icon_uk: (Default)
icon_uk ([personal profile] icon_uk) wrote in [community profile] scans_daily2012-02-19 09:31 pm

Paul Cornell is looking for gender parity at Con panels...

From Paul Cornell's website



"Okay, so this was something I came up with yesterday, and it's mad, and is, frankly, a rod for my own back, but what the hell, it's going to make this coming year a lot more interesting.

I think there should be gender parity on every panel at every convention. I'm after 50/50, all the time. I want that in place as an expectation, as a rule. Now, to make that happen, what really should be done is a ground-up examination of society, huge changes at the heart of things which would automatically lead to women being equally represented everywhere, not just on convention panels. Well, we've all wanted that and worked for that for decades, especially those of us in fandom, and it just hasn't happened. So, this year, I've decided that I'm going to approach this problem via the only moral unit I'm in charge of: me. I'm going to approach this problem from the other end. And this approach is going to be very much that of a blunt instrument.

If I'm on, at any convention this year, a panel that doesn't have a 50/50 gender split (I'll settle for two out of five), I'll hop off that panel, and find a woman to take my place.
"

There's more text at the website, but I'm impressed by his initiative.

So, thoughts people? :)


For legality, the cover to Demon Knights 7 by Mike Choi, which includes a rather impressive outfit for the Questing Queen, a little action-figure-y perhaps, but given my Saint Seiya tastes, that's not really a problem for me! :)


valtyr: (my little captain)

[personal profile] valtyr 2012-02-20 07:12 am (UTC)(link)
These things happen, let's move on. As you say, we all make mistakes.

Diferent sexes exist because of the nature of sexual reproduction, man and woman are marked by a single cromosome that determines this difference Right?

Well, not always. XX male syndrome, for instance, and there are several other variants on the typical chromosome/sex arrangement. Not to mention intersexed persons.

Based in a false equivalence that set subconsiously the fact that there is a standard (that has been made modeled as a male) sexism is made by failing to recognise the woman.

Yes, I see your point that femaleness has been characterised as weakness and deviation from the male 'norm'. However, your point seems to be that we should acknowledge femaleness and maleness as valuable, but different. Would it not be more appropriate to recognise that the behaviours we see as 'male' and the behaviours we see as 'female' both have value, and can be performed by either gender?

As an example - if sexism has girls playing with dolls, and boys with trucks, and old ideas of equality gave the girls trucks, you seem to be proposing we should go back to giving girls dolls. But wouldn't it be better to give both girls and boys trucks and dolls?

different biology goes to form a diferent cognitive aproach,

But you see, you seem to be assuming that different biology comes first, rather than cultural conditions affecting biological development. Look at something as simple as stereotype threat for the pervasive effect of culture on the mind.

[personal profile] gerardotejada 2012-02-20 06:50 pm (UTC)(link)
Yes now we understand.

Look it at this way, our bodies are canvas that are colonized by discourses. Imagine une piece of bronze and one piece of silver, from both you can make the same sculpture but the aproach of the artist would be different in order to confront the material.

Material objects come first, but they appear to our consiousness in a diferent way. Both sexes became "genders" only into an Structure, but the sexes can form thousand and more genders. Is the dinamic between both sexes that create the genders, and when that dinamic is fixed and closed the the Femaleness and Maleness appears, that is the "Idealism" of gender that came from the material causes but dont identify whit them.

The aproach of a woman and a men in the same subject, (trucks dolls, wathever) is different without meaning that that difference should be caged into a single oposition of gender. The material dinamic Man/Woman have endless posibilities that spawned different genders across history, what we understand about male or female gender hs changed.

The material difference Men/Woman is basic to diversity.
Many corporation do the exercise of mix men and womam, the team work dinamic and aproach to the subject is different. Even if a full male or female team coukd do the same job executive preffers this way of working.

In the end giving a boy a truck and a girl a doll would erase the girl/truck and boy/doll. I mean we have to stop looking at the basi doll/truck but see the interaction of four elements girltruck boytruck girldoll boydoll.

Culture is imprinted in our bodies, but our bodies themself are capable of beign imprinted.

Difference between man and woman offer a lot of possibilities, by default a stereotype limits this posibilities of diversity by stablish rigid relationships on a static structure and erradicates a lot of variables that add to the different relationships.

As you see the stereotipe girl-doll boy-truck fool us into thinking there are just 2 elements and late I show how There can be 4 pieces. Now we can expand by saying that children playing with dolls and truck is also a old western stereotype, children can also play with animals, computers, etc.

Culture builds over this material conditions, culture can mold the material they have but without the material they have nothing to mold.

Saying that I argue that bodies matter, biology matters, in a way that even if everything remained the same my biological circumstances change who Am I.

This as oposed tho the "idealistic" view that my body is a smple container