#I have complaints about the author's under-analyzing of gender but it's a good read

[boo-cool-robot]

I'm reading William Hinton's Fanshen, a case study of land reform in a Chinese village during the civil war and this story about a peasant committee arguing about the class status of a blacksmith is making me lose it:

"He's a middle peasant because he earns good money as a blacksmith, and besides his work is no good. Last year he cheated me. He charged me an awful price but the work was no good and even the iron was poor. He exploited me." "He's not skillful; we all know that," said a grey-bearded elder. "But if you don't want to be exploited by him you can always call in others to do the work. It's different with the landlords. With them you have no choice. You pay rent or you starve. But with Huan-ch'ao, if you don't like his work you can always take your job elsewhere." "Go ahead, say what you think," said [Huan-ch'ao] himself, scowling darkly. "Your opinions are very good and I would be the last to get angry." "Truth is," said a second widow, "the tools you make are no good. You really should improve your workmanship." "I accept your criticism," said Huan-ch'ao, desperately trying to hold back his rising temper. He knew that to explode now would land him in the middle-peasant category for sure. "He's never been a skillful blacksmith," the grey-bearded man said again. "But if you say that for this reason he exploits you, then all blacksmiths must become very gloomy indeed."

This is in fact very consequential because it will determine how much land might get redistributed to him, but fucking imagine having to go to a meeting where 20 of your neighbors go "His work sucks shit and he charges too much. He's a landlord!" and another 20 of your neighbors go "Hey! We all know his work sucks shit, but that doesn't make him a landlord!"

[rosalesbeausderholle]

My first book of the year (well, almost, 50 pages to go!) has been Doppelganger by Naomi Klein, which is an absolutely amazing book about the way people get radicalized by alt-right grifters and how that radicalization is fueled subconsciously by very real fear, pain and paranoia fostered on regular people by our system of savage, predatory capitalism. They just don't know where to direct that fear to, so they end up in conspiracy anti-vaxx circles rather than becoming leftists.

I heartily recommend it to anyone. If you've read anything by Klein, you'll love it. She's a masterful writer and she addresses our current issues with incredible insight and in a thoroughly entertaining way. A solid 4.5/5 stars (and that's high praise, I hardly ever give 5 stars to anything). I'm putting the rest of this under a readmore because I need you guys to understand that I honestly really recommend this book:

That being said, I have one complaint:

And it's the way Klein is, not dismissive, just subconsciously doesn't realize or give enough importance to feminism to analyze the issues she's talking about through a feminist lenses. She talks about feminism and about abortion rights and about sexual violence and about women's issues and gender issues but it's all through the lenses of class and not feminism.

For example, she mentions people being marginalized, among other characteristics "because of their gender expression". Trans people are marginalized because of their gender expression, so are some gay people. Women though are marginalized BY gender. Gender expression is (one of) the means, not the motive.

More damningly, in this book she mentions Naomi Wolf a lot (hence the title). Author of The Beauty Myth, now turned conspiracy right-wing, COVID denialist, anti-vaxx grifter. About Wolf's book, Klein claims that she was engaged in conspirational thinking when she claimed that marketing agencies where purposefully keeping women insecure and down so that we were thinking about our bodies and not our power. According to Klein, that's just how capitalism works. And yes, it is but you, Naomi Klein, also go on to claim several paragraphs later that capitalism does indeed function as a conspiracy. And also, the way women and men are marketed to differently, for us emphasizing our powerlessness; for men, their power, is not just a quirk of capitalism. It's a gendered issue. It's MISOGYNY. It's not conspiratorial thinking to watch how misogyny works and how it affects women. It's just watching reality through feminist lenses. Yes, Wolf did wrong in her book by not acknowledging capitalism much, but Klein not acknowledging the misogyny/patriarchy aspect of it (and dismissing the idea as just Naomi Wolf being crazy again, lol) is not much better (and is misogynistic in and of itself). Both of their analyses are tables standing only on two legs.

