The Egyptian goddess Isis was celebrated as the ideal wife and mother. Earlier today while the Isis clan was napping I was sitting on the couch with my laptop, trying to craft a post about something science-y sounding. I've had a particular article in mind and have wanted to write about it for about a week now, but it hasn't been coming easily. The truth is, I've had a lot on my mind this week -- internal-type struggles over who I am and the kind of feminist I represent. I've wondered if I really am being a positive role model or if I am the spokesperson for a way of life that reinforces the repression of female scientists. I don't mean to sound terribly dramatic, but I know that some of my readers are (very) early career scientists and, in spite of my occasional shenanigans, I try to be a positive role model. I think sometimes being a positive role model means telling you when I struggle with things. I've tried to avoid some of my more feminist-sounding meanderings because I have been trying to determine struggling with my own feminist identity. I had thought that I would avoid woman power posts until I had worked this out, but looking back I realize that my best posts seem to come when I am 1) drunk 2) upset or 3) confused. Lucky for you, tonight I am a little bit of all three. So, be aware as you read the rest of this post that you are about to be privy to some of the deep-seated bullshit I have been thinking about lately.
But on to the rest of the post...
Earlier today when I was trying to squeeze blood science from a stone, I received the following email:
Dear Dr. Isis,
I've been following your blog for awhile, and it's been great to read your thoughts and look at myself as a scientist in a larger context. It's easy to look at yourself as an individual who is only judged on the content of her science, but I recognize that not everyone looks at the world through the same (rose-colored?) glasses.
I'm a black female graduate student in a field where just that information is probably enough for you to track me down and knock on my office door. I've been very careful in choosing schools and advisors that seem to value my ideas and potential, not just the diversity I can bring to a brochure photo. At the same time, I recognize that there are doors open to me that are unavailable to the vast majority of people in my field- fellowships that seem tailor-made for my circumstances. I'm not one to turn down free money, but at the same time it makes me feel as if I'm something of a novelty item, a token, or in the worst case, a fraud who's only there because of her skin color and reproductive system. It can be hard to tell if this stems from my own insecurities, or if this is something I should be genuinely concerned about.
I'm not good at considering people's ulterior motives; I like to think this keeps me from being hyperviligant and seeing racism or sexism in the trivial slights of daily life. On the other hand, in the past I have been blind-sided to find out that people's thoughts are not as straightforward as they first appear, especially in science where, ideally, facts reign supreme. My question for you is this: recognizing that I am likely to be the only black person, female or otherwise, in the room wherever I go, is there anything I should be extra careful of to avoid being marginalized? I want to succeed or fail based on my own merits; I have no desire to be a department's Black Female Scientist.
Sincerely,
Grad with Braids
GwB, I'm afraid that my response to you is going to come tainted by the aforementioned deep-seated bullshit. Bear with me as I work this stuff out and I think you'll get an answer at the end. I once scrapped with my dear blog friend DrugMonkey on the old blog about this very issue during a time when I was feeling especially marginalized. I was feeling very sensitive to being labeled the token anything and I really lashed out against the idea of being included in an academic environment for the sole reason of increasing the diversity of a field. Being one of the lone vaginae in a sea of penises I am sensitive to the perception of needing special treatment, or being given special opportunities, because of who I am. I have often found myself angered by the idea that I might get some opportunity simply because some of the white male patriarchy decided they were ready for me to get to join the game in order to propagate some illusion of diversity Or, that I might be perceived as being there solely to increase diversity and not because I do brilliant science.
Figure 2: Dr. Isis is in there somewhere.
But, you're smart enough to know that not everyone judges you solely on the quality of your science and I have always been aware that there are white male scientists who dislike my inclusion in their group. I had come to terms with their initial inability to accept me and felt secure that I could continue to challenge their perceptions while doing brilliant science-- that has always been, after all, my goal. I believed that if I simply behaved in a way I felt was true to the person that I am, that I would have some positive impact, even if these people couldn't accept me now. I am a wife, a woman, a mother, and a scientist and have advocated that women should feel comfortable and empowered within each sphere. What I wasn't ready for this week was the fact that there are feminists who don't want me either -- and not just that they don't want me, but they believe I'm hurting their cause.
Dr. Isis keeps an eye on the feminist blogosphere. Within the realm of feminist scientists there are a number of women I respect, in spite of the fact that we are very different people. For example, I occasionally scrap with Zuska but I've always felt confident that our goals are similar -- I might love shoes and she might describe herself as a hairy-legged feminazi (although, I can't lie, my legs are a little hairy today), but I've never felt judged by her or the other women within this circle. Recently though I've ventured out into deep dark corners of feminist blogging and it's made me reevaluate myself and the effect I'm having on gender disparity in academia.
Specifically, I've started reading Twisty Faster over at I Blame the Patriarchy and have been reading for a few months. Posting from her had been a bit sparse as she moved into a new home, so I don't think I really got the full impact of her message until she began posting more prolifically recently. A few days ago she offered her thoughts on motherhood, and mothers, when she wrote:
We need them to affirm that, as an oppressed class, nothing they do is without political significance. And we especially need them -- this one, ho boy, is the biggie -- to quit defending nuclear motherhood, because when they defend nuclear motherhood, they are defending the primary method by which patriarchy replicates itself.
With respect to what Twisty describes as the lipstick-wearing feminist:
Scratch a "new" feminist, and you'll find an empowerful girl whose lipstickin', shoe-buyin' ideology springs fully-formed from her immaculate, politically-neutral, sexyfun, patriarchy-free choice-lobes. Her "choices" are her very own brilliant ideas. Her behavior proceeds from her own empowerful personal desires. Her rights, including the right not to call herself a feminist because it's too embarrasing, revolve chiefly around her right to resemble a male fuckfantasy to whatever degree she "chooses."
And so, GwB, what I have been dealing with these last few days is the feeling that I try daily to incorporate myself into a patriarchal system that, as an entity, doesn't want me to begin with or thinks I am only capable of being an inferior scientist. I try to be a good mother and to express my femininity in ways that I find enjoyable, but I learn that some feminists perceive women like me as slaves of the patriarchy, nothing better than male fuckfantasies enslaved to bear children and serve our husbands -- thus, in denying myself the role of woman, wife, and mother that brings me such joy to please them and advance their cause I turn from being oppressed by the patriarchy to being oppressed by a new matriarchy who thinks they are liberating me. At the end of the day I'm damned if I do and I'm damned if I don't and the best I can do is be the best scientist, wife, woman, and mother I can.
And so are you, GwB (gosh, this stuff is becoming morose). I would love to be able to tell you that there is something you can do that will magically cause the people around you to not treat you in any way that is not kind, nurturing, and supportive for the simple fact that you are a brilliant scientist. But, you know better than to wear your rose colored glasses and you would know that I was filling your mind with crap. The people that would discriminate against you will do so because of the person they are -- not because of who or what you are. There will always be someone who doesn't want you in white male academia and there will be people who think that you are hurting your own cause, whether it's because you choose to accept a position aimed at increasing the diversity in field or because you accept funding directed to female or minority scientists. The funny thing is, even if you try to appease them, these people will find something else to use to marginalize you or discriminate against you. If they don't see you as a token or a pair of tits for one thing, they'll do it for something else. It's not you. It's them, and you need not feel ashamed. There's also no reason you should accept it silently, although this takes guts to stand up to someone who is marginalizing you. I'm not always perfect at this, but I am trying. Really, I am.
One of the hardest things for me to accept has been the fact that , in the ocean of people who might marginalize us, women and minorities in academia have allies. I have frequently been skeptical of these people and have tried to see some ulterior motive. I think some of them simply want gender and racial equality in science as bad we do. I try to seek them out. Sometimes I'm wrong about who is an ally, but often I am right and I find these people to be supportive in a way that never makes me feel like a token. There may be one or two doors open to you specifically because of who you are, but there are one or two hundred that are closed. These allies appreciate us, want us in the game because of the skills we bring, and are trying to lay down mechanisms (ie, open doors) by which we can get the opportunity to play. As this happens, we can begin to lay down our own mechanisms (and, to some degree, are already). Funding is tight enough as it is; take advantage of every opportunity you can without apology. Then, take everything and accent it with the brilliant science I have no doubt you are capable of doing.
It's not an answer that leaves either one of us feeling warm and fuzzy inside, but I think you knew you weren't getting one when you wrote to me. Somedays I look at how far we've come and I feel proud. Somedays I look at how far we have left to go and say, "fuck." But, stick with it, GwB. I will too.
Education & Careers
Comments
You know, I mostly agree with Twisty on the empowerful shoe thing - personal adornment in a post-feminist utopia would not find so much inspiration in gendered impairments to mobility, and I will vigorously roll my eyes at arguments to the contrary.
But so what? We don't live in post-feminist utopia.
I don't do the shoe thing, but I have my own collection of aesthetic and sexual quirks that would never exist post-Twistylution. They're bits of my personality that were shaped by the patriarchal environment I grew up in and continue to be shaped by the patriarchal environment I live in right now; they're still me. I can recognize this without considering myself a slave of the patriarchy. Carrying around a bucket of weird influences from your environment, some of which you consider unsavory, is pretty much the human condition.
I don't know if the fact that I can't stop staring at Figure 2 is a result of patriarchy or not. It's okay for me not to know that, I think.
Posted by: Maria | December 27, 2008 6:48 AM
Being a male blogger means that I don't have to give a fuck what my blogging says about my gender. What infuriates me about a certain element of the feminist community is that they seem so intent on trying to place their own restrictions on what women can or cannot do. That's not freedom. Freedom is when Dr. Isis can blog about whatever the hell she wants without being made to feel guilty.
Let's look at two things here. First of all, your blog. Your blog is awesome. Fact. You're a highly successful blogger. That means your doing a good job, and that you are automatically a role model, and a good one. You're a woman who sticks two fingers up to the idea that anyone should dictate to you what you blog, and is happy to talk about shoes or science with authority. That is freedom. That's the nirvana of gender-politics-free blogging, and Twisty is just jealous that you've already reached it.
Do you know what makes me so, so angry about Twisty? It's words like this: "we especially need them -- this one, ho boy, is the biggie -- to quit defending nuclear motherhood". Now I'm all for non-nuclear families and I've defended them at length, but who the fuck is Twisty to dictate what opinions women should or shouldn't hold? How the fuck is Twisty's dictatorial matriarchy any better then the patriarchy she fights against? And what the fuck is wrong with buying shoes or - god forbid - "sexyfun" anyway?!
Finally, to the grad student who wrote in with the question, I think that even leaving aside the whole minorities issue, the one biggest feature of grad school and academia is that often, without grades and exams, it's very hard to know really how well you're doing or exactly how good you are. But take those opportunities and embrace them and assume some good faith. You could spend the rest of your career wondering whether you got special treatment or not, but you just don't know. What you do know is the quality of your own work, and your publication record, and the vigour with which you've seized the opportunities you were given.
Sorry for leaving such a long and ranty comment...
Posted by: Martin | December 27, 2008 7:16 AM
God damn it I'm still angry at this "Twisty".
As a philosophical exercise let's take her words here, and switch in the example of race. So here is Twisty on black people (apologies in advance for the stereotyping, but I'm replicating what she did):
"Scratch a "modern" black guy, and you'll find an empowerful man whose afro-wearin', gangsta-rap-buyin' ideology springs fully-formed from his immaculate, politically-neutral, fun, racism-free choice-lobes. His "choices" are his very own brilliant ideas. His behavior proceeds from his own empowerful personal desires. His rights, including the right not to call himself a race-activist because it's too embarrasing, revolve chiefly around his right to resemble a white man to whatever degree he "chooses." "
Hmm, much sense? Or how about:
"We need them to affirm that, as an oppressed class, nothing they do is without political significance. And we especially need them -- this one, ho boy, is the biggie -- to quit voting Republican, because when they vote Republican, they are defending the primary party through which racism replicates itself."
This sort of bullshit has no place on progressive discourse.
Posted by: Martin | December 27, 2008 7:28 AM
Also, I just wanted to respond to this: "I have frequently been skeptical of these people and have tried to see some ulterior motive. I think some of them simply want gender and racial equality in science as bad we do. "
I think this is something people need to get past, this "us and them"-ism that can creep into dialogue. I'm a white male - so-frigging-what? I passionately despise injustice anywhere, it's one of the fundamental reasons why I blog defending Muslims or homosexuals or any other group of people that I see gets a raw deal. It genuinely makes me angry because I want to world to be a better place than it is.
Sorry, I've finished ranting away and filling your comments section now, I promise!
