Ludicrous Language

This Just In: Scientists Discover True Nature of Feminists!

thusspakezuska — Thu, 24 Jun 2010 19:55:25 +0000

This Just In: Scientists Discover True Nature of Feminists!

Jun. 17, 2010 3:34 AM ET

SB COMMUNITY DEEMS FEMINISTS IRRELEVANT NOBODY MEAN GIRLS, OMNIPOTENT PRIVILEGED HELLIONS
Douchey McDoucherson, ScienceBlogs Writers
ANYWHERE (SB)

Just days after a remarkable dustup in the science blogosphere, ScienceBlogs community members gathered to render judgment on feminist science bloggers.

Noted commenter, blogger, and cress fancier B-DOH! said "PZ and Orac take out the clueless fuckwits of the world with penetrating criticism, incisive wit and clever put downs. Feminists science bloggers, with their aggressive snark, set a tone."

Newly disclosed documents revealed the surprising information that no one reads feminist science bloggers, who have amassed astonishing amount of social power and privilege that they refuse to wield for the good of the planet.

A respected researcher in the field, Professor D'Viden Konker speculated that, in fact, feminist science bloggers are total liars who have made up everything they say about themselves and have no real power in the world. Professor Konker did not comment for this article on how her theory related to an earlier theory that anything feminist science bloggers say should be ignored on principle because they once worked as an administrator. However, B-DOH! was adamant that Konker was wrong, feminist science bloggers reek of power, and are misusing it to silence the unheard.

In the midst of the debate, a small cranky boy ran into the room and started shouting about how there already was one hot woman blogger and she never said anything about feminism and so we should just ignore them and not talk about this. Embarrassed for him, no one bothered to point out that he himself was, in fact, paying attention to the issue and engaging in the debate.

In a blog post at orestesd00d.blogspot.com summarizing the zeitgeist of the internet, OrestesD00d noted

Feminist science bloggers should not even be mentioned in the same breath as PZ and Orac, except to note that the FSbitchez should wield their awesome powers benevolently, in a nurturing manner, kind of like Carol Brady. Be like our manly heroes, especially with the in-group. Just google PZ and Chris Mooney if you are in need of an example of how to proceed.

FSBs are always trying to control the discourse of people on other blogs. People should be allowed to say whatever they want, even if it's completely offensive to you. When you complain about what they say on your blog, it hurts peoples' feelings, and stifles conversation. Run your own blog the way you want to, let other people run their blog the way they want to.

FSBs are always trying to control the discourse on their blogs. People should be allowed to say whatever they want, even if it's completely offensive to you. When you complain about it on your blog, you sound like a pathetic whiner, and it stifles conversation. Run your own blog the way we want you to, let other people run your blog the way they want you to.

The internet replied, "Damn straight!"

Despite the overwhelming scientific consensus that female science bloggers are irrelevant nobody mean girl omnipotent privileged hellions, a vocal denialist contingent made itself heard earlier this week.

Lawmakers who were kept apprised of the scientists latest findings were stunned by this development and immediately decided to call a hearing. The 70's, 80's and 90's were summoned to testify before the House Select Committee on Science, Technology, Feminism, and FWDAOTI. The 70's, graying hair cropped close to her head, went on record as "admiring your awesome internet technology" but when asked to provide expert testimony on the important issue at hand, burst out laughing and had to be hauled out of chambers, hands clutching her sides, tears rolling down her cheeks, crying out "no seriously, you are fucking kidding me, right? Ahahahahahahaha!"

The 80's, dressed in a power suit and carrying a briefcase, spoke directly into the microphone. "Of course we are powerful. We know how to get the corner office. But it's not like anyone is going to listen to what we have to say, unless some man repeats it right after us in the staff meeting." The 80's then leaned back, and Mr. 80's Man translated her unintelligible remarks for the committee.

The 90's, two raffish young manboys from Silicon Valley, spoke together about how great life was in post-feminist utopia, where opportunities abound for one and all!

Then just before the committee was about to issue a summary statement of its findings, Lady Gaga burst into the hearing room, swilled some whiskey, groped herself, looked around, and said, "Dammit! This isn't the Yankees clubhouse, is it?" and exited.

The committee, and the scientists, agreed to move on. There was important work to be done elsewhere. And nothing more to be done here except send in the cleaning ladies.

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

thusspakezuska Thu, 06/24/2010 - 15:55

Tags

Geekalicious

Gratuitous Sexism

Ludicrous Language

Stereotypes We Know And Love

Those Humorless Feminists

What They're Saying

Isn't Rape Really Just All About Sex?

thusspakezuska — Mon, 21 Jun 2010 21:59:28 +0000

Isn't Rape Really Just All About Sex?

I know I'm supposed to be posting installment three in the work-life balance series - and it's coming tomorrow, I promise - but I was distracted by this post by Isis's new co-blogger. I think there's a relatively strong consensus that this invention is clearly a bit of Technology Gone Bad.

In a really old Saturday Night Live sketch, Gilda Radnor and Dan Akroyd play a befuddled couple at home in the kitchen, arguing over Shimmer. It's a floor wax. No, a dessert topping. But wait! Spokesperson Chevy Chase pops in to tell them it's BOTH!!!!!

What does this have to do with understanding rape?

Well, commenter hibob has set down a long stupid argument on the comment thread of that post by Set Oculus at Isis's blog, trying to make the case that rape is mostly motivated by sexual desire. Because this is patently stupid, it has naturally riled everyone up, and lots of people are saying no, rape is violence. Floor wax! Dessert topping! Floor wax! Dessert topping!

In the midst of all this some commenter named Dick left this remark about the useless Technology Gone Bad that sparked the original post:

Fascinating! Do you suppose it will work equally well with variants of rape like when the assailant shoves a gun barrel up the vagina? Or ass? Just wondering.

Also: at what age should I recommend to my friends to have their daughters start using this? Babies get raped, too, sometimes.

Dick's comment reminded me of something I once wrote in an essay critiquing Thornhill and Palmer's A Natural History of Rape.

According to Thornhill and Palmer, feminists insist on a monolithic account of rape as a violent act that has nothing to do with sex. This, along with feminists' inability to embrace evolutionary theory, prevents feminists from producing accurate accounts of why men rape and so from arriving at useful solutions. This claim itself misrepresents feminist perspectives on rape. As Natalie Angier notes, "Most of us have long known that rape is about sex and power and a thousand other things as well, and that rape is not a monolithic constant but varies in incidence and meaning from culture to culture and epoch to epoch." Angier also rightly notes that it is feminists who "sought to have the word 'rape' replaced in the legal lexicon by the terms 'sex crime' and 'sexual battery,' the better to include offenses that don't involve intercourse but are clearly sexual in nature, such as...forced fellatio, anal penetration, the shoving of a gun barrel up the vagina, and the like." Rape clearly is not limited to a single type of behavior or pattern of behavior that is found in every case. Feminists have always been attentive to this reality, and to the fact that in the real world of sexual offenses it is difficult to ignore the ways in which sex and violence are often fused.

When douches like hibob are trying to figure out what "causes" rape, they would do well to remember that rape - more accurately, sex crimes and sexual battery - have myriad manifestations and causes. In the same essay from which the paragraph above is taken, I also quote Mart Carmill: "...it's a mistake to argue about the causes of rape...We define [rape, murder, and war] by their properties and their effects, not their causes, and there's no reason to think that acts that share an effect also share a cause...[A]ll homicides share the same effect...but they don't all have the same cause...Seeking the cause of murder, war, or rape may be a fundamental mistake, like asking for the cause of things that weigh 10 pounds."

So, Douchey McDoucherson commenter hibob, lay off the "where's yer proof, and yer data, and how do you know rape isn't caused by sexual desire". Give it a rest. Why don't you take up something more profitable - like investigating the cause of things that weigh 10 pounds.

------------------

The reference to Angier is her article "Biological Bull," in Ms. June/July 2000: 80-82.

The quote from Matt Cartmill is from his article, "Understanding the Evil That Men Do." The Chronicle of Higher Education 46 (39) 2000

My essay from which the paragraph above is excerpted is "They Blinded Me With Science: Misuse and Misunderstanding of Biological Theory" in Fundamental Differences: Feminists Reply to Social Conservatives ed. Cynthia G. Burack and Jyl J. Josephson, Rowman and Littlefield, 2003.

thusspakezuska Mon, 06/21/2010 - 17:59

Tags

Apologists for the Oppressors

Why Aren't You Reading This?

This addressed something that has bothered me in the past. It seems foolhardy to come up with a single description of the cause of rape that spans everything from "date rape" to abuse of prisoners, to war rape.

This weekend I was flipping through a book in the store ("Sperm Wars", I think it was called. Not worth buying. The author is listed with PhD after his name, never a good sign), which got very defensive when it got to discussing rape as a reproductive strategy, implying that the author feared that feminists, like angry Valkyries, were going to descend on him from the heavens for suggesting that there might be some biological connection with rape.

(Actually, upon examination, what he wrote appears to be a popularization of the same thing you took to pieces in your essay mentioned above).

Well, I certainly know of cases where the perpetrator of rape was 'aroused' right before the event, but as you clearly explain, that is really, really not the point. Do all men go around insisting on intercourse with every woman who excites them? No. So clearly, being able to STOP is part of being a human being.

I thought this couldn't get dumber...then I skimmed Thornhill and Palmer's A Natural History of Rape on Google Books

Could rape be eliminated from the human population by eugenic means...Behaviors that might be selected for are indiscriminate mating by females (so that rape wouldn't matter to them)

(Thornhill and Palmer, 153)

I have no words.

But in response, let me point out that men, who the authors claim have already been selected for indiscriminate mating, when raped, show a similar spectrum of trauma as women who have been raped. Indeed, even in the sub-population of men who actually engage in "indiscriminate" homosexual sex, who are raped (often in a homophobic act), enormous trauma often results.

If I found myself putting those words on paper, I think I would send back my advance check, burn my manuscript, and forswear writing.

I swear, this seems to be a problem for all of the equality movements. We can't seem to explain anything about it because people still don't get the basicsâ¦

Seriously, it's damn frustrating.

Hibob never tried to "make the case that rape is mostly motivated by sexual desire": Set Oculus claimed that "rape is not a way for a rapist to get off, but a way for a rapist and the larger culture to control women through violence and intimidation.", Hibob answered in the comments that "Ascribing power and denying desire for sex as a motive for all acts of sexual violence [...] demands to be backed up formally or consigned to hyperbole as well" before repeatedly saying that, yes, he knew that rape was about violence, but that violence & sexual gratification could and did overlap: this was not, to use your own words, a "Floor wax! Dessert topping!" dynamic, this was a "Floor wax! Both of them!" dynamic: so what is the point of calling a douche someone who agrees with you?

Could rape be eliminated from the human population by eugenic means...Behaviors that might be selected for are indiscriminate mating by females (so that rape wouldn't matter to them)

*mouth hangs open* Rape cannot be normalized.

Oh, let me add something: it cannot be completely normalized due to its obviously damaging effects on the victim no matter if it is recognized as rape or not.

Wow, those Thornhill and Palmer dudes really, really hate men. The way they put it, they clearly think men are fine with being raped / so sexually indiscriminate that they're happy to be raped. It's like a big old, "hey guys, just go out and rape other guys -- they don't mind."

Are Thornhill and Palmer men? Are they asking to be raped? Or are they just saying they wouldn't mind?

This was hibob's first comment on Set Oculus's post:

What then are the motives for consensual sex? Is there no overlap at all between the motives for consensual sex and for rape? Ascribing power and denying desire for sex as a motive for all acts of sexual violence (not just a simplification of the statement by letting the whole stand for a majority, but truly concluding that sexual desire is not a motive at all) goes back for decades, but really demands to be backed up formally or consigned to hyperbole as well.

hibob and I are NOT saying exactly the same thing. hibob is making some version of Thornhill and Palmer's argument - that rape is motivated, at least in some cases, by the frustrated sexual desire of men who are unable to spread their seed by "normal" consensual sex which they would regularly desire if they could get some nice girl to agree to have sex with them, but they can't, so evolution makes them lose control and resort to rape as a backup strategy. I guess this is what we are supposed to think that date rape is. This itself is a rehashing of a book that hibob has read and wants to preach about, "Aggression and Coercive Actions: A Social-Interactionist Perspective", which wants to tell us that ârape is an aggressive form of sexual coercion and the goal of rape is sexual satisfaction rather than power.â (See the Wikipedia article hibob linked to.) My head just spins with the thinking that goes into this. What kinds of âsexual coercionâ are not aggressive? How do the authors of this book define aggressive? Whatâs the goddamn difference between sexual coercion and rape, when you are the woman who has been coerced? But I digress. Back to hibobâs argument.

To back up his claim, hibob cites an article (doi:10.1016/0005-7967(86)90031-8) about sexual responses to consenting and forced sex scenarios, compared in two populations: convicted rapists, and supposed non-rapists, i.e. male undergraduates. This is hilarious in some respects, given that undergraduate women are often date-raped by the men they date, and they are not dating men in lockup. I mean, I know sociologists have to do their studies somehow, but how do you identify a population of non-rapists? Lots and lots of rape is happening out there. Lots of guys are doing it. None of them have tattoos on their foreheads identifying them as the perpetrators. Just walking onto a college campus and gathering up random undergrad guys is not going to get you an exclusive sample of non-rapists. But even so â from the article hibob cites ârapists showed an appropriate though comparatively moderate discrimination between rape and mutually-consenting episodes. They showed less arousal to rape episodes than to consenting episodes, with their weakest responses being to the most violent rape sceneâ. I donât think this supports the notion that rapists are doing it because they get off on it.

Finally, hibob says in response to a query from Set Oculus:

[the evidence I am looking for is] Research that excludes sexual gratification as a motive for rape. I'll certainly agree that rape is often about power, but entirely excluding sexual gratification as a motive for rape has been an unsupported but frequently heard statement for a long time.

And then says

My argument is simply that yes, sometimes the motive for rape is sexual gratification. [condoning rape bad, underreporting rape bad, sure] But it's completely irrelevant to the question of whether sex itself is a motive in some rapes.

hibob will grant the feminists that rape is about power - thanks for tossing that bone - but really, really sexual gratification, ladies! hibob absolutely insists that the feminists have been ignoring - ignoring, I tell you! - the whole rape is about sex bit since FOREVER!!!!!

(I suppose none of the research done by feminists will do for hibob? In terms of being convincing about anything?)

What I tried to point out in my post - perhaps unsuccessfully - is the following:

1. Feminists have not been ignoring that rape is about sex since forever. We have always known this. See: Angier quotes above on the topic, use of terms like sex crime and sexual violence, etc.

2. However, it is not about sex in the way hibob thinks it is. That is, it is not about sexual gratification. When I feel that itch that needs scratched and I'm all alone, I can always call on my dear friend Mr. Hand. Or get some technological aid. I have never ever felt the urge to go out and force some other human being to sexually satisfy me.

3. When coercion is brought into the story, it stops being about sexual gratification and starts being about a whole bunch of other things - many of which, indeed, can be read about in that wikipedia article hibob linked to in his first comment on Set Oculus's post (also given above in this comment).

4. Whenever feminists want to talk about rape and its effects and what might be done to prevent it and change our rapetastic culture, someone like hibob will always come along and try to point out how we are totes forgetting something really important. âBut Ladeez! Donât you realize that rape is ALSO motivated by the desire for sexual gratification?â This is one of the best derailing tactics ever, because pretty soon everyone is shouting âfloor wax! Dessert topping!â

5. If somebody invites me to lick ReddiWip off their belly, thatâs a whole sight different from spraying it on the floor, grabbing me by the neck, shoving my face in it and screaming âclean my floor, bitch!â And yet, you could say, in both instances, they just are motivated by wanting the ReddiWip removed from a surface by my tongue.

6. The next time you are in a discussion about rape and someone wants to derail it with a discussion about how rape is really motivated by the desire for sexual gratification, just tell them it is time for them to go off and contemplate the many causes of things that weigh 10 pounds.

hibob is making some version of Thornhill and Palmer's argument - that rape is motivated, at least in some cases, by the frustrated sexual desire of men who are unable to spread their seed by "normal" consensual sex which they would regularly desire if they could get some nice girl to agree to have sex with them

Agreeing with the idea that sexual desire is at least part of the motivation of rapists do not necessarily means that you see them as "poor, frustrated guys who would have consensual sex if it was available". What about the possibility that the rapist is a often cold blooded bastard who could have consensual sex if he decided to go through the effort to seduce someone but willingly chooses to commit a crime because he reach the same objective with less effort and a good chance to get away with it? You don't need to buy the bogus claim that rapists are just poor schmucks who can't fight the imperative to spread their genes to see relevance in the "rape is also about sexual gratification" argument.

from the article hibob cites ârapists showed an appropriate though comparatively moderate discrimination between rape and mutually-consenting episodes. They showed less arousal to rape episodes than to consenting episodes, with their weakest responses being to the most violent rape sceneâ. I donât think this supports the notion that rapists are doing it because they get off on it.

What about a cost benefit reasoning? The rapist might have the following reasonning:
Consensual sex => Biggest benefits but also biggest cost and no guaranty of success
"Non-violent" (uses of alcohol, etc...) rape => lower Benefit than consensual sex, but a let less effort involved and the risk of getting caught and heavily punished remains very low
Violent rape => lower sexual gratification than coerced sex without physical violence and higher risk of getting caught and punished
Date with Rosy Palm => virtually no cost but lowest gratification (you're not copulating with anyone)
and willingly decides that rape simply has the best cost/benefits ratio. Consensual sex might be the most gratifying sexual experience, but someone with little to no empathy toward his potential partners might simply decides that this is not worth the consumption of calories needed to get there.

Laurent Weppe, I think you and hibob could have a long and mutually satisfying discussion about the cause of things that weigh 10 pounds

And Laurent, your comment is just a poor recapitulation of Thornhill and Palmer's evolutionary blah blah, which has been thoroughly debunked by many others, not just me. (They don't just make the frustrated sexual desire argument - it's a whole long book full of just-so stories like yours in comment #11.)

Here's an interesting question for you to consider instead, if you aren't interested in the cause of things that weigh 10 pounds issue: why do some men choose NOT to rape, even though they can?

But Laurent, all rape is violent.

I also don't buy the assumptions that the rapist has lower gratification from "violent" attacks, has a higher chance of being caught, or even thinks he does.

really, the chance of being punished for rape is so low that they probably aren't thinking about that at all. They've gotten away with it before (seriously, most rapists are not one-timers), so why not again?

The whole sexual desire as a motivation for rape is so freakin' ridiculous. Come on, fellas. We can all agree that rape involves physical pain and emotional trauma. Yes? Now, if a person can still achieve "sexual desire" while hurting someone then it's no longer just about the desire for sex. It's about the desire to hurt someone. It's about confusing the desire for sex with the desire to hurt someone.

Inserting the "empathy impaired" angle into the argument is just more distraction. Yes, psychopaths tend to be empathy impaired. Is this the bar we judge the rest of us by?

I am convinced that the rape apologists' "argument" contorts into a mental shell game because they are trying to trick themselves into believing that rape and the oppression of women through violence is "natural." It's not natural. It's unnatural. It is man-made and it can be man-unmade if only the rape apologists would stop grasping at excuses for terrorizing and dehumanizing half the population.

But Laurent, all rape is violent.

I'm going to butt in and just guess that people are using the word "violent" or "violence" in different ways or to mean different things.

In the research paper that hibob cited and that I refer to in my monstrously long comment above, convicted rapists were, reportedly, less aroused by the "most violent" rape scenarios shown to them. I can well imagine that some d00dche could talk intellectually about a college boy spiking his date's drink with something and then raping her while she's passed out and calling that a non-violent rape because he didn't beat her or "hurt" her, he "just" raped her. And others of us could label the whole thing as an act of violence against that individual woman and against women in general.

In a way, the confusion of people like hibob and Laurent about sexual gratification as a motivation for rape and what is and is not violence is understandable, because our t.v. shows and movies blur the lines between these things day in and day out, and always present to us the woman who resisted and then gave in and and really wanted it all along, so the man who manfully coerced her really was going for sexual gratification all along - his and hers.

I had to leave before finishing my comment at #14, but my point in clarifying that all rape is violent is this: since all rape is violent, why assume that the violence is a price to be minimized, rather than part of the payoff? It's a feature, not a bug.

It really does not make sense, this guess that rape is a "cost/benefit" approach to obtaining sexual gratification.

The reason these dudes are trying to mansplain about rapists wanting sex is the mansplainers don't have any mental concept for sex without coercion.

If you're used to thinking in terms of how to "get" a partner to want sex, whether through buying dinner or whining that it's been X days or whatever, you're already thinking in terms of your partner being someone who isn't going to choose sex with you freely. From there, coercion just looks like a matter of degree, and we get the tools showing up splitting hairs about just how much pressure they're allowed before it's rape. These guys can believe rape is about sex because it hasn't occurred to them that sex without the coercive aspect is even an option.

Then they fuss about "natural" because they're trying to avoid facing the fact that they get off on sexual coercion, and what that says about who they are.

why do some men choose NOT to rape, even though they can?

I'd say that it comes from empathy: men who chose not to rape will put themselves in the shoes of rape victims and perceive the pain they go throught, while at the same time, the possibility of maintaining a loving or friendly relationship with a sex partner will be seen as a big benefit, while the rapists don't give a shit about this as long as they are not caught.

Anyway, my argument was definitely NOT a rehash of Thornhill & Palmer, who are running headfirst into the old cranky biological determinism. On the contrary: my opinion is that the rapists of today are opportunists who are taking advantage of the defaults of modern society to rape while Thornhill & Palmer claim that rapists are merely reproducing the behavior of their ancestors, which makes no sense (how using alcohol, taking adventage of the fact that many witnesses will refuse to admit that rapist live within their social circle or using miniskirts as a line of defense in front of legal authorities would have been relevant 60.000 years ago?)

And I also cannot agree with the idea that knowing the motivation of the rapists is irrelevant: knowing what make them tick is necessary, both when it comes to identify and convict an individual rapist and when it comes to define an efficient legal framework against rape.

"Then they fuss about "natural" because they're trying to avoid facing the fact that they get off on sexual coercion, and what that says about who they are."

BINGO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

All rape apologist arguments boil down to "how much coercion, force, and manipulation can i get away with before it becomes rape?" They're terrified of seeing their own behaviors talked about as being rape because (they fear) without those behaviors no one will have sex with them.

And, for the record, that's an opinion about rape apologists collectively.

@ SKM

But Laurent, all rape is violent.

By "non-violent", I meant "not causing physical injuries prior to the act", which should have been obvious since I used quotation marks.

And yes, i do postulate that rapists are more calculating than most of us think, are willingly trying to lower the risks of getting caught when they commit a sexual assault and consciously taking adventage of the failings of modern society.

@ gxm17

I am convinced that the rape apologists' "argument" contorts into a mental shell game because they are trying to trick themselves into believing that rape and the oppression of women through violence is "natural."

Well, I, for one, never claimed nor thought that rape was a "natural" (as in, "forced upon us by the almighty naturl selection") behavior: rape is all about giving satisfaction to one individual while hurting one or more other individuals AND hurting the group as a whole. Even if, as I argue, violence is in some case more a mean than a end, it changes absolutely nothing about the fact that rape has not adaptative virtue whatsoever.

By "non-violent", I meant "not causing physical injuries prior to the act", which should have been obvious

And yet it was not obvious.

Also, to be clear, I agree that rapists are calculating. I just don't believe that they necessarily think violence is something to be minimized.

Behaviors that might be selected for are indiscriminate mating by females (so that rape wouldn't matter to them)

Is this line trying to convey the idea that if women would just put out for every guy who wants them then rape wouldn't exist?

Just curious. The sentence, she does not scan for me.

We live in a rape culture where women can be raped and not realize what happened to them was rape. Men live in a culture where a lack of a 'no' is all it takes for them to think that they are getting consensual sex, no matter how unwilling or uncomfortable their partner seems. Sex itself is made into dominance and power for men. Sex is a thing that they have to obtain rather than something two people do together. I think sex in general is about power and dominance to most men in this toxic environment, and that it is really hard to find a man who hasn't internalized this bullshit so strongly that they get confused about the difference between dominating a woman and having sex with her. All the guys saying that it is *really* about sex are saying the same thing as those saying it is about power- if they can keep their sexual interest in a woman they are traumatizing (or if they can't be bothered to find out if they are), then sex is about power over another human being to them. The power imbalance is sexy to them. If it was as grotesque as it should be to commit sexual violence then there wouldn't be an issue.

Im leaving after this. This thread is going to mess with me too much.

Laurent @ 19 and 21. It sounds like you are normalizing a lack of empathy. However, if your argument is "psychopaths can be motivated by sexual desire to rape" then I guess that could be true. They can also be motivated to commit murder by a desire to see people dismembered but isn't that a more appropriate point for a discussion on the criminally insane? (FWIW, male rapists in this category often do not care who their victims are; they will rape men, women and children of either sex.)

Back to normalizing a lack of empathy. I think that's exactly what the rape apologists, and the rape culture that creates them, are trying to do.

#23 - yes, but there's no way either he nor his defenders will ever admit that.

It sounds like you are normalizing a lack of empathy

Well, I DO think that the number of people lacking empathy is being underestimated and that modern society which still reward some agressive behaviors, is increasing the number of psychopaths. But I do not see this as normalcy but as something wrong about the inner workings of our society.

There's a voice missing from this conversation. Does anyone want to own up to being an actual rapist? It seems like everyone's trying to claim they know what the rapist is thinking; I want to hear it from the source.

I would like to point out that Laurent seems to be talking about an extremely narrow conception of sexual assault/sexual violence: some form of date rape, or something that is done to more or less adult females of more or less target desirable (define that how you will) sexual attractiveness. This leaves out huge swaths of types of sexual violence that are committed against females from the age of infants to grannies, and that occur in all kinds of setting from the home to war zones.

And with this comment I am going to close this comment thread because I fear that it is going to degenerate into something that will be exceedingly unpleasant for many of my readers. I will just wanted to make the points that I did in my post, and in my extended comment above - not provide a forum to mansplaining rape apologists on this blog.

Work-Life Balance 1: Women, The Media Totally Support You!

thusspakezuska — Thu, 17 Jun 2010 14:33:52 +0000

Work-Life Balance 1: Women, The Media Totally Support You!

Work-life balance: people have been talking about it.

Wait, that's not right. Women have been talking about it. And have been talked at about it, by some people. Doc Free-Ride has a good round-up of a most recent skirmish of opinions on the topic in the sciencey blogosphere. If you have not been following this, please do give Doc Free-Ride's post a read.

Where to begin?

Science Careers says all you married ladies with kids should hire housekeepers. And get over it already, will you?

Last year, when Carol Greider, a molecular biologist at Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, learned that she had won the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine, she was folding the laundry. It was a seemingly trivial detail, unrelated to her science, but it got plenty of play in the press. "Is it true that you were doing laundry when you got that early morning call from Stockholm?" The New York Times interviewer asked the Nobel laureate in a conversational Q&A. That opening question underscored the fact that women researchers -- even the nation's top women -- have domestic responsibilities.

No, I don't think so. It underscores the fact that the media feel an overwhelming tingly urge they can't resist to portray scientists who are women as DON'T WORRY THEY'RE WOMEN!! THEY DO HOUSEHOLD CHORES! AND ARE STILL PRETTY! NOT THREATENING TO THE NATION'S MASCULINITY, AT ALL!!!!!!!! ahhhhh! yeah! that's better.

Anyway, Science Careers is urging you - yes, you, little lady! - to hire yourself a housekeeper. "No doubt some women scientists put a high priority on housework, but they are almost certainly few. For the rest, it might make sense to employ a maid, or whatever you call the male equivalent, to help with the housework." Maybe you don't put a priority on housework, but the world does, and will surely judge you as a failure if your house is dirty, or laundry unfolded, no matter what prize you win. The important thing is, your Nigel is off working as if he has a wife at home to take care of the housework, and if you want to succeed in science, that's the model you are going to have to adopt. So you'd best hire yourself a wife sooner rather than later. And yes, it's on your shoulders, because just as the housework is your responsibility, so too is the outsourcing of it. You can't expect Nigel to help with that, either. No point in trying to critique any of that, or even in trying to talk to Nigel about it.

Well, this incredibly positive message was not universally welcomed. Resulting in a Very Special Message ~~To You Whiny Bitchez~~ For Men, about how I Really Thought All This Was So Obvious I Didn't Have To Bother Saying Any Of It But Since You Nagged Me Into It, Here's A Blog Post With A Non-Pology In Which I Explain How I Totes Get Everything About Gender.

"Special" messages for men, in my opinion, mean something like this: In the normal course of events, you would not have to divert your manly attention from important topics to something so trivial as work-life balance, with all its estrogenic whiff. But on this very special occasion, when the little misses have got their knickers all in a knot, perhaps we can, in our manly magnitude, agree that it might be nice to at least look as if we thought this issue had something to do with us.

The goal is for those choices to be freely made and not coerced. So men, and women: It's up to you and your partner to set the terms, but please make sure those decisions are made as freely as can be achieved...you can ease those pressures by being supportive of your partner and helping them to choose -- or, rather, to negotiate with you, from a position of strength, a domestic arrangement that works well for both partners.

This is very odd phrasing indeed. Be supportive of your partner and "help them" choose? "Help them" negotiate an arrangement? Like, when he "helps her" with the laundry and the dishes, which are her jobs? In a really equal arrangement, you'd be choosing and negotiating together. I completely respect the fact that Mr. Austin does not wish to be in the business of giving specific relationship advice to anyone - lord, who does, if they aren't getting paid by the hour to do so! But how hard is it to write a sentence in which you at least pretend that two people in a relationship ought to be equally responsible for the domestic arrangements? Otherwise, that paragraph above is just a fancy rewriting of "it's her responsibility to choose and negotiate domestic arrangements, and your responsibility to look soulfully at her and say 'honey, I totally support whatever you choose to do' and then maybe give her a dozen red roses on Valentine's Day."

Well, I'll tell you what I choose. I choose not to read one more dumbfuck article about how you, little lady, fortunate to have enough disposable income, need to pay some poorer lady to do stuff for you so that you can work the crazy husband-with-a-wife-at-home schedule that corporate America and academic science deems minimally acceptable, and get over the guilt already that society dumps on your head each and every day, and don't even think of challenging the patriarchal norms of family and institution because we sure as hell aren't going to acknowledge in the slightest that they exist in this article.

Next up: what's the difference between criticizing how the media deals with the work-life balance issue versus asking/demanding that some particular man, or all male science bloggers, blog about how they handle work-life balance issues at home?

The third and final post in this series can be found here.

thusspakezuska Thu, 06/17/2010 - 10:33

Tags

Why There Are No Women in Science

Right on the money, Zuska! Beautifully written blog.

I feel ya.
I still feel minorly bad (not in a pity way, and not in an angry way, just kinda sad) that Jim, who seems to be trying in very real and meaningful ways, kept stumbling in to such irritating talking points. It was painful to watch from multiple perspectives.

Truthfully, sad as it may sound, I've *never* had a relationship where I could honestly say it involved 'choosing and negotiating together'- I think the equality has been there in some relationships, but not the synchronicity.

Okay...

I get that it would be better if the world, and especially America, was less fixated on the idea that you should work every hour that God (oh yes, God) sends, or get your barefoot pregnant ass to the kitchen... but I am unlikely to be able to change this near-universal attitude to benefit my personal career and life.

So what is your solution? Because, despite the Patriarcho-capitalist issues, and completely independently of Women (in Science)'s Weekly, I was leaning towards hiring a cleaner.

I'm sorry if I have misread your comment Owl, but I think you may have failed to comprehend some of the underlying (and fundamental) points that Zuska has made in this incredibly incisive post. Perhaps you could re-read it and rephrase your question, cuz I really want to help!

@thesortearedowl- as I see it, there are three choices for dealing with housework:

1. Just do it and insist that your partner do the same.
2. Outsource
3. Lower your standards

Personally, I do all three. My husband does housework. Without me telling him to do it. We wrote up a chores schedule and we use it. We write a weekend to do list together over beers on Friday night and then we check things off.

We also have a cleaning service come once a month. I chose a service that pays above minimum wage and provides benefits to its employees, and I feel zero guilt about using it.

My housekeeping standards were already lower than my husbands in most regards, so he has struggled with this more than I do. But it is possible to train yourself to just not care about the streaks on your windows or what not. I have been unable to train myself to feel OK wearing wrinkled clothes, so now I don't buy clothes that need ironing.

So the womynz can be all smart and succeed in science, but they can't have honest discussions with their spouses about an equitable division of household labor? As a former chef and son of a germaphobic nurse I do most of the cooking and cleaning and have to push to get my modern wife to do her share. That being said, blaming the media because you can't work out your own relationship issues sounds pretty weak to me.

Treespeed, I would like to offer a translation of your comment:

So the womynz can be all smart and succeed in science, but they can't have honest discussions with their spouses about an equitable division of household labor?

"I can sit on my ass and ignore all the girl stuff all I want and if wifey doesn't take care of the discussion, it's the bitch's own damn fault."

As a former chef and son of a germaphobic nurse I do most of the cooking and cleaning and have to push to get my modern wife to do her share.

"Blah, blah, bitch won't pick up the house for me now I have to clean up and that makes my nuts fall off."

That being said, blaming the media because you can't work out your own relationship issues sounds pretty weak to me.

"I couldn't be bothered to actually read, much less try to comprehend, this post."

If I ever succeed in science, I will certainly consider hiring a housekeeper. That way somebody is being PAID to do the hard work. This is irrespective of whether or not I remain single forever, although given my low levels of tolerance for men who don't do their share, it is likely that I will remain single. I have too many bad memories of my mother's generation ... when women did ALL the housework, and without being paid for it ... that is to say, they were slaves.

blaming the media because you can't work out your own relationship issues

Wait--what?

What blog are you reading?

Interesting hidden assumption here: all single parents are women. Likewise all who are caring for their parents are women.

Somehow media covering the subject have no problem assigning those roles exclusively to women -- just like dishes, laundry, cooking, etc.

Another interesting assumption: that all women in science are in a position to *afford* to hire help. This might be a useful solution for faculty, but at the faculty level the number of women holding these positions is still well below half. Given that at least 50% of the scientific workforce at post-doc level and below are women (after which the pipeline leaks at a significantly greater rate), and that most post-docs and certainly most grad students are in no kind of financial shape to hire help, if this advice is meant to be a solution to the gender gap in science it seems a little like closing the barn door after the horses have already gotten out.

you always know how to articulate things so well, though I admit I"m scared to see the next post....

If anyone thinks girls/women are brainwashed into thinking housekeeping is our job, find me a toy store that has a toy vacuum cleaner with all the manly blue trucks, tools and lawn equipment. You'll have a hard time finding one. Guaranteed you won't have a problem find a pink vacuum, mini-kitchen, baby doll...but oh yeah thats what girls like to play with.

The media's framing is really annoying. Men who won't take on 50% of household chores cheerfully? Don't deserve to be partnered. Sigh. Can't we ever leave the 1950s behind?

A clarification of my previous comment: "at least 50% of the scientific workforce in the biological sciences at post-doc level and below are women..." This is not necessarily the case in all scientific fields. Sorry to be exclusionary.

Yeah, in my field the percentage is close to zero.

@ Cloud

Yeah, I was coming to those conclusions. Thank you anyway.

@ Set

I don't have the peculiar (although bizarrely common) character defect of reading blogs I don't agree with just so I can comment on them to tell the author so. Zuska rocks, and I like the message of the post. BUT, I do feel a bit trapped between wanting to fulfil my potential in my chosen field and not actually catching diseases from the state of my house. mrowl hates housework as much as I do, and we both would rather pay someone else to do it now we can afford it; but it makes me feel a little bit like the evil bourgeoisie.

As usual, fantastic post, Zuska!

Ah, I get it, Owl. Given the economic realities of our current system, and the desire and necessity of many couples to have both people working full time or more, hiring help is hardly, IMHO, a bad thing.

The underlying point, though, still stands. In many hetero couples, it's likely to be the woman who gives a shit and organizes the household, either by doing all the work, doling out the tasks, or hiring someone. That's not necessarily bad, but it is frustrating that the assumption is that the woman is the default.

Why does washing need folding anyways? It just gets wrinkled again when i throw it in my clean clothes pile.

damn you people who judge *me* by whether my stay home husband has done the washing recently.

The laundry thing totally pushes my buttons. I can complain about lazy menfolk til the cows come home, but I have never lived with a man who didn't do his own laundry, of his own volition, without any "negotiating" on my part. It has always been a non issue even when we have had to schlepp our clothes down to the laundromat. Even my dad did his own laundry, at least since the early 60s (although I would love to know how that came about). Modern washers and dryers are nothing short of miraculous appliances. You stick your stuff in, push a button, and walk away. It's a fucking miracle. So imagine my surprise to discover my (female) colleagues pay women to do their laundry for them (and their husbands) even though they own a washer and dryer. And the pay is always under the table. I just don't get it. It's not like they have to go out back to boil clothes in a copper kettle with a wood paddle and a scrubboard.

The vacuum cleaner, on the other hand, is a tool of the patriarchy.

@Anonymous- do you have kids? Laundry was never an issue in my life until I had kids. Each child added to a house roughly quadruples the amount of laundry.

Even so, that's not something we choose to outsource. But we've been tempted....

I have a female friend who grew up in such an affluent household that she didn't even know how to turn on the vacuum cleaner until I showed her how the other day (and she's in her early 40's, folks). Moreover, the only reason why she was using the vacuum cleaner at that moment was because she had just divorced her husband and hadn't hired an au pair to take care of the baby, yet, and someone had to clean the house after the baby made a mess. I seriously think she thought I'd offer to do the cleaning for her.

Hiring help really is like getting a[nother] wife.

A lot of this goes back to the issues you raised in your excellent post "the problem of the problem of motherhood in science.". Work-life balance is a problem but not the problem, but all of the attention on it becomes self-reinforcing and the d00dz can pat themselves on the back for noticing that the ladeez are concerned about it. As long as everybody is talking about babies and laundry nobody has to stop and notice that women in other careers have kids and laundry too but still have higher percentages than science. Nobody has to contemplate the possibility that science is especially inhospitable be cause of the medieval attitudes of the d00dz. Everybody can blame laundry and dirty dishes.

My nigel does like 95% of the housework. He likes to stay busy and is much better than me at it. It is nice. I cannot imagine *expecting* that kind of service, though. Men who do are still assholes for that.

Anonymous: your post at #24 is what gets me about these articles too. It constantly assumes that women don't want tech jobs because of work-life. That of course is part of the reason for some women, but the main one is because of discrimination in the field. It's getting now that women can't even get jobs in the first place.

But I do understand the point of this article is that women are expected to take care of domestic work, when the question is why don't the men automatically think about these things too?

I guess train the men from the beginning of the relationship that you aren't the maid.

That being said, blaming the media because you can't work out your own relationship issues sounds pretty weak to me.

Whom are you addressing, you poor little henpecked dear?

(Has to do the housework, waaaah. Wifey won't do her job, waaaah. Jab at the feminists because he's too scared to have the much touted "honest discussion" with his own spouse, waaaaaaaaaaah).

Don't take your problems out on us, Junior. Tell your wife that stuff to her face, ya big toughie.

In the normal course of events, you would not have to divert your manly attention from important topics to something so trivial as work-life balance, with all its estrogenic whiff.

This is something I really don't understand... I am a man. I have to have to job, but its sole purpose is to finance my life outside of work. It's a necessary evil, but an evil nonetheless. I want my slack. Work-life balance is hugely important to me.

Maybe it's because I live alone and can't afford staff... But then, I'd far rather work less and do the housework myself than work more in order to pay someone else to do it for me. Hell, I'm racking my brains to figure out how I can spend less time at work, so that I can spend more time baking bread and gardening.

But you can bet your life that if I won the Nobel (as if!), no stupid journalist would be saying anything about my laundry arrangements...

Maybe it's because I live alone and can't afford staff... But then, I'd far rather work less and do the housework myself than work more in order to pay someone else to do it for me. Hell, I'm racking my brains to figure out how I can spend less time at work, so that I can spend more time baking bread and gardening.

I'd rather pay someone else to do the housework so I can spend more time baking bread and gardening.

Not only have I spent most of my adult life as the sole woman in a sea of men, I've also done quite a lot of quietly listening to what they say about their lives and hopes. One thing that never fails to surprise me is the prevalence of the fantasy among young men in the geek disciplines that if they can just find the One, they can have all the social credibility and rewards of fatherhood and husbandhood without changing how they currently behave. To be more specific, the fantasy says they can go on spending nearly all their waking hours on their current work and hobbies, but there will somehow magically be a pleasant home environment full of a beaming wife and children, abundant meals, sex on demand, and family and friends showing up to shower approval.

There's a startling amount of anger when a possible One who will make all this happen is found, but doesn't cooperate. I'm still regularly bumping into a guy who turns purple with rage on seeing me because I brought the wrath of the administration down on his pushy stalking of a younger colleague. I don't even want to think about the unrelenting parade of the ones who've targeted me. He expressed his fury in the exact same terms I've heard time and again, "But HOW ELSE AM I SUPPOSED TO" -- acquiring the One is right and good, therefore to disrupt attempts to acquire the One is nasty and abusive, you big meanie.

Not all of them are like this, of course. But I'm amazed this fantasy doesn't even seem to be slowing down in persistence. Quietly asking questions of the ones who talk about such things but mercifully aren't targeting me has been interesting. A running theme is a truly odd division-of-labor fantasy: Division of labor is perfectly fine. Me being a lopsided geek is perfectly fine. In a world that isn't meanly prejudiced against geeks, I should be able to provide the geeky stuff in trade for someone else providing all the social stuff. Pointing out that marriage is fundamentally a social interaction and the proposed division of labor is essentially expecting a whole lot for nearly nothing in return tends to spark a lot of rage about how society is mean to nerds.

Some listen though. I don't think it makes much impression at first, but it's a start.

need to pay some poorer lady to do stuff for you so that you can work the crazy husband-with-a-wife-at-home schedule that corporate America and academic science deems minimally acceptable, and get over the guilt already that society dumps on your head each and every day

This. Exactly, Zuska.

And then there are the alternative explanations for not keeping up with the housework chores. Perhaps your house is too large, or you've accumulated too much stuff (definite possibility in many parts of the US)? Perhaps you shouldn't spend so much time blogging/reading blogs/leaving comments all over teh interwebz? Perhaps your ego and sense of worth are wrapped up in appearing to be too busy and important to do housework? Perhaps you should sell that second property where you spend the weekends? Most of these explanations could apply to several of my faculty colleagues.

If I'd had even the tiniest inclination to hire a housecleaner, it was squashed to nothingness after reading the "Scrubbing in Maine" chapter of Barbara Ehrenreich's Nickle and Dimed. Of course, I'm not particularly successful or important(ELEVENTY!!1!11), I don't have children, and I bought a small house that I can easily clean myself, so YMMV. Even if the "merry maids" are paid fairly, there's still the issue of daily exposure to toxic cleaning compounds, in a working population that is largely female and of reproductive age.

Barn Owl, I'm with you on the too much stuff as a possibility, but discouraging women from talking about oppression is way over the line. It takes a lot of relentless work to counter the ever-present deluge of societal messages of "this isn't oppression -- you should *like* this. Clearly something is wrong with you. And that's not a pattern, that was just one jerk. Don't you dare talk to other women and find out you're not the only one."

My compromise on hiring a caregiver (I haven't yet, but I might, because I live with a medical disability), is that if I do, she gets paid as much per hour as I do. That would mean private hiring, which is more work, but it would help keep either of us from getting the idea that her time is less valuable than mine.

Cloud, this is Anon at 21. Yes, I have two little kids and we all generate enormous piles of dirty laundry, and it still is just not an issue. It would certainly become an issue if we didn't own a washer and dryer, but we do (as does everyone I know who hires someone to do their laundry).

In a couple of months, I'm planning to teach my son how to do his own clothes - he's clearly interested in it, maybe still too interested in the bubbles, so why not?

Afraid this reply will be held up in the moderation queue, but-

@ #32: Where in my comment did I state, or even imply, that women should be discouraged from talking about oppression? The point I made about exposure to toxic substances in the housecleaning industry is definitely related to the ways in which women are oppressed - in this case, women who have little or no socioeconomic power. Why trade one oppression (women in academia) for another (women in cleaning/service industries)? Both are wrong, both should be discussed and addressed.

On the laundry issue, the advice I heard from an engineering prof was that after the babies come, something might have to give, so pick whatever you are least picky about to outsource. She personally is picky about cooking, but not remotely about laundry, so she outsourced the laundry.

I'm not sure if other people understand how much mental bandwidth is an issue. High-powered STEM jobs, where you're paid to be a genius, require careful management of mental resources in order to be able to compete. Certain types of focus, certain types of memory, self-discipline, and many sorts of processing are finite resources. You only get so much, and can't just go out and buy more. The professor who hired out the laundry may have not been trying to save time so much as mental bandwidth by getting rid of having to track where all the necessary items were in the clean-laundry supply.

Interruptions are also a huge issue. A lot of engineering and science problems require front-loading your short-term memory with something huge and complex, just to be able to think about it effectively. There aren't many or even any spare buffers for other stuff. Personally, I can step away from my work for a moment to change laundry from washer to dryer without freeing mental buffers and having to go through the time and work of re-loading them, but then I live alone. Nothing else will interrupt me along the way, no husband or children to ask for something and I turn the phone off a lot.

One of the things I've picked up over time about that guys who think my being really smart is part of me being the One is that they think I'll be happy to be flattered into using my mental powers for tracking all that stuff they don't want to track, like whether the clean baby clothes are running out or how much milk is in the house or how to speak to the neighbors without sounding like an antisocial asshole. They get pretty upset when I make it clear that the only way I would consider a live-in male partner is if he took over all that for me, leaving my headspace uninterrupted for my other pursuits.

Barn Owl, you went there when you got snarky about blogging/commenting less. Anything that cuts off women from communicating with each other is furthering their oppression.

Helen Huntingdon @ #37 - How do you know that I was being snarky about the participation of women in the blogosphere? That's an assumption on your part; an incorrect one, I might add. Perhaps I was being snarky about men dinking around on the internet, or about anyone who is privileged dinking around on the internet.

Speaking of which, I've got to meet with a couple of students soon .... ;-)

"need to pay some poorer lady to do stuff for you so that you can work the crazy husband-with-a-wife-at-home schedule that corporate America and academic science deems minimally acceptable, and get over the guilt already that society dumps on your head each and every day"

This. Exactly, Zuska.

Barn Owl, given how you set up what you said as a reply to a passage about the behavior of certain women, but failed to specify you were now talking about men, the problem isn't in my reading but in your editing. Or you're just backtracking.

Oops, my apologies for the quoting failure in #39 -- I should have previewed before posting. The first paragraph is Barn Owl's selected quote from the original article, the second and third are Barn Owl, and the last is me.

Wow, Helen Huntingdon. Your comment at 36 is really ... something. Can I nominate you as an honorary mansplainer?

I'm sure most people commenting on this blog understand very clearly why "mental bandwidth" is an issue.

"Can I nominate you as an honorary mansplainer?"

Don't understand the term "mansplainer", huh.

One thing that never fails to surprise me is the prevalence of the fantasy among young men in the geek disciplines that if they can just find the One, they can have all the social credibility and rewards of fatherhood and husbandhood without changing how they currently behave. To be more specific, the fantasy says they can go on spending nearly all their waking hours on their current work and hobbies, but there will somehow magically be a pleasant home environment full of a beaming wife and children, abundant meals, sex on demand, and family and friends showing up to shower approval.

A running theme is a truly odd division-of-labor fantasy: Division of labor is perfectly fine. Me being a lopsided geek is perfectly fine. In a world that isn't meanly prejudiced against geeks, I should be able to provide the geeky stuff in trade for someone else providing all the social stuff.

Helen Huntingdon FTW. I like this so much I wouldn't care if she WERE a man saying it. *snerk*

What Anonymous isn't understanding is Helen's respect for all the unseen, unacknowledged social work that goes into coupledom in general and marriage in particular and that it's usually women who do it all.

Being a shy type myself, I felt pretty damned lucky to have a husband who not only did his share of the social work (since he had the brains to realize it was work) but understood how much I hated it. He also gently nudged me to do my share, which was okay with me because he actually respected me as a person as opposed to yapping at me to be a *proper* woman.

I guess I should help drive women out of engineering by not talking about how mentally painful the work sometimes is, thus silently reinforcing the message that they must be inadequate when they run into shocks about just how badly their brains ache.

No thanks. I'm tired of seeing other women cry with relief when I tell them, "Nope, the sheer level of mental strain is normal. We all go through it, but we mostly lie about it."

Meant to add "social and 'tracking' work" to the above because I think "tracking" is a great word for all the ongoing, piddly CRAP of household management.

"Tracking" is a great word for it, Cara. I've never been sure what to call it, but that fits well.

Actually, I understand very well that Helen respects the unacknowledged work that goes into coupledom. That's great. What I object to is the notion that geniuses with high-powered jobs in STEM can't afford to spend their precious mental resources on personal maintenance. This sounds just like the bullshit I hear from male scientists all the time. Shouldn't our goal be that everyone contributes, including "geniuses?" And not to find a man (or an underpaid unbenefitted maid) who takes it all over for you, to leave your head space uninterrupted? Seriously?

@Barn Owl- my cleaning service claims to be environmentally friendly, so presumably they don't use toxic chemicals at all.

That said, I've never audited them on that. But I did look over the list they publish of what they use, and it all looked fairly harmless to me and my background in chemistry.

The anonymous who pointed out the self-fulfillingness of the explanation that women don't go into science because of some problem with work-life balance is spot on, in my opinion. This explanation and the closely related claim that science is incompatible with motherhood drive me batty. I remember being scared by those explanations when I was in grad school looking ahead to my career. The reality has turned out to be far less scary than I feared. Yes, even with the mountains of laundry produced by two small kids. (@anon who brought the laundry thing up... I look forward to the day my kids can start helping with the laundry with great anticipation!)

The real reason the pipeline leaks is SEXISM. Plain and simple.

Anon@47, I have no idea where you're getting this from. The point is that everyone contributes in a fair society. I could have a male housemate without having to fight for my headspace, because he would take care of his own tracking and I would take care of mine. Careers would be structured so that everyone does their own personal maintenance.

That reality doesn't exist. So now what?

Various people have mentioned what they do to deal with the imperfect world. I live alone, do my own stuff, and if I do hire someone, she'll get paid as much per hour as I do. That's one approach. There are other approaches, none of them perfect, because perfect isn't available. I have no idea why you're reading stuff into what people are saying that just isn't there.

Oh, wait, I may have caught up to what all the sturm and drang is about. Is it the fact that some jobs exhaust more mental resources than others?

That's not elitist. That's just how it is. Just like some jobs exhaust more physical resources than others. Both are finite. Both can be improved, but you still have to deal with the reality you only get so much per day and budget accordingly. Some jobs demand more of one or the other than is reasonable in a fair society. Fair would be nice. I don't know where to find it though.

Shouldn't our goal be that everyone contributes, including "geniuses?" And not to find a man (or an underpaid unbenefitted maid) who takes it all over for you, to leave your head space uninterrupted? Seriously?

Anonymous, I'm not sure why you sound offended at Helen. She suggested that not everyone is really aware of the fact that piddly unclassified life stuff is genuine work, because lots of men have been conditioned to think it just happens and lots of women have been conditioned to just do it.

I'm really not getting why you decided to snark at her for saying that; some commenters on this blog often AREN'T aware of that stuff (not least because some commenters mostly show up to troll).

Is it true that you were doing laundry when you got that early morning call from Stockholm?

D00dly d00d version: "Is it true that you were spanking your monkey in the shower when you got that early morning call from Stockholm?"

I'm starting to think I need to pay CPP for the daily laugh. Thanks for articulating this issue. I read the article and agreed, well, shit, I need to hire some help! wo noticing the assumed disparity in household duties inherent to the article. In my own life, two babies and two full-time jobs (plus a dissertation on the finish by one of us) is entirely overwhelming, and getting some help seems the obvious thing to do.

Anonymous, Helen is talking about *human* limitations. The problem is while male geniuses are given the societal go ahead to focus their limited resources on their work, female geniuses are expected to do the same work, plus the housework, using the same human limitations and then are judged "not genius enough" when they can't manage it all.

Helen Huntington - Your comment at 36 is amazing. That's how it is, that's just how it is! It's such a good expression, I hope you don't mind if I parrot parts of it to explain things to some coworkers in the future.

"I'm starting to think I need to pay CPP for the daily laugh."

Seconded. Never fails to make me blow various liquids out my nose.

DerelictHat, by all means. It's how I've explained to non-engineers in some workplaces that the engineers aren't being rude, they're being extremely courteous by a different set of rules.

When your life revolves around careful budgeting of those mental resources, courtesy means you never interrupt someone if you can help it, but send an email or other communication they can check at their leisure instead. And if you do have to interrupt someone, you state what you need as concisely as possible, and clear out the second you get it. Small talk means the person you interrupted has to do a mental reboot that expands geometrically in time and effort for every second wasted. So the person who was happy to chat to you at lunch, but will barely speak three words to you before and after, is trying to be as courteous of your headspace as possible.

When I put it that way, it's usually followed by an, "Ohhhhhhhhhhhh, I see. That's what that's about."

Jesus Christ on a stick. I understand Helen's point. I'm arguing that no one, genius or not, male or female, should get a free pass on basic personal responsibility or tracking or whatever you want to call the daily bullshit.

And the notion of a genius is totally overrated.

No more comments from me unless it's on native plants.

" Maybe you don't put a priority on housework, but the world does, and will surely judge you as a failure if your house is dirty, or laundry unfolded, no matter what prize you win."

As I explain to the male children I work with in special ed, people judge you by appearances, whether or not its fair, right, or even accurate, so you best make sure you look good.

Zuska, as for the work-life balance thing, ask your male colleagues about it and they'll inform you that men struggle with it as well.

Anon@58, since no one has suggested anyone deserves a free pass, your beating that strawman with such vehemence is more than a little puzzling.

Thanks for this well-written post, Zuska, and the interesting comments from everyone!

The headspace problem is very real; since having a baby my wife & I have been going through some real contortions on the work-life balance tweaks, because we both need significant concentration time in solid chunks (she writes fiction; I write software... either of us might take even an hour just to get rolling properly), PLUS one of us needs to be with the baby (generally equals no high-concentration work), PLUS of course there's laundry (including cloth nappies), groceries and other driving-required errands, house maintenance, bill payment, meal prep & consumption, cleaning, external social tracking work, and yeah, can we get some time to hang out together as well? And we both work from home, with completely flexible schedules (though no paid help or grandparents nearby); generally, we have it very easy.

At the moment I mostly do my work at night and just sleep less; I can function reasonably well with less sleep than she can. It's not a great solution.

But in our case, it's notable that we have a much easier time negotiating the division of labor because our requirements are fairly similar (comfort level for house cleanliness, level of need for external socializing, etc.), and we're aware of (and able to talk about) the work involved. She's an amazing cook, so she mostly leads that charge (even when that means telling me what to prepare), and I can't breastfeed; on my side I find optimization of routine tasks interesting, so I do diaper changes, laundry and most of the cleaning using my own special methods; for much of that I can involve the baby, which frees her for a bit more working time.

Even once you both are aware of all of the work to be shared, even once you can have regular conversations on what needs to get done and how to divide it, there's a definite hurdle to jump when one of you doesn't really mind if the sink were permanently full of dishes, family birthdays passing unnoticed, and you ate pizza every night. The "power" goes to the more disinterested party by default. And we men have an easier time being disinterested, of course, because it's sort of expected of us anyway.

Helen's headspace point is so important. That's why I live alone when I can, have no phone or car or furniture or other troublesome assets. It's why I never bother with discount coupons or freebies or special deals of any kind. It's why I keep my banking simple. Of course, when I need to find a cafe job to survive, this can make life difficult, but there is simply no other way to manage the mental space.

I appreciate the anti-classism sentiments expressed by people here. But the people without degrees who work as housekeepers (or waitstaff, or cashiers, etc) don't make their rent by their being no demand for what they CAN do. People in service industry jobs want a living wage, and to be talked to like we are human beings who merit respect. Being hired doesn't have to mean being exploited, and the kind of people who worry about that sort of thing are going to be better employers than the entitled snobs who assume poor=stupid=worthless.

You getting along well with that strawman you built there, Kea?

I think Anon had a really good point that got lost in all the strawman invective -- some of what I said is very much like excuses men have used and do use for exploiting others. It's a shame that point got lost by Anon's bizarre insistence that such excuses were being made here. "This is what my work does to me, so others must labor in serf-like conditions to support my special genius," is rather sadly prominent in the history of science.

I was simply describing what certain jobs do to those who do them, and that it doesn't leave enough left over for living a normal life. It's a real problem that requires a real solution. Having a tizzy about how the problem wouldn't exist if you were tough enough has been one of the major strategies for keeping women out of the STEM fields.

I'd suggest that if someone is proposing they solve their problem in an exploitative manner, it's worth considering they might be lying their heads off about the existence or severity of the problem in their case. Of course, you can run into funny definitions of 'exploitative' -- quite a few men have told me that's what I'm being by not entering the pool of women offering the benefits of marriage to a man.

I'm not in the sciences, but I opened a restaurant six months ago. I've been averaging 60 hours a week for the past nine months. I live alone, and I didn't do housework even when I wasn't working so much. You're damned skippy I have a housekeeper -- an independent, who chooses her products carefully, and who not only gets more per hour than I do, but brings in almost twice what I do yearly.

Before I had a housekeeper, my house was such a wreck that my family was seriously concerned for my health. It upset my mother so much that once a year, she'd come clean the place top to bottom, despite me telling her not to. In the end, hiring a housekeeper turned out to be an essential expense for me, and I budget for it just as I do for utilities, mortgage or the counseling I need to manage my bipolar disorder.

And that bullshit Zuska's quoting at the top STILL irritates the fuck out of me.

I think a big source of misunderstanding here can be attributed to cultural differences. I fully support better wages for people in service industries. I also come from a relatively classless culture, where one's background does not at all determine one's future. I suspect that the same cannot be said for many people here.

@Kea- my husband comes from New Zealand, too. He had a really hard time with the decision to hire a cleaner. I don't think he's comfortable with it even now, but recognizes it as a necessity in our lives for the time being.

For what it is worth, I cleaned houses for awhile when I was (much) younger. Maybe that is part of why I don't have a problem hiring someone to clean my house now? I don't know.

Hi Cloud. Yes, I think that having had to clean large houses in the past is a big part of my desire to have a housekeeper ... which as you know is just not something that people in my country tend to do.

This is my first time here and I'm not in the science field (though the IT world and consulting world are both similar in many ways), but I think I love you, Zuska!

I came through a link at Cloud's blog, and this post and discussion in the comments has been fascinating. It's making me re-examine the work worlds in which I live.

@May (comment 26): "I guess train the men from the beginning of the relationship that you aren't the maid."

Might I also suggest that those of us with sons or nephews or godsons or young-boys-we-may-have-influence-over start the training when they are babies. I fully expect my son will learn how to do chores, share responsibilities with his sister and understand that women and men are equal partners in the house and equal workers in the workplace. Luckily for me, my husband also expects this and models sharing the responsibilities.

Holy Shit am I glad to see this post. Here is a small anecdote to brighten everyone's day. I am a female postdoc in hard sciences. A few weeks ago I was at lunch at a table with 5 men ranging from grad student to emeritus prof. in my group. we were talking about womens pay grades and I was mentioning a bargaining effect that lowers womens pay. That is a prof can threaten to leave the university, get an outside offer, then use that offer to leverage up their pay. Men often have stay at home wives so can make a serious threat to leave, while women have husbands with jobs who do not want to relocate. Hence the complicated social structure results in lower women's pay.

So the guys I am at the table with, all of them freak out. They start insisting that nothing is wrong with women staying home. They star insisting their wives do more housework because they want to and because they care more. Then they insist women care more because of evolution, they want to take care of their kids more than men. These guys were straight up insisting that women love their children more than men love their children. Then they start saying not only is that the case but that there is no such thing as discrimination. "If there isnt hiring discrimination anymore, and yet you see less female faculty how else can you explain it other than a biological imparitive? "(Therefore women must do housework Q.E.D) These are physicists! After loosing my shit entirely I decided never to trust their scientific opinions about anything ever.

What sucks the most is that they aren't even old and will be dead soon, there was a grad-student for fucks sake. I also bet any amount of money that if there were 5 female faculty and any one of them they never would have said the shit they said. Luckily I did enough yelling for 5 women.

Oh yeah, these morons also said 'hire a maid' in the conversation about housework, then I said fine but who takes care of the maids kids/house. Then they said I was being sexist assuming the maid is a woman. !!!!!!!Of course she is, its a fucking pink collar job, and it people like these guys who created a world where maids are all women since housework is gendered feminine. I swear to God I almost punched these people

Wow, what assholes. I like how they report their wives thoughts and feelings back to you as if they can read minds.
They were trying to convince each other as much as you, it seems.

@carpenter, all the freaking out just shows that it's a problem and they know it. Denialism pure and simple.

A for their age, yes, this problem is not just dying off with the older generation--it is actively perpetuated among the currently-young. Grrr.

You go, Carpenter. Of course they were physicists. Not surprising, since they are the ones with the most to lose.

I'm not surprised, Carpenter. I've heard much milder version from men throughout the STEM fields.

My advisers always expressed great concern whenever I might have to interact with male physicists, because they're regarded as the hopelessly retrograde cavern trolls of the STEM world.

I can tell you that the last time I had contact with one, he stopped a group of us he was taking on a lab tour, abruptly and for no apparent reason, to explain to me slowly and carefully how to find the women's room. He made no such announcement about the men's room. The group exchanging "Can you believe how surreal this is?" looks didn't seem to faze him in the slightest.

@Carpenter: You go, girl. Happy to report that I found a TT position in a physics department where such attitudes are not prevalent, but they are still depressingly common in the field as a whole. Keep yelling!

yeah, I am beginning to thin my chosen subfield is for some reason particularly reto-grade.

-"to explain to me slowly and carefully how to find the women's room"

Damn, I apologize for my field.

You are not alone here, Carpenter. I am well used to hostile physics departments. In one place, there was only one old emeritus professor who was nice to me, and I hardly ever saw him. When the female support staff would ask me to help with the tea he would say, "but isn't that sexist?" and I would nod and smile. His wife once told me that he had been very sexist when he was younger, but he had learned from experience that women were capable. It is rare to meet a physicist who is truly capable of learning anything ... dogma often rules their lives.

