Categories
feminism

In which I am bewildered by Boobquake

Not the actual Boobquake concept. I follow Jen’s blog and Twitter and was pretty much up on the thing as it developed. I find it quite amusing, really. I’m not planning to participate myself; if nothing else, the few articles of clothing I own that show off my cleavage are most definitely Not Work Appropriate. But I’d also daresay the fact that I wear pants and polo shirts and am flaunting my uncovered red hair and even flash the occasional (gasp) ankle would count as fairly immodest in some parts of the world anyway.

What I’m really puzzled about is some of the feminist negativity. Like this, for example. Or over at Salon.

I’m basically picking up two main points from those posts, and others I’ve seen that I haven’t bothered to find again:
1) Encouragement of body image issues/women feeling pressured
2) Men like it when we show off cleavage so this is just more objectification

Encouragement of body image issues? Is there some kind of “hotties only” sign that’s been subliminally attached to the facebook page or the blog post, one that I missed? I think this is something where women will participate if they want. If there’s a whiff of body image issues here, it’s not caused by the whole Boobquake thing; rather, the response is a symptom.

Me saying “I don’t feel comfortable showing off what I’ve got” is not Boobquake forcing some sudden unpleasant realization on me that I’m a fatty and don’t like wearing tight clothing. I’ve been a fatty my entire goddamn life. It’s not making me feel worse about it. It’s just revealing once again that I’ve internalized the ridiculous beauty standards of society rather more than I care to admit. That’s something I deal with every day. Frankly, I found most of the Boobquake posts Jen’s made quite refreshing in that she hasn’t set out any kind of standard. There’s no cleavage requirement. There’s no hotness requirement. The only requirement (beyond being female) that I see is the implied requirement that one must have the confidence to wear something “revealing,” however you define that.

Right now, it’s easier for women who meet societal beauty standards to have that required confidence. But you know what? There’s a lot of women who don’t match that ridiculous beauty ideal who still have that amazing confidence, and good on them. And those of us that don’t? It’s not the fault of a silly event like Boobquake, and no one is getting on our case about it anyway.

Then on to the fact that there are some creepy dudes that are all happy because women are going to show off their cleavage. Or that this puts women on parade. You know what? No matter what we do, we’re on parade as long as society remains patriarchal. If we want to wear something that shows off our cleavage, the patriarchy wins because the patriarchy likes boobies. If we wear turtlenecks because the patriarchy likes boobies, then we are just as surely being controlled. From where I’m standing, worrying about what the patriarchy (oh faceless devil that it is) thinks about our fashion choices is the ultimate no-win situation. The fact that we’re worried about it to begin with means that we have ceded them just a little more control over our choices and our lives.

In the Salon article, Beth Mann mentions the feminists of yore burning their bras as a political statement. It was bold, and it was shocking. But you know what? I bet there were some dudes standing around that were more than happy to ogle the angry feminists with their braless breasts. So has it ever been. I think it’s just as much of a political statement that those proud, angry women didn’t let that stop them.

Categories
feminism

A guy’s take on gender performance

Jock Homo: How Gay is the Super Bowl? is an article that made me giggle. A lot. But it’s also an interesting look at the culture of masculinity and – the reference hit me like a sucker punch, since I hadn’t been expecting in an opinion piece about football, of all things – the “performative” nature of gender as proposed by Judith Butler.

Now, to this day I still have screaming flashbacks of trying to slog through the selected pages of Butler’s Gender Trouble, but I also think the woman’s got an interesting take on things if you can just get past the wall of unnecessarily complex academic language. There’s a lot to her work, but the bit that matters to this article is that she views gender as not something inherent, but rather a culturally enforced performance. Seeing that idea applied to masculine rather than feminine performance was really, really interesting.

If nothing else, I like seeing that feminist theory isn’t just for us women-folk.

Categories
feminism pet rock

Diamonds are interesting, but I have no desire to take them to the movies.

Interesting post here about “The facts about diamonds.” The author of the post mostly focuses on the cultural/social aspects of diamonds, and for the most part I agree with him. I’ve always found jewelry commercials in general irritating, and even more so the ones that dig up the rotting corpse of “diamonds are a girl’s best friend” and display it on national television. I don’t like the message that women are shallow beings that can be bought off with a shiny bauble; it’s demeaning for women (we’re coin-operated sex bots) and men as well (since apparently men have nothing going for them except their ability to give us shiny things.) It’s not any better if you approach it from the angle of “jewelry as a means for men to show off their wealth” since that places women squarely in to the category of an ornament for men, the vehicle by which they do their social posturing.

