The sports research seems a bit chicken-egg to me, because in order for you to feel like your body was useful because you needed it to play sports, you would have to first feel like sports were something that was useful
Seriously, it would be interesting to compare and contrast this study with girls who are serious ballerinas or competitive cheerleaders, realms in which I would tend to believe that eating disorders and desire for acceptance based on appearance abound. I mean every ballerina I knew in high school was a practicing anorexic, although otherwise in excellent condition, and every girl (2)I knew who had a physically abusive boyfriend was a very fit cheerleader.
So, I think maybe it just has more to do with gender identification than physicality/health. Even a pudgy tobacco chewing devoted softball player would be unlikely to identify as a girly-girl.
Aaaargh, reading what I just posted above makes me realize that I likely keep coming off very old school sexist rather than new-new school post-feminist. I would note for the record that over 20 years ago my youngest (4th)sister who is bi-sexual and was a not very strongly gender identified (considered it the highest compliment when gay men accidentally hit on her) artsy-nerd-grunge-punk starred in a hilarious documentary in which she tried out for a very competitive collegiate pom-pom squad. My third sister who was the only popular jock of the 4 of us, almost made it on to the first girl's state soccer team because she was such a powerful kicker, was also the only one who was chubby as a kid, and she strongly, very politically, identified as lesbian when she was in college. Even my artsy musician ballerina 2nd sister occasionally had sex with women and didn't shave her legs for a decade. I identify primarily as straight, submissive, femme, but lately (in part due to some forward-thinking literary influences) I have been tending towards poly-amorous relationships with MMF dynamic.
So, I chuckled out loud when Harari made the point in "Sapiens" that modern men in power (insert picture of POTUS in drab suit) are very off the charts non-peacock in appearance compared to previous eras (insert picture of very fancy KIng Louis the XIV.) I would also note that some cultures in which homosexual behavior was very positively affirmed were (literally!) otherwise Spartan.
Anyways, my musing on softball players not being as concerned with appearance/aesthetics as ballerinas, was partially due to recently witnessing my beautiful, very fancy, professional dancer niece, who was encouraged to participate in sports from infancy by my jock sister (who flipped to straight when she met my niece's father), informing her mother with snobby tone, and in no uncertain terms "You dress like a lesbian", to which my sister replied "I like sports and beer. So, this is how I dress." Some females, including me, have never liked sports or beer, (even though maybe we had a very, very supportive father who enrolled us in every possible sport and cheered like a maniac when we came in 3rd because there were only 4 contestants, and actually bought us a beer mug when he dropped us off at college), and so that is not how we dress. I would also note that some females who were very much encouraged by their father to accept scholarship to Annapolis or engineering school are core appalled at the notion of military discipline and hierarchy and mentally balk at the line where science and math crosses over the line from delightful theory into boring, rote, derivative Descartian practice. I mean, even at the age of 52, such a female, might be attempting to study SQL or to throw a ball towards some sort of arbitrary goal or basket, and thinking "What is the point of this meaningless activity?"
So, I will not choose to carry a gun, because I know that I do not possess the discipline or interest necessary to practice safe, competent gun-handling and maintenance. For me, the drudgery of it would be worse than the expense of renting protection in the form of Uber transportation through the dangerous part of the city, where the feral (not wild!) humans roam. Besides, as long as I maintain my interest in MMF polyamorous practice, it's not like I'm likely to be hurting for muscular escorts offering free protection services (and/or symphony tickets) Win-win-win!!!
IOW, it is my stance, that being brave enough to loudly protest and make use of a squirt bottle filled with vinegar solution on obnoxious male interfering with pursuit of PhD is not enough! Until the day when there as many females are willing to step boldly forward and admit to feeling arousal while reading the home-erotic scenes in the literature of James Baldwin, as there are males openly admitting to liking female-on-female porn, there will be no end to gender inequality!!!
It's been a long time since I read her thesis, but IIRC it only reflected participation in sports that didn't have a velvet ghetto aspect (like gymnastics and cheerleading).
I reached out to Kevin Johnson at USAT to see if he had more details about the surge in background checks. I also reached out to someone who has a direct line to him to see if she could find out.
@jp
That makes me wish I had been into team sports in high school. If you could share any of that thesis it would interesting to read.
