The Lingerie Football League is a real thing.
I just can't even.
It's not that I doubt that the women who participate in this league are good athletes. It's that I find it sad is that one of the few opportunities for women to participate in professional/semi-pro sports has them doing so in "garters, bras, and panties" and in compliance with the Conventional Weight And Beauty Standards Governing The Ladies.
Discuss.
Tip of the beret: Reader Jerry passed this along. I am into the sports and I didn't even know about this league. Guess lesbians aren't part of the target audience of "beer-drinking sports fans."
Friday, August 19, 2011
Thursday, August 18, 2011
Book Review: Delusions of Gender
[TW: Brief mention of sexual harassment in the workplace]
Don't you wish people had to read certain books before they began blogging about gender issues? Cordelia Fine's Delusions of Gender: How Our Minds, Society, and Neurosexism Create Difference is a book* that should be on that pre-req list.
Fine holds a PhD in psychology and is an Honorary Research Fellow at the University of Melbourne's Department of Psychology. Her latest book is devoted to synthesizing the research that challenges common assumptions about the "ingrained" differences between men and women. Although her book contains more than 80 pages of end notes, the text itself comes in at a somewhat breezy 239 pages. Fine's writing style is both clear and humorous, making it very readable for a book that summarizes study after study.
For many feminist readers of this blog, I question whether Fine's arguments will be all that new. Many feminists are already highly skeptical of the notion that there are vast psychological "in-born" differences between men and women (for a general audience, I'm sure many of Fine's observations would be groundbreaking). Where the book may add the most value to feminist audiences is that it's a study-based resource one can use when countering that pseudo-scientific Men Are From Mars, Women Are From Venus bullshit that passes for "common sense" and which serves to justify both gender policing and the gender status quo.
Weaving in historical accounts of "experts" (mis)using science to assert a variety of explanations for women's "natural" inferiority to men ("women lack sufficient heat to boil the blood and purify the soul, that their heads are too small, their wombs too big, their hormones too debilitating"), Fine draws parallels to the newer field of neuroscience and warns against making similar mistakes.
One neuroimaging study used to support the proposition that "men are thinkers and women are feelers," for instance, relied on observed sex differences in blood flow to different parts of the brain. To demonstrate that such "differences" might be spurious, another set of researchers scanned a dead salmon while showing it "emotionally charged photographs." Then, "[u]sing standard statistical procedures, they found significant brain activity in one small region of the dead fish's brain while it performed the empathizing task, compared with brain activity during 'rest.'"
The study serves as a reminder to be wary of "inferring a psychological state from brain activity" and, consequently, of inferring sex differences in psychological states. Fine includes many more examples and counter-arguments to various neuroscience claims.
She also takes some big names in gender essentialism to task for their claims regarding the innate differences between women and men and for writing books and arguments that lack in scientific rigor and accuracy.
Simon Baron-Cohen's "Empathy Quotient" questionnaire that asks people to rate their skill and inclination for empathy, for instance, labels those who score high on the test as having a "female brain." And yet, less than half of all women tested, Fine notes, score high enough on the test to have a brain that's considered a "female brain." Then, undercutting the assumption that Baron-Cohen's test even measures empathy are the studies Fine cites demonstrating that "people's ratings of their own social sensitivity, empathy, femininity, and thoughtfulness are virtually useless when it comes to predicting actual interpersonal accuracy."
Whooops. It looks like maybe women report that they're super-empathetic because women are supposed to be super-empathetic, not because they are actually more empathetic than men.
Fine also highlights studies on stereotype threat, including (1) how even reminding girls that they are girls before a math test can negatively affect their scores, compared to girls who were not reminded of their gender (by having to check a box saying whether they were female or male), and (2) how women and men have less confidence and interest in a subject if they believe that the other sex is inherently better at it, even if their skill is the same. Relevant to stereotype threat, Fine also observes that the Greater Male Variability hypothesis that asserts, in a nutshell, that men are more highly represented at both ends of the intellectual spectrum does not hold up across cultures and changes from country to country.