Posted by: Martin | December 27, 2008 7:36 AM
I'm not sure what to write, except that I wanted to make sure that I wrote something....I think that the internal struggle is about the closest sign any of us can ever get to knowing we are being true to ourselves and not some dictated "patriarchy" or "matriarchy"....IMHO extremists on pretty much anything are not where the answer lies...I suspect I've been given a few hands up because I was female ....but then I also suspect being female has resulted in me missing out on a few opportunities...I try not to worry about it too much and hope it comes out pretty even in the wash....I send out cyber hugs to both Dr Isis and GwB because I've been where you are now and I know I'll be back there again and there's never enough people in our nonblogging lives who "get it".
PS Dr Isis your blog is fantastic and I thoroughly enjoy reading it, in no small part because although you're a goddess I see you more as a Greek goddess than an Egyptian one, i.e. one with great strength and gloriousness but also with doubts and shades of grey.
Posted by: Zie | December 27, 2008 7:56 AM
PPS It's the greek goddess-ness of your blog that makes you such worthy reading. We all need to see (including yourself I suspect :-) how the successful people feel just like us - sometimes full of strength and purpose and sometimes full of doubts and questions. Then success seems all that more realistic...because it's people who feel like us. I hope this all makes sense :-)
Posted by: Zie | December 27, 2008 8:02 AM
Here's the heart of Isis's answer:
Take the money and run; you are going to need every ounce and dollar of advantage you can get as you try to navigate science. You may not even know yet what you are missing out on by being female and black, but the people who made those fellowships know...so take advantage of them.
Now on to Isis's patriarchy problems.
Dearest Isis,
Twisty can be awfully hard to read (and is one reason why I am only a sporadic reader over there), so don't take your discomfort with her notions as indication that you are the only feminist uncomfortable with some of what she says. But in my limited reading of Twisty, I've never gotten the impression that she disdains mothers - just the idea that we are supposed to do all the work of raising a child and running a household while tied to a man and segregated from the larger community. And I think we can both agree that a system that leaves us overwhelmed, exhausted, and incoherent is not an optimal system.
Love,
Sciencewoman
Posted by: ScienceWoman | December 27, 2008 8:16 AM
First, the money quote:
Second, I am hardly a feminist theorist, but there are a few general points. It is easy to hate people who take an anti-oppressive ideology to it's logical extreme. We have to decry hate in the name of love, but we have to be careful not to condemn feminism simply because we disagree with one feminist.
Third, I had never heard of twisty's blog, so I only have the above quotes to go on, but interpreting her thoughts requires interpreting them in light of an entire worldview. Her views are very 70s-80's feminism, a time when postmodernism was crawling out of the slime, critical theory ruled, and we were all locked in a titanic dialectical battle for our very right to live...or so it seemed. And one of the tactics in the war was to wrest control from the patriarchy, and exert it on people "ourselves" (not womyn here), in order to guide the world to it's post-patriarchy paradise, when women's freedom to live as they wish would be returned to them.
It is, in a word, a very paternalistic view. An argument can be made that we need the more extreme voices, and that might be so. Also, others experience patriarchy differently. Critical theorists will disagree, but someone who is abused or raped or kept in financial bondage is going to have a very different view of the world than someone who has had an easier time of it. It's not patriarcal hegemony that makes my sisters happy...they are successful, smart, motherly, otherly, incredible women, and no one gets to tell them otherwise.
Posted by: PalMD | December 27, 2008 8:48 AM
Grad With Braid, Do your best and never let other people's prejudice bother you. This attitude has served me well.
Posted by: jrhs | December 27, 2008 9:54 AM
GWB - it's very frustrating, but there's nothing you can do a lot of times. I luckily managed to get through PhD and 2 postdocs feeling like my science was all that mattered (with the exception of younger male students blatantly directing all their questions to older male students even when the question was on my area of expertise; older male students who'd been around long enough to know I was the sh*t would send the youngsters my way). Anyhoo, having hit the tenure track, I am now reminded regularly by the words or actions of others that I am different. Oh, BTW, I am black, female, and in a field where you can similarly track me down based on that info alone. And this is not subtle stuff. I'm still at the stage where it surprises me when it happens. Recently, I was blindsided when I sat down with a group of (all white, male) faculty to discuss a major proposal and a very senior faculty member's first words to me were "Ah, now we have someone to run our diversity activities!". Followed by an uncomfortable silence as I stared at this man thinking WTF! I was invited there by the lead PI who knows I have a very particular expertise related to the proposal; not to be the token minority and teacher/organiser others were apparently expecting. Did I mention that I look extremely young? Seriously, it's like the worst possible combination of physical attributes if you don't wish to be treated like an 'other'...
Not all of this 'otherness' has been negative though. Students recognize that I'm different and appear to be excited about it. Particularly the female students (of all ethnicities). They make me increasingly aware of how my being here makes a difference. And that helps.
Umm... Not sure what my point was in the above aside from
(a)First and foremost, be good at what you came to do.
(b)There really is nothing you can do to stop the idiots from saying daft things. Suggestion (a), however goes a long way towards showing the idiots that they _need_ you and can't afford to marginalise you. Ignore them, but not not to the point that you miss any attempts to take advantage of you or otherwise disadvantage you.
(c)Take advantage of the fellowships, workshops etc. targeted at minorities. The comment about open doors is spot on. I become more aware of the closed doors as I progress.
Posted by: AP | December 27, 2008 10:07 AM
Thank you so much. I hope you don't mind that I posted a link to this entry in the community section of Feministing.com. I'll try to come back and post a link to that page when they approve my community post.
Posted by: Elizabeth | December 27, 2008 11:13 AM
what ever happened to the idea that "feminism" was simply the notion that women had the right to do whatever they WANTED to do with their lives?
If that's what's meant by feminist, then that's what I am. But what Twisty calls feminism, I don't think I want to be part of that.
I think it SUCKS that there is a need and a place for programs that would increase the numbers of women and minorities in the sciences. But, until that need is gone, if the opportunity offered is something that otherwise appeals to you, take it, and make it yours. Yours because you are an awesome scientist, not just because you're a black woman. Or a purple people eater. Or whatever door has been opened.
Don't enter the door JUST because it's open. Enter it because whatever is behind that door is appealing. That's what everyone else does - they just have more doors opened to them.
Posted by: CanadianChick | December 27, 2008 12:13 PM
back with the url: http://community.feministing.com/2008/12/loving-dr-isis.html
Posted by: Elizabeth | December 27, 2008 12:18 PM
"what ever happened to the idea that "feminism" was simply the notion that women had the right to do whatever they WANTED to do with their lives? If that's what's meant by feminist, then that's what I am. But what Twisty calls feminism, I don't think I want to be part of that."
Well said. Feminism for me (admittedly a white male) is about freedom to make choices without being subjected to additional judgement or restrictions just because you're a woman. For Twisty or ScienceWoman to think that women should think or behave in a certain way is just plain wrong. It's a step backwards.
And again, if we were talking about race issues, and Twist had said that black people shouldn't engage in stereotypical black cultural norms because it "makes us look bad", she would be absolutely slaughtered.
Posted by: Martin | December 27, 2008 12:28 PM
(1) Excellent post, Dr. Isis! You are an outstanding writer.
(2)
If you read more deeply in Twisty's blog, I think you will find that she understands this quite well. She is not in the business of blaming individual women for their choices that enable them to survive as best they can within a patriarchy, hence the name of the blog. She is, however, in the business of pointing out to women the political significance of their personal choices.
(3) What the fucking fuck is that picture of!? UGGHHHHHH!!!!!
(4) White dudes have been giving each other affirmative action reacharounds since fucking infinity. Now it's other people's turn.
Posted by: Comrade PhysioProf | December 27, 2008 12:51 PM
PhysioProf: "She is not in the business of blaming individual women for their choices that enable them to survive as best they can within a patriarchy, hence the name of the blog. She is, however, in the business of pointing out to women the political significance of their personal choices."
I sort of see what you're getting at, but this just sounds like weasel words to me. I mean, you're basically saying "she doesn't blame women for what they do, she just thinks that they're poor little simpletons who can't grasp the significance of what they're doing". At the end of the day, however you twist it, she's still trying to dictate to women how they should or shouldn't behave.
Posted by: Martin | December 27, 2008 1:01 PM
GWD,
I can't agree more with Sciencewoman about taking the money and running. For so long men have done this without any shame. I am a brown female postdoc and can tell you that at the university where I was, there were a number of white men who had no problem using their priveledge and advantage. In my mind this kind of attitude applies to spousal hires, where women are often the spousal hires. I say take whatever leg up you can and then show them your stuff.
I'd also like to to comment on what AP has said in light of Dr. Isis' comments. It is the presence of many different women in the academic sphere that will counter racist attitudes. She is right when she says, "Particularly the female students (of all ethnicities). They make me increasingly aware of how my being here makes a difference." I experienced something similar when I was teaching this past year at BigUniversityInCanada. Despite being a big city, the faculty were still largely male and white. I felt the difference my presence at the front of the classroom made because I represented many more of the students in that class of 200. Your "presence" in academia matters. Because women and women of colour are such a diaspora, we must be present in order to show others that a woman in science is not just one thing.
I want to add one last thing. I didn't start in science but I started in the arts and let me tell you, I felt liberated when I came to science. Although I know, as AP, points out there are both the subtle and overt types of racism, it does not at all limit me from pursuing ideas and questions that I think are interesting. In the arts, your difference was what you were expected to write, paint, etc about. In science, while difference matters in other ways, it does not constrain my science.
Good luck and stay strong.
Posted by: GirlPostdoc | December 27, 2008 1:09 PM
PP, why do you assume that because I have a particular interpretation that is different than yours (or even what she states to be her position) that I am not reading closely or deeply enough? Twisty's been in my reader for some time.
You may be correct that she doesn't point her finger at any particular person and say, "You, individually, are hurting the revolution," but she does believe that certain practices are counter to her revolution. Twisty says the following:
Twisty does not "blame" me for my ignorance, my stupidity, or my repeated capitulation to The Man. How very kind of her. But, I am incapable of having made the desire to reproduce without the influence of the patriarchy -- it is what I was trained to do from the cradele. It is simply invisible to me, silly unliberated naive tool of the patriarchy that I am.
I have married, changed my name a bit into the marriage, birthed young -- not because it was expected of me but because motherhood genuinely gives me joy. It's not a poiltical statement, it's the way I want to live my life and why should I be expected to alter that to further her poltical cause? If I do, then haven't I moved from being repressed by The Man to being repressed by The Woman?
I say, yet again, I will always be damned if I do and damned if I don't. Someone will always interpret my actions as contrary to the goals of some group.
I can't continue this comment...I'm going to let it go.
Posted by: Isis the Scientist | December 27, 2008 1:18 PM
Take the money and run, for sure, and don't look back. Life's tricky enough without beating yourself up for perceived advantages from whatever source (inborn or affirmative action grant money or what have you). I'm white and came into the system with a lot of advantages because of my family background. I can spend my time feeling guilty about my comparative wealth and familiarity with academia, or I can use that time to (a) work and (b) help out others who don't have those advantages.
Which is not to say I never beat myself up, but it's by and large not helpful. Advance however you can, and thank the funding programs by helping out students coming up the ladder.
Posted by: Dr. Jekyll & Mrs. Hyde | December 27, 2008 1:29 PM
Cross-posted from DrugMonkey:
Actually, there is explicit affirmative action in scholarships for certain groups of white people. The ones I've heard of are for Italian-Americans, but I'm sure there are others:
http://www.osia.org/public/scholarships/grants.asp
And Asian-Americans, although well-represented in science, have various scholarship funds. I suspect that various Middle Eastern groups, also well-represented in science (and considered Caucasian on NSF paperwork), have similar organizations and scholarships.
So if the well-represented groups have their own scholarship funds, why not the under-represented groups too?
Posted by: Alex | December 27, 2008 1:40 PM
Twisty's point is that no one--male or female--does anything without the influence of the patriarchy. Her corollary point is that doing anything under the influence of the patriarchy short of revolution reinforces the patriarchy. She's not telling people what to do; she's interpreting what people do in light of a particular theoretical framework.
I find it interesting that people get very uncomfortable with the notion that our cultural milieu that has developed over thousands of years of human history has a hugely determinative effect on our behavior, and are much more comfortable with the conviction that our behavior represents the outcome of "choice" divorced from human cultural history.
Posted by: Comrade PhysioProf | December 27, 2008 1:42 PM
PhysioProf: I find it interesting that blah blah blah.
Oh please, spare me your moronic, unscientific, evidence-free, pop-psychology, ad hominem rhetoric. You can twist it any way that you want, but ultimately the simple fact of the matter is the Twisty is attacking women for making choices that she, personally, does not agree with. Either provide some evidence to show that Isis chooses to blog about shoes and have children because she is oppressed, or stfu.
