Today a few of my ‘worlds’ collided when a young woman in one of my classes ask me ‘how come I found your blog and how does it get so much traffic?’
It was on the tip of my tongue to say “start a blog, enter in for the ‘We Only Like You Because You’re Good in Blog’ day next Thursday!”, but I was a little hesitant to suggest that they pick up a potentially-time-draining project like writing online -- when they have only one-and-a-half terms left of school before they do final year exams!
[By the way - hello again to that student if they're reading this and I hope that you enjoy the holiday next week, because it'll be a Monday, not a Tuesday timetable.]
But then, is that discouraging of me? Could that student find a new, welcoming home online as a blogger, which may very well support their writing and argumentation skills? I primarily hesitate because I know how much time I devote to online writing and responding to emails, researching for interviews and reading Twitters… so I draw from my own experiences as well as what Dr Petra said in the recent Skeptic Zone interview, about assuming all young people are naturally keen to use the internet in just the same way I do (she also tweeted a link to a rather depressing and lousy quiz about feminism, as you can see in the picture!)
I guess it also hit me a little harder than usual today -- because I was teaching about reproductive rights and religious oppression in that student’s class, using the following film by Amnesty International. If you haven’t subscribed to their YouTube channel, it’s well worth checking them out:
“Abortion is illegal in the Philippines, and Manila City sought to make the situation worse when former Mayor Jose Lito Atienza passed a blanket ban on contraception in 2000. This ban effectively prohibits Manila City women — especially poor women — from accessing all forms of modern contraceptives, condoms, and information necessary to protect their reproductive health. As a result, women are unable to prevent pregnancy, even when it would jeopardize their lives, health, or ability to feed their families.”
My worlds seem to intersect quite easily these days! I guess that’s a natural by-product when I’m teaching Philosophy, 
Religious Education, while investigating science, skepticism and feminism both via blogging and recent podcasts (the interview with Dr Petra Boynton on sex, skepticism and sexuality myths is now out on Skeptic Zone -- as well as a lecture on skepticism and cosmetic myths on the Token Skeptic podcast).
While I’m for awareness-raising, discussing how religious groups do endorse repression and (as you can see from my class-content today) finding resources that investigate how women’s rights to understanding sexuality and reproductive health -- my first response to a gesture like that proposed by ‘Blag Hag’, involving wearing revealing clothing via blog-posts was a negative one -- and that it was not one that I’m comfortable with as either a ‘stunt’ or a unifying strategy for female skeptics. I just couldn’t see whether the message would really reach anyone besides the already-skeptical men who may very well ignore any ‘bigger picture’ in favour of the ever-ubiquitous chant for ‘PICS!!!!’?
Her gesture was in response to this article, which also (what a coincidence!) relates to religious oppression and women:
Iranian cleric blames women’s immodest dress, promiscuity for earthquakes, urges repentance:
“Many women who do not dress modestly … lead young men astray, corrupt their chastity and spread adultery in society, which (consequently) increases earthquakes,” Hojatoleslam Kazem Sedighi was quoted as saying by Iranian media. Sedighi is Tehran’s acting Friday prayer leader.
Perhaps this stems from reflections I made in my more recent SheThought article (Sex(hausted)? Curiosity About Whether ‘Being Sexy Sells Science’) on the topic of ‘does sex sell science’ which was just posted, if you want more on that subject. It is also on the (not-so-high) heels of a Salon.com article about a proposed division between young feminist bloggers and an older generation of reproductive rights activists -- ‘Where did all the angry young women go?
Many of the young women who formed and populate the feminist blogosphere will tell you that they took to the Internet because they found no welcome in institutional women’s organizations and decided not to work within a system designed and run by leaders who did not trust them, take them seriously, or show any interest in their opinions. Instead, they set out to create their own approach to women’s rights, to reach their own peers in their own way, rather than wait to be acknowledged by their elders. As a result, some feminist institutions indeed find themselves with an age imbalance, membership listing precariously toward the senescent.
