Category: Culture

Excellent find this morning through the Livejournal Reader’s List (something you may want to check out):

Ampersand re-posted one of his more popular essays last week, giving a list based on male privilege. It includes among the many items listed the following:

6. If I do the same task as a woman, and if the measurement is at all subjective, chances are people will think I did a better job.
…
10. If I have children but do not provide primary care for them, my masculinity will not be called into question.
…
29. I can be loud with no fear of being called a shrew. I can be aggressive with no fear of being called a bitch.

30. I can ask for legal protection from violence that happens mostly to men without being seen as a selfish special interest, since that kind of violence is called “crime” and is a general social concern. (Violence that happens mostly to women is usually called “domestic violence” or “acquaintance rape,” and is seen as a special interest issue.)
…
36. Most major religions argue that I should be the head of my household, while my wife and children should be subservient to me.

I agree with Ampersand as I read down the list, especially with many of the items that point out the double standard when it comes to what’s ‘acceptable’ behavior for men, but not for women, and vice versa. A double standard that can, all too often, lead to violence and complete denial of opportunity.

Still, I had issues with the list, as have others as noted by Ampersand. For instance if you have a man and a women asked the question, “What is your current job” and both answer, “I’m unemployed” the respect for the man will decrease. Men who don’t ‘work’ in a given profession, who stay at home to take care of home or kids or garden or whatever, are considered lazy; women who do the same, are considered traditional, but not lazy.

As for child care, I have known men denied custody of their children just because it’s ‘traditional’ to give such to the woman. Even if the father is emotionally or financially better equipped to raise the children.

Sexism is a two-edged sword, and it cuts both ways. As effectively noted by Yuki Onna who wrote:

Sexism is not a women’s issue, it’s not a men’s issue–it’s a human issue. And to list all the things that men have going for them that women don’t is to ignore that the gender system is just as harmful to them as it is to us. The line that men must walk in order to be considered men is as tight a rope as the one we walk in order not to be considered objects. It’s this kind of separation that keeps us from transcending such a system in the first place. We should be banding together to say “fuck all of this.” Instead we snipe at each other and draw lines in the playground sand.

She offers a counter-list, with items such as:

1. If I choose not to have a career, but stay at home with my kids while my partner works, my masculinity and my worth as a man will be called into question.

2. If I choose to embrace personal hygiene and show interest in such things as perfume, lotions, body hair removal, or any remotely scented product, I will be mocked. If I prefer clothing which is anything other than conservative and earth-toned, my masculinity will be called into question.
…
7. I am the target of endless marketing of products to keep me perpetually erect, and if I am not willing to have sex at any time, my masculinity and my worth as a man will be called into question.

8. If I am raped, I am even less likely to be believed than a woman, and very likely to be derided as less than a man. If I am the victim of domestic abuse, however statistically unlikely this is, I will probably be laughed at.

9. No matter what my personal desires, the only images of women I am presented with are unhealthily underweight and surgically altered. If I am not attracted to this version of femininity, my masculinity and worth as a man will be called into question.

Of course, when compared side by side, the threat of being stoned to death for having a child out of wedlock, or forced into wearing head to toe covering and not being allowed access to education or health care isn’t quite balanced by being forced into a perpetual erection or called effeminate for wearing a pink tie. Still, if you combine both lists into one, you can see the real enemy that’s common to both is sexism; something both of these writers would agree on.

What we all need to work toward is equal human rights for all. I am amazed, though, that in this day that we still have to fight this battle–that we still have to plead for equal rights for all.

For all the times I’ve been critical of O’Reilly about the lack of women participants at the company’s events, I now find myself needing to speak up in support of the organization generally and Tim O’Reilly specifically.

At Misbehaving, Liz Lawley noticed that the number of female participants at FooCamp was only 10% of the total. However, I know that O’Reilly has been working, specifically, to include more women in these events. And this includes FooCamp.

I was invited this year, but, unfortunately, like others, had to decline because I did not have the money to make it to the event in California. Was I a token invitation? No. I believe that O’Reilly invited me to the camp this year because of my work with, my participation in discussions of, and my writing about technology the last several years–not solely because I’ve been critical of the lack of female participation at these events.

I know I would have been very comfortable talking technology with the group that was there, because I have done so with a large number of the participants here within the weblogs. I would have been a peer among peers at this event.

In a way, I feel as if I’ve let other geek women down by not going; by not bringing more of a female presence to this event. If I had the cash to spare, believe me I would have gone. This is just the type of event I would enjoy.

Perhaps O’Reilly will have me do more writing for the company so that I can afford to attend the camp next year.

This week is the RNC, which probably accounts for why we’re subjected to yet another post asking the question, Where are the female political bloggers — a male epiphany that seems to occur with surprising regularity. This particular writing was by Matt Stoller, a prominent liberal weblogger who is responsible for the site, Blogging the President.

