Captain Jean-Luc Picard would know what to do in this kind of situation. He is completely the best Star Trek captain of all time.
(It was Star Trek or watching Justin Timberlake and Madonna in their completely incomprehensible and most likely extremely *wrong* music video. What can I say, there was no competition.)
Tuesday, May 20, 2008
When real life gets unbearable
it's time to switch off BBC Parliament. When ND got up to speak, it was just too awful (especially when you can hear Ann Widdecombe agreeing with her in the background - a sure sign to anyone sane that the right view to take is the opposite to that being expressed) - it can't be just me that thinks she's completely betraying all of womenkind? She has a *daughter* for god's sake.
I'm so appalled by the banality of the erosion of liberty these days (she looks just like an ordinary woman - maybe I expected her to have horns?). You'd think these kind of things ought to be heralded with thunder etc etc.
Come on parliament - you can do it. 2 good decisions made, one more to go...
I'm so appalled by the banality of the erosion of liberty these days (she looks just like an ordinary woman - maybe I expected her to have horns?). You'd think these kind of things ought to be heralded with thunder etc etc.
Come on parliament - you can do it. 2 good decisions made, one more to go...
Monday, May 19, 2008
On the same topic
If you haven't read Kira Cochrane's article in the Guardian today, you really should. She's really captured just how bleak and terrifying the whole situation is.
Terrifying Times...
I haven't blogged for a while, mainly because everything is a little bit too depressing (or too frustrating) to want to write about it. However, it does feel that I'm not doing my bloggerly-duty: here is an important issue for me to write about on my supposedly feminist blog and I shirk it. So here we go.
The Embryology Bill is due to be voted on, as well as the terrifying amendment to cut the abortion time limit to twenty weeks. In this post, I think I'll focus mostly on the amendment - mainly because it's an area I feel very strongly about and because to discuss the whole bill would take more time than I currently have available.
Okay - so cutting the time limit. 3 Reasons why it's bad:
1)It's just intrinsically a bad thing. It feels as though any ground that we give on this issue will inevitably lead to a strengthening of the anti-abortion movement and (I fear) gradually, eat away at women's right to choose. I'm using the term "anti-abortion" instead of "pro-life" as I think that the latter is misleading in terms of casting the pro-choice lobby as "anti-life" when clearly, that is not the case.
2) Most abortions that take place during the later weeks of the limit are done for medical reasons and *all* for important reasons, not just on a whim. Cutting the time limit will ultimately lead to more distress for those women who have to make these difficult choices. Arguing that the scan for genetic deformations etc takes place at 20 weeks and therefore that's when the abortion should take place if needed is, in my opinion, cruel and callous. It seems to suggest that it's an easy decision to make (which is pretty hypocritical, as they don't seem to think it *is* an easy decision at any other point in the pregnancy).
3) A lot of the reasoning behind this amendment is misleading. Yes, there may well be an increase in survival rates at 24 weeks, but there is not at 23 weeks and those who do survive at 24 weeks often have severe learning disabilities and/or development problems. It's not as though you can give birth at 24 weeks and then it's all very straightforward. This also seems very cruel - to those people who *do* have the misfortune of a very premature birth and have had their expectations raised to unrealistic levels by this kind of statistic.
Obviously there are more, and I could go into it in more detail. However, for the moment, this will have to suffice.
The Embryology Bill is due to be voted on, as well as the terrifying amendment to cut the abortion time limit to twenty weeks. In this post, I think I'll focus mostly on the amendment - mainly because it's an area I feel very strongly about and because to discuss the whole bill would take more time than I currently have available.
Okay - so cutting the time limit. 3 Reasons why it's bad:
1)It's just intrinsically a bad thing. It feels as though any ground that we give on this issue will inevitably lead to a strengthening of the anti-abortion movement and (I fear) gradually, eat away at women's right to choose. I'm using the term "anti-abortion" instead of "pro-life" as I think that the latter is misleading in terms of casting the pro-choice lobby as "anti-life" when clearly, that is not the case.
2) Most abortions that take place during the later weeks of the limit are done for medical reasons and *all* for important reasons, not just on a whim. Cutting the time limit will ultimately lead to more distress for those women who have to make these difficult choices. Arguing that the scan for genetic deformations etc takes place at 20 weeks and therefore that's when the abortion should take place if needed is, in my opinion, cruel and callous. It seems to suggest that it's an easy decision to make (which is pretty hypocritical, as they don't seem to think it *is* an easy decision at any other point in the pregnancy).
3) A lot of the reasoning behind this amendment is misleading. Yes, there may well be an increase in survival rates at 24 weeks, but there is not at 23 weeks and those who do survive at 24 weeks often have severe learning disabilities and/or development problems. It's not as though you can give birth at 24 weeks and then it's all very straightforward. This also seems very cruel - to those people who *do* have the misfortune of a very premature birth and have had their expectations raised to unrealistic levels by this kind of statistic.
Obviously there are more, and I could go into it in more detail. However, for the moment, this will have to suffice.
Wednesday, May 07, 2008
Hammer-time...
You could be flippant and say that everything that is wrong with Hillary Clinton's campaign is embodied in the fact that she chose a Celine Dion song for her campaign theme tune.
Obviously, that's not entirely true, but it's still a bizarre choice. Why not go for something a little bit jazzier, that doesn't turn the brain into instant mush? Simply the Best by Tina Turner, for example - strong woman, powerful message.
