‘Reverse -ism’
Recently, I’ve heard the term ‘reverse racism’ or ‘reverse sexism’ making the rounds again. It is the stupidest phrase I’ve heard since ‘politically correct’.
Racial prejudice is bad, as is sexual discrimination. Duh. However saying that racism or sexism can be somehow ‘reversed’ implies the group normally on the receiving end of discrimination making prejudicial assumptions about the group normally in power is somehow backward. Prejudice is prejudice, sexism is sexism. Calling it ‘reverse’ is such a privileged call to make that I am shocked to hear people making it unaware of the irony.
I recall an incident from my childhood:
I was about 12 and was sitting outside of my friend’s house in Sacramento. As I waited for her to get ready to go out, I watched a boy riding his bike in the street. When he noticed me looking at him, he turned to me and shouted, accusingly, “Why are you looking at me? Because I’m black?” It hadn’t even registered to me that he was black. To me, he was just a boy on a bike and I was watching him because he was moving across my field of vision, nothing more, nothing less. I was shocked and insulted at the accusation that I was somehow racist just by looking at him. His assumption that because I was white, I must be a racist, was so completely new to me that for years I thought of this as an incidence of ‘reverse racism’.
It was only later that I realised his assumption was based on his experience, that maybe, wherever he went, white people locked their car doors, stiffened their backs when he sat next to them on the bus, that strangers had perhaps called him ‘boy’ or worse. It’s likely that members of his family lived through the pre-Civil Rights era and carried the baggage of that into the present, and shared their stories with him. What I hadn’t considered was that his experience of the world was different from mine. My experience was only as ever seeing people as equals. I had the privilege of growing up in a mostly white, upper middle class town. I grew up watching the Cosbys and Webster and Different Strokes, and the black people I knew were basically real life versions of these shows (upper middle class or adopted by white upper middle class families). My progressive parents taught me about the history of racism but because of my privilege, I’d never seen it first hand. As far as I knew, it was a thing of the past. I was ‘race blind,’ which sounds like a good thing, but it made me blind to the racism that still existed in the world all around me.
This is why Stephen Colbert’s constant assertion that he ‘doesn’t see race’ is such a hilarious gag. The only people who can grow up blind to racism never experience it first hand, and when they do, it’s ‘reverse racism’.
The biggest privilege of the privileged is to be unaware of one’s privilege.
I guess the second biggest is being unaware of the irony in getting angry when someone makes a snap judgment based on your race or sex.
Pink v. Blue: FIGHT!
Word clouds of words from toy ads for girls and boys, respectively.
I’m getting really sick of kids’ toys. Not just the ones lying in wait behind my feet as I turn around at the stove (grrr), but the ones in the store. It’s not even close to Xmas yet, and I cringe when I get there.
The main reason for my annoyance, is the fact that girls’ toys have become segregated into the pink ghetto of toys themed either ‘homemaker,’ ‘mother/nurturer’ or ‘fashionista.’ This is something which bothers me a great deal. A while back, I posted a video on the topic of gendered ads directed at kids which covered the same topic.These products severely limit girls’ imagination and exploration of different roles. We are living in a time when women have more power and equality than ever before, so why are we making a new editions of Monopoly and Scrabble for girls, based around shopping and fashion? And why do girls have to be surrounded by pink?
The other side of this ‘pinkification’ is the ‘blokeification’ of boy’s stuff. I have a really tough time shopping for clothes for my little boy because almost all of the boys’ clothes have messages emblazoned on them that perpetuate the stereotype that boys are dirty, tough, and ‘bad.’ This is why I bought my son a Superman outfit. I figure, if he’s going to have a symbol of masculinity it ought to be Superman, he’s honourable, he’s intelligent and he helps out those who are weaker than him. Most of the ‘boys toys’ are focused around construction, vehicles or warfare i.e. building stuff, driving stuff or killing stuff.
Where are the toys that boys and girls can play with together?
There is such a fine line when it comes to toys. Toy companies have their eye on the bottom line, and so they exploit stereotypes and create toys that cater to parents’ expectations. What’s worse is that parents start to get very strong ideas of what toys are for girls and what toys are for boys, and get uncomfortable when they see little Tommy playing with a ‘girls’ pink toy. Even if it’s the same exact toy in every other way.
"Uh-oh, that's a girl's toy. Better stop that, Tom."
