#that time that human feminists were outraged that all the transformers were men (which like. again. this is a conservative idiot but it just

[unidentifiedfuckingthing]

i think actually theres transformers who are trans and normal about it. including the canon trans characters. not including the one who only exists because of simon furmans incredible hate boner against women existing in any media. but im partial to people who seem like they would have really severe gender issues

[criticalotterstudies]

To Dworkin's admirers, she was a hot-rod combination of martyr and holy warrior, a survivor of sexual abuse who dared to speak truth to power. To her critics, she was a raging harpy who rose up out of nowhere, intent on taking away their porn and (some of the male ones vaguely suspected) their manhood. With law professor Catharine MacKinnon she wrote an ordinance (passed by the city of Indianapolis) that defined pornography as a kind of speech crime that violated the civil rights of all women -- the law was later overturned as unconstitutional. She testified before the infamous Meese Commission on pornography, forming what many saw as a dangerous alliance with the radical right. She was said to have written that all heterosexual intercourse was the equivalent of rape, though she denied that the passage in question amounted to such a claim.

Dworkin was a gifted, galvanizing communicator, both in print and as a public speaker. She was the Jonathan Edwards of radical feminism, capable of calling ecstatic souls to her cause, transforming her listeners and readers in ways many of them never forgot, even if they eventually came to disagree with her. (See Susie Bright's eloquent eulogy for an example.) She could inspire impromptu Take Back the Night marches and the instant formation of anti-violence groups, sincere efforts to do something to check the abuse that real women really do suffer every day, even if the response to it in this case was more ideological than practical.

But Dworkin was also a pioneer of a particular and pernicious type of rhetoric, one currently being used much more effectively by talk radio hosts and the extreme political right. Here's a classic example: During the Monica Lewinsky scandal, Dworkin quarreled with feminists who did not consider Bill Clinton's sexual encounters with the White House intern to be sufficiently exploitative to merit impeachment. A principled, reasonable argument could be made that Clinton's behavior was unethical, but Dworkin was never about reason. "What needs to be asked," she told a British journalist, "is, was the cigar lit?"

The statement (it seems too sensationalistic to be called a quip) is pure Dworkin: a ghoulishly creative melodramatic flourish that has little bearing on the matter at hand. Clinton may have acted sleazily, with a callous disregard for the emotional consequences of his actions on a young woman who was too naive and eager-to-please to grasp them herself, but no one suspects or has accused him of sadistically torturing her. Yet Dworkin was never able to enter into a conversation about morality unless the stakes were escalated to the stratosphere. The everyday realm where most of us commit our minor sins against, and injuries to, each other didn't really interest her. She only cared for the Grand Guignol.

Dworkin came out of and contributed to a subculture of feminism that specialized in this kind of irresponsible overstatement. A certain style developed: Throw out a handful of lurid, grisly anecdotes as if they amounted to an indictment of an entire class of people (usually men), who, if the worst of them can be shown to be guilty of such outrages, must all be equally responsible for them. The shock will soften your audience up enough to keep them from asking just how typical such atrocities really are and how widely condoned. Yes, they do happen, but like the handful of kidnapped little girls during the summer of 2002, such horrors can be made to seem epidemic when they're actually a rarity. Meanwhile, the much less exciting, if far more common, troubles of women who are simply trying to feed their children on inadequate wages, or get a decent job, fall by the wayside.

After this came the dodgy statistics, the one out of every four women said to have been raped in her lifetime, the alleged upsurge in domestic violence reports after the Super Bowl, and other mediagenic numbers. If these "facts" later turned out to be wobbly (or, in the case of the Super Bowl story, an outright hoax), many women's advocates rarely seemed to grasp the damage they'd done. After all, they were only calling attention to real, pervasive problems, which rape and domestic violence unquestionably are.

But here's the rub: If you get sloppy with the truth, then anyone who doesn't feel like dealing with those problems can happily devote himself to quibbling with your numbers instead. Does it really matter that much whether it's one women in four who will be raped, or one woman in 10? Or 20? It's still too many, and it needs to be stopped. Good luck getting that done while everyone's busy arguing about your stats.

The ravaged, bruised and mutilated women who parade through Dworkin's writings can seem as insubstantial as these numbers. As described by her, they're like the characters in an urban legend or campfire story, like the girl who finds the bloodied hook hanging from the car door handle. She tells their stories with an unseemly relish, and they're portrayed as completely and utterly helpless and abject, with no one to turn to but their equally brutalized yet indomitable champion. "Heartbreak" professes to be the testament of someone who has devoted herself to abused women, but the only three-dimensional human being who emerges from the book's Sturm und Drang is Dworkin herself. It's a mistake to equate a writer's work with how she lives her life, so let us hope that, in person, Dworkin managed to treat these women as more than rescue objects.

Perhaps in recent years Dworkin was pleased to see support for her own ideas in the theories of evolutionary psychologists who argue for the innate aggression of male sexuality, and even go so far as to suggest that men are born to rape. Probably not, though; she would have likely seen it as an excuse to go on raping. The very opposite of self-reflective, she never reconsidered her position on porn, so she surely never wondered what all the time and energy feminists spent on the "Sex Wars" of the 1980s might have accomplished if it had been redirected toward helping abused women gain the financial and emotional wherewithal to reclaim their lives. Her contribution to the discussion on most issues failed the ultimate litmus test: Even when she was right, she made the public conversation stupider. (Though some of her opponents, who could rarely resist ad hominem remarks about her appearance, surpassed her even in that.)

https://www.salon.com/2005/04/12/dworkin_3/

[nataandreev]

Fragments from “Sister Outsider” Essays & Speeches by Audre Lorde

“Sister Outsider” was probably one of the most soul-fucking-searching book I ever read in my life. It made me question what I stand for so many times, that it made me sick to my stomach. I realized that I am not that good at this self-reflective-shit.

That my efforts of doing better are not anywhere close to where they should be. Audre Lorde taught me through her works that I got a lot of work to do. Like a lot. Her truth cuts deep. She has no mercy and her opinions are raw. They are hard to swallow. There were moments when I had to pause, because I wasn’t fully understanding it and weird enought I finished to read it today, February 18, 2020, on her birthday. Audre would’ve turn today 86 yo. Here are just a few fragments from the book, but, please, if you can read the whole thing. 

Biography:

Audre Lorde is an American writer, feminist, womanist, librarian, and civil rights activist. As a poet, she is best known for technical mastery and emotional expression, as well as her poems that express anger and outrage at civil and social injustices she observed throughout her life. Her poems and prose largely deal with issues related to civil rights, feminism, lesbianism, illness and disability, and the exploration of black female identity via Wikipedia.

