My dearest science sister, Zuska,
Dr. Isis has long had an academic interests in breasts. Specifically, she has had an academic interest in how her particular breasts will influence the path of her career. Contrary to popular belief, Dr. Isis believes she has the same ability to succeed in the sciences as her male colleagues. She believes that there is still rampant sexism in academia. And it is with that in mind that I have spent the day casually observing the exchanges between you and Greg Laden.
Figure 1: Some amazing boobs. Did you look at them?
I have been intrigued by the discussion of whether men are naturally drawn to stare at a woman's chest. The pragmatic part of me wants to agree with you that there is no place for open ogling in the workplace. The other part of me fears that there may be a hint of truth in Greg's argument that we are inherently sexual beings, but that cannot distract us from the larger issue. There is no place in academia for the subjugation of women based on their reproductive organs.
But what I found interesting about the issue was the idea that women are both offended by the ogling and, yet, some women openly admit to using their feminine ass-ets as a source of power over men. I wondered if the same women who are willing to show their cleavage to get ahead are also offended when they are ogled without solicitation. I left the following comment to such ends on your blog (which I read often and am a fan of):
However, I am surprised by the number of women who have posted comments on a blog I wrote on a similar issue confessing to have also used their hooters to their advantage to manipulate a male colleague.
Imagine my surprise when you responded:
Why is that surprising? Think about it. In a culture where the only real power women are allowed to have is sexual, why wouldn't a certain percentage of women go ahead and try to wield it? Even though that power is essentially illusory, because we don't really wield sexual power over men - men as a class wield sexual power over women as a class via the fear of sexual assault.
And that damned near made me drop my lip gloss, Zuska -- The idea that, as women, we will always be the subordinate class to men because we live in fear of being sexually assaulted. First, let us not make light of the issue. I would gander that I do not have a reader that has not, in some way, had their life or the life of someone close to them affected by rape. Isis can be quite the jokester, but about this she has nothing funny to say.
On the other hand, what you are saying means that, as women, our situation really is hopeless. I will never reach equality with my male colleagues and, for that reason, I should drop off my keys on the way out of the building. What you have said means that I am, indeed, defined by my vagina and that I am, in fact, powerless to change my own destiny. I will always be beholden to the fact that some man could put his penis in me against my wishes. I can be an advocate and a voice for women who have been victimized, but I also can not allow it to define my identity or there is no point in being Dr. Isis -- a (reasonably) brilliant scientist who is also confident in her femininity. I will never fail to go toe-to-toe with a male colleague because he might whip out his huge member and screw some sense into me.
Figure 2: That which we cannot allow to define us
I worry, Zuska, that this is in fact a horrible oversimplification. I could argue that, as women, we exert dominance over men in reproduction. After all, the only one who really knows who Dr. Isis's "baby daddy" is, is Dr. Isis (and I assure you that it is Mr. Isis). And that tells me that this issue is much, much more complicated than either one of us can describe in a single blog post.
So, this once, Sister Blogger, I fear Dr. Isis must call, "bullshit." I promise to keep standing shoulder-to-shoulder with you in the effort to gain equality in science, but I think the problem is much deeper seeded than a fear of being penetrated. In the mean time, Dr. Isis will continue to blog about the things that make her proud to be female.
Kindest Regards,
Dr. Isis
38 comments:
...better make that two bags of Orville's best Maudie. We got us a live one...
Really, I am generally going for "uppity."
I am not certain a blogwar can be uppity? Perhaps I misunderstand...
Anyway, when you are done with Zuska and PP...who is next? I'm aquiver with anticipation.
You can put lipstick on Isis, but she might choke you, extract the tube out of your cold dead hand, and daintily apply it herself. I think is what she's saying.
...
I tried to read through the Zuzka/Laden/et al posts and comment threads. But my head began to hurt so I stopped.
Luckily this post makes much more sense. Perhaps only because it is so short.
And yes, I did look at 'them', even before your caption prompt. I promise three days of sackcloth, ashes, and self-flagellation as penance...
...tom...
.
DJMH, I think that was a compliment?
Zuska? Oversimplifying? Surely not!
I have plenty of power that is not related to the degree of exposure of my tits. Anyone who says otherwise is a fool or a liar.
Zuska must live in a terrible world if she can't look at a man without worrying that he wants to force himself on her to show her his power. And I think it is a pretty terrible slur on malekind.
