My first feminist role model was, undeniably, Julia Sugarbaker of “Designing Women”.
This character knew her way around a takedown, whether expressing her point of view on sexual harrassment or standing up to a bitchy beauty queen.
In short, Julia Sugarbaker didn’t take any crap from anyone; nor did she suffer fools easily.
I think I can say with authority that the smart and talented women in social media, particularly those at Podcamp Boston 4 last weekend, all have a little Julia in them. How else can we describe the spirited and thoughtful posts springing out of the Podcamp discussion on gender and social media?
So why do I still feel so disheartened?
I think it’s because by and large, the women on the lawn that day seemed to fall in step behind Chris Penn’s conclusions. To wit, that sexism, or a “glass ceiling” effect, has nothing to do with the lack of women on the social media “A-list.” That anyone who thinks so is just falling victim to “self imposed limitations.”
The idea seems to be that if women aren’t succeeding, they have only themselves to blame. Quite a convenient theory, I’d say.
The argument that claiming sexism plays a part in any challenge we face is encouraging women to “play the victim” is far from new. It’s a straw man that’s tapped repeatedly in debates about feminism. And it positively reeks of privilege. Male privilege specifically, although the number of women adhering to it also hints that it might also be privilege of experience. That is, if you haven’t experienced something personally, it must not exist.
In an old but good post about privilege, Barry Deutsch quotes a paper on white privilege. Its author argues that white people are “taught to see racism only in individual acts of meanness, not in invisible systems conferring dominance on my group.”
With regards to sexism, it’s the “invisible system” that was the crux of my comments during the Podcamp gender discussion. It’s not always about some tangible, moustache-twirling man making a conscious decision to discriminate against women, or keep them off the stage at conferences. I argued that cultural issues are at play here, unspoken “rules” that we’re taught from a young age, and the constant messages we receive about women in the public eye. We are scrutinized far more closely, and judged much more harshly. We’re bombarded with messages that our appearance matters more than anything.
I mentioned at the sesssion popular livecaster iJustine as a woman who has “made it” in social media. Is it a coincidence that, along with being very smart working very hard, she is also a blonde bombshell? On the flip side, someone should ask her how much disgusting, sexual, or harassing email she gets. Someone should read about Julia Roy’s experiences being an attractive woman at the top of the social media game. Better yet, go back and read the story of what happened to Kathy Sierra.
Something tells me the men on the A-list aren’t dealing with these types of issues. Is it any wonder we might be somewhat reluctant to promote ourselves? What are the auto-suggestions when you type “iJustine is” into Google?
Naturally. As a woman if you’re hot, you’re golden. Unless of course you have opinions. Then you’re also annoying. Can’t have that.
Penn’s major comment during the session was that it “doesn’t care what’s between your legs, just between your ears.”
I was shocked at this statement, and moreso that the group actually erupted into applause after he said it. I basked in the irony that everyone seemed to think he was making some sort of statement on equality by using provocative language that dismisses the entire feminist movement as, basically, a bunch of whining vaginas.
Have there not ALWAYS been women with plenty going on between their ears? Are there not currently TONS of women in social media who are incredibly smart, incredibly accomplished, and incredibly under-represented everywhere–from the stage at SxSW to the Power 150?
Chris says we need to just “be awesome.” I’m sorry, I was unaware that we weren’t already awesome. I can name at least 100 awesome women right now. Why is it the responsibility for changing the state of affairs all on us?
Continuing his odd inclination to use language in this debate that boils women down to their genitals, Chris says of Michelle Wolverton, the terrific lead organizer of Podcamp Boston, that she “didn’t become lead organizer of the first and oldest PodCamp by demanding a chance because she’s got a vagina.”
Excuse me, but what? Find me one example of any woman who has written or spoken about this issue who has claimed that women should be given more speaking roles becuase of our “vaginas.”
This seems to be a consistent confusion, so let me clear it up right now. No one is saying that conference organizers just pick any old women off the street and give them a mic just because they’re women. No one.
We’re saying that women who are already equally deserving of these chances, women who ARE “awesome,” have been overlooked. And we’re asking that it be corrected.
