Colonialism and the World Cup (via Feministing).
Lady Gaga and femin(ism)/(ity) (via my friend Catherine).
Sociological Images on hyper-sexualized hyper-masculinity in the 'net comedy world.
New Stars album comes out tomorrow! I am excited (this is unrelated to the rest of the post).
However...new book coming out tomorrow that I want to read!
Showing posts with label feminism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label feminism. Show all posts
Monday, June 21, 2010
Tuesday, August 11, 2009
This is a real gem.
So lately, Ottawa has been pretty focused on the trial of Larry O'Brien, who was accused of influence-peddling but recently acquitted. Lisa MacLeod is a Conservative MPP from Ottawa who commutes to Queen's Park (the Toronto seat of the Ontario legislature) and who is married with a young daughter. The judge in the O'Brien case dismissed her (damning) testimony because being married was a "distraction."
Seriously? Here's what MPP MacLeod had to say about it:
The article also quotes her as saying that it's not necessarily the outcome of the case that bothers her, but rather that her statement to the police was disregarded because there can't possibly be enough room in her tiny lady brain for worrying about work AND family AND political corruption.
Ugh. The only good thing to come out of this article was a statement by Equal Voice, which is a great organization.
via The Globe and Mail
So lately, Ottawa has been pretty focused on the trial of Larry O'Brien, who was accused of influence-peddling but recently acquitted. Lisa MacLeod is a Conservative MPP from Ottawa who commutes to Queen's Park (the Toronto seat of the Ontario legislature) and who is married with a young daughter. The judge in the O'Brien case dismissed her (damning) testimony because being married was a "distraction."
Seriously? Here's what MPP MacLeod had to say about it:
On Monday, Ms. MacLeod, the Conservative MPP for Nepean-Carleton, called the judge's reference “pathetic” and “surreal.”
“I didn't know truth had a gender or a family,” she said.
The article also quotes her as saying that it's not necessarily the outcome of the case that bothers her, but rather that her statement to the police was disregarded because there can't possibly be enough room in her tiny lady brain for worrying about work AND family AND political corruption.
Ugh. The only good thing to come out of this article was a statement by Equal Voice, which is a great organization.
via The Globe and Mail
Tuesday, August 4, 2009
Yes Satoshi, tell us why feminism is unnecessary
Here is a lovely article from Satoshi Kanazawa about why modern feminism is "illogical, unnecessary, and evil."
I don't normally re-post dreck like this - mainly because I don't think that it's worth repeating. That being said, there are a few things about this particular gem that I just can't ignore - the first being that it is posted on the website of a legitimate publication, not Joe Wingnut's Weekly Woman-hating Whangdoodle. The author, Satoshi Kanazawa, is a Reader in Management at L.S.FUCKING.E.. It is an opinion piece, and regardless of how offensive it is, I respect this shmuck's right to his own (misguided) opinion. I do, however, take issue with the fact that as an evolutionary psychologist, his opinion counts for a little more than your average nutbar screaming about how the feminazis took his job.
Right off the bat, he bases his argument on the oft-repeated tenet that "feminists think that men and women are identical ha ha those silly feminists and their poor understanding of biology." He took that particular point from Susan Pinker's book "The Sexual Paradox," in which the author points out that men and women are NOT identical. Clearly someone needs to point out the difference between "equal" and "identical" to this guy. They both end in "-al," so I can see why he may have been confused. But in all seriousness, if this guy had bothered to do his homework, it should have been pretty clear that the argument for women's equality is hardly based on the premise of men and women's identical biologies or psychologies. It may be based on the fact that both men and women are human beings, and therefore deserve equal treatment, but identical? That argument has gone the way of the dinosaur, and nobody is claiming that that's why men and women should be treated equally.
It just gets better from there. He argues that the fundamental differences between men and women make it difficult to assess their welfare - like comparing apples to oranges - and so it's really impossible to say that women have historically been worse off than men throughout history. That makes sense. You can't really compare a basket of apples that have been sitting on top of a box of oranges, squishing all the juice and life out of them, with that box of oranges, because they're completely different things! The oranges were put on earth to support and nurture the apples, not come into their own as separate but equally delicious entities.