Just last night coming back on a flight I saw "Despicable Me 3: Oh Brother". Right there, in that movie that has a 'strong woman' character (the singular is somewhat of a problem, no?), was a scene where a 12 year old was pressured to do something (forced, in fact) that she did not want to do to protect a male's feeling. This sort of cultural subsuming of a woman's free will is ubiquitous. I was irate when I saw that scene. Even more so when I realized most people wouldn't even recognize it for what it was, including younger me.
CS wrote: Right there, in that movie that has a 'strong woman' character (the singular is somewhat of a problem, no?), was a scene where a 12 year old was pressured to do something (forced, in fact) that she did not want to do to protect a male's feeling. This sort of cultural subsuming of a woman's free will is ubiquitous.
I wish you would describe the scene. It's hard to determine the dynamic from just this.
My second "marriage" was to a very domineering emotionally labile Iranian man. Somebody who literally was nicknamed "the golden penis" by his mother, had a nanny he bossed around in childhood, and inherited twice as much as his 2 sisters when his wealthy parents died. One thing I have learned from being in relationship with men from different cultural backgrounds is that the Anglo/American take on masculinity is likely more the exception than the rule in homo sapiens behavior. For instance, my "ex" could say something like "I remember the smell of my father the last time I was able to hug him." with tears in his eyes, and have no sense of having dropped required masculine reserve. And both my wealthy boyhood Iranian "ex" and an African-American boyfriend who boot-strapped himself up from the bottom of socio-economic ladder offered similar commentary on the odd competitive-loner behavior of the average middle-class educated white man in corporate America. It's more widely normal for men to function within bands of brotherhood loyalty.
Anyways, my "ex" related the following story. He was going through a contentious divorce/custody battle, and his ex had hired a top shark divorce attorney to represent her. My "ex" was representing himself, for reasons having to do with arrogance and frugality. On one occasion there was going to be some sort of important negotiation or arbitration, and my "ex" felt like it would be in his self-interest to throw the opposing shark divorce attorney off his game. So, he hustled up behind him in the hallway on the way to the negotiation room and goosed his ass. My "ex" knew he would get away with this, because the uptight American style of masculine dominance which the shark lawyer had ensconced himself in would not permit complaint of victim-hood.
So, the first point I am making by relating this story is that it's not just cultural push towards submission, but also cultural push towards social reserve and individualistic functioning that are contributing to some social dynamics. I would also suggest, after pondering a bit on the functioning of my lifelong jock sister (who is also a huge fan of the book "Lean In" and currently enmeshed in a huge battle at work with a colleague who happens to be female who was threatening her turf), that the main benefit of team sports for females is simply the acquisition of a sisterhood band. Competing as an individual, but from within the protection of a band of loyalty is a huge advantage for anyone. Since I am the oldest of 4 sisters, my mother is literally insanely aggressive, and my father was the born-to-be-supportive-counselor/coach type, I came out of the box with the mandate to take care of all my younger, bratty, pest sisters and whip-ass on any boy who got in the way. It occurred to me that this is why so many novels, such as "Little House on the Prairie" and "Little Women", that were inspirational to young women feature females in sister-only families. So, although I also did not consciously learn about the power dynamics of dominance and submission until mid-life, my problem was very different. To put it in a nutshell, I did not understand why my first husband was unable to co-operate with me, like my younger sisters always eventually did, within the context of our egalitarian marriage. I truly had no perception that I was soft-running the show, because that is how I had always successfully functioned. The notion of allowing some "stupid-head boy" to actually take the lead relative to me was mind-boggling.
Anyways, capiche? And congratulations on finding a girl band of your own
I understand your stories - especially the part where you are puzzled that people don't follow the same scripts that you do! This was the part of my life when it really started to sink in for me that some behavior I accepted from others was, ahem, okay to no longer accept, and my childhood was not perfect.
I will try to describe the scene:
Step-mother (i.e. new to mothering) super hero woman is out with her three girls. The scene focuses on her and the 12 year old. They are in a village (seemingly modeled after southern Italian villages of last century) where a festival is going on. On a dance grid in the middle of the public square there is a line of dancing little boys, and a facing line of dancing little girls. The boys are holding trays of what looks like limp cheese (ew). The little girls select a boy and eat his cheese (subtle, no?). One little boy is rejected by all. He is fat, but also cute enough to gain the audience's sympathy. The mother uses all her authority to force the 12 year old to eat the cheese from the little boy so he isn't sad. The girl is vocally and physically protesting but it doesn't matter - she is bullied into something she doesn't not want with all the authority the mother can muster. The female child's desires are nothing, compared to the feelings of complete (boy) stranger.
