Time to play by my rules, thankyouverymuch!
I'm checking my subs this morning to see comments on yesterday's Blogher conference. (I loved it!)If I read them all, I'll need a new life and will miss tomorrow's plane. I am still steeping in my impressions and learnings and will come back to that. BUT... I have a feed for mentions of my blog and read Robert's post on Blogher. Then I clicked into the comments. Oi vey!
One guy wrote:I say women need to be bigger smartasses. Raise the middle finger more. Someone calls you bitch, smile and say thank you. (That works SO well too...confuses the hell out of them) Don't get offended so easily, don't let the world walk all over you. Someone's being a dick, call them on it. Just because you're born cloven instead of crested, you're not automagically required to run from straightforward handling of problems. If society tries to push that, fuck society, right in the ear.
My first reaction is to call this guy a dick. It is an easy response, but not the right one for me. I think I hear what John is saying to us as an affirming statement on his part. I appreciate that. It is an option anyone can embrace. But it misses the point. He is asking us to play by his rules.
Some of us don't want to. There are other options. For me, it is a concious choice. Because John feels that this approach works for him, does not mean it is the best form for everyone else. This IS the issue. Namecalling is a game I don't have to play and further, I don't want to be told I have to, and that not playing by his rules is some form of weakness. It isn't. It is a choice. And sometimes it is a damn powerful choice. There is more than one way to be straightforward -- giving the finger is not my only option (And note the very potentially sexist interpretation of the finger. A simulated penis. Hey, I don't want a penis, thankyouverymuch.) We are steeped and stewed in this culture of male dominance that it is invisible to many men. When we choose to step outside of it, we are often accused of weakness, or as whining.
Honey, I'm not whining. I'm roaring with my options. Not some guy's. That's the point. I have my choice to be and behave the way I choose. Women over time have been put down because they can't, don't, or won't choose to play by men's rules. So here is an important rub: why should we have to change? It goes both ways. I'm happy to be part of change in a community. I am not happy to change just for someone else. They have to come part way.
Now, there was one other comment that bears some elaboration. Scoble noted that Mena stated the large number of female live journalers. John O wrote: Not to pop their bubble, but they might want to check the demographics of livejournal users, before they use it as primary evidence to stand on. Besides EA_spouse, most are teenage girls: http://www.livejournal.com/stats.bml
First, I'm a bit bemused by the comment as if we have to legitimize our voices simply by a statistic, and then that this statistic is somehow less important if a large portion of the women in represents are under the age of 21.
I'm sure someone with your... influence, Scoble, could have them get an age skew for just females. Not saying their case is wrong, just saying they might want to find other evidence to stand on...
But let's get to the data. What is missing here is the context of Mena's comment. Yes, the number of females were mentioned. It was also clearly NOTED (but not part of Robert's comments) that many of these were young women. There was no hiding here or trying to puff up with numbers. But key was the follow-on part of the comment from Mena. These young women are taking on blogging as a part of their lives and when they grow up, they are going to want a platform, be it an extension of LJ or something else. SixApart is smart enough to see that market. There is a second wave effect has interesting implications. I believe it is some powerful evidence. So it is fantastic we report out from these events and snippets catch our eyes. I'm glad Robert posted and I appreciated what I "heard" in his post about listening. But as always, the context of this particular data point is important.
Now, one more and then it is time for breakfast. Why is it somehow wrong for women to want to meet and talk about things they care about. Since Blogher was announced, many snickered about a "woman's" blogging conference. Why would we even need one, since there are other blogging conferences. Well, beyond the fact that so few of those conferences have many female voices, think about how human beings express affinity. Engineers have conferences for themselves. SciFi fans have them. So when women choose to convene about blogging, why is it that some people question the legitimacy of that gathering? We want something for ourselves and friends, we are going to get it. Well, let me restate that. We created and yesterday we reaped the fruits of our labors.
Oh heck, yet one more. Thank you to all the men who came yesterday. I really, really would like to know how it felt to you. More than once I saw clusters of you hanging out together. I used to do that at tech conferences with the few women there. I remember my first Comdex where the presence of women was mostly in skimpy outfits selling products . When I found a booth staffed with a woman who could talk about her product, I was thrilled. I loved that I had the restrooms to myself, but I felt so sad that more women were not in the field. I felt like the other. It is comforting to be with your crew. The cool thing is once we all hang out together, we are now a new crew, made up of all of us.
Categories: blogher, bloghercon, women, sexism
posted by Nancy White at 8:15 AM
19 Comments:
So when women choose to convene about blogging, why is it that some people question the legitimacy of that gathering?
