ps - Don't read the comments.
a guide to life tbh
― mookieproof, Tuesday, 10 April 2012 00:24 (1 year ago) Permalink
a judd goes in on fools!
― arsenio and old ma$e (m bison), Tuesday, 10 April 2012 00:45 (1 year ago) Permalink
buncha my homies are posting this on fb, good set of suggestions imo
http://danthedude.wordpress.com/zine/
― BIG HOOS aka the steendriver, Tuesday, 17 April 2012 17:43 (1 year ago) Permalink
ashley judd, pretty, otm
― caro's johnson (Eazy), Tuesday, 17 April 2012 17:47 (1 year ago) Permalink
She was one Dateline or some similar show last week talking about that article but I was out and didn't get to see it. Wish I'd been able to though.
― wolf kabob (ENBB), Tuesday, 17 April 2012 17:48 (1 year ago) Permalink
ON dateline not one
the urinal-free campus campaign
― Mordy, Tuesday, 17 April 2012 18:04 (1 year ago) Permalink
I had no idea this was a thing: http://www.salon.com/2012/04/17/pinterests_pro_ana_dilemma/(the pro ana ppl, not that they used pinterest or that pinterest banned it)
― Mordy, Wednesday, 18 April 2012 00:02 (1 year ago) Permalink
Oh mordy. Between this and what you found so dark on the girls thread i think you are learning about some gross things today. :\
― wolf kabob (ENBB), Wednesday, 18 April 2012 00:29 (1 year ago) Permalink
just bc i know about awful things doesn't mean i want to watch them every week!
― Mordy, Wednesday, 18 April 2012 00:32 (1 year ago) Permalink
i can totally understand that some ppl are pro-ana/pro-mia (ugh, jesus), but far less so their need to proselytize?
― mookieproof, Wednesday, 18 April 2012 00:36 (1 year ago) Permalink
tumblr is full of that shit
― goole, Wednesday, 18 April 2012 00:40 (1 year ago) Permalink
it used to be - they banned those communities iirc?
― y'tulip, y'pea-brained earwig (donna rouge), Wednesday, 18 April 2012 01:23 (1 year ago) Permalink
idk i googled a bunch up before making my comment to make sure! i mean maybe they tried.
this natasha vargas cooper article about it pretty good: http://www.thedaily.com/page/2011/02/07/020711-arts-thinspiration-1-2/
― goole, Wednesday, 18 April 2012 03:06 (1 year ago) Permalink
I've been asked to write some governance documents for the place where I work.
There are two things that I particularly want to achieve - one, how to make sure that any harassment or sexually motivated behaviour (does that even need an 'inappropriate' next to it?) is reported (don't want it to be a case where people feel they are 'in control' of situation and therefore do not need to report it for instance).
And secondly, and linked, in my mind anyway, for guidelines on how the company should be run with regard to gender to be as progressive as possible. I understand that race and sexuality need equivalent care and attention, but a main aim is to ensure that any female employee can see that not just the specific set of guidelines, but also that the guiding philosophy is a good one.
Clearly achieving these things will mean new processes need to be put in place (although there's unlikely to be a huge amount of money for such things) so any suggestions there would be good as well.
There are places to go for this sort of thing! I've gone on to the ACAS website and read relevant material. I'll probably need to do a bit more than that, and talk to a few experts (our HR is f'ing useless tho). But I did want to get suggestions from people here, from 'it would be great if...!' to 'go to this website/blog, it'll tell you what you need to know'.
Few low-level thoughts running around my head:
Feel US companies are better at this sort of thing than UK ones? More awareness and better processes in place. (this might just be me building on the rather too easily thought view in the UK that the US is a litigious culture. ie we're not litigious, we just GET ON WITH IT! clearly a bad thing in that circumstance).This is a young company, which in one way helps - there's less unreconstructed male office culture - but there's also perhaps a fair degree of ignorance, or perhaps 'lack of thought' is a better phrase.Am wondering whether office culture is almost congenitally or structurally built around 'male' drives (ok we're talking the legacy or continuation of late 20th boss culture here, rather than some sort of inherent biological male 'office gene'). Or is it just that there aren't enough efforts generally to change the culture? A low-level tolerance of all sorts of minor interactions that reinforce the office culture of the past.
If this isn't an appropriate thread for this discussion, let me know and I'll start a new one. I hope I don't sound like too much of a pious prat - got to do this, want to do this, and esp want to do it right.
