This announcement supersedes the announcement in the previous blog entry.

Thanks for reading TSZ here at ScienceBlogs, and I hope you will continue to enjoy reading TSZ at the new digs over at Scientopia.org.

My first blog post was on July 13, 2005 on a relatively obscure blogging platform. Only the friend who nagged me into blogging noticed. A year later, the wonderful and talented Katherine Sharpe had invited me to join ScienceBlogs, and I gladly did. What a crazy crazy party. It has been a wonderful experience for all the reasons Bora so compellingly and thoroughly describes, even with all the problems, which he also describes.

I just don’t have the heart to do a grand summing up in the manner of Bora or Pal. I will note that this post on Adam Bly’s nascent blog leaves me feeling sad and tired. What does the Science-is-Culture media visionary in the year 2010 have to offer us: hairy old white dudes. And we should bubble over with enthusiasm. Thanks, I’ve had my fill, for this millennium and the last.

Leaving ScienceBlogs, watching it totter and drift and lose its way, doesn’t make me happy. Let’s call it a night the party’s over But I am excited about some prospects for change, and the possibility to renew and reinvent my blogging elsewhere. Moving to ScienceBlogs made me a better blogger (again, for many of the reasons Bora discusses), and it is my hope that the next move or moves will have a similar effect – change is difficult, but can be good. and tomorrow starts the same old a brand new thing again

For the time being you can find me at this haphazard-looking wordpress site. That’s the place to watch for any announcements of future moves as well. I hope those of you who have found TSZ here to be interesting, thought-provoking, amusing, helpful, aggravating, or just good for a laugh sometimes will follow me on the next adventure. And let your friends know where I’ve gone, if you don’t mind.

To all of you who have read this blog over the years at ScienceBlogs and to all of you who have commented, thank you for making this endeavor worthwhile. Thanks to all my fellow bloggers who helped me figure out how to do this work, and do it better, and have fun while doing it.

Onward, Zuskateers!!!

I have been extremely sad the past few days as I watch the Seed/ScienceBlogs Pepsigeddon nightmare unfold before me. Being part of ScienceBlogs has been extremely important to me, and something I’ve always been proud to claim affiliation with.

In my last post, I sought to draw an analogy between what I thought I saw happening with the now defunct, ill-fated PepsiCo blogvertorial at ScienceBlogs, and the previous struggles Ms. went through in the days it accepted advertising. Feminism and science are uneasy bedfellows at best, but they have this in common: most citizens are ignorant or ill-informed at best about them; are subjected to vast amounts of dis- and mis-information through highly effective marketing and propaganda machines that are better funded that the authoritative sources; and don’t always know where to go look when they do decide they want some reliable information on the topic. In addition, they are not the kinds of topics that advertisers flock to in droves. So funding a witty, attractive, meaningful, public-serving, truth-telling enterprise devoted to either subject is a daunting enterprise.

That’s what’s the same.

Here’s what’s not the same between the editors of Ms. and whatever passes for editorial ethics and guidance at Seed:

Ms., in 1990, at the time of going advertising free:

It’s been almost three years away from life between the grindstones of advertising pressures and readers’ needs. I’m just beginning to realize how edges got smoothed down–in spite of all our resistance. I remember feeling put upon when I changed “Porsche” to “car” in a piece about Nazi imagery in German pornography by Andrea Dworkin–feeling sure Andrea would understand that Volkswagen, the distributor of Porsche and one of our few supportive advertisers, asked only to be far away from Nazi subjects. It’s taken me all this time to realize the Andrea was the one with a right to feel put upon. Even as I write this, I get a call from a writer of Elle, who is doing a whole article on where women part their hair. Why, she wants to know, do I part mine in the middle? It’s all so familiar. A writer trying to make something of a nothing assignment; an editor laboring to think of new ways to attract ads: readers assuming that other women must want this ridiculous stuff; more women suffering from lack of information, insight, creativity, and laughter that could be on the these same pages.