I don't want to make this review overly-specific, but because many MRA's bring up men's greater numbers in dangerous occupations and how this supposedly "proves" that men are more noble and/or more interested in dangerous/physical work than women, it's worth highlighting the research Fine examines showing that men often create a hostile work environment for women who try to "infiltrate previously all-male workplaces." Specifically, in a review of class-action lawsuits against the auto and mining industries, Michael Selmi found "'an all too familiar litany of harassment- groping, grabbing, stalking, pressure for sex, use of sexual language and pornography, men exposing themselves and masturbating on women's clothes.'"
If men have to resort to these methods of harassment to keep women out of "inherently male" professions, it severely undercuts the argument that women are inherently less interested in such professions.
The big take-away of this book, for me, is that people's preferences regarding dress, occupation, and interests are not created in a vacuum. Rather, "they are formed by the society they live in." Biological differences between male and female humans exist, but we know much less about these differences than we think we know. I'll end with some of Cordelia Fine's parting words:
It's just that good science, when it comes to sex differences, can be hard to find.
[*Note: WW Norton provided me with a review copy of this book. I am open to reviewing other works that are relevant to the topics of this blog. In accordance with this blog's non-commercial purpose, I do not guarantee positive reviews.]
Don't you wish people had to read certain books before they began blogging about gender issues? Cordelia Fine's Delusions of Gender: How Our Minds, Society, and Neurosexism Create Difference is a book* that should be on that pre-req list.
Fine holds a PhD in psychology and is an Honorary Research Fellow at the University of Melbourne's Department of Psychology. Her latest book is devoted to synthesizing the research that challenges common assumptions about the "ingrained" differences between men and women. Although her book contains more than 80 pages of end notes, the text itself comes in at a somewhat breezy 239 pages. Fine's writing style is both clear and humorous, making it very readable for a book that summarizes study after study.
For many feminist readers of this blog, I question whether Fine's arguments will be all that new. Many feminists are already highly skeptical of the notion that there are vast psychological "in-born" differences between men and women (for a general audience, I'm sure many of Fine's observations would be groundbreaking). Where the book may add the most value to feminist audiences is that it's a study-based resource one can use when countering that pseudo-scientific Men Are From Mars, Women Are From Venus bullshit that passes for "common sense" and which serves to justify both gender policing and the gender status quo.
Weaving in historical accounts of "experts" (mis)using science to assert a variety of explanations for women's "natural" inferiority to men ("women lack sufficient heat to boil the blood and purify the soul, that their heads are too small, their wombs too big, their hormones too debilitating"), Fine draws parallels to the newer field of neuroscience and warns against making similar mistakes.
One neuroimaging study used to support the proposition that "men are thinkers and women are feelers," for instance, relied on observed sex differences in blood flow to different parts of the brain. To demonstrate that such "differences" might be spurious, another set of researchers scanned a dead salmon while showing it "emotionally charged photographs." Then, "[u]sing standard statistical procedures, they found significant brain activity in one small region of the dead fish's brain while it performed the empathizing task, compared with brain activity during 'rest.'"
The study serves as a reminder to be wary of "inferring a psychological state from brain activity" and, consequently, of inferring sex differences in psychological states. Fine includes many more examples and counter-arguments to various neuroscience claims.
She also takes some big names in gender essentialism to task for their claims regarding the innate differences between women and men and for writing books and arguments that lack in scientific rigor and accuracy.
Simon Baron-Cohen's "Empathy Quotient" questionnaire that asks people to rate their skill and inclination for empathy, for instance, labels those who score high on the test as having a "female brain." And yet, less than half of all women tested, Fine notes, score high enough on the test to have a brain that's considered a "female brain." Then, undercutting the assumption that Baron-Cohen's test even measures empathy are the studies Fine cites demonstrating that "people's ratings of their own social sensitivity, empathy, femininity, and thoughtfulness are virtually useless when it comes to predicting actual interpersonal accuracy."
Whooops. It looks like maybe women report that they're super-empathetic because women are supposed to be super-empathetic, not because they are actually more empathetic than men.
Fine also highlights studies on stereotype threat, including (1) how even reminding girls that they are girls before a math test can negatively affect their scores, compared to girls who were not reminded of their gender (by having to check a box saying whether they were female or male), and (2) how women and men have less confidence and interest in a subject if they believe that the other sex is inherently better at it, even if their skill is the same. Relevant to stereotype threat, Fine also observes that the Greater Male Variability hypothesis that asserts, in a nutshell, that men are more highly represented at both ends of the intellectual spectrum does not hold up across cultures and changes from country to country.
