Power and Domination in the National Women's Soccer League
Sometimes, you just want someone to tell you what to do.
26 posts
Related posts may also appear under #sexism on the blog page.
Sometimes, you just want someone to tell you what to do.
I have a habit of qualifying my statements with estimated likelihoods and error bars. "I think about ten people are coming, plus or minus two." "I'm, like, eighty percent sure that it runs on Windows." I worry that it comes off as an affectation, but I also worry that I'm not conveying my level of certainty effectively. *I* know how certain I am, and it pains me when that information gets lost to the ambiguities and inefficiencies of the English language. (I'm told that qualification by certainty is built into Lojban, which I believe with 99% certainty.) When I send my female friends cover letters and grant proposals, they strike out words like "I think" and "I believe" and "probably" and "try". I let them do it - we all know that there's a confidence gap that disadvantages women - but it chafes. Aside from dangly earrings, uncertainty is the aspect of femininity I am most comfortable with. Perhaps too comfortable.
A friend shared with me this 15-minute Planet Money segment called "When Women Stopped Coding". From their intro:
In between weddings both this weekend and last, I made it out to Phoenix for the Grace Hopper Celebration of Women in Computing. I gave a talk at Open Source Day about starting in open source. Rikki Endsley of Red Hat wrote up a summary of my talk, and Serena Larson of ReadWrite wrote an article based on the talk and a brief interview we did beforehand. My slides are here.
I don't like making quick low-content posts just to avoid paying \$5 to the Iron Blogger pool. (No shade on those who do!) But I am so exhausted from AdaCamp.
Earlier this week, after the UCSB shootings, Deanna Zandt started a tumblr to document violence against women who refuse or reject men. She was inspired by Kate Harding, who had been tweeting links to some of these stories as a way of explaining that violent male entitlement was not unique to Elliot Rodgers but is endemic to our culture.
There's a joke you probably know:
My good friend, a theater professor, is interested in sports as performance, but isn't too familiar with most sports. I collected the following links to send to her, and thought I'd share them here as well:
Here are two stories about conversations I didn't have this week:
Ever since I first heard of Victoria Woodhull about a year ago, I've been meaning to read the weekly newspaper that she put out with her sister, Tennessee Claflin, from 1870 to 1877. I found a library that claimed to have the complete collection in microform, so I made my way over there this week.
I ran into Adelaida on the train yesterday morning, on my way out to Amherst for an OpenHatch event. We struck up a conversation which eventually turned to the book she was reading, Unlocking the Clubhouse. This made me think of Top Secret Rosies, a documentary about women computers during WWII which I bought on a whim recently and which I'm hoping to show soon at BoCoup Loft.
I spent the last week and a half at PyCon. I have a lot of things to say about it - too many, really, to form a coherent narrative. So here are some scattered thoughts.
I tend to have complex feelings about elections.
Some of you who read this blog may know that a close relative of mine has been dealing with an aggressive cancer for the last year or so. When I say I admire the young women in this post, I don't just mean because they're intelligent, dedicated and accomplished. I also admire them for choosing to spend their time researching cancer, which is the leading cause of death in the developed world, and the second leading cause of death worldwide. Few people end up helping others as significantly as these young women have already managed - while still in high school.
I recently watched Miss Representation, a documentary about how limited and disparaging portrayals of women in mainstream media hurt society. While I agree with most of the documentary, I do think it skips right over a number of amazing female characters both past and present (I started to list my favorites, but I think that's a whole other post.) Obviously individual portrayals can't make up for the overall patterns of representation, which tend to feature young, white, thin, able-bodied women playing out tired tropes. There is plenty of room for criticism there. But for me, personally, what I want even more than better female characters on my television, is explicitly feminist shows.
It's Women's History Month, which I'm going to use as an excuse to ramble about a very cool historical lady I learned about only recently: Victoria Woodhull.
There's a dispiriting article being passed around feminist-friendly corners of the blogosphere today. What makes this article different from all the other tired, sexist articles I've come across recently - and therefore what makes this article worth posting about, for me - is where it was published: Nature. Yes, *that* Nature - "the world's most highly cited interdisciplinary science journal". The same journal that first published the structure of DNA, first proved there was a hole in the ozone layer, first documented nuclear fission and the cloning of mammals, is the source of this drivel:
For Ada Lovelace day I thought I'd go back to my roots and write about a psychological scientist. Being as I am prone to digressions, I ended up writing about two - one historical, one current. We'll go chronologically.
I've never really been a connoisseur of the visual arts. I'm not drawn to them the way I am to music or writing, so I don't really know much about them - any artists beyond the famous ones, the terms for techniques, movements, styles.
I share other bloggers' hesitations towards Women's History Month (and International Women's Day). It seems, sometimes, like a sop to distract us from the ongoing problems facing women.
I've only been semi-following the PAX east/dickwolves controversy, so I'm not going to write a novel about what happened and who was in the wrong and why.
My family and I watched Agora, the new movie about Hypatia of Alexandria, over Thanksgiving weekend. We were all very excited about this, having been intrigued by Hypatia ever since we watched the segment of Carl Sagan's Cosmos on her - the same clip which apparently inspired Alejandro Amenábar, the director of and force behind Agora.
I went home last weekend, and I was excited for a chance to snuggle my cat, cook with my mom, and engage in the endless after dinner conversations my family manages so frequently to have \-- you know, the kind where your butt gets sore from sitting still and you go for thirds and then fourths because you've just had that much time to digest, but you can't quite bring yourself to say, "Okay, that's enough dissecting of Dr. Who/Beatles' rockband/the decline of rationality in modern political thought."
As a psychologist, I find it extremely frustrating when people attempt to explain away gender differences as genetic or evolutionary, rather than exploring the role of socialization by an imperfect society. For one thing, it gives people an excuse not to confront injustice. After all, they're just doing what they're biologically programmed to do. For another, it's frequently shoddy science.
The ever-insightful Echidne has up a though-provoking post on genealogy and how patriarchal naming practices cause women to "disappear into the midst of time".
*Today is Ada Lovelace day, which means its time to celebrate women in technology and science! If you have the time, consider writing a blog or facebook post about a woman who has inspired you. Otherwise, feel free to browse the posts at Finding Ada and learn more about the women who've advanced our knowledge of the world. You can start with my post below, about pioneering cytogeneticist Barbara McClintock.*