⁃ Poetry Is Not a Luxury

We are all more blind to what we have than to what we have not. The white fathers told us: I think therefore I am. The Black mother within each of us-the poet-whispers in our dreams: I feel, therefore I can be free. ⁃ The Transformation of Silence into Language and Action For within living structures defined by profit, by linear power, by institutional dehumanization, our feelings were not meant to survive. Kept around as unavoidable adjuncts or pleasant pastimes, feelings were expected to kneel to thought as women were expect to kneel to men. But women have survived. As poets. And there are no new pains. We have felt them all already. We have hidden that fact in the same place where we have hidden our power. They surface in our dreams, and it is our dreams that point the way to freedom. In becoming forcibly and essentially aware of my mortality, and of what I wished and wanted for my life, however short it might be, priorities and omissions became strongly etched in a merciless light, and what I most regretted were my silences. And I began to recognize a source of power within myself that comes from the knowledge that while it is most desirable not to be afraid, learning to put fear into a perspective gave me great strength. “Tell them about how you’re never really a whole person if you remain silent, because there’s always that one little piece inside you that wants to be spoken out, and if you keep ignoring it, it gets madder and madder and hotter, and if you don’t speak it out one day it will punch you in the mouth from the inside.” Because the machine will try to grind you into dust anyway, whether or not we speak. We can sit in our corners mute forever while our sisters and our selves are wasted, while our children are distorted, while our earth is poisoned; we can sit in our safe corners mute as bottles, and we will still be no less afraid. ⁃ Scratching the Surface: Some Notes on Barriers to Women and Loving The above forms of human blindness (racism, sexism, heterosexism and homophobia) stem from the same root - an inability to recognize the notion of difference as a dynamic human force, one which is enriching rather than threatening to define self, when there are shared goals. This kind of action is a prevalent error among oppressed peoples. It is based upon the false notion that there is only a limited and particular amount of freedom that must be divided up between us, with the largest and juiciest pieces of liberty going as spoils to the victor or the strongest. So instead of joining together to fight for more, we quarrel between ourselves for a larger slice of the one pie. ⁃ Uses of the Erotic: The Erotic as Power* In order to perpetuate itself, every oppression must corrupt or distort those various sources of power within the culture of oppressed that can provide energy for change. The erotic is a measure between the beginnings of our sense of self and the chaos of our strongest feelings. It is an internal sense of satisfaction to which, once we experienced it, we know we can aspire. The principal horror of any system which defines the good in terms of profit rather than in terms of human need, or which defines human need to the exclusion of the psychic and emotional components of that need - the principal horror of such a s system is that it robs our work of its erotic value, it’s erotic power and life appeal and fulfillment. Such a system reduces work to a travesty of necessities, a duty by which we earn bread or oblivion for ourselves and those we love. But this is tantamount to blinding a painter and then telling her to improve her work, and to enjoy the act of painting. It is not only next to impossible, it is also profoundly cruel. That self-connection shared is a measure of the joy which I know myself to be capable of feeling, a reminder of my capacity for feeling. And that deep and irreplaceable knowledge of my capacity for joy comes to demand from all of my life that it be lived within the knowledge that such satisfaction is possible, and does not have to be called marriage , nor god , nor an afterlife. ⁃ Sexism: An American Disease in Blackface Black feminism is not white feminism in blackface. Black women have particular and legitimate issues which affect our lives as Black women, and addressing those issues does not make us any less Black. Now I am sure there are still some Black men who marry white women because they feel a white woman can better fit the model of “femininity” set forth in this country. As Black women and men, we cannot hope to begin dialogue by denying the oppressive nature of male privilege. And if Black makes choose to assume that privilege for whatever reason- raping,brutalizing, and killing Black women- then ignoring these acts of Black male oppression within our communities can only serve our destroyers. One oppression does not justify another. As people, we most certainly must work together. It would be shortsighted to believe that Black men alone are to blame for the above situations in a society dominated by white male privilege. But the Black male consciousness must be raised to the realization that sexism and woman-hating are critically dysfunctional to his liberation as Black man because they arise out of the same constellation that engenders racism and homophobia. ⁃ Man Child: A Black Lesbian Feminist’s Response Men who are afraid to feel must keep women around to do their feeling for them while dismissing us for the same supposedly “inferior “ capacity to feel deeply. But in this way also, men deny themselves their own essential humanity, becoming trapped in dependency and fear. “The next time you come in here crying ...,” and I suddenly caught myself in horror. This is the way we allow the destruction of our sons to begin in the name of protection and to ease our own pain. My son get beaten up? I was about to demand that he buy that first lesson in the corruption of power, that might makes right I could hear my cell beginning to perpetuate the age old distortions about what strength and ready bravery really are. It is hard for our children to believe that we are not only potent as it is for us to know it, as parents. But that knowledge is necessary as the first step in the reassessment of power as something other than might, age, privilege, or the lack of fear. It is important to step for a boy, whose societal destruction begins when he’s forced to believe that he can only be strong if he doesn’t feel, or if he wins. ⁃ An interview: Audre Lorde and Adrienne Rich They were very streetwise, but they had done very little work with themselves as Black women. They had done it only in relation to, against, whitey. The enemy was always outside. I did that course in the same way I did all the others, which was learning as I went along, asking the hard questions, not knowing what was coming next. The learning process is something you can incite, literally incite, like a riot. And then, just possibly, hopefully, it goes home, or on. I knew, as I had always known, that the only way you can head people off from using who you are against you is to be honest and open first, to talk about yourself before they talk about you. It wasn’t even courage. Speaking up was a protective mechanism for myself. The Black mother who is the poet exists in everyone of us. Now when males or patriarchal thinkers (whether male or a female) reject a combination, then we are truncated. Rationality is not necessary. It serves the chaos of knowledge. It serves feeling. It servers to get from this place to that place. But if you don’t honor those places, then the road is meaningless. Because we cannot fight old power in old power terms only. The only way we can do it is by creating another whole structure that touches every aspect of our existence, at the same time as we are resisting. There are different choices facing Black and white women in life, certain specifically different pitfalls surrounding us because of our experiences, our color. Not only are some of the problems that face us dissimilate, but some of the entrapments in the weapons used to neutralizers are not the same. I wish we could explore this more , about you and me, but also in general. I think it needs to be talked about, written about it: the differences in alternatives or choices we are offered as black and white women. There is a danger of seeing it in an all or nothing way. I think it’s very complex thing done what women are constantly offer choices or the appearance of choices but also real choices that are undeniable. We don’t always perceive the difference between the two. But documentation does not help one perceive. At best it only analyzes the perception that at worst, it provides a screen by which to avoid concentrating on the court revelation, following it down to how it feels. Again, knowledge and understanding. They can function in concert, but they don’t replace each other. But I am not rejecting your need for documentation. I can document the road to Abomey for you, and true, you might not get there without that information. I can respect what you are saying. But once you get there, only you know why, what you came for, as you search for it and perhaps find it. So at certain stages that request documentation as a blinder, a questioning of my perceptions. Someone once said to me that I hadn’t documented the goddess in Africa, the woman bond that moves throughout The Black Unicorn. I had to laugh. I am a poet, not a historian. I’ve shared my knowledge, I hope. Now you go documented it, if you, if you wish. I was holding back because I had not asked myself the question: “Why is women loving women so frightening to black men unless they want to assume the white male position?” It was a question of how much I could bear, and of not realizing I could bear more than I thought I could at the time. It was also a question of how could I use that perception other than just in rage or destruction. What understanding begins to do is to make knowledge available for use, and that’s the urgency, that’s the push , that’s the drive. That you had to understand what you knew and also make it available to others. ⁃ Master’s Tools For women, the need and desire to nurture each other is not pathological but redemptive, and it is within that knowledge that our real power is rediscovered. It is this real connection which is so feared by a patriarchal world. Only within a patriarchal structure is maternity the only social power open to women. Interdependency between women is the way to a freedom which allows the I to be, not in order to be used, but in order to be creative. This is the difference between the passive be and the active being. For the master’s tools will never dismantle the master’s house. They may allow us temporarily to beat him at his own game, but they will never enable us to bring about genuine change. And this fact is only threatening to those women who still define the master’s house as their only source of support. If white American feminist theory need not deal with the difference in oppressions, then how do you deal with the fact that the women who clean your houses and tend your children while you attend conferences on feminist theory are, for the most part, poor women and women of color? What is the theory behind racist feminism. The failure of academic feminists to recognize difference as a crucial strength is a failure to reach beyond the first patriarchal lesson. In our world, divide and conquer must become define and empower. In academic feminist circles, the answer to these questions is often, “We did not know who to ask.” But that is the same evasion of responsibility, the same cop-out, that keeps Black women’s art out of women’s exhibitions, Black women’s work out of most feminist publications except for the occasional “Special Third World Women’s Issue,” and Black women’s texts off your reading lists. But as Adrienne Rich pointed out in a recent talk, white feminists have educated themselves about such an enormous amount over the past ten years, how come you haven’t also educated yourselves about Black women and the difference between us-white and Black-when it is key to our survival as a movement? Women of today are still being called upon to stretch across the gap of male ignorance and to educate men as to our existence and our needs. This is an old and primary tool of all oppressors to keep the oppressed occupied with the master’s concerns. Now we hear that it is the task of women of Color to educate white women-in the face of tremendous resistance-as to our existence, our differences, our relative roles in our joint survival. This is a diversion of energies and a tragical repetition of racist patriarchal thought. Simone de Beauvoir once said: “It is in the knowledge of the genuine conditions of our lives that we must draw our strength to live and our reasons for acting.” Racism and homophobia are real conditions of all our lives in this place and time. I urge each one of us here to reach down into that deep place of knowledge inside herself and touch that terror and loathing of any difference that lives there. See whose face it wears. Then the personal as the political can begin to illuminate all our choices. ⁃ Age, Race, Class, and Sex: Women Redefining Difference Black and Third World people are expected to educate white people as to our humanity. Women are expected to educate men. Lesbians and gay men are expected to educate the heterosexual world. The oppressors maintain their position and evade responsibility for their own actions. There is a constant drain of energy which might be better used in redefining ourselves and devising realistic scenarios for altering the present and constructing the future. Too often , we pour the energy needed for recognizing and exploring difference into pretending those differences are insourmountable barriers, or that they do you not exist at all. The results in a voluntary isolation or false and treacherous connections. Either way, we did not develop tools for using human difference as a springboard for a creative change within our lives. We speak not of human difference but if human deviance. By and large within the women’s movement today, white women focus upon their oppression as women and ignore differences of race, sexual preference, class, and age. There is a pretense to a homogeneity of experience covered by the world sisterhood that does not in fact exist. Unacknowledged class differences rob women of each other’s energy and creative insight. By ignoring the past, we are encouraged to repeat its mistakes. The “generation gap” is an important social tool for any repressive society. If the younger members of a community view the older members as contemptible or suspect or excess, they will never be able to join hands and examine the living memories of the community nor ask the all important question, “Why?” This gives rise to a historical amnesia that keeps us working to invent the wheel every time we have to go to the store for bread. Ignoring the differences of race between women and the implications of those differences presents the most serious threat to the mobilization of women’s joint power. As white women ignore their built-in privilege of whiteness and define and woman in terms of their own experience alone then women of color become “other,” the outsider whose experience and tradition is too “alien” to comprehend. Refusing to recognize differences makes it impossible to see the different problems and pitfalls facing us as women. The tokenism that is sometimes extended to us is not an invitation to join power; our racial “otherness” is a visible reality that makes that quite clear. For white women there is a wider range of pretended choices and rewards for identifying with patriarchical power and its tools. Today, with the defeat of ERA, the tightening economy, and increased conservatism It is easier once again for white women to believe the dangerous fantasy that if you are good enough pretty enough sweet enough quite enough teach the children to behave hate the right people and married the right man then you will be allowed to coexist with patriarchy in relative peace at least until a man needs your job or the neighborhood rapist happens along and true unless one lives in loves in the trenches it is difficult to remember that the war against dehumanization is senseless. Some problems we share as women, some we do not. You fear your children will grow up to join the patriarchy and testify against you we fear our children will be dragged from a car and shut down in the street and you turn your backs up on the reasons why they’re dying. Within black communities where racism is a living reality, differences among us often seem dangerous and suspect. The need for unity is often misnamed as a need for homogeneity, and a black feminist vision mistaken for betrayal of our common interests as people. Because of the continuous battle against a racial erasure the black women and black men share, some black women still refused to recognize that we are also opressed as women and that sexual hostility against black women as practiced not only by the white racist society but implemented within our black communities as well. It is a disease striking the heart of black nation of hood and silence will not make it disappear. Exacerbated by racism and the pressures of powerlessness, violence against black women and children often becomes a standard within our communities, one by which manliness can be measured. But this woman-hating acts are rarely discussed as crimes against black women. “As long as male domination exists, rape will exist. Only women revolting and men made conscience of their responsibility to fight sexism can collectively stop rape.” - Kalamu ya Salaam, a black male writer Black women who once insisted that lesbianism was a white woman’s problem now insist that black lesbians are a threat to black nationhood, are consorting with the enemy, are basically on un-black. These accusations, coming from the very women to whom we look for deep and real understanding, have served to keep many black lesbians in hiding, caught between the racism of white women and the homophobia of their sisters. What are the particular details within each of our lives that can be scrutinized and altered to help bring about change? How do we redefine difference for all women? It is not our differences which separate women, but our reluctance to recognize those differences and to deal effectively with the distortion which have resulted from the ignoring and misnaming of those differences. All of us have had to learn to live or work Or coexist with men from our fathers on. We have recognized and negotiated this differences, even when this recognition only continued the old dominant/subordinate mode of human relationship, where the oppressed must recognize the masters’ difference in order to survive. But our future survival predicated upon our ability to relate within equality. As women we must root our internalize patterns of oppression within ourselves if we are to move beyond the most superficial aspects of social change. Now we must recognize differences among women who are our equals, neither inferior nor superior, and devise ways to each to others’ difference to enrich our visions and our joint struggles. ⁃ The Uses of Anger: Women Responding to Racism Guilt and defensiveness are bricks in a wall against which we all flounder; they serve none of our futures. ⁃ Learning from the 60s When we disagreed with one another about the solution to a particular problem, we were often far more vicious to each other than to the originators of our common problem. We forget that the necessary ingredients needed to make the past work for the future is our energy in the present, metabolizing one into the other. Continuity does not happen automatically, nor is it a passive process. That is how I learned that if I didn’t define myself for myself, I would be crunched into other people’s fantasies for me and eaten alive. My poetry, my life, my work, my energies for struggle were not acceptable unless I pretended to match somebody’s else’s norm. I learned that not only couldn’t I succeed at that game, but the energy needed for that masquerade would be lost to my work. We are functioning under government ready to repeat in El Salvador and Nicaragua the tragedy of Vietnam, a government which stands on the wrong side of every single battle for liberation taking place upon this globe. Decisions to cut aid for the terminally eel, for the elderly, for dependent children, for food stamps, even school lunches, are being made by men with full stomachs who live in comfortable houses with two cars and umpteen tax shelters. None of them go hungry to bed at night. Recently, it was suggested that senior citizens be hired to work in atomic plants because they’re close to the end of their lives anyway. Revolution is not a one time event. It is becoming always vigilant for the smallest opportunity to make a genuine change in established, outgrown responses; for instants, it is learning to address each other’s difference with respect. You do not have to be me in order for us to fight alongside each other.I do not have to be you to recognize that they were Warriors are the same.what we must do is commit ourselves to some future that can include each other and to work toward that future it with the particular strength of our individual identities dot and the other in an order to do this, we must allow each other our differences at the same time as we recognize our sameness. ⁃ Eye to Eye: Black Women, Hatred and Anger It is easier to deal with the external manifestations of racism and sexism then it is to deal with the results of those distortions internalized within our consciousness of ourselves and one another. Anger - a passion of displeasure that may be excessive or misplaced but not necessarily harmful. Hatred - and emotional habit or attitude of mine in which aversion is coupled with ill will. Anger, used, does not destroy. Hatred does. Growing up, metabolizing hatred like a daily bread. Because I’m black, because I’m a woman, because I’m not black enough, because I am not some particular fantasy of a woman, because I AM. On such a consistent diet one can eventually come to value the hatred of one’s enemies more than one values the love of friends, for that hatred becomes the source of anger, and anger as a powerful fuel. Anger is useful to help clarify our differences, but in the long run, strength that is bred by anger alone as a blind fours which cannot create the future. It can only demolish the past. Such strength does not focus upon what lies ahead, but up on what lies behind, upon what created it - hatred. And hatred is a deathwish for the hated, not to a lifewish for anything else. For example: At this point in time, were racism to be totally eradicated from those middle range relationships between black women and white women, those relationships might become deeper, but they would still never satisfy our particular black woman’s need for one another, given our shared knowledge and traditions and history. There are two very different struggles involved here. One is the war against racism in white people, and the other is the need for black women to confront and wade through the racist constructs underlying our deprivation of each other. and this battles are not at all the same. Most of the black women I know think I cry too much, or that I am to public about it. I’ve been told that crying makes me seem soft and therefore of little consequence. As if our softness has to be the price we pay out for power, rather than simply the one that’s paid most easily and most often. “Don’t trust white people because they mean us no good and don’t trust anyone darker than you because they are hearts are as black as their faces.” (And where did that leave me, the darkest one?) it is painful even now to write it down. How many messages like that come down to all of us, and in how many different voices, how many different ways? And how can we expunge these messages from our consciousness without first recognizing what it was they were saying, and how destructive they were? When there is no connection at all between people, then anger is a way of bringing them closer together, of making contact. but when there is a great deal of connectedness that is problematic or threatening or acknowledged, then anger is a way of keeping people separate and putting distance between us. That’s because we sometimes rise to each other‘s defense against outsiders, we do not need to look at devaluation and dismissal among ourselves. Support against outsider is very different from cherishing each other. We refused to give up the artificial distances between us, or to examine all real differences for creative exchange. I am too different for us to communicate. Meaning, I must establish myself as not you. And the road to anger is paid with our unexpressed fear of each other’s judgment. ⁃ Grenada Revisited: An Interim Report This short, undeclared, and cynical weren’t against Granada is not a new direction for American foreign policy. It is merely a blatant example of 160 year old course of action called the Monroe doctrine. In its name America has invaded small Caribbean and Central American countries over and over again since 1823, cloaking this invasion is under a variety of names. 38 such invasion secured prior to 1917 before the Soviet Union even existed. I am only a relative. I must listen long and hard and ponder the implications of what I have heard, or be guilty of the same quick arrogance of the US government in believing their external solutions to Granados future.

