Feminist Law Professors

Via her website.

Professor Diane M. Quinn

The Windsor (Ontario) Star reports here on a psychological study by Professor Diane Quinn (Psychology, UConn) and others of the impact on women’s behavior of visual assessments (aka, getting “checked out”):

Though it’s impossible to know the weight of a stare, scientists now have a good idea of its crushing force — in particular, on women who think they’re being sexually objectified.

In experiments with more than 200 people, researchers discovered that when a female believes her body is being sized up by a male, she’ll diminish her presence by speaking less. When a male believes a female is eyeing his physique, however, no such effect occurs.

The study, published this month in the journal Psychological Science, explains that our culture has so taught women that they’re judged on appearance that they’ve come to evaluate themselves that way, ultimately self-objectifying.

“Women actually become object-like in that they stop talking and expressing themselves,” says study co-author Diane Quinn, associate professor of psychology at the University of Connecticut.

Study participants were given two minutes to introduce themselves via closed-circuit camera to an unseen partner, with researchers explaining that they’d be filmed in one of three conditions: audio only, from the neck up, or from the neck down, and all under the pretext of a communication exercise that examined social interaction through the lens of facial expressions, body gestures and vocal cues.

In the body-focused condition, women talked, on average, for just 84.9 seconds when they thought their partner was male, but for the near-full 111.9 seconds when told their partner was female. Researchers note that this shows “it was a male’s gaze, and not simply any gaze, that affected women’s presence.”

By contrast, men subjected to having their bodies filmed reduced their talk-time, on average, by just one second — from 117.8 to 116.8 — when they thought their partner was of the opposite sex.

The results of the full study are described in the paper by Tamar Saguy, Diane M. Quinn, John F. Dovidio and Felicia Pratto, “Interacting Like a Body: Objectification Can Lead Women to Narrow Their Presence in Social Interactions.”  The paper is available here in PDF.

H/T Kaimi Wenger.

-Bridget Crawford

From here:

All Tech contributor Omar Gallaga wrote a great post about rejected names for Apple’s new tablet computer, but I know he didn’t see the iPad coming! Good thing Mad Tv did way back in 2006.

I’m assuming there were no women on the naming team at Apple. Because, hey, when women hear or read the word pad, we think Kotex and cramps. I wouldn’t mind the name so much if I could buy one at my local CVS.

–Ann Bartow

Over at Alternet Vanessa Richmond asks: “Why Do People Want to Have Sex with the 9-Foot Tall Natives in ‘Avatar’?” But by “people” she clearly means men. Here is an excerpt:

James Cameron’s comments in interviews suggest the reaction is actually pretty vanilla, and by design.

Early designs for the Na’vi “were much more alien,” according to Cameron, the creator and director of the movie. In the early drawings of Neytiri, the young female love interest, “she had fins on her back and gills and all kinds of weird protuberances and so on in odd places.”

The beta testing went something like this: “We just kept asking ourselves—basically, the crude version is: ‘Well, would you wanna do it?’ And our all-male crew of artists would basically say, ‘Nope, take the gills out.’ It was pretty simple.”

In other words, Neytiri was created to be a sex fantasy. As one of my male friends said, it’s as if they took Gisele Bundchen and made her even taller with longer legs, and elongated her already slim waist, which is a super signal to the male, of fertility.

Any similar effort to make any of the characters appeal to women? Did Richmond even care enough to ask?  She does quote a couple of women in the piece, as follows:

“The only thing i can think of after seeing Avatar is ‘when are they gonna make avatar porn?’ wrote one person on Texts From Last Night. “Is it weird that I found myself thinking of that blue chick from Avatar while [my girlfriend] gave me head after the movie?” wrote another. “lol. im a girl and i agree. i would les out for Neytiri, but i want Jake :)” responded another.

The gender of “one person”? Not clear, though statistically one might assume male, as I suspect the reader is supposed to do. Is “im a girl” really female?  Who knows.

Richmond also informs us that the big eyes are sexy because remind folks of babies:

Even the blue part isn’t so strange. As a female friend of mine said, blue is everyone’s favorite color. It’s like water. It would be different if they were diarrhea-colored or yellow or something. That smart friend also said the eyes are key—the Na’vi have big eyes like a baby’s, a creature we’re programmed to find irresistible.

