interesting point, and I guess that reflects the difference between male and female approaches to feminism. If anything, that indicates to me that it's more important to engage men than women with this material, because we don't have that experience. That's why I find it so strange how often feminists say they want to exclude men entirely. I assume you know that's GRRMs experience, he said he supporters women's rights, then feminists started telling him he couldn't be a part of the movement, so he said, ok, which I guess is a natural reaction.

I don't really care if people respect my feelings. It's more do unto others. If I'd responded the way I've been talked to, this thread would probably be locked, and I'd be banned. I don't like hypocracy, and I don't have much time for special pleading.

I'm not saying you should take my view OVER your experience, just judge it on its' merits.

As it happens I agree we need to communicate these ideas with men (and anyone else who is interested).  But that doesn't give anyone license to come to the discussion entirely on their own terms- it's not a free for all, and some decorum should be respected (ETA: which isn't even unique to this thread.   Things like being mindful of what you're writing, and how it might come across to your audience-- and that sort of thing)  

The issue everyone's taken with your posts has largely to do with your tone, not necessarily the content.   When you came in earlier to announce the biological root of gender expression, it came across like a refutation of the idea that significant gender construction occurs culturally.    You may not be aware of this, but that hackneyed canard is too frequently wielded in discussions like these to shut down the idea of gender's having a socially constructed aspect, and to argue sundry other unsavory propositions like a case for male dominance or idiocies like women not having been oppressed.   And then when confronted, you doubled down on how your perspective is just as valid, which is frustrating for many in here who have much more advanced knowledge on the subject over having to relitigate fairly elementary points to people who do not seem particularly willing to learn or read the provided sources, an impression derived from the tone of their posts.  

My earlier post to you wasn't meant to be rhetorical.   I was genuinely letting you know that we're all aware of the biological component, and asking why you believed mentioning it where you did in the discussion, seemingly as a refutation of the social constructs we were discussing, was important to the discussion.  For example, had you approached the issue by saying something like "How does one overcome the biological differences in development when aspiring to remove the cultural gender constructs?" You'd have gotten a different response.   

 

[mankytoes]

31 minutes ago, butterbumps! said:

As it happens I agree we need to communicate these ideas with men (and anyone else who is interested).  But that doesn't give anyone license to come to the discussion entirely on their own terms- it's not a free for all, and some decorum should be respected (which isn't even unique to this thread)   

The issue everyone's taken with your posts has largely to do with your tone, not necessarily the content.   When you came in earlier to announce the biological root of gender expression, it came across like a refutation of the idea that significant gender construction occurs culturally.    You may not be aware of this, but that hackneyed canard is too frequently wielded in discussions like these to shut down the idea of gender's having a socially constructed aspect, and to argue sundry other unsavory propositions like a case for male dominance or idiocies like women not having been oppressed.   And then when confronted, you doubled down on how your perspective is just as valid, which is frustrating for many in here who have much more advanced knowledge on the subject over having to relitigate fairly elementary points to people who do not seem particularly willing to learn or read the provided sources, an impression derived from the tone of their posts.  

My earlier post to you wasn't meant to be rhetorical.   I was genuinely letting you know that we're all aware of the biological component, and asking why you believed mentioning it where you did in the discussion, as almost a regutation of the social constructs we were discussing, was important to the discussion.  For example, had you approached the issue by saying something like "How does one overcome the biological differences in development when aspiring to remove the cultural gender constructs?" You'd have gotten a different response.  

Well that was pretty much my point. I mean this is a thread about feminism, right? It isn't a feminist group. Surely respect has to go both ways, if you want a constructive debate?

If you can find a quote from me that implies that I will hold my hands up, but isn't my point at all. I gave specific examples to the exact opposite of that (there's a bit about the colour pink if want to have a look through). To me, it sounds like you're leaping to conclusions, and then attacking me based on views you've assumed that I have, that I don't have. Maybe I should have been clearer, but if you want to know whether I think that significant gender construction occurs culturally, just ask. And then I would have said "yes, I think it does", and then a lot of drama could have been avoided.

