Reflection: My year of reading women, 1/4 of the way through

Last year Canadian academic--in scare quotes, because honestly how can anyone take seriously any academic who writes off an entire class of people on the basis of gender or national origin--announced publically that he did not assign books by women or Chinese writers. Anna Szymanski, perhaps in a counterpoint, wrote about her year of reading women.

Independently of #readwomen2014, which I only discovered researching this blog post, I decided that for 2014 I would read books only by women authors. The only exception to this is books required for professional reasons, that is work or study, though even the first book I'll read for study is by a woman. I also signed up for a Goodreads challenge to read 40 books.

It is the beginning of April, and I am a quarter of the way through the year. I've read 13 books, so I am on track to get the 40 I need. But what has it been like, reading women? What have I read?

I typically read a lot of books, a broad mixture of male and female authors, fiction, non-fiction, novels, literature, science fiction, crime, historical fiction, popular science, biography, popular economics, social theory...and reading women hasn't changed that. I have not felt in any way deprived, or even really noticed the absence of male authors.I'd like to read the last science fiction book in a long series that is authored by a man (and came out late last year), but apart from that I am missing nothing.

What I have read is:

• Two memoirs, neither of which was especially good. One was two saccharine, and the other was too clinical
• Wuthering Heights. Second go-round, the last time was in highschool. Interesting to read as an adult, though I don't think I'll re-read it a third time.
• A crime fiction series by Kathryn Fox, an Australian author, with a female protagonist. These books cover a broad range of social topics, including rape in sport, the ethics of cruise holidays, and nature vs. nurture. Not all of them are great books, but they are all cracking reads.
• A couple of Jodi Picoult books, one of which was formulaic and the other of which was actually not bad, about motherhood.
• Little Men by Louisa May Alcott. It's interesting to note the attitudes about raising boys and girls, and the nature of men and women, that are so anathema to me in modern works.
• A couple of pieces of literary fiction, including one by Amy Tan that fails both of David Gilmour's criteria, and which was actually a good read.

The only thing I would normally have read by now that appears on the list above is popular science, as it is I am reading a book about bad language that will be the first book in that category. So, are there any differences at all? Probably the most noticeable is the number of female protagonists, also noted by Szymanski. Honestly, it's nice to see bits of myself reflected in literature, especially given that I haven't sacrificed anything to do it (still plenty of male protagonists in women's writing). I am even, at the time of writing, reading an excellent Swedish crime novel by an author whose surname is Larsson.

Despite my comfort and satisfaction with women's writing, unlike David Gilmour I don't believe that reading the writing of only a proportion of the human race is a good thing. I am enjoying reading women this year, but this is only a year's hiatus from the male point of view. I challenge David Gilmour, and anyone who shares his bigotry to examine some other perspectives. Goodness knows most of the world's population has to live with other perspectives, because dead white guys are required reading. If you are a live white guy, take a leap! You might find something interesting out here.

For anyone who is looking for ideas, you can follow along on my year of reading women on Goodreads.

Reflections: On bisexuality, and passsing

I am a mostly-out bisexual woman in a married relationship. If sexuality is a continuum, I probably fall more towards women than men (hear that? That was another closet door shattering), but my opportunities to meet women have been somewhat limited by my male-dominated profession and hobbies in my teens and 20s (during which time I met The Partner). Ironically enough, I am now in a women-dominated workplace (I'll post about what a breath of fresh air that is some other time) and have "feminine" hobbies, so had I not already been partnered, who knows what might have happened. I don't actually care--I am very happily monogamous with The Partner, as he is with me (and yes, he knows all of the above, and he doesn't care either). In the end, sexuality is for me about loving an individual, and the bits that individual happens to come with are largely irrelevant.

In a lot of ways, my marriage protects me from the dangers and oppressions that come with my orientation (for which my personal preferred term is "gender-bender"). For a start, I am in a state-sanctioned union, with all the rights and protections that pertain to that. I never have to answer that awkward question about a boyfriend with some variation on "uh, girlfriend, actually". I wear a ring that marks me as part of one of these societally approved partnerships which bizarrely enough means I get to behave (at least in terms of the longing eyes, or comments on attractiveness I need to stop indulging in) much more according to my preferences, because heteronormativity often blinds people to what is actually happening right in front of them. In many ways, I benefit from the appearance of straightness, even though I am not straight. I pass, and it not only makes many things easier, it actually keeps me safer.

Nonetheless, though, I am not straight. I have had the uncomfortable experience of being "outed" under circumstances not of my choosing. Every piece of anti-gay legislation that gets passed could one day apply to me. I have to self-censor when talking about my attractions in public, particularly when I am not with The Partner. I am certainly not claiming to be as affected by any of these things as my gay friends and loved ones, but they nonetheless affect me.

