The Gender Genie Thinks I'm a Dude

Via Do you Blog Like a Girl?, comes the Gender Genie, which is supposed to predict the gender of an author.

I ran several of my posts through; here are my results:

• Microcredit and Women Empowerment - Female Score: 692, Male Score: 993. The Gender Genie thinks the author of this passage is: male!
  
• Humanitarian War in Afghanistan? Female Score: 581, Male Score: 857 - The Gender Genie thinks the author of this passage is: male!
  
• The Fraser Institute and Drowning Public Education in a Bathtub Female Score: 888, Male Score: 854 - The Gender Genie thinks the author of this passage is: female!
  
• Class and The Pursuit of Happyness - Female Score: 434, Male Score: 817 - The Gender Genie thinks the author of this passage is: male!
  
• Pseudo-Scientific Hate Propaganda and "Women Drivers" - Female Score: 363, Male Score: 1039 - The Gender Genie thinks the author of this passage is: male!
  
• International Women's DayFemale Score: 424, Male Score: 985 - The Gender Genie thinks the author of this passage is: male!
  
• Blame the Victims Female Score: 594, Male Score: 2068 -
  The Gender Genie thinks the author of this passage is: male!
  

So, despite the fact that almost all of these were wrong, apparently the algorithm is pretty accurate.

Interestingly, I took a nice long post from Daddy Dialectic: peein like a boy, or the follies of fathering in which the author talks about being a father. The results: "Female Score: 2014, Male Score: 1903 - The Gender Genie thinks the author of this passage is: female!"

Which leads me to wonder if my voice would be more "female" if I wrote more about personal relationships and less about politics and social issues? If so, that means the "out of the home" topics are still largely the purvey of men, while "in the home" topics are womens' topics. Or is "serious" writing considered to be male? Or do I feel the need to take on a "male" writing style when discussing serious topics? Is there really such a thing as a female or male voice, or are we simply so programmed to communicate differently? Are these different linguistic styles simply a clear demonstration of patriarchy? Are women relational communicators due to our subordinate position in the hierarchy? In which case, does my "male" voice indicate I'm not writing submissively? Or is it because women are still the primary caregivers - then of course we'd communicate more relationally?

Or is this tool just bunk?

Try it out yourself. Choose posts that are longer than 500 words, and that quote the least from other sources, so as to ensure your own style comes through. Let me know if it is accurate.

Radical Aboriginal Canadians are Terrorists?

Let me get this straight. Let's say I walk into your house, kill most of your family, take your children away, destroy your means of livelihood, and force you to go live on the sidewalk. When I then take a stand and ask for, say, my garage back, I'm the problem? Not just a problem... a terrorist?

Let's see if this definition resonates. "Terrorists", noun, plural: people on the underside of the social, economic, and political power structure who stand up for themselves. Those who, marginalized on the land they peopled first, take a stand and demand their rights instead of continuing to allow themselves to be further beaten down. Also known as "Insurgents" or "Military Opponents".

At least that's how the term is to be understood in the Canadian army's counterinsurgency manual, which states:

The rise of radical Native American organizations, such as the Mohawk Warrior Society, can be viewed as insurgencies with specific and limited aims... Although they do not seek complete control of the federal government, they do seek particular political concessions in their relationship with national governments and control (either overt or covert) of political affairs at a local/reserve ('First Nation') level, through the threat of, or use of, violence. (G& M)

Read the excellent response by Assembly of First Nations National Chief Phil Fontaine. Excerpt:

Any reference to First Nations people as possible insurgents or terrorists is a direct attack on us - it demonizes us, it threatens our safety and security and attempts to criminalize our legitimate right to live our lives like all other Canadians do. Just being referenced in such a document compromises our freedom to travel across borders, have unimpeded telephone and internet communications, raise money, and protest against injustices to our people.

I mean, we all know it is which side of the power structure you are on which determines whether your fight is "terrorism" or "defense" or "freedom fighters" or "insurgents". But usually they try to hide that fact.

On Hijabs' n Things

So now we have yet another controversy over what some women wear on their heads.

Makes me think of something I read a few days ago. Exerpted from Sand Gets in My Eyes:

The Biker and the Old Woman: A parable of the veil

An animal rights guy is walking down the street with a bucket of red paint when he passes a Hell’s Angel wearing colors and dressed in a full set of leathers.