Who's the Audience for Tierney's Shtick?

thusspakezuska — Fri, 11 Jun 2010 18:08:48 +0000

Who's the Audience for Tierney's Shtick?

Over at Boing Boing, Maggie Koerth-Baker says "I wanted to know what actual female scientists thought" about the boring blah blah John Tierney barfed up this week in the NYT. And then gives links to four different responses, included the fabulous Isis's awesome take on why she is bored to tears with this topic.

Personally I would rather be forced to watch the second Transformers movie on constant repeat for the next 10 years than continue to have this discussion, but since the New York Time's John Tierney seems to have his head shoved so far up his own ass that his can lick his own tonsils, I suppose we must. But, just know that I am doing it for the people. Not at all for my own amusement.

Indeed.

Isis makes the case in her inimitable and infinitely hilarious manner, but it is, as she states, tedious and boring beyond belief to have to go over this ground again and again. The only point in doing so is for the people - to equip any readers in need with useful talking points, jabby little things they can poke at clueless douchebags who are likely to come up to them and say "But I read in the NYT that 'Physics needs genius men or western civilization will CRUMBLE! 7th grade SAT scores CLEARLY show gender differences! Innate! Biology!' "

Because what Tierney's saying isn't new. He isn't making any new arguments, covering any new ground, he certainly isn't being "daring", he hasn't put forth anything that wasn't mocked, rebutted, deconstructed, and debunked a hundred different ways to death before this.

So why is he saying it? Is he really just that stupid that he is completely unaware of all the arguments against his points that have gone before him? Is he really that incapable of interpreting data, or of using google, or of researching a topic thoroughly to find out ZOMFG! There really ARE valid arguments against this stupid steaming pile of horseshit I've just typed!

No, of course he's not stupid, and he's not incapable of doing the research. He's not talking to us, either. He doesn't give a rat's ass what Zuska or Isis or any of the readers of our blogs or any other women scientists think about his steaming pile of misogynist horsecrap.

He is talking to those people who aren't sure. Who maybe never thought too much about this topic before. Who can be stirred to unease with visions of peoples' free speech being stifled with turns of phrase like this:

I'm all in favor of women fulfilling their potential in science, but I feel compelled, at the risk of being shipped off to one of these workshops, to ask a couple of questions:

See, I like the little ladies, I do! Let 'em go into science, if any of them actually want to, and "fulfill" themselves, till they get distracted with a pilates class, or a baby. But Jesus God, they are going to ship real manly men off to the gulags, and no one is going to dare to say what they really think anymore! WHAT IS HAPPENING TO OUR FREEDOMZ, PEOPLE???!!!?!??!

Dr. Summers was pilloried for even suggesting the idea...

They came for Larry, and I did not speak up. Now they are coming for all of the manly man scientists. Will you speak up? Because when they come for you, there will be no one left to speak up. They will all be zombies in state-run feminist workshops.

Would it be safe during the "interactive discussions" for someone to mention the new evidence...How could these workshops reconcile the "existence of gender bias" with careful studies...

Manly man scientists will be FORCED to do touchy-feely shit about gender that has NOTHING to do with evidence or careful studies!!!!!!! Science will be killed!!!!!!

Some have claimed he was proved wrong by recent reports of girls closing the gender gap on math scores in the United States and other countries. But even if those reports (which have been disputed) are accurate, they involve closing the gap only for average math scores -- not for the extreme scores that Dr. Summers was discussing.

"Some" = those angry activist women who are trying to take away your freedom of speech. Can you trust them? Would you give as much weight to the "claims" and "reports" of "some" as you would to a manly man like Dr. Summers and his X-treme scores? I think not.

But before we accept Congress's proclamation of bias, before we start re-educating scientists at workshops, it's worth taking a hard look at the evidence of bias against female scientists.

I've just given you a lot of blah blah with numbers and percents and right tale of the distribution, and I know you, John Q. Public, are mostly math illiterate and don't like to be made to think too hard. What you do understand, however, is Congress taking away your freedomz!!!! And the freedomz of other manly men! Are you going to let Congress send manly men scientists off to the gulag to be re-educated Soviet style? Let's take a hard manly look at this so-called evidence for the so-called bias against female scientists. Puh-leeze.

Tierney's column isn't written to be accurate, or survey the literature, or communicate with women scientists. It's written to get across a subtextual message to an audience of the general public, who doesn't want Congress taking away their freedomz, and conservative male scientists, who by god do not want to be forced to sit in one more goddamn workshop just because some stupid women still have their panties in a twist over Larry Summers, let it GO already, ladies, will ya? I'm tryna get some science done over here!

The legislation Tierney's disingenuously writing about still has to pass the Senate. He's writing to rally the troops. He only sounds stupid when you aren't in his target audience.

thusspakezuska Fri, 06/11/2010 - 14:08

Tags

Apologists for the Oppressors

Ludicrous Language

Men Who Hate Women

That's a hell of a choice, isn't it? See the stupid for what it is, or be counted among those who are really worth talking to.

"He only sounds stupid when you aren't in his target audience."

Pot, meet kettle and so on and so forth...

I love this part:

Would it be safe during the "interactive discussions" for someone to mention the new evidence...

Oh dear! Is Mr. Tierney worried that he might not feel safe speaking his mind? We should all make sure to provide HIM a safe environment to say that women are naturally inferior, because as we know, men don't have any safe space to say things like that (which we all know deep in our hearts despite any evidence against it) in and are naturally repressed by the culture. When women start arguing against him, he feels insecure, and no man should ever have to feel insecure.

Furthermore, views in line with Mr. Tierney's are stigmatized in the mainstream media. They won't print them! They silence anyone who dares to express them! It's political correctness gone amok!

Wait....

He is talking to those people who aren't sure.

IMHO you're giving him too much credit: his people are people who are sure, and need to keep hearing The Truth to keep the night terrors at bay. Same as the creationists, nativists, etc.

Formost among those people who need comforting, needless to say, is himself.

Right on, Anonymous! You are a daring truth teller just like Tierney!

I am 50% through Manufacturing Consent, and I have arrived at the conclusion that the new york times seems to print whatever reflects the opinion of the ultra rich. Sexism must be useful to em somehow. Dividng the general population with things like racism and sexism makes it less likely that people will band together based on the common experience of being completely screwed over by big business for the past 30 years or so. Wages have stagnated, minimum wage is unlivable, factory jobs were replaced with lower paying service positions, etc. That is my theory on why this sort of thing still gets a prominent place in the NYT.

Skeptifem is right. Tierney may not know he is a puppet of the exploitative Capitalist Patriarchy, but that is all he is. Or maybe he does know, every time his bosses tell him what they want, but he does not care about the scary future because he has zero sense of responsibility towards it.

It reminds me of the heart wrenching stories in the NYT discussing the trauma that men experienced when they were forced to endure workshops on sexual harassment in the workplace.

Praising assbackwards knuckledraggers like Summers for being "daring" is such a weak rhetorical device. You know who else is considered "daring" and "brave for standing up to the PC thugs" by their ideological brethren? White supremacists for example..

Someone characterized Rush Limbaugh's programs as "Not information, but affirmation." Mr. Tierney seems to be of the same cloth.

Affirmation is the key word here. The reason Tierney's words are affirmation and not information is that the logic behind the entire argument against gender bias in the industry is flawed. The evidence cannot be conclusive either way because it is impossible to get an unbiased sample with which to make a study. An unbiased sample requires a level playing field to begin with. We don't have that. Tierney only emphasizes that point with cheesebag statements such as, "I'm all in favor of women fulfilling their potential in science..."
Read: Boys DO the science and change the world. Girls "fullfill their potential."
It's tedious, but we must continue to talk about it. Since by any sound logic there cannot be conclusive evidence, we (women in the hard sciences) have to BE the evidence.

The people who sing in Tierney's chorus usually concede that girls & women score higher than their male counterparts in tests of verbal skills.

Yet I've never seen any of them follow up by reporting figures of the gender ratios in university faculty dealing with, say, literature, linguistics, and law.

I guess some things are just too scary for even Daring Politically-IncorrectÂ© Mavericksâ¢.

I want, before I get too bored of this whole mess, to make one point: That it's possible this statistical "3:1 at the right-tail" bullshit (basic statistics grade: C+ for trying) is a real effect.

My personal observations in middle and high school was that high-achieving girls had more of a tendency to be all-rounders, and high-achieving boys had more of a tendency to excel in one or two things.

I postulate that this was because, in general, boys felt it was more acceptable to only pursue the things they liked, and dismiss anything they didn't like or weren't immediately good at as not worth the effort. Girls, in general, seemed to feel it was unacceptable not to perform their best in any class, no matter how they felt about the class.

Consequently, I feel this lack of depth to their educational achievements would, in general (funny how I have to put that caveat in every time so no one jumps down my throat) put boys at a "natural" disadvantage in the real workplace, whether in science or elsewhere.

I would also postulate, as a girl raised to believe her parents had no different expectations for her or her brother; who furthermore excelled in subjects she liked and dismissed subjects she didn't; and whose GRE scores would lead me to express the view that John Tierney can suck my metaphorical dick; that these differences are mostly, if not entirely, socially-driven.

I also think it's hilarious how every time Tierney talks about the gender gap narrowing it's due to "sociocultural factors" and every time he talks about the gender gap maintaining it's due to innate differences.

Ugh. Must stop wasting my time on this pathetic man and his pathetic drivel.

Tierney used to be a right-wing political columnist, if you remember. Apparently that's what qualifies him to be a science columnist. It's part of the New York Times effort to find some audience for it's rather second rate science section. When it comes to science, the Times seems to think cracker barrel opinion sells better. The interesting thing to me is that, unlike the op-ed page which tries to balance political sides, there's only Tierney's right-wing science opinion -- no liberal view of science in the "liberal" NYT. Is there sexism in scientific academia? Um, old news -- not a topic the Times is about to put any resources into. Are there social pressures that steer women away from science? More old news. Women are less able in science? Well, you can't call it old news because it's not news at all, but it does get people riled up, and as Fox et al show, getting people riled up is how you get an audience these days. So expect more claptrap from Tierney if you keep taking the Times.

Steven Pinker just posted this on twitter: Larry Summers has the last laugh: http://nyti.ms/9CXg9k

Apparently his sister Susan has a book:

"The Sexual Paradox: Men, Women and the Real Gender Gap takes a hard look at how fundamental sex differences play out in the workplace. By comparing fragile boys who later succeed, with high achieving women who opt out, Susan Pinker turns several assumptions upside down: that the sexes are biologically equivalent, that smarts are all it takes to succeed and that men and women have identical interests and goals. After decades of women's educational coups and rising through the ranks, men still outnumber women in business, physical science, law, engineering and politics. In explaining this ratio, Pinkerâs controversial stance is that discrimination plays just a bit part. If the majority of children with school and behavioral problems are boys, then why do so many overcome early obstacles, while rafts of high achieving women choose jobs that pay less or opt out at pivotal moments in their careers?

A provocative examination of how and why learning and behavioral gaps in the nursery are reversed in the boardroom, The Sexual Paradox: Men, Women and the Real Gender Gap reveals how sex differences influence ambition and success. Through real menâs and womenâs stories, combined with research evidence and examples from popular culture, Susan Pinker examines how weaknesses can become strengths, and why early achievements do not automatically translate into standard career triumphs."

Yeah, I could give her a few stories.

How the fuck is that "the last laugh"? Imagine you are his sister for a minute, and then think about how you could capitalize off of that. Writing a book that supports a sexist status quo and revives the same controversy (but with her as the center of attention) is a no brainer. WTF was he thinking? "Take that, feminists! A woman wrote a book supporting sexism!" uh, ok.

Jesus christ, I am supposed to take the stories of "real men and women" as proof of what? A nature vs nurture problem is NOT solved that way. Not that people into shit like EP know that.

I really, really wish that Stephen Jay Gould was still alive. I would love to read his response. Also, it would be pretty cool for him (that he was still alive, I mean).

@skeptifem: it really is interesting to see so-called scientists (you have to actually practice the method to be a scientist) using anecdotal evidence to prove their hypotheses. Do these people (Tierny, Summers, Pinker) ever describe how they are controlling for nature versus nurture? Do they ever say how their theories explain findings that contradict them? I feel like I have the same basic methodology questions every time I read one of their rants studies.

@SKM: That would be the coolest.

Yeah, interesting choice of words, "last laugh." Like it's some kind of childish competition, not about getting to the truth of the matter. Sam Harris also reposted Pinker's blurb. I unsubscribed from the Reason Project. Glad to know these blokes are gloating over women being smacked back into their place.

Dress For Success! Or Not!

thusspakezuska — Wed, 09 Jun 2010 14:19:25 +0000

Dress For Success! Or Not!

Ladeez! Please remember not to be too fat, because James Watson doesn't want to hire your ugly ass. Everybody knows fat people can't do science. But they don't care if we say so, because they are so jolly, and lack ambition!

Likewise, it is also not good to be beautiful and curvaceous, and wear clothes that fit you. For alas, Citibank will have to fire you. Your tailored clothing is "too distracting". You distracting ladee, with your distracting turtlenecks!!! Begone from our stolid gentlemanly banking establishment!!!!

Too thin, too thick, too sexy, not sexy enough - clearly, there is no good way for you to appear in public, ladeez. Why do you even leave the home? Unless you are on your way to a gentleman's club to do a pole or lap dance. (Thin ladeez with double D's only, please! All others, please stay home and mind the kids.)

thusspakezuska Wed, 06/09/2010 - 10:19

Tags

Every time an oppressed group manages to get their protection written into the law (like when sex discrimination became illegal at work) there is some sneaky bullshit like this to take its place.

Very true, skeptifem. I often remind myself that it makes it a sliver more obvious that it's bullshit when they have to be sneaky about it. Cold comfort, but better than a poke in the eye with a sharp stick.

Boy, little Jimmie Watson never ceases to amaze. Is there a genetic marker for being a douche canoe?

HULK SMASH WATSON'S THIN PRIVILEGE SPEW. PURPLE SHORTS FOR ALL!

""Whenever you interview fat people, you feel bad, because you know you're not going to hire them," Watson said."

If Watson is not going to hire 'fat people' then why does he interview them? It strikes me as a bit kinder to not give someone a chance to get hired than to give him or her the illusion of a chance.

"Executives at the banking giant called her tailored clothing "too distracting," she said. Lorenzana, who is attractive in a very Eva Longoria way, certainly looks sexy in photos posted on the New York Daily News website, but her clothing fits just fine."

She is indeed a very lovely woman, and very tastefully dressed....but describing her tailored clothing as 'too distracting' is - at best - as stupid as saying that having flowers on your desk is 'too distracting'. Sure she is good looking, and her face probably has an enchanting smile - but so freaking what. Her beauty is hardly unusual, anyone who find her appearance more distracting than 9,999 other things that he or she is encountering in a day really needs to get out and experience life more.

"In the case of Lorenzana, women at her office were anonymously quoted as saying, "She should know better,""

?!?!?!?!? Than to dress like she is pictured in the article? That is very dignified clothing, and essentially 'unisex' clothing. Perhaps the turtleneck was tailored to accommodate her physique, but there are also turtlenecks tailored to the male physique available....and the slacks look almost the same as a pair of suit-pants that a male would wear.... If a handsome man was wearing a black turtleneck with a pair of black suit pants would people whisper that 'he should know better'?

"while the men said on the record that they would go out of their way to catch glimpses of her."

How nice. And how utterly irrelevant. If they take a slightly longer path to the Conference Room (etc.) in order to maybe glance at her that is their business - but if they are neglecting their work in order to 'catch a glimpse' they are redundantly stupid idiots who are of less use to the company than Ms. Lorenzana is.

Beauty is everywhere, and even more so if you look past the superficial. Folks who freak out about the presence of a 'superficially attractive' woman are socially and psychologically immature idiots with no aesthetic sense, a lack of respect for other humans, and an inability to appreciate the intrinsically redundant nature of the phrase 'beautiful woman'.

Watson's brilliant, but god damn he's a douche.

It's ok. My law school's career services office gave a presentation in which they analogized getting a job as a lawyer to being in a fashion show. What was left of my soul probably died that day.

@prof.pedant "If Watson is not going to hire 'fat people' then why does he interview them? It strikes me as a bit kinder to not give someone a chance to get hired than to give him or her the illusion of a chance."

So it appears that he isn't discriminating? But then why would he proclaim that he does? Oh, I know. It's because it isn't a requirement to put your clothing size on your CV. Yet.

`Doesn't a guy like Jim Watson have the responsibility to make this not ugly?'' asked UC Berkeley biologist Michael Botchan, a Watson protege. ``Yes. But I cannot tell Jim Watson to change his ways.''
Son, if you can't, I sure as heck can.

Dear Jim Watson,

Although you have already made a giant ass of yourself in public, I must ask you for the good of science to please STOP. The whole world is now well aware that you are a jackass, you can stop proclaiming it publicly. Isn't there a nice island with your retirement villa on it somewhere?

Sincerely,

Big Pharma Minion

Jesus, how hard is it to understand? Somewhat attractive, but not too attractive. We donât want people thinking youâre out of our league. Definitely not fat, but not so thin that you look like a heroin addict or a refugee. And you should laugh at everything we say, or at least smile, even if its sexist or racist. And when we say something we obviously think is clever, look a little confused, not like you think itâs stupid, but like you donât quite get it, like weâre always a step or two ahead of you.

Is that so difficult?

Is that so difficult?

Oh, and always have an apron handy. And don't wear shoes.

Ah, so it was the D cup that got me all those jobs! Yes, it makes sense now. Tit flashing was clearly a more important element of the job than discussing scientific matters, because I cannot recall ever having to do actually the latter, at least not to the point of actually being listened to. And this explains why I no longer find it so easy to get jobs: I'm now middle aged and angry looking, and I don't like short skirts any more. Duh.

Witnesses at Berkeley were flabbergasted? Shocked?! Well, what rock have they been living under? He's been spouting racist and sexist nonsense for years. You cannot tell James Watson to change his ways? How about not giving him a platform for his bullshit? How about not inviting him to give a guest lecture? Seriously, what did they expect?

Well, who do we think we are, Existing While Female and shit? Jeez.

Watson's brilliant, but god damn he's a douche.

I think he's essentially turned in his Brainy Badge with this one.

If they take a slightly longer path to the Conference Room (etc.) in order to maybe glance at her that is their business

Not quite. Ogling coworkers is sexual harassment. We know when men are "going out of their way" to "glance at us" in the workplace, and it's our business too, because it affects our work. And because it's sexual harassment.

Ogling coworkers is sexual harassment.

Not by law, I'm afraid, not unless it's really very egregious (not by Title VII, anyway; maybe your state's employment discrimination statute covers it, though it's doubtful).

All right then. I'm gonna lock myself at home, cause I'm just too sexy. lol

I grew up during my mom's sexual harassment suit, I was a teenager. She documented everything right from the start(like you are supposed to), and I witnessed some of her co workers talking about the harassment from the same manager she eventually tried to sue. I think she had like 5 people including me writing affidavits for her case. It was like, groping and other really horribly blatant stuff, and she didn't get a trial. The story about women getting some big pay out because some guy looked at (or grabbed) her tits is a fantasy. If women have a 5% chance of getting a dude convicted for rape why would the odds be better at her job exactly?

I encourage every one of you to look up your employer's policy on harassment. Ogling does not count at my university, not even close. Harassment is limited to quid pro quo between a supervisor and supervisee.

Remember that foolish Donald Trump apprenticeship show? Did anyone else think that having the male contestants dressed professionally while the female contestants wore spike heels, mini-skirts, and low-necked blouses was blatently sexist--especially since Trump's second in command dressed formally and professionally?

they are redundantly stupid idiots who are of less use to the company than Ms. Lorenzana is

Yes. But how dare someone suggest that somehow it's their fault for being idiots? She MADE them do it! She has to go!

Now, now, Ladeez, lets not get our collective panties in a bunch until a man with a manly man brain comes to mansplain about why this isn't sexism, isn't a big deal, and tell us instead what to focus on. I mean, we have girly brains - def not suited to know what sexism is. Where are the men to help us!!@

Watson seems like a pig to me.

That being said, I would be reluctant to hiring an extremely overweight person simply because of their obvious inactivity, their lack of self control, and their lack of health. I would judge any race of man or a woman equally on this subject, being unhealthy isn't cool.

Citibank is retarded.

Newsflash, thegoodman: not all fat people are unhealthy, not all fat people are inactive, not all fat people lack self control. (Though, some fat people are these things, just as some thin people are too.)

In much the same vein, not all thin people are bulimic or anorexic, not all thin people are athletic, not all thin people are obsessive-compulsive about their diet. (Though some thin people are these things, just as some fat people are too.)

Just like: not all short people are "diminutive" and shy, not all heavily-muscled people are egomaniacs, not all gay men are effeminate, not all lesbians are butch, not all tunafish are silver, and not all foxes are red.

Shockingly, there exists a tremendous degree of normal variation amongst humans, just as in any other species. To think that you can judge work ethic by looking at physical features is laughable, ignorant, and just plain wrong.

TROOOOOOOOOOOLLLLL!!!!!

I am not trolling Cara, but the depth of your posts continue to wow us all with your intellect.

I didn't say 'slightly overweight', Ambivalent Academic, you are absolutely right that not all people fit their stereotypes.

What I did say was "extremely overweight". Would you hire a 400lb person? Seriously, you honestly make no judgments of the 500lb people you see on TV or out in public? I understand that people carrying a little extra weight could be perfectly happy with themselves and be at a weight that is comfortable for them, good for them. I am talking about people who are extremely unhealthy which is blatant by their inability to keep themselves in even moderate shape.

I refuse to accept someone for "who they are" if that person is a disgusting pig who consumes anything and everything in site and is unable to walk up a flight of stairs without stopping to take a breath. Do they have to change? No, they do whatever they want. Does that mean I should choose them to be a part of my company? Not a chance.

You seem to think that 40 extra lbs is "extremely overweight". I do not. Anything that is clinically morbidly obese is extremely overweight. They have health issues and pose a risk to their employers and if I were a highering manager, it isn't a risk I would be willing to take.

Whatever, thegoodman. If those 'out of control' people just puked it up afterwards you would have no problem hiring them. You care about the appearance of those problems, not the reality. There are shit tons of lazy thin people who do not have to control what they eat because of their high metabolisms (who have really shitty health as a result of their diet/lack of exercise). None of it has anything to do with how well someone does their job, and weight alone is a totally shitty way to predict health because of the reasons I just outlined.

They have health issues and pose a risk to their employers and if I were a highering manager, it isn't a risk I would be willing to take.

You are saying that people with health issues are a risk to a company that you would not take if you were hiring.

That is discrimination. I'd hope you would lose your job for violating the ADA. I wouldn't count on it though, sadly. Discrimination continues.

I have "health issues"* as you put it (and no, I'm not even fat!). You seem confused about the difference between "health issues" and "character flaws". Not the same.

* Chronic autoimmune disease. Yes--it it makes work hard to find and keep. Guess I'm just weak-willed and a bad risk.

Yeah, SKM, you with your autoimmune disease and me with my PTSD ...

why, if we'd both just suck it up, eat better, stop whining, and get over it, then someone would hire us and life would then be fine forever. Clearly.

Until then, we'll wallow in our weak-willed self-pity. You can continue being a bad work risk and I can continue being a welfare slut.

Also, I'm thin. Quite thin, but not too thin. Because I have anorexia. And although I look fine and act fine and am smart and often do work very well, I likewise often pass out on the job due to said anorexia.

Good job trying to judge a book by its cover, though, thegoodman.
And for the record, whenever you show up to a conversation, my heart sinks and my IQ feels like it drops twenty points. Though that may just be my heart dropping to my feet.

@SKM
Its unfortunate that you have an autoimmune disease. It doesn't change that fact that you are a risk to employers. Your risk has nothing to do with your character or your work ethic, an employee who will miss significant time from work because of health issues isn't an employee anyone would want. Its unfortunate, but the employer can't be responsible for your misfortunes.

@Skeptifem
If an employee put "bulemic" on their resume, it would hinder their ability to get hired far more than being obese. Obesity is not a "shitty" way to gauge health. It is a perfectly normal and just way to gauge the health of a newly met person. There are countless studies that show how unhealthy an obese lifestyle is. It applies to all genders and races and has little to do with economic standing. If a person is obese, you can see it when you look at them. What you CANNOT see is also a risk when hiring an employee. But that is a risk you have to take if you cant determine those risks via an interview/background check. I am not discriminating against fat people. I do not dislike them because they are fat. I would simply choose to not hire them because of their obvious character flaws combined with their health risk. Its business, its not personal.

Would you hire a drug addict to your company? How about an alcoholic? You wouldn't DARE discriminate against someone because they choose to consume copious amounts of unhealthy substances, would you?

So what do you propose that all of us ill, eating-disordered, and/or mentally traumatized people (drug addiction is basically mental trauma and often stems from other trauma such as sexual or physical abuse) DO with ourselves?

Lie down, curl up, and wait to die?

Or just "snap out of it"? Because clearly that's our problem. We just need to snap out of it.

Trust me, thegoodman, if you are capable of seeing non-penised people as human beings, if all it took to get over PTSD or an eating disorder or mental trauma was a good old "snap out of it", no one (NO ONE) would have any of those problems any more. They are no fun.

And it still doesn't address what you think SKM should do, either. Seriously. Curl up and wait to die?

thegoodman, I wish you good health. You are going to need it.

In the meantime, expand you view to ask yourself how society fares when folks who are highly educated, competent, and want to work are considered unhireable due to chronic conditions (bear in mind that 60 million Americans have chronic conditions, and you may well become one of them).

"tough shit" may be a fine personal philosophy for you, but it does little for society as a whole.

Obesity is not a "shitty" way to gauge health. It is a perfectly normal and just way to gauge the health of a newly met person.

This is factually incorrect. As are most of your points. The sooner you wipe your hard drive and start fresh, the better.

I am not trolling Cara, but the depth of your posts continue to wow us all with your intellect.

You are, indeed trolling. Also, my engineering-doing girly brain has words like "pearls" and "swine" rolling about in there, but it just...can't...quite...

They don't put it on their resume (and if they did I would hope that they could spell it correctly), that is the point. There are tons of skinnies walking around looking perfectly normal and eating freakish amounts of food who fly under your radar all the time. There are skinny folks with crappy health for other reasons that you don't notice either.

Weight is a poor indicator of health. If it was a great one there wouldn't be much need to do things like labs and vitals. It is one piece of information that has to be used in conjunction with other measures in order to be useful at all. Thin people who do not exercise or watch their diet have (predictably) horrendous cardiac health, as is indicated by things like lipid panels. A heavy person who works out and eats healthy foods is likely to have a much lower cardiac risk. If we could tell just by looking at people then bloodwork to measure these things would not be done at all. You know nothing about medicine, dude, don't pretend.

I can't freaking believe that that asshole would say that he would not hire someone with an autoimmune disease. Especially that he would say it directly to you, SKM. Considering how perfect one would have to be to deserve consideration in his world, I hope that he's a firm supporter of single-payer health care, a strong and robust welfare state, and other societal interventions to paper over (in part, because obviously none of that would resolve the problem of not being respected and of not being treated as fully human) SOME of the issues with the world he feels comfortable in.

Anyone who needs a breath a fresh air and hasn't read Jill Psmith's latest, might want to head over here for a refreshing reminder of the utter pointlessness of trolls:

http://blog.iblamethepatriarchy.com/2010/06/10/hanging-chads-of-savage-…

The key quote from thegoodman is this one @26:

Thegoodman is not speak from a place of rationality, but from a place of very visceral feeling, and that feeling is disgust. Perhaps fat is merely a symbol of unfettered appetite and people "doing whatever they want" with no self-control. Is it the fat, or the "doing what one wants" without submitting to the will of others, or the supposed of lack of self control that may lead to chaos and everything spinning out of control, that stimulates the disgust response? Maybe all of the above. Hard to say. What I do know is that you cannot logically argue someone out of their disgust response. It's almost impossible to even get them to acknowledge that the disgust response is where they are operating from, when they think that are speaking from a place of pure logica and sensibility. Even if they were able to admit that the disgust response is what's motivating them, what are they going to do? Say, okay, I'll stop being disgusted by fat people/gays/blacks/women/smelly immigrants who eat funny food and steal mah jobs? They'll say "no, this is actually disgusting, and you ought to be disgusted by it too." There is no way to win a dialogue with a person who is full of disgust, when your only weapon is logic. Unless the law and the courts and and the prisons and the civil penalties are all on your side. Then maybe you have a chance.

["If they take a slightly longer path to the Conference Room (etc.) in order to maybe glance at her that is their business"
"Not quite. Ogling coworkers is sexual harassment. We know when men are "going out of their way" to "glance at us" in the workplace, and it's our business too, because it affects our work. And because it's sexual harassment.]

So walking down a hall, glancing into an open office door or window - without changing your perfectly normal walking pace - is 'sexual harassment'?

From http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/glance
glance
1 /glÃ¦ns, glÉns/ Show Spelled [glans, glahns]
âverb (used without object)
1. to look quickly or briefly.
[snip]
âverb (used with object) Archaic .
5. to cast a glance or brief look at; catch a glimpse of.
[snip]
ânoun
8. a quick or brief look.
[snip]

If a glance constitutes 'sexual harassment', is it possible for someone (woman or man) to look at a woman without that look constituting 'sexual harassment'? Or does glancing at people in order to successfully navigate ones way through a crowd make a person a 'serial harasser'?

Ms. Lorenzana was reprehensibly treated, and unjustifiably fired, but nothing in the article said that she was being harassed (other than the 'talking about her behind her back' crap). Instead it looks like a bunch of immature and incompetent idiots were all in a kerfluffle because people noticed that Ms. Lorenzana was attractive.

The only way that 'sexual harassment' seems to have played a 'role' is that the immature incompetent idiots were so scared of their thoughts (or someones thoughts) about Ms. Lorenzana's attractiveness that they panicked and fired her instead of firing the 'thoughtcrimer' they were worried about. One of the many things that those self-centered fools need to learn is to not believe every thing that they think. Thinking that anyone, male or female, is so very attractive and irresistible that you would like to [censored] right here and now is only a thought, a thought that probably more than 99.999% of the time has nothing to do with reality and has essentially no chance of happening (i.e. he/she is almost always 'just not that into you', and won't be that into you no matter how charming and deserving you are). It is only a thought, and it is not a guide on how to tell people to live their lives, get over it.

(Katherine @ #8, Bingo. Watson is discriminating, but until he made those statements he _appeared_ to not be discriminating....and partly because "it isn't a requirement to put your clothing size on your CV. Yet.". But, as a 'person of size' I would prefer to not get an interview at a place that already knew they were not going to hire me than go through a farce in which I mistakenly thought I had a chance....)

I can't freaking believe that that asshole would say that he would not hire someone with an autoimmune disease. Especially that he would say it directly to you, SKM.

Well, I certainly can. Of course, real-life hiring managers are too smart to state discrimination as a reason for not hiring openly. That's one of many reasons why the Americans with Disabilities Act hasn't done as much good as it was intended to do.

Of course, the really hilarious part is that thegoodman would likely never know to discriminate against me unless I told him of my illness, because I am thin and conventionally attractive and have excellent references and am therefore apparently of good character. Of course, if he hired me on such 'false pretenses' (never mind that I am by law not required to reveal my health history in an interview) and he got even a whiff of "not-normal" health from me, he would likely fire me for withholding the vital information of what a very bad risk I am!

And so it goes.

I'm with those who are surprised that anyone surprised by Watson's antics. He's always been a dim bulb and a nasty-minded bully.

SKM, same here. I think that the small fortune taxpayers have spent on my education to make the most of my abilities means that I have an obligation to use that education and those abilities, since that's the whole reason society made such an investment in the first place. Evidently thegoodman much prefers the "screw the taxpayers" approach. Oh well, he can always make sure he personally doesn't take advantage of my work. Hey dude, just to be sure, you'd better disconnect your electricity. You might be using something that came from OMGASICKIE!

SKM, I hope that I didn't misspeak. I didn't mean that I couldn't believe it, more that it made me really angry. I should have said that, and if it seemed like I was denying or dismissing your experience, I apologize.

I can well believe that people would be that horrible. And I'm so sorry -- angry -- that people like you and my m-i-l (with an autoimmune disease) have to deal with such people.

SKM, I hope that I didn't misspeak.

Oh, not at all! I meant the "well, I certainly can" in more of an "oh, heavy sigh!" way. I got what you meant. I should have been clearer.

you'd better disconnect your electricity. You might be using something that came from OMGASICKIE!

Yup. As Zuska said, this is a matter of disgust. That's what happens when you make health a moral issue.

"I refuse to accept someone for "who they are" if that person is a disgusting pig who consumes anything and everything in site and is unable to walk up a flight of stairs without stopping to take a breath."

Huh. So, by "thegoodman", you actually mean "arrogant, judgmental, self-righteous bigot". Gotcha.

@ thegoodman: I would certainly hire someone who is overweight and qualified, but I certainly wouldn't hire someone who doesn't know the difference between "its" and "it's" and "site" and "sight". Good written communication is a real job requirement at my company. An ideal weight target is not.

O irony, thou art a jewel! I mean, James Watson ain't exactly David Tennant.

So, by the logic of the Appearance Police, now I can fire guyyyzzz who don't come to work all buff, tanned, and oiled up? I need some hawt mancandy to brighten up these dull grey cubicle walls. Stat.

And d00dz with bad combovers, can they go?

What about d00dz who chew tobacco? Can we not hire them? How about smoking? I don't want to smell cigarettes all day.

Really, this could totally brighten up my day. Of course, I would lose a bunch of damn smart colleagues, but eye candy RAWKS!

Somehow, I doubt any human being, male or female, could meet thegoodman's standards for character, appearance, and health. And if they did when he hired them, well, things change...

Yvonne: "Boy, little Jimmie Watson never ceases to amaze. Is there a genetic marker for being a douche canoe?"

Probably not, but there might be a picture of him leaping over a large predatory fish.

As for Ms. Lorenzana and her curves, what do they want her to do, hide under a burqa?

Unlike you, thegoodman, I am quite able to recognize that my personal experiences are not objective reality that applies equally to all humans. My 40 lbs. of "thesis weight" is a very different thing, which I can manage very differently, than someone else's chronic and/or hereditary illness or just plain normal healthy metabolism. Of all the antelopes in all the world, some of those antelopes are gazelles, and some of them are water buffalo. That doesn't mean that water buffalo have a failure of will that causes them not to look like gazelles.

Some of the most brilliant people I know are well over the "obesity" mark (by whichever fundamentally flawed mechanism you choose to define this term) and they are excellent at their jobs. Some of them are having a hard time getting jobs (as QC engineers at BP - jeezus, if anyone ever needed a good QC engineer, it's them) because of ignorance like yours.

I am so tired of this shit.

Also, where did I ever say that "40 lbs equals extremely overweight"? Pretty sure I didn't.

I will recall fondly thegoodman's advice during my current hiring decision-making.

PharmaMinion: We work very closely with many groups here, and BigPharma is, of course, an international company interested in hiring the best minds possible. Can you tell me about a time when you had to work in a role where communication was challenging from a personal standpoint--perhaps dealing with office politics, working with someone from a very different culture, or having to explain your work concisely to people in a completely different field?

thegoodman: It's simple, honey. I just set very high standards for people, and they can live up to them or not. Their choice. Because I'm all about respecting choices.

PharmaMinion: Um. Huh. Well, there's still 50 minutes left in the interview...I guess...do you have any questions for me about BigPharma?

thegoodman: Yeah, I think it's great that you guys make weight-loss drugs, help people get control of themselves. Could I work on any projects like that?

PharmaMinion: I don't think I can answer that in an interview, although there are certainly many publications available through PubMed if you are interested in reading more. Do you have any previous experience working on metabolic disease that's not on your CV?

thegoodman: No.

PharmaMinion: Ah. Well, how about we see if the next person on your schedule might be available early? Maybe you could go back to thinks, oh gawd, don't say "the rock you crawled out from under"...back to...uh, where are you from again?

Sadly, we do get interviewees like this. On such occasions, I have been grateful for the fact that in modern times, a reply above and beyond a short rejection letter or email isn't really expected.

Wow, I did not realize that the combination of a super-efficient metabolism, a different set of bacteria in the gut, and dietary and physical activity choices made one's character flawed!

I work for a man who would certainly cause thegoodman to cringe and wag his finger disapprovingly, since he's obese (and therefore lacks good moral character), but quite honestly there is nobody in this world I would rather work for. This man is one of the smartest people I've ever met, both academically and socially. Basically, professionally speaking, I want to be him when I grow up.

People who judge him for his size are truly missing out on a gem. He has taken me under his wing and someday I will rise in the management chain thanks to his support and what I have learned from him.

It's too bad, thegoodman -- sometimes the best people come in beauty-noncompliant packages. Take off your judgmental blinders and see what you are missing.

Appearance and morals -- isn't that also what was at stake in the CitiBank case? Her very appearance indicated that she was either too slutty or too unavailable. Both of which, of course, are moral failings for women.

And body weight is no different. The tabloids have images of "shockingly heavy" stars and also "who is anorexic?" spreads. There is no way to escape the weird (perhaps Christian influenced?) idea that our bodies -- no matter what they are -- are dirty, sinful, indicators of inadequacy, etc. (Women's bodies, of course, most of all.) As Zuska's title points out, there really is no way to succeed. To do our bodies "right."

(Yes, some people have the privilege to get very close to the ideal body that has nothing "wrong" with it, so not everyone is as pulled between different demands for how they "do" their bodies; however, I wonder if there really is anyone who can actually pull it off perfectly? I suspect not, though I could be wrong.)

On a little tangent, I heard on TV that CitiBank (?) had 12% female executives. However, 45% of the let go executives were female. Given the increase in female participation in various professions, it seems likely that a large portion of female employees are new hires. If so, females will suffer disproportionately when the "last hired, first fired" principle is applied. If that principle is applied in a knee jerk fashion, how one dresses probably doesn't have much effect.

Somehow, I doubt any human being, male or female, could meet thegoodman's standards for character, appearance, and health.

Except for his imaginary wife, I'm sure.

Mr Goodman also never (of course) showered us with his wisdom about what "unhealthy" people (by his standards, every person) should DO.

Apparently either lay down on our mats by the side of the road and hold out our hats to the more evolutionarily fit while we wait to die, or go on welfare.

And something tells me he neither knows exactly how welfare works, nor supports its use.

Sorry, thegoodman. We sickies are gonna keep on a-workin' out here.

Question for fellow sickies: Is failure to disclose an illness seen as ... a type of lie?

(I am having trouble with apartments right now, as I had a PTSD flashback and my roommates feel I "lied" to them for not telling them that I had PTSD. Although my flashbacks directly effect only me, if I fail to disclose my PTSD to future apartment-mates, am I basically lying by omission?
And is it the same with other problems in the workplace?)

"Say, okay, I'll stop being disgusted by fat people/gays/blacks/women/smelly immigrants who eat funny food and steal mah jobs? They'll say "no, this is actually disgusting, and you ought to be disgusted by it too." There is no way to win a dialogue with a person who is full of disgust, when your only weapon is logic."

You cannot seriously believe that extremely obese people have no control of there situation. I have nothing at all against gays/blacks/women/ or immigrants. I do however have something against people who knowingly live unhealthy lifestyles because they know that society will support them when they have eaten themselves into a will chair or the emergency room. They have no respect for their own bodies and no respect for anyone else's. Extremely obese people are not a minority and to imply I am grouping them with minorities is insulting to me and yourself (as a woman).

You nailed it, I am definitely disgusted by extremely fat people (not "heavy" people) because there is not excuse for it. I am equally disgusted by drug users, child molesters, and other people that lack the ability to control their desires and in turn cause harm to others or themselves. Why am I being demonized for asking that people show some restraint in their life?

Someone asked what I think a "healthy" person is (albeit facetiously). The answer is simp, someone who cares about their own health. Eat moderate amounts of food, and exercise occasionally. That's it. Its not asking much and the results are 100% effective. 400-500lb people do neither of these 2 things and I find it impossible to respect a person who does not respect their own bodies. As an employer, I wouldn't hire a person who had so little respect for such an important aspect of their life.

*sorry for the double post

"[Obesity is an indicator of an unhealthy person]This is factually incorrect. As are most of your points. The sooner you wipe your hard drive and start fresh, the better."

You couldn't be more wrong. Obesity is a perfectly legitimate determining factor for an unhealthy person. Obesity is tied to dozens of detrimental medical conditions. If you truly believe that an obese person is healthy, you should study some of the medicine behind what I am saying.

http://www.webmd.com/diet/guide/what-is-obesity

they know that society will support them when they have eaten themselves into a will chair

What's a "will chair"? Hey, maybe if I had one, I wouldn't be sick! You know, since it's just a matter of will and all.

If you truly believe that an obese person is healthy

Which obese person? They are not all the same. Some are healthy, some are not.

I take it you would never hire a smoker either.

In any case, I think the joke would be on me if I were to give you any more attention.

@58: "tied to" is a correlative phrase. Like all research done on humans, the studies that support a "link" between obesity and choose-your-favorite-medical-condition are correlation studies. Correlation =/= Causation. The trends reported say NOTHING about whether obesity is a cause or an effect of the "related" medical conditions. And, of course, they say even less than nothing about obese people who are perfectly healthy. I suggest you take a statistics course.

"What's a "will chair"? Hey, maybe if I had one, I wouldn't be sick! You know, since it's just a matter of will and all."

Haha, that was a boneheaded typo. It was late...

Since we are now arguing weather or not being obese is healthy or unhealthy, it is very clear to me that most of you are in fact gender feminists. If I said the sky was blue, you would say I am a lying man and the sky is more of a blue-ish green.

I am pro-equity feminism. I am pro individualist feminism. Because I have a penis, I am Satan in the eyes of you gender feminists so I am always in a no win situation.

You want to talk about disgust vs logic? I said that obese people are unhealthy and pose a risk to potential employers (a completely true and logical argument). A few of you go on to say that obesity is not a sign of unhealthiness (completely illogical) and employers have no right to judge future employees based on their appearance (also, completely illogical).

I didn't say heavy people are incapable, I didn't even say fat people are incapable, I simply said that obese people show character flaws to their interviewers. Will those character flaws hinder there ability to perform well at work? Maybe, maybe not. If they are standing next to a more fit yet equally qualified person, who would you choose to hire? Professionalism is important in any job and not taking care of your body is unprofessional.

"Hey all you women who are feminists! UR doin' rongz!!"

d00d - the clue is in the name.

PS - if you're all about individualist wtfever, how come you lump all fat people into the "unhealthy" category? If you really are a feminist, what gives with all the judging people on their appearances? Surely you must have encountered the arguments for how this is harmful to people in all your feminist studies.

So, in addition to being an insufferable bigot, he's also a condescending mansplainer. LOL of course.

Of course women who've been feminists since before his blow up wife came in the mail are doing feminism wrong - they don't agree with him! And, since he knows fucking nothing about feminism and weight issues, we're clearly cKKKKRRRAAZZZZZYyYY if we don't take his totally uninformed, obviously pulled from his ass opinion as gospel truth.

Thanks, thecrapboy, for the belly laugh. Really. I love watching ignorant bigots dig themselves in deep and then decide to try for China.

"I am pro-equity feminism. I am pro individualist feminism. Because I have a penis, I am Satan in the eyes of you gender feminists so I am always in a no win situation."

LOL. Just saw this. yes, it's your penis that makes us roll our eyes at you. that's totally it. It's not your ignorance, your dishonesty, your condescension, your hilariously inept mansplaining or your arrogance. Nah! It's your penis! We craazzzzzzyyyy feminists just hate penises!!!

You're the douchebag gift that just keeps on giving.

If they are standing next to a more fit yet equally qualified person, who would you choose to hire? Professionalism is important in any job and not taking care of your body is unprofessional.

The stats you have supplied are population studies. The scenario you posit is about individuals. You cannot generalize a population study to individuals, because individuals vary and do not have to be anywhere near the average for their particular group. In your example, there is no legal way to determine if the obese individual is that way because of a "character flaw" instead of a metabolic disorder, thyroid condition, genetic predisposition, or medication side-effect. Likewise, for all you know the "more fit" individual could be someone who never exercises, eats junk food all day (with the help of a fast metabolism), cheats on his girlfriend, slacks off at work, steals from the offering plate, or has any of countless other character flaws which aren't readily visible. You just don't know!

Just in case anyone out in the audience *is* actually scratching their heads saying "how come feminists are pro-fatties?", it's definitely an issue that affects men and women jaw-droppingly differently.

A recent article looked at lost earnings from obesity and mentioned a gender effect. Here's what I think of as the money quote:
"If the assumptions for this model hold true, Millennial US women will earn an average of $956 billion less due to obesity during their lifetime, whereas Millennial men will earn an average of $43 billion less. The overall impact of obesity on the aggregate lifetime earnings of Millennial men and women is close to one trillion dollars.

The enormous disparity of this impact on lifetime earnings between men and women is largely due to the much larger wage penalties payed by obese women compared to obese men and exist despite the fact that womenâs labour participation rates and earnings tend to be less than menâs."

Endor, he's on to us.

(After all, everybody knows that two heads are better than one. We must just be envious).

AA FTW. Also SKM is right, he's too stupid to even be a good hackeysack.

This is yet another situation where dozens of words have been put into my mouth and countless assumptions have been made about me.

There is no excuse on earth for being extremely obese. Some people may have circumstances that make it more difficult for them to maintain a healthy weight, like many of you have pointed out. Does this mean those individuals should be allowed to just toss their responsibility to be healthy out the window? I don't think it does.

"It's not your ignorance"
I have learned a lot about privilege, feminism, and equality in the past few weeks since first reading the blog and I am learning more all of the time.

"your dishonesty"
I have been dishonest about nothing. This point is just confusing and you seem to be attempting to undermine my posts by attacking my character which from the information you have in front of you, is actually very honest.

"your condescension"
I may condescending at times, but I have a long way to go before I reach the heights of condescension that many of seem to have attained long ago.

"your hilariously inept mansplaining"
The entire use of the word mansplaining reinforces my gender feminist claims. Society is to blame for the inequities between men and women, many (most) women willingly participate in this inequity and a word like mansplaining places all of the blame on men along and dodges the bigger issues.

"your arrogance."
Most of what I have said is simply my opinion. They are neither better nor worse than your own opinions and there are numerous people on both sides of the issues we are discussing. If I seem arrogant by posting factual data that supports my claims that obesity is detrimental to healthy, then continue assuming I am arrogant and continue fueling the obesity epidemic in our country that is hurting us all.

You're a moron.

That is all.

"and a word like mansplaining places all of the blame on men alone and dodges the bigger issues"

No, 'mansplaining' is a very clearly defined term for a particular situation in which gendertyping and gender assumptions are the determining factors in interpersonal conduct revolving around discussion of technical or traditionally masculine interests, or situations in which opinions of men are accorded value above equivilant (sometimes identical and previously given) opinions of females.

The blogs that have used 'mansplaining' have had to repeatedly explain and re-explain exactly what they mean by 'mansplaining' - almost exclusively to men.

It clearly identifies male privilege and gender assumptions of competance as being so endemic and systemic as to impact directly on interpersonal and group dynamics in everyday situations, in all forms of relationships.

If you honestly don't think there are situations where females are assumed to be incompetant unless proven otherwise, even by otherwise 'modern' guys, then I can only conclude you have led an abnormal or sheltered life. Or you're incompetant.

This is just deja vu now. Kindly piss off and stop making such a bad name for us blokes.

thegoodman- there are countless 'excuses' for being obese. Work in medicine for a year d00d, then get back to me about how fat is all voluntary and controllable.

Hell, we don't even know how much control any of us have over our behavior anyway. Go ahead- try to prove free will (to you, please don't inflict the arguments on all of us). You can't. It is just something you assume exists because you feel like it has to. Entire systems, like your moral judgment, and the criminal justice system, hinge on the crucial assumption of complete control of behavior. We really have no clue.

I am pro-equity feminism. I am pro individualist feminism.

We'd better quit now. GoodD00d is not merely a feminist ally -- no, he IS feminism, specifically pro-equity (with what "equity" is defined, of course, by himself, not by biased women who feel that fat people deserve "equity" as well) and pro-individualist (and of course "the individual" is usually defined as the "default" person -- white, male, cis, able-bodied, reasonably attractive, etc.).

If you doubt that "individualism" is so defined, just look at Arizona's new policy against ethnic studies classes, which specifies that they don't want to focus on "ethnic groups" but on the history of individuals. And by that, of course, they mean that they want a history program in which one week lumps together the history of women, blacks, and Latin@s (if we're lucky!) and points out that Harriet Tubman, Martin Luther King Jr., and Rosa Parks were totally cool! Then after that week they can go back to all the other individuals who made our country great (without, of course, any assistance from unpaid work by women and PoC or theft from Native populations). Sorry for the rant.

But "individual" is an interesting term, because it sounds so innocuous, but it is often used to dismiss the concerns of anyone but white, cis, het, middle-to-upper-class, able-bodied men, each of the latter of whom, is, of course, an individual, while everyone else is just a representative of some "group." Hence -- all fatties are alike, all women are alike, all PoC are alike....

Since your comment merely reinforced what I already said about you (and thanks for that, btw), only this needs comment:

"a word like mansplaining places all of the blame on men along and dodges the bigger issues. "

This is an outright lie, as is easily proven by a quick scroll down on this very site. Thanks for proving, beyond a doubt, that you're a dishonest, self-obsessed bigot.

@Dedj: just one minor point. You use "men" and "females" in the same sentence, and "guys" and "females" in another sentence. This may seem like hair-splitting, but that's dehumanizing language. It's "men" and "women", or "guys" and "gals", "girls", "dames", etc. If you're going to use "females", pair it with "males". And that usage is best saved for research (IMO). Generally, "female" is an adjective.

It is a very common habit to pair "men" with "females" in conversation, (even my 8-year-old nephew has picked it up), so you are in plentiful company. If you stop to think about why it's so common, you may realize that it's related to society's long-standing tradition of treating women like livestock.

I realize that lots of folks think of "females" as handy because it covers women and girls, but one is better off just saying "women and girls", or when in doubt for a mixed group, just stick with "women".

Other than that, I agree with your comment--thanks!

If you doubt that "individualism" is so defined, just look at Arizona's new policy against ethnic studies classes, which specifies that they don't want to focus on "ethnic groups" but on the history of individuals. And by that, of course, they mean that they want a history program in which one week lumps together the history of women, blacks, and Latin@s (if we're lucky!) and points out that Harriet Tubman, Martin Luther King Jr., and Rosa Parks were totally cool!

WTF, did they really say that MLK was an example of someone without a history that could be note worthy to law enforcement?? The FBI seemed to think he was worth surveillance.

http://foia.fbi.gov/foiaindex/king.htm

They followed him around and made a shit ton of reports.

What are the bigger issues being dodged by the cute term "mansplaining"?

Here's a few:

1.) that some men really do have complete contempt for women's knowledge and experience
2.) that some men can't really believe that a woman might know more about [X] than they do
3.) that some men show an utter disregard for the full humanity of women, believing and acting as if women are a "second sex" -- secondary, Other, different, hysterical, unreliable, confused, ignorant, childish
4.) that these men feel entitled to explain to women NOT ONLY the things that these men actually do know well BUT ALSO the things that the women are more truly experts in, be it anything from nuclear physics to a woman's own memories of her childhood (depending upon the specific individuals involved)
5.) that this kind of behavior drives women crazy, because we know the beliefs upon which it is based -- and because we have experienced it daily, including from the men we care about most, and it is a continuous and frustrating reminder that SOME MEN (said group to be determined by their actions, not by intent or by the "feminism" they say they represent) have absolutely no idea that women are indeed full human beings with intelligence, experience, and expertise.

It's most obvious, perhaps, when some 18 year old guy tries to tell a female professor that he knows her subject better than she does. But when a man decides to explain to a woman her own experience that's when "mansplaining" comes with the implication that men ultimately are the owners, experts, and arbiters of women's bodies, experiences, and lives -- and that's when it really makes me, personally, mad.

In my opinion, saying "mansplaining" does dodge the bigger issues by presenting such a disturbing phenomenon in rather cute terms. But really, would anyone actually want to have to say outright "explaining in such a way that he shows utter contempt for the autonomy, intelligence, and worth of a woman"? And GoodD00d, would you really want to hear it all the time?

And if you're an equity feminist -- thus believing that equality should be the goal, which implies that you believe women are not completely equal yet -- then if women are, as a class, underprivileged, what class is, as a group, privileged? Men. Thus when a man explains to a woman something that she knows better than he does, that is an example of the exercise of a particular type of privilege. A privilege that is gendered, granted to males, and denied to females. If you don't believe that men, as a class, are privileged and women, as a class, are denied those privileges, why even call yourself a feminist?

I would say that, if nothing else, thegoodman has at least served a purpose by clearly outlining mainstream beliefs about health, morality, fatness, and feminism, except that we don't need the lesson because we already know!

I notice "thegoodman" is still using electricity, and thus benefiting from the work of someone so morally bankrupt as to have a medical condition. Oh dear. How shameful.

"And if you're an equity feminist -- thus believing that equality should be the goal, which implies that you believe women are not completely equal yet -- then if women are, as a class, underprivileged, what class is, as a group, privileged? Men."

Yes. White men are privileged. You left out the racial point, like many feminists do. Lets summarize my views quickly and then try to decide why I am a liar bigot as many of you have described me.

I know that white males are privileged.

I know that equality is not present and all of us should work to make it more present with the ultimate goal of absolute equality.

I sincerely believe that women are my academic, intellectual, professional, etc.. equal.

If a woman is more successful than I am, it is simply because she is better at whatever she does than me, she also likely had to jump through more hoops than I would have had to jump through to attain the same level of success, so not only is she more successful, she is also probably a harder worker.

What exactly makes me a bigot again? Everything I have said supports my views. Everything that doesn't has been assumed about me or extrapolated from my sometimes vague claims.

"I notice "thegoodman" is still using electricity, and thus benefiting from the work of someone so morally bankrupt as to have a medical condition"

WTF are you talking about. I have never said anything even remotely similar to this in any way, shape or form. I know its a good time to bash me and "make an manxample" of me, but doing so dishonestly is ridiculous. Bash me for my ignorance, but please stop making things up just because you think its fun to jump on the pile.

Here is where I got my definitions of equity and gender feminism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equity_and_gender_feminism

Here is where I got my definition of individualist feminism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Individualist_feminism

I also want to point out that extremely obese people are not a minority. Being grossly overweight is not a natural condition for 99% of the people who are morbidly obese. It is very simply the result of calories in vs. calories out. They consume far too many calories in a day to maintain a healthy weight.

Similar to the way that an alcoholic consumes far too much alcohol in a day to remain sober. Many people may have the predisposition to be an alcoholic (there are hereditary links to alcoholism) but that doesn't mean they should have an excuse when they show up to work drunk as hell.

People who are hereditarily predisposed to be obese need to show extra restraint when consuming food. They need to be more active than a person who doesn't have their disadvantage and they need to consume less calories. Why do these people get a free pass when alcoholics do not? I don't think they should get a free pass.

"Thegoodman", you stated quite clearly that I am a risk, therefore should not be working. Naturally, then, you would not want to be using the results of my oh-so-risky work sanctioned by an employer who chooses such sub-par employees. So turn off your electricity. You are very likely using my work as we speak.

"therefore should not be working."

This assumption isn't logical at all. All employees have certain risk factors involved. My wife is a medical doctor, there is a risk that I may choose to simply stop working any day because we could live on a single income. You should be working. You have the right to work as much as anyone does. I just think that an employer should have the right to weigh out the advantages and disadvantages of any employee, and if an employer thinks that your qualifications exceed the risk, terrific. If not, move on to the next opportunity. I never said anything about anyone that is obese or with a medical condition shouldn't work, I simply said it is a risk to be evaluated during an interview.

Medical conditions that prevent you from working your obligated hours of work per week make you a risk. This isn't an opinion and it isn't bigoted, it is a fact.

"Do you want employees that sign up for 40 hrs a week but can only work 30 hrs a week?"

What sane employer would say yes to this question? If all of your employees get paid for 40 hrs of work each week, why in the hell would an employer choose an employee that can only work 30 hours yet still receive 40 hours of pay? It has nothing to do with women, discrimination, or any other factor, businesses exist to make money. Employees that pose a risk to not showing up to work are high risk employees and will most likely not be chosen if an equally qualified candidate does not have that risk.

Medical conditions that prevent you from working your obligated hours of work per week make you a risk. This isn't an opinion and it isn't bigoted, it is a fact.

As far as I know, a person's weight is not considered a "medical condition".

I just think that an employer should have the right to weigh out the advantages and disadvantages of any employee, and if an employer thinks that your qualifications exceed the risk, terrific.

Title I and Title V of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, as amended (ADA) prohibits employment discrimination against qualified individuals with disabilities in the private sector, and in state and local governments and Sections 501 and 505 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 prohibits discrimination against qualified individuals with disabilities who work in the federal government.

Title II of the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008 (GINA) prohibits employment discrimination based on genetic information about an applicant, employee, or former employee.

So, no, thegoodman, the employer does not have some unfettered right to "weigh out" (nice choice of words) the advantages and disadvantages of some prospective employees medical conditions. If you are using someone's weight as a proxy to determine if they are harboring some disability or illness so that you can discriminate against them in hiring or other covered employment practices, then, douchenozzle, you are breaking federal law.

Or if, as I suspect and stated upthread, you are just disgusted by people carrying a few extra pounds, because you believe in the Almighty Power of Self Will To Control Uncontrollable Lusts And Desires That Other Subhumans Are Subject To But Not Me, there's no point in trying to carry on a conversation with you.

"Or if, as I suspect and stated upthread, you are just disgusted by people carrying a few extra pounds, because you believe in the Almighty Power of Self Will To Control Uncontrollable Lusts And Desires That Other Subhumans Are Subject To But Not Me, there's no point in trying to carry on a conversation with you."

Bingo. i'd take it a step further and say that it's most likely exclusively (or very nearly exclusively) women who get these lectures about how their looks are an affront to his tender privileged bigot opinions. You know, cuz he *cares* so much about their health.

I wonder if there are any pictures online of the obviously physically perfect and totally healthy the-so-totally-not-even-remotely-good-bigot

They have health issues and pose a risk to their employers and if I were a highering (sic) manager, it isn't a risk I would be willing to take.

Right, so clearly my employers don't meet your standards of conduct, so clearly you should not be using the product of such people. So quit already. Turn off your electricity.

If my, or anyone's, body offends thegoodman, a simple solution is available: he can look away. If that means he spends a lot of time looking at his own shoes, it's still his choice.

This would also give them time to consider the difference between their own shoes, which they can choose for aesthetic reasons (assuming that they have enough money that the choice isn't down to whatever is cheapest at Payless or the charity shop), and actual human beings, who do not exist for their entertainment.

Thanks, Zuska, for the reminder that at least for now there are protections in place that would prevent GoodD00d's world from becoming a reality. Because the ultimate implications of a world in which there were no consequences for businesses that discriminated against disabled or otherwise marginalized prospective employees would be that such people would find it increasingly difficult to become employed. He says cheerfully "move on to the next opportunity" when addressing someone who might have trouble finding "the next opportunity" if it weren't for social and legal pressure for businesses to do exactly the opposite of what you advocate.

Ignorance caused by unexamined privilege.

"Ignorance caused by unexamined privilege."

In this case, ignorance seems to benign a word. He has stated that he see nothing wrong with denying a specific group of people the means to make a living simply because he's decided, sans anything but his own belief in his superiority, that they don't deserve it. This is sinister and cruel in addition to being ignorant. If he's also the sort of bigot that is against social programs, he's really advocating a much more sinister reality.

Actually, in my case it's a great way to sort out the employers who are not worth having. I can't help snickering when those who employ bigots suddenly find they can't get the talent they need because we've all gone elsewhere with less bigotry.

(That should read if it weren't for social and legal pressure for businesses to do exactly the opposite of what HE advocates. Sorry.)

Yeah, Endor, what you said. He's all for it when it works in his favor (anyone somehow unlike what he thinks he is must be less worthy of a job than he is), but when his position works against him, suddenly he's barfing up the loopholes instead of maintaining his principles by turning off his electricity already.

Again, many words put into my mouth.

"you are just disgusted by people carrying a few extra pounds"
I have continually used the words EXTREMELY OBESE over and over again on purpose. Extreme obesity is akin to alcoholism and drug addiction and equally detrimental to one's health.

"The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA) makes it unlawful to discriminate in employment against a qualified individual with a disability."

If that individual is incapable of performing their duties due to their condition, they are not a qualified individual.

"Right, so clearly my employers don't meet your standards of conduct, so clearly you should not be using the product of such people. So quit already. Turn off your electricity."

Apparently your disability doesn't prevent you from performing the duties of your job. Wonderful, terrific, congratulations. You situation is not one we are discussing.

In this case, ignorance seems to benign a word.

I agree. Given that he demanded that we only address his ignorance rather than the other character flaws that he's been demonstrating on this blog, I wanted to frame my statement in terms of ignorance. The ignorance caused by unexamined privilege is, I think, the foundation from which it becomes acceptable to consider entire groups of people sub-human and thus undeserving of respect -- or empathy.

And I suppose it's not only the ignorance but the investment in one's own privilege that leads one to see the Other as less-than-human in order to avoid recognizing one's own privileged position. It's pretty damning that he compared his own situation:

All employees have certain risk factors involved. My wife is a medical doctor, there is a risk that I may choose to simply stop working any day because we could live on a single income.

...to that of someone who poses a "risk" to their employers because of something that is entirely beyond the employee's control. I don't believe that obesity is entirely "calories in, calories out" but even if it is thegoodman has stated that he also sees no problem with a company refusing to hire someone with a chronic condition like RA or MS etc. And this is, in his mind, comparable to the fact that he might seem to be a risky hire to an employer because he doesn't actually need to earn a living, and thus might quit.

What a large quantity of unexamined privilege.

Thegoodman- You are claiming to know things that scientists are really far from knowing. You have no evidence that "99%" are fat because their eating habits don't fit with what you consider good nutrition. Then you used the naturalistic fallacy. Metabolism is the sum of ALL catabolic and anabolic processes inside the human body. I mean jesus dude, look at how complicated the "simplified" version of CELL (as in ONE cell) metabolism is:

http://www.exrx.net/Images/Biochemical/Simplified.gif

We don't have the big picture figured out at all. People are trying to sort it out. Genuine curiosity about the truth is what drives that sort of science. You are obviously not genuinely interested in finding out how anything actually works.

You just don't know what you are talking about. It is ok, we cannot all be experts in everything. Let go of the superiority you so enjoy by pretending to know things you don't, because you should feel like a fool for going on at length about stuff you know absolutely nothing about.

