Context
Sally Ride died yesterday. I didn't know this until I was looking at The Huffington Post for another reason and saw the headline to this article. I didn't read the article, but understood from the headline that Sally Ride was a lesbian. About 15 seconds later, I saw the headline to this article about some reactions in the LGBTQ community to a memorial tweet by Mitt Romney. This time I actually clicked through to the article in question.
Commentary
My first response to the Twitter fight referenced above was puzzlement. I thought that the fact that people were getting angry meant that Romney had said something derogatory about Sally Ride's sexual orientation on his Twitter account. But no, just the standard, "We've lost an American hero today" stuff. So the retweets seemed to be saying, "Because you haven't fully supported equality for homosexuals, you don't get to honor them when they die."
On the face of it, I though the reaction was crazy for two reasons:
1) It was unfair. I don't know the exact timing of Romney's tweet, but I get the impression that Sally Ride did not come out of the closet to the general public while she was alive. There is every reason to believe the presumptive Republican nominee didn't even know she was gay when he tweeted about her. And if you're going to blame him for that, you're too far gone for me to even talk to you.
2) It was ungracious. When someone says he admires you or holds a door open for you, you thank him politely. You don't spit in his face.
My husband contends that the offended members of the LGBTQ might have been saying that tweeting about someone's death is somewhat self-aggrandizing, unlike sending a private note of condolence to the family. It's kind of like mentioning Sally Ride's death at the beginning of your stump speech for the day. It acknowledges the loss, sure, but also ties it to your current endeavors. So the retweeters respond, "Nuh-uh, you don't get to hitch your wagon to our star!" and that might be a reasonable response.
We have so many ways of communicating these days and mass communication is becoming increasingly massive in both its reach and its accessibility. Telling everyone how you're feeling has become simple, as has gathering everyone's response. Even things that really should be private, like letting someone know you're breaking up with him, end up happening through Facebook.
Which brings me to God. Generally speaking, although I'm pretty sure He can, God does not engage in mass communication, except in the person of Jesus. Usually, when the Almighty speaks from a place of divinity, He gives a personalized message to one person. Now, that person often passes the message on to a crowd, in which case we call him/her a prophet, but some of the best Bible stories derive from private communication between an individual and her/his Lord: the Magnificat; Jesus telling the woman, "Your sins are forgiven;" even Jonah's argument with God about job satisfaction. I'm not saying I know why God chooses to communicate this way, but I think it does bring home the idea the manner in which we deliver a message can be as telling as its content.
What did you see today?
Showing posts with label gender. Show all posts
Showing posts with label gender. Show all posts
7/24/2012
6/25/2012
I saw a cheesecake shot
Context
I'm at the annual meeting of the American Library Association this weekend. While walking the exhibit floor, I saw that one booth had a life-sized standee image (not a photograph) of a woman wearing what could only be generously called a g-string and bra. They had a science-fictiony look to them, almost like Batman's utility belt. I don't remember if the vendor was selling books or tech, two of the most common things to see at ALA.
Commentary
I've been to comic book conventions, math conventions, and library tech conventions, and the only ones I remember seeing a similar display to this one are the comic book ones. When I looked at this scantily-clad woman I thought, "Man, did their marketing department ever blow it!"
This has to do with the fact that the library profession is made up predominantly of women. Not entirely, and some of the women are lesbians, who might have found the woman attractive, but enough so that the vast majority of people passing the display would be annoyed or offended. What's worse, because of that general level of offense, the people who might actually find the image attractive would be embarrassed. I found myself wondering if the vendor managed to snag anyone at all.
The contrast between what works in a conference composed primarily of women and one composed primarily of men reminded me of the talk I had just attended by Dan Ariely, author of the new book The Honest Truth About Dishonesty: How We Lie to Everyone, Especially Ourselves. The book is mostly about cheating, but it seems like one of the things Ariely's research has uncovered applies to other mores and values as well: social context matters. So if you're a man in a convention hall surrounded by other men, you likely won't feel too self-conscious about ogling a pretty girl. Quite the opposite, in fact. But when you're the only guy walking around with five female colleagues? Very different standards of behavior apply, and as Ariely says, each of your actions in the different contexts will seem right to you, even if they appear contradictory to an outside observer.
I'm not saying there's anything wrong with displaying or looking at a picture of a sexy woman. I'm just saying it may not always be your best marketing tool.
What did you see today?
6/17/2011
I saw a guy checking out a girl
Context
As I was leaving the library for lunch today, a woman came down in the elevator with me and a tweenish girl who appeared to be her daughter. The younger lady was wearing the tiny shorts that are in vogue these days. As we stepped out into the alley behind the library, a gentleman in his twenties or thirties gave the girl a once-over.