Posted by: Martin | December 27, 2008 1:49 PM
Twisty's point is that no one--male or female--does anything without the influence of the patriarchy. Her corollary point is that doing anything under the influence of the patriarchy short of revolution reinforces the patriarchy. She's not telling people what to do; she's interpreting what people do in light of a particular theoretical framework.
What counts as revolution? Is succeeding as a woman in science undermining or reinforcing the patriarchy? Is raising children with values that affirm success for women undermining or reinforcing the patriarchy? Does it all depend on her mindset? Is it OK to do things that aren't directly leading to revolution?
If she just wants to have kids and do her experiments, is giving her crap about the patriarchy going to empower her or just stress her out?
Posted by: Alex | December 27, 2008 1:51 PM
Twisty is not attacking anyone, and she is very strict on her blog about disallowing her commenters from engaging in attacks. Twisty is interpreting human behavior in light of a particular theoretical framework. It should be possible to disagree with that theoretical framework without feeling that one is under personal attack.
Posted by: Comrade PhysioProf | December 27, 2008 2:00 PM
This is such utter nonsense, PP. Anything we do reinforces the patriarchy short of her revolution -- can you really not see how this implies that women are unable to choose the path that they find fulfilling unless it conforms to her idea of revolution without being a tool of the patriarchy? This is not revolution. This is a whole new level of oppression.
She's interpreting what people do in light of a particular theoretical framework? She writes:
This is not a thought experiment, PP, and it is not a "motherfucking Care Bears tea party." These are the attitudes that women like me deal with constantly, damned constantly, when we are looked down upon in academia for our choices. Looked down upon by men and women who think that we do not take our career seriously enough and are far more interested in playing Betty Crocker than Marie Curie.
I am not naive enough to think that I make choices divorced from the cultures I was raised in, but I think I have the ability to reject parts of culture that I find disdainful.
Last night I apparently offered a big "fuck you" to feminism when I interrupted my blogging to clean up my child's poo-filled diaper. I suppose it would have been the ultimate rejection of the patriarchy to leave my male infant to lie in his own mess.
Would you feel similarly if the "theoretical framework" I wanted to "explore" was one that insisted that women must be homemakers and that men must encourage women to leave academia and return to the home where they belong?
Posted by: Isis the Scientist | December 27, 2008 2:03 PM
@PhysioProf: "Twisty is not attacking anyone"
Utter tosh. There are numerous quotes here and on her own blog of her attacking those who don't fit her version of feminism.
The simple fact is that Twisty should be able to explain what you rather generously describe as her "theoretical framework" without resorting to cheap, nasty attacks on others. You seem to be in denial PhysioProf.
Posted by: Martin | December 27, 2008 2:12 PM
I see some feminist comments on nuclear motherhood and on their disapproval of how some women express their femininity in some ways as analogous to Ted Haggard's comments on homosexuality before (and even after) he was caught buying sex from a male prostitute. The classic explanation of homophobia is that it is in part self-loathing projected onto others as in this cartoon.
http://www.jesusandmo.net/2008/12/19/ugh/
Homophobes feel compelled to denounce as unacceptable the slightest hint that homosexuality might be acceptable, not just for themselves, but for anyone (even as they are acting on or are aware of or are denying their own homosexual feelings). They must express zero tolerance for homosexuality because if they were tolerant, they would be attracted to that lifestyle themselves, and as a moth to a flame would spiral in and their formerly intolerant persona would be destroyed.
When different parts of society are fundamentally intolerant of each other and one finds oneself as a minority in an intolerant majority, it is safer to adopt the majority view as in this quote which I used in a recent blog post:
In any great organization it is far, far safer to be wrong with the majority than to be right alone. -- John Kenneth Galbraith
This is my perception of why some women do not accept the notion of nuclear motherhood for themselves (or for any woman) and criticize women who accept it for themselves (e.g. Isis). I think that this nuclear mother phobia is a protective mechanism to prevent women who don't want to be mothers from getting trapped in a state they don't want to be in.
It is the Patriarchy that makes it safer to be wrong with the majority than to be right alone. I find it ironic that Twisty's comments on nuclear motherhood being a product of the Patriarchy are themselves a product of that same Patriarchy.
It is Bora's kabuki dance of science that does the same thing, making it safer to be wrong with the majority that to be right alone.
To me, feminism is about self-determination in the absence of coercion and in the absence of exploitation. Exploitation is putting your wants ahead of another person's needs. When there are large power disparities, it can be extremely difficult to have interactions that are devoid of exploitation or coercion. It is the Patriarchy and the kabuki dance of science that institutionalize power disparities in those institutional structures.
When one becomes a parent, one becomes responsible for another human being, a human being that has enormous needs. Needs that must be addressed ahead of the parents' wants. Physiology makes women more vulnerable during pregnancy, childbirth and in the postpartum period. Many mothers would do anything to meet the needs of their child. Many non-mothers (non-parents to that particular child and sometimes the child's father) can and do exploit the mother's willingness to do anything to meet the needs of her child. Nuclear mothers have the nuclear father to rely on, a back-up system that non-nuclear mothers do not have, putting non-nuclear mothers at an inherent disadvantage over nuclear mothers.
The structural changes that have to happen to make non-nuclear mothers not be at a disadvantage are thus impeded by nuclear mothers. I don't know the answer to this, other than more nitric oxide.
Posted by: daedalus2u | December 27, 2008 2:23 PM
Excellent post, Dr. Isis.
I've always had a hard time trying to decide whether what I'm doing is "capitulating to the patriarchy" or doing what makes me happy. I imagine sometimes it's both. It's important to think about the possible unintended consequences of our actions, but in reality, it's all a balancing act.
Posted by: Cherish | December 27, 2008 2:38 PM
I've always had a hard time trying to decide whether what I'm doing is "capitulating to the patriarchy" or doing what makes me happy. I imagine sometimes it's both. It's important to think about the possible unintended consequences of our actions, but in reality, it's all a balancing act.
Oh for Christ's sake!
So, if people feel guilty because making themselves happy might be a capitulation to the patriarchy, and if they only feel this way because somebody taught them about the way that every act can be a capitulation to the patriarchy, does this mean that the people who taught them about the patriarchy are also pawns of the patriarchy?
Reminds me of supervillains.
"Bwah hah hah! Now, for my ultimate act of evil, I shall ruin your every deed. Know this: All that you do or ever will do is a capitulation to me. You shall suffer every moment, knowing that even when you are happy it is an acquiescence to me! By choosing to resist me, you merely learn the full extent of my evil, and your every joy is forever tainted with the knowledge of my hand in it! And by teaching others of me, you merely spread my misery! All those whom you enlighten shall be forever cursed by knowing that their happiness is acqueiscence to me! All those whom you fail to enlighten are benighted pawns and slaves of my design! Resistance is futile!"
I feel the need for a doomsday device with a giant self-destruct button, located in an underground lair.
Sexism is real. That doesn't mean that life will get better if every facet of life is interpreted in terms of that.
Posted by: Alex | December 27, 2008 2:52 PM
@Martin: Don't interpret a single sentence of a single comment of mine as evidence that I agree with all of Twisty's views, especially when the sentence is preceded with one admitting that I feel uncomfortable when I read her writing. What I was trying to say is that I fervently hope that there could be a better way than having a woman work a "man's job" (in my case, science professor) and then come home and work a second "woman's job" (mother, cook, housekeeper). How many times have both Isis and I written about being sleep-deprived? about being forced to make hard choices between our science and our families? My imagined revolution probably doesn't look at all like Twisty's. My revolution looks like having all employers/professions respect that all people have lives outside of work by offering real, financially-feasible part-time, telecommuting, flexibility, paid maternity leave, etc. My revolution looks like having both parents combine to fully and equitably distribute household responsibilities. My revolution looks like having communities structured around supporting families and respecting the earth, maybe through dense developments with shared division of childcare or outside-maintenance. My revolution looks like having affordable and available local, organic food, even if I have to do some of the work to raise it (because my job allows me time to do that, see above). My revolution looks like communities that are truly built in a way to reduce dependence on cars and encourage families to get outside to walk and play.
Oh hell, there's a blog post here now.
Posted by: ScienceWoman | December 27, 2008 3:17 PM
I agree with Sciencewoman and PhysioProf. After the emotion has had some time to dissipate, go back and read a little deeper into Twisty.
Posted by: stickypaws | December 27, 2008 3:43 PM
Sigh.
Posted by: Isis the Scientist | December 27, 2008 3:50 PM
those twisty quotes irritate me.
i like to keep things simple. i pursue whatever the fuck makes me happy. if it's conforming to the patriarchial idea of a woman's job, so the fuck what. if it doesn't, great. i'm not about to be a nonconformist strictly for the purpose of being a nonconformist. (as much as i have no interest in being a conformist for the express purpose of being a conformist.) you lose your own identity either way.
happiness is real, and that's all anyone is really after. i say, pursue it to the fucking fullest, no matter what it is for you. be your best at everything you choose to do. anyone who looks down on you for taking your own path can shove it.
we have a long way to go as a culture to make women and men truly equal, but stay-at-home mothers and women who do the household "women's work" are not just pawns in the Man's game. we should be focusing on the real opposition instead.
feeling snarky today... it's been a very trying week for me. growl.
Posted by: leigh | December 27, 2008 3:53 PM
ScienceWoman: I LOVE your revolution. Where can I join?
Posted by: Zie | December 27, 2008 5:24 PM
Hey, I wouldn't dismiss Twisty outright. I am a married working mother and I agree with this:
"We are desperate for women to reject the specious narrative that within the nuclear family we have “choice,” when in fact the “choice” (regarding motherhood) is between doing one full-time job (stay home and raise kids) or two full-time jobs (do paid work and also raise kids)."
Yes, I am both money-maker and caregiver and it's incredibly difficult. Rejecting parts of culture that I find disdainful is not as easy as it sounds and many times I feel I'm going crazy trying to be a good worker, a good mother, a good wife, and a good everything, all in the context of a non-Western culture. I envy the fact that my husband does not seem so bothered by it all and he can just go with the flow. Pursuing whatever the fuck makes me happy is not as easy as it sounds when I'm juggling a dozen balls in the air.
Posted by: Sand | December 27, 2008 5:35 PM
Having just read this post and all the comments... I'm confused by the disagreement. I think everyone is saying pretty intelligent and insightful things here, and they aren't entirely incompatible.
I can see some of what Twisty is saying. Am I making concessions to the hegemony and power structure by shaving my legs, wearing a dress or heels occasionally, wanting to have and care for kids someday, etc. etc. etc.? Probably. But I don't think anyone out there is so pure they don't make any concessions to the system. I don't think there is any way that every single breath you draw can be spent fighting to overturn the system. We pick our battles, based on what we're best at, or what strikes us as most critical or most important, or what we're best positioned to do. I don't know if I agree, but I can see where Twisty is coming from, pointing out that anything that isn't fighting the system is "capitulating" (though what a bad word for that, jesus). But it's kind of a useless argument to me.
Most of my favorite feminist bloggers are a little obsessed with fashion - which is interesting, considering how secondary a concern it has generally been for me personally. And I consider them to be amazing feminists, and I would love to be as awesome as them!
I agree with the other commenters that said that choosing what is right for you is truly the most feminist thing you can do. Maybe the reasons we make these choices are, at some deep subconscious level, inspired by living in a patriarchy - but not entirely, and how can we ever know? Making all of those choices and options fully, truly available, and not just to a privileged few - that, to me, is the best thing we can do.
Yes, it is a big concern that SO MANY WOMEN achieve amazing, higher levels of education and career achievement, and then leave those careers arguably prematurely to take care of family, and their dominantly male partners are on the whole not making the same choice. Some of that might be biologically-driven, and some of it is probably deeply-embedded patriarchal values... and some of it is because opportunities are seriously lacking. The first one we can't do much about, the second takes reeeeeeally slow change, and the third we're working on but a lot more needs to happen. And I think judging someone's personal choices is not just wrong, it completely misses the point.
Posted by: volcanista | December 27, 2008 6:03 PM
Sand, I think that the disagreement with Twisty here is not over whether or not women should be having kids and caring for them while men don't pull their fair share. I'd guess that few readers here think that sounds like a good idea. it's more that Twisty seems to also be saying that all women who choose to get married and care for their children are capitulating to the patriarchy, period.
Posted by: volcanista | December 27, 2008 6:08 PM
what volcanista said.
and what Dr. Isis said.
Thankfully, my version of feminism does not require me to march in lockstep with what some other feminist thinks is the appropriate choice for me.
I don't have kids because I don't want kids. Doesn't mean that I think having kids is giving in to the patriarchy. Doesn't mean that I think EITHER parent staying home to care for said kids is giving in either.