Actually, "thegoodman", I am exactly who you've been talking about, as your own words make clear: "They have health issues and pose a risk to their employers and if I were a highering (sic) manager, it isn't a risk I would be willing to take." I have health issues, therefore my employer does not live up to your standards, therefore you should not dirty yourself by using anything we produce.

All your BS about being able to perform the job is just backtracking so that you don't actually have to live up to the repercussions of your own statements, which would involve turning off your electricity already.

If a company is hiring a crane operator, they certainly have the right to not hire someone with MS.

If a company is hiring someone to work in Accounts Payable, they have no right to not hire someone simply because they have MS (morally or under federal law).

I am not saying that someone whose spouse earns a large income has the same disadvantages as someone with a debilitating disease, I am not actually insane. I am saying that in the eyes of an employer any and all risk that might make an employee less attractive to the position must be considered.

Many (most) jobs have some sort of physical requirement that must be met. If you job is painting and the company interviewing you has 1000 ladders all rated for 350lbs, but you weigh 500 lbs, should that painting company be required to not consider your weight in the hiring process? This was a rhetorical question, if you said yes you are crazy.

"I don't believe that obesity is entirely "calories in, calories out" but even if it is..."

It is. It is a fact. It is also a fact that obesity is unhealthy and leads to countless health problems. If you choose to not believe it, it doesn't make it not true.

And, "Thegoodman," your choosing to believe it doesn't make it true, either. Its truth or nontruth is independent of opinion. Unfortunately for you, you are doing nothing but spouting off opinionated talking points that are not backed up by science.

Somebody feed "thegoodman" a tapeworm and an overdose of thyroxin.

Also, sorry for responding to Thegoodman. I just realized how off-topic his bloviating is and remembered how interesting the original topic was.

"not backed up by science."

Google Obesity and read the first 20 links. Most of them are scientific references that show the negative effects of obesity.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/weightloss/2010-06-15-dietaryguidel…

This particular article title will hopefully get your attention.

"It is. It is a fact. It is also a fact that obesity is unhealthy and leads to countless health problems. If you choose to not believe it, it doesn't make it not true."

LOL. I guess by "facts" he means whatever Dr. Oz tells him are facts. Because there are no facts, as they are traditionally defined, in anything he's said.

That said, I would love for this pompous bigot to go tell the far more intelligent people at Shapely Prose about his "facts". I'd love to watch the evisceration he'd receive. They would def show him what use his "facts" are to reality.

O.M.G. he's using USA TODAY as his source. LOL.

This is a class issue as well. But I suppose Mr. White Straight Well off Male Privilege here will argue with that too.

Ah, yes, the peer-reviewed reportage of USA Today.

I said "not backed up" for a reason. The problem here is not mine, for not paying "attention." There are also many scientific references that show no appreciable negative effect of obesity on health, and some that show a positive effect. I am not going to use this space to argue this point with you. I suggest that you Google "fat acceptance" and familiarize yourself with some of the more reputable blogs on the subject. Certainly your knee-jerk reaction will be to say that any blog that bills itself as a fat acceptance site is untrustworthy, but you will in fact find there scientific citations, and discussion among actual fat scientists (scientists who are fat). No, I'm not going to name those sites for you, because I don't want to feel responsible for anything you might say there. And the search will do you good.

Your continued insistence that fat people need to be blamed and that it's reasonable to penalize them (by not hiring them) for being fat is tiresome and a far, far more pedestrian and uninformed opinion than you seem to realize. Please note that next time you explain weight gain and weight loss as "calories in/calories out," this is the very definition of a cliche. Human beings are not Bunsen burners.

If it was calories in vs calories out then the type of food eaten would not have any effect, and it does. You can look up "rabbit starvation" and other macro-nutrient deficiencies whenever you want, if you don't believe me. There is a mysterious correlation with midsection fat as well (where people who carry their weight elsewhere seem to not have the cardiac/insulin resistance problems linked with fat in geneeral). So where your fat forms is somehow relevant, and the cause of fat forming in different sections of the body rather than others is also not well understood. If you end up using your calories now or storing them (in the various forms that different fuels can be stored in, it isn't just fat) is also a matter of personal biochemistry. That also determines how able your body will be to absorb nutrients. There are several separate hormonal sequences associated with digestion and eating, not to mention things like hunger/satiety and behavior. The baseline of calories out for different people is extremely diverse and does not reflect anything about their character. Hell, it doesn't even tend to stay the same from hour to hour. Most people do experience a slow decline over time, making weight gain almost a certainty. How able a person is to form skeletal muscles is another big complicated biochemical mess of factors to sort out, and can be a factor in obesity (or not, for some people). How much this has to do with genetics is not certain. Thyroid hormones can be a cause of obesity, but a person needs health insurance and money to investigate that as a cause of their weight gain, unless the doctor just tells them to eat less (many do). People who are obese are much more likely to lack those things. Cushing syndrome causes obesity. Certain kinds of steroids cause obesity. Contrary to popular belief, some times cancer causes bodily changes that result in obesity rather than waif body types. And like I mentioned before, this whole time your cells are doing all kinds of crazy shit to glucose to create ATP for energy, and other cells are building up tissue at the same time, so that the balance is in constant motion and is freakishly complex. Any person could starve themselves to death (or down to your standards), but that does not mean they have self control or motivation or anything else. I know that when I was a dieter I started having problems where I would get random infections and any cuts or scrapes I got would take ages to heal. My white blood cell count was fucked up, and my crit wasn't in the problematic range but was way lower than it is now (went from 37 to 43). I felt like shit. I was eating healthy, but not nearly enough. My lab work looks about a thousand times better since I quit dieting about a year ago, and my blood pressure/cardiac risk/diabetes risk has not changed. These numbers represent actual risk in conjunction with each other. Weight is only one number. Though the screening process may be prompted by weight, only a supremely lazy doctor would announce risk based on obesity alone.

There are risks associated with literally every body type imaginable. Obesity has a correlation with cardiac problems and diabetes. That does not mean everyone who is obese will develop those problems. It does not mean that just being obese by itself causes those problems. It does not mean that non obese people do not suffer these problems. The correlation of cardiac risk with eating well and exercise is much more meaningful than the obesity one (and NO, exercise and healthy food does not prevent obesity). Obesity and overweight people are actually much more likely to SURVIVE their cardiac episode than their skinny counterparts. People of normal weight tend to not do as well in general on hospital stays. Almost no one loses weight and keeps it off for more than 5 years (I think it sits at 2%), so unless 98% of people are just irreversibly fucked up and lazy there is more to this story than you are willing to admit. In addition to the things I mentioned above, thin people are also much more likely to have bone density issues as they age. That also correlates with being white and female, but I bet you wouldn't cop to descriminating on those grounds.

You wanna know why USA Today doesn't print that? Because the science explanation is boring and uncertain and it makes it harder for advertisers to sell food OR dieting aids.

"eating well and exercise"

Most people will not be obese if they do these 2 things. There are certainly exceptions to this but most people assume they are an exception because they don't have to stop eating McDonalds every day.

The USA Today article is just an example. It is humorous that I am made out to be a moron for posting a reputable newspaper article and then told to read some pro-fat people blogs as an authentic reference. As I said in the post, there are countless scientific and medical references that directly link obesity with many health issues that can be found quickly and easily.

Not for 1 second have I said that thin people are necessarily healthy or that a few extra pounds makes a person unhealthy. The only thing I have said is that being extremely obese puts you at an enormous health risk when compared to a person who is not. As I have said before, my wife is a medical doctor and she is very interested in nutrition as well as exercise. We both work out regularly, neither of us ever "diet", but we do eat healthy food and don't take any supplements. Neither of us is skinny but we wouldn't be described as fat either. I have actually read a lot about health and nutrition and have a surprisingly good grasp on a healthy diet an lifestyle for a bigoted 27 yr old white male.

I realize this is a foolish thing to do, but for some reason feel compelled to do it anyway:

Thegoodman, ask your MD wife about the peptide hormone shifts that result from Roux-en-Y vs. lap band vs. biliopancreatic diversion vs. jejunoileal bypass vs. sleeve gastrectomy + duodenal switch and their various effects on weight loss compared to cholesterol, heart risk and inflammation markers.

Hint: If she doesn't know, she may wish to take a CME or three on the subject. It's kinda important.

Also, son, google "Dunning-Kruger" while you're reading. Then feel free to come back here and tell actual scientists who work on this subject all about why "diet and exercise" will work for everybody, perfectly, every time.

You're welcome.

*applause for Big Blue* I hardly expect such a pompous bigot to recognize when his ass has been handed to him (since he clearly hasn't recognized it yet), but well done anyways.

+++

"I have actually read a lot about health and nutrition and have a surprisingly good grasp on a healthy diet an lifestyle for a bigoted 27 yr old white male."

Better show us some pictures. Submit yourself to the same treatment you dole out on other, Mr. big brave privileged douche. Let us critique your looks and make asinine sweeping statements based on nothing but what we decide at that moment must be true because we think its true, bigot. Make with the proof that you're so incredibly perfect you get to decide, despite having absolutely no understanding of the topic, who's healthy and who isn't, or who works out and who doesn't, etc.

It's amusing that you blunder on totally oblivious to how wrong you are. Of course an inadequate, shallow source is totally valid! Of course you claim to have evidence that you magically can't produce. Of course we just hate your penis. Dude- you are comedy gold.

"Thegoodman" is a stunning example of the Dunning-Kruger effect, isn't he? At basic reasoning, at science, at basic knowledge of human metabolism, at feminism.

I notice he's still not willing to follow through on, well, anything he says. No pictures. No turning off the electricity brought to him by people who violate his principles. No actual sense, just ignorance repeated loudly.

And, as predicted---as I predicted within a very few words after I mentioned them---Mr. "I'm practically a doctor because my wife is one" rejects out-of-hand the recommendation of reading on size-acceptance sites for the very reason I said he would. Despite my saying that Actual Scientific Discussion of Scientific Studies goes on there. He has no idea that the very medium he is touting as a reasonable source is the very reason why he's spouting his ridiculously over-simplified take on obesity. Bro, that information you've been spoon-fed is not accurate.

As a former 27 year old male, who also knows several former 27 year old males, and some current 27ish males, I would like to say the following:

pretty much any 27ish year old male thinks he 'reads a lot about nutrition' and thinks he 'has a good grasp of a healthy diet and lifestyle', even when it is abundantly clear he drinks/smokes/eats/drugs himself into poor health AND has poor sitting posture and lifts with his back not his legs.

Anyone who seriously thinks obesity is as simple as in/out has a problem understanding the science, or they are seriously over-simplifying.

Why are there so many more obese people than there were a generation or two ago? For medical reasons?

"Why are there so many more obese people than there were a generation or two ago? For medical reasons?"

Apparently because those damn feminists took women out of the kitchen: http://pandagon.net/index.php/site/comments/why_dont_women_cook_as_much…

Actually pandagon's section on food issues is an excellent read: http://pandagon.net/index.php/C73/

One thing I have realized through dealing with my own depression through diet, is the deceptiveness of RDAs and other baseline measures for nutrition. When I'm depressed, I will test for normal levels of various vitamin B's, but if I get quite a bit more than "normal," my depression is lessened a good deal. What does the RDA mean to me? Squat. The Feds can recommend whatever random number they want. I'll take what I actually need. And that small example of the difference between population studies and the anecdotal evidence of the individual plays out over and over in nutrition. It doesn't matter what the curve is; it matters where you fall on the curve. Each of us has to find out what we need to be what we define as healthy.

I have never said I was perfect nor do I think I will ever be perfect.

I also never said that health is simply calories in and calories out. Health is complex and there are countless factors involved that are outside of a person's control. However, their weight is not outside of their control. Obese people are more often than not, unhealthy. So many of you continuously take my words as absolutes so you can "hand my ass to me". Clearly there are exceptions to everything. Some fat ass people are healthy as an ox and some fit people are extremely unhealthy. Just because there are exceptions to the fit vs. fat debate doesn't mean we should dodge the bigger issue. Most obese people are at an enormous risk of many health problems.

Here are some of the scientific links that many of you say don't exist.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=childhood-obesity-stil…
http://www.scientificamerican.com/podcast/episode.cfm?id=overeating-alo…

http://www.ama-assn.org/ama/pub/physician-resources/public-health/promo…
http://www.ama-assn.org/ama/pub/physician-resources/public-health/promo…

"Obesity kills more Americans every year than AIDS, all cancers, and all accidents combined."

Apparently many of you are more intelligent and have done more medical studies than the American Medical Association since you claim that being obese doesn't make you unhealthy. JAMA also has some good publications on the adverse effects of obesity.

@Big Blue
Stop being pretentious. Just say "different bariatric surgery" options instead of listing all of their medical names to impress people. Also, Jejunoileal Bypass hasn't been done since the 1970's so it is essentially irrelevant. My wife isn't a surgeon (she works in Radiation Oncology) but she doesn't believe that bariatric surgery should be an option for overweight patients. Obesity is an issue with self control and a person's ability to know what to eat and when to stop eating, bariatric surgery doesn't fix either of these problems. It is a temporary fix that will likely result in a loss of weight, but over the long term, many patients regain their weight. Surgery is dangerous the the possibility of infection isn't worth the risk, in my opinion, of lose the weight unnaturally. Many doctors have differing opinions on bariatric surgeries and my wife is on the side that they are not a solution, simply a band-aid.

Pfft, I deal with enough bullshit at work where extremely wrong doctors insist that they are right because they are a *doctor* and I only work there. Did you know that magical doctory goodness means that they cut in lines and think it is justified? Every suboordinate I know has a story about that. I am not down with that unearned authority bullshit being done to me 2nd hand, via the internet. Hell no.

Neither you nor your convenient wife are surgeons, but yet you're absolute authorities on bariatric surgery. LOL of course.

Thanks for the links. You apparently didn't bother to read them before you posted them. They don't quite support the "just exercise and eat less" bullshit you're now pretending you didn't say.

And, you flat out fucking liar, no one said the links didn't exist. *I* said you never provided them. And until today that was true. In fact, at least one person pointed you toward a site that deals with exactly that and is - GASP - an FA site. But, keep playing the poor put upon victim bullshit. It amuses me.

Did you happen to look at the Pandagon links that, you know, actually deal with WHY people are heavier than they were decades ago? Did you happen to visit Shapely Prose for some 101 information? Have you done anything but waste everyone's time bigotry and now transparent backpeddaling?

For the audience:

http://jezebel.com/5356697/fat-vs-fiction

one of the money quotes:

"According to the [second] study, obesity and extreme obesity cause about 112,000 deaths per year, but being overweight was found to prevent about 86,000 deaths annually. Based on those figures, the net U.S. death toll from excess weight is 26,000 per year. By contrast, researchers found that being underweight results in 34,000 deaths per year."

BUT BEING FAT WILL KEEEEEELLLLL YOOUUU!!!11!!1!!

Debunking the absolutely worthless "just diet" horseshit:

http://kateharding.net/2009/02/26/all-diets-work-the-same-poorly/

Healthy at Any Size: http://www.ars.usda.gov/is/AR/archive/mar06/health0306.htm

And those are just from the frigging FAQ, ffs.

Hey Thegoodman: Fuck. Off.

And I tell you what, at 144 and at 262 and at 280, I had never hated my body before that show.

A finalist on Biggest Loser tells everyone what Thegoodman's fat hatred leads to.

@Skeptifem
I am sorry you do not trust doctors. I am not sure why you do not or how you can say their expertise gives them an "unearned authority". A doctor's education is rigorous and thorough and most of them will admit they do not know everything there is to know about the body. What they do know however, is far more than people who are not medical doctors.

@Endor
You seem to be confusing my wife's opinions with "absolute authorities on bariatric surgery". I never said either of us was an authority on anything, someone asked my opinion and I gave it.

I also haven't resorted to any childish name calling like man of you have nor have I said anything negative about any one of you in particular. My gender feminist claims are more apparent with every one of you that calls me names despite me not actually typing anything negative about any of you.

What am I back-peddaling from again? I stand by my original posts on the topic and I am not retracting any of my words. I am also not a victim of anything, nor have I claimed to be. I know what I am getting into when posting on a gender feminist blog and your responses are very interesting to me. I only asked that people stop putting words in my mouth or making outrageous assumptions about me simply because these things have snowballed and completely undermined my posts.

I just read some of the NAAFA website. According to the website, I am definitely discriminatory of obese people (not a few extra pounds). The NAAFA supports the notion that being extremely overweight is not a matter of "poor self-discipline and willpower". I think that it is. There are a million scientific studies that show both sides of this opinion and doctors and scientists that are on opposite sides of the issue.

"Did you happen to look at the Pandagon links that, you know, actually deal with WHY people are heavier than they were decades ago? Did you happen to visit Shapely Prose for some 101 information?"
I did. I don't see how it is relevant. What I am talking about has nothing to do with men or women or feminism.

Because many aspects of a person and their life circumstances (including but not limited to: gender, meatbolism, health, income, education, etc., etc., etc.) intersect to lead to all kinds of outcomes. See here for a graphical illustration.

One thing you could do for starters is to stop using that damn "gender feminism" phrase. It was coined by notorious anti-feminist and MRA Christina Hoff Sommers. She uses the term to suggest that there's a group of crazy women who hate all men and don't want "equality" but actually want men to be oppressed (hence the either/or of gender feminism vs. equality feminism). Rather, from what I have read, most of the feminism on Zuska's blog is simply unapologetic feminism -- that alone is enough to offend many, but really, why should anyone have to sugar-coat the notion that women are not treated as fully human and should be? On the other hand, Hoff Sommers is well known for her belief that actually men are now becoming the oppressed class. Excuse me while I snort in derision. Using her terminology on this blog is an immediate red flag to any of us that you don't actually respect feminism.

You seem to feel that because you are male the women here will disagree with anything you say. However, there are several male posters who frequent Zuska's blog and are treated with the respect their views deserve. You may also have noticed that commenters aren't shy to call out the views of other women when they perceive those views -- or the articulation of those views -- to be offensive, problematic, or ignorant. Part of the reason I frequent this blog is to keep myself aware of where my own privilege interferes with my ability to empathize and respect the experiences of others. You've been repeatedly told that certain statements you've made are offensive because of the unexamined privilege they display. Yet you have categorically refused to examine your privilege or apologize for the hurtful things you've said -- or simply apologize for inadvertently saying something offensive.

You believe that you are the expert on what feminism is -- among so many other areas of "expertise" that it's dizzying to realize just how informed and how much of an authority you clearly believe you are. However, there are people writing here who actually work in the field you are discussing. The least you could do is acknowledge that they may have an understanding that surpasses yours or information to which you are not privy.

And on feminism and what is and is not a feminist issue -- that is not for you to decide. Society's perception of obese women is more negative than society's perception of obese men -- hence the disparity in wage noted above. Partly because of this, obesity IS a feminist issue. It is one more example of a situation in which women -- as an oppressed second class -- are treated even worse than the already poorly treated men who share their situation.

Obese people -- like women, gays and lesbians, PoC, the working class -- are fully human and deserve respect. The tone you use to talk about the obese is not respectful.

The 27-year-old tidbit really does explain a lot. He's that guy at work that runs off at the mouth all the time and fails to realize everyone snickers behind his back because he sounds so utterly stupid.

Just say "different bariatric surgery" options instead of listing all of their medical names to impress people. Also, Jejunoileal Bypass hasn't been done since the 1970's so it is essentially irrelevant.

This is WHY you are a dumbass. This is also why, if your wife actually believes this (I doubt it, but hey, remotely possible), she is a shitty doctor.

Son, I will summarize for the hard-of-thinking and functionally illiterate such as yourself: These various surgeries remove different parts of the gut. Different parts of the gut digest different types of carbon sources. Also, very important, different parts of the gut secrete, and react to, different peptide hormones. Some of these hormones are endogenous (made by your very own body) while others are made by the cooties that live in your guts. Different kindsa cooties live in different parts of your guts, secreting different kindsa hormones all along the way. Not just one or two hormones, but a metric fuckload of different kinds of hormones. By removing just one part of the gut, or just two parts, we found out the hard way that these hormones even exist and their tissue specificity.

"Specificity," that's a big word. It means, proteins in your body that only live in very particular kinds of cells. Maybe wifey can explain it to you. What it means, in a nutshell, is that one little bitty hormonal imbalance, one little genetic mishap, an imbalance in those cooties or maybe a die-off of cooties throws the whole system out of whack. Not majorly out of whack, but enough.

What could cause such imbalances? No one fucking knows, frankly--there are a helluva lot of environmental steroid agonists these days, and some steroid agonists are right in the food supply, that's one. Highly processed food is another, tends to be a lot of "hidden" refined sugars in support of USAian ag subsidies. But with sensitivities such as have been reported in the literature (PubMed, son, PubMed--Scientific American is for the lay-folk) of these receptors and their ligands, just a wee little shift would be sufficient to produce a big effect.

What exactly are you good at, Goodboy? This whole reading and writing thing is apparently a little beyond you.

Great post Comrade Svilova.

While I agree that all humans deserve respect, I don't think obese people should be separated out as if they are a minority or some underprivileged class of society.

Obesity is akin to alcoholism and drug abuse, a person is obese because they show no control or restraint when considering what they consume. I am and have been friends with alcoholics, drug addicts, and obese people. I may love them as friends and family members, but I do not respect their addiction and professionally I would not hire them unless their addiction had been cured. To respect gluttony is to approve of it, and I cannot approve of a person who knowingly harms their own body and shortens their lives against the wishes of their loved ones. Health is certainly complex,as many people have pointed out, and is more difficult to attain for some than it is for others. That doesn't mean they should just assume that if being healthy is difficult, they can throw in the towel. I respect obese people in that they are humans who are suffering from an affliction, but an affliction that is rectifiable if they choose it to be. What I do not respect are addicts who are in denial and attempt to justify their addiction.

I am absolutely not an expert on feminism. The more I read about it the more complex it is. It is similar to Christianity in that there are a million different ideas as to what it is and each person subscribes to some but not all of the ideas behind it.

I agree I am privileged. Which of my privileges am I ignorant of and what have I said that is hurtful and specifically due to my unexamined privilege?

Being not obese is not a privilege just as not being a drug addict is not a privilege.

I am not saying it is anyone's job to educated me, as many of you have told me already. I am saying that I enjoy this blog and I enjoy the information that I get from the various posts. I would like to continue doing so but hopefully with less conflict in the future.

@Big Blue
We are all impressed with your understanding of peptide hormones in the human body. Some people have issues that make them fat. We get it. What exactly does this have to do with anything?

If so many people are fat because of their natural disposition, then why are so many people capable of losing weight when they make the simple decision to just do it?

As a newcomer to this blog (I've read and enjoyed Zuska's posts from time to time but have never commented before this thread), may I just say that with every comment, Goodman proves himself less and less worthy of engagement? Really, all he's doing is recapitulating every "OMG OBESITY EPIDEMIC" ignorant-opinion-masquerading-as-reasoned-argument that can be found in virtually every other corner of the internet. I vote "ignore." At least, that's what I plan to do from now on.

Being not obese is not a privilege just as not being a drug addict is not a privilege.

OK, that's not what "privilege" means as used here. You need to learn some basic terms from sociology before you can enter this discussion fruitfully.

Also, likening feminism to a religion betrays more misunderstanding.

I say this for those who are lurking along at home and may be wondering why thegoodman is being criticized here.

"likening feminism to a religion betrays more misunderstanding"

Feminism is like a religion in that every one of you has a different definition of it and there are certain points of it that are more important to each individual. There are as many denominations of Christianity as there are types of feminism that people subscribe to.

What I am not saying is that feminism is a belief system or some sort of mystical viewpoint, it certainly is not. I see it as a completely justified and validated social movement that has come a long way and still has a long way to go in getting its message out to everyone. The issues are real as are the victims.

@Lu
The obesity epidemic isn't alarmist propaganda, it is very real and as I've said, countless reputable publications support my claims.

I agree I am privileged. Which of my privileges am I ignorant of and what have I said that is hurtful and specifically due to my unexamined privilege?

Allow me to translate for those at home:

I will parrot what I think makes me sound like a good guy because I want to believe people should listen to my pompous maunderings. Ooo! I know! Then I'll pretend to ask a humble-sounding question in the hope it will fool really stupid people into thinking I believe any of this garbage. They'd have to be really thick not to notice that my question has already been answered, but maybe it will distract people into thinking I actually am playing along. I can't read, so clearly no one else can either, right?

"Yet you have categorically refused to examine your privilege or apologize for the hurtful things you've said -- or simply apologize for inadvertently saying something offensive."

So big deal. The same goes for everyone who has harrassed me for defending lower class white people*, and I didn't hear you complain about it, though you did draw the line at describing me as childish.

Not that I care, by hypocrisy stinks!

*Especially those who are from a more privileged class than I am, like Jill Psmith and CPP.

Isabel, FFS, let off the ranting. You have no effing clue what 'class' is. There is such a thing, but I can assure you that it has NOTHING to do with how much money somebody has.

Obesity is akin to alcoholism and drug abuse, a person is obese because they show no control or restraint when considering what they consume...I do not respect their addiction and professionally I would not hire them unless their addiction had been cured. To respect gluttony is to approve of it, and I cannot approve of a person who knowingly harms their own body and shortens their lives against the wishes of their loved ones.

I am grateful to have thegoodd00d more clearly articulate his disgust and prejudice so that all of us can understand how his "thinking" works. Obesity is like alcoholism and drug abuse! Which are totally just moral failings! And a lack of willpower! Which I, thegoodd00d, possess in spades - the morality, and the willpower! My wishes must be obeyed - if you want a job, so you can afford to eat (but not too much)!

Obesity is like alcoholism and drug abuse! Which are totally just moral failings! And a lack of willpower! Which I, thegoodd00d, possess in spades - the morality, and the willpower!

Exactly so.

My hope for people who think like the goodd00d is that they are struck with a chronic disease that necessitates daily medication and causes a reduction in mobility, so they too can cope with the weight-gain side effects of medication and the frustration that comes with reduced mobility, and also that they get to be "fat" and get to experience what they're putting out there for others.

BTW, one MAJOR issue to mention.

Unlike alcoholism and drug addiction, treatment for overweight and obesity is NOT covered by most health insurance. In fact, many health insurance companies are not covering bariatric surgery any more, despite its high success rate not only in treating obesity, but also in treating diabetes, high blood pressure, and other diseases that come with obesity for some people.

But it is much cheaper for insurance companies to send you flyers in the mail telling you to eat veg and exercise, without providing any assistance to doing so.

As Zuska points out, the problem is the black-and-white thinking of anyone who says that to respect equals to approve, and the sense that it even is one's own place to approve or disapprove of other people's situations. Thegoodman is talking morality and worthiness here, not simply talking about whether or not a certain individual will be able to perform a certain job.

Most of the posters here understand that, although they may have a knee-jerk opinion about someone else, it is ultimately not their place to assume that they know that person's situation. Has the obese person you see in passing spent years trying to lose weight without success? Are they on meds that make weight loss extremely difficult? You don't know. I don't know. And to make an assumption that you do know is extremely offensive.

And it is an instance of privilege running rampant. To assume that you know more about another person's situation than they do; to assume that you can judge their moral worth and their personality; and to assume that you know -- not only what they should do -- but what they have done and where and why they have "failed"; and all of these condescending assumptions are only possible if you exercise unearned privilege that tells you that you are better than other people. Hence their situation must be a result of their moral failure.

and the sense that it even is one's own place to approve or disapprove of other people's situations.

Yes. And even more puzzling, thegoodman tells us contemptuously that of course there are cases where obesity is not just a lack of will, yet he remains confident in his "right" to deny employment based on appearance alone. How could he tell the difference between a fat person he deems just lazy and a fat person he grants has an unavoidable medical reason?

And he wasn't just talking about obesity either. Any "health issue" is sufficient to keep a person who wants to work out of the workforce if employers don't feel like making the reasonable accommodations mandated by law.

It's this sort of attitude that keeps the unemployment rate for Americans with disabilities/chronic illnesses so high, in spite of the ADA.

And it's frighteningly clear that people who are not covered under the ADA (folks who are fat but have no illnesses or disabilities; people whose appearance is unacceptable to employers for other reasons that do not constitute a disability) are being shut out of work with no chance of legal recourse.

(Note that I'm not sure that even people with ADA-covered disabilities truly have legal recourse in hiring discrimination, as employers can simply not say why they won't hire PWD.)

Damn. The links i posted never got posted. Poop.

Well, suffice it so say, Kate harding knocks the shit out thecrapboy's bullshit. For the audience: google her and read, if you haven't already.

"all of these condescending assumptions are only possible if you exercise unearned privilege that tells you that you are better than other people. Hence their situation must be a result of their moral failure."

Bingo. Which is why his calling himself a feminist is as big a joke as Palin calling herself one.

"129

Isabel, FFS, let off the ranting. You have no effing clue what 'class' is. There is such a thing, but I can assure you that it has NOTHING to do with how much money somebody has.

Posted by: Kea | June 16, 2010 11:05 PM
"
What a moronic, offensive comment. Unfucking believable!

You grew up rich didn't you Kea? I remember you mentioning that. And you have no problem telling a person who grew up relatively poor that they have no idea what class is?

You are bitter that you've fallen from that privileged position I suppose. So therefore socioeconomic differences do not exist. Or don't matter? Since it didn't help you. Riiiiight.

Anyway "class has nothing to do with economics and rich people can be white trash" is on my bingo list. I just heard it over at Ed Brayton's place. They were very insistent over there that 'redneck' 'hick' yokel' 'cracker' and 'trailer park crack whore' (among other offensive pejoratives) were all acceptable terms to use on a liberal progressive blog, and had nothing to do with describing particular groups i.e. white, rural, lower class). They are just useful words when describing a particular person as an idiot and a bigot.

Hahahaha.

Yes there is another definition of 'class' though they are not totally unrelated.

I'll switch to 'caste' if that helps you.

"Kate harding knocks the shit out thecrapboy's bullshit"

Its humorous that you list a blogger as a reputable source. I've just read her FAQ and many of the links there. I simply do not agree with her. Her fine arts degree doesn't make her any more of an expert in health than any one of us, so we are left to our opinions. My opinion is that she is providing information in a very biased manner and runs a very misleading sight.

The fact is that doctors use weight as a fast and easy way to gauge health. Is this always accurate? Absolutely not. Is it accurate most of the time? Yes.

By looking at Kate Harding, I wouldn't consider her fat.

Her fat acceptance blog has gained her notoriety and I am sure she truly believes it, but Deepak Chopra also believes the ridiculousness he spews out on a daily basis. The great thing about the internet is that if you don't like something, you will always find someone somewhere who provides a few links to validate your opinions.

Thegoodman: "The great thing about the internet is that if you don't like something, you will always find someone somewhere who provides a few links to validate your opinions."

HAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!

So true, so true.

"I simply do not agree with her."

Since you clearly haven't grokked what people have been telling you, I'll repeat it again: no one gives a crap what you think. Kate Harding is but ONE such blog. She has done the research and has been active in this area for years. You get your knowledge second hand from someone who doesn't work in the field. Your opinion is completely irrelevant.

And, since you're such a despicable misogynist that you conflated a woman with years of research and study to a woowoo charaltan, I invite you to stuff it.

Harding's premise is Healthy At Any Size. That you're a clueless bigot with a skull thicker than a bank vault is not her problem, nor does it even vaguely refuted her premise.

P.S. No one gives a fuck about your appraisal of her appearance, you privileged sexist douchevat.

Pretty tidy to dismiss someone as "a blogger", as though that diminishes one's credibility. It's not even possible in Harding's case, though, as she is currently writing her third book. Well, one could try, but one would look painfully ignorant.

@SKM
Suzanne Somers has written many books and she still has no clue what she is talking about. Writing books doesn't make you an expert on anything. It just means you can write books that people buy, which is why they get published. If I could convince a publishing company that writing a book about how much fun it is to be a cokehead, they would publish it. Kate Harding has no medical publications on the topic and she is primarily addressing the social issues of fat acceptance. "Healthy at any size" may hold true for a few exceptional people that are healthy and also heavy, but most people who lead a healthy lifestyle will be relatively thin (not magazine skinny, actually healthy looking). My discrediting her as a resource was mostly the response I got from posting a link from USA today (a supposedly less creditable resource than a relatively unknown blogger)

"Since you clearly haven't grokked what people have been telling you, I'll repeat it again: no one gives a crap what you think"
I do grok. I have been asked many questions and I am mostly answering them.

I also find it amusing that you use a word like grok from Stranger in a Strange Land, a book that is often perceived as sexist.

Thegoodman (and this may be a trigger for those with eating disorders):

If you judge people's willpower, moral strength, and health by their outward appearance (as you've said you do), I bet I would pass your test with flying colors. In fact, I think I may have your "willpower" beat!

I'm an anorexic. I starve myself to gain some sense of control. My daily caloric intake is about 1,200-1,500 calories worth of healthy food, and last week I went for three days without consuming anything other than water and unsugared cranberry juice (600 calories/day). My "willpower" and "moral strength" are so strong that I ignored my own body's pleas for survival for -seventy-two hours.- I'm not and have never been a religious person, but it was nearly a religious experience. I felt a sense of my body as a tool, as something divine and pure, although that was probably just the hunger hallucinations talking.

I'm not crazy or "mentally ill." I have medical documentation to that effect. Anyone speaking to me would have no idea that I starve myself; I'm thin, but not bone-thin, and am very articulate. Former employers have had no reason to doubt my credibility or aptitude at my job, as I'm a skilled and adept worker ... right up until I collapse and either have to be hospitalized or am sent home. Even that doesn't impede my work, except for the time I am either unconscious or hospitalized.

Does this mean I am healthy? No. In fact, I bet a lot of people you think are hideously unhealthy are in fact in better condition than I am. My hair is falling out by the handfuls. I have ulcers and digestive and metabolic disturbances, as well as very low blood pressure and hypoglycemia. My hands shake pretty regularly. Other than the pressure from jackasses like you, I'd sometimes rather be fat than have an eating disorder.

Also, before discovering the joys of self starvation, I was an orthorexic (compulsively ate only healthy food, such as fruits -- only one piece at a time -- grains (brown rice and quinoa), vegetables, and legumes I prepared myself using absolutely no sugar, salt, or artificial ingredient of any kind. So it's not that I went from "compulsive overeating" to "eating nothing." No, I went from "eating almost nothing" to "eating nothing."

This is not willpower. This is self-harm borne of living a lifetime in a culture full of people exactly like you, who judge other people on their appearances and always get it completely fucking wrong.

[end trigger.]

What I really want to say to you is, go fuck yourself, and stop calling yourself a feminist too.

Also, for any fence-sitters regarding Isabel:

For all of her talk about class being the one major oppression, etc, she has a remarkably hard time listening to people who have actually been oppressed by class.

I'm a "lifer" -- was born into poverty, have always lived in poverty, will probably die in poverty. It's been creative poverty, as in, I've educated myself pretty well and know how to "dress rich" (you'd be surprised what nice things people throw away or donate to thrift stores -- I have a wardrobe full of silk blouses, tailored vests and jackets, professional-looking trousers and skirts, and sturdy shoes that I've found in the trash or bought for less than $10-$20 per item, and altered at home to fit me) so as to avoid the most egregious class profiling in public, but it's still been poverty.

And yet somehow, according to Isabel, I "still don't get it." My own oppression. My own life experience.
Let me tell you, I do. Being poor sucks, y'all. In the discussion of whether or not you should make your husbands do chores or hire someone else to do them for you both, I'm the woman who gets paid to pick up your dirty socks and clean up your babies' puke while you guys are fighting about it. It blows, because frankly I'm pretty bright (if standardized test scores were available online, I'd prove it to you; I have nothing to hide), but I still have to sit back and watch other people do the things I'd like to do because it's simply not a possibility for me.

Meanwhile, I get raped. Lots of other women do. And then my rapes, like other poorer womens' rapes, get ignored doubly because not only is rape an invisible crime, I/we don't look like "the kind of woman who gets raped." In other words, we are invisible people who are subjected to what is an already invisible crime. And that sucks, in my opinion, even worse than having to clean up baby shit and jockstraps off some rich white woman's floor.

Meanwhile, in discussions of such matters, Isabel does the very thing she accuses other feminists of doing -- engages in class bias. Has said I'm either stupid and crazy because I'm poor, or has accused me of being rich. Clearly I don't know class bias, because I have expressed the fact that, having experienced both biases, I'd almost prefer class bias to gender bias. Thus, I must never have experienced class bias! Because it's obviously much worse, for everyone, and is the one true bias. We feminists are all just Rich.

Right. Point is, she's right -- you should probably all ignore her, and hope she just goes away.

(Thanks for letting me get that off my chest, too. And no, I'm not addressing her directly, because I'm not trying to prove anything to her and I'm not trying to start a comment war. It's just really tiring to see discussions constantly derailed by "thegoodman" and "class is the only oppression!" Can women not talk about anything without having to justify it to someone else? Apparently we can't.)

"class is the only oppression!"

Please show me one, and I will be satisfied with one, example of this.

What is more interesting is that people say this about me.

Nice job calling out the only person consistently defending lower class people around here.

The rest of your post was undecipherable as far as any connection to anything I said.

ps. Why don't you aim your resentment at Kea? She claims that class differences don't even exist - or at any rate they have nothing to do with money! See it's all in your imagination!

Who was the only person to object to that comment?

So...I just want to hug everyone who went out on a limb and shared stuff with the internets that they really, really didn't have to. It sucks to be sick/otherwise atypical, and I'm sorry some of you are sharing and not getting any understanding or sympathy in return, because you sure as hell are not obligated to let us this close. *hugz*

Also, fat-hatred and misogyny can kiss my big brown lady-ass.

I am thoroughly enjoying this game of whack-a-troll. Continue. :)

Hi Samia,

I remember you said you wanted to write more about class. How's that going?

;)

Whack whack!

@Samia, I concur, and thanks. I want to write more about how the perception of chronic illness as a moral issue affects employment, but I'm going to do it elsewhere, where I can delete interruptions by people who just show up to "play devil's advocate" or whatever. The devil has enough advocates, and the rest of us need to talk.

(Zuska, that's not a swipe at your commenting policy, by the way. It's just that there are some things I don't want to write about unless I have my finger on the ban button!)

I want to write more about how the perception of chronic illness as a moral issue affects employment, but I'm going to do it elsewhere, where I can delete interruptions by people who just show up to "play devil's advocate" or whatever. The devil has enough advocates, and the rest of us need to talk.

Pity that Isatroll doesn't follow your very sensible example, SKM.

When Kea said that class has nothing to do with money, I am pretty sure that they mean that a persons relationship with the means of production is much more meaningful as a class determinant than the amount of money that they own. I could be wrong but that is my hunch.

@Joy
You seem disturbed on many levels and your experiential view of the world seems to be your only view. I have read many of your posts and never responded to any of them because they always start and end with "yeah, but look at me!". We are not really talking about individuals here and 1 example of an unhealthy yet thin person isn't even part of the discussion. Of course some terribly unhealthy people look healthy. Never once did I say that appearance is the only gauge of health. What I said is that in an interview, the interviewer can probably use only weight as a gauge of healthy. If the person is missing teeth and the rest of them are brown and rotting out,they are equally unlikely to get a job as a person who weighs 500lbs. The fact is that no one who weighs 500lbs takes care of their bodies just like no person w/o teeth takes care of their body. I hope that you get better.

So, to sum up: the goodman is a liar, a misogynist, a compulsive mansplainer, a long winded babbler on topics he knows nothing about, but who certainly doesn't listen to those stupid chicks who actually WORK IN THIS FIELD and, lastly, is a condescending ass. What a treasure!

My guess is convenience doctor wife works a LOT of long days - far, far, FAR away from home.

your experiential view of the world seems to be your only view

Bingo!!

Oh, wait, I'd already filled that card. But what the hell, I'll start a new one.

@126 We are all impressed with your understanding of peptide hormones

@154 We are not really talking about individuals here

Thegoodman, why do you keep saying "we"? You don't represent a very broad faction of participants in this conversation.

Ha, touchÃ©. Good point Yvonne.

I'll try to refrain from using "we" in the future.

@Endor
Which field are you referring to? Which field do you work in that you know far more than I about?

just like no person w/o teeth takes care of their body.

This is an exceptionally bad example, due to the high cost of dental care and the rarity of dental insurance.

It is useful, however, to see the Calvinist thinking on display: "don't hire a person with bad teeth, because it proves they don't care about themselves and thus won't care about the work" leads to people not being able to afford dental care because they cannot secure employment. A vicious cycle.

Economic limitations are not a character flaw.

No, SKM, but not being born an able-bodied, straight, white cisgendered male IS a character flaw. Therefore, all should be judged according to his manly manness's subjective, uninformed, knee-jerk, personally satisfactory opinion. And don't go thinking people who actually work in the field know better than he does. Nosiree!

his main premise seems to be "I got mine, fuck you!". So, he's a libertarian, apparently. ;)

I don't agree with the teeth thing.

For one thing, if you grow up poor or neglected you can put your teeth through some really bad abuse before hitting 18, almost insuring that they will have bad teeth in the future. It doesn't mean they didn't care about their teeth, it means that they didn't have the tools needed to do so.

Also, there are medications that severely discolor teeth and make em look really weird. Bleaching won't fix it. My aunt had to take medicine as a kid that made her teeth look this weird grey color for the rest of her life. I know that isn't like having teeth missing, but people still assume things.

Then there are people who have severe dental problems because they did not receive proper dental care while they were in say, an intensive care unit, or otherwise incapacitated by a life event.

People get shit loads of teeth knocked out in things like traffic accidents. I have seen my fair share of dental horror in the trauma bay, it isn't pretty. Getting hit by a car has nothing to do with how much you care about your body.

etc etc. We don't know where anyone else has been, and assuming just isn't fair. Thegoodman is twenty fucking seven and needs something this simple explained to him. Am I the only one who has made some kind of terrible offensive mistake by assuming something about another person? I bet he has too, but the difference is that I STOPPED doing that sort of thing instead of thinking my behavior is totally acceptable.

"bet he has too, but the difference is that I STOPPED doing that sort of thing instead of thinking my behavior is totally acceptable."

Yes, but you lack his astronomical levels of unexamined privilege. He's got his head so far up his ass he can lick the back of his tonsils. Just more proof he's no feminist.

I am not talking about someone who applies for a job as a gas station attendant. The entire discussion was about professional jobs and professional appearance. Being 500lbs with a bunch of brown/broken/missing teeth is not professional. Weather or not it is fair is irrelevant, it isn't professional.

For the 1 billionth time. Of course there are exceptions to any situation. There are a lot of reasons why people are fat or why people are missing teeth. Most of them are directly related to an unhealthy lifestyle, others are not. Its not an employers job to give an interviewer the benefit of the doubt in every possible situation.

"Economic limitations are not a character flaw."
I agree. However, using your economic limitations as an excuse to not look professional is.

However, using your economic limitations as an excuse to not look professional is.

That makes no sense. If they are unable to pay for dental care, how is it an "excuse"? How are they to pay for the care?

The class-based assumptions associated with "professionals" and "gas station attendants" have likewise shorted out my brain. I think there is nothing else I can say here.

The repetitive use of the word "excuse" is very very revealing. Such a strong flavor ("Calvinist" is very apt) of guilt and sin, both of which are interpreted as being inscribed upon the very body of the individual in question. They are either absent (i.e. someone of "normal" weight with teeth that meet particular standards) or they are inescapable markers of worthlessness. And if the latter, then the possessor of such signs of unfitness will try desperately to explain or excuse them away, not realizing (as TheGoodMan and his ilk are privileged to realize) that it actually takes the hard work of atonement to cleanse oneself of these signifiers of guilt. Hence any request that such "sin" laden people be accepted as-is is the dangerous ground of moral relativism, a request that threatens to destabilize an entire system of signifiers of moral worth through which certain fortunate individuals are elevated to enjoy a privileged status of being demonstrably, visibly, physically AND morally superior to others.

Historiann has had some good posts on the way cleanliness is regarded in our culture -- cleanliness is akin to godliness, etc. etc. Another piece that comes to mind is "Fast Cars, Clean Bodies" by Kristin Ross (http://mitpress.mit.edu/catalog/item/default.asp?tid=5527&ttype=2 for anyone who is interested).

Like SKM, I feel like there's little to be said to address the ideas that our erstwhile NiceGuy(TM) is raising here; I'd rather talk about more interesting questions with people who are actually familiar with Privilege 101. Anyone read Kristin Ross? Any other reading recommendations on how our culture overdetermines clean, thin, white, etc. as physical signs of goodness or worthiness? I'd love to do more reading on this topic.

an entire system of signifiers of moral worth through which certain fortunate individuals are elevated to enjoy a privileged status of being demonstrably, visibly, physically AND morally superior to others.

Comrade Svilova, I am reminded of the movie Rope, where Rupert Cadell is faced with the real-world consequences of his Man-and-Superman bullshitting. Even then, he says something like "you've taken my words and you've twisted them and given them a meaning I never dreamed of!", when in fact David's murder was just a logical consequence of Cadell's worldview.

Thanks for the Kristin Ross tip-off--I haven't yet read her.

Hmm, I have to watch the entire film, thanks for the reminder. (Worst thing about film school is seeing innumerable clips of Great Films and having no time to actually see the films in their entirety.)

It's understandable that a lot of people resist really looking at the implications of their beliefs/positions. In and of itself, a certain position may make sense (some of my father's libertarian positions come to mind here). However, when taken to its logical conclusion, or when its smelly underbelly is revealed, something that seemed innocuous (or at least limited in its horror) turns out to have truly monstrous proportions. That's when the person concerned denies the logical link from their original position to the attendant consequences that position implies.

It's understandable, but it's something I hope I avoid myself. I'd like to think that I own my mistaken positions, admit to them, and rectify the situation. Given that I once was anti-abortion, pro-war, and pro-Bush, I've spent a lot of time recognizing how damaging my own beliefs were and how terrible the implications of my positions could be. (Thankfully I held all those views before I could vote!)

[/anecdata] Thanks again for the film recommendation, and for all your insightful comments here, SKM. I always enjoy seeing you on blogs!

Oh, so now it is professionalism? The idea of a professional appearance is 100% socially constructed- it is a set of appearance based ideals that vary greatly in each society. There is nothing inherently professional about good teeth or a business suit compared to a speedo. Remember powdered fucking wigs?

It is bullshit. It is a ridiculous charade where everyone tries to appear like they have a certain amount of money by buying shit and wearing it. They either can afford it or are expected to pretend, to please people who do have enough money to afford crap like that. None of it has any functionality except to signify the wearer's allegiance to jumping through ridiculous hoops in order to satisfy the arbitrary demands of their superiors. It has absolutely no relationship to how well a person can do their job, unless their job is to be blindly obedient and not question anything in their entire lives.

What a ridiculous thing to value in others, to make into a moral imperative. None of this shit really matters, and the reason it does is because people like thegoodman (who have the right race/sex to make hiring decisions) care. Valuing this means valuing conformity to such an extent that you don't give a shit about the content of people. Gross.

Weather or not it is fair

Why is he blathering about meteorology?

"Oh, so now it is professionalism? "

Well, if he doesn't keep moving the goal posts, how can he keep up his delusions that he's right and we just hate his teeny weeny?

your experiential view of the world seems to be your only view.

Yeah, Joy. Why don't you have everyone else's view of the world in your head? What's wrong with you?

*snort*

"When Kea said that class has nothing to do with money, I am pretty sure that they mean that a persons relationship with the means of production is much more meaningful as a class determinant than the amount of money that they own."

Yeah, SURE she did. uh huh. You just know this don'tcha. And sure that makes total sense, especially in 2010! btw, Nails, you've continues to evade the question of your own background.

"Am I the only one who has made some kind of terrible offensive mistake by assuming something about another person? I bet he has too, but the difference is that I STOPPED doing that sort of thing instead of thinking my behavior is totally acceptable. "

No you never do anything like that! Hahaha. you are so perfect, and at 23 yet!!!!

Nails, your problem is you never know when to just shut your freakin' piehole.

your problem is you never know when to just shut your freakin' piehole

...

Nah.

*tootles off to scrub toilet*

I don't owe you personal details about me. The few you have you try to hurt me with. I have done nothing to you except for disagree with you online. In this case I gave a guess as to what Kea meant, and admitted that I could be wrong. I am not sure how you could interpret this to mean that I am asserting that I know everything, when I explicitly said I did not. The second portion you quoted was me talking about how I make mistakes and try to better myself, at which point you accused me of saying I was perfect, despite the implication of screwing up being present in the quoted text. You are completely ignoring the parts of my words that disagree with the extreme judgment you have made of my character. You are saying you know what I think about myself when I have not told you so. Do you think that you are being realistic about any of this?

You need help. This isn't said to hurt or dismiss or judge you as a person, it is said out of the concern I feel for every person I encounter. You think that I deserve for you to try and hurt my feelings, and that you should know personal information about me when it isn't your business at all. I am asserting my right to healthy boundaries with a stranger on the internet, not avoiding some all important issue (my personal background). You think I should talk about what you have decided I should, and so should everyone else. This is extremely distorted thinking that does not reflect reality or lead to any real communication or understanding. It is a painful and dysfunctional way to think that will only make you more miserable as time goes on if you refuse to see the problem with your thoughts and behavior. You aren't upsetting me by following me around and doing this, I just feel sad that you experience the world this way. You are just making yourself more agitated by continuing your obsessive behavior. If you can't stop this behavior because it is ineffective can you at least do it for your own sake? You deserve to live a life that is satisfying, and I cannot imagine how that could be possible when you are so demanding of others and then feel like cruelty is a justified response to the lack of obedience. You must experience a lot of anger and frustration to behave in such a way. It cannot be pleasant and there really is a better way to live and communicate with other people. Give it a shot.

"The few you have you try to hurt me with"

How have I tried to hurt you????????? That's rich.

Have I tried to get you kicked off any blogs for example? Have I judged you, and announced to others that you are a racist? or a child abuser, or some other hated thing? Have a I tried to slander you, and then not admitted when I was wrong?

What gives you the idea that you can do this and not suffer any consequences?

"it is said out of the concern I feel for every person I encounter."

Hahahahahahaha. You are SO concerned about me! It is better for me that you investigate me using google and report your findings to the "progressive" community. This is a totally sane thing to do. *I* need help. Sure, Nails, sure.

"You think that I deserve for you to try and hurt my feelings"

Why would I try to hurt your feelings? When did this become about your feelings? I don't give a flying fuck about your feelings after the dishonest, cowardly actions you have taken. Sounds like the guilt talking.

"I am asserting my right to healthy boundaries with a stranger on the internet, not avoiding some all important issue (my personal background)"

I see. Our socioeconomic backgrounds are important issues (? interesting admission there) that we should *keep secret*. Keeping them secret is respecting our backgrounds.

It's okay. I think I can guess the answer.

So, in a racism discussion it is okay to keep one's race secret, even if you are calling people out etc. In attempting to take control of a sexism discussion, no need to reveal that one is male. It has no relevancy at all. It's all about healthy boundaries!

If someone calls me out as a "racist" for pointing out the existence of a group that suffered 400 years of oppression and whose very existence is being ignored in a thread because they are "white" (i.e. "Canadians are always welcomed into the US because they are white") and other class-related comments I have made, it is pushing boundaries for me to want to know the socioeconomic class of my accuser. Why is that? Why is it a secret? This is exactly what Jim Goad says - class is America's dirty little secret.

"or lead to any real communication or understanding"

Yes, spying and banning is what leads to healthy, productive communication. Of course!

"I just feel sad..."

Waaaaaaa. Spare me your pity.

"You deserve to live a life that is satisfying"

LOL. Thanks, dearie, I do. And I have one. And it is obvious you spend about 1000x more time than me on here arguing fruitlessly with people. YOU deserve a better life. I feel so sad for you.

"here really is a better way to live and communicate with other people. Give it a shot. "

Yes, it's called respecting your elders (i.e. more experienced) for starters. Live and let live is another good one. MYOB. Ya know?

You owe me an apology Nails. You were wrong. YOU made an enemy of me. I paid zero attention to you until then, as far as I know. Your ignorant actions had real life consequences.

Maybe it's all for the good in the end, I don't really miss the weird Orwellian, anti-sex atmosphere over at Jill's.

I am not tortured; I see that everyone who doesn't spew the approved bullshit is treated the same bizarre way around here anyway.

Why don't you skedaddle back to Jill's place? I think she just baked a new batch of cookies.

Isabel, you have a problem. FYI, I have been through the rich-poor cycle more times than I can count. I have been both filthy rich and genuinely homeless. To go from being homeless to succeeding, all you need is some nice clothes from the thrift store, a good sense for where the free showers and free food is, and a LOT of will power. I have cleaned large houses and small hovels. I have both served, year after year with no hope of escape, and I have been waited upon. I have lived in antipodean classless societies, and in the centre of European snobbery.

But even after telling you this, you know almost nothing about me. In getting irritated with me, you are jumping to conclusions about my (rather remarkable) life experiences and my character. I consider that my biggest advantage in life was being born in an affluent, English speaking country. But this is an advantage that many share with me.

Weather or not it is fair

Why is he blathering about meteorology?

Helen, the poor oppressed dear can't spell. Wimmenz, ya know. We took the werd skilz out of his brane.

"Isabel, you have a problem."

Fuck you. You know nothing about me either. Who are you to judge? But you SAID class has nothing to do with how much money someone has.

That is all I was responding to.

I know all about succeeding from a point of poverty.I am not whining (I've been lucky).

Remember, there are plenty of women and PoC that are successful exceptions. And you STARTED OUT with all the advantages. Who are you to judge me anyway? Who cares how filthy rich you were?

You sound like you have a lot of issues. Good luck with them, I feel sorry for you, just like I feel sad for all the people I encounter here.
;)

Skeptifem, Kea - seriously now, what is the point in continually trying to reason with this person? She's not interested in anything but what's she's been doing, not reasoned debate. Save yourselves the headache and killfile.

I consider that my biggest advantage in life was being born in an affluent, English speaking country

I agree with your comment, but add this: are you also able-bodied and more or less healthy enough to borrow against future energy stores so you can push through tough physical times? Because when you write,

all you need is some nice clothes from the thrift store, a good sense for where the free showers and free food is, and a LOT of will power.

I think you are forgetting that disabilities are not a matter of will. Or rather, you are not thinking about the intersection of disability and poverty at all, perhaps. But how is one to "clean hovels" if one has, for example, multiple sclerosis and no medical insurance for care?

I bring it up because one of the themes in this thread has been that health is a matter of will, and that is not so. Your will can help you manage chronic illness or disability, but you can't prevent disability or banish your limitations through strength of character.

SKM, thanks for bringing that up; I'd been concerned about that aspect of Kea's point as well.

In general, while individuals will succeed despite the odds, that doesn't change the systematic conditions that prohibit most people in a marginalized or under-privileged group from succeeding. Bill Gates didn't finish college, but that hasn't made it easier for my brilliant high-school-diploma-only DH to get the kinds of jobs he deserves. These token success stories can be a way to further marginalize people who are already underprivileged; X managed to "pull hirself up by the bootstraps" why can't you? Etc.

(My second paragraph wasn't addressed to Kea specifically; it's a general comment because, as SKM says, individual stories of will power and success can be held up as evidence that everyone could be healthy, wealthy and wise if they just tried hard enough.)

Speaking of bill gates- he is the first person to admit that he was extremely lucky. He got access to a computer when he was 13 or 14... almost no other kids could say that at the time.

I don't really give a shit about soaring to the top of a class structure, I don't want to live like that. I just want the bottom to not be so shitty- people who work hard should be able to afford decent living and have some sort of control over the economic decisions that affect their communities. Wages have stagnated for what, 50 years now? Workers have no control over their employment, we are all at the mercy of huge tyrannical corporations. There isn't even a labor party here. I think something like 9% of workers here are unionized- it is a really crappy situation.

SKM, of course you are right that health is a necessary condition. I simply neglected to mention it.

I agree with skeptifem. The main reason I spend so much time living in poverty is because I CHOOSE it. I could have stayed with a rich boyfriend, or been more obedient to my dumb ass supervisors. I chose not to.

And by the way, Isabel, I did NOT say that I was born 'rich', as you put it. You need to work on your reading comprehension.

I don't really give a shit about soaring to the top of a class structure, I don't want to live like that. I just want the bottom to not be so shitty

Hear, hear.

A third hear hear! You put it so well, Skeptifem.

(And actually, my DH was using computers in 1980 at age 9 -- he had early access to computers, learned tons about them, and is truly brilliant. He still didn't manage to be a Bill Gates. The only reason I bring this up is that I think sometimes it's impossible to say why, exactly, someone succeeds and someone else doesn't. There are so many factors that it is impossible to pinpoint why one person's life is different from someone else's. And that's why it's important to not judge others or assume that a person's position in life is their fault or responsibility. Sometimes it is, sometimes it isn't. Sometimes it's chance or something specific, sometime it's impossible to tell. We just can never be certain about someone else's position. Heck, can we even be certain we understand ourselves and our own lives? :-) )

SKM, of course you are right that health is a necessary condition. I simply neglected to mention it

Lying Stinky Oilbags Who Lie

thusspakezuska — Wed, 09 Jun 2010 11:50:56 +0000

Lying Stinky Oilbags Who Lie

HuffPo summary and link to NBC Today Show lying liar doing his lying here.

It "may be down to how you define what a plume is here."

Really? Yeah, who can believe those stupid scientists and their stupid librul observations and data.

Well, here's an idea, lying oilbag BP CEO Doug Suttles. Why don't you go down to the Gulf, and take a dive. Swim around a good long time through that area where "no massive underwater oil plumes in 'large concentrations' have been detected". Then come up, and try diving repeatedly through the oil pooled on the surface. After all that, you just climb straight into your corporate jet - no pausing to change or clean up. Fly on outta there to your home airport. Get in your fancy car and drive home. Go straight to you fancy hi-tech home theater room - I know you've got one - and settle down in one of those cushy leather chairs. Have your kids gather 'round close, and attempt to feed them a snack of some oil-laden dead sea creatures you scavenged while you were diving through those slicks and swimming through those underwater plumes that are not massive nor in "large concentrations".

Then just settle in and wait, while breathing your own noxious reek, in your sticky stinky gloppy scabrous oil slicked sheath, and hope that, eventually, some stupid scientist or ridiculous naturalist or tree-hugger environmentalist or local sucka comes along and pries you from your stinky oily nest and takes you off for a 45 minute scrub down with liquid dish soap, and then parcels you off to an entirely new home some several states away, where you will never see your children again, but at least you'll be alive.

You lying stinky oilbag who lies. You, and everyone at BP associated with thinking up, writing, approving, and creating your performance on the Today show. Lying stinky oilbag who lies, BP CEO Doug Suttles.

thusspakezuska Wed, 06/09/2010 - 07:50

Tags

Apologists for the Oppressors

Well said. Second best take on the issue. Best is here:
http://www.theonion.com/articles/massive-flow-of-bullshit-continues-to-…

Well actually, Suttles is not the CEO. He's the COO

He isn't allowed to say something different, really. If he was honest he would betray the corporations duty to the shareholders, and he would be canned, and replaced by someone willing to lie. The people are interchangeable mouthpieces for what our laws have created. I am not sure what the way out of this is.

This may be old news for you or your readers, but this article definitely shows how massively bad BP's response plans were. At this point, I wonder if the "flaws" were intentional - that BP just created a document that would superficially provide government regulators - many of whom were probably former employees of oil and coal industry, who are there due to the revolving door between big business and government - the lip service they needed on regulation to get approval for their plans? Or is that a rhetorical question at this point?

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5j5wrBdUcklmSa7eViGBpO…

Tierney Wah Wah NYT Whiney Blah Blah

thusspakezuska — Tue, 08 Jun 2010 13:19:42 +0000

Tierney Wah Wah NYT Whiney Blah Blah

Whiney McWhinerson barfed up something in the NYT. Doc Free-Ride has a good take on it here. I applaud her analytical skills. I read Tierney's whinefest and it was difficult for me to come up with anything substantive in response because all it sounded like to me was this:

wah wah gender police takin' away mah freedomz! Larry Summers a brave hero to all d00ds! Extreme scores at the right tail of the distribution! Physics needs genius men or western civilization will CRUMBLE! 7th grade SAT scores CLEARLY show gender differences! Innate! Biology! (possible social bias against women, but really, who believes that shit.) For the love of God, Congress, please don't ram Communist-style re-education of scientists down our throats! Or we will all die! DIE!!!!!!!!!!!

UPDATE: As Doc Free-Ride noted in the comments on her post, Christina Agapakis posted a response to the Tierney wah wah over at Oscillator. In the comments below, Pteryxx offered a link to this fine post over at Jezebel. Good stuff.

thusspakezuska Tue, 06/08/2010 - 09:19

Tags

Apologists for the Oppressors

Ludicrous Language

Men Who Hate Women

What They're Saying

Is Tierney wrong? I didn't get the same thing from the article that you did. If 20 years of data show that the top 0.01% of math has 4x as many boys as girls, how can you argue that girls are equally equipped with elite math skills as boys? Girls on the other hand outnumbered boys in the top 0.01% of verbal and reasoning, girls are clearly more equipped with elite verbal and reasoning skills than boys. What is wrong with this? Why can't boys and girls be different? What is "wah wah" about this?

If his data is inaccurate or simply false, I agree he is full of shit.

There are probably a lot of people better suited to answer the questions of innate ability than I am, but my understanding is that studies of math scores have shown a narrowing of the male-female gap over time *and* statistically significant differences in the gender gap across cultures. This would seem to indicate social factors at work.

In addition, research on stereotype threat seems to show that being required to mark your gender on a test may lower girls' math scores by a statistically significant margin.

Thegoodman - wrong question.

The top 0.1% is hardly informative even if those stats *are* accurate indicators of intelligence or proficiency. Much more informative is a comparison between the average male and female and a comparison of differences between male and female. The differences within a group are far wider than the differences between groups. What we can glean from this, is that ascribing observed differences in (what? test scores?) to real differences in aptitude between genders is an irresponsible misrepresentation of the data (nevermind the fact that things like test scores are notoriously terrible as predictors of actual success in intellectual pursuits, and nevermind that even if test scores *were* good predictors of success, they indicate nothing about natural aptitude - rather, they reflect access to education, and schooling on how to take tests well).

Also, if I may be so bold as to put words in Zuska's mouth here, the article is recycling the same old biases that get trotted out every time someone gets their panties in a twist about women being able to do "hard science" or math or whateverthefuck thing that men in the field tend to think of as their special purview. It says nothing new. It says nothing that has not been debunked. But it gets said over and over and over again because some dude is upset that the ladeez are playing in his sandbox. It is tiresome and dull and boring and uninspired.