Commentary
I thought the gentleman's scrutiny of the young lady was inappropriate for a couple of reasons: she was much younger than him and, as I said, probably walking with her mother. The fact that he was checking out a stranger also came to mind, but realistically, that happens all the time. Driving While Black is the term we use for unwarranted traffic stops based on the color of one's skin; perhaps I'll coin the term Walking While Female to describe the "She's on the street, therefore she's on display for my enjoyment" mentality.
Which brings me to the shorts. Is it the case that someone wearing short shorts is deliberately putting herself on display? Possibly not, because sometimes clothing that happens to be good-looking also happens to be comfortable, functional, and/or mandatory.
On the other hand, it would be silly for me to say ladies young and old don't ever try to attract male attention with their clothing. For myself, I can think of five different things I'm trying/have tried to say by wearing attractive clothing, "attractive" here being defined as smart, stylish, sexy, or some combination of those.
1) "I'm single and looking. If you're a sufficiently attractive, interesting and well-mannered guy, you're welcome to make a romantic or sexual pitch in my direction."
2) "I feel ugly (or some other kind of 'bad') today. You're welcome to pay some attention to me, as it may raise my self-esteem, but I'm not interesting in starting anything."
3) "I feel pretty (or some other kind of 'good') today. If you want to look at me and share in my general positive mood, yay! Anything beyond a look and a smile will be presumptuous, though."
4) "I'm with my husband and I'm dressed this way so he won't be embarrassed to be seen with me. You're welcome to appreciate his impeccable taste in women."
5) "I'm dressed this way FOR my husband. You're not welcome to participate at all."
Unfortunately, my actual clothing doesn't explicitly convey any of these messages, and it's probably not fair to expect guys to be able to discern the correct explanation in the amount of time it takes me to walk by them. However, I would state that it's equally unfair for a guy to assume any one of them, and refuse to give up that assumption when I make my intentions clear. I'm willing to count a little scrutiny as human nature. More than that without encouragement is just plain rude.
What did you see today?
As I was leaving the library for lunch today, a woman came down in the elevator with me and a tweenish girl who appeared to be her daughter. The younger lady was wearing the tiny shorts that are in vogue these days. As we stepped out into the alley behind the library, a gentleman in his twenties or thirties gave the girl a once-over.
Commentary
I thought the gentleman's scrutiny of the young lady was inappropriate for a couple of reasons: she was much younger than him and, as I said, probably walking with her mother. The fact that he was checking out a stranger also came to mind, but realistically, that happens all the time. Driving While Black is the term we use for unwarranted traffic stops based on the color of one's skin; perhaps I'll coin the term Walking While Female to describe the "She's on the street, therefore she's on display for my enjoyment" mentality.
Which brings me to the shorts. Is it the case that someone wearing short shorts is deliberately putting herself on display? Possibly not, because sometimes clothing that happens to be good-looking also happens to be comfortable, functional, and/or mandatory.
On the other hand, it would be silly for me to say ladies young and old don't ever try to attract male attention with their clothing. For myself, I can think of five different things I'm trying/have tried to say by wearing attractive clothing, "attractive" here being defined as smart, stylish, sexy, or some combination of those.
1) "I'm single and looking. If you're a sufficiently attractive, interesting and well-mannered guy, you're welcome to make a romantic or sexual pitch in my direction."
2) "I feel ugly (or some other kind of 'bad') today. You're welcome to pay some attention to me, as it may raise my self-esteem, but I'm not interesting in starting anything."
3) "I feel pretty (or some other kind of 'good') today. If you want to look at me and share in my general positive mood, yay! Anything beyond a look and a smile will be presumptuous, though."
4) "I'm with my husband and I'm dressed this way so he won't be embarrassed to be seen with me. You're welcome to appreciate his impeccable taste in women."
5) "I'm dressed this way FOR my husband. You're not welcome to participate at all."
Unfortunately, my actual clothing doesn't explicitly convey any of these messages, and it's probably not fair to expect guys to be able to discern the correct explanation in the amount of time it takes me to walk by them. However, I would state that it's equally unfair for a guy to assume any one of them, and refuse to give up that assumption when I make my intentions clear. I'm willing to count a little scrutiny as human nature. More than that without encouragement is just plain rude.
What did you see today?
1/24/2011
I saw a description of violence
Context
I'm reading Our Choice of Gods by Richard Parrish. It's a novel about the roots and consequences of conflict in Palestine, starting with Jewish lives destroyed by the Holocaust, which leads to the Israelis' callousness toward the Palestinians in the Holy Land, which in turn causes the Palestinians to embrace terrorism, and so on and so on. I picked up the book because, although the causes of violence are obvious to me, I was interested to see what would make someone turn the other way and actually embrace peace.
