Feminism - Post-apocalypse version

[karaddin]

Yup, the amount of studies that were presented to us over the course of first year psych that seemed to me to have obvious implications for follow up that I asked about and got "hasn't been researched" in response just astounded me. I think i fall into the trap of looking at how far we've come and assume that everything obvious has already been done. It hasn't.

[Werthead]

11 hours ago, Theda Baratheon said:

Im in the UK too and I can't stand her nasty, irrelevant TERF ass. need more mainstream, smart, feminists of which there is an abundance on our TV's. I earloer posted a good article by a British feminist. Laurie Penny...I haven't seen anythin problematic from her yet but then I haven't seen much from her at all...I don't want to see greer on my TV 

She's a bloody good writer. Her account of attending the Republican National Convention with Milo Yiannopoulous - who seems to think they're friends despite her repeatedly telling him she despises him, his movement and everything he stands for - is something else.

Quote

I don't get this at all. I lived in the UK for five years, I still follow UK major news outlets, and my impression isn't at all that Greer is the single most famous feminist. That would most likely be Steinem, Wolfe, bell hooks or Butler, with Faludi, Ngozi Adichie, Serano, Roxane Gay and Sarkeesian added to that list as well as "currently more influential feminists than Greer". At the very least.

Greer is by far the most famous feminist in the UK in the sense that she's the one everyone has heard of. Ask someone off the street to name a feminist and you're probably about 90% likely to get her named.

There are some other quite famous feminists people know, but they're not identified predominantly as feminists or that's not just what they're known for: Sue Perkins, for example, would be described as a comedian first, or Jack Munroe as a poverty campaigner and a food campaigner. To anyone interested in feminism as a field, yes, there are tons more relevant people, but they haven't reached anything approaching mainstream fame.

[karaddin]

As an Australian I apologise for Greer, but I'll note that at least we had the good sense to export her to limit how much we have to deal with here. And there's a growing number of people pissed she gets the air time she does.

[Lyanna Stark]

10 hours ago, Werthead said:

Greer is by far the most famous feminist in the UK in the sense that she's the one everyone has heard of. Ask someone off the street to name a feminist and you're probably about 90% likely to get her named.

 

Ah, I see. I guess this is what I get for barely ever watching TV and only reading news: I miss out on all the silly pop-culture.

From what I have read tho, her influence is just currently nothing to write home about, and she is being left in the dust even by popular icons like Emma Watson. Laurie Penny I have followed for a while though, and she is quite good.

 

@karaddin I remember that panel debate from somewhere in Australia featuring among others Celeste Liddle, Roxane Gay, Anita Sarkeesian and Germaine Greer, and it was obvious how the others just felt "Eerrrrrh" about her, but still tried to be polite. Greer hasn't contributed anything useful to feminist discourse for well over 25 years since I don't consider "general trolling" to be contributing anything.

[TerraPrime]

Sorry if it's a bit off topic, but regarding the lack of follow-up of research: it's usually not the case that the researchers lost interest. Rather, it's the money. For most countries, the government agencies control the RD funding. So if they don't fund something, then it doesn't get done. Most researchers actually want to follow up and dig deeper into a topic because they already have the background and they have the resources set up. But if you can't secure the funding then... :-(

[karaddin]

Yeah, that's what I was trying to get at (and failing to say) - that I look at the progress in the big flashy fields like computers etc, stuff that makes money, and mistakenly attribute that level of research to all of science. In other cases the researcher may not have seen that particular implication because we all have different perspectives, but may have seen one I'm not seeing.

[Mlle. Zabzie]

Interesting oped on Law360 today (can't link - behind a paywall) blaming lack of promotions of women to equity partners in law firms on 3 things:

1.  Babies/wanting better work/life balance.

2.  Lack of internal support (e.g., getting assignments that aren't as good as male counterparts systematically throughout careers).

3.  Lack of access to client development opportunities systematically (having to make an "ask" to be included in sports outings with clients, etc.).

