Post from my blog (http://tenderhooligan.wordpress.com/)

In what world is stalking a research “subject” acceptable? I would hope that you agree that such a “methodology” is never acceptable. As academic researchers, we must ensure that the privacy of our research participants is never invaded, that their identity is never revealed (at least so far as possible), and they we never do them any harm. When you stalk someone, you invade their privacy and you certainly do them harm. One would hope that the “researcher” who conducted this study would have known that. Maybe he did and just didn’t care.

In the numerous research projects I have conducted to date, ensuring that I am ethical with my research participants is always a priority for me. I am confident that I never did anything in any study to compromise the safety of a participant, or to cause them harm. I ask you again: In what world is stalking a research “subject” acceptable? Let’s ask the author of this article. It’s called: “Saved!” by Jena Malone: An introspective study of a consumer’s fan relationship with a film actress.

I think you all know what you’re about to read here.

For the “study”, the “researcher” developed an obsession with this woman, built a shrine to her in his home, spent several hours of his life devouring her films, had numerous pictures of her (included in the article), delved very deeply into her private life, and kept a diary and a “contemporaneous dataset” about his “relationship” with her – which, incidentally, stacked up to nearly 200,000 words.

He started off his description of this “relationship” with the following statement:

I still remember the day in April 2005, when I saw Jena Malone for the very first time. Her lovely smile and her beautiful eyes captivated me so much that my entire body was filled with the same prickling warmth that I feel each time I fancy a particular girl/woman.

If you, too, are picturing the archetypal peeping tom in a trench-coat, then you’re in good company here. He goes on to say:

Though I felt sexually attracted to her, my initial interest and admiration for Jena Malone was mainly based on her work and achievement as an actress. But the nature of my emotional attachment to her changed after suffering another major disappointment in my private life. As I hadn’t been on a date for a long time, I was filled with an enjoyable and arousing feeling of excitement, anticipation, happiness and nervousness mixed  together, when a nice girl finally agreed to go out with me.

What the actual fuck is wrong with you?! Is anyone feeling sick yet? Yes, you’re still in good company.

Read more (link to source). 

From my blog:

[Trigger warning for violence.]

This piece from alternet.org really doesn’t require much additional comment. A report  (link to PDF) from a group called UN Women has revealed some frightening views on violence towards women,  and includes data on, for example, the massive gender pay gap (particularly between white men and women of colour) and sexual violence against women of colour.

On violence against women:

One of the most shocking statistics in the report? The public perception of gender violence as sometimes acceptable, within the context of marriage. This is from the report’s language: “In the USA, 16 percent of women and men agree that it is sometimes justifiable for a man to beat his wife.”

Sure, 16 percent is a fairly standard number for representing the lunatic fringe of American culture, but the fact that these respondents willingly admit they think it’s okay certainly sheds a disturbing light on why violence against women remains widespread: “Prevalence surveys in the USA show that 22 percent of women have experienced physical violence, and 8 percent have been targeted for sexual violence in their lifetimes.”

On the justice system and the justice system and rape cases:

One of the hindrances to women seeking a fair application of the legal system is a lack of women’s representation in that system’s hierarchy. While three female Supreme Court justices are certainly a step in the right direction, even that huge stride gives women disproportionately small representation. Women are under-represented as prosecutors, judges and police officers throughout North America. Statistics cited by UN Women indicate that “data from 40 countries where women are present in the police, reporting of sexual assault increases.”

…

“Evidence shows that jurors in the USA are especially likely to question the credibility of African American and Latina female witnesses in rape cases.”

On sexual violence towards Native American women:

One other element to these statistics that may be lesser-known is the issue of rape against Native American women, which is astoundingly high. Native American women are more than twice as likely as other women to be raped. One of the things compounding the problem was a confusion over judicial jurisdiction: “Crimes committed by non-Native Americans on reservations often went unpunished, due to uncertainty over which jurisdiction applied. This is thought to have contributed to the high levels of rape of Native American women, Progress shows.“ In other words, a culture of impunity existed.

On the gender pay gap:

We passed Lily Ledbetter, right? So why is this still an issue? Well, the gender pay gap remains at 23 percent in the USA, according to the new fact sheet from UN Women. If that number isn’t dismaying enough, for African American and Latina women, that gap swells to huge proportions: “On average 39 and 48 percent less than white men, respectively.”