The next part is just... absolutely bizarre but it really jumped out at me, and it's really an example about what non-feminist sexual "liberation" politics do your brain, even when you're Naomi fucking Klein. When talking about people feeling disempowered and helpless in the face of injustice, oligarchies and reckless capitalism, she goes: "Knowing that this kind of unmasked plutocracy can take root in democratic societies without so much as an effort to hide it is like being forced to watch your spouse cheat on you when that is not your kink"

Like hello, WHAT. What is the need? Why is that disclaimer there? Is this a Twitter thread about problematic shipping? Is this Klein revealing her own kinks? (No one asked!). She's a damn good writer, she knows what sentences are impactful and hit. She KNOWS that putting that disclaimer there at the end inherently makes the statement less impactful. Why would you add it? I cannot wrap my head around it.

Finally, there's the way she off-handedly mentions how her partner was campaigning for a political party and how she took him to look into the way even left wing people were being drawn into conspiracies and how to appeal to them. And the guy just, dismissed her. Like, imagine that, you're THE Naomi Klein, one of the best investigative journalist there are and your partner of however many years dismisses your advice about an issue you have been investigating for years when you're over 20 years into your career producing hit after hit of investigative journalism and books. Just like that. Eventually, he listens to her because he runs into some nut jobs, but like, hello? I wouldn't have put that in the book for the sheer humiliation of it (unless that is your kink, I guess 😭) but a feminist writer MIGHT have had something to say about how this is an example of men never taking women seriously, no matter how much expertise they have.

It's just... Tiny things like this, or not analyzing through a feminist lenses why women so easily fall into wellness conspiracies, or why the cancellation of Wolf which led her to her current grift (which Klein acknowledges) was also made worse because mobs rising up against women online are ALWAYS worse, that let me know that feminism is just not a lenses through which she was analyzing these issues at all. And it's very subtle throughout the book but very much There if you're like me who's a feminist first and foremost. And it's disappointing.

The book is still very much great and I do recommend it though.

[jasper-book-stash]

March 2024 Reading Wrap Up

I got bronchitis and my period at the same time in March, and then spilled tea on my computer, so March was a very stressful time for me. Regardless, I managed to read 10 books! And honestly, overall, this is one of the better months - the lowest I've ranked a book is 6/10, which is damn good considering the absolute bullshit I usually read.

Religious Text

None applicable.

1/10 - Why Did They Publish This?

None applicable.

2/10 - Trash

None applicable.

3/10 - Meh

None applicable.

4 to 6/10 - Mid-Tier

Tomb Sweeping | Alexandra Chang

I read this book while sick. And boy howdy, did that make it a weird experience. I get what it was going for, but it really wasn't my vibe. It just felt like everything was...unfinished. Which was the point, I suppose, but it was still annoying.

7 to 8/10 - Good With Caveats

What the Bible Really Says about Homosexuality | Daniel A Helminiak

This is a very short book compared to my usual reads, topping at 152 pages. And I appreciate a book that gets straight to the point and analyzes the historical context around various works, particularly religious works. Good job. My only complaint is some editing issues.

Born to Love, Cursed to Feel | Samantha King

This was a poetry collection and was the only other book I read while sick, and boy howdy did I have a time of it. I spent most of the reading just...putting post-it notes in and nodding along to the lines. It was a surprisingly good book, considering I found it in the back alley version of a book store.

Southern Cunning: Folkloric Witchcraft in the American South | Aaron Oberon

Look. This is not a 101 book. It's not a 102 book. It's not even a 201 book. It simply is. And as much as I enjoyed it and enjoyed reading it, the fact that I spent most of my reading time fixing the editing means that I cannot, in good faith, put this any higher than an 8 out of 10. Dear Aaron Oberon, if you ever read this, PLEASE give me access to the original file so I can fix your punctuation and spelling mistakes. Sincerely, a fellow Southerner.

9/10 - Very Very Good

Snow White with the Red Hair, volumes 21-23 | Sorata Akiduki

I am still so fucking feral over this series. I love them so fucking much. I want them all to be happy but I also like seeing their shenanigans. Unfortunately, though we're at 26 published volumes, we've reached the end of the ones in Missouri Evergreen that I may access. I'll either have to wait and hope that someone gets them, or I'll have to bite the bullet and buy them myself.

