Early Morning Linketry

Cool link I just discovered. I thought it might be a good one to have access to and look back upon. Also, a thinky thought about my thesis (thath rigth). I think I'll post more of the cool links I find here, instead of to my FB account. Social networks are an important tool for my snowball sampling, and I might skew the results if I send out a call for participants in a study about feminism when I make my opinions so public. Only for the length of my research though.

Anyway, without further ado:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2006/aug/08/comment.gender

Link Potpourri: for discussion

I am hoping to keep up a bit better with this blog as well as on my new personal blog, Rogue JD. With that in mind, here are some links of interest that Thalia and I have been discussing lately.

What If Black Women Were White Women?

This is a fantastic satiric analysis of sexual and racial stereotypes, written on the model of Gloria Steinem's "If Men Could Menstruate." It asks, "What if suddenly, instantly, the power of white femininity were transferred to black women?"

Movies would feature black women as the main objects of men’s desire across racial lines while stereotypes of evil, bitter, and oversexed white women would further prove why men of all races simply did not prefer blonds. “We can’t help those to whom we're attracted,” men would say. “Preference” would become an unconcealed acceptance of discrimination against white women. White women’s anger towards and sadness about the status quo would show their unreasonable jealousy of the innate superiority of black women.

Republicans would ban abortions to protect the virtue of pure, black motherhood and liberals would advocate increasing the number of abortion clinics in “low income” neighborhoods where white women would be the majority. Liberals would claim that white women had “culturally” approved of sexual objectification and were “safe enough” without outside help since they were warned not to touch “in-group issues” with a ten foot pole.

...As Gloria Steinem wrote, “In short, the characteristics of the powerful, whatever they may be, are thought to be better than the characteristics of the powerless - and logic has nothing to do with it.”

Posting this link on Facebook resulted in some pretty impressive racism denial and derailing from at least one white male commenter, but also brought out some thoughtful comments. A lot of my thoughts about this link actually concern the reactions and interactions from our peers to the article. I challenged the racism-denier, but never felt like I got through to him, and the exchange was certainly no more satisfying to him. He resorted to ad hominem arguments--calling me ignorant and simpleminded--while continuously asserting his own claim to victimhood as a "demonized" white male. Perhaps Thalia can make some suggestions of more productive means of having this kind of conversation, as that is her area of study?

On a more positive note, here is an example of a male game developer nailing the operation of privilege. In response to a straight male complaint about the depiction of homosexual relationships in Bioware's Dragon Age 2, developer David Gaider takes down the complaint with an appropriately sharp rebuke:

The romances in the game are not for “the straight male gamer”. They’re for everyone. We have a lot of fans, many of whom are neither straight nor male, and they deserve no less attention. We have good numbers, after all, on the number of people who actually used similar sorts of content in DAO and thus don’t need to resort to anecdotal evidence to support our idea that their numbers are not insignificant… and that’s ignoring the idea that they don’t have just as much right to play the kind of game they wish as anyone else. The “rights” of anyone with regards to a game are murky at best, but anyone who takes that stance must apply it equally to both the minority as well as the majority. The majority has no inherent “right” to get more options than anyone else.

...And if there is any doubt why such an opinion might be met with hostility, it has to do with privilege. You can write it off as “political correctness” if you wish, but the truth is that privilege always lies with the majority. They’re so used to being catered to that they see the lack of catering as an imbalance. They don’t see anything wrong with having things set up to suit them, what’s everyone’s fuss all about? That’s the way it should be, any everyone else should be used to not getting what they want.

PWNED! It is tremendously encouraging (not to mention sexy as hell!) to see a man working in the upper eschelon of a typically whitewashed, straightwashed, and sexist industry telling it exactly how it is. Well played, sir. I salute you and hope you get good royalties, for I certainly plan to purchase this game.

I also want to share this heartrending but ultimately hopeful article about human-elephant relations that I came upon, of all places, through Cracked.com. This is an old NYT article--I wish I could get an update on new developments--but it demonstrates a pet conviction of mine: that human beings and animals are not so very different, and that we are not the only intelligent life on Earth. It tells the story of how human interference and brutality has changed elephant culture for the worse--how they have begun to rape other animals and murder humans with apparent malice aforethought. The article parallels elephant and human victims of genocide, and sheds light upon the damage wrought by zoos and misguided animal management. It also, to my mind, says a lot about how humans as well as animals are harmed by violence.

Finally, an economic justice link. Losing Our Way, Bob Herbert's last NYT column, speaks eloquently of the times we find ourselves in. "The U.S. has not just misplaced its priorities," he writes. "When the most powerful country ever to inhabit the earth finds it so easy to plunge into the horror of warfare but almost impossible to find adequate work for its people or to properly educate its young, it has lost its way entirely."

Americans behave as if this is somehow normal or acceptable. It shouldn’t be, and didn’t used to be. Through much of the post-World War II era, income distribution was far more equitable, with the top 10 percent of families accounting for just a third of average income growth, and the bottom 90 percent receiving two-thirds. That seems like ancient history now.

The current maldistribution of wealth is also scandalous. In 2009, the richest 5 percent claimed 63.5 percent of the nation’s wealth. The overwhelming majority, the bottom 80 percent, collectively held just 12.8 percent.

This inequality, in which an enormous segment of the population struggles while the fortunate few ride the gravy train, is a world-class recipe for social unrest. Downward mobility is an ever-shortening fuse leading to profound consequences.

I actually can't help but hope that social unrest will erupt in America, because I don't think change is likely to happen within our current political system. I was inspired recently when state union workers revolted in Wisconsin. I think America has forgotten its rebel roots, has forgotten how to stand up. When will it finally remember again? When will it shake off the blinders that cause us to act as if inequality is normal and acceptable? When will we say "enough is enough"?