― Fizzles, Sunday, 29 April 2012 14:52 (1 year ago) Permalink
The Revolution Will Not Be Polite
The conflation of nice and good also creates an avenue of subtle control over marginalised people. After all, what is seen as “nice” is cultural and often even class-dependent, and therefore the “manners” that matter get to be defined by the dominant ethnic group and class. For example, the “tone” argument, the favourite derailing tactic of bigots everywhere, is quite clearly a demand that the oppressor be treated “nicely” at all times by the oppressed – and they get to define what “nice” treatment is. This works because the primacy of nice in our culture creates a useful tool – to control people and to delegitimise their anger. A stark example of this is the stereotype of the desirably meek and passive woman, which is often held over women’s heads if we step out of line. How much easier is it to hold on to social and cultural power when you make a rule that people who ask for an end to their own oppression have to ask for it nicely, never showing anger or any emotion at being systematically disenfranchised? (A lot easier.)
― how did I get here? why am I in the whiskey aisle? this is all so (Laurel), Thursday, 10 May 2012 17:51 (1 year ago) Permalink
That link! I appreciate the idea of making a list of non-oppressive insults, though tbh people don't really take you seriously if you go around calling people a doofus or a big galoot (both of which I looked up just to make sure they don't have malevolent origins).
― Dale, dale, dale (Abbbottt), Thursday, 10 May 2012 22:31 (1 year ago) Permalink
Also I agree being socialized to be "nice" has seldom done me any favors.
Jesus wasn't always "nice," Mormonad! They certainly don't teach women to talk to people like he did.
― Dale, dale, dale (Abbbottt), Thursday, 10 May 2012 22:35 (1 year ago) Permalink
Nice work Mormonad stealing one of the fundamental tenets of Rave!
― Andrew Farrell, Thursday, 10 May 2012 22:39 (1 year ago) Permalink
Big fish, little fish, cardboard box (containing five loaves)
― banal like anal (snoball), Thursday, 10 May 2012 22:41 (1 year ago) Permalink
(no bad reason to link this song tbh)
― Andrew Farrell, Thursday, 10 May 2012 22:43 (1 year ago) Permalink
(er, except possibly on this thread - Scooter's video makers are not necc. widely read on feminist theory)
― Andrew Farrell, Thursday, 10 May 2012 22:44 (1 year ago) Permalink
i agree with being good, in a social-justice sense of the term, rather than "nice," but at the same time I can see where that might, and historically has, lead to serious trouble that has to do with definitions of good re: morality, politics, religion, class, the usual power issues of who decides what's right and what's wrong, what's "good." but obv the writer makes tonnes of sense.
also the Gavin De Becker book about fear is really freakin interesting and has actually affected me on a day-to-day level even though i have only read a few chapters and excerpts online and in a store. for me this has mostly been about listening to my intuition, the gut feeling that isn't general anxiety but is actually prickly-feeling instinct, even if it isn't outright fear in all cases - steers me right.
― obliquity of the ecliptic (rrrobyn), Friday, 11 May 2012 00:45 (1 year ago) Permalink
liked that SJL piece, especially the points it makes about the difference between giving offense and oppressing
― 10. “Pour Some Sugar On Me” – Tom Cruise (contenderizer), Friday, 11 May 2012 01:04 (1 year ago) Permalink
this is a little ott ('ambivalence. indecision. fear.') but i've no doubt that it is a thing and i'm curious about ppl's thoughts on the matter
when motherhood never happens
― mookieproof, Friday, 11 May 2012 01:18 (1 year ago) Permalink
ugh
― tokyo rosemary, Friday, 11 May 2012 02:41 (1 year ago) Permalink
^^pretty much
― horseshoe, Friday, 11 May 2012 02:47 (1 year ago) Permalink
that article gets written every five minutes, btw. see susan faludi, backlash.
― horseshoe, Friday, 11 May 2012 02:48 (1 year ago) Permalink
i think the only fear i have about not having kids and not wanting kids and pretty soon being physically unable to have kids is that a future potential partner might want them, and it would ruin the relationship, but there are so many other potential dealbreakers in life it doesn't bother me much.
― sarahell, Friday, 11 May 2012 02:51 (1 year ago) Permalink
Can't believe everyone ignored Fizzles' post, guess it's too late to help now?