I do think more women end up with two full time jobs than men, but I think there's a whole whack of psychological AND sociological factors at work there...in the cases I see around me, often its because the mother is unwilling to change her ideals to recognize differences in her partners parenting or housework styles...
but that's just the cases I see around me. It certainly doesn't reflect my own reality, nor what I grew up with...and your mileage WILL vary...
Posted by: CanadianChick | December 27, 2008 6:31 PM
Dr. Isis you raise some great issues that I have been mulling awhile. I agree that GWB should take all fellowships/grants/whatever comes her way and then do an amazing job (that said, I think women often strive to do a better job given the need to prove themselves. At least, I feel like I do. And that is a big bag of unfairness/crapthat can lead to psyche-damage. Not that anyone wants to do a mediocre job, but isn't it only fair to say, hey, you can take this money and do a mediocre job, too!). I don't know. But that is an aside.
What strikes me after reading the post and all of the comments is the need to say a big 'Fuck you' to anyone that has an issue with raising kids -- staying home or not, splitting the job fair and even with a partner, doing it alone, or having one parent, whether it be male or female, take on more of the kid-responsibility. Why in the crap is it an issue that people would want to do an excellent job of raising children? Why is it not considered one of the highest and most honored positions? Are professional women and men supposed to remain sterile? I'm digressing, I know -- this blog post is about wondering where in the crap one is accepted given male dominance in the sciences and the clash of some feminist ideals.
I can't help but wonder tho -- if the act of raising children were in general a more lauded position, if employers and colleagues thought 'of course you should take time off for your family!', would some of these issues be non-issues? And, is reproduction an act of giving in to the patriarchy? Isn't it more of an, oh, I dunno, basic animal response, likely induced or mediated by NO or something?
Posted by: gnuma | December 27, 2008 7:56 PM
gnuma, not you too with the NO. You people are out of control.
Posted by: Isis the Scientist | December 27, 2008 8:01 PM
i feel like i should back up my very strongly worded assertions earlier. i am no naive free spirit, unburdened by anything but my own ambitions.
for a year or more (i lost track) i had substantial burdens myself. but on top of that- twice per week i would get up at 3am, arrive to lab at 4am, work until 7am, then go home, collect husband, take him to the hospital 45 minutes away, wait 3+ hours (usually doing some type of academic type work/trying to stay awake), take him home, make sure he had everything he needed and the pain wasn't too severe, make the occasional trip to the pharmacy, then go BACK to work for another 5-6 hours. i came home to make dinner, clean up, care for husband, help him walk to bed, and then pass out myself.
i suppose you can imagine then i was also the only income earner (and remain so today.) graduate stipends don't go far against $10,000 hospital bills, and when you have several of those staring you in the face and are pitifully negotiating with a stonefaced hospital administrator? that was fucking stressful enough on its own.
despite all this effort, my boss did not see me around for a good chunk of the normal working day and once told me i was not working enough. i turned 180 degrees, walked out of the office, straight to my desk, and crawled under it. i couldn't say the angry things that were on my mind, and at that point i didn't know whether to cry or sleep. i chose to get some dry ice and hurl it at large objects outside the building.
i'm not blind to carrying heavy responsibilities and the effects of that burden upon the pursuit of whatever the fuck makes me happy. i'm still in grad school, pursuing what i hope will make me happy. my marriage, while sometimes trying, makes me happy. my home, my family, my nieces and nephews, they make me happy too. what i'm doing now makes me happy, despite the challenges. i hope someday to have my own children, and that is my choice which will hopefully make me happy too.
my point is that i don't need to follow anyone else's flight plan to be happy. i have no regard for any "authority" from any group that tells me otherwise.
Posted by: leigh | December 27, 2008 8:05 PM
Oh, I forgot to ask. What are those things in Figure 2? Yes, I googled 'pig penis' because I thought, well, maybe it's a pig. This is the most informative thing I uncovered:
http://scienceblogs.com/tetrapodzoology/2008/02/he_loved_pigs_too_much.php
I was pretty much done surfing after finding the above blog post.
Posted by: gnuma | December 27, 2008 8:40 PM
Exactly gnuma! The way to fight the Patriarchy is with nitric oxide.
Testosterone reduces NO levels in the brain. It is not that males are suffering from testosterone poisoning; rather their testosterone has lowered their NO levels.
http://jap.physiology.org/cgi/content/full/101/4/1252
NO inhibits testosterone synthesis by inhibiting the cytochrome P450 that is the rate limiting enzyme. Low NO then causes high testosterone, which stimulates hair growth (hirsutism) which increases the niche for the bacteria I am working with, and so increase the NO they produce (that is one of the many feed-back mechanisms that regulate NO via these bacteria). Low NO causes hyperandrogenic infertility (and by some other mechanisms too) because low NO is a symptom of high stress, which is a bad time to get pregnant.
NO is one of the things that mediates maternal bonding. When times are really stressful, physiology has the capacity to reduce the fidelity of maternal bonding. This is one of the reasons why stress in the postpartum period is so objectionable.
But fighting lowers NO levels. So people who want to maintain a high NO level need to choose their fighting methods carefully.
Posted by: daedalus2u | December 27, 2008 8:44 PM
No, just the women. The men are supposed to find some compliant, relatively mindless female to bear and rear offspring while catering to the man's needs outside of his profession.
No, wait -- that can't be what she means.
Posted by: D. C. Sessions | December 27, 2008 8:51 PM
Now, now. NO is, after all, a science word. Teach it to Little Isis and see the power it has in the life of a 2yo.
Posted by: D. C. Sessions | December 27, 2008 8:54 PM
Daedalus pmns the internet both by making this post about NO and by finding a way to cite JAP. Daedalus, I bow to your superior NO abilities. Does my submission require NO?
Many of you have been clamoring a bout Figure 2 and I am disturbed to learn that one of you went so far as to google "pig penis" as a result of my post. Those are fat inkeeper worms also occasionally referred to as "korean penis fish." I saw them once on Discovery.
Posted by: Isis the Scientist | December 27, 2008 8:56 PM
I honestly don't understand why you are feeling attacked by Twisty's message, Isis. You are not fulfilling the role of the traditional nuclear mother. To do that, you would have to stop doing science, and stop writing about it. Nor are you the ultimate male fuckfantasy. To be that, you would have to never don your scrubs, and be perpetually hot and available to your man. You may cozy up with your man at night, but you are not "cozy with the man".
Wiping your child's bottom and fucking your husband on a regular basis do not equal complete and utter subjugation to the patriarchy.
Posted by: acmegirl | December 27, 2008 9:10 PM
Alright, acmegirl. I've got a little wine here and I am interested in understanding better...really I am.
Can you define traditional nuclear motherhood? I thought Twisy's definition including working nuclear mothers.
It's ok to be hot as long as I am hot sometimes? Is there some time limit on my hotness that if I abide to makes me not a tool of the patriarchy.
I really am interested in your thoughts on this because I am not sure I understand.
Posted by: Isis the Scientist | December 27, 2008 9:29 PM
"I can't help but wonder tho -- if the act of raising children were in general a more lauded position, if employers and colleagues thought 'of course you should take time off for your family!', would some of these issues be non-issues?"
I think so. Also, if it were OK for the male or the female to take off that precious time. It's somehow assumed at my husband's job that the wife ought to take time off from her job to take the kinder to the doctor, dentist, etc.
The more I think about it, it's probably the nuclear part which causes the problems. Having everything fall on the wife or the husband's shoulders is harsh. Extended families and more co-operative communities would be a great help. How old is the nuclear family concept anyway?
"And, is reproduction an act of giving in to the patriarchy?"
Nope. But if you feel pressured to reproduce I'd say it is.
Posted by: Sand | December 27, 2008 9:36 PM
I'm not really a Twisty expert. I was under the impression that the traditional nuclear mother would be the mother within the traditional nuclear family. Which has a dad who works and a mom who is, well, a mom. Not a rocking hot scientist. If she has re-defined that term to include anyone who has procreated within a heterosexual relationship, well then, I think that's bullshit.
You are only a tool of the patriarchy if you make pleasing men the sole driving force behind everything you do, as far as I'm concerned. Perhaps the goal of those writers who are as strident as Twisty is to make us aware of the times we may be making choices that are not in our own best interest because they allow us to please men. This is not to say that we are all dumb little bimbos who don't understand what we are doing. We all have unconscious motives for what we do.
Posted by: acmegirl | December 27, 2008 9:42 PM
To me traditional nuclear motherhood is a mom and a dad with children. The mother is in charge of child-rearing and house tasks, or predominantly in charge. She would be a housewife or, following Twisty's definition, a working mother who aside from her job must be responsible for the family. So the woman maintains the traditional role of child care and house work on top of an external job.
Posted by: Sand | December 27, 2008 9:43 PM
So, then, since it seems that Mr. Isis does indeed do a share of the child-rearing, then it is true that Dr. Isis is not a traditional nuclear mother.
Posted by: acmegirl | December 27, 2008 9:49 PM
Ping!
Posted by: Dr. Free-Ride | December 27, 2008 9:57 PM
I would expect that you are right acemgirl.
When I read Twisty's words I thought she was referring to the fact that the old nuclear family concept allows women some options which don't sound so great: a) stay at home and rear children b) go out and work, come back home, rear children after a long day at work.
Either way it sucks. There ought to be a more balanced way to do things. I'm struggling with the fact I'm supposed to be super woman and reading Twisty's post made me happy because I realized it is a rotten deal and maybe I would be better off trying to do things differently than attempting, in vain, to have my like look like a cross of Leave it to Beaver and Sex and the City (my image of what working nuclear motherhood means). At least that is what I got out of it.
Posted by: Sand | December 27, 2008 10:12 PM
"No, just the women. The men are supposed to find some compliant, relatively mindless female to bear and rear offspring while catering to the man's needs outside of his profession."
My attempt at inclusion, DC Sessions. The link 'Do Babies Matter' supplied by Dr. Mom on http://mommyscientist.blogspot.com/ is pretty chilling. While I certainly know a few stay at home moms that are not compliant and relatively mindless, it does seem to be the case that men with children who are not the primary caretakers make out career-wise, as compared to women with children and surprisingly, without. Not to be a downer, but it's disheartening.
Posted by: gnuma | December 27, 2008 10:17 PM
Grad with Braids:
You can't control history. History is what has made money and opportunity availible to you here and now. That leaves you with a simple choice . . . take hold of opportunity or don't, and I don't see how passing up opportunity helps you or anyone else. Some people won't like you, may think you moved to the head of the line ahead of more qualified people (them), but they'd think that if you were me, too. You can't help that.
I'm a white male, but I have two Hispanic daughters. If you want to be a role model, do so by pursing your own goals, not mine, your mother's, or your colleagues', because that's what I want my girls to do.
Posted by: Enkidu | December 27, 2008 10:42 PM
People like Twisty put us men into a very small box, which clearly does not fit. As the "powerful oppressive patriarchy" I suppose I can't complain about how insulting this is, and I realize that my being a white male may have given me an advantage in academia, so I won't bother to try.
But I must say it betrays a bit of absurdity in her argument. According to her sort of logic, it seems there is nothing at all that I can do to not be "the oppressor." I don't deny that there is sexism still in academia, and in the rest of society. But how dare she imply that every single man is guilty of this? Of course, by her definition, we all are, by our very existence.
Apparently, I am incapable of forming opinions about my peers without considering their gender. Apparently, the fact that I might find my girlfriend sexually attractive means I'm marginalizing her. Apparently I'm incapable of finding her intelligence attractive as well, or at least it doesn't matter if I do.
I'll never understand what Twisty's sort of feminist actually wants. Is her version of equality one in which men don't exist at all? If that is her version of equality then her logic fails on its merits, not her gender. I'd argue that her silliness harms feminism by destroying credibility, and giving men something to point to and say "look at those nutty feminists, always whining about something."
I'm all for feminism, as I have no problem working with women. But I can't stand a ridiculous argument, for feminism or anything else. Thank you, Isis, for actually thinking about your position. It is the mark of a mind at work, be you woman, man, or otherwise.
Posted by: Tercel | December 27, 2008 11:23 PM
Thought you might be interested in reading this woman's thoughts on Twisty, in general (and some of the ways in which she might be considered inconsistent in some of her views):
http://daisysdeadair.blogspot.com/2008/12/feminists-on-high-horses-pt-1.html
Posted by: Wendy | December 27, 2008 11:23 PM
This is great, Wendy! Thanks for offering another side.