I don't want to make this review overly-specific, but because many MRA's bring up men's greater numbers in dangerous occupations and how this supposedly "proves" that men are more noble and/or more interested in dangerous/physical work than women, it's worth highlighting the research Fine examines showing that men often create a hostile work environment for women who try to "infiltrate previously all-male workplaces." Specifically, in a review of class-action lawsuits against the auto and mining industries, Michael Selmi found "'an all too familiar litany of harassment- groping, grabbing, stalking, pressure for sex, use of sexual language and pornography, men exposing themselves and masturbating on women's clothes.'"
If men have to resort to these methods of harassment to keep women out of "inherently male" professions, it severely undercuts the argument that women are inherently less interested in such professions.
The big take-away of this book, for me, is that people's preferences regarding dress, occupation, and interests are not created in a vacuum. Rather, "they are formed by the society they live in." Biological differences between male and female humans exist, but we know much less about these differences than we think we know. I'll end with some of Cordelia Fine's parting words:
"Some commentators declare themselves to be courageous taboo-breakers, who shout the scientific truth about sex differences into the hushed silence demanded by political correctness. But this is exactly how they shouldn't be regarded. For one thing, neurosexism is so popular, so mainstream, that I think it is difficult to argue that our attitude toward the supposedly unmentionable idea of innate sex differences is usually anything other than casual and forgiving.... But also, to those interested in gender equality there is nothing at all frightening about good science."
It's just that good science, when it comes to sex differences, can be hard to find.
[*Note: WW Norton provided me with a review copy of this book. I am open to reviewing other works that are relevant to the topics of this blog. In accordance with this blog's non-commercial purpose, I do not guarantee positive reviews.]
Wednesday, August 17, 2011
Narratives in the Lawrence King Case
[TW: violence, gender policing, victim blaming]
I've been struggling with what to say about the various reports I've seen regarding gay teenager Lawrence King's alleged behavior toward the teen who murdered him.
Previously, I noted reports that the defense seemed to be putting forth some version of a "Gay Panic Defense," asserting that the murderer's violent crime should be excused, or was justified, because of King's alleged romantic advances toward him.
Last week, The LA Times provided more details about these allegations. Before I delve too much into the article, I think it's important to note that I'm agnostic as to whether King engaged in the behavior described. I wasn't there. I don't know what happened. All I can do with the information I have is to observe some notable aspects of the conversation.
In The LA Times article, Catherine Saillant reports:
Okay, so I see some really problematic framing of the issue going on here. While perhaps protecting the "civil rights of gay and transgender children" "causes" tensions, it's also true that anti-gay/anti-transgender hatred, gender policing, and sexual harassment cause tensions. By not mentioning these other causes of tension, it is somewhat implied that those who oppose such civil rights are not causes of tension. As though it is only the advancement of civil rights that is the big troublemaker here.
Another relevant fact would be to mention whether or not the teachers testifying about King's alleged "taunting" were witnesses for the defense. Defense attorneys have narratives to construct that will mitigate their client's guilt. Again, I have no idea if King taunted his killer, but that storyline does closely parallel the LGBT Predator narrative that many people are all too willing to accept uncritically.
Similarly, was there any particular reason King was allegedly taunting the other boy, or was it For No Reason At All? By possibly only including the defense's narrative of what happened, a story emerges where King was not a victim of homophobia and transphobia, but was actually a bully. Yet, does it have to be just one or the other? Inherent in the cycle of violence is the reality that many people will play the role of both victim and aggressor throughout their lives. Can't we hold multiple thoughts in our head that both sexual harassment and trans/homophobia are wrong and not deserving of vigilante murder?
The article continues:
Here, we are led to identify with the Normal People, who might find it difficult to "deal with" a student "exploring gender identity," as opposed to identifying with, say, the teenager who might be finding it difficult to deal with how others are reacting to hir gender identity. How different the statement would be if it read:
"Dealing with unaccepting classmates and teachers can be difficult for students who don't conform to conventional gender roles, especially when other students and teachers have differing levels of maturity and may be confused or intolerant about transgender and gender identity issues, experts say."