I think that's an important point, if again, we want to go back to the original topic, Trump's win. Everyone thinks their perspective is just as valid. You must have observed that? You want to know why people hate the establishment? They get told their perspective is not as valid. It's this bubble effect. I'm in the first generation of my family to go to university, you do see a difference. People who come from higher backgrounds, they do look down on people, whether consciously or not. If my perspective isn't valid, how little respect must you have for the perspective of a woman with little education, who barely understands what feminism means?

I don't think you can separate the two. If you're asking a popular question like "why aren't more women CEOs?", you have to establish if there are any biological differences that might cause an innate difference in the number of people from each sex/gender having those roles. My position is that until any difference are proven, we should assume they do not exist, but it's certainly something I'm very interested in. I don't think there are many things more important scientifically than trying to get a more clear understanding of how exactly the human brain works, and it would be terrible if scientific progress was stunted by social or political taboos.

[butterbumps!]

36 minutes ago, mankytoes said:

Well that was pretty much my point. I mean this is a thread about feminism, right? It isn't a feminist group. Surely respect has to go both ways, if you want a constructive debate?

If you can find a quote from me that implies that I will hold my hands up, but isn't my point at all. I gave specific examples to the exact opposite of that (there's a bit about the colour pink if want to have a look through). To me, it sounds like you're leaping to conclusions, and then attacking me based on views you've assumed that I have, that I don't have. Maybe I should have been clearer, but if you want to know whether I think that significant gender construction occurs culturally, just ask. And then I would have said "yes, I think it does", and then a lot of drama could have been avoided.

I think that's an important point, if again, we want to go back to the original topic, Trump's win. Everyone thinks their perspective is just as valid. You must have observed that? You want to know why people hate the establishment? They get told their perspective is not as valid. It's this bubble effect. I'm in the first generation of my family to go to university, you do see a difference. People who come from higher backgrounds, they do look down on people, whether consciously or not. If my perspective isn't valid, how little respect must you have for the perspective of a woman with little education, who barely understands what feminism means?

I don't think you can separate the two. If you're asking a popular question like "why aren't more women CEOs?", you have to establish if there are any biological differences that might cause an innate difference in the number of people from each sex/gender having those roles. My position is that until any difference are proven, we should assume they do not exist, but it's certainly something I'm very interested in. I don't think there are many things more important scientifically than trying to get a more clear understanding of how exactly the human brain works, and it would be terrible if scientific progress was stunted by social or political taboos.

You're still approaching this like you are owed something beyond what you're willing to give.    Like you should be able to come in and make points that you beleive are valid without having to be precise about them, or articulate why and how these points connect to, and are not in opposition to, the discussion.   I'm specifically referring to how you said we were leaping to conclusions and how you are trying to put the burden on us to tease out what you really mean since you can't be bothered.   when you come in and state that biology plays a role as though we aren't aware of it, despite how it's something mentioned in the copious links given at front, it suggests you do not care to have a real discussion, and are not being genuine or considerate.  When you bring it up in the midst of a discussion of social constructs as a stand alone fact, then it does read as a refutation of the current discussion about constructs.   That's not our leaping to conclusions, but your responsibility to be more clear about how you are relating that point.

You are coming to a space where the op provided a ton of info to get everyone from any background on a fairly even playing field in order to discuss it together.         It is also asked that those participating here be extra mindful of what they post, and to consider how it might come across to others.   You have consistently done neither, have wanted us to be over-accommodating mind readers, and are now tripling down on not having gotten enough respect for your views.   

And no, everyone's beliefs are not valid.  They are undoubtedly real to the person experiencing them, but they are not simply by virtue of being someone's perspective automatically valid, and the further you go down the route, the less it seems you seek genuine discussion and rather want affirmation that you're right about something. 

You are welcome here.   But please take a moment to look at some of the articles that have been linked to get us on the same page, and please also be more mindful in what you're posting and consider how it's coming across in a thread about feminism, a topic which has long been subject to relentless trolling and various imposition. 