I ask you: Can’t we do better than this?

Seed editor, 2010, as quoted in Guardian article:

We’re not running the bhopal piece, and we’re passing on the Maldive shark ban (a bit late now… Too bad it got caught up in prod week… ). As for Bhopal, it’s a cautionary call on our part as we’re in the midst of advertising negotiations with Dow (who have been inspired by Seed’s photography in their own brand campaigns). RE: the payment, as you’re on a scheduled direct-payment, the bhopal fee covers the Kerry/Carbon trading news piece fee that was outstanding. Let me know if that’s clear.

It’s clear that twenty years later, we really can’t do any better. We’re not just agonizing over toning down a word choice, we’re killing whole articles so that Dow doesn’t get its fee-fees hurt over that whole regrettable Bhopal thingy. Not because we already have an advertiser we don’t want to lose, but one we hope to gain. We’re shutting our mouths before anyone has even asked us to.

Read that Ms. editorial, and see what they went through, what their willingness to speak out cost them in terms of advertising dollars, the contortions they went through to hang on to the few advertisers they were able to coax to the table. Adam Bly, you really couldn’t have tried even half as hard as Gloria Steinem? Really?

Zuskateers, I believe this is my last straw. I’m leaving tomorrow for a week with Z-Mom, and there is supposed to be a conference call this week that will mollify all my concerns. I am ruminating, and will make an announcement when I am back from time with mom about my plans for the future.

UPDATE: response here and comments that follow.

One of the potential disadvantages [of a blog network] is advertising and sponsorship. Here at Sb, we’ve been very fortunate in that our content is completely independent. We control anything in the center column. The top and right however belong to Sb, and they use this space to keep the place running. There have been several times when the advertising has been less-than-appropriate, and SEED has responded by altering it, but in this economy, it pays to be flexible. Ad content can serve as blog fodder. There’s nothing preventing those of us who blog here from critiquing the ad content as vigorously as we wish to…PepsiCo’s PR flacks basically own a the center column content on one of our blogs. This is not only a fundamental conflict of interest, it’s also deceptive. If PepsiCo is providing the content, it should, in my opinion, be clearly labelled as advertising.

The only way to be free of any corporate influence over content is to be 100% ad-free, as Ms Magazine so candidly revealed to us at the beginning of the 1990′s in Gloria Steinem’s famous editorial, “Sex, Lies, & Advertising“, with this stunner of an opener:

Suppose archaeologists of the future dug up women’s magazines and used them to judge American women. What would they think of us–and what can we do about it?

About three years ago, as glasnost was beginning and Ms. seemed to be ending, I was invited to a press lunch for a Soviet official. He entertained us with anecdotes about new problems of democracy in his country. Local Communist leaders were being criticized in their media for the first time, he explained, and they were angry. “So I’ll have to ask my American friends,” he finished pointedly, “how more subtly to control the press.” In the silence that followed, I said, “Advertising.”

The reporters laughed, but later, one of them took me aside: How dare I suggest that freedom of the press was limited? How dare I imply that his newsweekly could be influenced by ads? I explained that I was thinking of advertising’s media-wide influence on most of what we read. Even newsmagazines use “soft” cover stories to sell ads, confuse readers with “advertorials,” and occasionally self-censor on subjects known to be a problem with big advertisers. But, I also explained, I was thinking especially of women’s magazines.

There, it isn’t just a little content that’s devoted to attracting ads; it’s almost all of it. That’s why advertisers–not readers–have always been the problem for Ms

You really should read the entire editorial – it’s an eye-opener, believe you me. But in case you can’t be bothered, let’s just rephrase those opening paragraphs for the present case.

Suppose archaeologists of the future dug up science blogs and used them to judge American people. What would they think of us–and what can we do about it?

The bloggers laughed, but later, one of them took me aside: How dare I suggest that freedom of the blog was limited? How dare I imply that his blog could be influenced by ads? I explained that I was thinking of advertising’s media-wide influence on most of what we read. Even blog networks use “soft” cover stories to sell ads, confuse readers with “blogvertorials,” and occasionally self-censor on subjects known to be a problem with big advertisers and rainmakers. But, I also explained, I was thinking especially of science blog networks.