Posted by: Isis the Scientist | December 27, 2008 11:29 PM
@Alex:
Yes, I wonder all the time about this. I spent my first couple years in undergrad learning that if I was going to succeed in science, I had to be a male or else take a second best position by being sufficiently feminine to be acceptable to males. So what does this mean? It means that when I get up in the morning and look in my closet, I have to choose between the clothes that quite hide my femininity so that I fit in with the males around me or the clothes that make me feel pretty and feminine but which attract the wrong kind of attention. I am either forgotten/passed over/ignored because I blend in sufficiently well or have the wrong kind of attention paid to me. This means that no matter which direction I go, no one is respecting me for my intelligence or abilities. If you've ever been the ONLY woman in an all male department (such as I was, which included undergrads, grads, and profs), these things are real issues. Perhaps I'm displaying my feminine fragility for saying that it's very hard to get through some days when you feel like you can't win no matter what choice you make, however personal or benign it may seem. Some days, all you can do is put your head down and keep moving and pray that you aren't messing anything up for yourself or any other women who may show up after you.
Posted by: Cherish | December 28, 2008 12:06 AM
I am a bit late to the party, as I was making dinner while I was reading the post, which annoyed my monkey. He's now in bed and I've had a chance to read everyone's comments. After reading them and twisty's posts I made a single realization. We have a long way to go on equality. For me the single most significant indicator of equality would be when we don't expect women and/or feminists to have a single united voice. When we recognize that women have diversity of opinion, style and thought is as diverse any other community.
I look forward to the day when I speak, I am the voice for only myself or an organization I have chosen to represent. I look forward to the day that I would only be thought of as the voice of women, after a group of them have elected for me to speak on their behalf. Right now, I am representative of all brown women.
I was raised in / currently live in a very patriarchal culture, and when I am not fighting the oppression, I am its tool. I agree with that. I do not fight every battle. I can not. The fact that I worry about being a good mother more than Mr.SM worries about being a good father, does that mean I am a tool of the patriarchy or that I am more insecure than him? I do not know. But I do believe that when I do not speak up with my FIL, when I choose to be demure with the inlaws, I am choosing to conform because it is the easier path.
When I up at 2am trying to keep up with unrealistic expectations,i am a tool of the patriarchy. When I try to meet the unrealistic expectations of science, I am not assisting in creating the world that ScienceWoman would like.
Does that make me a bad feminist? I think it makes me human.
Posted by: ScientistMother | December 28, 2008 12:29 AM
- This is great, Wendy! Thanks for offering another side.
Wendy's ad hominem 'argument' against Twisty does nothing to negate the points made in her blog. I don't always agree with Twisty, but she is certainly correct in that none of us is able to completely opt out of the larger society/paradigm in which we live.
Posted by: stickypaws | December 28, 2008 12:44 AM
Don't over-interpret things. Am I the tool of someone or something if I'm awake at 2am finishing a presentation or grading lab reports? Am I the tool of someone or something when I don't argue with my in-laws for the sake of domestic tranquility?
I would venture a guess that even in a perfectly equitable society it would still be a bad idea for anybody (male, female, intersex, whatever) to argue with members of the non-heteronormative-and-non-hierarchical-extended-family during the Solstice Meal of local, organically grown vegetables.
Posted by: Alex | December 28, 2008 12:52 AM
Hi,
Do you mind terribly if I jump in as a women's studies major and give some theory and history background for Twisty and generally take over your comments?
There are a lot of different strands of feminism that have gone through academic and activist movements. You are probably most familiar with liberal feminism, which argues that women are equal to men and therefore should have equal place with them all up and down existing social structures. This is similar to the concepts of liberalism underpinning American democracy. Both forms of liberalism emphasize the importance of the isolated individual to make free choices (like voting, like choosing a career that is amenable to you, etc.)
Twisty is a radical feminist. This movement was biggest (and it was still a small group) in the late 60s/early 70s, and includes people like Shulamith Firestone and Andrea Dworkin, both of whom she quotes a lot.
Radical feminists, like, say ... radical political groups, like communists and anarchists, want to do away with certain social structures altogether, because they are oppressive and so thoroughly rotten that reforming them slightly from within (the liberal method) is pointless. So the anarchists want to abolish government, the communists capitalism, and radical feminists, either the patriarchy or even gender itself. (ok long explanation of sex vs. gender goes here but I'll keep it short.)
Twisty writes in a very incendiary style to burst through our general assumptions and to provoke radical, rather than incremental, change. (at least, that's what I think she's doing). She also constantly returns to the ways our society is _structural_ and not _individual_ --- i.e. your personal choice to do anything will neither create nor destroy the patriarchy, which has existed long before you did, and probably will be there for a long time afterwards. Radical feminists and certain other thinkers, in fact, make the argument that this whole idea of individual choice, or even the idea of the autonomous individual, is actually a very successful method of keeping the status quo, especially as it blinds people to the necessity of collective social action and prevents them from seeing how they have commonalities with other people across national borders, across class lines, gender divides, and other social stratifications.
Twisty's attacks on the "pornification" of culture and feminine accessories are in response to a very sneaky and effective marketing trend that she calls "empowerfulment" --- the idea that the consumer choice of wearing uncomfortable, gorgeous shoes is somehow a political act that can take the place of, well, actual political acts from voting to lobbying for equal access to health care to ensuring that a chapter of WISE exists on your campus. The Obama election may have been different, but I can tell you that last year many of my students thought that wearing one of those "porn star" t-shirts made them sufficiently edgy and "alternative" enough to substitute for engagement in any causes. Including registering to vote.
To make a long comment short (well, ok, terribly long), Twisty is not so much attacking individual people and their choices as attacking the notion that making a choice for your own benefit changes the system for everyone coming after you. Now, I don't believe quite the same theories as Twisty and don't write in her style. I'm a pragmatist, and I would say that whatever you can do to make the process easier institutionally for women scientists, for working mothers, for working fathers, whatever group you pick, that is good work and an awesome thing. And that getting changes to stick institutionally, and overcoming institutional inertia, is going to require a collective effort, although probably not a world-wide one. I would also say, pragmatically, that you pick one fairly focused thing and work on changing that, and just let all the other parts of your life be inconsistent, for pleasure and survival's sake. Nobody is a perfect activist who never has weak, "tool of the patriarchy" thoughts and desires. Nobody in the world is "on" doing do-gooder work all the time. Rock the Naughty Monkeys, do the work and the mothering and the wifeliness and drop the ball on all of those about 10 percent of the time because that's a lot. And if you can fit 90% of effort on some sort of activism, you are doing so so much more than an awful lot of people.
Posted by: Sisyphus | December 28, 2008 12:58 AM
Alex, I don't argue with the inlaws. To argue would mean that we are actually having a discussion. What I do is choose to conform to an expected behavior / gender role which is inline with the values that my MIL&FIL have. When I conform to their expectations, I am going against my own values and belief system. So yes I am a tool. I am choosing to conform because I recognize that it is easier to allow them to not change than to deal with repercussions of forcing my values onto them. I do not live with them. My husband does not share those values. However, by conforming I am making it more difficult for the other daughter-in-laws and the granddaughters that are born into the family. Yes I am a tool. I, unfortunately, do not have the strength to cut them a path.
Posted by: ScientistMother | December 28, 2008 1:01 AM
I couldn't help myself. I wrote some more on this...
Posted by: acmegirl | December 28, 2008 2:16 AM
"Twisty is not attacking anyone, and she is very strict on her blog about disallowing her commenters from engaging in attacks. Twisty is interpreting human behavior in light of a particular theoretical framework. It should be possible to disagree with that theoretical framework without feeling that one is under personal attack."
Go back to December/January I think it was 2006, maybe 2007. A post that apparently had nothing to do with transsexual women, then became all about them (and not because of them), and attacks flew from all sides, but mostly from her side - with people like Heart and luckynkl for example. Very long thread.
I agree with what Martin said here. Choices you make are choices you make, and to be forced (or made ashamed) of following some notions/choices etc is the same as what patriarchy does. If patriarchy is the thing saying little girls should play with dolls and take care of babies, then doing the opposite and enforcing the opposite (by way of disapproving, if not coercing) is just as damaging and wrong.
I conform to some notions of feminity, but to my family, it is all but conforming. They've known me as male before, so to see me wearing a dress isn't "typical" for them (my extended family, as my immediate one had a long time to get used to it).
I don't feel forced to wear a dress either. I didn't trade one set of prescriptions of gender for another. Firstly, I didn't follow the previous one (masculine gender role) before, I simply avoided what could land me in more hot water (that I knew about anyway...not enough). I found that a LOT more restrictive then than the expectation that I wear a bra now. And wether it's supporting the patriarchy or not, I'm not about to go bra-less, killing my nipples chaffing to cotton.
Secondly, I'm not following nearly many of the feminine gender role prescriptions now either. And it's because I don't like them, plainly, not because I want to defy the patriarchy. I don't like lipstick, or eye makeup, or high heels. I do like skirts, some dresses (I'm pretty picky still), but I'm not about to go make myself freeze over in -20 C (-4 F) weather to look cute or sexy, so I make choices based on the patriarchally-induced weather.
I don't need to enumerate all the choices I've made, like to say doctors should screw themselves if they don't want to even listen to me as their patient. Suffice to say that I make choices based on my likes, my dislikes, circumstances (like the weather), and my own motivation (I don't wear makeup at work, because I don't feel its worth it). I'd include the kyriarchy and socialization within circumstances and/or motivation (really depends on the issue). But it never affects my likes and dislikes, and I hope I can discern those from my motivations and circumstances (ie "I really like this dress, but I shouldn't wear it because of this or that", isn't the same as "I don't like this dress because my mom/dad/kyriarchy told me it wasn't good").
Changing the system (capitalism, and the kyriarchy) is certainly something I'd like to do, but I don't see it doable by erasing the system. Another system will replace it. Hierarchies are apparently natural (occur in animals) so I don't think trying to teach 6 billion people that "hierarchies are wrong" is going to cut it. It's not something that is only socialized (something that is only socialized is the notion of nuclear family, as opposed to many alternatives like communes or multi-generational households).
It's something the law has to remove socialization from - like giving either parents a leave (or both even) rather than de facto assume the mother (and only the mother) will take it. The notion that winners (of a sport, an event, a game, etc) are innately better than the losers and/or that the losers should suffer for that. The notion that being "born rich" makes you innately better than someone who's poor. The notion that transsexual women are not "really" women. The notion that gay men are not "really" men, and there's a lot more.
Making the Other as inhuman has been exploited throughout the ages, to remove compassion and hesitation from the equation. This *definitely* needs to change.
Posted by: Schala | December 28, 2008 3:11 AM
So terribly confused... Why the hell do people think raising kids is an individual effort, or the effort of two at best?!
Of course you can't keep up two+ extremely demanding occupations crammed into one all alone by your lonesome, and viewing them as that separate doesn't contribute with anything and hinders too bloody much. Having a balanced life with several intense interests is usually damned difficult without external support from many people and preferably the most of the community. "No man is an island" is still as true. Kids are not supposed to be taken care of just by one parent either.
The concept of "Millimeter justice" is moronic, but if your partner(s) is(/are) not willing to roughly invest as much as you into any kids you have with them (percentage distributions between the involved parties varying throughout the different days or weeks is obviously fine), you probably shouldn't be raising any kids with them.
Workplaces need to enable more flextime, less work hours and places for smaller kids to spend several hours at with ease and joy while their parents are working. This will need not only individual pressure, but also support and help from organisations. The attitude that 'whatever's not done for the workplace (whether office or as 'homemaker') directly detracts from it' is terribly toxic. Variation enriches and helps people keep healthy perspectives. As well as capable of working for more years (healthier people = longer lifespans), if work is all the employers and governments are obsessed about.
Anyone who speaks as if people are drones containing only one single aspect of life is seriously failing to think things through. Don't let them get to you too much: They're the ones being illogical, they're the ones who thus have to prove that their illogical way of puzzling life together actually is possible to maintain and better. Ha, good luck and good riddance to them.
er... Sorry about the rant.
Posted by: Rr | December 28, 2008 8:43 AM
Please forgive this white guy for weighing in (does acknowledging my comment constitute a nod to the patriarchy? ;-)) - I know that someone is going to direct me to the Finally Feminism 101 FAQ site.
I've been following the discussion and terminated several comments I began because I didn't really feel it was my place to jump in. However, acmegirl's comments really got me thinking: isn't feminism really supposed to be about women having the complete freedom to make the choices they find best for them?
Posted by: Abel Pharmboy | December 28, 2008 9:57 AM
Yes, Abel, I think most brands of feminism are about agency, to a large extent. To really have agency, though, you do need to have real choices. And hey, making fun of feminists on a feminist post and in a discussion with feminists about feminism - what could be funnier! geez.
