Originally published at a denizen's entertainment. You can comment here or there.

I came across this post and was bothered by it.

Mainly what bugs me is the read I get off it that feminism and capitalism are in necessary opposition. From what I see of capitalism it has no particular call to reinforce sexism or other oppressions[1] and indeed might function more effectively by not doing so. The problem with capitalism perpetuating societal oppressions is I think a matter of historical contingency, and if a hypothetical world without sexism were to invent capitalism I doubt the people of that world would also invent sexism to accompany it.

None of this, of course, vanishes the practical issue of women who claim feminism and vote or act politically against the interests of women generally.

There were also some remarks in a later comment which peeve me in a personal way.

But its time we get back to our roots and say “we are against all oppression, all hierarchy and in support of autonomy, make your politics follow us!”.


Honestly, we have to ask what feminism is about. Are feminists against all systems of oppression, or just the ones that personally afflict them? Are they only against patriarchy or against other/all forms of hierarchy?

I see plenty of feminists complain about people, often men, saying feminism ought to be renamed something more inclusive like humanism - and rightly so, as typically these proposals exist as part of a pattern of behaviour which has the effect of impeding feminism by refocusing attention on men and the concerns of men (which is strictly unnecessary, since men are also beneficiaries of reducing and eliminating sexism and these attempts are mainly manifestations of the incompleteness of that liberation).

Anyway, my annoyance is the confluence of those complaints with the pervasive attitude I perceive from feminists that feminism is a movement against all oppressions. It is pretty well impossible to untangle one form of oppression from another, but to claim membership of a anti-specific-oppression movement entails opposition to all forms of oppression seems a bit much. I would rather see feminists claim to be for example anti-racism on the basis of being anti-racism, rather than in some way suggesting feminism forms the heart of anti-oppression overall.

Plus, if pressed to identify my values one way I'm likely to answer is humanist, for reasons broader than merely anti-oppression politics. I don't appreciate seeing feminists object to the term humanist yet claim feminism means anti-all-oppressions when it would indeed be a more fitting term for that attitude.

[1] Except I think capitalism would have a difficult time not driving some sort of classism.

Originally published at a denizen's entertainment. You can comment here or there.

Yesterday morning I caught a few minutes at the end of a program called Pororo the Little Penguin that at first seemed fairly dead-on in its portrayal of a character with an eating disorder. So, naturally, descriptive triggers follow in the recounting of it.

What I saw started with a pink beaver character (named Loopy according to the Wikipedia article) moping, looking at herself in the mirror and sighing that she is 'chubby'. Then her friends come over for lunch and are enjoying themselves, while she quietly sips a drink through a straw instead of eating. While doing so she visualises herself expanding in size as she drinks, and puts even that away.

While she is lamenting that she is chubby and should not eat or drink anything, her friends are admiring a model in a magazine she has lying around. When they notice she is upset about her weight, they try to tell her she is not chubby but she does not believe them.

And then... it all falls apart. She says she wants to be thin and pretty like the model in the magazine and the polar bear tells her if she wants to be thin she should exercise, and that dancing is great exercise. They all get up and dance happily.

~ fin ~

Speaking as someone who hasn't experienced it first-hand, that seemed an accurate and distressing portrayal of someone suffering from an eating disorder, immediately followed up by what is just about the worst possible response you could give in that situation presented as a permanent solution. From everything I've seen personally and elsewhere, eating disorders pretty commonly include obsessive exercising as part of their manifestation, so advising someone in any stage of one that exercise will solve eir problems is more likely just adding to them.

aesmael: (tricicat)
"I'm arguing about when the "human" begins.  Zygote, Embryo, Fetus... are all stages of human life.  Sperm, egg... are not."

Very difficult to argue with someone who says this with a straight face.
aesmael: (just people)
Today has been the Transgender Day of Remembrance. Likely not still that day here, by the time I finish writing this, but it will be elsewhere still. That day set aside for remembering all the people who over the past and previous years were murdered because of cissexist bigotry, for being trans.

