You guuuyyyyys. I need to talk about this game I'm playing at the moment because OMFG it's making me SO HAPPY. You can tell how much happy by ALL THE CAPS EVER.
And why? Because it's isn't all FAILY. Man, I love me some TV and films and books and the like, but it's tiring having to constantly try and enjoy some things IN SPITE. You know what I mean?
- I love this show! In spite of the fact that there aren't any well-written women
- I love the film! Except how there's yet AGAIN the token muscular character of colour who dies in act two so that the white protagonist has angst
- I love this book! But it's the future and everyone is straight. WTF?
- I love this thing, but hi - it's bisexuality invisibility day. AGAIN
And just, I've been playing this game and getting MORE and MORE excited by it. And it's kind of sad that every time it doesn't fail, I get more excited. (Hi, bar set too low :P)
I've mentioned my friend Rosey on here before. The other day I was having a few drinks with her and she told me about this conference that she was helping to set up at the University of York about Women in Popular Culture.
Now Rosey and I have loads of interesting discussions about slash and the whole community surrounding it and I mentioned that some slash fangirls were also academics. I also talk about slash in the media, which is a subject dear to my heart as the misrepresentation that happens really pisses me off.
Anyway - Rosey asked me to pass on the info below to any academics (or non-academics! She also said that if I wanted to present something, that would also be great) and/or to anyone who would be interested in attending.
"Not PowerPoint Again! Presenting research on women in popular culture differently.
University of York, 2nd July 2010
Are you bored of the traditional conference paper? Tired of watching a presenter stand and read off a script while pointing to an ill thought-out PowerPoint display? Nervous of presenting in a way that feels alien or doesn't support your research?
Then come along to our Day School where we are experimenting with different and alternative ways of presenting research.
Our aim for the day is to encourage participants from all disciplines to deliver research in inspiring ways. By thinking of different ways to present our research we can spark new perspectives, imagining different angles and approaches that we may never have considered before. We hope to attract presenters from a range of disciplines and thus intend to question the rigid lines of disciplinary thought that we so often become constrained by. The day school will facilitate this interdisciplinary integration by providing an atmosphere of experimentation and questioning.
We want to encompass presentations from as many disciplines as possible; the topics may include, but are not limited to:
* Music * Sporting women * Representations of weddings, marriage and divorce * Women on film and TV * Magazine culture * Books * Gardening * Representations of religion * The Internet
We hope to encourage discussions around how presenting differently may lead to thinking differently about research in academia; how presenting differently helps the researcher and the audience to engage with 'papers'; and whether experimental presentations really can have a place in traditional academic circles.
As the day is geared to presenting in innovative and engaging ways you may wish to present your paper using, for example: performance art, workshops, short films, live experiments, music, dance or other interactive methods. The design is entirely up to you.
To take part in this Day School please submit a summary of your presentation or a Storyboard (both of which must outline your proposed topic, the mode of your presentation, how long it will take, and what equipment you will need) to notpowerpointagain@yahoo.co.uk by 12th April 2010.
So over the weekend I watched The Fantastic Mr Fox. And in general, I thought it was really good. I loved the ye-olde feel to the animation, I loved the humour of the physicality and just. Yeah. It was pretty cool.
A lot of that was, however, for me, over-ridden by some issues I had with the stereotyping.
Anyway, my issues with the film came up on my lunch at work today which led to an uncomfortable conversation with T (a guy a work with who is also a friend outside of work) about white and male privilege.
I didn't mean for it to come up - work lunch not really being the place to get into it and I see him outside of work - but it did and, well, he said ALL of the things that people say in these circumstances, including:
- telling me that it's actually MY problem for "clearly reading too much into it." - saying that if I claim that always portraying a woman as a housewife/mother is problematic, I'm saying that women are not allowed to make that choice - which makes ME sexist - saying that I'm calling the writer/director racist and that's MEAN because he's sure they aren't. (Based on having watching his previous films).
Argh! I mentioned how I'd spent a long time learning about this stuff (listening to people who know more than me, reading about race fails, reading about and noticing patterns, LISTENING TO PEOPLE WHO KNOW MORE THAN ME). I pointed out that if I spent three years doing my degree, only to have a lay-person who'd only HEARD of physics that day tell me that I was wrong about angular momentum, it would be insulting. And that this was equally so. And yes, I'm as white as white can be, but I listen and I accept and I actively work to try and use my white privilege to learn more and help. Also, I'm a woman, so I think I know a little more than he does about being a woman watching media.