Therefore, as someone who does primarily lean towards using the internet more than traditionally-created activist ‘real-world’ groups, am I limited in my views about how communication and awareness-raising is done best? Via Facebook pages or blog entries for wearing revealing clothing, or what-have-you? Does this make me more like depiction of the older generation of feminists who ‘just don’t understand what it means to be an activist now’?
Maybe I should have that as a disclaimer on my board next time I go to teach Philosophy class? ‘Opinions Voiced By The Teacher In This Class May Be More Conservative Than They First Appeared, Upon Reflection’.
Well, I discovered this Salon.com article due to Amanda Marcotte ‘tweeting’ a link to it -- and then I rather belatedly discover that she has a new book out! ‘Get Opinionated -- A Progressive Guide to Finding Your Voice (And Taking A Little Action)‘. I’ll be seeing about getting a copy as soon as possible, to see what she has to say about what the article says about the division between the generations and what could be done:
What I do want you to take away from this book is not liberal dogma, but a belief that these various issues are intertwined, and that someone who comes to liberalism for issue X will do well to care about issues Y and Z as well. Don’t let people pigeonhole you! You may start off as a feminist, but there’s no reason not to add “environmentalist” to your list of interests. Liberal economics, anti-racism, secularism, and support for science—these seemingly disparate issues have more in common than they would seem to have at first blush, and they work together in interesting ways.
I should point out that this is leading to yet another explanation as to why you won’t get many more blog entries from me this week either! I have too much work to do still, not just involving teaching and investigating these matters off-line.
But I do hope that you check out all the contributors to SheThought this Thursday - and if you aren’t an overly-busy student like myself, do pop in a blog-entry on that day about what factors contribute to your maintaining a friendly atmosphere, and resilience when writing online.
{ 18 comments… read them below or add one }
Boobs? . . . did someone mention boobs?
Seriously, from personal experience I can say mine have never helped me in any way. Then again, I’ve never really gone out of my way to exploit them.
Do you consider it exploitation to do this? What is really the gain – does it make you pay more attention to the claims or just want to see ‘more’?
I’ll try to explain the way I see it, though you don’t have to agree with me. What the cleric said was absolutely ridiculous. Not only does it deny basic science, but it shames women into being the cause of all their woes. I could have written a long serious blog post about why this is simply not true. Skeptics who already read by blog would have nodded their head in agreement. People who already engage in this irrational and misogynistic thinking would either have not heard it, or dismissed it since I’m a woman.
So instead of being serious, I decided to go the silly route. We can point out the sheer ridiculousness of his views by being a little ridiculous ourselves. It’s not meant to objectify women – hell, what I’ll be wearing I’d wear on any normal day. Even if I wore shorts, that would probably be offensive to the likes of the cleric. It’s just to show that we can embrace our body and our choice of how to dress, and to send a big “lol stfu” to the cleric.
Obviously not everyone is going to agree with my tactic. And obviously there will be men who totally miss the point and just enjoy oggling. But if I have the power to make someone’s stupid claims look even more ridiculous, I’m going to use it.
“…to send a big “lol stfu” to the cleric.”
Do you really think that will be the effect? Will they care? Or are you now the kind of Western extreme that they can now use as an example, to possibly hurt them further – if they even do notice it? Will this really change anything, telling someone to ‘lol stfu’? What is your real GOAL here?
What do you really know of the women who are really being oppressed by that man and the people who believe like him – in the country where he has the power to say such things and be taken seriously? Are you those women? Will those women even see your gesture? Would they see it as empowering… or would they see it as additionally disrespectful towards their religion – which they very well may still adhere to, even though they may well be oppressed by this kind of fundamentalism? Are you hoping they’ll now lead a rebellion?
I would then suggest you check out the Global Atheist Convention with Taslima Nasrin, if you haven’t before, it’s on the Token Skeptic podcast, as an example of a woman who spoke out in a case of fundamentalism and what happened next.
“can embrace our body and our choice of how to dress”
Yes, but according to the cleric, you do that all the time anyway, and they don’t see that as anything that impresses them. In fact, could be seen as aggressive and reactive, rather than proactive. Do you have another tactic that you might consider that may:
a) perhaps contribute to the situation in a more effective manner – once you know what you actually want to do in this case for these women / the country / the religion of the country / whatever, and
b) be less likely to have you ‘oggled’ and ignore what point you’re making – and perhaps turn into something proactive that will help – whatever you say will ‘help’?