Also, it's "data are" not "data is". Subject-verb agreement.

Okay, I probably should've read the original article before commenting. Now, I want to scrub my eyes clean.

Anyway, I still think Mr. McWhinerson is greatly underestimating the role of social biases. I was one of those kids who tested in the top 0.01% on a variety of tests. Other than one suggestion that I go to an engineering camp (I couldn't afford), no one ever encouraged my math abilities that I can remember. I didn't even know that pre-Calc and Calculus were available and that I could get certain waivers to take them until senior year and 2 of the guys in my advanced math class mentioned that they were in it. Surely, the failure of many schools to encourage girls to pursue math studies would affect test scores.

Hey thegoodman- the same data exists when it comes to race. Do you think white people are inherently better at science? Or do you think that when a bunch of rich white dudes run the university departments and write the tests that they bias the results? The latter seems a damn lot more likely to me than the former.

"If 20 years of data show that the top 0.01% of math has 4x as many boys as girls, how can you argue that girls are equally equipped with elite math skills as boys?"

Maybe there hasn't been much cultural difference in the past 20 years. I mean, people scoff at the 80s as the time when women "thought they could do it all," and talk about how now we're more enlightened and don't expect girls to have babies and become CEOs at the same time. Studies have shown a female teacher's insecurity about her math skills rubs off on female students even unintentionally. Who goes into elementary school education, what do you think they think they're good at, and where have seventh graders been the past seven years of their lives? In the 80s, four women won a nobel prize in a science field. In the 90s, zero women won a nobel prize in a science field. Of the six (if you count economics) that have won in the 2000s, five were 2009. But we have so many more role models! Surely *last year* there should have been a large increase in girls doing better at math!

"Girls on the other hand outnumbered boys in the top 0.01% of verbal and reasoning, girls are clearly more equipped with elite verbal and reasoning skills than boys."

They barely outnumbered boys. Apparently, boys are equipped with elite verbal reasoning skills at a rate of 5:6-ish.

Oh, and over the years, the gap in verbal abilities has apparently been increasing. But this should not be taken as any sign of anything, such as society backsliding a bit over girls being good at math and causing that rate to be the same. Or anything.

In the UK girls outperform boys throughout school and university.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article615102.ece

As a woman with a math IQ of 170 (back in grade school... who knows - maybe it's dropped since then) and PhD in a biomedical science (undergrad major in chemistry), who has a mother with a PhD in theoretical physics and 2 complimentary, science and math related Masters, as well as a sister with an MD/PhD (though she was naturally gifted at physics, as evidenced by the grades she got in upper level physics classes during her freshman year at Harvard), it has always been hard for me to understand where those men who think women are not as biologically gifted at math and science are coming from.

That article made me angry.

and it bewilders me why so many people think that it's only the top 0.1% in inherent math ability that become great scientists and engineers, and that other skills mean nothing.

I know lots of great or good researchers. Though they are all above average in math abilities (most are mathematicians and computer scientists, or at least do mathematical modeling), few were prodigies of that level. The sucessful ones have good people skills, a good work ethic, have supportive partners if they have partners (especially if they have kids), and really enjoy what they do.

People treat little girls and little boys differently, and interpret their interests differently. Society is weird about gender roles. Maybe there's a tiny difference in aptitude on average, but let's not ignore the elephant in favour of the fly.

They gonna make those a-hole PIs take gender workshops? Coooollllll!!!!!!

Oh, how I wish I could be a fly on the wall, but I'm too busy trying not to freeze to death because nobody will give me a job (yeah, I'm another dumb blonde unemployed high IQ theoretical physics PhD).

Kea, you sound like my mom. : ) For years, she had to deal with male chauvinism and sexism at work. She was passed up for promotion by bosses because she wasn't the "primary breadwinner," and those promotions were usually given to men far less qualified for those positions than she would have been. For this reason, she strongly discouraged my sister and I from pursuing careers in physical sciences/math... which is actually quite sad, given that I think my sister had a greater gift and passion for math and physics than medicine. Anyway, when the option of early retirement came up at Mom's work, she took it gladly.

LadyDay, it is very sad that she felt she needed to discourage you and your sister, but at least she did it from personal knowledge of the situation. My mother, like many, discouraged me by constantly nagging me about cleaning the house properly, learning to cook and having kids.

cleaning the house properly, learning to cook and having kids

All important things (for men, too). But, I hope you find employment, if that's what you are looking for.

On another note, it's been a rather unpleasant surprise that some of the sexism my mother dealt with, and wished for me to avoid, is prevalent in biological sciences, too.

Ah, if only it were as simple as Mr. Whiney McWhinerson is making it out to be! If only the sole barrier we faced was the funding of grants, rather than d00ds who ask whether we got our jobs because of our husbands, or d00ds who ask us to be on their proposals so that they can ask us out on dates, or d00ds who think we're too pretty to do science, etc. Sometimes I wonder how there are *any* women in science. I fantasize about going on a FEMINIST HULK rampage on particularly frustrating days.

"Is Tierney wrong? "

Yes. Next (stupid sexist) question.

Jezebel has a great response to Tierney's article here:

http://jezebel.com/5558174/3-problems-with-discussions-of-women-in-scie…

I find this sentence of Thegoodman's comment telling:

"Why can't boys and girls be different?"

Why search so hard for some inherent! real! demonstrable! reliable! dividing line between MALES over here and FEMALES over there? Why assume that everyone's body, mind, orientation and gender role fall into a nice neat dichotomy? What are we, Sneetches?

How about assuming that humans are humans first. Then ask, "Why should boys and girls be different?"

"Why can't boys and girls be different?"

Which, of course is just "why won't you admit my penis is special!"

What can't boys and girls be different? is the wrong question. The question is "why do boys so desperately need to believe they are different from girls up to and including the point where they say stupid shit they pull out of their asses to "prove" it?"

Is Tierney wrong? I didn't get the same thing from the article that you did.

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Another blogger on the Tierney article:
http://hmprescott.wordpress.com/2010/06/09/sexism-and-science-in-the-ne…

I second the recommendation of the responses at Jezebel and Dr. Free-ride's place.

I covered this Tierney piece briefly yesterday too, though I didn't have much to add--this stuff is so old and tired. As long as Tierney and The Times and most others expect us to ignore the flaws in essentialist reasoning, a few gender workshops won't make too much difference, I think.

I suppose part of the point of the workshops is to cover the flaws in essentialist reasoning. But we should really be covering that in general education. Kids should be reading The Mismeasure of Man and The Myth of Mars and Venus in high school or junior high, really.

What are we, Sneetches?

Awesome.

Why can't boys and girls be different?

This reminds me of a Jewish joke that goes:

A: Who needs a gimmel [the letter that sounds like our G] in N-o-a-h?
B: But there isn't a gimmel in N-o-a-h.
A: But why shouldn't there be a gimmel in N-o-a-h?
B: But who needs a gimmel in N-o-a-h?
[repeat]

As was pointed out, "why can't boys and girls be different?" is the wrong question. Just like the stars on the Sneetches and the gimmel in Noah, we know what the "marker of difference" is that some men so desperately want acknowledged.

Also, it's "data are" not "data is". Subject-verb agreement.

He's a may-un. He can only do important brain things like math and spacial relationships. Language is for girls. Now if y'all will excuse me I have calculus to do (the "A"s I got for the first two semesters clearly don't count, or were a fluke).

Or, I have to go see a doctor to determine what happened to my penis and why I, instead, have a full set of female reproductive organs. Clearly I R a d00d.

How about assuming that humans are humans first. Then ask, "Why should boys and girls be different?"

Exactly, Pterryx. It's almost like goodman (heh) wants hard proof that girls R dum so he can have a free ride to feeling big.

But that would be *irrational*, wouldn't it? Heaven knows a may-un is NEVER that.

"It's almost like goodman (heh) wants hard proof that girls R dum so he can have a free ride to feeling big."

This isn't it at all. My wife is much more intelligent than I am and is also more successful/accomplished in the sciences than I am. I think she is great and one of the smartest PEOPLE I know, male or female.

Never once did I say that females were less intelligent than males. I just think it is difficult to argue with data that shows that the top 0.01% of math testing shows that males outnumber females. What does this mean to a females ability to be successful? Absolutely nothing.

I am not in the top %0.01 percent of the population in intelligence and I seriously doubt that any of you are either, so that means we are all intellectually equal and all of us would have comparative test scores in any given subject.

I am not in the top %0.01 percent of the population in intelligence and I seriously doubt that any of you are either, so that means we are all intellectually equal and all of us would have comparative test scores in any given subject.

Wrong, AGAIN! Wow. You're just battin' a hundred, ain't ya?

Troll.

Thegoodman, given that there ARE very definite social and cultural discouragements to women who try to pursue mathematics and "hard sciences", which start as young children and pursue them right up through grad school, it's just a wee bit ...premature is the kindest word I can think of... to declare that perceived differences are biological.

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/short/320/5880/1164

I am not in the top %0.01 percent of the population in intelligence and I seriously doubt that any of you are either

Aww, it's like a troll squared -- it's not enough to be wrong when you can be wrong several times over.

I am so tired of this shit.

Wooops! That comment ended up in the wrong thread. Because my laydeebrane can't handle having multiple tabs open at once - it's bad at spatial reasoning or some shit.

It's understandable. He's spewing the same crap over so many threads that it all runs together.

Give the "Witch Hunt" Whine a Rest Already, Please

thusspakezuska — Wed, 02 Jun 2010 21:07:01 +0000

Give the "Witch Hunt" Whine a Rest Already, Please

Jeebus, people, you have GOT to get some new whiney whines, you Whiney McWhinersons.

I'm talking about you, you whiney whiners. Those of you who get all whiney and defensive whenever anyone dares to point out that you have stepped in the dogshit. Stepping in dogshit is an accident and it is something that all of us do upon occasion. Now, when you step in dogshit, do you want to just go blithely prancing about the place, spreading the dogshit hither and yon, stinking up the place to high heaven? Or do you want someone to point out that, jesus h. christ, there's a great big steaming heap o' smelly dog turds trailing off your right shoe, why don't you go scrap 'em off? Or better yet, just get yourself a whole new pair of shoes, for sure Isis can recommend something stylish.

What you do not what to do, under any circumstances, is trot out that old whiney whine about "oh noes! a witch hunt!" Because now, not only do you have dogshit on your shoe, you have "I am an ignorant fool" tattooed on your face. Perhaps you are not familiar with the google? Try typing "witch hunt" into it. Your friend, Wikipedia, says:

A witch hunt is a search for witches or evidence of witchcraft, often involving moral panic, mass hysteria and lynching, but in historical instances also legally sanctioned and involving official witchcraft trials.

Crying "witch hunt" every time someone points out that you stepped in the dogshit is an insult to the horrific suffering and deaths of the thousands of women who truly were persecuted just because they were women. It's also an insane mockery to liken people speaking up for diversity and social justice to killers of women.

Have you been burned at the stake? Drowned? Pressed to death with stones? Hung? Tortured? Forced to give false witness identifying other "witches" who will subsequently be questioned, tortured, hung/drowned/burned etc.? Is mass hysteria sweeping your local village or region, and hundreds of women are being killed? No? I do not think, then, that you are part of any "witch hunt".

No. I think you have dogshit on your shoes. Which is a lot stinkier than some poor grad student who doesn't share the U.S. obsession with showering, deodorizing, and perfuming away every last trace of normal body odor Real Americans find so disgusting. Still, stepping in the dogshit, as I said, happens to us all now and then. It's not a measure of our character or our self-worth. How we react when it's pointed out is a different story. Do we cling to our shitty shoes, track the shit all over the place, and then point at some foreign brown dude who, you know, you can hardly understand, and his food smells funny, and he just won't use Axe body spray? Or do we stop a minute, lift our foot, and look at what we're unintentionally dragging around with us? Oh shit.

Oh, I know. You're just trying to help them deal with The Way Things Are. And those idealistic diversity nuts just don't understand How Things Work Around Here. But the issue is not, how do things work around here. It's how are you going to work around the things that are here.

You can help people negotiate their way through a treacherous, oppressive, racist, patriarchal hierarchy in a way that lets them come out the other side with some part of their soul still intact. Or you can apologize for the oppressor. Whiney "oh noes! witch hunt!" McWhinerson, are you aiming for the former? Or defaulting to the latter? Are you somewhere in between? Do you even know? Maybe you should take some time and think about it.

I wrote this all in English, the official language of How Things Work Around Here. I hope that's not a problem for you.

thusspakezuska Wed, 06/02/2010 - 17:07

Tags

Apologists for the Oppressors

Isis was really nice about the whole thing, too. Much nicer than I would be if someone sent me something that highlighted their privilege over me.

She might just be defensive in the same way most people are when they get called on something. It takes some practice to not freak out over being called on privilege. It isn't comfortable, especially not at first.

Hey, thanks for the exposure!
It's hard to get press coverage like this nowadays.
- Whiney McWhinerson, whiningly

Just a note about this bit:
Which is a lot stinkier than some poor grad student who doesn't share the U.S. obsession with showering, deodorizing, and perfuming away every last trace of normal body odor Real Americans find so disgusting.
Smelling like BO is NOT a normal custom of any particular country that can be excused on the basis of nationality. Upper-class folks from these countries will be happy to natter on about it, at length, whether you want them to or not, about how the smelly lower classes are making a bad name for them.

Lack of bathing is common to being poor, because, as another thread pointed out, food stamps doesn't pay for deodorant or hot water. In the poorer parts of many countries, there may be no hot water and no deodorant to purchase in the store anyway, even if folks had the money.

Having been that poor, here is what you do, if you are a student/postdoc in the US: Go to the dollar store and buy a bottle of liquid dish soap (citrus-scented is good, lots of toiletries smell like citrus), a washcloth, and a plastic shampoo-type bottle or travel kit type bottles. Put the dish soap in the travel bottle. Find the school gym. All schools, however small, have at least one. Every workday morning, get the earliest bus or however you can get there, and do the lamest workout you can get away with and still look like you are there to exercise--a real workout will make you ravenous, so don't do a serious workout unless you're not so worried about food. Walking on a treadmill for a while is good, you can go a fairly slow pace and no one will notice much. Then shower in the school showers with your soap--liquid dish soap goes a lot further than regular soap, as it tends to be pretty concentrated, and you only need a half-teaspoon to wash your hair. Leave a little soap residue on the washcloth after you're done washing though, and before you step out of the shower, rub that soapy residue, just a little suds, in your armpits and let it dry there. Then rinse out the washcloth, put on a fresh undershirt/slip and you're good to go. If you're someplace with hot weather, cornstarch is cheap and soaks up sweat without yellowing shirt armpits.

Women who can get away with long hair, put a few drops of cooking oil in your hands, rub them together, then rub that into the ends of your hair for conditioner.

Being able to pass for "middle class or higher" is, sadly, crucial to working and getting opportunities in the STEM fields. Wish I were kidding, but when I was a student I was seen as much more of an outsider weirdo (by both other students and faculty) because I was poor than because I had a weird accent.

You're just trying to help them deal with The Way Things Are. And those idealistic diversity nuts just don't understand How Things Work Around Here.

Oh. My. God. I don't understand where people get off thinking that "diversity nuts" don't understand The Way Things Work. There is no "White Perspective" or "Male Perspective" or "Abel-bodied Perspective" that needs to be explained.

Heads up: diversity nuts are such because we are so aware of How Things Are.

I want to make a vow that the next time a certain person in my life does this whole "you're being idealistic because people will never change" that I will actually take him to task on that response. Really, what is the alternative? Complicity?!?

Comrade "diversity nuts are such because we are so aware of How Things Are"

That's exactly it. I found myself nodding with Ambiv's comments on GMP's post. Pushing Others toward P2K-compliance in a it's-for-their-own-"good" way is not being supportive of diversity. When diversity looks different and acts acceptably to the P2K (according to the Fair Use Governing Diversity Accord), status quo rests with a job well done pat for the day. When diversity looks different and acts (brace yourself) DIFFERENT and not complicit in status quo groupthink, it's not an excuse to weed someone out of a group or suggest they 'go with the flow' and conform.

Supporting diversity is directly at odds with the P2K. When you sign up to support diversity, much like announcing you're a feminist, you sign yourself up for a whole new level of shit from the status quo. People do change, we're proof of that. We all start out in the P2K flow.

@jc: P2K?

Honestly, you folks have gone over the deep end now. Did you even read GMP's post and comments? Do you realize that she is an immigrant herself? Do you realize that immigrants can legitimately have different feelings about how to attain success in the US than you do? Do you realize that for immigrants gaining facility in the English language and learning cultural norms are of real importance? Do you realize that immigrants want to succeed, in general, more than they want to become cultural studies analysts?

I think it's a huge mark of of privilege that you can afford to ignore the real difficulties that immigrants and poor people can have in trying to adjust to the culture of US science. You can afford to ignore it because you're already there. PIs can afford to ignore their lab researchers' English proficiency and use their foreign students labor and then send them back home jobless -- keeps the market better for Americans and gives cheap hard-working labor in labs! PIs can afford to ignore how their students adjust to cultural norms -- if everyone avoids them because of bathing habits, you still get that hard-working lab labor!

I find it appalling that people here are more interested in a political idea of "diversity" than in helping students who want to succeed in the US. You are basically suggesting that immigrants not talk with each other and learn to adjust on their own terms -- you seem to want them to remain ignorant of the norms of the US for some fairy-tale PCness reasons while sacrificing their hopes and dreams for employment and success. For you it's all "diversity" and "respect," but you don't give a shit about what these "oppressed peoples" really want.

For you it's all "diversity" and "respect," but you don't give a shit about what these "oppressed peoples" really want.

If GMP's lab workers wanted to only speak in English, she would not have had to institute a rule. Nu?

Yes, Svilova, just as we graduate students balance our teaching to research ratios for optimum appeal on the job market, write steadily and turn in drafts of everything on time, use technical jargon consistently and correctly, know how to politely address professors both male and female, know procedures in the lab without having to be taught... we practically advise ourselves! Whether our dad and grand-dad were both professors at Harvard or whether both were farmers in a land that didn't get electricity until 1950, we know what we need to do to succeed and how to do it, and we start at the beginning of our graduate careers instead of figuring out in July of the year we're applying for jobs.

I am looking around at my unemployed fellow grads who were unable to compete in this tough market because they haven't got the attributes that will get them hired and I feel their advisors have failed them. It is too bad they weren't all brilliant and self-directed enough to realize that they needed to focus on developing English and teaching skills right away, even though their advisors told them teaching doesn't matter, it's just the research that you do (and someone else can help write it up). Those of you who are in a moral panic about diversity (because this *is* a moral panic) need to think about more constructive ways to deal with this than saying that PIs who insist their trainees learn to communicate effectively are tools of the patriarchy while still refusing to hire people who can't speak English well enough to teach.

I guess for me it seemed that what GMP was talking about was different from mentorship/advising, especially since she framed it as how she was dealing with diversity and different cultures in her lab. Again, as Isis pointed out, it's more about her framing of the question than whether grad students should speak a common tongue / bathe / store food properly.

kt - as has been said before, there is a big difference between:

1) Making it clear to trainees that proficient English skills are practically necessary to future career success in academic science, and encouraging them to practice their English and presentation skills via presentations to the lab and conversations in English with lab mates, and pointing them towards more resources for improving their English such as professional ESL courses

and

2) Forbidding conversations in non-English languages full top.

In the second case, people who are still acquiring proficiency in English are not allowed to resort to their first language to clarify what is meant, nor are they allowed to converse comfortably about non-safety-or-science-critical topics with people who may share their first language.

I know that if I were working in a setting in which I my first language was not the common language, I would make every effort to get up to speed with the common language (and have done so)...but forbidding me from resorting to my first language for clarification or just the occasional comfort when I'm feeling stuck, does not make for a working environment in which I feel like a welcome member of the team (hi, diversity!).

OTOH, if I were struggling with the common language I would definitely hope that the person in charge might be able to point me towards classes or suggest some other resources that would help bring me up to speed. If for some reason, I were not aware of how critical it is to be proficient in the common language, I would absolutely hope that someone would point that out to me. However, there's no need to go beyond that. Making it clear how critical the common language is, and providing resources as necessary are all that is required. Forbidding other languages is just way over the top and really patronizing.

Perhaps I stepped in it a bit myself, through bad word choices? When I said "poor graduate student", I wasn't thinking literally economically poor, I was thinking more "this poor person who has to work with someone who wants to micromanage their bathing and laundering, and then write posts conflating immigrant status/skin tone, food choice, laundry, body odor, and supposed concern for diversity. I hope the poor souls who've been mocked under the name of a post about diversity don't accidentally discover that PI's blog post and realize it's their own PI laughing away". But as Anon @ #3 points out, such students may be literally economically poor as well, confounding the issue. It's heartbreaking.

I was fortunate, during the course of my active research career, to get to spend substantial amounts of time in some non-U.S. countries, mostly in Europe, but one place outside Europe as well. Those experiences led me to reflect on the U.S. mania for showering, deodorizing, and perfuming away any trace of normal body scent quite differently than I otherwise would have. There are, in fact, normal scents to the body that are not malodorous.

These days, it is over-perfumed bodies - heavily scented lotions, sprays, body washes, soaps, perfumes - that are likely to trigger a migraine for me. I've never gotten a migraine from sniffing anyone's natural body odor. My neurologist's waiting room has a sign reminding people not to use perfumes or heavily scented lotions as a courtesy to other patients. It doesn't say anything about "please wash away your body's normal odors".

kt wants to remind us all the GMP is herself an immigrant, as if that somehow makes everything in her post okay. I'm not buying it. I'm a woman, and I come from the working class, and neither of those things is sufficient to keep me from being 100% non-sexist, or never having a classist worldview. The more we move into inner circles of power, the more we are rewarded for fitting in and conforming to dominant discourse, the more we are encouraged to shed identification with our shameful Other selves and forget what it is like to inhabit those selves further out on the edge. Why, I cut off my big toe to fit in this glass slipper! and my sister here, she chopped off the back part of her foot! Never you mind the prince didn't actually pick us, the important thing is this is the size and shape of the slipper and here's a knife, and you'd best get chopping ASAP.

As you know, AA, GMP clarified her language policy in the comments after the post.

Svilova, I would like to see your response to GMP's most recent post. It directly addresses the framing question.

And perhaps Zuska and Dr. Isis should note that someone who did not grow up in the US might not be knowledgeable about American cultural norms regarding how enlightened liberal people talk about language and hygiene... and you certainly haven't been shy about letting her know how we think you're supposed to talk about it!

Sorry, my comment appeared at the same time as Zuska's. Here's my question for Zuska, then: I am a woman with an immigrant background and I want to succeed in science. That's what I really want. I want to be recognized for being good at what I do. If I have to learn Chinese, I'll do it. I already learned French and a bit of Russian. Fine. If I have to be a stellar teacher, I'll do it. I'm working on the research part, because I know I need it. My advisor is ripping apart my thesis as we speak because he does not feel that it is written in good technical English. Unpleasant, yes, but it's fine: I want to be able to communicate effectively and have my work recognized. I realize there are plenty of strikes against me in our patriarchal classist sexist system. I realize it's a struggle to climb to the top in my field and also make time for family, culture, keeping up my first language (not English), all these things. So, what am I supposed to do?

Am I supposed to not strive to learn to write technically because it's not natural to me?

Am I supposed to not learn how to talk with my male colleagues after a seminar in a bar? Yes, I'm doing my part to broaden the culture by also talking with male and female colleagues in less-gendered locations.

Am I supposed to ignore what I'm going to get rewarded for and fail to get jobs for reasons that don't have to do with my research abilities?

You're right, we're rewarded for learning to fit in a certain way. Are we supposed to opt out of that entirely? Where are we going to work? How are we going to support ourselves? How are we going to change things for others? It sounds like you want me to retain my identification with the Othered self so far that I can't succeed, because Othered means unsuccessful.

It is up to those with power to change the system so that there is space for this diversity. It is not useful for anyone if graduate students are misinformed about the realities of life. I've learned a lot about the realities of being a woman in science from the blogosphere, and discussing those realities leads to strategies to work around them. It doesn't help anyone to pretend that in science people who can't speak English are hired all the time at American universities and people with different hygiene standards are definitely accepted everywhere because we all actually do love diversity.

@kt

I understand the value in helping people who face similar discrimination as oneself understand how to better conform to a system that discriminates. However, it's something that I personally try to avoid, and as Zuska writes, it can become a problem as people leave their "other" selves behind and start perpetrating the same kinds of discrimination. (This is not to blame the victim; it's the power structure that is at fault, not the individuals.)

I read through the discussions on GMP's blog, and I appreciate her position. However, as was discussed above, there can sometimes be too much emphasis on "this is how things are" and "this is why the world is what it is." One reason I haven't been part of the discussion on GMP's blog is that I don't really know that much about the specific situation of being a foreign student in the sciences. But I do know what it's like to be continually told by women (and to find myself telling other women) that women's clothing, hygiene, language, posture, and other choices are "incorrect" because they put us at a disadvantage in our P2K society.

Zuska's Cinderella metaphor speaks to my reaction. Yes, there are many things that oppressed classes of all kinds must do in order to get by. But these sacrifices to the dominant culture should never be celebrated as ways of dealing with diversity. Rather, they are the terrible compromises required by power.

Those of you who are in a moral panic about diversity (because this *is* a moral panic) need to think about more constructive ways to deal with this than saying that PIs who insist their trainees learn to communicate effectively are tools of the patriarchy while still refusing to hire people who can't speak English well enough to teach.

This is just bullshit.

Who's in a moral panic, here? People who want to change The Way Things Are Done Around Here - or those who insist that can never happen and what you need to do, see, is tell the smelly brown folk how to use fabric softener?

Who is refusing to hire people who can't speak English well - diversity advocates? Or the people in a moral panic desperately trying to make sure The Way Things Are Done Around Here never changes? Really, seriously, just how many goddamned diversity advocates do you think are running the show in U.S. labs? Because, kt, if we were in charge, The Way Things Are Done Around Here would already be going down a whole lot different.

Who, among PIs, is insisting that their trainees learn to communicate effectively - the ones who forbid them the use of their native tongue in the workplace, thus effectively alienating and shaming them? Or the ones who don't make arbitrary rules about who can say what when, and instead make sure their trainees are enrolled in ESL courses, have opportunities to present in English for practice in safe spaces like lab meetings, help them practice for departmental seminars and professional meetings, review their writing, include them in social gatherings where they can interact informally in English, help them learn the social ways of the culture, etc.? Yeah, all that shit takes a lot more work. Banning foreign tongues is a whole helluva lot easier.

If your fellow grads are unemployed, maybe your PIs did fail them. Maybe the fucked up economy and the unwillingness of the U.S. to adequately support the university system failed them, too. It's just laughable, however, to pretend that diversity advocates had anything to do with that, or that wanting foreign students and postdocs to be treated more humanely is a bad thing, and just likely to result in their being unemployed.

kt@14 -

I hear your frustration. It does often feel as if conforming to the dominant culture of the system is the only option for success (and many times it is). I would not be so presumptuous to suggest to you personally what you should or should not do in order to succeed in this system.

That being said, I think it is a false dichotomy to insist that one must *either* give up the right to speak their first language at work *or* fail to learn good technical English and go on to succeed in science. That one must forbid their trainees from speaking non-English languages *or* fail to prepare them for the expectations of their future career.

I think a *lot* of people in this discussion are seeing these things as mutually exclusive. They're not - finding the balance between the two is just harder work than making blanket prohibitions and washing your hands of the issue.

As I said above, it does often feel as if conforming to the dominant culture of the system is the only option for success (and many times it is). But it is possible to do TWO things about this: 1) help people get the skills they need to navigate a biased system and succeed, AND 2) work to change the system so that it is less biased.

Doing both is a lot more difficult, and so more people are invested in maintaining the either/or model. But if *real* diversity (not just appearance of) is the goal, then we really have to push for both success in the current system, and change towards a better system. Hard work, but worth it.

It is not at all clear to me that GMP's attempt at teaching communication skills is limited to a blanket ban on other languages. In the post being discussed she says things like:

"I therefore insist that students for whom English is not a native language work tirelessly on improving it, through English-as-a-second-language courses, reading a variety of literature (from technical to popular), watching US programming, and -- most importantly -- through opening up to become friends with native English speakers."

This sounds similar to Zuska's suggestion that a PI should "make sure their trainees are enrolled in ESL courses, have opportunities to present in English for practice in safe spaces like lab meetings, help them practice for departmental seminars and professional meetings, review their writing, include them in social gatherings where they can interact informally in English, help them learn the social ways of the culture, etc."

It is unfortunate that she views shilling for the deodorant-soap-industrial complex as a way of helping people to "learn the social ways of the culture" but nobody is perfect.

She also makes it pretty clear that she values having students work together and learn from each other, that she is interested in an environment of sharing amongst the students:
"But, challenges aside, having a culturally diverse group is much better than having a culturally uniform one. For instance, often I have students who have excellent technical training but have been schooled in a system where initiative and independence are discouraged; I have others who are very independent and creative, which their school system fostered, but may lack, sometimes significantly, in math and physics skills. Together, the mix enables all of them to become much better young researchers overall, as they learn from each other."

"It has also been quite heartwarming to see how friendships forge, sometimes between people whom you would never expect to bond, with origins very remote from one another. It is interesting to see how often students who are good friends end up coming up with very original research ideas; I have had several student-initiated papers, where it was always two students, from very different backgrounds, who became good friends in grad school and came up with an idea that meshed their expertise and resulted in cool new science."

She even talks about kicking out a student who spent more time sneering at foreigners than collecting data, and it sounds like his lack of productivity and his inability to work with a diverse group carried equal weight in her decision.

GMP sounds to me like a person who values her students as people and wants to help them. She is somebody who understands that there is not a sharp line between the personal and the professional, as made clear by her line "I remember thinking whether this was really part of my job description as their research advisor, but I suppose it is, because I see no one else volunteering..." She could have sneered at personal and social concerns and said that her sole job is to drive them to get more data, but she has embraced a wider view of a mentor's job. She certainly sounds like somebody who would be willing to help students with personal problems rather than say "Not my job, now go get more data!"

Could she have said some things more carefully than she did? Yes. However, she's a good prof who's doing a good job for her students, and she could use constructive suggestions rather than a pile-on. Some will say that being called out isn't supposed to be fun, but since we've just talked about safe and constructive mentoring environments we might pause to consider whether there are nicer, more constructive ways to discuss this with GMP. Is it that science mentoring supposed to be safe and constructive but mentoring on dealing with people is supposed to be harsh and uncomfortable?

Give me a break! What people complain about GMP's post is nothing but liberal self-righteous blather. That is correct---liberal, self-righteous blather. In order to show everyone how PC they are, they do not recognize that they advise something that actually goes against interests of the same people they supposedly care about.

What is incredible to me is that GMP's post was entirely about professional concerns and the things that influence such concerns. She clearly limited herself to her trainees' professional development, and what can be actually done in in the lab order to facilitate that (and also, her research activities in her own lab---isn't that why she has the job after all?).

"Those experiences led me to reflect on the U.S. mania for showering, deodorizing, and perfuming away any trace of normal body scent quite differently than I otherwise would have."

Perhaps have you asked yourself if you are spending time around wrong type of people? At my university, I know many people who smell like just showered in the perfume, the chances of them being American are just the same as being non-American.

"kt wants to remind us all the GMP is herself an immigrant, as if that somehow makes everything in her post okay. I'm not buying it."

There, that is the problem. Somehow, this very self-righteous thought that there always must be something inherently wrong when someone tries to give minorities a very valuable and practical professional advice. Yes, that must true, because we---the enlightened elitistsâ--believe that is true, and we are the only to have the moral right to judge that. Did you even read GMP's post carefully? Granted, not all immigrants treat other immigrants nice, but the failure of separating good advice from bad one because everyone had pulled the garb of PCness only hurts the same minorities.

I am an immigrant myself, and going to be a PI in a few months. And you know what, I completely agree with what GMP said in her post, and I am going to implement the rules myself. I wish my advisor was as thoughtful in giving career advice as GMP is. We are smart, very hard working, and we do not need your self-righteous sympathy. All we need is a good professional advice, so if you do not like to give one, fine, but please at least do not trash the person who takes efforts to give one.

Zuska, your implication that GMP is telling the smelly brown folk to use deodorant and alienating and shaming her students is more telling about your own views and experiences than hers. I am not slamming diversity advocates. I am slamming the people who are upset that one PI makes sure her students are prepared for How Things Are and seem to think it's more useful to not prepare students so that they can maintain their pristine native selves.

I want to do both, as AA said: know the system so I can work it and change it so that others can. It is hard work, and worth it.

Is regular showering an oppressive thing that needs to go? I mean, I'm OK with changing most of the system, but on the topic of bathing I guess I'm willing to side with the oppressors and send the tanks to mow down the unwashed masses.

I guess I'm willing to side with the oppressors and send the tanks to mow down the unwashed masses.

This is the kind of "harmless joke" that's not nearly so funny if you come from a place where the government or government-funded paramilitary groups actually do mow down the masses, with or without tanks. You'd be surprised at the number of such "jokes" I've heard made in front of folks who come from such places and are working as hard as they can to fit into the lab.

I'm privileged in this respect, so I'll be the humorless tightass who points out that not everyone in the audience here or at our places of work comes from peaceful backgrounds where they are reasonably certain of getting through the day without police, paramilitary, or civilian brutality.

The issue at hand is intercultural communication. Considering one's audience is key.

Unwashed masses or Axe Body Spray? Unwashed masses are preferable any day.

Rev Matt does have a point. Given a choice between working with an unshowered foreign grad student, or working with a guido from Jersey Shore who's covered in Axe body spray and hair gel, I'll take the unwashed grad student any day.

Also, being part Italian-American, I apologize to myself for the guido reference. I would just point out that being a sedentary guy I lack the Muscle-American privilege of the buff guys who party at the beach.

@Rev Matt: I concur!

Take home message: humor is funnier if it is aimed up , not down, the privilege hierarchy.

Also, Anon has gone into some detail about how regular showering is indeed a socioeconomic class issue, so yeah, requiring it is an oppressive thing, actually.

Not exactly to the point: the two stinkiest scientists I have ever worked with were both middle-class white American men, and both totally brilliant.

I might note that the smelliest grad students tend to be males from ethnic backgrounds that are well-represented in science. Perhaps their decision to not shower is a way of waving their privilege that they feel welcome enough in science that they don't need to worry about how they affect others in their surroundings?

Pong! -- geekmommyprof doesn't link your post but she discusses it.

And to throw my own anecdote along with SKM, I work in IT in an org that has extensive biological testing labs and there are a ton of ethnicities in our part of the building (Indian, Arab, a variety of Asian backgrounds, Hispanic, Black, etc) and a broad spectrum of socio-economic backgrounds (I include the janitorial staff who are ever present here). The two smelliest guys are middle aged middle class uber-white guys and seriously they DO NOT shower regularly or apparently own more than two shirts each.

May I humbly request, Zuska, that you do a post about how to adapt to middle classishness, given your background? I know that after decades in science, some shit my colleagues say still kinda renders me speechless because I simply never thought of life that way. Not in a good way, more in a "seriously? you are that naive?" way.

Example: new VP of company had a luncheon where we were asked to introduce ourselves and say what we would do for a living if we weren't scientists/engineers.
Me and one other guy: "Hi, my name is X, I work in Y's group, and I would probably be working at (crummy unskilled blue collar job)."
The other 98 people: "Hi, my name is X, I work in Y's group, and I would be (some airy-fairy hobby that pays starvation wages or done on volunteer basis)."
Bad luck that me and the other guy were sitting at the end of the table where we had to go first. We didn't realize that the upper/middle classes really don't know how much the various occupations pay, and were raised to Follow Their Dreams. It's a bit like accidentally admitting you're an atheist at your cousin's church wedding in the Bible Belt, people just look at you funny after that.

In a similar vein were the attitudes in academia that it's OK to exploit people's labor because Science, like Art, is something worth starving for. Like it's all romantic and stuff.

Reading the Puritanical literature (John Edwards--the 1600s-era preacher, not the scam artist guy--William Bradford and John Winthrop) helped a lot. I didn't realize why, and how unconsciously, I was being hated on until then, it was all like spring weather, not too predictable. It's just a strange-ass experience to deal with the constant crazy-making of someone pissing on you and telling you it's raining gold, day in day out. When you read the mythology that the upper classes are raised on, it makes a lot more sense and becomes slightly easier to cope with; you can figure out a strategy instead of it being completely mysterious and unpredictable.

I wish there was a "Stuff Middle Class People believe" blog like the "Stuff White People Like" blog. It would have been helpful. One that goes the other way would likely be helpful to anyone who has to manage or run a company where they employ poor people, but of course that one would never get read.

Anon, Alfred Lubrano interviews a couple hundred people for this book, including many academics and professionals, about their experiences learning to navigate the upper-middle class worlds.

http://www.amazon.com/Limbo-Blue-Collar-Roots-White-Collar-Dreams/dp/04…

I agree with those who say this is largely a class issue masquerading as a race or xenophobic issue.

How do you all think the unwashed masses of Americans learned to shower and use deodorant and gargle with Listerine every day? It's a fairly recent phenomenon as far as a wide-scale cultural thing. There were thousands of films made on the subject, as well as books and other efforts not to mention paranoia-inducing TV commercials from the 1950's onward.

Anon @ 3, I will think about how to share some of my experiences. In the meantime I can recommend many of Thomas Benton's essays in the Chronicle of Higher Education, as well as an old classic, The Hidden Injuries of Class.

Just this evening at a book club meeting I attended it was made clear to me by the other members - most of whom can lay claim to better and more cultural capital than I can - that I most assuredly do not know how to parse a reference to a Shakespeare quote. Even though I was 99% certain I was right, I stopped talking, because I never got to formally study Shakespeare in any way. Later in a conversation with a friend who knows quite a bit about Shakespeare, I found I was likely right in my understanding. But in that room earlier this evening, all I could feel was my class (of origin) showing, despite all the fancy degrees. They are never enough to paper over the gaps at times like these.

I agree with those who say this is largely a class issue masquerading as a race or xenophobic issue.

It isn't either/or--it's both.

"the U.S. obsession with showering, deodorizing, and perfuming away every last trace of normal body odor Real Americans find so disgusting."

Interesting. So you think there are cultural differences in hygiene norms?

When I moved to Canada from the UK, one Canadian did say something about not liking having Europeans around because "you Europeans don't shower every day, right?" (based on one experience with an Italian grad student). My Kiwi friend (who most definitely did not smell) was told by a different Canadian that it was inappropriate (and gross) for him to wear the same shirt to work two days in a row (considered perfectly normal in the UK and apparently also in NZ). So you might be on to something there with a North American hygiene obsession!

lubano's book is ok, but it's definitely more of a personal memoir than anything else and his mom was kind of a headcase about the whole thing, which never helps. some of his experiences parse and some seemed to be the product of unnecessary paranoia on his part.

you are what you are, whatever that may be, unless you're something else.

Is it necessary for me to clarify that crying "witch hunt" is something that happens ALL THE TIME whenever anyone gets their feelings hurt over someone noticing they stepped in dogshit? In other words, while this post was inspired by one particular instance of Whiney McWhinersonism, there is not just a single one Whiney McWhinerson? Whiney McWhinerson is legion, and he/she is ever crying "witch hunt" when someone is, in their opinion, gauche enough to notice they have dogshit on their shoes. It just drives me batshit insane. I want the Whiney McWhinersons of the world to find SOME BRAND NEW AND MORE CLEVER way of whining when they aren't happy about the dogshit attracting attention, if they can't quite pull themselves together quickly enough to say "oh shit. Dogshit. Better do something about that." Or failing that, just keep quiet, go off, and think about it a bit.

"I agree with those who say this is largely a class issue masquerading as a race or xenophobic issue.

It isn't either/or--it's both. "

Could you explain specifically how it is, your opinion, a race issue? And I mean specifically "racist", and something white people specifically do, not just a human reaction (for example many cultures think "white people" smell like wet dog).

How is it any different from saying Itaian peasants/immigrants smell like garlic, etc?

Lubrano's book isn't perfect, but he does discuss many other people's experiences. There is just not alot out there. I found a couple about working class women in academia but I haven't had time to read them yet.

I agree with those who say this is largely a class issue masquerading as a race or xenophobic issue.

What a fucking shocker, Isabel.

Racist: That would be one of my co-workers saying "Oh, I hope they don't hire someone else from India. They always smell funny."

The issue is not saying that grad students or postdocs or whoever need to pay attention to basic hygeine. [Insert deity-substitute of choice here] knows that I have dealt with seriously, horrendously stinky grad students (the worst of which were middle-class white boys, incidentally) and having a sort of "hygiene counselling meeting" is a GOOD!!!! thing. The issue is to lump it in with the "dealing with diversity" issues which, on the face of it, makes the implication that hygiene issues are automatically something that needs to be a concern with other-culture students or postdocs, and that it is part of dealing with the multiculturalism not the generic basic hygiene-of-all-workers issue, and that if you weren't dealing with these "foreigners" you wouldn't need to worry about that issue. I'm perfectly prepared to believe that GMP did not intend that implication, but nevertheless, that is pretty much how it came across to me, too, in that first post that Isis discussed. And the implication is insulting.

I don't get it. Why should any discrimination tactics be exclusive to each other?

Example: Male PI offers to improve a grade and provide a department lab tech job if female student shows him some boobies, maybe gives him oral sex. This actually happened @ my undergrad institution. (Guy was fired, but not without a big legal fight whereupon it was explained that "tenure" does not protect one from criminal and civil damages in a court of law. Little words apparently had to be used.)

The sexism bit is hopefully obvious, but to some of the working-class students who paid their tuition by sex work and exotic dancing, the reaction was, "eff that, he should pay in cash like every other john, the cheap bastard." Translated into middle-class, this would be the equivalent of going into a fancy restaurant in your pajamas, eating a few hundred $$ worth of food, then offering to pay with this highly collectible stack of Enron stock certificates.

Anon @3 -- It's my experience that discrimination tactics are NOT mutually exclusive; in fact, they often seem to travel in packs. But Isabel often seems to have a reflex reaction that "classism is the biggest baddest problem and white men face it too and why are you paying attention to anything else?". Since despite her protestations of what a good person she is, reeally, this often ends up coming across as a silencing or belittling tactic towards those who are discussing racism and/or sexism, a lot of people here have a built-up impatience towards her already.

Speaking of which, @Isabel, yes, the "foreigners smell funny" is something that other nationalities do too. In fact, in Japan I was startled by coming face-to-face for the first time with the complaint that they didn't like working with people from the UK, because people from the UK smell like sour milk. Here's what you don't seem to get: this doesn't make it not racism. Other groups than white men can be racist. Japanese, for example, are hugely racist. The issue is, the "majority" group in power passing judgement on different ethnic identities as a group, because of uncomplimentary and automatic assumptions about the nature of the members of that group. In fact, it's any sort o f automatic judgment on people because of racial or ethnic group membership -- minority groups calling all whites "evil" or "devils" because of the membership in the group of "people with white skin" is racist, too, or (another thing I've encountered) members of the Micmac tribe being contemptuous of "lazy Hispanics". But that doesn't generally carry as many pernicious effects, because of the power differential. Nevertheless, it is racist, not classist.

As someone who has been both insanely rich (I had the best possible education ... I know what 'class' is) and starving poor (decades as a student and now unemployed) I can add to the advice of anon at 6.37 ... oh, I can offer ALL kinds of advice ...

There is no need to do fake workouts. Many university science departments have showers in them, for lab workers and people who like to run in the park. These are generally not advertised, and are often hidden away on the upper floors. Find one to use, and go there around 4.30am in the morning. A little later and you will run into too many cleaners; a little earlier and you will run into the night owls.

If you are a grad student or postdoc you can also sleep in the department, because your security card will probably allow you to. The heating may be turned off at night though, so find some warm blankets/clothes (second hand, won't cost much) and stash them somewhere near where you are going to sleep. Learn the security patrol schedules. Usually they just walk corridors and don't enter individual offices. If you don't have your own office space, a good place to sleep is on the floor of a large lecture room, away from the door. Security may take a peek in the room, but it is unlikely they will look around if it is dark and empty looking.

Departments also have all sorts of stuff you can borrow, like scissors to cut your hair, and of course free food, as all students know. Dare I say that you can even borrow their dish soap.

"Isabel often seems to have a reflex reaction that "classism is the biggest baddest problem and white men face it too and why are you paying attention to anything else?"."

Hey asshole, I just spent a week leading an argument about sexism at Pixar over at the Frontal Cortex blog. I only bring up class when it is being ignored to the detriment of lower class people. As when "white" is used instead of "upper class white" when that is what is actually implied.

For the LAST TIME stop putting words in my mouth. I NEVER said or even implied that we shouldn't pay attention to anything else. If you are going to claim to be such an expert on my posting PAY FUCKING ATTENTION.

I have been on the sexism / ant-racism bandwagon for decades okay? I GET IT.

I am trying to bring class into the discussion because it is generally ignored in discussion of privilege. This is mainly because academia and social activism movements are generally populated by those from the upper-middle classes whose own privilege is invisible to them.

Everyone around here says "Oh Isabel we get the class thing! You must not read my blog! etc etc."

But I don't see the evidence.

Either you 1) deny class is as important as race and gender, or you 2) discuss it as often as the other two when posting about "unpacking your privilege" or else you are a hypocrite.

Isabel, in any and every interaction I've seen you involved in, in the past, where the discussion starts out being about endemic, institutional sexism or racism, you have cropped up with "but poor white boys/poor white immigrants had it just as bad!" and engaged in behaviour which seemed designed to minimise the experiences of other groups of people and individuals, in favour of winning recognition for those po' white boys. The Pixar discussion does seem to be an exception to this, but I hadn't seen it before now. If you have changed your tack and I'm not giving you credit for it, then I apologise.

Give me a break! What people complain about GMP's post is nothing but liberal self-righteous blather. That is correct---liberal, self-righteous blather.

Wow, that is fucking insightful. I haven't ever heard that one before.

I am always rather curious why advocating for the respect of your fellow humans is some sort of liberal ideal. I mean while I have a lot of liberal attitudes about many things, I also have somewhat conservative views about other things - mostly I am pretty moderate. Yet I am all about considering my respect for other people - even people I don't like, when I talk about them.

For example, I wouldn't, in the same post, complain about those damned furriners not speaking English and then complain about the stench of grad students. And if, because my brain was melty, I did make such a blunder without making it clear that I was not talking about the same persons - I would really be grateful that the response was like that of Dr. Isis.

This is not about being liberal or self righteous. I could be mistaken, but I sincerely doubt anyone around here actually believes they are free from biases that sometimes lead to a bigoted attitude. This particular discussion is ultimately about accepting criticism (criticism that was clearly meant rather kindly) without getting all pissy and whining about witch hunts. The self-righteous prattle, is coming from whiner, not the inciter of the whining.

"poor white immigrants had it just as bad!""

As bad as WHAT? PLEASE cite or quote something (a real quote please). Not just a link.

Just as bad as African Americans? In this country no, except in the earliest days in the colonies, when both blacks and whites were brought over as slaves and endured similar hardships.

Just as bad as current Latino immigrants? Sure.

Or you could actually argue the positions I have taken. What a concept!

How have I marginalized anyone? When there is a sexism discussion going on and someone points out that there is a racist element that is being overlooked, no one screams at them for marginalizing anyone and judges their comments as sexist.

And no I haven't changed my tack. At least not recently.

"engaged in behaviour which seemed designed to minimise the experiences of other groups of people and individuals, in favour of winning recognition for those po' white boys"

AGAIN with the inability to handle three main privileges - why can you only handle two? Is class privilege not "endemic, institutional" enough for you? Please explain.

and AGAIN with the MRA crap. All the posts at IBTP were about lower class (not just poor) white WOMEN. And generally I am posting about lower class white PEOPLE.

"poor white immigrants had it just as bad!""

As bad as WHAT? PLEASE cite or quote something (a real quote please). Not just a link.

Just as bad as African Americans? In this country no, except in the earliest days in the colonies, when both blacks and whites were brought over as slaves and endured similar hardships.

Just as bad as current Latino immigrants? Sure.

Or you could actually argue the positions I have taken. What a concept!

And no I haven't changed my tack. At least not recently.

"engaged in behaviour which seemed designed to minimise the experiences of other groups of people and individuals, in favour of winning recognition for those po' white boys"

AGAIN with the inability to handle three main privileges - why can you only handle two? Is class privilege not "endemic, institutional" enough for you? Please explain.

and AGAIN with the MRA crap. All the posts at IBTP were about lower class (not just poor) white WOMEN. And generally I am posting about lower class white PEOPLE.

Normally love your blog (since being helped by your d00dly outreach project (not a man, but was d00dly)), agree with your overall point here, but I hate your analogy due to personal reasons of my own.

Once at primary school it was pointed out by the teacher in front of the entire class that I had stepped in dogshit, and my bullies decided that was a rad thing to bully me about for the rest of the week, including after school when I was trying to wash the dogshit off my shoes so I could go home. That shit needs a trigger warning or something :'(

I guess the bad part of the analogy is that if someone stepped in real dogshit you wouldn't call them out in front of a bunch of people if possible, but on the internet if someone steps in metaphorical dogshit you want to make sure that none of their followers step in the trail they're leaving behind, or something.

Everyone around here says "Oh Isabel we get the class thing! You must not read my blog! etc etc."

But I don't see the evidence.

Either you 1) deny class is as important as race and gender, or you 2) discuss it as often as the other two when posting about "unpacking your privilege" or else you are a hypocrite.

Isabel, I understand (though I don't have personal experience, so forgive me if I'm wrong) that it's not difficult to start one's own weblog. I'm also told that it's a surefire way to have the discussion one wants to have, because one essentially controls the comments.

FYSB. Let's try this again:

Everyone around here says "Oh Isabel we get the class thing! You must not read my blog! etc etc."

But I don't see the evidence.

Either you 1) deny class is as important as race and gender, or you 2) discuss it as often as the other two when posting about "unpacking your privilege" or else you are a hypocrite.

"Isabel, I understand (though I don't have personal experience, so forgive me if I'm wrong) that it's not difficult to start one's own weblog. I'm also told that it's a surefire way to have the discussion one wants to have, because one essentially controls the comments."

What an condescending and pointless thing to say! How fucking rude can people get?? I never cease to be amazed. And you probably call yourself an enlightened progressive.

If I wanted to start a blog I would do so, and anyway that would do nothing to improve the distorted, pervasive classist attitudes I despise. So shut up asshole, I know what I am doing and it's none of your fucking pathetic business anyway.

I know it's hard to understand, but I am not here desiring to have a 'particular kind of discussion' like you are; I am not that needy. I am concerned about telling the truth and social justice. So STFU.

Isabel, I didn't tell you to shut up.

WTF does that mean?? I didn't say you did but I DID tell YOU to STFU PLEASE.

You condescendingly suggested I get my own blog because you are so sure you know better than I do what is right for me. Mind your own fucking business. Why is that so hard to understand?

Yet Isabel freely attempts to tell other people what they should read, what their knowledge base should be, what they should be concerned about, what their areas of interest and focus should be, and what they should talk about on their own blogs.

Sadly, I doubt she even realises that this is what she is doing. As long as you do not follow her - and only her - idea of a rigidly distributed discussion, then you aren't just focusing on the wrong areas (god forbid other people might have different interests to her) but you are failing as a person.

I shouldn't even have to say "Mind your own fucking business." for people to get what is utterly and totally wrong with her arguement.

Responses are unlikely to get a reply, unless they contain non-self-contradictory discussion, which is also unlikely.

"I DID tell YOU to STFU PLEASE."

Anyone else get a mental picture of a five year old yelling at her teddy bear?

You don't decide who is forced to shut up on a blog you don't run. It's not condescending to point out that YOU don't run this space and therefore don't get to control it.

"It's not condescending to point out that YOU don't run this space and therefore don't get to control it. "

Hey Asshole,
explain to my poor widdle 5-year-old self how I was trying to control anything. And include in your explanation evidence that other people around here are not trying to control anything with their arguments.Good luck with that.

The comments that seem to have led to all the rude, condescending attacks on me are comments #30 and #36. I await your analysis of these comments. How are they so much more objectionable than anyone else's?

Now look at all th comments directed at me. Tell me how these are examples of NOT trying to control. Good luck. You'll need it.

Also how it is obvious, unwelcome, advice to tell me to get my own blog just because people are uncomfortable with my ideas NOT conndescending? Good luck with that one also genius.

"Yet Isabel freely attempts to tell other people what they should read,what their knowledge base should be,"

No one on science blogs ever does this except Isabel Hahahahahahah.

"...what they should be concerned about, what their areas of interest and focus should be, and what they should talk about on their own blogs. "

So you disagree that class is an important category of privilege? You feel liberal progressives only need to talk about it if they FEEL LIKE talking about it? Please explain. I'm all ears.

"and only her - idea of a rigidly distributed discussion, then you aren't just focusing on the wrong areas (god forbid other people might have different interests to her) "

WTF are you talking about? OMG people become COMPLETELY UNHINGED when class is brought up!

"I shouldn't even have to say "Mind your own fucking business." for people to get what is utterly and totally wrong with her arguement."

WHAT is wrong with my argument that we should unpack various privileges? Do you think it is perfectly okay to blame "unenlightened" lower class whites for the sins of upper class whites? Do you think class differences do not exist? Do you thing that all a person has to do is work hard and they will be rewarded with a place in the upper classes, so therefore lower class white people are lazy? What exactly IS your argument? Do tell. I can't wait to hear it, though I doubt you have one.

On second thought, Cara/Endor/Dedj, you win. I won't post on the subject anymore. I leave you with a repeat of this question from #46 above, which as usual went unanswered. Think about it okay? Goodbye.

"How have I marginalized anyone? When there is a sexism discussion going on and someone points out that there is a racist element that is being overlooked, no one screams at them for marginalizing anyone and judges their comments as sexist."

From temper tantrum, ala "SHUT UP" to temper tantrum ala, "I'm going home and never coming back." What is especially sad is that given past experience to draw on, this isn't true.

Because when someone brings up race during a conversation about sexism, they don't generally start talking about racism towards men. Likewise, when conversations about racism touch on sexism, they don't generally start talking about white chicks.

I seriously doubt you will take my advice, as you seem bent on playing this part over and over again, but I strongly suggest that you seek help. There are plenty of great therapists out there who can help you deal with obviously strenuous issues, that cause you to mimic in all to many ways, a petulant child. My two year old has rather more reserve than you show (though I suspect he is a crotchety old man, in a toddler's body).

Unfortunately, I am sure you will be back to this discussion right suddenly. Probably on this very post.

I may be alone in this, but while I definitely understand the arguments that Isabel's intersectionality sometimes seems misfire (as DuWayne described), I am not at all comfortable with rhetorical tactics that seek to metaphorically describe her as a child. It's such a common way of dismissing women's voices to say that they are hysterical or petulant or childish. It doesn't seem like the best way to conduct a dialogue on a feminist blog; I hope I haven't overstepped in saying this.

You're not alone--I second this.

There are lots of ways to take issue with a woman's ideas without resorting to traditionally gendered tactics.

Comrade Svilova, SKM - I admit I don't quite grasp how that crack was a "gendered tactic", but regardless, I apologize then for using it. Certainly wasn't my intention, but intention is irrelevant. My mistake, I'll own it. Apologies. Consider it retracted.

Endor, by using the phrase "gendered tactic", I implied conscious intent on your part. Poor word choice of mine--sorry.

As for not grasping why it's sexist/gendered, I think Comrade S. says it pretty well:

It's such a common way of dismissing women's voices to say that they are hysterical or petulant or childish.

It's pretty standard in the culture as a whole to undermine women's credibility by likening them to children. That eternal-child status is also what has kept women disenfranchised and powerless for much of recorded history, and the common belief that women are mentally/emotionally child-like compared to men is what gives the comparison its sting. So, it's different than telling a man that he's like a child in tantrum, for example.

Ah, I see what you both mean now. I should have seen that myself. I was intending to say she is acting extremely childishly, but you're right - I def should have recognized the sexist slant to stating as such. Again, apologies. I def retract it.

Ah, but what does that say of our treatment of children?

In my personal experience, we do not effectively encourage emotional self control in others through ridiculing them.

DuWaynne you ass, I said I was not going to post here on the subject of class anymore, and I won't. Although I did leave one more message on your brother's site - the latest racism thread there was too perfect an example of the scapegoating I am against. And yeah, if I can't post on a subject I will probably soon get bored with reading. Anyway every time I have left a blog I didn't come back. I made no other promises. And your message is ridiculously nonsensical. You are the most arrogant and entitled quasi-ally I have ever encountered on the blogs. What a windbag.

Yes the attacks on me are obviously sexist. I have pointed this out before. Actually the petulant child label is fairly new, the main way I have been dismissed is by CPP and others calling me a loon (as DuWaynne does here) with zero evidence. Maybe a little playfulness now and then and a bit of eccentricity but no I am not crazy. Duwaynne has repeatedly called me a 'fucking moron', with no evidence for that either.

And it's so funny how everyone is against my ideas or say I misfire but very little detail about their opposition ever emerges. I asked a number of questions on this thread with only one nonsensical answer from DuWaynne.

Obviously my ideas are not mainstream, even (especially actually) for the alternative crowd. So I do not expect to change perceptions overnight. But I am very confident and my ideas are well thought out. just as Jill at IBTP recently described her epiphany which led to the emergence of Twisty, I had a similar epiphany, after decades of hanging with progressives, that led to the emergence of Isabel.

Don't worry, unless you'll all get there eventually if you try - just let my ideas percolate for a while.

Sorry for the typos, I am exhausted and should have previewed my message.

And the last line should be:

"Don't worry, you'll all get there eventually if you try - just let my ideas percolate for a while. "

Comrade and SKM -

I am not mocking her for throwing a fit because she has an innie instead of an outie, I am mocking her for throwing a fit. I don't care what one's gender happens to be, when they act like a child that is the response. I will note that I run across a lot more men who act like that and believe me, I do not hesitate in the least. When nominal adults act worse than my two year old does, they are going to get criticized for it.

Isabel -

Anyway every time I have left a blog I didn't come back.

Of course not, you just like to come back repeatedly after you say you won't. You've done it multiple times at Greg's and CPP's blogs.

And your message is ridiculously nonsensical.

Don't blame me for your reading comprehension issues.

You are the most arrogant and entitled quasi-ally I have ever encountered on the blogs.

You mean I have CPP beat, on your "people who have no tolerance for my bullshit" list?!?!??!

Yes the attacks on me are obviously sexist.

No, I just really don't like you and find your little mind games repulsive. Don't be surprised when I mock you for throwing a fit. I expect that is what garnered that reaction from others.

...calling me a loon (as DuWaynne does here) with zero evidence.

While I have called you a loon in the past, I have stopped because based on the commentary I have seen from you, I believe you honestly need help. I don't accuse people who are mentally ill of being loons, that kind of stigma pisses me off. I don't like you and I will not let your bullshit lie, when it is in my face. But that is not a tactic I will use.

Maybe a little playfulness now and then and a bit of eccentricity but no I am not crazy.

Your "playfulness" has pissed people off, when you have called it that. Not because of the content, but because you felt it was ok to play with people's heads who haven't chosen to play with you. You have persisted in that behavior, when you have been asked to stop. I sincerely doubt you are being playful. Your behavior taken as a whole is pathological. That is a values neutral assessment, made by someone who is considered, as our society considers such things now, mentally ill. The difference is that I am getting help for it.

The funny thing is, my neurological issues sometimes influence my behavior rather negatively. When it does I admit it has and apologize - apologies that are accepted sometimes, other times not. But I admit what has happened and accept the consequences.

"That is a values neutral assessment, made by someone who is considered, as our society considers such things now, mentally ill. The difference is that I am getting help for it."
With respect, perhaps you need more help before engaging Isabel. Or perhaps more help would alter motivations to do so.

I don't care what one's gender happens to be, when they act like a child that is the response.

I'm perfectly willing to believe that you do dismiss both men and women when you feel they are being immature. However, you can't control the fact that another 75% (approx?) of humanity does use the woman-are-children or women-are-crazy rhetorical tactic to dismiss women's voices. Therefore, when a woman is called hysterical, petulant, loony, crazy, childish she is likely to hear it as a sexist insult. You're perfectly free to continue to use "childish" to describe both men and women, but you may want to know that when you use "childish" (or any of the other words listed) to describe the way a woman with whom you disagree is acting, you may be seen by others as a sexist.

Intent and one's own history of using a word matter little. Though we have freedom of speech on the internet, we don't have the freedom to control how our speech will influence how others see us. And the use of gendered words can definitely leave a negative impression in its wake.

"I'm perfectly willing to believe that you do dismiss both men and women when you feel they are being immature." That's right, believe him and take his side. He is special, an ally, not like all those other evil redneck-type men.

Just because he barges in on any conversation he desires to and claims to be the expert, treats me abusively (he called me a fucking moron a dozen times in a single comment once, and obsessively follows me around and completely mis-characterizes my messages and ignores my corrections) to the point where I've had to leave conversations, thinks most rape is about sex and promises to explain this to rape victims, etc, he knows how to say all the right things so, like CPP, so he's okay, an exception.

Hey Zuska, this post is pretty ironic considering how you reacted (EXACTLY like GMP) when I called you out for ignoring classism. And no, posting about the poorest of the poor is uncontroversial and doesn't count for much. Why don't you do a series on The Hidden Injuries of Class?

Why don't you do a series on The Hidden Injuries of Class?

Isabel, (and please understand, this is not mocking, condescending or "rude"), why don't you do that?

You know what you want to say. You know what messages you want people to receive. You have a firm grasp of the subject. Why assign Zuska homework on her own blog?

"Isabel, (and please understand, this is mocking, condescending and "rude")"

Fixed that for ya.

One more time.

Why assign homework on someone else's blog, when you're the one who's the expert and could (ostensibly) do a better job?

Jeezus fuck Cara, having an epiphany did not make me an instant expert - it's a fucking huge subject that needs lots and lots of discussing by everyone concerned with issues of inequality and unearned privilege. Imagine someone trying to point out some racism on a feminism thread and everyone telling that person to go start her own blog rather than bother them about it, as she's obviously the expert on the subject, etc. It's totally rude and offensive.

Honestly I don't post nearly as much as many other commenters around here. When the time is right to start my own blog I will no doubt do it. I have repeatedly stated I do not need any advice on this tired old topic.

And I didn't assign any fucking homework, just made a suggestion. In fact someone else already made it upthread, and Zuska recommended the book to the commenter. So it was a normal, reasonable follow-up suggestion, and I really feel you are being a pain in the ass here. GOMB. Go harrass the person who made the original suggestion.