Rr, I'm not sure why you're ranting about this - I think most people here agree with you! The problem is that such an equitable division of labor almost never happens. Hence the whole thing about it being an issue whether or not women professionals choose to have children.
And Tercel, that is one serious straw Twisty you got there. You're taking making it All About You to a whole new level.
I have to side with ScienceWoman on this one, Alex. I'm not even totally sure what you're arguing - that being aware of the inequity of the system we live in is useless, so why think of it that way? It's okay to realize that some of the things you do are conforming to a frame that largely oppresses you and people like you. And then to keep doing them, because we can't fight every battle. Even Twisty might make concessions now and then. Being aware of them is huge. Telling us we shouldn't bother being aware of them because it's overreacting, or reading too much into it... well, that sounds an awful lot like privilege to me.
Posted by: volcanista | December 28, 2008 10:26 AM
"So terribly confused... Why the hell do people think raising kids is an individual effort, or the effort of two at best?!
Of course you can't keep up two+ extremely demanding occupations crammed into one all alone by your lonesome, [...] Kids are not supposed to be taken care of just by one parent either. "
Rr: Can I just say that this sharing of responsibility for the raising of children is an ideal we might aspire to and something many of us desperately want, but the tone of your comment seems to suggest that you think women _choose_ to take these responsibilities on themselves or _choose_ inappropriate mates. This made me want to laugh or perhaps cry. You're blessed if you come from a community/world where pursuing this ideal is a viable option. For many, the reality is that holding out for this ideal means _choosing_ not to ever be married, not to ever have children in a two-parent home, and possibly to be treated like a freak by everyone around you. Another commenter mentioned dealing with a MIL and FIL in a patriarchal society. I'm guessing her culture shares some similarities with the one I come from. Choice doesn't even come into it when your whole existence is treated as that of a second-class citizen. Or even if your intelligence is recognized, you are still considered a baby-making machine on whom such intelligence is inappropriate or perhaps simply 'wasted'. Even in the US, where I've spent most of my life, I come up against traditional attitudes towards gender roles again and again -- sometimes in the form of subconscious bias (we all have these biases).
This ideal you describe is the one we aspire to, but very few people truly achieve it from what I've seen. I guess living with this imbalance can be considered a matter of choice, but the other option may involve a much greater sacrifice.
Posted by: AP | December 28, 2008 11:31 AM
Isis, It is only nitric oxide that I pwn, not the internet. Submission after fighting does cause increased NO levels, and in some circumstances can cause bonding, such as in the Stockholm Effect, but NO has to be pretty low for that to happen.
I am working on a longer comment explaining why the first step of the revolution SM and others have talked about is to increase everyone's NO level.
Posted by: daedalus2u | December 28, 2008 12:28 PM
@AP:
Yes, I'm ridiculously lucky enough to live where it is more socially acceptable for women to have both brains/career and children, and where men are expected to help out with the kids. The text is unfortunately biased from that angle. I intentionally didn't claim that my above comment was aimed at Isis, as she appears to be doing everything she can. She's nothing short of impressive and admirable.
I didn't intend for it to sound as if I was blaming women for having kids, my point is that changing society to the better is highly relevant for everyone and that it's a group effort. It's for people who are not in that specific situation as much as people who are. It just frustrates and amazes me how so many fail to see that they will benefit from for instance making it easier for people to successfully bring up children while having a stimulating career, even if they don't have any kids of their own and never will, and "even if" they're childless and male.
Why do they not see this?
If enough people make suggestions, and even offer to help with whatever little they can (workplaces can easily be not keen on implementing ideas for improving them unless they're getting it given to them already halfdone, or possibly even served on a silver platter). If enough people chip in with a little effort, things have to and will change for the better.
For instance a random childless collegue complimenting their boss on being so clever and a visionary to enable such an improved and healthier environment(okay, so not laying it on quite that thick... But training reluctant bosses to be better people is perfectly possible and has been done, I just can't point at the example I read about, it was too long ago) is nothing big, but it stacks up with a lot of other little details.
I'm sorry if I sound preachy or so. :-(
Posted by: Rr | December 28, 2008 1:14 PM
The first (and essential) step in this revolution is to increase everyone's nitric oxide level. I know that this step is obvious only to me, but the chain of facts and logic I use to get there are rather complicated and it isn't something that can be demonstrated experimentally with the resources I currently have at my disposal.
I will try and very briefly lay out a few of the reasons why increasing NO levels is important to break the cycle of greed, the cycle of exploitation, the cycle of violence, the cycle of violence against women, and the cycle of bigotry.
The fundamental and archetypal "need" for all cells is ATP. As the archetypal need, the thing that cells evolved to satisfy first was ATP because without enough ATP, nothing else was important. Pathways to generate ATP and regulate its consumption must be among the most ancient and most highly conserved pathways. Those pathways work so well in aggregate that they have been imbued with the magical property of homeostasis (there is no such thing as homeostasis and the term should never be used (being just one step away from vitalism) and I have a blog about that, but that is a side issue for this comment).
As cells evolved to meet other needs, how did they do it? A common path of evolution is to take an existing pathway, duplicate and then modify it. In this case, it is easier to take the existing pathways for satisfying ATP needs and modify them to satisfy some other need. I suspect that may be one reason why so many pathways are regulated by phosphorylation of proteins. Once you have a pathway that is doing something, it is much easier to evolve that pathway into something more complicated to do more things, even many things, than to evolve a single new pathway de novo.
One of the next needs that evolved was the supply of substrate to generate ATP. It is straightforward how low supply of substrate could lead to low ATP and activate compensatory pathways. Once the pathways have had a chance to evolve for a billion years, they can get pretty complicated with positive and negative feedback to tweak them under diverse circumstances.
In an organ or tissue compartment, the cells all need to work "in sync". That is they all need to be operating at the same "operating point" along their control line, the response function from control parameter to the thing controlled. ATP is charged, so it doesn't penetrate lipid membranes. NO is uncharged and is freely diffusible through lipid membranes. NO and ATP both act on sGC and affect the response of sGC to each other. This is an important mechanism by which NO regulates the ATP level of cells in a tissue compartment in sync. High NO levels and the ATP levels are high, low NO levels mean the ATP levels are low.
All NO sensors only sense the sum of NO from all sources. That includes the basal NO level, the NO level before nitric oxide synthase does its thing. For physiological parameters that are already in the active range, that is are already being actively controlled by NO, there is no threshold for a change in the basal NO level to affect the output of that control pathway. This is an extremely important concept. A change in the basal level of NO will change the output of each and every NO regulated pathway with no threshold. Physiology cannot "compensate" because it is the compensation pathways themselves that are affected. A changed output with respect to the NO input (including the basal NO level) is exactly and precisely the only way that these pathways work.
If substrate consumption is upregulated by low ATP, then chronic low ATP should result in skewing of physiology such that substrate in excess of actual need is consumed (or that oxidation of substrate is reduced to less than that consumed). Does this happen? Each pound of depot fat represents about 3500 calories consumed and stored in excess of immediate oxidation. 10 pounds excess fat represents 35,000 excess calories consumed. The timing of that consumption is not terribly important. 100 calories per day will result in about 10 pounds per year weight gain. 10 calories per day excess results in 1 pound per year weight gain. If weight is stable, then consumption equals oxidation (no accumulation).
So how do people gain tens or even hundreds of pounds excess fat? Obviously it is a "setpoint" issue. They are consuming more calories than they are oxidizing and this has gone on for a significant period of time. 3,500 calories per pound, 35,000 calories per 10 pounds, 350,000 calories per 100 pounds. A person that is 100 pounds over weight intellectually "knows" that they do not need more calories, but they "feel" as if they need to eat. Presumably the pathways that regulate food consumption are telling the individual to eat more, that the cells are "starving", and so are sending starvation signals to the brain, compelling the individual to eat. Food regulation pathways evolved in deep evolutionary time. They are robust and multi-redundant. It is virtually unknown for any organism to starve to death in the presence of abundant nutritious food.
I suggest that low NO skews the ATP level lower, and that this lower ATP level (in some individuals) sends "starvation" signals to the brain and such individuals feel compelled to eat even though they "know" they do not need more food. Food is one primal need; shelter, tools, clothing, (and shoes) are others. Presumably accumulation of shelter, clothing, artifacts and shoes beyond "needs" is analogous to the accumulation of depot fat beyond "needs" also. Regulation of those "needs" likely shares physiological pathways with regulation of food intake and ATP production.
I suggest that the cycle of greed, the accumulation of wealth and artifacts far beyond any utility is analogous to severe obesity and is caused by the same low basal NO level.
If we think about what produces a high NO level, it is low stress, beneficent feelings toward others, non-violence, meditation, high empathy, and diet rich in green leafy vegetables. This is essentially the lifestyle of the Dalai Lama. I would expect him to have a high NO level. He is from Tibet where high NO levels are also common due to the adaptation to high altitude. The Dalai Lama is not a greedy person. Like essentially all truly spiritual individuals, he has few material wants or needs. If your NO level and so your ATP level is high, you don't need anything else.
If we think about what produces a low NO level, it is high stress, hateful feelings, violence toward others, wanting and trying to hurt others, low empathy, hunting, a diet rich in heme (the heme in red meat binds NO and also increases oxidative stress). This is essentially the lifestyle of Dick Cheney. I expect him to have low NO levels, and his cardiovascular profile (as reported in the media) supports that assessment. Cheney is a greedy person. What ever he has is not enough and he will do anything to anyone to get more, including starting wars that kill many women and children. It is not just artifacts that Cheney desires, it is power. The power to exploit, the power to put his wants ahead of other people's needs.
The lifestyles and the values practiced by these two individuals are two extremes of a continuum, where the basal NO level shifts the operating points one way or another. Shifting the cycle of greed closer to the Dalai Lama and away from the Dick Cheney extreme is something that raising the basal NO level will do, and is (I think) an essential step in the revolution in producing a society that all feminists and other people of good will would find acceptable. That revolution can't happen by lowering NO levels. All violence lowers NO levels. That is how and why power corrupts. Having power and trying to maintain power decrease NO levels and makes you more violent. Low NO lowers your empathy and makes you perceive your wants to be more important than another person's needs.
Next I will address how the cycle of violence is mediated through NO, and why preventing violence against women is an extremely important step in the revolution. It is important because it is violence against women that epigenetically programs their children to be more violent adults, perpetuating the cycle of violence.
Posted by: daedalus2u | December 28, 2008 1:40 PM
"Why do they not see this?" from Rr...
it's the privilege of not having to open their peepers. it's lots of "smart" PhD wielding males who are clueless.
Women are damned if we speak up, we are damned if we don't. Damned if we try something, damned if we don't. The group effort is very much needed, and why we need allies from the clued-in males.
Posted by: jc | December 28, 2008 1:46 PM
volcanista-
I guess I'm saying that over-interpreting every aspect of life in terms of patriarchy gives other people too much power over your own happiness. And letting any narrative or theory dominate one's outlook on life may ignore the complexity of life and lead to a view that is less accurate rather than more accurate.
Posted by: Alex | December 28, 2008 1:50 PM
Dr. Isis: I've never heard of Twisty before, but I have heard the arguments and I refuse to let that sort of thing take away the parts of life that bring me joy.
True feminism isn't about wearing the right kind of shoes or forgoing parenting or making yourself invisible to please others. It's about freedom. It's about enjoying the things that make you human.
Don't let Twisty get you down.
Posted by: Sandra Porter | December 28, 2008 3:19 PM
"So terribly confused... Why the hell do people think raising kids is an individual effort, or the effort of two at best?!"
It's the way it is right now. As a small example, at work I don't see much support for the few married parents with children. Instead it's oh, there goes Jones, she's got to leave early to pick up little Timmy for daycare. Even if the co-worker makes up the time in some way there's a roll of the eyes whenever that happens. Instead of a sense of community and the thought that hey, if we support Jones maybe she'll be a happy worker, its criticism on Jones for doing silly stuff. And this is in a Western, developed country. In my birth country they will not even hire you if you have children. Ads clearly say: wanted single, young woman for work, etc, etc.
Posted by: Sand | December 28, 2008 4:18 PM
Yes, Abel, I think most brands of feminism are about agency, to a large extent. To really have agency, though, you do need to have real choices. And hey, making fun of feminists on a feminist post and in a discussion with feminists about feminism - what could be funnier! geez.
@volcanista - please accept my apologies; my intention was not to make fun of feminists and I was wrong to be so flippant. My point was to support the women here who are feeling they must defend their choices as being anti-feminist. I was jumping off from acmegirl's points that choosing to have children and choosing to have sex with one's husband does not constitute turning one's back on the movement. Instead, if these are indeed real choices, they sound to me as consistent with feminism.
