"‘Deep links’ is CD-ROMs being able to link to one another. If that’s the future, the future is rather boring." — Tom Morris on the new walled gardens of the Internet
I'm having to deal with so called deep links in our apps at work, and it's frustrating. Also 'deep linking' used to mean linking to specific pages on websites that weren't the 'home page'.
I’m going to start this post even though I don’t have an ending.
About a year ago I was asked to start writing for Playboy. The editor said that he was helping to transform the magazine’s website into one that “was a destination for smart writing on sex.” I said that I’d keep the offer in mind but, between you and me, the answer was no.
Around the same time, I heard of some other high-profile feminist writers being invited as well. “Huh,” I thought, “they may actually be serious about this.”
Since then, I’ve ended up on the Playboy website a couple of times, following links by like-minded people who found material they thought was valuable. I’ve been surprised and tentatively impressed. Then, this week there was a flurry of links to a piece by Noah Berlatsky, deftly and smartly analyzing feminist responses to trans woman Laverne Cox’s decision to pose nude for Allure.
The article began with a cropped screenshot of Cox’s photograph featuring her face and de-emphasizing her body and a quote from Cox about the widespread belief that black women and trans women, and especially black trans women, can’t be beautiful.
Berlatsky then goes on to discuss the challenges intersectionality poses to feminism, conflicts within feminism about whether trans women count as women, debates over cosmetic surgery and the problem with trying to live up to patriarchal standards of beauty, and whether Cox’s decision to pose naked is degrading. You don’t have to agree with all Berlatsky says to notice that he is no stranger to feminist theory.
And he seems to look upon Cox’s photograph with a delicate and sensitive gaze, describing what he sees like this:
Cox is not fashion-model-thin. She’s not fashion-model-petite or willowy, either. She has very large hands, which are not hidden, boldly displayed. In the photo, Cox lies on a blanket; her body taut rather than relaxed, her head in one big, strong hand, eyes closed, a slight smile on her face — like she’s a little embarrassed and amused at being embarrassed. She’s voluptuous and awkward and sweet all at once. In her simultaneous enjoyment of and discomfort before the camera, she seems, in the frankly staged pose, startlingly natural — and beautiful.
And, as I reach the end of the article, I was considering sharing a post from Playboy for the very first time when, this happened:
That’s a screenshot of a pop-up that arrived on my screen when I reached the end of Berlatsky’s thoughtful, feminist essay. It says: “Enter your email to see a 45-year-old with an amazing booty.” In other words, “Click right now to see a woman still fuckable after 40!”
This is where I’m at a loss.
Is this what change looks like? Is this what change looks like, specifically, when it comes from inside of an organization? A slow, stuttering shift from misogyny to feminism, replete with missteps and contradictions?
Who’s in charge over there? What is their strategic plan? Are they trying to appropriate feminism? It’s not like they haven’t done it before. What role do they see this feminist discourse playing in a space that’s still so misogynist?
Or is the right hand just not paying attention to what the left hand is doing? Maybe Berlatsky was as surprised by the pop-up as I was, thinking “Come on, guys!” Or do they not think that their pop up was sexist at all?
And, from a feminist perspective, does this do anyone any good? I don’t mean this rhetorically. I honestly don’t know how to answer that question. And, on the flipside, could this hurt feminist activism?
What say you?Lisa Wade is a professor of sociology at Occidental College and the co-author of Gender: Ideas, Interactions, Institutions. You can follow her on Twitter and Facebook.
|Photo Description: Road sign reading 'Vulnerability Just Ahead'|
I heard someone say that yesterday when they were talking about physician assisted suicide, they were saying that there needed to be a balance such that the rights of those who are at the end of their life, in pain and who want to end their suffering and the rights and concerns of those who want legislation at is aimed at protecting the vulnerable are equally respected.
... the vulnerable.
Who are 'the vulnerable?'
Well, even though I don't exactly know who 'the vulnerable' are, I do know that the responsibility for the wish to kill them has been shifted to them. It's something about them - the vulnerable, that makes murder a really easy choice. Vulnerability has been made part of their DNA. Vulnerability has been to be determined as a permanent state of being.
We never talk of those who are vulnerable to murderous urges on sight of someone with a disability.
We never talk of those who are vulnerable to bigoted responses to reasonable requests to accommodations.
We never talk of the vulnerability of the powerful to misuse of power.
We make the victim, vulnerable.
We keep the victim vulnerable.
Those who are vulnerable to sexual abuse not because of disability but because the powerful deny them the power of education, the strength of vocabulary.
Those who are vulnerable to bullying and teasing not because of disability but because the powerful decide that the bullying of the different is a normal response, it's what the normal do ... inaction of the powerful is approval to the violent.
Those who are vulnerable to lives of poverty and economic powerlessness not because of disability but because social and physical structures set up barrier after barrier after barrier such that work and workplaces are inaccessible in every way possible.
But the vulnerability is, to them, all ours.
We, the disabled are made to carry the burden of the neglect and the abuse and the violent whims of the 'they.' We are vulnerable after all. 'They' tell us all the time. 'They' tell us at the same time as they say they want to 'protect us.'
Who are 'they?' And what do 'they' want to protect us from?
They are the ones who live in fear that we, the vulnerable, will one day find voice and power.
They are the ones who made us 'them' and will do anything they can to deny us access to education, employment and social justice.
They are the one's who see murder as a solution.
We do need protection.
But not theirs.
Our own words, our own voice, our own strength.
Because how can 'they' protect us ...
When they see murder as the fix.
And elimination as the cure.
Their vulnerability to the ways of power and privilege is, I fear, terminal.
2. I didn't eat a proper lunch at work, just had a few snacks, so I was super hungry when I got off and stopped at Campos for burritos on the way home.
3. As part of our relaxing evening, we played a lot of Mario Kart. :D We now have three-star gold cups on all the 50cc tracks, including the eight new tracks, and are working on the 100cc cups. Apparently in order to unlock the new 200cc courses, you have to get gold cups on all the 150ccs, so I'm working my way up.
4. New Simpsons and Brooklyn Nine-Nine tonight! Finally! (And they were both good. :D)
I love reading about shipping.
( Read more... )