Telling me that if I want class discussed I should go elsewhere and discuss it because obviously everyone here is not interested in the subject and it is MY very own special subject is akin to telling me to get lost and marginalizing my concerns.

You could always just ignore me you know. It's much more effective than telling me that my ideas are not valid which just gives me an excuse to repeat them;)

"Intent and one's own history of using a word matter little. Though we have freedom of speech on the internet, we don't have the freedom to control how our speech will influence how others see us. And the use of gendered words can definitely leave a negative impression in its wake."

Exactly. which is why I retracted my statement. Bad blunder on my part. I still think she's behaving like an insufferable troll, but the way i expressed it was completely wrong.

Intent doesn't matter as other people, particularly on an internet forum, when others don't know you and can't gauge subtext.

So, Duwayne, I'm with you in one respect, but Comrade Svilova, et al, are completely right. It's how it will be received that matters.

Cara - at this point, why bother? You've tried altering everything to suit her. She's clearly uninterested in anything other than what's she's been doing. Save yourself.

I've had epiphanies that made me act like an insufferable troll before. I had one about sexism, one about classism, one about gay rights, about Christianity (leaving it), and racism. Everytime I went through a phase where I believed I'd found THE answer. Isabel: class is one issue. It is not THE issue. Either is sexism or any other "-ism". These are all different expressions of kyriarchy. Any of the individual -isms can look like the fundamental power imbalance, but really they are all just expressions of it. And yes, a lot of people who have had epiphanies about race and gender have not yet had one about class, but a lot of the people you are fighting tooth and nail against here have. But I don't want to discourage you from fighting tooth and nail. You have obviously tapped into something that gets under people's skin and if that's your chosen way to fight against the injustice you see, then I say keep fighting. If you get under my skin, I'll thank you for it.

"If you get under my skin, I'll thank you for it."

I say "ramen" to that. When arguing in good faith, that is.

It's good to see that Isabel is still trolling up the blogosphere, one blog at a time.

You could always just ignore me you know. It's much more effective than telling me that my ideas are not valid which just gives me an excuse to repeat them;)

I don't recall ever saying your ideas were "invalid".

MY only point was that if you want something done to your satisfaction, it's easiest to do it yourself. ;)

(Especially since the 'suggestion' was made in the midst of a rant at the OP; I know I'd be less likely to take any suggestion from someone who was flailing at me on my own blog).

"It is not THE issue."

I *never* said it was. Why do people keep making this claim? That in itself is a sign I am getting under their skin.

I only think it should be included in the discussion, and aside from my "trolling" (fuck you all) it generally is not.

After the revolution can I live on a nature preserve and buy me some horses and quit my job like Jill Psmith?

Cara I have said repeatedly that your advice is unwanted. You are being creepy by repeatedly posting it as if I don't get it.

Also how were my original comments #30 and #36 on this thread "acting like an insufferable troll?" Why was I attacked for them?

Most of my posts are just me defending myself from attacks. Even including those, the amount of posting from me is absurdly exaggerated.

Chill people. Let other voices be heard.

After the revolution can I live on a nature preserve and buy me some horses and quit my job like Jill Psmith?

Careful what you wish for - it's expensive to keep horses in Central Texas. You can't just turn them out in a field to eat grass, sunflowers, and mesquite beans, because there isn't much grass (sometimes none at all), and the other two items are seasonal and in short supply (horse snacks, really). At the very least, you have to provide coastal hay year 'round, and in most cases supplement that with grain and/or alfalfa hay. The majority of horsey places in the US aren't Kentucky bluegrass, and even if you have your own hay field on your property, you're still going to have to pay to water it, fertilize it, make sure it's free of blister beetles, and likely hire someone to cut and bale it. People are giving horses away right now, because it's so expensive to maintain them. I board my two horses on my friends' ranch, pay a bit over cost of feed and hay each month ... and I definitely need a full time job to manage even a deal that good. Plus I have to endure listening to crap from my colleagues about how "privileged" and "rich" I must be, on pretty much a weekly basis.

Just sayin'. :-)

Nobody cares if you talk.

Again, my only reason for posting was to address the fact that you were behaving as if you were entitled to rant at the blog owner for not posting what you think she should.

Also, I didn't give you advice. I said if a person got their own blog they'd get to control the comments and the posts.

And that's all. Please, do go on. I, for one, have no desire to stop you from being heard.

the U.S. obsession with showering, deodorizing, and perfuming away every last trace of normal body odor Real Americans find so disgusting. ... the U.S. mania for showering, deodorizing, and perfuming away any trace of normal body scent

I am proud to be an Ugly American on this matter. Really, I don't want to inhale anybody else's stank. Also, "normal body scent" = more bacteria on your skin. I'd say that an aversion to it and a desire to wash it away is hygienic, overall.

I SO hope that this doesn't become the next batshit cause of the Critical Studies crew, the way complaining about the word "stupid" or insisting that children have the "right" to scream and throw food in public.

"The deodorant-soap industrial complex..." Jesus fucking christ, Alex. I bet you absolutely pong.

Where do you get the idea that it means more bacteria? BO doesn't work at all like you assert it does, the smell of sweat is the smell of waste from bacteria, not the bacteria themselves. Even if it was true, more bacteria on your skin doesn't mean more HARMFUL bacteria on your skin. There are many beneficial bacteria, it shouldn't be tossed around like a bad word.

And in fact, some of those harmful bacteria might be good to have around, because the typical human immune system developed to combat more harmful bacteria than we tend to encounter in this excessively-hygenic era. Some scientists are exploring whether the uptick in auto-immune disorders like food allergies is a result of the immune system having too little to fight against from the outside -- which leads the immune system to attack non-harmful things like gluten etc.

That's nice. I still don't want to smell anybody's pong, thanks. Jeez, I can't believe I'm seeing this shit defended.

"Jeez, I can't believe I'm seeing this shit defended."

Why not?

Surely you don't seriously believe your cultures opinion on socially acceptable physical and olfactory presentation is the only correct and defensible one?

You do realise that hygiene and personal grooming are not always directly exchangeable terms?

Seriously, it's nice that you gave us your opinion, but it's not so nice that you refuse point blank to even contemplate the idea that your opinion is only your opinion and not a rigid statement of fact.

b.g., it's not really about whether you personally want to get up close and personal with someone whose hygiene habits lead to a smell you find distasteful. I don't think anyone here is saying that you, personally, should do or change anything about your choices, habits, and preferences. This thread was more of a systemic, cultural, historical look at the significance of different hygiene practices and how differences in hygienic practices have been presented through racialized lenses. And then Skeptifem and I were pointing out a couple of questions from the scientific side about whether the West's extreme commitment to hygiene is really necessary, or if it is potentially overkill.

It's an interesting question. It's not "shit" to those of us who find it interesting, but if it is to you, perhaps you shouldn't read a thread that bothers you so much?

A Rose By Any Other Name...Looks Less Thorny To American Eyes

thusspakezuska — Mon, 24 May 2010 13:28:35 +0000

A Rose By Any Other Name...Looks Less Thorny To American Eyes

I recently got the chance to view "The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo". This is the best film I have ever seen in my life. It is not an easy film to watch. If you are a survivor of sexual abuse and want to see it, you may want to watch it with a trusted friend or two, with planned time afterward to help you process what you have seen. Terrible things do happen to the heroine, Lisbeth Salander, but the vengeance she exacts upon the evil-doers in the film is so perfect and so delicious and so right that you may be okay. Indeed, if men who so casually perpetrate violence against women had to worry about blowback like this, there'd be a helluva lot less of that shit going down. Which makes me sorta wish that this film would be required viewing for young women as a sort of training film: How To Deal With The Patriarchy 101. Ah, a girl can dream.

As you may well be aware, the Swedish title of the book that inspired the film - and of the film itself - translates literally as "Men Who Hate Women". Now, that's a perfectly good title, and in many ways far more apt for the film's subject matter than GWTDT. But I suppose the powers-that-be decided that such a title just wouldn't fly with American viewing audiences, even in the little arthouse theaters where this film is mostly showing. Why would that be?

The movie includes as central, important characters, several men who are sympathetic, helpful, and clearly do not hate women. But even if the original title had been "This Book is about One Bad Man Who, It Seems, Hated Women", I suspect the marketing powers-that-be in the U.S. feared it would be seen and heard as "This Is A Feminist Screed About Women Who Think That All Men, Who Really Are Fabulous, Are Hateful Creatures Who Hate Women, So Don't Bother Buying A Ticket, Even Though This Was Written By A Man ". In this light, we can read "The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo" as "Hey! This Is An Interesting Film About A Girl (Not A Woman, Don't Be Scared) Who Has A Nifty Tattoo, And Tattoos Are So Cool, And I Bet You Would Like This, Because Girls With Tats Are Hot!"

Without revealing much about the plot, it should be noted that Lisbeth is the complete and total heroine of the tale. She is physically strong, courageous, fierce, drives the cool vehicle and handles it with total control in the crucial chase scene, rescues her lover, is the planner and executor of vengeance, is the computer whiz, is the one who cracks the code and the case, is the mysterious aloof stranger who leaves her lover wanting to know more about her, and handily crafts a resolution for the problems in her partner/lover's life after dealing with all the main plot issues. There is nothing that she is not crucial to doing, figuring out, making happen. Her partner, who has been assigned the task of working on a 40-year-old cold case, is making little or no headway until Lisbeth joins forces with him, and at the end, verbally concedes that she was responsible for solving the mystery. Her computer skills, her technological savvy, her photographic memory, her savant mind are all as necessary as her fearlessness, strength, and ability to wield a golf club in making their way through the thicket.

How then, do you explain this from a review by John Timpane in Sunday's Philadelphia Inquirer?

Where Salander works by slashing, unguessed strokes, often stoked by vicious vengefulness and disregard for law (as long as the right people are punished), Blomkvist relies on skills, on dogged, hard-earned know-how. Between the two, a snarled, sick skein of international intrigue, involving ancient corruption at the highest levels, untangles.

I'm sorry, but this is complete, utter bullshit. Salander knows how to work her way through an archive just as well as Blomkvist does. To paint him as the partner with skills and her as some slashing, blind vengeance-driven creature of instinct and not of know-how is just wrong, and an insult to everything this is about.

About that "vicious vengefulness" - I guess it depends upon your point of view. When I saw "Inglorious Basterds" and saw the near final scenes in the theater, I thought "wow! this is fabulous! you just can't kill Hitler hard enough!" The vengeance in GWTDT - or, more properly, Men Who Hate Women - against the kinds of men who truly do hate women is fabulous in the same way, in both senses of the word. Vicious, I think, is the word I would save for the violence against women those men have perpetrated that called down the vengeance upon their heads.

thusspakezuska Mon, 05/24/2010 - 09:28

Tags

Geekalicious

Ludicrous Language

Men Who Hate Women

I have this book and have yet to read it. I will for sure now - and will definitely go see the movie. Thanks!

Am reading the books out of order, accidentally. I started with "The Girl Who Plays With Fire", and loved it. Now am reading "The Girl With The Dragon Tatoo", and will be happy to get my hands on the third book, "The Girl Who Kicked The Hornet's Nest". Hope the third lives up to the first two. Had *no* idea there was a movie. But it is officially on my must-see list!

There's not just ONE man who hates women in this series...

I haven't read these books, but my husband is reading them right now, and his comment was that the author must be a sadist with a secret desire to perpetrate violence on women because of the amount of violence described. Not sure what that says about men who read those books till 3am. Anyway it kind of put me off, no matter how smart the heroine is. Still, the books and the film may differ.

It isn't too surprising that the books feature a strong, capable woman because they were most likely co-authored by a very strong, capable woman. Eva Gabrielsson was Stieg Larsson's long term partner; they were unable to marry for security reasons due to his previous work as a journalist. She is a noted translator and said to be a fine writer, whereas Larsson's previous journalistic work was pretty plodding.

The whole story is mind boggling and has not yet been resolved.

The movie cuts away so much of the book that it is somewhat disjoint, especially the subplot about WennerstrÃ¶m, but I suspect the rape and revenge scenes are done in a lot more ugly and realistic way than the future Hollywood version will dare. (Actually I have only seen the somewhat longer TV-version that I'm not even sure is available outside Sweden)

In addition to being a superhero, Salander is also deeply psychologically disturbed and unable to form any lasting relations, but you have to read the second and third book (or movies) to find out the reason for this. What you see in the first movie is just a pale shadow of what she has endured before.

I confess I was exceedingly depressed to discover, shortly after viewing the film, that there were plans afoot for a Hollywood version. I can only imagine what a wan imitative travesty Hollywood will make of this. They'll get someone like Katherine Heigl to play Salander "for broader appeal" and, most definitely, they'll water down the rape and revenge scenes, because rape should only be portrayed in American cinema in a sort of we-know-it's-wrong-but-isn't-it-really-sort-of-titillating-and-hot, because every d00d would love to do it if he could and every woman would secretly love to have some strong man sweep her away a la Rhett Butler. Revenge? Women don't get to take revenge. They'll reassign the cleverness with computers and technology to the reporter, because that will just seem more normal and believable, and because they Hollywood writers just won't understand what to do with his role while she's doing all the figuring out. It is difficult for me to imagine how it can not come out awful.

And Pen, that's an...interesting perspective your husband has expressed. From my perspective, we are fed a steady daily diet of sadistic violence against women in normal Hollywood fare disguised as entertainment - one after another lovingly staged and filmed rape scenes, where we see how much the rapist is enjoying what he is doing, and we the audience get to share in the enjoyment. The dozens of horror films where beautiful young women are killed in ever more creative and violent means for our enjoyment over a tub of popcorn. In films or tv, when you encounter teh sadist who locks up people (usually women) in his basement to torture and kill them - aren't those scenes usually drawn out and erotically charged? How many times have you watched a movie or tv scene where a woman was resisting the sexual pressure of a man - maybe he was even pretty rough and aggressive with her - and then, oh, it turns out, she really was just resisting herself, because, yeah, she really wanted him, and finally gave in and they made passionate love. Count for me, if you will, the number of times in an American film you have seen a sex scene focused entirely on the woman's physical gratification, not the man's.

If you really have watched a number of American films and paid much attention, and you watch this film, the absolute stark difference is astonishing. There is explicit violence portrayed but it is not portrayed to titillate or amuse. This film was most definitely not made with the male gaze in mind and I cannot imagine that the book it was drawn from was written by a sadist, but rather by someone intent on exposing the institutional-wide, society-wide, pervasive evils of patriarchy. Sadists enjoy violence and none of the violence in this film was portrayed in any way that was the least bit titillating or enjoyable. With one exception: the vengeance, which is experienced as a relief and form of justice in a world where the ordinary forms of justice cannot be relied upon.

I just noticed, that review seems to be based on the stereotype, possibly subconsciously, of the "logical male, emotional female." There are, of course, some who insist that this stereotype is grounded in reality. The fact that the ideal is completely absent in some cultures suggests otherwise. Perhaps we need more intellectual heroines.

Zuska, I can't remember how it was shown in the movie, but at least based on the book you are wrong in claiming Salander did all the significant work in finding the killer. She added some pieces and Blomkvist some. Both were necessary, but I think Blomkvist was the more important.

But you certainly have the right idea about the book being written "by someone intent on exposing the institutional-wide, society-wide, pervasive evils of patriarchy" rather than by some sadist. Just because you write about violence you don't have to like it.

Thomas, I haven't read the book, but in the movie she absolutely on her own cracks the code that Blomkvist is making no headway whatsoever with. She is the one with the computer and technology skills necessary to save them both in the end from the killer. Blomkvist tells the retired police dude "if it is of any consolation to you, it wasn't me who solved it [the 40 year old cold case] either".

Film and book don't match one to one, which is how it should be anyway. The three books seem to have been written with a single story arc to them (so says the NY Times article about Larsson, which also mentions that the English translations were so mucked about with by editorial "help" that the translator asked to have his name removed, so God knows what it might have read like once upon a time). But Lisbeth is the character with the depth, the growth and development in the trilogy; so I don't think any final pronouncements about her can be made without seeing that complete arc. Timpane's review is, at best, ridiculously simplistic.

Film: It is, to me, a superb film, and as you say, Zuska, not easy to watch in parts, which is as it should be, whereas for me "Inglorious Basterds" was a kind of anti-Nazi wet dream at the end (yes, you just can't kill Hitler enough, thank you), and thus tapped nothing like the same emotions of revulsion that TDWTDT does.

I shake my head in doubt about the American version of the same that's in the works, as Hollywood's history of dealing with such subject matter has me anticipating that a major work of torture-porn is in the offing.

The amount of violence described might be to provoke disgust.

I remember reading things like The Hot Zone a long time ago, it had horrific and graphic descriptions of what happens when people contract the ebola virus. No one suggested that there was some pornographic aspect to that. But when I read American Psycho a few years later, many people suggested to me that the graphic descriptions were meant to be erotic (the whole point imo was that a blank slate of a man with privilege like bateman is bound to turn into such a horrible creature, not to turn anyone on). The cultural context of violence against women is what makes graphic descriptions into potential pornography- if there weren't so many people who get off on that crap it wouldn't cross anyones mind. When it is meant to elicit disgust I don't mind reading about violence aimed at women. This is part of why I gave up on the idea of writing some great fiction piece to reveal some kind of social truth- people don't get it and you get the creepiest kind of fans who like your work for the exact wrong reasons. On TV tropes there is an endless list of examples in the 'misaimed fandom' entry. I guess skinheads are into American History X even though it is a blatantly anti racist in message. Woah.

Zuska, it is correct that Salander cracked the Bible code, but that was only one part of the puzzle. The movie simplified a lot. And sure, Salander did save Blomkvist's life in the end, but later on he saves her life when she has been shot and is bleeding to death and proves she is innocent when she is accused of multiple murders and risk either jail or being locked up in a mental institution for life. (hope that was more of a teaser than a spoiler)

It's sad to hear from Gregory that the books were messed up in translation to English. Come to think of it, I have no idea how much the Swedish version was edited either, and with the author dead editing could have changed his vision of the books a lot.

From my perspective, we are fed a steady daily diet of sadistic violence against women in normal Hollywood fare disguised as entertainment - one after another lovingly staged and filmed rape scenes, where we see how much the rapist is enjoying what he is doing, and we the audience get to share in the enjoyment.

Is this really still a problem? I'm not disagreeing with you, I just haven't seen it myself. Then again, I really only watch sci-fis and comedies. Any specific movies you can mention that feature this kind of crap? I'm kind of surprised people can get away with this nowadays.

Are you seriously asking this question, Brandon? The whole popularity of slasher films just passed you by? You missed the sub-genre of those films known by its oh-so-obfuscating category name of torture porn? Just seeing a still from the movie Hostel in my local paper was enough to give me nightmares - I can't imagine what it did for thousands of survivors of rape and torture. Right now my tv is playing a rerun of Law and Order SVU - I'll need to change the channel, because I find that show disturbing for the way in which it often lingers lovingly over the abuse. If you haven't "seen it for yourself" it may be because we are so tutored to think of this stuff as normal and acceptable - as entertaining, not disturbing.

Or it could be that I don't see a whole lot of movies and TV and really don't keep up with that kind of stuff. Or that I tend to avoid especially violent and gory media so I wouldn't know too much about it. Nah, it must be because I was tutored to find rape entertaining. Thanks for clarifying, Zuska.

shorter Brandon:
"I haven't seen it myself"
"I don't see a whole lot"
"really don't keep up"
"tend to avoid"
"wouldn't know too much about it"

Thanks for clarifying.
yeah, we know.

Yeah, because God forbid I genuinely want to learn about something I am ignorant about. I'm done here.

It's actually the whole english speaking world that calls it the girl with the dragon tattoo- so not just an American problem. Most of the other european languages I can recongise enough of to roughly translate have kept what looks like the orginal literal translation from Swedish.

Haven't seen the movie but I have read all the books in English. The whole series is one story arc. The first book makes more sense after the third one is finished.

I heard the French translate the first book as "Men who don't love women", which is a considerably understatement.

@skeptifem -
Agreeing with your take on American Psycho. Interesting that *many* thought it a direct attack on feminism, though.

@Brandon, aka Mr."I'm done here." -
Yay! Don't let the door hit ya in the ass.

Re American Psycho: I used to find the movie tolerable to watch in terms of rapey-killyness, but, not so much lately. The book - well, I still have actual nightmares from skimming through it when i was 15 yrs old

Does TGWTDT pass the Bechdel Test?

I read the book, and the female character is deeply flawed as a result of her experiences (trying to be non-spoilery!, hence the vagueness). So its irritating to hear that in the movie she becomes the perfect superwoman, because that's an irritating trope hollywood puts on women too - be gorgeous, skinny, brilliant AND kickass. That's a woman! Perfect in every single way, except with one adorable flaw that makes her 'human'. Like, maybe she doesn't do dishes.

The book is one long ode to rape and torture as an enjoyable entertainment for men - clearly the point is, it makes 'better' women, women who turn out to be these great action heroines, so obviously its a good idea, because its what propels women to greatness. Not a great read.

Jess, yes the movie pass the Bechdel Test. I had to think a while to come up with a scene where two women talk to each other, though, since the number of women in the first movie is limited.

Jess -

I was actually referring to the book which is heavy stuff to be sure. I haven't seen the movie in a while but I always appreciated what Mary Harron and Guinevere Turner were trying to do with it.

Y'all may find this interview with Mary, Brent and Christian interesting: http://www.charlierose.com/view/interview/3750

against the kinds of men who truly do hate women

You may want to correct this, as it implies that you might possibly think that there are men who do not hate women. As we all know, all men are woman-hating patriarchal "d00ds" (and likely serial rapists). Wouldn't want your street cred to get hurt. Love your work! Have a nice day.

In Spain is translated "Men that don't love women".

@Brandon: I know you've long gone but...

You said you knew of no examples of films which glorify woman-pain. Zuska reacted slightly disbelieving and gave you lots of examples finishing with the fact that it may be that people (hint: PEOPLE, NOT JUST *YOU*!) are socially programmed not too see them as it's so endemic in the culture.

You responded by throwing a hissy fit and saying that actually the real reason was because you didn't watch films. And you were leaving because you take general social comments personally and find them offensive.

If you'd thought of that when asking your original question, and realised maybe the reason you didn't see stuff in films was because you didn't actually watch them, woud have saved us all a bit of time, effort, and stupidity.

"Count for me, if you will, the number of times in an American film you have seen a sex scene focused entirely on the woman's physical gratification, not the man's."

They actually covered Zuska's above point in "This Movie Is Not Yet Rated.": The filmmakers, I think, succeeded in making the case that the ratings board tends to give NC-17 ratings to movies where women's sexual pleasure is graphically portrayed (the ratings board has a problem with sex in general, particularly non-heterosexual sex-- and much less of a problem with violence, it seems).

Kimberly Pierce was told that her movie, "Boys Don't Cry", was being given an NC-17 rating partly for an extended shot focusing on Lana's face as she has an orgasm. It may be worth mentioning that another part of the reason she was given an NC-17 rating was for a scene depicting the violent rape of Brandon Teena, but it was also, I think (from my dim memory of it) not an eroticized scene-- just about the pain and violence.

They also showed a clip of an interview with Maria Bello about "The Cooler" where the ratings board got upset about a shot that lasted a fraction of a second where they saw her pubic hair after William Macy's character went down on her. She was upset because she'd just seen an R-rated flick (Scary Movie) in which Carmen Electra got stabbed in the breast in the first scene. She didn't understand why that was somehow more acceptable than a post-orgasm glimpse of her pubic hair.

The movie "But I'm A Cheerleader" was also apparently cited by the board and given an NC-17 rating partly for a scene of the female lead character masturbating though her nightgown, even though she's fully clothed.

It's pretty depressing. They'll give PG-13 ratings to movies where a guy is clearly making his girlfriend fellate him (2002's "Big Trouble") to "comedic effect", but heavens, they can't show people that women might just enjoy having orgasms. Or that, you know, women have pubic hair.

Just finished the book last night (bought #2 today from the local indie bookstore); will see the movie if and when I find out how the animal violence is handled (that's a trigger.)

Anyway, about the name. I ended up liking the name change. I love the word girl when used the way it is in the title. For me, it's subversive. (I hear it as a variant of "grrl".) But I also like knowing what the original title is. It made me much more aware that the very pro-feminist lens of the story was a conscious act on the part of the male writer. That was nice.

And about the reviewer characterizing Salander as operating on "unguessed strokes"... WTF? There's no guessing in Salander's strokes.

I liked this movie a lot.

I think the rape scenes are very interesting. They're different, with the first one focusing on the aspect of threats, coercion and humiliation, and the second one on physical violence and pain. Taken together, I think they do a good job of having any viewer (male or female) understand what it must feel like to be a rape victim. Both are painful to watch. And the revenge is cathartic and liberating.

Also, another thing is interesting. It's not only that all the work is done by a woman. Lisbeth Salander is not just a woman, she's a crazy woman. I like the fact that it shows a mentally unbalanced person doing something complicated and useful, pulling the plot forward almost by herself, and also being a good friend and lover (though rather special and fragile, of course). In many movies, mentally troubled characters tend to fall into a small number of stereotypes (primarily, of course, the psychopathic criminal), and they're dysfunctional 100% of the time, which is not too realistic.

Christophe, what makes you think that Salander is a "crazy woman"? I did not get that impression.

To "anonymoose" - see the movie before you give your verdict, with which I perhaps would not agree anyway, as I don't agree with your statement that "The book is one long ode to rape and torture as an enjoyable entertainment for men" etc. You've missed the point, methinks. What I like about the book(s) is that people are human, all have their flaws, both men and women (depending what each one of us think is a flaw). I do not take the book as a condemnation of men and glorification of women. I would say that Larsson is trying to point out that women are also people, and can be as strong and intelligent as men. And what he criticizes is the society that makes putting down and abusing women because they are women something natural and acceptable, makes them "legitimate" targets.

@Christophe: I haven't seen the movie so I will include the caveat that Salander's sanity may not be as evident as it is in the book. But in the book, Larsson is very careful to show that Salander is not only completely sane, but is the moral center of the story. She is a character that is completely free of rape apologism and shows how different that is.

Just saw the movie -- can't wait to read the books! -- and I was absolutely blown away by how well the movie handled the rape scenes and the overall psychology of all the rapists (definitely "men" who hate women, with Mikael and Henrik as welcome reliefs). I couldn't watch the rape scenes in full, but it seemed to me that the message of the film is that rape is NOT about sex, but is about hatred of women combined with a need to assert oneself, inflict pain, and seize authority. I'm just repeating what Zuska said above; this film is leagues ahead of anything else I've seen in depicting the true nature of rape and violent misogyny.

I do not want to see the Hollywood version.

Wah Wah, Where Is The Stuff For White Men?

thusspakezuska — Tue, 04 May 2010 07:14:10 +0000

Wah Wah, Where Is The Stuff For White Men?

A recent conversation with a friend reminded me of yet another of the "death by a thousand paper cuts**" craptastic things I used to hate dealing with in my days in the scientific workforce. You know what I'm talking about. Could be a retreat, a workshop, a seminar, a meeting, a program, maybe even just a discussion, but whatever it is, diversity is the subject, explicit or implicit. On one occasion it was a discussion about whether a tiny little space should be set aside for students of a certain group. On another it was a pizza party for women students. But ever and anon, at such occasions, you will hear the plaintive wail:

"Where is the [meeting/retreat/study room/pizza party/program] for white men?"

At K-State, where I was for a time director of the Women in Engineering and Science Program, I was asked not once but several times "Where is the program for men in engineering?" I had various answers. Sometimes, when I felt pissy, I would say, "That would be the whole College of Engineering." Sometimes when I felt polemical, I would say, "You know, that's a good question. It's good for us to think about why we need a program for women in engineering. Women can do engineering work, but engineering is not as successful in attracting and keeping them as it is with men. So in a sense, the program is more for the college of engineering than it is for the women." Sometimes, when I felt Socratic, I would say, "That's a good question. What do you think men need that they aren't getting, that a men in engineering program would provide?"

But all times, this is what I really wanted to say:

Jesus H. Christ! Every time I hear that "where is the whateverthefuck for white men" I want to say "seriously? Seriously? you think you are the first motherfucking white d00d in the whole motherfucking world to come up with that acid riposte in a diversity-related seminar/meeting/retreat/discussion? SERIOUSLY? Go away and come up with an ORIGINAL white d00d whine and we will think about giving you a diversity cookie. Until then, open up your motherfucking white d00d eyes and take a look around at how the whole entire world is plastered with signs that say 'White D00ds 'Specially Welcome Here!' 'K? Thx."

**(The) Knight Higher Education Collaborative (September 2001). Gender Intelligence. Policy Perspectives, 10(2), 1-9.

thusspakezuska Tue, 05/04/2010 - 03:14

Tags

Apologists for the Oppressors

Why There Are No Women in Science

WWZD

Sometimes, when I felt pissy, I would say, "That would be the whole College of Engineering."

When I was doing my undergrad at Caltech (which, at that time was 75-80% men), I worked at the Women's Center. We got these sorts of comments and questions all the time. "We need a men's center, too!" The director, when she was really torqued and knew no one else would hear, would turn to me and say, "That would be the whole damned school!" That was pretty much how it felt.

If, as seems likely, 'pizza party' is some sort of slang for 'lesbian orgy', couldn't you have just explained to the men that it was physically impossible for them to have a 'pizza party', but that you'd be happy to lay on a 'sausage fest' for them?

Sometimes, it's like you don't even TRY to see equitable solutions, Zuska.

I like this. Good job! I mean, for a girl.

Well, missy, clearly you aren't ever planning to work again. Because who would want to hire anyone who is so damn cranky when asked such a reasonable question? One of the cool things about privilege, surely, is how we're all equal - until activists kill the buzz. These "special" programs make the truly special feel less so, maybe even bad or left out and certainly not at the center as is normal and natural. Diversity hurts, Zuska.

Eatmycheesywedge, can I have your baby? I don't mean "can I"--I may be a girl but even I realize it's not scientifically possible--I mean, "may I?".

During my first stint in college years ago one of the frats was caught... doing some fratty thing, I can't even remember what. And a lot of frat boys (who, granted, were a minority at that school and didn't wield a lot of power) were whining about being oppressed because of their frat status. A line from an editorial in the school paper has stuck in my mind ever since. It was something like, well, you may feel oppressed now, but never fear, when you get out, "the world is your fraternity". That's the response that always comes to mind when I hear that particular whine.

I get so sick of this. Also, I get sick of hearing complaints about how, while there are many minority directed scholarships available for graduate students at my Uni, there are no scholarships for white men from affluent families. Seriously? What a ridiculous complaint!!!

Yeah, but where is the kick-ass alter-ego blog for white men?

I recently had a similar conversation with a labmate. I had to explain about disadvantages due to privilege/power imbalances - to his credit he was actually quite receptive. It was clear that he just hadn't thought about it before. But then he wanted to know why there wasn't special educational assistance set aside for people like him since he was "educationally disadvantaged" since his family wasn't wealthy.

Didn't you say you have student loans? Are they not need-based financial aid? Does this not address the specific disadvantage that you have experienced?

Oh. Well, yeah I guess, but *anybody* can get those.

(echo michelle)
The first time I heard it, I honestly couldn't believe that someone would complain about scholarships designed to attract minorities and underprivileged people to university. Some people honestly seem to think that totally unqualified minority students are being brought into engineering at the cost of some poor, intelligent white man that lost his spot at university because of affirmative action. I've also met people who seem to think that every woman/minority gets a scholarship or free tuition. In every case, it's hard to formulate a polite response instead of a strangulation.

But Ace! Is your diversity plane going to be based on Bernoulli's principle or are you going to make your airfoils flat out of principles of feminist equality so no point is higher than any other? We want just the best and brightest in engineering! Of course everyone wants to be nice to Others but what about standards? Most will agree it is good to have more Others in engineering and science - it is nice to have their pictures in your recruiting brochures, if nothing else - as long as nothing has to change.

As a white male that is an electrical engineer, I have to disagree with this post a bit.

Zuska seems to be misunderstanding the tongue-in-cheek request that white males have for their own special function. The question is "If other genders/races/creeds get a special group/lunch/club/seating area/scholarship/funding, why I am not allowed the same privileges?"

Just because engineering schools are mostly white men doesn't mean that everyone who IS NOT a white man should get things on a silver platter. While other groups have gatherings to discuss similarities and are regularly rewarded with scholarships, white males get pushed into the herd and are told to shut up and enjoy our supposed privileged position.

Should anyone feel sorry for me? Absolutely not. But that doesn't mean we are not entitle to the same rights as other people. It does mean that we shouldn't feel sorry for anyone else either. Life sucks for the rich, the poor, the black, the white, the women, the men; and everyone in between. We all have to work hard to be successful and we all have our own set of challenges to deal with.

The moronic rant at the end of your post perpetuates stereotypes.

Why there isn't a Kid's day like Mother's day and Father's day?

@11 "We all have to work hard to be successful and we all have our own set of challenges to deal with."

The suggestion that everyone's challenges in life are equal strikes me as profoundly ignorant.

Thank you, Thegoodman@11. As a lazy brown man I now understand how difficult life has been made for you by all the entitlements I've received. I'll go walk in some AZ town without my licence now, just to prove you right yet again.

Every time I even get close to lapsing and falling back into the trap of my privileged outlook, someone like Thegoodman comes along and shows me just how much of an asshole I used to be. I thus consider him to be performing a valuable service.

Love your responses, Zuska. When in a situation where people actually said the same kind of crap to me, my standard response was "You know, you've got a point. Maybe you and your friends should get together and do that." Made at leas 99% of them shut the hell up and go the hell away. They don't want to do it themselves, they want it handed to them. Gee, what does that tell us about them and the way they see the world?

Oh yeah, I keep forgetting. White men are the devil in all cases. Okay, thanks for the refresher. I was worried that things be somewhat more complex than that old divide.

Like the fact that not all white males have money or power.

It is because they think that their experience is the same as the racism and sexism that oppressed groups face. The d00ds do not understand that instead of some rare and advantageous event, discrimination is, for minorities & women, a constant problem that fucks them over. It illustrates the fucking stupid idea that white dudes are on equal footing with everyone else discrimination-wise. It is like complaining about the lack of band aids for a paper cut to someone who has had their arm ripped off.

Queef - nobody here said that the White ManÂ® was the devil in all cases. It is telling that you can't distinguish the difference between someone acting like a jerk and someone who isn't. I was told in high school to keep my grades up if I wanted to get into a good college. My wife was told that she shouldn't waste her time on math and chemistry. She was a girl, you see. (She got her degree anyway, in psychobiology.) Whenever I hear another white dude whine about his disadvantages, I cringe. Bad form! No, not all of us are the devil. But many of us, apparently, are spoiled wimps and never learned that Real Men don't cheat.

Oh man this was the lulziest post ever.

I totally agree, people need to just think for a moment and realize the conscious and unconscious biases minorities/women have to fight.

They deserve a little help. I wish everyone was just helpful. People need to stop whining and go help somebody out. Planet's full of whiners.

By the way, love the title of your blog.

So the minority of white men who experience hardship, poverty, hatred, bigotry, and (markedly less so) sexism don't count because they're still white? Gotcha.

@Queef

All I have to say is, who curs. I hate wasting my energy on whining. I like building things. The only solution to everything is to educate the entire planet. That's the only thing I strive for.

Just because engineering schools are mostly white men doesn't mean that everyone who IS NOT a white man should get things on a silver platter.

That is the point d00d, if you aren't a white man you don't get things handed to you on a silver platter. The scholarships and groups are there to try and make up for that. I know you probably won't believe it (because you have the privilege to not have it happen to you all day), but there are daily challenges involved with not being a white guy. How nice that you can decide a scholarship + a lifetime of bullshit= "a silver platter". You have no clue, and I am guessing that you aren't going to go look for one either.

While other groups have gatherings to discuss similarities and are regularly rewarded with scholarships, white males get pushed into the herd and are told to shut up and enjoy our supposed privileged position.

They have their own groups and discussions because the mainstream of it is for the white dudes. Being part of the dominant culture means you do not have to put "white guys" in front of the name of things, it is implied. When people in your demographic make up the majority of the people in power their perspective is put into everything. You have made it clear that there *is* a white dude perspective (that you want to share but are told to shut up about), and since you know that you have to know that when they run most things their perspective doesn't disappear from what they create. Oppressed people already understand the white dude perspective, they are immersed in it constantly. You have to search for perspectives outside of that norm of white maleness. Non privileged people want their own place to discuss problems that you don't understand because you do not have to deal with it, and you never will.

Should anyone feel sorry for me? Absolutely not. But that doesn't mean we are not entitle to the same rights as other people.It does mean that we shouldn't feel sorry for anyone else either. Life sucks for the rich, the poor, the black, the white, the women, the men; and everyone in between. We all have to work hard to be successful and we all have our own set of challenges to deal with.

You wanna trade me, d00d? I will give you your club and scholarships and pizza and all that shit if I can have your privilege. Enjoy experiencing stereotype threat, lord knows I do!

I was once like you, I had that "oh well we all struggle, there isn't anything unique about racism" thing going on. I got all pissy when people insisted that I could never understand racism. It eventually clicked that I just can't, and never will, and that when people of color tell me it isn't like other problems I should probably fucking listen. I do not have to accept racism or think about it because I do not actually have to deal with it. I could live a whole lifetime of only hearing dominant opinion on race, because I am privileged. I am in a position where I have the nice option to choose not to care or think about it, other people do not. It is what other people live every single day. Part of the reason why it isn't like other problems is that you can actually do something about it, like not make it harder for people by trivializing a problem you will never have and by asking for a 'fair' representation when you take more than your fair share of privilege every friggin day.

@Queef #23

Of course they count and if possible they should be helped; but unless the hardship, etc is directed at them specifically because they are a white male then it's a totally different issue than what we're talking about here. White men are not systematically discriminated against.

So the minority of white men who experience hardship, poverty, hatred, bigotry, and (markedly less so) sexism don't count because they're still white? Gotcha.

Wtf do you mean, "doesn't count"? It counts as something, not the SAME thing. I don't know why anyone would be so obsessed with making sure that their experiences are considered exactly equal with ones that they will never have. You don't know, and you can't. Deal with it.

So the minority of white men who experience hardship, poverty, hatred, bigotry, and (markedly less so) sexism don't count because they're still white? Gotcha.

Let me make it easier for you. If the hardship, poverty, hatred, bigotry, and sexism experienced by said white male is less than he would experience than if he was instead female/black/hispanic/or in some other minority group (but with all else being equal), then YES he is getting priority treatment.

Not all white men have money and power, but in almost all cases they have more money and power than the minorities that are in all other measures the same. As example, see pretty much any of the studies where the same resume was sent to companies with either male/female or black/white names on them.

Oh hell yes. I'm a white d00d, as it were, and I want to punch people who use that line. Haven't quite decided whether I'd like to punch them in the face or in the nuts, but since I do not, as a rule, punch people at all the question is largely academic.

B-b-but, we're white men! We're not allowed to be excluded from anything!

I love the joke somebody has to make every February, "When's white history month?" And then somebody has to respond, "Every month is white history month." Har har har.

"Our structural advantages are totally outweighed by your pizza party!" I'm with JDA in the "white dudes outraged by that line" camp.

School I used to work at had a small cadre who insisted we need a Men's Resource Center to go with the Women's Resource Center. Their inability to articulate what exactly the Men's Resource Center was going to DO did not seem to dim their resolve.

Is the most effective means of doing away with systemic discrimination name calling?

Queef, are the most effective means of arguing your point straw men and ignoring people's counter-arguments?

I'm getting a lot of that at the moment at work, as we are being taken over by a whited00dly company.

Oh, I acknowledge the points. That's why I stopped talking about it. But, back to the question: is the most effective means of doing away with systemic discrimination name calling?

Queef,

There are programs to help disadvantaged white men/women. At my Uni the primary minority graduate student scholarship program extends eligibility to people that have "Exceptional Financial Need (EFN) or family income as described by http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ope/trio/incomelevels.html," regardless of race.

People are also eligible if they are "the first generation to attend college, educated in low-rated School District, [have a] commitment to community issues," etc.

So, let me get this straight. You now want us all to change topic to discuss name-calling with someone who has chosen to call himself, "Queef."

My father, bless his heart, is always bringing up the question of why aren't there men's equivalents to women's resource centers, etc. I've also asked him what he'd like such centers to offer -- he has no clear idea. Maybe because there's no need for such a thing? Or perhaps simply because men aren't as passionate about creating supportive communities ... because again, there's less need of such a thing.

The women's clinic on my campus was recently awarded Most Valuable Resource of the year. Women students volunteer to staff it, promote it, direct it, fund it, etc. As Kate from Iowa @16 said, if the men on campus want comparable services, why don't they put together a mission statement, a plan, recruit volunteers, and work to make their resource center a reality?

The worst part is that when you are the only "other" in the group, the white dudes make you the representative to the diversity shit so they can say that they are diverse. Then they still get their fucking cookies.

"What do you think men need that they aren't getting, that a men in engineering program [could] provide?"

Education about the advantages people who aren't white men don't have, and why helping women and minorities gain a foothold in the sciences shouldn't be threatening.

But, back to the question: is the most effective means of doing away with systemic discrimination name calling?

Not necessarily, but it certainly is cathartic. And when you are getting shit on or are a part of an outgroup that is regularly shit on, catharsis helps.

It is really easy to be a white guy and feel like shit because of certain disadvantages that might be relevant to your particular situation. Trust me, I am a white guy with rather significant neurological issues that also translated themselves into rather serious substance abuse issues. So I am thirty-three, a year into college after eighteen years a high school dropout, separated from his kids by five hundred miles until I get enough credits to transfer. My life really kind of sucks, no question.

But you know what? I have never been at work and had a scuzzy boss my parents age feel free to touch me. And not having been in that situation, I have never had to decide that I am going to put up with it, because I don't want to get a reputation for being one of "those" women - those troublemakers you really don't want to hire. Nor have I ever once had contractor after contractor laugh in my face when I wanted a job, because I have a vagina instead of a cock - never mind that the women I have had work for me were a hell of a lot better at detail work than anyone else I ever hired - one turning out to be a better with tile that I am. And I have never had someone refer to me as that black person in the office. Poor as I have been for much of my adult life, living in the shitty neighborhood I last lived in Portland, the gang taskforce flat fucking apologized to me for stopping me and asking questions when I got rather indignant. They did not stop harassing my neighbor who works three jobs to try to get his family out of our craphole of a neighborhood when he got indignant. They didn't apologize when he got outright angry - which he got, because they were repeatedly asking my neighbor who doesn't even drink, if they could search him for drugs - while his daughter watched from the balcony. He finally gave in when they were shouting at him and it was apparent they were not going to let it drop.

Yeah, I have never had the humiliation of cops searching me in front of my children. Though my eldest decided that he wasn't sure just how much he should trust cops after they harassed his friends dad like that.

The closest I have come to having any problems because I am white, was when a very nice gentlemen warned me that I had wandered into a neighborhood that tends to be real bad for the health of people with pale skin. A neighborhood in Chicago, that at the time the fucking cops refused to go into. Only I didn't get into problems, because a rather kind stranger with brown skin not only warned me off, but escorted me to an area I would be safe.

And the only time I have been what might be considered sexually assaulted, was when I chick I had been fooling around with who was upset that I insisted on condoms decided to start having sex with me without one when I had mostly passed out drunk. Mind you, had she put a rubber on me first, this would not have qualified as sexual assault because I would not have cared in the least. But I have been assured that it does count given the circumstances.

But I have never been held down and forced to have sex. That aforementioned situation is the only time someone has ever taken advantage of me and done something to me that I objected to while drunk. And honestly? I was really fucking pissed about that - but I didn't feel violated in the sense that women who get raped while drunk generally feel. The closest I came to that was a creepy asshat in the communal shower at the gym once, wanking while staring at me.

Nor have I ever been assaulted (successfully) for my sexuality. And the couple of times I have gotten into altercations for being a queer, was because I happened to be wearing a skirt and people assumed I must be gay. Queer yes, gay - not so much. Only unlike some of my gay friends who have been assaulted (though certainly not all), I was a rather solid bundle of muscle and sinew. I was smallish, but I also roofed except when I was framing - where I often used a 34ounce hammer. Usually they would see the error of their way, when a punch to my gut hurt them a lot more than it hurt me. Sometimes they were drunk and I had to hurt them a bit to get them to leave me alone.

The only times I got my ass kicked, was when I was foolish enough to take on more opponents than was particularly reasonable. Usually because they were trying to hurt someone who didn't deserve it - or because being a drunk white dude, I decided to take on more than was reasonable - or because I rather purposely walked into bars wearing a skirt, where I knew it would lead to a fight. Point being, when I got my ass kicked, I got it kicked based on choices I made - not inherent characteristics about me (except for a propensity to stick my nose into other people's abusive fucking bullshit).

So yeah - as a member of the outgroups of the mentally ill and substance abusers, I have my shit to deal with. Having also spent most of my adult life in poverty or close to it - yup, life's a fucking bitch. But as a white dude, I have still come out of it with a hell of a lot of fucking privilege that a lot of people just don't have. I definitely have some rather nasty things to say about motherfucking shiteating bastards who perpetuate stigmas about the mentally ill and people with substance use disorders. Name calling is a fucking understatement. And motherfuckers who have the fucking nerve to claim that mental illness is making excuses or that medications are bunk - suffice to say that unless you want to be humiliated and berated in public, you don't suggest that kind of denialist fucking bullshit in front of me.

So I am not going to begrudge people calling an ignorant fucking moron whatever they want. It's not meant to be productive dude - it just makes people feel better. Like when I can get everyone within several hundred feet to notice the fucking bastard who just told me that if I just got right with his god, I wouldn't need those stupid medication - I don't really care that some of them are appalled by me because I make sure most everyone who notes it will be far more appalled by the ignorant motherfucker in front of me.

Here is my question to you; If these names don't apply to you, why do you care? If they bother you, don't you think it would behoove you to consider why they bother you? I am not trying to be a dick about this - trust me, I say and do things now and then that are based on biases and stereotypes that I wish I didn't have. We all do. What I also do though, is try to really pay attention to the shit that I say and do, by really paying attention to what I am thinking. This isn't something magical or even particularly difficult.

Seek to recognize your biases and try to be a decent guy. Bright women - the sort worth having in one's life - really dig it...

Yeah, I do. I have never intended my handle to be offensive. I can't say that the same is true of Zuska's language though.

Given that it's generally impossible to jump out of one's skin and experience other people's lives, it is inevitable that everyone feels there getting a raw deal. It is also inevitable that people will also comment on it, and as soon as the discussion is opened, the unfairness cannons open up, and people see whose is bigger.

However, I think the kicker is that both sides tend to have a point, but that while both of them complain about it, little gets resolved. Everyone has to be willing to deal with their problems at the same time, or nothing gets resolved, and people continue to feel perturbed.

Queef has no interest in having a substantive discussion with anyone here, at least not that he's shown. He's just the resident troll who feels the need to make every discussion All About Him. Not about the issues, not responding to any substance, just making sure any discussion doesn't stray too far off the all-important topic of him and his 'nym.

To what extent do you want to indulge that? I think some of the responses to his vacuousness have been really good, but just ignoring him, now that would probably make him crazy frustrated.

Anyway, on topic, I do find it amazing how many people don't get the fact that support groups or programmes exist where there is a disparity of "normal" power between groups, in order to address that disparity of power. It doesn't seem like rocket science to me.

"But, back to the question: is the most effective means of doing away with systemic discrimination name calling?"

Well, in a way, yes : I mean, calling discrimination by its name.

I experienced a version of this in the form of (paraphrasing for brevity) "Why do black people need their own magazines?"

Really? I'm not even originally FROM America and I understand why *sigh*.

Given that it's generally impossible to jump out of one's skin and experience other people's lives, it is inevitable that everyone feels there getting a raw deal. It is also inevitable that people will also comment on it, and as soon as the discussion is opened, the unfairness cannons open up, and people see whose is bigger.

If only there were statistics about things like poverty, violence, or professional representation! I guess I will just have to consider everyones plight equal now, lest I be accused of trying to be uh, macho.

However, I think the kicker is that both sides tend to have a point, but that while both of them complain about it, little gets resolved. Everyone has to be willing to deal with their problems at the same time, or nothing gets resolved, and people continue to feel perturbed.

Yeah, I will get right on top of not being sexually oppressed. Oh shit, that isn't something I can fucking do, that is something only the dudes can accomplish, and according to you telling them about it isn't "solving" anything. Should I shut the fuck up? Do you really think that oppression isn't anyones fault, or that being alerted to it isn't reason enough for people to stop being total assholes? The problems that oppressed people have are not mysterious in nature, it is the fault of many people collectively who refuse to do something about it. Talking about it like you do (as though you cannot help, or that it isn't worth talking about because everyone has problems) is part of what makes it so easy for things to continue. Cut that shit out. You can do something to help, and you should. Quit being so dismissive.

Bellisaurius, in this context, I'm wondering if your comment is a bit more relativisitic than is appropriate. Naturally, everyone has problems. But the issue that Zuska's pointing out is that privilege changes how people's problems manifest themselves, and give different people different advantages when dealing with said problems.

There's no need to "get out unfairness cannons" and compare size. There is simply no systemic bias against white men. If a particular white man is facing systemic injustice, it's because he is part of some other group that faces such discrimination (the mentally ill, overweight, etc. etc.). It's never because he's white and male.

The solution is to focus on eliminating as much systemic injustice as possible. That will help poor white men and women of color and little people and every other group that has been systematically devalued by Patriarchal society for the past several millenia. We've had thousands of years of affirmative action for white men.

I recommend anyone who has a hard time conceptualizing racism or feminism read White Privilege: Unpacking the Invisible Knapsack. It's about racism specifically, but it really makes you understand what it's LIKE to have privilege, because most of us DO have some amount and when I read that for the first time I really got it.

I recommend you refer all those white dudes (I hope they're also part of the repressed Christian minority in this country) come work in my department. Because I'm pretty sure we're a Men's Engineering Center they just couldn't get a d00d to do the letterhead so it's not on the door. I have to listen to white dudes complain about how repressed they are, or how "easy" the minorities and wimminz have it, how as a woman I'll always be guaranteed a job in this industry so I should consider myself lucky.
-I guess if the job I'm "guaranteed" is for 20% less than my male peers, for doing the same work or better, than I should just shut my mouth and be happy I'm not an underprivileged white dude who has to pay more in taxes than me
-None of my male colleagues have ever been talked about in breakrooms or at the bar as having "slept their way" to their position
-None of my male colleagues have been accused of getting a position/title because of their "good looks"
-Nobody questions a (white)man getting a promotion into management so they can be the "token X" at that echelon
-None of my male colleagues are mistaken for secretaries or admins
-When a male colleague is about to be a father, he is not talked about as someone we are "about to lose" or when he is young and getting married it is not suggested that training dollars are not spent on him because he's "going to have kids and leave in a few years anyways"
-I have never heard any of the male interns be asked, as I was and sometimes still am, what "technical capacity" i have or what "technical projects [I] work on in [my] spare time". Their technical abilities, aptitude and interest is assumed. Mine does not fit the box and so I have to prove it by having more technical knowledge and outside interest than any of my male peers.
-When a male colleague works late he does not have to consider someone approaching him and raping him because he is alone in the office

Oh I meant to post a link b/c it's "free" online:

http://www.case.edu/president/aaction/UnpackingTheKnapsack.pdf

I am an asshole because I don't want anyone to feel sorry for me and think everyone should feel the same way?

I grew up in a shitty ass trailer, my parents divorced at a young age, I borrowed every cent spent on my education, I am in the process of paying every penny for my own wedding. I don't want anyone to feel sorry for me, I am proud of what few accomplishments I've had and I am proud that I've had very little help doing it. I also get frustrated when I am stereotyped to have rich parents and a free ride in life. I don't want anything for free, as the American Indians how that works out for people.

Equality, to me, means that everyone is treated equally. I think equality is paramount in every situation in life. Weather you are gay, black, jewish, or a handicapped; you should have the same rights/privileges/benefits as everyone else.

Why would you want special privileges? Do you think you are NOT capable of something I am capable of doing? Do you feel like you need something special to succeed where others have done it on their own merits? People like all of you who are judging me perpetuate racism/sexism/discrimination. Saying that you NEED EXTRA HELP BECAUSE YOU ARE INCAPABLE OF DOING IT ON YOUR OWN diminishes you as a person. You don't need anything extra, you can do it because you are smart and will be successful because you work hard. Fuck that that other bullshit, prove some people wrong. Bitching about how its a white mans world won't get you anywhere.

"I have to listen to white dudes complain about how repressed they are, or how "easy" the minorities and wimminz have it, how as a woman I'll always be guaranteed a job in this industry so I should consider myself lucky."

You work with morons and assholes. No one gets a free ride and like I said, we all have our own share of problems. The issue is that most everyone thinks THEIR problems are more serious than anyone's.

If you worked with all black women you would hear the same thing. Complaining. Everyone complains and we all find shit to complain about weather it is legitimate or not. White dudes (like myself) are the scapegoat for problems because we are the majority. While I am sure it is much worse to be in the minority position, I don't feel sorry for you. I am proud of you as a human being for getting a good job and I am sure there are difficulties that go along with working amongst people you consider so different from yourself. They are not my difficulties, but trust me, we all have them.

The good news is that you don't have to create situations that will allow you to stand out. You already stand out, all you have to do is keep pace to look like a champ. If you are better than the other engineers there, it is more likely that it will be noticed.

Exactly. What you don't seem to realize is that we are not there yet, not by a long shot. It's not "special privilege" if it's attempting to level a slanted playing field.

Thegoodman-
Actually, no. Just no.
Look at figure 3 at this link, and tell me that women can be smart and successful just because they work hard, and that they'll be noticed and hired/promoted.
http://web.mit.edu/fnl/volume/184/hopkins_fnl184.pdf

Look at the Invisible Knapsack link above. Read the rest of FrauTech's post, not just the first lines. Read the things she has to deal with- that most women in her position have to deal with.

You're right, everyone SHOULD be treated the same regardless of race, gender, etc. But the cold hard facts say it isn't true, and sticking our collective heads in the sand and hoping everyone in the world will wake up enlightened one day does jack shit to make that actually happen.

White men are the majority? Actually, no. White men are NOT the majority of the people in the world, yet white men* wield the majority of the world's power and wealth.

Yes, everyone is equal. (/sarcasm)

*Some white men experience less privilege than others, of course, because they are disadvantaged in some other way (like poverty). However, again, it is striking that there are far more PoC in the world, and there are approximately equal numbers of men and women, yet ultimately one group -- NOT the majority -- enjoys the majority of power.

I agree that discrimination exists and I also agree that it sucks and it is unfair.

I am not saying that anyone should stick their head in the sand either. Raising hell about it is a great idea and if there is a line in the sand, I am on your side.

That being said, claiming that you need assistance programs, scholarships, and affirmative action in order to be successful is detrimental to your claims. Hell, it even supports the claims of the discriminators. Minorities are discriminated against because crusty ass old white dudes think they are less capable. Then some of you, like Zuska, claim that you need special assistance to get to the same place as the white guy. Can't you see how this is a bad thing?

I am a huge Martin Luther King, Jr. fan and his speeches move me every time I listen to them. I don't feel like the current message being portrayed by minorities would make him happy. The civil rights movement was terrific for our country and there is still work to do. I'd prefer that the efforts not be wasted on handouts that support the ideals of the discriminatory majority; but rather spent on educating EVERYONE about how we should be working together to be more successful.

@Comrade Svilova

You act like there is an annual White Guys meeting where we discuss how we can continue oppressing all of you less intelligent beings.

Whatever these advantages are that you all see, please educate me. I'd love to start using them as frequently as possible so I can at least take advantage of this position of power I am sitting in since I appear to be oblivious.

please educate me.

Please educate yourself. Links have been provided.

Again, the things you say only make sense in a world where there is not ACTIVE discrimination. We do not yet live in that world. I know it's tough--there's much to learn and it's nobody's job to spoon-feed you. Get started reading and listening--that's what the rest of us have done.

"Pleeeeze educate me wimmins! Why oh why won't anyone explaaaain themselves to meeeee in a way I understaaaaand?"

This impersonation brought to you by yet another woman who can't believe that some of the menz who comment here are really that fucking clueless.

@Thegoodman

I don't have to educate you, because the answers to your questions are easily accessible online, like the very useful "Unpacking the Knapsack" which was already referenced above. If you need a little more help in starting your self-education:

What is Male Privilege?

A Primer on Privilege

That's as much help as you're going to get from me. Unlike so many men I know who are constantly asking for "handouts" of information, I went out and educated myself on feminism, privilege, and related theories. I didn't go around demanding that people who were already adept at feminist analysis fill me in on Feminism 101. I have the confidence that you can employ similar initiative and energy as you seek the answers to your questions.

In general...

For me, what stands out most about the discussion that Zuska initiated is the implication that "special" services for the disadvantaged are handouts, when they are often things that disadvantaged groups have had to work very hard to create and maintain. I was the recipient of an award this past year that is given to female documentary makers in honor of a pioneering woman who did incredible work in the 1970s (when it was actually less difficult for a woman to find a place in the film industry than it is now!). Her family gives this award in her name to encourage women to continue to work in a very misogynist industry. It's not a "handout" that some anonymous group confers upon women in discrimination against men; it's the result of years and years of effort this woman put into her own career and into helping other women. This is similar to the women's clinic I described above. Men complain that they don't have their own clinic, but so far none of the complainers have wanted to put in the hours and hours of labor to create such a resource. Any "special" services for historically disadvantaged groups are the result of years of effort on the part of those groups as they fight for a somewhat more level playing field.

Another example is so-called "gay marriage," which is often called a "special right" by opponents of marriage equality. In fact, it's not a "handout" of "special" privileges; it's actually correcting the persistent historical inequality of valuing heterosexual relationships over homosexual relationships for thousands of years. And if it ever becomes a reality nation-wide, marriage equality will not be a "handout" conferred upon homosexuals by a beneficent authority; it will be the result of years of incredible efforts by activists (homosexuals and straight allies).

The "handout" language effectively erases the efforts made by underprivileged groups who are trying to make the world better for themselves and for those to come. Instead, it gives agency to "authority," and of course in our society, "authority" is assumed to be primarily white, male, wealthy, able-bodied, etc. etc. It's another way of marginalizing the already-marginalized. Any progress that a marginalized group makes is attributed to the generosity of the powerful rather than to the efforts of the groups in question.

Thegoodman -

You want to talk advantages? Hows this for advantage? I am a white guy who is in his mid thirties - a high school dropout until I started college classes little more than a year ago. I have neurological problems and a long history of substance abuse (under control now).

I have a hell of a lot of very excellent opportunities to look forward to. There are mentors at a couple of tier one institutions who would love to have we study and work under them. Less than two years into my undergrad at a community college and I have the respect of a number of professionals in the field that I am heading into, because I have had the privilege of being able to network to go along with being rather especially clever.

Never mind that I failed utterly a year and a half ago. Never mind that up until a year and a half ago I was working construction and then something much worse. I am not going to claim that it all just fell into my lap - I have worked hard and spent time making connections. But my pasty beige skin and the fact that I have a cock have played a very significant role in my opportunities.

But being a white guy who has apparently never bothered to really think about it, you wouldn't notice your fucking privilege. Pay attention - read the links - actually bother to develop intimate relationships with people who don't have your privilege and talk to them about it. I didn't just decide all of a sudden that my hovering about the poverty line, mentally ill drug abusing white ass was privileged. I bothered to pay attention and developed a lot of intimate relationships with the members of several outgroups. I also payed some attention to my own experience as a member of the mentally ill drug users and how that impacted the perception others had of me.

I worked all that shit together - noting the difference between the way I was treated and the way people with the wrong color skin who were like me or even better people than myself were treated and figured it out. I am privileged. I was privileged when I was unmedicated, using whatever - mostly pot towards the end. I am privileged now. You have always been privileged too, in comparison to people of color and/or uterus in your socioeconomic situation.

@Thegoodman- I do feel sorry for you. Not because of the trailer or anything like that. Simply because, like everyone, you have good people in your life that have helped you. Some of those in power are more likely to help you simply because you 'look like them'- and you aren't even aware enough to be a decently appreciative human being about it. "I do MYSELF!!!" is a very understandable attitude... in a 2 year old. In a grown adult, it makes you seem astonishingly churlish and nasty.

I feel bad for you because you don't take *enough* pride in your accomplishments, that you are comfortable giving other people any of their fair share of the credit.

What "privilege" is, ultimately, is people giving you credit for you hard work. People who don't judge you as an out of control lunatic for speaking your mind. People who don't write you off immediately for speaking out of turn about things which you know nothing about. In an ideal world, perhaps we would all be afforded the same benefits of the doubt you are (it is perfectly valid, when somebody points out a "privilege" you have, to respond "but that's how everyone should be treated!"- because many times, that's true. However, if you think that just because you ARE treated a certain way, and other people SHOULD be treated that way, EVERYONE IS ACTUALLY treated that way, you are very sadly deluded).
Furthermore, you wanna see privilege? You just demonstrated that you are being cut a hell of a lot of slack, right here on this very blog. There are plenty of blogs I could go onto, and if I positioned myself as someone to give career advice by telling them they worked with "morons and assholes"- they'd consider me crazy- insanely full of myself to assume so much about the best way to view somebody's coworkers whom I've never met. And yet, nobody called you on that!
Truthfully, I'm not at all sure my bothering to address you at all, instead of ignoring you, isn't treating you with respect you wouldn't treat someone else. You seem awfully dismissive of everyone else's perspective. That too, is a form of privilege. You *ought* to be thanking everyone here for the opportunity to learn.

well said, becca.

"Saying that you NEED EXTRA HELP BECAUSE YOU ARE INCAPABLE OF DOING IT ON YOUR OWN diminishes you as a person."

No. Knowing when you need help and asking the right people does NOT diminish you as a person. It's wise. Look at that statement from the opposite perspective for a minute and ask yourself if you feel the same way: when someone asks you for help do you look down at them? Do you think of them as less of a person? If so, then SHAME on you.

There were probably opportunities in which you could have received help - from grants (which I suspect you were eligible for based on the description you gave of your less-privelaged life) or scholarships. If you refused to take these opportunities so that you could "do it yourself," then that's fine, but that does not put you in a position where you can unkindly judge those who DO choose to pursue help paying for college (for example).

"The good news is that you don't have to create situations that will allow you to stand out. You already stand out, all you have to do is keep pace to look like a champ."

What? You have no idea what you're talking about.

You are very proud of yourself for paying for your college and wedding and getting a good job. This is valid, just don't get so caught up in your pride that you can't consider other people's situations or perspectives. That is not something to be proud of.