There, with the typical online model of using content to attract ads, ad generation is itself inherently problematic. Cut out the woo, the sexism, the racism, the evil fill-in-the-blank companies poisoning the environment, the military-industrial complex, the food industry making us fat, and what’s left to work with? That’s why advertisers–not readers–have always been the problem for ScienceBlogs.

Everybody – including me – wants their precious ScienceBlogs blogs content to remain completely controlled by the blog authors, and the blog authors alone, subject to absolutely no editorial control, from the cat herders or the advertisers. Who’s gonna pay for that? There are going to be ads, and now, blogvertorials. Or you, Dear Reader, are going to have to suck it up and pay a fee for the privilege of reading our pearls of wisdom. Who knows, maybe I, Your Blogger, will also have to start paying for the privilege of blogging here some day. I believe I shall leave when that day comes, but you know what they say: never say never.

As it stands now, Scienceblogs is more like Ms Magazine than Cosmopolitan, both in terms of its ability to attract advertising, and in the types of advertising its readers – and writers/workers – will tolerate without revolt. There are woo science blogs, and for them, the woo ads. The problem for ScienceBlogs, as a network that wishes to turn a profit, or at least stay afloat, is the same as the problem faced by Ms Magazine during the time it accepted advertising. Namely: advertising’s cherished virtues do not include integrity, honesty, skepticism, and a commitment to social justice. Appropriate, non-offensive ads for ScienceBlogs are few and far between. (But then, that might be said of advertising in general.) I am sure no one would be offended if my favorite farmer’s market farm advertised on ScienceBlogs – their produce is awesome! and organic! – but it is not going to keep the lights on.

The important thing is that our content – the content of the Real, True Bloggers Blogs – has never been sullied, controlled, or influenced, by editors or ads, and as far as we know, there are no plans to change that. Right?

Let’s examine the evidence.

1. Every time one of us blogs about some stupid fucknut ad you see on the sidebar or across the top of the page, even when the sole purpose of the blogging is to mock, abuse, criticize, and display our pithy, scathing, deeply insightful social commentary inspired by and pertinent to and deconstructive of the ad – we have called attention to the ad. And we have changed the content of our blog that day, in response to the ad. The advertisers probably cream their jeans every time we do it. No such thing as bad publicity and all that.

2. There is no ultimatum, but there was a kind request not to use words like “fuck” in blog post titles. I remember there was a good reason given with the request, though what it was I cannot recollect right at the moment. (Still, one is free to create fetchingly appropriate post titles like “Sucking Corporate Dick“.)

3. Awhile back, a goodly number of us were deeply aggrieved about Jim Watson, Avowed Sexist, Racist, and Despiser of Fat People Who Will Never Be Hired By Him, being on a Seed Media Group do-goodly board and we raised a fuss on our blogs. Eventually we were assured that Things Were Happening and asked if maybe we could be patient? (Translation: not so vocal out here in public.) Pretty much, I’m still waiting. I believe I will be waiting till the Second Coming of Christ. If I were of the right sex and social/weight class that would allow Jim Watson to perceive me as an appropriate person with whom to form close social bonds and business networks, perhaps I’d have trouble cutting him loose too, who’s to say. Sometimes, you do what you gotta do to run a business – and that might include asking your bloggers, as nicely as possible, to turn their attentions elsewhere for awhile – by assuring them, Things Are Happening.

So, there’s a PepsiCo blog. Read it or don’t. I won’t; my life is short, and I can’t keep up with the great blogs I already read, plus newspapers and books.

The minute Seed Media Group tells me Gigantico Corp. wants to put an ad on my blog post space, or just post an entry on my blog, or give me a little editing help, or maybe just ask me not to be quite so shrill because they think you can catch more flies with honey, which they now offer in convenient single serve no drip one use packets made completely out of bamboo which is a renewable resource and my readers might be interested in how they are saving resources! then I am outta here.