The numbers for this year were a bit tricky to access, being in a Word document, but according to the website this year 101 163 people were killed for that particular who they are. If trend from past years hold true (and what I have read elsewhere indicates this is so), the majority of those murdered were trans women of colour. Not white trans women, and not trans men. A lot of the time trans people who are murdered are assumed and portrayed as having been sex workers, whether they were or not, and because of the widespread stigma applied to sex workers this provides cis authorities further disincentives to take these crimes seriously.

A lot of the time people guilty of these murders, if they are charged, use what is called the 'trans panic' defence. Rather than claiming innocence they instead claim the murder of trans people is justified because of how horrifying and disgusting they find it to be knowing a trans person. This gets accepted as valid in court far too readily, even though it is often untrue or very unlikely to be true that the murder was unaware of the person ey killed being trans prior to the act of killing. It tends, rather, to be that "I found out she was trans so I killed her[1]" is seen by many as a fair and logical train of thought. Even people who say the murder was wrong often say the murdered trans person was also wrong not to walk around wearing a sign saying "Trans", as if that would have made eir life so much easier to live, or would be a reasonable standard to require of someone so as not to be murdered.

[1] Actually they don't normally use gendered pronouns. Normally they describe the person they killed as 'it'.

I was thinking, for writing something for this day, about why these murders happen and why they are predominantly of women. The conclusion I came to was a combination of transphobia, homophobia and sexism.

The mere act of being visibly a woman, presenting as female, is seen by many men as a sexual act. An invitation. This is why a lot of men feel entitled to behave aggressively sexual toward women who are not welcoming of this behaviour - because being a woman is itself considered a sexual invitation or come-on.

It is because of transphobia that the genders of trans people are regarded as invalid where the genders of cis people are treated as real. Thus, trans women are considered 'really men' and trans men are considered 'really women'.

When we combine this with cultural homophobia and macho sexism that sees violence as a valid, even imperative means for men to enforce perceptions of their masculinity and 'defend' it from the threat supposedly posed by the existence of queer people and other ways of doing gender, well...

Because a woman in public is by default seen as engaging sexually with all the men around her, whether she wants to or not, and because a trans woman recognised as a trans woman is seen as being 'really a man', the mere existence of trans women is seen as a threat to the sexuality and identity of heterosexual cis men, one to which violence is often regarded as a justifiable or at least understandable response.

Of course this does not explain why white women are less likely to be murdered in this way than other women because my thought process did not include race until after the fact. I have seen however several other writers express that the lives of women of colour are regarded as less valuable than the lives of white women, just as the lives of trans women are regarded as less valuable than the lives of cis women which I can readily believe. It would make sense that the intersection of these two identities would combine to a far higher murder rate as people might believe either they could especially get away with the killing of a trans woman of colour, or that trans women of colour are especially unworthy of life.

Clearly, this needs to change.
aesmael: (just people)
Obama lifts the ban on US aid money going to any organisation that provides abortions and the US House of Representatives goes and passes a similar ban on their own people.

It's absurd. Federal money banned from paying for a particular class of medical procedures. Why? It's not illegal, so why is a government being barring itself from funding legal medical procedures? Because a subset of the population has a religious prejudice against it, seems like mainly. Which isn't a very secular way to run a government. Unfair too; no government is making laws based on my religious beliefs, or even- well.

How come? we would ask. How come laws are made on the basis of the views of some sects of a religion but not the views of others? Especially the ones which outlaw personal choices, ones we would expect people who hold a belief in their immorality not to choose.

If this becomes law the lives of many people, particularly poor women and children, will be materially disadvantaged compared to if this does not become law. The gain, meanwhile, is that members of some Christian sects can feel pleased others are being forced to live by their morality, while members of other Christian sects will be frustrated that their morality has been prohibited.

Their are anti-choice non-religious atheists and members of other religions, but let's not pretend this was done to suit their desires.