I don't know! I was very surprised when, a couple of times during the conference, women would stand up and say, "When I first heard about a conference for women, I..." (I forget what they said, something like "scoffed" or some such cynical response.) Then the person would say how the day totally changed them around, that it was a positive experience, etc. Why the cynical derision in the first place? It was truly bizarre hearing one woman say how she had never been to an all-woman anything before, but that she really loved it. I was thinking, "wait - she lived through the second wave women's movement, and this is her first experience of female solidarity?!"
Good post!
Really nice reply the Scoble comments. I had saved it in my Bloglines feed because something needed to be said and I just couldn't figure out exactly how to say it - you did so, perfectly. I appreciate that, very much.
I also like what you have to say in regards to the younger generation of women using LJ. Many people I know and work with consider it all "crap" and they're missing the point entirely. You, obviously, aren't. Again, you've just said exactly what I believe to be true. Awesome - as always.
"Honey", if I thought that everyone should play by my rules, that would be idiotic, and I'm a lot of things, but that's not it. The world doing everything like me would be the most stultifying, horrific, boring concept I can imagine.
(is it more or less condescending when I pull out the "Honey" than when you do?)
As for the rest:
I still think that's all the answer I need to give for things like this
John, I lived in the south long enough for "honey" to permeate my speaking style, so it doesn't sound condescending for me, either from me or from you, unless of course you were giving me the finger at the same time. It is actually a term of endearment. But you make a good point about language. You could read it any way.
If I didn't think you had something to say, I would not respond. So that's also a sign of respect -- even if I disagree with some of what you write.
BTW, loved reading about your mother. I take my role as a mother to two young men very seriously as we both have a lot to learn FROM each other. They teach me. I teach them.
I enjoyed how you perceived women. I felt a lot of joy in that writing and hope I sensed right. (You can't always tell if you read someone right, especially when you just start reading them.) I had a knee jerk reaction that it was a very male perspective, but heck, I can't help myself. I'm a woman and an individual.
If you didn't engage, John, I would be disappointed. So thanks!
No, you read it about perfectly.
I was trying to point something out that I don't see a lot. That strength isn't always about getting your own way, but about doing things in your own way. That, as Diane Duane said in one of her better books, power cannot be taken. That's force. Power can only be given freely.
That you don't have to silently endure a bunch of crap just because you're female. That maybe being by yourself is indeed better than being with someone just because they're there. And that there are a LOT of men who love women who refuse to hide their strength.
We may not announce it but we do. Usually, the women involved know it, and that's all we care about. There's no movement, no silly-assed new terms. Just people, being friends. What more is there?
Even if LiveJournal is composed 90% of teenage girls, and not "women" as was suggested by John; those girls grow up, and they will grow up with computers and writing...
Maybe I'm not interested in reading the journals filled with teen angst, but I believe that LJ is performing something of a service in getting the girls writing. We'll leave concerns over spelling and grammar for another discussion though ;)
Hi Nancy,
It was really nice to meet, you and chat next to the wine booth following the wrap-up.
(miriam from flink design here)
I was talking to barb D from engadget following the conf, and had a big rant (i think she even took notes..) about the social roots of politness in women and girls.
I don't think being offensive is a good idea. Giving the finger only tells the other person about the poverty of your communication skills.
But I do think women couch their actual feelings about a situation or a person in a kin dof politesse which borders on the dishonest a lot of the time. Mostly IMHO, in order to avoid looking rude or worse yet pushy/bitchy.
I think a social space like blogher is an excellent testing ground for both assertiveness and honesty.
mir
I don't think being offensive is a good idea. Giving the finger only tells the other person about the poverty of your communication skills.
Communications skills are more than a vocabulary contest. Sometimes, a single gesture or a short, sharp word is more eloquent than ten minutes of Will-isms.
Think about the "black power" salute at the '68 Olympics. Wordless, totally rude, a complete finger to the establishment without actually using the finger. But it said more than could be said in a year of speechifyin'
Or the volumes said by four words on one of my favorite buttons: "Fuck Art, Let's Dance". That's philosophy man, that's deep. I've had conversations that lasted DAYS about the implications of that.
The only time I'm against profanity is when it's improperly used. Learn how to cuss well if you're going to bother at all. It's harder than you may think.
But I do think women couch their actual feelings about a situation or a person in a kin dof politesse which borders on the dishonest a lot of the time.
I read, long ago, an interesting thing that happens in coed groups of children, say, kindergarten age. Two boys have a conflict, quite often it's settled quickly, mayhaps brutally...punch in the nose, smack on the head, kick in the stones, (Little boys discover this EARLY). There's some crying, but then it's OVER. If they get caught, what are they told?
