Feminism, The Next Installment

[Galactus]

:laugh:

That was brilliantly hilarious. Thanks for the link galactus.

It's my pleasure. I try to link it every time someone links to something especially.... Daily Maily.

[Pero the first of His name]

Hehehe, all the headlines...

[TerraPrime]

Re: Xray

Terra -- that last bit, is that supposed to go into the LGBTQ thread? I mean, it's cool and all, but epigenetic control of SRY gene exp<b></b>ressi&#111;n is a bit far down the rabbit hole for a discussion of gender disparity in STEM participation. :P

:lol:

Well I was thinking inter-sex and gender identities as related to the label discussion of cisgender.

Re: Pero

I agree the issue of the lack if women in STEM fields is a societal one.

But i think it is much more due to imposing traditional geneder roles dimaying women from giving them a go, rather than males in those fields being unacceptive.

But the "males in the those fields being unacceptive (sic)" is not, far as I know, being touted as the major contributor to the gender disparity in STEM. So you seem to be debating against something that nobody's arguing for. We do, however, see that the it is one factor out of many others that contribute to the disparity in participation in certain fields. Just because we then focus our attention on this one aspect, it does not mean that we think it's the only, or even primary, factor. Maybe that's where you're confused?

[Mlle. Zabzie]

Somewhat related to this conversation is the interesting article Zabzie posted in the last iteration of this thread: http://mobile.nytime...f=general&_r=0. It is a bit surprising that many (most?) women at Harvard Business School are so worried about their "social cap" and finding the right man that their academics suffer considerably.

The Harvard MBA is the ultimate Mrs. Degree. Who knew?

My husband and I discussed this at length this weekend. The conversation went as follows: "Zabzie, I've known you a long time, and I can't imagine you ever toning it back in school or otherwise for those reasons." "Interestingly, husband person, if I'm being honest, I identify with those women and particularly did so in law school (and I was a lot younger than many of these women are at the time because I didn't work between college and law school [which is basically required for MBA programs]. You know that one of the reasons that lawschoolboyfriend and I broke up was because I did significantly better than he did and had much better employment opportunities. On first (or even second or third dates), I would consciously rein it in (and then let alcohol do the rest). You were always different." It's all part of the double bind that sucessful women have that Raidne has talked about at length (also in the context of self-monitoring). I STILL worry about my social capital to this day, but the focus has shifted.

[Robin Of House Hill]

Well, it seems that my concern that a huge, sad number of girls secretly want to be in eye candy proffessions or housewives is, judging by what was posted here, unjustified. I do not mean to take that further then.

I'm sorry, but if they secretly want to be in eye candy jobs, where would you get any number? Could one of the board telepaths help me understand this?

[TerraPrime]

I STILL worry about my social capital to this day, but the focus has shifted.

I see a couple parallels in my own life.

1. I am careful about the context of disclosing my sexuality in a new group. I assess whether the disclosure will be a net gain or a net disadvantage for why I am in the group. I'd often end up disclosing by default, but there are plenty of times when I decided to stay in the closet out of consideration for possible adverse reactions. The comparison I am seeing is that there's a level of self-monitoring and a weighing of pros-and-cons based on other people's reactions to who we are and how we'd behave. While cisgender women are obviously not trying to hide that they're woman, they are still curtailing their own behavior to avoid unpleasant or adverse reactions to their true selves, whether it's trying to be less "smart" so your date won't bolt or trying to be less assertive so you don't get branded as "the bitch."

2. In my professional life, I take notice when I am in groups where one gender outnumbers the other. I've been on committees that were mostly men, and ones that were mostly women. In either case, I monitor my behavior much more critically, so that I can avoid as many of the pitfalls of male privileges as possible. So this is another form of self-monitoring, but done to combat the prevailing norms and the unstated presumptions.

[The Progressive]

Quite confused on what the term "social capital" means on the context used ............ can anyone elaborate a bit more on that? mzabzie or tempra or tprime?

[Tempra]

My husband and I discussed this at length this weekend. The conversation went as follows: "Zabzie, I've known you a long time, and I can't imagine you ever toning it back in school or otherwise for those reasons." "Interestingly, husband person, if I'm being honest, I identify with those women and particularly did so in law school (and I was a lot younger than many of these women are at the time because I didn't work between college and law school [which is basically required for MBA programs]. You know that one of the reasons that lawschoolboyfriend and I broke up was because I did significantly better than he did and had much better employment opportunities. On first (or even second or third dates), I would consciously rein it in (and then let alcohol do the rest). You were always different." It's all part of the double bind that sucessful women have that Raidne has talked about at length (also in the context of self-monitoring). I STILL worry about my social capital to this day, but the focus has shifted.