Which brings us to the other recent explosion online, which was the boy with the pink toenail polish in the J-Crew ad. Which other bloggers have already covered to death.
And so, rather than flog a dead rainbow unicorn, I leave you with Jon Stewart, who covered it best:
Yeah, this is pretty much how I feel about homebirth too, Patton.
Whoops!
Twice today I posted things in the wrong place!
Anyway, anyone who read that post that was up for less than 30 seconds, it was meant for my other blog, I just had the wrong WordPress dashboard open.
My bad!
Anyway, I haven’t posted here in a long time either. So I’ll just say, I’m going to post more when I have time.
Sorry folks!
It may come as a surprise to some people, but not all women wish to be reminded that they are starring in a Red Light Special inside every man’s head. This is not to say some women do not appreciate a well worded compliment from time to time. However, to assume that all women measure their self worth on whether or not they are seen as sex objects (or pretty, or hot, etc.) is insulting at best, disgusting and even threatening at worst. The media tells us differently, but it’s a fact: many of us would rather have some of our other positive qualities recognised.
Believe it or not, it is possible to give a woman a compliment without being sleazy. Perhaps I’m being an old fashioned “women’s libber” but I think some men could use a bit of instruction when it comes to this.
Why do I think this? My attention was drawn recently to a tweet by an attendee of TAM Australia who said that, with all the beautiful intelligent women around, it was “like the Playboy mansion.”
NOT OK.
I know this was not ok, because the person who showed it to me was mentioned by name and she was disgusted. It was patronising. It was lewd. It was insulting for this man to imply that intelligent, skeptical women’s presence was along the same lines as the “booth babes” hired to attract the nerds in attendance at Comicon: An object to be ogled and to fulfill his puerile fantasy.
One could argue that it was their intelligence that made them sexy, and how could it be insulting to be told you are intelligent and therefore sexy? The insult is in the assumption that every woman desires to be desired sexually. It makes some women EXTREMELY UNCOMFORTABLE knowing that some guy they hardly know would rather see them in scant, sequined, bunny costume. To them, it’s akin to Miggs in Silence of the Lambs shrieking at Clarice as she passes his cell. Sure, it’s not as extreme, but the sentiment is the same. “Because you are a woman, ESPECIALLY because you’re the rare and exotic Smart Woman, my only thought is what you’d be like spreadeagled on my bed.”
And that is kind of gross.
Besides, how many times have people used old Playboy photos of Jenny McCarthy in skeptical talks as a way to subtly discredit her? If people in the skeptical movement are so quick to dismiss someone for their past as a centrefold, then why would it be safe to assume that someone will take such a comparison as a compliment?
What this misguided fan could have said is, “It’s great to be at a convention where the women are more than just eye candy.” Or perhaps, “I’m pleased to see the women in this movement represented by such strong figures as…”
When complimenting a woman, there is nothing wrong with complimenting her appearance, but choose your words wisely. “Elegant,” “radiant” and “lovely” are good. Words such as “sexy” “hot” “tasty” are not so good. Unless you already have established a flirtation, or if the woman styles herself as “sexy,” then stick to words you’d use to describe your sister or mother. Better yet, compliment a woman based on personality traits or accomplishments, rather than her appearance.
“She’s done so much to promote science education, I’m in awe of her.”
“I’m just thrilled to have met her, she’s so funny. Such a delight to be around.”
And guess what? That makes a gal feel good without making her wonder if she’s safe sitting next to you at the bar.
I can almost already hear some dude saying, “But if someone calls me sexy I would take it as a compliment.” That is not the same. It’s not just because you’re a guy – though guys aren’t constantly being reminded that your only value is your sexual attractiveness, as women are. “If a woman told me I was hot, it would make me feel good.” “I love going to gay bars, I like being the centre of attention.” (Really? How about a prison shower?) It’s all well and good to say that you like being objectified, admittedly some women like it too, but it is not logical or fair to assume from the outset that everyone feels the same way you do, especially people you don’t know.
It’s not a double standard, because I think that women shouldn’t make this assumption about men, either. We women do it all the time too, and while it doesn’t carry with it the same sort of threat, it is not always welcome and we ought to recognise that as well. Especially when we women are in a position of power.
The point is, everybody likes compliment, but not everyone judges their worth by how many people want to see them naked.