My own vote would have been for MC Hammer "Can't touch this" (can you imagine how entertaining that would have been?) and this goes some way to explain why I have never been asked to run a campaign.
Obviously, that's not entirely true, but it's still a bizarre choice. Why not go for something a little bit jazzier, that doesn't turn the brain into instant mush? Simply the Best by Tina Turner, for example - strong woman, powerful message.
My own vote would have been for MC Hammer "Can't touch this" (can you imagine how entertaining that would have been?) and this goes some way to explain why I have never been asked to run a campaign.
Monday, May 05, 2008
Last Bastion of Sanity
At least in Oxford, the Conservatives got completely purged in the local elections. Quite incredible given the way the elections worked out elsewhere, but shows I'm living in the right place.
Not quite enough to make up for the fact that Boris Johnson got London Mayor. Now I'm left with the sinking realisation that the transport infrastructure within London that I depend on is going to flounder and ultimately degenerate into complete shite. Quite aside from the fact that the Conservatives don't run things but ruin them, whoever voted for BJ because he is "funny" ought to be lined up and shot. They may as well have just brought in Mr. Blobby (presumably some people also find him funny - I don't, but I don't find incompetence funny either, so what do I know?) put the whole of the GLA in a gunge machine and then dunked TFL in a vat full of snakes. I'm sure that within a year or so, it will have turned out to be more cost effective.
Quandary of the week: do I hope that...
(a) BJ gets run over by a bendy-bus during his first week of office
or
(b) he actually turns out to be good.
(a) would be more personally satisfying but might end in his martyrdom. (b) would make me want to tear off my own face, but my journey to work might be quite smooth.
Decisions, decisions...
Not quite enough to make up for the fact that Boris Johnson got London Mayor. Now I'm left with the sinking realisation that the transport infrastructure within London that I depend on is going to flounder and ultimately degenerate into complete shite. Quite aside from the fact that the Conservatives don't run things but ruin them, whoever voted for BJ because he is "funny" ought to be lined up and shot. They may as well have just brought in Mr. Blobby (presumably some people also find him funny - I don't, but I don't find incompetence funny either, so what do I know?) put the whole of the GLA in a gunge machine and then dunked TFL in a vat full of snakes. I'm sure that within a year or so, it will have turned out to be more cost effective.
Quandary of the week: do I hope that...
(a) BJ gets run over by a bendy-bus during his first week of office
or
(b) he actually turns out to be good.
(a) would be more personally satisfying but might end in his martyrdom. (b) would make me want to tear off my own face, but my journey to work might be quite smooth.
Decisions, decisions...
Tuesday, April 29, 2008
Conundrum
Is it giving in to the patriarchy to let it slide when the security guard at the entrance to your work building makes sexist comments? Admittedly, they only get as far as "Give us a smile love" (inherently annoying as this may be when you've just struggled for 2 hours to get there) and "all right, darlin'" but they are sexist.
On the one hand, I know I should really be stamping out this kind of behaviour whenever I encounter it. On the other, if I did try and stamp it out, they might prevent (or at least make it difficult) me from entering my building with minimum fuss. Yes, I could protest about this, but let's face it - I don't have the energy.
For the moment at least, I shall swallow my pride, principles and moral standing and content myself with grunting non-commitally as I stomp up the stairs to the office.
On the one hand, I know I should really be stamping out this kind of behaviour whenever I encounter it. On the other, if I did try and stamp it out, they might prevent (or at least make it difficult) me from entering my building with minimum fuss. Yes, I could protest about this, but let's face it - I don't have the energy.
For the moment at least, I shall swallow my pride, principles and moral standing and content myself with grunting non-commitally as I stomp up the stairs to the office.
Thursday, April 03, 2008
Sexism and the City
There are times when I love my job - not least when I get to do things I'm interested in on work time and it's still actually work. The latest of these (admittedly rather rare) occurances happened on Tuesday, when I attended the launch of the Fawcett Society's Sexism and the City campaign.
It was definitely worth going to, especially as it reminded me that not all (probably the vast majority in fact) of the people who work in the city are earning millions and are at the most basic - and arguably the most brutal - end of sexism. I think it's something that's very easy to forget when you're lucky enough to have a decent job that pays good money - as suddenly the aspects of sexism that are of primary concern become whether or not Henry got promoted before you because he's a man, rather than having to work a badly paid night-time cleaning job so that you be at home during the day because you can't afford childcare. That the campaign has the breadth to cover both ends of the spectrum is admirable, not to mention ambitious (and I don't think that this is necessarily a bad thing).
So, go to the website, read the manifesto and see if you can persuade your organisation (or yourself!) to do something to help.
It was definitely worth going to, especially as it reminded me that not all (probably the vast majority in fact) of the people who work in the city are earning millions and are at the most basic - and arguably the most brutal - end of sexism. I think it's something that's very easy to forget when you're lucky enough to have a decent job that pays good money - as suddenly the aspects of sexism that are of primary concern become whether or not Henry got promoted before you because he's a man, rather than having to work a badly paid night-time cleaning job so that you be at home during the day because you can't afford childcare. That the campaign has the breadth to cover both ends of the spectrum is admirable, not to mention ambitious (and I don't think that this is necessarily a bad thing).
So, go to the website, read the manifesto and see if you can persuade your organisation (or yourself!) to do something to help.
Friday, March 14, 2008
Why should not having finished them stand in the way of denouncing them?
