«

»

Sep 09 2006

Saturday Photo Addendum to Friday Patriarchy Check

googlescreenshot.jpg
Several of the merry commenters on yesterday’s post—wherein I Googled the word ‘women’ and reported the results—seemed to think I was just making shit up when I wrote that the first four items were exclusively concerned with women’s subordination. It is my young life’s dream to alleviate idiocy wherever I find it, so patriarchy-deniers will please accept this screenshot as proof that their head is up their ass. Because the screenshot was taken this morning, the specific news items differ from the ones I quoted yesterday, but I believe you will find that the rest of it is just as I described it: sex, sex, news about oppression, beauty/shopping tips, and dreary nerd biography site.

Sheesh.

68 comments

  1. maggiethewolf

    When one googles, it changes hour by hour. However, the 2 at the top are paid links. The more representative links are those in purple font.

  2. Twisty

    Thanks for unlocking the deep mysteries of Google for us, maggiethewolf.

    Why, I wonder, this bizarre tendency to discount the sex links? Are they less real because they’re ads?

  3. mrs_enid

    Yes, they’re less “real” because they’re ads. They were not generated by the search engine. Someone paid to have them put there, before the results that are generated by the search engine’s algorithms. Just like when I go to Salon.com or NYtimes.com and have to sit through a bunch of Netflix pop ups, or open the latest issue of the Atlantic Monthly and have to page through crap about some annuity. They are ads, not content. Also, unlike newspapers, magazines or websites, Google does give its users the option of turning ads off and viewing search engine results without the ads at the top. You can choose that under your preferences.

  4. maggiethewolf

    Twisty, you’re being sarcastic with one of your dear, albeit unbeloved readers. Please check all sarcasm at the portal to cyberspace. It’s as unbecoming here as it is in meatspace.

    What you frame as a “bizarre tendency to discount the sex links,” I frame as the inevitable intrustion of capitalism and free speech. If I had the lucre, I could pay to display “Twisty: Hot and Willing!”

    And you could post about the implications of “Twisty: Hot and Willing!”, whereas the presence of the Twisty sex site link would just be me trying to make a buck and be willing to cyberfuck you along the way.

    Your observation would more valid IF you’d googled a thousand words, some applying to women and some not, and then cross-referenced and only then, with all due qualifying, concluded. But to enter “women” and then conclude isn’t even perfunctory analysis. It’s preperfunctory. Or preprepreperfunctory.

    Twisty, you’ve been fighting the good, brave fight against patriarchy for a good, long time and I thank you, but this time, I think you’re swinging at shadows…and you’re swinging at me. I might not be your beloved, but you are my beloved. I just wish you could be my beloved without the sarcasm.

  5. maggiethewolf

    Hey, Mrs. Enid, you preagreed with me! That’s a rare thing at this site. And tres cool!!!

  6. MissIzzy

    However, the 2 at the top are paid links. The more representative links are those in purple font.

    Damn, otherwise someone could try a googlebomb.

  7. CafeSiren

    Maggie, have you been reading this blog? There’s plenty of dissent, but there’s never been a time when IBtP was a sarcasm-free zone. Everybody gets it, now and then. Twisty’s house, her rules.

    Twisty, now that I see the screen shot you post, I see the issue: on my browser, the paid links display in a sidebar, so I wasn’t counting them as “top” links (paid or otherwise), since they weren’t at the top of my screen.

    On an unrelated note, my brother, his partner, and my 4 yr-old niece are in town, staying in my tiny 1BR apt., and I am grooving on my spinster-aunt-ly status. Today I kidnap the yapper and take her to the aquarium. Tomorrow to a local story-arts&crafts hour at a coffee shop. Tomorrow evening I give her back and the family is on their way. A spinster aunt’s life is good.

  8. mrs_enid

    Twisty, you are spot on 99.9% of the time. However, this time I can’t agree and that doesn’t make me a patriarchy-denier. I will admit to having my head up my ass about a lot of things, but not about the patriarchy and not about how search engines work.