"It's wrong to hit"
Okay, that's fair. No conditionals. Hittin's wrong, you get caught hitting, you're busted. Fair, and evenly applied.
What happens when girls do the hitting (to either sex)? Well, they'll get the "don't hit" message, but far too often, they get the additional "Girls don't hit" line. They're carefully taught, early on, that simple, forthright action is not permissible. They are almost required to become more circumspect in their actions. They're usually more vicious too. I can tell you for a fact, that in elementary school, I'd have rather gotten my ass BEAT by a pack of wild boys than have a bunch of girls start in on me verbally and emotionally. Physical damage was painful for far shorter.
What happens when a small boy treats a girl the way he'd treat a boy? "You must never hit a girl". Okay, so now boys know, you can't deal with girls in a forthright fashion. Gotta be circumspect. So that starts a kind of distrust of girls. You fear them, because you can't fight back against them, and boys, as a trend, don't get as good at the pointed verbal and emotional attacks that girls can be SO good at until years later.
Even in this day and age of therapy for everything, that "treat girls differently" crapola is shoveled out in heaps from early on.
The next time you see that happening, say something. Say "Hitting's wrong, period. Boys, girls, doesn't matter. You hit, you're in the wrong". Set the example that this kind of thing IS wrong, no matter WHO you hit. Teach that forthright doesn't mean smacking little bobby or susie upside the head, but that it's still how you treat people, male OR female. That would help fix a myriad of problems.
I'm rather proud of myself. I don't think I was in a male huddle/cluster all day. I did speak with a few men in passing, but I was there to meet the women I admire and those I should have heard of by now and to meet strangers and random pioneers of the female persuasion.
I never felt left out or anything, any more than I do attending a session for people of color or something else. Maybe that's because I've never really been "one of the guys" so I lack a sense of entitlement in that regard?
Can't think of a better way to spend an Saturday than surrounded by intelligent outspoken women. The energy was fantastic!
John,
I love your examples, that's exactly what I am talking about..
but I still don't agree that someone giving the finger congruent with a black power salute. the salute is talking about a political history,a narrative, and an identity.
All a finger says is; I don't even think you are worthy of my speech so why don't I mime a lewd act that is the only thing you *are* good for..
that's not non-verbal eloquence that's just plain rude.
But again, loved the description of schoolyard politics. all the reading I have done says girls are direct (verbally) up until they hit puberty and then they start developing the back-biting tendancys.
But I had never looked at the "never hit" thing as analogous to direct action.
mir
Sometimes the finger says all you need to say
Yeah, and sometimes the finger is received in ways you did not intend and communication then did not really happen. I mean, there is F-U and there is f-u.
As always, it ain't black and white.
And try as though I might, I can't censor myself from responding to the guy who commented on Scoble's blog about the history of the finger. I said the finger could be interpreted as a penis, not that the evolution of the sign came from there. Jeeze. Coming from hunting bow and arrow days is not the common usage today!! It is synonymous with "F*** you" these days, thus it is an easy association to make with a penis. And that can be interpreted sexually which, when delivered towards women from a man, isn't always an appreciated sentiment. Sometimes it is great and appreciated in the spirit intended. Sometimes it can be like verbal rape.
How do you want your finger interpreted?
So what about other short communications that effectively get a message across without having sexual or sexist connotations? I mean, come on, lets expand our repetoir! Can't we find other ways to express ourselves that don't carry sexual or dominating connotations? Get more creative! Some cultures have a huge range of expressive gestures. Why is one of our cornerstones FU?
(I think this is related to the playground punching. Punching may be quick, but it doesn't always resolve things. It can set up patterns of domination and power that is based in the physical - I'm bigger than you, I hit harder, therefore I rule. Passive agressive behavior can be just as destructive. Behind-the-back character assasination is another form of power. These, in our society, have had gender connotations. But lets go beyond that.
How can we constructively use conflict and enrich our communication, rather than cut it off and walk away the poorer? How can we express our frustration and anger, but stay engaged? Or if we choose to disengage, why do we need to express our power and anger? Why not walk away?
I'm rambling. Forgive me. But there are really interesting issues to me. I have not studied this, but I've experienced and experimented with it. Thus my curiosity. I'm engaged.
John's urging women to use the (metaphorical) finger really ends up being a double-edged sword for women. I've spent some time this past week testing this philosophy with Jeff Jarvis and Jay Rosen, and while I was effective in getting their attention, I'm not sure what the long-run impact of my gesticulations will be. Personally, I don't think it helps all that much to poke male powerbloggers in the soft underbelly--they can simply ignore the engagement, call you crazy, and have ten other guy responders on their side. It's very true that you can pick which dudes you poke at, but I'm not sure if the aggressive approach is effective.