I pity her, today more than usual.
I started to respond here to your excellent post, but my response grew and grew until it became a post on my own site. here. With pictures and everything. (Well, one picture, but its boobs. Your boobs, actually, hope you don't mind.)
This is not a blog war. It is a blog burb. But the issues is not so trivial.
I don't think for equality in the work place I must completely check my femininity at the door. I love being a woman and am not going to forget that simply so men might not have a problem taking orders from a woman.
I agree to that we are not shackled by the fear of assault. This isn't a topic to take lightly, I'm aware of that, but I also don't let the realization it could happen keep me from walking to my car at night (though caution and fear should not be confused).
I enjoy Zuska's blog as well, but am going to have to side with the all knowing Isis on this one.
If Dr. Jekyll is correct in their assumption of your personality and reaction, we possess a similar character type, which is another reason I might agree with you Isis (and enjoy your blogs).
Thank you for your post. I have found through much observation and experimentation and that it is best to grasp the issue firmly, and give it the lip service it deserves.
I do however, regret that funding limitations have prevented a larger sampling.
Although the experimentation often took place after coloric and ethanol ingestion,
please note that hands-on manipulation has only taken place with the proper consent and ethical considerations. Please note also that no animals were harmed.
Thank you again for keeping us abreast of this very important issue
J-Dog
Zuska: men as a class wield sexual power over women as a class via the fear of sexual assault.
Isis: what you are saying means that, as women, our situation really is hopeless.
Is the fear of sexual assault biologically inherent, or culturally conditioned? I'd tend towards the latter myself...
I'm not convinced that the question of who wields sexual power can be reduced to a simple either/or that applies in all situations. I suspect it's rather more complex than that.
Isis, I'd been wanting to write something like this, but I hadn't gotten past, "Stand tall, be fabulous, and if they need hitting, hit them hard. But be sure they need hitting first." I think yours works better. :)
Goddess indeed.
I think your usage of 'always' in saying that women can never reach equality, turns a reality of the situation into an absurdity, when Zuska never used always.
She did use a fairly clear (in feminist circles) shorthand, wherin women _as a class_ (not individual women) have little power except what men (or rather, the partiarchy) deigns to give them. I think literally, she's overstretching it, but then again, I know what she's getting at because I read the shorthand of a feminist space. So yes, I think it is an oversimplification because she was talking in her own space where people, in theory, are supposed to bring that understanding to the table somewhat.
Just... think of it as a depressing progression. Almost every step along the way towards kick-ass in normal society, no matter how many kick-ass women exists, has to be approved by a man, or men. Those women are _crucial_, and ground breaking, but women's suffrage, as a strict matter of law, required men to give women that right. It's the unfortunate state of civil rights: The activists have to convince and infiltrate the majority (usually with allies) to give them what they cannot just have because of of the inequality of power which already exists.
-Mecha
Wow... this has become an incredibly intense discussion in the blogosphere. Fig. 2 made me laugh. The subject matter did not.
In my reading, the argument you're (legitimately) calling bullshit on isn't the exact one Zuska made.
I think Zuska was going for breast-displaying-as-a-phenomenon is an understandable, though ultimately futile, attempt at power grabbing for women.
What does it say that the image you selected for "cleavage" is a woman bowing subserviently? Ok, maybe that's reading way too much into a pretty picture (the GoogleImage results for "clevage" do seem a bit wild for Dr. Isis. Still, you could have picked the kitten pic.)
I think Zuska's point (correct me if I'm wrong Zuska!) is that given how our society works (occurances of rape and sexual assualt being a part of that), the fact breast-displaying occurs does not mean women in our society hold the lion's share of sexual power.
Now, you can debate whether women do hold the lion's share of sexual power, but I personally can't accept the argument that breast-displaying is proof of it.
