Feminism

[Apple Cider]

Farscape legitimately was one of the best sci-fi series I've ever seen as someone who is not as into sci-fi stuff vs. fantasy (which is rife with its own issues regarding women characters) and I watched it throughout college when there was a real lack of female characters I identified with on any level. 

 

If it makes you feel better Danielle, I've gravitated towards sexy, lithe women who are cunning and whatnot as part of my queer identity - see my early crushes on Cheetara, Catwoman, Faye Valentine. So I don't think you're weird at all. 

[Bjorn]

Hm, okay, I guess I was misled in this particular, but regardless of whether it's a legal incentive it's certainly a cultural one, and such a strong cultural incentive that the 'ethics' of a corporation could be seen as being more in line of what will create the most good for the shareholders, IE maximizing share value, IE maximizing profits, rather than creating a global good. Which STILL creates an artificial entity with the rights of a human being but the sole motive to collect profits regardless of human cost, behavior which is largely regarded as unethical in a human being. Changing that culture is tantamount to changing our understanding of what a corporation is and is for -- whether it needs to involve a change of the laws themselves does not, I think, substantially shift the parameters of the problem itself.

 

I absolutely agree that it's become a cultural incentive.  And I think that our modern mega-corps are both dangerous and shouldn't be trusted by default. The reason I pointed it out though is that the idea that there's a strong legal case for pursuit of profit is really insidious, it puts another wall in front of achieving any change. We have changed our understanding of what a corporation is in the last 40 years, and I think we should fight tooth and nail against that to move the needle back towards more social responsibility.  This happened within my lifetime, it can be reversed. 

 

We're getting a bit far afield here, to bring it back towards the original topic of corporations, the advantage in realizing that maximizing profit isn't a mandate is that it allows for decisions, both big and small, to be driven by considerations that aren't purely monetary.  Products are still going to have to benefit a corporation, but that benefit does not have to be defined purely through maximized profit.  I would be very surprised if internal arguments for a female Thor was based solely on the idea that she would be a more profitable character than a male Thor.  And she doesn't seem to be overly sexualized in the way a lot of female superheroes are (though she does have boob armor), so it's not like her design is one aimed at appealing to the basest elements of a pubescent boys fantasies. 

 

I understand being cynical about the decisions that corporations make, particularly Disney.  But I think there's something far more interesting going on with Marvel right now than it simply being about maximized profit.

[SecretAsianMan]

Completely dumb aside: 

 

shades of gray, and deeper thoughts than 'punch/shoot that guy' Chiana

 

I'm sorry, I couldn't help but laugh a little as I read this.  For those that aren't familiar with Farscape, Chiana is literally various shades of gray.

 

[Apple Cider]

I seriously thought that was intentional. 

[Danielle]

I seriously thought that was intentional. 

 

It was!

 

 

I am nothing if not a dorky joke-maker.

[Gaizokubanou]

Bah, yes I'm sorry. I don't think I have enough conscious awareness of the gender plethora. I probably need to do some media education to make it more inherent rather than something I correct myself with.

 

Technically yes companies can do good work, and certainly some do and some try to. But the issue is that the primary goal of capitalism is to make money. If your main goal is to make money, you'll find ways to make the most whether it's by cutting costs or finding a market to latch onto. This can lead to unethical but totally legal behaviour that could save a lot of money. For example, advertisements are big on using stereotypes especially to undermine someone and make them feel compelled to buy a product to 'fix' themself. A company with such advertisements can also then do a PR campaign that's pro feminism.

 

Consumers rarely seem to connect these things so essentially the company can have their cake and eat it too. This is exactly what you would do if you wanted a lot of money, and it has the appearance of being ethical to consumers that would financially support the stance while still using unethical methods to earn more money. This isn't a hypothetical by the way, if you look up articles about Dove's advertising campaign their parent company are literally doing this.

 

Right, deceptive appearance is not good but on other hand, that's not the specificity that I am seeing here.  I'm just witness flat out revulsion against the thought of guiding these "for-profit" entity into doing better via our spending power (please note I don't have any delusion about 'changing them' into good... I am being very specific here, coaxing them into 'doing' good for the moment (moment in historical sense)).

 

Like, I don't think anyone here would give second thought on validity of boycotting of company that is morally abhorrent (or to some of you, comparatively more abhorrent)... but the thought of spending money for opposite effect seem to scare people and I ask why when I see them as functionally identical?

 

Or to put more theoretical spin on it, why isn't it desirable to shape the society so that doing good is easier?  In fact, I think that's a must to have functionally healthy and ethically good society.  If good can only be done via at a profit loss, then logically all net positive good do-ers will go extinct because they are not sustainable entity.  We should strive to make flourishing and doing goods synonymous as possible (without changing definition of 'good').