You also might like to listen to Dr Petra’s investigation of how people responded without further investigation of the effectiveness and relevance of initiatives (like Clitoraid) in the cases of feminine mutilation in Africa in the podcast I referenced? Particularly in regards to ‘well-meaning outsiders’ and what would be a critical approach to dealing with the oppression of women.
There’s the blog http://savingafrica.wordpress.com that has some interesting information about what makes good activism in regards to people under oppressive regimes in that country, which you could check out. Perhaps Amanda Marcotte might have some advice as well?
It’s one thing to make fun and have a laugh about what’s going on to the amusement of other skeptics (especially the men who would like to see your breasts in a revealing top); it’s another to make a difference to the people who are really being repressed by this cleric – which is how this could come across.
This isn’t, as I suspect, the first time such claims have been made, so what has worked in the past – and has it been gestures like this which were vital to change?
I don’t think this is going to start a revolution or change the minds of millions of people. I didn’t even expect people to read it or care outside of my blog. But I don’t think that means it’s necessarily a horrible thing. I strongly believe that sometimes the best way to counter ridiculous claims is to show how absolutely ridiculous they are, sometimes with mockery. For explanation on what I mean, I would suggest PZ Myers’ Counting Coup: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4pKpikUUOmQ
I don’t disagree with your tactics. I think Greta Christina got it right when she said we need to let firebrands be firebrands, and diplomats be diplomats (http://gretachristina.typepad.com/greta_christinas_weblog/2007/09/good-cop-bad-co.html). Let me be the firebrand, you can be the diplomat, and together we can work toward the same goal.
“I strongly believe that sometimes the best way to counter ridiculous claims is to show how absolutely ridiculous they are, sometimes with mockery.”
Then who is your audience for your mockery? The already skeptical? The on-the-fence? You also have the implication that this is ‘science’ as well, which is why it caught my eye, I guess and I wondered if you were making fun of science too?
Do ‘firebrands’ research further about what they’re doing before they do it or in regards to what they do next? I haven’t seen much more beyond the ‘desire to mock’, which doesn’t really address the points I made about the wider audience and what it might (or not!) do. I’d be intrigued to see if you research further into the situation that those women are facing.
By the way, I don’t consider myself a ‘diplomat’ and I’d prefer you didn’t label me as such? ‘Diplomats’ don’t end up being activists who challenge groups like Dore, amongst other projects I’ve undertaken. That wasn’t diplomacy – that was standing up for the rights of people who were being defrauded. That takes more than what you imply is merely not taking action, with the word ‘diplomat’.
Podblack – this is just a funny stunt on Jen’s part. It’s funny, and that’s why people are paying attention to it, even if they’re not the fundamentalists or the people who can make a change in the country. It doesn’t matter about them, ultimately.
She’s not being serious. She’s getting her breasts out and calling it science. No one is going to change anything for the women who are oppressed, no one is going to rally against the cleric and the misery and suffering of the people in Iran is going to continue regardless. You could even argue that her doing anything at all is pointless, except that skeptics are going to find this stunt amusing and maybe some guys get to see some tits. That makes a point about how guys aren’t doing much about this either.
Having a laugh at the misfortune of the people in Iran may be really harsh, but it does take more to really make a difference, as you said. That’s why it’s really difficut for people to take women in skepticism seriously, because it’s tough to be more than a clown or a pin-up when there’s really big issues at stake that need more than just a few websites to change things. Men need to take action too, if you want more than skeptics to sit around laughing at breasts!
Not that I don’t think you do great work, but Jen is clearly not thinking this through and is just using PZ’s example to justify her actions. What makes PZ different is that he doesn’t _just_ act like a ‘firebrand’. He does more. Yeah, it would be great to see more firebrands who have a purpose, too, but skeptics aren’t that organized anyway.
Thanks, CC, for saying so many wrong things that I don’t even know where to start.