Why does she point out the gender of the source of the observation, her “female friend”? Is it because if she just said “a friend” we would assume she meant a man?

–Ann Bartow

ETA: On a related note, if the “aliens” are not mammals, why do the females have breasts? Rhetorical query, obviously. It is addressed in this essay as follows:

But then, on the absolute other side of the coin is Playboy’s interview with Cameron, which delves into the hotness of the movie’s female stars. And breasts. When asked whether he designed Neytiri specifically to appeal to guys, Cameron replies, “And they won’t be able to control themselves.” (I guess that means yes.) A lot of that appeal, according to Cameron, started with the decision to give the character breasts — even though the Na’vi aren’t mammals.

It’s a tiny passage in a very long interview, but it struck me, I’m sure in part because I’ve read “The Cancer Journals” by American poet Audre Lorde. In it, Lorde writes about undergoing a modified radical mastectomy and how doctors, therapists and random people changed their attitudes toward her when she refused to undergo reconstructive surgery or wear a prosthesis. Cameron’s decision to put breasts on non-mammals makes me wonder — in modern film, does a character have to have breasts to be a woman? Does a woman have to have breasts to be beautiful?

ETA Part II, from here:

So, I am sorry to keep going back to the sex thing, but the second that our hero, Jake, finally gets around to doing it with Space Zoe Saldana, she utters the words – with no small amount of seriousness, might I add – “we are mated for life now.” The VERY MOMENT HE GETS IT IN, she says this. Ladies: do you date dudes? Do any of these dudes like Avatar? Do you think that, at any point, you might have sex with a dude who likes Avatar? Because, if so, you need to say this shit during sex. I know I’m going to. I’ll adopt the deep, tranquil, stalkerly tones of mystical communion, give him the zonked-out blue-person googly-eye, all of it. Just to see how quickly he flies screaming out of the apartment, and whether he bothers to put on pants.

photo credit: Paul Martinka

Earlier this month, I blogged (here) about the “No Pants Subway Ride” organized by Improv Everywhere.  On my way home from the AALS, I encountered several pants-less riders at the Jay Street Station in Brooklyn.  I asked two of them if I could take their pictures for the blog, and then gave them my business card with an offer to send a copy of the picture and a link to the blog post.  Later I traded e-mails with one of those pants-less riders, Miriam Rambo (name used with permission).  She accepted my invitation to blog about her experiences that day.  Here is what the ride was like from her perspective:

About a month ago my parents were in New York visiting me and my younger sister from our northwest home, and showed us these hilarious videos on YouTube by a group called Improv Everywhere. I am no performer so most of their “missions” are way out of my league, but when we saw the “pantsless subway ride”, I thought it was the most hilarious thing I’d ever seen. Genius. In a place like New York, something as light-hearted, carefree and humorous as this, I thought, was brilliant. My sister and I moved to New York very recently, and when we found out that we were just in time for the pantsless subway ride, we knew we had to participate. This would be a story to tell for the rest of our lives.

As a woman, it was an interesting experience, to be sure. I was surprised with how uncreepy people were. I think most either understood that what were doing was meant to make them laugh and lighten moods, or, they thought we were totally whacked and steered clear completely. Of course, there are always one or two people who are going to say something inappropriate, but they were the vast minority.

I think the cops were my favorite – they weren’t really sure what to do – they knew that we weren’t there to harm anyone or cause any trouble, and we weren’t breaking any laws – most couldn’t help but laugh with us, especially when we all convened in the Union Square station- there were HUNDREDS of us. Many of us got great pictures posing with some of the cops – pretty classic.

From what I saw, men took more risks with their choices of undies- which makes sense, since they can basically wear shorts and call it underwear. But for me, that’s kind of what was funny and jarring about doing it – for women, this was such a big thing to “forget” (which is the excuse that many of us gave), so many of us got much more strange looks. For the most part though, women kept their underwear pretty normal (there are always exceptions, of course), so as to illustrate the point that this was to be funny, not offensive or sexually deviant in any way.