Commentary
When I was in college I came to the conclusion that, popular opinion to the side, men were actually much more romantic than women. "Romantic" in this case meaning they were much more likely to believe in things like love at first sight and eternal soul mates than the women I knew, who talked more about "not losing your head" and "making the relationship work."
"Wow, you've really gone far afield there, Lynn." Bear with me; I'm coming back. Similarly to the way conventional wisdom says women are romantic, it also says pacifists are hopelessly unrealistic in their view of a world where everyone gives each other warm fuzzies all the time. Actually, that's not what I believe as a pacifist, but more importantly, I think the proponents of violence are far more impractical than I am, in that they believe they can harness that wildfire to a particular set of goals.
Consider Palestine. This is an area of the world where two groups of people (well, actually about 500 groups of people, but let's try to keep it simple) hold the following belief: there is some act of violence we can commit that will cause the other group to leave this place and never come back. Over time, some members of both groups have given this belief up, but there is a seemingly endless supply of instigators who pop up and say, "No, no, this time I have a plan that will win us a decisive victory," the evidence of the past 60 years (or the past several thousand, but again, I'm trying to simplify) notwithstanding. How is that more realistic than pacifism, which often says at its base, "I don't respond well to force. Therefore I'm going to assume you don't either."?
What did you see today?
I'm reading Our Choice of Gods by Richard Parrish. It's a novel about the roots and consequences of conflict in Palestine, starting with Jewish lives destroyed by the Holocaust, which leads to the Israelis' callousness toward the Palestinians in the Holy Land, which in turn causes the Palestinians to embrace terrorism, and so on and so on. I picked up the book because, although the causes of violence are obvious to me, I was interested to see what would make someone turn the other way and actually embrace peace.
Commentary
When I was in college I came to the conclusion that, popular opinion to the side, men were actually much more romantic than women. "Romantic" in this case meaning they were much more likely to believe in things like love at first sight and eternal soul mates than the women I knew, who talked more about "not losing your head" and "making the relationship work."
"Wow, you've really gone far afield there, Lynn." Bear with me; I'm coming back. Similarly to the way conventional wisdom says women are romantic, it also says pacifists are hopelessly unrealistic in their view of a world where everyone gives each other warm fuzzies all the time. Actually, that's not what I believe as a pacifist, but more importantly, I think the proponents of violence are far more impractical than I am, in that they believe they can harness that wildfire to a particular set of goals.
Consider Palestine. This is an area of the world where two groups of people (well, actually about 500 groups of people, but let's try to keep it simple) hold the following belief: there is some act of violence we can commit that will cause the other group to leave this place and never come back. Over time, some members of both groups have given this belief up, but there is a seemingly endless supply of instigators who pop up and say, "No, no, this time I have a plan that will win us a decisive victory," the evidence of the past 60 years (or the past several thousand, but again, I'm trying to simplify) notwithstanding. How is that more realistic than pacifism, which often says at its base, "I don't respond well to force. Therefore I'm going to assume you don't either."?
What did you see today?
12/02/2009
I saw a billboard
Context
Lee Michaels, a Louisiana-based chain of jewelry stores has several billboards in Shreveport. The one I passed today said, "If a woman says she doesn't want anything, she's lying."
Commentary
The general marketing technique of jewelry stores, particularly during the holidays, is to say that the way to a woman's heart is through expensive baubles. Perhaps I shouldn't take advertising so seriously, but I don't get this idea at all.
Don't get me wrong; I like pretty shiny things and I have a diamond engagement ring. But about the time it started being "our money," I realized that putting a huge chunk of it into personal decoration was actually a contrary indicator of how well I would be taken care of in the future. On the other hand, I understand that other women may have differing opinions about both money and relationships.
But now Lee Michaels has libeled me personally. I, in fact, frequently tell my husband and others that I don't want anything for Christmas or other occasions. It's not that I don't appreciate gifts and the affection behind them, but frankly I'm at a financial place in my life where if I want something, I buy it for myself. Of course, I may be in this place because I don't indulge in a lot of expensive jewelry, but I digress.
The point is, I'm not lying. I really don't want anything and won't be the slightest bit offended if you don't get me a Christmas gift. Even if I get you something, because I only do that if I want to, not because I'm setting up some kind of winter solstice-specific swap meet.
So quit telling lies about me, Lee Michaels. And if you'd like to discontinue your general practice of implying that women in general are sneaky gold-diggers who can't afford their own jewelry, that would be peachy too.
What did you see today?