 

 

[Xray the Enforcer]

[mod] Butterbumps! excellent post is the last word on this ridiculous derail. Further: This is NOT a debate thread, as was clearly stated in the OP. This is feminists discussing issues with other feminists. If debate and contrarianism are all you have to offer, then you need to take it elsewhere. This goes for everybody, BTW. Thank you. [/mod]

ETA: In fact, I think it's useful for EVERYONE to approach this thread in the same way we do the LGBTQ+ thread. That is, this isn't the place to start picking fights. We're looking for focused, supportive discussion (yes, even with disagreement), not a constant battle over the same three externally driven topics.

[Mlle. Zabzie]

So, I want to change the subject.  I want to talk about Kellyanne Conway's remarks at the Politico event yesterday.  I have so many different ways that I could go with this.  And there is part of me that just can't even.  But I don't want this to be a pile on about Kellyanne or turn this into a Trump debate here.  What I do want to talk about is the intersection of money and feminist thought.  For those who watch The Unbreakable Kimmy Schmidt (fabulous show) it reminds me of the character who has an advanced classics degree from Princeton but spends her day ordering stationery for the family dog.  I'm sure there is work on this, but it seems to me that there are extremes - the very wealthy on one end, and the not so much on the other where feminist thought is less than not valued.  In both cases it is seen as unnecessary (in one case because there are other things to worry about, in the other because there isn't anything to worry about) and threatening.  I see it with some male partners here - their wives stay home and they are quite blunt that they could not and would not do this job if their wives didn't handle EVERYTHING else.  Bringing it back to Kellyanne, George, her husband, is a litigation partner in the most profitable law firm in the country - Wachtell.  Wachtell is more like an investment bank, and they are well known for having an ethos that includes a sadomasochistic work ethic.  It gives one a skewed view of the world if one is pulling in $10 million a year and billing 3000 hours a year on a consistent basis.  On the other end, thinking about people I know in rural NC, they honestly have other things to worry about.  Real things like enough food, mortgages, etc.  So all of this seems....insultingly irrelevant.  Discuss?

[Xray the Enforcer]

Zabz -- can you clarify a bit what you'd like to discuss? The issue seems to be buried about halfway through that muddled shitshow of an article and I think I know what you're going for, but I don't want to put words in your mouth. I *think* you want to discuss the idea that feminist thought is most valued in the middle-to-upper-middle class, but is irrelevant to the very poor and the very rich, although for very different reasons. Yes?

[mankytoes]

11 minutes ago, butterbumps! said:

You're still approaching this like you are owed something beyond what you're willing to give.    Like you should be able to come in and make points that you beleive are valid without having to be precise about them, or articulate why and how these points connect to, and are not in opposition to, the discussion.   I'm specifically referring to how you said we were leaping to conclusions and how you are trying to put the burden on us to tease out what you really mean since you can't be bothered.   when you come in and state that biology plays a role as though we aren't aware of it, despite how it's something mentioned in the copious links given at front, it suggests you do not care to have a real discussion, and are not being genuine or considerate.  When you bring it up in the midst of a discussion of social constructs as a stand alone fact, then it does read as a refutation of the current discussion about constructs.   That's not our leaping to conclusions, but your responsibility to be more clear about how you are relating that point.

You are coming to a space where the op provided a ton of info to get everyone from any background on a fairly even playing field in order to discuss it together.         It is also asked that those participating here be extra mindful of what they post, and to consider how it might come across to others.   You have consistently done neither, have wanted us to be over-accommodating mind readers, and are now tripling down on not having gotten enough respect for your views.   

And no, everyone's beliefs are not valid.  They are undoubtedly real to the person experiencing them, but they are not simply by virtue of being someone's perspective automatically valid, and the further you go down the route, the less it seems you seek genuine discussion and rather want affirmation that you're right about something. 

You are welcome here.   But please take a moment to look at some of the articles that have been linked to get us on the same page, and please also be more mindful in what you're posting and consider how it's coming across in a thread about feminism, a topic which has long been subject to relentless trolling and various imposition.