[chihuahua-books]

Tactical Emasculation and Predatory Male Feminism

The lineage of human males supportive of feminist causes is a long and distinguished one. Recently, though, the phenomenon has gone through a radical transformation, devolving into a syndrome that I am transitorily christening as PVCTE™ (i.e. Predator Vibe Concealing Tactical Emasculation).

Feminism as a movement is really, really hard to pin down. It is rather a stockpile of ideologies, movements and policy causes mostly geared towards obtaining equality of opportunities for the sexes. This is, of course, the encyclopedia definition, and from there we ought to venture into muddier waters as there are three stages in the feminist timeline, i.e. first wave, second wave, and third wave.

First wave feminism is a child of the Enlightenment. In my opinion, it is best embodied by Mary Wollstonecraft, whose 1792 seminal work, A Vindication of the Rights of Woman, you can read here for free. Wollstonecraft wrote in a commonsensical way and asserted that women weren't inferior to men though appeared to be due to lack of education, and that the right thing was to treat both men and women as rational beings. As Enlightenment goes, Wollstonecraft dreamed of a social order based on reason and, because of that, it is difficult to call her only a feminist, for her work is undoubtedly a pillar of political significance and gave birth to the suffragettes. The fruits of first wave feminism consisted of changes to discriminatory laws, mainly voting, property ownership, etc. As male supporters of the movement we can count many, all men of intellect, repute and dignity, e.g. Bernhard Wise and William Hughes, politicians who eventually gave Australia what first wave feminists were after. Mind you, historical records show that they gathered with Australian suffragettes and discussed political issues, while being normal males with wives and children.

Second wave feminism took a step further, and its starting point is generally attributed to Betty Friedan's 1963 bookThe Feminine Mystique, which you can read for free here. This is the era when contraception was made available in the West, revolutionizing the sex life of everyone, and Friedan kind of went astray about what women's freedom of choice means by saying that the role of women in the nuclear family did not reflect happiness and was degrading for women. Still, and despite nutjobs like Valerie Solanas, second wave feminism had valuable fruits, namely the introduction of paid maternity leave, greater access to education, help with child care, and laws against domestic violence and sexual harassment. Among the valiant male supporters of these changes were John F. Kennedy and Justice Brennan (see Eisenstadt v. Baird Supreme Court decision), both of them well functioning males whose last interest was to creep around among the feminists.

This brings us to third wave feminism and, to be honest, the circus clown broke loose and everything went to hell in a hand basket. This is the stage of cult-like doctrines like intersectionality, postmodernist mumbo jumbo about oppression, and power struggles cemented more on Marxism than on the interest of equality. While first-wave and second-wave feminism achieved concrete and actionable legislative gains in the fight for the dignity of women, third-wave has achieved nothing of worth, to be honest. Despite being a meme for shits and giggles, the following summarizes it perfectly:

It is, frankly, identity politics, which is an offshoot of failed Marxists like Foucault, Derrida, and Marcuse. Unlike its predecessors, third wave feminism stands not on the ground of reason and human dignity but on anti-scientific propaganda and an outright paranoia. If today's third wave feminists would honestly look at themselves, clean up their minds from Crenshaws and Butlers, they would realize that there is little more to fight for in the West, and that the fruits of first and second wave feminism have not reached all the corners of the world, namely Africa and the Middle East. The fact that they are fully oblivious to that, and that even ally themselves with medieval ideologues against the tolerance, pro-science and sex equality of the West, tells you the caliber of their "feminism".

And, how about the male feminists? For the first and second wave movements we counted just a few of the high minded, noble and well-functioning males who could have continued to enjoy the fruits of their social stature, but, instead, chose to sacrifice time with their wives and children and placed their political careers in peril in order to stand arm to arm with the true feminists, and they fought together with them, as equals, the good fight that has brought to Western women the comforts, advantages, and freedoms they enjoy today. Here's a good summary of who the male feminists are:

If third wave feminism is about oppression, and its enemy is the cis white patriarchy, then the only logical avenue to be a male feminist is to voluntarily be emasculated. It makes no sense otherwise. Because, and this is a fact, being a male feminist can get you laid. Period. Check just a few of these so-called "male allies": Sam Kriss, Tayler Malka,Rupert Myers, Mike Hafford, Andy Signore, Harry Knowles, Jamie Kilstein, Devin Faraci, and the list goes on. These are dudes who just can't get enough of trumpeting all over the world how feminist they are, how men should shut up and listen and believe women, and why everyone with a penis is a rapist, an oppressor, and a scumbag.