And then there is the third, weird set of...issues, for want of a better word that I deal with because I am bisexual and hetero-partnered (and each of these things has been raised with me several times, so they seem to be common misconceptions):

• The assumption that my bisexuality is not actually real for lack of a visible history, or that it was something I have "grown out of"
• The heteronormative assumption that I am straight, and therefore will not be offended by gay jokes or slurs (now, I would be offended by these even if I was straight, but that is a whole 'nother issue)
• Being questioned as to whether my bisexuality is meaningful now that I am married, since I won't act on it
• Or having it assumed that I will be unfaithful, just because I am bisexual.

Here's the thing: Bisexuality is real, and we bisexuals are just as in control of our sexuality as everyone else. Being bisexual is neither a stepping stone on the way to gayness for all who claim it, not a childish dalliance. Monogamous partnering is a reduction of choice under all circumstances: confining your sexuality to a single person doesn't change the gender or type of person you are attracted to, and being attracted to a wider range of people doesn't mean confining yourself to one person is impossible.

The purpose of this post is certainly not to get into any form of "oppression olympics", nor is it to call out (often loved and respected) the people in my life who have asked me these questions--I understand that my position is unusual. Really, this post is just a descirption of my own postiont, and an explanation about me for anyone looking for it (I don't claim to speak for anyone else). My bisexuality is an integral part of my identity. I benefit dramatically from being lucky enough to be partnered with a man, for sure--but the fact that I pass doesn't change who I am--and nor would I want it to.

Reflections: MySpace vs. Facebook (part 4)

So what do I like? I have Facebook, Bebo, Orkut, MySpace, and Friendster (though I think I only ever logged into Friendster once). I even tried Second Life, but I don't do well in 3D environments, and Second Life is a shitty 3D environment. Orkut was interesting when it first came out, but you couldn't do anything there. I feel much the same way about Bebo. MySpace annoys me something awful; I personally find it garish, hard to use, and not especially interesting, but my only friends on it are bands, so I am likely not a representative user. Facebook is my favourite of all of them; I find it easy to use, I have connected with people I know and care about in a novel way, and the iLike music challenge has filled many an empty minute.

Which is better/safer/more appropriate for That depends on what the blank is, and what you want to use it for. From a usability perspective, Facebook is better. From a customisability perspective, MySpace is better. From a safety perspective, neither is better, because online safety, like offline safety, comes from knowing the risks.

Which one will people be using in ten years time? Almost certainly neither, at least not in their present forms.

Reflections: MySpace vs. Facebook (part 3)

The other reasons I can see for using Facebook are almost opposite, and many of them have swayed me to be more interested in Facebook than MySpace. I like not being able to decorate my profile, because I am lazy and would prefer not to have to, for example, and I am from mainstream western culture, so I find the colours appealing. There are a couple of other reasons why people might (in my view) use Facebook over MySpace that boyd didn't cover:

• Applications: the Music quiz, smileys, movie tracker, book thing and food fight are fun, and not available on MySpace. This could also be a draw to technically savvy users who want to create their own applications, though in my experience the control exerted by Facebook central is likely to be a discouragement to an extreme technically minded audience (because programmers have a tendency to be somewhat anarchic)
• Privacy control is much simpler to use, and more finely grained in Facebook than in MySpace, which has a certain appeal to those who rather than using their SN for fame are using it for communication and entertainment. This group of people don't want the world to see their profile; it is for them and for their friends (though to be fair, the TOS are equally disturbing for MySpace and Facebook; neither afford much privacy at all from the companies that own them).

Reflections: MySpace vs. Facebook (part 2)

Reasons I can see for choosing MySpace over Facebook (or indeed having both) include:

• The bandwagon -- many bands are on MySpace (indeed, many do not bother to have webpages anymore) and it provides a forum for fans to interact with bands
• The ability to personalise the look of your MySpace page using HTML is a draw, I would guess, for those with artistic flair, and those with technical skills (and to a certain extent these groups will be boyd's 'subaltern' teens)
• Cultural usability: There are studies, such as Elke Duncker's work on cultural aspects of usability, that show that different cultures find different colours and layouts appealing. Given what I know of Duncker's work, the appeal of MySpace to certain cultural groups is that they will be able to make it fit their cultural preferences for colour (whereas Facebook uses colours that are accepted by mainstream western culture).
• Reputation: MySpace has a reputation for being badass, not helped by the furore over 'predators' and the like*. If you wanna be a badass, you use MySpace. This point is sublty different to boyd's; she makes the point that there are teens who use MySpace because they are already somehow different; my point is now that MySpace has this reputation, and will attract some kids because of it.