Lee Michaels, a Louisiana-based chain of jewelry stores has several billboards in Shreveport. The one I passed today said, "If a woman says she doesn't want anything, she's lying."
Commentary
The general marketing technique of jewelry stores, particularly during the holidays, is to say that the way to a woman's heart is through expensive baubles. Perhaps I shouldn't take advertising so seriously, but I don't get this idea at all.
Don't get me wrong; I like pretty shiny things and I have a diamond engagement ring. But about the time it started being "our money," I realized that putting a huge chunk of it into personal decoration was actually a contrary indicator of how well I would be taken care of in the future. On the other hand, I understand that other women may have differing opinions about both money and relationships.
But now Lee Michaels has libeled me personally. I, in fact, frequently tell my husband and others that I don't want anything for Christmas or other occasions. It's not that I don't appreciate gifts and the affection behind them, but frankly I'm at a financial place in my life where if I want something, I buy it for myself. Of course, I may be in this place because I don't indulge in a lot of expensive jewelry, but I digress.
The point is, I'm not lying. I really don't want anything and won't be the slightest bit offended if you don't get me a Christmas gift. Even if I get you something, because I only do that if I want to, not because I'm setting up some kind of winter solstice-specific swap meet.
So quit telling lies about me, Lee Michaels. And if you'd like to discontinue your general practice of implying that women in general are sneaky gold-diggers who can't afford their own jewelry, that would be peachy too.
What did you see today?
4/20/2009
I saw an older European-American man driving poorly
Context
In Shreveport, I-20 West has an off ramp that merges into northbound Common Street. As I was traveling north on Common this morning, one of the cars on this ramp failed to yield to oncoming traffic like it was supposed to. When I looked at the driver of the vehicle, I saw that he was an older European-American, and that he was looking down at the seat next to him rather than watching where he was going. I said "Sir!" in an exasperated tone as I swerved around him. At least one of the cars behind me, which had to swerve even more, honked at him.
Commentary
My theories as to what happened with the guy this morning all center around him not realizing he was sliding into traffic. In other words, he thought he had a moment or two to glance at his papers or his phone or whatever before he would have to pay attention to other cars, but he didn't. But that's not what I want to talk about. I want to talk about white privilege.
I am not a road-ragey type. This is one of the few areas in my life where I actually hew pretty closely to the Quaker peace testimony. I do not honk my horn in anger, only in warning or greeting. When my fellow drivers do something irritating, I usually just say or yell something in the privacy of my own vehicle and it usually isn't even profane or insulting. Something along the lines of "C'mon!" or "Seriously?" If I'm particularly irked I'll emulate my dad, who used to say "Well, friend . . . " in a very sarcastic tone. This is pretty funny in light of the fact that my dad was not a Quaker but a Baptist, but I digress.
However, I don't recall ever saying "Sir" before. Now maybe it's just because I live in Louisiana, where "yes, sir" and "no ma'am" have been codified into law. But I don't think so. I think it's because the driver was older than me, which definitely does deserve some respect, and because he was white and male, which doesn't necessarily.
So I guess my new mandate in the fight for equality is to refer to every bad driver, without prejudice, as sir or ma'am. Wish me luck!
What did you see today?
In Shreveport, I-20 West has an off ramp that merges into northbound Common Street. As I was traveling north on Common this morning, one of the cars on this ramp failed to yield to oncoming traffic like it was supposed to. When I looked at the driver of the vehicle, I saw that he was an older European-American, and that he was looking down at the seat next to him rather than watching where he was going. I said "Sir!" in an exasperated tone as I swerved around him. At least one of the cars behind me, which had to swerve even more, honked at him.
Commentary
My theories as to what happened with the guy this morning all center around him not realizing he was sliding into traffic. In other words, he thought he had a moment or two to glance at his papers or his phone or whatever before he would have to pay attention to other cars, but he didn't. But that's not what I want to talk about. I want to talk about white privilege.
I am not a road-ragey type. This is one of the few areas in my life where I actually hew pretty closely to the Quaker peace testimony. I do not honk my horn in anger, only in warning or greeting. When my fellow drivers do something irritating, I usually just say or yell something in the privacy of my own vehicle and it usually isn't even profane or insulting. Something along the lines of "C'mon!" or "Seriously?" If I'm particularly irked I'll emulate my dad, who used to say "Well, friend . . . " in a very sarcastic tone. This is pretty funny in light of the fact that my dad was not a Quaker but a Baptist, but I digress.
However, I don't recall ever saying "Sir" before. Now maybe it's just because I live in Louisiana, where "yes, sir" and "no ma'am" have been codified into law. But I don't think so. I think it's because the driver was older than me, which definitely does deserve some respect, and because he was white and male, which doesn't necessarily.