Do you notice a pattern here? Go ahead, take a careful look at the photos, articles, and videos of these dudes I just mentioned. Then go through the videos of triggered snowflakes at university riots against free speech. Yes, I know you can see it. It is right there in front of your eyes, whether you can verbalize it or not right now. They all give that creepy vibe of the dude who feels incapable of being a man, of climbing the dominance hierarchy in order to gain confidence and have access to females. They all look slightly feminized, submissive and carry with shame some characteristic usually linked with unmanliness: ugliness, extra weight, awkward posture, unkept beard, stuttering, intellectual shortness, etc. Their way of bypassing those obstacles is to virtue signal like police sirens, walk around women like puppies on a leash, and through those maneuvers gain the confidence of some brainwashed, outraged, and vociferous feminist with pink hair and face piercing... and then get into her pants. But since they are frankly awkward and creepy persons, they end up screwing up by getting rough and fumbling. That is not to say, though, that by the time they got accused and exposed, they got to score like crazy.

But don't get me wrong. Those dudes are true predators. And since predators have a stench to them, an unmistakable macabre vibe, they temporarily emasculate themselves as a tactic to get near to their victims. Hence the term Predator Vibe Concealing Tactical Emasculation. Damn, I'm sending that to the DSM-5 for its inclusion among the paraphilia collection!

[eurello]

Media Diet, Week of April 19th

I am forever working on improving the quality of the deluge of culture I am taking in at all times. Lately, I’ve been especially rigorous about this, as I keep realizing exactly how much valuable time I am wasting slurping up really dumb stuff. In an attempt at accountability (and to make myself ashamed to spend too much time on anything purely dumb), I am going to try logging and posting about the culture I consume. I will analyze what attracts me to the trashier things, and attempt to train myself, little by little, day by day, into better habits.  

Sunday, April 19th:

As I was getting ready and making breakfast, I listened to podcasts as usual — the end of Oh No, Ross & Carrie, and the beginning of Baby Geniuses. I enjoy both of these podcasts a lot, and I think they are good things to listen to, although this particular episode of ONRC went on for too long. I have gone through phases of listening to a lot of political podcasts, but I have recently admitted to myself that I’m not that interested in politics, and that is perfectly fine. I think it’s important for a citizen to remain up to date and aware of what is going on, but I have this sort of weird feeling that smart people are obsessed with politics? And I don’t know why I feel that way. There’s nothing especially noble or intelligent about political governance; quite the opposite most of the time. Politicians are often venal, and even if when they aren’t, the more time you spend paying attention to the largely broken processes they attempt to navigate and massage every day, the worse it probably is for your own sense of hope, and certainly for your own creativity. So I’ve let myself off the hook on this one, and now I mostly listen to humor podcasts and weird fictional things.

As I drank my breakfast (smoothie/coffee) and procrastinated at doing something more worthwhile, I spent probably two hours on Twitter, Instagram, and various websites. This is becoming a big problem for me. On Twitter, I follow mostly comedy writers, liberals, feminists, black Twitter, and weird Twitter (and intersections of all of the above), and some local political organizations. I tweeted a lot this morning, as well. On Instagram, I follow a lot of the same people I do on Twitter, plus a TON of visual artists. I am not a visual artist, but because Instagram is a visual medium, it’s nice to follow artists, and I sometimes find it inspiring — if not to create art myself, at least maybe to make my house look nicer (although I never do). I also follow some old school fashion and lifestyle bloggers who I’ve been following for like ten years, and although I do not find that kind of blogging interesting at all anymore, I am interested in these particular people, and invested in their lives at this point. I also embarrassingly have been paying a good bit of attention lately to a certain terrible influencer, who I won’t name because I don’t want to draw the wrong kind of attention here, but you probably know who she is. She is entirely boring, but people are interested in her for a variety of reasons, and they all have complicated explanations for why. I think it’s that she’s sort of the purest example of the sort of woman (blond, thin, pretty, performatively aspirational yet empty enough to be completely non-threatening to anyone) that middle-class Americans have always been culturally encouraged to admire and, if they are women, to emulate, and yet, it’s so apparent that there is no there there. I imagine most people who follow her are thinking, “I can’t believe I thought I needed to be this in high school!” For me personally, there’s something else to it, and after thinking about it so that I could write it down here, I think it is that I spend a lot of time mildly regretting that I had not been more intentional about pursuing my creative dreams in my 20s (I was sort of dabbling in comedy and performance and writing; I had some talent but little intelligence), but at the same time, when I look back over my work and writings from that time, I am horrified by how stupid I was without realizing it (and not just stupid for my age, because I was surrounded by far more intelligent and creative people who have gone on to do amazing things, and there are many preternaturally wise and hilarious babies who are creating right now). Had I had a bigger platform at the time, I fear I would have looked a lot like a less successful this girl. So, it’s a sort of cautionary tale that really just serves to make me feel better about having avoided exposure I’d now regret (albeit through laziness rather than foresight). And also, being able to realize this now is a reminder that I am at least smarter now than I used to be, so I have been growing in some way, even if it feels like I’ve just been atrophying intellectually and creatively ever since I got a real job. I think now that I’ve written this down, I’m ready to let go of paying attention to her. Also, though, I just feel bad for her, and I want to see what happens to her and if she ends up ok or not. Which possibly sounds nobler than it is — am I really just rubbernecking at an accident? I don’t think I wish her harm. Anyway, in non-shame scrolling, two of my favorite comics on Twitter and Instagram right now are Eva Victor and Alyssa Lamparis. They are both brilliantly hilarious.

The first few chapters of “Joshua”, while working on one of my blog posts about the Old Testament.

A chapter of The High Growth Handbook, for work, which I’m finding more interesting than most business books.

Moral Clarity by Susan Neiman, which I’m not really enjoying. This isn’t necessarily why I’m not enjoying it, but I gave some thought while reading this about why I find the left’s current backlash against “identity politics” to be disingenuous. I mean, other than the fact that it is only white people (and mostly white men) who argue that identity politics are a pointless distraction from real social change. And it’s that nobody — no matter how naive — thinks that we are going to transform all human systems overnight. Abrupt revolutions rarely happen in established societies, and even when they do, they never stick; no matter how you come about it, lasting social change always takes forever. So, eschewing identity politics as a mere distraction implies that those who unfairly have less power and influence under the current system should just be content with their marginalization until we have a new system altogether. And that those who are over-represented in the current system shouldn’t be criticized or made to lose anything in the interests of equity and social justice until we have a new system altogether. That this is the same old self-serving bullshit from a different direction seems so obvious to me, I don’t understand why so many smart people are buying into it. There is no getting around our historical legacy of racial oppression! There’s just no scenario in which white people are not going to have to deal with that first, before we can successfully build systems that are more just and more fair! You have to address both things at the same time, and no, just focusing on economic class is not going to cut it — especially not when so many people pretend that they don’t understand that poverty results from lack of access and limited options, and has little to do with whether you have much money at any given time (in reality, they understand this very well). And I can’t take any leader seriously (no matter how far left) who does not get that, and/or who won’t force their followers to acknowledge it.  

“Where outrage itself is exhausted, even despair is impossible. The resulting inertia is not the result of an ideology, postmodern or otherwise. But anyone who wants to oppose it must oppose an ideology that makes inertia the most rational response.”

Finished Baby Geniuses and started listening to Get Rich Nick as I prepared for my run, and as I showered after my run. Nick V is a good pal of mine from Chicago — we came up through iO at the same time and were on a Harold team together for like a year. He’s hilarious and I enjoy his podcast, but I suspect I partly find it so funny because it’s just very…Nick.

I listen to the same Spotify playlist on every run. I made it for running and it’s all exactly what you’d expect someone like me would listen to while running.

I watched an episode of season 2 of “Big Little Lies” while I ate dinner. I thought the first season (while it had its faults) was perfectly cast and pretty impressively honest in how it dealt with domestic violence and rape. I wasn’t interested enough to seek out season 2, but I recently noticed HBO is streaming some shows for free right now on Amazon Prime (which I have finally, finally canceled because #morals but still have through August), so I started watching it, and I still love the cast. I will watch Laura Dern in absolutely anything, and it’s really fun to watch Reese Witherspoon play what I imagine is basically herself.

Listened to more Get Rich Nick while I cleaned up the kitchen and got ready for bed.

Finished the night off with The Collected Stories of Eudora Welty — she’s one of my faves and I’ve read two of these four collections multiple times, but right now am on The Wide Net which is new to me. Read the titular “The Wide Net” and really enjoyed it and then “A Still Moment,” which was boring but made me want to get my computer out and google Audubon. Then fell asleep reading this weird old novel I’m slowly working through called The Man Who Loved Children.

“‘She’s a lot smarter than her cousins in Beulah,’ said Virgil. ‘And especially Edna Earle, that never did get to be what you’d call a heavy thinker. Edna Earle could sit and ponder all day on how the little tail of the ‘C’ got through the ‘L’ in a Coca-Cola sign.’”

