Work in the real world

Sorry I haven’t posted in a while. I’ve been spending a lot of time looking for work in the real world, and it’s been pretty time-consuming. I’ve been offered one very low-paying summer position writing for the local university’s Web site, and I’ve been jumping through various hoops to apply to be a substitute teacher in a few nearby school districts. It’s been crazy – each district has a different application process and deadline. But the thing that really bothers me is that I have to pay for four different FBI background checks.

I’m not saying I shouldn’t be subjected to a background check – I will potentially be working with minors, and as a mom myself, I want to know that my kid is safe from murderers and rapists while at school. But the price keeps getting higher for the check, and I have to do it a total of four times, once for each school district. It’s a little confusing, as well…as far as I know, the information in an FBI background check is all public domain stuff. So why do I have to pay up to $42 to have access to it?

History and science TV: for men only

Since when did the Discovery and History channels turn into Spike TV? Maybe I was just slow to realize it, but I’ve been getting basic cable for about two years now and I hadn’t noticed it till now: 24 hours of truckers, loggers, pig farmers and oil rig roughnecks.

The History Channel has at least four “macho TV” shows: “Tougher in Alaska,” “Ice Road Truckers,” “Ax Men” and “Human Weapon.” That’s not surprising, though. The whole line-up is pretty guy-targeted; most History Channel shows are about the military and war, with a big emphasis on engineering.

The Discovery Channel, not to be outdone, has seven macho shows, including the wildly popular “Deadliest Catch.” And the macho-fest has pretty much taken over all the programing on both channels; if there is one rule of television, it’s that if something is popular, it will generate knock-offs.

And who do we have to thank for this explosion of man-shows? A fellow named, appropriately enough, Thom Beers. He’s the Emmy-winning producer behind 14 shows on nine networks. The shows, termed “macho TV” or “testosto-reality,” usually rank among the top shows on cable. He’s apparently well-qualified to reach the ever-desirable 18-to-34-year-old mullet market, too: besides his fortuitous name, he drives a GTO and uses the word “awesome” a lot.

Heather Havrilesky writes in Salon that the shows’ popularity is the product of some sort of working-class nostalgia, that we spoiled white-collar mouse-pushers simply “want to put our weak backs and wimpy arms to good use for a change, shoveling soil or hammering nails…”

I suspect it has a lot more to do with reinforcing gender boundaries not only in blue-collar (or plaid-collar) roughneck territory, but in white-collar labs as well. On the two channels devoted to engineering and the sciences, the line-ups are almost entirely male. At the same time, women are dropping out of those same fields in great numbers. The reasons? “feelings of isolation (respondents reported often being the only women on a project team), a lack of female mentors, a macho and hostile work environment, and long hours that conflict with family responsibilities.” Coincidence?

I can understand the the crews on a lot of these “testosto-reality” shows just don’t have any women in them; I’m not asking for Beers to create new crews to satisfy a gender-equity quota. Show it like it is, if that’s what the boys want. But you couldn’t find a female pest exterminator? “Cities of the Underworld” is essentially a show about archeology, a field dominated by women – and the History Channel chose this guy to be the host? Well, his name is “Wildman.” I guess that makes him qualified for anything on the all-balls network.

The Discovery Channel, to be fair, did at least have some women in their line-up: “The Alaska Experiment,” a sort of reality TV show in the frozen tundra, is composed of 10 volunteers, half of which are women. The “Smash Lab” crew consists of four people; Deanne Bell, the only woman, is “the scientist.” Similarly, the three-person supporting crew of “MythBusters” features one woman, Kari Byron. But the Discovery Channel, like the sciences in general, is a male-dominated space.

In contrast, the History Channel had zero women in its lineup. One could theoretically watch the History Channel for a full 24 hours and never see a woman – except in commercials, of course. It’s hard to miss the implication that this type of programming conveys: women weren’t part of history.

Fembots

The headline had me scared: “Japan makes robot girlfriend for lonely men.” Great – real “Stepford Wives.” Because apparently, dealing with a real woman who can, you know, say “no” is just way too much trouble. Bitch magazine had an excellent article in their last issue about this whole fembot phenomenon.

But after reading the article, I am curious as to what “girlfriend” means in Japanese. I suspect the word is more like “pet,” because the robot is roughly the size of a barbie doll. How does it “act like a real girlfriend”? It can hand out business cards, sing and dance. Oh, and using it’s far-infrared sensors, it will “kiss” on command. Huh??? OK, I guess the kissing part is “like a real girlfriend,” but singing and dancing? Handing out business cards? I guess in Japan, there’s not much difference between “trained dog” and “girlfriend.”