Also, what does it mean to be a "student who is exploring gender identity"? Doesn't most everyone explore gender identity, stereotypes, and performance to some degree? Don't the issues tend to pop up when the student is exploring gender identity in a way that is not in conformity with the (thanks Twisty) Global Accords Governing The Proper Roles Of Men And Women?
But, it was this statement that really stood out:
Wait, so our goal is to create "safe spaces" for children who "aren't comfortable" with the idea that LGBT and other gender nonconforming kids shouldn't be discriminated against?
While I of course agree that all schools should be safe spaces from sexual harassment, I wonder what exactly a "safe space" for kids who don't agree with LGBT rights would look like. And why is this article conflating sexual harassment with LGBT rights- as though LGBT people are pushing for gay people's "civil right" to sexually harass people of the same sex? Given that discrimination is illegal and there are good reasons for that, why is it seen as laudable to carve out special spaces for the kids who think discrimination is okay?
The idea of a "safe space" for anti-LBGT kids is strange to even imagine: "Hey Tommy, is that... purple you're wearing today? You need to leave this room. Your gender nonconformity is making me feel unsafe. I might punch you."
I mean, really? For, within the article, some teachers also testified about how they "warned" King not to wear make-up and how he allegedly would "parade" around in high heels. (Question: Would a boy wearing high heels ever be described as doing anything other than "parading" or "prancing"?) While the principle admirably stated that King could wear any clothing he wanted that didn't violate the dress code, at no point does the article note that the school personnel "warned" other kids not to make fun of him for doing so.
You know, for as much as some people talk about how awful it is for "Muslima" to Be Forced To Wear Burqas and such, our Totally Enlightened Western Gender Rules seem to differ only by a matter of degree with respect to what people can and cannot wear as men and women and "get away with it."
I've been struggling with what to say about the various reports I've seen regarding gay teenager Lawrence King's alleged behavior toward the teen who murdered him.
Previously, I noted reports that the defense seemed to be putting forth some version of a "Gay Panic Defense," asserting that the murderer's violent crime should be excused, or was justified, because of King's alleged romantic advances toward him.
Last week, The LA Times provided more details about these allegations. Before I delve too much into the article, I think it's important to note that I'm agnostic as to whether King engaged in the behavior described. I wasn't there. I don't know what happened. All I can do with the information I have is to observe some notable aspects of the conversation.
In The LA Times article, Catherine Saillant reports:
"One teacher after another has testified in the murder trial about their deep worries that King's feminine attire and taunting behavior could provoke problems — and that E.O. Green Junior High administrators ignored them.
It wasn't just that King, 15, had begun wearing makeup and women's spiked-heeled boots, witnesses testified. It was that he seemed to relish making the boys squirm at his newly feminized appearance and was taunting them with comments like 'I know you want me.'
....The trial testimony, and defense arguments that school officials mishandled the situation, highlight the struggle that many schools face: how to protect the civil rights of gay and transgender children while addressing the tensions that the issue can cause on campuses."
Okay, so I see some really problematic framing of the issue going on here. While perhaps protecting the "civil rights of gay and transgender children" "causes" tensions, it's also true that anti-gay/anti-transgender hatred, gender policing, and sexual harassment cause tensions. By not mentioning these other causes of tension, it is somewhat implied that those who oppose such civil rights are not causes of tension. As though it is only the advancement of civil rights that is the big troublemaker here.
Another relevant fact would be to mention whether or not the teachers testifying about King's alleged "taunting" were witnesses for the defense. Defense attorneys have narratives to construct that will mitigate their client's guilt. Again, I have no idea if King taunted his killer, but that storyline does closely parallel the LGBT Predator narrative that many people are all too willing to accept uncritically.
Similarly, was there any particular reason King was allegedly taunting the other boy, or was it For No Reason At All? By possibly only including the defense's narrative of what happened, a story emerges where King was not a victim of homophobia and transphobia, but was actually a bully. Yet, does it have to be just one or the other? Inherent in the cycle of violence is the reality that many people will play the role of both victim and aggressor throughout their lives. Can't we hold multiple thoughts in our head that both sexual harassment and trans/homophobia are wrong and not deserving of vigilante murder?
