What constitutes Misogyny?

[Jeff]

Cool it, please.

[Mr. Blissed]

While watching the mainstream movie "RITE" with Anthony Hopkins, a fairly typical good versus evil possession story, it occurred to me that, more often than not, the media portrays women as the first victims. At worst they are depicted as inherently corrupted in some of the oldest stories. For example, Adam and Eve in the Bible.

How is it, that people accept this-still-so readily? Is this perception inherent in the religious context, or is religion being subtly hijacked to perpetuate a bias?

[bks]

.. and particularly (I think) wrt to women's health. One minute you're demonized for using formula, the next for breastfeeding. Lose/lose.

Yeah.

Science per se isn't like that. Its about how its used. That is the kind of institutional misogyny people think doesn't exist. Our culture is chock full of institutionalised bigotries.

It's funny because this kind of goes to the other thread, too, where we talked about 'scientism' - I know that real science doesn't have an agenda - but like you've said, it's how it's used. Right now (and for oh.. what would you say. maybe the last 70 years or so?) corporate sponsorship of research has hampered our quest for the truth. This practice does serve to reinforce societal norms/prejudices and create markets for things that benefit the corporations.

Sad. SO sad.

Absolutely. Even more, for 150 years, the deification of science has been used as a political tool against women to 'scientize' entire areas of life, and then subject women to the 'findings'. The market was a key factor in this:

Writing about the "scientific answer to the Woman question, as elaborated over the last 100 years by a new class of experts - physicians, psychologists, domestic scientists, child-raising experts," Barbara Ehrenreich and Deirdre English note a striking similarity in the relationship between women and experts, and traditional patriarchal constructions of the relationship between women and men. In the mid-nineteenth century, women began to respond with dependency and trust to a group of experts whose authority " rested on the denial or destruction of women's autonomous sources of knowledge." English and Ehrenreich connect the rise of specialized, professionalized forms of expertise with the growth of the market economy set in motion by the industrial revolution with consequent redrawings of the boundaries between "public" and "private" spheres. They link women's loss of control over the productive processes passed into the factory system with a "commodification" of traditonal women's arts and skills and their displacement from authoritative social positions.

--Lorraine Code, What Does She Know?

http://books.google.com/books?id=SWISMr ... rn&f=false

I'll never think of the term "home economics" the same way again.

Related to this is the history of the abortion debate in the US in the 19th century. The AMA used the abortion issue to raise its own profile relative to its competitors at the time, and without true regard for the health or rights of women. I always assumed that abortion had always been illegal in the US pre-Roe v. Wade. Not so. Celeste Condit's Decoding Abortion Rhetoric is well worth the read on this subject [been a long time since I read it, though].

I try always to remember: Science does not speak. Scientists speak, typically through the considerable authority conferred on scientific institutions. Often, those scientists speak in virtual unison as an orthodoxy. We are not past the point where science can be used for overtly political purposes. in my untrained view, medical orthodoxies tend to be poor devices for proportionately communicating the range of reasonable options available to patients. Favored practices get favored treatment, sometimes exclusively so, which is of course fine and desirable to the extent that those practices exclusively cohere with the best outcomes for patients. When they don't, though, as seems to be the case with breast milk, you can see the pernicious effects of orthodoxy.

[Canadian_watcher]

While watching the mainstream movie "RITE" with Anthony Hopkins, a fairly typical good versus evil possession story, it occurred to me that, more often than not, the media portrays women as the first victims. At worst they are depicted as inherently corrupted in some of the oldest stories. For example, Adam and Eve in the Bible.

How is it, that people accept this-still-so readily? Is this perception inherent in the religious context, or is religion being subtly hijacked to perpetuate a bias?

I have no idea of the underlying psychology, but I can't help but notice that almost all fiction crime shows have 'sexy female victims.' Undoubtedly there are male victims portrayed, as well, but it seems to me that it doesn't happen as often. (I can't stand those shows, anyway. The older I get the less I can stand violence in any form as 'entertainment'). I object mostly to the combination of sex and violence, even if just loosely implied by the crime scene set or the clothing of the victims - when sex and violence are paired there is almost inevitably a female victim.