@Thegoodman:

Did you actually look at the link that I posted at comment 54? You should actually read the whole thing, but what it basically shows is that hiring committees (and this also extends to editorial boards, grant reviewers, etc- there's a whole literature out there about this) in the absence of any external impetus or pressure tend to hire people they perceive as more like themselves. While the academic culture is mostly white men, this means mostly white men get hired unless other groups are specifically recruited. Most of these men are not bad people; they're not running around in black hats thinking of ways to keep the women down, it's that they're not thinking about the problem at all. So yes, minorities and women may need extra recruitment, not because they ARE inferior, but because at worst they're thought to be inferior and at best they're entirely overlooked. Until you actually believe that, there's really nothing else to talk about. Again, there's a whole literature out there.

Looks like it's time for a trip in the Zuskateer Wayback Machine to a great comment by Mark C. Chu-Carroll on the post Explaining (Away) Women Geeks. A selection:

The story I constantly repeat about this comes from an experience at a former job, where when I was in charge of summer intern hiring, we did a small affirmative action program. What we did was allow anyone to hire a summer intern - anyone they wanted. Once the budget was used up, we had extra money that could be used for hiring women or minorities. I had multiple people rant and rave at me about how we were discriminating against the most qualified applicants - basically the same line of shit that you're peddling.

But they really wanted to hire summer students. So they went back to the applicant pool. Two of them showed up in my office with new candidates saying, basically, "Wow, I found someone *even better* than the guy I originally wanted to hire!".

So why didn't they find them at first? Because they automatically discarded the resume when they saw a womans name. The didn't even *look* at the resumes for people who they believed were women. It didn't matter how good, how qualified, how experienced, how skilled the women were. Their resumes were automatically discarded without a second glance. Only the men - or the women whose names weren't obviously female - got a careful look.

The guys hadn't even registered the existence of resumes with female-sounding names--they just went straight into the slush pile without any evil plan to exclude anyone. That's how it often happens, folks--thoughtlessly. The lack of ill intent does not make it any less harmful.

The moronic rant at the end of your post perpetuates stereotypes.

The moronic rant that constitutes your post reinforces Zuska's point.

I am an asshole because I don't want anyone to feel sorry for me and think everyone should feel the same way?

Which is why you followed up with a boo-hoo tearjerker about living in a trailer?

You're an asshole because you characterize a (meager) attempt to level the playing field against systematic oppression as "feeling sorry for" the oppressed. And you're all but BEGGING for pity from the posters here.

It isn't really my job, but I guess I don't mind, just this once.

People did not think you were stupid because of your race or sex. You are what people picture when they think of someone who is a manager or an engineer or scientist or doctor, so it is easier for the people who hire you to imagine you doing things like that. It was easier for you to imagine yourself that way because you saw examples of people like you doing important jobs like that, and other people did not dismiss your goals simply because of what you are for the same reason. You didn't have to wonder (maybe) why there weren't any white guy doctors on tv. It is easier for you to get a job, and you get paid more when you get a job. You don't wonder if you really *are* incapable of learning math/science/whatever because of your sex or race while you take a test or a class in college. When you have trouble with a concept you don't experience fear that you are inherently incapable and stupid. The distraction of that sort isn't there. You don't have to deal with the anxiety of defending yourself against rape, or if you would get fired or blacklisted for reporting your boss for sexually harassing you. You don't have to get groped or cat called on the street, which fucks up an entire day because it is scary. You don't have to deal with police harassment on the basis of skin color. You don't have to deal with people mistaking you for the help or the cleaning crew. You don't have to worry about finding the fine line between "doormat" and "bitch" in your work place behavior. You do not have to worry about your boss, or a judge at your trial, or a police officer, or your doctor, or your lawyer, being sexist or racist and fucking up your life as a result. You don't have to worry about people blaming your clothes for their violent behavior towards you. You are more likely to receive organs and blood at hospitals, and you are more likely to have your diseases recognized because most medical research is based on men (heart attack is a notorious example of this). When you have a problem that upsets you, you are not deemed hysterical as a result. You don't have to do a bunch of ridiculous shit to yourself every single day to be considered professional looking. You don't have to worry about how having a career reflects on you as a human being, instead of staying at home to raise children. You don't have to worry about being labeled a slut or a prude for your dress/how you talk/the way you look/who you fuck. You do not have to worry about your mistakes being used as proof that other people of your race/sex are incompetent in the same way. You don't have to deal with people saying your problems are not really problems. You don't have to work for free raising kids and doing housework. You don't have to worry about being the only white guy in the room or at your job (usually). You don't have to worry about finding a political candidate, doctor, lawyer, etc the same race and sex as you so that you know they don't discriminate. You don't have to worry about how having a family will fuck up your career and get you fired/not hired, or that not having a family will fuck up your social life. You don't have to avoid sounding white on the phone. If you write a book or send out resumes, you don't have to worry that your name will get you tossed in the reject pile immediately. You don't have to worry about your white maleness being apparent when you try to rent an apartment, buy a house, or apply for a loan.

So that list took about 15 minutes to make, and I am sure I left out a bunch of shit. I am white so I am sure I left out a lot of racial stuff, but I did the best I could. I hope someone who knows more than me adds. And yes, worrying about this shit all the time takes a fucking toll, and we worry because it happens to us or to our friends and family, if not to us personally. There is a starting point. Before picking through it to try and support your original ideas, realize that you would be telling me that my experiences are incorrect, when no one has the authority to tell me what my life experiences consist of. This is what it is, and if you need a shit ton of women and people of color to confirm it for you the evidence is out there for you to find.

Oh yeah, what you ARE isn't an insult either. The word "woman" is used as an insult in day to day life. I have heard it at my job, about how "sure that gun is big, if you're a woman!" har har. I would fill out those stupid little sexual harassment forms every fucking day if I could be sure that I wouldn't be fired for it (well not officially for that, but you know what I mean). I have had to pick my battles.

Can a distinction between systematic and personal discrimination be made? Not being allowed to serve in combat units (on account of being a woman) or in the military at all (on account of being openly homosexual) would be systematic.

Being told you're not good at maths because of your sex/race/culture is probably personal (unless its a REALLY bad education system, which it might be).

Discrimination in hiring is probably a mixing of the two (bosses are personally biased against female engineers etc., and companies are systematically slack at stopping this).

Is there less scope to complain about personal discrimination than systematic? Which would people rather experience? (I'd prefer personal, personally - people are easy to avoid/reason with, whole systems less so). Definitely NOT saying you shouldn't complain about both, but which, if you HAD to have one, would you rather put up with?

What are women's rooms at universities an example of? Avoiding personal or systemic discrimination?

Being told you're not good at maths because of your sex/race/culture is probably personal (unless its a REALLY bad education system, which it might be).

Nope.

Honestly, I've been on the receiving end of this. The exact point at which I finally gave up on maths in high school (after years of battles that trust me you don't want to hear about) was in an Algebra II class (ironically taught by a woman). That day I had sat for the entire period with my hand up, because for the first time I had trouble understanding something -- matrices, actually -- and couldn't work it out for myself. I was ignored completely, while all around me the boys were being called on and were having things worked out on the blackboard for them. Finally, after class bell rang, I approached the teacher and tried to simply ask her, because this was important to me.

"Oh, honey," she said, "you don't have to worry about that. You're going to pass the class anyway, but it doesn't matter if you understand this bit or not, only engineers or scientists are ever going to use it, you won't ever need it."

'Cuz being a girl and all, no chance I was going to be one of those, right.

My friend Robin had a harder fight of it that I did -- she was explicitly and openly aiming to be an aeronautics engineer, but that was only because the Air Force explicitly disallowed female fighter pilots at the time. But she was "strongly discouraged" from "wasting her time" taking AP Physics in our school as well, since the teachers apparently thought that as soon as she hit college and discovered how "hard" engineering actually was, she would drop that and go on to do something more "sensible." You think the boys faced that?

...You're trying to tell me that was the first was just personal, and not systematic, and the second was just systematic, and Robin's fight to get the classes she needed in our high school to get into an engineering program in college weren't personal as well as systematic? What exactly is the distinction you make, here?

@Skeptifem
"No one has the authority to tell me what my life experiences consist of" I agree, I am speaking from my own experiences only as well.

I clearly have a very different perspective on this issue then most of you who are berating me. I had a single mother who was the first female police officer in my home town. My favorite math professor from college is a lesbian. My first engineering boss was a woman. My wife is a M.D. and was in the top 1% of our college class as well as her graduating medical class.

Never for 1 moment in my life have I thought less of a woman for simply being a woman and the entire idea of it is completely foreign to me. None of the above woman have ever complained to me about their supposed disadvantage for being a woman in a man's world. They worked hard and excelled and were respected for their work and had achieved success.

Racial issues I admit I am foreign to. Where I grew up is about as not racially diverse as anywhere in the country. I know just a handful of non-whites and I cannot say that I have any opinion, good or bad, about any other race/cread/nationality. I was taught to respect all people and I do; but I cannot apologize on behalf of white men who do not.

The story about the people dismissing resumes simply because they are women or not white is just ridiculous. I am sure it is true, but any socially aware company would likely fire any individual that admitted to such blatant racism/sexism. I know that if I had a subordinate that displayed these characteristics I would have him dismissed.

Do I accept free stuff? Absolutely. My point is that every assistance program I have ever received was not because I was a white male. I received it because I was poor or because I am simply a person. Every race/gender/ethnicity has these same advantages; as they should. My point is that it shameful to ask for MORE simply because you are less capable. If I were a minority, I would be upset that white people think I need these programs to be successful.

Its also a bit ironic how quickly my views are dismissed and my perspective is assumed to be understood while people are telling me to try and consider things from another point of view. I have quickly been thrown into the racist/sexist typical white guy category that so many of you blindly blame for your own misfortunes. I didn't do any of these things to you and I am ashamed to be in the same category as the men who did wrong you.

"Never for 1 moment in my life have I thought less of a woman for simply being a woman and the entire idea of it is completely foreign to me."

Then I suggest you must go around mimicking all three wise monkeys.

"None of the above woman have ever complained to me about their supposed disadvantage for being a woman in a man's world."

Are you trying to insinuate that none of them experienced any disadvantage? Have you asked any of them whether or not they did?

"I was taught to respect all people and I do; but I cannot apologize on behalf of white men who do not."

Has anuone asked you to apologise for what other people do/do not do?

In fact, in the sense of 'apologetics' rather than in the sense of 'saying sorry', you actually ARE 'apologising' for the people who practice discrimination of all kinds, by excusing and minimising it.

"The story about the people dismissing resumes simply because they are women or not white is just ridiculous. I am sure it is true,"

Well if it's true, it is hardly 'ridiculous', is it?

" but any socially aware company would likely fire any individual that admitted to such blatant racism/sexism."

Ermm... I think the operative word here is 'admitted'.

" I know that if I had a subordinate that displayed these characteristics I would have him dismissed."

Do you observe and statistically analyse your subordinates' behaviour towards women and minorities in order to discover whether they behave in a discriminating way? Or do you just take their word for it when they swear that they don't?

There have been plenty of psychology studies which have shown that people rate CVs/Essays/Paintings more highly when they have a male name attached than when they have a female name attached. Do you think that the people in those studies were doing it consciously?

Thegoodman- I've never taken a scholarship, period, for women, for poor people, for whatever. And trust me I've tried. So it's not like they hand them out to every single woman who walks across the line. That's the problem is you are viewing this as a zero-sum game. You seem to think if there are MORE scholarships for women, there will be LESS for men. But you said yourself you got assistance programs for being poor. There aren't any for being rich, so why aren't you complaining about that? Don't you realize the injustice to all those rich people who don't have assistance programs?

And your consistent ability to bring up specific instances of how you've suffered (I paid my way through school and continue to do so while working, and paid for my own wedding as well, where's my cookie?) or all these women you respect ("I don't see race!") or how you respect MLKj but don't respect modern civil rights movements ("My best friend is black!") are obvious signs you are in denial. You'd rather sit here, type out posts, and argue rather than go read one of the links posted. Rather than consider all the unconscious bias and implicit assumptions made about women and minorities on a daily basis. Do white men experience discrimination? Of course. No one's denying that your life isn't difficult, ok? The fact that you'd put forth effort to prevent programs that would bring women and minorities up to an equal level with white men is troubling(say where the ONLY kind of discrimination they experience is because they are poor, or their religion, or their political views, rather than an inherent physical trait they can not change that immediately gets them pegged with a particular personality trait). Honest, it's not a zero-sum game. All the wimminz and minorities are not going to come in here and take all YOUR jobs and YOUR programs, ok? Getting a workplace/college/anything to be more diverse is good for everyone. Getting these places to treat everyone equally based on ability rather than physical characteristics is good for everyone.

@Thegoodman

This is simply not about you and your personal experience. It is about institutions, society, and culture. Good for you for respecting people of all races and genders. As you admit, not everyone does. But again, this thread was never about your individual experience as a white man. And those other people who systematically discriminate against underprivileged groups -- or who simply overlook them -- are out there and they are powerful. The statistics on gender and racial distribution in Fortune 500 companies, politics, academia, science, and industry are clear. It's not possible to deny that there is an imbalance in representation; if you don't believe that institutional discrimination is the reason, what is your explanation? Since white, wealthy, men are better represented than any other group in all those areas, is that because they are innately more capable or is it because society is constructed so that it is easier for people with light skin, lots of money, and male genitalia to succeed?

If you don't understand the difference between your personal experiences/opinions and the way privilege functions in society at large and in general, read up on it. Links have been provided.

All people should take advantages of opportunities that exist for them. Minority or not, there is nothing wrong with that.

I understand that white men represent too large a percentage of CEOs, faculty, etc. This has been changing over the past 30 year and will continue to change, but its obviously isn't going to happen over night.

I am not in denial that discrimination exists as FrauTech claims I am. I know it exists and I know it sucks. My point has nothing to do with the existence of discrimination. My point is that saying that minorities need specially assistance to be equal to white men fuels discrimination. I do not support programs that teach people they are not equal to white men, that teach them they need a special place to study or that they need extra money for school. In my opinion, saying that assistance programs for minorities are essential is insulting to the minorities. You are basically saying that they cannot do it on their own and they are actually not good enough, and I don't support that.

Every race/gender/ethnicity has these same advantages; as they should.

This is quite simply not true, not even close to true.

It is like the fallacy that affirmative action somehow gave minorities an advantage for getting accepted to college. The reality is that the way the point system works (grades are unfortunately only part of the story) automatically gives a huge point advantage to people who were lucky enough (or who had parents wealthy enough) to go to schools that provide such things as AP courses and gifted student programs. Understand that the student being considered doesn't need to have actually been involved in those programs - just have gone to a school that has them. Actually taking such courses adds more points. If they went to a school that offered art classes, including music, there are more points doled out.

By the time these points are considered, a student from a poor school has no way to catch up. There are points given for being from a poor school, more for living within a certain range of the poverty level, but they don't come close. And a minority student can't take both the points for AA and points for poverty. Thus why schools then turned around and in some cases volunteered, in others were required to take in a certain percentage of minority students.

The notion that minorities need some extra help is not insulting to minorities, it merely recognizes that they are often at an inherent disadvantage coming out of the gate. That they simply do not have the same opportunities out of the gate that you or I have. That they do not get the same foundational education in a lot of places, that you and I had. It is not insulting to anyone to level the fucking playing field.

To give you an idea of how un-level that field is, I will relate just one of the myriad experiences my partner dealt with (because I am reasonably confident that she won't mind). When she was in middle school, she was recommended to a talented and gifted science program (suffice to say that my bias has nothing to do with her absolute brilliance). But the racist asshole who determined who got into wouldn't let her in because "black girls just can't manage in that atmosphere." Mind you, her high school had to develop a special indy study math class for her, because elementary calc was incredibly boring to her.

That is just one small example of the privilege that you and I have, that the programs we are talking about help to compensate for. Another example would be a black male friend of mine who ended up going from a 4.+ in high school, to graduating with a 2.5. He and his sister ended up homeless for a short time and then his sister had to struggle to keep it together and just ensure that he made it through college, when their mother had a breakdown and abandoned them - they got absolutely nothing in the way of support from their dad. Were it not for the united negro college fund (coupled with serious petitioning by a couple of his teachers) he would never have made it into college. As it was, he barely managed with the help available minority students.

Please read my last comment and seriously consider what I am saying. It is really easy to take the attitude you are taking, until you actually face the reality of being a woman and/or minority trying to achieve what we are talking about here. This is something that neither of us can ever fully comprehend because we can't suddenly have a different skin color and assuming you aren't transgendered either, we can't suddenly live life in a woman's skin. But we can and should most certainly try to understand to the very best of our abilities.

@Thegoodman -- if people could just "do it all on their own", then it would be done by now. There wouldn't BE any disparity between numbers of male & female CEOs, or black & white scientists.

Special assistance and mentoring programmes are about providing extra paths through barriers which do not exist for other groups. It's about making the first inroads. It's about the extremely well-documented tendency of people to hire and support people like them which works to keep certain demographics in positions of power and certain demographics excluded. If anyone in the support programmes were saying "you black people/hispanics/women/whatever need help because you aren't as good or as talented as the white men so we need to support you more" then you would have a valid argument, but you seem fantastically fucking oblivious to all the people pointing out to you, that is not what it is or what it's about or what it says. It's about making sure that people are not artificially excluded from opportunity because of genetic group membership -- why do you find this so hard to understand????

My point is that every assistance program I have ever received was not because I was a white male. I received it because I was poor or because I am simply a person. Every race/gender/ethnicity has these same advantages; as they should. My point is that it shameful to ask for MORE simply because you are less capable. If I were a minority, I would be upset that white people think I need these programs to be successful.

So, what YOU got is just due you as a "person", but what anyone else gets is too much and they should be ashamed?

Talk about a walking, talking ball of privileged attitude, ye gods.

I'm not even going to bother to try to explain how "person" means "white male" as the default, because there are others who have the patience. I don't. I call troll.

@Luna_the_cat
I understand what the point of these programs are. Just as you said, they provide a path through the barriers that exist simply because they are in the minority. This is great, I wish this was what they accomplished. What the programs are meant to do and how the majority views the programs is drastically different.

What I don't think you understand is how the majority views these paths. I am simply saying that they are often counter productive and provide a source of sourness in the majority and helps influence how the majority views the minority. "They cannot do it based on their own merits." and I feel like this attitude is prevalent among the majority. I have seen countless white men say almost this exact same thing, and while I argue with them that it is not true, I cannot change how they view the programs. I have to say I agree that this is how the programs APPEAR. I don't think it is true, but many people do think it is true, thus fueling their discrimination.

@DuWayne
The high school problem you are describing is 100% economic. It has nothing to do with minorities. Many terrific high schools have women and minorities that attend them and get into great schools. While its unfair that good students often attend crappy high schools, this problem isn't unique to minorities by any stretch. Many midwestern rural areas (aka white people) have terrible funding, high rates of dropouts, and high rates of teen pregnancy (which often leads to a drop out). Its definitely a problem, but not a problem that can be fixed by telling these students they are not capable of success without help.

Many of you seem oblivious to WHY the majority is oppressive. My goal is to offer you that viewpoint. The majority is oppressive because they think that minorities are not capable. How do the minorities respond? By asking for special assistance to be equal. I understand this isn't what the minorities intend, but it is how it looks and it is why it continues to be a problem in our culture.

I am told I am oblivious and told that minorities need these special programs to even the playing field. I am simply saying that the field will never be even. It is a dog eat dog world and we can't coddle people to guarantee their success. Truly qualified people make themselves into successful people. It is unfair that some are given more opportunity than others, but life is rarely fair.

Everyone on here has a story about how they were discriminated against or some sort of disadvantage you had. What did you do about it? You rose above it. You were successful DESPITE the person who as holding you down. Good for you. Encourage others to do the same and teach people how to be successful despite being in the minority. What we shouldn't do is tell them not to worry about it because the playing field will be evened out. It won't ever be even. Human nature is to gravitate toward people who are like you, that will never change and white men will always be the majority here so deal with it.

My point is that saying that minorities need specially assistance to be equal to white men fuels discrimination. I do not support programs that teach people they are not equal to white men

No, no, no, no, NO, FSM-damnit!

They are not because people think that minorities are less capable than white men. They are not teaching anyone who remotely pays attention that minorities are less capable than white men. They are saying that the deck is stacked very highly in favor of white men so that mediocre white men quite often get preference over more capable minorities, so maybe let's just take an extra look at those minority candidates and make sure our unconscious biases aren't screwing over people who deserve this (scholarship/job/acceptance) as much or more than the rest of the pool.

Why is this such a difficult concept?

@Cara

I don't understand what you are saying. Like I said before, no one should decline free stuff. There is nothing wrong with taking advantage of your situation. Even if that means there is a scholarship for the "Black Jews that grew up in montana and have a club foot" program. Lucky you, you are the only black jew in montana with a club foot so you win a full ride scholarship. I mean it when I say, that is perfectly fine and good for you.

You seem to be mistaking getting something free with ASKING for something free. People only ask for free stuff if they think they are incapable of attaining it on their own or if they have no pride. In this case I think it is a situation of thinking you are incapable of attaining it on your own.

There is a big difference between taking advantage of programs and asking for more programs. I am sorry you think that society thinks anyone who is not a white male is not a person (I think this is what you are saying). I don't feel that way at all and I clearly don't see why you think this.

Human nature is to gravitate toward people who are like you, that will never change and white men will always be the majority here so deal with it.

So let's give up ladies- grab those aprons and kick off your shoes and go make Thegoodman a sammich!

We know that's how the programs are perceived, and yes there will always be some racist/sexist/homophobic jerks who will never believe there are barriers, but to say that we shouldn't even try to fix those misconceptions is really stupid, not to mention pretty fatalistic of you. We're reaching out to the moderate center, or at least trying to drag people into the moderate center, and if that is threatening to you somehow then too. Fucking. Bad.

@thegoodman has it ever occurred to you to wonder how much your mother made, and whether this impacted whether she could help pay for your education? She may have been fortunate, and made just much as all the male police officers (Indeed, often government jobs payscales are set up so formally women can do quite well)... or she may not have been.
I'm honestly glad you have many kickin ass and takin names type women in your life. I hope you are inspired by them and can learn from them. But you do have to *ask* them about different challenges they faced that were influenced by their gender. You will learn a bit more about the people around you, which is intrinsically a good thing. I doubt any of them will say "oh I could have achieved so much more, if only I weren't a woman!" (seriously, I don't know anyone who thinks like that)... but I wouldn't be surprised if they didn't all have some stories of "well there was this one time this dickface *thought* I couldn't do X because I'm a woman... but I sure showed him!" While these type of stories do indicate their own personal kick-ass-ness, they *also* reflect that the society we live in does present them with challenges you don't have to worry about. If you only have to face men who believe you can't once in a while, it can be a bit fun to show them up. If you have to face it all the frickin time, it eats up energy that could otherwise have been better spent.

"You are basically saying that they cannot do it on their own and they are actually not good enough, and I don't support that."
No. I am basically saying that people will *assume* they cannot do it on their own more than for white men, and they actually need aid to balance that out. Until you *don't* have people rating "women" CVs as inferior to "men" CVs, you'll need that.

Beth,

I understand the concept of the programs. I am trying to help you understand how they are perceived. I am a white guy who works with all white guys and went to school with all white guys. I know how they discuss these things and I know how they are perceived. Their concept is meaningless if the majority perceives them to be different. From my limited perspective, it isn't "some" who perceive the programs this way, it is "most".

I am not threatened by successful women or minorities at all. I completely support any person who wishes to be successful and I will help them where I can. My wife is a doctor and will soon enough be bringing home the bacon. I had a single mother who had 3 jobs. Working builds characters and its great for every person to have a job, minority, women, or whatever.

Again, you miss my point. Just because those barriers will ALWAYS be there, it doesn't mean you should give up. No one should ever give up. I am saying that hardships should strength your resolve, not discourage you. This is the message that we need young people to understand. We've all had barriers to overcome and they are unique to each person who overcomes them.

"No. I am basically saying that people will *assume* they cannot do it on their own more than for white men, and they actually need aid to balance that out."

I happen to think that white men assume this BECAUSE the aid exists. Their logic is this "If minorities were capable of success on their own, why do they need assistance programs and scholarships?"

I am just trying to explain to all of you how white men view these programs. Most of them put far less thought into this situation than you or I and quickly dismiss the minorities as less capable because they are aware of the programs that exist to make them "more-capable".

This is why I don't think these programs achieve their true goal. They actually hinder the progress toward the ultimate goal of equality.

life is rarely fair

Thanks, dude. I'm just going to quit working to make the world better STAT.

I am a white guy who works with all white guys and went to school with all white guys. I know how they discuss these things and I know how they are perceived.

Do you honestly think we would never understand white male perspective if it weren't for helpful people like you?

Thegoodman has completely derailed what could have been a great thread by re-enacting the problem that was the point of the original post, mansplaining, refusing to engage with the topic at hand, refusing to read and contemplate the sources that posters provided when he asked to be educated, and generally being a privileged jerk. TROLL.

@Theogoodman

I wonder if you realize how ridiculous you sound when you think that no one else on this blog understands the way the majority thinks. Not 10 comments ago you stated YOUR PERSONAL OPINION was "saying that assistance programs for minorities are essential is insulting to the minorities. You are basically saying that they cannot do it on their own and they are actually not good enough". How dare we assume that you actually believed what you said. Trust me, we get it, we know all the incorrect information that's out there- what in the hell is so wrong with trying to correct it? It may be corrected one person at a time in a world of 6 billion, but it's better than nothing.

I love how you assume that affirmative action is "asking for free stuff", and then to top it off imply that all we whiners need is some good hard work to build character and then we can succeed like your mom did or like you do. Fuck off. I'm a woman who was first in her class in high school, got a full academic scholarship to college and was first in her class there, and is now in one of the top three graduate programs in the country for what she wants to do. I don't need your pity, and I don't need you to teach me how I should work hard for what I want. I'm doing just fine, thanks.

What I DO need is a world that when my hypothetical daughter goes off to college, she doesn't ever have to think about whether or not she deserves to be there or belongs there. I need a world where she won't be asked at her honors thesis defense why she didn't show up in a short skirt and fishnets.

I need a world where seeing men get $5 for the same job I do, it's not perceived as demeaning to myself to ask, "hey, can you at least round my $3.50 up to $4? And then maybe talk about a raise?"

Shorter Thegoodman: Put up and shut up.

The problems I was describing weren't about the economics of a situation. In the case of my partner, were talking about a woman who not only had a middle class upbringing, but was also a military brat in DOD schools. And with a dad who was (still is) a ranking officer, she had some status among other students.

But she also ran into racism that actively worked against her best interests. It ignored the fact that she was a consistently top student and in one case kept her out of a program she was more qualified for than most of the kids who did get in.

As for my friend who barely managed to get the help he needed to get into school...He was in a situation that is not dissimilar to the situation of a lot of black and Latino kids. It was economics of a sort that put him there, but it was also a situation that happens to be very prevalent. He also had to fight through a peer group that was actively striving to keep him down and in the same boat they are in. Unfortunately a lot of low income black and some Latinos really don't like to see others like them become "white" people - or "Uncle Toms" or any number of very nasty accusations.

His problems were a direct result of the culture in which not only he was raised, but in which his parents were raised. He had the brains to make something of himself and desperately wanted to. He did and has excelled in school, putting him on a road to a highly successful career in medicine. The only reason he has had the opportunity to do so, is because of the united negro college fund. Not only because they helped cover the cost of his undergrad, but because they were able to advocate on his behalf to convince the school to waive grade requirements for admission, taking into account the reason he didn't keep that 4.+ through graduation.

I am told I am oblivious and told that minorities need these special programs to even the playing field. I am simply saying that the field will never be even.

And we are saying that the field can be made a little more even. We are saying that there is nothing wrong and a lot right about fostering programs that help make it happen.

It is a dog eat dog world and we can't coddle people to guarantee their success.

I see, so it is "coddling" to help someone who has every possibility of being successful, but who has innate characteristics that actively work against that success? Gotcha. I am beginning to believe that you really are just an entitled asshole who has no interest in actually understanding what we are talking about. And before you go ranting about your poor past, I had just as shitty an experience and still recognize my privilege.

Truly qualified people make themselves into successful people.

Bullshit. There are truly qualified people who cannot make themselves successful, because they are never given the opportunity. You seem to have the impression that because of the programs that are out there, anyone who is a minority or a woman is guaranteed help. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Human nature is to gravitate toward people who are like you, that will never change and white men will always be the majority here so deal with it.

As a white dude, all I can say is fuck you and the miserable fucking cur you rode in on. The entire point of these programs is to change the paradigm and shift into a direction where white men aren't so privileged. A paradigm shift that I support absolutely, because it is fucking ridiculous to accept that it should be that way.

And before you start whining, this isn't about pissing on white guys and putting us down. It is about equalizing other groups up. Not giving under or unqualified people positions they don't deserve. Rather giving everyone the opportunity that you and I have to get there.

Also, please don't try pushing me to see your point of view. I am a white midwesterner from a lower middle class family. I grew up with this shit and until I started really paying attention and learning the reality of the situation, I shared your ignorant point of view.

I am trying to help you understand how they are perceived. I am a white guy who works with all white guys and went to school with all white guys. I know how they discuss these things

We already know how white men see things. That is because white males are considered the default in our society. We have heard their perspective all our lives.

You don't seem to realize this. Seriously--you are very, very far behind the class.

You would do very well to read Johnson's The Gender Knot. Like, yesterday.

I suspect that you are just messing with the commenters here though, as you have shown no interest in the reading provided, so I'm out.

"Human nature is to gravitate toward people who are like you, that will never change and white men will always be the majority here so deal with it."

To me (a white D00d), this sentence invalidates all the other stuff you said about believing in equality and liking MLKj, etc, etc. I wish you'd started with this and saved me the time of wading through the discussion.

Well, if it makes a few of you feel any better, I am seriously considering that I could be completely wrong.

I'll put some serious thought into my positions on the subject and reconsider. I have clearly misrepresented myself to all of you and I am now paying the price for it. I suppose it is difficult to see the advantages you have had that you did not know about that I am obviously guilty of not seeing.

I would love to see absolute equality and anything that truly helps create this situation I will support completely.

"I happen to think that white men assume this BECAUSE the aid exists."
Post hoc != propter hoc, but if not post hoc, not propter hoc.

Wouldn't that imply that discrimination is new, and has only exited since affirmative action programs have been put into place?

Yeah, that whole *not allowing* women or black people to vote back in the 19th century? That's obviously the direct result of college scholarships to minorities in the late 20th century. It's those timetraveling oppressive white males...

Their logic is this "If minorities were capable of success on their own, why do they need assistance programs and scholarships?"
It is true that this thinking is out there. However, plenty of people also believe that if minorities were capable of success on their own, there would already be e.g. a proportional number of minority CEOs. Both statements depend on people assuming that all discrimination is gone and doesn't exist anymore. This is a demonstrably invalid claim (that's what things like those tightly controlled "ridiculous" resume studies show- it's the same damn CV, just with a different name attached. How does that have anything to do with anything other than bias?). Since it is predicated on a false assumption, we tend to dismiss this argument.

Yes, things like affirmative action programs will attract criticism. But the truth is, there is frequent criticism of women and minorities in colleges and jobs and the like, irrespective of whether affirmative action had anything to do with how they got there. What does that tell you?

Wouldn't that imply that discrimination is new, and has only exited since affirmative action programs have been put into place?

I am only 27 yrs old. For my entire educational and adult life, women and minorities have been considered my equal. I've always been told this, this is what I have seen, and this is what I have thought. Clearly all of you have passion about this so it isn't true, but I am saying that for me and what I believe to be my generation, we are equals. Discrimination isn't new, but the continuation of programs like affirmative action give people in my age bracket something to grab onto if/when we decide to be discriminatory. Before I knew about affirmative action, I had no reason to be discriminatory in the workplace (I am currently not, but I do know men who are and for that sole reason). Most agree that the AA program has good and bad points, but the good outweigh the bad. I am saying that in a few short years, my generation will be in managerial positions and that scale will tip. The bad will outweigh the good.

But the truth is, there is frequent criticism of women and minorities in colleges and jobs and the like, irrespective of whether affirmative action had anything to do with how they got there. What does that tell you?

I am not sure what it tells me. Why are they being criticized? What did they do (or not do) wrong? I think this is a case by case basis.

I intend on reading The Gender Knot to clear my thinking a bit on this topic. I am sure I will learn something worthwhile. I am definitely open to new/different view points.

It is almost impossible for white males to see the true picture unless it is shown to them in the flesh. I am a white male that grew up in a moderately socially liberal family. Racism, to me, was when white people called minorities names, when people were fired for being minorities, etc. When someone who was racist did something nasty to a minority, that was racism. I hated all that, had no problem with black people, the usual young liberal uninformed ideas.

In college I took a summer class called "Diversity in Education" for some general education requirement. I took it because I knew it would be very easy. The class consisted mostly of black students who were there through affirmative action or sports.

That class introduced me to the notion of "privilege", and to Tim Wise. I did not really understand until the end of the semester. I was an honors student, and to make this class into an honors class I did a mini-thesis. It was about affirmative action. I did an okay job, I didn't really care all that much about the class as it was so easy.

The wake up call came when I presented the paper to the class. I got about ten minutes into it. One of the black students raised their hand and asked "what's affirmative action?" I was stunned. I looked around. None of them had any idea what I was talking about. The basic building blocks, the things I though people learned just through living their lives, were totally foreign to them. They knew nothing about anything. Their experience was something I had not realized the existence of.

I was more equipped to handle the world at 20 than these people ever will be. They will have to work to learn everything I'd learned just by being around. That is privilege.

I am saying that hardships should strength your resolve, not discourage you.

YOU, and default human beings who think like you, are discouraging. The fact that you're here bloviating about what people who are not you (and who have been UNFAIRLY and BLATANTLY discriminated against, consciously and unconsciously, in ways you have not been) should do and think and feel is discouraging; not unexpected, but discouraging. However, our resolve is strengthened, no thanks to you.

This is the message that we need young people to understand. We've all had barriers to overcome and they are unique to each person who overcomes them.

Wrong-o, dude. They are NOT UNIQUE. They are systematic injustices and privileges, and that's why there are measures to HELP counter them SOMEWHAT. MAYBE.

Your inability (or unwillingness) to see your privilege doesn't mean it's not there. And, no, we're NOT going to "educate you" because you're oh-so-confused. You're good at pulling yourself up by your bootstraps. If you really want to understand, follow the links and get after it.

But I don't believe you do. I think you're trolling in hopes of derailing the discussion. (Fortunately, your behavior illustrates the post brilliantly, so you're not wreaking the havoc you hoped to).

NOT going to get involved in an argument--just stopping by to say that I loved this freakin' article.

Oh, and...

"We already know how white men see things. That is because white males are considered the default in our society. We have heard their perspective all our lives. "

Great point, SKM.

Oh, good grief.

I am trying to help you understand how they are perceived.

Of course you are. How useful to have this heretofore completely secret knowledge. It's not like it's in the fucking water or anything.

I am a white guy who works with all white guys and went to school with all white guys.

Again, duh.

I know how they discuss these things and I know how they are perceived.

But we dumb broads and non-whities can't even guess. We NEED to be told directly because it's not like this shit is our LIVES or anything.

Their concept is meaningless if the majority perceives them to be different. From my limited perspective, it isn't "some" who perceive the programs this way, it is "most".

Most, meaning "the majority", who are white d00ds. Ten-four. And, again, fucking DUH. Which is why the programs exist in the first place, to fight Teh Fucking Duh (perpetuated by the dominant Duh).

@Cara
Why are you so hostile? I am going to educate myself and read up on gender and racial issues. I clearly have a skewed perspective on the issues and seem a bit out of my league here.

The discussion wasn't derailed, it just shifted to a different but similar topic. Despite all of the harsh words thrown my way, I've really enjoyed and I've learned a lot and would like to learn more. I am not trolling at all and everything I've said are my true opinions and they have definitely changed throughout the discussion.

I am honestly disturbed by the opinion that a few of you have of me and how quickly I've been labeled. Is there a way I can abdicate this image? Like I said, I feel misrepresented by my own words and would like to set the record straight.

Also, do any of you see how this is ironic.
"We already know how white men see things. That is because white males are considered the default in our society. We have heard their perspective all our lives. "? On one hand I am berated for acting like I have an inkling of an idea of what minorities and women go through. Meanwhile, you praise each other for doing the exact same thing.

By saying something so ignorant you draw a line in the sand in front of my feet and make it you vs. white men. I don't want that line to be there and I wish you would not paint this picture.

Ok, now who is trolling? You pick out a few sentences from my post and respond with "duh".

I am confused as to why you are here if you already fucking know everything. I think your blanket statements that represent your clear disdain for white men is racist in itself. Is this the point you are making?

Most, meaning "the majority", who are white d00ds. Ten-four. And, again, fucking DUH. Which is why the programs exist in the first place, to fight Teh Fucking Duh (perpetuated by the dominant Duh).
This is incoherent. And like previous posts, you are too infuriated or possibly your eyes are itching from the burning bra smoke, but you didn't read my post yet. Do you not see my point?

Affirmative action pisses off white guys more than it helps minorities get jobs. Is that worth it? It causes every single woman and minority to be questioned if they belong or not. It causes every white man to wonder if they might be more qualified than the woman/minority next to them. It good for the minorities and women who get the jobs, but it is bad for the progression of equality. How can a minority or woman say they are truly equal when there are laws that say they are not?

I find that it helps to look at these issues from the other side, for several hundred years in America rich white men did not have to compete with minorities or women or the poor for the jobs that they found most fulfilling. The advancement of people who were not well-off, white, and men was artificially capped so they did not have to compete. The lack of female doctors or black lawyers or people from the lowest classes of society rising to become engineers was not seen as a problem, but proof that those people lacked the characteristics necessary to succeed.

Once we as a society began to address these issues, which was not very long ago at all, the formerly oppressed could not just jump into CEO positions or become President of the USA, they were still dealing with many forms of oppression which were not addressed, they were still living on the paycheck they got from their artificially repressed position, and more than that, they were not welcome and most people don't want to live everyday in a world that does not want them to be there. So we formerly *more* discriminated against people have to progress up the ladder in stages, that is why my great-grandmother didn't finish high school and worked on a farm, my grandmother finished high school and worked in a factory, my mother went to junior college and worked in an office, so today I can have multiple degrees and be a librarian. What is being addressed here isn't: Where would I be if I hadn't been born female? or Where would you be, thegoodman, if you hadn't been born poor? But where would we be if our poor female and poor male ancestors had been given a fair shake?

Is there a way I can abdicate this image?

Yes, and since certain people aren't here to say it; Shut the fuck up, quit arguing with people about privilege and actually read some of the things that have been suggested. Pay attention to what the people who are actually have a uterus and/or non-beige skintone have to say. Edumucate yourself. There are a great many options out there for the learning - including, but not limited to books.

I'm sorry, I can't let this one pass up.

"Affirmative action pisses off white guys more than it helps minorities get jobs. Is that worth it? It causes every single woman and minority to be questioned if they belong or not."

Reread this statement. Please. It is arguing from an inherently privileged position. There is the tacit assumption that these white male opinions *matter*. Because they do. Because white men run the show. It is such a base assumption that "what white males think" = "what people think" that they are interchangeable.

When has the opinion of black people towards white people ever mattered? Maybe when they make white people feel guilty.

Part of being a disadvantaged group is worrying about pissing off white males.

@Thegoodman #95
For my entire educational and adult life, women and minorities have been considered my equal. I've always been told this, this is what I have seen, and this is what I have thought.

This might be what you were told and what you thought, but it isn't true. What happened is that the blatant racism and sexism became less acceptable, so it went underground and got quieter. What happened is that you were never the actual target of the more subtly discriminatory differences of attitude and action, and so you had absolutely no reason to ever perceive them. It isn't gone, though, even as the blatant type of nastiness, and when it's not blatant, it clothes itself as things like people who think "The Bell Curve" makes a lot of sense (but who have never heard of the expectation effect) and who might decide not to give someone with a "black" name an interview even though they look good on paper because it would be "a waste of time", and people who automatically remove CVs with a female name out of a stack of applicants for a technical job, without ever thinking about it, because they want "someone qualified." It's people like one of my brothers (we'll call him Bubba, for now) who lifted my little nephew onto a fire truck at the station and said "There you go, a fireman!", then lifted my little niece onto a desk and said, "and you can be the secretary!" -- or do you think that 3-year-olds and 6-year-olds don't absorb role messages? It's the fact that I know I will personally have to publish more papers in higher caliber journals than my male colleagues in order to be regarded as being at the same level, but even getting that publication level is harder if I leave my [female] name on the paper. Even when I write fiction I'll face assumptions about what I can and can't write if I stick with my full [female] name. Sure, none of the people responsible for this are walking around calling women bitches and demanding they stay barefoot & pregnant & in the kitchen; does the fact that these are simply unconscious actions from people who are sure they like and respect women make it less sexist? Do you think it doesn't present a barrier of idiocy that men don't have to work through?

#101 Affirmative action pisses off white guys more than it helps minorities get jobs. Is that worth it? It causes every single woman and minority to be questioned if they belong or not.

Bullshit. The assumption that women & minorities are not really qualified for these jobs WAY predates affirmative action; are you seriously trying to claim that if there weren't affirmative action, that people would be so much more accepting of women and minorities in these jobs?
No. That's not how it works. If there were no affirmative action, not only would there be fewer qualified women and minorities in the jobs, but the ones who were there would still be getting the sideways looks and comments about how they slept or bribed their way there. We had a few decades of that.

As for why Cara is hostile: simply put, you are telling people that what we have lived and breathed all our lives is not valid experience, and because it has taken you close to 100 posts to start to act like you have started to realise that you don't know everything; and more to the point, because you are the several-hundredth white guy to come in saying exactly this kind of thing that most of us have encountered. If you were the first, I bet you would find a bit more patience. If you were the fifth or the sixth or the tenth, I bet you would find a bit more patience. If you were the fiftieth, you would probably find marginally more patience. But by about number 479 of white guys saying "that's just the way life is, you women/PoC don't face any more real problems than anyone else, just work hard and you'll succeed", most people just want to throw things and scream at the moron until he goes away. Think biologist explaining things to number 40,709 creationist, maybe you will understand this.

Oh, and beside that -- what DK just said, oh yes. "People" == "white males", and women and PoC have to worry about what "people" think. ++1.

Why are you so hostile?

YAY! I win! Hardly worth it, though, the pots are so small from being emptied so often.

So, fine, "goodman", educate yourself. You have my blessing. Vaya con Dios.

@Thegoodman
I usually do not post comments on blogs. I sensed that you are really trying now which is why I am replying. I will try to reach anyone with an open mind.

I read through your earlier comments. I am also an electrical engineer and I'm about your age. It sounds like you had a tough lot in life, much tougher than mine, and I applaud your accomplishments. How many of your friends in similar situations did as well as you? You are smart, motivated, and had some decent role models. What if you were just average?

Blacks, for example, are much more likely to come from a background similar to yours than to mine. My family mostly works on Wall St. and my parents make about $200K on a really shitty year (as in now). Black people our age with my background are so few I've probably come across two or three in my life. For your average black person, the dream of becoming a banker like my father is like my father's dream of being Warren Buffet. It's shooting for the moon. My father is what the average drunken fratboy school of management brah at my college was shooting for.

@70

Hello Luna_the_cat,

It's exciting to have someone respond, as that was my first post to this blog! XKCD is great isn't it? I really like it, and that comic = a good point, well argued.

My thoughts were that if something has rules about it, if it is enforced by an institution, can we call it systematic? By this, I mean that it is a system itself, not individuals implementing it. Perhaps âinstitutionalâ or âformalâ discrimination would be a better term. And maybe âinformalâ, âcasualâ or âprivateâ would be a better term than âpersonalâ, as some of us might read that as meaning âpersonalâ discrimination isnât widespread, or a problem.

Can I give another example? The anti-miscegenation laws of the previous century are systematic or institutional discrimination; if I was a celebrant living in those conditions, even if I wanted to marry an interracial couple, I couldnât âIâm being forced to discriminate.

I just looked up the Wikipedia entry on anti-miscegenation, and it gives an instance of what Iâd regard as personal discrimination. Celebrant Keith Bardwell refused to marry an interracial couple in 2009. Mr. Bardwell could have (there were not any institutional laws against it) â he just chose not to.

In your maths class, obviously Iâm not there, so your opinion has more subjective weight than mine. But let me ask you this: were you being discriminated against (through being ignored) because of school rules? When/if youâd gone to the school authorities and lodged a complaint (and Iâm not saying you should have, if you didnât; this might not have been a reasonable action for you to take in your environment), would official school guidelines have supported your teacher? Or was your teacher being discriminatory all on her own? In either case, please believe me when I say that I do see your problem! I do think your friend Robin was facing both personal and systematic discrimination, since she wasnât allowed to be a pilot (systematic?) and was discouraged from taking maths classes (personal?).

I donât want to claim that both kinds arenât a problem, or that personal discrimination isnât wide spread (actually, I think we might find it is more widespread than systematic discrimination today). But speaking solely for myself, Iâd prefer to face personal discrimination.
Is this a fair distinction to make?

I really like DuWayne. I found his first response to be the most compelling.

@jsb --
Welcome, hope you hav a thick skin. ;-)

Now, the real problem leading to a misunderstanding, here, is that you are using terms ("institutional" and "systematic") which are already in use, but don't mean what you're using them for. What you are talking about is definitely formal discrimination, but also legally supported and overt. However, systematic or institutional racism or sexism doesn't have to be, and in fact generally isn't these days, since OVERT racism and sexism is not legally supported to a large extent. It IS, however, racism or sexism that occurs at an institutional level, and which is simply based on "common practice." I'm going to refer you back to Wikipedia again: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Institutional_racism .

If I had bothered to complain to the school, I would have simply been told to quit making a fuss about it, it was not a big deal. (We are also talking about a school where any girl who took the weight training class for gym got an automatic F, simply because the coach who taught it thought that weightlifting was a boys' thing and girls just shouldn't be there.) This was not either legally supported or mandated, but it was institutional, since it was a pervasive culture of discrimination which was common practice at the level of the school. See definition above.

Although individual agents are always directly responsible for their actions and attitudes, the context in which they work often guides and informs those actions and attitudes, and when it is more than a single or small number of individuals -- when prejudice occurs at the level of institutional decision-making -- then it is institutional prejudice.

The problem IS that we have widespread systematic discrimination today, for example in the inequity of who speaks and how in the classroom, or in the hiring practices which favour men over women because of subconscious beliefs about aptitude, such as is amply illustrated above -- but these practices generally AREN'T formal, they are simply based on belief and common practice and often do not operate at the level of conscious choice, which makes it a great deal harder to pin down.

So, I don't think you have a valid distinction, there, really.

I have a legitimate question.

Is there a scientific study that discusses racial representation in college that adjusts for income bracket and location? I'm curious if a black kid and a white kid grow up in upper-middle class homes in the same neighborhood, the probability of each getting into college.

@Brandon -- I would be very surprised if there were not such a study. Are you at a university? Visit the library and look for the social sciences index database, and have a play with constructing queries.

In the mean time, although these are not exactly that study, they are relevant and I have them immediately to hand:

Laurie Hart Reyes and George M. A. Stanic, "Race, Sex, Socioeconomic Status, and Mathematics" Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, Vol. 19, No. 1 (Jan., 1988), pp. 26-43
[note that this was in 1988, and there are a large number of studies which update this -- Google Scholar Is Your Friend, just start with this paper title]

"Intelligence: Knowns and Unknowns"
Report of a Task Force established by the Board of Scientific Affairs of the American Psychological Association
Released August 7, 1995

Brandon, I have a place for you to start, unfortunately it is hung in moderation because I'm posting too many links.

Thanks everyone for the information and the explanations, no one has to explain anything and I appreciate your interest thus far.

I went home and asked my wife about her challenges. She is an M.D. She graduated high school and college with a 3.99 GPA (out of 4, no weighted classes) and finished medical school with an Honors grade in about 90% of her classes. She is going into a predominantly male field (radiation oncology) that is also very prestigious. I asked her very pointedly "Have you faced any challenges or discrimination in your life simply because you are a woman." Her answer:"No." I asked her to elaborate and she had nothing else to offer, she really never faced any situation that was uncomfortable or unprofessional because she is a female.

Are we in some sort of mystical bubble here where she is somehow been the luckiest person on earth? The more likely scenario is that she is smart as hell and she works her ass off and people notice it because she is good at what she does. That fact that she has a vagina is irrelevant.

@DK
You asked "What if you were just average?" I would be like every other guy I went to high school with. A college dropout with 2 kids and working at Wal-mart. Where I come from, average people are losers compared to the rest of the world. I was the first person in my entire family to travel out of the country and still currently the only "professional" in my entire family. I never felt like I had some sort of special privilege. If I hadn't worked hard I would be what I consider a loser. I do not have a single friend from high school I hang out with because most of them do drugs or are broke as shit and complain about being broke all the time. When discussing this with my wife she asked what privileges I had, because she didn't see any of them.

My point is that I didn't have a yellow brick road to success and I don't feel like I had a lot of the opportunities many of you are saying I had. Not only that, my wife who is an extreme successful woman didn't have any of the challenges so many of you say ALL women have.

She also said to me "Why do you argue with these people? Its scary that some of them actually believe what they are saying. It makes me sad for humanity."

Sounds like we are 2 peas in a pod :)

@Thegoodman -- actually, could you point to where we said ALL women, no exception, face the same challenges? Because I am not seeing this. What I *am* seeing is someone who is unwilling or unable to listen to or make a good-faith attempt to understand people who say that they face challenges he hasn't perceived.

The other thing I'll note is that your wife is apparently just starting her career? I've seen a number of bright-eyed graduates who are convinced they have never run across institutionalised gender-based inequities, and I genuinely wish I could believe that were universally the case. In some cases, though, it seems like some gender disparities are never perceived because they are simply too much part of the culture, and accepted as normal and unexceptional behaviour -- which makes your wife not so much blessed as a little too well acculturated, if she hasn't noticed. In other cases, yes, they simply haven't encountered things that smack them upside the head with the inequity of it, yet. But I think it would be worthwhile revisiting the issue in 10 years to see if she has the same attitude and experience.

What you DON'T get to do, however, is look at all the large number of women pointing out their experiences, pointing to studies and documentation of how these individual experiences fit into a discernable cultural bias, and go "well, me and my wife have never seen anything like this, therefore it isn't real and it's sad that you believe this stuff." FU sideways with a broomstick, too.

Wow, I think it's a great thing that your wife has worked in medicine yet has never been perved on, 'touched' during patient handling, mistaken for a nurse, mistaken for a secretary, that she avoided the classical challenges of being female all the way through grade school, high school and college, that she has never been judged on her femininity or sexual appearance, that she has never been hit on whilst out with friends by random strangers, that she has never been wolf-whistled at, that none of her teachers ever doubted her career choice because she was female, that she was fully included in all the social events at uni, and that no one ever doubted that she might be too emotional or empathetic to survive in her job.

It's great that no one in any of the selection processes she has gone through has ever used her gender as a factor in thier decision, even though this is still a statistically common phenomenon, even in academia and professional arenas. It's great that no one with ever doubt her abilities because she is a woman, and none of her clients will ever have less confidence in her just because she's a woman.

It sounds like you are both so far removed from the experience of the average normal person that any rational reasonable observer will have serious trouble taking your lack of experiences and understanding as a valid counterpoint to the numerous biographical and academic references that say otherwise.

But it was entertaining watching you get totally schooled. Shame you had to be such a dick in your last post. You even pulled the old 'well I know a woman/gay man/black guy/person in a wheelchair and they say you're wrong so there!' gambit. It's so sad that you wont allow yourself to see just how stupid it was to ask your clearly non-typical (and possibly fictional) wife about her personal experience and then extrapolate that out to women in general.

As one man to another, I must ask you one favour: please stop making us all look bad.

Oh, and stop mistaking endemic and systemic for universal. They don't mean the same thing.

I am not denying the existence of any of the issues that many of you are so passionate about. They certainly exist and I have been exposed to a lot of ideas and and situations I hadn't previously considered, and will not consider moving forward. So many of you have accomplished at least part of your goal of enlightening me to the real world and the hardships people face; many I was not aware of.

That being said, you need to realize that most of you are on the far side of this argument. A nearly extremist stance that from my perspective, tend to think that racial and sexual discrimination are prominent in every area of the working world and that white men are privileged and given a lot of free things that the women/minorities are not privy to. I have a much more moderate view of things. While I do recognize racism/sexism as a problem and I know that it exists and should be done away with, I also feel like many of you are making it out to be a much worse situation than I feel it really is.

I am sure I could find some studies that show the exact opposite information as the studies you have linked me. Studies are done every day that support a persons argument. This doesn't make them invalid, but it does mean they should be taken for what they are. They prove a point but are not the be-all end-all of a situation as dynamic as sexism or racism. If it could all be summed up in a couple of links, I am sure it would have been done away with long ago. It persists because it is far more complex than that.

Dedj,
My wife has certainly been the victim of being a woman. Guys hit on her regularly, they bother her, she was hit on during an interview once by a man who was wearing a wedding ring. My point is that this didn't offend her. It didn't hold her back in any way. Its just an inconvenience that she is equipped to fend off and brush off without letting it bother her. That is evolution. Men want to sleep with women, and women have evolved to be the one who decides who they sleep with. This can be bad at times, but it can be advantageous in others. To act like the women always have a harder time than men isn't just unfair, its simply wrong. Women don't have the pressure of supporting a family. No one expects a woman to make the money to pay for a house/care/kids. They are free to choose to work, stay at home, do whatever they want. Men on the other hand are expected to work. Stay-at-home dads are looked down upon. I am not mad at this situation, I just accept it for what it is. You take the good with the bad and if you don't like it, you make yourself into an exception. My wife is an exception, I am not. This works for us and we are happy with our lives. We don't blame anyone or anything for our misfortunes, we define who we are and we decide what we do with our lives. If someone tries to hold us back because I was poor or because she is a women, we simply won't allow them to do that.

I've remained amicable throughout this discussion despite being told to fuck off, go fuck myself, and the like. I think I am being reasonable and open but I won't apologize for not accepting all of your points immediately. I am not making anyone look bad. I have only said things that differ from the opinion of most/all of you and I've been open to learning more about the topic, and I have learned a lot. I intend on learning more and I am open to completely changing my views on the topic so please don't label me as something I am not.

If you only enjoy discussing things with people who have the exact same viewpoint as you then don't participate.

Ev-Psych for the win! My bingo card is all full.

I'm about to go into my final review in a program where I have the highest GPA in my class. I've also been consistently harassed, discriminated against, devalued, and sexually harassed just because I'm a woman. It didn't keep me from doing well, but it's been hell to go through. I hope that in the future, young women will not have to put up with this kind of treatment while ALSO working harder than their male peers for good grades, recognition, etc.

I have the best academic record in my class, and I've achieved that while also dealing with institutional sexism. Why in the world should the bar be so much f*cking higher for women than for men? Why can't we have a world in which the professor and students who sexually harassed me and constantly disrespected me would actually face some kind of penalty? Why couldn't I just focus on my academics at school, rather than also having to navigate persistent and, again, institutional, misogyny?

Because I'm a woman. Damn.

I am sure I could find some studies that show the exact opposite information as the studies you have linked me.

Just saying that you are sure they exist isn't particularly convincing.

If it could all be summed up in a couple of links, I am sure it would have been done away with long ago. It persists because it is far more complex than that.

Actually, it's more likely that it persists because people are not aware of the studies and are further not aware of their own inherent bias. Someone may see the study but think "well I don't discriminate, so it's not my problem" without realizing that they also have these unconscious biases to favor people that look like them.

No one expects a woman to make the money to pay for a house/care/kids. They are free to choose to work, stay at home, do whatever they want.

This is a problem. It is a biased world view that means you can justify in your own mind paying a woman less than a man even if they are doing the same job. Because you assume that the man is providing for a family while the woman is just at work for the fun of it. This is not always true (there is no universal law that the man in a relationship will be more career-driven than his spouse) and further, it is none of their employer's business. If a woman does as much work as the other employees, then she should be paid as much as them regardless of who is or isn't supporting families.

Damn. Cara, if you had just hung on -- I'm playing both antifeminist bingo cards, and I'm about two squares away from house on each.

@"thegoodman", are you seriously this clueless? Seriously?? Or are you now being a troll deliberately?

...you need to realize that most of you are on the far side of this argument. ... While I do recognize racism/sexism as a problem and I know that it exists and should be done away with, I also feel like many of you are making it out to be a much worse situation than I feel it really is.

Right, because your feelings, as someone who is not and has never been one of the targets of this kind of discrimination, is just totally exactly the best guage of the extent of the problem. What we can present just totally doesn't count against it, because your own personal experience trumps that, and hey, you have a WIFE who backs you up so that totally trumps the experience of multiple other women! Like, totally! And when people tell you that you are personally speaking from a position of privilege and that there is probably a lot missing in the understanding of what your wife lives (from you and her both, maybe), that just totally is just an extremist position. Because, let's not forget that your experience (and white guys in general) is totes the arbiter of reality, after all. ::headdesk::

I am sure I could find some studies that show the exact opposite information as the studies you have linked me.
Well, then, why don't you fucking DO THAT. You've been given links, papers, evidence, and all we're getting is just vague & airy handwaving about how you're "sure" there is equal evidence to contrary?? No. Defend your assertions, or admit that all you have is personal prejudice. Put up or shut up.

If it could all be summed up in a couple of links, I am sure it would have been done away with long ago. It persists because it is far more complex than that.
No, it persists because a bunch of privileged fuckers who don't credit anyone else's experience are unwilling to listen to groups who say "there's a lot you're missing." It also persists because there are people like you who say "well, that's just the way it is, it's natural, it's not a big problem, what are you all making such a fuss about."

Women don't have the pressure of supporting a family. No one expects a woman to make the money to pay for a house/care/kids.

Oh, you DIDN'T just fucking say that, you ignorant little douchebag.

Right, because teh wimminz is all for being taken care of by teh MENZ. We're not EXPECTED to support a family....

Let's just ignore all the women who are the primary breadwinners AND caretakers for their families, out of both choice and out of necessity, yes, ignore those demographic millions. Let's just ignore the historical fact that men used to be confirmed as the primary breadwinners simply because women couldn't get and wouldn't be given equitable salaries, regardless of their desire for a career. No, just pass that over; women just TOTALLY have a choice, and they just aren't EXPECTED do MEN'S work, and MEN are totally looked down on for being in a woman's "traditional position" and that is just completely natural and not part of the problem AT ALL. Nope, fuck women's experience, attitudes, desires, and discussion of the problem; fuck the documentation. Traditional attitudes got it NAILED, amirite?

I've remained amicable throughout this discussion despite being told to fuck off, go fuck myself, and the like. I think I am being reasonable and open...

Yeah, YOU might think this. This goes back to the thing you haven't quite grasped yet, which is that your personal feelings are not the arbiter of the physical reality apparent to the rest of us. You are being told to fuck off a lot not because we're so mean&horrible to such a REASONABLE, AMICABLE person, but because you're a smug privileged git who has, intentionally or not, come in here being completely dismissive of and insulting the people who are not agreeing with you in your Ultimate Wisdom About The Nature Of The World, regardless of whether you cuss. You claim you are learning -- have to say, you aren't giving a lot of evidence of this; rather, every time you come back with more traditional-gender-role-why-are-you-women-making-such-a-fuss-you-don't-have-anything-real-to-complain-about patronising bullshit.

@Thegoodman
"she was hit on during an interview once by a man who was wearing a wedding ring. My point is that this didn't offend her."

This really invalidates a lot of your points. You are basically admitting that all the bias is there, but there's nothing we can or should do about it and "winning" for the victim consists of sucking it up and not letting it piss you off.

Your wife has obviously experienced plenty of sexism. But she's also smarter than probably 99.99% of the population. She has been able to use her skills to insulate herself, which is a good thing to do. But the vast majority of people are just not as good at life as her. She is an extreme outlier.

I wasn't aware this was a factually based scientific study we are doing here. I thought most of us we posting our own opinions on matters and they didn't require a scientific study to justify them.

How in the fuck am I supposed to base my personal opinions on anything other than my own personal experiences. You've had a hard time being a woman. The fuck that has to do with me? From my own personal experience, this isn't true and it isn't true from the women in my life. You have an enormous fucking problem and clearly can't deal with life. I suspect if you were swinging a dick you would still be a whiny pompous bitch. Don't blame me for your fucking problems and don't blame anyone else. We all have problems and the problems I have are my own and I deal with them myself.

While many of you spew your all-knowing wisdom toward me like I am some privileged sheltered white kid who doesn't know his asymptote from a hole in the graph, you continually fail to understand what I am saying and I don't need a fucking scientific study to justify my personal opinions.

Also, yes I did say that women are in a convenient position to not deal with the social pressure of supporting their families. If a guy has no job he is labeled as a fucking bum. If a woman has no job she is a homemaker. Your opinion of this situation is irrelevant, its the fucking truth. The pressure to provide for your family sucks ass, don't act like its some sort of privilege to have people expect you to be successful and judge you if you don't make enough money. Fuck you and your anti-male views. ITS NOT MY FUCKING FAULT YOU DON'T HAVE A DICK. You are so fucking jealous of men its ridiculous. You have nothing to be jealous of. We both have struggles, we both have hardships, we both have advantages and disadvantages to our positions. Men and women are different and it doesn't matter how many flannel shirts you wear, we will always be different. This doesn't have to be a bad thing. Your attitude fuels the fire that is sexism and you are too fucking stupid to see that. Just like many radicals before you, your message fails because it doesn't reach the mind of reasonable people.

With the amount of respect you have shown mean, its no wonder you get treated like shit. News Flash: people treat you like a crazy bitch because you are, its not because you are a woman.

Just to add, my wife was high school valedictorian and has a masters biochem. I totally screwed off in high school. Did nothing. Screwed off for the first part of college, basically failed out. Got my shit together, came back and graduated with a 3.85 double majoring in math and electrical engineering. My wife and I are both research assistants now, although at quite different jobs. I make twice as much as her. It took her a number of interviews to get a job when I graduated and we moved (she had graduated a while ago and had been working at a lab at school for a year or so). I have been offered every single I've applied to after graduation.

Do my experiences invalidate yours? No, but if you look around you'll find that you're a lot more unique than I am.

Right, I think that about gets all the REST of the antifeminist myths and stereotypes. I had just about despaired of the whole "penis envy" thing showing up, but it finally did. Hey, wimminz, get it now? We're just bitter whiny bitchez because we aren't MEN, but we're just too stupid to know how good we've got it and we'd be failures as MEN too!!1!!eleventy-one!!! And we should RESPECT MEN MOAR 'cuz the fact we're MEAN is why we have so many problems!!!