Overall, this was an amazing experience. I would do it again in a heartbeat. It was freeing and wonderful to be a part of a group of strangers who are so connected by this light-hearted and fun experiment. I had so much fun.  Thank you, Improv Everywhere !

Ms. Rambo’s reflections convey the same sense of joy that the NY Post’s photos (here) do.  One of those photos (shown above left) captures Ms. Rambo and three friends enjoying the atmosphere in the Times Square subway station.

-Bridget Crawford

Throughout watching Avatar, I kept thinking, “What would be different about the story if the sexes of the main characters were different?   What if the lead were a woman, and her love interest, the Pandoran local, were a man?”   That might have made Avatar a feminist movie, but otherwise, I’d disagree with Rebecca Keegan of Vanity Fair who argues it’s a feminist film.  I’d agree more with Lauren Bans of XX Factor, who questions (here) what a “feminist” movie is.

The women are not the drivers of the story, a critique levied (here) against Nancy Meyers by Daphne Merkin in the NY Times recently. More importantly, each person’s role fits neatly within his or her sex identity.   On whether Avatar is “feminist,” I’d agree more with Lauren Bans of XX Factor, who questions what a “feminist” movie is.   In Avatar, there’s no breaking out of sex stereotypes, and for me, that’s its failure.

-Darren Rosenblum

Today was the “No Pants! Subway Ride” in New York and other cities.  It’s now an annual tradition — “organized” by Improv Everywhere, a group devoted to creating “scenes of chaos and joy in public places.”  The group’s history of the “No Pants!” ride is here.

This afternoon, I encountered several pants-less riders at the Jay Street subway station in Brooklyn.  I asked permission of two of the female participants and then snapped their photo (at left).

I must admit that the riders’ pant-less state was not what first attracted my attention.  I was focused on the socks worn by the woman at the far left, mentally noting the similarity of her look with the look of the Brooklyn Cyclones cheerleaders (blogged here).  Then I noticed that her shorts were significantly shorter than the cheerleaders’ shorts.  Oh, wait….She didn’t have on any pants at all!

When the A train arrived, the passengers crowded on but the pants-less remained on the platform, likely waiting for the next train.  Once inside the train car, I overheard one man ask the other, “What’s that about?”  ”I don’t know, but I like it,” answered the second man.

I’d be interested in hearing about the experiences of the pants-less riders.  I’m guessing that HappyFeminist said it well in this tweet:

Re: No pants subway ride: Ladies, if you want to go, go. Creepo’s [sic] will bug you on the subway anyway, pants or sans pants.

That’s why there are sites like HollabackNYC , where women can post cell phone photos of men who harass them on the streets and subways.

-Bridget Crawford

Here. She is retiring, she has not passed away thank goodness. A short clip:

Now, when people ask what are you going to do next, I am tempted to co-opt Susan Stamberg’s one-word answer when she left her anchor post at NPR: “Less.’’

Didn’t always agree with Goodman but respected the hell out of her. I hope she continues writing.

–Ann Bartow

image source: smartwomencompany.com

As a holiday gift-giver, I acknowledge my share of “hits” and “misses” — sometimes with the same gift.  One family member never met a gift certificate she didn’t like.  Another considers a gift certificate the ultimate in impersonality.  In the context of repeat gift-giving (such as to family members), a giver can learn by error and usually beg forgiveness with protestations of good intentions.  The donee can enjoy the gift certificate anyway.  Not so with passive-aggressive holiday gifts, though.  The donor intends discomfort and the donee will throw or give the gift away.

What is a passive-aggressive holiday gift?  In my experience, it typically comes from a former intimate, a “friend” or a frenemic (i.e., frienemy-like) co-worker.  It’s a gift given with the dual intentions of (a) meeting a socio-cultural expectation and (b) making a snarky (or worse, unkind) comment.  The gift recipient typically is a one-time (not repeat) recipient (such as one assigned through an office secret-Santa draw).  The giver usually offers one of two possible defenses to any expression of scorn from the social network:  ”It was a joke,” or “I didn’t mean it as a joke.”  The donee must be have some expectation good intentions on the part of the giver.  Most importantly, the transfer’s passivity-aggressivity arises out of the nature of the relationship between the donor and the donee.  That is, what qualifies as a passive-aggressive if transferred by A to B might not be passive-aggressive if transferred by A to C.

