Annals of Patriarchal Equilibrium: The Alewife and the Park Director

In the book History Matters, as well as the focused studies on which the book is based, Judith Bennett discusses the curious history of the medieval village alewife. She tracked the way that the internal ale-based economy worked, then, as ale shifted to beer, suddenly men took over the field. It turns out that beer, which kept better, could be made as a high value commercial product. With more money and status involved, women were gradually squeezed out. They lacked the capital to parlay their expertise in ale into commercial beer production. Moreover, the arrival of beer closed off some of the benefits of the less formal ale-economy that local women enjoyed.

Bennett used this case study as one of her examples of what she defined as the patriarchal equilibrium. Her argument is that sure, women's experiences of work and wages have changes over time, but that the relative status of their work has remained flat. The great work transformations - women heading into the factories in the early industrial period - may look different in kind, but in status, nothing has really changed. When a field's status rises, men take it over. When women enter a field, the status/remuneration drops. That's the patriarchal equilibrium.

Yesterday, New York Times reporter Claire Cain Miller wrote a piece on the same phenomenon:

Once women start doing a job, “It just doesn’t look like it’s as important to the bottom line or requires as much skill,” said Paula England, a sociology professor at New York University. “Gender bias sneaks into those decisions.”

She is a co-author of one of the most comprehensive studies of the phenomenon, using United States census data from 1950 to 2000, when the share of women increased in many jobs. The study, which she conducted with Asaf Levanon, of the University of Haifa in Israel, and Paul Allison of the University of Pennsylvania, found that when women moved into occupations in large numbers, those jobs began paying less even after controlling for education, work experience, skills, race and geography...

A striking example is to be found in the field of recreation — working in parks or leading camps — which went from predominantly male to female from 1950 to 2000. Median hourly wages in this field declined 57 percentage points, accounting for the change in the value of the dollar, according to a complex formula used by Professor Levanon. The job of ticket agent also went from mainly male to female during this period, and wages dropped 43 percentage points.

England seems more sure this is about intentional gender bias, whereas Bennett, working in a remote period, argues a little more abstractly about broader patriarchal forces. Still, the phenomenon tracks across time.

#Dadbod Ken and Patriarchal Discourse

Carolyn Cox at The Mary Sue has a terrific essay about "Dadbod" Ken. Not only is she good on the specific issue, but she handles how to talk about the ways in which patriarchy in fact oppresses men, without losing sight of the more destructive oppression of women. She writes:

As Maddy wrote in reference to the “Hot Ryu” meme last September, there’s a difference between sexual objectification and sexiness, and in this instance I’d argue that Barbie represents the former, and Ken the latter. Ken’s body is less political than Barbie’s, because men’s bodies aren’t as politicized as women’s. As such, I think certain expectations are placed on women as a direct result of Barbie and other unrealistic portrayals in media, but that might be less true for men and Ken. I’d argue that women and girls see Ken dolls as a blank slate on which to project the personality traits they expect from a husband–despite, not because of, Ken’s bizarro proportions. Again, men do deserve better Kens and more inclusive representation in general–but the reason why Barbie’s new designs are such a milestone, is that overall women’s bodies are more fetishized by society, and less diversely depicted in media, than men’s are.

One reason the inclusive Barbies are so important to women, and why some men conflate that importance with “weakness,” is that men are taught they have value beyond their looks (for proof of that, just look at the IMDB page for any movie, and check out the ages of the male actors vs. the women). Society values women by our weight and the health of our perishable cells; and I’m willing to bet the same men who dismiss that statement as pessimistic weakness are the same men who constantly reinforce for women that we are what we look like.

The new Barbie bodies matter. Sure, it's be nice to see more realistic Ken dolls too, but my self-worth has never been solely linked to my conformity to an impossible plastic beauty standard.

Go read the whole essay.

Rule #1 - It's not about you

Last fall I published a set of rules for male feminist discourse. I stand by them. The big ones are:

1. It's not about you.
2. Sometimes it is about you.
3. It's always about them.

Rule 1 reads:

This is the most important thing to remember. At the core, feminism must begin and end with a conversation about women’s rights. Yes, our patriarchal system causes lots of problems for men, but when people are discussing patriarchy and its discontents, don’t make it about you. You win no points for derailing a conversation about the oppression of women to how men have it bad, too.

Which brings me to this lovely, if irate, blog post from Helen Horton, a feminist from York.

Hi all you male feminists and allies out there. I am writing this to you because I have seen and heard in national newspapers and on twitter, and from friends and colleagues that you are getting very upset because feminism keeps pointing out all the nasty things that your gender is doing, and that your gender lets happen.

You sorrowfully concede that the patriarchy exists and that lots of men do bad things, and that we need to combat this. BUT, you are also very eager to point out that you are not like this. That it's 'only a few men' who are overtly slavering sexist pigs and that most men mean well and don't think women are pieces of meat and that feminists should be burned at the stake or be barefoot in the kitchen. You take any criticism of your gender or the patriarchy as a personal affront and direct the conversation back to you and your feelings. You are hurt by the fact that your feminist friends keep saying that men are nasty and sexist, and that they keep bringing up sexist things that men do and the attitudes that male-lead patriarchy instills in society.