[Link up top, very worth reading. Post content is different to what I wrote here]
aesmael: (Electric Waves)
When your post was guest-posted at Womanist Musings I was sickened enough to want to stop following that blog for airing your views, for your paternalistic pre-emptive dismissal of anyone who might disagree with you as 'fun-fems' or male-identified, for the condescending superiority dripping from your every word. Your argument was barely comprehensible, but as near as I could make it out, is roughly 'If you contracted for sex in advance and were unable to fairly renegotiate or back out that would be rape, therefore all porn is objectively rape at all times and anyone who disagrees is unworthy of engagement because they've been patriarchally brainwashed'.

Okay, so I disagree that pornography (by which you apparently mean human-acted visual pornography) is innately rape (which does not mean I think it is never rape, or don't have strong issues with lots of it), find your arguments lacking, be sickened by your presentation, and get that out of my system by ranting to friends and lovers. Fine.

And then, this. Cut for intense transphobia and rape apologism from a feminist )
aesmael: (just people)
So you're participating in a thread where your main argument is that being a cis heterosexual man who is interested only in cis women and not ever in trans women, and that this is perfectly fine because it is your orientation...

... and then someone says, incidental to her actual argument, that given what you've expressed in that thread, probably most trans women wouldn't be interested in you anyway - you actually have the gall to call that an ad hominem? So you think it is just peachy to repeat at length that you only want cis women and trans women who don't disclose are being immoral and deceptive, but if anyone suggests that trans women might find that attitude offensively unattractive, you claim you're being subjected to an unfair personal attack?

Try getting a sense of proportion before the next time you have an urge to reiterate the beliefs that get trans people murdered.

And all these cis people, feminist and otherwise who have such a problem with the possibility that maybe you'll accidentally have sex with a trans person and feel violated, then perhaps what you should do is confess up-front to everyone you want to flirt with that you would be bothered by them being trans. There's a better chance you'll find kindred spirits than someone carrying icky trans cooties, bah.

[because don't click on links which outrage [livejournal.com profile] auntysarah]
aesmael: (just people)
Two sorts of things which have been bugging that I think are probably meant to be pro-women.

1) Sitcoms, where a male character expresses something sexist in the presence of women, either who gets mad at him or who the presentation of the show promises will 'get even' with him off-screen. A lot of the time it looks like not 'sexism is bad, don't be sexist' but instead 'everyone knows this but don't say it in front of women because they don't like it' with a side of 'sexism is okay so long as there is comeuppance'.

This dynamic tends to feed the idea that men are socially disadvantaged relative to men because women hold power over them primarily in the form of controlling access to sex (as if sexual assault and rape were not prevalent, and as if these shows do not commonly depict men harassing and pressuring women into unwanted sex and humorous in an 'it's funny because it's true' sense), but also depicting women as generally bossy, controlling and otherwise humorously abusive toward men - showing a social fiction where men are obliged not to express what they consider right and natural and true in the presence of women because women (in this imaginary world) dominate society via various channels of interpersonal coercion.

Despite sending the superficial message of 'don't express sexism', I don't think this is a very feminist depiction.

2) Webcomics, mostly fantasy webcomics in my experience, which seem to be attempting to establish feminist credibility by having characters encounter a bunch of men acting in a strongly misogynistic, derisive way and then having them shown up / beat up / whatever by the heroic leads, often women.

Really, if someone wants to make a feminist / pro-feminist fantasy webcomic I would rather see an example of a world in which sexism is not a problem than one in which our heroes keep beating up the occasional gang of louts who think they're hopeless. As much as it can be satisfying to see expressed sexism flung back in someone's face, I really want to see more examples of worlds where sexism isn't even a problem people have to deal with. Especially since a lot of the time these happenings feel to me, not insincere, but as if these are staged events to establish for us that either our leads are truly virtuous because they won't stand for sexism or, if women, to clarify that they are indeed Strong Female Characters.

It bugs me, and I am having difficulty expressing why. Maybe because when this happens with female characters the only reason they succeed at standing up to the Token Sexist Jerks is because they have some kind of elite ability, and the way the confrontation is framed any random woman would have been cowed or worse - 'confronting sexism is for heroic or elite women only' message. Maybe because I come away with the feeling authors who do this think all sexism is of the overt sort and the way to confront it is by having a bigger stick. Maybe because I get frustrated that so often it seems people can't imagine the idea of a society which lacks sexism, racism, ablism, queerphobia, etc. and thus the only way to have a remotely humanist sort of work apparently is with these staged, stark black hat - white hat confrontations.

