October flashes by quickly. My favorite month, here and gone.
I got to pet goats this week. And pick out a pumpkin. And buy lollipops shaped like roasted chickens to give to my class tomorrow.
My classes this semester are extra challenging. Well, not all of them. One section of the two sections I am teaching is stuffed with the distracted, distracting, obstreperous freshmen that resent any time spent learning and would much rather talk about anything else. I've never before had a student keep an earbud in while I was teaching. Now I've spotted a couple. Not cool, chillens, not cool.
I'm reading Peter Pan for my children's lit. class. It led to JB and I having what I called a fight and he called an intellectual discussion about Peter Pan. I'm pretty sure I won. He hasn't read it, so it's difficult for him to argue with any credibility.
My apartment and I are reaching a peaceful stability, though the bathroom sink is beginning to show an alarming propensity for slow drainage. Beocat spends his days lounging on one piece of furniture or another - because I have furniture now! Well, I have a futon left by the previous tenant, and I have Amanda's double papasan. That's almost exactly like having my own furniture.
This weekend is stuffed with Halloween festivities. I might go to a friend's house tomorrow night, if I'm feeling social. Or, games might happen. On Saturday, I'm hosting a live-action Clue party. Embracing the geek-atmosphere is part of my current ethos. Plus, nothing about live-action Clue sounds unfun - especially when I'm running it, so I basically get to sit back and watch everyone else.
I'll write more as I can. I always tend to blog more when I have papers due. Blogging is the purest form of procrastination.
Thursday, October 30, 2014
Wednesday, October 29, 2014
It's that time of year again . . .
. . . when the Internet shared on my Facebook page provokes me into a response.
Today's lucky article? "Feminism Is Poison" by Matt Walsh, self-described as a professional truth sayer. I hate to bump his pageviews, but in the interests of correct citations, here is the link to the article - http://www.theblaze.com/contributions/feminism-is-poison/
First things first, I do not support the video which sparked his article. I do not consider it cute, empowering, or genius. I am not ok with the exploitation of children, with the use of schills, or any approach that favours sensationalism over actual communication.
Now that the first important clarification has been made, let's move on to the next. One of the main arguments popping up in this article is that feminists (all feminists, everywhere) have a poorly defined, unnecessary ideological agenda that is not supported by facts.
He examines the wage gap as support for his argument of the unsupportability of a feminist agenda. Walsh points to the myths of the wage gap as evidence that feminism is unneeded. But that's not the point with which I take issue. He says, "Despite what those poor girls were forced to say on camera, women do not earn 23 percent less than men for ‘equal work.’ This is called a lie. A fable . . . It’s not even close to true . . . But whatever it is, if it exists at all, it exists because these frauds just weighed the salary of a commercial airline pilot against an entry level hairdresser."
Ouch, really?
No. Because not all women are entry-level hairdressers, and not all entry-level hairdressers are women. Not all commercial airline pilots are men, and not all men are commercial airline pilots. The assumption that it is men who are holding the more responsible, more "valid" jobs is why feminism still has something to say and something to do. The underlying assumption that Walsh reveals, is that the work women do is less important than the work which men undertake. Feminism cannot be tarred with a single brush. It isn't all about wage gaps, or rape statistics. It's about the way beliefs shape the world in which we live, and how that shaping can have a negative effect if we are not aware and not cautious.
There is a problem with the numbers. There are always problems with the numbers, no matter which side chooses to implement them in a debate. Walsh himself plays a little fast and loose with the numbers he introduces. But I don't want to make this about the numbers. Numbers can be, as Walsh points out, made to lie, twisted into a formation that flatters whichever version of reality is being pushed.
To echo Walsh's plea (because he has something valid to say) there needs to be more awareness, more research, and more understanding of the actual facts rather than hopping on the prettiest bandwagon, the one that makes us feel the best, and screaming alongside everyone else. Everyone needs to stop perpetuating misinformation by pushing their own brand of it.
What is missing is that people aren't numbers, and they aren't statistics. I don't look at a man and think of him as a number. I don't think that there is a 20% chance that he is a rapist. I think he is a person, not a percentage. When people are turned into numbers, we lose empathy; we lose the humanness and the care for others that we all should be fighting to maintain and share, equally, with one another.
Walsh again: "The problem, however, is that men and women are not equal. They are separate, distinct, and complimentary [sic]. Equal in dignity and worth, but unequal in every other way. We should be learning how to celebrate these differences and use them in service to each other, but you won’t hear that from feminists."
You cannot say that something is both equal and not equal. My uncle can attest to the fact that math was never my strongest subject, but either two is equal to two, or it is not. (Note: it is.) The elision of equality with sameness is a mistake frequently made, not just in this article, but generally in any discussions of equality. I would never say that all people are the same. What I will say, is that gender lines are not a good place to establish definitions of sameness. I am not the same as the other women teaching in my department. We have different strengths, weaknesses, and gifts.