Bah. Bah, I say.

I actually do own two pieces of jewelry that involve diamonds. One of them is a small pair of earrings that a good friend of the family gave me for my birthday several years ago. I bring them out for special occasions. The other is actually my engagement ring. It wasn’t something I asked for; I always told Mike that if he wanted to get married, I’d be just as happy with a plastic ring out of a vending machine, or no ring at all. But Mike is an earnest, wonderful guy, who likes to feel as if he’s doing things properly when he’s moved to do them. In this case, that meant finding a really cool looking ring (no standard gold band with a rock on it for him) and giving it to me at the most bizarre moment imaginable. I think that’s what makes me feel okay about the outward appearance of tradition, there; I didn’t demand anything, I didn’t expect1 anything, and Mike did what he did because he had the financial means and wanted to. As anti-diamond and anti-jewelry as I tend to be, I also respect that in the great game of give and take that is a relationship, I’ve got to do my share of giving.

I like the shiny diamond ring and wear it every day because I love Mike to bits and know how important it is to him. Not the other way around.

I’m always left wondering, between the slime of advertising campaigns and these little events that make up my own life, where I sit relative to other women. Are there actually women whose affection can be bought by jewelry? I hope not, and I’ve never personally known any, but I also don’t think I’d be friends with someone like that to begin with. I’ve already learned far more about the seedy underbelly of human relationships than I ever wanted to know, just while trying to plan a wedding.

Social stuff aside, diamonds themselves are, I think, pretty interesting rocks. If nothing else, they intersect nicely with my favorite non-sedimentary rock, kimberlite. As far as anyone has ever seen, you don’t get diamonds unless there’s an Archean-age craton for the kimberlitic eruption to punch through; what we get from those kimberlites are the little bits and bobs that the magma carried up with it. This is why you get diamonds in Canada (and even in Wyoming), but not in Colorado. We’re just a bit too far south of the remaining, long-buried Archean age rocks.

So, there was something about geological conditions back in the Archean (about 2.5-3.7 Ga) that allowed diamonds to form then and not since. So any “natural” diamond is quite old. There was much higher heat flow and there was full mantle melting back then, as opposed to the partial melting we get today. This different melting/depletion of the mantle probably is what allowed diamonds to grow.

Cratons are actually part of the lithosphere, the basement that the crust sits on top of. They’re also remarkably stable; it’s actually a matter of great interest how the Archean cratons have managed to hang in there so long. So the majority of diamonds – which haven’t been dragged to the surface by a kimberlitic freight train – “live” more than 100 km below the surface.

Which is why Steven Shirey says:

“Diamonds aren’t just for spectacular jewelry,” commented Shirey. “They are scientific gems too.”

Jewelry? Meh. Science? WOOHOO!

1- Literally. He caught me completely by surprise, the brat.

Categories
conspiracy theory feminism links science-based medicine

A handful of links

Abortion and breast cancer: The manufacturversy that won’t dieOrac takes a look at this steaming pile of BS. I remember the last time the awful people with the giant mutilated fetus posters were making life miserable on campus, they were pushing this claim. And seemed very puzzled that I was angry they were actively lying to people.

Cruise ships still find Haitian berth – this is certainly one messy issue to think about. On the one hand, there’s the utterly squeamish thought of people being on vacation (and eating their bbq) that close to a disaster site. On the other hand, there’s the aide, the promised proceeds, and at least some money being put in to the Haitian economy. My brain’s chasing itself in circles just thinking about this.

Science project prompts SD school evacuation – from the department of *facepalm*.

The student will not be prosecuted, but authorities were recommending that he and his parents get counseling, the spokesman said. The student violated school policies, but there was no criminal intent, Luque said.

I know, right? Kid wants to play with science and engineering outside of school. There MUST be something wrong with him. Ugh.

Is Refusing Bed Rest a Crime? – This story made me so very, very angry. I understand that there is something of a public interest in babies being born healthy. That said, it’s not your goddamn body, and being pregnant doesn’t mean you give up your fundamental rights as an adult human being. Seeing women treated like public incubators with no rights really scares the crap out of me.

Haiti, HAARP, and conspiracy theorists – an excellent roundup from BoingBoing about the new nutty conspiracy theories about how HAARP somehow caused the earthquake in Haiti, since it’s a death ray. Or something. Mmm, I love the smell of crazy in the morning.

