Zilch, nada. Zippity-do-dah! I did absolutely nothing today.
But, I have been thinking about being a woman, and rape and the choice to control whether or not I can have children - see A.B.'s post here and here, and Simbly Bored's here. The discussion is engaging. And I agree with both of them. Anyone saying there's no need for feminism is thinking with the scum 'neath their uncut nails.
Which then brings me to a post of which I've been thinking - a response (of sorts) to A.b.'s post about TED Women from some time ago. She makes a strong case for more women speaking out in the TED (Regular).
I'm not opposed to that line of reasoning. At all.
This whole segregation of women into our own neat little box is all very well, but is also awesomely demeaning. [It is, after all, this very line of reasoning that brought us this gem of a publication last May (cue: sarcastic cough) - yes, an SF anthology of *Greats*. yes, in the in the twenty first century. yes, yes with only One female author. Whoodle!] Separating TED(Regular) from TED Women has the same implications.
That said, however, I've been toying with the idea that in some ways I'm for the idea of TED (Women).
For the same reasons that I'm for the idea that we still need feminists*.
There has to be some way to even the score, to make up for all the "Before we were Giants" and the "you deserved to be raped, because you were doing a man's job" and everything else. And a forum that seeks to showcase the contributions of women just might be one step in the right direction.
(Yes, the same reasoning that spurs reservations and reserved parking spots for the physically disabled.)
This line of reasoning, however, falls apart in the case of Tony Porter's video because, as a.b. points out, he preaches to the choir. (No, seriously. Why are there only women in his audience?)
But, I've been watching a couple of the other videos and I'm beginning to believe that they're headed in the right direction. As a platform to foreground the spectacular work women do in a large variety of fields, we need TED Women. Because even today, it is natural for even supposedly well-read editors to be gender-blind (which basically means they don't even notice that they don't read enough women). This is not gender-neutrality, it is gender-bias of the most insidious kind.
*This is Feminism 101: But it annoys me no end to have to explain the idea that feminist is not against men.
All you folks, "I'm pro equality, but I'm not a feminist." Really?
But, I have been thinking about being a woman, and rape and the choice to control whether or not I can have children - see A.B.'s post here and here, and Simbly Bored's here. The discussion is engaging. And I agree with both of them. Anyone saying there's no need for feminism is thinking with the scum 'neath their uncut nails.
Which then brings me to a post of which I've been thinking - a response (of sorts) to A.b.'s post about TED Women from some time ago. She makes a strong case for more women speaking out in the TED (Regular).
I'm not opposed to that line of reasoning. At all.
This whole segregation of women into our own neat little box is all very well, but is also awesomely demeaning. [It is, after all, this very line of reasoning that brought us this gem of a publication last May (cue: sarcastic cough) - yes, an SF anthology of *Greats*. yes, in the in the twenty first century. yes, yes with only One female author. Whoodle!] Separating TED(Regular) from TED Women has the same implications.
That said, however, I've been toying with the idea that in some ways I'm for the idea of TED (Women).
For the same reasons that I'm for the idea that we still need feminists*.
There has to be some way to even the score, to make up for all the "Before we were Giants" and the "you deserved to be raped, because you were doing a man's job" and everything else. And a forum that seeks to showcase the contributions of women just might be one step in the right direction.
(Yes, the same reasoning that spurs reservations and reserved parking spots for the physically disabled.)
This line of reasoning, however, falls apart in the case of Tony Porter's video because, as a.b. points out, he preaches to the choir. (No, seriously. Why are there only women in his audience?)
But, I've been watching a couple of the other videos and I'm beginning to believe that they're headed in the right direction. As a platform to foreground the spectacular work women do in a large variety of fields, we need TED Women. Because even today, it is natural for even supposedly well-read editors to be gender-blind (which basically means they don't even notice that they don't read enough women). This is not gender-neutrality, it is gender-bias of the most insidious kind.
*This is Feminism 101: But it annoys me no end to have to explain the idea that feminist is not against men.
All you folks, "I'm pro equality, but I'm not a feminist." Really?
2 comments:
I need to admit that my reluctance to TED Women stems from internalized misogyny, specifically that I am afraid men will not care (and they need to) about women's issues when they are framed as women's issues. Whew, that is a can of worms for this early in the day.
A.b. I hear you. And I agree that labeling these issues as "women's issues" is to risk their relegation to a dark unnoticed spot.
That is why I don't think TED Women should be the only platform to focus on women's achievements.
I just think it is important to *also* have such a forum - as an extra avenue, rather than the only one.
Post a Comment