Not Pounded By Anything: Six Platonic Tales Of Non-Sexual Encounters | Chuck Tingle

This is my first expedition into the erotic Tingleverse after reading some pieces of the horror Tingleverse in Straight and Camp Damascus. And I really, really like this book. It's 77 pages and is such an easy read. Godspeed, you glorious bastard.

10/10 - Unironically Recommend To Everyone

Well, everyone who's into the genre these fall under, at least.

Writing Fiction: A Guide to Narrative Craft, tenth edition | Janet Burroway

I found this in the free section of a bookstore in the middle of nowhere, and let me tell you, it is now marked up one side and down the other with highlighter, because I needed it. There are so many good parts of this book that it's genuinely one I would recommend to people who are trying to figure out why their writing feels flat.

Sacred Gender: Create Trans and Nonbinary Spiritual Connections | Ariana Serpentine

First, I want to congratulate the author on what is possibly the coolest name ever.

Second, if you're an occultist, polytheist, witch, magic practitioner, or in any other way affiliated with things beyond or within mortal ken...get this book. It's making me rethink a lot of my own experiences with my craft and my religion, but in a good way.

[betadereader]

It’s “just” fiction.

How many of us have come across the typical phrase "it's just fiction"? Starting from a personal basis, I have always found it as a justifying sentence of an author with its content. And if the author has to get away with this defense, it is because someone has previously questioned said content. 

To begin with, I will clarify a point. Writing about a murder does not make you a murderer, just as writing a rape does not make you a rapist; role-playing a sadistic and abusive character does not make you that character, acting in your real environment just like them. 

In the world there are people who know how to separate the line of fiction and reality very well, while others do not. However, this is not the focus of this essay. I wanted to focus on the undervaluation of fiction in that very phrase "it's just fiction." I am going to articulate it with several examples that have occurred or continue to occur in reality, in addition to raising a series of questions. 

For better or for worse, the news media have configured a heritage of History. We are aware of History because there is written and / or audiovisual material, but the story offered by the media may not represent History itself. We know the version of history that they tell us. 

If I have gone to a very current example, the simple fact of creating a story in the format of an informative speech does not always reflect 100% of the object that occurred. 

With information abuse (the saturation of information) and so-called fake news, they also have the possibility of affecting the user's conscience, despite being a totally invented, fictitious story. 

Again, for better or for worse, and putting history and the media together, people tend to learn history more easily with fiction series. The fictional discourse can be educational and, at the same time, not represent History as such, trivializing some political aspects or creating a polarized world of black and white; good vs. bad. 

I also wanted to highlight a sociological experiment that was carried out on television, replicating Milgram's experiment. 

Milgram's original experiment, now cataloged by several experts as immoral, reflected very favorable results for the scientific community in its day. His main objective was to study the forms of obedience and whether they could find connection with those condemned during the Nazi era. Translated to the television world, in the documentary The Game of Death, they wanted to see to what extent a game show could become an authority, in addition to coming up with several theories. 

Like the original experiment, an agentic state (sometimes conformism too) was found in the contestant, relegating all authority to the guidelines of the program. There is an additional theory that mentions “belief perseverance”. In the contest, electric shocks are given to a subject who cannot be seen but can be heard. As the program progresses, the greater the intensity of the shock. Obviously it is an experiment and the pain is acted out, but in the participant —who did not know that they were part of the experiment— the following belief came up: "I can't really be hurting him because this is television."

“This is television” as a synonym for prior planning and pure spectacle; as a synonym for falsehood; just fiction.

I mentioned this example because, especially at the beginning of the documentary, it denounces a normalization of violence and physical and emotional torture on television. It denounces, also at the end, that commercial televisions, in their desire for money, "teach us that it is normal to humiliate, eliminate and be sadistic." (It’s an old documentary but if you want to see it, click here. It’s in French, I’m sorry).

Continuing with sociological experiments, how many experiments have tried to study the link between violence and video games? Or sexism and video games? Or xenophobia and video games? Or nationalism and video games? 

It should be said that the last mentioned are more common in the attitude of the player, using the video game as an expressive way to say whatever they want. However, we cannot ignore that, like historical television series, video games can also serve for nationalist discourses by demonizing the enemy and sanctifying themselves (especially when talking about video games which main topic is war).

