I guess I might as well face it

I'm addicted to comic books. That doesn't really fit the song I guess. I'm not really sure how to differentiate between an addiction and a hobby. In my monthly budget I actually set aside $100 for comics, and I enjoy reading them every week. Without fail, I pick them up on Thursday, the day after they come out, in order to avoid the Wednesday crowd. The comic book store people all know my name and talk nerd talk when I come in. I give them at least $1200 a year in business. But I don't really think that makes me an addict. On a side note, the books I mainly buy are big superhero books (Batman, Spider-man, Daredevil, etc). But being in a writing program, every time I say I buy comics people always say something like "Oh, Maus is good. Have you read 'Ballistic Cunt?' It's a graphic novel inspired by feminist readings of Foucault." (Idea copyright Glenn Shaheen, everybody, so hands off). Then I always have to explain that superhero books are not really as dumb as they think, or as dumb as they were in the early 90s, but it's pretty much like telling a creative writing grad student that you really love Stephen King. For those of you who don't know, creative writing grad students are really pretentious. It's probably a good idea not to socialize with them or admit to other people that you even know any. I usually tell people I'm getting my MFA in botany, or the science of socks, or something.

As far as other things go, I've been watching Star Trek lately, but I'm slowly just trying to work my way through the episodes, so that's not an addiction. Once a long time ago I smoked cigarettes for a year just because I hated those "Truth" adds they used to have on TV that implied smoking was worse than Hitler. Remember that one? Let me see if I can find it.



Hey, Youtube is great! Anyway, I guess watching it now it doesn't really imply that smoking is worse than Hitler, but it's still a pretty offensive ad by implying they're similar. And at the time I thought it would be poetic justice for me to start smoking when Truth wanted me to not smoke, since the ads were making me feel bad anyway. I showed them! Well, except I never told Truth about it, and they probably didn't care, and I quit after a year.

Wikipedia is pretty much an addiction. There are nights when I will be exhausted and I will just stay up for hours past when I am tired following a hypertext trail through wikipedia articles. Though on the bright side I think I could totally kick everybody's ass in Jeopardy! now.

Also I'm a huge porn addict. It was actually me who found this blog by looking for Britney Spear's vagnia. Sorry guys! I'll try to type more clearly next time I use google to search for naked celebrities, like Paris Hilton naked in jail, or Lindsay Lohan fully nude, or Hilary Duff topless, or Ryan Seacrest elephantitis , or Brad Pitt skin pendulum.

That last paragraph was just written to get us some more hits.

Where are you, Jen?

Well, Jen was supposed to start off this week's discussion, but she seems to have been delayed a bit. {{Jen!! Where are you???}} As such, I figured I'd go ahead and post a little something I just read to tide you cats over, as it pertains to something we've actually discussed a couple of times over here: wikipedia.

Internet site Wikipedia has been hit by controversy after the disclosure that a prominent editor had assumed a false identity complete with fake PhD. The editor, known as Essjay, had described himself as a professor of religion at a private university. But he was in fact Ryan Jordan, 24, a college student from Kentucky who used texts such as Catholicism for Dummies to help him work. [entire story]

Reality has a liberal bias

Here is a link to a site that I think everyone should check out; it is slightly similar to the topic we discussed a few weeks ago, but more importantly, it tells you something about a portion of so-called conservatives:

Conservapedia.

"A conservative encyclopedia you can trust." This is the conservatives version of Wikipedia. It seems that these people think that Wikipedia has a "liberal bias." (Remember, reality has a liberal bias.) Read the article on evolution- they actually manage to turn their evolution article into a swipe at Bill Clinton!!!!

I think that this site, while also extremely amusing (and completely maddening), shows you something about the mindset of conservatives (or at least a certain portion of them): they do not wish to exist in reality. They would rather make their own reality. And anyone who does not agree with their constructed and false reality, you're evil and bad and existing under a "liberal bias." It's a total authoritarian mindset- they honestly can't exist in actual reality. They are so fragile and insecure that they can't handle anything that threatens their twisted, delusional and revisionist reality. While I'm fine with relegating these people to their own reality, it's scary to think that these people have more or less been running our country for the past six years, if not longer, and attempt to push their version of reality upon everyone else. I suppose the thing that gives me the most hope is the fact that their reality is increasingly crashing down on them- their war is unpopular, their president is extremely unpopular, they lost big in the last election, their 2008 presidential field sucks (while the Dem field is energizing people), etc. And as their world keeps closing in on them, their message and ideology and tactics and "messages" get increasingly more bizarre, shrill and incoherent, and they seemingly have to retreat into their own made-up fantasy reality, one free of so-called "liberal bias" (of which Wikipedia obviously has none- but Wikipedia will obviously not allow these idiots to post their own false information and propaganda).