I was given yet another business book to edumacate me in the ways of big business. Needless to say, I got about one page into the book before I got incredibly angry, skimmed the rest of the chapter and then gave up. I decided to review the book on this blog, then wondered whether that was completely fair, given I hadn't read anywhere near the whole thing. After a moment's pause, I came to the conclusion that if the first chapter - where they lay out their theory for the rest of the book - is a load of shite, it is somewhat unlikely that it will get any better. So it's fine. It got me wondering about other business-books-I-have-hated-without-reading-them-all-the-way-to-the-end.
Here is my top three:
(1) Inside Her Pretty Little Head: I think I hate this one the most, simply because it seemed rather promising. It's written by women who have set-up their own company to market things to women, as they got tired of the traditional advertising approach, which was to make it pink. I am also tired of this. I haven't mentioned here how much I hate the idea of a pink blackberry pearl, mainly because every time I think about it, I can't contain my own bile. Needless to say, if anyone tries to suggest I should have a pink blackberry pearl to show how much of an empowered career woman I am, I will forcefully insert it into their anus.
Anyway, a promising start. But then, you start the first chapter and there is a chart of ways in which women are different to men. Including the fact that women "tend and befriend" rather than experiencing the "fight and flight" instinct which men apparently developed on the veldt to defend their womenfolk.
I don't think I'd mind so much if they would just say "selling princesses to young girls works" but they seem to feel the need to justify this claim with some absolutely ridiculous evolutionary psychology bullshit. I hate evolutionary psychology even more than I hate pink blackberry pearls and tools with flowers on the handles, which is saying something.
I was so outraged that I didn't bother to read the rest of the book, which seemed suspiciously like it was starting from the "let's not just make things pink" stance and then going on to justify that we should in fact just make things pink.
2) Life's a Pitch: short summary of this could be described as - success in business takes the form of a misogynistic pig trying to get sex on the first date. Whatever. I have to say, that given any dates *I* have been on are nothing like the general experience ascribed to dates in the book, it seems unlikely that any success I have in business will resemble it either. Case Closed.
3) Things they don't teach you at Harvard Business School: if I'd wanted to watch smug men wave their cocks around I'd have rented some niche porn. Enough said.
The lesson here is probably that I should stop reading business books. Especially ones recommended by my employer.
The good news is that I've ordered a copy of Deborah Cameron's latest book which I will be able to review at a later date.
Here is my top three:
(1) Inside Her Pretty Little Head: I think I hate this one the most, simply because it seemed rather promising. It's written by women who have set-up their own company to market things to women, as they got tired of the traditional advertising approach, which was to make it pink. I am also tired of this. I haven't mentioned here how much I hate the idea of a pink blackberry pearl, mainly because every time I think about it, I can't contain my own bile. Needless to say, if anyone tries to suggest I should have a pink blackberry pearl to show how much of an empowered career woman I am, I will forcefully insert it into their anus.
Anyway, a promising start. But then, you start the first chapter and there is a chart of ways in which women are different to men. Including the fact that women "tend and befriend" rather than experiencing the "fight and flight" instinct which men apparently developed on the veldt to defend their womenfolk.
I don't think I'd mind so much if they would just say "selling princesses to young girls works" but they seem to feel the need to justify this claim with some absolutely ridiculous evolutionary psychology bullshit. I hate evolutionary psychology even more than I hate pink blackberry pearls and tools with flowers on the handles, which is saying something.
I was so outraged that I didn't bother to read the rest of the book, which seemed suspiciously like it was starting from the "let's not just make things pink" stance and then going on to justify that we should in fact just make things pink.
2) Life's a Pitch: short summary of this could be described as - success in business takes the form of a misogynistic pig trying to get sex on the first date. Whatever. I have to say, that given any dates *I* have been on are nothing like the general experience ascribed to dates in the book, it seems unlikely that any success I have in business will resemble it either. Case Closed.
3) Things they don't teach you at Harvard Business School: if I'd wanted to watch smug men wave their cocks around I'd have rented some niche porn. Enough said.
The lesson here is probably that I should stop reading business books. Especially ones recommended by my employer.
The good news is that I've ordered a copy of Deborah Cameron's latest book which I will be able to review at a later date.
Friday, March 07, 2008
This week in the news
A great article on how Norway is getting women into the boardroom.
It would be great to set up something similar over here, except the positive discrimination ruling wouldn't hold up. Still, as the new Equality and Diversity Head in my workplace, maybe I can come up with something that is slightly more helpful than researching the addresses of people to invite to a dinner event, which is my current task. I suppose I just have to grit my teeth and try not to throw myself out of the window first.
It would be great to set up something similar over here, except the positive discrimination ruling wouldn't hold up. Still, as the new Equality and Diversity Head in my workplace, maybe I can come up with something that is slightly more helpful than researching the addresses of people to invite to a dinner event, which is my current task. I suppose I just have to grit my teeth and try not to throw myself out of the window first.
Thank the blessed Lord for my BlackBerry
Last weekend, I decided to take advantage of the fact that I live in Intellectual Oxford and went to a lecture hosted by the Oxford Radical Forum. Sadly, I'd missed the feminism-focused day (although thinking on, this may have been a good thing - attend something like this and it's only a matter of time before someone gets all PoMo on your ass) and had chosen to attend what I now think of as "Why I can never be a Marxist" day.