FWIW, I don't know if religion really has to be hijacked to perpetuate a bias.. most religions, as you point out, make their roots in the pitting of one gender in opposition to the other.

[Canadian_watcher]

@bks - thanks for that contribution. I want to think on my reply a bit.. kind of busy today but I am very interested in the points you've raised.

[Stephen Morgan]

Sex sells. As does the paternalistic protection response initiated by female victimisation. That's why the news always tells you how many women-and-children were killed in any given disaster, or atrocity, and why Joe Biden made his name with the Violence Against Women act and so on.

[Joe Hillshoist]

Women and children first!!!

[JackRiddler]

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/A/ ... 4-06-48-11

May 24, 8:23 AM EDT


Study shows girls increasingly aborted in India

By MUNEEZA NAQVI
Associated Press


NEW DELHI (AP) -- More and more Indian families with one girl are aborting subsequent pregnancies when prenatal tests show another female is on the way, according to a new study published Tuesday.

The decline in the number of girls is more pronounced in richer and better educated households, according to research in the medical journal Lancet.

Those numbers show that a 1996 law that bans testing for the gender of a fetus has been largely ineffective, the study said.

In India, there is a huge cultural preference for boys in large part because of the enormous expense in marrying off girls and paying elaborate dowries. Officials have acknowledged that current laws have proved inadequate at combatting the widening sex ratio gap.

The study said that between 4 million and 12 million girls are thought have been aborted from 1980 to 2010.

Raw data from India's census released in March showed 914 girls under age 6 for every 1,000 boys. A decade ago, many were horrified when the ratio was 927 to 1,000.

Researchers studied census data and government surveys of more than 250,000 births to conclude that gap is even wider in families that already have a girl.

The ratio was 906 girls under 6 to every 1,000 boys in 1990 and had declined further by 2005, when it was 836 to every 1,000.

That decrease was even more marked in families where the mothers were wealthier and had 10 or more years of education compared with a poor and uneducated mothers - presumably because the wealthy are more easily able to obtain illegal abortions.

But in families whose first child was a boy, there was no decrease in the girl to boy ratio for the second child, the study said.

"Reliable monitoring and reporting of sex ratios by birth order in each of India's districts could be a reasonable part of any efforts to curb the remarkable growth of selective abortions of girls," the authors suggested.

The study was led by Prof. Prabhat Jha of the Centre for Global Health Research, Dalla Lana School of the University of Toronto and other researchers, including the former Registrar General of India, Jayant K. Banthia.

According to the current CIA "World Factbook," the United States has a birth ratio of 955 girls per 1,000 boys. In China, where families with a strong preference for boys sometimes resort to aborting their baby girls, there was a birth ratio of 885 girls per 1,000 boys.

The factbook puts India's birth ratio at 893 girls to 1,000 boys.

India tracks gender ratios for children under the age of 6 but not at birth.

© 2011 The Associated Press.

[Stephen Morgan]

http://www.in-gender.com/XYU/Gender-Preference/

Also you could go back to the start of the thread for Project Willow's link about selective abortion of male foetuses in America.

[Canadian_watcher]

http://www.in-gender.com/XYU/Gender-Preference/

Also you could go back to the start of the thread for Project Willow's link about selective abortion of male foetuses in America.

umm..
yes, please do go read that link. It says nothing to prove that people don't want boys, or are aborting boys more regularly, or are adopting girls because they don't want boys.

It says the opposite, in fact.

[Belligerent Savant]

.

http://nymag.com/arts/tv/upfronts/2011/ ... rr-2011-5/

Barr's [surely unsurprising to those in the industry] account of the first few years of her sitcom.

The whole article's worth reading, but here are some excerpts that would find purchase within this thread:

After my 1985 appearance on The Tonight Show Starring Johnny Carson, I was wooed by producers in Hollywood, who told me they wanted to turn my act into a sitcom. When Marcy Carsey—who co-owned Carsey-Werner with her production partner, Tom Werner (producers of The Cosby Show)—asked me to sign, I was impressed. I considered The Cosby Show to be some of the greatest and most revolutionary TV ever.