I do not wish to dwell too much on each of the questions raised, since the emphasis is not the result of these experiments, but the undeniable interest and concern on the community of experts, as well as more and more students who are interested in these problems in order to analyze and debate them.

We are not indifferent to the images or books we consume. No matter how invented a story is, it stirs up real emotions. We grow with the media (traditional or digital media) and the content they have to offer us. There is socialization with the media at a very early age, and when we grow up we continue to learn from them.

Media acts on our emotions. And the stories that are told to us through media help to frame a collective imagination that even affects the vision of reality itself. Reality can also help build fictional worlds. And so the cycle would begin, since new ideals in fiction can act as a mirror for a future society and/or perpetuate harmful values (especially when under romantic treatments). They are two worlds that feed into each other.

For this reason the famous so-called "romantic love" has been so analyzed and criticized for promoting toxic ideas such as 1) love is the final happiness of every person and we are not complete otherwise, 2) we must to depend on someone else consider ourselves a "whole", 3) "for love everything is forgiven", "true love is eternal" and more idealizations that impacts on society and its perspective of love.

(Closely linked to romantic love, monogamy has been accused of being toxic and I wanted to make a small point that the decision of a closed relationship is as valid as an open relationship, and that an open relationship can be as toxic as a closed one. Here everything is said).

If fiction lacked that power, censorship would never have existed. The witch hunt in Hollywood or censorship that existed in the USSR for the control of the media and its content should not have happened. And many more historical contexts that I am ignoring. Governments were afraid of a content contrary to the predominant ideology, because it could break and violate their established values.

If fiction lacked power, propaganda would also lack power. Propaganda, especially in the context of dictatorships, offers a cult of personality; they idolize, endow dictators with divine values.

We just have to see the television advertising: it is all an idealized, invented version of the product. Don't give me that you've never been disappointed in buying the real product because "it wasn't like it was on TV."

We just have to see how certain groups in society (racial groups, different sexual orientation and gender identity groups, cultural ...) demand to be participants in fictional stories because fiction configures a mirror of the real world, where they are already participants.

Okay, taking a step closer to the "it's just fiction" statement ... so why do film academies exist? Depending on the film, they work with fiction to a greater or lesser degree, but it is still fiction. Why would there be jobs that are dedicated to worlds which work with fiction, if that is worthless? If "it was only fiction" nobody would pay for a movie or a book. And the same happens with television and animation series; no one would consume them. Any story that contains fiction, that is, any made-up story (depending on the needs of the script and the historical context), has no value.

By the same logic, any literary work would not have survived in memory and the writers we know as the "classics" would no longer be. By the same logic, any artistic movement (theater arts, literature, audiovisual and more), would have fallen into oblivion and its formal codes by which they acquire identity, would not be worthy of analyzing and studying. 

Because what difference does it make. It is just fiction. Nothing happens for the massive creation of very questionable content (the topics of which this blog will address later). 

Continuing with this essay, does anyone remember 50 Shades of Grey trilogy? Yes, that mess that originated (if I remember correctly) as a Twilight bad fic. How much movement was there on social networks denouncing an abusive and toxic relationship? Apart from BDSM and the criticism that it was painfully written (I started reading it by laughing and ended up wanting to tear my eyes out), there were countless posts in which the relationship of the characters was analyzed. Many voiced their complaint and amazement at how a book that focuses on and romanticizes a toxic relationship could hit the market.

I suppose that something problematic is even more when it becomes popular and it is about making money with it. And probably publishers don’t give a damn because they're going to make money anyway. Although the world of FanFiction is not destined —in principle— for commercialization, the fic that romanticizes problematic subjects is not "less important" for this reason, because it can do the same damage. There is a vast "FanFiction culture", and more than one fic has made the jump to the market. We have all seen a book with its brilliant promotion of "phenomenon on Wattpad".