The lecture itself, given by Gerry Cohen, was great. He's always good to listen to and knows how to engage an audience. It concerned the fact that Marxism *was* dead in its traditionally accepted form, because the working class (which is central to it) no longer exists in the form that Marx had thought it to exist then. Thus, if Marxism was to survive, it had to change its content regarding the working class. This is a terrible summary of the actual lecture, but doing it justice would take more space than is reasonable on a blog.
I began to have misgivings when I walked into the lecture room and found it dominated by SWP leaflets and pamphlets. Never a good sign. Nor that they'd advertised "Jerry" Cohen on the website, who is actually a completely different person. Indeed, the questions after the lecture indicated that:(a) the terrible stories about Marxist meetings are true - lots of people liking the sound of their own voice and getting impassioned about the fact that "we can rise up and defeat capitalism now!" which they can't (b) most of the people there were there to argue rather than actually listen and (c) the pomposity of Oxford Students is unbelievable. Oh the nostalgia...
High points:
(1) When someone took a pamphlet about beating capitalism from the rack and the SWP lady raced after him and told him they weren't free, they cost £1.00, with a completely straight face. Communism for those who can afford it, apparently.
(2) The man who claimed, as a deputy head teacher, he experienced the same exploitation as the workers did in the factories Marx and Engels observed. Yeah, I'm thinking not, theoretically or literally.
(3) The Oxford Radical Forum t-shirts for sale had a design on them that looked like it had been hugely influenced/stolen from the modernist movement, who - incidentally - were the artists of choice for many fascist movements.
(4) Singing "Solidarity forever" and realising that I am deadly afraid of earnestness in all its forms. I can't sit in a room full of middle class students with expensive hair cuts, all singing seriously about the workers without wanting to be swallowed up by a huge hole in the ground. It felt rather like being immersed into a cult, which is rather too much first thing on a Saturday morning when slightly hungover.
Leaving the lecture, I felt like I'd managed to be a horrible, capitalist pig (as I dialed the SO to tell him all about it) and at the same time terribly sad, because somewhere deep inside, I would really love to be earnest and a communist. Sort of. You know what I mean.
Anyway, "solidarity forever" has been going round my head pretty much continuously since that point, especially when coming up against the gross incompetence of FGW. Perhaps there's hope for me yet...
The lecture itself, given by Gerry Cohen, was great. He's always good to listen to and knows how to engage an audience. It concerned the fact that Marxism *was* dead in its traditionally accepted form, because the working class (which is central to it) no longer exists in the form that Marx had thought it to exist then. Thus, if Marxism was to survive, it had to change its content regarding the working class. This is a terrible summary of the actual lecture, but doing it justice would take more space than is reasonable on a blog.
I began to have misgivings when I walked into the lecture room and found it dominated by SWP leaflets and pamphlets. Never a good sign. Nor that they'd advertised "Jerry" Cohen on the website, who is actually a completely different person. Indeed, the questions after the lecture indicated that:(a) the terrible stories about Marxist meetings are true - lots of people liking the sound of their own voice and getting impassioned about the fact that "we can rise up and defeat capitalism now!" which they can't (b) most of the people there were there to argue rather than actually listen and (c) the pomposity of Oxford Students is unbelievable. Oh the nostalgia...
High points:
(1) When someone took a pamphlet about beating capitalism from the rack and the SWP lady raced after him and told him they weren't free, they cost £1.00, with a completely straight face. Communism for those who can afford it, apparently.
(2) The man who claimed, as a deputy head teacher, he experienced the same exploitation as the workers did in the factories Marx and Engels observed. Yeah, I'm thinking not, theoretically or literally.
(3) The Oxford Radical Forum t-shirts for sale had a design on them that looked like it had been hugely influenced/stolen from the modernist movement, who - incidentally - were the artists of choice for many fascist movements.
(4) Singing "Solidarity forever" and realising that I am deadly afraid of earnestness in all its forms. I can't sit in a room full of middle class students with expensive hair cuts, all singing seriously about the workers without wanting to be swallowed up by a huge hole in the ground. It felt rather like being immersed into a cult, which is rather too much first thing on a Saturday morning when slightly hungover.
Leaving the lecture, I felt like I'd managed to be a horrible, capitalist pig (as I dialed the SO to tell him all about it) and at the same time terribly sad, because somewhere deep inside, I would really love to be earnest and a communist. Sort of. You know what I mean.
Anyway, "solidarity forever" has been going round my head pretty much continuously since that point, especially when coming up against the gross incompetence of FGW. Perhaps there's hope for me yet...
Monday, February 25, 2008
Thursday, February 07, 2008
Say what now?
Today someone commented (not here) that they were tired of people judging Hillary as agressive and war-mongering and claimed that this would not happen if she was a man and that it's completely irrelevant. I beg to differ. I actually think that how aggressive or hawk-like Hillary would be as a President *is* a live issue and one that I also judge other candidates by.
The problem with Hillary (as I see it) is that, in order to be a successful female politician, she has adopted a more masculine stance. Thus to make up for the fact that women are dismissed as "maternal" or too weak to be commander-in-chief, she is undoubtedly taking a more offensive stance on matter such as Iran. This is worrying - if the US go into Iran, then so will the UK. And we will be completely screwed. Hence my claim that it is in fact hugely relevant, irrespective of the fact that she's a woman.