Perhaps a more interesting question is, should I be outta here now anyway? If an enterprise like ScienceBlogs cannot be funded except by taking money from sources that you and I, Dear Reader, deem offensive and unethical – why should I continue to contribute? I think this is another version of skeptifem’s question. I will rephrase it for my own purposes, more generally, thus:

How are we to live in this world when every action we take is tainted by some sort of injustice, some infliction of injury-at-a-distance? (and sometimes not so distant.)

I don’t know. It’s nearly impossible. Tread as lightly as one can. Each person has to decide where the breaking point is for her or himself. Pal’s or Grrl’s may come sooner than mine. Without a job, ScienceBlogs is like my workplace, where I hang out at the water cooler and catch up on the gossip. I am loathe to lose that, even though my primary care physician told me pointedly at my last visit that caffeinated sugary beverages are the devil’s drink. And their decaf, no-cal substitutes are no better, she added. Water! Pure clear water from the tap for you! she commanded.

Well, that’s what I have to say about that. Have at it, Zuskateers.

Zombie women of the world, I ask you: why are we content to shamble aimlessly along behind our brethren, following them willy-nilly, eating the leftover brains, and cleaning up after they senselessly destroy some village? Would it kill them to take a turn minding the zombikins for a change? No, it would not. Because they are undead.

There I was just last week, shambling along after Nigel on Shakedown Street. Like he knew where he was going! “Would it fucking KILL you to stop and ask for directions?” I asked him for the eleventy-fucktillionth time. “I’m pretty sure we are shambling away from the Mutter Museum, not towards it.” I am sure you know what happened next. He just zombisplained me about zombie men’s superior shambling gait and kept on in the same direction.

Eventually we shambled into Rittenhouse Square, which is lovely, but definitely NOT the Mutter Museum. About the time Nigel was ready to embark upon the tenth shambling circuit of the park, hoping a sign for the Mutter Museum would appear, it occurred to me that I could just sit down on one of those darling benches in the park. I won’t lie to you: I’d taken notice of all the humans in the park and, feeling a bit famished, I wasn’t fancying another meal of leftover brains. I begged Nigel to stop the shambling and go with me but he just muttered “We’re making good tiiiiiiiiiiiiiime…..”

So I shambled over to the benches on my own, in my comfortable flat-soled Shamble On Rose 1971′s. My plan was to rip off the top of a skull, eat some brains, and relax. But the first human I encountered was surrounded by stacks of books, which slowed me down just long enough for her to look up and say, “Hi there! You look like you are having a rough day! Have a seat, take a load off the feet. My name’s Astraea.”

I sat down.

“Hey,” she said. “My friend was supposed to meet me here but she can’t make it. And I already bought these two iced coffees from La Colombe. Would you like one?” Well let me tell you – an iced coffee from La Colombe is quite a treat! And that was just the beginning!

She asked me what was on my mind and I just started talking. It was like she pulled on a thread and the whole thing unraveled – Nigel’s mindless shambling, the leftover brains, the zombisplaining, and more. And now I was getting really, really hungry. But I did not want to eat Astraea’s brains, because she was so kind, and because I was really, really tired of eating brains. “Is there anything else to eat besides brains?” I asked, not feeling terribly hopeful.

“Oh my yes!” she exclaimed. We packed up her books and off we went across the street from the park to Rouge. Over the cheese plate and cocktails, Astraea began sharing with me bits and pieces of things from her books. (Zombie women: cheese is WAY better than brains!) She talked about compulsory heterozombiality and lesbian existence. She said zombie men’s greatest fear is that zombie women don’t give a rat’s ass about them. She said zombie women could bond together against male tyranny. And she said we didn’t even have to be zombies if we didn’t want to. We could eat cheese (or something vegan, esp. if lactose intolerant), be cyborgs, and act “on the basis of conscious coalition, of affinity, of political kinship”.