[SecretAsianMan]

It was!

 

 

I am nothing if not a dorky joke-maker.

 

Ha!  Even better. 

[Bjorn]

Or to put more theoretical spin on it, why isn't it desirable to shape the society so that doing good is easier?  In fact, I think that's a must to have functionally healthy and ethically good society.  If good can only be done via at a profit loss, then logically all net positive good do-ers will go extinct because they are not sustainable entity.  We should strive to make flourishing and doing goods synonymous as possible (without changing definition of 'good').

 

 This is something I've been thinking bunches about lately, how to pair social good with a healthy business.

[SuperBiasedMan]

Right, deceptive appearance is not good but on other hand, that's not the specificity that I am seeing here.  I'm just witness flat out revulsion against the thought of guiding these "for-profit" entity into doing better via our spending power (please note I don't have any delusion about 'changing them' into good... I am being very specific here, coaxing them into 'doing' good for the moment (moment in historical sense)).

 

Like, I don't think anyone here would give second thought on validity of boycotting of company that is morally abhorrent (or to some of you, comparatively more abhorrent)... but the thought of spending money for opposite effect seem to scare people and I ask why when I see them as functionally identical?

 

Or to put more theoretical spin on it, why isn't it desirable to shape the society so that doing good is easier?  In fact, I think that's a must to have functionally healthy and ethically good society.  If good can only be done via at a profit loss, then logically all net positive good do-ers will go extinct because they are not sustainable entity.  We should strive to make flourishing and doing goods synonymous as possible (without changing definition of 'good').

 

Well I personally don't have a revulsion to spending towards forwarding certain ethics. I do try to look at socially progressive aspects to something I'm considering paying for or suggesting someone else checks it out. I'm a vegan and a significant part of my vegan intention is to support foods that abstain from animal products. Whether it's as an intentionally labelled vegan product or cookies that just don't contain dairy.

 

The cynicism I'm responding with is that I don't think that's something worth doing based on the marketing of the media trying to push key progressive details. "Thor is a woman now!" doesn't read as terribly progressive to me. I am all for supporting something if I've looked into and actually gotten the impression that it's progressive but a marketing stunt doesn't feel the same to me.

 

It should be noted I don't read comics (except webcomics) so I am not making an informed judgement on Thor or any others, but what this thread has told me leaves me unconvinced.

 

That said, if you are going to just buy some comics anyway I do think there's value in deciding that you should try for the most progressive you can find even if they're just token efforts. I just think it's worth being mindful of how much more can be done even if you like what they've done so far.

[feelthedarkness]

I think the truth is that "doing good" often leads to general improvement of the broad social situation.

 

Since this is a feminism thread, I think it's uncontroversial to say that true equal pay, unrestricted access to health care, and effective child support is both a social good and an fiscal "good." By my understanding any city that drastically pushed up its minimum wage has seen results as more people have more money to spend on goods. Thor comics appealing to a broader range of people helps Marvel, and also helps comic shops, and in turn other less traditional artists (as people grow out of Thor comics).

 

The "problem" is that this doesn't benefit the rich who make their money on investments and rent seeking, rather than selling goods as was the model 60 years ago. 

[Mangela Lansbury]

This is something I've been thinking bunches about lately, how to pair social good with a healthy business.

The only thing that really makes me uncomfortable is making doing good into a good itself. Then you end up with things like Susan G Komen, which ostensibly is concerned with doing good but mostly just sells a warm fuzzy feeling so various people can make money for themselves.

[Gaizokubanou]

 This is something I've been thinking bunches about lately, how to pair social good with a healthy business.

 

Thanks for the thumbs up Bjorn, much appreciated.

 

The cynicism I'm responding with is that I don't think that's something worth doing based on the marketing of the media trying to push key progressive details. "Thor is a woman now!" doesn't read as terribly progressive to me. I am all for supporting something if I've looked into and actually gotten the impression that it's progressive but a marketing stunt doesn't feel the same to me.

 

I agree that's completely fair and needed cynicism, just that I think we both kinda flew each other's points because my whole point was based on assumption that the purchasing decision in question is already determined to fund what is net positively good.  So it isn't that I think buying new Thor comic IS good, but rather, IF it is good, then why be sad about it.

[Bjorn]

The only thing that really makes me uncomfortable is making doing good into a good itself. Then you end up with things like Susan G Komen, which ostensibly is concerned with doing good but mostly just sells a warm fuzzy feeling so various people can make money for themselves.

 

I'd argue that the Komen Foundation example is one of the charitable-industrial complex run amuck, and that it shows that businesses that do not have internally identified social goods they want to help achieve can latch onto something popular to try and emulate the appearance of caring, while also tapping into a worldwide recognized brand. 