The article continues:
"Dealing with a student who is exploring gender identity can be difficult, especially in the middle school years when students have differing levels of maturity and may be confused about their own identities, experts say."
Here, we are led to identify with the Normal People, who might find it difficult to "deal with" a student "exploring gender identity," as opposed to identifying with, say, the teenager who might be finding it difficult to deal with how others are reacting to hir gender identity. How different the statement would be if it read:
"Dealing with unaccepting classmates and teachers can be difficult for students who don't conform to conventional gender roles, especially when other students and teachers have differing levels of maturity and may be confused or intolerant about transgender and gender identity issues, experts say."
Also, what does it mean to be a "student who is exploring gender identity"? Doesn't most everyone explore gender identity, stereotypes, and performance to some degree? Don't the issues tend to pop up when the student is exploring gender identity in a way that is not in conformity with the (thanks Twisty) Global Accords Governing The Proper Roles Of Men And Women?
But, it was this statement that really stood out:
"Discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender is illegal, but teachers sometimes believe that they are not trained on how to deal with those issues when they crop up, said Joel Baum, education director at Gender Spectrum.
'We hear a lot from teachers who feel handcuffed because they don't know how to respect those rights and create a safe space for children who aren't comfortable with it,' Baum said."
Wait, so our goal is to create "safe spaces" for children who "aren't comfortable" with the idea that LGBT and other gender nonconforming kids shouldn't be discriminated against?
While I of course agree that all schools should be safe spaces from sexual harassment, I wonder what exactly a "safe space" for kids who don't agree with LGBT rights would look like. And why is this article conflating sexual harassment with LGBT rights- as though LGBT people are pushing for gay people's "civil right" to sexually harass people of the same sex? Given that discrimination is illegal and there are good reasons for that, why is it seen as laudable to carve out special spaces for the kids who think discrimination is okay?
The idea of a "safe space" for anti-LBGT kids is strange to even imagine: "Hey Tommy, is that... purple you're wearing today? You need to leave this room. Your gender nonconformity is making me feel unsafe. I might punch you."
I mean, really? For, within the article, some teachers also testified about how they "warned" King not to wear make-up and how he allegedly would "parade" around in high heels. (Question: Would a boy wearing high heels ever be described as doing anything other than "parading" or "prancing"?) While the principle admirably stated that King could wear any clothing he wanted that didn't violate the dress code, at no point does the article note that the school personnel "warned" other kids not to make fun of him for doing so.
You know, for as much as some people talk about how awful it is for "Muslima" to Be Forced To Wear Burqas and such, our Totally Enlightened Western Gender Rules seem to differ only by a matter of degree with respect to what people can and cannot wear as men and women and "get away with it."
Tuesday, August 16, 2011
Quote of the Day
Via The Good Men Project:
"Black people can’t talk to white people about race anymore. There’s really nothing left to say. There are libraries full of books, interviews, essays, lectures, and symposia. If people want to learn about their own country and its history, it is not incumbent on black people to talk to them about it. It is not our responsibility to educate them about it. Plus whenever white people want to talk about race, they never want to talk about themselves. There needs to be discussion among people who think of themselves as white. They need to unpack that language, that history, that social position and see what it really offers them, and what it takes away from them. As James Baldwin said, 'As long as you think that you are white, there is no hope for you.'”
-Steve Locke, "Why I Don't Want To Talk About Race"
"Black people can’t talk to white people about race anymore. There’s really nothing left to say. There are libraries full of books, interviews, essays, lectures, and symposia. If people want to learn about their own country and its history, it is not incumbent on black people to talk to them about it. It is not our responsibility to educate them about it. Plus whenever white people want to talk about race, they never want to talk about themselves. There needs to be discussion among people who think of themselves as white. They need to unpack that language, that history, that social position and see what it really offers them, and what it takes away from them. As James Baldwin said, 'As long as you think that you are white, there is no hope for you.'”
-Steve Locke, "Why I Don't Want To Talk About Race"
Monday, August 15, 2011
The Default Geek
Well, this is awkward. I guess geeks are like Smurfs.
Many deviations within the general category "geek" exist- for instance "Design Geek," "Music Geek," and "D&D; Geek"- but they're all dudes*!
Except for one:
"Geek Chic"
Oh. That's chic, not chick?