Marcy presented herself as a sister in arms. I was a cutting-edge comic, and she said she got that I wanted to do a realistic show about a strong mother who was not a victim of Patriarchal Consumerist Bullshit—in other words, the persona I had carefully crafted over eight previous years in dive clubs and biker bars: a fierce working-class Domestic Goddess. It was 1987, and it seemed people were primed and ready to watch a sitcom that didn’t have anything like the rosy glow of middle-class confidence and comfort, and didn’t try to fake it. ABC seemed to agree. They picked up Roseanne in 1988.



It didn’t take long for me to get a taste of the staggering sexism and class bigotry that would make the first season of Roseanne god-awful. It was at the premiere party when I learned that my stories and ideas—and the ideas of my sister and my first husband, Bill—had been stolen. The pilot was screened, and I saw the opening credits for the first time, which included this: CREATED BY MATT WILLIAMS. I was devastated and felt so betrayed that I stood up and left the party. Not one person noticed.

I confronted Marcy under the bleachers on the sound stage when we were shooting the next episode. I asked her how I could continue working for a woman who had let a man take credit for my work—who wouldn’t even share credit with me—after talking to me about sisterhood and all that bullshit. She started crying and said, “I guess I’m going to have to tell Brandon [Stoddard, then president of ABC Entertainment] that I can’t deliver this show.” I said, “Cry all you want to, but you figure out a way to put my name on the show I created, or kiss my ass good-bye.”

I went to complain to Brandon, thinking he could set things straight, as having a robbed star might be counterproductive to his network. He told me, “You were over 21 when you signed that contract.” He looked at me as if I were an arrogant waitress run amok.

...

It was pretty clear that no one really cared about the show except me, and that Matt and Marcy and ABC had nothing but contempt for me—someone who didn’t show deference, didn’t keep her mouth shut, didn’t do what she was told. Marcy acted as if I were anti-feminist by resisting her attempt to steal my whole life out from under me. I made the mistake of thinking Marcy was a powerful woman in her own right. I’ve come to learn that there are none in TV. There aren’t powerful men, for that matter, either—unless they work for an ad company or a market-study group. Those are the people who decide what gets on the air and what doesn’t.

...

Eventually she told me that she had been told by one of Matt’s producers—his chief mouthpiece—“not to listen to what Roseanne wants to wear.” This producer was a woman, a type I became acquainted with at the beginning of my stand-up career in Denver. I cared little for them: blondes in high heels who were so anxious to reach the professional level of the men they worshipped, fawned over, served, built up, and flattered that they would stab other women in the back. They are the ultimate weapon used by men against actual feminists who try to work in media, and they are never friends to other women, you can trust me on that.



I grabbed a pair of wardrobe scissors and ran up to the big house to confront the producer. (The “big house” was what I called the writers’ building. I rarely went there, since it was disgusting. Within minutes, one of the writers would crack a stinky-pussy joke that would make me want to murder them. Male writers have zero interest in being nice to women, including their own assistants, few of whom are ever promoted to the rank of “writer,” even though they do all the work while the guys sit on their asses taking the credit. Those are the women who deserve the utmost respect.) I walked into this woman’s office, held the scissors up to show her I meant business, and said, “Bitch, do you want me to cut you?” We stood there for a second or two, just so I could make sure she was receptive to my POV. I asked why she had told the wardrobe master to not listen to me, and she said, “Because we do not like the way you choose to portray this character.” I said, “This is no fucking character! This is my show, and I created it—not Matt, and not Carsey-Werner, and not ABC. You watch me. I will win this battle if I have to kill every last white bitch in high heels around here.”