“Hey Dude,” he says with a smile. “Nice chaps.”

A block later, that same animal rights guy passes a little old lady in a mink coat and throws the red paint on her.

“Animals died for you vanity!” he shouts.

The point of Butchie’s parable was that both the biker and the old lady were wearing animal products, but the activist knew better than to go after the big, macho male offender, choosing to go after the helpless, frail female one instead.

She goes on to quote William Bennet (yeah I know):

“To go after women donning their veils is to attack the problem at its weakest — and frankly, least important — link (again, when the veil is freely chosen). While Muslim women are being beaten, while honor killings are extant, and while mosques, universities, and madrassahs are fomenting actual terrorism, Muslim women assuming a dress code is not where our — or our allies’ — focus should be. Go after the men who do these things — that’s where the fight is.”

Geez, don't we have more important things to get upset about? Like women in miniskirts or something?

On Privilege and What We Can do About It

Came across this excellent post today: "Check my What? On Privilege and What We Can do About It. Some tips on going from pro-equality in spirit to pro-equality in deed".

A really good explanation of what privilege means, with some concrete suggestions of how to deal with it. Tells us to accept the fact that privilege exists, learn to listen so we can understand what our privilege means, and then gives tips on how to communicate (including some tips on respectful language, and dealing with minority spaces). One of the most important specifics is, I think, is the advice to recognize "it's not about you". Basically anyone who has any sort of privilege oughtta read it: men, white people, heteros, rich people, etc.

It seems to be an opportune time to post about this, considering the conversations that have been raging in this corner of the blogosphere lately. More to come.

Read the whole thing.

Also recommended for a good primer on some of the effects of privilege vs. discrimination: The Color of Wealth: The Story Behind the US Racial Wealth Divide, previously blogged about here.

UPDATE: Check out Classified: How to Stop Hiding Your Privilege and Use it for Social Change. You can even download a whole copy here.

The Myth of the "Clash of Civilizations"

No matter how hard many world leaders are trying, the people aren't buying - the myth of the "Clash of Civilizations" that is.

A BBC World Service poll of over 28,000 respondents across 27 countries found that a majority of people worldwide believe the tensions between Islam and the West are due to conflicts over political power and interests - not from differences of religion and culture.

“Most people around the world clearly reject the idea that Islam and the West are caught in an inevitable clash of civilizations,” said Steven Kull, director of the Program on International Policy Attitudes at the University of Maryland.

A majority also agree that violent conflict between Islam and the West is not inevitable. Only 28% think that violent conflict is inevitable, while twice as many (56%) believe that "common ground can be found."
- Source
You can also read the BBC Story

What do Canadians think?

More than seven in ten Canadians believe common ground can be found between Muslim and Western cultures. Seventy-three percent say that common ground can be found, while just 16 percent believe that violent conflict is inevitable. A significant majority (56%) of Canadians sees “conflicts about political power and interests” as the source of tensions between Islam and the West, while fewer than three in ten (29%) believe they arise from religious and cultural differences. Three in four Canadians (74%) also see intolerant minorities as a primary reason for tensions between Islam and the West compared to just 19 percent who blame cultural differences. Fifty-five percent of Canadians fault intolerant minorities on both sides, far more than those who specifically cite a Muslim (12%) or Western (7%) minority. (SOURCE

At least two illustrious leaders, however, like to make the case that there is a deeper cultural or religious conflict. George Bush, right after 9/11:

Americans are asking, why do they [terrorists] hate us? They hate what we see right here in this chamber -- a democratically elected government. Their leaders are self-appointed. They hate our freedoms -- our freedom of religion, our freedom of speech, our freedom to vote and assemble and disagree with each other.

Which is of course, ridiculous. They don't hate the West's "freedoms". If anything, they hate our Imperialism.

Stephen Harper, in a speech speech to B'nai Brith

But the fact is this: those who attacked Israel – and those who sponsor such attacks – don’t seek merely to gain some leverage, to alter some boundary, or to right some wrong.

They seek what they and those like them have always sought – the destruction of Israel and the destruction of the Jewish people.

Why? A thousand complicated rationalizations but only one simple reason – because the Jews are different. Because the Jews are not like them.

Again, ridiculous. As if it were possible to find "one simple reason" for Israel-Palestine, but if you had to, probably it would be the extreme imbalance of power and resources - oppression due to occupation - not because they are "different". Does he also think Iraq's insurgents do it because Americans are "different"?