Also, my reading of Dr. Laden's argument is not that we are inherantly sexual beings, but that men are inherantly evil beings (unless we socialize it out of them). Even if my reading is wrong, the fact that we are not all clear about what he said meant suggests:
1) Dr. Laden's writing is more ambiguous than it should be, for explicit-communication purposes
2a) "original sin" dogma permeates our collective cultural semi-consciousness
2b) "sexual" tends to be associated with "evil" in some people's minds
A confession? I am not an Angry Feminist (though I like them). I am a warm-fuzzy-kitten-booby-loving feminist. I love Dr. Isis. I am in awe of her Domestic Goddesshood. I obviously think Dr. Isis, with her brillant scientist self, is an exemplary role-model. That said, I died inside a little when she talked about her lipgloss. In my mind, lipgloss is... a symbol of vapid female sexual power? (This is not to imply Dr. Isis shouldn't go on being "comfortably in her feminity" exactly as she sees fit. It's just interesting how we all have different associations with various things)
Also, since I'm disappearing for a while, something I wanted to add which is directly related to the area of thought Zuska was drawing from in her statement on the power side of things:
http://finallyfeminism101.wordpress.com/2008/02/09/faq-female-privilege/
-Mecha
Dr. Isis, to be fair, I think what Zuska is actually talking about is sexual intimidation. Though she uses rape as the most extreme example of sexual intimidation, I think her point about breast oogling is still valid.
(In a case of bizarre timing, yesterday I posted about a really uncomfortable situation with an older male colleague. I know plenty of other women scientists with similar stories of being harassed at conferences or in the lab.)
Sexual intimidation in the workplace, or at a scientific conference, does prevent women from having the same opportunities as men. (In this case I was made so uncomfortable that I missed out on a networking opportunity.)
Though I don't think most women walk around with cock phobias, sexual intimidation (which includes both oogling and inappropriate flirting) is a barrier to gender equality.
@ Becca: Thank you for your kind words. It warms my heart to think that I might be a role model to anyone. I appreciate Zuska's greater argument, stand with her, and am only calling "bullshit" on the idea that class structure is defined by our fear of being violated. I think Mecha makes a brilliant point in that this generalization is commonly used in the global feminist dialogue. In fact, as a former official (and current unofficial) student of women's studies, I have heard it before. I called "bullshit" on it then and I call "bullshit" on it again.
Breast displaying does not mean we hold the lioness's share of the sexual power, but it also does not mean that they need remain hidden for fear of violence. I never worried when I nursed my son in public that a man would lose control of himself and "stick it to me," if you will. I consider my breasts to be an incredible source of power and pride; they provide nutrition and comfort to my children. And that is purely non-sexual power.
Don't die a little over my lipgloss. Consider it carefully placed irony. And I wouldn't think that you are reading too much into my cleavage picture. I think you nailed it on the head, sister.
@ Mecha: Preach on. You are right that Zuska used language that is common in feminist circles. Here's the problem. If we expect to empower women outside of this circle, we need to adjust our dialogue in a way that is appropriate to reach them. The argument may be a valid point of academic discussion, but it does nothing to empower the young, undergraduate women scientists I interact with to tell them that having slot B instead of tab A makes them subordinate. What is does is made them ashamed of the sexual organs they have been blessed with. We need to be more careful of how we dialogue with each other.
And you're right that many of the great "advancements" we have made as women were actually gifts from the patriarchy. On the other hand, if we sit and wait for gifts, we'll be sitting a long time.
but that men are inherantly evil beings
Inherently potentially evil.
Inherently potentially evil.
Greg, I am going to let that go. I am too weary to call "bullshit" twice in one day.
ScienceMama, I read the post yesterday about your interactions with that jerkface at the conference you attended. I don't care to address it directly, but it made me sad. It made me really, really sad. And I know that this happens ofen in academia and that makes me sad to. What I do care to address is the idea that:
Sexual intimidation in the workplace, or at a scientific conference, does prevent women from having the same opportunities as men.
You're right. It does, if we allow ourselves to be intimidated by blatent sexual advances and allow men to use them to discourage us. That's exactly the kind of crap Isis rages against.
But there is a difference between raging against it and using a dialogue that allows our fairer sex to be defined by it. It is not merely a matter of semantics.
(PS: If you email me that guys name, I'll totall kick him in the nuts for you if I run across him.)
Finally, DrugMonkey, you are totally next. You had better watch your rear, my friend.
I think I recognize those breasts. And, to take the opportunity to answer Zuska's original question where it might actually be taken seriously:
In my experience, people who are attracted to breasts (that is to say most straight/bi men and most gay/bi women) will have a biological impulse to look. Most of those people have cultivated in themselves the ability to suppress that urge, hide the activity (not always well) or both.