― Also unknown as Zora (Surfing At Work), Friday, 11 May 2012 02:52 (1 year ago) Permalink
was a good post, and i read it at the time but had no idea what to say in response. i don't know much about such documentation, employee management, or the differences between US & UK office culture. also, it seems to me that "low-level tolerance" is what makes workplace life bearable, more or less, so i figured i should probably keep my mouth shut
― 10. “Pour Some Sugar On Me” – Tom Cruise (contenderizer), Friday, 11 May 2012 03:16 (1 year ago) Permalink
off-topic but I dunno where else to post this... my 4yo daughter's been in nursery school for the past year, and seeing some of her classmate's decisions about their gender identity and how the adults have handled them has been pretty interesting. there's one kid who (not sure what nouns are appropriate here, forgive me) was born a boy but identifies as a girl - wears girl's clothes, wants to be called a "girl-boy", etc. Everybody's cool with this, altho my daughter was a little startled when he/she hiked up his dress and peed standing up like any other boy would. Another boy who has apparently professed to like other boys and is, I guess, identifying as gay (altho I dunno if he knows that term, specifically).
On the one hand it's interesting to see how deeply rooted these things are early on - on the other hand, toddlers say all sorts of random shit about themselves so I kinda wonder sometimes if the parents' are taking some of these things too seriously/bending over backwards to be sensitive. We shall see, I guess.
― Roger Barfing (Shakey Mo Collier), Friday, 11 May 2012 15:54 (1 year ago) Permalink
Guardian covers 'The Second Sexism'
― Bob Six, Sunday, 13 May 2012 10:39 (1 year ago) Permalink
OTM – I read this book last week and it has a ton of very good advice. It's also a really gripping read. I'd recommend it to anyone. It strips away all the socialization to be "nice" when being clear about boundaries. In the chapter called "I Was Trying To Let Him Down Easy," he says this:
Let's imagine a woman has let pass several opportunities to pursue a relationship with a suitor. Every hint, response, action, and inaction has communicated she is not interested. If the man still pursues at this point, though it will doubtless appear harsh to some, it is time for an unconditional and explicit rejection. Because i know that few American men have heard it, and few American women have spoken it, here is what an unconditional and explicit rejection sounds like:"No matter what you have assumed until now, and no matter what reason you assumed it, I have no romantic interest in you whatsoever. I am certain I never will. I expect that knowing this, you'll put your attention elsewhere, which I understand, because that's what I intend to do."There is only one appropriate reaction to this: acceptance.
"No matter what you have assumed until now, and no matter what reason you assumed it, I have no romantic interest in you whatsoever. I am certain I never will. I expect that knowing this, you'll put your attention elsewhere, which I understand, because that's what I intend to do."
There is only one appropriate reaction to this: acceptance.
― Dale, dale, dale (Abbbottt), Sunday, 13 May 2012 16:52 (1 year ago) Permalink
― Also unknown as Zora (Surfing At Work), Friday, May 11, 2012 2:52 AM (3 days ago) Bookmark
Actually it is! But for complicated reasons not worth going into here. I did wonder whether I'd made some colossal error of judgment posting it when things went a bit quiet. In terms of 'help' - wd say I consider this thread and related ones are helpful anyway, critiquing a lot of assumptions and structures that cause things to stay the same, but which aren't seen because they are too big, seem to many to be 'just the way things are'.
contenderizer - agree with you about low-level tolerance being important in an office. shd perhaps clarify I meant low-level tolerance of minor humiliations, minor reinforcements of male or male-centric office power, acceptance rather than zero tolerance of behaviour that is bullying or designed to put a person (any person really) in their place. All of which leads to a continuation of how things are, and also discourages people from speaking out (seen as weird/troublemakers). Never sure how far to take this - do we really want what might be considered a heavily policed workplace? My feeling, these days anyway, is yes - cos it's not really policing, it's a detailed redressing of all the minor bits of behaviour that constitute inequality. To codify that behaviour is in a way also designed to let men know what is and isn't appropriate - can help prevent such behaviour even before it starts. Also, in general the worst offenders are massive arseholes, so, y'know, deserve all the kicking you can deliver imo.
― Fizzles, Monday, 14 May 2012 18:26 (1 year ago) Permalink
I always liked it when I explicitly told someone wasn't interested. Why waste your time and energy? I never read this as not being nice, fwiw.