Posted by: Abel Pharmboy | December 28, 2008 4:44 PM
OK, I've had a few cocktails, but two names:
Voltairine de Cleyre
Emma Goldman
I would love to hear responses to their writings, which were genuinely revolutionary. Of course, there's a great deal of subsequent history (including anarchist-feminist movements), but...
Posted by: SC | December 28, 2008 8:02 PM
Schala: "The notion that transsexual women are not "really" women. The notion that gay men are not "really" men, and there's a lot more."
They're not. I think this is pretty obvious. Being transsexual is a symptom of the fact that our culture demands we conform to one of two genders. Why else would someone feel so uncomfortable being called one gender that they have to conform to another gender?
That is, no one ever falls perfectly into one gender or another. Transsexuals and gay men are not really male or female- like everyone else, they are a mix of the stereotype of each gender. No one is the platonic ideal of male or female- we're all a little bit atypical.
The very fact that people feel forced to "convert" to one gender or the other is just a symptom of our culture. Recognizing them as the other gender just supports that divide- the idea that you have to be either or. I have a friend who identifies as genderqueer, and for a while they felt pressured to transition completely to male. But today they realize that they love having female genitals (although they still want to cut off their breasts.).
I'm in favor of doing whatever you want, but don't think you're doing anyone any favors by failing to acknowledge that there's genderqueer and intersex in all of us- that none of us are "really male" or "really female."
Posted by: Renee | December 28, 2008 10:02 PM
Thanks for posting this, Isis.
I consciously decided that I didn't want to study science in college because I didn't want to work with "those people." You know, my retiring, tenured chemistry professor who came in, sat the book he wrote on the podium, and said: "everything you need to know is in there" and then proceeded to read the newspaper every day during class - and who only answered questions from the male students. Or my bacteriology professor, who gave my volunteer project to a male student, only answered questions from male students, and in 1998 still required the class to memorize that AIDS was a "homosexual" disease. (I got him fired - yay!) Or my anatomy and physiology professor who speciously accused female students of cheating. Neither did I want to work in the medical field, where the working hours seemed to be some sort of test of stamina, completely ignoring the reality of families.
So, I got a history degree, despite the Dean of the college of science personally asking me to study science.
To make matters more complicated, I have a mental illness. I have clinical depression, with dysthymia. I've had four major episodes, which virtually guarantees that I'll have more. My junior year of college, my psychiatrist told me that I could quit my main job, or I could quit school. So I quit my job. I worked throughout school, holding at least one job and usually two. I had a good academic scholarship in undergraduate, and didn't incur any loans until graduate school. But, I can't handle the academic job market that requires moving, sometimes frequently, and thus depriving me of an emotional support system.
I also made a conscious choice not to seek a job that required me to invest my sense of self-worth. My mental health is too fragile to survive a high-stress occupation. This was very difficult for me, as I'd been subject to very high expectations throughout my life. Neither do I fit in very well at low-social-status occupations - I'm a bit "cerebral." I eventually found a niche teaching online math classes for a community college. I make about the same amount of money I made as a graduate student, or as a full-time un-classified staff member at a public university. I don't have health benefits, but my husband does.
When I turned 30, I told my husband that my eggs were aging even as we spoke, and that if we wanted to have a baby, we should do it now. So we did.
I researched it as I would any major undertaking, reading back issues of the Journal of Child Development, Neuroscience, Scientific American, and every semi-relevant thing I could get my hands on. So far, my daughter has been a great success - she's happy and healthy.
My husband shares my view that child rearing is a major undertaking - a job. I get the night shift and the day shift. He gets the evening shift and the weekend shift. I answer student questions after she goes to bed in the evening, and grade papers on Sunday - I've gotten to be very efficient. ;) I think that's fair - he even takes more hours than I do. *grin* We agree that it's important that he interact with her, both for her current development and her future happiness. (I could quote you studies, if you like.)
We share housework. Actually, he does more than I do. I am in charge of all the other domestic matters - finances, health, procurement, logistics, public affairs, and so on.
I have a point, here, somewhere. Life doesn't have to be un-equal. You can refuse to play the game. You can respect each other and value the importance of each other's contributions. You do what you do, and that's all you can do. If at the end of the day, you truly did all you can do, you have nothing to be ashamed of.
Twisty is stupid. Why? If, as she posits, that we are all a product of "the man," and if all we can see is what we are (thanks, Anais Nin), then she can't change the status quo because she's a product of "the man," too. Therefore, her viewpoint is just as twisted as, say, yours, Isis, because she views the world through rose-colored lens, just like you. It's the logical conclusion to her post-modern philosophy. This is why I call bullshit.
It's also why I am all-but-student-teacher-experience to a certification to teach social studies and science in grades 5-12. I believe the way to change the world is through our children. Curing cancer, being President, or winning a Nobel Prize certainly helps ensuring a place in modern history books, but to truly affect society, the teaching profession has no equal. Even when students don't remember your name, they will reflect your instruction. In turn, their actions in society will reflect upon you, in an ever-widening circle of influence.
Posted by: Courtney | December 28, 2008 10:03 PM
y'know, the more I read, the more I'm glad I live where I do and work where I do.
I'm in Canada, where we grant 15 weeks of maternity leave and 35 weeks of parental leave. Either parent can take the parental leave, and where I work, almost as many men have taken it as women. Which I think is really awesome and really cool.
I'm not in science, and I do work with a group of people who have chosen our employer in large part because the job allows much better quality of life than most of our colleagues in other industries get (and they often get paid a lot more than we do...), so my experiences are probably skewed by the fact that we have a LOT more hands-on daddies than a lot of other workplaces might...
Posted by: CanadianChick | December 28, 2008 10:16 PM
"They're not. I think this is pretty obvious. Being transsexual is a symptom of the fact that our culture demands we conform to one of two genders. Why else would someone feel so uncomfortable being called one gender that they have to conform to another gender?"
Wrong, they are. And why else than because of socialization? Because the body doesn't fit. It ain't about gender role, despite what the DSM says. As you said, for someone who feels they fall onto neither, they can identify as intersex, or genderqueer, as neither, as more than one. To say transsexual people MUST do the same, is plain othering. If that was true, then both non-transsexual men and non-transsexual women would HAVE to identify as neither male nor female.
There's a thinking applied towards transsexual people (and other people as well) that they are and MUST be/like/want to be a third gender, when they clearly do not (I'm not comparing those that choose to be considered a third gender, but those forced within that category by others). Getting gently elbowed in the ribs and being told "You can't be in *this* category...cause I'm here, so you're in that category over there that I don't care about."
Ironically it's fairly rare (that I heard about) for men to do this to transsexual men. Second wave feminism has done that (to transsexual women) from its inception however.
One of the last surviving bastion of (outright) transphobia, besides governments worldwide, is certain radical feminists (which isn't all of them) who view women-born-women as a category of its own, that a transsexual or intersex woman, not born with the standard female equipment, cannot be included in. That patriarchy sees this category as de-facto what a woman is, is apparently not problematic.
All arguments given for its defense would fall flat on its face when defending male or white space against female or black/asian/native people, though some fall flat even right off, by being downright hateful (see luckynkl) or attributing weird motives to (whole groups of) people they don't even know.
"That is, no one ever falls perfectly into one gender or another."
The problem might be the name "Gender Identity Disorder" then, which falls short (a long way) from explaining different *sex* identification than the body given at birth (rather than having anything at all, to do with gender roles). Milton Diamond wrote papers that are pretty instructive on the topic of intersex and transsexual identity forming - and that it has to do with sex, rather than gender.
"The very fact that people feel forced to "convert" to one gender or the other is just a symptom of our culture."
I agree it might be different if we had more than two official sexes, people might feel more enclined to identify in the middle. I disagree that transitions are a symptom of a binary society however, it's a symptom of having different body morphology. That people are treated differently may enter the equation sometimes, but it can't be the basic reason, someone getting expensive, painful, risky surgery simply for better treatment, and not at all because their body feels alien in certain places, will have an unpleasant surprise at the end of the track; unless they don't care at all about their physiology either way (those would be few, and probably rich, to undertake this without such a profond motivation).
Posted by: Schala | December 28, 2008 10:44 PM
"They're not. I think this is pretty obvious. Being transsexual is a symptom of the fact that our culture demands we conform to one of two genders. Why else would someone feel so uncomfortable being called one gender that they have to conform to another gender?"
and I'll add: in my previous post I noted instances where I couldn't care less, what female gender role might ask for me, that I wouldn't conform to what I didn't like (high heels, lipstick, eye makeup, needing makeup to be "presentable"). I conform to what makes sense to me, what I like, not what is semi-imposed on me, wether it has consequences or not. I've always been a free-thinker. I reject notions that "sexy is always good", and dress for myself first and foremost. I'd rather draw people interested in that *me* I present them, than to alter that me to be appealing to others.
Posted by: Schala | December 28, 2008 10:48 PM
Great post, Dr. Isis.
I concur with the advice for GwB, take the special money, if for no other reason than you "deserve" it for all the shit you've had to overcome to get to this point.
And Dr. Isis, I enjoy reading Twisty despite the fact that she's way more radical than I could ever be, and I disagree with her grim, apocalyptic portrayal of the revolution. When she appears to dismiss people like you and me as little more than "breeders," I just shrug and disagree.
We're raising the next generation of feminists, Isis. We both have sons who will see their smart, beautiful, and successful mamas and think that it's perfectly normal. They'll see their daddies changing diapers and nurturing babies and grow up to be that way too. They'll be sensitive to the ways that society dumps on the little people, and they'll do whatever is in their power to make things better for the oppressed.
As you said, people will judge you because of the person they are -- and this applies even to Twisty. Keep doing awesome science and being an awesome mom!
Posted by: Rebecca | December 28, 2008 11:51 PM
If one reads the child abuse literature, a common symptoms of child abuse is that children who are abused become "provocative". This can make trying to care for, parent or foster parent formerly abused children very difficult. The standard explanation for this behavior is that becoming provocative is a defense mechanism. It allows the abuse to be more tolerable because it give the child the illusion of agency. By being provocative, the child can maintain the delusion that the child is in control, and that if the child didn't do "bad" things, there would be no abuse. This is nonsense of course, but it is this delusion that allows the child to tolerate abuse that would otherwise be intolerable.
Do we blame children for the provocative behavior they have adopted to mitigate the injury being done to them? Only after they turn 18 and are then considered adults. Or sometimes when they are younger and do something really bad, then we treat them as adults and lock them away for the rest of their lives.
Many women in abusive situations adopt similar protective strategies. They do something "wrong" and then blame themselves when he hits her. Do we blame women in abusive situations for adopting strategies to mitigate the injury they experience? I don't.
When humans are in desperate situations, they will do desperate things to survive; all humans. One of the things my nitric oxide research has led me to understand is the desperate things people will do under desperate situations. It isn't a choice, it is physiology. Physiology optimizes survival by changing how one perceives one's environment. When running from a bear, physiology induces the delusion that one can run forever. In a real sense one can run "forever", that is one can run until the end of your life. One can run until one drops dead of exhaustion, or until the bear catches you. To physiology, both of those endpoints are equivalent to forever. To a parent, that sense of forever gets displaced onto their child.
Few situations are desperate enough to invoke that delusional state, but it is a complete continuum. Where on that continuum a person is at a particular time is a detail of their idiosyncratic physiology, their epigenetic programming, their diet, and many other things. Putting people under stress puts them closer to that delusional state. It makes them more likely to do desperate things. This is one of the self-perpetuating mechanisms of the Kyriarchy in inducing and maintaining a normative state of discontent so that those not in power don't have the resources to break the cycle.
http://secondinnocence.blogspot.com/2008/07/big-deal-manufacturing-state-of.html
People are easier to control when they are desperate, until they "break" and become psychotic. That is the essence of bullying; putting people under stress so they are less capable, less able to defend themselves, less able to present a "threat", less able to "compete", less able to make contributions that deserve credit, less able to make reasonable demands, less able to demand credit for useful contributions, less able to put their needs ahead of their oppressors' wants.
Posted by: daedalus2u | December 29, 2008 10:45 AM
I would like to second PhysioProf's comments, but I am not sure how to do it without coming across as condescending to you.