* boyd comments on this, too. I know what she is saying, that it is extremely unlikely that your kid will be one of the rare ones who is a target as a result of his or her MySpace use, and that there are other more realistic situations to watch out for. Fair enough. However, I can also understand the panic, because if it is your kid who gets attacked by a MySpace predator, well, all the reassurances in the world that it was unlikely aren't going to make you feel better.

Reflections: MySpace vs. Facebook

I read with interest danah boyd's essay about MySpace and Facebook, and how different groups use them differently in the states, and I figure she has it pretty right, at least in terms of generalisations that can be made about US teenagers (and hey, after all, the report was not supposed to be cut and dried; it was ideas, not facts and the fact that the media has gone so nuts over it suggests that they need to educate themselves to recognise a journal article when they see one -- and not see them where they don't exist). She has done the research on this, and far be it from me to speak to the contrary.

What I would like to talk about is the other reasons I can see for things being the way they are, than purely as a result of class which is not, of course, to say that danah didn't also recognise these), and reflect on my own personal experiences with both services.

Reflections: Why I love animals but am not a vegan.

I am an animal lover. As you know if you are following this blog, I have one cat. I also hope to get another cat soon, in part for the wellbeing of my existing cat; when I get my second cat it will be a shelter kitty. I don't eat pork since I found out that pigs, a favourite animal of mine, are often factory farmed in small crates, despite their intelligence and social nature. A couple of years ago I gave up eating any red meat for health reasons, and I will never go back to it, even if I can. I buy free range eggs, and (where available) poultry, and I eat at least three vegetarian main meals a week.

Nonetheless, there are people who would tell you that because I eat eggs, honey, dairy, poultry and fish I am inhumane. Maybe they are right, maybe I can't justify my position, but here is the argument I will use to try:

I need more protein and less fibre than the average bear because of my health situation. I try to eat beans and nuts as much as possible, but they are risky kinds of fibre for me; dairy, eggs, lean poultry and fish are much safer in terms of retaining my health. If my health goes downhill, I am almost certain to require medical treatment that has been tested on animals, and in some cases made out of animals. Peta would probably argue that I should be a vegan and refuse this treatment, but if I were to do so I would die of malnutrition and bowel perforation almost for sure. Is it unethical to eat humanely treated animals and their products to I continue to live?

Reflections: Walking the social tightrope in another country (part 2)

So clearly, neither country is perfect, but The Partner and I have chosen Australia for now -- it will be a few years, I'm thinking. We like it here, a lot, but it is interesting living in a country that is historically such a sibling rival. We get teased about our accents, and we get called sheepshaggers (though that really is the Aussies, not us), and we are expected to give a shit about the rugby (apart from seeing embarrassing drunken fans here, I don't).

On the flipside, it is pretty damn hard to have an opinion about anything in either country (and particularly about any differences between them) without being offensive, when you are a guest and there is a well established rivalry. I don't mind this, I am well aware that I am a guest here, and that I owe loyalty to New Zealand, and courtesy to Australia, but I am an opinionated person, and when questioned I will respond. Take it as read, though, that I consider the higher quality of living, the better pay, the better healthcare, the wider range of cultural events and the better weather enough--I am still here, after all. Where I criticise when provoked, the criticism is well thought out, and not a kneejerk reaction to things not being like at home. It is only a criticism of that one issue, though, I love your country and am grateful for the opportunities it has provided me.

Reflections: Is Harry Potter really getting kids to read?

Harry Potter has been touted again and again as the next big thing in getting kids to read, and JK Rowling is certainly not arguing with this. The cracks are beginning to show in the evidence though, as the early readers of Harry Potter get older and haven't the time nor the inclination to read the books. People are even beginning to admit, sacrilege of sacrileges, that they are no longer enjoying the books.

Despite the intense and wide-ranging following the books have, it simply is not reasonable to expect one series of books, often released more than a year apart to really make a difference to children's reading habits, just as it is not really reasonable to expect one bad computer game or TV show to put children off. The biggest reason why Harry Potter isn't going to make a difference to children reading, though, is that each of the books is being made into a movie, and each movie is more feature packed than the last. For most kids, the movie will be enough, I would think, and the book will be irrelevant.

Reflections: Male birth control (part 3)

So why hasn't there been a push for male birth control sooner? I am going to be cynical and say I think it is because unintended pregnancy hasn't hurt men enough to be bothered until now, and that society doesn't care about the side effects birth control have in women, because they should count themselves lucky to have a choice. This has changed, though, and the push is on.