― Love Max Ophüls of us all (Michael White), Monday, 14 May 2012 18:33 (1 year ago) Permalink
heartless jerk, Michael White lol
― Roger Barfing (Shakey Mo Collier), Monday, 14 May 2012 18:36 (1 year ago) Permalink
The difficulty in telling a guy "I'm not into you that way" is usually more related to Nice Guy syndrome than "being nice" imo.
― Roz, Monday, 14 May 2012 20:55 (1 year ago) Permalink
― Roger Barfing (Shakey Mo Collier), Friday, May 11, 2012 11:54 AM (3 days ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink
nah, it's not like homosexuality or trans* identities are so rare, and these things are often known as early as pre-school or sooner. there's a chance these kids are just having imaginations and they'll spend their teenage years angry at their parents for encouraging it, but probably not, and that's probably a much better outcome than the potential trauma of not their being allowed to identify the way they want as soon as they start to understand their identity. i'm all for modern parents being stricter with their kids but if we lived in a more decent culture this kind of thing wouldn't be seen as overly "sensitive" it would just be an acceptable standard not worthy of extra attention.
― of family bonds and individual triumph. Narrated by Tim Allen, (zachlyon), Monday, 14 May 2012 21:36 (1 year ago) Permalink
totally agree about the odds. And personally I don't think it actually IS worthy of extra attention - if that's how your kid wants to grow up, hey great! Good for them and it makes no difference to me really. So when parents break down crying about how wonderful our co-op is for being so accepting of a gay nursery schooler I sorta roll my eyes - any parent that isn't accepting of a kid's identity is just being a busybody jerk.
― Roger Barfing (Shakey Mo Collier), Monday, 14 May 2012 21:41 (1 year ago) Permalink
On a related note, been reading this lately. Has some worthwhile and possibly relevant points:
http://www.amazon.com/Anxious-Please-Revolutionary-Practices-Chronically/dp/1402206526/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1337031800&sr=8-1
― Choad of Choad Hall (kingfish), Monday, 14 May 2012 21:44 (1 year ago) Permalink
before there was mansplaining, there was http://www.guernicamag.com/daily/rebecca-solnit-men-explain-things-to-me/
― jack chick-fil-A (dayo), Wednesday, 22 August 2012 00:55 (8 months ago) Permalink
Wow, that piece has been popping up all over the place recently, Mother Jones has picked it up so it's got beyond the usual sort of feministosphere. I mean, it's obviously a good thing that needs to be said, so it's fine to revive something from several years ago if it's still relevant - which obviously that piece still is.
It does make me think the revival is quite timely - at a point where several high-profile men, recently, have been been determined to mansplain all over pregnancy, rape, and such issues. We need to re-name and re-examine that thing, that process.
― my god it's full of straw (White Chocolate Cheesecake), Wednesday, 22 August 2012 08:06 (8 months ago) Permalink
comments are predictably infuriating
― contenderizer, Wednesday, 22 August 2012 08:38 (8 months ago) Permalink
They do not all have your natural facility with mansplanation.
― Andrew Farrell, Wednesday, 22 August 2012 10:22 (8 months ago) Permalink
le sigh
― contenderizer, Wednesday, 22 August 2012 15:33 (8 months ago) Permalink
http://lindsayzoladz.tumblr.com/post/29966963774/dont-blame-us-four-women-talk-about-why-they-didnt
― Mordy, Wednesday, 22 August 2012 15:45 (8 months ago) Permalink
i love that solnit article so much (and the muybridge book is great too)
― half-worm inchworm tapeworm (donna rouge), Wednesday, 22 August 2012 16:59 (8 months ago) Permalink
spent about an hour total mentioning to dudes on another site that bickering about how the word "mansplaining" rubs them the wrong way had nothing to do with the essay, especially since that word is never used. also, said that men explaining how the author could have written a better essay was not a good look and a relatively irony-naive thing to do. then gracefully left, forevermore, so actual female commenters could say things much more relevant.
― your native bacon (mh), Wednesday, 22 August 2012 18:05 (8 months ago) Permalink
a relatively irony-naive thing to do
haha!
I thought this was an interesting discussion of the word "mansplain," if maybe a little (justifiably) pedantic: http://www.xojane.com/issues/why-you-ll-never-hear-me-use-term-mansplain
― drawings by teen cultists (Crabbits), Thursday, 23 August 2012 01:14 (8 months ago) Permalink