Monday, April 20th:

Instagram on the toilet, Get Rich Nick while I performed my ablutions and made coffee, and Instagram stories and Feedly for a bit while I drank it. I spend less time on this today, the awareness of accountability is already working! About Instagram stories — I usually ignore them altogether but every so often I go through phases of watching them. I find them mostly very boring, but because I mostly follow creatives on Instagram, there’s something inspiring about starting my day by watching a bunch of creative people all around the world making things. At least starting a day off this way (which today fortunately is); starting a work day this way makes me feel an intense despair. I also follow a few farmers, and it’s fun to see their daily lives. And also just a bunch of people who live in gorgeous places around the world. And ok, yeah, a couple of hate follows, which for me are people who I just find so unbelievably grating and irritating in every way that I can’t stop watching them — I just can’t believe they exist and yet aren’t entirely consumed with self-loathing. And I think for me it’s like, I find them so utterly obnoxious in every way, but they still all have lots of people in their lives who truly love them, and that’s affirming to me personally, because I often feel like I couldn’t ask anyone to tolerate me for very long unless/until I’ve attained perfection in every sphere, so it’s a nice reminder to me that that’s not really how people operate. In Feedly, I follow 3 Quarks Daily and The Morning News, some political digests, a number of old school bloggers I’ve been following forever (mostly funny ones), a handful of newsletters (mostly by people who used to be bloggers), and some sustainability bloggers to guilt me into making better choices. I probably spend about 90 minutes on all of this? Which is too much time!

More “Joshua.”

I poke around online and find and follow a handful more artists from around the world on Instagram and/or Twitter. These aren’t really very interesting ones, and so I’ll probably unfollow them soon, but they’re a bunch of diverse young people, and lately I feel out of touch with what young people are doing. One funny thing about young people is they have so much energy and so many interests, so all of them are doing like ten really shitty things — they’re making crappy art, they’re writing nonsense, they’re performing dopey shows, AND they’re in a shitty band. And then they get older and they realize that it takes an incredible amount of time and effort and research and angst to do even one thing semi-well, and at that point, they either disappear or focus. Anyway, I mostly stick to Twitter for these — I only follow artists on Instagram whose work I find genuinely appealing; Twitter is more for people I’m interested in hearing more about how they perceive the world, but am not necessarily interested in what they’re making. Also, for Twitter, I use TweetDeck and make lists, so it’s a lot easier to follow and unfollow groups of people than it is on Instagram. Like I’ll make a list of “possibly interesting” and watch it for awhile, and then I might move two people on it to a more permanent list and then just delete the whole list.

Listen to The Read while I make a smoothie.

Two short stories from an old issue of Salt Hill, both terrible.

A chapter of High Growth Handbook, and two of Moral Clarity.

Listened to The Read and Scam Goddess while gearing up for run, walking back from run showering, cooking dinner, and cleaning up the kitchen. Usual playlist on run.

Spent some lost time on Twitter and Instagram while crouching on the floor and shivering in my sweaty running clothes, and then again after dinner while sitting on the couch. I’m starting to realize that I look at social media when what my brain really wants to be doing is just….sitting and staring and not taking in anything.

Three Welty stories, “Asphodel” (enjoyable), “The Winds” (in which Welty is starting to find the voice she will master in The Golden Apples), and “The Purple Hat” (eh). Interrupted, I am embarrassed to admit, by looking at Twitter and my email and also reading some articles about Welty.

The Man Who Loved Children

Tuesday, April 21st:

There are two things I want to stop doing, and I did both today. First, after my alarm went off, I spent 90 minutes hitting the snooze button and also pursuing Twitter and Instagram in bed. My entire goal is to reserve as much time for myself in the evenings as possible, for doing what I want to be doing. And I waste a lot of that limited time in procrastinating what I don’t want to be doing. And this is the first place it happens — lounging in bed staring at my phone instead of getting up and going to work.

Finished Scam Goddess and started The High Low while I got ready, made coffee and my smoothie.

After work, I did the second thing I want to stop doing — I spent 90 minutes sitting on the couch looking at Twitter, Instagram, Reddit, and rubbernecking at a long train wreck thread on NextDoor (people are wilding out at this point), procrastinating getting my running kit on and going out for my exercise. All together, this is THREE HOURS of wasted time that could go toward my evenings, where I get to do the stuff I want to do! I’m robbing myself of this valuable time.

I walked for most of my run because I was sore from some exercises I did, and I finished The High Low. When I got home, I listened to Office Ladies, which is not a very good podcast, but it’s just mindlessly comforting to listen to and I like thinking about The Office, which is mindlessly comforting to watch, as I took a shower, made dinner, and cleaned up the kitchen.

The Man Who Loved Children

Wednesday, April 22nd:

Well, I still hit the snooze for an hour but I DIDN’T browse Twitter before I got out of bed. Listened to Lady to Lady while I got ready and made a smoothie and coffee.

Couple of breaks during my workday, during which times I looked at Twitter, Reddit, and Instagram.

I worked later than usual and it was rainy out, so I didn’t go out for exercise, but I still spent TWO HOURS on the couch mindlessly scrolling (Twitter, Instagram, NextDoor train wreck). So, all told, I still wasted three hours on garbage today.

Listened to Lady to Lady and Your Favorite Band Sucks while I made dinner, ate it, cleaned up after it, and got ready for bed. Your Favorite Band Sucks takes down a lot of bands I genuinely like, and I truly do enjoy hearing people rip apart things that I enjoy for some reason (cultural masochism). This episode, though, is on Billy Joel, which I feel is low-hanging fruit, although it reminds me of when this guy I had a massive crush on in high school got super into Billy Joel (I know) and so I spent a few months listening to him and trying to convince myself I also thought he was brilliant. Listening to this podcast makes me realize how much time I spent trying to convince myself that I liked bands that guys I had a thing for worshipped. I don’t really listen to music very much (note absence of it from this entire week) since podcasts became a thing -- I just always vastly prefer narrative if I have a choice. Either music is too distracting from the thing I’m trying to do, or I have enough bandwidth to listen to a podcast while I’m doing the thing, which I prefer. There’s just very rarely any place in my day where music makes sense. You will never find me getting stoned or drunk and just sitting and listening to music -- I can’t fathom how people do that. Whenever I’ve tried it, I’ve just gotten so angry that I took away the mental capacity to read and am wasting all that excellent reading time just sitting there. I guess I don’t really like turning my brain off. Some people spend all their time trying to turn their brain off, but that actually causes stress in my case; fun for me is more taking a ton of adderall to really get it jumping. I don’t mean to imply by that that I’m smart or I use my brain for anything worthwhile, I really, really don’t. I just like the feeling of being alert and I like thinking my dumb thoughts and following along with narratives of whatever kind. 

The Man Who Loved Children

Thursday, April 23rd:

Success! I hit snooze for 20 minutes only and then I got to work!

Listened to a new podcast by a comic I like while I got ready, and I won’t say which one, because it wasn’t very good, and I don’t want to slam the first episode (I’m sure it will get better).

Very brief Instagram/Twitter/Feedly breaks a couple times throughout the day.

Success again! After work, I only looked at Twitter for 20 minutes before heading out for my run. Usual playlist on run. On my walk back, I recorded an Instagram story.

Listened to old episodes of Sawbones and By the Book (both of which I’m trying to decide if I like or not) and You’re Wrong About while getting ready for run, showering, cooking dinner, cleaning up the kitchen, getting ready for bed. This episode of You’re Wrong About was about Marie Antoinette and was really fun, although I have a hard time with this podcast, because the voice of the woman who hosts it kind of traumatizes me. I do not like criticizing women’s voices and she can’t help her voice or how it affects me, but she has this sort of sarcastic, flat, patronizing tone that makes her sound like a cool girl of the intellectual cast of cool girls who thinks you are the stupidest little try-hard femme ever to be brought before her, and it gives me some unpleasant flashbacks to certain incidents in college. But I like the podcast overall (and her probably!) and so I just try to get over it.

Read “Livvie” by Eudora Welty, and then finished The Man Who Loved Children.

Friday, April 24th:

Hit snooze for a full hour, but then got up. Listened to another first episode of a new podcast by another comic I like that also was not very good while I got ready, etc. and also a bit later in the car as I made a grocery store run.

Couple very short Twitter/Feedly breaks throughout the day.

Usual music playlist on run. I’ve got a podcast playlist of weird fictional stuff that I’m mostly listening to old episodes of from the beginning and many are new to me and I’m trying to decide if I liked them. Today, during the usual periods of podcast listening, I went through episodes of Welcome to Night Vale and The Lost Cat Podcast, both of which I am enjoying, although I have trouble paying attention to Welcome to Night Vale and always realize after I finish an episode that I didn’t really hear any of it.  

Watched 1.25 episodes of Big Little Lies while I ate takeout and spotted my friend Mike playing the marriage counselor in one of them! Having a background in performance makes for very weird TV and movie experiences now, because I’ll pretty often see someone I know well in something. Often, it’s a really happy surprise like this one, but sometimes it’s a really unpleasant one, like when you’re sitting around with your family and you see a guy who dumped you pretty brutally playing the dopey, amiable dad in a commercial and get plunged into despair and self-hatred in the midst of a bunch of oblivious people in your aunt’s living room and start to feel like you are living in a surreal world no one else is actually a part of and also like your personality is fragmenting in what is possibly a psychotic way.  

Started The Physick Book of Deliverance Dane. I’m really happy to be done with The Man Who Loved Children and on to a new book, and this one looks to be an easy, possibly dumb page-turner, which is well-timed.

Saturday, April 25th:

Snoozed for 40 minutes. Listened to Tanis while coffee etc. Bit of Instagram and Feedly.

While I cleaned the house and deep cleaned my office, I listened to The Bright Sessions, Within the Wires, The Box Podcast, Tracks, and Rabbits.

While I got ready for run, walked back from run, made dinner, cleaned up kitchen, put the laundry away, and got ready for bed, listened to Father Dagon, The Amelia Project, Glasgow Ghost Stories, Middle: Below, The Last Movie, The Van, Video Palace, Blackwood, Dreamboy, Caledonian Gothic, and The London Necropolis Railway. I went through a ton of podcasts today (but also these fiction ones are quite short).

Started to read “At the Landing” by Welty, but I fell asleep super early. I usually save fiction for a couple hours in bed before I go to sleep, because fiction is my favorite thing in the world, but I am so tired by the time I lie down that I often can’t really enjoy it, and fight to stay awake while I try to read and then just fall asleep. So I might need to rethink this timing.