It would be completely irresponsible to ignore the flaws in Hillary's campaign and take on foreign policy just because she is a woman. And it goes against my feminism. I am glad that Hillary has a chance to run for President and that she can be considered a serious candidate. But I will not support her as a candidate just because of her gender - I think that would actually be a form of disrespect. We are not arguing for equality so that women will vote for women, without making a judgement on their policies. So, for me, the most feminist thing to do is to ignore the fact that Hillary is a woman and to look at what she is saying instead. It just so happens that I don't agree with all of it.
So, the next time some middle-class idiot accuses me of sexism in relation to my views on the US elections (especially when one of their reasons for supporting Hillary is that she is "glamourous" -wtf?) I shall point them to this. Or tell them to sod off. Which knowing me, is more likely.
The problem with Hillary (as I see it) is that, in order to be a successful female politician, she has adopted a more masculine stance. Thus to make up for the fact that women are dismissed as "maternal" or too weak to be commander-in-chief, she is undoubtedly taking a more offensive stance on matter such as Iran. This is worrying - if the US go into Iran, then so will the UK. And we will be completely screwed. Hence my claim that it is in fact hugely relevant, irrespective of the fact that she's a woman.
It would be completely irresponsible to ignore the flaws in Hillary's campaign and take on foreign policy just because she is a woman. And it goes against my feminism. I am glad that Hillary has a chance to run for President and that she can be considered a serious candidate. But I will not support her as a candidate just because of her gender - I think that would actually be a form of disrespect. We are not arguing for equality so that women will vote for women, without making a judgement on their policies. So, for me, the most feminist thing to do is to ignore the fact that Hillary is a woman and to look at what she is saying instead. It just so happens that I don't agree with all of it.
So, the next time some middle-class idiot accuses me of sexism in relation to my views on the US elections (especially when one of their reasons for supporting Hillary is that she is "glamourous" -wtf?) I shall point them to this. Or tell them to sod off. Which knowing me, is more likely.
Tuesday, February 05, 2008
Just to clarify
Oh, this crazy, crazy world. Over the last few days, I've heard/seen a few arguments that go like this:
"Just because I did so-and-so* doesn't mean I'm sexist. It was just fun and no-one was offended..."
Let's pause and reflect on this a moment. Hmm. I'm afraid that, actually, yes that is exactly what it *does* mean. You my friend, are sexist. And delusional. (Ahem, let's keep this friendly.)
Whether or not a person *perceives* themselves to be sexist is irrelevant. As is how "fun" the activity happens to be. If someone takes part in an activity that is clearly sexist (in that the point of the "fun" is to demean women - for example, dressing them up like foxes and then "hunting" them, which, might I add, is *completely random* as an example. Indeed.) then they are perpetuating sexism and indulging in it, which by its very nature, makes that person sexist.
And then, if someone (who happens to be a woman) suggests that the activity might offend *other* women, to go on to attack her on a personal level, with their attack focused upon the fact that she is a woman, *most definitely* makes that person sexist.
And a complete and utter Knob-End.
To re-cap: make argument (i) "I am not a sexist but..." and follow it up by action (ii) deliberate sexist attack because someone had the audacity to ruin your "fun" by pointing out something rather obvious makes you: A complete and utter knob-end with shit for brains
*Insert activity of choice here
NB - yes, I am very angry. I am, in fact, furious. I could've, and have elsewhere, made this point more politely and more coherently. But this is my blog, so I can be as angry as I like.
"Just because I did so-and-so* doesn't mean I'm sexist. It was just fun and no-one was offended..."
Let's pause and reflect on this a moment. Hmm. I'm afraid that, actually, yes that is exactly what it *does* mean. You my friend, are sexist. And delusional. (Ahem, let's keep this friendly.)
Whether or not a person *perceives* themselves to be sexist is irrelevant. As is how "fun" the activity happens to be. If someone takes part in an activity that is clearly sexist (in that the point of the "fun" is to demean women - for example, dressing them up like foxes and then "hunting" them, which, might I add, is *completely random* as an example. Indeed.) then they are perpetuating sexism and indulging in it, which by its very nature, makes that person sexist.
And then, if someone (who happens to be a woman) suggests that the activity might offend *other* women, to go on to attack her on a personal level, with their attack focused upon the fact that she is a woman, *most definitely* makes that person sexist.
And a complete and utter Knob-End.
To re-cap: make argument (i) "I am not a sexist but..." and follow it up by action (ii) deliberate sexist attack because someone had the audacity to ruin your "fun" by pointing out something rather obvious makes you: A complete and utter knob-end with shit for brains
*Insert activity of choice here
NB - yes, I am very angry. I am, in fact, furious. I could've, and have elsewhere, made this point more politely and more coherently. But this is my blog, so I can be as angry as I like.
Monday, February 04, 2008
Bit of Obama
If you haven't seen it, watch it.
Interestingly, some people are saying it's schmaltzy. Maybe, but actually I found it genuinely moving - and I'm not even American and/or allowed to vote.
Interestingly, some people are saying it's schmaltzy. Maybe, but actually I found it genuinely moving - and I'm not even American and/or allowed to vote.
Tuesday, January 29, 2008
I'm happy to wear the trousers...
Lately I've been thinking about the role of women in business and politics, partly inspired by the ongoing battle for the Democrat Presidential Candidacy (I feel it needs capitalisation) and also because I've been encouraged to read "business literature". If any of the latter is aimed at women - which, judging from the amount of bullshit these smug men are spouting about how selling business is like seducing a woman, is not a lot - it generally encourages them to become more like men. Similarly, Hillary Clinton attracts quite a lot of sniping because she is too "man-like" and not "feminine" enough - it is clear that she has felt the need to develop quite a strong (and perhaps more war-mongering) brand of politics in order to get over the disadvantage of being female.