Well, maybe you know what happened next. It was a lot of information to process at once, especially for an undead zombie woman who’s been shambling around after her zombie man for years. That Astraea had said some hard things about zombiarchy and how zombie men participate in and benefit from it. I mean, some zombie men are Nice Guys! And I couldn’t help it, it just came flying outta my mouth. I said, “Oh no, not my Nigel!”

I said she was kind. She was also patient, and being naturally inclined toward justice, she didn’t want to give up. She pulled out her iPad and we spent some time perusing the Feminism 101 site, which helped (along with a visit to Capogiro for dessert).

With some more time to think, and my belly full of delicious gelaaaaaaato, I said to Astraea, “But wait a minute. Zombies are popular these days, in a manner of speaking. There’s zombie lit mashups! And Nigel and I rented that Zombie Strippers movie. Wasn’t that sort of feminist, what with the strippers biting off dicks and whatnot?”

Astraea heaved a sigh. “Well, here’s a different look at those zombie mashups of classical lit. Seriously. And I think this post should help you understand why Zombie Strippers may have made you feel empowerful, but not empowered. Annalee Newitz is pretty smart – ‘The question is, why do we have to imagine ourselves as monsters in order to tell stories about what it would be like to become fully human?‘ ”

I thought that was a very good question indeed. The more I pondered it, the angrier I got. I don’t want to be a zombie follower, and I don’t want a zombie leader for a mate. I haven’t puzzled out this whole cyborg business, but it sounds intriguing. Conscious coalitions, that sounds good, too. Breaking chains, unleashing fury – you can’t keep an undead woman down. Not once she’s had a taste of something better than leftover brains.

Well, that’s not entirely true. You can keep her down through physical and sexual violence, and poverty, and ignorance, and control of her sexuality, and reproduction, and of her children, and her labor, and her dress, and ignoring what she says, and distorting the truth, and repressing the truth.

Not my Nigel, though. He’s not a zombie anymore. He’s a skeptic.

————————

Zombie avatar graciously provided courtesy of Joseph Hewitt of Ataraxia Theatre. The author wishes to express special gratitude for the hairy zombie legs!

Joseph has also been working on a project called GearHead. “GearHead is a scifi roguelike game. It’s basically a RPG with giant robots and a random story generator. It’s open source (LGPL+CC) and available for Windows, Linux, and Mac. The project webpage is at www.gearheadrpg.com.”

I am not a gamer, but I am well aware that there are serious feminist issues within the gaming community. My mention of GearHead does not constitute an endorsement of that game, because I don’t know anything about it. The developer of GearHead at least wants to have a conversation about the issues and make the community welcoming, according to this post. I think that is good.

skeptifem challenges the female STEM universe thus:

I am not working in some kind of grueling coursework, so I am not “most of us”, I guess. What happened to me was that I never imagined I could be a college graduate or learn the sciences/maths (mostly because of being a woman in this culture), and I ended up doing some college courses because it was financially possible for once. I learned how much bs you have to go through to get the lowest of college achievement: an associates degree. I was helped a lot by my chemistry and math courses (though I did self teach most of that shit). A good example of how intolerable everything became is my first english class. I had to learn about all the various forms of citation, and that bullshit took up the majority of the course work for the semester. This wasn’t about english or writing- it was instruction to show that you had been to college, period. It was even more snobbish in that learning the preferred citation method for your major was something that would be important from that point on. Footnoting accomplishes absolutely everything meant to be contained in the different (and completely ARBITRARY) citation styles. I can’t deal with it. I don’t know how much college I can realistically take as a result. Noam Chomsky wrote about how there were social programs available for new ivy league college professors that teach things like what wines to drink and how to taste em. The shit just builds up thicker from this point on, and I am not sure that it is really for me anymore. I am not going to quit learning- I learn about math and science in my free time, without the credit. The awarding of certificates for doing so is so much more about conformity than learning that I am unwilling to do much more of it. I am happy learning without a GPA or deadline for understanding the material.