I have a hard time sympathizing on this self-monitoring issue as it relates to dating. If a guy cannot deal with your success, then move on to someone else. Part of the unspoken problem here is the tendency of high-achieving women to date "up." Those women at HBS, who are extraordinarily successful in their own right, want to date the "cream of the crop." If these women did not limit their dating pool in such a ridiculous manner, then they would not need, basically, to cater to desires of these (highly sought after) males. HBS is their last chance to land a good (read rich) guy. Their "double bind" (as I understand the term) is caused, largely, by their own choices of who they wish to date.

BTW, a class on handraising? Really?

Quite confused on what the term "social capital" means on the context used ............ can anyone elaborate a bit more on that? mzabzie or tempra or tprime?

Crudely put, a woman's social capital might determine if she is wife material, or someone a rich guy might invite on a ski trip to Switzerland over winter break, or invite to swanky parties at the Mandarin Oriental.

Pretty women who do not talk in class apparently have high social capital among HBS men.

[Mlle. Zabzie]

I have a hard time sympathizing on this self-monitoring issue as it relates to dating. If a guy cannot deal with your success, then move on to someone else. Part of the unspoken problem here is the tendency of high-achieving women to date "up." Those women at HBS, who are extraordinarily successful in their own right, want to date the "cream of the crop." If these women did not limit their dating pool in such a ridiculous manner, then they would not need, basically, to cater to desires of these (highly sought after) males. HBS is their last chance to land a good (read rich) guy. Their "double bind" (as I understand the term) is caused, largely, by their own choices of who they wish to date.

BTW, a class on handraising? Really?

Well, you've never been in the position of being a high achieving woman, so I understand why it might be hard for you to sympathize.

But look, I'm sure you self monitored on early dates. Most normal people, in my experience, self-monitor a lot in early interactions with potential friends or partners to try to present the most appealing package. Women (unfairly in my view) get socially penalized more than men do for assertive behaviors. Raidne has posted at length on the subject, so unless you really want to get back into it, I don't know if that proposition is worth revisiting.

[Tempra]

Well, you've never been in the position of being a high achieving woman, so I understand why it might be hard for you to sympathize.

But look, I'm sure you self monitored on early dates. Most normal people, in my experience, self-monitor a lot in early interactions with potential friends or partners to try to present the most appealing package. Women (unfairly in my view) get socially penalized more than men do for assertive behaviors. Raidne has posted at length on the subject, so unless you really want to get back into it, I don't know if that proposition is worth revisiting.

Sure, we all engage in de minimis self-monitoring in dating and in virtually all aspects of our lives. However, there is a large difference between tanking your academic/professional career for a chance at being Alex Blankfein's hookup and not telling a date that they are a rebound, right? The former has serious personal and societal ramifications (in the aggregate). The latter? Not so much.

Now, I do sympathize with women who are adversely affected for being assertive academically and professionally. When it comes to dating, however, women maintain control over who they date. Professor penalizes women for being assertive? Totally unfair. Female student is penalized because she voluntarily opts out of classroom discussion to attract a certain kind of guy? That's on her.

[The Progressive]

Thanks for the extra elaboration, tempra.

And yeah, i dont see the double bind that mzabzie was talking about with regard to the social cap of female students at hbs ..... It really strange to apply that concept to dating and its academic consequence given that the women have a choice on the when and why and whom they date.

[karaddin]

I think that "certain kind of guy" is a lot larger an amount of the population than you think, but I certainly don't have any data so it's opinion vs opinion!

I posted in the last iteration of the thread about TERFs and how I view them as one sector of the feminist movement that utterly fails to get it. I mentioned that a Maryland lawyer by name of Cathy Brennan who is one of the loudest voices of this group. She has now graduated up from merely outing, abusing and harassing transwomen online to sending an email to the clinic one trans woman is treated at, attempting to libel the transwoman and coerce the clinic into halting her treatment. I do not understand how anyone engaging in this sort of hateful shit can try and delude themselves into thinking they are a champion of equality, and I'm pretty fucking angry about it.

It's crossed a line where essentially calling her an asshole can lead to her attempting to medically detransition you. There is some talk of attempting to arrange a class action suit against her or something to that effect, but as a wealthy lawyer she's got a rather major advantage in such matters.

[The Progressive]

I just googled thst cathy brennan person and wow ........ That is some really twisted stuff she is doing.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Cathy_Brennan

"Brennan, as with other transphobic feminists, seems to believe that the only reason that people designated male at birth would identify as, live like, or transition to females, is because they want to enter female-only spaces and rape. This appears to be the entire premise of her letter to the UN.[3]"

[Sci-2]

She has now graduated up from merely outing, abusing and harassing transwomen online to sending an email to the clinic one trans woman is treated at, attempting to libel the transwoman and coerce the clinic into halting her treatment.

This idea that transgender acceptance is hurting feminism doesn't even have a starting place because the impact of trans* on sexists seems nonexistent. It just seems like such an odd strawman to combat.

Even if we took the stereotypical trans* who wants to engage in classically feminine activities like wearing dresses and putting on makeup, the effect of this as a bulwark of the patriarchy still seems negligible [if not again nonexistent.]