I can get you a toe by 3 o'clock this afternoon... with nail polish

I have nothing much to say on this subject. I don't think too much about feminism; I think it's great. And I don't care about a girl version of Wikipedia. If they want it, that's fine. I will say that I can't imagine how Wikipedia discriminates; I have edited several pages from a few different computers (and IP addresses) and have never registered or signed in to anything. Therefore, I can't see how it would discriminate; I surely haven't seen much gender discrimination in the articles (and in such a case, that could be fixed). Just looking at some statistic only tells you so much; as I said in one comments thread, I think it's plausible to think that maybe women would prefer to do things anonymously as opposed to registering and entering any information; women may be more careful in that way. But if they want to make a female Wikipedia, I don't care. (Though the rules governing who gets to edit, as posted by Jen, are ridiculous). As far as feminism goes, I'm pro-feminism, of course. As one very interested in politics, I always love to see women in Congress, state legislatures, etc., and vehemently support any women candidates; I tend to think very strongly that women are just as effective in leadership positions as men, and we have a serious lack of women in these positions. Though I don't care if someone considers me a "feminist" or not; these labels are unimportant.

As far as Wikipedia, I use it because I find it a very useful resource for quick and easily accessible information; however, I would never use it as my terminal resource, and find it most useful as a jumping off point and the collection of cited links on each page are very useful. I don't blame teachers or professors who ban its use as a resource.

I don't have much else to say regarding this topic; it does not offend or concern me in the slightest if women want their own Wikipedia or their own whatever. I will mention, though, I do seem to be unique among many of my male brethren as I get greatly offended when I'm in a conversation with women and, as frequently gets said, "All men are _________ ." (Insert word: unfaithful, pigs, dogs, assholes, etc.) The biggest arguments I've been in with women, or possibly anyone (outside of political arguments), have been when this is said. I suppose the way men usually react is how they are expected to react, by just ignoring it or chuckling. For some reason, it really makes me mad, these sorts of generalizations. (Where did that come from? I've always worked mostly with women, and I have to say, among women they seem to generalize much more about men; men do, in groups especially, generalize about women, but it's done in a different way, and not nearly as much or as venomous as the way women do it. Why is this?) Sure, many men are assholes; but, women really have little room to complain about men until they start showing better taste in them. Trust me, if women stopped liking certain kinds of men, namely the "bad boy" types, or other generally assholic types, men would stop being that way. And, if I were to ever make a generalization or negative comment about women (which I wouldn't do), I'd be a raging sexist and my name would be mud. Just sayin'. Anyways, I've got lots of homework to do; I'm in a hurry, so sorry for any incoherence in this post.

Dewdrop-Lollipop not feminist enough

[Full disclosure: I am not only a woman, but was also a Women's Studies minor in college (majors were not available), so I tend to have pre-disposed but not inflexible opinions on this sort of thing.]

I’ll admit that reading Jane’s entry on Monday did not make me run to the Wikichix site to see what it was all about. However, it did interest me enough to mention it to my boyfriend, and he jumped all over it. He immediately began to send them an email to request an account with his own contact information and the name “Grace” (I suggested Wilma). After a google search revealing no hits for that name and realizing that they would ‘confirm his femininity’ through his school email address, he sort of chickened out and used my email instead. I wouldn’t let him use my name, so he used Jane Smither (actually my grandmother’s name, I think), and the username “dewdroplollipop.” “Jane’s” email was appropriately full of smiley faces and exclamation points, asserted her female-ness, and asked for registration. One ‘Submit’ button and a google search later, he discovered that Jane Smither is part of the Women and Gender Differences Research Group of the National Institute on Drug Abuse.

Now, if anything could get you in, it should be credentials like that, right? But alas, I have yet to receive any communication whatsoever from the Goddesses of Wikichix and am beginning to lose interest in their whole schick.