This is a toxic, horrible lesson for women. This needs to end - and it certainly should not be in a story aimed at children.
What you say about a tribe makes a lot of sense. I've been reading Nudge lately, and it talks about the power of people thinking what others are doing (i.e. they will do what they think others are doing - hence the importance of not harassing men speaking up and saying "wtf man, don't be a creep" to creepers). It helps to know that there is a band behind oneself. It also helps to know if they can be brave, so, too can you. When some entitled brats are willing to kill women because no one will sleep with them, and women are threatened with death and rape for having a voice, and the number one killer of women is men, well, it is no small thing to face that down.
@sl-owl-orris
That video was awesome. Of course I feel worked up now. I have in the past made big deals about harassment - from yelling back at assholes on the street, to physical grabbing someone who dared to touch me. Having a blackbelt helps. It was frightening, and perhaps not always wise, but also surprising. The person who grabbed me ending whining that I hurt his hand. I was like "Are you for real? Keep it to yourself then."
I also enjoyed the news story about the woman jogger when stabbed her assailant. Men don't (generally) attack other men because ...consequences. I'm all for serious consequences for men who dare to do that to women.
@ffj
More often than not, women don't do things because they are blocked and harassed out of it. We are expected to sacrifice our careers for family. We are excluded from resources that would get us where we need to go. It is a fact. It is also a fact that we are not going to stop talking about it, no matter how much people don't like it. Those days are over. Now that women have some economic umph, we don't have to play as 'nice' with the gatekeepers,
I don't have time (or the desire) to show you detailed stats on violence against women, but I know at least one person on this forum has done the research and the numbers backs it up. This is a world-wide problem. The United States is nothing. How about all those 'missing women' in China?
I think you have mentioned being bullied before. I'm sorry that has happened to you. That, however, does not change the reality every women I know has had to deal with. Myself, and quite a few women I know are done with it. We are going to change things.
I've been following all the discussion on this thread with delight and dread. To this point I have avoided comment because I had little more to offer, but also because the content can be inflaming by nature. I wan to make friends here, not enemies. however, I do have some apparently relevant anecdotal experience regarding women in the workplace, re @CS and @ffj conversation.
I'm a male who works in a traditional female profession (nursing). To this day it's still about 80% female. I've also worked in male dominated fields (finance and others). A fascinating and somewhat disturbing reality is that nurses get treated very poorly, by their own management, by other hospital management, and sometimes by other healthcare professionals. This is interesting considering the educational requirements and employer demand for nursing is similar to, or higher than banking and finance. It's difficult to describe, but, a distinct feeling of "nursing's not important" is ever-present in hospital management policies. Nursing opinions or needs are ignored, sometimes policies are created to outright cause problems for them. Management takes any steps necessary to make sure nurses know their place.
In contrast, there was ever-present ego stroking by management in banking. Every minor concern was addressed and rectified if appropriate. I always felt valued.
I work(ed) for both small and large companies in each field and in different geographic locations. My experience is varied enough to know this observation is valid. IMO peoples perceptions of nursing are much more favorable than bankers, so it's truly curious the disparity in treatment at the workplace. It's certainly possible comparison of only these two fields is not enough evidence to prove a societal gender bias, it could just be specific to these two fields, but it's convinced me.
I agree that the Disney cartoon genre is one of the greatest cultural influences in the continued promotion of the patriarchal institution of the monogamous chattel/dowry marriage meme. So, the message being conveyed in the scene you described would maybe be something like any male who manages to put together bride-price should be able to obtain a bride, even if unwilling/wanting females must be sacrificed to the cause of social harmony via strict enforcement of "noblesse oblige?"
My friend who was a $250/hr girl-friend experience escort had one regular client who weighed around 400 lbs. I noticed that one of the things that made her a natural for the profession was that she had a very low repulsion barrier. I once made the attempt to sexually interact with a man with whom I had carried on a fairly lengthy "literary infatuation" who turned out to be quite repugnant to me in person. Huge fail, but it kind of gave me some empathy into the experience of other better-supervised females who didn't go out ?verb-ing? for the man-candy when they were young. I'm not in any way saying that 1979 Cosmopolitan magazine articles were a good substitute for a sane mother offering kind advice, but it was young me using her own initiative to get something she wanted with something she had, who concocted the plan to get my parents to hire the cute guy (kind of like a young Mick Jagger)I liked to mow the lawn, so I could strut about in my bikini in his presence. Moderate success, until the girl with the perfectly feathered hair who was also a much better speed skater than me stole him away from me.