Yep, CC, because I’ve never done anything for the skeptic movement other that making a boob joke. Let’s just totally ignore the whole founding a large successful atheist student group at Purdue thing and getting a ton of positive media coverage for non-theists in a religious Midwestern town. Making one boob joke totally negates all that.
But you’re right. As a woman, obviously all I can do is parrot another man. Totally wouldn’t just be using him as a convenient example to illustrate a point.
It seems to me that a whole lot of online activism is mainly preaching – yes, that’s mostly what it is – to the choir. And the choir enjoys it, make no mistake, as it provides some welcome fresh air from the warm blanket of ignorance the rest of the world wishes to hide beneath.
In this light, Jen’s post is entirely justifiable. Whether or not it is pointless depends entirely on her own blog audience. Does she attract enough people who did not already thought the cleric’s claims to be ridiculous? Because while it builds on Rebecca Watson’s Great Love/Hate Apple Experiment, it lacks an Other Side that is capable of being convinced of the error in logic and reason they’re displaying by making a ridiculous claim. Iranian clerics are not known for their online activities nor their ability to change their minds.
If part of the outreach is playing out on facebook you have more chance of reaching people, at least that’s what I understand FB to enable. I’m no fan of facespace. Twitter is hard enough.
At the moment there’s a whole debate going about how best to engage the wider public in issues as diverse, but also as related, as science, secularism, feminism, skepticism. How can humour, sex, mockery and other attentiongrabbing methods help with this? There are a few science educators and communication scientists with blogs out there, they’re worth a read. I just don’t know.
As to the question if you’re old fashioned or whatever, when did you need to start justifying your feelings?
When it comes to advising your students, it remains their responsibility how they use their limited time. If you want, you can advice them about time management, or urge them to limit their posting cycles to something more manageable..However, they’d be well advised on privacy issues when it comes to online activity. Perhaps that’s an issue you can address in your philosophy class.
All this is separate from the real issue on the ground of Iran, both when it comes to women’s rights and the implications of 13 million people living on top of a fault zone.
OK, I tried, I rambled, and I missed an Inter goal. Happy?
I do feel alone sometimes now – as if I am the last of the “angry” feminists. I hear my daughter’s generation say there isn’t a need for feminism anymore, but I think they are not seeing things globally. Also, they say they are in charge of their own sexuality, thanks to people like Madonna. I still feel sometimes that they have been fed a crock and have swallowed it hook, line & sinker.
I feel very skeptical about the new feminism or women’s activist movement. But perhaps I am just being left behind because I “just don’t understand”… Perhaps I am more conservative as I grow older?
I’m not that old, but I still remember when the first female engineering student started at my University. Perhaps unbelievable to young women now days.
Personally, I think that a stunt like that described would not be taken seriously. This idea of getting naked (or scantily clad) for a cause is not causing the shock factor it once did – so that impact is lost anyway.
Well, I’ve just deleted a bunch of ‘spammy’ comments that amounted to little more than either ‘slut-shaming’ or claiming that ‘I’d feel differently if it was pretty women’s breasts rather than nerd girls’ (??) or even saying that ‘Podblack is doing exactly the same thing as showing her tits when she uses the word “boobs” in the title of her blog-post about feminism and activism’ (huh??) – so I’m wondering if I should close comments here for a bit until people either
a) calm down or
b) go renew their membership to Amnesty International and the Skeptic Magazine like I did today and feel like they’ve at least done a tiny gesture in the right direction. :/
Jen’s little ‘fun’ stunt was never likely to have a direct impact on the Iranian clerics, but nothing ever does, they will spout their vile crap regardless, but where Jen is likely to have an impact is by publicly ridiculing the notion that boobs cause quakes, and hopefully this will make ‘the people’ realise that the clerics are fools and should not be listened to.
There is more hat one way to crack a nut, more that YOUR way to crack a nut, and I for one think that Jen’s light hearted way of getting the message across is a good one. And before it is suggested that I, as a man, will be lusting and leering, please bear in mind that, as a nudist I’ve seen more bare boobs than I care to mention, so even scantily clad boobs will have little impact other than to make me laugh.