    Twisty, this is one of my favorite blogs and you are undeniably the deal. However, I have to agree to disagree with you on this one.

  9. maggiethewolf

    CafeSiren: “Maggie, have you been reading this blog?”

    Yep.

    “There’s plenty of dissent, but there’s never been a time when IBtP was a sarcasm-free zone. Everybody gets it, now and then. Twisty’s house, her rules.”

    Don’t make right. Audre Lord says that we can’t dismantle the master’s house with the master’s tools. Well, sarcasm is one of the master’s tools.

    C’mon, Twisty, you were there.

    You walked past the pack of pretty boys and pretty girls and heard them say, “Uh, nice pants.”

    And you heard them laugh as you walked away. Just ’bout every queer girl in the world walked the gauntlet of sarcasm…again and again. Just ’cause it’s your house and you make the rules don’t make it right.

  10. julski

    mrs_enid said:

    “Google does give its users the option of turning ads off and viewing search engine results without the ads at the top. You can choose that under your preferences. ”

    I’m all over the Preferences, and not finding that option.

  11. Twisty

    Whereas I maintain that, paid ad or not, I nevertheless saw the sexbot sites first when I Googled ‘women’. In fact, the statement “I googled ‘women’ and this is what I saw” is only true IF I include the sex links.

    I appreciate the blamer’s reluctance to concede that advertising has meaning, but, sadly, my data do not support that hypothesis. The commodification of women, as exemplified by NewSexBuddy et al, is a cornerstone of patriarchal ideology.

  12. Pony

    Sorry. Twisty’s right re both ads, and sarcasm (her blog).

    As for google: yes the ads are up front and to the side, using Firefox aa a browser with Google preferences set at medium, and googling __women__.

    Google __”women”__ and it’s even worse.

    Advertising rules editorial in magazines and newspapers Mrs_Enid. Look closely there’s no difference. And it looks like it does in google too. Ad content and editorial content are the same *content*.

  13. mrs_enid

    Julski:

    I apologize. I removed Google ads on my work computer and it wasn’t through Google preferences. It was by installing this Firefox extension:

    https://addons.mozilla.org/firefox/743/

    Also, Twisty, I’m not reluctant to concede that advertising has meaning. Somewhere in your previous post or its comments, you said that the results gave insight into what creepy dudes were Googling to find. When, really, some of those those results show us what advertisers are willing to pay for (which I will concede is based on what creepy dudes find titillating).

    If you really want to see something gross, go to Google’s keyword tool that helps its advertisers determine synonyms for search terms that they want their ads to appear in conjunction with, and costs per click for those terms. Enter “women” there and any random amount of $ that you’d theoretically be willing to pay per click, and then you’ll get to look at some of the synonyms that Google’s ad tool generates for women. You’ll even get to see what an advertiser will pay per click to have his or her results appear alongside a Google search for the dreaded C-word. Ah, capitalism!

    https://adwords.google.com/select/KeywordToolExternal?defaultView=3

  14. Pony

    A planet of women thought using William Shatner’s brain was preferable to death?

  15. maggiethewolf

    “I appreciate the blamer’s reluctance to concede that advertising has meaning, but, sadly, my data do not support that hypothesis.”

    Whoa, Nelly! Who said that adverstising doesn’t have meaning? Not me. I don’t think mrs_enid either. It’s just that you’re dropping ads and algorithm-derived sites into the same sack of conclusion. I’m just urging you to differentiate. And whereas pony has a PARTIAL point about ads and editorial content overlapping, they aren’t the same.

    C’mon.

    Don’t say that this is this and that is that when this is this and that and that is that and this. If you’re confused after that sentence, you should be, for everything is complex and confusing and pretending otherwise for the sake of blaming is just silly. But hey, it’s Saturday morning, which is as good a time as any to be silly.

    And as far as the person that founded the blog makes the rules, whereas that truism is ubiquitous and rarely challenged, it’s wrong and elitest.

    Remember, Twisty: “Uh, nice pants.”

    Weren’t you a sexual rebel in high school? Were you stealth until you graduated and thereby escaped the sting of heterosexist and sexist sarcasm?

  16. Pony

    That last comment must have gone through a worm hole. It was meant for the spock/talk thread.

  17. Pony

    But this comment is meant for this thread; Maggie my whole work history is in publishing. They’re the same. Ads rule editorial and the man owns it all.

  18. Pony

    The person who owns the blog can try to make the rules but it’s her proletariat who decide whether they’ll fly or not. We decided they will Maggie. So you’re not just flagging Twisty here but the majority.

  19. maggiethewolf

    Pony, I’m also in publishing and I knew you were too, so I responded with all due respect to what you know.

    As far as this, “We decided they will Maggie. So you’re not just flagging Twisty here but the majority,” I absolutely agree. I am flagging the majority, as I did in the fat, drunk guy thread. I know most of you want to be free to mock fat, drunk guys and sting with sarcasm. Twisty couldn’t do it if the masses didn’t permit it. I’m just protesting. I’m trying to make a case for greater civilty. I’ll probably lose.

    Either way, I might stay or lope away, but I won’t bury my values for the sake of conformity or harmony.

  20. Mandos

    This dispute clearly hinges around what we’re actually measuring here. We’re using Google to measure some kind of Zeitgeist, right?

    If you’re measuring the general interests of Internet users as Google has tabulated them, then the picture is a little more optimisitic. If you’re measuring the interests of advertisers, then we come up with something that is totally normal: advertiser use of women as sex objects. Put them together, and you find that advertiser priorities are artifically inflated above the average user’s priorities. Which is a standard comment on capitalism!

    So: ordinary Internet users are somewhat better than advertisers when one Googles “women”.

  21. thebewilderness

    As previously determined, Mandos, Mandos, Mandos is the resident nit picker and supreme high arbiter of something or other, I can’t exactly remember what.
    The job of condescending judgemental patronization dictator, as far as I know, has never been available on this site.
    I got a similar result to Twisty, with plenty of patriarchy in both the side bar adverts and the main.

  22. Mandos

    I believe I am Supreme High Avatar of The Patriarchy. Wasn’t it you who designated me thus? Or was it someone else…

  23. Pony

    Ima gettin tired of this Supreme High Avatar. I think we should put a time limit on incumbency.

    I want a newer, younger one every three months. Could the next one be blond and tall please, with loooooong muscley thighs. A hockey player maybe.

  24. Mandos

    They have to show up first before they can unseat me. Pinko Punko, are you ready to step up to the plate? You’re not Canadian and thus don’t know jack about hockey, but you know one, and do you have long muscley thighs for Pony? Sure you do.

  25. B. Dagger Lee

    Google also has a beta feature called Google Trends; there if you do a search on the term ‘women’, you find that Chennai, India, is the geographical location with the most search volume for that term.

    Lazy people like me just type “google trends” into the regular Google search box and then follow the link. Once you’re there, after typing in women, I recommend you type in ‘patriarchy’ and maybe a few other frightening words. It’s very enlightening.

    yrs,
    B. Dagger Lee

  26. Mandos

    New York has the highest volume for the term “men”. Hmm.

  27. Mandos

    Oh, and Google Trends gives me this intriguing bit of WATM:

    http://www.seniorjournal.com/NEWS/SeniorStats/5-09-15MaleDominanceKills.htm

  28. thebewilderness

    MandosX3, It was indeed me who annointed(fig) you supreme high arbiter of the patriarchy. You immediately adopted the title of supreme high avatar. While one of those things is not like the other I see no reason you couldn’t be both. And so you are, with nit picking privileges.

  29. Ms Kate

    One thing to consider with google: there is a nannyfilter that you may configure to your taste and that makes a difference in both content and ads that you get.

    Go to google’s home page and hit “preferences” just next to where you type in your keywords. Then scroll down to “safe search filtering”. There are three levels, and each returns differing things.

    If I use the full-on nannyfilter, I get nothing but soundly womanly stuff, like women mathemeticians, women’s health info, etc. – under a bland personals advertizement.

    Moderate nannyfilter gets me the ads seen above and then the nice stuff mentioned under the strict filter.

    If I send the nanny packing, I get more stupid ads, but the content is just more mature, not more adult.

    In any case, how you have this thing set does make a difference in what results you get.

  30. Sydney

    Twisty,

    So I googled “women” and got similar results. Then I googled “womAn” and got Wikipedia, Pretty Woman (the movie), workingmother.com, texas woman’s university, celtic woman, and woman’s day magazine (admittedly about beauty tips), journey woman, military woman, womanmotorist, and women’s missionary union.

    Any speculation on why there is a relative paucity of sex sites for “womAn” but plenty for “womEn” I’m sure there must be a good reason for this, (having to do with the patriarchy of course), but I am at a loss at the moment as my brain is completely numb.

  31. Twisty

    Either way, Mandos, the Zeitgeist says “Patriarchy! Booya!” If patriarchy didn’t exist, Googling ‘women’ would bring up exactly the same sites as ‘men.’ No ‘Women Mathsperts of the Ages.’ No beauty tips. No ‘here’s how to get laid’.

    Apologies all around if what was meant as little more than a couple of pointed observations on my usual theme (the ubiquity of women’s oppression) was universally construed as a failed attempt at a substantive argument concerning the essential nature of Google or The World or something. Although, as long as we’ve brought it up, it’s fairly obvious that Google is, like nearly every other institution on the face of the earth, a tool of the patriarchy.

    And maggiethewolf, though you tsk-tsk a bit in doing so, you are quite right to advocate civility. The difficulty, unfortunately, is that where there is civility there cannot be joshing—a tough call for the spinster aunt. In any event, you indicate that you wish to opt out, so consider it done. I will josh you no more. Although I cannot, of course, control the josh-response of the balance of the blaming cadre.

  32. slade

    I like to josh. But not quite as much as I like to blame.

    Twisty…you sound as if your recovery is coming along quite nicely.

    BTW…and OT. A bunch of my fellow Ohioans are in your city this evening attending some goddess-awful football game. Please pay them no attention…they have nothing better to do with their lives. I apologize for them.

  33. Twisty

    Worry not, Slade. Our guests from Ohio are a litter of cuddly kittens compared to the unbearable khaki’n'cowboy-boot-wearin’, Ford truck drivin’, beer-chuggin’ hooligans who are the UT football fans. I hope to god Texas loses or the whole town will be awash in burnt-orange alcohol-poisoned corpses for the next week.

  34. Mandos

    “Either way, Mandos, the Zeitgeist says “Patriarchy! Booya!””

    True, though I was thinking that we were being a bit more relative about this and attempting to discern signs of improvement or worsening. Forgive me.

    “If patriarchy didn’t exist, Googling ‘women’ would bring up exactly the same sites as ‘men.’”

    In the post-patriarchy, I’d imagine it would bring up slightly different sites for men and women regarding, say, reproductive health.

    “No ‘Women Mathsperts of the Ages.’”

    Well, since historically women mathsperts weren’t prominent, you’d probably still get this site.

    “No beauty tips.”

    We would have no relative sense of aesthetics?

    “No ‘here’s how to get laid’.”

    Or we’d get the same sites for men and women [trails off meaningfully]

    Nitpick nitpick.

  35. Pony

    You’re now 0 for 4 if such a thing is possible Mandos.

  36. mrs_enid

    Tool of the patriarchy? And here I thought the main tenet of Google’s business philosophy was “Do no evil.” Apparently they’ve fallen down on this front, and not just in China.

  37. Mandos

    Pony: oh, how?

  38. maggiethewolf

    Twisty: “And maggiethewolf, though you tsk-tsk a bit in doing so, you are quite right to advocate civility. The difficulty, unfortunately, is that where there is civility there cannot be joshing—a tough call for the spinster aunt. In any event, you indicate that you wish to opt out, so consider it done. I will josh you no more. Although I cannot, of course, control the josh-response of the balance of the blaming cadre.”

    I too am a spinster aunt. And I too like to josh. I don’t wish to opt out of all joshing, for I do think you’re ducky. You’re so dorothyparkerwitty and it would be an honor to parry (and likely submit to) your wit. I just loathe sarcasm. That’s not about you. It’s about me and my history with it.

  39. Twisty

    Ha, mrs_enid, I don’t think “search engine” and “do no evil” are compatible concepts.

    Mandos, may I ask how, in your freakish Canadian brain, you manage to associate ‘beauty tips’ with aesthetics?

    On a related note, I was wrong to say that if there were no patriarchy, Google results for ‘men’ and ‘women’ would be identical. In fact, ‘man’ and “woman’ are nothing but political constructs that, after the Twistolution, will exist only as curiosities on history sites, where they will take on meanings similar to ‘master’ and ‘slave’; school children will marvel that such barbaric designations were ever conceived of, much less enforced, since there are no appreciable differences between the two human forms. In that world, having a dick would pack the same sociopolitical punch as having, oh, I don’t know, brown hair. Or zits.

    Of course, none of this will ever happen; humans will have extinctified themselves long before they own up to the truth.

  40. Mandos

    “Mandos, may I ask how, in your freakish Canadian brain, you manage to associate ‘beauty tips’ with aesthetics?”

    Because we have a sense of aesthetics, and positive aesthetics we refer to as “beauty”. We apply this sense to all manner of things, one of which is human beings, who are not an exception in the world of physical objects. (Of course this sense is strongly culturally influenced yadda yadda yadda.) Since we know that we are applying this sense, many people will wish to achieve greater positive aesthetics. Some people will write about how to do so.

    “On a related note, I was wrong to say that if there were no patriarchy, Google results for ‘men’ and ‘women’ would be identical. In fact, ‘man’ and “woman’ are nothing but political constructs that, after the Twistolution, will exist only as curiosities on history sites, where they will take on meanings similar to ‘master’ and ’slave’; school children will marvel that such barbaric designations were ever conceived of, much less enforced, since there are no appreciable differences between the two human forms. In that world, having a dick would pack the same sociopolitical punch as having, oh, I don’t know, brown hair. Or zits.”

    Except for the fact that clearly one very large subgroup occasionally tends to bulge up and eventually push out another whole human being! And only does so when a gloppy fluid from another subgroup somehow makes it in.

    In the post-patriarchy, of course, people will be so elevated as not to notice this. Every time it happens, people will say, “Ooops! What was that? Didn’t that happen last week to Forbasitor 335? Weird!”

  41. Pony

    I imagine about now Twisty’s employing the distraction pain method, whereby one hammers on ones mutilated ankle in hope of confusing the pain signals reaching the brain.

  42. FamousSovietAthlete

    Remember the glorious ellipses purge of 2006? I’d love to see something similar happen to “yadda yadda yadda.”

  43. KTal

    Flunk! All of you, even twisty for not bringing it up.

    Fact is, that if the interest were not there, the ads would cease to exist. In other words, if we lived in an egalitarian world presumably, men would not feel the hankerin’ to sit alone in their office or basement peeking at pictures of ‘dirty whores’ gettin’ it on. As much as it is hard for me to imagine a world without patriarchy, I’d imagine such would consist of men who would yawn in the face of pornography, preferring instead the real thing. Much less the crueler and stranger forms, being that watching degrading acts upon another would inspire no excitement.

    This is capitalism, google does not fund those ads, the owners of the offerings of the ads pay for them and I’m sure they pay a premium to be first listed on google. Now how do ya think they get the money to pay for those premium positions?

    So, its all about economics, which in a patriarchy is all about men’s money, which in turn illustrates the power of the patriarchy when we look at where the money goes.

  44. Sara

    Twisty, it may amuse you to know that in Massachusetts, “beauticians” are referred to as “aestheticians.”

    Meanwhile, know that I never doubted the veracity of your statements about Google, but that I am very disappointed that you didn’t photograph the squash sandwich.

  45. Ann Bartow

    This is sort of relevant and possibly of interest:
    http://www.pewinternet.org/PPF/r/171/report_display.asp
    Also, more generally, http://ethics.sandiego.edu/lmh/op-ed/google/whygooglematters.asp

  46. Mandos

    OK, this is probably very unwise of me, but I cannot resist the compulsion. (“No Mandos, DON’T!”)

    As much as it is hard for me to imagine a world without patriarchy, I’d imagine such would consist of men who would yawn in the face of pornography, preferring instead the real thing.

    1. Man yawns at pornogrpahy.
    2. Man decides he prefers the real [pause] “thing.”
    3. “Real thing” not available.
    4. ?

    I realize that this is more of a nitpick on how KTal put it, however. I’ll be doubly unwise and suggest that KTal is making a very broad and profound statement on the nature of representations and human visual cognition itself: that is, we can be trained not to respond to visual representations at all.

  47. Twisty

    So Mandos, you don’t see a qualitative difference between beauty and oppression? Oh, that’s right; in a patriarchy they’re the same thing.

    For those who are just tuning in—and I’m not gonna make a habit of this, so don’t get used to it—a little remedial blaming instruction:

    Female ‘beauty’ is nothing but a set of bogus, humiliating, expensive, and often painful practices implemented by women to identify themselves as different from and subordinate to men, which in turn ingratiates them, thus improving their chances for success in a male dominated world. Unlike other things which may be said to approach, in an aesthetic sense, the sublime, feminine ‘beauty’ of the sort that requires ‘tips’ is neither natural, like a sunset, nor ennobling, like the Sistine ceiling, nor useful, like the Golden Gate bridge. It is, aside from its status as the lube that keeps patriarchy all up in your shit, ridiculous, which you know if you have ever seen a man in high heels, a bubble skirt, fake tits, blue eyeshadow, and a tiny handbag.

    P.S. I am well aware of the multitudinous patriarchal implications of the Sistine ceiling.

  48. Mandos

    “So Mandos, you don’t see a qualitative difference between beauty and oppression? Oh, that’s right; in a patriarchy they’re the same thing.”

    I never said that. I said, clearly, that beauty is a reflection of our capacity for aesthetics, and capacity for asesthetics is informed by culture, and that the very nature of aesthetics requires a concept of “more aesthetically pleasing” or “less aesthetically pleasing”. Now, our culture may DO things with this sense that is oppressive, but if that sense IN ITSELF Is oppressive, well [trails off meaningfully]

  49. Mandos

    It’s the difference between capacity and implementation. Will human cultures have standards? When we learn from each other all the time in a huge mass of thought over decades, how could we not? Should those standards necessarily be sexist or painful? I’d say, probably not.

  50. KTal

    Yes Mandos, that is a nitpik, because I truthfully would have to wrench my brain in all sorts of directions to imagine what on earth we humans would be like without a heirarchy.

    And frankly, I don’t wrack my brains about writing that I’m not getting paid for. This is supposed to be all in fun and for a little venting too.

    In other words, your point well taken, spot on.

    I was more thinking along the lines of a story, Ode to the End of Patriarchy.

    And the Spinster Aunt of the Green Recliner looked at the young warrior and said, “Lo! There exists a patriarchy 400 hectares, beyond the hills and the high mountains, deep within a valley! This patriarchy revels in oppression of all women folk, from when they spring from the womb to their grave. The moon rises high in the east and the wind blows cold to the west, it is time my child, you must root out this evil and free our women comrades from the yoke of male domination.”

    And the youthful warrior with the red flush cheeks of tender nurturance, eyes sharply cast their gaze on the wise spinster woman, eyes not yet seen bloodshed or battle, but eyes longing to see justice. She squinted, thinking on the command of the Wise One.

    “Yes my Spinster Aunt of the Green Recliner, I will root out this evil, free our women comrades from the yoke of torture and oppression so that we may as my ancestors have taught me, bring to our people justice and peace.” She spoke proudly and strong, filled with the eager idealism of youth and whirled her bejeweled sword mightily with her arms strong like timbers, as she spoke.

    “Where exactly shall I find this patriarchy in the valley beyond the hills and the high mountains?” the young one asked.

    The Spinster Aunt placed both feet firmly before her on the ground, leaned forward and looked squarely at the young warrior and spoke.

    “Follow the money damn it!”

  51. No Blood for Hubris

    Alas, one never has to make this stuff up.

    Will those concernedl be unpacking the backpack of sexist privilege anytime soon?

    Just asking . . .

  52. thebewilderness

    MandosX3,
    Horse puckey! The issue is the assumption that the first thing in importance to a woman in this society is the stinking tips on how to stop being less attractive to the patriarchy than the patriarchy finds acceptable.
    Beauty=aesthetic
    Beauty tip=patriarchy

  53. Kristina

    I saw an ad on television today:
    The camara first panned through a row of popular drug-store brand anti-aging creams, and then a pair of disembodied hands demonstrated the proper application.
    Then came a row of those weird nose-strips that one is supposed to glue to one’s face in order to remove zits.
    Then ad then finished: “Women’s health. An [androgynous TV station] exclusive.”
    Capitalism is a tool of the patriarchy. Those who hide behind it justify their free-riding tendencies to avoid paying the full cost of producing products and rationalize their abhorrent behavior as “efficiency.”
    Blame blame blame.

  54. stormcloud

    Twisty: I haven’t posted on this or the previous thread, mainly because you’ve covered it! Total agreement here.

    KTal: Great story! Loved it.

  55. hexyhex

    When I was directed to the site DontDateHimGirl.com I noticed something about the google ads down the bottom.

    Based on text as they are, several of them are for sites that help one find someone to cheat on their spouse with.

    I laughed. Then trailed off and ended with a sad little sigh, before becoming rather depressed.

  56. mrs_enid

    I know that this debate is dead, and I’m not trying to breathe life into its twisted corpse. However, for what it’s worth, I never thought you were lying about what you saw on Google, Twisty. My definition of Google results just differed from yours.

    And, if my pedantic ravings about what constituted “results” makes me seem overly dorky, then I will cop to that too. For chrissakes, I am practically a Tara Calishain groupie (her site: http://www.researchbuzz.com/wp/) and have paid good money to see her speak and buy her books. We all need something to keep ourselves busy.

  57. slade

    Speaking of beauty and capitalism, has anyone noticed that the Capitalist’s Eye of Beauty/Buffness is turning its gaze toward the boys?

    I saw Dan Marino (ex-footballer) hawking Slim Fast yesterday on TV….he was telling all of his boyfriends how losing weight has helped his sex life. And I think I have seen more aging commercials geared to the puppy-dog tails of the population.

    And when I see that our culture is going after the self-esteem of the males, I find myself wearing a grin.

  58. stekatz

    We googled “Koalas” once and the first thing that popped up was how to buy discount Koalas on ebay.

  59. Twisty

    Discount koalas, eh? What do they normally run? Eight, nine bucks?

  60. Ms Kate

    Absent patriarchy, if you googled “man” or “men” you would never get anything much about “relief from menstrual cramps”.

    YPMV (your plumbing may vary)

  61. Mar Iguana

    “..since there are no appreciable differences between the two human forms. In that world, having a dick would pack the same sociopolitical punch as having, oh, I don’t know, brown hair. Or zits.” Twisty

    While I agree most differences are artificial and exaggerated (google Bev Evans to learn about the myth of superior, upper body strength in men for instance), I don’t see us evolving out of our baby-making equipment. It would be beyond peachy, however, if our attitudes about this equipment matured since this is what has kept women subordinate lo these thousands of years.

    I damn despair that a woman’s capacity to create a human body and risk death because of the size of that human cranium is still so discounted as to be compared in any way with an animal’s (cow, bitch, chick). I damn despair that ever since the boys figured out they had some part in procreation, albeit small, very small, they have used their penis as a toy and a weapon.

    I know the bleeding thing every month is considered a drag but I suspect that is caused by being taught it is dirty, disgusting and diseased rather that celebrating that blood. These negative attitudes towards our bodies work swell in teaching us to hate ourselves.

    But, how that self-hatred sells product. Do we really need all the crap sold in stores that devote an entire eisle to feminine hygiene? I’ve managed to live without visiting that aisle, deciding not to make my bodily functions a profit center for The Man.

    And sales are brisk. From porn to making the literal selling of women and girls the third biggest money maker in the world, right after arms and drugs.

  62. finnsmotel

    “In that world, having a dick would pack the same sociopolitical punch as having, oh, I don’t know, brown hair. Or zits.

    “Of course, none of this will ever happen; humans will have extinctified themselves long before they own up to the truth.”

    Ever the optimist, I might slightly contradict:

    We may eventually get our heads out of our collective asses and arrange our heirarchy along some useful lines, but it will likely require a major upheaval.

    We need all the Dubyas and BinLadens to do each other in. If we can somehow manage to survive the fallout, we can rearrange the pieces in the dirt. Toss out patriarchy and find a new way.

    Unless we revert to hunter-gatherer status (and I’m not sayin we should), there will likely be some sort of heirarchy, though. Wouldn’t you agree that survival sorta depends on it?

    Oh, and to the earlier point, the selling of search terms does freak me out. Having been a marketing comm mgr and actually purchasing terms from a search engine, I can speak to how desperate that particular exercise really is. The corrollary to the buying of the search term is to measure the ‘success’ in terms of ‘click-through’ rates, which are considered successful in the most slivery of percentages. Boggles the mind.

  63. Twisty

    The sociopolitical importance of differences between the various sets of reproductive organs is artificially inflated, in much the same way that the importance of differences in skin color is. The sexes have vastly more in common with each other than not. Basing an entire ideological paradigm on one physiclal trait or another is loony, which is why the concept of gender has got to go.

  64. Pony

    Along with the fig leaf it rode in on.

  65. Mandos

    “The sociopolitical importance of differences between the various sets of reproductive organs is artificially inflated, in much the same way that the importance of differences in skin color is. The sexes have vastly more in common with each other than not. Basing an entire ideological paradigm on one physiclal trait or another is loony, which is why the concept of gender has got to go. ”

    Well, it’s artificially inflated if you ignore the power of control over children. Who determines who has what children when also can obtain a lot of power. If it weren’t the case, patriarchy probably wouldn’t have come to be.

    Follow the money, right?

  66. Oriscus

    I note that nobody’s touched the News results in the pictured screen-capture.

    Granted, European women’s sports results (hmm, is that women aping patriarchy?) and a (European again) business article (women accommodating themselves to patriarchal capitalism) doesn’t begin to offset the direction announced by the Google Ads, but I’m curious as to why nobody has commented on them here.

    Obtw РI agree, Buenos Aires Caf̩ is a glorious place.

    Oriscus
    Bachelor Uncle in 78704

  67. Mar Iguana

    “Follow the money, right?” Mandos

    Wrong. In patriarchy, the bottom line is not money, it is men.

  68. Jenny88888888

    The ads are gone. When I googled “women” today I got:

    #1 Information for Women, Including Women’s Health Issues, from iVillageInformation for women, including women’s health issues, beauty tips, fitness tips and parenting advice. (ok still bleah)

    #2 Women MathematiciansOn-going project by students in mathematics classes at Agnes Scott College in Atlanta, Georgia, United States

    #3 Women’s biographies: Distinguished Women of Past and PresentThis site has biographies of women who contributed to our culture in many different ways. There are writers, educators, scientists, heads of state, …

    #4 Internet Women’s History SourcebookPresents online documents and secondary discussions which reflect the various ways of looking at the history of women within broadly defined historical …

    #5 National Organization for WomenInformation on women’s issues for women’s activists.

    and then

    Women’s Health – Health – The New York Times
    The National Women’s Health Information Center — 1-800-994-9662
    WWWomen.com! Search Directory for Women Online!
    WomenWatch: UN Information and Resources on Gender Equality and …
    Woman – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    What I think? Twisty fixed it by blogging about it. YAY!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>