Currently, men have two birth control options: Vasectomy, and condoms. One of these is a little too reliable, and one of them isn't reliable enough. There are no really good options for men who do want children, but not right now (and men who want vasectomies so they never have children are struggling to get them). Drug companies claim they are close to having a birth control pill for men, but realistically this is probably still a good five years off by the time FDA testing and all that crap has been done. Even then, I think men are probably less likely to remember to take a pill, and men are already bitching about side effects they might get having seen what happens to women. What I can't understand is why hormones are the option being most closely investigated. It seems to me that the best option would be a reversible method of blocking the vas deferens, but then I guess no-one can make enough money off that.

Whatever the end result is, now that men actually want reversible, reliable birth control, I think we can expect to see it, and has got to be a good thing for everyone.

Reflections: Male birth control (part 2)

Increasingly, men are complaining that they are made to pay child support for their offspring when they did not choose the pregnancy, and suggesting alternatives ways of making the situation right. Many of these ways involve men opting out of parenthood in some legal manner, but like the Violent Acres' post, many are also talking about birth control.

Finally, after years of women having not just the control but also the responsibility for reproductive choices the financial impact of unplanned children is starting to make men (and mens' advocates) push for male birth control. In my opinion, a legal opt-out is a cop-out to maintain mens' privileged position of being able to have sex without consequences. Male birth control, though, is a step forward; it means men finally sharing the responsibility for family planning, including the cost, the side effects, the stress, and the bullshit with doctors and pharmacists.

to be continued in the next post

Reflections: Male birth control

Not too long ago I read an interesting blog post about male birth control, saying that since they were financially responsible for any issue of theirs, they needed their own methods of birth control so that if the woman had an 'oops', either deliberately or accidentally, they were still covered. The tone of the post makes it read like it is written by a bitter man who got stung, but if the writer is not a dog, then in fact she is a she, and a stepparent to two children.

Her post really made me think. I don't think it is just that women get all the choices about the outcome of an accidental pregnancy, but (before I get jumped on) I do think it is fair, because the woman's body and the woman's life are much more affected by their choices than men's are. There can be no just solution to this while women do the childbearing, or while men can force women to have sex with them, both of which will be the case for the forseeable future. Having said that, it is entirely appropriate that men bear half the financial responsibility for a pregnancy, because by choosing to have sex, you accept the risk that pregnancy may result, whether you are male or female (and hell, if you really object, just be a deadbeat dad--it's very popular, though to be fair some weird shit happens with child support in the US).

to be continued in the next post

Reflections: You see all kinds on the transport

Where I live and work in Melbourne, I am fortunate to have excellent access to public transport. Not only is it close, and relatively convenient, but it is also cheap in comparison to owning a car in Australia.

Having said that, I have continued my weirdo magnet tendencies here in Australia, except instead of attracting the oddest of students (I am going to touch on that) in a later post, I attract the oddest of transport users. Some have been relatively harmless, like the guy who cleaned his toes with rubbing alcohol (they stunk to high heaven, you will note I said relatively harmless) and the girl who smiled at me and then insisted on doing things with her hair with stuff from an enormous bag for the rest of the trip -- all over me. There was one guy who may have been harmful had I stuck around to find out; he was chewing his tongue and staring at me, and he broke the cardinal rule of transport as we were getting off at the same stop (not coincidentally, I don't think) -- unless forced by space, thou shalt not touch thy fellow travellers. I hightailed it out of there, and washed my hands vigorously before touching anything.

Then there are the amusing types, like the cheerful drunk who ran a poll on what 'direct' meant in relation to train lines and couldn't believe I hand found the big word in his word puzzle within seconds of looking at it (I am well trained, I have been doing those things since I was a kid, and the word was 'occurrence').

The most interesting case, though, must have had his poles slightly mixed, because he missed me and accosted my friend. He said he had "Just had a revelation, and it felt amazing, and could he tell [my friend] about it" (I have to confess that I was tempted to tell the guy to sleep it off and he would feel better in the morning, but I didn't have the heart to break him). Despite my friend suggesting politely that he find someone else to tell, this gentleman told my friend that:

"He had finally fucking found Jesus as his fucking lord and saviour, and that he now knew he needed to be a fucking good bloke, and not be a prick to everyone or treat them like shit, and not be a mean c**t [yes, there are words even I won't use], and just fucking love his fellow man".

Yup. That was an interesting night. Fortunately this one happened as we got off the train, and the guy turned the other way to what we did, or I might have burst from trying not to laugh.

So, sometimes you get freaks, sometimes you get rude people, and sometimes you get the religious. While I am glad to have the use of a friend's car for the next few weeks (though it will only be used when the transport it not super convenient), riding the transport is always more interesting than sitting in a traffic jam!