I am attempting to unionize my work place. I don’t know if moving up the latter is worth a damn. This is the kind of thing that matters to me now.

I kinda wanted to vent because I am commenting and conversing with all these women with extraordinary training in their fields and I am pretty out of place when it comes down to it. That kind of work used to be my ambition but I don’t think it is realistic or worthwhile anymore. Convince me otherwise lady scientists/engineers/students, I am open to listening.

Personally, I don’t think skeptifem is out of place AT ALL, but I see the point she is making. Okay, female science blogosphere: are there any good reasons for skeptifem to hang on to an ambition for a STEM degree and/or career in a STEM field?

A thousand years ago, when my parents really sacrificed to send me off to college, it was absolutely clear to me that I was not going to “waste” any time mucking about in majors like English or history, as I might have chosen to do if I’d come from a well-to-do family. I needed to pick something that had a high probability of landing in me in reasonably well-paid employment upon graduation, and engineering was it. Any other interests had to be tucked in around the sides – a one-credit course in the piano one summer to bring my roster up to 10 credits, a full-time load (my only brush with piano lessons); an African literature course used to complete a required “sequence” of liberal arts courses in one subject area; a theater course, fulfilling another liberal arts requirement, giving me an excuse to get away from homework and go to some plays (and develop a lifelong love of theater).

I’ve mentioned before Thomas Benton’s essay A Class Traitor in Academe. I think it really gets at some of that “learning to taste wine properly” business that skeptifem references.

But, even as a child, I can remember feeling that school was training me to be a subordinate in a culture — nearly a caste system — where the people who have money and power were different from us in personal style, language, and values. The suited professionals in their BMWs looked like members of some kind of alien occupation army; there was no possibility of communicating with them on equal terms. And they seemed to wield almost absolute power — over rent, jobs, health care, schools, prices — from inaccessible conference rooms in downtown office buildings. We never met their children because they lived in faraway suburbs.

Becoming a scientist worked out well for me in many ways, personally, despite all the hardships entailed (by me and family), and despite having to put up with a lot of extraneous bullshit to prove I was a member of the tribe (such membership, of course, always subject to review at a moment’s notice, without warning, by any REAL member who so chooses). But there are other values, too. During a lot of the time I was becoming, and being, a STEM-ladee, I was a clueless douchewad about sexism and racism and heterosexism and ableism and every other -ism you can think of. I totally support the goal of diversifying the scientific workforce, as a worthy end in its own right, without giving a crap about the politics of that diversified workforce. But of course, I also care a great deal about the politics of the scientific workforce. So I support agitating the current scientific workforce, in all its ghostly pallor and wankish glory, to take a long critical look at our reigning values. (For example.) We must constantly be reminded to consistently ask difficult questions of ourselves – because history shows we generally aren’t going to remind ourselves. Otherwise,scientific praxis becomes as self-satisfying as a circle-jerk, and just as fruitful, too.

skeptifem has done a great job of posing a difficult question here. So how do we answer? This is a really important question, and a good example of why I don’t think skeptifem is out of place, and why I get so tired of reading yet all those pieces about how increasing the number of women in STEM hinges on our ability to market better, because those crazee ladeez just don’t understand what a great fit STEM careers are for the caretaking and nurturing social relevance interests so dear to their hearts. What are good reasons for a woman with an interest – a love, even – of STEMmy things, to pursue a degree or career in a STEM field? What are good reasons for her to pursue her interests in STEMmy things in other ways?

N.B.: skeptifem, if I have mis-translated what you were getting at in your comment, please feel free to amplify in the comments here.

Very Special N.B. to thegoodman: it would be most helpful and appreciated if you would keep quiet and listen a great deal on this thread. You may even learn some things if you do.