Well shit. I mean, at least the Smurfs have one lady (who, by the way, was apparently created (a) only so people wouldn't think the Smurfs were gay or (b) bySatan Gargamel to tempt the male humans smurfs so he could catch them, at least that was the plan until Patriarchy Papa Smurf taught the lady Smurf how to properly exist within the male-centric society as an object of the heterosexual male gaze).
But I digress. Back to the geek chart.
Here, let me suggest other categories: "Female Invisibilizer Geek," "Male-Centric Geek," and my personal fave the "'I Don't Even Notice That My Geeky Infographic Excludes Women' Geek"
*Of the 25 figures depicted, all of them are flat-chested, pants-wearing figures. 6 are wearing ties, 22 have short hair, and 3 have medium-length hair. It is true that many women possess these characteristics. However, the complete absence of any figures displaying characteristics that are coded feminine by society such as long hair, a skirt/dress, and breasts leads me to the conclusion that the maker of this infographic did not intend these figures to be androgynous or female.
Many deviations within the general category "geek" exist- for instance "Design Geek," "Music Geek," and "D&D; Geek"- but they're all dudes*!
Except for one:
"Geek Chic"
Oh. That's chic, not chick?
Well shit. I mean, at least the Smurfs have one lady (who, by the way, was apparently created (a) only so people wouldn't think the Smurfs were gay or (b) by
But I digress. Back to the geek chart.
Here, let me suggest other categories: "Female Invisibilizer Geek," "Male-Centric Geek," and my personal fave the "'I Don't Even Notice That My Geeky Infographic Excludes Women' Geek"
*Of the 25 figures depicted, all of them are flat-chested, pants-wearing figures. 6 are wearing ties, 22 have short hair, and 3 have medium-length hair. It is true that many women possess these characteristics. However, the complete absence of any figures displaying characteristics that are coded feminine by society such as long hair, a skirt/dress, and breasts leads me to the conclusion that the maker of this infographic did not intend these figures to be androgynous or female.
Friday, August 12, 2011
Friday Fun!
1. OMFGthoselittlefeetIcan'teven! I could figuratively just gobble it up.
2. I would definitely watch a movie of this woman's life.
3.This woman too.
Or, you know, I guess the The Hangover 7 will do.
Talk about whatever you want in the comments!
2. I would definitely watch a movie of this woman's life.
3.This woman too.
Or, you know, I guess the The Hangover 7 will do.
Talk about whatever you want in the comments!
Thursday, August 11, 2011
Losing Privilege Is So Oppressive
Within an article about a panel on same-sex marriage, I found the following statement to be (*clears throat*) "problematic." Writing in Catholic New York, Editor John Woods opines:
The "personal stake" he's referring to is, of course, that he is apparently being oppressed by the state of New York legally equating same-sex relationships with the type of relationship he and his wife are in. This is what I like to call the "Poor poor us, we don't have the specialest type of legal relationship anymore!" argument against same-sex marriage.
It's all quite similar to how the 19th Amendment oppressed men by taking away their "unique standing" as the class of citizens with the legal right to vote. I mean, it was a small step towards the audacious recognition that women... might be equal to men.
Quick, somebody notify the National Assocation for the Advancement of Straight People! Oh wait, the Catholic Church is already on it.
"Like millions of other New Yorkers, my wife, Lynn, and I have a personal stake in what the state’s laws have to say about marriage. Until this past Sunday, our marriage of 21 years enjoyed unique standing in New York state. That is no longer the case, thanks to a redefinition of what the word marriage means in New York. The definition of marriage, according to our civil law, now includes other relationships not at all like the bond shared by my wife and me."
The "personal stake" he's referring to is, of course, that he is apparently being oppressed by the state of New York legally equating same-sex relationships with the type of relationship he and his wife are in. This is what I like to call the "Poor poor us, we don't have the specialest type of legal relationship anymore!" argument against same-sex marriage.
It's all quite similar to how the 19th Amendment oppressed men by taking away their "unique standing" as the class of citizens with the legal right to vote. I mean, it was a small step towards the audacious recognition that women... might be equal to men.
Quick, somebody notify the National Assocation for the Advancement of Straight People! Oh wait, the Catholic Church is already on it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