I have to say, however, that my favourite argument of all is for the evils of modern feminism and goes as follows: as feminism came into its own as a political and social movement, women's reported happiness decreased. Obviously that's because feminism allowed women to earn more money, which in turn made them as unhappy as men. It couldn't possibly be that as women began to take their own place in society, they became aware of just how much more work feminism has to do to bring about equality, or because in addition to working full-time women are also expected to do the bulk of childcare and domestic duties. Kanazawa graciously admits that rising divorce rates and higher levels of single mother-hood may have contributed, but resolutely clings to his hare-brained idea that women were so much better off as unempowered, under-educated, mistreated domestic servants in all but name.
I can't really explain how angry this article made me. The misogyny and woman-bashing are bad enough but frankly not particularly original. It's his blatant unwillingness to do a little research about feminism instead of blindly rushing in and discrediting decades of hard work by famous and nameless women that really gets me. The tagline for the article basically sums it up:
"Feminism is the radical notion that women are men."
If that's really how he feels about feminism, I suggest that LSE, Psychology Today, and any other organization of any repute do some long, hard thinking before they allow someone with such a regressive and dangerous view of human interactions to affiliate himself with their name. I sincerely hope that this article is taken as the deranged ramblings of a bitter man, rather than a legitimate piece of social commentary.
via Shakesville
I don't normally re-post dreck like this - mainly because I don't think that it's worth repeating. That being said, there are a few things about this particular gem that I just can't ignore - the first being that it is posted on the website of a legitimate publication, not Joe Wingnut's Weekly Woman-hating Whangdoodle. The author, Satoshi Kanazawa, is a Reader in Management at L.S.FUCKING.E.. It is an opinion piece, and regardless of how offensive it is, I respect this shmuck's right to his own (misguided) opinion. I do, however, take issue with the fact that as an evolutionary psychologist, his opinion counts for a little more than your average nutbar screaming about how the feminazis took his job.
Right off the bat, he bases his argument on the oft-repeated tenet that "feminists think that men and women are identical ha ha those silly feminists and their poor understanding of biology." He took that particular point from Susan Pinker's book "The Sexual Paradox," in which the author points out that men and women are NOT identical. Clearly someone needs to point out the difference between "equal" and "identical" to this guy. They both end in "-al," so I can see why he may have been confused. But in all seriousness, if this guy had bothered to do his homework, it should have been pretty clear that the argument for women's equality is hardly based on the premise of men and women's identical biologies or psychologies. It may be based on the fact that both men and women are human beings, and therefore deserve equal treatment, but identical? That argument has gone the way of the dinosaur, and nobody is claiming that that's why men and women should be treated equally.
It just gets better from there. He argues that the fundamental differences between men and women make it difficult to assess their welfare - like comparing apples to oranges - and so it's really impossible to say that women have historically been worse off than men throughout history. That makes sense. You can't really compare a basket of apples that have been sitting on top of a box of oranges, squishing all the juice and life out of them, with that box of oranges, because they're completely different things! The oranges were put on earth to support and nurture the apples, not come into their own as separate but equally delicious entities.
I have to say, however, that my favourite argument of all is for the evils of modern feminism and goes as follows: as feminism came into its own as a political and social movement, women's reported happiness decreased. Obviously that's because feminism allowed women to earn more money, which in turn made them as unhappy as men. It couldn't possibly be that as women began to take their own place in society, they became aware of just how much more work feminism has to do to bring about equality, or because in addition to working full-time women are also expected to do the bulk of childcare and domestic duties. Kanazawa graciously admits that rising divorce rates and higher levels of single mother-hood may have contributed, but resolutely clings to his hare-brained idea that women were so much better off as unempowered, under-educated, mistreated domestic servants in all but name.
I can't really explain how angry this article made me. The misogyny and woman-bashing are bad enough but frankly not particularly original. It's his blatant unwillingness to do a little research about feminism instead of blindly rushing in and discrediting decades of hard work by famous and nameless women that really gets me. The tagline for the article basically sums it up:
"Feminism is the radical notion that women are men."
If that's really how he feels about feminism, I suggest that LSE, Psychology Today, and any other organization of any repute do some long, hard thinking before they allow someone with such a regressive and dangerous view of human interactions to affiliate himself with their name. I sincerely hope that this article is taken as the deranged ramblings of a bitter man, rather than a legitimate piece of social commentary.
via Shakesville
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