A few examples illustrate the point:

Example #1:   Party 1 and Party 2, former intimates, have a disagreement.  Party 1 says to Party 2, “For someone who claims to be so smart, you sure are stupid.”  Shortly thereafter, Party 1 gives Party 2 the “Smart Women Crave Good Company” glasses above.

Example #2:  Party 3 and Party 4 are colleagues and social acquaintances.  Party 3 is a 70-year old male who is known around the office for making sexist remarks.  Party 4 is a 25-year old female who started work at the company last year.  Party 3 and Party 4 are both friends with Party 5, who recently invited them both to a holiday gift exchange.  Party 3 gives Party 4 a coaster bearing the “Rosie the Riveter” image above and a note that reads, “You seem so interested in women’s rights.”

Example #3: Same facts as Example 1, but no harsh words are spoken by Party 1 to Party 2.  Party 1 gives Party 2 the “Smart Women Crave Good Company” glasses to celebrate the publication of Party 2’s book.

Example #4: Same facts as Example 2, except Party C is a 70-year old male who is known around the office for his support of progressive women’s causes.

My advice?  Go with the gift certificate.

-Bridget Crawford

P.S. I don’t own either the glasses or the coaster.  Anymore.

–Ann Bartow

See this post at Tennessee Guerilla Women (the frat boyz at Pepsi provide a little how-to manual to help frat boyz “score” with 24 “types” of women.)

For similar posts at this blog go here, here and here.

–Ann Bartow

Over at the Huffington Post (here), Marcus Buckingham explains reports of (white) women’s declining happiness (previously noted by Ann here and here, for example).  He says, “The hard-won rights, opportunities, and advantages were supposed to have netted women more than just another burdensome role to play — ‘you at work.’”  A column in today’s Double X takes issue (here) with Buckingham (and Maureen Dowd’s related NY Times column):

Women are in the workforce in greater numbers, and men do more of the housework. But things haven’t changed nearly enough. It turns out, the problem isn’t that we have too many options—it’s that they all suck. Without real accommodations for working women, the choices are all still pretty disappointing. It may feel as if we should be done with “work-life issues”—the term itself sounds so ’90s, evoking upbeat, pre-BlackBerry workshops. But we still haven’t fully confronted, let alone resolved, the unpleasantness of trying to do too much at once.

Let’s also not forget that Mr. Buckingham has a book to hawk, too.  Some women may have come to the conclusion that they don’t need a man to make them happy, but the marketing for Mr. Buckingham’s Find Your Strongest Life assumes that we all need a man to explain why we’re unhappy.

Blech.

-Bridget Crawford

Via this blog:

Recently, in large French city, a poster featuring a young, thin and tan woman appeared in the window of a gym. It said:

¨THIS SUMMER DO YOU WANT TO BE A MERMAID OR A WHALE?¨

A middle aged woman, whose physical characteristics did not match those of the woman on the poster, responded publicly to the question posed by the gym.

To Whom It May Concern:

Whales are always surrounded by friends (dolphins, sea lions, curious humans).. They have an active sex life, they get pregnant and have adorable baby whales. They have a wonderful time with dolphins stuffing themselves with shrimp. They play and swim in the seas, seeing wonderful places like Patagonia, the Barren Sea and the coral reefs of Polynesia. Whales are wonderful singers and have even recorded CDs. They are incredible creatures and virtually have no predators other than humans. They are loved, protected and admired by almost everyone in the world.

Mermaids don’t exist. If they did exist, they would be lining up outside the offices of Argentinean psychoanalysts due to identity crisis. Fish or human? They don’t have a sex life because they kill men who get close to them not to mention how could they have sex?

Just look at them…..where is IT ? Therefore, they don’t have kids either.. Not to mention who wants to get close to a girl who smells like a fish store?

The choice is perfectly clear to me; I want to be a whale. …