That's exactly what I'm not doing. I'm merely asking for the same respect that I give other. That's nothing to do with this thread, that's a general principle.

Again, you're misrepresenting me. I never suggest you weren't aware of it. That would be ridiculous. Of course everyone is aware of it. In fact, it's usually most people's base assumption.

I accept that, I clearly haven't been as clear as I could have been, and I will try to correct that in future. In return, I ask that you treat everyone on Good Faith principles.

Fair play, I've never been known for being an especially mindful person, and I am not skilled at knowing how things come across.

No, beliefs aren't equally valid, but you said perspective. All perspectives are valid. We are all subject to the biases of our upbringings, our experiences.

I will do, I mean I even tried to read the pdf that was linked for that book Lyanna linked, but it didn't work. I have read about feminism, maybe not as much as some of you, but certainly more than the average person.

11 minutes ago, Xray the Enforcer said:

[mod] Butterbumps! excellent post is the last word on this ridiculous derail. Further: This is NOT a debate thread, as was clearly stated in the OP. This is feminists discussing issues with other feminists. If debate and contrarianism are all you have to offer, then you need to take it elsewhere. Thank you. [/mod]

I did read that OP-

"1. First, a note to those who wish to come in here to proclaim loudly and clearly that feminism is not needed, thank you kindly, we've heard that one before and instead of beating a dead horse, you can a. enjoy this article and b. take your very own self somewhere else. This thread is not for you, and yes, that can easily be uncomfortable to hear.

2. Secondly, to those who claim feminism means we hate men/think women are superior, a. pick a dictionary and look up "feminism", and no, you cannot decide to change the meaning of the word based on your "feels". That's not how words work. After that b. see paragraph above.

3. Thirdly, this thread may contain some terminology which can seem somewhat alien. If this is the case, do not hesitate to ask for clarifications. There are lots of posters well versed in the terminology who can help out. Or, try googling it and go for what looks like reputable sources, like for example http://www.understandingprejudice.org/

4. Fourth, no, men are not banned from reading this thread, or responding. However, if this veers into paragraph 1 or 2 territory, then kindly shutteth thy cakehole or speweth thine bile elsewhere."

1. I've certainly never stated, or been accused of stating, that feminism is not needed, so that seemed fine to me.

2. I don't think that, obviously those views exist within feminism, but that isn't what I understand feminism to mean.

3. I haven't read any terminology I wasn't aware of. I've been told my terminology is wrong, but never given any actual examples.

4. Understood.

It definitely does not say anywhere that the thread is only for feminists to discuss issues with other feminists. I'm not here to give an anti-feminist viewpoint. I support many feminist issues, I've already stated several of those, and I can go into more if you wish.

As you say, I'll let you guys get on with your next discussion, which I won't get into, but I will just say this, if you're interested. Feminist debate online does leave me feeling like a man without a country. I'm on websites where I spend my time arguing against these shitty, anti-feminist views, people who think feminism is nothing but misandry. I then come on here, and get just as much hostility from feminists. Like with a lot of issues, there really doesn't seem to be much middle ground, and again, I would like that to the initial topic on this thread, the 2016 election.

[Mlle. Zabzie]

42 minutes ago, Xray the Enforcer said:

Zabz -- can you clarify a bit what you'd like to discuss? The issue seems to be buried about halfway through that muddled shitshow of an article and I think I know what you're going for, but I don't want to put words in your mouth.

Let me give it a go - trying to multitask, which means I'm being incoherent in two different places:

Here is the most problematic quote:

"Conway said women increasingly have opportunities for roles in government and politics but added that there are limits because of the choices they have to make. She recalled discussions about what role she could play in Trump’s administration, remarking that senior campaign officials would say, “I know you have four kids but …”

“I said there’s nothing that comes after the ‘but’ that makes any sense to me so don’t even try. Like what is the but?” she said. “But they’ll eat Cheerios for the rest of the day? Nobody will brush their teeth again until I get home?”

