This semester I decided to try to hold Thursdays and Fridays sacred and let them be writing days. Today was the first Thursday of the semester and here is what I did:
- Provided feedback on Master’s capstone projects
- Provided feedback on a PhD candidate’s job talk
- Provided feedback to a student applying to the PhD program on their materials
- Reviewed 3 PhD applications
- Responded to half a dozen email queries from undergraduate students
- Arranged to give a talk on campus
- Completed training for online teaching
- Wrote two reference letters
- Reviewed and discussed course scheduling for the fall
I did not do ANY of my own writing, and my inbox is still full. I feel like I could scream and I don’t know how I’m supposed to do all the things. This weekend’s mission: Search for new time-management strategies. Brutal ones.
From Amanda Phillips, one of the editors:
A special issue of Game Studies, “Queerness and Video Games,”
is now out! This has been many years in the making. It is the largest issue in the history of Game Studies, and is a particularly meaningful accomplishment in the context of a journal that founded itself partly in opposition to the “colonizing attempts” of disciplines like film studies and English (and, if you read a bit more widely, the unmentioned specter of feminist studies) invading the territory of video games with their own political agendas.
This is just a short rant. The midterm elections are over, but those last few days leading up to the election were filled with editorial content encouraging people to vote for women candidates based on the following logic: “She’s not perfect, but the person running against her is awful” or “She’s not perfect, but no one is.” The following is one example, from a profanity-laced River Front Times column that I’m not linking:
“Maybe you don’t really like Claire McCaskill. That’s fine. Is she perfect? Nope, she isn’t. And sometimes she’s downright infuriating, too.”
This rhetorical move is annoying and sexist. I haven’t seen a single story about how we should vote for a man even thought he “isn’t perfect.” Perfection is an impossible standard. We have historically held women to impossible standards, but it’s time to stop making the standards different for men and women. So, I’m committing to never ever describing a woman candidate for any political office as “not perfect.” “Not perfect” is too often code for, “I know you’d rather she were in the kitchen, but … .” No. I’m not making these sorts of concessions. If I’ve got something to say, I’ll voice my specific concern. Beyond that, no empty commentary on the perfection or lack thereof of female candidates. Starting now.
Some empirical evidence to justify what is common knowledge to academic women …
“Dancing Backwards in High Heels: Female Professors Experience More Work Demands and Special Favor Requests, Particularly From Academically Entitled Students.”
In any case, Misra argued, the root of the problem is that people view women as “helpers” and men as “doers,” which she “has a tremendously negative effect on the careers of academic women, who either engage in helping behaviors — and spend less time on more valued work — or do not, and are viewed as selfish or not team players, even when their men colleagues are similarly less likely to engage in helping behavior but face no consequences.”
My work has taken up abortion in the past, usually through what I would describe as common-sense, feminist accounts of the impact of state-level abortion legislation. I’ve read a lot about abortion and learned a lot over my years of study, but I still keep learning new things. (For example, while I don’t agree with all her premises, Katha Pollitt’s Pro: Reclaiming Abortion Rights taught me things I didn’t know after years of thinking about this issue.) Recently, I had another one of those experiences–while reading a Twitter thread shared by a friend, of all things. The link below is an essay-form version of that Twitter thread, by Gabrielle Blair. It’s a brilliantly argued account of some ways to eliminate abortion that have not been considered in the mainstream. (Be aware that this link contains descriptions of biological processes that sometimes include slang. If you’re interested in learning about how to prevent abortions, you have to be willing to engage biology and the ways people talk/think about it.) In short, these methods have not been made mainstream because they would inconvenience men; I think women matter just as much as men do, and thus we should consider some alternative ways of reducing/eliminating abortion.
Remember the opening to that 80s movie Look Who’s Talking? It features a whole bunch of sperm with clever dialogue racing to fertilize a largely inanimate egg. I remember being intrigued by that scene as a kid, but now it really bugs me that the sperm get to have full personalities and the egg doesn’t. It really mirrors medieval (and some modern) ideas of the woman/egg as just a reproductive vessel. Now, this fascinating story from Robert Martin (emeritus curator of biological anthropology at the Field Museum in Chicago) sheds some light on how popular-culture myths like the one showcased in Look Who’s Talking actually impact understandings of scientific processes. For example:
“Most notably, the legacy of the homunculus survives in the stubbornly persistent notion of the egg as a passive participant in fertilisation, awaiting the active sperm to swim through a hailstorm of challenges to perpetuate life. It’s understandable – though unfortunate – that a lay public might adopt these erroneous, sexist paradigms and metaphors. But biologists and physicians are guilty as well.”
The most interesting thing I learned in this article is that sperm are much more passive than we imagine–and the female reproductive tract as a whole is much more active: “most mammalian sperm do not in fact swim up the entire female tract but are passively transported part or most of the way by pumping and wafting motions of the womb and oviducts.”
(We could also construct this sentence in the active voice: “The womb and oviducts transport sperm most or part of the way to their destination with pumping and wafting motions.”)
Read the whole article here:
**My one quibble with this article is that it claims “Both IUI and IVF potentially increase the risk of polyspermy and the likelihood of miscarriage.” The article it cites as evidence (“Biology of Polyspermy in IVF and Its Clinical Indication” in Current Obstetrics and Gynecology Reports 2.4) actually suggests the opposite–that in vitro maturation results in a “lower polyspermic rate because of application of ICSI.” (ICSI is intraplasmic sperm injection, when an embryologist inserts a single sperm into an egg “by hand.”) The article states clearly that reasons for this correlation are unknown.
I found this piece by Jamie Utt to be really thoughtful and reflective. I’m linking below and including a few favorite quotes. I especially liked the first example he gives, when he slammed his hands on the table, and how he realized that even though he knows he would never hurt his partner, she lives in a system where men often are abusive and it’s scary to her regardless of his intent.
“If we, as men, can think of ourselves as “the good guys” and construct a boogey man abuser in our head, then we never have to turn the lens inward. We never have to consider the ways we’ve been socialized to be abusive.”
“My actions exist in the context of how I was taught to be a man. My actions exist in the context of patriarchy.”
“we have a responsibility to consider the ways that we might be complicit in that violence – simply by living out the patterns of how we were taught to be men.”
“we teach partners or children that they need to manage our anger (rather than that our anger is something we can control and manage).”
“And for each of us that might look different, as each of our masculinities exist at intersections with other parts of who we are.”