Fickers —writers of FanFiction— are not film or television producers. It is good that FanFiction (and like FF we have Wattpad and AO3) is not a strictly professional universe. A fic, like a movie or a television series or a video game, can narrate very murky and dark things from life. A story can talk about drugs (or other types of addictions), the inhumanity of war, torture, sexism, rape, pedophilia and more that I’m ignoring. You can do it from the critical perspective of the characters and their actions, or from the point of view of the addict, inhuman, sadistic, sexist, rapist or pedophile respectively with the aforementioned.

Why if the producer/writer who whitewashes the image of pedophilia or terrorism (for example) or romanticizes them is considerated as a pedophile or as a terrorist but nothing is said against romanticization and the subsequent normalization of rape in the FanFiction world?

That question is one of many examples of harmful behavior by content creators, which toxicity can be seen thorugh fiction. That question is one from many others that this Tumblr account wants to develop as essays.

Because fiction is not “just” fiction. Whoever wants to rely on this phrase, is the equivalent of being a shameless person... as something to begin with.

[richardmperry88]

Fixing Tech’s Gender Gap: 10 Questions with Author Therese Huston

With male leaders outnumbering women four to one, the tech industry has notoriously been a gentleman’s club. Still, more and more women are “leaning in” and finding their places at the table in technology and science. But are their voices equally valued?

DreamHost takes this issue to heart and has been working to support women in tech for years.  And that’s why we reached out to author Therese Huston.

“When it comes to decision-making and leadership, men are from Mars, and women are from a less respected part of Mars,” Huston says. The author of How Women Decide: What’s True, What’s Not, and What Strategies Spark the Best Choices,  Huston shares her insights on challenges facing women in tech — and how we can all do better to make sure every voice is heard.

Therese Huston

1. What challenges do women face in a male-dominated field?

A really common complaint — and one backed by research — is that women have to keep proving their competence. People are more likely to notice women’s mistakes and to remember them longer; while with men, we tend to remember successes longer and more readily forgive mistakes.

Related: 6 Things Women in Tech Are Sick of Hearing

2. We like to think that all good ideas are valued and recognized. How true is that in practice?

Sadly, credit is not always given where it is due, especially when it is due to a woman. I’ve heard countless stories about women making a suggestion that doesn’t get picked up, but then when a guy makes the same suggestion later, all of a sudden everyone is enthusiastic about it.

Researchers studying mixed-gender work teams in male-dominated fields found that when a group’s successful problem solving was evaluated by an outsider not present for the collaboration, if it wasn’t specified exactly who did what, it was automatically assumed that a man was the top performer and deserves the credit. That’s really concerning, especially when management teams are doing reviews or considering promotions.

DreamHost Takes Inclusivity Seriously

We regularly report on diversity, accessibility, and representation in the tech industry. Subscribe to our monthly newsletter so you never miss an article.

Sign Me Up

3. What are some key differences between how men and women make decisions?

Actually, research by neuroscientists is showing that under normal circumstances, men and women actually approach a problem the same way. But put them under stress — maybe with a deadline, the threat of a product being cut — and you’ll see a difference. Men suddenly become much more drawn to risks and big rewards than normal. Women do the opposite; they want to do what they know will work, what has worked in the past, what they know they have the full resources to accomplish.

I like to use baseball as an analogy: Men want to go for the home run, which is very difficult to accomplish but offers a big reward, while women aim for the more tried-and-true goal of getting on base. What you want in stressful circumstances is a mix of both strategies.

Unfortunately, all too often in tech at the management level, it’s just a room full of men. What that says to me is that we really need to tap more gender balance in our leadership teams and to listen to the women who get there.

4. How true is it that women rely on emotion in decision-making?

You’ve heard the phrase “woman’s intuition” — but probably not “man’s intuition.” We think of women as going with their gut or following their heart. However, the research shows that women tend to take a more analytical approach; they are more likely than men to do research and analyze possible scenarios and pros and cons. It’s actually the men who are more likely to go with their gut and what “feels right” as opposed to doing the necessary analytics.

5. How are women’s decisions received differently than men’s are?

There’s ample evidence that women’s ideas are more scrutinized. A Yale researcher asked people to read about a scenario in which a male or female leader in a traditionally male occupation made a costly mistake. They then evaluated how good or bad a leader they thought that person was.