Anyways, part of the reason I am having a hard time with this discussion is I am at a point in my life where I am trying to process something a very intelligent, very successful female friend once said to me which was that I treat men like pets. So, maybe I am somebody who is guilty of sexual objectification?
CS wrote:We are excluded from resources that would get us where we need to go.
I think this is key, and I believe that it is likely true, even though due to happenstance, interests and personality type I have never had any sort of major experience of sexism, overt or everyday variety, being my primary limiting factor. For instance, I clearly remember one book auction where I was going head to head with this ill-tempered man who was a renowned antiquarian dealer, but the only factors that would have blocked me from winning would have been lack of knowledge/experience/talent or cash reserves. I didn't need access to expensive scientific equipment or somebody's recommendation attached to my resume, etc. etc. My DD26 is much more of a conventional careerist than me (actually liked going to school when she was a child!), so I should probably take an interest on her behalf. I guess my gut reaction would be that maybe women should do more to build alternate power structures at various levels since it's kind of more practical to say "F*ck you. I'm out and I'm taking my marbles with me." than it is to say "F*ck you. Let me in." But, I could be wrong.
I apologize for multiple posting, but I am having difficulty accessing edit key.
I also wanted to note, that the trend I have been seeing in modern literature and culture, outside of Disney movies and other conventional fluff, is a variety of new sexual roles for women. I read one novel in which an affluent older woman is the romantic protector of a younger married impoverished immigrant male, another in which the attractive young male protagonist, who is a bit of a player, is briefly sexually dominated by a much less attractive older female who wants his help to save some children in an African orphanage, and another short story in which a young woman who is hanging out with two male friends talks them into having sex with each other in her presence. I can't for the life of me remember the title of the first novel, but "Children are Diamonds" by Edward Hoaglund, and "The Color Master" by Aimee Bender were both on the 2013 NYT Notable List. The fact that I read these 3 novels in rapid succession a few years ago, along with a couple articles on the topic of polyamory sort of struck me in the same way that suffering several incidents of harassment in the same week struck the woman lecturing in the video. There weren't any characters or scenes like these to be found in 1950s Harlequin female nurse marries male doctor novels. And I don't think the fact that many men do enjoy being dominated or sexually interacting with other men detracts from the evidence of overall change in power dynamic.
In the interest of full disclosure, I feel I must also note that shortly after reading these novels, my girlfriend experience escort friend told me that one of her friends who is a Domme bought an old house in the city and her male submissive clients were helping her fix it up. So, then I kind of came up with a plan for how I could do the same thing even though I am more sexually submissive and only like having sex with good-looking men. So, even though this plan has failed terribly, I am still likely a female who is guilty of sexual misconduct.
My inbox exploded early this morning as rumors of Lauer's firing made the rounds. There's a weird 'now they've gone too far' vibe to them. The press corps in general has been feeling (and sometimes indulging in feeling) victimized this year and has been on the defensive. It's strange that they were all over the sexual misconduct stories until it made it into newsrooms. Halperin and Rose were infamous for their behavior, but now accusations are going deeper and people feel threatened. A journalist made an on-air comment the other day that (paraphrasing) news quality would suffer if too many good journalists were fired, as if that was a reason to keep them around.
Lauer's firing was swift and decisive so there must be either ironclad evidence or several women came forward at once. I wish DC would follow suit. It's beyond frustrating to me that while guys like Lauer can be fired, we (the people) have to rely on politicians in DC to fire each other or themselves. Sure we can vote them out of office but that takes time. How many zero tolerance policies have they enacted in other realms yet don't subject themselves to the same standard?
Look at it this way ... if an employee at Walmart took a picture like Franken's with a sleeping coworker in the break room and it went public, would they be fired? Would you at your job? Would 'humor' be an acceptable excuse?
I'm not trying to single out Franken, only using it as an example of how the rules apply to everyone but politicians.
We are expected to sacrifice our careers for family.
Complaining about this makes me mad, because we are expected to sacrifice our family for our career. And anyway, no one (men or women) can have both.
Or do you mean that women are pushed toward one sacrifice instead of the other?