Overall, I think this has been a successful first week of doing this! On Saturday, I had a day off, and I spent basically zero time procrastinating with garbage media! I can really see how my consumption of dumb stuff went down through the week.

[deniscollins]

If GoDaddy Can Turn the Corner on Sexism, Who Can’t?

If you were the CEO of GoDaddy, would you approve controversial television commercials featuring women in wet bikinis and sexual innuendos to gain attention? Why? What are the ethics underlying your decision? If yes, how would you address employee complaints about them?

A few years after Blake Irving became chief executive of the internet company GoDaddy, he spoke at a conference where the jeers started almost immediately.

Attendees were particularly offended by GoDaddy’s history of sexist television commercials, which featured women in wet bikinis and innuendos so graphic some stations had refused the ads. But when Mr. Irving tried to explain that those advertisements, created by his predecessor, had been discontinued, and that he had been hired, in part, to change the firm’s culture, he was mocked.

“Every time Blake quotes Sheryl Sandberg or calls himself a feminist, throw something at his head,” one person shouted.

Which is why it was surprising when Mr. Irving appeared as a keynote speaker a year later, in 2015, at the Grace Hopper Celebration of Women in Computing — and received a standing ovation after detailing GoDaddy’s efforts to become one of the most inclusive companies in tech.

By then, GoDaddy had been recognized as being among the nation’s top workplaces for women in tech. The company’s policies on equal pay, its methods for recruiting a diverse work force and its approach to promoting women and minorities had been lauded inside business schools and imitated at other firms.

Today, as Silicon Valley sexism again draws attention, it’s worth studying those shifts at GoDaddy. There’s a regular procession of headlines about sexual harassment scandals at venture capital firms and large tech companies. But learning to address this problem requires studying where things have gotten better, as well. And GoDaddy has become, surprisingly, a lodestar among gender equity advocates — an example of how even regressive cultures can change.

So what did GoDaddy do right?

The answer is more complicated than just stamping out overt sexism. GoDaddy also focused on attacking the small, subtle biases that can influence everything from how executives evaluate employees to how they set salaries.

“The most important thing we did was normalize acknowledging that everyone has biases, whether they recognize them or not,” said Debra Weissman, a senior vice president at the company. “We had to make it O.K. for people to say, ‘I think I’m being unintentionally unfair.’”

Though GoDaddy still has work to do, the company is “evidence that things can change,” said Lori Mackenzie, executive director of the Clayman Institute for Gender Research at Stanford, which has worked with the firm. “Oftentimes, what keeps companies from shifting is believing the existing system is already fair. Blake is really committed to undermining that.”

When Mr. Irving joined GoDaddy in 2013, the firm was succeeding by selling a commodity — website registration and hosting — through outrageous, scandalous ads, such as a 2005 Super Bowl commercial where a woman’s top kept coming undone while observers discussed her plastic surgery. Those ads were deliberately designed to attract attention through controversy. Today, GoDaddy is worth over $7 billion.

The offensive advertising, however, was demoralizing to GoDaddy’s staff, employees from that period say, and the salaciousness, at times, spilled into the workplace. Staff members describe a hard-charging culture where people drank in the office and participated in and gossiped about interoffice affairs. There was a sexual harassment lawsuit in 2009, later dismissed, and websites like NoDaddy.com, where employees described misbehavior.

Upon becoming chief executive, Mr. Irving immediately decreed that GoDaddy would no longer run sexist ads, and reiterated the company’s commitment to combating workplace discrimination. In part, this was good business: Many of the nation’s small-business owners — the customers GoDaddy hoped to attract — are female. Mr. Irving, who had previously been a high-ranking executive at Microsoft and Yahoo, also felt GoDaddy was failing to attract talented engineers and executives — including women and minorities — who were alienated by the firm’s image.

But to genuinely transform GoDaddy, executives decided, they needed to convince the company’s 3,500 employees, most of whom thought of themselves as fair and good people, that even a seemingly impartial workplace can be discriminatory.

“We needed to become the most inclusive company in tech,” said Mr. Irving. “We had to erase the idea that meritocracy is enough.”

Some of the problems applicants and workers faced were subtle. For years, for instance, GoDaddy’s job descriptions were needlessly aggressive, saying the company was looking for “rock stars,” “code ninjas,” engineers who could “knock it out of the park” or “wrestle problems to the ground.”

Moreover, when GoDaddy’s human resource department began reviewing how the company analyzed leadership capacities, it found that women systematically scored lower because they were more likely to emphasize past team accomplishments and use sentences like “we exceeded our goals.” Men, in contrast, were more likely to use the word “I” and stress individual performance.

“There’s a lot of little things people don’t usually notice,” said Katee Van Horn, GoDaddy’s vice president for engagement and inclusion. “But they add up. They reinforce these biases you might not even realize you have.”

GoDaddy began focusing on countering these biases, assessing the company’s hiring, employee evaluations and promotions. In particular, executives scrutinized employee reviews, which evaluated workers using questions similar to those found at many companies: Does this person reply to emails promptly? Have they sought leadership roles? Have they shown initiative?

“We realized a lot of those are invitations for subjectivity,” said Ms. Van Horn.

GoDaddy’s data indicated that women tended to systematically be scored lower than men on communication, in part because they were more likely to be a family’s primary parent, and so were more likely to be off email in the early evening during homework and bedtime hours.

“And the more important question isn’t whether someone responds to email right away,” said Ms. Van Horn. “It’s what they say, whether their responses have impact. We shouldn’t be judging people based on how fast they communicate. We should be looking at whether they achieved the goals set for them.”

Women also, on average, scored lower than men on evaluations of taking initiative, because most of GoDaddy’s midlevel managers were men, and the culture was top-down, which made it harder for female employees to participate in and get attention for prominent projects, employees say.

GoDaddy overhauled its employee evaluation forms, replacing open-ended questions with specific criteria that evaluated employees’ impact, rather than their character. Instead of asking if someone is good at communicating, the new evaluation form asked managers to document instances when an employee shared knowledge with a colleague, or collaborated with a team.

“You can’t change a place just by hiring more women,” said Ms. Weissman, the senior vice president, who oversees a technical staff. “You have to create a safe space to talk about the assumptions all of us have. You have to work against the biases.”

Today, almost a quarter of GoDaddy’s employees are women, including 21 percent of its technical staff. Half of new engineers hired last year were female, and women make up 26 percent of senior leadership. Female technologists, on average, earn slightly more than their male counterparts.

There are critics, though. One former high-ranking woman, who requested anonymity because she worried that speaking critically would harm her reputation, said she found GoDaddy’s commitment to change uneven. Departments tended to take inequality seriously when top executives were paying attention, she said. But that focus lessened when scrutiny declined.

“We know this is a process,” Mr. Irving told me. “We know we’re not going to fix it in a day, or a year, or five years.”

And convincing the world is going to take time, as well. When Mr. Irving gave the keynote at the Grace Hopper Celebration of Women in Computing, he said, he was terrified. He began by showing the audience some of the images that GoDaddy had used in commercials.

From the stage, he saw hundreds of angry, skeptical faces. Then he walked through everything GoDaddy was doing. He promised that the company’s dedication to eradicating the gender gap would not end. He pledged to listen to any suggestion, and to pressure other firms to steal GoDaddy’s best ideas.

“It was a big moment,” said Elizabeth Ames, a senior executive at the Anita Borg Institute, an influential Silicon Valley group advocating for women in technology. “Everyone was skeptical of GoDaddy, the same way they’re skeptical about companies like Uber today. But GoDaddy was really committed to it, and it’s working.”

[thedarkcloakedlioness-blog]

The Lakshmanrekha

*Religion often subtly changes our worldviews about gender relations. Read how Dadi’s bed time story widens the horizon for little Anu.**

///WARNING: Heavy Sarcasm, might be offensive if you're too touchy about religion.This piece contains heavy references to Hindu mythology. If you're a Hindu, I did not mean to be blasphemous to offend you. So no death threats please, chill. it is an objective take on the gender discourse prevalent in stories of religion, from a sociological viewpoint.///

Why does Mama insist on brushing teeth every night? Mia said that she doesn’t have to do so.

Little Anu found this mundane task terribly annoying. Especially when she couldn’t wait to go to bed today, as her Dadi ( Grandma) had come from the village to stay with them. Dadi usually stayed in Anu’s room whenever she came to visit and she knew a lot of stories which Mama didn’t. Anu believed that maybe Mama’s class teacher had not told her good stories like Dadi’s had. Anu quickly brushed her teeth and rushed back into the room to find Dadi changing the sheets.

‘ Anu, Did you brush your teeth’?, Mama was at the door.

‘Yes Ma’, Anu replied in a resigned voice.

‘ Good girl. Don’t trouble Dadi too much and go to sleep fast, okay?', Mama said, as she closed the door softly.

Anu climbed into the bed and watched as Dadi swallowed a bunch of multi coloured pills in all sizes and shapes. She decided that when she would be old, she would eat only green pills which was her favourite colour.

‘ Dadi, Dadi, tell me a story’ , Anu chirped excitedly.

‘ Haan, haan*, my dear. Shall I tell you the story of the ever kind Lord Sriram’? (* Hindi word for Yes, showing agreement.)

‘But I wanted to hear stories of animals’, Anu could not help but pout.

‘ Haan dear, this one has plenty of animals in it too’ Dadi reassured her.

‘ Okay then, Dadi’ Anu hoped this story was as good as the story her teacher had taught in class today. It was about a fighting priness called Jhansi Rani whom Anu had grown to admire very much.

‘Ah, so where was I the last time? ‘ Dadi ‘s brows wrinkled, matching her face as she tried to remember.

‘ Lord Sriram, Sita and his brother Laksham were living in the forest now!’ Anu remembered exactly where Dadi had stopped the last time, when she had come to stay with them for Diwali holidays.

‘Lakshmana dear, not Laksham. ‘ Dadi smiled kindly. Anu could never imagine her sweet Dadi ever being angry as her Mama would sometimes.

