Comments on: Good diagnosis, but prescription FAIL

By: Next Week, For My Benefit, President Obama Will Play Basketball With Lesbians - Tenured Radical - The Chronicle of Higher Education

Tue, 21 Jun 2011 21:36:24 +0000

[...] in the so-called “post-feminist” world was not enough to inspire this question (see Historiann for extended commentary), read today’s paper. A front-page story by Mark Leibovich features [...]

By: LauraJMixon

LauraJMixon — Mon, 26 Oct 2009 23:24:10 +0000

My reaction? Meh. She has made a belated and half hearted attempt at trying to find her inner feminist, and utterly failed. The piece is uneven, facile, and ultimately clueless about her own internalized misogyny.

I too came of age professionally in the 80s, I and have never had any patience with the whole “post feminism” thing. The women who came before us made huge sacrifices so that we who came after would have it easier than they did. It doesn’t take a genius to figure that out. Just common sense and a willingness to indulge in some serious self-reflection.

PS Liberty sounds pretty damn good to me, too. Not to mention the pursuit of happiness.

By: Historiann

Historiann — Mon, 26 Oct 2009 12:42:20 +0000

Nice analysis of equality versus liberty, Truffula. I can understand why you would say this: “It all made me wonder why I’d ever want to move up that particular career ladder. I don’t know if that’s the intent but it sure is the effect.”

By: truffula

truffula — Mon, 26 Oct 2009 04:16:25 +0000

I’ll take equality if that’s all I can get but what I’m really after is liberty. Equality is never whole, it’s broken up into rights the oppressor tosses out when pressed up against the wall. All equality gets me is access to a broken system. Sometimes I think my professional life is one long string of “patriarchy, you’re soaking in it” anecdotes but here goes:

I represented my boss at the department chairs’ meeting last week with our college’s two associate deans. Picture the scene: narrow, windowless room full of dudes. Hear the patois: casual exchange of insults about each other’s research and teaching abilities with the odd “f*ck you” for good measure. Not everybody participated but enough did for this behavior to define the atmosphere. I’ve had few experiences in meetings at this level but my impression is that this type of banter is common. The lone voice raised against it came when one of the associate deans admonished somebody for cursing in front of the lady. I know plenty of men who don’t act this way but I’d call it distinctly male behavior, born of patriarchal culture. I’ve never experienced anything like it in meetings dominated by women. It all made me wonder why I’d ever want to move up that particular career ladder. I don’t know if that’s the intent but it sure is the effect.

Lipman’s advice is grin and bear it, and I suppose if all I’m after is equality, then she is right. Equality means I may sit in that room. I guess I’d like a little more. I’d like to live my life free from measure (or mismeasure) against patriarchy’s yardstick. I’d like liberty. Liberte, egalite, sororite!

By: perpetua

perpetua — Sun, 25 Oct 2009 22:23:30 +0000

I’m most disturbed by #3. How can anyone spout that essentialized gender bullsh&t and call herself a feminist? Women have a “different culture”? Seriously?! I would consider feminism a success if we could *just stop talking like that*. Creating a discourse that encourages women to think of themselves a) as different and b) as “built” for suffering is not only counter-productive, it’s downright dangerous. That rhetoric has historically been used to convince women to accept their lot in life – a total reinforcement to patriarchal equilibrium. While obviously there are biological differences between men and women (and ability to gestate and give birth is the most obvious), this fact can be acknowledged without devolving into essentialized traits or characteristics. Every time I hear “little boys are like this and little girls are like that” at the playground I want to jab a fork in my eye. Children are ruthlessly gendered from birth; how the hell can we ever know what they “are” (and why would we even try?).

By: undine

undine — Sun, 25 Oct 2009 21:35:05 +0000

Thanks for commenting on this. I couldn’t make it through the article: she lost me, though whether at one of the “duh!” moments or “here are my feeeelings” ones I couldn’t say.

By: Historiann

Historiann — Sun, 25 Oct 2009 21:22:02 +0000

Anna Belle–welcome, and thanks for your comment. I think she’s onto something with 9/11, although it will be difficult to assess by my methodological tools until we get some more perspective and distance. Janice rightly pointed out that sexism on the intertubes didn’t start on 9/11/01, but it coincided with the proliferation of news and entertainment on the web as computers and servers got more powerful (via streaming video, etc., as you note) and the birth of the web 2.0. The worship of traditionally masculine vocations from 9/11 on (firefighters, police) and then very soon after that, the veneration of soldiers and military service played a large role in backlash 2.0, as you call it. (Isn’t it more like Backlash 1,346,756.0 or something by now?)

In short: the internets were and are a space where women are subjected to all manner of verbal violence and denigration, but 9/11 also refreshed extremely destructive masculinism in the U.S., too. Both of these things are factors, IMHO.

By: Anna Belle

Anna Belle — Sun, 25 Oct 2009 21:11:44 +0000

I was just surprised that she attributed Backlash 2.0 to 9/11. More likely it’s due to technological advances in online image delivery and video streaming that led to crap like amateur and gonzo porn, which delivered debased images of the sex class (aka females) to anyone with an internet connection, including adolescent and prepubescent boys, many of whom are now men leading the charge. I mean, like, duh. Of course, she assisted in Backlash 1.0, so whatev.

By: Historiann

Historiann — Sun, 25 Oct 2009 19:32:21 +0000

Indyanna--exactly. Who ever would have predicted a corrosive frathouse culture might thrive in this White House?

By: Indyanna

Indyanna — Sun, 25 Oct 2009 17:21:39 +0000

Maybe more grrrrr than sigh on the Summer-Camp Obama front? In the “Political Memo” piece on the front of the Times today, it seems as though the circle-the-wagons department people over there just don’t get it. The issue wasn’t about Supreme Court appointments, 50-50 West Wing personnel splits, or bringing Hillary on board in the cabinet. It was about the informal office culture, and its presumed policy and career consequences. Having your Communications Director invite a group of women reporters over for “chocolate chip and oatmeal cookies,” but playing 23 rounds of apparently all-guy golf outings with the Chief seems like much more than just an “optics” problem, whatever that is.

Have a nice drive back to P’ville, Historiann. After another weekend of cold rain, wish we could have some flurries.