Categories
feminism science-based medicine

More on the Boobies

What Orac has to say about the new USPSTF recommendations on breast cancer screening:

Whether the cost is worth it or not comes down to two levels. First and foremost, what matters is the woman being screened, what she values, and what her tolerance is for paying the price of screening at an earlier age, such as a high risk for overdiagnosis, excessive biopsies, and overtreatment in order to detect cancer earlier and a relatively low probability of avoiding death from breast cancer because of screening. Then there’s the policy level, where we as a society have to decide what tradeoffs we’re willing to make to save a life that otherwise would have been lost to breast cancer. Although screening programs and recommendations should be based on the best science we currently have, deciding upon the actual cutoffs of who is and is not screened and how often unavoidably involves value judgments.

That’s putting it well. Somewhere in the comments on the post, he also states that he wishes the whole “anxiety” thing weren’t being so generally overplayed. That I agree with as well, since it’s the thing that many women have grabbed on to, and it also the source of the accusations that the recommendations are “patronizing.” Considering that the detrimental effect of anxiety is not being played up in the recommendations, but rather that’s coming from the reporting, I think it’d be more fair to say that the press is being patronizing. Which isn’t a surprise for anyone.

Anyway, a good post. And unlike me, Orac knows what he’s talking about. His second post on the subject is also very worth reading.

Categories
feminism science-based medicine

Everyone’s favorite: Boobies.

From Skepchick: No, Ladies, the New Breast Cancer Guidelines Aren’t Patronizing

I mean, not a lot for me to say here. I agree. The guidelines aren’t patronizing. From the AP article about this:

“Overall, I think it really took courage for them to do this,” she said. “It does ask us as doctors to change what we do and how we communicate with patients. That’s no small undertaking.”

Considering the reaction that this is getting, courage is a fairly reasonable word to use. I did go look over the recommendations myself, just to see what kind of impression I got. It certainly wasn’t patronizing or patriarchal. I tend to think of myself as a woman with a big feminist chip on her shoulder, but the reaction to the recommendations has just left me stunned.

I think the issue is over the use of the word “anxiety.” As in, the panel that came to these conclusions feels that earlier screening causes a lot of unnecessary anxiety to go with the false positives and unnecessary biopsies. Perhaps the women who have latched on to the word “anxiety” are probably imagining an avuncular stand-in-for-the-patriarchy sort of doctor, telling us to not worry our pretty little heads over things, because anxiety causes wrinkles. While I think the assumption is understandable***, and perhaps the use of “anxiety” could be a bit better explained, the women who are saying bitter, nasty things about the patriarchy need to chill the hell out. The anxiety we’re talking about here is the soul-crushing, sleep-killing fear that comes with a false diagnosis or (even worse) a false positive off of a biopsy. Fear and anxiety like that could significantly affect the health of the person feeling it, particularly when we’re talking about an age group that’s moving in to the chronic conditions of later life (e.g. hypertension) that can be severely exacerbated by stress.

Another quote from the AP article:

“The task force advice is based on its conclusion that screening 1,300 women in their 50s to save one life is worth it, but that screening 1,900 women in their 40s to save a life is not, Brawley wrote.

On its face, I almost agreed with this quote before I sat down and really thought about the anxiety question. If there are negative effects and even mortality associated with the added stress of breast cancer screening, and if those negative effects mean that more women of this hypothetical 1900 suffer and die than the one woman who is saved… then yes. The numbers would say that it’s more beneficial for the population to stop the screening. If you’re that one woman in your 40s, that’s not a lot of comfort, though – and that’s how these things tend to work. (Very similar to vaccinations… it’s not comforting if you’re the 1 in a million that has a rare adverse reaction to the vaccination, but ultimately more people are saved when the population is vaccinated.)

The real stunner for me was the recommendation in regards to breast self-examination. I grew up in a time when that was really big. When I lived with my parents, my mom always had a card hanging from the shower head on how to do the self-exam. And recently, I also read The Cancer Journals by Audre Lorde. While there are many things in that book I disagreed with Lorde about (particularly her stance on alternative treatments) I was right there with her on the importance of exams. From what the report says, the practice apparently just doesn’t have enough efficacy and carries too many of the anxiety/false positive risk factors. Still, I have a hard time just letting the self-exam go as easily as the idea of having my boobs smashed wafer-thin between two plates of glass. In many ways, I think the self-exam has become a little ritual women do to ward off the specter of breast cancer – and if the recommendations are true, it’s about as effective as throwing salt over your shoulder to ward off bad luck.