‘ One day, Sitadevi saw a beautiful deer as she was sitting outside their hut in the forest. It had the most innocent eyes and the grace of an apasaras as it pranced about.'

‘ What's an apsaras, Dadi?’

‘Apsaras are beautiful women who dance and sing in heaven. They are well known for their beauty which has been said to have tempted even the most strong willed men.'

‘ Tempt men?’ Anu was confused as she looked at Dad’s troubled face. What she would be tempted by was when Mama brought a family pack of icecream and not let her have it whenever she wanted. How can women tempt anyone like icecreams? They were not something to eat.

‘How can beautiful women tempt anyone, Dadi?’ Anu was determined to know. Dadi looked a little troubled and unhappy with all the interruptions Anu made.

‘Anu, dont interrupt me like that child! Your cousin, Tina does not do that when I tell her stories. So where was I?’ Dadi’s tone was a little harsher than Anu was used to. Could Dadi get angry if she asked many questions. She could not imagine how someone sweet like her Dadi could get angry and yell at her.

‘But when Sitadevi got too close to the gentle creature, the deer pranced away into the thick forest. So Sitadevi asked her husband Lord Sriram to catch that deer for her.’

‘ But Dadi, why couldn't she go and catch the deer herself?’, Anu piped up.

‘ Because it was a large and thick forest with roaring lions, tigers, jackals, elephants and slithering snakes. It was very dangerous for her to go alone.’

‘ But why was she afraid, Dadi? You said she was the avatar of Goddess Lakshmi. And God made all plants, animals and us. Dadi, you said that Sitadevi was a brave, smart and beautiful princess.’, Anu said as her little brow clouded in her confusion.

‘ Haan dear. But at present, she was human.’ , Dadi continued. 'So she asked Lord Sriram to get her the deer.’

‘ But Lord Sriram was also human. Why wasn’t he afraid?’ Anu asked.

‘ Because he was the avatar of Lord Vishnu, dear. He was the brave prince of Ayodhya. Hai ram*, Hai ram’, Dadi chanted, as she closed her eyes in devotion, touching her prayer beads.( *Hai ram – Hey Lord Ram).

'But Dadi', Anu protested, 'You said before that Sitadevi was a brave lady as well.'

Dadi sighed, closing her eyes. ‘ Listen dear, Men are brave and courageous. They go out into the world and get things done. The duty of an ideal woman is to be faithful to her husband and help him discharge all his worldly duties, as she is dependent on him. Women cannot go out like men do. Its too dangerous. ‘ Dadi tried to impart some wisdom to her grandchild that she had inherited from her own Dadi.

‘ But Dadi, My Mama gets everything done here. She buys all household stuff, water all the plants, takes care of me and our cat,Loopi. She goes to the clinic like Papa goes to the office. She can also drive like Papa.’ Anu did not understand what Dadi was talking about.

‘ Haan, haan dear. Now the times have changed. Women who are brave enough can do some things that men do too. But don't forget that our religion and scriptures put the duties of women as what I have told you- To her husband. All these things women do now are fine, but not as important as being an ideal woman and wife like Sitadevi.'

Anu looked unconvinced. ‘ You will understand when you grow up, my dear.’ Dadi resorted to her ultimate weapon to avoid anymore questions.

‘ So Lord Sriram decided to go and catch that deer. She left Sitadevi in his younger brother Lakshman's protection. But hours passed by and there was no sign of Lord Sriram or the deer. Sitadevi got worried. She asked Lakshmana to go look for her Lord. But Lakshmana did not wanted to leave her alone in the jungle. What if somebody came while he was away and kidnapped Sitadevi.'

‘ They could go together Dadi. Why should she be left alone at their home. Like my Mama takes me with her to clinic if our Auntie doesnt come for work one day.’ , Little Anu was sure that Lakshmana would have done exactly what her Mama did.

‘ No dear. I told you it was a dangerous forest. So Lakshmana, drew a circle around Sitadevi and asked her to stay inside that circle. It was called the Lakshmanrekha. As long as Sitadevi stayed inside the circle, she would be protected from any kidnappers.’ Dadi explained.

‘But what if Sitadevi wanted to go to the bathroom?’, Anu was troubled with this arrangement. Even her strict class teacher who let them go to the bathroom whenever they wanted seemed kinder than Lakshmana.

‘Anu! Don’t ask silly questions my child. ‘ Dadi said sharply.

'So anyway, as Sitadevi sat alone inside the circle, an old man came begging for some food. Now Sitadevi, the most ideal woman could not help but feel compassion to the poor man. But if she had to go in to get the food, she would have to breach the Lakshmanrekha. But she was too kind to let the man starve. So as she stepped out of the circle, there was a loud cackle of laughter.', Dadi paused dramatically.

'Who was it? Who was it?', Anu could not contain her excitement.

'The old man transformed into the hideous Demon King Ravana who captured her and flew away in his flying chariot.', Dadi said.

‘Why didn't Sitadevi fight Raavan like Jhansi Rani fought the men who came to take her kingdom? She was also a princess.'

Anu was outraged, as she sprang up from the bed.

'Sitadevi was not strong enough to fight a hideous and powerful demon like Ravana. She was just a woman. What could she do all alone, with no one to protect her?’ , Dadi asked.

‘ But Jhansi rani fought men alone and..'

Anu! What did I tell you about interrupting me often. ‘, Dadi’s brow clouded in anger. So even Dadi can get angry, Anu thought silently.

‘Where was I? Ah, yes. So you see, all the terrible things that would later happen in the story was because Sitadevi did not heed Lakshmana’s warning and stayed within the Lakshmanrekha.’ Dadi spoke softly, as she turned to face Anu’s troubled expression.

‘ So now do you understand my child, why women should always obey men. You don’t want to be in trouble like Sitadevi did, do you?'

Anu frantically shook her head. Kidnappers were frightening, but demon king kidnappers were much worse.

‘So what did we learn today, then?’ Anu did not want the story to end there. She was not sleepy as yet and was a little worried that demon kings might come to kidnap her while she was asleep.

‘That men know better and women should be like Sitadevi, the ideal woman except when she disobeyed. If women disobey, bad things could happen to them’ , Anu replied in a soft voice as she laid back down.

'Goodnight my child', Dadi turned off the bedside light. Little Anu tried to sleep, a little bit shaken but intrigued by the new knowledge she had acquired. She asked Dadi if she could ever be as good as Sitadevi.

‘Yes, my dear. You would grow up to be a beautiful and well behaved woman like her’, Dadi reassured her.

Little Anu went to sleep a little wiser than she was before.

Author Notes: The piece was a satirical take on sexist ideologies fed to us when we are children in the form of stories. It tries to explore the messed up world from the innocent view of a child. No blasphemy intended. Primarily written as a subtle and satirical feminist discourse. How victims of sexism creates more victims. Also, don't question the logic of the mythological story. It's not my creation and yes, people make all those interpretations that Dadi did.

[wionews]

Why can't capital punishment stop rape in India?

On May 29th, in Manesar at Gurgaon, a 19-year-old woman was gang-raped and her 9-month-old daughter was killed by throwing her to the ground. Yesterday, The National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) issued notices to the Director General of Police, Haryana and the Gurugram Police Commission stating, “the night patrolling on the road by the police was not being done”. The NHRC requested the Police Commissioners of Delhi, Faridabad, Noida and Ghaziabad to come up with constructive suggestions and a joint action programme is expected by the law enforcement agencies of the National Capital Region (NCR). Though this came as a positive measure to ensure women’s safety, yet we are a long way to go. 

The situation is particularly difficult to address as many Indian politicians across partylines often place the onus on the victims themselves. For instance, Azam Khan of Samajwadi Party remarked after two girls were raped by 14 men at Rampur in Uttar Pradesh that ”girls should avoid places where molesters roam free”. The incident and bizarre assertion make us question if we women have a safe space to dwell in this country. Another leader Babulal Gaur on another gang rape case of two teenagers said, “this is a social crime which depends on men and women. Sometimes it’s right, sometimes it’s wrong.“ Such remarks by leaders clearly do not reflect us in a respectable position, hence we do not want your sympathy.

The Nirbhaya verdict (5th May 2017) stirred clamour around capital punishment against the perpetrators of rape. Many believed, the perpetrators deserved ‘justice served’ and some opposed the idea of capital punishment. Unfortunately, after the most celebrated verdict by the Apex court, a series of rape cases has been reported so far. Death penalty is commonly seen as a deterrent but so far it has failed in the prevention of rape against women. In the month of May alone, three very heinous instances of rape have made the headlines in the country. 

Frequently, police officials encourages the victim to settle the matter out of court, thereby, dissuading them from pursuing the case

  ×

The dark figure of crime: Unreported Rape

The Indian Penal Code largely understands gender specific crime as an assault on women with the intent to outrage the modesty, cruelty by husband or relatives as well as kidnapping, abduction and rape. As per the National Crime Record Bureau (NCRB), 327,394 cases of crimes against women were reported in 2015. In 95 per cent of these cases the offender knew the rape victim. One of the most frightening facts reported by NCRB is one rape occurs every 20 minutes in India.

Despite all the facts and figures reported by the NCRB, experts are unanimous that it is extremely to difficult to accurately calculate the number of rapes in any country, particularly in India. Victims often fail to report, more so, if family members are involved or in cases where the victim was found to be drunk or intoxicated. In the latter case, it is difficult to ascertain whether consent was given or not. Frequently, police officials encourages the victim to settle the matter out of court, thereby, dissuading them from pursuing the case.

Rape: Theories and Beliefs

If we evaluate why a woman is always the victim, it is pertinent to understand the various theories and studies done by scholars, psychologist and feminist over a period of time on rape culture. The early proponents of the Evolutionary Theory believed man rapes to enforce their sexual desires on a woman so that the offsprings bear their qualities. Whereas, the Feminist theory believed rape is “violent and not just a sexual act”, ideally generate fear and intimidate a woman. 