So I guess my new mandate in the fight for equality is to refer to every bad driver, without prejudice, as sir or ma'am. Wish me luck!
What did you see today?
4/03/2009
I saw a DVD on harassment and discrimination
Context
The Technical Services division of my library had its annual training on discrimination and harassment in the workplace today. Interspersed with watching a DVD called Without Regard we had some commentary and discussion time. At one point while we were discussing discrimination one of my co-workers made, I think without realizing it, a blatantly discriminatory remark about the suitability of men and women for a particular job. A little later on, when the HR director was talking about the potential harm caused by jokes, I thought to myself, "people are just being silly if they get offended when we do stuff like that."
Commentary
I don't have much to say about the situation today. Instead I want to say something else about Matthew 7:1-5: it is a quality of sinners that if it's wrong we don't think we do it (my coworker), and if we do it, we don't think it's wrong (me).
What did you see today?
The Technical Services division of my library had its annual training on discrimination and harassment in the workplace today. Interspersed with watching a DVD called Without Regard we had some commentary and discussion time. At one point while we were discussing discrimination one of my co-workers made, I think without realizing it, a blatantly discriminatory remark about the suitability of men and women for a particular job. A little later on, when the HR director was talking about the potential harm caused by jokes, I thought to myself, "people are just being silly if they get offended when we do stuff like that."
Commentary
I don't have much to say about the situation today. Instead I want to say something else about Matthew 7:1-5: it is a quality of sinners that if it's wrong we don't think we do it (my coworker), and if we do it, we don't think it's wrong (me).
What did you see today?
3/06/2009
I heard about no-win situations
Context
My boss and I were talking about situations where you "catch more flies with honey than vinegar," and he mentioned one where there's nothing you can say that won't get you in trouble: "should I eat this?", when spoken by a girlfriend. I said, "yup, and the ever-popular 'does this make me look fat?'"
Commentary
I'm not going to talk about body-image issues. It is, frankly, too easy a target and I don't think I have anything new to contribute to it. Instead I'm going to make a heartfelt plea that we stop asking questions of our significant others that we should be answering ourselves. And it's not just straight women. People of every conceivable type of romantic interest set these little traps (hopefully unintentionally!) for the people they supposedly like.
Take "does this make me look fat?" First of all, this question implies that what you look like is somehow the fault of an inanimate object. Also, you're asking someone outside yourself to create an objective reality for you. No matter how she or he answers, that answer is supposed to stand in for everyone else in the world, including you.
At the very least, make this a question that encompasses only one person's opinion: "do you think I look fat when I wear this?" Before you ask a question like this, though, you should probably prepare yourself for one of three answers:
1) I have no opinion. The sad fact of life is if you're asking a straight male the question, this is likely the answer. Men may be partial to or repulsed by how some small subset of our garments look on us, but face it, when we own the same pair of shoes in navy and black, we can't even tell the difference ourselves most mornings.
2) Yes. This means your significant other thinks this is an unflattering garment. Or that he/she likes you fat. Nothing more. It is not a reflection on the entire history of your relationship.
3) No. This may potentially mean your partner disagrees with you on how flattering this item is.
So how do you deal with this disagreement? Go with your own opinion (oh well, I don't like it anyway, off to Goodwill)? Then why did you ask? Go with their opinion (OK, I'll keep it then, just as a present to you)? Actually, this is not a bad way to train your significant other to be honest, because if she/he is not, you're going to end up with a lot of clothes neither of you can stand! Honestly reassess your opinion in light of partner's, but still make up your own mind? Heavens! How insanely well-adjusted of you!
As for the "should I eat this?" question, I think it is far more easily dispensed with. There are only three circumstances under which you should be asking ANYONE this question:
1) You have been presented with something that for cultural reasons you don't know the purpose of. If someone gives you a definitive answer either way, do what they say.
2) You are under 14. In this case you should give some credence to the answer, especially if you have documented food sensitivities.
3) You are asking a registered dietician, in which case you can ask for the advice but still make up your own mind.
In every other situation grownups are expected to know how to feed themselves. Even female grownups with body-image issues.
What did you hear today?
My boss and I were talking about situations where you "catch more flies with honey than vinegar," and he mentioned one where there's nothing you can say that won't get you in trouble: "should I eat this?", when spoken by a girlfriend. I said, "yup, and the ever-popular 'does this make me look fat?'"
Commentary
I'm not going to talk about body-image issues. It is, frankly, too easy a target and I don't think I have anything new to contribute to it. Instead I'm going to make a heartfelt plea that we stop asking questions of our significant others that we should be answering ourselves. And it's not just straight women. People of every conceivable type of romantic interest set these little traps (hopefully unintentionally!) for the people they supposedly like.