I guess I was one of the “spam” comments, but I do feel my broader point was missed. And my “boobs” comment was to point out it likely brought eyes to the page. Whether that was the intent of your choice of title or not, getting eyes to the page is the main goal of all sites.
More important, I’m not aware of an official standard skeptics should conform to, and I personally believe a broad range of efforts are a good thing. Along with that, a spirited discussion is a must, ,and curtailing such discussion seems counter to the principle of skepticism and being open to differing points of view.
I’m probably earning more demerits, but unfortunately, having been a Skeptic subscriber since the early days (when I used to get their e-mails by mistake at my Skeptic@aol e-mail), I no chance to redeem myself by renewing my on-going subscription. Sure, there is Amnesty International, but I rank other charities above it, so I’m plain out of luck.
I read the comment about “angry feminists”, and I’ll add there are not many “angry anything” left. It’s a trend I noticed with the young employees I used to have when I owned a company; they were not interested in getting involved, had just a superficial awareness (much less understanding) of important social/political/religious issues, and were not really interested in learning more about any of it.
Some of those people are still my friends, and I am noticing an increase in participation (bordering on activism) as they get older, but still not to the levels I remember from those heady times in the 60′s and even 70′s.
To this day I don’t know many people who get as fired up about things which, to my mind, should be of paramount importance to all humans. Sadly, it’s what allows much injustice and abuse go on both domestically and internationally.
“Whether that was the intent of your choice of title or not, getting eyes to the page is the main goal of all sites.”
Actually, I started this blog for one and only one reason. To serve as a place to force me to focus on my Literature Review for my thesis. Back in late 2007, I set myself a goal for 2008:
“At least four times a week, write on something strongly related to what you have to produce for your degree, using as much current or influential research as possible. At least one post a week that is over 400-500 words, with correctly-formatted references. For a time period of just over three years of part-time study, or at least until the conclusion of my thesis deadline, fairly consistently. Use my travel and work to enhance my writing, by keeping logs and accounts of what I do and find related issues to paranormal and pseudoscientific investigations wherever possible. Contribute to Science, Feminism and Skeptical blog carnivals and try to maintain a standard that would not have my posts out of place with others of a similar educational background.” That was my goal.
I was not a writer in the academic sense; I was not in the practice of writing at length regularly, and that was why I started this blog. It was to discipline myself. I say this in the Skeptic Zone episode #47 – you can hear me say it near the end of the show at http://skepticzone.libsyn.com/index.php?post_id=525034
This is why there is so much research material in this site. It involves essays, reflections, longer analysis of related topics – and over time, it became a resource for podcast interviews and eventually broadcasting more about the podcasts and our travels as a skeptical-team.
When I am too busy to write at length, then I put YouTube videos, because the site serves as a nice holding place for keeping track of them too. Besides (as I’m sure many of us have found) friends were sick of me emailing them out links to funny videos, and it was easier for them just to peek at the site rather than spamming them. :/ However, that was very much an unintended by-product.
If no one read this site, if no one commented? Well, I’d probably be like quite a few blogs out there, which do continue on for a variety of reasons, which is another discussion in itself. Ultimately, I am doing this to work on my skills as a writer, which I think always could improve. I’m not the best editor of my own work, for a start!
It was a wonderful opportunity to have the CSICOP site ask me to write for them; I hope to get something to them very soon too.
I have a nasty tendency towards wordplay, having studied and taught literature, so any ‘catchy’ titles may indicate that. Probably people don’t find them funny. But I do like the Tim Minchin YouTubes I find.
Kat: “Personally, I think that a stunt like that described would not be taken seriously. This idea of getting naked (or scantily clad) for a cause is not causing the shock factor it once did – so that impact is lost anyway.”
That was something I have noticed about explicit material being used for charities – Dr Petra’s comment about how a group found NO charity would accept their fundraising… just because they were a sexy-dance group who raised the money can be heard at the end of the most recent SZ podcast. :/
I have a couple of blogs around under various aliases, and none get more than a few unique visits a month. For most I don’t really care, cause they’re more free online notepads with links and research to stuff. I do feel a bit bad about my main blog, like I’m wasting a perfectly cool domain.
ps: more puns please
You must log in to post a comment.