great list by Laurence Hughes on McSweeney’s here:
how can you trust me with a child?”
brilliant bumper sticker from The Onion
Great post and comments here:
Just a few quotes and notes –
“… the perennial problem of childcare, which lifts women out of their jobs at precisely the moment that their male colleagues are putting in more hours and being promoted” (p6)—yeah, to avoid childcare
“It was also thought that merely having women around might disrupt the serious intellectual work of men.” (p10 —probably true, but that’s their fault (can’t handle distractions) (and, before that, that they find women they find sexually attractive to BE a distraction) (or women they don’t find sexually attractive to be a distraction, b/c wtf are they doing here?!) and, so, their responsibility
and if you don’t know about Lise Meitner and Rosalind Franklin and Jocelyn Bell Burnell (how men kept the Nobel Prize from them)
re how male peacocks evolved bright, fancy plumage to attract hens, and lions evolved glorious manes … “For humans, the logic goes, this vigorous competition for women means that men have had to be warriors and thinkers” (p19)—why not beauty queens? (THAT would be a logical conclusion)
re selective abortion and infanticide in India, “Women are wanted as wives and girlfriends, but not as daughters” (p41)—where do they think the wives and girlfriends come from?
the whole ‘men are bigger’ thing (p42)—yes, they are on average six inches taller, but our chest measurements are typically bigger, our hip measurements are typically bigger, and our thigh measurements are typically bigger (sometimes even our waist and calf measurements)
“In pharmacology, the study of medical drugs, the articles reporting only on males outnumbered those reporting only on females by five to one.” (p57)—good to keep in mind
re one of the reasons not to include women is that “A woman’s fluctuating hormone levels might … affect how she responds to a drug.” (p58)—wouldn’t that be a reason to include them? don’t we need to KNOW how our hormone levels affect our response to drugs???
re babies who stare at faces longer (female babies, it’s said) were deemed to be more socially inclined (p70)—maybe it wasn’t that they LIKED faces more (than mechanical stuff), maybe they were CONFUSED by them and so stared at them longer, trying to understand them
re males better for analyzing and building systems (p69) than females b/c “males tend to think narrowly while females think broadly” (p72)—wouldn’t that make females BETTER for designing systems? (b/c they can see the big picture?)
as for chap7, “Why Do Men Dominate?” — because they’re naturally bullies (i.e., ethically-challenged)
According to 19th C feminist scholar Matilda Joslyn Gage, 9 million women were executed or burned for having knowledge—i.e., for being witches (p163)
Wow. Did not know it was that many.
“Had women ever contributed to the design of roads and vehicles, there is no doubt that the entire system would look very different. The priority would not necessarily have been to transport one man from the suburbs to the central business district; equal consideration might have been given to picking up the shopping and delivering children within the local community. … And think about the buses. No woman would have come up with a bus design that makes it virtually impossible for a person with child, plus shopping, to get on or off.” (p169)
Right. So. ‘Which one did you want me to leave behind,’ she asks her husband, ‘the groceries or the kid?’
Re women’s reluctance to play with computers—”women fear that they might break something crucial … many men … have little or no regard for the mess they may leave behind …” (p174)
“Had I anything to do with the design, the hardware would come in a range of … colours …” (p176)
Yes! And it’s so obvious! (And it goes well beyond the limited palette for computers—consider … everything!) What is it with men and colours? Are they afraid that enjoyment of colour makes them feminine? Do they truly have relatively poor color vision compared to women?
“So widespread has this male habit of taking over become, that I know of no co-ed high school … that has not had to come up with a policy which aims at ensuring some access [to computers] for girls.” (p177)
“In more than one school that I have visited, there were sufficient computers in the room for everyone to be working at their own terminal. But the girls could be found huddled ina group away from the computers, while the boys sometimes kept two terminals going!” (p178)
“Some boys physically pushed them away from the computers and insisted that they needed two terminals for the purposes of their project. They verbally abused the girls (“slut” and “slag” being among the most printable) and generally engaged in loud and bullying behavior. Far from being embarrassed by this appalling display, the teacher felt vindicated. ‘I told you girls were trouble,’ he said. ‘They stop everyone from working.'” (p178-9)
Unfuckingbelieveable. The book was published in 1995. Have things changed?