SB COMMUNITY DEEMS PSEUDONYMOUS SOCKPUPPETERS ACCEPTABLE TARGETS FOR MOCKERY, DERISION

Douchey McDoucherson, ScienceBlogs Writers
ANYWHERE (SB)

Scientists have recently discovered that popular bloggers can taunt and gloat over the downfall of unpopular bloggers, and bask in the warm glow of widespread support – but only if proper precautions are taken while engaging in this dangerous enterprise. Most of the relevant research was published in a leading online linguistics journal.

Noted meangirl, petulant whiner, and internet gadfly Zuskaids was quick to critcize the major finding on a blog nobody reads, in the aggressive snark favored by her hellish mob: “These results cannot be generalized to the population at large. They did their study on a population comprised entirely of white males. I cannot believe the government continues to fund studies like this. Even the cress fanciers are bitching about this sort of thing these days.”

At a recent online conference convened to celebrate the discovery, Professor Inoya R. Butwutumi observed,

This is no more bullying than an isolated incident of the most popular kids at school gloating at the least popular kid when it turns out that all the friends he claimed to have are made up.

If they go on an on about it and hound him all over the place and never let him forget it, that could approach bullying, but only then.

Otherwise it is nothing more than a reaction to finding out that someone you don’t like who has been criticising you is a liar and a hypocrite. Just because Greg and Myers are popular doesn’t mean they can’t gloat a little.

Esteemed blogger and skepticod00dtastical Übermensch Haddid Kumingtoim observed that these sorts of dominance challenges from nomadic males naturally provoke a swift and deadly response in kind from the alphas, who must defend their territory and kill or oust those who violate the rules of the tribe. “No mercy,” declared Kumingtoim. “It seems harsh to us, but the herd must be culled of the weak and unfit.”

At press time, it was not yet clear whether the Domestic Sockpuppet Threat Level, currently listed as High or Orange, would soon be reduced to Elevated or Yellow. Dedicated DSTL analysts were tense, yet hopeful, that this terroristic threat to blogging’s credibility might yet be defeated.

———
ScienceBlogs writer Douchey McDoucherson contributed to this report.

Female, mid-40s: When I was in high school, I wanted to be a veterinarian. And I had great SAT scores, high 1400′s [out of a then total 1600]. But my high school guidance counselor strongly discouraged me, and told me “those are really more men’s kind of jobs.” So I gave up thinking about vet school, even though I had the ability.

Male, same age: When I was in high school, I wanted to learn to type. Probably because I just wanted to take what I thought was an easy class, but I kept asking over and over to be allowed to take a typing class. My guidance counselor wouldn’t let me register for typing. He told me “you’re going to college, you don’t need typing. You’ll have a secretary to do your typing for you.” And then all through college I had to pay people to type my term papers for me, and spend hundreds of dollars on that. My first job out of college, I walk into the office and my boss sits me in front of a computer and says “you’ll have to type [complex documents in his industry] on this.” Just last week, my current boss saw me pecking away with two fingers and said “I can’t believe you can’t type.”

Sexist gender role expectations are not innocent, and not without effect, even if everybody grows up to have lives that they are more or less happy with. Both of these people have what you would call a nice life. But one of them had her whole life course dramatically changed because of a guidance counselor’s sexist beliefs about what jobs belonged to which gender, and another had to spend cash he didn’t really have to spare in college, and spends time he doesn’t have to spare now on the job, because of another guidance counselor’s sexist beliefs about who should learn to type and who would have the typing done for them.

The differential effects of sexism often mean that men are less predisposed to be aware of them – having someone tell you “you don’t need to worry about typing” is not quite as dramatic and life-altering as having them tell you “vet school is for the men, little lady”. Men do have a lot of privilege to lose in moving to a more equitable system of gender relations, but they also have some things to gain. One of my commenters – I think it was SKM – posted a link on another thread to Men’s Lives by Michael Kimmel. It’s an interesting looking collection of essays on the intersection of race, class, and gender, focusing on men’s lives, of course, as the title indicates. It would be something useful for all the d00dly Zuskateers (is that an oxymoron?) to read and ponder.