Some days I need to actually read what I write before I hit publish. But I'm a little burned out, and what, like five people in the entire universe have ever read this blog (not counting the autopost to FB)? So. Who cares.
What I can find enough energy to care about at the moment is trivial stuff. Like this story. I'm torn. It's kind of like... the way I feel about "feminine" NFL gear.
(fair warning-- this is the part where I'm going to throw around terms that belie the whole science background thing)
Y'all know that "feminine" gear tends to be very figure-conscious (read: sexy), come in "girly colors" like pink or purple, and/ or feature rhinestones/ sequins/ other shiny things. It reinforces the notion of feminine = altered, weaker version of masculine. It plays to traditional gender roles and expectations that women should always dress to attract a partner. It infantilizes women (we couldn't possibly be expected to want to wear the actual team colors or something that's not vomitous baby pink or purple). The whole thing is super heteronormative-- women who don't buy into the gimmick are comparatively more "masculine" (and thereby less desirable) than those who do. It's more socially acceptable for a woman to stay in the role, stick to the script, and wear the feminized gear. Likewise with the "girly" geek gear. I can't just be a geek that happens to be female. I can't just be comfortable in my own skin with whatever geeky accoutrements I already have-- I have to be sexy too while doing it, if I want to be socially acceptable. Having a Godzilla figure haunting the top of my filing cabinet isn't good enough. I should wear a tight-fitting low-cut teeshirt with strategically placed Mothra wings in sequins. Which is pretty much the opposite of what those so-called girl geeks claim to be promoting, with the whole be comfortable being yourself thing. So, anyway, that's why that kind of thing vaguely bothers me.
Happy weekend, kiddos.