I was taken aback from the title of his writing, “The Women Blogging Thing”; it makes me think of liberal males being required to address this topic once a year or so, or lose their metrosexual status. This is somewhat born out by the obligatory, if albeit confused, reference to the feminist movement:

That said, there’s a top-down style to the feminist movement that leaves little room for flat hierarchies that blogging needs to flourish. This is a cultural issue, and can be reflected in a lot of the strategic missteps of these groups.

I wasn’t the only one that went ‘huh’ when reading this. When questioned in comments about this ‘top-down’ style of feminism, Stoller provides further clarification:

What I meant by the feminist movement is the institutions that represent it, not the movement itself. It should not be top-down, but it is.

What?

Still, it was the later writing in the post that did more than raise my eyebrows:

There’s also the fact that the male political blogosphere doesn’t help at all. It’s obviously a boys club (with select girls who act like in specifically stylized ways allowed). For instance, my style of blogging is very male – I feel like I have to conclude everything, which leaves less room for the more deliberative communication patterns I find among women. That’s common, but usually in a more extreme version. Guys don’t really feel comfortable saying ‘I don’t know’ or just going through inconclusive cognitive exercises. Jay Rosen does it very well, but he gets flamed quite frequently just for asking questions. The flame war pissing contest that motivates so many communities is another example of boys raising their hands in class and just generally being more aggressive. So Respectful of Otters gets ignored by the ‘big boys’, even though it’s great. There’s also the fact that it deals with uteruses and other stuff that boys don’t have and don’t think of, like career/family conflicts.

Some, like Ms. Lauren have responded with a great deal of restraint to this paragraph, and in fact the whole writing. I admire their forbearance, but after so many of these conversations and these ‘generalizations’ without any example to back them up, I grow weary of the game. As you’ll see in my comments associated with the post (when comments worked, that is), I basically said this was crap, pure and simple. I could take the time trying to find something in it worthwhile to respond to in a positive manner — but why should I?

Luckily, XX Blog reframed the discussion brilliantly, providing a more effective criticism than my “this is crap” response. (I like what Negro, Please had to say, “Read for the “good intentions,” stay for the presumptions, assumptions, and unintended condescension which I was about to jump all over when I first read them in the satire post…”)

I was angry at Stoller’s words, but more frustrated reading what other women had to say. As happens far too often in these threads, there is one or more women who feel compelled to apologize for the women’s movement, or distance themselves from feminism, as if to assure all those who are reading their words, they’re not that kind of woman. These same women usually feel compelled to assure the guys that they like men, really; or apologize to the men for the unladylike behavior of people like me. Shaula Evans was just such a woman in the thread associated with Stoller’s post, commenting:

Ian / Matt, Wow. I’m floored, I’m just floored by the flames here, the hostility, and the sheer ignorance. I’m offended and deeply embarrassed.

If this is how women behave in the blogosphere, is it a wonder the boys don’t want to let us in their treehouse? Yeesh.

I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again here: if I was a guy, I’d be gay, rather than put up with this kind of shit.

Let us in their treehouse…

Speaking of swinging from limbs, I think the reason I’ve enjoyed the discussions related to Michelle Malkin is that when I’ve commented in her posts, or about her posts, I never once felt like I was operating under a different constraint than the men. If the men were thoughtful, I could be thoughtful, and neither group was applauded more than the other on how ’sensitive’ they were. If the men were angry, well, so could I be angry — and never once had my words rejected for being anything other than words.

And no person, man or woman, felt compelled to apologize to anyone for anything other than themselves.

Unfortunately, this environment is not pervasive across weblogging–especially among the oh-so popular liberal webloggers. Mouse Words also noticed this, writing about Matt Stoller’s rather cutting comments directed at Trish Wilson, in response to a mild comment she made:

Stoller pulls rank on Trish here and worse he does it while thinking he’s an egalitarian sort. She should be grateful that a man is here to deal with feminism. What does she think, that feminism belongs to women? One would almost think that women’s rights is an issue women worry about; we need to be quiet and let men figure out what they intend to let us have.

…we need to be quiet…

If you’re a woman and you write passionately, chances are at some point you will be called shrill and hysterical. If you’re a woman and you write very conservatively, you’ll most likely be disparaged for your looks and your sex, as much as your words. And if you’re a woman and take a guy like Stoller to task, there’s almost always one woman, one proper woman, one well behaved woman, who apologizes for our sex; feeding the myth that good women don’t talk back.

What’s sad, though, is that time and again, I’ve seen these same women rewarded with treats tossed in response, as rewards for their good behavior; given not so much for their ability or expertise, as the fact that they don’t cause ripples.