So I'm gonna say at the outset that this comment is not to convert you, but just to offer my perspective for what it is worth. There are enough feminists who dislike Twisty, some even vehemently. There was one thread at feministe where I remember someone said Twisty was the strawfeminist that other feminists say doesn't exist. :-)
I have been reading the spinster aunt for a few years now. Back when she was on typepad and only had a small readership. Initially, it was very tough, as her writing often made me very angry. Yet, some of the bloggers I loved were big fans and so I persevered. I slowly started loving her writing more and more, to the point that nowadays I fancy myself as a somewhat radical feminist or at least a radical feminist sympathizer (if it is not ok for a guy to identify as a feminist - there was a big thread on this too a while back in the feminist blogosphere)
Posted by: arvind | December 29, 2008 10:54 AM
I�m not an expert on Twisty�s philosophy, nor, obviously, do I have the desire or ability to speak for her in any regard, but I�ll take a stab at defining a couple of points that have been misrepresented. First off, �oppression� requires some agency that can be used as a means to oppress someone, as well as a desire to modify someone�s behavior through force or coercion. Criticizing the societal pathways that lead to the institutionalization of behaviors surrounding motherhood is not oppression, nor is criticizing the social norms that lead to specific forms of footwear. Twisty is not oppressing you. She has made it abundantly clear, multiple times on her blog that she is not criticizing individual women and the choices they make, regardless of the degree of their conformity to social norms � she is criticizing the pressures on women to conform to those norms, and the fact that these norms are there to begin with. Part of being female in what�s defined as the �patriarchy� is having one�s choices be politicized in a way that men�s are not. Wearing high heels may be a neutral or enjoyable act personally, but it does reinforce stereotypical conceptions of how women look and act, as well as what they enjoy. It would be a rare thing to hear one man say to another �why don�t you wear sneakers to work? They look good and �x� colleague wears them, so they can�t be that uncomfortable,� but social reinforcement of that kind does happen to women who choose to opt out of �attractive� clothing or fashionable hair or whatnot. This does not mean you personally need to stop wearing heels RIGHT NOW or you�re a BAD FEMINIST, but simply that, because you are a woman, the choices you make will be used as a reflection on your gender and not just on yourself (in turn, wearing sneakers does not make you a �good feminist,� and can also be sited to criticize other women; the point is that for women, there are no politically neutral ways to represent oneself).
In the same vein, being a mother, especially a stay at home mother, reinforces women�s traditional roles. This is not supposed to keep you from being a mother or from staying at home to help raise a child, it is meant to give a different perspective from which one can look at society. The ideal solution to this is not to ban shoes or reproduction or mandate jobs for women that are not �feminine,� but to liberate women from being the politicized �other� in society so that their choices mean no more than the honest desires of that particular individual.
Posted by: Ghoti | December 29, 2008 11:28 AM
Excuse me, but I have a hard time distinguishing between the logic that I think Twisty is using, as in "hate the patriarchy-supporting anti-feminist actions but love the woman" as being any different than the logic of the religious right as in "hate the sin but love the sinner".
When the actions of an individual are perceived by that individual to be an integral and inseparable part of their persona, such that to deny them or extinguish them would be to destroy an integral part of themselves, attacking the action is the same as attacking the individual.
I suspect that Twisty doesn't appreciate what being in love can do to a person. If you have never been in love it is difficult to appreciate what a life-changing experience that is. Loving your child and loving your child's other parent can be experiences that are beyond cognitive control. That love is not due to the Patriarchy, that love is due to millions of years of evolution.
The Kyriarchy doesn't cause those feelings. The Kyriarchy uses those feelings to exert control and exploit those who have them. The solution is not to block those feelings, or to denigrate those who experience them, the solution is to prevent their exploitation.
Posted by: daedalus2u | December 29, 2008 12:38 PM
Excellent post. While reading, I was reminded of Aesop:
Please all, and you will please none
Posted by: Sheril R. Kirshenbaum | December 29, 2008 3:55 PM
obviously late to the party, as such i don't feel so bad about weighing in with dissent.
Rebecca wrote:
"We're raising the next generation of feminists, Isis. We both have sons who will see their smart, beautiful, and successful mamas and think that it's perfectly normal."
i am one of those sons.
at the moment i am wiping undergrad-green from my horns. i feel like for each horror story Courtney shared re: "those people" i have a scar on my person where i was cut by a professor or administrator because i am a white American male, because i "don't add diversity" to a discussion, to a team. i learned the hard way that most folks are not progressive sensu my parents.
i share this not to piss in the punch or to reject history but rather with the hope that academia can figure out how to seek and maintain allies without calling targets.
i will take a pass on Twisty et al. and parental care in general; daedalus2u seems to be on course to meet my position in about two (three?) posts. i have been reading too much about reef fishes (spoiler: plasticity!) lately to approach at scale constructively.
Posted by: unmannedanimal | December 29, 2008 5:49 PM
While I am enjoying the lively discussion, I feel as if GWB's questions and issues raised have largely been ignored. So I decided to dedicate a whole post to addressing what I think were issues raised. Anyone that's interested the url is:
http://girlpostdoc.blogspot.com/
Posted by: GirlPostdoc | December 29, 2008 6:08 PM
Oh magnificent Dr. Isis-
Fact: you are entitled to wear whatever shoes you damn well please. You are entitled to, and fully capable of, intelligent agency in choosing which aspects of culturally-normed gender roles you wish to conform to.
I can see why any implication to the contrary would be deeply annoying/offensive.
Here is how I think one could apply Twisty's framework of analysis of human behavior given the patriarchy: taking into account societal context, there are times (e.g. your exclaimations of distress over other's lack of fashion sense) where you carry a patriarchical message. You will, partially by implication through your own choices, but also through active processes, encourage conformity to sterotypical gender norms that others may experience as oppressive. You should carefully consider the effects of the role you model. We all should, albeit not to absurd lengths of energy- and soul-sucking excess.
Opinion: wholistically, the whole Dr. Isis package, of snarky comments, joy of motherhood, absurd shoes, totally hot science, and bloggy goodness, makes you a totally awesome role model. But nobody is perfect.
Semi-Snarky Sidenotes-
1) Can I nominate ScienceWoman for benevolant dictator of the Post-Revolution Grand Future?
2)"I suppose it would have been the ultimate rejection of the patriarchy to leave my male infant to lie in his own mess." Obviously, a Real Feminist(tm) would keep a poopy diaper changing tally and make sure Mr. Isis is doing his share.
3)Alex-"I feel the need for a doomsday device with a giant self-destruct button, located in an underground lair."
Don't we all?
4)daedalus2u- "Submission after fighting does cause increased NO levels, and in some circumstances can cause bonding..."
What is the basal NO level in the very, very educated (http://scienceblogs.com/neurotopia/2008/12/friday_weird_science_which_por.php#comments)?
Posted by: Becca | December 29, 2008 7:09 PM
Becca, The normal basal NO level is in the nM/L range or perhaps slightly lower. It isn’t constant and shouldn’t be thought of as constant, rather as a control parameter that changes constantly.
Neural activity does increase NO levels. That is how the brain regulates neural activity. The signal that fMRI measures is due to vasodilation caused by neurogenic release of NO. There pretty much has to be a non-neuronal signal proportional to brain activity that signals to the liver how much glucogenesis capacity to have. I am pretty sure that involves NO in some way (mitochondria biogenesis is triggered by NO).
Mental activity does increase NO levels, some types of mental activity increase it more than others. Mental activities with a substantial social component increase it more due to involvement of NO signaling in social pathways (i.e. oxytocin). Social isolation does reduce basal NO levels and NO mediated signaling.
Mental activity such as nursing increases NO and that NO is involved in bonding. I think that is in part to also increase the capacity of the liver for glucogenesis which is an absolute requirement for lactation. The ability to “let down” requires a low stress situation, a safe place for nursing. That is probably mediated through high NO.
Education per se might not increase basal NO levels that much, but it does increase the capacity of the brain to generate NO, so depending on what one is doing, the NO level might be higher. There is an inverse association of education with Alzheimer’s. This is due to higher basal NO levels, but it isn’t clear to me if it is the education 50 years earlier, or the increased mental activity in later life that increases the NO levels (probably the latter).
The interaction of stress, violence, fighting, submission, basal NO and bonding is quite complex and my thoughts on this are not fully formed. I think that education level might modify it but probably not that much. Acute stress and acute NO levels would be much more important.
Posted by: daedalus2u | December 29, 2008 9:22 PM
For women in places like the USA marriage might be pleasurable but think about the great majority of females who live in poverty around the globe. Many of them do not have a choice on how many children they want to have, work protection or a culture that encourages men to share in traditional female activities.
Even in places like England marriage and children place more stress on the female than the male: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-437937/Why-marriage-chore-women.html
I do not have an easy solution for this except for women to ask for help more often and for men to offer to help their partners more without being asked.
Posted by: Takei | December 29, 2008 11:07 PM
Thank you for this blog post. One of my friends linked it to me and I devoured it, as well as attempted to process some of the comments...
I'm not a scientist, though I feel I could have been if I'd chosen to pursue some of my childhood dreams. I was reasonably intelligent and had a decent grasp on the scientific process, but I simply had too many and had to pick and choose once adulthood set in. So, instead, I'm a freelance artist.
I dropped out of art school due to health issues, and I've since found I honestly don't feel like going back to school. I have enough of the skills I need to at least get by in my career field, and having a super powerful job has never been an aspiration of mine, mostly due to said health issues.
I got married at 21, to a wonderful man after I'd been engaged to him for two years. His mom loves me, and my parents like him.
I don't want kids, I want a dog. Since his job in the Navy pays for both our housing and basic needs, I don't have to work, but if I really want a job, maybe I'll work at a salon and fragrance counter like I used to.
I say all of the above because a /lot/ of it gives me conflict as to how the feminist movement would view my choices. I like to think of myself as empowered, but god I love skirts. While it'd be outrageously difficult, I could probably have an important job doing important things, but I'm honestly happier just being a homemaker. I don't want to be looked down upon for the choices I've made, as they were my own.
So, am I a tool of the patriachy? I don't think so, but if I am, hell if I care. My life is my own life, and I'm really sorry if Twisty disapproves of how I "lurch" down the street in four-inch heels or shave my legs.
I've really always thought the point of feminism, as volcanista said above, was to allow women to make their own choices. And while I'm sincerely, sincerely sorry if my own personal choices are wounding the revolution, they still are my own. I am a happier person for following how -I- feel, rather than what I originally thought was expected of me.
Posted by: Juno | December 30, 2008 6:30 AM
too lazy to read everyone elses responce.
GwB: i did see one that said "take the money and run". Good advice.
Also if someone does not volunteer for the potentially degrading "token" role then no one is first into the previously off limits area. Someones gotta be first. Makes you an automatic leader.
Posted by: Jim | December 30, 2008 2:15 PM
AP is my Shero. Can I be her when I grow up?
Posted by: DNLee | December 30, 2008 11:06 PM
Reading Twisty is always good. She is a breath of fresh air in a world that reeks of Patriarchy. The commentariat at IBTP is also most excellent. Someone in comments there once wrote something along the lines of: Whenever I see a woman mincing along in really high heels, I think to myself that the message she is sending is, "I am perfectly accomodating and will do whatever you wish, no matter how ridiculous, inconveniencing or painful it may be to me."
I never fail to think that now, whenever I encounter the same vision-- even if it's in the mirror.
Twisty is fantastic reading for those who wish to challenge their own assumptions. The objective of her conciousness-raising is not to make her happy, it is to change the world. (I think.) Also, she takes some great photos.
Posted by: Susan | December 31, 2008 7:22 PM
Are you fucking shitting me?
Posted by: Isis the Scientist | December 31, 2008 8:14 PM
I'm a guy and when I see a woman with heels I think it sure is great to be male.
Posted by: Matt | December 31, 2008 8:28 PM
Nope. See: Matt.
Posted by: Susan | December 31, 2008 9:18 PM
My ex (who has very big feet which grew a size with our first child) once remarked that many times she had worn shoes that cut her feet and made them bleed. This was in response to my grousing (modest I thought) when I was forced to wear shoes that were too tight for my brother's wedding (I had forgotten to pack any). I was flabbergasted.
Posted by: daedalus2u | December 31, 2008 9:46 PM
Thanks everyone for their responses. I've gotten a bunch of good advice, and some comments I'll definitely have to reread and assimilate more thoroughly. This blog is such a wonderful place to visit- it's nice to know that you're not alone, and that others are considering the same issues as yourself.
Posted by: GWB | January 2, 2009 12:28 AM
This has been a fantastic thread - much to mentally chew on. Daedalus2u - I'm going to start following your blog. I know just enough science to know how little I know, but I'll look up the big words.
Twisty is, as Susan says, a breath of fresh air. Of course, sometimes the breeze is annoying and you have to close the window.
Posted by: Rugosa | January 2, 2009 11:03 AM
Rugosa, don't be afraid to ask a question in the comments. I try to be clear in my explanations but there is always much that has to be left out due mostly to time considerations.
Posted by: daedalus2u | January 2, 2009 11:44 AM