Feminism/Sexism and Gaming/Geek/Popular culture Catch All

mudbunny wrote:

To follow up on the awesome point made by Amoebic, a friend of mine in university, when asked by my (female) PhD supervisor what she wanted to do when she was finished answered " Get married, have kids and be a full-time mother". To which my professor answered "Don't you want to do something important with your life?"

My question is the following: Is there a difficulty in the feminist movement(can you even group them together like that? Honest question from a lack of knowledge here) in resolving the conflict between wanting women to go out and do an outside-the-house job and also allowing for the fact that some women are perfectly happy and content to be "just a mother".

(Note, there is not intended to be any disrespect aimed at either choice. Being a mother is a damned hard job for which not enough recognition is given. )

One of the tensions in figuring all this out is when to say society is wrong because it's forcing women into subordinate roles--like say a nurse instead of a doctor--and when society is denigrating roles just because they are associated with women. It becomes a question of whether the problem is that women are being held back (like a woman who is smart enough to be a doctor but is only allowed to be a nurse), or that the roles women fall into aren't being given their proper respect (like if we should just assign esteem to roles based on the intelligence a role takes and not other attributes where nurses need to be *more* qualified than a doctor needs to be). And if it's about not giving traditionally female roles the proper respect, it becomes a question of that word "traditionally": is it just oppressive patriarchy condemning women to 'pink collar ghetto' jobs like nursing, or is there something good and acceptable about the connection between women and some roles (which leads to further questions like if it is it patriarchal to prize the kind of intelligence more essential to being a doctor than a nurse over other attributes).

Don't know if that makes sense, but it's my best attempt to distill my understanding of women and various attempts of feminism over the years to grapple with those issues. That whole kerfuffle reminded me of something I read a while back:

When did a certain group of men take over the womanly art of home cooking? And why can’t we who are married to them just sit back and call their conquest of the kitchen a feminist triumph? If you had told a mistress of the house in the 1950s that one day her husband would julienne a carrot, she would have wept with joy. Perhaps she would have even held out a little longer against all those canned monstrosities designed to lighten her daily load. And yet, fast forward half a century, and some of us are starting to regret our lost dominion over the kitchen.

Not all of us, of course. I have some women friends who are relieved and even smug about their husbands doing all the cooking. Think of the time they save, and who cares what deglazing means? But for those of us who like to cook, who are attached to this traditionally female, primal way of showing love, the intrusion is a problem. We adore all the other gender-bending second-shift developments—men changing diapers and going to playgrounds, men vacuuming and straightening up (ahem, sort of). But male cooking is turning out to be one of those feminist-friendly changes that come with an unexpected, bitter aftertaste.

I think this also goes back to something that came up in another thread about being a man: if gender identification isn't tied to anything than self-definition, then on what basis are any of us identifying with those labels and not with others? It's one of those very difficult areas where the first instinct is to resist anything that smacks of gender essentialism, but then that just lands one in even deeper questions.

So this was funny. Not ground-breaking exactly, but funny.

I LOVE IT!

Wow, Jon Stewart and Kristen Schaal of the Daily Show just taught me that women voters are really complicated.

gore wrote:

Wow, Jon Stewart and Kristen Schaal of the Daily Show just taught me that women voters are really complicated.

Saw that yesterday, that was brilliant.

gore wrote:

Wow, Jon Stewart and Kristen Schaal of the Daily Show just taught me that women voters are really complicated.

They don't even touch on the weirdest part of that Fox News segment: the "Where all the Right women at" caption at the bottom of the screen.

kazooka wrote:

They don't even touch on the weirdest part of that Fox News segment: the "Where all the Right women at" caption at the bottom of the screen.

OG_slinger wrote:
kazooka wrote:

They don't even touch on the weirdest part of that Fox News segment: the "Where all the Right women at" caption at the bottom of the screen.

No, I get the reference, it's just a really weird one to be using in that context.

kazooka wrote:

No, I get the reference, it's just a really weird one to be using in that context.

Not really. I'm sure someone at FOX News thought it was a hilarious play on words even though it just highlighted the coded racism of their discussion. Why the Daily Show writers didn't get a joke in about that is puzzling, though.

OG_slinger wrote:
kazooka wrote:

No, I get the reference, it's just a really weird one to be using in that context.

Not really. I'm sure someone at FOX News thought it was a hilarious play on words even though it just highlighted the coded racism of their discussion. Why the Daily Show writers didn't get a joke in about that is puzzling, though.

Given what I've seen of the behind-the-scenes people at all news agencies, I suspect someone at FOX News thought it was a hilarious play on words BECAUSE it highlighted the coded racism of their discussion.

bnpederson wrote:

Given what I've seen of the behind-the-scenes people at all news agencies, I suspect someone at FOX News thought it was a hilarious play on words BECAUSE it highlighted the coded racism of their discussion.

It's like an onion, man. Layers and layers!

Bravo, Nature, bravo.

Nature’s sexism

I wholeheartedly approve of the method they plan to use to try to combat unconscious sexism: simply make a conscious effort to bring possible female contributors to mind before going out to solicit submissions. After they've done that for a while, they can take stock and see how things are going, and make a new plan if it doesn't seem to be effective enough.

Hypatian wrote:

Bravo, Nature, bravo.

Nature’s sexism

I wholeheartedly approve of the method they plan to use to try to combat unconscious sexism: simply make a conscious effort to bring possible female contributors to mind before going out to solicit submissions. After they've done that for a while, they can take stock and see how things are going, and make a new plan if it doesn't seem to be effective enough.

That is impressive that they are doing that. I also salute them. However they bring up an interesting point. For reasons wholely outside their control, in the hard sciences, women are far outnumbered by men. Thus, by a matter of simple statistics, all other things being equal, it is more likely that men than women scientists will respond to articles in the magazine. Also,, for that same reason, there will be fewer articles submitted by women as opposed to men.

