I liked their earlier linkspams better (12 January 2016)

  • Science and gender: Scientists must work harder on equality | Nature (December 21 2015): “Every major criterion on which scientists are evaluated, for hiring, promotion, talk invitations or prizes, has been shown to be biased in favour of (white) men. These include authorship credit, paper citations, funding, recruitment, mentoring and tenure. For example, although women publish fewer papers than men, there is some evidence that on average they are longer and more complete, and that this difference vanishes if one corrects for funding level and research-group size.”
  • Power of Asian superheroes | The Malaysian Insider (January 7 2016): “We grew up with window books – stories through which we learnt about other worlds, especially white, Western worlds with fireplaces, summer holidays, marmalade, garages and frocks. Only recently have we begun encountering mirror books – stories in which we see ourselves and our worlds reflected. From the 1990s up to a few years ago, we grew up in Malaysia, but we never saw ourselves or characters like us in storybooks.”
  • If You Give a Librarian a Cookie… | Rule Number One: A Library Blog (January 5 2016): “what other parts of ourselves do we have to deny in order to be taken seriously in the workplace? Is it worth it? What does it mean to elide parts of yourself so that you aren’t just described as “the girl who bakes”? At what point does my work speak for itself and I don’t have to worry about this anymore?”
  • Let’s End the False War Between Free Speech and Hate Speech | Re/Code (January 7 2016): “If you loudly tell a woman she deserves to be raped for speaking her mind on any subject in the public square, at a party or at work, there’s a pretty good chance you’ll get ejected from there and, at the very least, you’ll be subject to much-deserved derision and censure. Not so on the Internet, where such talk is all too common and much too tolerated. Which is why Intel, Vox Media, Re/code and the Born This Way Foundation are coming together to co-create Hack Harassment (#hackharassment), a new, collaborative initiative to fight online harassment and provide safer, more inclusive online experiences.”
  • A surprisingly difficult question for Facebook: Do I have boobs now? | The Guardian (November 3 2015): “While the censorship of women’s breasts in western culture did not begin with Facebook and Instagram, the #FreeTheNipple and #DoIHaveBoobsNow campaigns argue social media companies should use their power and influence to instigate change.”

We link to a variety of sources, some of which are personal blogs.  If you visit other sites linked herein, we ask that you respect the commenting policy and individual culture of those sites.

You can suggest links for future linkspams in comments here, or by using the “geekfeminism” tag on Pinboard, or Diigo; or the “#geekfeminism” tag on Twitter. Please note that we tend to stick to publishing recent links (from the last month or so).

Thanks to everyone who suggested links.

3 thoughts on “I liked their earlier linkspams better (12 January 2016)

  1. 9dg7

    I’m of many minds on nipple policies. Obviously a ban on depictions of female nipples is sexualizing them, but a FreeTheNipples campaign seems to risk attracting exactly the same kind of sexualization. (Generally expressed in frat-boy terminology, but it can look like this too.) So part of me wants Facebook to equalize by banning male nipples instead of by un-banning female ones.

    An ideal society might just completely un-sexualize nipples, but don’t nipples have what might be called “actual” sexual connotation? As in, they’re typically an erogenous zone, at least when the moment is right. Of course, that doesn’t justify making their sexual aspect so primary. (The actual primary cause for nipples’ existence is baby-feeding, the very thing that even biotruth-fueled anti-feminists make a fuss about not wanting to see because of the supposedly-primary sexual aspect.) And there’s especially no reason for the inequality in their perception, where female nipples are provocative but male nipples are just these things.

    Head hair can be sexy/sexual too, but somehow most of the world doesn’t have the same attitude about men’s/women’s hair as conservative Islam does. (I mean that point/criticism in both directions — anyone who considers headscarves obvious proof of Western moral superiority because of the male-female inequality should consider the nipple thing.)

    And in the context of male gaze, every possible action seems counterproductive. My idea of banning male nipples could be framed in patriarchal terms as “Right on, only gay dudes want to look at those!” I’ve briefly thought about what it would be like if a site reversed its policy, and realized that could be worst of all in precisely that “Yeah, now the only nipples I see are the ones my straight cis dick wants me to see, whoohoo!”

    So in the spirit of basic free speech… sure, free the nipples. But a lot of side work needs to be done, somehow.

  2. ConFigures

    Similarly conflicted re cooking/bringing in treats for co-workers. Interesting question to ponder about what else I may be eliding.

Comments are closed.