Take "does this make me look fat?" First of all, this question implies that what you look like is somehow the fault of an inanimate object. Also, you're asking someone outside yourself to create an objective reality for you. No matter how she or he answers, that answer is supposed to stand in for everyone else in the world, including you.
At the very least, make this a question that encompasses only one person's opinion: "do you think I look fat when I wear this?" Before you ask a question like this, though, you should probably prepare yourself for one of three answers:
1) I have no opinion. The sad fact of life is if you're asking a straight male the question, this is likely the answer. Men may be partial to or repulsed by how some small subset of our garments look on us, but face it, when we own the same pair of shoes in navy and black, we can't even tell the difference ourselves most mornings.
2) Yes. This means your significant other thinks this is an unflattering garment. Or that he/she likes you fat. Nothing more. It is not a reflection on the entire history of your relationship.
3) No. This may potentially mean your partner disagrees with you on how flattering this item is.
So how do you deal with this disagreement? Go with your own opinion (oh well, I don't like it anyway, off to Goodwill)? Then why did you ask? Go with their opinion (OK, I'll keep it then, just as a present to you)? Actually, this is not a bad way to train your significant other to be honest, because if she/he is not, you're going to end up with a lot of clothes neither of you can stand! Honestly reassess your opinion in light of partner's, but still make up your own mind? Heavens! How insanely well-adjusted of you!
As for the "should I eat this?" question, I think it is far more easily dispensed with. There are only three circumstances under which you should be asking ANYONE this question:
1) You have been presented with something that for cultural reasons you don't know the purpose of. If someone gives you a definitive answer either way, do what they say.
2) You are under 14. In this case you should give some credence to the answer, especially if you have documented food sensitivities.
3) You are asking a registered dietician, in which case you can ask for the advice but still make up your own mind.
In every other situation grownups are expected to know how to feed themselves. Even female grownups with body-image issues.
What did you hear today?
2/02/2009
I saw a cartoon
Context
Carolyn Hax writes a daily advice column for the Washington Post called "Tell Me About It." It's a daily column, but the Shreveport Times only carries it on Sundays. Yesterday, they printed the Friday column, which you can find at this link (may require registration). The column usually has a cartoon, not done by Carolyn herself, that summarizes the problem being described.
Commentary
Yes, despite my stated objections to registering for the Washington Post, I actually broke down and did so for the purpose of bringing you the link posted above. I hope you're happy.
Actually, I'm happy because now that I've found out that Carolyn writes every day, I'll probably be reading her every day. I like advice columns in general and I'm particularly fond of Carolyn's because I think she takes a very straightforward approach to problem-solving.
But I wanted to talk about the cartoon. If you're not able to look at the link, you'll have to take my word for the fact that it seems to depict two African-American characters. Carolyn herself is European-American and I have no idea of the racial identity of the advice-seeker in question. In fact, the characters in the cartoons on Tell Me About It seem to regularly cycle through the physical characteristics of various races and that got me to wondering if that actually helps people of different ethnicities identify with the advice Carolyn gives.
To be fair, it seems to be a general assumption that we make. When deciding issues as varied as who to cast in a TV show and whether to celebrate Black History Month, some consideration is given to the idea that people need to see someone who looks like them in order to identify with them.
But is this really true? I don't think it is for me. I'm more likely to identify with someone who has the same personality characteristics I do than someone who looks like me. Here's an example: Stephen King's book The Stand has twelve main characters (and dozens of minor ones, but I digress), three of whom are female and to my very picky standards quite well-written. I don't identify with any of them. Instead I identify with three of the male characters, one because he's a constant screw-up (Peter is my patron saint), one because of the challenges he has to surmount to achieve his destiny, and one because he's an intellectual.
My Quaker meeting, which has no African-American attenders, invited several black women to come talk to us a couple of years ago about ending racism. What I remember most clearly from the discussion was one lady saying she was dismayed that teachers at her son's school thought he wouldn't be interested in certain activities because he'd be the only black kid in attendance. Since then I've resolved to never make assumptions about a person's preferences based on their physical appearance. There may be some cultural characteristics that many black people share, but I think we go seriously astray if we assert that all people with dark skin identify with all of them. Our choices aren't based on how we look; they're based on who we are.
What did you see today?
Carolyn Hax writes a daily advice column for the Washington Post called "Tell Me About It." It's a daily column, but the Shreveport Times only carries it on Sundays. Yesterday, they printed the Friday column, which you can find at this link (may require registration). The column usually has a cartoon, not done by Carolyn herself, that summarizes the problem being described.