 

I'd have to go look up one of the firms that does this, but an example would be investing firms (usually small ones) that focus on providing diversified packages to investors that exclude companies some people may find morally objectionable (tobacco producers, weapon manufacturers, etc).  A founder who doesn't want to invest in products that cause harm, and who wants to help others achieve the same goal.  That's what I mean when I talk about pairing a ethical stance with a business structure. 

[Argobot]

The Gates Foundation recently moved its investments from McDonald's and gas companies into less morally/ethically questionable businesses. It was seen as a really encouraging move for other foundations and businesses.

[rohlfinator]

Or to put more theoretical spin on it, why isn't it desirable to shape the society so that doing good is easier?  In fact, I think that's a must to have functionally healthy and ethically good society.  If good can only be done via at a profit loss, then logically all net positive good do-ers will go extinct because they are not sustainable entity.  We should strive to make flourishing and doing goods synonymous as possible (without changing definition of 'good').

 

I think it's a good goal, but for me the skepticism comes from wondering what happens if/when the profit is no longer there (or is no longer perceived to be there). The capitalist forces are a big part of what caused the games and comics industries to double down on the young white male demographic at the expense of all others in the first place.

 

Also, the profit angle really only works for cohorts of a certain size -- it's going to be a lot easier for the powers that be to dismiss an underrepresented group that makes up (for example) 1% of the population.

 

I'd have to go look up one of the firms that does this, but an example would be investing firms (usually small ones) that focus on providing diversified packages to investors that exclude companies some people may find morally objectionable (tobacco producers, weapon manufacturers, etc).  A founder who doesn't want to invest in products that cause harm, and who wants to help others achieve the same goal.  That's what I mean when I talk about pairing a ethical stance with a business structure. 

 

Ah yeah, "socially responsible investing" -- Wikipedia has a pretty comprehensive list here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socially_responsible_investing

[Merus]

It was!

 

 

I am nothing if not a dorky joke-maker.

 

I like to think you took up boxing because it involves activities that contain the word 'pun'

[Gaizokubanou]

I think it's is a good goal, but for me the skepticism comes from wondering what happens if/when the profit is no longer there (or is no longer perceived to be there). The capitalist forces are a big part of what caused the games and comics industries to double down on the young white male demographic at the expense of all others in the first place.

 

Also, the profit angle really only works for cohorts of a certain size -- it's going to be a lot easier for the powers that be to dismiss an underrepresented group that makes up (for example) 1% of the population.

 

Then of course the corporate entities will do something else, whether that is neutral or bad or good in some other ways.  And then the struggle goes on.

 

As for needing proper resources to achieve profit angle, that applies to everything so I don't see that as a specific problem to this method.  Remember every struggle came to be because there were enough people who thought it was worth supporting, and every successful one came to be because even more people thought it was right.  People like MLK or Ghandi weren't widely recognized as the hero we recall them to be because they were so righteous... they became heroes in majority's mind because the struggle was won through popular (majority) movement over long time--these civil rights or any other ethical movements achieved success because they convinced enough people with enough resources that their cause was worth supporting.  Same with market angle, except with the market it just seems more cruel because the resource game is clear to everyone.

[Bjorn]

Oh, another note on the idea of pairing capitalism with social good. There have been a couple of examples of companies that maintained rigid pay caps or ratios, ensuring that the wage gap between each level of the hierarchy couldn't become too big. Ben and Jerry's was one, but sadly that ended many years ago.   Whole Foods is another (of course that company is a whole conversation in itself).  And then there are the new companies who have transparent pay policies, allowing everyone in the company to know what everyone else makes. 

 

While not as obvious as direct charitable giving or socially responsible investing, I'd still say these kind of business philosophies fall under the social good category.  They alleviate, or can help alleviate, problems with wage gaps caused by social inequality.  Harder to underpay your female employees when they know what all the male employees are making. 

[Ben X]

I like to think you took up boxing because it involves activities that contain the word 'pun'

 

After pumping irony, Danielle likes nothing better than throwing punches, getting her opponents in joke holds or just forcing them to chase her round the ring to see if satires them out.

[Roderick]

I watch a lot of Last Week Tonight, so I trust exactly no more big corporations!

[Merus]

After pumping irony, Danielle likes nothing better than throwing punches, getting her opponents in joke holds or just forcing them to chase her round the ring to see if satires them out.