Is this the way things have to be? If we want to get ahead, in any sphere, do we have to conform to a certain level of expectation? Research quoted in the Harvard Review of Business (come to your own conclusions about how reliable *that* makes it) suggest that employees are less likely to take a female boss seriously. Being a woman is associated with softness, vulnerability and maternal instincts, no matter how ridiculous that assumption is (how many women like that do you come across every day... er, none).
Perhaps then, we have to overcompensate for this. Women have to network like men, swagger like men, be aggressive and stereotypically masculine (even though those stereotypes are often just as unrealistic as those about women) in order to get what they want and be taken seriously. Yet this also backfires - employers are more likely to judge a woman harshly when she is angry than they are to judge a man. Some women high up in organisations get a bad reputation amongst female staff because they are not seen to help other women reach the same heights. I could go on - but I won't; there's not that much time.
I don't have an easy solution to the problem, which ends up boiling down to "damned if you do, damned if you don't". Is the answer to develop a different notion of what is feminine? To change work cultures and try to correct prejudices? To ignore all of this and soldier grimly on? Obviously, a bit of all these things wouldn't hurt, it's a question of how productive they are.
I also think we need to stop criticising women who don't meet our standards of how they ought to be behaving so harshly. Yes, Clinton's not perfect and she might not be our ideal of a first woman President (for various reasons, if I were an American, I would not be voting for her atr this stage). However, let's criticise her policies as policies rather than bitch because she's acting too male, or she cried and so on. Let's also recognise that she faces some of the same problems the rest of us do - and that honestly, for many of us, our own reactions to these problems are also far from perfect.
Is this the way things have to be? If we want to get ahead, in any sphere, do we have to conform to a certain level of expectation? Research quoted in the Harvard Review of Business (come to your own conclusions about how reliable *that* makes it) suggest that employees are less likely to take a female boss seriously. Being a woman is associated with softness, vulnerability and maternal instincts, no matter how ridiculous that assumption is (how many women like that do you come across every day... er, none).
Perhaps then, we have to overcompensate for this. Women have to network like men, swagger like men, be aggressive and stereotypically masculine (even though those stereotypes are often just as unrealistic as those about women) in order to get what they want and be taken seriously. Yet this also backfires - employers are more likely to judge a woman harshly when she is angry than they are to judge a man. Some women high up in organisations get a bad reputation amongst female staff because they are not seen to help other women reach the same heights. I could go on - but I won't; there's not that much time.
I don't have an easy solution to the problem, which ends up boiling down to "damned if you do, damned if you don't". Is the answer to develop a different notion of what is feminine? To change work cultures and try to correct prejudices? To ignore all of this and soldier grimly on? Obviously, a bit of all these things wouldn't hurt, it's a question of how productive they are.
I also think we need to stop criticising women who don't meet our standards of how they ought to be behaving so harshly. Yes, Clinton's not perfect and she might not be our ideal of a first woman President (for various reasons, if I were an American, I would not be voting for her atr this stage). However, let's criticise her policies as policies rather than bitch because she's acting too male, or she cried and so on. Let's also recognise that she faces some of the same problems the rest of us do - and that honestly, for many of us, our own reactions to these problems are also far from perfect.
...But the pockets are too small to be useful
Why is it that trousers designed for women have such impractical pockets? Men can carry around a whole host of useful items including (but not limited to) phones, wallets, ipods, loose change, keys in their voluminous pockets without looking like they've sprouted giant tumours. Women, on the otherhand, are lucky if they can fit in some clean tissues and 20p for the machine in the toilet. It's made quite clear that pockets are there for show and are shrinking over time - rather like the little toe. Perhaps it is part of the conspiracy to encourage us to buy vastly overpriced handbags.
Friday, January 25, 2008
Redundancy: word of the week
Things that annoyed me this week:
1) The advert on TV for a children's magazine (specifically targeted at young girls) called Strawberry Shortcake. Not only does this charming magazine give away crappy pieces of tat so that teh childrens can play at cooking, the TV voiceover cheerfully exhorts these innocents to "learn to cook just like mummy!"
To which I (quite cheerfully - although it would be a lie because actually I'd be spitting with rage) respond: bite me.
Mummy might be an excellent cook. She may well (rather like I do) own many cook books and enjoy good food. However, it is *not* the sole responsibility of mummy to do all the cooking. Nor, in this day and age, should we be marketing such blatant sexist crap to children. Especially when it is obviously false - look at all the famous male chefs on TV who outnumber the female ones. By all means encourage your children to cook but (a) do it regardless of their sex (b) don't do it by making them think that mummy should do all the cooking and (c) ease off on all the pink coloured, strawberry-decorated bits of plastic.
2) All attempts to make powertools/gardening equipment and screwdrivers more "suitable" for women by making them pink or decorating them with a vile array of floral motifs. WTF? Are women incapable of using tools unless they are markedly "feminine" (and I use feminine in the narrowest possible sense, as I hardly think bouquets of flowers are the be and all and end all of feminity)?
Perhaps women in general are scared and perplexed by something like a screwdriver. They don't know how to wire a plug. However, stick some fucking flowers on the thing and all of a sudden - empowerment! Why did we not think of this before? Maybe if we repaint fire engines to be pink with a ribbon border and rose petal motif, women will want to be fire officers!
