sundries

[rm]

So, as you all mostly know, I have a paper in an academic conference this summer. I just got a bunch of paperwork related to this, including the schedule. Due to one fellow that had to pull out, it appears that there are either no men with papers in the conference, or one (there's a gender neutral name).

This should be unremarkable to me. After all, I would not be surprised in the least if I were the sole (somewhat off) representative of the female at such a thing; much of my life often looks like this in truth, and while I wear men's suits because of my own gender expression, it is also a handy defense from "I really liked your speech; you have a good walk." (which, yes, got said to me in a professional setting recently).

But here's where my own misogyny comes into play. Except maybe it's not misogyny; maybe it's the reality I know is out there in the eyes both of men and women: since we're going to be a bunch of women sitting around talking about text and desire, will anyone choose to view this work as work that matters without the legitimizing force of men? It's a horrible thought. It's horrible that it's a reasonable thought. It's horrible that I have to force myself to examine the thought, it seems so reasonable. It's not a question as many people would ask about a roomful of men, and we do know those that did ask would not be well heard, don't we?

Women have the numbers in academia, especially in social sciences, yet not the power or the legitimacy. The peeks I get at privilege just by wearing a suit, even when I don't pass, are extraordinarily alarming. The fact that I can provide a live-action demonstration that my ideas are worth more when I don't wear a dress, scares the crap out of me. So does the fact that I'm presenting at a conference focusing on a theme that is a central fact of my life, and I'm terrified it'll all be dismissed as women's work.

Sometimes, gender is hard and miserable, you all.

Bias a persistent hurdle for women in the sciences.

Help some cute lesbians win a dream wedding.

Fuck you, NYU. You don't own my city, and you are not taking Governor's Island or any of the rest of our history from us.

Another reason you can't find anything in NYC: Lots of buildings don't have addresses posted and those that do often make no actual sense based on where the entrance to the building is. And that doesn't even get into our wonky numbering scheme.

The married Catholic priests of the Ukraine.

More from the department of "small talk is bad for you."

jnanacandra links us to several posts about women and Thelema, that I haven't dived into yet, because they need my time and my own gender expression makes my own thoughts on the subject potentially a digression from the topic at hand, but as noted, it's a worthy discussion to be having, so if this is a category of thing you care about, go look. Also, for the moment I am resisting telling my own stories of active OTO participating in my twenties, because they're probably exactly what you'd expect, and that's just depressing.

Buffy 4.6: Everyone kept saying to me "oh, so Oz is still around" so I thought he was going to die, not have some lonely boy adventure that's tragic and miserable and wow he was incompetent about the wolf-girl (and man, what crap makeup!) thing. It was a really sad, well-done episode though. Also, Giles is appallingly at loose ends and really needs some sort of random structure right now. Wow. Am also moderately cranky with the whole "Wicca" thing, both in terms of Willow being "a Wicca" (no) and in terms of the most recent episodes random spell crap (Satanus? really?). Ah well.

sushis is forcing me to relive my high school years by posting the videos for a few different versions of "Der Kommissar." Deep dark secret from my past: when I was in high school my musical interests were pretty much Falco, Nick Cave, Siouxsie and the Banshees, Love and Rockets, and Marc Almond. Now you know.

Casting notice of the day: "MUST BE ABSOLUTELY COMFORTABLE LAYING ON THE GROUND WITH LIVE DOMESTICATED RATS PORTRAYING A DEAD VICTIM."

Comments

[bodlon.livejournal.com]

I realize I'm interjecting, so take this for what it is, but I think you're missing the root of the concern here.

Other isms/areas of privilege, intersectionality, and so on are relevant to how individuals progress (or not) in academe. However, the issue at hand in the original post is the problem of a combination of topic + demographic.

That the majority (and possibly all) of the attendees belong to a group that frequently has to work twice as hard to be well-regarded as intellectuals (women) is only part of the issue. The rest of it is that it is women talking about desire.

Personally? I've worked with academics who would take one look at that and dismiss it as a pack of tittering girls in a perfumed boudoir talking about boys.

Not saying your points aren't valid, and that they don't bear discussion, but it's possible that this is not the right discussion in which to engage them productively.