Health Care Bills and Protests

March 21st, 2010 by Brianna

The health care reform bill just passed, and there’s a bunch of unhappy people all over the country.

I won’t pretend to understand the issue completely (I got bored and stopped following it closely a long time ago). But if the summaries are correct, (and the CBO is accurate, which seems reasonable), we’ll get a moderate reduction in the deficit, some new taxes for the rich and people who use tanning salons, some decent subsidy expansions for low-income people, and some mild tweaks to medicaid and medicare. All quite undramatic, really.

All of which makes the protests quite bewildering.
Read full post »

Of Super Bowl Ads and Women

February 1st, 2010 by Brianna

Ever since Focus on the Family announced their pro-life Super Bowl ad, there’s been arguments and discussions all over. Should it be allowed by the network? Are feminists taking the wrong approach to criticizing it? (thanks, Sarah Palin!) And so on. One of the more interesting pieces was in the Washington Post – it basically suggests that feminists be, well, warmer and fuzzier and more appealing.

Echildne wrote a good (if very angry) bit about treating the pro-choice movement as if it was some sort of for-profit corporation, and loosing sight of well, a woman’s right to choose.

I’m going to suggest a slightly different take; the problem is all in the framing.

Read full post »

Pre-Ada Day #2: Kim Polese

March 23rd, 2009 by Brianna

(This post is for Ada Lovelace day, a new media event for raising awareness about women in technology.)

If you’ve been anywhere near a computer in the last 10 years, you’ve probably heard of something called Java. It’s a programming language and run-time environment, which, over the last 14 years, has gone from being non-existent to being the most popular programming language in the world. Much of Java’s popularity can be attributed to a woman named Kim Polese. Often described as a ‘one woman marketing team’, she insisted that Sun release Java technology without charging royalties: according to this interview, she said, “…it became pretty obvious to me that’s[royalties] a good way to kill a new language. People just won’t pay royalties. I was very insistent about that, and also about getting the source code out there.”

It’s no understatement to say that releasing Java in this way has revolutionized the software industry.

If you’d like to read more about Kim Polese, some other good interviews are here, here, and here. She is currently CEO of SpikeSource, an open source software company.

(Crossposted at Fourth Wave)

Will unemployment help reduce pay equality?

January 31st, 2009 by Brianna

Mild speculation alert!

According to the latest statistics, due to men being laid off at higher rates women now make up almost 50% of the workforce. (Thanks to Girl w/ Pen ) Now, as the Gw/P post pointed out, this is not necessarily a good thing, either for women or society as a whole.

But I do think that something very interesting could happen here. While much of the reason for this gender-unequal decrease is due to an overall decrease in male-dominated sectors (construction, etc.), there are many, many jobs being lost in other areas. Now, we know that women are paid much less on average than men. Furthermore, this pay inequality is not only caused by a larger percentage of men having jobs in higher paying fields, rather, the inequality holds true in almost every field (PDF).

If an employer is forced to lay someone off out of several who hold similar jobs, who are they going to choose – the higher paid person or the lower? Given similar work output (which is reasonable, I believe), most employers should choose the higher paid worker, who is statistically more likely to be male. This, will lead to a decrease in the gendered pay gap, at least temporarily.

The real test will come when the economy improves, pay rises, and unemployment drops. Will the men who were let go for having higher salaries be hired back at similar salaries to the women who remained? Will women’s salaries be raised? (increased relative seniority, etc.) In other words, whereas historically women have been entering, at a lower wage, into a male-dominated workforce, at some future point significant numbers of men might be entering into a (slightly) female-dominated workforce. I’m certain pay won’t become equal overnight, but hopefully things will improve.

On the other hand, non-whites are being disproportionately affected by rising unemployment. I’m not sure what the causes are, but I imagine it’s related to social inequalities. So, it comes down to: a (potential) step forward, and an (immediate) step back.

(Crossposted at Fourth Wave Feminism)

A mathematical solution to the door holding problem

December 11th, 2008 by Brianna

It seems strange that such a simple custom as holding a door open for someone should cause as much trouble as it does. It started out as a highly gendered, benevolent sexist activity (men holding doors for women). Later, feminists began to reject the door holding custom along with many other benevolently sexist actions, leading many to refuse to allow a man to hold a door for them at all. More recently, door holding seems to be a relatively gender neutral activity, with women and men holding doors for each other, irrespective of gender. (Except in a dating context…)

So – common courtesy, or sexist holdover? I know almost nothing about etiquette, but the scientist part of me has come up with a rather different solution…
Read full post »

More stereotypical characters, please!

October 18th, 2008 by Brianna

How many times have you heard or read these phrase: “<Random strong female character> is a good character because she’s strong without giving up her femininity.” or maybe, “It’s good that <random female character> isn’t just a male character in a woman’s body, because that is boring and stereotypical.”

I can’t seem to come up with any links to this kind of thing right now, but I keep hearing this kind of talk, over and over again – especially when I’m discussing something like Buffy with male friends. I just have one question: When has this ever been done? When have we seen a ‘male character in a female body’, and where can I find it?

Alien? Terminator? Ripley/Sarah Conner are cast in a mother role.

Alice or Jill in the Resident Evil series? Maybe. Some of Elizabeth Moon’s characters? I suppose.

I’m sure that there are more examples, but I think that we can agree – such characters are very, very rare.