However, what you are doing is patriarchal and detrimental to feminism. Instead of letting the women talk about the issues they have with our patriarchal society, and lifting their voices up and doing something positive to combat this, as someone with the privilege to do something and change the opinions of your fellow men, you decide to make everything about you and your hurt feelings.

She's right. When women or men confront patriarchy, that's not the time to talk about your feelings, or to make sure that you are exempted from the conversation. It's a good time to be quiet, supportive, and then if possible amplify the female voices through whatever means you can (that's rule #3).

Which is what I'm doing here, or trying to anyway. Amplifying.

And now that I know Helen's blog, I think this is particularly good from her: "I'm a bad feminist."

Anyway, we are all in a tizzy about Paris Lee's recent piece for VICE. A prominent feminist is saying that she doesn't mind being catcalled and asking if that makes her a bad feminist.
I think that we firstly need to stop this discourse altogether. We live in a fucked up society where most of the media, discourse and activities we engage in and with contain things that are problematic. As I speak I am listening to A$AP Rocky who is currently rapping about 'bitches', I've heard a rape joke today and not called it out due to fatigue and I've also had a temper tantrum because I snapped my eyeliner in two.

Does listening to music with a misogynistic message make me a bad feminist? Does not calling out problematic bull from peers whenever I hear it make me a bad feminist? Does making problematic jokes myself make me a bad feminist? Does the way I present myself to fit in better with patriarchal norms by wearing makeup or worrying about gaining weight make me a bad feminist?

These questions are all legit and do cause us feminists a lot of grief sometimes. Like, we get so tired that we forget to question everything we do. We buy into our shitty society because it is easier and do we really want to suck all the fun out of our life because it could be buying into the capitalist patriarchy? It's so mentally tiring to try to 'be a good feminist' all the time that it seems easier to just give up and put on Snoop Dogg and have a rest, or to laugh along with your friends when they joke about feminist issues. And that is fine.

We are human.

I like this. The gender norms of quite a few of my songs, including some I've written, are not always optimal. I tend to write grim songs about people in bad states. I like a lot of country music. There's a song by Hal Ketchum, "Past the Point of Rescue," which I like and cover. He says, "Never meant to push or shove you // Don't you know how much I love you." This is abuser talk! I like the song. It's not pro-abuse (which is the line I draw and why I actually object to so much of misogynistic music - when it glamorizes misogyny).

But hey, if that's Helen's thing and it works for her, good. We don't have to be perfect all the time. We just need to be as intentional as possible in forming our relationships and conducting ourselves in the world, not letting patriarchal defaults reflexively shape our interactions and our discourse.

And now I have a new blog to read, so it's a good day.

Sexism in fandom and Bullying (in which Jonathan Ross calls me a [poor] journalist)

Lately, thanks to a long and thoughtful thread on Steve Brust's blog (which you should read), discussions about sexual harassment in fandom, the fake geek girl issues, and so forth - I've been thinking a lot about online bullying, gender, power, and the speculative fiction community. Especially in the SFWA (Science-Fiction Writers of America), issues pertaining to gender and representation have lately been especially acute, and if you don't already know about them, you can google it.

At the end, I'm going to say something that I think is VERY important about women and speech and the ways men (in particular) try to render it illegitimate. So please just skip to that.

Over the weekend, another episode broke out in which British TV Host Jonathan Ross agreed to host the Hugos, the major fan-voted award for sci-fi/fantasy, at the coming worldcon in London. A number of people, including friend of the blog Seanan McGuire, reacted angrily and publicly. You see, Ross has a history of making fun of his guests, especially his female guests, as well as a history of fat-shaming humor. *NOTE - Correction here, see bottom *

Here are some examples, not to mention "Sachsgate," in which Ross and Russell Brand called a famous elderly actor to leave messages about having sex with his granddaughter. In the examples, I'd like you to notice how Ross renders his female guests as their body parts: breasts and vagina, as objects of his sexual desire, and how he seems to expect them to laugh along. 

But I keep coming back to bullying, as defenders of Ross see this as internet bullying, as feminanzis winning another victory for intolerance, as something unfair. Ross sees it that way too, as you can read on Storify. Here are highlights.

Dear Fandom: A rich white man famous for being mean to people on tv is not bullied by people being mean to him on twitter
— David M. Perry (@Lollardfish) March 2, 2014

@Lollardfish well, that's not what I'm famous for really, is it? But convenient for you to claim that. Very poor show from a journalist.
— Jonathan Ross (@wossy) March 2, 2014

I mean, first of all, a famous guy called me a (poor) journalist. I've arrived!