*** Consider, for example, the way women are both demonized and patronized in regards to abortion. Laws that require women to view ultrasounds, or have multiple consultations, are certainly patronizing since the implicit assumption is that we’re incapable of understanding what an abortion functionally does.

Categories
feminism women in science

What, you mean my ladybrain can do math?

The Math Gap

The majority of the girls who have been chosen to represent the United States in international mathematics competitions come from a set of about 20 high schools with elite math teams.

This extreme concentration of talent strongly indicates the crucial role that environmental factors, not just innate ability, play in shaping the accomplishments of students. “It’s significant that the top girls are coming from a very, very small subset of schools with strong math programs,” says Ellison. “That suggests most of the girls who could be doing well, aren’t doing well. The thousands and thousands of other schools in the United States must have a lot of talent, too, but it’s not coming out.”

That is very interesting. And something that, as a nerd of the female variety, I don’t find all that surprising. I may spend a lot of time complaining about those darn kids I’m in university with right now, but high school wasn’t that long ago. I remember the general pressures from teachers and peers, and I have no doubt that those can effect one’s ability to learn and perform academically. I was actually lucky, at that age. I was on my school’s quiz bowl team, which was composed of unabashed nerds, and I think that was good for me. I also did get to go to a math competition one year – I didn’t make it past the first round – but I do recall how few other girls were around. The only reason I was even there myself was because I’d been encouraged by my parents and my math teacher at the time.

I have something of a tortured relationship with math, to be honest. I’m not too bad at it. I’m even good at it, sometimes. But I crapped out after I finished my third semester of calculus because, simply, I don’t really like it. The third semester of calculus was actually one further than I needed to go for my degree, but at the time I did it because I was considering a minor in math, and because the professor I’d had for calculus II talked me in to it. And I’m not sorry. But I’m also mostly not sorry I stopped there.

That’s where the love-hate relationship comes in. Sometimes I love math. It’s beautiful. It’s fascinating. It’s a puzzle. Sometimes I hate it, because I find it so incredibly frustrating, and it makes me feel so incredibly dumb, and those times inevitably lead to me screaming and throwing my book across the room. (You think I’m kidding, but I’m not.) In the interest of not causing my fiance or my cats to end up with PTSD, it’s probably a good thing that I did call it quits. I may be smart enough – more than smart enough – for math, but I don’t have the patience, or the right attitude for it, I guess.

But sometimes, I still feel a little guilty. Because every time this issue is brought up, this idea that Maybe Women Just Aren’t Good At Math, I’m forced to remember that I was, and that I gave up on it. Then again, if you’re struggling up the ladder to upper division mathematics, you should probably have a better reason to do it than to make a point to a bunch of dicky misogynists that will dismiss you as the exception rather than the rule anyway.

Categories
biology feminism

Save the Weenies!

Penis tissue replaced in the lab

You know, this story just begs for clever things to be said about it, ranging from the cute to sarcastic, about the surgical answer to bunny Viagra. But honestly, today I don’t have the heart, which is sad because I’m sure I could normally think of an at least mildly funny thing or two to say.

I can’t make jokes about sex, of the bunny variety or not today, because I’m still too depressed and angry about the Stupak Amendment on the House health care reform bill. Because you see, when we start talking about weenies and the importance of curing erectile dysfunction (and don’t get me wrong here, my heart goes out to the guys that can’t get it up, because everyone deserves to have a decent sex life), then that inevitably makes me think of Viagra and all the jokes that go with it. And of course the cruel, ironic non-joke from several years ago when I was on a health insurance plan that made me shell an absolutely stupid amount of money out of pocket every month for my birth control pills, but would have covered my Viagra prescription if I were a man.

So yeah, it’s great. Save the weenies. The story itself is cute, funny, and honestly fascinating from the perspective of science.

But after getting punched in the face by yet another reminder that the reproductive concerns of women don’t mean – pardon the expression – dick in this country, I just can’t.

Categories
feminism skepticism TAM

Women at TAM (SGU interview)

There’s a lively discussion going on at Skepchick regarding women in skepticism. More precisely, women in skepticism as things went at TAM, which was discussed in this week’s Skeptic’s Guide to the Universe via interview. Here is the SGU forum thread about that episode, which contains a lot of discussion about the interview.