There is a discussion going on on the Australasian Skeptics forum (I almost didn’t want to link to it, because I hate to give the OP the attention he so desperately craves) regarding a publicity stunt by a NZ women’s magazine that solicited pictures of women’s breasts in return for a $20 donation to breast cancer organisations.
The stunt is neither original nor new. It’s been done by others for years. Unsurprisingly, some feminists have been critical of the campaign.
The person who posted about it called it ‘division within the sisterhood’ and referred to those who object to it as ‘feminazis’ with ‘hairy nipples’ and so utterly misses the point of the objection by wondering how it is exploitative to post pictures of one’s own breasts.
Others have jumped on his unenlightened bandwagon and engaged in a rather rousing session of Anti-feminist Bingo. (At least one poster has stepped in with a very reasoned feminist argument and has been pretty much either ignored or told to shut up.) I, not being a member of the site and knowing a pointless shitfight when I see one, have chosen to stay out of it.
But yet, I feel the need to at least say something.
With an exasperated sigh I will address these completely old anti-feminist canards using links and logic.
First of all, it is not exploitative to show one’s own breasts. However, to solicit these pictures is exploitative, then to display them publicly, is reinforcing the idea that it is ok to reduce women down to their body parts. Not to mention the fact that the magazine in question is sexualising and exploiting a serious disease (that affects men too) to draw attention to their own publication (see pinkwashing). It sets up breast cancer as a ‘women’s disease’ thus, making women the ‘other’ which also dehumanises women.
Second, the idea of feminism as a monolithic ‘sisterhood’ is as false as the idea of science as a monolith. There are many stripes of feminism. Feminists have different priorities and agendas. So, gleefully declaring a ‘division in the sisterhood’ is like a creationist gleefully pointing out that scientists don’t agree about evolution. It’s irrelevant and does not weaken the argument of feminists.
Third, ‘feminazis.’ Really? Come on.
Then there’s the whole ‘hairy nipple’ thing, which I assume is a breast related play on the whole ‘hairy armpit’ or ‘hairy leg’ stereotype. First, let’s just get it out of the way that being a feminist does not preclude one from being feminine. Second, there is the implication that personal grooming habits are a measure of worth. If that were true, I’d dismiss all people who post on skeptic forums as smelly, unwashed, bearded men (which, if you’ve ever smelled, er, I mean, attended a skeptics conference is a pretty easy bias to confirm). Again, it doesn’t invalidate the feminists’ argument, it just exposes the poster’s own biases against women who don’t fit his particular mold of what a woman ought to look like and act like.
The whole thing smacks of ‘shut up and quit ruining our fun!’ Which is a bit rich coming from a skeptics forum. When supporters of astrology or homeopathy say the same thing, they get shouted down and called idiots. It doesn’t matter how much evidence you throw at anti-feminists that feminism is still relevant, oppression of women by the patriarchy is still rampant and that the fact that they still don’t get it is an example of that system of oppression, they’ll still put their hands over their ears because they don’t want to have their fun ruined.
Yes, feminists are out to ruin your fun, because your fun is dependent on the systematic oppression of women.
And I’m totally fine with that.
Baby you can drive my car…
Skepticism is a method, atheism is a conclusion. Or, if you will allow me to employ a metaphor, skepticism is a car, atheism is a destination.
This skepti-car can take you to a lot of places. No-Ghost Town, Homeopathy-is-bunk-ville, Horoscopes-are-silly-burgh. Some people may end up some weird places (like Moon-landing-was-fake-ville), but not everyone is going to end up at all the same spots. Atheism-opolis is not on everyone’s Must See list. Some may not want to go there at all. Some may visit briefly, but decide it’s too scary, too difficult to navigate or they may drive through it on the main road and miss it because they don’t know their way around the side streets. And don’t get me started on some of the crazy locals that already live there.
Skeptical activists should think of themselves as car salesmen, or perhaps driving instructors. We are not travel agents. If we just send people straight to the destination without teaching them how to get there, or how to get back, they will be just as lost as before. They could end up just as badly off. (I think I’m starting to stretch this metaphor a bit thin.) My point is, there’s nothing wrong with giving someone a map and telling them how you got there and of course, if there is danger at certain destinations, I think it’s fine to hang up warning signs on the road. But trying to just pile as many people onto the bus to Atheism-opolis or Homeopathy-is-bunk-ville without showing them the way and getting them into their own car isn’t going to get more drivers on the road. Personally, I’d rather have more drivers on the road than tourist clogging up the hotspots for the wrong reasons.