The early proponents of feminism suggested, “rape is about power and control and not sex”. Anthropologist Peggy Reeves Sandy through her research on tribal societies presented “rape varies cross-culturally” and it includes, ”interpersonal violence, male dominance and sexual separation”. Her study showcases the attitude towards women in “rape free” and “rape prone” zones. The “rape free” zones are ideal communities that ‘respect female authority and power’ but, “rape-prone” are communities with male dominant societies. Her deviation from the common understanding provided a fresh perspective in understanding how certain positive attitude and behaviour in society tend to benefit women at large. 

“Rape is a political matter" and can be stopped only with the end patriarchy

  ×

 The New York Radical Feminists in their Manifesto categorically states that rape is not a “personal” problem. Rather, their argument is “rape is a political matter" and can be stopped only with the end patriarchy. The position taken by the Radical feminists complicates the common perception that capital punishment of the culprit will root out rape. 

Capital punishment or not: The big debate

It is evident death penalty hasn’t acted deterrent for our society. Moreover, the experts are not even sure whether the judiciary should see death penalty as a deterrent, reformation or retribution.  Retribution is the common practice preferred however, it has failed to prove beneficial for neither our society nor criminals. This aspect is forcefully brought out by Professor John Braithwaite of The Australian National University who believes that "crime hurts and justice should heal". The restorative justice cuts crime, it is noticed that after meeting their victims and engaging in a dialogue, criminals are less likely to re-offend. The survivor too gets a pivotal role in the “justice process”. 

Joanne Nodding, a rape survivor, a few years ago wanted to confront the man who raped her. As part of restorative justice programme, she decided to meet him five years after the incident. The program allows victims to initiate a conversation with the person responsible. During the session, Nodding described the harrowing abuse she had to undergo. The perpetrator apologised and Nodding ended the meeting by forgiving him. She added she felt “on top of the world, she had to release the burden so that he could look towards his future. It may stop him from doing it again”. It is difficult to analyse the punishment that would fit the bill for the rapist. 

Also, there exists unpredictability in awarding death sentence in rape cases, as most of the perpetrators are from underprivileged background. Raju Ramachandran, one of the amicus curie in the historic Nirbhaya’s case, was a strong opponent of a death penalty. Ramachandran argued that a whole set of reasons, particularly one related to individual backgrounds should be considered rather than advocating that "one penalty fits all”. A blanket judgment “hits at the very root of Article 14 which prohibits similar treatment of differently situated individuals”. Despite a culture of “shame and silence”, we have to resort to progressive measures to deal with rape.

In spite of making necessary amendments in rape laws and better provisions adopted for women in India, nevertheless, we are not safe. The measures should be aimed at substantially reducing harm against women. Initiatives should be undertaken for collective actions, such as engaging bystanders, better policing, educate youth about healthy relationships and implement better prevention programs. Most of the initiatives undertaken in India have failed to achieve the desired result. It includes utilisation of Nirbhaya Fund-- ‘One Stop Centre’, ‘Universalisation of Women Helpline’, ‘Mahila Police Volunteer’ and schemes of other Ministries/Departments under Nirbhaya Fund are yet to highlight their success stories. 

To sum up, the unequal power dynamics between man and woman should be reduced; it will reduce the “domination” and “discrimination” attitude against women. Sexual violence is a public health issue, hence, collective action, implementing laws and generating interest are required to transform communities.

]]>

[medialiterates]

Miss Representation

Blog Prompt #2: Television

Throughout the past few weeks of class, we have covered topics in our lectures on Newspapers and Journalism, Popular Music and Radio, Movies/Hollywood, and Television. Our instructor had mentioned that we would be required to view several videos and analyze them as a part of our next blogging assignment. After choosing from all the different topics presented to us, I chose Jennifer Siebel Newsom’s 2011 American documentary film, “Miss Representation,” to watch and use for the assignment. Although the film had many aspects that made it interesting and drew the audience in, what I really enjoyed was how Newsom challenged the media’s limited portrayal of what it means to be a powerful woman in our world today.

After watching, “Miss Representation,” with Jennifer Siebel Newsom and hearing from several celebrities, I analyzed their commentaries on how they saw power in media influencing our society and their perspectives of the under-representation of women here in America. Although I never took the time to think about it, I agree that media has somehow managed to sell the idea that women’s value is placed more on their overall appearance than their capacity to be qualified leaders. I think it is pretty discouraging how even at a young age gender stereotypes pressure children to fit in specific guidelines in which girls are expected to be beautiful and boys should be big and muscular who assert dominance, power, and aggression. I disagree with this belief and I don’t think it is healthy to put such pressures on people who may not fit the “one size fits all” body type and/or look. Filmmaker and speaker, Jean Kilbourne, shared as to why the ideal image is more extreme and impossible than ever before. Kilbourne stresses that back in the earlier years of film, women’s appearance was transformed through cosmetic makeovers. However, we have now entered the digital age where facial structures and body alignments can and are easily manipulated by technology (Newsom Miss Representation). It is all too common to see/hear celebrities in the news whose photographs have been enhanced after the original has been leaked to the public. The problem with enhancing women to the extreme is that it plants a false idea into young men’s minds. Men who are exposed to objectified material of women begin to judge women more harshly; holding them to outrageous standards they see in magazines, on TV, or pictures they view online.

Along with similar psychical appearances being repeated in today’s media, there is a lot of overlapping roles that can be found in almost any TV show and/or movie. Executive producer and television host, Lisa Ling, shared that in mainstream media, women are brought up to be insecure characters either on the pursuit of romance, who needs to be rescued, or who is being provided for by a man (Newsom Miss Representation). I too have noticed that Hollywood portrays the same stereotypes over and over again by putting women into limited boxes of what characters they can play. I feel like even in my own life I recognize that the common roles for women on TV is either the ditzy blonde, gold-digger, someone who is not to be trusted, a sex object/body prop, or if they are playing a lead role they are depicted as being a royal bitch. I think setting up woman to behave in these manners not only demonstrates unequal power differences when compared to the heroic, strong, and charming roles men play but it is also unhealthy for women to start thinking of themselves in this negative light. Associate Professor of Political Science, Caroline Heldman, shares a study from the American Psychological Association which found that self-objectification has become a national epidemic. Heldman continues to shine light that women who objectify themselves often, become more depressed, develop eating disorders, and develop lower levels of confidence/ambition (Newsom Miss Representation). I think that when it comes to women in leadership, this problem is probably intensified as they start to believe their voice truly doesn’t matter when going against male opponents. It is absurd to me that are country is still mostly run from the male perspective since we have only appointed few women into government roles. I don’t believe we live in a true democracy today where we can talk about equality when more than half of the demographic is not being allowed to participate/represent themselves.

Academy award winning actress, Geena Davis talked about how in G-rated movies, the female characters are just as likely to be wearing sexually revealing clothing as in R-rated films (Newsom Miss Representation). It wasn’t until Davis pointed this out that my eyes were truly opened to see how women have been objectified in front of me even at an early age without me even knowing it. Media has conditioned society to visualize what women should look like that it has become almost second nature. With the male population accounting for the majority of viewers who watch television, our textbook has made a point to address that with more than $60 billion at stake in advertising revenues each year, networks and cable services work hard to attract the audiences and subscribers that bring in the advertising dollars. (Campbell 216). Whether it is in a movie, on TV, watching music videos, or commercials/advertisements, women are always wearing minimal amounts of clothing to catch the male eye, they are all thin and tan, have acne-free skin, and they all wear tight material that shows off their breast and curves. I agree with Academy Award winning actress and activist, Jane Fonda, who believes that the hyper-sexualization that occurs in Hollywood is toxic (Newsom Miss Representation). There is so much pressure on what is desirable and Hollywood is awful in how they treat human beings. Time and time again you notice actors getting surgical procedures done to make them look younger or fix minor imperfections because they aren’t “good enough” the way they are. Comedian, actor, and activist, Margaret Cho is an example of how unhealthy show business can be as the network she worked for early on in her career kept telling her she was fat until it pushed her to become very anorexic. Cho is one of many who have had to try and fit the mold of what someone else wanted them to be just in order to keep her career.

This film is important today considering current events because women continuously are not being taken serious in their professions. I have been a witness to society and media harshly criticizing female news anchors based on how low cut their blouses are or how high their skirts are rather than the important material they are announcing. I have heard inappropriate comments made by male talk show hosts on air about female Politian’s and I have yet to see qualified females take higher positions of power over men in government. Lastly, I witness my own sisters and female friends trying desperately to conform themselves to look like their celebrity idols on a daily basis because that is what they are being told is beautiful and that is what they see guys are interested in. There needs to be change in how media represents female individuals and we need to take a stand to ensure equality for all. Additionally we as a society need to become more accountable for our own behaviors and words. Feminist Organizer and Writer, Gloria Steinem, shared “if you and I, every time we pass a mirror, downgrade on how we look or complain about our looks, if we remember that a girl is watching us and that’s what she’s learning” (Newsom Miss Representation). Steinem’s perspective really speaks to me because it is so vital we set good examples for next generations to live and grow. If we continue to talk about how old someone looks or how unflattering someone’s physique is, we are only enabling the doors of harsh criticism to remain open.

Works Cited

Campbell, R., Martin, C. R., & Fabos, B. (2015). Television and Cable: The Economics and Ownership. In Media & Culture: Mass Communication in a Digital Age (10th ed., pp. 216). Boston, MA: Bedford/ St. Martin's, 2015. Print.

Miss Representation. Dir. Jennifer S. Newsom. Perf. Jane Fonda, Jean Kilbourne, Lisa Ling, Caroline Heldman, Geena Davis, Jane Fonda, Margaret Cho, and Gloria Steinem. Miss Representation. Girls Club Entertainment, ©2011. DVD.

P%1����h