The right-wing media is even more blunt. Bill O'Reilly says "if Islam didn’t exist, there wouldn’t be a war on terror." Heidi Harris continually refers to "Islamic fascists" on Hardball (a term Amy Goodman thankfully calls her on, labeling it "racist" and "disgusting").

Much of the MSM's discussion of war and terrorism is done within this "cowboys and Indians" frame, in which we are the good guys and they are the evildoers. At best, it's lazy and at worst it's sickening bigotry.

For an example, see my analysis of the portrayal of the recent conflict in Somalia.

Empathy and Power

The powerful are less able to understand the emotions, perceptions, and motivations of others, according to the December 2006 issue of Psychological Science, as reported in Science Daily.

...possessing power itself serves as an impediment to understanding the perspectives of others. Through several studies, the researchers assessed the effect of power on perspective taking, adjusting to another's perspective, and interpreting the emotions of others.

This is not exactly surprising. For example, critical psychologists have noticed that many stereotypically "female" traits or skills, such as empathy, caregiving, nonviolence, and nurturing, are due to power differentials rather than biology. In other words, groups in subordinate social positions learn these skills for survival. I think it has something to do with being able to read those who hold more power; for example, anticipating their needs could lead to better rewards.

The abstract of the study reports:

Four experiments and a correlational study explored the relationship between power and perspective taking. In Experiment 1, participants primed with high power were more likely than those primed with low power to draw an E on their forehead in a self-oriented direction, demonstrating less of an inclination to spontaneously adopt another person's visual perspective. In Experiments 2a and 2b, high-power participants were less likely than low-power participants to take into account that other people did not possess their privileged knowledge, a result suggesting that power leads individuals to anchor too heavily on their own vantage point, insufficiently adjusting to others' perspectives. In Experiment 3, high-power participants were less accurate than control participants in determining other people's emotion expressions; these results suggest a power-induced impediment to experiencing empathy. An additional study found a negative relationship between individual difference measures of power and perspective taking. Across these studies, power was associated with a reduced tendency to comprehend how other people see, think, and feel. (emphasis mine)

Other interesting related links:
What can the Stanford prison and Milgram experiments tell us about abuses at Abu Ghraib and Creating Gender Role Behavior: Demonstrating the Impact of Power Differentials

John Mohawk, Iroquois Leader and Scholar, Dead at 61

Rest in Peace, John Mohawk.

I was fortunate enough to see John Mohawk at the Bioneers conference, at a "Kitchen Table Conversation" entitled Race, Class and Power, where he spoke alongside Paul Hawken, Aqeela Sherrills, and Akaya Windwood. This was a powerful workshop, which was so packed full there were people crammed in, sitting on the floor (You can buy a copy of the CD or MP3 from this session. It's worth a listen). I always have soft spots for historians, since history is one of my passions, but I have to tell you John Mohawk gave off such an aura of wisdom and gentleness. He also had very important things to say.

The 20th century saw the rise of Stalinism, of Hitlerism, of Fascisms of all kind all over, I mean not just Europe but in many places has led to holocausts, exterminations, extinctions.

In each and every case it was started by a people who felt like the Germans did, that they were somehow left out, somehow not given their due. People who took a conscious effort to reform their culture, and in so doing gave themselves permission to commit murder. That has been accelerating in this century and I think it will continue to accelerate into the next century.

That is going to be a result of the side effects of the combination of the globalisation of economy and all the social changes that have diminished the value of human labour and diminished the value of people's relationships and their symbiotic relationships with land.

Read or listen to the rest of this interview with him regarding the future.

Yesterday's Democracy Now also featured an excerpt from a talk he gave at a teach-in last month.

the American civilization has a rationalization for a lot of bad things, things like the removal policy and things like the Indian war thing, and things like the forced assimilation policy.

All of those flow from an ideology of white supremacy, which was the dominant ideology of race theory in the United States in the 19th century. I point this out, because it seems to me that the moment we're looking at is a proposal that peoples of the world, distinct peoples of the world have a right to a continued existence as distinct peoples. And I point to you that the white supremacy argument offers no such rights. It doesn't offer any rights to a distinct existence -- a continued existence of other species, of birds, animals, plants and whatever, fishes. It is a theory that says that one group has the absolute unhindered right to do what they need to do to get what they want.

Listen, read, or watch the whole thing