It is *kind* of the patriarchy to give us the permission to use these tools. I mean, it just wouldn't do for a women to use a plain old garden trowel (the way she's been doing for *years*) because that's just too emasculating. No, better make it pretty for her.
I had this argument with my (supposedly feminist) boss, who thinks its wonderful that this has happened. He feels this is empowerment forging ahead. Now women can do "manly" things. In fact they are positively encouraged to do it. How can this be bad? He is seemingly unable to see the point that women are only encouraged to do these things as long as they do them in the male-approved, girly way. Which, when you think about it, is only the patriarchy once again dictating the behaviour of women.
3) My sexist new colleague: He's in a position of some power in the organisation, which is a little worrying. At first we gave him the benefit of the doubt - his "in a room with a bunch of girls" comments were annoying but could be due to nerves. They weren't. He's just an arse.
Today he made the wonderful remark that if he were in charge of recruitment he would "never hire any women over the age of about 28 because they'll just go and get pregnant". Gee, how enlightened this man is. Especially given that he's about 35 and already has three children under ten. But that's okay, because that's his wife's problem.
Ignoring the distinctly frosty looks he was getting (he works in an office where he is the only man) he carried on making highly "amusing" remarks about our capacity to be walking incubators and how scary we women were and men better watch out. In the end, I couldn't take it any longer.
Him: "...yeah, all the fellas better watch out with you around."
Me: " Haven't you heard Egbert*? You're surplus to requirement. Men are completely redundant now."
(He starts to snigger then examines my dead-pan expression, looking increasingly worried. He then walks off without saying anything.)
On the one-hand, I'm annoyed with myself for letting him get to me. My comment may have shut him up, but he's obviously so thick that it's going to be one more bit of proof to him than feminists are all a bunch of ball-breaking man-haters who envy him his penis. On the other, it may well be true**.
Think about it, if even *some proportion* of men were to become redundant in terms of procreation (and we're definitely thinking crazy sci-fi utopia here) the misogynist wankers who can't control their mouths even in the most inappropriate of circumstances are going down first. Fact.
*Egbert not actually his real name
** I do not think that all men are redundant. Only the ones I don't like (heh).
1) The advert on TV for a children's magazine (specifically targeted at young girls) called Strawberry Shortcake. Not only does this charming magazine give away crappy pieces of tat so that teh childrens can play at cooking, the TV voiceover cheerfully exhorts these innocents to "learn to cook just like mummy!"
To which I (quite cheerfully - although it would be a lie because actually I'd be spitting with rage) respond: bite me.
Mummy might be an excellent cook. She may well (rather like I do) own many cook books and enjoy good food. However, it is *not* the sole responsibility of mummy to do all the cooking. Nor, in this day and age, should we be marketing such blatant sexist crap to children. Especially when it is obviously false - look at all the famous male chefs on TV who outnumber the female ones. By all means encourage your children to cook but (a) do it regardless of their sex (b) don't do it by making them think that mummy should do all the cooking and (c) ease off on all the pink coloured, strawberry-decorated bits of plastic.
2) All attempts to make powertools/gardening equipment and screwdrivers more "suitable" for women by making them pink or decorating them with a vile array of floral motifs. WTF? Are women incapable of using tools unless they are markedly "feminine" (and I use feminine in the narrowest possible sense, as I hardly think bouquets of flowers are the be and all and end all of feminity)?
Perhaps women in general are scared and perplexed by something like a screwdriver. They don't know how to wire a plug. However, stick some fucking flowers on the thing and all of a sudden - empowerment! Why did we not think of this before? Maybe if we repaint fire engines to be pink with a ribbon border and rose petal motif, women will want to be fire officers!
It is *kind* of the patriarchy to give us the permission to use these tools. I mean, it just wouldn't do for a women to use a plain old garden trowel (the way she's been doing for *years*) because that's just too emasculating. No, better make it pretty for her.
I had this argument with my (supposedly feminist) boss, who thinks its wonderful that this has happened. He feels this is empowerment forging ahead. Now women can do "manly" things. In fact they are positively encouraged to do it. How can this be bad? He is seemingly unable to see the point that women are only encouraged to do these things as long as they do them in the male-approved, girly way. Which, when you think about it, is only the patriarchy once again dictating the behaviour of women.
3) My sexist new colleague: He's in a position of some power in the organisation, which is a little worrying. At first we gave him the benefit of the doubt - his "in a room with a bunch of girls" comments were annoying but could be due to nerves. They weren't. He's just an arse.
Today he made the wonderful remark that if he were in charge of recruitment he would "never hire any women over the age of about 28 because they'll just go and get pregnant". Gee, how enlightened this man is. Especially given that he's about 35 and already has three children under ten. But that's okay, because that's his wife's problem.
Ignoring the distinctly frosty looks he was getting (he works in an office where he is the only man) he carried on making highly "amusing" remarks about our capacity to be walking incubators and how scary we women were and men better watch out. In the end, I couldn't take it any longer.
Him: "...yeah, all the fellas better watch out with you around."
Me: " Haven't you heard Egbert*? You're surplus to requirement. Men are completely redundant now."
(He starts to snigger then examines my dead-pan expression, looking increasingly worried. He then walks off without saying anything.)