I would have put number 1 as the last of these, personally.  I would have said 2 and 3 lead to thinking "screw it - I'm not going to make it anyhow, so why am I killing myself" but that's me.

[TerraPrime]

5 hours ago, Mlle. Zabzie said:

Interesting oped on Law360 today (can't link - behind a paywall) blaming lack of promotions of women to equity partners in law firms on 3 things:

1.  Babies/wanting better work/life balance.

2.  Lack of internal support (e.g., getting assignments that aren't as good as male counterparts systematically throughout careers).

3.  Lack of access to client development opportunities systematically (having to make an "ask" to be included in sports outings with clients, etc.).

I would have put number 1 as the last of these, personally.  I would have said 2 and 3 lead to thinking "screw it - I'm not going to make it anyhow, so why am I killing myself" but that's me.

At least they didn't just stop after #1.

 

Hurray for small advances. Maybe?

[Mlle. Zabzie]

9 minutes ago, TerraPrime said:

At least they didn't just stop after #1.

 

Hurray for small advances. Maybe?

Yes.  I'll take what I can get.

Separately, anyone want to talk about Teen Vogue?  In particular, Jezebel's take?  In particular:

Quote

Twitter was in disbelief that a publication for teen girls could be so intelligent and so political at once, though much of the shock came from older, established male journalists whose low expectations for teens, girls, and fashion magazines were on full, embarrassing display. This is despite the fact that many consider themselves media reporters (or at least present as having knowledge of the industry they’re in), and should know better:

 

[Xray the Enforcer]

9 hours ago, Mlle. Zabzie said:

Interesting oped on Law360 today (can't link - behind a paywall) blaming lack of promotions of women to equity partners in law firms on 3 things:

1.  Babies/wanting better work/life balance.

2.  Lack of internal support (e.g., getting assignments that aren't as good as male counterparts systematically throughout careers).

3.  Lack of access to client development opportunities systematically (having to make an "ask" to be included in sports outings with clients, etc.).

I would have put number 1 as the last of these, personally.  I would have said 2 and 3 lead to thinking "screw it - I'm not going to make it anyhow, so why am I killing myself" but that's me.

Yeah, I think that #1 is a cop-out on behalf of the writers/partners. Or, more to the point, I think #1 happens because #2&3 are pretty much the default paradigm for most organizations. Orgs gotta sort out their shit on #2 and #3, and then maybe they can start looking at #1. Otherwise, this just smacks of blaming the victim for not wanting to play against a stacked deck.

[Theda Baratheon]

13 hours ago, Mlle. Zabzie said:

Yes.  I'll take what I can get.

Separately, anyone want to talk about Teen Vogue?  In particular, Jezebel's take?  In particular:

 

Teenage girls are always underestimated, undermined and ridiculed. 

I think the a hatred for the selfie (for example) in part stems from the fact it is something a lot of teen girls are known for doing and people seem to be obsessed with vanity. Especially women displaying vanity. if ever a young girl voices the fact she's happy with the way she looks and that she thinks she looks cute or hot then she's threatening, she's not allowed to feel so comfortable in her own skin! what a concieted little bitch, amirite?! just something I've observed a lot of on the internet; young people (ESPECIALLY young women) just being constantly judged on their appearences and undermined for being vapid and shallow and stupid or they're slutty for wearing certain clothes. I just find picking on children abhorrent; I don't care if a 14 year old girl wears lipstick and a dress, she can wear what she likes - it's her own choices with her own body doesn't stop her being a child and doesnt make it okay for people (a lot of the time men) to make judgements on her 

Sorry tangent rant thing lol basically look out for teenage girls because they have to deal with a lot of shit as most of us well know 

[Edda van Heefmstra Ruston]

Going back to the medical studies issues, there are a number of studies and articles out there to reassure us that this really is A Big Deal. Luckily, it seems to be an issue that's gaining visibility, so hopefully soon study designers will take it into account better. Of course, it turns out that the NIH has required studies to be broader than just white men since 1993, and we're still struggling, so.... 