"Thegoodman", thanks for removing any doubt -- you are, in fact, as clueless and bigoted as you first appeared. It's telling that when you are called on to support your claims about the world you throw a complete wobbly and toss your pacifier out of the pram, but hey, you feel totally free to diss everyone else's experiences even when we can document them.

Oh, and by "diss everyone else's experiences", let me just clarify -- sure, you said things like "I am not denying the existence of any of the issues that many of you are so passionate about. They certainly exist and I have been exposed to a lot of ideas and and situations I hadn't previously considered". But then you go on to things like "many of you are making it out to be a much worse situation than I feel it really is." and how links to studies don't actually prove anything, and How "'Its scary that some of [us] actually believe what they are saying.'"

Yeah, if that is not arrogantly dismissive of other people's experiences and perspectives, then nothing is.

Oh, and you see how you just completely lost it, there, because we weren't taking your precious personal perspective seriously? Welcome to OUR world -- a lot of minority groups and women get that from the white male majority ALL. THE FUCKING. TIME. But according to you, the fact that we're angry about it just makes us whiny bitches, whereas you're angry that your experience is dismissed because THAT anger is totally justified. Right?

Luna
Are you on any medications?

"I had just about despaired of the whole "penis envy" thing showing up, but it finally did."
You tell me how good I've got it and how terrible your blight is. You also dismiss me as a chauvinistic pig instantly without considering my points. You've seen them all before right? Why bother listening to just another piece of shit that comes along? Great attitude. It's cool you are so open minded.

"[Luna] just bitter whiny bitchez.." Yes, you are totally this. I am not sure which men have wronged you so terribly in your life but it would behoove you to try and heal this rift in your obvious hatred of men.

"..because we aren't MEN.." Again, blaming your own disposition on the fact that you are a woman validates my points. I don't think there is anything wrong with you because you are woman at all. I think there is something wrong with you because you are stupid. When a man says you suck at something, he is probably saying you suck at it because you do actually suck at it. When you instantly jump to the conclusion that it is because you are a woman you create an illusion for yourself that hinders your growth as a person and as a professional. Sexism totally exists and I wish it didn't, but you are letting it control far too much of your life and it influences far too many of your opinions. I am not sexist at all. I KNOW women are capable academically and professionally of anything a man is capable of. I've seen it and I live it and there isn't an ounce of bias in me that favors a man over a woman for anything. I said you are a bitch not because you are a feminist, you are a bitch because you have treated me like shit for attempting to discuss gender issues with you.

"...but we're just too stupid to know how good we've got it and we'd be failures as MEN too!!1!!eleventy-one!!! And we should RESPECT MEN MOAR"
Everyone deserves the same level of respect. You don't have it so great, and neither do I. Life is a hard road for almost everyone and everyone should be held to the same standard. Men with your attitude are in the same boat as women with your attitude, whiny bitches.

"'cuz the fact we're MEAN is why we have so many problems!!!"
You have problems because you are blaming something that is out of your control for the misfortunes in your life. If you think you are so fucking intelligent and capable, why have so many women succeeded where you have not? Whats your problem? Perhaps its because you are not really all that smart. There are things I wish I could have done that I didn't do because I wasn't smart enough. I don't blame not getting jobs on the fact that the interviewer was a feminist or I have a large scar on my face that makes me look like a thug (it was a car accident when I was a child). I didn't get those jobs because someone else was more qualified. If I get paid less than someone its because I suck at negotiating a deal.

We all think your terrible writing and spelling is amusing and it really exemplifies how mature and intelligent of a feminist you are and really helps nail your points home. For the record, I have nothing against feminists. I have something against people like Luna, who is insane.

Thegoodman, just let it go and move on. You're just making yourself look worse. You almost had us all believing that you were really considering a different perspective and now you've completely destroyed that illusion and showed us your true colors. You sound more ignorant than when you started.

Humble yourself, sir.

Interesting, too, that you should assume, due to my not falling in line with your "points" about the world, that I am not successful and have not succeeded "where so many women have." Hee!

Dude, you seem to seriously be dodging having to engage the actual content of what has been written.

Meldown....complete.

Hey goodman- Luna makes sense to me. Sure does suck to figure out that you have been speaking to people like a jackass when you are used to everyone else saying that the way you talk to us is normal or polite, even. Don't take out your hurt feelings on Luna. You are really mad at you and took the cowards way out; there are a million ready made ways for you to ignore what we are all saying, and that is the route you took. You decided that we all must be angry penis envy havin crazies vs you being wrong about this (and therefore unable to know everything about things you don't experience). I wish you would figure out that you live in a sexist culture that makes it very difficult not to be sexist instead of trying to tell women what sexism IS, and that you could not possibly engage in it without intending to. Beliefs like yours are convenient because you don't actually have to fucking *do* anything, like give a shit about other people or work to change the world for the better.

And this is why it is such a waste of fucking time to try and explain things to white d00ds who are invested in their own egotistical ideas about how totally not racist/sexist they are, and how much harder they worked than everyone else to get where they did (I mean if they make all this money they must have worked harder than the people do don't, right??????). There is too much available to support them in the delusion, to dismiss other points of view completely. Perhaps we should all book mark this thread next time someone on here goes "educate me!!!11", to show what happens when we all really do try. Having it devolve into "It isn't my fault you don't have a dick" is hard to top in terms of fail.

My points about the envy were directed toward Luna and Luna alone. Her personal attack on my was responded to in kind. I made many points that would definitely be interpreted as chauvinistic if they were global statements, instead they were direct statements aimed at Luna. I do not think she is envious of me in any way. I think she hates that she is a woman. Luna and people like her that I have spoken with do more to exemplify negative stereotypes than they do to dispel them. Shame on all of you for acting like she is logical or supportive. I am certainly not free of any blame in instigating here, but where my true colors have been shown, so have hers.

I still intend on reading more about this subject and I am still very interested in the entire topic. I may or may not come to the same conclusion as most of you. I get the impression that many of you think it is fact that our society is completely sexist and white men are the sole source of this problem. At this time I disagree with this opinion and think it is a combination of many things and not just the oppressive white male tyrants that are calling the shots.

Thank you all for the information and the points of view.

Its also disturbing how much venom so many of you have for me. I am not exaggerating at all when I say this, I am by far the most liberal person in my office. I am more liberal, accepting, and more tolerant than any of my fellow employees or college friends. This must be terrifying for you if this is how incapable of communicating you are with a moderate/liberal.

Also Luna,

If you do not consider yourself a failure, that is great. Why then are you so angry about this situation? If it has worked out well for you, what is driving your passionate hatred for our patriarch society?

Like many gender discussions/arguments, your approach has made me feel guilty for being a man. This doesn't accomplish anything positive since I soon get defensive because I cannot help it that I am a man and I shouldn't feel guilty about just as you shouldn't feel guilty for being a woman.

(jumps on the bandwagon)

You have problems because you are blaming something that is out of your control for the misfortunes in your life. ,

So, tell me, who should I have blamed when I had an interviewer insist that he wouldn't hire me for an engineering position because I was a woman? Who should I have blamed when I found out that I had been getting paid $2/hr less than two less experienced men hired for the exact same position, at the same time, at a retail chain? In case you're wondering, both of these experiences happened within the last 4 years. Would you expect your wife to have just brushed off a sexist interview for a position she was highly qualified for, if it meant that she wouldn't have a job or an income that she really needed for a few months?

While this might come to a surprise to you, most women have average judgement and have a reasonable ability to distinguish events that they are in control of from ones they are not. The same ability as "everyone else", you could say. There isn't some invisible slide switch inside of us set to "blame the whole world then kick back and make men do all the work for us".

I'd also like to disagree with the following statement:
" I get the impression that many of you think it is fact that our society is completely sexist and white men are the sole source of this problem."
Women can, and do also perpetuate sexism upon other women. Saying that white men have a lot of privilege in Western society is not saying that white men are the only source of the problem. But they sure are irritating sometimes...

You should not feel guilty for being a man. You should feel guilty for telling Luna that her outrage at your refusal to look at things from another perspective, etc is really just a side effect from her penis-envying, man-hating, self-victimization. You are being sexist. You have become the man you don't believe exists.

Thegoodman's version of rational discussion:

T:You guys are wrong and are making the problem worse.
5 different people: No, the problem is bad either way but at least this way makes it known there is a problem
T:Says who? I've never seen it.
5 different people: Says all of these studies and our own experiences.
T: Well so what, my experience is different.
5 people: That's why we showed the studies, did you read the studies.
T: You're just making the problem worse. Don't you get that?
5 different people: Well fine then, if you're just going to make the same argument over and over again and if you don't want to learn, fuck off. We've heard it before, we don't need to hear it again.
T: OMGz your meanness has showed me that maybe I'm off base, I'll try to go learn
5 different people: Good, go learn some stuff and come back
T: Ohai, I talked to my wife and she backs me up so you are all totes wrong
5 different people: Your wife =/= studies
T: Well, actually, she HAS experienced discrimination but she just puts up with it and doesn't want to fix it, besides I'm sure that there are studies that prove you wrong
5 different people: Links or GTFO
T: Wah, penis envy, wah, strident, wah you hate me because I'm a man and you haven't listened to any of my points. I'm being SO rational with all of my anecdata, why won't you just LISTEN?

We have listened to your points, and THAT'S why we consider you a chauvinist, not because you are a privileged white dude. There have been many other white guys in this thread who a) have told you so b) have not been called chauvinists.

Ace,

The blatant sexism in your recent interviews is disturbing. It seems so outrageous to me that I am skeptical that it even went down like that. If its true, I do feel very sorry for you, that must be awful.

I am well aware that most women have a reasonable stance on this topic. I've known a number of feminist women and while I don't always agree with all of their points, there is a mutual respect. I respect anyone that is passionate about anything, even if I disagree with it.

I have looked at things from Luna's perspective. I just disagree with her opinion about them. Why is this so hard to accept? Calling me an "ignorant little douche bag" is very constructive. I can see why I should step into her shoes to better understand her. Feminist like Luna give you all a bad name and put me in a position to use her lunacy to judge you all. I'll try not to let it completely cloud my opinions.

Skeptifem, I'll be checking out your blog. I'll also try to stay out of your business unless I have something constructive to contribute. :)

I'll try to keep this simple, in the hopes that you understand something:

Why does pervasive sexism piss me off, if I'm not worried about my own success?

Because for some of us, "I've got mine, screw other people, they should have it just as hard" is not an acceptable place to be.

Because of the fact that people with your attitudes actually consider themselves "moderate, liberal and tolerant", and it reminds me just a bit too much of how the "moderate, liberal and tolerant" people 50 years ago really didn't see a problem with Jim Crow laws and teaching girls how to cook and sew while the boys got math & physics classes...

and because this ISN'T inevitable or set in stone or natural and biological and all the other cultural bullshit which is used to excuse it.

Because the only fairness in the world is what people push to make, and because it is a lot more fair now than it was 50 years ago precisely because women and PoC started getting obnoxious and up in "reasonable" people's faces about what was going on, even though "moderate, reasonable people" thought they were overreacting and "hurting their cause", and they made it change.

Because I would be failing in my duty as a human being if I didn't continue that trend.

And, lastly, because you totally don't get what's going on, you are persistently unable or unwilling to credit what people are telling you and showing you, and you really don't seem to be able to take in what a complete ass you sound like when you're being all "liberal" and "tolerant" and sincere.

You know, it occurred to me you probably need this repeated a bit more clearly.

I called you an ignorant douchebag precisely for saying this:
Women don't have the pressure of supporting a family. No one expects a woman to make the money to pay for a house/care/kids.

I did so because you have no clue how untrue and insulting this is, and you have no clue how untrue and insulting this is because you have apparently never checked your assumptions and don't care to do so now. But it's just plain damn idiotic, and a slap in the face to every woman out there (and there are many) who are primary wage-earners and caregivers.

It is also a complete slap in the face for everyone who is forced to "balance their careers and families" in ways that men are not, because even where and when women are the top wage earner for the household and/or have jobs which require serious commitment, it is still a basal assumption that they are responsible for the bulk of child and elder care; that's "not the men's job."

And it is precisely this kind of unthinking and unquestioning assumption about gender roles which perpetuates difficulties for women in the workplace, e.g. "women shouldn't be taking jobs away from men, who need to support their families" and "it would be better not to hire a woman who will probably have to take time out to look after her kids a lot, and besides, women deal better than men with not having a full-time job" and all the other trite gender bs used to justify the very system of inequity that it springs from. And it is a further slap in the face to claim that women have a choice in this system, and that we have it so much easier than the poor, poor put-upon guys who are just expected to work.

Argh.

"I am skeptical that it even went down like that. If it's true..." This has been your attitude from the beginning to everyone that has said anything about their experiences.

I am starting to be skeptical that you were ever poor, that you even have a degree, that you have a Dr wife, etc. How's that feel?

Luna

Those are definitely good points. I was thinking of the "I got mine, screw everyone else" when I was typing that. I seem to have mistaken your passion for outright anger. To me these are very different things and it would serve your purpose well to not portray them in the same light. I know you are probably thinking "Fuck you, you men don't tell me how to represent myself!" I am just saying your message might have been heard by me much sooner if you hadn't acted like a psychotic bitch for a while there.

What have I persistently denied? I haven't said anyone here is lying or that any of their claims are false. I have only said that some of their PERSONAL OPINIONS are different than my own.

I also think that your continuing of the trend of loud obnoxious feminist is counterproductive at this time. Those original civil rights persons who were obnoxious had to be because there were laws that allowed discrimination. There are now specific laws to prevent discrimination, as there should be. It is now a time for healing the rift between the 2 sides of the argument. Discrimination is now an individual issue rather than a legal issue and the only way to get the bigots to understand the problem is to play nice. "You can catch more flies with honey than with vinegar"

I am not saying "shut up and play nice!" I am saying keep talking and continue making valid points, but be more amicable about it. Driving people away only worsens the problem. Telling me I have walked a life of privilege while you have been beaten down by the white man every step of the way doesn't make me sympathetic to your cause. It makes me resent you for undermining the hard work I have done to be successful. I don't want a fucking cookie and I don't want any more respect from you than I deserve and I want to give you the same amount of respect you deserve (which is an equal amount btw).

Michelle

Being skeptical of me is perfectly reasonable. I am always skeptical of everything; especially a story that seems outrageous to me. For a man to say to a woman "I cannot hire you because you are a woman" seems crazy to me. Anyone who is in a position to hire people, even if he thinks this, is smart enough to word it different. It could very well be true, or it could be false to prove Ace's point; either way, I am skeptical but like I said, I'll assume its true for arguments sake. Of course none of us have to believe what anyone else is saying, so I believe Ace so that others will believe me.

It doesn't upset me if people don't believe me. I know the things I say are true and are my opinions, if you choose not to believe them I cannot help that.

Thegoodman, you have tipped your hand. This thread is burned for you. Best to move on.

On the blog I moderate, I would have banned you back when you used gendered and disablist insults and then tried to claim that "crazy bitch" is gender neutral. But it's not my blog, so here you are, getting batted about by folks who are way smarter than you give them credit for.

Oh well.

Correction: "whiny bitch", not "crazy bitch". I momentarily mis-parsed the massive walls of text full of misogynist insults. My bad.

While I completely understand skepticism at statements posted semi-anonymously on the internet, I'd like to explain how my real-world experience with this is even more frustrating. Yes, this actually happened, and yes, I was *explicitly* told that I could not work at this job because I was a woman. Do you know what happened when I brought it up with HR at the company, to the other applicants (all male) for the job, or to just about anyone in general? They all told me that I was overreacting, that it couldn't possibly have happened, that I must have misinterpreted his statements, or the like. I was pressed for more and more details as people desperately looked for an excuse, any excuse, to say that this didn't really happen to me. Even though none of them were present for the actual event, they all decided that they were better at knowing what happened during my job interview than I was.

Can you see how aggravating that could be? Yet this is the attitude that many of us have to deal with every day, and every time that something stupid happens to us. It gets quite irritating to be repeatedly told to question your own judgement or to brush it off and repress your own feelings.

In your opening statements, you repeatedly mention how you don't want anyone to be sorry for you and your hardships. Yet all you have to say is sorry? How the fuck is that supposed to help!?!?

Hopefully you can understand that when we say we're looking for support and assistance, we aren't looking for a free ride or for government handouts. I dare say that we're working towards changing the system so that other women and men don't have to face the same shit, or even trivial irritations, that we did because of gender based discrimination. If you prefer to let other people suffer needlessly just because you had to struggle, instead of doing something to help them out, that's your choice. Personally, I don't think that's the most effective way of working towards a better society.

Just to indulge, I've linked to my original rant about that particular job interview, from January 2008. Not like I should really have to prove for the sake of any conversation that something discriminatory did really happen, but at least it (hopefully) settles the speculation.

It just gets worse and worse as he goes along.

"loud, obnoxious feminist" "make valid points" "be amicable about it" and my favorite: "I know the things I say are true *and* are my opinions" (woo woo!)

What's it like to have the sun rising and setting in the crack of your ass, thegoodman? Isn't there some site where d00ds like you can sit around patting yourself on your "liberal" backs about why is it that nice guys (like you, of course) always finish last? The whole rest of the internets welcomes you!

In other words: You've lost. Quit shitting on here.

thegoodman:
"Also, yes I did say that women are in a convenient position to not deal with the social pressure of supporting their families. If a guy has no job he is labeled as a fucking bum. If a woman has no job she is a homemaker. Your opinion of this situation is irrelevant, its the fucking truth."
This is what you said that is spectacularly sexist and offensive.

Wait.

Stop.

Think.

...

I can be patient.

It's the internet. Take some time. It's ok.

...

Thinking faster just to get mad isn't productive.

Stop.

Think slowly.

Think again.

WHY was what you said sexist?

WHY was what you said offensive?

Ok, now. Before you read my take, try to imagine what bugged me.

It's ok, I'll still wait.

...

Ok. Ready.
Get a piece of chocolate and try to take deep breaths.

Ok. Here goes...
A#1) I'm an unmarried working mother. How DARE you make assumptions about what is convenient for me? It is necessary for me to support my child. Full stop.
B#2) My father was a homemaker. Your opinion of him being a fucking bum has NO bearing on reality. He was a good man and a good father and I was lucky to be raised by him.
YOUR opinion of women who stay home and men who work is irrelevant. Its not "fucking truth"- it's outdated and pernicious stereotyping that makes you a certifiable asshole. (also: how DARE someone like you, with your 1950s gender stereotyping, pretend to represent MY generation?)

News Flash: when people here call you a jerk, it's not because you are a man. It's because you are acting like a jerk who thinks his opinion is the only one that matters.

Now wait. People on this very blog have said pretty much exactly what you've said about whether you'd 'catch more flies with honey'. Many times. A great many times. We've all heard it. We've heard that our strategy isn't optimal. But this is not your blog, thegoodman. It is a blog 'for everyone and no one'. Perhaps it is a blog for righteous indignation. Perhaps it is a blog for calling out asshats. I'm pretty sure that it is a blog for sharing experiences so we can go on about our business in real life and ignore shit we shouldn't have to deal with.

This is not just a blog for educating you. It is not just a blog for having reasonable dialog. It is not just a blog for helping people to look at things from multiple perspectives so they don't feel so hurt and angry. I, personally, think it is ok if some of those things happen. But it is dangerous to assume any of them is The Central Purpose of this blog.

You have come to our space (if I may appropriate Zuska's blog with an "our"- she has routinely made me feel welcome and I hope I do not presume too much). You have told us our experiences "suck"... "if they really happened". By taking this stance, you have repeatedly treated us as untrustworthy. You have disrespected us.

I understand why this has happened. I like to be skeptical of people by default, myself. Moreover, if the world is as bad as this blog painted it, it would be a very ugly place indeed. A place none of us want to live in. When you describe yourself as "tolerant" and "liberal" I believe that you don't want to live in a nasty world where women and minorities aren't treated fairly. But your *wanting* discrimination to not exist, and your personal unfamiliarity with it, does not make it *poof* out of existence (and, as far as it goes, I think it's too bad that you're wishing discrimination away doesn't make it go away, or this would be a much shorter and less tiresome thread).
Bad Shit Happens. Listen. Think about it. Try to stop it. Anything else is a waste.

Zuska, brill as always. I encountered this but-what-about-the-white-guys sentiment a lot at school (and sometimes at various jobs) from some of the more elderly professors. They really don't see inequalities. They really think it's all fixed now. And they'll tell me this quite candidly in our conversations (I have this um, teacher's pet problem where people tend to like me and tell me EVERYTHING that is on their minds).

Of course, what they don't know is how much problematic, hurtful shit comes out of their mouths (in the classroom and office) that I can't comfortably comment on because of the power imbalance between us. When I'm relying on someone for rec letters, networking opportunities, or general career advice and support, I have to decide whether or not I want to risk a beneficial professional relationship. And when I'm like, 30-40 years junior to some of these guys, I'm gonna tend to let some of the fuckedupness slide. It sucks because we have to let SOME things slide to get ahead, but then the people who fuck with us get to keep thinking they're Totally Progressive, Y'all! and hold us up as little token examples. *sigh*

But I'm always thinking pretty much exactly what you wrote here. It's like damn, y'all want MORE?

Anyway. Thanks for vocalizing something I've been thinking and feeling for a while now. I found this post cathartic and validating. As for the wonderfully entertaining comment thread here, I think Luna_the_cat hit the nail on the head:

"if people could just "do it all on their own", then it would be done by now."

It's interesting how people who claim all oppressions are identical will then imply that *ahem* SOME people are too lazy to help themselves. Illuminating...

Wtf, homemakers "don't have jobs"? They do too, they just don't get valued or paid for it. The unpaid labor of mothers keeps society together. Children who are not cared for do not grow up happy and well adjusted, and live in society with the rest of us, where we all interact and have to get along together. The job of moms is taken for granted regardless of if she has a paying job; she is expected to take care of others, and does it because no one else will do it and it needs to be done for the good of the world. Society would be totally fucked if women refused to do the countless hours of unpaid labor that they do now. An uneducated single mother works way fucking harder than many of the well off IT dudes I have met, she just happens to live in a society that values work in a totally backward ass way.

if people could just "do it all on their own", then it would be done by now."

It's interesting how people who claim all oppressions are identical will then imply that *ahem* SOME people are too lazy to help themselves. Illuminating...

Yeah seriously. Unless there is something wrong with PoC/women I don't know why they aren't ahead by now. If there isn't discrimination (either blatant or de facto) I can't come up with another explanation for the disparity outside of inferiority of women/PoC.

Ah, poor thegoodman, completely unable to control the reactions of other people, and yet still trying ...

My point is that this didn't offend her. It didn't hold her back in any way. Its just an inconvenience that she is equipped to fend off and brush off without letting it bother her. That is evolution.

That is bullshit.

ALL of it.

It holds her back, all right. The fact that the asshole felt free to do that holds her back. It's no "inconvenience". It's systematic and pervasive and it hurts everyone, not only women, not only the specific woman it happens to, it hurts men, too.

If it doesn't bother her (which I doubt, since I doubt you're married at all), then it's because she's bought the idea that all men are just pigs because it's "evolution". And that is a much sadder notion than the truth could ever be.

@"thegoodman", are you seriously this clueless? Seriously?? Or are you now being a troll deliberately?

Troll. Nobody's that dumb. Nobody who's sincere keeps insisting they want to learn and then refusing to do it.

Feminist like Luna give you all a bad name and put me in a position to use her lunacy to judge you all. I'll try not to let it completely cloud my opinions.

BINGO!!! I win again...oh. I guess it's not a win.

Nobody cares about your "opinions", ya little twerp. Bug off.

Women don't have the pressure of supporting a family. No one expects a woman to make the money to pay for a house/care/kids.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!! Ha. *wipes eyes* Oh, dear. Oh, that was good, you little douchebag. Hee.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!! More comedy gold. Oh, fuck. STOP! I'm getting a sideache. "I don't know anything but I know what you say is untrue". MARVELOUS. This one goes on "Privileged Douchebags' Greatest Hits" for sure. Right after the bitching about how his parents got divorced so they had to live in a crappy trailer (oh, wah), he's sure that HIS MOTHER'S LIFE WAS A BED OF ROSES, AND HER BEING A WOMAN HAD NO CONNECTION TO THEIR BEING IN THE CRAPPY TRAILER. Or being broke after divorce.

Ha. Just too funny altogether, or would be if Scooter weren't completely in earnest. The inability to engage in rational thought is just too adorable (and by adorable I mean nauseating).

When rational discussion is difficult, be sure to act childish by either: a) calling names, b) telling the other person to stop talking, or c) directly insulting their gender and/or sexuality.

That's how feminism is discussed 'round hurr.

Queef, you're an asshole. Stop talking.

Not sure where you get the "directly insulting gender or sexuality" thing. Where did anyone say "you're gay" or "you're a woman" as an insult?

Or ... wait. I'm assuming that you're defending "thegoodman," not referring to "thegoodman."

Also, I like DuWayne too, from what he's written here -- but what he's written is not so different from what many women here have written. So why do you like him? Why are you giving HIM a cookie for being a sane human being?

Oh, I know. It rhymes with "ween."

My experience isn't much different than DuWayne's, in fact. But I am a female. If I had posted what he had posted, you would have commented on how delusional and mean I was, before insinuating that I was lazy and stupid.

Also, becca, life IS like what has been written about here. Otherwise people would not write about it.

Your saying that it's not like that at all, no, definitely ... well, isn't that invalidating other peoples' experiences?

"No one would want to live in a world like that." Well, for some of us, the world IS like that.

And most of us don't want to live in it.

For example, I don't want to live in this world. I'm a female who was raised in an abusive, dignified-but-still-impoverished rural family; I was molested repeatedly by various relatives as well as beaten, shouted at, and emotionally neglected. I performed very well at academia all throughout school and high school, but was forced to drop out of college after I realized I couldn't afford it AND the constant sexual harassment coupled with a date-rape triggered my PTSD, plummeting my GPA from 4.5 to 1.5 because I was too horrified to leave my room.

I became a traveling punk, but found no respite from rape and sexism there either. So now I'm a freelance writer living below the poverty level. I'm talented and have a high IQ. I love doing things with my talent, although like luna I have no socially accepted goals or ambitions.
I'm also a queer (as in, non-gender-identifying, "bisexual") female person who is neither of color nor white, and have been a lifelong welfare recipient. So I really doubt I am ever going to make more than twelve grand a year, and it's through no fault of my own. Though I'm fine with myself and what I'm doing, society is not, and in a really big way. Mostly I don't care, on a personal level, and I live with a lot of joy (it is, after all, my given first name) ... but that doesn't mitigate the fact that I'm so angered and depressed at the injustice in our world that I sometimes want to commit suicide.

So, yeah, becca, the world IS like this, and we DO have a right to be angry.

Also, re, luna and "thegoodman" (what a hilarious name) --

When you can't invalidate her for being female, go for the mental illness card! That one always works.

He makes me feel sick. Also, he reminds me of my father.

That's how feminism is discussed 'round hurr

"'round hurr?"

Is "hurr" an attempt at an imagined dialect, like when people say "''Murrikans" to indicate uneducated (often Southern) working-class people?

Because that would be appallingly classist.

Excuse me, but I'm a young white male from a top 5% income home, where's my support group? Oh that's right, I have all kinds of support groups, like the Honor Roll, Principal's List, etc and all of their associated groups and functions that I was able to get into and, here's the key, the part that separates me from the ignorant idiots, I recognize that the fact that I was able to get into these things was largely based on the fact that I grew up in a household that was able to provide me with the materials and the time for my enrichment without fear of discrimination or anything like that.
I don't understand what's so hard about admitting that yes, I had an advantage in life, and yes, maybe the playing field should be leveled. It's almost as though some believe that, by admitting that they were privileged, either directly and noticeably through affluence, or indirectly through being white/male, they somehow diminish their own accomplishments. You can be advantaged and brilliant, and being advantaged in no way lessens your brilliance, but recognize the fact that perhaps others could be just as brilliant if they had the same advantages you did.

You can be advantaged and brilliant, and being advantaged in no way lessens your brilliance, but recognize the fact that perhaps others could be just as brilliant if they had the same advantages you did.

I have made myself very sad by thinking about how much brilliance is chucked into the garbage by society when things are so unfair. I wonder how many PoC or female newtons or einsteins could have been. We are screwing ourselves over as humans when inequality is allowed to continue.

At least if anyone was thinking of questioning the validity of Zuska's original point, we've had a full 5 act drama of "Wah, Wah, What About The White Man" acted out here. All my bingo cards are full. And I mean all of them.

Oh, if only "Understanding Your Privilege 101" was a required class in High School!

"but recognize the fact that perhaps others could be just as brilliant if they had the same advantages you did."

You're just going to have to take my word for it, but ...

I've been told by former friends of Alan Ginsburg (with whom I had the pleasure of staying for a while when I was vagabonding) that my novel is better than probably any of Jack Kerouac's (which ... honestly aren't that good, and his daughter's novels were also better, but she died in obscurity and he's still held up as the pinnacle of offbeat literature) ...

except that I'm never going to get published because I can't afford it and publishers don't take me seriously due to my gender/class/etc.
That is not me whining; that is me stating my actual lived experience.

I'm just one example, and I don't even try that hard. If one weird Cajun girl can create a work that trumps part of the literary canon, without even trying ... but will doubtlessly die in obscurity through no lack of effort ... well, I think it says less about me than it does about the system we live in, because I for damn sure am not the only one, nor the best.

Imagine how many genius people are stuck working in kitchens, their own or others', or cleaning up after other people as janitors, maids, nannies, nurses, mothers (not to devalue these things, but a lot of people don't choose them 'cause it sounds like fun). Imagine how many brilliant novels are never going to be written, or were written and are now lost. Imagine how many science experiments, inventions, anything you can imagine. How many brilliant politicians. The list is endless.

SKM: Dude, I say hurr. I also live in the South and have a tendency to lapse into a drawl at moments. Hmm. But you do have a point, a perceived feigned dialect can be interpreted as classist...thanks for the reminder. :) I guess where I live, people who say "Murrikans" are the rich ones...lol

@Cara
You are trolling and offering nothing.

@Becca-146
Let me get this straight.
The advantages that men have are inherent privileges we are oblivious to and the result of our oppressive sexism.
The advantages women have are actually sexism manifesting itself, and thus disadvantages.
The disadvantages that men have, you want but do not have because we (white men) are sexist.
The disadvantages you have are the result of sexism.

This logic is flawed. Men are not the same as women. Women are not the same as men. That doesn't mean that one is better than the other, it simply means we are different. Both genders have their own set of advantages and disadvantages that will always exist, like you said, there is nothing we can do about it.

I feel like a few of you are attempting to paint me into some sort of monster that I am not. Perhaps I unconsciously make sexist comments at times. While this may be a problem with our society, I mean no harm by it. I do not judge women with a sexist eye and I consider them equals in all levels. What else do you expect?

It seems like your goals are for me to acknowledge that you have specifically been the victim of sexism. Ok, I believe you. While my opinions are quickly dismissed and my considered childish or uneducated, you spring your opinions upon me as if they were divine guidance. How are you more qualified to form these opinions than I am? Because you are a woman! That's sexist!

I said a few hateful things toward Luna. They were a direct response to her being hateful toward me. I used the mental illness situation because I truly believe she is disturbed. Cara is as well. My feelings about them have nothing to do with their vaginas and it has everything to do with what is between their ears.

I have not complained about a single thing. Also, I showed DK respect because he appears to be the only sane person that has responded to me. He read what I typed and responded to it. My opinion is different from his but he clearly knows how to get a point across where so many of you have failed.

Cara, if a troll calls you a troll, are you a metatroll? I feel that would be an admirable thing to be, in fact.

Also, if a troll whines incessantly and purposefully misses the point on a blog post where everyone else has already agreed he is missing the point, are we expected to still care?

Thegoodman, I think you are disturbed. That doesn't make it true. In fact, more accurately I think you are at best incredibly if not willfully stupid, but that is probably true.

Calling a woman crazy or hysterical does not make her so. It is a dismissive, silencing technique employed by the truly uncreative.

I am not going to engage you because you refuse to learn. It's that simple.

Yes, as Joy says, let's not feed the trolls!

Also, Joy, as you pointed out so well, part of the tragedy of institutional discrimination is how many voices are silenced and how many talents will never be exercised. Society as a whole is weaker for it.

"The advantages that men have are inherent privileges we are oblivious to and the result of our oppressive sexism."
Nope. The advantages that men have are privileges that many of them, including you, tend to be oblivious to and are the result of a patriarchical system. A system that we all participate in, and that is perpetuated by those that defend the status quo, be they female, male or other (in other words, if you don't make an effort to be part of the solution, you're going to be part of the problem. even if you *do* make an effort, it can be a challenge).
The "advantages" that you claimed women have, we don't. It's that simple. I'm not saying women have no advantages (see below), but if you honestly think we're free to procreate and not support the resulting offspring, you've got evolution as well as society entirely backwards. You couldn't be more wrong.
Being wrong isn't what provoked my wrath though. It is the fact that your incorrect view of the nature of gender roles and parental responsibilities led you to say some things which are profoundly insulting to men who are homemakers (and the women who care about them) as well as women who are responsible for supporting their families.

Now, most of the advantages women actually have (for example, being more able to talk back to a cop without being perceived as a threat), come with corresponding disadvantages that men like you tend to ignore (for example, not being taken seriously in a much wider variety of situations).
There is no physical law of conservation of disadvantages. It is simply not true that men and women, as groups, have equal challenges. This is a place for discussing the challenges women face.
My goal has nothing to do with my experiences of sexism, which are, in the grand scheme of things, mostly papercut type issues (extremely acutely irritating but little lasting damage). If I had a goal, it would be to get you to *listen* to what women here are telling you and to admit that yes, sexism is (still) a problem. And to go out looking for ways to make it better.

joy- my apologies if it came off as though I was minimizing or dismissive. For my own part, there are plenty of *good* experiences I've had of seeing sexism quashed, but they are much less likely to come up on this blog. What I talk about here isn't the entirety of my life. It is far more of my life than it should be, but it is not by any means all of it. For this reason, I know that this blog is not an accurate reflection of all parts of life. That in no way makes the sucky parts people do bring up less real. It *is* adjusting the frame of reference a bit, but some of us need to remember the good to have enough energy left to fight for a better, less discriminatory world that we all want to live in.

@Becca

Just chiming in on how important it is to remember that things aren't entirely bad. At the same time, what we're talking about is so pervasive that it's difficult to get away from it. In a way, I almost find myself envying people who are still able to be oblivious to patriarchal social structures. However, now that I'm more aware (hurrah consciousness raising!) I can actually understand and explain why so many things bothered me (for some indefinable reason) back in the day.

"Excuse me, but I'm a young white male from a top 5% income home, where's my support group? Oh that's right, I have all kinds of support groups, like the Honor Roll, Principal's List, etc ..." ?? "... perhaps others could be just as brilliant if they had the same advantages you did."

If you had your choice, in 2010 in the US of A, would you rather be a young white male from the bottom 10% income, or a young white female from the top 10%? What about a white male from the bottom 50% vs a white female from the top 5%?

btw, you pile-on-ers need to get over your idea that poor white males see themselves portrayed in a positive light in the media, see people like themselves in positions of power and influence, were encouraged to go to college, never worry about sounding (upper middle class) white on the phone, and could never, in any way, understand what it's like to be treated as second rate citizens.

I meant second class citizens, though I think 'second rate' gets the point across.

If you had your choice, in 2010 in the US of A, would you rather be a young white male from the bottom 10% income, or a young white female from the top 10%? What about a white male from the bottom 50% vs a white female from the top 5%?

I'm pretty sure most of us agree that society is much better about equality than it used to be. Once upon a time, it might have been a tossup between those groups (back when teacher/nurse/secretary were the only jobs women could do but only until they got pregnant and construction/manufacturing jobs for men were a good ticket to the middle class). But such extreme discrimination has been eliminated. We're trying to point out that there is still a substantial difference between being a female vs male in (for instance) the bottom 5%.

@Isabel,
The point I was trying to make was not so much that poor white males have all the same advantages that I am able to enjoy, it was more just to point out that white males, especially those who end up going to college, already HAVE support groups. Although I will admit that if I were to choose between a woman in top 10% and a man in bottom 10%, it would be difficult, because while the man does have some advantages in that men tend to be more accepted, he would most likely be on at least some form of welfare and face the very real stigma that many people attach to it, while the woman would obviously get a much better education but still be subjected to all kinds of stereotypes no matter how well she did.

"If I had a goal, it would be to get you to *listen* to what women here are telling you and to admit that yes, sexism is (still) a problem."

I have done this on probably 40 different posts. I absolutely agree that sexism is still a problem today. But as Kierra pointed out, it is much much much less of a problem today than it was 40 yrs ago. And it is still less of a problem today than it was 10 years ago. We are making progress and things are in place to advance that progress toward the ultimate goal of equality.

"And to go out looking for ways to make it better."
Like...reading a feminism blog? Posting on that blog and learning a few different perspectives and gathering some reading material to be more aware of the problem? Check. I am not sexist in any way. I may act sexist inadvertently at times because I am repeating things I have heard or making a joke that is common in our society, but my deep seeded feelings about women are that they are equal. Society is changing and much of the hard work has already been done and we are headed in the right directions.

I am not innocent of being sexist just like no one else here is. Many of the women of this blog have been completely sexist toward me by jumping to conclusions and making assumptions about me. I am not hurt by this nor is it a problem. That's just the way it is. So as long as we all believe that we are equal and truly treat each other that way, our sexist jabs have no real lasting effects.

My word, he's still at it. Does he really not get it?

"Many of the women of this blog have been completely sexist toward me by jumping to conclusions and making assumptions about me."

Which, to be fair, was entirely supported by everything from your choice of topics, your phrasing, your choice of words and your shocked reaction. Everything, even including your conversation with your (possibly fictional) wife, and how you presented your backstory and your hilariously illogical opposition to Equality laws, has done nought but conformed to this presentation.

You came across as a 100% sexist douchebag. Each and every single one of your arguements was right out of the archetypal sexist douchebag guidebook to derailing pro-equality arguements, right from your attempts to misdescribe equality arguements , right up to your defense of the status quo. Everything since then as looked like the frantic backpeddaling of a 100% sexist douchebag.

If - despite the ample evidence you have provided that you are a sexist douchebag or are supportive of a sexist system - you honestly believe you have been misrepresented, then perhaps you should take some responsibility for how you present and stop trying to blame it on others.

It would be best for you to just leave. No one is going to take you seriously now, and, as had been pointed out to you, many blogs would have banned you by now.

I dunno. I think that thegoodman's response to me at #139 is quite instructive, in a "what's wrong with this picture" kind of way, when deconstructed.

Let's take "thegoodman" at face value just for a moment in that he really believes he is not being sexist and he's totally all about women being equal.

He starts, I seem to have mistaken your passion for outright anger. To me these are very different things and it would serve your purpose well to not portray them in the same light.
So, anger is not acceptable or attractive, "passion" is ok. Wow, how magnanimous; I am to be allowed an emotion! Still not ok to respond the way I want to or to have certain feelings, but he's ok with "passion"! Lovely; so here we have (1) judgements passed on what emotions someone should be expressing, and (2) the assumption that this is a legitimate judgement for him to make pronouncements on, both rather loaded given that we are talking about historic inequities of power and current inequities of power in the interactions of men and women. The best way to discuss them, obviously, is to try to provide a living example of the unconscious assumption that one person has a legitimate right to dictate the acceptability of feelings in the less dominant person.

Then we move on to I know you are probably thinking "Fuck you, you men don't tell me how to represent myself!" I am just saying your message might have been heard by me much sooner if you hadn't acted like a psychotic bitch for a while there.
Right, so first he tells me what I'm thinking (mildly obnoxious in and of itself), he appears to KNOW that it is going to be poorly received, and he follows it up with a good ol' traditional gender-stereotype insult. But wait! There's more! Having done this, he eventually gets around to I am not saying "shut up and play nice!" I am saying keep talking and continue making valid points, but be more amicable about it. -- Not even phrased as a request or a suggestion; yup, this is pure imperative -- I have been given an order. Because, obviously, the way to improve communication and rapport with someone is to insult them and then give them an order. He'll listen much better if only he gets to insult me freely and tell me what to do. ::headdesk::

But this is really the gift that keeps on giving.

I also think that your continuing of the trend of loud obnoxious feminist is counterproductive at this time. Ok, let's insult feminists again. And it is more than a little ironic, given that thegoodman's very first comment here ended up with slamming Zuska's "moronic rant at the end", a lovely example of how he assumes the privilege to pass judgement on what people say and feel without it being "loud" or "obnoxious" at all, ohmyno!. But let's move on to the reasoning, which is obviously "Because he and people like him, which we have all encountered hundreds if not thousands of times, have all demonstrated that they listen and learn so well when people speak reasonably and politely and attempt to explain" -- like in post 28 by Kierra, which I thought was polite, succinct, and absolutely spot-on. Oh, and which seemed to have been ignored. Hm.

Those original civil rights persons who were obnoxious had to be because there were laws that allowed discrimination. There are now specific laws to prevent discrimination, as there should be.
Right, it's all fixed now, so we shouldn't be obnoxious any more. A guy says so, so it must be true! The very experiences we have discussed at length here, which illustrate how sexism is still pervasive, is meaningless in the face of the fact that there are laws, and...
It is now a time for healing the rift between the 2 sides of the argument. Discrimination is now an individual issue rather than a legal issue and the only way to get the bigots to understand the problem is to play nice. "You can catch more flies with honey than with vinegar"
Gee, does anyone feel we are being ordered what to do again? Again, this isn't even framed as a suggestion, as problematic as even the suggestion would be; this is a simple declaration with an attached imperative. Because it's obviously up to guys to tell women how to be feminist; when we women do it, we obviously are just getting it wrong. And then there is the easy, unquestioned assumption that HIS opinion of what it the current issues are, and what level they exist at, are more valid than any of our perceptions. I mean, gee, why wouldn't it be? ...We still seem to be missing the whole "you aren't living this, we are" making any sort of connection in his brain. He's supposedly a nice, feminist guy, but god forbid he should ever put his own opinion or experience subordinate to the opinions and experiences of women who disagree with him, even when they can document reasons extensively.

There may be some issues about "respect" and "autonomy" that "thegoodman" here also doesn't get. Of course, he also says I don't want a fucking cookie and I don't want any more respect from you than I deserve and I want to give you the same amount of respect you deserve (which is an equal amount btw). -- but anyone can make this kind of statement. What MATTERS is whether this kind of statement is consistent with all the other statements, with actions and with attitudes which become apparent indirectly, which in this case it isn't.

What's especially instructive, though, are concepts which have been directly presented to him a number of times, and in plain language, and which he STILL does not grasp, in subtle but profoundly important ways -- for example, let's nip back to What have I persistently denied? I haven't said anyone here is lying or that any of their claims are false. I have only said that some of their PERSONAL OPINIONS are different than my own.
Because here the extensive documentation which has been provided of pervasive cultural sexism and the chilling effect that it has on many women thus amounts to no more than "personal opinion", which his opinion obviously balances out, and the entire issue of "documented effect" is downplayed. This is something that I first encountered in the arena of rape issues, sadly -- there were (and even more sadly, still are) a number of men who genuinely argued that being raped wasn't that traumatic for women, they 'had to claim that it was' but 'women wanted it really.' Story after story and study after study of the traumatic effects of rape were dismissed as merely "personal anecdote", each kept carefully individual so that it could be downplayed. Historically, it was only when people (mostly women) collated massive studies across wide demographics of women who had remarkably similar stories was it even legally accepted as "real" and cultural attitudes even started to shift. "Not saying you're lying about it, but it's just your opinion" IS a silencing tactic -- it's a way of saying "my opinion is just as telling as yours, so when I say there isn't a problem, it doesn't matter what you say, there isn't." [I know that the regular commenters here know this; I just thought I'd lay it out explicitly, for once.]

But last, I'd like to go back to the only statements in thegoodman's post, there, which have to do with him and his reasoning.
Driving people away only worsens the problem. Telling me I have walked a life of privilege while you have been beaten down by the white man every step of the way doesn't make me sympathetic to your cause. It makes me resent you for undermining the hard work I have done to be successful.
This seems valid. It took me a little while of thinking to pin down what bothered me about it.

Consistently, thegoodman has been harping on the theme of "personal responsibility." That it is up to each individual to just deal with shit, and not let it bother him or her. He worked his OWN way up, other people can too, and it's all about not blaming someone else for problems. And yet...consistently, also, he has been angry at people here for not listening to his points, for not giving him credit for what a great guy he really is, for his liberality and tolerance (side note: WTF? What are you tolerating??) and openness! In other words, it is the responsibility of people listening to not be hostile. And yet, here, he is putting the onus squarely on me, the speaker, for "making" him resentful and angry. It's not his responsibility to listen in good faith.

Note to thegoodman: Either it is the responsibility of the writer/speaker for the effect that they produce in listeners/readers, in which case you should really start examining what it is that you're doing which is so consistently producing resentment, hostility, and sheer disbelief in the other people on this forum, or it is the responsibility of the listener/reader to work through things that make them angry to try to understand the actual point. Either way, since you are so big on personal responsibility, it is time for you step up and OWN YOUR SHIT.

Also, of course, when someone in a dominant group makes the tone that interactions take the consistent responsibility of the non-dominant individuals, while at the same time ignoring the disparity of cultural and interactional power, this is a manifestation of what we call "privilege."

I think that about covers it.

"being more able to talk back to a cop without being perceived as a threat"

Well, becca, I'm five foot five, maybe 125 pounds at the time, mostly pass for white, and look very neat and tidy if not 100% "patriarchy compliant", but I've had cops draw their guns on me, threaten me with nightsticks, and even restrain me against my will (when I fainted and had a seizure out of fright from them pulling their guns on me, natch).
Oh, and then they groped my breasts and said they could rape me while I was restrained! Sweeet!
So I'm not really sure there's an advantage here.

Your argument sounds way too much like "you women sure look for things to get pissed about," which is not the case.
Like I said, I like my life all right. I like getting up in the morning, having breakfast, looking at the sunshine, all that lovely stuff. I like kittens and I like my "job" (writing). Often I even like going outside. I just DON'T like the fact that if I do go outside, and I get raped (which the threat is always there; I average about five days a week when I get harassed in some way on the street; and acquaintance rape is far more likely anyway) that not only will I have to deal with the psychological fallout, but the perpetrator will never come to justice and I will also have to shoulder the blame for being raped in the first place.

Among other things. That's just the first thing I thought of.
Yes, I do have PTSD. However, I am completely lucid. These are not delusional thought patterns; trust me, I asked the psychologist. She told me that no, unfortunately, I am not crazy -- these are real threats to my personal safety and to other women's. I just have to figure out how to live with them in the way that is most beneficial to me.

So there you go. Someone can be pretty happy and still want to cry every night. There isn't some kind of dichotomy where either I'm all sunny and cheery OR I want to crush the patriarchy with all of my angry might. That isn't what you said, but I hope it's also not what you believe.

Oh, and, not even going to start on #166 or the rest of them. Don't really need to.

=====
On a side note, @joy #158
although like luna I have no socially accepted goals or ambitions.

I honestly don't mean to sound snarky, but I thought that women in programming was actually socially acceptable these days. Or is there a social stigma attached to programming & bioinformatics that I was unaware of?

Luna, you are far better at this than I could hope to be. His bullshit just made me shut down and listen to my brain-gears going "whirrrrrr."

I wish I could reach through the screen and punch him.

Do you ever go to Nine Deuce's blog? There are tons of radical, articulate feminists over there; if "The Goodman" ever showed up, he'd get his ballsack served to him on a platter by about thirty "psychotic bitches."

And no one (of the regular readers) would ever call you a "psychotic bitch."

"I honestly don't mean to sound snarky, but I thought that women in programming was actually socially acceptable these days. Or is there a social stigma attached to programming & bioinformatics that I was unaware of?"

That is really my bad. I was addressing it to thegoodman, who said something like "it's cool if YOU'RE okay with YOUR own failure, luna."

In other words, it was my snark and flippancy as well.

I want to be a writer and a traveling musician, in fact there is no "want to be" involved, I already am -- so I'm actually much further down the social-acceptability ladder.

@joy #179

Yeah, fwiw, I get what you're saying, and I don't think becca thinks that....but it's an enlightening comment, anyway. Yeah, I don't think that there are many men who live with the same kind of fears all the time.

Also fwiw, why wouldn't your job (writing) not be a "socially accepted goal or ambition", harkening back to your earlier post? Yes, I do write fiction as well (I just don't get it published much. >_< ).

hah, that was supposed to be a squinchy face at the end. >_<

...I haven't been to Nine Deuce's blog, no; hadn't heard of it until now. I'll go visit. But don't worry, I am actually surprisingly unbothered by being called a "psychotic bitch". I OWN my bitchiness; as for being psychotic, since it bears no resemblance to reality nor do I have any level of respect for the person expressing it -- well, why should an insult matter to me when the opinion doesn't matter to me? ;0)

I didn't realise that being a writer and/or musician WAS far down the social-acceptability ladder. Really?

Well, and again I blame patriarchy, we live in a culture wherein the arts have been devalued below business.

This seems counterintuitive to me (no offense meant to female CEOs and businesspeople; obviously your ambitions are legitimate and you don't need me to tell you that, I'm just a radical critic of capitalism as well as of sexism etc.), but it's true, and it really hit home for me the day that my father (an architect, who I didn't meet until I was eighteen because he abandoned my mother to the chore of raising me) said, "Well, it's all fine and good that you've done all these interesting things and met all these interesting people ... and it's lovely that you're writing ... but don't you want to DO something with your life?"

That sums up my male roommates' attitudes as well, and in fact I stopped speaking to a girl I dated when she pulled it too -- "Yeah, okay, Joy, nice novel ... but when are you going to get a REAL job?"

Naturally, missing the main point AND all the other points (race, sex, gender, class, etc) as usual.

This society devalues "women's work" too, by which I mean "any work that is done by a woman." In the public mindset, anyway -- Hillary Clinton wasn't a good presidential candidate because she was a woman. Zelda Fitzgerald, Joan and Jan Kerouac (Jack's wife and daughter) were not good writers because they were women. I was not a good blacksmith or carpenter because I'm a woman. You may find that people think you're not a good programmer because you're a woman.
It doesn't matter if HRC's diplomacy is great, Zelda's and Jan's work can move me to tears, my baseboards were always even and my horseshoes were nice enough to go onto top show horses, and your code is impeccable. Nope. Women. Not good enough. Get a REAL job, sweetheart. Like mothering. Or teaching. Why don't you just get MARRIED (and shut up).

So, again, we're fucked coming and going.
It doesn't mean I've quit, although anyone else's quittage is their prerogative. I'm still plugging away over here, and oh, there's a lilac tree outside even though I'm in the middle of Bedford-Stuyvesant. So my life is pretty good. I bet yours is too. But these are the things we live with every day.

As so eloquently, I mean pukishly, repeated ad nauseum (haha, I made a play on words! on the spur of the moment! even though I've got a ladyskull! I must have ripped it off of something I read by Rimbaud or another man) by "thegoodman."

Oh, and I'm a folk/Americana blues singer with a banjolele, and I write neo-noir hyperrealist prose poetry. Not a huge market for either of those things, even without the extra variables described.

When people find out I'm authentically from the country (as opposed to the suburbs, where most of the current Americana indie musicians are from), they either stop using big words and start patronizing me, or they're like, "Ohmygod, really?! Can I touch your hair?"
(That's a joke, no one has ever really said that, except for someone who wanted to use me as a hair model at cosmetology school. But you get the picture. A lot of othering and devaluement. Add to it the fact that I've lived in a caravan, for real, and want to do so again because it was the most at peace I ever felt as long as the cops weren't fucking with me -- and you've got the perfect storm of a human being that no one really knows what to do with.)

I didn't think you were bothered by the insults, either. You debunked them so snarkily, it was beautiful. I just like to pass on the news of safe spaces for other people who enjoy rollin' their sleeves up on some patriarchy.

Queef -

I really like DuWayne. I found his first response to be the most compelling.

I see. Sporting a vagina = not going to listen, argue instead. White person sporting a cock = compelling.

Hmmm. How very special...

DuWayne, we are of like minds -- see comment 157.

You do, however, have an outstanding ovation from me. It's partially because you're a dude, yeah, because most dudes are just so overwhelmingly clueless.
So while it's a sad state of affairs that you stand out from the pack, you do.

Queef is hilarious in his thick-headedness, but sad in the typicality of his position. Not like "thegoodman", who is just infuriating.

I do believe that some people are so unable to see their own privilege that they may be beyond teaching. It seems nearly impossible for some to realize that the default in everything is the white d00d perspective.

"he would most likely be on at least some form of welfare and face the very real stigma that many people attach to it"

Really that's it? That's the whole struggle? Otherwise he would have all the upper class white male opportunities at his feet and once he simply got a scholarship (which is practically a given since he's smart, right?) all would be well? And he would fit right in?

And it's all about the education right? All the years of travel, nice clothes, lack of pressure to take shit jobs, family connections, etc count for nothing?

" But such extreme discrimination has been eliminated. We're trying to point out that there is still a substantial difference between being a female vs male in (for instance) the bottom 5%.

@ Kierra: Ah, so you admit class trumps gender.

And btw which females have traditionally been helped most by feminism and by things like special scholarships? Those at the top or those at the bottom?

People who live in glass houses....;)

Isabel, you're obnoxious.

Read the experiences of people like me and DuWayne who've written here.

Him -- a poor white male who owns up to his male privilege

Me -- a poor semi-white female who's been raped, beaten, marginalized

I'm a poor female. I'd rather be a poor white male ANY DAY. Yes, even a poor male.

So no, class does not trump gender. Go back to the manarchists, they might give you a pretend cookie for selling out your sex (if you are, in fact, female).

I think I found a new job for thegoodman

http://www.theonion.com/articles/man-finally-put-in-charge-of-strugglin…

"All the feminist movement needed to do was bring on someone who had the balls to do something about this glass ceiling business," said McGowan, who quickly closed the 23.5 percent gender wage gap by "making a few calls to the big boys upstairs." "In the world of gender identity and empowered female sexuality, it's all about who you know."

I honestly don't mean to sound snarky, but I thought that women in programming was actually socially acceptable these days. Or is there a social stigma attached to programming & bioinformatics that I was unaware of?

Acceptable? Sure, but programmers are so overwhelmingly male that women face extra bullshit when they do that job. I have heard evo psych shit about how female brains just can't be good for programming uncontroversially passed around between dudely programmers more than once.

My research work used standard equipment, which of course, was engineered and constructed by men, for men. Everything, from the latches around my shoes to the straps around my head, was too big, by a mile. The hand holds and grips took 2 of my hands compared to 1 man hand. The latches for the thumbs were so far apart from the hand grips that I couldnât reach them without letting go. The bolts had to be undone by a turning and pulling motion, but my small hands couldnât fit around the massive wrench to twist and pull at the same time. The cranks were made to fit the forearm lengths of men so even though I could reach certain parts, my elbow was in the wrong place to open doors and I didnât have the hand strength to brute force yank on it. Being the only woman, the men would ask âwhatâs taking her so long?â âis she still there?â, and I could hear them pissing about as I was struggling. They told me to strengthen my hands with the hand exercisers, but my hands are too small for those! I need two hands to grip one exerciser shut! After being fed up one day, a long day of struggling to no avail, I looked into getting equipment for me that can be used with the shared equipment. I called an international company, sent them my dimensions (all my body measurements, including traces of my hands and feet), and they called me back saying they donât have anything for women (who need boob space around fasteners and hip space around belts), and certainly not anything for people under 140 lbs. Rinse, repeat for every company I talked to. I got forwarded to an engineering group who makes similar equipment for Chinese workers, so I sent my dimensions and while they had stuff that was smaller in dimension, I still couldnât reach the thumb latches and the grips were too big. The engineering group offered to make me my own equipment, for a price of course. When I started using my new shiny stuff around the guys, and being able to do things easier and without much struggle, the guys told me THEY WANTED THEIR OWN GEAR TOO. Well, of course they did! Itâs not enough that everything was already built FOR THEM. My âspecial equipmentâ allowed me to keep up but I had to pay a price to level the field. If the field had more options in the first place, I wouldnât have needed âspecialâ stuff constructed for non-male humans. I know why women before me walked away from the work, it wasn't because they couldn't hack it. It was because women were set up to fail and stumble the whole way. If I didn't have the money to pay for my own set, I probably would have given up struggling and left.

SKM, I was (unfortunately) born and raised in the south and I'm currently nowhere near middle or upper-class. Yes, how classist of me.

Joy, I just said it to see your reaction. Thanks.

Well, that's mature.

Maybe when Daddy, aka DuWayne, comes home you'll listen to him.

Oh, wait, he already weighed in, and you conveniently ignored him.

Also, there is no way that poor people can ever be classist! Our bad.

You are not worth our time or effort. Why do you bother?

Oh, and as for sexist preferencing: sure, I enjoy DuWayne's story the most because I identified with parts, but it's not like I didn't read and acknowledge the plights of all of the other female commentators.

Except for joy, actually, she's even more attention-seeking than I am.

Shorter Queef -

Shut up, little lady, and go home. Your experiences are not important and no one wants to listen to you.

Heard that before. All women have. If we don't stay at home with babies, then we're seeking attention. Even then, sometimes we are. And god knows, it's only men who ever deserve attention.

Seriously, though, Zuska or other females, sorry for my serial posting. Dumb d00dz get my shit riled up. If you tell me to can it, I will, and no hurt feelings.

Joy,

You're illogical!

"I'm a poor female. I'd rather be a poor white male ANY DAY. Yes, even a poor male.

So no, class does not trump gender."

Why is that illogical?

I don't understand.

"If you tell me to can it, I will, and no hurt feelings."

Can it.

No, actually joy, I wasn't talking about all women. Just you.

Okay, let me explain -- I would rather be poor and male than poor and female.

Thus, class is not the issue for me. Gender is. I would swap out my situation (poor female on public welfare) for "poor male on public welfare." Even "poor male on public welfare, with a drug problem" (and yes, I know poor males on welfare with drug problems; I was common-law married to one for a year).

Because if I were a man, if I had a male body, I wouldn't feel so frightened in my own skin. Have you ever heard of or experienced rape? Yeah. It's uncool.

So why is stating that preference "illogical"? This is what I do not understand.

But, don't worry. I wasn't asking you to shut up. Go on with it. Maybe we can make this post hit 500 comments.

Quit trolling, "Isabel". You show up on every "White Boy Whine Club" post with the rest of the MRA crew and get your ass handed to you. You and Queef should just start your own joint blog.

Isabel, you don't count as a female because I think you are a dude.

I mean females whose opinions I respect. ie, Zuska.

My âspecial equipmentâ allowed me to keep up but I had to pay a price to level the field. If the field had more options in the first place, I wouldnât have needed âspecialâ stuff constructed for non-male humans. I know why women before me walked away from the work, it wasn't because they couldn't hack it. It was because women were set up to fail and stumble the whole way. If I didn't have the money to pay for my own set, I probably would have given up struggling and left.

What jc said. As if it would be so outrageous to just say, "Oh. We never thought of that. By all means, let's find a way to make this easier." Oh, no. It's not like they're ENGINEERS or anything.

Driving people away only worsens the problem. Telling me I have walked a life of privilege while you have been beaten down by the white man every step of the way doesn't make me sympathetic to your cause. It makes me resent you for undermining the hard work I have done to be successful.

I won't yell "BINGO" because there's only a nickel left in the pot.

Also, the irony of this piece of performance art is rising over the top of my hip waders.

Since Little Prince Poopoo doesn't want to be told he didn't work hard, I'll merely bring up the fact that it's really very bad form to show up in someone's living room and essentially take a huge dump on the carpet in the first place. I mean, really. "Excuse me, little ladies" *pfffffft* "but I've never been here before, and I just want to tell you you're all wrong." *braaaaap* "What do you mean you have it rough? I want the 'hard life overcome' cookie. It's MINE! MINE!! There can be only one!"

Who DOES that? I've never understood the dynamic. I've yet to biff off over to 4chan and start telling them they're a bunch of douchebags. Who do these little pissants think they are, demanding to be taken seriously with their 5th grade debate skills and emotional maturity? It's really hilarious.

Trollabel returns!!!!

@skeptifem #193 -- oh, I do know that. I mean, when I first started getting some training in programming, I had a guy in the same class ask me -- first day, and in complete baffled seriousness -- "Why do you want to learn programming, anyway? I mean, that's like, math and logic and stuff, and you're a girl."*

Fortunately, unlike where and when I started, where I am now has quite a few women -- none in my current team, but I haven't gotten any [real] grief or hassle from anyone I work with, either.** I've had trouble with one man, not in the same group, but I pushed back and the other people who worked with him managed to quell him when I made it clear that I *would* put in a sexual harassment complaint to HR. Not an ideal answer in many ways -- it would have been nice if they had acted to stomp on him before I made it clear that I would drag the department into a morass of HR scrutiny if pushed -- but at least it worked. And he is not an immediate co-worker.

But anyway, my comment was more to address that there seemed to be some perception that I had abandoned trying for the usual type of "successful career", and I wanted to get to the root of that.

On a side note, again, it's nice that Queef wants to support Zuska by making sure she has page traffic. It's kind of a shame that he can't figure out how to do it without being a troll. Oh, well, I guess every forum needs a troll just for interest.

Isabel just weirds me out a bit. Yes, it seems like on every single thread which discusses problems that women or minority groups face, she shows up as an apologist saying how there are groups of white males with problems just as bad. And never any intention of dealing with the fact that, yes, we all know there are groups of white males which have had it traditionally rough, and yet, the women of these groups had it rougher yet! And there is often a qualitatively different scale of harassment and marginalisation that "different looking" minorities face, not just historically but also in the present. Reasons have been explained, but she's got this bug about how there is no difference. I just don't see that ever changing. But what can you do?

---------
*These are his actual words. I'm not paraphrasing. I remember it quite vividly, for the incredible clarity of perception that the desire to push him into traffic invoked in me for a few moments.

**I get the usual kinds of good-natured play shit, but that is entirely different, it doesn't constitute sexual harassment, it goes both ways equally and I'm fine with it. It makes life fun.

Joy,

You have not introduced class into the equation when you are comparing poor women to poor men in your statement. So I have no idea how to respond to your conclusion that "class does not trump gender."

Kierra, on the other hand, admitted that she would rather be an upper-class white female than a lower-class white male.

And Joy, I think sexism exists and it is a very bad thing.

One woman says she'd rather be an upper-class woman than a lower-class man. ONE woman.