Commentary
Yes, despite my stated objections to registering for the Washington Post, I actually broke down and did so for the purpose of bringing you the link posted above. I hope you're happy.
Actually, I'm happy because now that I've found out that Carolyn writes every day, I'll probably be reading her every day. I like advice columns in general and I'm particularly fond of Carolyn's because I think she takes a very straightforward approach to problem-solving.
But I wanted to talk about the cartoon. If you're not able to look at the link, you'll have to take my word for the fact that it seems to depict two African-American characters. Carolyn herself is European-American and I have no idea of the racial identity of the advice-seeker in question. In fact, the characters in the cartoons on Tell Me About It seem to regularly cycle through the physical characteristics of various races and that got me to wondering if that actually helps people of different ethnicities identify with the advice Carolyn gives.
To be fair, it seems to be a general assumption that we make. When deciding issues as varied as who to cast in a TV show and whether to celebrate Black History Month, some consideration is given to the idea that people need to see someone who looks like them in order to identify with them.
But is this really true? I don't think it is for me. I'm more likely to identify with someone who has the same personality characteristics I do than someone who looks like me. Here's an example: Stephen King's book The Stand has twelve main characters (and dozens of minor ones, but I digress), three of whom are female and to my very picky standards quite well-written. I don't identify with any of them. Instead I identify with three of the male characters, one because he's a constant screw-up (Peter is my patron saint), one because of the challenges he has to surmount to achieve his destiny, and one because he's an intellectual.
My Quaker meeting, which has no African-American attenders, invited several black women to come talk to us a couple of years ago about ending racism. What I remember most clearly from the discussion was one lady saying she was dismayed that teachers at her son's school thought he wouldn't be interested in certain activities because he'd be the only black kid in attendance. Since then I've resolved to never make assumptions about a person's preferences based on their physical appearance. There may be some cultural characteristics that many black people share, but I think we go seriously astray if we assert that all people with dark skin identify with all of them. Our choices aren't based on how we look; they're based on who we are.
What did you see today?
7/24/2008
I saw a discussion about analogies
Context
I was catching up on some e-mail lists today, including the Information Literacy Instruction list. About a month ago a distinguished professor of library science sent the query referenced here to the list, asking about the use of analogies in library instruction. This touched off a long discussion of whether to use analogies at all and if so, which ones are appropriate. The discussion has largely petered out now, but a particular piece of advice, taken from this response really struck me:
Connect to real life experience – think about those common experiences students are likely to share such as shopping, eating, and sleeping. An examination of the common sports and military metaphors used in the teaching of physics and engineering and the disproportionate number of women in those disciplines can help illustrate the need to focus on common experiences.
Commentary
I don't know what to make of the implication here that sports and military metaphors do not reflect the "common experiences" of women. On the one hand, it's certainly reasonable to say that they are more likely to be common experiences for most men than for most women. On the other hand, I and both of my X chromosomes are much likely to understand a sports metaphor than say, a shopping one (I hate shopping with a purple passion!).
There's another underlying assumption here: that not using "common experiences" is bad. I can think of two reasons why that might be the case: students might not understand what you're trying to get across with your analogy, which is not the ideal result of a teaching method, or they might be offended by it, which is not good for any relationship between human beings.
I'm wondering if both of these problems are exacerbated by students' insecurities. I'm a pretty confident student, possibly because I'm also a teacher, so if someone uses an example or a metaphor that I don't understand, I say so and I expect the teacher to come up with a different one. In other words, I see my failure to learn as a problem to be solved, not a personal shortcoming that needs to be covered up.
I think offense works similarly. Certainly I'm offended if someone insults me to my face and I'll often take the bait when someone is deliberately trying to get a rise out of a certain group of people. Most of the time, though, I assume people don't mean to be offensive; they're just ignorant or at worst, insensitive. In both cases, self-confidence helps me address the issue with the offender productively instead of stewing in my own wounded juices. Shoot, in an exchange like that I might even discover that my own assumptions were incorrect!
Touchiness, whininess, and even victimhood sometimes say, "the world sucks and I can't do anything about it." So I guess what I'm advocating is less tiptoeing around a student's potential ignorant or touchy spots and more empowering them to tell us about those spots so we can engage in the learning experience together.
What did you see today?
I was catching up on some e-mail lists today, including the Information Literacy Instruction list. About a month ago a distinguished professor of library science sent the query referenced here to the list, asking about the use of analogies in library instruction. This touched off a long discussion of whether to use analogies at all and if so, which ones are appropriate. The discussion has largely petered out now, but a particular piece of advice, taken from this response really struck me:
Connect to real life experience – think about those common experiences students are likely to share such as shopping, eating, and sleeping. An examination of the common sports and military metaphors used in the teaching of physics and engineering and the disproportionate number of women in those disciplines can help illustrate the need to focus on common experiences.