1994 paper: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK236535/

Policies grounded in protectionist considerations contributed to the later exclusion of pregnant women and women of childbearing potential from some clinical studies, most notably, early phase drug trials. Protectionist policies do not adequately account, however, for what many perceive to be the relative inattention to the study of health problems experienced primarily by women. This alleged inattention may arise from subtler (yet powerful) forces such as gender and race biases that permeate both society and scientific research (see Chapter 5).

2010 article: http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/medical_examiner/2010/07/drug_problem.html

After all, says Teresa Woodruff, a professor of obstetrics and gynecology at Northwestern University, "You really can't get to personalized medicine until you at least split the population in half."  

2015 article: https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2015/apr/30/fda-clinical-trials-gender-gap-epa-nih-institute-of-medicine-cardiovascular-disease

“There have been announcements and calls for input, but we’ll see where it all goes,” she said. “I’m not sure how we end up in a place in 2015 when there’s 20-odd years of data pointing to how important sex differences are in health and disease and there’s not more attention to this across all fields, disciplines, journals, and so forth. No one wants to call it sexism but where else is it okay to ignore the basic facts? I think you have to wonder about that.”

FDA resource page from two weeks ago, plus a roadmap [though it's unfortunate that it's still a "Special Topic"!] : 

http://www.fda.gov/ScienceResearch/SpecialTopics/WomensHealthResearch/ucm131731.htm

http://www.fda.gov/ScienceResearch/SpecialTopics/WomensHealthResearch/ucm478266.htm

[butterbumps!]

here's a Vox piece that identifies sexism/ misogyny as essentially the gateway drug for the White Male Supremacy Movement (the "Alt-Right," but let's call it what it is).

The article observes that many men are initially drawn to "safe spaces" looking for a kind of male camaraderie, and are radicalized quickly into sexists, and from there, the leap is often made toward racism and other bigotries:

Quote

 

On the surface, PUA communities and incel communities have a lot of generic appeal: The PUA lifestyle emphasizes self-esteem and confidence building along with physical health, while the incel community allows men to bond over their struggle to achieve all of the above in spite of their sour luck with women. Meanwhile, gamers and geeks habitually tout the importance of gaming in providing social interaction for young men.

These spaces foster the kind of male friendship whose importance doesn’t get a lot of attention in the real world. But the benefits of their existence are often accompanied (and sometimes negated) by their tendency to instill in their members a newfound articulation of fundamental anxiety over their position as men in a society where women are actively seeking empowerment.

...........

All of these individual communities advocate a distrust of feminism and an insistence that female empowerment necessarily disempowers men. One of the most famous, Reddit’s r/TheRedPill, even paints this ideology as a religious conversion: an “awakening,” or “taking the red pill” (a reference borrowed from The Matrix) to understand what they regard as the life-altering “truth” that feminism has ruined modern society for everyone (but especially for men). Many people who’ve tried engaging with r/TheRedPill only to walk away have described it as a place where relationships are viewed primarily in terms of power struggles rather than mutual respect and equality. “In practice,” one Reddit user wrote, “their ideas become pretty toxic really fast.”

..........

In essence, many men who were drawn to these communities because they wanted to get laid and gain self-confidence have found themselves embroiled in a culture war, one that started as a way to boost individual male autonomy and evolved into a way to wrest back control of the country — nay, the world — from shrill feminists and their weakling cuck supporters, which include “libtard” shills in the mainstream media.

and traces a line from gamergate to Trumpism

Quote

 

Futrelle pointed out to Vox that Gamergate’s explicit sexism led many of its members to 4chan and to 4chan’s even more extreme sibling 8chan (which became a haven for Gamergate after the movement was officially booted off 4chan for misogyny). In those enclaves, Futrelle says, “there were hordes of neo-quasi-Nazis (some ‘ironic’ Nazis but many others utterly sincere) ready to tell them that it wasn't just gaming that needed saving, but Western Civilization itself.”

He continued: “They weren't fighting for the right to look at boobs in videogames any more, but fighting against ‘white genocide.’ Suddenly the weirdly inflated, often melodramatic rhetoric of Gamergate made more sense.”

