Rakiesha your posts are great. I think we are missing each other’s meanings. My hope in writing was to open dialogue, and reinforce the idea that not all women have the same experience. I’m so happy that in spite of our seemingly similar backgrounds, you have not had to face the barriers I’ve encountered.

Mike thanks for the mention of “halo effect”, I had never heard of that term. Don’t you think language reinforces the halo effect? Isn’t cognition shaped by social experiences, and therefore words? (I’m wondering this because I always think backwards from the lack of social awareness because of my experiences with autism). Fascinating subject, wish I had more than a week before classes start again.

Sarah, I think the “between your legs” statement was said in all sincerity and honesty too. That’s really why I felt impelled to call it out – someone who obviously wants to make a difference is using words that will actually put up barriers to communicating with certain groups. We’ll never move forward if that is the case.

Language is so powerful. Maybe I’ll write a post on that after I read more on halo effects…

The concept of privilege (in this case male privilege) is a thorny one to tackle. Especially considering the overwhelming refusal by most to even believe it exists. Posts like the ones you’ve written are brave, I applaud you!

I also thank you for being the only blogger I’ve read so far to address the ugliness of the “what’s between your legs” comment. I have a LOT of respect for the guy who said it, and I don’t think he realized he was being offensive (and certainly not when most of the crowd burst into actual *applause* after he said it) when he said it, but boiling this issue down to a base statement like that is actually part of the problem–no matter the intentions behind it.

Thanks for your thoughts, reading all the fallout from that session has been fascinating!

Having read the post you referenced (and if I interpret the irreverent tone of the “Not so processed thoughts from the Girl Power Session at PCB4″ post correctly) I have to agree with the previous commenter, that in this context, “sexy” is being used in the sense of “generally attractive, interesting, or glamourous” (M-W online) rather than in the gender-political sense, as in “self-hate isn’t attractive.”

Or, indeed, interesting.

In this sense then, I can certainly understand how software, music, food, ideas even can exhibit a certain ‘sexiness’ – sometimes this is referred to as a cognitive bias known as a “halo effect” – a phenomenon that has been empirically tested and validated.

Out of curiosity, what factors would cause a lower number of female speakers to contribute at the event you refer to, in your view?

Regards,
Michael
–

http://sbexperiment.wordpress.com/2009/08/11/is-it-blind-arrogance-or-good-upbringing-the-idea-of-the-ballsy-woman-in-todays-society/

If you want to talk more about building community, then hit me up @rawrmeans143

This 24 year-old was born into a world very different from the ones we were born into. It only makes sense that she’s playing by different rules and seeing through different lenses.

When she does encounter an obstacle she doesn’t expect, she’ll handle it in a different way than we would.

As for defining sexy, in product design I always took it to mean designed to appeal to the subconscious. An iPhone is sexy; a Blackberry is not. Software that makes you go “Whoa… I didn’t know you could do that,” is sexy. Microsoft Word is not.

I can’t answer what your blogger thinks sexy means. But I can guess from context she’s talking about empowerment, about risk-taking, about living in the moment and not focusing on the past. It’s a strange word to co-opt but it gets your attention and I’m guessing that’s her intent.