Walsh never clarifies what my uniquely feminine qualities might be. Like many of the other women in my department, I can grade a paper in thirty minutes, fake my way through a lesson plan if I need to, or give an impromptu speech on the importance of commas to the confused undergraduate in my office. Of course, I think many of the men in my department can do all of these things as well . . .
I get it. It's easier to blame feminism and feminists for manufacturing a problem than it is to admit that a problem might be real and nearly impossible to solve. It's easier to paint a dividing line between binaries rather than to foster a potentially productive discussion that might break down divisions instead of exacerbating them.
We end with the same message; Mr. Walsh, you and I agree. People need to recognize each other as people and love and serve people. The difference I'm seeing right now is that I'm listening to you as a person, not labeling you as a mouthpiece for an ideological crusade.
And, I'm not making my final conclusion about your appearance rather than about your message.
Further Reading (because every good teacher gives homework):
http://time.com/3222543/5-feminist-myths-that-will-not-die/
Today's lucky article? "Feminism Is Poison" by Matt Walsh, self-described as a professional truth sayer. I hate to bump his pageviews, but in the interests of correct citations, here is the link to the article - http://www.theblaze.com/contributions/feminism-is-poison/
First things first, I do not support the video which sparked his article. I do not consider it cute, empowering, or genius. I am not ok with the exploitation of children, with the use of schills, or any approach that favours sensationalism over actual communication.
Now that the first important clarification has been made, let's move on to the next. One of the main arguments popping up in this article is that feminists (all feminists, everywhere) have a poorly defined, unnecessary ideological agenda that is not supported by facts.
He examines the wage gap as support for his argument of the unsupportability of a feminist agenda. Walsh points to the myths of the wage gap as evidence that feminism is unneeded. But that's not the point with which I take issue. He says, "Despite what those poor girls were forced to say on camera, women do not earn 23 percent less than men for ‘equal work.’ This is called a lie. A fable . . . It’s not even close to true . . . But whatever it is, if it exists at all, it exists because these frauds just weighed the salary of a commercial airline pilot against an entry level hairdresser."
Ouch, really?
No. Because not all women are entry-level hairdressers, and not all entry-level hairdressers are women. Not all commercial airline pilots are men, and not all men are commercial airline pilots. The assumption that it is men who are holding the more responsible, more "valid" jobs is why feminism still has something to say and something to do. The underlying assumption that Walsh reveals, is that the work women do is less important than the work which men undertake. Feminism cannot be tarred with a single brush. It isn't all about wage gaps, or rape statistics. It's about the way beliefs shape the world in which we live, and how that shaping can have a negative effect if we are not aware and not cautious.
There is a problem with the numbers. There are always problems with the numbers, no matter which side chooses to implement them in a debate. Walsh himself plays a little fast and loose with the numbers he introduces. But I don't want to make this about the numbers. Numbers can be, as Walsh points out, made to lie, twisted into a formation that flatters whichever version of reality is being pushed.
To echo Walsh's plea (because he has something valid to say) there needs to be more awareness, more research, and more understanding of the actual facts rather than hopping on the prettiest bandwagon, the one that makes us feel the best, and screaming alongside everyone else. Everyone needs to stop perpetuating misinformation by pushing their own brand of it.
What is missing is that people aren't numbers, and they aren't statistics. I don't look at a man and think of him as a number. I don't think that there is a 20% chance that he is a rapist. I think he is a person, not a percentage. When people are turned into numbers, we lose empathy; we lose the humanness and the care for others that we all should be fighting to maintain and share, equally, with one another.
Walsh again: "The problem, however, is that men and women are not equal. They are separate, distinct, and complimentary [sic]. Equal in dignity and worth, but unequal in every other way. We should be learning how to celebrate these differences and use them in service to each other, but you won’t hear that from feminists."
You cannot say that something is both equal and not equal. My uncle can attest to the fact that math was never my strongest subject, but either two is equal to two, or it is not. (Note: it is.) The elision of equality with sameness is a mistake frequently made, not just in this article, but generally in any discussions of equality. I would never say that all people are the same. What I will say, is that gender lines are not a good place to establish definitions of sameness. I am not the same as the other women teaching in my department. We have different strengths, weaknesses, and gifts.
Walsh never clarifies what my uniquely feminine qualities might be. Like many of the other women in my department, I can grade a paper in thirty minutes, fake my way through a lesson plan if I need to, or give an impromptu speech on the importance of commas to the confused undergraduate in my office. Of course, I think many of the men in my department can do all of these things as well . . .
I get it. It's easier to blame feminism and feminists for manufacturing a problem than it is to admit that a problem might be real and nearly impossible to solve. It's easier to paint a dividing line between binaries rather than to foster a potentially productive discussion that might break down divisions instead of exacerbating them.
We end with the same message; Mr. Walsh, you and I agree. People need to recognize each other as people and love and serve people. The difference I'm seeing right now is that I'm listening to you as a person, not labeling you as a mouthpiece for an ideological crusade.
And, I'm not making my final conclusion about your appearance rather than about your message.
Further Reading (because every good teacher gives homework):
http://time.com/3222543/5-feminist-myths-that-will-not-die/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)