I think the TERF motivation seems like a desperate cry for attention, where one is so caught up in being a supposed victim enemies are everywhere.

[karaddin]

In her case I think she's actually a psychopathic evil fuck. Perhaps your theory is the case for the rest of them.

I saw this linked earlier today, it's some other TERFs talking about her and essentially saying what a lying asshole she is, all while further engaging in anti trans slurs and actually accusing Cathy Brennan of being a stealth trans ally. Some serious wtf (it's in the comments, not the short top piece - there arent a lot of them).

[TerraPrime]

I think the "it's on her" argument is being used with a little too little nuance for my liking.

I think on one extreme, you'll have women in abusive relationships who simply couldn't find the mental strength to get away. One might argue that this is "it's on her," too, right?

What I am not seeing in the "it's on her" conclusion here is the acknowledgement that these decisions are not made in a vacuum. Take for instance a woman who is raised in a very conservative Christian household where women are taught to, and shown, and conditioned, to be subservient to men (think the fringe groups of Mormons, for instance). Perhaps later on she grows up and manages to move away from them and finds her own path. But still, she has trouble asserting herself against male authority figures. It's all on her, too?

When it comes to women acting dumb or giving up opportunities to advance in order to maintain their appeal to some men, it is not, imo, entirely all on her. It's also on the guys who do find it difficult to date and fall in love with women who are smarter and more successful in careers than they are, right?

[Mlle. Zabzie]

Tempra/Progressive, or is WAY more complicated than you are making it out to be. Let's put aside dating for a moment, because it is more fraught. Take your basic b school section, and within that section your small group for projects. In some ways it is a microcosm for what you will see outside of school from a social perspective. In your small group, you need to be able to get along with your group members who are after all going to contribute significantly to your grade. You need to make sure your ideas are heard and that there is good work product. For lots of complicated reasons both men an women react negatively to other women using (to borrow a term from Raidne) a non facilitatiive style in these settings, but, often the facilitatiive style as used by women is though less effective (even though it may well be more effective in several contexts). In the group setting women often try to be both liked and effective, which doesn't necessarily lead to an extremely assertive style. This carries over to he larger group. If you are viewed as a "shrill bitch" as a result o your class participation you have lost social capital for your small group. So you self monitor, and many women over correct. So play that out a bit socially - you are in an intense program where you see the same people every day and work closely with them. You have lots in common with them. You have tons of homework. You are single. Odds are, who is in your immediate dating pool? And is that pool as available if you are viewed as an obnoxious person as a result of your classroom participation?

[Tempra]

Tempra/Progressive, or is WAY more complicated than you are making it out to be. Let's put aside dating for a moment, because it is more fraught. Take your basic b school section, and within that section your small group for projects. In some ways it is a microcosm for what you will see outside of school from a social perspective. In your small group, you need to be able to get along with your group members who are after all going to contribute significantly to your grade. You need to make sure your ideas are heard and that there is good work product. For lots of complicated reasons both men an women react negatively to other women using (to borrow a term from Raidne) a non facilitatiive style in these settings, but, often the facilitatiive style as used by women is though less effective (even though it may well be more effective in several contexts). In the group setting women often try to be both liked and effective, which doesn't necessarily lead to an extremely assertive style. This carries over to he larger group. If you are viewed as a "shrill bitch" as a result o your class participation you have lost social capital for your small group. So you self monitor, and many women over correct. So play that out a bit socially - you are in an intense program where you see the same people every day and work closely with them. You have lots in common with them. You have tons of homework. You are single. Odds are, who is in your immediate dating pool? And is that pool as available if you are viewed as an obnoxious person as a result of your classroom participation?

Can you point me to the place in the article where these MBA students are at all concerned about how coming off as a "shrill bitch" will affect their grades? Or where they are concerned that they wont get to work in small groups with the brightest students? As I read the article, these women are sacrificing their grades, knowingly and voluntarily, to land an ultra rich guy or to party at the hippest place in town. Their grades and performance at HBS are secondary. All for what, being liked by the son of an oil tycoon? A European prince? Maybe they could expand their dating pool by slumming it with some HLS students or, god forbid, some plebs on the outside of Harvard's hallowed gates.

[The Progressive]

I have to say the "limited dating pool" theory seems very weak in these times of booming internet dating.

[Kat]

Wow. I think I have actually found a topic on which I agree with Tempra, for the first time in my life. Despite business school being the last place I would ever want to go, I can understand most of that article. But were I trying to socially engineer HBS, I'd probably do it in favor of discouraging intra-school dating. In particular, it just seems like a recipe for weird archaic competitiveness.

In the interest of disclosure, my mother always wanted one of her daughters to go to business school. She was in one of the first MBA classes at Stanford that allowed women, though, so I guess I was raised by someone who is more like a 2nd wave feminist and/or someone who, like Raidne described earlier, feels more comfortable with women who just straight up say what they want. Unfortunately I then had to train myself NOT to do this again because its not exactly favored amongst the education crowd. :rolleyes: