Many of the differences between men's and women's careers that we've examined have implicated parenting as a major factor in advancement. Most recently (2009-05-15), the example of lawyers was used to argue that taking time for parenting led to decreased career advancement in both men and women. Another field which has been extensively studied (by academics) is academia. In an Academe article, Mason and Goulden (2002) claim that women without children achieve tenure significantly more often than women with children; women with tenure are twice as likely to be single as men with tenure, according to their research. Women who have late babies are also more likely to only have one.
Yesterday (2009-05-28), I made a throwaway comment about the fact that SCOTUS nominee Sonia Sotomayor has no children. It kept tickling at the back of my brain, like there was something important there. So, I tried to think of a prominent successful woman who has children. Hillary Clinton has Chelsea. Martha Stewart has one (Alexis). Oprah Winfrey doesn't have any. I find I'm having trouble thinking of "successful women", which also depresses me.
Find out the day's topic before you read: follow diffblog on Twitter! Diffblog also available on LiveJournal.
Difference Blog Reader Poll
Friday, May 29, 2009
Thursday, May 28, 2009
SCOTUS nominee Sotomayor
In the New York Times' Economix blog (2009), Leonhardt and Rampell note studies that may cast light on the predicted differences in decision-making by Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor. They reference Peresie (2005), which demonstrated that "the presence of a female judge" significantly affected rulings in sexual discrimination and harassment cases in favor of the plaintiff.
Leonhardt and Rampell also point out Oswald and Powdthavee (2006), who found that parents with daughters tend to vote more "left-wing", while parents of sons tend to vote more "right-wing." Washington (2007) came to a similar finding about legislators with daughters and sons. Thompson, blogging for The Atlantic, 2009, rightly points out that Sotomayor has no children.
Perhaps more relevant is Collins and Moyer (2008); this paper suggests that the "intersectionality" of Sotomayor's identity may be the important factor. According to this study of criminal cases, judges who are both female and a member of a minority are likely to make more "liberal" (pro-defendant) decisions, where as minority or caucasian/female judges are not.
* I listened to this sentence 5 or 10 times, and I'm not sure of the name. I don't recognize it. Any hints?
** I am developing such a crush on Rachel Maddow, omgswoon.
Find out the day's topic before you read: follow diffblog on Twitter! Diffblog also available on LiveJournal.
Difference Blog Reader Poll
Leonhardt and Rampell also point out Oswald and Powdthavee (2006), who found that parents with daughters tend to vote more "left-wing", while parents of sons tend to vote more "right-wing." Washington (2007) came to a similar finding about legislators with daughters and sons. Thompson, blogging for The Atlantic, 2009, rightly points out that Sotomayor has no children.
Perhaps more relevant is Collins and Moyer (2008); this paper suggests that the "intersectionality" of Sotomayor's identity may be the important factor. According to this study of criminal cases, judges who are both female and a member of a minority are likely to make more "liberal" (pro-defendant) decisions, where as minority or caucasian/female judges are not.
"Hey, I remember Ed Hoff[?*] grilling Sam Alito about whether he saw things as too much of a man. About whether him being white was going to affect his judgement too much." -- Rachel Maddow**, podcast 2009-05-27In last week's discussion of reading (2009-05-22), I got a little sidetracked by the "default-male" problem: the male model is "default", and females are measured against it. In retrospect, this is a much better illustration of that problem than reading, because the people doing the comparison are overwhelmingly male. Sadly, I've done very little reading about Sotomayor's history of decision-making, but I have to say that the tone of the opposition certainly makes me want to support her.
* I listened to this sentence 5 or 10 times, and I'm not sure of the name. I don't recognize it. Any hints?
** I am developing such a crush on Rachel Maddow, omgswoon.
Find out the day's topic before you read: follow diffblog on Twitter! Diffblog also available on LiveJournal.
Difference Blog Reader Poll
Wednesday, May 27, 2009
Testosterone vs. Facial Masculinity, revisited
In February (2009-02-04, 2009-02-10, & 2009-02-16), we had ongoing discussion about the relationship between facial appearance and hormone levels. At that time, I failed to find consistent evidence of a link between higher testosterone and more masculine appearance in normatively gendered men and women.
A recent anonymous comment on the February 10th post offered two more possible citations for this debate:
My main problem with the facial-masculinity = higher-testosterone argument was that testosterone is so reactive to environmental factors, so I find Pound's argument (that masculine-faced men have more reactive endocrine systems) fairly compelling. I can't argue that increased testosterone doesn't contribute to facial masculinity. With my n = 1 experiment of myself, I can see distinct changes in my face pre-and-post hormones. But my hormones are externally regulated in a way that almost never happens to normatively gendered people. So I feel really awkward trying to compare my experience to any non-trans person's.
Find out the day's topic before you read: follow diffblog on Twitter! Diffblog also available on LiveJournal.
Difference Blog Reader Poll
- Penton-Voak & Chen (2004) found that more masculine-looking men had higher circulating T levels.
- Peters et al (2008) did not find such a connection
- von Bokhoven et al (2006) notes that there is no link between testosterone levels and facial appearance in adolescence
A recent anonymous comment on the February 10th post offered two more possible citations for this debate:
- Roney et al (2006) found that men's testosterone levels predicted women's ratings of their facial masculinity
- Hönekopp et al (2007) found no correlation between facial masculinity and testosterone levels.
- Pound et al (2009) (with Penton-Voak) found that men with more masculine faces had a stronger testosterone response to competition.
- Campbell et al (2009) found a link between facial masculinity and sexually unrestricted behavior in women (which is hypothesized to be a marker of higher testosterone)
My main problem with the facial-masculinity = higher-testosterone argument was that testosterone is so reactive to environmental factors, so I find Pound's argument (that masculine-faced men have more reactive endocrine systems) fairly compelling. I can't argue that increased testosterone doesn't contribute to facial masculinity. With my n = 1 experiment of myself, I can see distinct changes in my face pre-and-post hormones. But my hormones are externally regulated in a way that almost never happens to normatively gendered people. So I feel really awkward trying to compare my experience to any non-trans person's.
Find out the day's topic before you read: follow diffblog on Twitter! Diffblog also available on LiveJournal.
Difference Blog Reader Poll
Tuesday, May 26, 2009
Nonverbal communication
In a talk given Sunday (abstract), Steven Boker discussed a new method for creating a synthesized image and voice in video-conferencing "that is accepted as being video" by experimental participants. This method allowed Boker to conduct experiments where the apparent gender of video conversants was altered, according to a EurekAlert press release (2009 - results not yet published). People tend to move their heads more when talking to women, and less when talking to men. By reversing the apparent gender of a videoconferencing avatar, Boker was able to show that this is a response to head movements in the conversational partner, and not to that partner's apparent gender.
I find this exciting on two levels: first, I love the finding that conversational communication is based on individual dyads, not on perceived gender. I find that reassuring. Second, I'm sure that many of my trans-comrades-in-dorkdom will be excited by the idea of video-conferencing that presents an altered-gender presentation, since so many of us in the past decade or so have made our first hesitant steps in transition online. The first places I tried on a male persona were chat rooms and message boards, and then in MMORPGs.
Find out the day's topic before you read: follow diffblog on Twitter! Diffblog also available on LiveJournal.
Difference Blog Reader Poll
I find this exciting on two levels: first, I love the finding that conversational communication is based on individual dyads, not on perceived gender. I find that reassuring. Second, I'm sure that many of my trans-comrades-in-dorkdom will be excited by the idea of video-conferencing that presents an altered-gender presentation, since so many of us in the past decade or so have made our first hesitant steps in transition online. The first places I tried on a male persona were chat rooms and message boards, and then in MMORPGs.
Find out the day's topic before you read: follow diffblog on Twitter! Diffblog also available on LiveJournal.
Difference Blog Reader Poll
Monday, May 25, 2009
Hangovers
Previous posts have looked at gender differences in alcohol consumption, tolerance, and addiction (see label=alcohol). However, none of these articles has addressed the short-term consequences of drinking. Prat et al's (2009) review of hangovers gives gender differences a single sentence, noting only a single study (Slutske, 2005) which suggests that women may be subject to more severe hangovers than men. Clearly, this is an area that has not been extensively studied.
In an article that asks "Do We Learn From Our Mistakes", Mallett et al (2006) found that college men and women were equally likely to report having experienced a hangover in the past 12 months, or having vomited from drinking in that time period: about half of respondents endorsed these items. About one in five reported a regretted sexual experience, and nearly a third reporting a blackout. The study asked how many drinks had been consumed at the most recent instance of a negative consequence, and how many drinks the respondents estimated it would take to repeat that consequence. Men and women both predicted it would take significantly more alcohol to induce a hangover, vomiting, blackout, or regretted sexual experience than it had in the previous instance. The only gender difference reported was in the size of the discrepancy between past experience and future predictions: men estimates of hangover-inducing quantities of alcohol were even more unrealistic than women's, although both were off.
I think one issue that isn't properly addressed here (which would probably help me avoid hangovers) is the difference between what seems like a good idea sober and what seems smart after a drink or three. Considering all of the media-freak-out over women's increased rates of drinking (compared to historically) and reduced capacity for drink (compared to men), I'm actually surprised that this aspect hasn't received more attention. I haven't noticed any difference in my hangovers or my drinking habits that can be attributed to transition. My hangovers seem to be more related to what I was drinking than strictly how much.
I do have to say that I'm very surprised there was no gender difference reported in regrettable sexual experiences. I can't tell if I'm pleased by this, but I'm happy it was as low as 21%. I would have guessed higher.
Find out the day's topic before you read: follow diffblog on Twitter! Diffblog also available on LiveJournal.
Difference Blog Reader Poll
In an article that asks "Do We Learn From Our Mistakes", Mallett et al (2006) found that college men and women were equally likely to report having experienced a hangover in the past 12 months, or having vomited from drinking in that time period: about half of respondents endorsed these items. About one in five reported a regretted sexual experience, and nearly a third reporting a blackout. The study asked how many drinks had been consumed at the most recent instance of a negative consequence, and how many drinks the respondents estimated it would take to repeat that consequence. Men and women both predicted it would take significantly more alcohol to induce a hangover, vomiting, blackout, or regretted sexual experience than it had in the previous instance. The only gender difference reported was in the size of the discrepancy between past experience and future predictions: men estimates of hangover-inducing quantities of alcohol were even more unrealistic than women's, although both were off.
I think one issue that isn't properly addressed here (which would probably help me avoid hangovers) is the difference between what seems like a good idea sober and what seems smart after a drink or three. Considering all of the media-freak-out over women's increased rates of drinking (compared to historically) and reduced capacity for drink (compared to men), I'm actually surprised that this aspect hasn't received more attention. I haven't noticed any difference in my hangovers or my drinking habits that can be attributed to transition. My hangovers seem to be more related to what I was drinking than strictly how much.
I do have to say that I'm very surprised there was no gender difference reported in regrettable sexual experiences. I can't tell if I'm pleased by this, but I'm happy it was as low as 21%. I would have guessed higher.
Find out the day's topic before you read: follow diffblog on Twitter! Diffblog also available on LiveJournal.
Difference Blog Reader Poll
Friday, May 22, 2009
Reading revisited
In March (2009-03-23), we looked at studies which seemed to indicate that men read far fewer books than women do. NPR (2007) reported on an AP/Ipsos survey that found that the typical American had read only 4 books in 2006. The same NPR article suggests that the Harry Potter series might have made an impact on the reading gap, according to a Scholastic survey: "Sixty-one percent [of boys] agreed with the statement 'I didn't read books for fun before reading Harry Potter,' compared with 41 percent of girls.".
The relationship between reading skill and reading for pleasure appears to be strong: Chiu and McBride-Chang (2006) found that girls outscored boys on reading comprehension tests across 43 countries. However, reading enjoyment mediated 42% of the gender difference, suggesting that girls may be better readers because they enjoy reading more.
Reading is awesome. This is not the post I meant to write today, and so I don't feel like I'm prepared to talk about this. I got completely sidetracked by the NPR article. Um. I read a lot as a kid, and I never really feel like I have enough time for reading as an adult. I tend to read more in summer, because it's something I can do outside. I was going to talk about the split between male and female authors, but the BBC article I was going to cite has gone missing somewhere...
I do feel like reading skill and reading enjoyment is sort of chicken and egg. Are girls better at it because they enjoy it more, or do they enjoy it more because it's not as hard?
Find out the day's topic before you read: follow diffblog on Twitter! Diffblog also available on LiveJournal.
Difference Blog Reader Poll
The relationship between reading skill and reading for pleasure appears to be strong: Chiu and McBride-Chang (2006) found that girls outscored boys on reading comprehension tests across 43 countries. However, reading enjoyment mediated 42% of the gender difference, suggesting that girls may be better readers because they enjoy reading more.
Reading is awesome. This is not the post I meant to write today, and so I don't feel like I'm prepared to talk about this. I got completely sidetracked by the NPR article. Um. I read a lot as a kid, and I never really feel like I have enough time for reading as an adult. I tend to read more in summer, because it's something I can do outside. I was going to talk about the split between male and female authors, but the BBC article I was going to cite has gone missing somewhere...
I do feel like reading skill and reading enjoyment is sort of chicken and egg. Are girls better at it because they enjoy it more, or do they enjoy it more because it's not as hard?
Find out the day's topic before you read: follow diffblog on Twitter! Diffblog also available on LiveJournal.
Difference Blog Reader Poll
Thursday, May 21, 2009
Gender and Marijuana
In February (2009-02-25), we looked at social studies about the use of marijuana, and found that men were more likely to use it as adolescents while women were more likely to use it after age 25. An animal study suggested that females received more effects from THC than males (MacGregor & Arnold, 2007).
However, there does not seem to be universal agreement on whether males or females are more affected by THC. Farhang et al (2009) examined the psychoneuroendocrinology of cannabinoids in mouse and guinea pig models, and found that males in these species showed significantly more appetite and body-temperature effect than females. The authors argue that differences in the efficacy of THC to regulate appetite should be taken into account when recommending marijuana for clinical use. However, a review by Craft (2005) argues that most rodent and human studies find stronger behavioral effects of cannabis in females.
Are you confused yet? I sure as hell am. When I come across studies like these, I have to wonder what's causing the conflicting results. Are they looking at the same "effects?" Are they controlling for the same factors? And, in this particular case, is the perspective they're approaching it from coloring the results? Are we seeing expectation bias? I bring this up because Farhang et al appear to be approaching THC as a potential medical treatment, while Craft appears to approach it as a social problem. So, when marijuana may be beneficial, men benefit, but when it's harmful, women are more vulnerable. I'm afraid I might be putting too much baggage on these studies, but something looks wrong to me here.
Find out the day's topic before you read: follow diffblog on Twitter! Diffblog also available on LiveJournal.
Difference Blog Reader Poll
However, there does not seem to be universal agreement on whether males or females are more affected by THC. Farhang et al (2009) examined the psychoneuroendocrinology of cannabinoids in mouse and guinea pig models, and found that males in these species showed significantly more appetite and body-temperature effect than females. The authors argue that differences in the efficacy of THC to regulate appetite should be taken into account when recommending marijuana for clinical use. However, a review by Craft (2005) argues that most rodent and human studies find stronger behavioral effects of cannabis in females.
Are you confused yet? I sure as hell am. When I come across studies like these, I have to wonder what's causing the conflicting results. Are they looking at the same "effects?" Are they controlling for the same factors? And, in this particular case, is the perspective they're approaching it from coloring the results? Are we seeing expectation bias? I bring this up because Farhang et al appear to be approaching THC as a potential medical treatment, while Craft appears to approach it as a social problem. So, when marijuana may be beneficial, men benefit, but when it's harmful, women are more vulnerable. I'm afraid I might be putting too much baggage on these studies, but something looks wrong to me here.
Find out the day's topic before you read: follow diffblog on Twitter! Diffblog also available on LiveJournal.
Difference Blog Reader Poll
Wednesday, May 20, 2009
Charity revisited
According to the Boston Globe (2009), women may be the driving force in most women's charitable giving. A Fidelity Charitable Gift Fund study (p.r. 2009) found that 92% of men named their wives as the primary influence in their giving choices. This seems to be in conflict with charitable giving findings discussed last fall (2008-09-04), which showed that most couples resolved giving conflicts in favor of the husband's preferences (see Andreoni et al, 2000). However, it could be that most households fail to have conflicts over giving.
The Fidelity study did not find any gender differences in likelihood of researching a charity before giving (89% of men and women do this). High-income (income over $150K) women are less likely to give anonymously than donors in general, according to the survey. One recent anonymous donor has been making news, and is speculated to be a woman: at least 14 woman-led-colleges in the past year have received large, anonymous donations with the condition that the donor not be identified (Chronicle of Higher Ed, 2009).
I have to say that I was surprised and pleased that so many of the respondents research the charities that they give to. This could be a result of the group surveyed: Fidelity only surveyed people who have over $1,000 in a year. I've been making charity a bigger priority this year, because I expected that donations would go down with the economy in the crapper.
On the Mystery Donor: I love rumors. Since I work in Higher Ed, I'd been following the story for a while. I didn't realize it had hit mainstream media, too. A friend who watches Rachel Maddow (I don't, but feel like I should) says that the esteemed commentator considers Oprah the most likely suspect, although news reports say Oprah's denying it. It's fun to speculate about people being secretly good for a change.
Find out the day's topic before you read: follow diffblog on Twitter! Diffblog also available on LiveJournal.
Difference Blog Reader Poll
The Fidelity study did not find any gender differences in likelihood of researching a charity before giving (89% of men and women do this). High-income (income over $150K) women are less likely to give anonymously than donors in general, according to the survey. One recent anonymous donor has been making news, and is speculated to be a woman: at least 14 woman-led-colleges in the past year have received large, anonymous donations with the condition that the donor not be identified (Chronicle of Higher Ed, 2009).
I have to say that I was surprised and pleased that so many of the respondents research the charities that they give to. This could be a result of the group surveyed: Fidelity only surveyed people who have over $1,000 in a year. I've been making charity a bigger priority this year, because I expected that donations would go down with the economy in the crapper.
On the Mystery Donor: I love rumors. Since I work in Higher Ed, I'd been following the story for a while. I didn't realize it had hit mainstream media, too. A friend who watches Rachel Maddow (I don't, but feel like I should) says that the esteemed commentator considers Oprah the most likely suspect, although news reports say Oprah's denying it. It's fun to speculate about people being secretly good for a change.
Find out the day's topic before you read: follow diffblog on Twitter! Diffblog also available on LiveJournal.
Difference Blog Reader Poll
Tuesday, May 19, 2009
Beneficial Neuroses
Roberts et al (2009) found that the personality trait neuroticism seemed to complement another trait, conscientiousness, to improve health outcomes for people over 50. In accordance with prior research, Roberts et al found that conscientiousness predicted better health while neuroticism predicted worse health. However, people with both traits had better health overall. Additionally, a conscientious spouse predicted better health for both sexes. However, one surprising gender difference emerged from Roberts study: women with conscientious/neurotic husbands seemed to be healthier, while men with conscientious/neurotic wives did not.
It's worth noting that women may tend to score higher on both conscientiousness and neuroticism than men, according to Schmitt et al (2008). However, my concerns about Schmitt's ISDP studies have been discussed in detail before. Despite these concerns, many studies seem to be consistent with gender differences on Big 5 traits (e.g. Costa et al, 2001; Budaev, 1999). Roberts et al did not report whether there was any gender difference in scores on the personality items.
Argh. I hate trait theory, and I always have a hard time justifying why to myself. I suspect it's because I need to believe that people can change: hello, I'm a case study for that. Despite the party line that my personality has not changed along with my physical characteristics, I think there have been definite changes -- based on my hormonal profile and the fact that I'mnot crazy a lot happier. Trait theory seems to suggest that people's personalities essentially don't change, and I guess it's understandable why I wouldn't want that to be true.
Find out the day's topic before you read: follow diffblog on Twitter! Diffblog also available on LiveJournal.
Difference Blog Reader Poll
It's worth noting that women may tend to score higher on both conscientiousness and neuroticism than men, according to Schmitt et al (2008). However, my concerns about Schmitt's ISDP studies have been discussed in detail before. Despite these concerns, many studies seem to be consistent with gender differences on Big 5 traits (e.g. Costa et al, 2001; Budaev, 1999). Roberts et al did not report whether there was any gender difference in scores on the personality items.
Argh. I hate trait theory, and I always have a hard time justifying why to myself. I suspect it's because I need to believe that people can change: hello, I'm a case study for that. Despite the party line that my personality has not changed along with my physical characteristics, I think there have been definite changes -- based on my hormonal profile and the fact that I'm
Find out the day's topic before you read: follow diffblog on Twitter! Diffblog also available on LiveJournal.
Difference Blog Reader Poll
Monday, May 18, 2009
[Filler] Education.com on gender
I seem to be unable to search Google News or Google Scholar this morning. I knew I had a Google-dependency problem, but I didn't realize how strong it was. So instead, I'll review another website:
A couple of months ago, I received an email from Laura Compian at the website Education.com, inviting me to look at that website's content on gender differences. It's been sitting in the to-do list for a while. The site uses Leonard Sax's research as the main source, and doesn't mention Hyde. In fact, I don't see any opposing viewpoints about whether there are benefits to single-sex education.
I don't know where the idea that opposing viewpoints are confusing came from, or that a lay audience wouldn't be interested in seeing this. The email from Compian described the articles as "parent-friendly", but reading them, all I see is "dumbed down".
NB: The author has a pretty strong bias against single-sex education, especially when teaching methods are tailored to one sex or the other. Differential teaching seems to make for a self-fulfilling prophecy about men and women having different thinking styles and skill sets.
Find out the day's topic before you read: follow diffblog on Twitter! Diffblog also available on LiveJournal.
Difference Blog Reader Poll
A couple of months ago, I received an email from Laura Compian at the website Education.com, inviting me to look at that website's content on gender differences. It's been sitting in the to-do list for a while. The site uses Leonard Sax's research as the main source, and doesn't mention Hyde. In fact, I don't see any opposing viewpoints about whether there are benefits to single-sex education.
I don't know where the idea that opposing viewpoints are confusing came from, or that a lay audience wouldn't be interested in seeing this. The email from Compian described the articles as "parent-friendly", but reading them, all I see is "dumbed down".
NB: The author has a pretty strong bias against single-sex education, especially when teaching methods are tailored to one sex or the other. Differential teaching seems to make for a self-fulfilling prophecy about men and women having different thinking styles and skill sets.
Find out the day's topic before you read: follow diffblog on Twitter! Diffblog also available on LiveJournal.
Difference Blog Reader Poll
Friday, May 15, 2009
Motherhood and Career
Wednesday on Twitter, Schnoober pointed out an article in the American Bar Association Journal (2009) which claims that time off for parenting, not gender, explains the pay gap between male and female lawyers. Kenneth Dau-Schmidt, a professor of Labor and Employment Law at Indiana University, claims that men who took time off from their law careers for parenting also suffered a "significant gap" in pay and promotions. Dau-Schmidt's findings are based on a study of University of Michigan alumni graduating from 1967-2000; more detail is available in a "do not cite" draft from two years ago (Dau-Schmidt et al, 2007).
I get the argument, really: "sexism isn't an issue because [variable] is a much bigger contributor to the discrepancy." I even have a hard time not buying into it. It's tempting for me to believe that, given similar circumstances, a man and a woman would be treated equally. Unfortunately, "a bigger contributor" isn't the same as the only contributor. Yes: time out of work is a huge confound in performance measures for career growth, and it tends to hit women disproportionately. Why does it hit women so much harder than men, even in this day and age? I'm reminded of an essay in the Atlantic* from March which said:
*Hat-tip to Laurenhat for pointing out a Pandagon.net essay referencing Rosin.
Find out the day's topic before you read: follow diffblog on Twitter! Diffblog also available on LiveJournal.
Difference Blog Reader Poll
I get the argument, really: "sexism isn't an issue because [variable] is a much bigger contributor to the discrepancy." I even have a hard time not buying into it. It's tempting for me to believe that, given similar circumstances, a man and a woman would be treated equally. Unfortunately, "a bigger contributor" isn't the same as the only contributor. Yes: time out of work is a huge confound in performance measures for career growth, and it tends to hit women disproportionately. Why does it hit women so much harder than men, even in this day and age? I'm reminded of an essay in the Atlantic* from March which said:
In my set, no husband tells his wife that it is her womanly duty to stay home and nurse the child. Instead, both parents together weigh the evidence and then make a rational, informed decision that she should do so. Then other, logical decisions follow" -- Hanna Rosin (2009)As one commenter on the ABA Journal article pointed out, time out of the office is only part of the picture. Assumptions that working moms won't be up for the same types of projects as working dads are still prevalent. Dau-Schmidt even tells the ABA Journal that "gender was secondary, and much less important, than whether they had interrupted their careers to do child care". That's not equivalent to the headline used: "Many Women Lawyers w/ Kids Do as Well as Men".
*Hat-tip to Laurenhat for pointing out a Pandagon.net essay referencing Rosin.
Find out the day's topic before you read: follow diffblog on Twitter! Diffblog also available on LiveJournal.
Difference Blog Reader Poll
Thursday, May 14, 2009
Sounding Gay
While reading for yesterday's post on pitch dynamism, I tripped over the following passage in Gaudio (1994): "Sounding Gay: Pitch Properties in the Speech of Gay and Straight Men"
I was thinking about the quoted passage this morning, in terms of "learning to be gay", which I not-so-secretly hope is a dying rite of passage. There are more characterizations of queer people that don't fit the stereotypes than there used to be. Do young gay men still develop the "accent"? I know I noticed it a lot in the 1990's, but I don't hear it as much anymore. I'm not a big fan of having a separate gay culture, generally. One thing I was thinking this morning was that while people are always assuming I had to learn to be a man, most straight people never think about my having to learn to be queer -- or at least, they don't seem to ask about it as often.
Find out the day's topic before you read: follow diffblog on Twitter! Diffblog also available on LiveJournal.
Difference Blog Reader Poll
Many gay, lesbian, and bisexual people can recall the pre-coming out experience of rifling through dictionaries, encyclopedias, and book indexes, nervously seeking any reference at all that might have something to do with our incipient sexualities. We pored over clinical definitions of homosexuality and sodomy as if we'd found forbidden fruit. We watched television and movies and waited for those rare appearances of swishy fags and heartless dykes, never letting on how closely we were paying attention to the way these stereotyped characters looked, acted, dressed, and talked.Gaudio explores what it means to "sound gay", taking to task many writers (such as Lakoff, 1990) who claim that gay men "imitate" women's speech. Gaudio's experiment found that listeners were "largely accurate" in identifying (out, self-identified) gay speakers, and that most listeners rated this speech as "gay" and "effeminate", as opposed to the controls who were identified as "straight" and "masculine".
I was thinking about the quoted passage this morning, in terms of "learning to be gay", which I not-so-secretly hope is a dying rite of passage. There are more characterizations of queer people that don't fit the stereotypes than there used to be. Do young gay men still develop the "accent"? I know I noticed it a lot in the 1990's, but I don't hear it as much anymore. I'm not a big fan of having a separate gay culture, generally. One thing I was thinking this morning was that while people are always assuming I had to learn to be a man, most straight people never think about my having to learn to be queer -- or at least, they don't seem to ask about it as often.
Find out the day's topic before you read: follow diffblog on Twitter! Diffblog also available on LiveJournal.
Difference Blog Reader Poll
Wednesday, May 13, 2009
Vocal dynamism
Continuing on the topic from Monday (2008-05-11), listeners assign sex to voices very quickly (see 2007-02-08). The largest and most obvious difference between male and female voices is the frequency, based on a larger larynx in men. However, there are several other differences that also seem to impact perceived sex of a speaker. A review by Whiteside (1996) discusses 40 years of research into these cues, including speed (women tend to speak more slowly) and variability of pitch (men tend to be more monotonal). Henton (1995) contradicts the latter claim, demonstrating that although "females are physically capable of producing a total pitch range almost double that of males", no statistically significant difference in use of "vocal dynamism" has been experimentally demonstrated. Henton goes on to claim that women may be doing themselves more social harm than good by trying to coach their voices into lower and more monotonal patterns, by being damned as "phoney".
Honestly, I wouldn't have guessed the speed thing: my impression as a listener is that women tend to speak more quickly. When I was starting to transition, I got a lot of hints and coaching from people on how to make my voice sound more male. Speed wasn't mentioned, although the variability of pitch certainly was: I feel like my vocal pitch is/was variable even for a woman. Testosterone changed my voicebox, but not my habits. However, I feel like my range got a lot narrower when my voice changed (that would be supported by Henton's article), which led to a more monotonal way of speaking. That being said: this kind of self-report may be worse than useless. I did record a couple of voice clips pre-and-post transition, but not enough to get a sense of my pitch variations.
Find out the day's topic before you read: follow diffblog on Twitter! Diffblog also available on LiveJournal.
Difference Blog Reader Poll
Honestly, I wouldn't have guessed the speed thing: my impression as a listener is that women tend to speak more quickly. When I was starting to transition, I got a lot of hints and coaching from people on how to make my voice sound more male. Speed wasn't mentioned, although the variability of pitch certainly was: I feel like my vocal pitch is/was variable even for a woman. Testosterone changed my voicebox, but not my habits. However, I feel like my range got a lot narrower when my voice changed (that would be supported by Henton's article), which led to a more monotonal way of speaking. That being said: this kind of self-report may be worse than useless. I did record a couple of voice clips pre-and-post transition, but not enough to get a sense of my pitch variations.
Find out the day's topic before you read: follow diffblog on Twitter! Diffblog also available on LiveJournal.
Difference Blog Reader Poll
Tuesday, May 12, 2009
Classifying violence
In a review published this week, Langhinrichsen-Rohling (2009) identifies five issues in intimate partner violence (IPV) that complicate the discussion:
One typology seems reasonable replicable: a dichotomy between "intimate terrorism" and "situational couple violence", proposed by Johnson (1995). Intimate terrorism is described as "systematic, not related to temper outbursts, and typically perpetrated by men against women"; situational couple violence is contrasted as "occasional" and "able to be perpetrated by either men or women." Ignoring women's violence is dangerous, Langhinrichsen-Rohling argues, because women's use of violence often leads to retaliatory violence by men (citing Straus, 1999).
We've looked at women's abuse of men a couple of times in the past (2008-06-09, 2008-02-04) and I'm surprised by my own commentary on the posts. Actually, this happens a lot: I am often surprised to read my commentary, because it's not how I remember feeling about an issue, or I thought I'd be more ambivalent about it.
Langhinrichsen-Rohling called her paper "Controversies Involving Gender and Intimate Partner Violence in the United States". Here's my personal controversy: how the hell do we talk reasonably about male victims of IPV without completely derailing the conversation about the more common case? I feel like the context of institutionalized sexism is really important to both the violence, and why we can't seem to discuss about one without invalidating the other. However, when I find myself using terms like "invalidating" and "institutionalized sexism", somewhere someone kills a bunny. It's true.
Find out the day's topic before you read: follow diffblog on Twitter! Diffblog also available on LiveJournal.
Difference Blog Reader Poll
- gender symmetry of perpetration
- utility of typologies
- understanding bi-directionally violent couples
- violence motivations and self-defense
- treatment effectiveness
One typology seems reasonable replicable: a dichotomy between "intimate terrorism" and "situational couple violence", proposed by Johnson (1995). Intimate terrorism is described as "systematic, not related to temper outbursts, and typically perpetrated by men against women"; situational couple violence is contrasted as "occasional" and "able to be perpetrated by either men or women." Ignoring women's violence is dangerous, Langhinrichsen-Rohling argues, because women's use of violence often leads to retaliatory violence by men (citing Straus, 1999).
We've looked at women's abuse of men a couple of times in the past (2008-06-09, 2008-02-04) and I'm surprised by my own commentary on the posts. Actually, this happens a lot: I am often surprised to read my commentary, because it's not how I remember feeling about an issue, or I thought I'd be more ambivalent about it.
Langhinrichsen-Rohling called her paper "Controversies Involving Gender and Intimate Partner Violence in the United States". Here's my personal controversy: how the hell do we talk reasonably about male victims of IPV without completely derailing the conversation about the more common case? I feel like the context of institutionalized sexism is really important to both the violence, and why we can't seem to discuss about one without invalidating the other. However, when I find myself using terms like "invalidating" and "institutionalized sexism", somewhere someone kills a bunny. It's true.
Find out the day's topic before you read: follow diffblog on Twitter! Diffblog also available on LiveJournal.
Difference Blog Reader Poll
Monday, May 11, 2009
Definitely not?
A popular conception that women use a question intonation more often than men is usually attributed to linguist Robin Lakoff. This has not been substantiated by research: Graddol and Swann's Gender Voices (1989) questions both the prevalence of this habit in women's speech as well as the interpretation of the question intonation as a sign of hesitancy.
However, the concept continues to crop up in popular culture. In an episode of Family Guy (2006), a female character is mocked for her rising inflection, although Mark Liberman (writing in Language Log, 2006) points out that the mocking fails to use a rising inflection. Another example is writer Jason Horowitz's characterization of "The Affect" in the New York Observer (2006). This rant described a female vocal style using this inflection, but Language Log again questioned the conclusions in pieces by both Zimmer (2006) and Liberman (2006).
I was reminded of this (admittedly cobwebby) story again because of a recent Family Guy bringing back the Jillian (voice by Drew Barrymore), who still ends her sentences with a question mark. Observer bias sucks. I am incredibly aware of the use of qualifying and tentative habits in my own speech because it was pointed out to me as a female habit to avoid when I was no more than 11 years old. It seems like Lakoff's (and Deborah Tannen's) communications work gets brought up to me all the time, but I suspect that's observer bias again. Unfortunately, the problem is that these things seem only to be noticed when they're brought up, and they're self-confirming, as with many gender stereotypes. They seem true when pointed out, and become more true the more people who know about them. It makes me exceptionally grateful for Language Log for putting a lot more depth into their posts than I've ever been able to get into DB.
Find out the day's topic before you read: follow diffblog on Twitter! Diffblog also available on LiveJournal.
Difference Blog Reader Poll
However, the concept continues to crop up in popular culture. In an episode of Family Guy (2006), a female character is mocked for her rising inflection, although Mark Liberman (writing in Language Log, 2006) points out that the mocking fails to use a rising inflection. Another example is writer Jason Horowitz's characterization of "The Affect" in the New York Observer (2006). This rant described a female vocal style using this inflection, but Language Log again questioned the conclusions in pieces by both Zimmer (2006) and Liberman (2006).
I was reminded of this (admittedly cobwebby) story again because of a recent Family Guy bringing back the Jillian (voice by Drew Barrymore), who still ends her sentences with a question mark. Observer bias sucks. I am incredibly aware of the use of qualifying and tentative habits in my own speech because it was pointed out to me as a female habit to avoid when I was no more than 11 years old. It seems like Lakoff's (and Deborah Tannen's) communications work gets brought up to me all the time, but I suspect that's observer bias again. Unfortunately, the problem is that these things seem only to be noticed when they're brought up, and they're self-confirming, as with many gender stereotypes. They seem true when pointed out, and become more true the more people who know about them. It makes me exceptionally grateful for Language Log for putting a lot more depth into their posts than I've ever been able to get into DB.
Find out the day's topic before you read: follow diffblog on Twitter! Diffblog also available on LiveJournal.
Difference Blog Reader Poll
Friday, May 8, 2009
Empathy, gender, and politics
It's been a week since President Barack Obama included "empathy" in the list of qualities he'd seek in a replacement for Supreme Court Justice Souter (see a partial transcript at The Huffington Post, 2009). In that week, debate about the President's meaning of "empathy" has been hotly debated. However, it's not the first time that Obama has spoken publicly about empathy, and certainly not the most emphatic. At an event honoring Dr. Martin Luther King in January of 2008, Obama coined used* the term "empathy deficit", calling it "the essential deficit that exists in this country." (BarackObama.com, 2008). Ruth Marcus, writing for the Washington Post (2009) points out a speech to Planned Parenthood in 2007, in which Obama again brought up the "empathy argument."
The quality of empathy is often ascribed as a feminine one. Previous posts have discussed empathy's role in forgiveness , but also the role of empathy in sports fandom (see 3/4/08, 3/29/07). Pronin et al. (2004) suggested that empathy was "weakly associated" with feminine stereotypes (see discussion 10/20/06). However, Eisenberg and Lennon (1983) found that sex differences in empathy depended mostly on the measurement tool: on self-report measures, women were far more empathetic, but on behavioral and decoding tests, no sex differences were apparent.
I've spent the last week thinking about the ridiculous flap over the use of the word empathy. Now, I've spent a lot of years denigrating empathy. I'm not generally a big fan of compassion, or emotion, for that matter. However, picking that one intangible out of the list of other intangibles that President Dreamypants mentioned, or acting like he's never talked about the importance of empathy before, well that just feels stupid. It also feels a little bit like there's some gender-stereotyping going on here, because of the idea that "empathy" necessarily means women's issues, or a woman Justice. Obama's clearly sold on empathy: why wouldn't he be able to find another man who was? That being said, I am sort of rooting for a woman Justice, but given the choice between, say, Anne Coulter and Al Franken, I'd take Franken.
* see comments: it's always tricking deciding who "coined" a phrase.
Find out the day's topic before you read: follow diffblog on Twitter! Diffblog also available on LiveJournal.
Difference Blog Reader Poll
The quality of empathy is often ascribed as a feminine one. Previous posts have discussed empathy's role in forgiveness , but also the role of empathy in sports fandom (see 3/4/08, 3/29/07). Pronin et al. (2004) suggested that empathy was "weakly associated" with feminine stereotypes (see discussion 10/20/06). However, Eisenberg and Lennon (1983) found that sex differences in empathy depended mostly on the measurement tool: on self-report measures, women were far more empathetic, but on behavioral and decoding tests, no sex differences were apparent.
I've spent the last week thinking about the ridiculous flap over the use of the word empathy. Now, I've spent a lot of years denigrating empathy. I'm not generally a big fan of compassion, or emotion, for that matter. However, picking that one intangible out of the list of other intangibles that President Dreamypants mentioned, or acting like he's never talked about the importance of empathy before, well that just feels stupid. It also feels a little bit like there's some gender-stereotyping going on here, because of the idea that "empathy" necessarily means women's issues, or a woman Justice. Obama's clearly sold on empathy: why wouldn't he be able to find another man who was? That being said, I am sort of rooting for a woman Justice, but given the choice between, say, Anne Coulter and Al Franken, I'd take Franken.
* see comments: it's always tricking deciding who "coined" a phrase.
Find out the day's topic before you read: follow diffblog on Twitter! Diffblog also available on LiveJournal.
Difference Blog Reader Poll
Thursday, May 7, 2009
Insurance rates
Last month, I wrote about California's proposed ban on differential health insurance rates for men and women (4/2/09). The New York Times (2009) reports that Karen Ignagni, president of America’s Health Insurance Plans (an association representing insurance companies) offered to eliminate these rate differences in a session of the Senate Finance Committee. Ignani's statement (pdf)) does not address this issue; according to the NYT, she responded to Senator Kerry who introduced a bill amending the Public Health Service Act (1946) to ban differential billing for women(S.969, 5/5/09).
A month ago, when I first found out about these difference in insurance rates, one thing I didn't think about was where the money for insurance comes from in most cases. In the U.S., only 8.5% of men and 9.4% of women purchased their own health insurance in 2007 (Census). About 60% of Americans are covered by employer-purchased health insurance. I wonder if this means that companies in female-dominated industries are paying more for their health insurance than companies in male-dominated industries? I don't actually know if these differences in rates impact group plans or only individual ones. Apparently I'm sleepy: the NYT article seems to say that this is only for individual plans - the approximately 10% of people who buy their own insurance.
Also, I asked in April, and got no response, so I'll ask again: is it fair for insurers to charge more for clients who are more likely to need care, and more likely to use it? How do you define "fair"? Is fair when people pay for what they use, or when everyone pays the same?
Find out the day's topic before you read: follow diffblog on Twitter! Diffblog also available on LiveJournal.
Difference Blog Reader Poll
A month ago, when I first found out about these difference in insurance rates, one thing I didn't think about was where the money for insurance comes from in most cases. In the U.S., only 8.5% of men and 9.4% of women purchased their own health insurance in 2007 (Census). About 60% of Americans are covered by employer-purchased health insurance. I wonder if this means that companies in female-dominated industries are paying more for their health insurance than companies in male-dominated industries? I don't actually know if these differences in rates impact group plans or only individual ones. Apparently I'm sleepy: the NYT article seems to say that this is only for individual plans - the approximately 10% of people who buy their own insurance.
Also, I asked in April, and got no response, so I'll ask again: is it fair for insurers to charge more for clients who are more likely to need care, and more likely to use it? How do you define "fair"? Is fair when people pay for what they use, or when everyone pays the same?
Find out the day's topic before you read: follow diffblog on Twitter! Diffblog also available on LiveJournal.
Difference Blog Reader Poll
Wednesday, May 6, 2009
Male Contraception revisited
Yesterday, the BBC (2009) reported that Chinese researchers have had a successful test of an injectable contraceptive for men. Gu et al (2009) injected 1,045 healthy men with 500 mg of testosterone undecanoate monthly, with contraceptive results comparable to hormonal methods currently available to women. The same group determined this dose in a previous study, testing placebo, 500mg/month, and 1,000mg/month in groups of 12 men (Zhang et al, 1999). The researchers predict that the method could be available within five years if further testing goes well. As discussed in March (3/26/09), over half of men surveyed would like more personal control over their fertility.
Those of you following the Diffblog Twitter feed will probably be disappointed at this shameless self-promotion. I'm revisiting this topic largely because I participated in the BBC's "World Have Your Say" radio discussion of this story (BBC message board; WHYS radio podcast). I received an email yesterday morning regarding the March blog post, and asking if I wanted to discuss whether men could be trusted with the responsibility of birth control.
What amazed me was the ridiculous blame-game on both sides of the debate. Both men and women accused the opposite sex of intentionally sabotaging birth control, or lying about it, in order to cause pregnancy. How often can this seriously happen? And why does the introduction of another potential method of birth control suddenly move all responsibility from one sex to the other?
For comparison, the so-called "standard" dose of testosterone (for hormone replacement or FTM transition) is 200mg per two weeks (of testosterone cypionate or testosterone enanthate). A pharmaceutical study recommended doses of 750mg per 10 weeks for undecanoate in hypogonadal men (MedNewsToday, 2009). The dosage used in this study seems to be a touch higher, though not nearly as high as doses used for performance-enhancement. I caution against having too much faith in the term "standard" here, since dosing is highly individualized: I take half that much (50mg weekly).
Find out the day's topic before you read: follow diffblog on Twitter! Diffblog also available on LiveJournal.
Difference Blog Reader Poll
Those of you following the Diffblog Twitter feed will probably be disappointed at this shameless self-promotion. I'm revisiting this topic largely because I participated in the BBC's "World Have Your Say" radio discussion of this story (BBC message board; WHYS radio podcast). I received an email yesterday morning regarding the March blog post, and asking if I wanted to discuss whether men could be trusted with the responsibility of birth control.
What amazed me was the ridiculous blame-game on both sides of the debate. Both men and women accused the opposite sex of intentionally sabotaging birth control, or lying about it, in order to cause pregnancy. How often can this seriously happen? And why does the introduction of another potential method of birth control suddenly move all responsibility from one sex to the other?
For comparison, the so-called "standard" dose of testosterone (for hormone replacement or FTM transition) is 200mg per two weeks (of testosterone cypionate or testosterone enanthate). A pharmaceutical study recommended doses of 750mg per 10 weeks for undecanoate in hypogonadal men (MedNewsToday, 2009). The dosage used in this study seems to be a touch higher, though not nearly as high as doses used for performance-enhancement. I caution against having too much faith in the term "standard" here, since dosing is highly individualized: I take half that much (50mg weekly).
Find out the day's topic before you read: follow diffblog on Twitter! Diffblog also available on LiveJournal.
Difference Blog Reader Poll
Tuesday, May 5, 2009
Challenging work
De Pater et al (2009) examined the relationship between challenging tasks and career growth potential in a group of 93 interns. Their study demonstrated a link between the intern's self-reported experience of challenging tasks and their supervisors' ratings of potential for career growth: those who reported a more challenging work experience were rated as more likely to succeed. The female interns reported having fewer challenging experiences than the male interns. In a separate experiment, 158 students were measured for gender differences in the choice to take on challenging tasks when personal performance was at a premium: women chose fewer challenges than men in this experiment as well.
According to Semykina and Lin (2007), "need for challenge" is a personality trait which occurs more often in men: it is described in opposition to "need for affiliation". However, Burke and Nelson's book Advancing women's careers (2002) claims that men and women tend to demonstrate an equal need for challenging work (see Cox and Harquail, 1991).
This is a tough one to compare to my own experience, for damn sure. My career as a woman was an entirely separate industry than my career since transition (entertainment vs. education). Then again, it's arguable that I left entertainment because I wasn't being challenged anymore. Unfortunately, my own motivations and behavior are something of a black box to me. I can make educated guesses as why B follows A, but I can't get anything approaching causality out of it.
However, I am deeply dubious about the measurement of a scale that goes from "challenge" to "affiliation", and I wonder if there's a translation issue with the meanings of "competition" and "challenge."
Find out the day's topic before you read: follow diffblog on Twitter! Diffblog also available on LiveJournal.
Difference Blog Reader Poll
According to Semykina and Lin (2007), "need for challenge" is a personality trait which occurs more often in men: it is described in opposition to "need for affiliation". However, Burke and Nelson's book Advancing women's careers (2002) claims that men and women tend to demonstrate an equal need for challenging work (see Cox and Harquail, 1991).
This is a tough one to compare to my own experience, for damn sure. My career as a woman was an entirely separate industry than my career since transition (entertainment vs. education). Then again, it's arguable that I left entertainment because I wasn't being challenged anymore. Unfortunately, my own motivations and behavior are something of a black box to me. I can make educated guesses as why B follows A, but I can't get anything approaching causality out of it.
However, I am deeply dubious about the measurement of a scale that goes from "challenge" to "affiliation", and I wonder if there's a translation issue with the meanings of "competition" and "challenge."
Find out the day's topic before you read: follow diffblog on Twitter! Diffblog also available on LiveJournal.
Difference Blog Reader Poll
Monday, May 4, 2009
Non-traditional
A University of Michigan Press release (2009) and podcast describes differences between men's and women's symptoms at the onset of an ischemic stroke. The main findings reported are from Lisabeth et al's (2009) prospective study conducted at the University of Michigan Hospital over three years (2005 - 2007). About half of the stroke sufferers interviewed were women (48.6%), and women were more likely than men to present with "non-traditional" symptoms. The most common non-traditional symptom was altered mental state ("confusion, disorientation or a loss of consciousness"), occuring in 23.2% of women and 15.2% of men.
As we've already discussed, women's heart attack symptoms also present differently than men's (10/11/06, 1/15/09). For me, the differentiation of stroke symptoms begs the question: why are we still calling the male set of symptoms "traditional" (for heart attacks, stroke, and probably other ailments)? Why are we teaching doctors a set of symptoms that only correctly diagnoses half the population? Maybe I'm just expecting change too soon, but I feel like the argument has been successfully and repeatedly made at this point. Seeing continued stories that "our old benchmarks don't work for women" strikes me as a failure in redefining the benchmarks.
Find out the day's topic before you read: follow diffblog on Twitter! Diffblog also available on LiveJournal.
Difference Blog Reader Poll
As we've already discussed, women's heart attack symptoms also present differently than men's (10/11/06, 1/15/09). For me, the differentiation of stroke symptoms begs the question: why are we still calling the male set of symptoms "traditional" (for heart attacks, stroke, and probably other ailments)? Why are we teaching doctors a set of symptoms that only correctly diagnoses half the population? Maybe I'm just expecting change too soon, but I feel like the argument has been successfully and repeatedly made at this point. Seeing continued stories that "our old benchmarks don't work for women" strikes me as a failure in redefining the benchmarks.
Find out the day's topic before you read: follow diffblog on Twitter! Diffblog also available on LiveJournal.
Difference Blog Reader Poll
Friday, May 1, 2009
Kenyan Sex Strike
Kenyan women have organized a "sex strike" as a protest against the power struggles between that country's President and Prime Minister, according to the Associated Press (2009). The AP calls sex strikes "rare worldwide", but one Kenyan critic of the strike calls it "un-African" as well as "shameful and bizarre" (Voice of America, 2009). The BBC (2009) reports that the Kenyan Prime Minister's wife has supported the ban, but that the President's wife has not responded.
I don't know why we as a species seem to be in love with the idea of a sex strike, from Aristophanes' Lysistrata (411 BCE) to Absurdistan (2008). Despite the fact that I've only written about it once (6/23/08), "withholding sex" is the third most common search term leading to hits on differenceblog.com. But why? Why is it so titillating? Is it just schadenfreude? Is it the double standard forbidding women from talking about sex at all? The VoA article linked above sure makes it look that way. Does it actually ever work? It might: a BBC (2001) article suggests that the "no water, no sex" plot in "Absurdistan" is actually based on real events in Turkey.
Find out the day's topic before you read: follow diffblog on Twitter! Diffblog also available on LiveJournal.
Difference Blog Reader Poll
I don't know why we as a species seem to be in love with the idea of a sex strike, from Aristophanes' Lysistrata (411 BCE) to Absurdistan (2008). Despite the fact that I've only written about it once (6/23/08), "withholding sex" is the third most common search term leading to hits on differenceblog.com. But why? Why is it so titillating? Is it just schadenfreude? Is it the double standard forbidding women from talking about sex at all? The VoA article linked above sure makes it look that way. Does it actually ever work? It might: a BBC (2001) article suggests that the "no water, no sex" plot in "Absurdistan" is actually based on real events in Turkey.
Find out the day's topic before you read: follow diffblog on Twitter! Diffblog also available on LiveJournal.
Difference Blog Reader Poll
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