 

 

[mankytoes]

1 hour ago, butterbumps! said:

here's a Vox piece that identifies sexism/ misogyny as essentially the gateway drug for the White Male Supremacy Movement (the "Alt-Right," but let's call it what it is).

The article observes that many men are initially drawn to "safe spaces" looking for a kind of male camaraderie, and are radicalized quickly into sexists, and from there, the leap is often made toward racism and other bigotries:

and traces a line from gamergate to Trumpism

What I've found that is quite effective about the alt right is how they avoid debate. By being associated with memes and irreverent internet humour, they can just jump into that to avoid debate. I was making the point that they are just as bad as the people they have a go at, they are the biggest self victimisers, the biggest adopters of identity politics. I got a reply, answered it, and the guy just replied "cuck". That was it, no context at all. I said that he was just avoiding answering what I said, and someone just answered "memes". Again, that was a full reply. It's effective, I didn't know how to reply to that.

It does seem to link to what Trump has done. I guess it would be what is called "refuge in audacity". Instead of hiding and playing down offensive views, which is the tradition in the UK, you double down on them.

It is definitely true to say that it is another "safe space". I guess that shows that different genders and races aren't that different. People from every group want to shut themselves off. People think straight, white males are different, but I haven't seen that evidence. You rally against anyone for their identity, and you get a backlash. I really hope the election of Trump makes people rethink, sadly I haven't seen that yet, people kind of want to double down.

[butterbumps!]

22 minutes ago, mankytoes said:

What I've found that is quite effective about the alt right is how they avoid debate. By being associated with memes and irreverent internet humour, they can just jump into that to avoid debate. I was making the point that they are just as bad as the people they have a go at, they are the biggest self victimisers, the biggest adopters of identity politics. I got a reply, answered it, and the guy just replied "cuck". That was it, no context at all. I said that he was just avoiding answering what I said, and someone just answered "memes". Again, that was a full reply. It's effective, I didn't know how to reply to that.

It does seem to link to what Trump has done. I guess it would be what is called "refuge in audacity". Instead of hiding and playing down offensive views, which is the tradition in the UK, you double down on them.

It is definitely true to say that it is another "safe space". I guess that shows that different genders and races aren't that different. People from every group want to shut themselves off. People think straight, white males are different, but I haven't seen that evidence. You rally against anyone for their identity, and you get a backlash. I really hope the election of Trump makes people rethink, sadly I haven't seen that yet, people kind of want to double down.

The bolded is particularly interesting.   Tone policing toward those advocating for equality is a ceaseless occurrence; it's even invaded this thread heavily (some of which was deleted).    Advocates are endlessly being told some form of "Don't call them deplorables!"   Don't accuse them of misogyny!"  "Don't 'call-out' bigotry as 'bigotry'!"  Basically, they are endlessly told that they need to convince skeptics with more honey, better behavior, more civility (essentially, managing the feelings of those not part of the identity under discussion) in order to be effective persuaders.   I don't mean to put you on the spot, or suggest that you are tone policing, or anything like that.   But it's interesting to see their version of call out tactics as "effective" in light of this greater context of telling advocates to be "better behaved" when fighting bigotry.   Do you see the supremacists' namecalling and refusal to engage in real discourse with skeptics effective at persuading minds beyond being simply an effective tactic to end discussion?  I guess I'm asking you to elaborate on what you're seeing as "effective."

This may be encroaching on bigotry matters wider than this feminism thread should handle, but the question of how to fight bigotry via changing people's opinions seems salient.   

[Maithanet]

So someone upthread recommended We Were Feminists Once.  I got it from the library and am just starting it, but it's general message about the commodification of feminism is very interesting.  The general takeaway I'm getting is that we should all be wary of superficial feminism that claims to be helping women/equality but are actually just selling something.  The continuing trend of "gendered" products that are "specifically meant for women".  Women do not need special pens or kleenex or beer, and it only serves to reinforce the difference between men and women in society. 

