“Science” in Right Wing Media

Oh, the National Post, are you even putting any effort into your bullshit?

Last month an article was printed in the “Health” section stating that men had to hang out with other men twice a week, and do “guys things” like drink beer and play team sports, in order to stay healthy. While immediately upon starting the article there is already much to question (I am a woman and I love beer and team sports… would the presence of my vagina at these events negatively affect men’s health? Or, even more obvious, are you REALLY saying that men who don’t like sports or who have a lot of women friends will be less healthy than guys who revolve their lives around trying to be the perfect (socially-constructed) image of masculinity? Or, wait, isn’t this just re-wording a more widely-accepted and reasonable belief that humans benefit from social interaction and physical activity, only with a ridiculous gender-bias?), it was the last paragraph that was the most surprising. Though the author of the article started with stating the oh-so-impressive academic qualifications of the (male) psychologist who came out with this backwards study, she ends with the oh-so-much-more-vital information that Guinness commissioned it.

While I wish I could say that everyone reading the article immediately realized the stupidity of it all because of this fact, too many people made the comment about how “cute” this is, and how “true” etc. Really, people? If you are not able to read through ridiculous gender-stereotyping and if you are not aware that there are “scientific” studies to “prove” virtually anything you want to prove, at least realize that if a corporation funds a study (and they most often do), they want to push something on you – in this case an image of masculinity that involves buying their product. This explains is why this article reads like a “scientific” version of a ridiculous beer commercial.

I was surprised that the author included this information at all, seeing as she was not being the least bit critical of the study, but was rather trying to promote it. I guess it shows the power of “science” when the author herself doesn’t catch on to the fact that she just discredited her entire piece.

Advertisements

Women Hate on Women Writers Too (or, More on the David Gilmour Controversy)

It surfaced the other day that prominent, award-winning Canadian author (not to mention person-in-mind-shaping-influential-position-of-university-instructor) David Gilmour stated that he wouldn’t teach any women authors (other than Virginia Woolf), not to mention gay authors, Chinese authors, or anyone who isn’t what he calls guy-guys.

Though I have been loving the varied and colourful responses to this (“Do you Have a Penis? No? Then you Didn’t Make David Gilmour’s Reading List“, http://bellejarblog.wordpress.com/, “Why David Gilmour’s Advice to ‘Go Down the Hall’ Isn’t so Bad“), where various people point out how ridiculously sexist these statements are and yet how harmful they are because he is teaching views like this, I want to connect this issue to another fairly recent article that went around.

The Atlantic posted “It’s Frustratingly Rare to Find a Novel About Women that’s Not About Love,” in July. I am not a fan of The Atlantic in general, but this struck a particularly annoying chord with me. In this article, Kelsey McKinney writes things like there is no woman Holden Caulfield, there are few role models in novels, and that women in novels generally just want husbands instead of adventure or anything else. She calls the few exceptions she lists, “rarities,” and calls for more works of those kinds.

McKinney is similar to Gilmour. He may be a white male teaching university students, but she is reaching a wide audience, and she is a woman who feels that she can sum up women writers from her (extremely) limited experience with them. McKinney had good intentions, for sure. She points out the problem with the publishing industry being male-dominated; she mentions how not enough women make it into the canon of what some group of privileged people have labelled “great” literature. But, sometimes making a claim like that – how all women writers write about love and trivial things – is just as sexist as the Gilmour-like statements about how he can’t appreciate any woman author at all (not to mention McKinney’s seeming lack of awareness of any women writers who are not white…).

I find McKinney’s article just as disappointing as Gilmour’s statements. I have not found it hard to read many, many books by women authors, all of which offer varied perspectives and experiences, some of which are similar in subject matter and tone to male-authored works, some of which are not. The way McKinney handled the topic of women in literature reminds me of the liberal feminists who claim that feminism is irrelevant today because she and her friends don’t personally face any problems when it comes to men. It is individualistic and does more harm then good (if you care about analysing systemic problems, that is). McKinney discredits and ignores the achievements of so many talented women.

On that note, here is a list (part of which I posted as a comment on McKinney’s article) of books/authors that are not focused on love, and that have awesome or at least complex women characters. And yes, David Gilmour, the women on this list are some damn fine literary writers!

Esther Greenwood from The Bell Jar is a female Holden Caulfield.

Daniel Defoe, who wrote Robinson Crusoe, also wrote Moll Flanders, which is about an amazing female thief in London who is not interested in love or children.

Toni Morrison

Edwidge Danticat

Ana Castillo

Maureen Medved (Canadian)

Eden Robinson (Aboriginal Canadian)

Michelle Cliff

Adele Wiseman (Canadian)

Sky Lee (Canadian)

Beatrice Culleton (Aboriginal Canadian)

Alice Walker

Andrea Levy

Carol Shields (Canadian)

Iris Murdoch

A.S. Byatt

Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie

Judy Fong Bates (Canadian)

Amy Tan

Suzette Mayr (Canadian)

Dionne Brand (Canadian)

The Female Quixote, by Charlotte Lennox

Angela Carter

Virginia Woolf

Wide Sargasso Sea by Jean Rhys.

Wuthering Heights may be about love, but it has a kick-ass female protagonist, and is multi-layered.

Thomas Hardy wrote some really good female characters, whom he shows were held back by their times.

Gone with the Wind

Vanity Fair by Thackary

George Eliot

Howards End by E.M. Forster

Nella Larsen

Zora Neale Hurston

Esi Edugyan (Canadian)

Tea Obreht

Harper Lee

Mairuth Sarsfield (Canadian)

Margaret Laurence (Canadian)

Alice Munro (Canadian)

Nadine Gordimer

Makuchi

Nalo Hopkinson (Canadian)

Elizabeth Nunez

Margaret Cezair-Thompson

Olive Senior

Lee Maracle (Aboriginal Canadian)

Maryse Conde

Muriel Barbary

Sarah Waters

Kathryn S. Blair

Pat Barker

Esmeralda Santiago

Lola Shoneyin

Kyung-Sook Shin

Ami Sands Brodoff

Jeanette Winterson

Shani Mootoo

Arundhati Roy

Linda Hogan

LeAnne Howe

NoViolet Bulawayo

Sefi Atta