Commentary
I don't know what to make of the implication here that sports and military metaphors do not reflect the "common experiences" of women. On the one hand, it's certainly reasonable to say that they are more likely to be common experiences for most men than for most women. On the other hand, I and both of my X chromosomes are much likely to understand a sports metaphor than say, a shopping one (I hate shopping with a purple passion!).
There's another underlying assumption here: that not using "common experiences" is bad. I can think of two reasons why that might be the case: students might not understand what you're trying to get across with your analogy, which is not the ideal result of a teaching method, or they might be offended by it, which is not good for any relationship between human beings.
I'm wondering if both of these problems are exacerbated by students' insecurities. I'm a pretty confident student, possibly because I'm also a teacher, so if someone uses an example or a metaphor that I don't understand, I say so and I expect the teacher to come up with a different one. In other words, I see my failure to learn as a problem to be solved, not a personal shortcoming that needs to be covered up.
I think offense works similarly. Certainly I'm offended if someone insults me to my face and I'll often take the bait when someone is deliberately trying to get a rise out of a certain group of people. Most of the time, though, I assume people don't mean to be offensive; they're just ignorant or at worst, insensitive. In both cases, self-confidence helps me address the issue with the offender productively instead of stewing in my own wounded juices. Shoot, in an exchange like that I might even discover that my own assumptions were incorrect!
Touchiness, whininess, and even victimhood sometimes say, "the world sucks and I can't do anything about it." So I guess what I'm advocating is less tiptoeing around a student's potential ignorant or touchy spots and more empowering them to tell us about those spots so we can engage in the learning experience together.
What did you see today?
1/11/2008
I saw a Katherine Heigl quote
Context
I was looking at the cover of the January 2008 Vanity Fair today, and it apparently had an interview with Katherine Heigl inside. I didn’t read the interview, but there was a pull quote on the cover saying, in effect, that Ms. Heigl thought the part she played in Knocked Up was a little “sexist,” because she was humorless and uptight. I haven’t seen Knocked Up, nor have I read the script.
Commentary
I’m not quite sure what Ms. Heigl means by her character being “sexist.” The character might have had some unattractive traits, but in order to be “sexist,” she would have to hold specific prejudices against either men or women and that’s not what the rest of the quote seems to imply.
I’m not just playing with semantics here. I think we often make the mistake of thinking that creating a stereotypical fiction character, i.e. one that embodies some of the prejudices people hold, is sexist. It may be inappropriate, lazy or stupid, but it’s not sexist.
Sexism (or ageism or racism or sexual orientationism) is the process of generalizing, of saying that certain characteristics are true of everyone who belongs to a given group. Writing a character a certain way only implies that one member of the group holds them. And realistically, it’s just as silly to write as if there are no humorless uptight women as it is to say all of them are.
It is possible to write a sexist character in the way the Heigl quote seems to imply. If the script said, “like all women, the character is humorless and uptight,” that would be sexism. On the other hand, it seems unlikely that any self-respecting actress would have taken the part if they’d read something like that.
What did you see today?
I was looking at the cover of the January 2008 Vanity Fair today, and it apparently had an interview with Katherine Heigl inside. I didn’t read the interview, but there was a pull quote on the cover saying, in effect, that Ms. Heigl thought the part she played in Knocked Up was a little “sexist,” because she was humorless and uptight. I haven’t seen Knocked Up, nor have I read the script.
Commentary
I’m not quite sure what Ms. Heigl means by her character being “sexist.” The character might have had some unattractive traits, but in order to be “sexist,” she would have to hold specific prejudices against either men or women and that’s not what the rest of the quote seems to imply.
I’m not just playing with semantics here. I think we often make the mistake of thinking that creating a stereotypical fiction character, i.e. one that embodies some of the prejudices people hold, is sexist. It may be inappropriate, lazy or stupid, but it’s not sexist.
Sexism (or ageism or racism or sexual orientationism) is the process of generalizing, of saying that certain characteristics are true of everyone who belongs to a given group. Writing a character a certain way only implies that one member of the group holds them. And realistically, it’s just as silly to write as if there are no humorless uptight women as it is to say all of them are.
It is possible to write a sexist character in the way the Heigl quote seems to imply. If the script said, “like all women, the character is humorless and uptight,” that would be sexism. On the other hand, it seems unlikely that any self-respecting actress would have taken the part if they’d read something like that.
What did you see today?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)