The next battle came when Matt sent down a line for me that I found incredibly insulting—not just to myself but to John, who I was in love with, secretly. The line was a ridiculously sexist interpretation of what a feminist thinks—something to the effect of “You’re my equal in bed, but that’s it.” I could not say it convincingly enough for Matt, and his hand-picked director walked over and gave me a note in front of the entire crew: “Say it like you mean it … That is a direct note from Matt.” What followed went something like this: My lovely acting coach, Roxanne Rogers (a sister of Sam Shepard), piped up and said, “Never give an actor a note in front of the crew. Take her aside and give her the note privately—that is what good directors do.” She made sure to say this in front of the entire crew. Then she suggested that I request a line change. So I did. Matt, who was watching from his office, yelled over the loudspeaker, “Say the line as written!” I said, “No, I don’t like the line. I find it repulsive, and my character would not say it.” Matt said, “Yes, she would say it. She’s hot to trot and to get her husband in bed with her, and give it to her like she wants it.” I replied that this was not what she would say or do: “It’s a castrating line that only an idiot would think to write for a real live woman who loves her husband, you cocksucker.” ABC’s lawyers were called in. They stood around the bed while the cameras filmed me saying, very politely, over and over, “Line change, please.” After four hours of this, I called my then-lawyer, Barry Hirsch, and demanded to be let out of my contract. I couldn’t take it any longer—the abuse, humiliation, theft, and lack of respect for my work, my health, my life. He explained that he had let it go on for hours on purpose and that I had finally won. He had sent a letter to the network and Carsey-Werner that said, “Matt wasted money that he could have saved with a simple line change. He cost you four hours in production budget.” That turned the tide in my favor.

...

I finally found the right lawyer to tell me what scares TV producers worse than anything—too late for me. What scares these guys—who think that the perks of success include humiliating and destroying the star they work for (read Lorre’s personal attacks on Charlie Sheen in his vanity cards at the end of Two and a Half Men)—isn’t getting caught stealing or being made to pay for that; it’s being charged with fostering a “hostile work environment.” If I could do it all over, I’d sue ABC and Carsey-­Werner under those provisions. Hollywood hates labor, and hates shows about labor worse than any other thing. And that’s why you won’t be seeing another Roseanne anytime soon. Instead, all over the tube, you will find enterprising, overmedicated, painted-up, capitalist whores claiming to be housewives. But I’m not bitter.



Nothing real or truthful makes its way to TV unless you are smart and know how to sneak it in, and I would tell you how I did it, but then I would have to kill you. Based on Two and a Half Men’s success, it seems viewers now prefer their comedy dumb and sexist. Charlie Sheen was the world’s most famous john, and a sitcom was written around him. That just says it all. Doing tons of drugs, smacking prostitutes around, holding a knife up to the head of your wife—sure, that sounds like a dream come true for so many guys out there, but that doesn’t make it right! People do what they can get away with (or figure they can), and Sheen is, in fact, a product of what we call politely the “culture.” Where I can relate to the Charlie stuff is his undisguised contempt for certain people in his work environment and his unwillingness to play a role that’s expected of him on his own time.



But, again, I’m not bitter. I’m really not. The fact that my fans have thanked and encouraged me for doing what I used to get in trouble for doing (shooting my big mouth off) has been very healing. And somewhere along the way, I realized that TV and our culture had changed because of a woman named Roseanne Conner, whom I am honored to have written jokes for.

[wallflower]

Gad, I'm afraid what I write is going to be all over the place and not get anywhere.

My premise is that the kind of work that we want to to do, the kind of work that has a chance to get somewhere out of our econmic crisis follow from different assumptions than those most common now. Kevin Kelly in his book New Rules for the New Economy writes:

Start with Technology, End with Trust

The central economic imperative of the industrial age was to increase productivity. Every aspect of an industrial firm—from its machines to its organizational structure—was tailored to enhance the efficiency of economic production. But today productivity is a nearly meaningless byproduct in the network economy.
The central economic imperative of the network economy is to amplify relationships.

Misogyny is utterly corrosive of trust. Misogyny causes individuals great harm, but that harm ripples across society.