I feel that it is generally impolite to stare at someone for any reason, especially in the workplace. On the other hand, I don't see any real problem to glance, obviously or not, in more casual environments, as long as said glance does not linger longer than an arbitrarily acceptable time.
For the record, I read the caption first; noted that it was about 'looking at breasts' and then looked only for context, which provoked the question in me to you: exactly WHAT makes those breasts 'great"? WHY?
Then, in reading further, I was reminded in this debate that there is a more subtle factor here than boob size (not necessarily unrelated to oh-so-full-of-herself Zuska talking out her orchestrated conflict oriented pseudofeminist sphincter--like a big boob). That factor is "lookism".
I am wiling to wager that you Dr. Isis would roundly be considered to be 'better looking than Zuska," and, if not, at the very least, you are at least confident that you are "good looking enough."
Zuska on the other hand, seems solely guided by the most fundamental, primary feminist question, the question that arises in every bitter little future pseudofeminist girl who loses the grade school popularity wars long before their boobs even develop: "why do boys look at HER and not me?"
Sockpuppies, you are absolutely right. The real life Dr. Isis is incredibly smokin' hot. Not just "good looking enough," but amazingly good looking. But what is worse, is that she's one of those bitches who knows she's good looking and would never give the time of day to a total ass monkey like you.
But that's not the point. The point is that Zuska is generally doing important work (ie, advocating for the advancement of women in science independent of their chromosomes or no-no parts). We just don't happen to agree on this singular point.
Unfortunately for you, me kissing and making up with Zuska won't make you less of a d-bag.
Greg, I am going to let that go. I am too weary to call "bullshit" twice in one day.
No fair. Say what you mean.
What I meant was that this is more complicated than suggested. Adding a single word only does a little to indicate that, but this is just a blog, that was just a comment on a blog, and I am busy.
But I would like to know what part of this you th ink is bullshit. Are you are pure constructivist? Do you object to the "potentially" part?
Or are you just another one of those tiresome mean spirited pseudo-feminists who can't let a man have an opinion without twisting it into some sort of self gratifying parody.
(Did I say that aloud? I certainly hope not)
It was totes a compliment.
A compliment from someone who fears you slightly.
And yes, I think it's important to distinguish between whether all women fear men, or whether the relative ease with which men can be violent to women makes (some) women fearful (some of the time). That fear, even if not universal, can affect our ability to use boobies as they should be used.
For world domination, that is.
Greg, the idea that men alone are potentially evil is bullshit. The idea that evilness equals sexual desire is bullshit.
And, I mean, dude, seriously...
...mean spirited pseudo-feminists who can't let a man have an opinion without twisting it into some sort of self gratifying parody.
I was willing to give you more credit than some of your ScienceBlog buddies. And yet, I fear when you leave a comment like that, there might be some truth in their opinion of you.
Please prove me wrong.
...
Dr I. said: "Unfortunately for you, me kissing and making up with Zuska won't make you less of a d-bag."
Now a video clip of that might get you some nice hit counter action.
Just daydreaming here. Carry on without me...
...tom...
.
Isis,
I apologize for having been a bit over sensitive.
Regarding the issue at hand, ah, I see what you mean now, thanks I simply did not get that at all.
You are totally correct and I want to support what you are saying on these two issues:
1) Sexual desire = evil (or any of many variants of this).
The point I keep making is this: Boob staring and any one of a number of other things, sexual, non sexual, whatever whatever, are all forms of communication, and I think it is astonishing that people do not realize this. This isn't about sex (but it could be) ... it is more likely about politeness, rudeness, how people establish relationships of one kind or another. Boob starers are at some point not going to be taken seriously by those around them, even though a lot of people seem surprised at this.
2) Men do not have the lock on being evil. Fine. However, men and women are not the same in their evil or non-evil tendencies. (Speaking of archetypes here, not individuals.) I have yet to meet a male who can, say, have a baby. These differences translated and transformed through a series of contexts and filters, etc etc., (fill in here more than can be described with any detail in a comment on a blog) into a very strong statistical trend.
This is not behavioral determinism nor is it the naturalistic fallacy. Men and women have utterly and unavoidably different potential roles in reproduction, and vastly different risk profiles for what is important to them, and so on. These are things that can't be ignored, but they are also things that (for those just tuning in) do not justify anything, but it is factually relevant when one wants to explain things.