@wossy Well, I don't write about entertainment. But it's true, you are famous for many things, among them making fun of people. (1 of 2)
— David M. Perry (@Lollardfish) March 2, 2014

@wossy And that's fine, comedy involves offense sometimes. But then it's ok for people to be offended and not want you part of an event.
— David M. Perry (@Lollardfish) March 2, 2014

@Lollardfish never said it wasn't. But perhaps they might have started a dialogue instead of a witch hunt. Shows them in a poor light.
— Jonathan Ross (@wossy) March 2, 2014

So there we have it, it shows "them" in a poor light that they didn't choose to start a dialogue with the person who offended them. That's a common dodge in these circumstances and merited a response - and an important one, because I hear that a lot when I talk about language. I get angry, but it's my job to initiate dialogue with the person who has angered me. So I wrote:

@wossy It's not the obligation of the people being insulted to be nice to those who insult them. It helps, but it's not their job.
— David M. Perry (@Lollardfish) March 2, 2014

Here he wrote a few tweets about having only offended people accidentally, and apologized, and tried to learn from it, and maybe that's true. I can't say whether he's learned or not. But I feel it falls into the "I'm sorry you got offended" not "I did wrong" type of apology. At any rate, we ended up in more interesting places.

@wossy Interesting you mention witch hunts. Now as an historian (I'm not a journalist), I know something about witch hunts (1 of 2)
— David M. Perry (@Lollardfish) March 2, 2014

@wossy (2) Accused witches tended to be powerless outsiders under significant pressure from the powers-that-be. Does that describe you?
— David M. Perry (@Lollardfish) March 2, 2014

@Lollardfish I think you know what I meant. In that the evidence cited was opinion based. Some of it, fittingly, was mere speculation.
— Jonathan Ross (@wossy) March 2, 2014

This is interesting. It's the use of "Witch hunt" to mean falsely accused, but that's not what a witch hunt is about. Similarly, the word bullying is used to mean insulting or the rallying of lots of voices to a cause.

@wossy That's again fair. But the language of witch hunt, like the language of bullied (being used by defenders), refers to relative power.
— David M. Perry (@Lollardfish) March 2, 2014

Power matters. The witches were, generally, the other, limited in power, limited in access to power, limited in recourse, scary, outsider. Jonathan Ross is the consummate insider. Heck, even in fandom, he's a friend of His Royal Highness Neil Gaiman. He may or may not be falsely accused on any given charge of abuse or offense, but it's not a witch hunt, and it's not bullying.

One could make the argument that the Hugo organizers were bullied into changing their minds, and that's interesting to think about. Go read Steve Brust's thread on bullying if you've a mind to think about leveraging mass opinion to change a decision, for good or for ill, and consequences of doing so. 

But I think calling Seanan McGuire and others bullies, women and men who, offended by Ross (rightly in my mind), spoke publicly about it, got angry, got angry in public, and effected change, is a way to render their speech illegitimate. When Rich Johnston, for example, founder of the fan website "Bleeding Cool," writes: "Yes, he can be acerbic, but he works the room. Any mocking is truly done with love, and clearly so. It’s flattering," he's saying that we should stop taking these jokes so seriously, to lighten up, he was only kidding. This is the language that harassers have relied on for decades.

Here's one more, a comment from a blog, and only the responsibility of the poster:

And here we go again.
i, Jonathan Ross, a Brit TV personality and sf fan, volunteers and is selected to host the Hugo Awards at Loncon.
ii, The Usual Suspects rake over his comedy and declare that he doesn’t kowtow enough to their brand of ideology for their liking.
iii, Seanan McGuire in particular goes on a tweeting rampage culminating in expressing her fear that Ross might look out from his stage at the Hugos, point at her personally, and call her fat. ‘Cos, you know, it’s all about her.
iv, Ross starts reacting to the shitstorm and heatedly tweets back about people being stupid.
v, The Usual Suspects point at his heated tweets as proof that he’s dangerously unstable. McGuire, I assume, is lying on a fainting couch somewhere while her fans try to reassure her how brave she is.
vi, Ross pulls out.
vii, The Social Justice Warriors notch up another glorious victory.

I read this comment, which the poster has subsequently denied was sexist, in the context of Mary Beard's incredible essay on the public voice of women in the western tradition, as well as the class on medieval women and gender I've been teaching this year. "Rampage" - the notion that women are irrationally angry, hysterical (womb wanderers), angry, non-logical, not like a man. "Fainting couch" - again, gendered obviously, but here suggesting as well that her hysterics were faked, that she was just trying to get her ideological way, and never felt that Ross hosting would make her feel unsafe.

And this is the big picture and the thing I watch for - the many ways in which those who dominate, patriarchy and its many voices (male and female), render the speech of those who oppose it illegitimate: hysterical, irrational, intolerant.

Bullying is a real problem.
Cyber-bulling is a real problem.
Leveraging the internet to combine voices and effect change? That's called organizing.

*Note: I have not in fact found the alleged fat-shaming jokes and I apologize for this (But don't want to edit out my mistake). I assume that the people upset saw him using his female guests' bodies as weapons of comedy and extrapolated, as is their right, but I want to note I made a mistake here.