Chris Clarke dug out an older essay How Not To Be An Asshole: A Guide For Men in response to investor Tammy Camp's allegation that one of the organizers of a tech conference banned her unless she would have sex with him.

It's really hard for me to imagine how someone would want sex premised upon extortion, but I guess that's another matter. Anyhow Tammy Camp's post got to me, not just her post but some of the comments.

I hate that she has to deal with this, and basically understand not naming the person. Well, my presumption is that the unnamed guy is a very prominent figure in the tech scene, going by the scuttlebutt. My sense of it is that this isn't the first time and probably his name will come out with a list of women pointing to similar behavior--wishful thinking perhaps. But Camp writes,

I am alone now because I am beyond repair. The emotional scars from the inside have hardened me into a being who is forced into independence and confidence, qualities that most people find intimidating to deal with.

I don't fault her, independence is rewarded, but moving into the "networked economy" require interdependence. It feels bad to me that the movers and shakers aren't moving in the direction I believe we need to go. And it pisses me off that misogyny is a big reason why not.

Another piece I read today is The Death of Safe Sex. The article highlights how some middle class men feel safe sex isn't necessary as long as the sex is heterosexual and with women of the same economic class. A somewhat similar misjudgment I've heard is some gay guys who think masculine guys are safe whereas fem guys aren't. There's lots of evidence neither class nor personal bearing make unprotected sex safe. But such beliefs work against the sort of networked economy too. Also Eli Pariser's TED Talk: Beware of Online Filter Bubbles give an example of stuff that works against prospering in a networked economy.

Talking about misogyny in terms of economics isn't the whole story; I mean on a fundamental level misogyny makes me feel bad. Still the excerpt from Rosanne's The New Yorker piece reminded me that misogyny certainly has economic impacts.

[Hammer of Los]

Wow this thread goes on for ever! I hope you are all having fun.

I just read the odd snippet now and then, but that account by Roseanne Barr was fascinating.

So, I just wanted to say, thanks for the super read, Belligerent Savage!

And God Bless Roseanne Barr!

[Canadian_watcher]

That Roseanne Barr piece was really interesting. Hollywood is probably really daunting in many regards, and probably especially so for women.

Here's another recent court ruling on consensual sex/rape by the CDN Supreme Court. Thank goodness the decision went the way it did, however three of 9 judges were dissenting. Also, it went to the SC only because the original conviction had been overturned at the Ontario Court of Appeal. (Unbelievable). Highlights:

People cannot consent in advance to sexual activity that takes place while they are unconscious, the Supreme Court ruled Friday. (see what I mean about 'thank God the decision went this way??)..[snip]..

However, lawyer Lorne Goldstein, who represented the defendant, expressed concern about the possible legal ramifications of the decision. A husband who kisses his sleeping wife, he argued, would technically be a sex offender.

“If the law allows for that kind of activity to be deemed criminal activity, then there’s something wrong,” he said (note to self: do not hire or support Lorne Goldstein)...[snip]...

Among [the convicted] J.A.’s 23 previous criminal convictions are three for domestic violence – including twice against the woman in the case, who is identified as K.D. In one of these assaults, he kicked in her door, attempted to hit her with a wine bottle and called her a “whore, bitch, skank.”

His conviction was later overturned by the Ontario Court of Appeal in a 2-1 ruling. (Another reason to want to leave Ontario)...[snip]...

[Stephen Morgan]

This man has been three times convicted of domestic violence despite never having actually hit anyone, and apparently was convicted of the grievous crime of insulting someone.

In this particular case, he was accused of rape, several weeks after it allegedly took place, then the woman recanted, said she'd been lying, and wanted the charges dropped. So the courts told her to fuck off and went ahead anyway. Funnily enough I'm not seeing any complaints about retraumatisation or anything similar about that. So for inserting a dildo into a woman who had given consent he's off to prison and will only be allowed supervised access to his children from then on. It's a small step from their to S&M followers being imprisoned for assault because consent isn't really consent. I suppose some people just like to think of women as infants who need to be protected from their choices by the courts.