I am another woman. I say I'd rather be any man than any woman. My experiences are different. Why is my opinion invalid? Because it doesn't support your theory that classism is worse than sexism for everyone?

And how dare you assume I haven't thought about class! Have you even read what I wrote? About how I'm on welfare, and was married (out of threat of violence, but still married) to a man on welfare for a year? I've seen both sides of that coin, and his lot in life was STILL better than mine.
Hence, I'd even trade my poor female coin for his poor male unmedicated schizophrenic junkie coin, because then I wouldn't be forced to marry an unmedicated schizophrenic junkie for fear he'd slit my throat while the cops did nothing (which is what he tried to do). I also wouldn't get raped and I'd have a (slightly) easier time getting a job -- in construction or labor, which I am good at.

"there are groups of white males with problems just as bad."

Where did I compare levels of "badness"? Please cite an actual comment I made.

"the women of these groups had it rougher yet!"

And so they did. Who the hell is arguing with you?

Joy,

I didn't say for "everyone", that question was restricted to whites in the US of A. I am suggesting that most people would choose to be first of all a rich white person of either sex. This does not conflict with the suggestion you are making, which is probably true, that when all other factors are the same more than half might choose to be male, or that in some societies people might tend to feel differently.

But in the USA, in today's economy, an upper-middle-class white female is probably better off, over-all, than a working-class white male.

I don't really agree with the poster here,* but I also don't agree that his views are mainstream and heard all the time, like you are implying. He seems to be saying he accepts that prejudice will occur and that the best strategy is to act as if it does not exist, to brush it off and plow ahead and help create the change you want to see. I sort of get what he is saying, and how from HIS point of view, it can be a negative distraction to think too much about all the barriers.

Why do you all feel you must reform this person right here on the spot? Shouldn't the response to real "trolls" be to ignore them? You are the ones making most of the noise, with about seven posts for every one of his.

* for example, even a rich woman will have a difficult time achieving her goals if she is in politics and may not be able to. This may be an area we can all agree needs special attention, the sooner the better. We need equal political representation!

Good point about feeding the trolls. I do it because otherwise I feel like he is getting away with it.

What is wrong with women making noise?

And why do you assume, yet again, that I don't know about women in politics, haven't thought of that before, etc? Especially after I WROTE ABOUT IT upthread?

Do you think that because I am poor, I am uneducated, ignorant, and incapable of critical thinking? Just asking, as it wouldn't be the first time I've been treated like a stupid child because of my class (or race, or sex).

There have been a few other moment in my life when some idea crystalizes and the world, as I know it, has changed into something new in a deep and subtle way. This is one of those time, and it happened while I was reading through all the comments in this thread.

So, I don't have anything to add to the content of the conversation, but I just wanted to extend a very heartfelt thank-you to all the patient posters. Really. I think, for the very first time, I actually *get* it, and I didn't for years and years and years.

I think I see now, that in addition to all the other bullshit that exists-- some quite blatant, some quite disgusting-- but most of it quite obvious; that there is another form of discrimination-- a pervasive, systemic bias founded in an unconscious favoritism that arises when a person tends to favor "those like me". It's not the easily recognized "I think poorly of you" sort of discrimination, but more of the "I like this dude better than you" variety.

It's a revelation. And no, I'm not looking for a cookie-- you already gave me one and I'm currently digesting it. I just wanted to say thanks... thanks.

I know this thread's old news and Cherish's comment is right at the top, so nobody who reads it is even going to see me commenting way down here at the bottom. But I do still feel the need to set the record straight about Caltech. I was an undergraduate at Caltech for five years, which overlapped with Cherish's time there. (I remember her, although she probably does not remember me, because she became infamous for her, to put it delicately, controversial views on the prevalence of sexism in Caltech society.)

I was a female undergraduate, mind you, in the physics program. And, while I don't deny the reality of sexism, and even the reality of sexism at Caltech, at no point during my time there did I feel like the whole school was the men's center, as Cherish suggests. Instead, my experience was that the whole school was a place for nerds like me to be nerds together. Yes, some people at Tech were sexist, just as some people are sexist in pretty much any society. But if anything, I think it was the least sexist place I've ever been, and one of the best places in the world to be a nerdy woman. I felt that my peers judged me primarily based on how intelligent and interesting I could be, and that my gender was almost entirely irrelevant. I would go back there again in a heartbeat, and never think twice about leaving behind the more gender-balanced and more sexist environments I've encountered since.

This comment should not be construed as having any bearing whatsoever on the larger issue of the value of Women's Centers or Women In Engineering programs or anything else of that nature. I think such things have the potential to be useful if done well and useless or even damaging if done badly, so I am uncomfortable analyzing the concept in general, as opposed to addressing specific implementations. But Cherish's portrayal of Caltech is so contrary to my experience there that I could not bring myself to let it stand unchallenged. I apologize for the tangent, but I hope this at least provides others with a different perspective on a place with which I remain proud to have been associated.

@Peter,
I'm very glad that this was helpful to you. It's a difficult issue, one that I'm only really starting to confront myself as well- even a couple of years ago I really didn't understand it. It's good to see that all of our explanations, which were clearly lost on thegoodman, have possibly helped you examine the situation in a different way. More than anything, changing hearts and minds is the most important thing we need to do, so thank you for keeping yours open.

1) Who's trying to reform him?

2) What's wrong with making noise? (Especially since that's kind of what Zuska's post is about in the first place--saying what you'd really like to say when the bullshit crops up for the bajillionth time).

3) I think that the best education an entitled little turd can get is to encounter women who aren't overcome with joy because he deigned to strut into the henhouse and crow. It's a long overdue lesson that women really are actual people, instead of the automatic regard dispensers we're socialized to be.

More than anything, changing hearts and minds is the most important thing we need to do, so thank you for keeping yours open.

What Beth said. ;)

Isabel, if I've misinterpreted you I'm sorry, but when you make comments like #172
btw, you pile-on-ers need to get over your idea that poor white males see themselves portrayed in a positive light in the media, see people like themselves in positions of power and influence, were encouraged to go to college, never worry about sounding (upper middle class) white on the phone, and could never, in any way, understand what it's like to be treated as second rate citizens.

...It really is hard to see you as other than apologist; it does end up giving the impression of "poor white males got it just as bad", whether or not that is the impression that it is meant to convey.

I don't think that anyone denies that classism exists -- just ask me about the whole "spots at top universities reserved for the idiot children of the rich" sometime, as an issue of hidden "affirmative action" -- but sexism permeates this, too, and besides, sexism is what we were originally talking about here.

@Peter - I'll make an additional suggestion, if you want to learn a lot about unconscious privilege. The conversation was over a year in the past, so it's just a bit of reading (ok, actually a LOT of reading, and link-following) -- but Google "LiveJournal racefail", or alternatively start at http://rydra-wong.livejournal.com/146697.html . This extensive and wide-ranging and at times extremely angry discussion was largely by and about SF/F authors, publishers and editors and dealt with cultural appropriation and implicit rather than explicit racism, but it gives some excellent examples of issues or patterns that are at work in racism and sexism both, especially to deal with "allies" who explicitly regard themselves as non-racist (or non-sexist) but who haven't quite got the whole "privilege" bit yet and thus end up perpetuating some of the problems. After a bit of reading of the "fail" posts, I bet you start to see some of the patterns -- I sure did.

@Peter and everyone reading along but not commenting,

This is one reason why responding reasonably to trolls can sometimes be worth it. There are a lot of comments here, but rest assured that most readers don't comment. They do read though, and sometimes the light clicks on. I'm one of a number of moderators for a blog that gets 17,000 page views a day, but only about 1000 comments (roughly of course). Most people lurk, and comments are for the lurkers as well.

The struggle to recognize various forms of privilege is an ongoing one for all of us who try, but it's an effort worth making.

There is something to be said for making noise.

We are expected to be demure, quiet. Good Girls who "win flies with honey" and reasonable discourse.

But after the two hundred thousandth time, sometimes you just want to say, "No. I am not coddling you. Get off my teat. The resources are there for you to learn without my having to hold your hand and CONVINCE you.
And why do you need to be CONVINCED that women and brown people are human beings anyway? What is WRONG with you? Go learn it yourself, and don't speak to me again unless you can speak the same way you'd speak to another white man, or to yourself in the mirror."

There is NOTHING wrong with that.

Which is why I'm still unsure of why my story so offended people. It's not that much different than DuWayne's. Why was it so threatening that I came to a place on the internet and SPOKE? Albeit in a way that was not all "sugar and spice, plus everything nice."

Screw being nice. That was what was meant by "Well-behaved women seldom make history," you know.

"...It really is hard to see you as other than apologist; it does end up giving the impression of "poor white males got it just as bad", whether or not that is the impression that it is meant to convey. "

That is because you are reading into my words. Both race and gender were being discussed (see title) as usual. And as usual race was (inaccurately) referring to both race and class. The two need to be separated in these discussions. My point is when you say "white men see themselves as people in power, blah bla they get such and such privileges, every month is white male history month" as WAS stated upthread (taken largely from that privilege essay you all like to quote) class was indeed left out and when you put it in it really changes the statement.

And as someone who experiences all three systematic oppressions, I would say that class is in many ways "just as bad". The poster above was not a stranger to the experience of being a victim of prejudice and discrimination. The same wealth differential that we are appalled by between Americans and other westerners and poorer countries occurs right here, in America *within the white race itself* but in that case for some reason we are NOT appalled and we completely 'white-wash' it. All whites are on top, all the work is done by non-whites, etc.

When pressed we grudgingly admit "sure some white people have it bad" but that's about as far as it goes. And we seize upon the fact that immigrants and thus those in crummy jobs tend to be non-white in recent years as proof positive of racism even though the immigration policy is now LESS racist (hence the non-white immigrants), and earlier white immigrants went through the same kinds of discrimination.

This is my point, you SAY you consider class, but you don't really. It doesn't end up in the post titles, in the privilege essays, or in the general discussions here. It is only mentioned attached to race as if it is part and parcel of the race equation (rich whites, poor PoC), which is doubly frustrating for lower class whites. I really don't know why that is so hard to understand; that you could only read my words as those of an "apologist." But the truth is, people in general don't like discussing class. I guess it wouldn't bother me if they just discussed the weather, or the latest science, but when they insist on ignoring class in discussions of inequality I feel I need to speak up sometimes.

Maybe all that poster you were attacking wanted was for some of the middle and upper-middle class feminists to acknowledge THEIR privileges in comparison to him, or else to do what he suggests, forge ahead together recognizing that most of us are oppressed. After all, my 'which would you rather be' question above (i.e. when race is held constant class does indeed trump gender for most people in the US at least), is one of those cases where it IS "just as bad", perhaps WORSE. So maybe you could cut the guy some slack, he even said he was thinking about the issues you brought up, and he keeps posting because he's under attack and being used as example for people like Peter; really, how condescending can you get??

Um, no. He wanted to be a turd. Thus demonstrated by his refusal to shut the hell up and do the reading he SAID he wanted to. FIRST demonstrated by strolling in and telling the wimmens they were just whining, and that affirmative action gave white men (which Freudian slip I won't parse at this point) the idea that all women and men of color really are inferior.

Honestly. This horse has been beaten to a pulp. Quit sniveling about how rough the poor little white boy has it because he was raised in a trailer (if, indeed, there's the slightest bit of truth in that, which I doubt) and how meeeeeen we are to be sick to death of yet ANOTHER privileged voice nonchalantly spouting the party line.

Okay, yes, middle- and upper-class feminists need to acknowledge their privileges. That's true. That's great.

But why are you still arguing that classism is worse than sexism?

You sound like the anarchists I used to know who insisted over and over and over that classism was The Only Struggle, even when their partners and friends had been molested, had been raped, were still being raped, had been abused by male partners with no help from the community, had eating disorders, were consistently discriminated and put down, were not allowed to speak during meetings or at parties because the "manarchists" would shout them down ...

We were told over and over and over and over that our problems, that POC's problems, were not as valid as "class" problems. Yes, class is a problem. But upper-class women get raped just like poor women get raped. Upper-class POC get discriminated against just like lower-class POC do (look at Barack fucking Obama if you need proof of that).

So what gives you the right to tell us that classism is The One True Problem and that We Are Just Too Stupid To Understand Classism?

I LIVE classism, you fucking prick. So do all of us. Please give us some more credit here.

Also, and sorry for serial posting as well -- sorry to other readers for use of "you fucking prick."

I'm just tired of being told I'm stupid because I haven't listened to white guys enough. Waaah, waaaah, can they suck on my nipple for a while to feel better? Because I've just been so meeean and my ladybrain isn't smart enough to understand them and I haven't been NICE enough to them! They struggle TOO!

Nope. I've thought about this already. For about ten years. And I know I'm not the only one. Please. Stop telling us that we haven't thought about and don't understand experiences that WE LIVE, every day of our lives.

What a wacky bunch you are! I know I shouldn't even be here, especially when I have so many papers to grade.

"Okay, yes, middle- and upper-class feminists need to acknowledge their privileges. That's true. That's great."

Okay, let's hear them do it. Also thanks for providing us with another classic example of grudging acknowledgment of class inequality.

Joy, you are projecting your past experiences on to me and others. You are doing an incredible amount of projecting actually. I don't think anyone has said or even thought any of the things you are accusing them of here.

I am not discounting sexism. I am a radical feminist. I am not discounting racism. I am not saying class is the one true problem. You are claiming I said that, and once again, helping me fill out my OWN bingo card here.

YOU are discounting classism, perhaps because of your past experiences with "manarchists". Ignoring class, or only grudgingly including it, is no better than saying it's the only thing that matters, as you allege others have done.

Did you call me a prick?? I demand an apology!

@Isabel, I find a certain irony in the fact that you say I am reading things into your original statement, and then spend the next four paragraphs pretty much explicitly confirming my interpretation.

Seconding what luna said.

No apologies.

In reference to the OP, I don't know about all males, but maybe it IS unfair that working class (white) males do not have their own movement, and if they tried to form them there would be complaints for sure. There should be male working class groups perhaps, but would working class MoC join them if they already have their own groups? The problem is that lower class white males really are excluded when victims of inequality are getting together and are told to shut up and stop complaining. Working class women need to be more included as well.

And Joy you bring up Obama's social class: I thought it was interesting how class signifiers were some of the reasons many liberals liked and identified with him.

Also, I was joking about the apology - just thought it was funny how you apologized to the "other readers" -- chill out people:)

There is a working-class male movement.

It's called the NFL.

No, in all seriousness, have you ever been to a union meeting? I have.
Ever been to a neighborhood watch in a bad neighborhood? I've been there too. They turn into planning sessions about police discrimination and how to get adequate welfare, child care, etc. for those who need it.
Ever hung out with carpenters and contractors in upstate New York (and probably other progressive-er working class areas? That's what they talk about on their lunch break, and sometimes when they're working.

Oh, and there is this thing called progressivism, another called grassroots, and one more called anarchism. Various strains of all of them.

Point is, white men HAVE their own movements.

Also, I'm SO GLAD you assume I had not already analyzed Barack's class image. The amount of intelligence you give me credit for is STAGGERING, and that's why I've assumed you were a man who does not deserve my respect.

Luna, what exactly am I an apologist for? Are you saying class inequality, oppression and discrimination does not exist? Perhaps the problem isn't that I am an apologist but that you are a denier;)

Also, I'm curious, are you saying that in 2010, in the USA, you would rather be born male and poor than upper-class and female? For me it would be a toss-up only if I had political ambitions, otherwise I would chose upper-class female. Whether class or gender is a worse disadvantage could change with the situation; however, they are both serious disadvantages. BTW I may have mistakenly said I suffered from all 3 oppressions implying race discrimination and I have not, I meant both class and gender.

Okay I am really turning off the computer and getting my grading done now: I'll let you get back to your pile-on.

Why does saying that sexism is a problem deny that classism is also a problem?

That is what makes NO sense to me.

There is such a thing as "intersectionality", and I'm pretty sure most of us know about it. Not just you, little precious special ... college professor?

That would explain a lot.

We aren't all just stupid little rich children in one of your college classes, and you don't need to talk down to us.

Class isn't a separate issue. bell hooks writes a lot about "white supremacist capitalist patriarchy" and does an awesome job of showing how connected it all is. The domination of others via class and the valuing of shit like military spending over social programs is directly related to institutionalized sexism and racism.

I don't know why the lower class white dudes can't just do some labor organizing, that includes all sorts of people screwed over by classism. Lower class white guys are more likely to be hired for jobs, period. They are more likely to have a way out of poverty. That doesn't make poverty suck less, but it does illustrate that poverty isn't experienced the same for everyone, and that not being a white dude can make poverty harder.

I have read through a lot of your rants isabel, and I still can't figure out what the hell you want exactly. It is like you don't want people to discuss any social issue without setting aside special time to list all the exceptions to white dudes having dominant social standing, as if any of us are so stupid that we are unaware of them. You know who gives a bunch of attention to the dudes you care so much about? The main stream media. All the pandering to joe six pack and hard working "real" americans and blah blah blah, article after article about how hard the "mancession" has been on white dudes, etc. Instead of organizing for better conditions most people in the demographic you are discussing seem to have opted for voting against their own interests and embracing racist bullshit.

even though the immigration policy is now LESS racist (hence the non-white immigrants), and earlier white immigrants went through the same kinds of discrimination.

I don't think you really understand current immigration or why it happened. America did a lot of meddling in the economies of various latin american countries in the 1980's, crushing a lot of the chances for economic growth and independence. In mexico, extremely upper class people helped stuff like NAFTA pass, and in other cases the CIA helped kill civilians who were organizing against oppressive governments who served us business interests (like in argentina). The effect of it all on that region is really terrible. SO then, people immigrate to our country, sometimes at the urging of companies who want cheap workers (yes, they advertise south of the border). These workers don't have any real rights, and can be taken back to certain poverty any time they want to be paid a fair wage or report the abuses they suffer. All of it is at the leisure of companies that own all this stuff. It is not surprising that the same companies support candidates and policies that are racist against hispanic people. The same people who had their jobs given to illegal immigrants are the same ones who are in favor of extremely racist immigration policy, it is all a big distraction and it is working. The folks who came from the immigrants you are describing are perfectly capable of creating the same fate for the current immigrants. Racist laws that blame individual immigrants for being here instead of the people at fault for giving them work and taking away the chance for honest work in their own countries are getting off scott free, while promoting racism towards the immigrants. I think that it is pretty unique, private power did not have this kind of concentration and global reach until very recently.

You know who gives a bunch of attention to the dudes you care so much about? The main stream media.

Precisely.

" in other cases the CIA helped kill civilians who were organizing against oppressive governments who served us business interests (like in argentina). The effect of it all on that region is really terrible."

[[Citation Needed]]

Ah, so reminiscent of complaints about people on welfare too. "Why does group X get all these handouts? I want some!" To which I say "Hey, you can have them too, you just have to get rid of everything you own, forget everything you might have learned at school, and wander the streets begging for money - then you'll qualify, and you won't even have to go through the phase of not being able to get a job because everyone around assumes you're nothing but a pox on society anyway."

"Hey, you can have them too, you just have to get rid of everything you own, forget everything you might have learned at school, and wander the streets begging for money - then you'll qualify, and you won't even have to go through the phase of not being able to get a job because everyone around assumes you're nothing but a pox on society anyway."

Actually, that's a dumb thing to say. I'm not sure if you mean it like this, but seriously. I'm on public welfare, and I certainly don't wander around dirtily. And I'm also not ignorant, ie, have not "forgotten everything I learned".

If you met me, or any of my friends (who are artists, painters, musicians, writers), you would not "guess" that we are on welfare. We look very tidy and well-put-together. You might stand in line with us at the grocery store, and you'd never know, unless you saw us pay with our EBT cards.

So please don't pull that shit, okay?

@peter:

There is a term for what you are experiencing, you may have heard it, it is called set breaking and is what happens when your habitual thought processes break down and reform to accommodate new information. It feels really good, doesn't it?

The prodigal son returns.

Clearly many of you will think what you want of me. I am a lost cause at this point and anything I say will be twisted to make me into more of an example than I have already become. I am not asking anyone to feel sorry for me, after all, I am a white male in a white male's world so things will be pretty easy going for me anyhow.

I know sexism exists.
I know it is a problem.
I think we should all work together to fix this problem. I think women are my academic, professional, and intellectual equals.

The moronic rant at the end of your post perpetuates stereotypes.

So, goodman, how do you feel about this remark of yours now?

Just curious.

Cara
I still believe what I said. I think that rants lives up to every negative feminist stereotype there is. It shows her completely one-sided viewpoint on the topic and offers nothing constructive nor does it show that she understands both sides of the situation.

To say that the "the whole entire world is plastered with signs that say 'White D00ds 'Specially Welcome Here!' 'K? Thx" is moronic and clearly represents the viewpoint of a militant feminist that hasn't considered what other factors might be effecting this guys life.

She instantly sidesteps the topics of looks, social status, economics, intelligence. Poor, ugly, dumb, white males have a lot less privilege than rich, pretty, smart, white females. I am saying that it is not as simply as she is making it out to be. There are far more factors than only gender and race that come into play in this situation and to assume that all white males have an easy lot in life isn't fair to the white males that have had a tough draw.

To clarify:

I think it is selfish to think that because you (females) have problems, white males do not have problems. I think that everyone has problems and some people have more problems than others. We all handle them differently. Women and minorities certainly face some problems that white males never have to deal with. Women and minorities certainly face more issues of prejudice than white males ever will and most (me) white males don't fully understand this prejudice.

I was in a position similar to that of Zuska when I was younger. I was under the impression that rich people had everything figured out and had no problems where as us poor kids needed help with everything. After "crossing over" and no longer considering myself poor and doing rather well for myself, I feel differently. I feel different because I have lived on both sides of the equation and realize that both situations present their own set of issues.

The problem with race and gender is that rarely does anyone have experience with both sides. I admit I am unaware of the trials that women and minorities face. I do not understand what it is like to be looked down upon because I am black or because I am a women.

I do however know what it is like to be looked down upon because you are poor. I also know what it is like to be standing amongst people who are looking down on the poor. I often finding myself defending the poor to my wealthier friends and I don't approve of their comments made in that direction.

Are these issues the same? Absolutely not. You can hide that fact that you are poor and you can become not-poor. But there are parallels to the situations and my experience with it has helped form a lot of the opinions I've come to when discussing gender and race. I am empathetic to anyone who suffers prejudice and abhor prejudice behavior.

I also think it is important to teach kids to say "fuck it" when they are the victim of such behavior. Unfortunately is will always exist and they need to be prepared to handle it when it arises. I also think that laws and programs that prevent prejudice and raise awareness of prejudice is important.

"Darkness cannot drive out darkness: only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate: only love can do that." MLK jr.

When I said I liked MLK I was thinking specifically of this quote. I am a complete pacifist as well. I don't think a hateful militant attitude will ever accomplish anything positive. That being said, I would like to apologize to Luna for my hateful words toward her. I was reacting and should have put more thought into those words.

I think it is selfish to think that because you (females) have problems, white males do not have problems.

Whew--good thing nobody here said that, then!

In fact, many here have specifically acknowledged that it isn't so.

Calling "females" "selfish", though--couldn't pass that one up I guess.

The thing is, often a person can't just say "fuck it" to discrimination and abuse. We cannot end racist assaults by teaching the victims to say "fuck it" from their hospital beds or their graves. We cannot end rape by teaching the victims to say "fuck it" while they're being assaulted. We cannot end job discrimination by telling the victims to say "fuck it" as they look at an empty wallet and wonder what they're going to eat.

Outlawing violence and discrimination shouldn't be the afterthought to telling the victims to shrug it off. That's not pacifism, that's enabling bullies.

The closest the victims can come to saying "fuck it" is, in some cases, to refuse to socialize with people of the dominant group. And the same people who don't want women or blacks to attend their clubs or social gatherings, and keep them out of schools and jobs, often react badly if women or blacks say "Fine. We don't want you either" and start separate groups or projects, whether it's the sort that started this threadâwhereupon people from the dominant group want to know where their half of what people are building to deal with exclusion isâor larger attempts at lesbian separatism or Black nationalism.

We're a social species, and dismissing that sort of exclusion is not a trivial thing. That's even when it's "only" about socializing. But you're telling people to ignore both economic discrimination and violent assault.

Shorter Thegoodman: I haven't learned a damn thing. Dude, stop talking.

I still believe what I said. I think that rants lives up to every negative feminist stereotype there is. It shows her completely one-sided viewpoint on the topic and offers nothing constructive nor does it show that she understands both sides of the situation.

Speaking of offering nothing constructive, I do believe I was telling you a story earlier (@145,146). All you said was that you were sorry. I found that rather ironic given that the last thing you seem to want is for people to treat you with pity or apologize to you. So, do you have anything productive to suggest or do you think that programs that support women/minorities/poor people might actually have a useful purpose?

"But you're telling people to ignore both economic discrimination and violent assault."

This is not what I am saying at all. I am saying they need to be prepared to deal with it. Ignoring it is not dealing with it. Use it to your advantage, let it motivate you, use it as a way to differentiate yourself.

Also, we are talking about completely opposite sides of the situation. You are focusing on prevention. That is great. I agree we should do what we can to prevent these atrocities. I am focusing on the recovery. We also need to be prepared to deal with these things if/when they happen. I don't think that going on a tirade does anything to diffuse the situation, it only makes it worse. Its difficult to tell someone how stupid they are, then attempt to teach them something.

@Ace
I don't have a solution to this issue anymore than you do. I also don't blog about it, I am merely commenting on a blog.

@SKM
I just took the liberty of reading between the lines of Zuska's post, like everyone has read between the lines of my comments. I do think that is what many women on here have said. Also, I didn't say females are selfish, I said females who pretend males have no problems with life are selfish.

@Carl
When I tell someone what to do I am a sexist pig. When people tell me what to do they are supposedly doing me a favor. I have inadvertently hijacked this thread and I am trying to respond to questions asked of me. Also, I have really enjoyed the discussion and despite what many of you believe, I have learned a lot.

@Ace
I wasn't apologizing to you, I am saying I feel sorry for you. I can't imagine someone doing something so blatantly sexist in a job interview and it must have pissed you off something fierce. It sucks to be shit on like that and you truly got shit on. I wish things like this didn't happen.

I don't see what I can do about it other than read the story, be aware of it, and not do it if I am put in that situation.

My wife's graduating medical class was 50% female. I was happy to hear this but when awards were handed out, most went to males. This made me a little suspect of possible sexism by the primarily male doctors who give the awards. The good news is that if 50% of graduating doctors are females, the doctor work force will be 50% female soon enough.

That's exactly my point, earlier you said that you don't want people feeling sorry for you (@11,@51). Yet we talk about our hardships and you say you feel sorry for us. And now you even say that you wish things like that didn't happen.

I have news for you! The way to make sure this shit doesn't happen is to do something about it . And that's what most of these programs do! Make people aware of the issues, provide a forum for discussion, and work to provide opportunities for those who would have otherwise missed out due to some uncontrollable factor.

I'd also like to address this statement:
The good news is that if 50% of graduating doctors are females, the doctor work force will be 50% female soon enough.

I don't know about medicine, but this is definitely false for engineering. The percentage of women leaving the profession at all stages of their career is much higher than men, especially as you climb the ladder, regardless if it's academia or industry.

Use it to your advantage, let it motivate you, use it as a way to differentiate yourself.

Yup, I've always found that a positive spin can be put on rape, sexual assault, and sexual harassment. I use it to my advantage. To differentiate myself.

@Comrade Svilova
You are just being ridiculous. Rape is violent sexual assault. It may fall under the umbrella of sexism, but I think it was clearly not what I was referring to.

Also, how do you suggest rape victims deal with their tragedy? Should they become a recluse and spend the rest of their lives feeling sorry for themselves? Should they bottle up all of their feelings so they can one day maybe commit suicide?

Any and all sexual assault is terrible. But the fact is that it happens. Unfortunately it happens all the time. I refuse to let you make me out to be some sort of monster because I think victims should attempt to deal with the issues that haunt them years after their incident.

Never once did I say anyone shouldn't report ANY misconduct against them. Don't ignore it. To me, saying "fuck it" isn't the same as acting like it isn't there. Its saying fuck you to the person who did it (figuratively, not literally is not advisable in most professional situations), fuck the system for letting it happen to me, and fuck anyone who thinks it will hold me back.

skeptifem! aka Nails, isn't it? My old McCarthyite enemy. Your posts are hilarious!

"most people in the demographic you are discussing"

incidentally, what is your socioeconomic background?

And if you understood class privilege, you would understand why it's offensive and somewhat non-sensical - and definitely counter-productive - when upper-middle-class white women whine about "white d00ds" and their privilege when most of those dudes are no more privileged over-all than the whiners are, maybe even less.

It's tacky!

For example, there's a progressive radio station I listen to and they're always advertising for young applicants to their apprenticeship training program, and they specifically and explicitly target "young women, PoC, LGBT, " and go on and on to invite everybody except white males, even poor ones.

So if a younger version of theGoodman happens to fall off the turnip truck in the big city with no money or connections or guidance he would NOT feel welcome as a trainee at that station, even if he wanted to be a progressive activist. And his inclusion would actually ADD diversity in that particular community.

Oops, sorry for being ridiculous. No one ever uses sexual violence or the threat of it to prevent women from succeeding in generally male-dominated fields.

And if someone does use the threat of sexual violence (or actual sexual harassment) against me, I now know that all I have to do is say "fuck it" and not let it hold me back. (Hurrah! Thanks for the helpful tip.)

Granted, my male peers are able to move forward with their careers without this additional hassle. But god forbid I ask that the playing field be a little more even or ask that the program work to actively support women who are doing well and working hard while also fighting an up hill battle against sexism and sexual harassment in this field.

Well, you're right about one thing--apparently nothing you say now will alter our view of you.

And you can't whine that I was mean to you so this is why you say these things. This is alllll you.

See, "Isabel" (et al)? This is your buddy, here. This is why we don't suck their dicks till their heads cave in, HOPING they'll praise us if we're nice enough. I mean, this one can't even read for comprehension, or understand proper etiquette. Not even an apology for insulting the hostess right out of the gate. How gauche.

Plenty of men--even white guys--can get it after a little rational thought. Why court the favor of brainless assholes when there are genuinely good men out there?

"I was in a position similar to that of Zuska when I was younger. I was under the impression that rich people had everything figured out and had no problems where as us poor kids needed help with everything. After "crossing over" and no longer considering myself poor and doing rather well for myself, I feel differently. I feel different because I have lived on both sides of the equation and realize that both situations present their own set of issues."

I really, really doubt this.

I was poor as a teenager. We're talking malnutrition poor, working two jobs in high school to put box mac-n-cheez on the table poor. Poor all the way through college and didn't have enough to eat until some years after graduation. Eventually became solidly middle-class though, through working my ass off and a few bits of good luck.

The one huge, important thing that becomes painfully obvious to anyone who goes through that transition is how money might not buy happiness, but it does buy considerable peace of mind. You can afford to have control over your life, if you have money.

-If my car breaks down now, it's a minor inconvenience to let my boss know I'm running late, call a tow truck and get a loaner from the dealership. I can pay for the repairs, and if the car is beyond repair, I will simply pull some money out of a rainy-day account for a down payment on a new one. I will not lose my job and be unable to get another, though.
-My employment records are documented by the state, such that if I lose my job, I can get unemployment payments. My employer will most likely provide a severance payment, too.
-If I need training to get a promotion or transition to a new career, I can afford to take night classes to get that extra education at a respected university.
-If I were being abused by my partner, I could pack my bags and leave, or I could call the police and have him/her arrested.
-I can buy good quality food that is nutritious or not, just as I like. I can go to restaurants if I worked a long day and don't feel up to cooking.
-I can have pet dogs that make it less likely that I'll be attacked by rapists. I don't have a landlord telling me that I can't have a dog the size of a dire wolf.
-I don't have to work a really terrible job in dangerous or exploitative conditions. I can get a different job, even if I am laid off or fired.
-When I have to call the police to report something bad that has happened to me, no matter how minor, the police arrive promptly and take my complaint seriously. If my neighbor calls the police for any reason, I am immediately considered a *potential witness* rather than a *potential perpetrator*.
-I don't have to worry about my personal safety when I go for a walk in the park. My neighborhood has very little violence. If I leave a door unlocked and go shopping for the afternoon, I can be fairly certain that the house will not have been burgled.
-My house is structurally sound and not in imminent danger of burning down, flooding, or any other hazard. It is warm in winter and cool in summer. The electricity, phone lines, internet, water and sewage all function, all the time.
-I can buy new clothing appropriate to my job whenever I like. I look like I belong in the company of my colleagues.
-I can get regular health exams and preventative medicine, including eye exams with fashionable glasses, dental exams with cosmetic dentistry if I want, and medical care with up-to-date vaccinations. I can even afford cosmetic surgery, if I wanted it. When I received a cancer diagnosis, I got second opinions and had a good quality specialist treat me and provide follow-up care. My insurance paid for counseling to help me and my family deal with the stress of the diagnosis and treatment process.

All this stuff was immediately, overwhelmingly obvious from the moment that I first walked into a grocery store after depositing my first real paycheck. That's not to say my life is trouble-free, but it IS saying that there's a world of fucking difference between living hand-to-mouth and worrying about whether you should buy the brown leather couch or the shabby chic sofa.

You are just being ridiculous. Rape is violent sexual assault. It may fall under the umbrella of sexism, but I think it was clearly not what I was referring to.

So, "goodman", how often have you been sexually assaulted? Again, just curious.

(You little toad).

Goddammit.

THIS

You are just being ridiculous. Rape is violent sexual assault. It may fall under the umbrella of sexism, but I think it was clearly not what I was referring to.

was all "Goodman the Trolling Toad", Scene Duh, Act Blah.

THIS

"So, "goodman", how often have you been sexually assaulted? Again, just curious.

(You little toad)."

was me. I'd say FYWP but it's not WP.

Anyway, I think goodman is Queef. Nobody could really say such an asinine thing. "I think rape victims, of which I am not one, need to fucking suck it up and deal". Pffft.

Actually, I think "goodman" is "Isabel". Or one of his friends.

I think I may have a solution for this whole messy business:

Hey whiney d00ds, why not go to your local Head Of Department and ask for $60 to have your "all d00ds" pizza party? No minorities allowed. That way you can have your pizza, high five each other for having won your little battle, and then GET BACK TO WORK ON IMPORTANT THINGS, LIKE SCHOOL WORK.

Lazy sons of beetches.

"Should they become a recluse and spend the rest of their lives feeling sorry for themselves? Should they bottle up all of their feelings so they can one day maybe commit suicide?"

Actually, this is how I dealt with my multiple childhood molestations and repeated adulthood rapes (once it happens to you as a child, you often get into the habit of, I guess a dickhole like you would say, "letting it happen" again, and again, and again) ...

but you say "feeling sorry for [myself]", and a psychological counselor would (and has, and still does) say "experiencing post-traumatic stress disorder, which is a real and legitimate involuntary psychological response to rape trauma."

It would be really, really helpful if I could just "suck it up and deal." I'm glad you suggested that. Wow. My life has now completely changed. I'll just go snort a Valium or something now* and get right on with pulling myself up by the bootstraps.

* I don't snort Valium. But that's what it would probably take.

Seconding that "Isabel" and "thegoodman" are one and the same. They even use the same phrasings.

Queef is probably a secondary troll, though. One would have to look at the IP addresses to tell for sure.

I have inadvertently hijacked this thread and I am trying to respond to questions asked of me. Also, I have really enjoyed the discussion and despite what many of you believe, I have learned a lot.

It wasn't inadvertent; you haven't been involved in any discussion, just trolling; you're incapable of rational thought, so "learning" is far outside your scope of expertise. As for your enjoyment, I doubt that, unless pretending you have a wife who doesn't get punctures was fun for you.

HTH.

Calling "females" "selfish", though--couldn't pass that one up I guess.

SKM, I doubt this one could even fight the green beans to a draw.

Oh, and one more thing, in case Mr Goodman wanted to assert that Hard Work reliably gets people to the top:

Here's the bits of good luck that got me into the middle class:

1. Partner willing to support me while I went to university and worked only 35 hours/week. It isn't actually possible any more to put yourself through college, tuition was much too high even in my day (late 80s/early 90s).

2. Really great timing on a contract job--lucked into finding a recruiter who needed to fill a job by the end of the week, and he happened to be an outstanding negotiator, got me a salary comparable to a man's for that job. Contract job had a wonderful boss who got me hired in. Sheer luck that they were so urgently hiring for that particular position and that I had just been laid off.

3. High turnover in one particular department of an otherwise successful company. Usually when companies are constantly hiring due to turnover, it's because they suck. In this one, it was just that department sucked, and my poverty-wage jobs ensured that I was inured to crappy working conditions. I was able to stick it out long enough to get a transfer to a better department.

That's it. Really. Which of these things, exactly, do the upper classes imagine poor people can or should be gifted with to enable the bootstrapping process? Gainfully employed and loving partners? Awesome timing? I'm sure rich people would support the notion of tax write-offs for departments in large companies that burn through personnel, if they could rationalize that poor people were thereby getting respectable experience on their CVs...

Well, uh, just elbowing in here to express my gratitude for this article having been posted, as well as the sprawling discussion that follows. I read all of it, believe it or not.

The word "feminism" was considered sort of dirty, throughout my childhood, perceived to be some sort of unnecessarily radical shrilling. Only after I heard a high school career counsellor say that because he had a daughter, he was a feminist, did I begin to consider that this might have all been in error. I have gradually come to realise that behind the fuss over the word "feminism" was a fundamental misconception over what was trying to be accomplished, and (speaking solely for myself) this article with its subsequent and useful clamour hit the last nail into that misconception's coffin.

Speaking as a young woman who has grown up in situations where discrimination tends to be fairly subtle / non-physical / stamped so indelibly into the atmosphere that nobody quite notices, I think I have reached a new level of understanding â both in regards to how many times this kind of discrimination has been levelled against me without me even realising, as well as in regards to how fortunate I am that the worst I have experienced on account of being female has been groping and catcalling. Not to mention how sickening it is that that could be considered relatively fortunate.

So: thank you, trolls and all. I believe I am, and have always been, a feminist. Good to know!

Ha, I had this discussion yet again only two days ago with my little brother and his best friend who was currently enrolled in (and torturing the class of) a mandatory Women's Study course. Of course they hit all the "bingo" squares. I started off my rebuttal with a variation of your "pissy" answer to inform them that "ALL of standard history, science, etc classes are currently the 'white male studies' courses."

That led to the reply, "Well why don't they call it that?"

In the end it was a decent discussion and I think they understood what I was saying (even starting to agree), but it's hard to sit in front of someone telling you you're being offensive and not be fairly embarrassed and defensive. It's even harder when you're a white guy so you don't have the bias thrown in your face everyday.

It was still amazing how these guys all think exactly alike and use the same wrong arguments every time. Makes rebuttals amazingly easy, at least.

Makes rebuttals amazingly easy, at least.

True enough. It would be nice if they'd just pay attention the first hundred times, though.

Shorter goodman: My oppression is real, yours is imaginary. (Even Shorter Shorter: I got mine ALL BY MYSELF).

Comedy. GOLD.

I have gradually come to realise that behind the fuss over the word "feminism" was a fundamental misconception over what was trying to be accomplished, and (speaking solely for myself) this article with its subsequent and useful clamour hit the last nail into that misconception's coffin.

Psst--hey, Jinks: you might like it over Shakesville's way (linked from my handle). You never know! You might, for example, find some kindred thoughts in the Feminism 101 section. Not that your level is 101; that's just what the section is called, to be clear. Check us out; we have lots of "hey, it turns out I've always been" feminists!

SKM: Why, danke! This looks like a fantastic index.

One other thing for which I've found these topics personally useful is their ability to strip away meaningless rote that has latched onto belief systems and ways of living, to refine old perspectives that were originally good but have accumulated an overwhelming amount of harmful garbage over centuries of blind faith / non-thinking.

Cara, I'm not goodman. I'm stupid, but I'm not *that* stupid.

@Jinks and SKM: That's definitely the position I was in a year or two ago. I just want to echo this:

I realized how many times this kind of discrimination has been levelled against me without me even realising, as well as ... how fortunate I am that the worst I have experienced on account of being female has been groping and catcalling. Not to mention how sickening it is that that could be considered relatively fortunate.

Excellent summing up.

@ Cara, #68

Yes, it occured to me after the hopeless feeling of having been subjected to utter crazymaking lifted --

"Oh -- she thinks women took Thegoodman to task - because they were biased against him for supposedly being poor -, not just because he was a troll who doesn't listen! Oh!"

Let's do a little comparison, shall we?
Thegoodman -- acts like a good old middle class white dood (is also supposedly married to a doctor now, so he IS a middle class white man). Gets taken to task for his failure to grasp the issues at hand.
DuWayne -- contributes to the discourse, grasps the actual issues, is an actual working class man. Does not get looked down upon or taken to task.

Women ARE smart enough to grasp the difference, you know. We don't ALL wear class blinders to which we are utterly oblivious. Our response to thegoodman has nothing, NOTHING to do with his supposed poverty and everything to do with his being an obtuse dick who refuses to listen. Those two things are linked in NO ONE's mind but Isabel's.

People who aren't Isabel -- does that sound about right at all? Honestly, I've been puzzling about it for however many days this has been, because I really did just want to know what the POINT of this whole round-and-round could be.

Whoops, that ended up on the wrong thread. It was supposed to go under "Why Are You All So Angry?" but it wound up here. Sorry, Cara.

@joy: it was worth the repeat.

No worries, Joy. ;) But I think the only point was so Isabel could troll Zuska's blog. It happens every time Zuska dares to get annoyed with privileged d00d behavior.

That seems to be the case, but I'm truly trying to figure it out.

I like trying to take down trolls, to perfect my discourse, but she's simply crazymaking at this point, and she is really into telling me I'M the crazy one for an especial reason that I'm still not clear about either.

Was it just because I said I was good at something? Seriously. God knows a woman can never be THAT.

she's simply crazymaking at this point, and she is really into telling me I'M the crazy one for an especial reason that I'm still not clear about either.

I think it's just pigtail-pulling. They take a goofy stance on something, anything, and maintain it no matter what.

@ History Punk #241

Wow, you should really pick a different moniker. Does Operation Condor ring a bell?

Late to the party, but based on my intro SOC class I as a general elective, there seemed to be a shortage of men in the class. Although the white/non-white was certainly an issue for both genders. SOC needs to promote itself more to men!

incase anyone else stumbles on this a few months/years late...

it's called 'social justice'. because certain races are more likely to be made fun of/treated badly/what have you, they "deserve" free money to go to school. tell me i'm wrong. it's not because they're poor, they have general "everyone" grants/loans for that. it's not because their skin makes them less likely to get a scholarship - talk to some basketball players about that. it's not because colleges are racist - not NOW anyways, and especially not with gubment mandates. it's because they were called a 'bad name' in life. it's because a female won't get as large a pay check in life, so this is the opportunity to 'stick it' to the white male, and get a leg up somewhere in the chain. i was taught 'two wrongs don't make a right', but we all know that no one follows that in the real world.

it's because a female won't get as large a pay check in life, so this is the opportunity to 'stick it' to the white male

Ahem, are you suggesting that giving women the opportunity to attain a higher educational status which might make their pay disparity less than 70 cents on the dollar is some childish act of "sticking it" to the white man? Wage disparity is a very real problem, and it requires a real solution. Society is still sexist, so higher education is necessary for many women to even hope to slightly close the wage gap.

it's not because colleges are racist - not NOW anyways, and especially not with gubment mandates. it's because they were called a 'bad name' in life.

Many colleges are racist, and society most certainly is (see Stuff White People Do for some examples).

Strawmen and offensive statements. Making it possible for more PoC to attain higher education isn't a "wrong" -- unless you think that white people having the majority of access to institutions of higher education is how it "should be."

Sorry, can someone explain how the historical disproportionately young black male holders of basketball scholarships* is supposed to have any bearing what-so-ever on whether or not non-young or female or non-sporting PoC do or do not face discrimination?

Surely the fact that such an example sticks out is actual evidence against the idea that PoC have equal access to education?

*I'm not in the US, but I was under the impression that such University sports are still disproportionately white males in comparison to the make-up of the professional leagues. It was certainly the case at mine, despite it having a large Chinese and African student base.

Shorter Ry: Why yes, I am a whiny privileged white male, how could you tell?

OMG!
You ZUSKA and many others (and I DO WANT TO F%%%$$$ punch a couple white males right in the face that are backing you INGRATE chauvinsitic BROADS with their comments. But I am decent and of good enough character to not do such a thing if had the chance).
You SUCK SO BAD. In COLLEGE/Universities/higher education, there are well over 60% females in school AND STILL acting AS IF! YOU LIE!!! Also the minority, ie real native born African American minority is ALWAYS shot down by ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION AND WHITE WOMEN claiming MINORITY status. ALL OF YOU ARE GUNNING FOR the WHITE MALE. THIS MAKES US the real minority. WHAT DO YOU REALLY BELIEVE causes EMASCULATION LADY?
Emasculation is way more prevalent, as well as drug addiction and excessive drinking OUT OF FEAR AND FRUSTRATION, from WHITE MALE discrimination. ALSO, there are MORE WOMEN working today than MEN. A FACT!
Most women DO NOT WORK TOUGH LABOR jobs MISSY ENGINEER AND NEVER EXPECTED TO!
YOU WAH WAH ME AND I WILL CALL THE COPS ON YOU FOR INCITING A FIGHT YOU LAME BROAD CHAUVINIST!
EAT THAT YOU LYING CHEET! This has been going on for well over a decade if not two decades as IF YOU DID NOT KNOW!

WAH fucking WAH, by JohnnyWAH.

Prologue: WAH.

Introduction: WAH.

Chapter 1-wah inclusive: WAH WAH I'm being picked on because women still get paid half what I do for doing twice the work and get treated like shit on top of it but oh, they don't really work unless they're making me a sammich WAH.

Epilogue: WAH.

Appendices A-Z: WAH.

Also, we're "gunning" for the White Man. Let me see, there was this crime recently where someone took a gun and shot a whole bunch of people just because their gender had supposedly been mean to the perpetrator. But actually, in that case (and all others like it) the perp was a man.

Gender-based violence only goes one direction in the vast, vast majority of cases. Women who are angry or who work to change laws to make the world more just are not "gunning" for anyone, with the metaphorical violence that implies. They are proceeding in a civilized and non-violent manner to correct centuries of injustice.

shorter Johnny: I don't get what I want the moment I saw I want it, so I'm OPPRESSED and a VICTIM of IMAGINARY DISCRIMINATION!!!!

"@Dedj
"*I'm not in the US, but I was under the impression that such University sports are still disproportionately white males in comparison to the make-up of the professional leagues. It was certainly the case at mine, despite it having a large Chinese and African student base."

This has a lot to do with sheer numbers. Even in a perfectly non-racist world (which we obviously do not live in); male athletics would be roughly 16:2:1 whites/blacks/asians. The disproportion is simply a result of the population demographic, not necessarily racism.

Professional sports are a different story. College sports are mostly about participation and people who sign up, play. Blacks in North America were raised as livestock for the better part of 300 years and strong/athletic blacks were favored over smaller/weaker ones in the slave trade. As horrific as slavery was, the result has been a more athletic black culture in America/Caribbean. Athletic, 6'10" white men are not as prevalent as the same dimensions for black men. This is the same for people who can run a 4.1s 40 yrd dash.

Not just the selective breeding during slavery, but also the geography/culture of Africa compared to that of Europe contributed significantly evolutionarily speaking to black vs. white athletic development. When Europeans were holed up in their cabins during a frigid winter, Africans were out doing sprints trying to capture tomorrows meal. A few thousand generations of this and you have a far more athletic black culture than a white culture, which still persists today. There are obviously exceptions to both situations, but professional athletes (especially basketball and football) are the top athletes of the world where the difference between the best and the worst is very small.

USA Demographic from the CIA World Fact book -"white 79.96%, black 12.85%, Asian 4.43%..."

TheGoodMan:

And your point is...? Good evolutionary psychology, though.

"The disproportion is simply a result of the population demographic, not necessarily racism."

Sigh, even in the passage YOU JUST QOUTED, I indicated that the demographic of the general student base was not visibly replicated in the sports team demographic.

The concern is that the proportions of PoC in sports at Uni is not in similar ratios to PoC in the general student base, or the professional arenas.

Pointing out the proportions does not advance any arguement, but merely shows that you do not understand what the word 'disproportionate' means.

Although you are correct that you cannot play unless you sign up, the factors you identified should have the effect of increasing the participation of PoC in Uni sports above and beyond that expected due to demographics alone.

Although I self-admit to a sample size of 1, I have had little luck finding any sources that are contrary to my observations.

Even so, none of this has anything to do with the initial observation that sports scholarships are a reliable indicator of a non-discrimination against PoC applying to, or at, educational institutions.

I would regard it as both a dishonour and a form of spamming if you were to reply to me again.

Thegoodman you are crossing a line here - these are really offensive remarks ("...Not just the selective breeding during slavery, but also the geography/culture of Africa compared to that of Europe contributed significantly evolutionarily speaking to black vs. white athletic development...")! WHERE are you getting all this racist crap?

And WHY are people still talking to this windbag? We've already established that he's being dishonest about his background, right?

And it isn't "good EP" either. It's totally made-up racist bullshit.

Aw, Isabel. Aren't you two friends anymore? You were defending his rubbish not too long ago.

Cara you are an idiot. Now you are supporting racism - great!

As I said before, I sincerely hope you get the help you need.

It's good ev psych if it uses "Just So" stories to present racist/sexist/etc-ist explanations as fact, natural, and historicized. With the implication that they're acceptable since they're naturalized.

Why am I still talking with TheGoodMan? For the lurkers here.

She is neither supporting racism, nor is she an idiot. She's pointing out your complete lack of honesty and consistency.

What the fuck IS WRONG with you assholes? Endor YOU are an idiot and an asshole. I guess you support racism also.

WTF are you talking about "consistency" I NEVER supported this jerk's views, and I stated he was probably lying and scolded him for being so dense weeks, or was it months ago.

Hey skeptifem will find the links for you in a jiffy.

"Complete lack of honesty?" WTF???????? I have never once been dishonest here, you lying scumbag. Where is your evidence? What the hell is wrong with you? You are obsessed with taking down a fellow feminist, because she thinks outside the box sometimes. Nice.

Now STFU. Why on earth are people being such pricks?

CS it is not "good EP" because it is not based on anything realistic. Most of his explanation is cultural.

And that was some sick shit you wrote about me over at Jill's. Thanks, prick.

And I am really sick of all the lying going on around here. If you are going to respond forget about taking a swipe by COMPLETELY INVENTING SOMETHING I SAID OR DID.

Actually find a quote.

You will fail in this, of course.

It's a really good idea if you are going to be obsessed with silencing someone, to actually pay attention to what they are saying.

Think about it before running off at the mouth next time.

Just STFU. Nobody needs to hear your lies and unfair attacks anymore. It's not helping anyone. It is sick behavior.

When was mainstream Ev Psych ever based on something "realistic," like, say, the scientific method? I refer everyone to CPP's takedown of Ev Psych for more detail.

Most of his explanation is cultural.

A la most Ev Psych purveyors.

Finally, Isabel, this is the very same thread in which you repeatedly asked us to ignore TheGoodMan's misogyny because he's a member of an oppressed class. I'm sorry, I don't accept misogyny from anyone, lower-class, middle-class or upper-class. Similarly, I don't care for racism from anyone -- feminist or not. And I hate classism from anyone, whether they're female or a PoC or not. You're a feminist, great. That doesn't mean you won't ever say something offensive -- even unintentionally.

I'd agree with some of your points about class if you hadn't been making them in this thread to specifically defend TheGoodMan's anti-feminist comments. We've tried to cut him so much slack here, explaining Feminism 101 a hundred times. Whatever intersecting oppressions he suffers from, he's still a misogynist troll who's cluttering up Zuska's blog.

Poor white dudes don't have their own support groups, perhaps, but if a guy like TheGoodMan -- who pulled himself up by his bootstraps despite his initial economic hardships -- wants respect from feminists, we've got to see some respect for feminism and women first. He does not get a cookie for being from the working class. He won't even get a cookie for being a feminist ally from the working class, but if he turns into a feminist ally, he'll definitely get our respect.

I guess you support racism also.

Calling YOU out for YOUR inconsistency is exactly the same as supporting this twit.

Riiiiiight. Nice logic fail, there.

Comrade S. you are making things up whole cloth again - there is no way I can even respond to such nonsense.

AGAIN from my comment above "And I am really sick of all the lying going on around here. If you are going to respond forget about taking a swipe by COMPLETELY INVENTING SOMETHING I SAID OR DID.

Actually find a quote."

So you completely invented he following:

"Finally, Isabel, this is the very same thread in which you repeatedly asked us to ignore TheGoodMan's misogyny because he's a member of an oppressed class."

I NEVER SAID ANY SUCH THING.

NEVER SAID ANYTHING CLOSE TO "IGNORE HIS MISOGYNY" FOR ANY REASON.

FIND A FUCKING QUOTE.

YOU WILL FAIL.

THAT WAS NOT MY POINT AT ALL.

WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU? SERIOUSLY?

Is that clearer?

"he's still a misogynist troll who's cluttering up Zuska's blog. "

Give me a fucking break. You love it and you even admit it! YOU are cluttering up Zuska's blog.

I commented on this thread on the GYOFBA blog, copied below. I sent a response to Jill and all the posters still talking about me on IBTP, but it was not posted of course. So I will post the banned response also somewhere soon. Probably not on my own blog, sorry.

http://blog.iblamethepatriarchy.com/2010/07/12/weve-all-done-it-but-may…

I am so sick of lying [deleted] like Nails-skeptifem and Jill Psmith. Fucking lying, stinking [deleted]! They are STILL spreading lies about me at IBTP and Jill refuses to publish my response. I cannot believe their lies, and Skeptifemâs refusal to take responsibility for how her lies adversely affected me. Even if she didnât intend to lie she knows now that she was wrong and refuses to admit it, calls me weird for not completely forgetting I was banned, and for not conveniently disappearing from blogs we both hang out on, but meanwhile sheâs still yammering about it, and in a forum I can read, but not respond to! Fucking manipulative [deleted]! As BioE agreed, the supposed offending comment Nails was tattle-taling about was not racist at all.

But rich blog-owner Jill, nervous about my interest in unpacking class privilege from white privilege, decides to believe Nails and bans me and mocks me (as do others) for trying to defend myself! And now claims that I was making comments that came too close to white supremacy- WTF does that even mean??? Holy shit, man, what is going on with people? And she canât really remember what happened even though it was recent â well of course, because nothing even happened on IBTP! It was nailsâ now debunked tattle-taling! But now we are treated to a spectacularly false revising of history thanks to Jill, Nails, and Comrade S. Nice work ladies!

shorter isabel:

someone is wrong on the internet! They are saying things about me! ME! I am the only one right about me! ever! I better devote my life to fixing this huge injustice! Yes, that will prove to them that I am not unbalanced!

Oh yeah, and no one cares about this but you. Really. It is not a big deal to the people you are freaking out over, it is casual conversation, like the kind they have about other people all the time. If people saying negative shit about me on the internet was a big deal I would never sleep or relax- it happens all the time. What are you trying to do, anyway? Get the last word in? Convince everyone that you are right? You must not have any self esteem to care so much about what strangers on the internet say. Trying to convince people that no ones opinions of your position has any merit but yours isn't a fight you are going to win. Give it up. I still that your focusing so much on lower class white dudes has an element of racism to it. Deal with it. No one should have this much control over your mood and actions simply by disagreeing with you.

WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU? SERIOUSLY?

Is that clearer?

Yup, crystal.

I keep asking myself what is wrong with me that I got involved in this blogdrama. Over and out, folks. I'll come back when Zuska's back or if TheGoodMan or History Punk offer more material for Feminism 101 tutorials. Or Queef! Where is that fella? Don't tell me he's abandoned us forever!

Nails,

What, now in your deranged mind I am losing sleep over this? Yeah right keep deluding yourself- I find it shocking but my perspective is fine. I am having a great day.

I don't give a shit what you or anyone on the internet says about me. Isn't that obvious? I have a much greater purpose in mind. I don't confuse this hell hole with my real life for a second, believe me (again with the projection?) What I care about is all the lying. Of course I care about my reputation. You are spreading lies! Don't you get why that is deeply offensive to the person you are spreading lies about? To the point that they might actually express that offense and frustration somewhere? Do you actually understand that your actions have consequences?

Making this out to be a case of me whining or becoming undone is a cheap sexist ploy. And it's as sociopathic as the rest of your message above.

And more lies! "Nobody cares" about this but me; but, they are still discussing it on IBTP! It's just that they have nothing better to do! And the gals here are still wrestling, 300 posts later, with this wacko dude. People apparently do care, Nails.

"What are you trying to do, anyway?"

How fucking stupid can you be?

"I still that your focusing so much on lower class white dudes has an element of racism to it. Deal with it."

I am not focusing on dudes you numskull. Grow up. And no one cares what you think because you are obviously wrong. Of course it is not racist to care about lower class white people!

If you are going to go on a campaign against someone you need to learn to take some flak, and you should do your research. Or else just STFU!

You are acting all bored and blase now, but it was you who singled me out left no less than three messages over there all about me complete with links that started all this.

And now you say I am a stalker when I haven't dome anything remotely that weird.

"No one should have this much control over your mood and actions simply by disagreeing with you. "

The narcissist declares with absolutely no knowledge of my mood or actions. And real smooth (not) how you conflated 'led a campaign to have banned' and 'disagreed with'.

Nails, shut up. Shut Up. SHUT UP.

Oh and now Ms Comrade Busybody knows she could ever back up her stupid statement so she is running off pretending to be bored. Bye asshole, good riddance to you!

Isabel.

You're capslocking all over the place.

Step away from the blog.

Go play in the sunshine.

Cara, shut up. Shut Up. SHUT UP.

You're really starting to worry me.

You have people IRL to talk to, right?

LOL. Wow, she is a world class narcissist. Clearly, I *must* be a racist, because Cara is clearly neither stupid nor a racist. LOL. And she hasn't done anything weird - just lied a lot, went on psychotic tirades a lot, trolled every thread to talk about herself, constant persecution fantasies, pathetically trying to insult everyone and bully them into silence, stalking people across blogs to talk about herself some more.

Nah. Nothing weird there. It's *EVERYONE ELSE* that's wrong.

One thing I haven't done is spent weeks obsessed with a situation that has nothing to do with me.

Nor have I wasted anyone's time with content-free posts.

Most importantly, unlike Nails, Jill, Endor, Cara or Comrade S., I haven't been abusive, I haven't joined any mobs, I haven't attacked any innocent people just for fun, and I haven't lied about anyone or anything.

Imagine that.

"You're really starting to worry me."

Liar. You are a prick who doesn't give a shit. Worse, you are a sadistic prick. SHUT UP.

"Wow, she is a world class narcissist."

Yes, Nails/Skeptifem is a real piece of work.

"Clearly, I *must* be a racist""

Yes, you clearly are SOMETHING horrible.

"And she hasn't done anything weird - just lied a lot"

Liar. Only nails, Jill and you have been lying. Asshole. Considering some of the things she has said here, and her sadistic obsessive posting, I wouldn't be surprised if Endor abuses children for fun. I am very worried about Endor! I hope Endor has someone to talk to in real life about her child abusing issues. Hey Zuska, I think Endor is a racist child-abuser and we don't need that shit around here! Ban her! Ban her!

" constant persecution fantasies"

Yes nails explained how lying and aggressively getting someone banned from a popular site that they enjoy and did nothing wrong on EVER, and then lying some more about what happened, is just normal internet behavior. it is really weird to actually care if this happens to you, and to imagine that the people who did it are sick assholes. They're just normal average netizens!

"bully them into silence"

Right. And NO ONE is trying to bully me into silence! That is all in my imagination.

, stalking people across blogs"

I have been hanging out here for over a year. I will not be a good little girl and pretend this never happened, and I'm not going anywhere. Grow up and deal with it. Nails' lying and manipulations were totally relevant to the discussion here, unlike anything you have ever posted, child-abusing, racist asswipe Endor. Oh, isn't this fun!

A message to Nails and the gang from Jill over at IBTP:

Iâm just saying, maybe youâre being a jerk to act all offended and self-righteous when your victims, weary of the constant prissy-ass doctrinairian hectoring, go a little postal.

Nobody likes a rat-fink.

So you honestly can't fathom a reason related to your behavior for your banning at IBTP?

I know why I was banned. It was because of your lies and attacks and Jill's nervousness about dealing with class issues in any kind of real way. I was there, asshole rat-fink (who nobody likes).

I have never questioned why. I am not trying to argue with you. You are an asshole rat fink. My case is only the tip of the ice-berg, as I have already stated. try reading a few posts, lying rat-fink.

Try following the conversation again. You will fail, because you are obviously a miserable sufferer of Narcissistic Personality Disorder. i feel sorry for you and I hope you get the help you need, for your family's sake.

Isabel, I have a really liberal comments policy on this blog, but I am getting bored out of my skull reading comments from you about an argument you had with someone else on someone else's blog. Could you please find something else to comment about, preferably something that relates to the topics of my blog posts, perchance? If you want to argue with people about a beef you have with them that doesn't relate to anything that happened on this blog, phone them up, email them, send them a letter, or start your own motherfucking blog. 'K? Thx.

Maybe other commenters could refrain from engaging in this debate as well? Unless you are all amused and having a good time, then carry on.

Zuska, I do not want to argue with anyone. All my admittedly probably annoying comments are *responses* to these relentless jackals. But I am sick of it also, so okay whatever.

But as far as my original reason for bringing it up, the parallels of what is being discussed here and at Jill's are striking, I am really surprised you think they are irrelevant. And skeptifem's internet cop behavior and the unfortunate results seem pretty relevant to recent events here too. I am just frustrated because no one seems to see that. It's like the stepford feminists or something.

But fine, I'll stop.

ps. Do you really find *everyone else's* posts on this thread scintillating (or interesting in any way) just askin' ;)

oh wait I just noticed this

"Maybe other commenters could refrain from engaging in this debate as well? Unless you are all amused and having a good time, then carry on. "

Are you telling them to carry on if they want, but me to cease and desist? That makes no sense. Don't you realize without someone to reform or snipe at they are nothing?

Whatever.

"You're really starting to worry me."

Liar. You are a prick who doesn't give a shit. Worse, you are a sadistic prick. SHUT UP.

Sadistic. Asking if you have someone to talk to is sadistic.

Okay. Wev.

Zuska, I'll be happy to stop talking to Isabel. I was just a little worried because...well. You know.