When a male leader showed poor judgment, his rating dropped about 10 percent, while a woman making the same mistake suffered three times the penalty, and some people even called for her demotion.

When we scrutinize a woman’s mistakes much harsher than a man’s, that makes it all the more difficult for women to simply be promoted within the organization, let alone reach the c-suite. In tech you’re told to fail early and fail often — but that only really applies if you are a guy.

6. Is it only men who are guilty of gender bias?

Not at all. Women will often think that men’s ideas are more credible, though they are likely to disavow that if you ask them. We all live and work in the same culture and are subject to the same unconscious biases.

7. Sounds like we have a long way to go. How can women make sure their voices are heard?

One of my favorite techniques is amplification. This idea actually came from the Obama administration. Women were finding that their ideas weren’t being heard or given due credit, so they began to amplify one another in meetings: If one woman in the meeting suggested an idea, another woman in the meeting would immediately speak up, name and credit the first woman, and repeat her idea. The women later reported getting credit for their ideas and more opportunities to contribute.

Amplification translates well to tech, where women can team up with each other or a male colleague, and it doesn’t come across as aggressive — a “damned if you do, damned if you don’t” trait commonly criticized in female leaders.

Related: What It’s Like to Be a Black Woman in Tech: A Q&A with Kaya Thomas

8. How can women advocate their ideas without being dismissed as overly aggressive?

There is some fabulous research recently looking at which types of aggressive behaviors work for women in meetings and which don’t. Talking louder or getting angry, for example, is not liked. But one aggressive technique that doesn’t seem to lead to penalties for women is interrupting.

It might feel awkward to interrupt — it certainly does for me — but it’s effective. I don’t mean you should spend the whole meeting talking over everyone, but if there is something you really want to say, then say it. No one is going to call on you; if you’re waiting for a pause, it’s not going to happen.

If you, like me, find the thought of interrupting painful and stress over finding the right moment, try counting backward from ten and when you hit one, blurt out your idea, no matter what. Interrupting gives you a huge surge of adrenaline and helps you stay enthused in the meeting, rather than tuning out and giving up.

Another strategy to help women — or really, anyone — to give their ideas a boost is to frame it as a question. So say “Would it be possible to … “ instead of “What we need to do is … “ Research shows that this phrasing invites discussion and gives ideas more airtime. The phrasing can be a little tricky for women because there’s a fear that they are sounding soft and asking for permission, but it is actually an effective strategy for both men and women looking to get their voices heard.

9. What can men do to support their female colleagues? 

For one, they can partner up with the women in their group and try the amplification technique — or simply get in the habit of amplifying good ideas. Prompts as simple as, “What I like about Emily’s idea is . . .” or “I think Samantha suggested that earlier” ensure that women get credit for their ideas.

Managers or others who may want to help without coming across as patronizing could pass along the article about amplification in the Obama administration to team members, starting a conversation about this issue and what everyone can do to help.

Related: Six Women Programmed the First Computer . . . And Didn’t Get the Credit

10. What can tech companies — like DreamHost — do to help?

They need to put conscious strategies in place to counteract unconscious gender biases. In meetings, those in management could make a habit of asking to hear input from someone who hasn’t spoken yet. That creates an opportunity for women to speak up, along with anyone else who might need more time to think through their comments.

Saying something as simple as, “Wait, I want to hear what Julia has to say,” can open the conversation, as can bringing the conversation back to an idea that may have been interrupted. Managers could also take the time to write down the division of roles, so when the work is being analyzed later, women will get credit for the work they’ve done.

Related: 30 Ways to Be an Ally for Women in Tech

Now Share Your Voice

We’d love to hear your take! What are some biases you’ve noticed in the workplace? How have these affected you or your co-workers? What strategies have you used to make sure yours — and other’s — ideas are equally heard and valued? And have you tried any of Huston’s techniques? Join us on Twitter and Facebook to start the conversation.

The post Fixing Tech’s Gender Gap: 10 Questions with Author Therese Huston appeared first on Website Guides, Tips & Knowledge.

from Website Guides, Tips & Knowledge https://www.dreamhost.com/blog/fixing-tech-industry-gender-gap/