I feel nearly the same way here as I did the first time I read bell hooks. That is, perhaps there is a bias that exists here; does further subdivision fix it? If, contrary to all logic, Wikipedia, a faceless and anonymous Internet site, does somehow discriminate against women editors and oppresses women’s ideas of what everything in the world is, shouldn’t this be fixed from the inside? Won’t a better product emerge if everyone works together on one thing to make it better instead of throwing down their toys and retreating to the “_____-only” clubhouse? Instead of discriminating ourselves further, shouldn’t we simply issue a call to encourage women to post on Wikipedia and other Wikisites? Self-segregation, especially with specific rules banning spectators and participants who are Others, does nothing but encourage stereotypes, prejudices, and distrust.

By the way, in a google search for bell hooks, the first entry is her Wikipedia article, which begins like this:

bell hooks (born Gloria Jean Watkins on September 25, 1952) is an American intellectual, feminist, and social activist. hooks focuses on the interconnectivity of race, class, and gender and their ability to produce and perpetuate systems of oppression and domination. She has published over thirty books and numerous scholarly and mainstream articles, appeared in several documentary films, and participated in various public lectures. Primarily through an African American female perspective, hooks addresses race, class, and gender in education, art, history, sexuality, mass media, and feminism.

Please, Wikichix, point out to me the glaring “systemic gender bias in Wikipedia” that apparently makes “it clear that a number of women [are] not comfortable contributing to the conversation.” Obviously, I’m too repressed to see it myself.

In related news, said boyfriend just called and pointed out that when you rearange the letters in "feminist" you get "i fist men." heh.

Feminism and the Internet

So today it’s my turn to start the week off with a new topic. Sad to say I am currently exhausted after a twelve hour workday, so I hope I can put my thoughts together coherently. I’ve chosen two topics which are close to my heart. I am a self-professed internet addict, and a self-identified feminist. There are far too many things that can be written about each of these topics individually to be compressed into a one-week-long conversation; however, I think that the point where feminism and the internet intersect makes for a good starting place.

As discussed somewhat during our inaugural week, the internet has completely changed the way we as humans relate to one another. We can communicate instantaneously over large distances, connect with like-minded individuals whom we never would have met otherwise, and voice our opinions on any topic online for all to see. Kinda like I’m doing now. Those of us who are avid users of the internet have sites we visit religiously. One of my absolute favorite spots online is wikipedia. I’ve found that if I’m on the hunt for information, I check wikipedia first – before Google even. It’s an incredible resource.

I have never edited wikipedia; I am simply a user, albeit a frequent and happy one. [For those of you who for some reason are unaware, anyone can edit any article on wikipedia.] Why have I never edited an article on wikipedia? Well, I haven’t stumbled upon any articles concerning subjects about which I am knowledgeable that I feel require editing. If I ever do run across such a subject, there’s a high probability that I would indeed edit it; however, as I use wikipedia in order to learn about new things, what are the chances?

I bring all this up because I didn’t want you to think I’ve never done any editing because I “have a low self-perception of [my] expertise level” or because I’m “unwilling to become a target of sexist criticisms” – two of the reasons cited for the creation of wikichix, a wiki-site dedicated providing a place “for female wiki editors to discuss issues of gender bias in wikis, to promote wikis to potential female editors, and for general discussion of wikis in a friendly female only environment.” Kind of like a women’s issues/feminism focused version of wikipedia. Only women can view the content of wikichix, and only women can edit said content. In order to become a member, you must email them requesting membership and specifying that you are indeed female.

I, for one, see some major flaws in this concept:

Wikipedia is a vast and wonderful repository of information, and you don’t have to register in order to edit it, much less to gain access to said information. If I’m searching for information, which am I more likely to use: a site that requires me to send an email requesting membership before I can even use its search function, or a site which allows me automatic access to its wealth of information? The information found in wikichix might very well be more accurate, but is the average user going to jump through the extra hoops to gain access to it? I would also argue that the “average user” is the person who would benefit the most from easy access to accurate information. (I say this because I would expect that individuals willing to jump through aforementioned hoops probably already have a good base of knowledge when it comes to things such as feminism and gender bias in wikis.)

The creators of wikichix mentioned that there are fewer females than males registered as editors on wikipedia… and yet they seem to be exacerbating this problem. While they might wish to “promote wikis [in general] to potential female editors” it seems to me that starting a closed, female-only wiki community instead of encouraging women to edit the democratic virtual metropolis that is wikipedia is counter-productive. Thoughts?

Okay... must crash... off to bed.