“And I do politely mention to them the question isn’t would you take the job, the male sitting across from me who’s going to take a big job in the White House. The question is would you want your wife to,” she continued. “Would you want the mother of children to? You really see their entire visage change. It’s like, ‘Oh, no, they wouldn’t want their wife to take that job.’ But it’s, it’s all good.”

Slate reports this as her saying she wouldn't take the job at all - I actually don't read it that broadly, but the point to me is that she is coming from a place of privilege with a LOT of money and from circles that I know pretty darn well.  There is an ethos that the (highly accomplished) women manage everything for a family (including by throwing money at a problem so that they can be "ladies who lunch", but I digress), and the men work (often very hard), and it is a status symbol to arrange one's life as such.  (And the women in these relationships to be clear do not think they are anti-feminist, but rather beyond feminism).  Separately, on the less well off side, engaging with feminist thought can seem ... frivolous.  Basic needs are hardly being met, so whether someone asked you to get coffee at a meeting seems, well, irrelevant.  Both attitudes hold back feminist thought which is...wait for it...largely confined in some ways to the bourgeois. *summon Sologdin*.

 

ETA:  @mankytoes would like you to stay - don't want an echo chamber in here.  It's not for the faint of heart (like the US politics thread).  I am not personally interested in how anyone feels as a result of the posts (except maybe in a meta sociological way), but maybe you could comment on my latest (which is still incoherent) and/or perhaps how women are depicted in something near and dear to our nerdy little hearts - scifi and fantasy?

[Xray the Enforcer]

1 hour ago, Mlle. Zabzie said:

Both attitudes hold back feminist thought which is...wait for it...largely confined in some ways to the bourgeois. *summon Sologdin*.

Yes, and that's why many progressive feminists (and especially feminists of color) are focusing on intersectionality, which is defined as "the interconnected nature of social categorizations such as race, class, and gender as they apply to a given individual or group, regarded as creating overlapping and interdependent systems of discrimination or disadvantage." In this case, we're looking at class and, more pointedly, at economic factors. Feminism as a whole has a LONG way to go in this (we can't even kick TERFs the curb, so how are we going to deal with grinding economic inequality), but there's some good work being done at the grassroots level. Sadly I don't have any links and I have to go to a meeting so......will try to get back to this in a bit.

[mankytoes]

53 minutes ago, Mlle. Zabzie said:

ETA:  @mankytoes would like you to stay - don't want an echo chamber in here.  It's not for the faint of heart (like the US politics thread).  I am not personally interested in how anyone feels as a result of the posts (except maybe in a meta sociological way), but maybe you could comment on my latest (which is still incoherent) and/or perhaps how women are depicted in something near and dear to our nerdy little hearts - scifi and fantasy?

I appreciate you saying that.

I think it's pretty much pointless talking about "working women", or "working mothers", because there's two (to keep it simple) different groups in there- women who want to work, and women who have to work. I don't think women who have to work are likely to be engaged in feminist thought on this issue, because it isn't really relevant to them. On the lowest end, it can actually be easier women to get casual work. For example, I once joined a temp agency looking for summer work, which was mainly waitering. I got the odd day. My mate joined, got the odd day. His (conventionally attractive) little sister joined (none of us had any experience), got work every day. I'm not saying that's important in the wider view of things, but if that is an individual's experience, I don't think they're going to relate to stories about work discrimination. And I think that largely plays out when you look at the demographics of active feminists.

With regards to the quote you posted, I'm struggling to understand exactly what she's saying, but the attitude is what I would say goes down to the heart of patriachy, which is men taking the public role, and women taking the private role. I don't really know what else to say, because that's pretty obvious, someone saying that a woman shouldn't do a certain job because she's a mother is clearly a sexist statement, unless you think a father also shouldn't do that job.

Unfortunately I'm more a history nerd than a scifi or fantasy one. I think ASOIAF has loads of interesting feminist debates within it, but I just haven't seen or read enough of the overall material to make a judgement on how women and feminist ideas are depicted.

