Permission to speak, Sir?

No wonder girls do better in single-sex schools:

"Teachers are often unaware of the gender distribution of talk in their classrooms. They usually consider that they give equal amounts of attention to girls and boys, and it is only when they make a tape recording that they realize that boys are dominating the interactions.

Dale Spender, an Australian feminist who has been a strong advocate of female rights in this area, noted that teachers who tried to restore the balance by deliberately ‘favouring’ the girls were astounded to find that despite their efforts they continued to devote more time to the boys in their classrooms. Another study reported that a male science teacher who managed to create an atmosphere in which girls and boys contributed more equally to discussion felt that he was devoting 90 per cent of his attention to the girls. And so did his male pupils. They complained vociferously that the girls were getting too much talking time.

In other public contexts, too, such as seminars and debates, when women and men are deliberately given an equal amount of the highly valued talking time, there is often a perception that they are getting more than their fair share. Dale Spender explains this as follows:

The talkativeness of women has been gauged in comparison not with men but with silence. Women have not been judged on the grounds of whether they talk more than men, but of whether they talk more than silent women.

In other words, if women talk at all, this may be perceived as ‘too much’ by men who expect them to provide a silent, decorative background in many social contexts. This may sound outrageous, but think about how you react when precocious children dominate the talk at an adult party. As women begin to make inroads into formerly ‘male’ domains such as business and professional contexts, we should not be surprised to find that their contributions are not always perceived positively or even accurately."

— [x] (via neighborly)

Why it is so important for men to learn to step back…

(Source: sylviatietjens, via malesexistbehavior), Reblog from: profeministbro.tumblr.com.

Childhood Memories

It's been interesting, lately, talking to my brothers about gender differences and imbalances. It's also been somewhat worrying to talk to them about some of the facts and statistics. Both are anti-violence, both are on the side of not taking advantage of the incoherently drunk.
I've given them the links for Man Up Campaign, for WhiteRibbon, for Profeminist Bro, for Project Unbreakable. And I've talked to them, for the first time, about being sexually assaulted myself, in an attempt to humanise the cold data. For me, their reactions were the real shocker.
When I was attacked at knife-point, they were barely 4 years old. They didn't witness the attack, but saw me in the immediate aftermath. One had convinced himself it must have been a nightmare, as no-one in the family ever spoke to them about the day I walked into the room with my shirt ripped to shreds and blood everywhere. The other remembered it as real. Both remember wanting to take their toy swords and go after the villain of the piece, and that I'd managed (however vaguely) to sort it out myself.
This level of detail gets to me, because they were so young at the time, and it's never exactly been a conversation starter in our family. I always knew I'd been a random target, and my assailant didn't succeed in raping me. I never thought it was about me, or that I'd done anything wrong, and my parents agreed that therapy could wait until I exhibited signs of trauma. (I haven't to date, unless you count the vilification of rapists).
But if a 4 year old can remember so clearly a single afternoon, just the sight of a bloodied sister; an incident which hasn't been discussed at all then or since, then how much do children register of parental arguments, gender discrimination  or violence and abuse among the adults in their lives? How much damage does it to them even if they're not the victims themselves?

Gender differences

I found this re-blog request at http://profeministbro.tumblr.com/ (and boy was that a refreshing find)

Last night at the male-identified training we did an exercise - asking men what they did on a daily basis to reduce their risk of sexual assault. The list for men was one thing: “Don’t go to jail.” When the facilitator of the exercise, who is female-identified, listed things she does, many of the men were in shock. I want to start a Tumblr project where women reblog this post and add on to the list things they do, or things they have been told, to “not get raped.” Then, I’m going to compile the full list in a couple months, as a tool to demonstrate the fucked-upness of rape culture and to show how we as men play an integral role in rape prevention.

Here are a few I’ve heard:

• Watch your drink.
• Don’t go out after dark (which in Chicago will be 4 PM in a couple weeks).
• If you do go out, go in a group.
• If you go out in a group, make sure you all leave together.
• Don’t wear revealing clothing.
• Carry your keys in your hand.
• Carry pepper spray.
• Carry mace.
• Carry a weapon of some kind.
• Take self-defense classes.
• Avoid darkly lit areas.
• Talk on the phone while walking home at night.
• Don’t text so you don’t appear distracted.

I'll add:

* don't take an unlicensed mini-cab

* stay sober

* and the old favourite: don't talk to strangers (so how am I supposed to meet people?)

Please reblog and add more.