[mankytoes]

40 minutes ago, butterbumps! said:

The bolded is particularly interesting.   Tone policing toward those advocating for equality is a ceaseless occurrence; it's even invaded this thread heavily (some of which was deleted).    Advocates are endlessly being told some form of "Don't call them deplorables!"   Don't accuse them of misogyny!"  "Don't 'call-out' bigotry as 'bigotry'!"  Basically, they are endlessly told that they need to convince skeptics with more honey, better behavior, more civility (essentially, managing the feelings of those not part of the identity under discussion) in order to be effective persuaders.   I don't mean to put you on the spot, or suggest that you are tone policing, or anything like that.   But it's interesting to see their version of call out tactics as "effective" in light of this greater context of telling advocates to be "better behaved" when fighting bigotry.   Do you see the supremacists' namecalling and refusal to engage in real discourse with skeptics effective at persuading minds beyond being simply an effective tactic to end discussion?  I guess I'm asking you to elaborate on what you're seeing as "effective."

This may be encroaching on bigotry matters wider than this feminism thread should handle, but the question of how to fight bigotry via changing people's opinions seems salient.   

To be clear, it's effective at shutting down conversation. It isn't effective at pursuading someone, but I was hostile to them from the start, so I wasn't exactly a potential convert. It's effective in that their opinion seems inherently flawed and hypocritical, so it's in their interest to not engage in rational debate. You can't really win an argument with someone who won't argue back.

I guess an argument usually has one of two goals- to win over the other person, or to win over other people reading/hearing it. If you're trying to win over your opponent, you definitely need to be polite, engaging, avoid name calling or negative terms. If you're trying to win over other people, it's a lot more debateable. Some people might have seen he was avoiding my questions, but others might have thought he was funny and relatable, and I had a stick up my arse.

To give a non-feminist argument, I've heard people debate whether Richard Dawkins or Neil Degrasse Tyson are better advocates for rationalism and against religion. I would say Tyson, but I think both have a role.

No one can say being offensive and calling people names never works, because Trump has just proved otherwise. It's about how you use those tactics. He says the right thing at the right time which generates shock and outrage, but ultimately aren't that important in themselves, which distracts from more important issues. But do you really want to be more like him? You might win in the short term, but if you base your whole movement on such dishonest tactics, is that really going to achieve anything long run? And is that right? 

On the other hand, if you're just insulting people and calling them names because you don't like them and it feels good, then no, I don't think that's an effective tactic. It might feel good to call people deploreable, especially when they're calling you names, but if it leads to an outcome like this election, is it really worth it?

7 minutes ago, Maithanet said:

So someone upthread recommended We Were Feminists Once.  I got it from the library and am just starting it, but it's general message about the commodification of feminism is very interesting.  The general takeaway I'm getting is that we should all be wary of superficial feminism that claims to be helping women/equality but are actually just selling something.  The continuing trend of "gendered" products that are "specifically meant for women".  Women do not need special pens or kleenex or beer, and it only serves to reinforce the difference between men and women in society. 

Are those products seen as feminist? I've only seen them slagged off by feminists.

[Maithanet]

7 minutes ago, mankytoes said:

Are those products seen as feminist? I've only seen them slagged off by feminists.

Well, they're certainly marketed as feminist, although many feminists can see through that. 

[Theda Baratheon]

4 hours ago, mankytoes said:

 

I guess an argument usually has one of two goals- to win over the other person, or to win over other people reading/hearing it. If you're trying to win over your opponent, you definitely need to be polite, engaging, avoid name calling or negative terms. If you're trying to win over other people, it's a lot more debateable. Some people might have seen he was avoiding my questions, but others might have thought he was funny and relatable, and I had a stick up my arse.

 

I see this a LOT. You can have a well thought out argument/discussion with someone with multiple sources but if they're deliberately painting you as a harpy or ''high and mighty'' then they're going to gain more people ''on their side'' even though...they are GENUINELY not saying ANYTHING. 

[Theda Baratheon]

If you're dude arguing against these things, you're a white knight. You'll be taken as seriously as they do a feminist or...well, any woman really.