Now, I love the complex, wonderful characters that are created when strong female characters are ‘done right’ i.e., not stereotypes. I wouldn’t have Buffy, or Ripley, or Xena, or Elizabeth Bennett, or whomever written any other way. Writers should strive to create complex, well-rounded characters of all genders. Sometimes, however, it just doesn’t happen. And sometimes, I’m just not up to digesting a complex, realistic character – I just want something simple. And stereotypes, ideals, are important to out cultural mythmaking…

But, where are these stereotypes? It seems like even the toughest female action-oriented characters resort to seduction on a regular basis. (c.f. Max from Dark Angel, Xena) And those that don’t are still supposed to be sympathetic to family members, spouses/boyfriends, starving orphans, etc, to a degree unheard of by their male counterparts. We wouldn’t want them seeming any less female, now would we? And if they are less female, they’re invarabily evil.

So here’s what I want:

I want a female western hero, Lone Ranger style. The kind that comes into town on a big white horse, defeats the bad guys, and rides of into the sunset. No weird former relationships, no serious love intrest, no noticeable weaknesses.

I want a female James Bond clone. Not an Alias-type female spy, but the whole masculine-fantasy Bond. Suave, perfect gentleperson, yet an amazing detective and fighter, who has an astonishing sense of luck, inept sidekicks, and who gets all the girls without trying, but who remains cooly detached throughout. For even more bonus points, make her straight and give her feminine, ‘woman in a man’s body’, male love interests.

(Side note: why is it that male characters often have love interests that are weak and girly, but female characters always dispise and reject weak male love interests, only accepting those that are close to their quality?)

I want a female buddy comedy. Baby Mama doesn’t count. It couldn’t have been made with male characters.

I want a romance movie with the roles reversed. Completely. Enough said.

I could go on and on.

We probably won’t ever get any of these things. There’s been such a rejection of cliched characters of any gender, that nobody’s going to try anything this different, but I can wish! Still…

The male ideal stereotype, the ‘White Knight’ if you will, is still pervasive in the culture. Even if modern fictional characters tend to be less idealistic, less heroic, the ideal is still there, and the modern characters still approximate it, even if they remain human. By refusing to create female characters who embody the masculine stereotype, even the strongest women will invarabily be compared, not to that stereotype, but to the existing feminine stereotype. This tendancy leads to a rejection of certain roles for women and men in real life. By denying this stereotype, we essentially deny half of human expression for half the human race.

And let’s not even start on feminine male characters…

(Crossposted from Fourth Wave)

Whedon and Feminism

September 18th, 2008 by Brianna

I’ve been thinking about making a “Buffy Episode Guide” type of section – sort of like the Xena guide at Whoosh! – with commentary and other information. So, to perhaps start things moving that way, here’s a little something about feminism in the buffy/firefly-verse.

With inspiration from The Hathor Legacy.

Read full post »

Feminism and Capitalism: Part 4 – Individualism

September 10th, 2008 by Brianna

Well, I had intended to keep my mouth shut on this for a while, but …
There are many feminists on the internets that despise ‘individualists’.

The criticism seems to fall along the lines of: “Individualists think that people are responsible for their own actions, that each person is in charge of their own life, such that if a person’s life is bad, it’s their own fault. Since we know that people can rarely help their circumstances, and that most of the time a person’s suffering is NOT their own fault at all, individualists are selfish, privileged people who don’t understand how the world works.”

I don’t know what other people mean by individualism, but I can’t help but think that only a fool – or worse – would believe that brand of individualism. When I say that i am an individualist, I’m not saying that people are responsible for their own fates, but that they should be. It is obvious that most people are not.

For me, this is what feminism is about, to a large extent. Women should be able to control their own lives, their own bodies, be able to choose their own relationships. Women deserve the be treated as individuals in their own right – not as property, or as a homogeneous group, or as the embodiment of all evil*. I cannot imagine feminism without this concept.

That is what I mean by individualism. Others are welcome disagree.

*I’ve been reading Women Hating by Andrea Dworkin, thus the evil – highly recommended, by the way, if you haven’t already.

(Jump back to the first part of this series)

Feminism and Capitalism: Part 3 – What is Oppression?, and a Conclusion

September 2nd, 2008 by Brianna

So, does capitalism cause oppression?

Now, I don’t think that anybody is denying that capital can cause oppression, or that our current capitalist system perpetuates oppression, or that people use capitalism to exploit others. This is undeniable. These facts, however, do not mean that capitalism must cause oppression, that it always leads to oppression. More importantly, they in no way show that there exists another system which by nature causes less oppression than capitalism. I will attempt
to argue not only that capitalism does not always cause oppression, but that capitalism is in fact neutral – it can be easily used by an oppressor, but it also places no barrier to those who would stop oppression.

Read full post »

Feminism and Capitalism: Part 2 – feminist objections to capitalism

August 26th, 2008 by Brianna

So, what are the possible feminist objections to capitalism?

The two that I was able to find easily – outside of some ecofeminists whose beliefs are tantamount to religion – were:

1. Capitalism encourages racial discrimination, and
2. Capitalism is inherently exploitive, leading to oppression.

These objections depend, of course, on the assumption that feminists should be anti-racist and anti-oppression. An excellent explanation of this concept, called intersectionality, can be found in the Feministe post linked in the first part of this series.

Read full post »