'Bitch'

I wasn't originally planning to keep this blog beyond a year, but Dulwichmum's blog has inspired me to return. Dulwichmum writes a beauty blog, largely because her career as a scientist doesn't allow her such frivolous conversations. Why is it frivolous to be interested in your appearance?
We've managed to trivialise this (fairly universal) concern - and it's an understandable one for any visual species - while at the same time putting a huge amount of baggage and pressure on women's appearance, inextricably linking it to self-confidence. Think about it: we use insult like 'bimbo' and 'Barbie' for women we assume to be shallow because they've clearly put the time in, but equally use 'frump' and 'boring' for women who've 'let themselves go' (we presume) because their appearance doesn't flag up how much time and effort it took.
Meredith Brooks had a point: we are all more complicated than such easy labels.
So yes, I'm a biker who happens to like stiletto heels (not for riding, but still), I practise kung fu and also wear make-up - hell, I even highlight my hair. And while I am pretty blonde, I do still want to be taken seriously. It's not my fault my DNA specified fair colouring. Like Dulwichmum, I don't understand why any of that is considered so contradictory.

Sweet Little Lies

As a facet of my enduring fascination (my family calls it obsession) with martial arts, I tend to do a lot of associated reading, in which ninjitsu and ninja are recurrent terms. But what are ninjas doing in books on martial skills?

Ninjas were, according to Western imagination, the ultimate warriors. They could be invisible, they had superhuman skill and strength... but the truth is, they were spies and assassins. They weren't warriors at all, necessarily. As much as we like spy movies and the James Bond franchise, we still don't much like the idea of spying. It goes against the grain to admit the need for duplicity, for betrayal as a given. And yet, we all do just that. We all lie – whether in shades of white or grey or black. Whatever the lie or the motives for it, it's still an untruth. And it's essential to nature, to life itself.

After all, what is a predator's camouflage if not a lie? The natural world, the animal and plant kingdoms are stuffed to the brim of little lies to promote the longevity of the individual and the species.

So maybe we should admit and even embrace the fact that honesty can be overrated, and the mouse's strategy of lying his way out of trouble in 'The Gruffalo' is a valid one.

Nothing Left To Lose

Freedom, if Kris Kristofferson is to be believed, is another word for having nothing left to lose. He’s not the only one to think so – the idea of not having roots in order to spreads your wings, of not having ties in order to be more reactive, more flexible – these are not new or even radical concepts. We stymie ourselves by giving ourselves things and people and commitments to worry about, to consider before we can choose a course of action.

This is why warrior caste societies went to very sophisticated lengths to avoid tying their warriors down with possessions while at the same time, giving them a sufficient stake in the society to want to fight for it. The entire Spartan world was set up around this idea.

Hollywood loves it – take away the hero’s love or family and watch him tear the world apart to get it back, or get revenge. He can be as spectacularly reckless as you have the budget for because he has already lost what he values most. He has nothing left to lose, and therefore the ultimate freedom to act.

The unemcumbered life is hard to pull off, in the modern world. We’re social creatures, we tend to nest, to put down roots and forge ties to people and places. Technology makes it increasingly possible to take these roots with us – the Cloud, portable hard drives, e-readers and iPods allow us to take our movies, music, libraries with us very easily.

Yes, that’s semantics: these are still things we have, however compact their form, and if we have them, we have them to lose. The question is how much it’ll cost us to lose them. You only have it to lose if its loss will matter.

Girls and boys

I recently spent an afternoon with my niece and 2 of her friends. Over supper, they were playing a game of a show of hands for likes and dislikes, and it occurred to me, listening in, that girls learn duplicity early on. I don’t know whether it’s innate, or if we teach them this, but even at age 7, they’re asking loaded questions, like “hands in the middle if you don’t like me” amid more innocuous ones about liking ice-cream and disliking tomatoes.

I don’t recall my brothers, my cousins or any of my male charges being this aware of the popularity stakes at that age. But I do remember being acutely aware, at that age, of who was popular and who was not within my own class – and that the girls in general were far more aware of social hierarchy than the boys.

It’s a worrying beginning of a lifelong trend – girls tend to be clique-y, tend to use gossip, trends and appearance as social litmus tests to assign each other into the relevant category and relate to them accordingly. Our social definitions of women – good girls, bad girls, tomboys, brainiacs, domestic goddesses – don’t allow for a lot of leeway, honesty or mercy. And girls learn early on that the best way for them to operate is to be ruthless and duplicitous and underhand. Unfortunately.