More commerical hate

I have to include a link to Marc Voyer’s Top 10 Worst Commercials. It’s a roundup of 10 commercials depicting men as stupid, bumbling jackasses. In it, he skewers the Pizza Hut commercial I called out, for the same reason: depicting the man as utterly incompetent.

See? Sexism is bad for men and women.

“Southern Pride”

Next Thursday in Juneteenth, the celebration of the freeing of slaves during the Civil War. I’m embarrassed to say, my hometown, Fayetteville, isn’t hosting anything for this important event.

What is happening, though, is the Confederate Memorial Day tomorrow. Though these Confederate sympathizers claim this has nothing to do with racism, it seems awfully suspect that it’s being held so close to Juneteenth.

Sort of like co-oping MLK day and celebrating Robert E. Lee day instead. Nope, no racism there.

“Gag order” in court goes too far

According to this article in the Kansas City Star, a judge in Lincoln, Neb., prohibited an alleged rape victim from using the words “rape,” “sexual assault” and even “assailant” at the trial, claiming that the defendant’s right to a presumption of innocence trumps the victim’s right to freedom of speech.

According to the article, in 2000, a Jackson County judge issued a similar order in the trial of a man accused of forcibly raping a teenager (he was convicted).

To quote the article:

“For the life of me, I do not understand why a judge would tell an alleged rape victim that she cannot say she was raped when she testifies in a trial about rape,” wrote U.S. District Judge Richard G. Kopf.

Advocates for the accused say the juries, not the witnesses (or victims), decide if an act was “rape.” Victims must use the word “sex” or “sexual intercourse” to describe the assault, which is also biased (and altogether inaccurate).

The interesting thing is that these censorship orders are not being issued in other types of cases, like murder or theft – only those involving sexual assault. These cases often come down to “her word against his,” and with the gag orders in place, the judge effective takes her words away.

Commercials that DON’T piss me off

I know I’ve been running a series on commercials that piss me off for a while now…so, in the interest of fairness, I want to spotlight the two commercials I’ve seen that don’t promote sexism or mindless consumerism.

First, Oust disinfectant ran this one:

Wow. It looks like the man changed that baby’s diaper. And what’s better, he didn’t seem to be doing it under duress, or acting like it was filled with toxic waste. It even looks like he did it right, instead of playing the “we men are so inept at childcare” game. He was just taking care of his son (or stepson, or whatever). Very refreshing (pardon the pun).

In that same vein, there’s this one from Buccaneer Blends BBQ Sauce:

Although I’m completely confused as to what pirates have to to with BBQ, I’m glad to see an image of a father-figure eagerly taking part in grocery shopping with his kid.

Anytime the TV shows a man taking part in domestic tasks – especially one as unpleasant as changing diapers! – it’s a giant step towards real equality. Unfortunately, these were the only two gender-positive commercials I have come across. If you have any that you’d like to include, post them to the comments!

“Ambition” as code for “patriarchal privilege”

In her May 28 column, Ruth Marcus makes the claim that reason more women aren’t in higher political office isn’t because of discrimination, but that women simply don’t have the same amount of ambition that men do.

This is just more of the same old “blame-the-victim” pseudo-science, along the same lines as the belief that women don’t make more money only because they don’t ask for it (which has also been busted).
After several paragraphs of assuring readers that there is no discrimination against female candidates, Marcus then goes on to quote a study by Jennifer Lawless of Brown University and Richard Fox of Loyola Marymount, stating, “They [women] are less likely than men to be recruited to run for office. They are less likely than men to have the freedom to reconcile work and family obligations with a political career” (italics mine). Marcus goes on to confirm that family and household obligations keep most women out of office, stating that the women candidates in the survey were far less likely to be married or have children than the men were, and of those who were married, 60 percent of the women, compared with only 4 percent of the men, said they were responsible for the majority of child care. Yet somehow, Marcus comes to the conclusion that these factors have nothing to do with the paucity of women officeholders.
This pervasive lack of household support steals women’s time and energy away from other ambitions. Add to this the cultural perception that women who work long hours at high-level jobs just don’t care about their families – when do you see high-powered male executives or politicians being grilled about how they balance their jobs with their families? – and you have the very definition of gender discrimination.