On the one-hand, I'm annoyed with myself for letting him get to me. My comment may have shut him up, but he's obviously so thick that it's going to be one more bit of proof to him than feminists are all a bunch of ball-breaking man-haters who envy him his penis. On the other, it may well be true**.
Think about it, if even *some proportion* of men were to become redundant in terms of procreation (and we're definitely thinking crazy sci-fi utopia here) the misogynist wankers who can't control their mouths even in the most inappropriate of circumstances are going down first. Fact.
*Egbert not actually his real name
** I do not think that all men are redundant. Only the ones I don't like (heh).
Friday, January 18, 2008
Unreasonable Optimism
I am inexplicably cheerful about the coming few months at work, despite nothing having changed in the slightest and the likelihood of me ever getting promoted (or at least to a job that doesn't make me want to eat my own limbs and howl like a wolf) is still zilch. Yet, I still have this unnerving sense that *good things* are going to happen - perhaps the work ethic I mysteriously developed in the closing months of last year was not just zombified, mindless obedience but an actual moment of maturity/growth.
(Shakes head in horror at the thought I might always feel like doing random extra work *at the weekend*)
It could be that this good mood is just a leftover of Christmas cheer or some side effect of the recent illness. Either way, it should be gone soon enough: it's bonus and pay meetings at the beginning of next month. Meh.
(Shakes head in horror at the thought I might always feel like doing random extra work *at the weekend*)
It could be that this good mood is just a leftover of Christmas cheer or some side effect of the recent illness. Either way, it should be gone soon enough: it's bonus and pay meetings at the beginning of next month. Meh.
Seasonal Malaise
So Norovirus has struck again this year, worse than ever if the media is to be believed. The back-to-work season was sandwiched between dire warnings of projectile vomiting and uncontrollable pooing. Commuters on packed, sweaty trains looked at each other furtively in case their seatmate was suddenly struck down - after all, the papers warned us, these germs were everywhere and could hit at any time. Anyone who looked vaguely ill was to be avoided or sent evil glares: were they the fiends who were ignoring NHS advice to stay at home? In offices, there were competitive renditions of whose-family-was-worst-hit-at-christmas-dinner and slightly sadistic shudders at the terrible pains absent colleagues must be going through.
I am almost disappointed I didn't get it - I feel I managed to miss out on an experience bigger than myself (I am of course being sarcastic here).
There obviously was/is a nasty bug going around - attendance at my work post-xmas party was decimated by ill-health (or perhaps people using a mild cold as an excuse not to go) and the Heloise-stronghold has been brought low by disease of the mucus/miserable/exhaustion type. Apart from the feeling ill part, it's all been rather jolly and an excuse to sleep for 16 hours a day and not change out of pyjamas. Due to the rigid following of the "feed a cold" rule, I've failed to lose weight - although colds should probably not be fed by left over xmas chocolate but by healthy things that we were too ill to go out and buy.
The trouble with illness-related media paranoia is that it tends to override my usual scepticism and awaken any latent compulsive tendencies floating around my head. I have a slight weakness for hygeine paranoia anyway - if I think too hard I can find myself avoiding touching door handles, taps, light switches or the flush on toilets (to name just a few) - but with something as thrillingly disgusting as Norovirus, it can spiral well out of control. Those germs could be everywhere - buttons on cash machines, chip+pin machines at the supermarket, train seats, tables, computer keyboards, restaurants, the kitchens where my pret sandwich was made - and if I'm not careful the logical next step would be to lock myself in my own bathroom, gently rocking backwards and forwards. Luckily, getting a genuine illness put a stop to this dangerous behaviour, if only because I was confined to house arrest.
On the plus side, Tesco was gloriously empty last weekend (although they were so short-staffed they could only open half the tills and the shelves were pretty empty) which gave a bizarre snapshot of what the world would be like during a flu epidemic but without the death and actual terror.
I am almost disappointed I didn't get it - I feel I managed to miss out on an experience bigger than myself (I am of course being sarcastic here).
There obviously was/is a nasty bug going around - attendance at my work post-xmas party was decimated by ill-health (or perhaps people using a mild cold as an excuse not to go) and the Heloise-stronghold has been brought low by disease of the mucus/miserable/exhaustion type. Apart from the feeling ill part, it's all been rather jolly and an excuse to sleep for 16 hours a day and not change out of pyjamas. Due to the rigid following of the "feed a cold" rule, I've failed to lose weight - although colds should probably not be fed by left over xmas chocolate but by healthy things that we were too ill to go out and buy.
The trouble with illness-related media paranoia is that it tends to override my usual scepticism and awaken any latent compulsive tendencies floating around my head. I have a slight weakness for hygeine paranoia anyway - if I think too hard I can find myself avoiding touching door handles, taps, light switches or the flush on toilets (to name just a few) - but with something as thrillingly disgusting as Norovirus, it can spiral well out of control. Those germs could be everywhere - buttons on cash machines, chip+pin machines at the supermarket, train seats, tables, computer keyboards, restaurants, the kitchens where my pret sandwich was made - and if I'm not careful the logical next step would be to lock myself in my own bathroom, gently rocking backwards and forwards. Luckily, getting a genuine illness put a stop to this dangerous behaviour, if only because I was confined to house arrest.
On the plus side, Tesco was gloriously empty last weekend (although they were so short-staffed they could only open half the tills and the shelves were pretty empty) which gave a bizarre snapshot of what the world would be like during a flu epidemic but without the death and actual terror.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)