Also, if we’re going to start policing people, we’d be better off being the Highway Patrol rather than Road Warriors. It’s one thing to hand out tickets for bad driving (using skepticism to promote bad science), but running people off the road because we don’t like where they’re going is not conducive to making better drivers.
(I think I’d better abandon this metaphor already.)
Not everyone who is using skepticism is going to become an atheist, and similarly, we shouldn’t assume that every atheist is a skeptic. There is a lot of overlap, but we can’t conflate the two because of that overlap.
Life is about the journey, not the destinations. Skepticism should be the same way.
Quickie: Cohousing!
It sounds like a fancy name for living in a share house, but I’ve just discovered this movement in modern intentional communities. The problem I suppose that exists with other intentional communities (i.e. hippie communes), is that everyone is all up in everyone else’s business. Cohousing offers the privacy of independent living with the benefits of an intentional community. I really like what I’ve read about it so far.
I found this site on cohousing in Australia, and I’m going to do more research into it. I’d really like to see how others have made something like this successful.
In the spirit of the season, I’d like to review a horror film.
Last week, I finally saw the new Nightmare on Elm Street re-make.
Now, I wouldn’t go so far as to call myself a horror movie buff, but I am a horror movie fan, and my first horror movie series was Nightmare on Elm Street. I grew up loving the fantastical gore and droll one-liners of Freddy Kruger. My brother all but forced me to watch my first movie, which was part 3 of the series, at age 7. I later saw the original (I didn’t see the terrible and almost non-sequential part 2 until my twenties), and the rest of the series as it went on, all the way through Freddy vs. Jason, which was downright silly.
Side note: I had always found the Friday the 13th series to be a bit of a yawn-fest. A silent, developmentally disabled zombie killer who only kills couples he finds in flagrante delicto? ‘Scuse me while I have a nap (at least with Freddy, even if it’s boring, you’re too afraid to fall asleep).
Therefore, when I heard that a new director would be re-envisioning the original Nightmare film, I had serious doubts. The original was actually quite scary. Even though the sequels went for laughs, Freddy’s first appearances were terrifying. The iconic images of dead Tina being dragged in the body bag and the clawed glove cutting through Nancy’s bathwater still give me chills (the director of the new one graciously kept these in). I was afraid of several things: they would change the story, the cgi effects would be too slick and therefore distracting rather than scary, they would try to explain away the nightmares somehow.
Only one of these fears was warranted.
The scene of Freddy pressing through the wall, achieved with a rubber wall in the original, subtle effect, was instead done with cgi and it was a bit silly and out of place.
There were some story changes, too, but the changes were quite good. In fact, they raised some surprising issues.
(*SPOILERS AHEAD*)
What I mean when I talk about the Patriarchy
I’ve been talking about feminism in terms of bringing down the patriarchy. I should probably mention that this point of view is often called “radical feminism” and as such is sometimes dismissed as unrealistic and idealistic.
One of the purposes of this blog was as a place to voice my naive idealism as well as my ranty skepticism. Hence, Skeptopia.
Finally, Feminism 101 Blog is a great place to start learning about radical feminism. Their article on the patriarchy is an excellent introduction to the subject.
I acknowledge that we live in an incredibly good time for women. Women in the US and Australia and most of Europe experience a kind of freedom and equality that women in previous generations never could have had. That doesn’t change the fact that the patriarchy still exists, however weakened it may be in our society and people are constantly fighting to keep it in place. Whether dictated by religious beliefs, or misuses of science, men and women who believe that women should conform to strict gender roles seek to limit women’s autonomy and equality as human beings.
I also acknowledge that patriarchy is not the only problem. The kyriarchy is the complex system of privilege that exists in every country. As a white, middle class, (apparently) heterosexual, cisgendered, English speaking, inbetween and able bodied, married woman, I am more privileged than most women in the world. The kyriarchy gives me a huge advantage, and yet I’d like to see it gone. This is why I argue with people. This is why I make a point of speaking up. People who are disadvantaged by the kyriarchy are constantly being silenced or dismissed. I’m not satisfied to sit back and enjoy my privilege which includes the ability to be blissfully ignorant of it.
noblecaboose