Because they weren’t always this way: back in the early-mid 70s, when my girlfriend and I entered the new weight room in our high school, which was clearly intended for boys only, there was only silence. No one insulted us. No one pushed us out of the way. And no one said we couldn’t be there.
And in the mid-late 70s, when I approached the coach of the university’s men’s track team, asking if I could join, because there wasn’t a women’s track team, he did not dismiss me. He asked me to come out to the team work-out that evening, so he could see me run. He decided on the basis of merit, not sex.
And it’s not like sexism wasn’t rampant at the time; women weren’t allowed to compete at the longer distances.
Though … come to think of it, when Kathryn Switzer ran in the Boston Marathon in 1967, some angry man did try to shove her off the course.
Still, other men intervened for her right to run.
True, they were her partner and her coach, but still. Why didn’t the teacher intervene for the girls’ right to use the computers? (And where are the men intervening against the porn, and the rape and the wife beating—and the online threats?)
So the hatred men feel for women has either escalated and/or just surfaced.
“[Boys] have been reared with the notion that boys were better at maths. Why should they not believe it—and act confidently? And if they didn’t do well, it was because they were unlucky, that their teacher was no good or because they had been a bit slack during the week—but it certainly wasn’t because the task was beyond them.” (p180)
Yeah. And that observation is applicable to … everything.
Re video games—”The main aim seems to be to kill as many people as possible, with a preference for volence against women.” (p186)
So succinctly said.
“This goes quite a way towards explaining why women might not be attracted to such leisure pursuits.”
“… the very little that has been produced for girls has often been a 25-year-old male’s idea of what a little girl would like to play” (p187)
Again, applicable to … everything. All products, all services, all infrastructure …
It occurs to me now why widescreens dominate to the exclusion of square screens: they’re better for action movies and sports. End of story. Square screens (4:3, so not quite square) are better for focusing on people, their faces, the evidence, often, of thoughts and feelings … so they’re better for so dramas, comedies, pretty much everything other than action movies and sports.
And in the case of laptops in particular, square screens are better for writing (because there’s way less wasted space on the left and the right).
I thought, too, widescreens are preferred by capitalists because it gives more room for advertisements, and that might be true, but since ads are not appearing not only on the sides, but often front and center, that argument has less force.)
Re the harassment women are subjected to online … “[women] had difficulty getting their male partners to appreciate the horrific nature of much of the abuse. At least, that was the case until they persuaded the men to log on as women. When the men used female pseudonyms, without exception they were appalled. ‘I genuinely had no idea it was as bad as this,’ said one, who couldn’t believe the number and the nature of the postings that he got.” (p204)
No surprised. Once again, they don’t believe us, they don’t take what we say seriously, they have to experience it themselves in order to believe it. (That’s why I love those menstrual pain and childbirth pain simulation things … )
“[I]t is often the same men who insist on their right to free speech, on the principle that anything goes, who are the first to fume, and to flame the women who dare to dispute the male monopoly” (p224)
Right. As soon as women speak 30% of the time, they are accused by men of taking over the conversation …
“… free speech often amounts to free speech for the white man: women and people of color have always had to watch what they say” (p225)
“[T]he logical conclusion to the ‘human potential’ argument [against abortion] is that we potentially deprive a human soul of the gift of existence every time we fail to seize any opportunity for sexual intercourse. Every refusal of any offer of copulation by a fertile individual is, by this dopey ‘pro-life’ logic, tantamount to the murder of a potential child! Even resisting rape could be represented as murdering a potential baby …” (Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion, p300)
He goes on to remind us of Michael Palin singing “Every sperm is sacred” in Monty Python’s The Meaning of Life.
“The greatest destroyer of peace is abortion.” Mother Teresa, acceptance speech for Nobel Peace Prize
WTF?! Or, in Richard Dawkins’ words, “How can a woman with such a cock-eyed judgement be taken seriously on any topic, let alone be thought seriously worthy of a Nobel Prize?” (Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion)
“She .. had three abortions, because the men did not seem to her to be originally enough minted from the human stock to make their progeny worthwhile.” Doris Lessing, Shikasta
We should keep that reason in mind next time asked to justify an abortion.