women in print: brief panel notes

Last night I went to the Women in Print event at Readings in Carlton, being held for International Women's Day. The event was a 45 minute panel discussion with three panelists and a moderator. I rocked in, my belly full of burger but with room for one of the cupcakes I'd been carrying around all afternoon. Bamboo Gnome and I found a spot right up the front (we had been advised by Fi on the best places to stake out) and we settled in. I even took notes.

The panel started off weirdly, which is why I started taking notes. Louise Swinn (Sleepers editorial director) commented that actually maybe there are more women being published in Australian than overseas stats (and some Australian stats) would suggest. This point wasn't really engaged with, which I thought was weird given the whole point was to talk about Women in Print and what the status is.

Sophie Cunningham commented that when she was the editor of Meanjin, more essays were submitted by men; women were more likely, even when approached, to say 'I'm not an expert.'

There was some consensus that it's important for women to learn to be jerks* in order to get somewhere in print - they definately have to promote themselves, and push themselves forwards (and how this is exacerbated by the need in today's publishing world for authors to self-promote, and how unwilling many women are to do this). At points this almost veered in to 'if only women would push themselves they'd get published,' which is a little close to victim blaming if you're not examining the underlying themes of this. These themes were touched on a little, including a brief discussion of the second shift, but only in very Eurocentric ways. Statements such as 'only in the last fifty years have women had that exposure,' coming from an all white (seeming) panel, never fail to make me bristle.

Other things that make me bristle: "I don't want to get too Bolshie;" and the way these sorts of discussions always seem to revolve around or have an emphasis on terms and concepts like "penis writing" and "vagina writing." Way to be super cis-centric.

Overall it was an interesting talk (shame about the diversity), and it has reminded me that I should always say yes (if possible) when asked to give a talk.



*just to be clear: I think that a woman (or anyone) can be confident and promote oneself without being a jerk; however during this panel sometimes 'being confident' and 'being a jerk' were conflated so they seemed to be the same.

[book review] Cordelia Fine - Delusions of Gender

I zoomed through Delusions of Gender this week, in an attempt to get it read and reviewed before I go away. I found this book a really interesting read. Delusions of Gender is a take-down of evolutionary psychology theories, and does it in an easily readable, well-referenced way. This was a fast read, at just over 200 pages it didn't take too long, and it was engaging and interesting, and though I think it's a good read, ultimately there was a level of intersectionality that was missing for me that I think limits it.

The book opens with an analysis of priming which I liked. It looked at the way priming is used in general, and as a way to trigger a response against stereotype (for example, wording that is used to prime women to be more empathic is appropriately worded to have a similar impact on men). It looked at social expectations, and how those expectations create a motivation gap. From this, Fine explored the ways the ideas behind the motivation gap can create ability gaps.

I really enjoyed this stuff on priming. I've not done a huge amount of reading on this stuff, so it was interesting for me.

Although Fine is a psychologist, she did not have a lot of regard for psychologists, particularly highlighting the way psychologists 'enjoy' exploiting stereotype threats. There was a bit of an exploration of stereotype threats, and the importance of role models and a 'sense of belonging' in increasing or removing stereotype threats.

The book concludes with a section on gender neutral parenting and the socio-cultural situation. It is an excellent takedown of those parents who claim to have tried gender neutral parenting, but had to give up because their daughter clearly just naturally preferred pink or whatever. My horror at unconscious prenatal gendered expectations meant I spent most of this section leafing through with a pen to make copious notes. I was especially intrigued (though not surprised) by the analysis of terms used before conception depending on the sex of the child, even by parents who honestly believed they were being gender neutral.

There is a thread through of other themes. Mention is made several times of the publishing bias, of studies and things only being published when they demonstrate a gender difference; studies that show a difference are rarely published (this can hardly be a surprise). Fine appears to have a significant issue with a book, frequently cited in Delusions of Gender, The Female Brain by Louise Brizendine. At the point where Fine begins to tear apart this text, the tone also starts to become very sassy. Not distractingly so, but it becomes very sassy. Fine also implies that texts, studies and experts who make neuroscience claims generalise far too much than should be accepted.

Other reviews have mentioned the white heterosexuality of the book, and I definitely have to agree, and add in the ciscentricism. There were a few references to studies which focussed on or touched on racism, or moved away from a heterocentrist or ciscentric viewpoint, but for the most part they were just side mentions to support the overall argument. In addition, in the final third of the book, a stand up example of binary-gendered transphobic essentialism was held up as an exemplary effort at gender neutral parenting. There was also a bit of essentialist speciesism in the book.

In general, I enjoyed this book. There were some new-to-me things, and I see its value as a first year Gender Studies text, but there is nothing really world shattering in it, particularly in light of its failure at real, meaningful intersectionality.