I tried to explain that it's not about being actively racist or sexist - it's about institutional issues and patterns across media and books. But it wasn't getting through. Again, it was just me "reading too much into it."
It comes back to the subject of ignorance. Is he really guilty for being ignorant or do we have to make allowances for people like him and then gently educate them. The problem is that ignorance is an illness, it spreads and it takes over unless actively fought. And he was giving the same old cry of "if they didn't mean it to be racist/sexist, then it isn't. It isn't THEIR fault is someone ELSE interprets it that way." (Blame the victims! Yay!)
And I was thinking about something else. Did being in work help or hinder my explanation? Because I got very angry, but I hid it quite well. I had to, really, being in work and all. If I'd not been in work and he had seen me more angry about it, would that have just put his back up? Would he have been (even) less willing to listen? And is it my job to stay calm and be the one to educate him?
I've talked to a lot of people about straight, white, male privilege over the years, but this is the first time I've got so angry. I think it was because of the out-right dismissal from him. I couldn't POSSIBLY be right - I must be the one with the problem. No questions, nothing. Just denouncing what I was saying when he knows nothing on the subject.
It never became heated - we're both too polite for that and, you know, in work - but I did ask him to go away and read up on white and male privilege because, yeah. So fucking frustrating. Here's hoping he comes back to me in a few weeks, having read around and educated himself, and and has something more to say than how everyone else is wrong too.
Ok - so I was thinking about something and as I'm tired and bored I decided to post about it. It's kinda to do with equality and not just feminine equality.
I was having a conversation with my dad, who BTW is a great guy to debate with. On a little my-dad-rocks aside I've met very few people who are as willing to hear other views as him. He's so open-minded when it comes to someone disagreeing with him and even if his mind is not changed, he will listen to the other POV. [/ dad-worship ]
Anyhoo - my dad was saying that the straight, white men of this country are possibly in the worst position because they don't get special treatment because of their sex, skin colour or sexuality. And while I understood exactly what he was saying and was initially almost agreeing with what he was saying, it clicked that this is another example of where equality is seen as upsetting the balance. soupytwist recently linked to a whole big discussion that touched on this from the feminism point of view. To briefly sum it up, people will sometimes point at women's courses (in literature etc.) at universities and say "well where are the men's courses? That's sexist!) - and yes, it does sound sexist, until the reasoning is explained. The introduction of women's courses etc is to bring things into balance and compensate for the huge difference in male:female ratio studied, however, it gets seen as women dominating. A similar idea as when a woman keeps her own name when married. Perfect equality - both keep their own name - but people will make jokes about who wears the trousers etc. Perfect equality being seen as women dominating. Because we're all so used to the imbalance.
Well, what my dad and I discussed was how this was a similar idea. Straight, white men already hold all the cards. They don't get abused at work for being straight or sexually intimidated because they have breasts or beaten up for being black. So they don't need someone fighting to give them things, because they already have them!
Yes, a gay man has organisations that exist to fight his rights to work in a certain job without prejudice, but a straight man doesn't need that because it's never called into question. Yet another example of equality being seen as the inequality.
Feminism is something that can get blown out of all reason sometimes, but we almost don't realise how much of an issue it still is. An example is the fact that the amount of money spent on research for Breast Cancer (pretty much a woman's illness) is hugely more than the amount spent on prostate cancer (a man's illness) although both kill approx the same number of people per year. Men will get up in arms about how unfair that is - why are women getting this amount and men aren't? But the question should really be, why aren't men doing anything about it? It wasn't always that way with women, in fact breast cancer was once something to be very ashamed of and not spoken about. Only through something like 30 years of woman (and some men) fighting to bring about awareness and the starting of charities etc have women achieved the funding and recognition.
So women fought for something for 30 years, but men expect to get it just given to them. I worked for 3 years to get my degree - should someone else just be given the same thing without having to do any work? Where is the "Prostate Cancer Research" charity work and recognition? And how much of that is because prostate cancer mainly affects older men (therefore younger men don't really worry about it) and the fact that breasts are owned by half the population and coveted by the other half? The same can't be said about prostates.
But anyway - I've digressed my way into a whole different country I think so some sleep might be in order. Or waffles. Or both.
contemplative