 

Ben brings it home

 

He took a punt

[Merus]

So I went to a couple of talks at All About Women at the Opera House. Some random thoughts:

 

• A panel of Australian and international feminists had significant reservations claiming that things for women have actually improved since second-wave feminism. If the same fights are being had, is anything actually different?
• Germaine Greer is interesting because she is ready at a moment's notice to challenge other people's assumptions, and also because what she will talk about does not necessarily have very much to do with the question she is apparently answering. This will not stop the media from reporting only Germaine Greer's comments during the panel.
• Speaking of, aged care is not a feminist issue that gets a lot of play but is one that's very much worth considering. Women tend to live longer, so they're over-represented in aged care, which tends to be a little infantilising in ways that should get people's hackles up when they remember how infantilised women often are.
• Also speaking of, when people refer to 'equality', what exactly are people fighting for women to be equal to? Equal to men under patriarchy? Men currently get away with a lot of shit they shouldn't.
• Germaine Greer's fun, as long as you're carrying a bucket of salt with which to take her arguments.
• Anita Sarkeesian was the only panelist who had a prepared answer. I choose to read this as conclusive proof she's a fellow nerd.
• The argument about 'women in the West aren't oppressed, women in the Middle East are oppressed' contains a threatening undercurrent alongside the racism and reductivism: we could be treating you like we believe women in the Middle East are treated, and you should be grateful.
• I can't remember if I've heard of Roxane Gay before. Also: realised I didn't know if abortions are legal in Australia. (They are in some states; in NSW "unlawful" abortions are illegal but what makes an abortion "lawful" is fairly broad, which is a problem.)
• Anita Sarkeesian's Facebook page automatically blocks the word 'kitchen' and five different spellings of 'sandwich'.
• The big lesson from Gamergate is that laws around online stalking, gendered harassment, and sexual privacy need vast improvement.  I wish I'd gotten a photo of the slide.
• From the Botanical Gardens, the Opera House looks like the turrets from Portal. Okay, this is conclusive proof she's a nerd.
• Apparently some people think that Katamari Damacy and Portal aren't 'real' games. These people especially need a punch in the face.

More as I think of them.

[Deadpan]

My understanding of Greer, sourced from hearing people rant on Twitter, is that she's one of those trans-exclusionary radical feminists (TERFs), and poking around a little seems to confirm that. Wasn't there also some hubbub with her recently when she gave a talk at a university and complained about being "silenced" when students put on a different event that would also allow trans folk to speak? Regardless, this is not a person I would be listening to too closely, in case you weren't aware of her views.

 

There's a long standing debate about what equality is actually supposed to mean: equal treatment, equal opportunity, equal chances etc. One angle to consider there, for sure, are the differences between approaching it via equality of opportunity vs. equality of outcome, which is what this image illustrates, although with different terms: if you treat everybody perfectly equal in a world which is not, then you end up maintaining the established differences rather than correcting them. This is why things like affirmative action and stipends exist.

[Mangela Lansbury]

Also speaking of, when people refer to 'equality', what exactly are people fighting for women to be equal to? Equal to men under patriarchy? It's not exactly noble to be fighting for the right to be treated more sympathetically than the person you raped, for instance.

 

I know you try to be thoughtful, so I'm not going to hold this against you, but never say anything like this. I hope I'm just awake too early and misreading things again, but no. As a gay white man who has been a victim of sexual assault by other gay white men, just don't.

 

(I know this may be a little reductivist considering it's thoughts from a talk named all about women, but still, just don't.)

[Merus]

The thing with Germaine Greer is that she's a second-wave feminist back when that was daring and they called it 'women's liberation'. She wrote The Female Eunuch back in the 70s, so that's four decades of being a prominent feminist in Australia. Her views on trans people, and on other things, makes her a bit like a racist uncle; like, yes, we recognise that her views on this are terrible, but on the other hand they're part of the fabric and they come from a different time. A friend of mine described her as a feminist she disagrees with almost half the time, and that's probably true; at best, there's a lot of times she's talking crap, but she's excellent at shit-stirring, and when she was most active, that was a very useful skill for an Australian feminist to have. In a lot of ways she's been overtaken by later waves, which I know upsets her because she had Thoughts about the suggestion she should be replaced by the younger model at the panel, but on the other hand most of the younger feminists don't make the same mistakes because they've been listening first.
 
It's an interesting question: throwing second-wave feminism under the bus is a silencing tactic - they still have the capacity to challenge the system and have experience at not giving a shit what gets thrown at them - but they're often on the wrong side of the battles that later waves want to fight. For instance, Greer described feminists as people who identify as women first before race or creed, which... is trying to be more inclusive than previous comments, but still pretty exclusionary?

 

I know you try to be thoughtful, so I'm not going to hold this against you, but never say anything like this. I hope I'm just awake too early and misreading things again, but no. As a gay white man who has been a victim of sexual assault by other gay white men, just don't.

 

My apologies; I thought that would be approaching the line, but it's clear I've overshot it. I've edited it to be less provocative.