It’s well worth reading the full report if you have time (it’s not long), not least because it includes a variety of other striking statistics (e.g., 127 countries do not explicitly criminalize rape within marriage, 61 countries severely restrict women’s rights to abortion), and it should be commended for including some very positive content on recent improvements in women’s rights worldwide.

I’m still reeling from the 16% statistic, mind you.

Post from my blog (tenderhooligan/ wordpress)

I’ve written about this genius before (here or elsewhere or somewhere). He’s an evolutionary psychologist from the London School of Economics (LSE) – one of the top universities in the UK – and he writes, a lot, for Psychology Today. Now,Psychology Today is not, by any stretch of any imagination, a reliable academic source but it does have readership. It’s probably the best feeder of pop-psychology around at the moment.

I’m not a fan of evolutionary psychology. I don’t like its reductivist approach in making everything about sex. Because that’s what it does, when you strip off the big words. The boys have sperm, the girls have eggs, the boys want the girls but the girls need the boys and then a whole host of things happen that bring us where we are today. One of my very favourite colleagues does a bit of evolutionary psychology, and he argues it well, but I just don’t agree with the premise or the implications. No more than I agree with any of the offensive, sexist, racist, ill-informed claptrap that  Satoshi Kanazawa is known for on Psychology Today. (Not that I am equating my lovely colleague with Kanazawa, of course).  His latest stint involved a piece which was entitled “Why are Black women less physically attractive than other women?” Yeah. Seriously.

The piece was met with uproar, naturally, and was removed from the site almost immediately. (It doesn’t even deserve a critique but if you’re interesting in reading one anyway, you can find an interesting post here on Sociological Images.) Since then, change.org, a petition site, started a petition demanding that Psychology Today stops publishing sexist and racist articles and explains why  Kanazawa’s piece was published initially. (If you were cynical of mind and suspected that it was published because it’s good for site traffic, you may not be wrong.) The peititon also called for the removal of Kanazawa as a contributor to the site. And not before time. Indeed, since then, the student body of  LSE have called for Kanazawa to be sacked. He is not doing that institution, or the academy, any favours at all.

Two weeks after the offending article, Psychology Today issued an “apology”. It’s very sorry indeed if anyone was offended by the article. (Read: we’re not saying the article was offensive but if you were offended then I suppose we’re sorry. But you should probably be less sensitive.) It’s not good enough. Kanazawa is still listed as a contributer and Psychology Today did not address any of the on-going issues with his pieces, choosing instead to pretend that this piece was an isolated incident. Please sign the petition to keep the pressure on Psychology Today to address this problem properly. Its claim that it doesn’t support the publication of racist or sexist pieces is disingenuous when it had to remove a piece for exactly those problems. We have to put up with, “I’m not racist/ sexist but…” in too many places on the Internet and we shouldn’t have to put up with it on a “academic” site too.

Psychology Today is probably hoping that this will turn out to be a storm in the teacup (and, sadly, it probably will for there’s a lot of -isms around and eventually we’ll have to move on to the next one) but it really, really shouldn’t be allowed to wait it out and get that moron Kanazawa back on the front page again next week.

From my blog (tenderhooligan/ wordpress)

I’m still trying to process this particular story: girls who like rock and roll are whores(thegloss, hat tip to lastyearsgirl). One should always begin a discussion which involves the word “whore” with the question: “what is a whore”? It’s a much-used term yet I’ve never quite understood what it means. It’s generally directed at those women who have sex and enjoy sex, though if those women are married the term doesn’t apply, as I understand it. So, unmarried women who have and enjoy sex are whores. (So what about lesbians who can’t legally get married in the traditional sense? Or does it just apply to heterosexual females?) There’s also a consideration of the number of partners, I believe, although that number is entirely arbitrary and subjective. I don’t know if five sexual partners makes you a whore, or if it’s 10, or if it’s 20, or if it’s 100. Other behaviours are often discussed also; for example, if a woman likes a drink of an evening, she may be a whore. There’s probably an age consideration also, with younger women arguably more likely to be “labelled” whores than older women, and there could also be an ethnic element in the mix. And, of course, if a man whistles to a woman on the street and comments on her “nice tits” and she ignores him, it’s very likely that he will call her a whore. Because, you know, that’s a complement, right, and she’s a slut for not indulging his ego and god-given patriarchal right to objectify her. But I digress. A whore is anything or anyone you want it to be, m’kay?