Personally, I think getting in their faces, literally, is what will do it. But, how this can be accomplished when most conferences, the places where they might be, is amazingly cost-prohibitive for many of us.
And try as though I might, I can't censor myself from responding to the guy who commented on Scoble's blog about the history of the finger. I said the finger could be interpreted as a penis, not that the evolution of the sign came from there. Jeeze. Coming from hunting bow and arrow days is not the common usage today!! It is synonymous with "F*** you" these days, thus it is an easy association to make with a penis. And that can be interpreted sexually which, when delivered towards women from a man, isn't always an appreciated sentiment. Sometimes it is great and appreciated in the spirit intended. Sometimes it can be like verbal rape.
That guy would be me. And while it is indeed used as a shorthand for Fuck You/Off, (sorry, but if you're going to use the word, use the word. Asterisks in place of letters smacks of intellectual dishonesty), I've never seen anyone without a boatload of other issues take it in a sexual manner. I'm pretty comfortable speaking for a huge number, if not a majority of men that when a woman flips us off, we are well aware it's not a proposition.
When guys say "Fuck you" in an angry or casual tone, unless it's preceded by "I want to/I would like to", it's not sexual. Really. Guys say that to each other all the time. We say "Blow me" to each other. It's not sexual. Really. I hate to point this out, but we're not always trying to get laid. We may be THINKING about it all the time, but we're not actively TRYING to get laid all the time.
But the verbal rape does bring something to mind...when everything is equated with rape, it diminishes the horridness that rape really is. Getting flipped off isn't rape. It's not even in the same dimension. Really.
So what about other short communications that effectively get a message across without having sexual or sexist connotations?
From what you've told me in that post, nothing. If me flipping someone off is now taken as some kind of verbal rape, or really lame come on, then I have no way to even begin to communicate with women. I'll stop talking to them altogether instead of filtering every damned thing i say through "Could this be sexist or sexual in any way, shape or form", because I have a great love for entendre and puns, and quite frankly, there's not much that can't be somehow taken sexually in some way, shape or form.
But that does explain why guys don't like working with women. Who the hell wants to worry if laughing at the wrong moment is actionable? Who the hell wants to deal with thinking if the SAME thing you'd say to a guy, "Dude, nice suit" is going to get you fired with cause if you say it to a woman. Because, you know, that could be all sexual, and i'm really undressing you and raping you with my eyes.
Yeah, that's helping communications. Not.
How can we constructively use conflict and enrich our communication, rather than cut it off and walk away the poorer? How can we express our frustration and anger, but stay engaged? Or if we choose to disengage, why do we need to express our power and anger? Why not walk away?
Stop insinuating that men are all about nothing but sex. That would be a start. I find it pretty damned insulting, truth be told. Instead of spending so much time deciding what men mean by stuff, just hang out with them and see what they can be like. Stop judging us all based on the actions of a few. Allow us not to be like you. Allow us to have differences and to approach things differently. Don't automatically condemn us for those differences.
That would be kind of what women seem to want from men. If you're unwilling or unable to treat us the way you wish to be treated, why should we return a non-existant favor?
Thanks for your thoughts Tish. I'm nodding.
John, I think I'd like to have a f2f conversation with you. Somehow I bet it would be easier, and actually I think there would be a lot we would find in common and a lot we'd comfortably find different. But somehow in this environment, it doesn't work. I'm not good at verbal sparring. So just know, I'm not out to change you. Simply share my perspective. And I am treating you the way I wish to be treated. Trying to listen, trying to respond, and when I feel I'm not doing such a good job, leave it be. We don't know each other nor have we invested in each other. But if we find ourselves at a conference, I'd love a conversation.
Macworld San Francisco, 2006. I'm all over it.
Can it be, we are aliens of yet another domain. I am not a current Mac user. Well, if I'm in the city during Macworld, I'll wave the white flag. I'm not in the Bay Area, but sometimes family takes me there.
actually, I'm an IT type, so I hate all computers. Macs are just less trouble.
I am only 21 years of age! But i know more then enough To under stand that of All Sexuality Is the way it's suppose to be! God-like or not! It's not Wrong to be Sexually Active with The opposite SEX. And It is completly Normal For Kids that Are of Younger ages (10-14) to ask questions that should be answerd By adults so they know before its to late!
It Is important that the younger generations know what Our parents did not.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home