There is now an unofficial list circulating of who might be outed next. At this point almost everyone is on it. I'm not going to post it, but there's one big politician and one late night personality getting upvoted more than I would have expected.
I'm honestly a little embarrassed about how nasty some journos are acting in private about this. They should know more than anyone that nothing is private. If some of this stuff came out, it wouldn't look good.
note: I wasn't sure whether to post this here or in the politicking thread. I decided here because I have a new post coming to the politicking thread as soon as I can get a couple more confirmations and I don't want to clog that one.
That was a great video, for the first few minutes, then she tried to tie the first part, the problem, to the second part, the generic feminist solution.
Let me backtrack slightly. The standard feminist solution talks about the discrepancy between representation of men and women in particular fields. As though fixing that, would fix this.
It might. Certainly worth the effort to try, and don't let anything I am about to say detract from that.
But...
This seems to very clearly be a different problem. In each of these stories, this is a problem in a public, or semipublic place, between strangers. In each case, a man treats a woman who is a stranger, as an object. In an environment they will both leave soon.
"Ahah!" I hear you say, "this is just what we've been talking about, objectification of women!"
Yes, slowly, I have at page 9, started to put together what you are talking about, but, being me, I'll start by telling you that you are wrong.
Not significantly wrong, but as I see it, this is a problem of objectification. Not so much objectification of women, as objectification of everyone, with particularly negative results for women.
This is a small detail, but critical to understanding the problem, and, probably one of the reasons I was so far off in my take on the subject of the thread.
When people interact in a environment they are in, but not of, they tend to treat the people in that environment as part of the environment. Hence talking about the busty girl a meter away, as though she were a vending machine in a bra. She may as well be.
They aren't hitting on her. They aren't actually interested in her at all, other than serving as a form of mobile obstacle with attention grabbing features. They aren't talking to her, she is part of the environment. Now if she talks back, then she can be of interest, but as she walks away, and they carry the bricks up to the scaffolding, and everyone goes about their day, she is already forgotten.
Which may sound dehumanizing, degrading, foul, or something. But there it is. Humans are very interested in humans, but are very good at dehumanizing anyone not of the tribe. And the tribe has defined upper limits on numbers.
The denser the population, the more quickly this reflexive urge to dehumanize kicks in. I've talked about this before when talking about urban vs rural people, but again this will happen wherever people are. If you choose to live where population density is high, you have selected for this behavior. Sometimes it is displayed sexually, sometimes as just indifference, or aggression, having more to do with the problems of the aggressor than the presentation of the target.
You can't dress to eliminate this. You can't walk in a way to eliminate this. You can't be more assertive to eliminate this. I sincerely doubt that you can even educate this away. This is what comes of evolving out of a tribe.
Which is not saying it's anyone's fault. Yes, it would be nice if people were better at being people. If by default, we recognized the common person on the street as having real value and real problems, and worthy of our attention. But then, the more people there are, the more demanding this is.
Not an incredibly useful insight, but there it is. If random strangers act in a way that disrupts your peace of mind, you need to fix this.
My fix was to move to the sticks, where I may meet strangers, but there is no expectation that a stranger I meet will stay a stranger. This disrupts the urge to dehumanize. It's not that rural folks are more polite than city folks. It's that city folks have an expectation of anonymity. The expectation that you will go your way, I will go mine, and never again shall we meet.
This isn't the only solution, just the easiest, and most practical for me.
If you have this problem, I guess you can get a thicker skin. Or minimize your exposure to casual strangers. Or, go out in groups and actively engage everyone you meet.
Which is just a kinda crappy set of solutions. Sorry, I wish I had something better to offer.
I'm honestly a little embarrassed about how nasty some journos are acting in private about this.
Well, the pervnado was good for business when it was focused on Hollywood and DC. But now that it's turning towards the media world it threatens their livelihoods. How many journalists knew all about Lauer (and others) but said nothing about it while selling themselves as speaking truth to power? At best, how does that reflect on their trustworthiness? At worst, does it now expose them to civil liability?
Hollywood, Washington, Newsrooms -- lots of long-time power players are running scared these days. A neutral observer might even think the swamp is being drained. It just turned out to be a bipartisan effort after all.
No one liked Lauer but I'd never heard anything specific. I agree that it makes them look complicit at a time when they are fighting the 'fake news' wrap. If you go back and watch the Lauer interview with Bill O'Reilly after the sexual harassment allegations, it comes across very differently now that the allegations about Lauer have come out.