In the case of the linked piece, Men’s Health – that pinnacle of philogyny – reports that women are whores if they like rock and roll. Women who listen to Nirvana are more likely to “put out” on the first date than women who listen to Coldplay.* (Yes, seriously!) And why? Because of the lyrics, of course. Cobain was a shagger and Martin is, well, he’s not a shagger. (They do make a semi-interesting point about normalising different sorts of behaviours but it’s impossible to take any of it seriously when it’s all intended to slut-shame.) It is admitted that the study is unscientific. Ahem.

–

In somewhat related news, Psychology Today reports that Princeton researchers have found that sexy women are more likely to be seen as sex objects. Why? Because some male brains neurologically deny sexualized women “humanity”. When these men viewed pictures of scantily clad women (that’s the study’s definition of sexiness, by the way), their brains did not perceive them as being fully human. (Other studies have found, you may be interested in noting, that such women are less moral, likeable and intelligent!) A couple of things. First, these men can’t help themselves if they dehumanise a sexy lady because it’s all to do with their brains and their cognition over which they have no control. Irrelevant, it seems, is the patriarchal culture which has permitted them to dehumanise women in the first place. Second, sexy ladies, you only have yourself to blame if you’re not given the respect you deserve; again, remember, it’s the poor menz brains going all awry when they see you. Third, perhaps you just shouldn’t be sexy at all, for your own sake. And, by sexy, don’t forget that we mean scantily clad. If nothing else, you should have a care for what your appearance is doing to these poor blokes whose brains are fried every time they turn the corner. Not a bit wonder they see you as sub-human, you flipping harlot! Psychology Today there, always good for larks.

–
* Women who listen to Coldplay have a whole other term in my book but it applies to men also.

To be honest, I’m not sure what the point of this piece is. It’s almost being presented as if it’s a Bad Thing. And it’s just not…

Feminism, said evangelist and Republican broadcaster Pat Robertson in 1992, “is a socialist, anti-family, political movement that encourages women to leave their husbands, kill their children, practice witchcraft, destroy capitalism and become lesbians”. The feminist retort: “Sorry I missed church. I was busy practicing witchcraft and becoming a lesbian,” has since made its way on to T-shirts, fridge magnets and bumper stickers.

Where religion’s concerned, maybe Robertson was right. Maybe feminism does lead women to reject traditional religion.

For our book about the resurgence of feminism in 21st-century Britain, Reclaiming the F Word: The New Feminist Movement, Catherine Redfern and I surveyed nearly 1,300 British feminists. We wanted to find out who the new feminists were, what inspired their engagement with feminism, which gender issues they were concerned about, and so forth.

One of our questions was: “Please describe your religious or spiritual views (including none/atheist/agnostic)” (the wording is worth mentioning, since how you ask questions affects the results, as debates on the religion question in the census reveal).

The results show that, when compared with the general female population, feminists are much less likely to be religious, but a little more likely to be interested in alternative or non-institutional kinds of spirituality.

Aw man, this fool again! I can’t believe he’s allowed to write anywhere. I mean, psychologytoday.com is by no means a credible source, all things considered, but some people actually think it is and lap this stuff up.

Lombroso developed a theory about the links between atavism and criminality which focused, largely, on the discernible physical characterises of offenders. This theory has been discredited in practically all of the studies which have attempted to replicate his findings. Studies which have replicated Lombroso’s findings have been very flawed.

You cannot tell to look at someone if they are a “criminal” or not. Let’s not even get into a discussion about the social construction of crime. Does the idiot who writes these pieces ever read anything?!

As it turns out, humans possess the ability to tell who’s a criminal and who’s not simply by looking at them because criminals look different from noncriminals.

In this blog, I have repeatedly emphasized the fact that virtually all “stereotypes” are empirically true.  If they weren’t true, they would not be stereotypes in the first place.  To my knowledge, all of the very, very few stereotypes that are not empirically true, for some reason, have to do with people’s appearance.  Hence, it is not true that beauty is in the eye of the beholder, and it is not true that beauty is only skin-deep.