I did attend TAM this year, and do happen to be female. There were basically two issues brought up in the interview: subtle sexism, and Bill Prady’s speech.

I’ll get Bill Prady out of the way first. He gave the keynote speech, and in it he mentioned that guys should try an experiment: if a woman comes up to them in a bar and asks what their sign is, half the time they should tell her she has pretty eyes, and half the time they should tell her why astrology is crap, and they should see which yields better results. There were some women at TAM that found the comment a bit offensive. I personally thought it was a hilarious observation, because I felt he was saying that women, whether we believe in astrology or not, would rather receive a compliment than a condescending lecture. I think that’s spot on; we’re not morons, we don’t like being lectured, and it’s not appropriate in the social context. I obviously took the comment differently from how other people did, and that’s quite okay.

Generally, I was a bit put off by the clips from The Big Bang Theory just because I’m tired to death of women always being the believers in these shows. I didn’t necessarily feel that the female character was portrayed as stupid, just as non-skeptical. And that, I could do without. But whatever. I don’t watch the show anyway.

That’s out of the way, now.

The more interesting – and much more important – point of the interview was if there’s a sort of subtle sexism existing in the skeptic community, and if so, what can we do about it.

Honestly, I couldn’t tell you one way or another. I haven’t noticed anything generally myself, and I’ve never been made to feel uncomfortable at TAM or other skeptical events. Part of this is because the Denver contingent of skeptics is fabulous. Part of this may also be because I’m a chubby, nerdy girl that refuses to wear anything fancier than jeans and a t-shirt, so it’s very possible that I get dismissed out of hand by the predatory assholes. I’m quite okay with that.

I did definitely notice that TAM was very short on the people of color (POC from here on out) and women speakers department. Dr. Novella did explain that however as partially just being that the POC/female speakers who were invited (other than Jennifer Ouellette and Harriet Hall) couldn’t attend due to scheduling conflicts. That’s very reasonable and something that can definitely happen with conventions. Also, there could be the effect that there are more white dude speakers to choose from right now than there are POC/women, for many reasons. (Some of said reasons being quite bad and worrisome.)

Women made up around 30% of the attendees of TAM this year, which is a fantastic amount of growth in attendance. I think that’s very cool. It shows that more women are getting interested in the movement, which I think is a good thing.

So, was there sexism? I don’t know. I don’t think people were being sexist; I certainly didn’t meet anyone who was. But individuals being sexist jerks isn’t the same as a general situation being influenced by subtle or ingrained sexism, which was really the point, I think.

What the question comes down to is simply this: are women being excluded somehow, for whatever reason? Skepticism started out male dominated, and is still fairly male dominated, though women are making inroads. So, are we fighting [hard enough] to be inclusive? Are their factors at work that will still leave women feeling like this is an unwelcoming sausage fest? I think that’s the sort of sexism that was being discussed in the podcast. And I think those are questions that should definitely be aired and considered, whatever the answer turns out to be. In general, society is still quite sexist in many ways, and that may still have it’s subtle influences on skeptical society. If so, then we should know the how and why. If not, then we should make sure we’re not prematurely patting ourselves on the back.

I think that’s definitely a good thing to investigate and a good discussion to have, particularly since many of the men of the skeptical movement have stated that they want to see women more involved. (Or have less proactively bemoaned the fact that women “just aren’t interested in science/skepticism” without examining why.)

One thing that’s really struck me in the discussion is how hostile some people are being about it. There’s a distinct flavor of “I’m a skeptic, I’m enlightened, how dare you say I’m sexist” coming from some people. First of, no one has accused anyone else of being sexist. But second off, that umbrage is indicative of something else I think skeptics need to take a good hard look at. There’s a level of arrogance that can come with labeling oneself as a skeptic. You get to be cooler than those silly believers who buy nonsense. I think that arrogance is showing up here as well, in a rather ugly way. People consider themselves to be enlightened individuals, and are going on the attack because they think it’s been suggested that they may not be.

I think the people who are getting nasty need to take a long look at themselves. If you’re an enlightened skeptic, the way to prove that is not to attack someone that disagrees with you, or has an opinion you don’t like. It’s to be the “better man” and rationally discuss.

“How dare you call me a sexist, you reverse-discriminating feminazi!!!!”

versus:

“I disagree. This is why.”