[Lyanna Stark]

3 hours ago, Xray the Enforcer said:

Zabz -- can you clarify a bit what you'd like to discuss? The issue seems to be buried about halfway through that muddled shitshow of an article and I think I know what you're going for, but I don't want to put words in your mouth. I *think* you want to discuss the idea that feminist thought is most valued in the middle-to-upper-middle class, but is irrelevant to the very poor and the very rich, although for very different reasons. Yes?

 

The way I read it was that this is a world where a certain class of well off women/women who have husbands raking home big cash have the opportunity to work outside the home, so they have already reached the level of "feminism" they require, sort of. (Again, like Xray said, correct me if I am wrong Zabzie.)

I don't think Kellyanne Conway is even promoting it as feminism to be honest, and there are lots of issues with what she is saying (for instance, Trump's cabinet seems pretty woman unfriendly, but I digress)

If for the sake of discussion we assume she's discussing feminist issues, then it's a type of feminism that is very exclusionary.

It seems to me what Kellyanne Conway is talking about here is (with a VERY generous interpretation) a feminism that is strongly irrelevant to working class women, or even to middle class women, since it only caters to women in very specific circumstances. It's also, I think, one of the reasons why feminism can sometimes be seen as an elite pursuit, since women in positions of power focus on things like somewhat more flexible working hours, or more women in the board rooms, or equal pay for equal work, which often equals equal pay for equal white collar work, for white, straight women.

That's not to say the issues aren't important (they are, and I feel women in positions of power, in board rooms, in government etc. is an *extremely* important issue), but to many women it feels very far removed from their everyday lives and exclusionary. Especially since it gets juxtaposed against the Trump cabinets extremely woman (and minority and LGBTQ) hostile policy suggestions.

I'd say that is an issue in quite a few places, that weaker groups, or groups with fewer people speaking for them, often get sidelined. This is (in my experience) often working class women, who just feel feminism is something for the well educated women in the big cities and it has no relevance in their lives. Since I live in Redneckville and my circle of friends involve a lot of women working care work, I can of course see that feminism would benefit them *a lot*, and that it has (subsidised child care, parental leave etc) but that there is also a long way to go, and that a lot of these women have nobody, or very few people, speaking on their behalf. If you work night-shift changing dirty diapers on dementia patients, board rooms probably feel a million miles away, and flexible working hours, or working from home isn't really a Thing either. Higher salaries, more people on each shift to prevent heavy lifting and simple wearing out from too many "efficiency savings", etc. would help tho, as would a better social safety network for elderly people since women, and especially lower paid women, often end up as carers for elderly relatives on top of the work they already need to do. And the childcare they also need to do.

It's doubtful that Kellyanne Conway and her mates will ever do anything for these women, but then I think they feel let down by "mainstream" feminists as well, who are discussing things far away from their everyday lives. If we're then looking at mainstream feminism, it is my firm belief we need to look more at the intersection of class and feminism, so that working class women get a stronger voice. More well off feminists can't leave their poorer or less well off sisters behind in this. It will come back to hurt us all, in the end.

 

 

[Maithanet]

7 minutes ago, Lyanna Stark said:

It's doubtful that Kellyanne Conway and her mates will ever do anything for these women, but then I think they feel let down by "mainstream" feminists as well, who are discussing things far away from their everyday lives. If we're then looking at mainstream feminism, it is my firm belief we need to look more at the intersection of class and feminism, so that working class women get a stronger voice. More well off feminists can't leave their poorer or less well off sisters behind in this. It will come back to hurt us all, in the end.

I think that another issue where the class divide is SUPER important in feminism is domestic violence.  Women who are well off and well educated are still vulnerable to domestic violence, but nowhere near to the extent of women who are economically dependent on their partners.  I'm not sure what the solution is, but it is unfortunate that so many women deal with these issues virtually alone.  Racial issues often create a whirlwind of coverage, and groups like BLM have a very high profile.  In contrast, domestic violence cases tend to be ignored in the national conversation, in spite of the fact that FAR FAR more people are killed by their partners than by police.