Nature (and other journals that take a hard look at things like this) need to also keep in mind that they need to be careful to not appear to be sacrifice the quality of their journal aiming for the goal of a better gender ratio of contributors. If the contributions by females are at least of equal quality as those of the males (and I have no doubt that they are, given the nature (no pun intended) of magazines like Nature and Science), then by all means select to give a better gender ratio. But they will need to make sure that they are not picking articles and/or submissions that are below the minimum acceptable standards of the magazine in order to achieve a better gender ratio.

Let me emphasize: I have no doubt that submissions by female contributors to Nature are just as good as those by male authors. If you plotted them according to quality, I am certain that the exact same plot would result.

Yeah, that can be a difficult tightrope to walk. I think as far as affirmative action policies go it's the smartest way to do it.

As you say, implementation is key. I'm sure they will do it right.

Yes. I think they addressed all of your points quite well.

Hypatian wrote:

Nature doing good things.

Sounds like a great idea. Anything that can raise the visibility of women in the sciences can only help get more young women interested in the sciences.

Meanwhile in the bizarro universe that is Saudi Arabia, men are receiving text messages any time their wives leave the country.

I don't mention this to make any comparisons, it just blows my mind. It sounds like it's not opt-in for the men either. Good to see some local backlash on Twitter (from men, too), for whatever good it will do.

Not sure this fits here exactly but it is too good not to post.
http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2012...

NathanialG wrote:

Not sure this fits here exactly but it is too good not to post.
http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2012...

Wow, thanks for sharing.

And interesting website. Iron Ribbon.

Hopefully this sort of attitude will take off; like many social issues, awareness seems to be key.

Thank you for that, Edwin. I've got a lot to say about it, but my Daily Planet job is kicking my arse right now.

It's both comforting and depressing to know that I'm not the only one who's had terrible experiences. But the scale is unbelievable to me. Every time I refresh the tag, it's a new story.

A new tag, #1reasontobe , highlights why these women stay in the industry.

IMAGE(http://i.minus.com/itTnyp1Q8rCtM.gif)

That is awesome.

Ugh.

I'm having a very annoying day at work today. In our weekly newsletter we feature an MVB "most valuable blogger". Of 700 there are 3 female, and we featured one of them today. I just did the analysis for the clicks in the newsletter and her pic got nearly 700 clicks in one day whereas the guys usually get about a dozen in a week. My coworkers think this is hilarious and now want to get more hot chicks to become MVBs.

*sigh*

Thought this might be worthy. It's Klepek of Giant Bomb's response to the #1reason tags, and apparently the response to them on the site. I quite like the GB guys, and I'm always pretty relieved when they come across as decent and intelligent.

A bon mot that stood out in the comments I masochistically skimmed was "Spoken like someone with no understanding of the Men's Rights Movement." Ah, yes, the rich history of the Men's Rights Movements. I remember those halcyon days, when I and my fellows didn't burn our undergarments in symbolic outrage, because we've been in control of everything, everywhere, since the very dawn of time.

I try to tell myself these posters are just young, and they'll grow up, because I remember being alienated, yet unoppressed because I'm a SWM, and feeling, well, the best word is envious, tacky and tasteless though that sounds, because everyone who isn't SWM gets to fight for a cause tied to their very existence, and when you're an angry 15 year old into punk rock, that'd be super cool. Then again, I didn't make up oppression or associate with a hilariously pointless concocted quasi-existent social movement, I just decided "Well, I guess I should do what I can for the rest of these people, because no one's doing sh*t to me." I worry they won't grow out of it.

SpacePPoliceman wrote:

Thought this might be worthy. It's Klepek of Giant Bomb's response to the #1reason tags, and apparently the response to them on the site. I quite like the GB guys, and I'm always pretty relieved when they come across as decent and intelligent.

A bon mot that stood out in the comments I masochistically skimmed was "Spoken like someone with no understanding of the Men's Rights Movement." Ah, yes, the rich history of the Men's Rights Movements. I remember those halcyon days, when I and my fellows didn't burn our undergarments in symbolic outrage, because we've been in control of everything, everywhere, since the very dawn of time.

I try to tell myself these posters are just young, and they'll grow up, because I remember being alienated, yet unoppressed because I'm a SWM, and feeling, well, the best word is envious, tacky and tasteless though that sounds, because everyone who isn't SWM gets to fight for a cause tied to their very existence, and when you're an angry 15 year old into punk rock, that'd be super cool. Then again, I didn't make up oppression or associate with a hilariously pointless concocted quasi-existent social movement, I just decided "Well, I guess I should do what I can for the rest of these people, because no one's doing sh*t to me." I worry they won't grow out of it.

I've never been under the impression that the Men's Rights movement was a "young" thing. A lot of the most vociferous supporters seem to have gone through ugly divorces. Also, the reactionary politics and attitudes towards rape suggest an age range more appropriate for a Republican senatorial candidate rather than a college kid. Then again, I've never even met one of these people, so I guess I don't know who they are.

I pay a fair amount of attention to... y'know, stuff. And speaking as a black man, while there are several societal problems that disproportionately affect us, I've never quite been able to boil them down to "because Feminism" or because women get better treatment.

kazooka wrote:

I've never been under the impression that the Men's Rights movement was a "young" thing. A lot of the most vociferous supporters seem to have gone through ugly divorces. Also, the reactionary politics and attitudes towards rape suggest an age range more appropriate for a Republican senatorial candidate rather than a college kid. Then again, I've never even met one of these people, so I guess I don't know who they are.

Exactly, it being the internet. It being a website for games, I just assume they're younger than me. Given how stupid many seem, I assume much, much younger.