Most of the people in this world that are killed by violent acts, raped, robbed, etc. etc. are the victims of men. Why would one ever want to ignore this fact?
The blank space next to the phrase "men are potentially evil" is not meant to imply that women do not have the capacity for doing bad things. I reserve the right to not say things. I didn't mention women, guppies, or starships. Yet you ignore the guppies and starships...!!!
So again, sorry if I was being bitchy. What seems to be a constant presumption of what I'm saying and not saying, meaning and not meaning, and so on, gets on my nerves. I am a big boy and I am not interested in anyone's judegement. I don't think you are judging me, by the way. But you know what I mean.
(And PhsyioProf, if you are reading this, please, stop embarrassing yourself. The entire world is getting rather tired of your one note song and dance. I'll save you the trouble: "Laden, you #&$&%&#^, if you only knew how to communicate this sort of thing would not happen to you!!11!!)
Anyway, I'm glad I asked. I see your point, I think we are on the same page, roughly.
Holy crap. I've checked in today to find my Dr. Isis embroiled in a heated debate (that does not involve grilled shrimp).
My weary brain has little to add at this point, other than that my undergraduate intern returned today to begin his fall research, and he could not take his eyes off of my breasts. And all this despite wearing an ugly, cleavage-concealing outfit.
Maybe your efforts were not as fruitless as they seemed. You could have had spilled some breakfast on youself or something.
I find that when people seem to be staring at my breasts, it is because I've accidentally put my shirt on backwards or something.
@ CandidEngineer-
you could always look at your chest, look at him, grab a protocol (or whatever he needs to learn) and hold it in front of your chest and say "this is what you should be paying attention to"
Just dropping by to say, I am not ignoring you. But I've been dealing with the usual migraine plus some other major shit that just came up. Hope to get back to you sometime this weekend or Monday. Not timely, I know, but that's life.
No worries, Zuska. Take care of business. I wish you a speedy recovery.
ISIS: re: "she's one of those bitches who knows she's good looking and would never give the time of day to a total ass monkey like you."
hawhawhaw 8;-()
Ass monkey? Is that an attempted GG rub--or just going for my ass? "Made you look..."
I thought that wasn't allowed in lab settings, with all of those sex, rural hairy-ass-mint laws?
For the record--its so nice to see that you have good selfishteem ;-)
But you should know that self described 'hot chicks' are low on my list of priorities for 'making time, as my smokin hot little band of silver back lovin' hotties might pull her hair out....and..um...besides, besides....I am always waAAaaAAyy better looking than most women...
A tad late, perhaps, but better late than never? My reply.
Isis,
Sorry for my late reply, I sorta took a break from being insulted and treated as a worthless fool and Zuska apologist (now that's honest discussion!) by certain people (who aren't you) with respect to this discussion, as I only have so much mental energy.
Thankfully, it's an easy reply because you agreed more or less with the substance of what I said. I remain slightly confused as to how what Zuska said implied that women should be ashamed of themselves and can gain no power. What her statements said, to me (and I agree with) is that societal constructs at the moment work to make sure that women should be ashamed of themselves and can gain little power, except through basically trying to lure men around going, 'You can do sexy things if you go this way!', and how that's still permissive 'we'll let you have it as long as it doesn't fuck with our real interests' power, not intrinsic power or equality or anything particularly positive. I don't think saying that gets in the way of convincing women to be empowered. I don't think it necessarily means that women should be afraid of their sexuality or think sex is evil, either, no matter how many strawpersons are put up to that end by other people wishing to make it so that feminism is always anti-sex.
Also, you are absolutely right that women should not wait for pats on the head of the patriarchy (and I knew that phrasing was a risky one, because it had the risk of being dismissive, so I'm glad the meat of the message and my respect for our feminist foremothers got through.) I do not think that women should wait. But recognizing that there is a power inequality means recognizing that women are currently at a disadvantage when trying to make that push. You must diagnose the problem to then begin attacking it, to begin convincing women that what they experience is systemic, to begin convincing people (especially men) that there's more to sexism than rapists and abusers. And one example of that is bringing up how women are apparently not allowed to say 'stop ogling me' without being shouted down. How, apparently, a single woman with a blog bringing up such issues is a petty bully keeping down all the perfectly nice men who would agree with her if only...
-Mecha
Post a Comment