Yes, this one gets crossposted to my journal and [livejournal.com profile] feminist_rage.
aesmael: (Electric Waves)
Note: Originally posted at [livejournal.com profile] feminist_rage

So we have a post at Bad Astronomy, where it is announced a new probe to Mars has been named Curiosity and that the name was bestowed by a sixth-grader named Clara Ma. Some of her essay was quoted:
Curiosity is an everlasting flame that burns in everyone’s mind. It makes me get out of bed in the morning and wonder what surprises life will throw at me that day. Curiosity is such a powerful force. Without it, we wouldn’t be who we are today. […] Curiosity is the passion that drives us through our everyday lives. We have become explorers and scientists with our need to ask questions and to wonder. Sure, there are many risks and dangers, but despite that, we still continue to wonder and dream and create and hope. We have discovered so much about the world, but still so little. We will never know everything there is to know, but with our burning curiosity, we have learned so much.

What do we get? Some commenter complaining that "I for one am tired of this PC campaign with cutesy names for major important science missions. Jesus, I’m surprised she didn’t call it My Pretty Pony or Hanna Montana."

What? What can he* possibly draw from that to be called cutesy, to be saying apparently on no other basis than her age and gender that she is some frivolous airhead whose every contribution is automatically worthless? It doesn't seem to me to be from the name itself, or what she wrote in favour of it, so it sure looks like he is just expressing an opinion young girls are automatically worthless, attributing to them the most devalued interests and expressions he can think of.

Later on he attributes her selection to being Asian, so at least he is being efficiently bigotted? As we all know, 'political correctness' means we favour people on the basis of gender, ethnicity etc. first and only then consider if they personally have any merit, right? That belief so far is the only way I have been able to make sense of his claims, apparently that she was selected first and we just got, what, lucky that she hadn't picked the name My Pretty Pony? Am very skeptical this would have played out the same if she had been a boy, or had a perceived masculine name, since it is so much more acceptable for a boy to be thought of as holding serious interests.

Also v. unimpressed with all the people doubting she wrote that essay herself.

*self-titled as 'man' in naming, so I feel safe in attributing gender.

Edit: Now I want to scream. Am behind on my astronomical news, catching up on reading and now seen the news on two other sites which are getting the same criticism.
"At least it wasn't named Fluffy Miss Muffybunny..... (Note: NEVER give young girls unilateral naming power over anything other than rabbits or horses....)"

"So when is NASA going to stop letting little girls and fake talk show hosts name their spacecraft?

Now I am waiting for the Hanna Montana mission to Jupiter.

Or maybe the Jonas Brothers space probe to Venus."

What are these people THINKING? That she won the competition and then got to call it whatever she wanted? How does this make sense as a criticism of her being the person to name it otherwise? I just... it seems like all people are seeing is 'young girl names Mars rover' and their minds leap straight to 'frivolous', 'obsessive' and 'irritating'.

I just hope the awesomeness of the prize makes up to her for any flak she may cop personally. Well, that and that people would stop being oppressive, bigoted arseholes.
aesmael: (nervous)
Today, walking to class, I passed a person wearing a t-shirt which had stylised - as commonly seen on restroom signs - representations of a bride and groom on the front. The groom I saw had a sad expression, and large text on the shirt read "Game Over".

I am continually puzzled by how much (straight) men seem to hate women and marriage and relating to women. It astounds me that people could hate women so much and still claim they want to have heterogendered relationships.
aesmael: (tricicat)
That so many of the comments to this article seem to be suggesting that if only gender roles were less rigidly enforced, trans people would have the good grace to cease existing.

Fortunately, not true. I hope those people will realise this. At least the comments seem to improve further down the page.

Also very annoyed with comments indicating the commenter was dissatisfied with eir assigned gender role yet is not trans, phrased in a manner suggestive that ey believes ey was fortunate eir parents did not send em to a therapist and get em diagnosed trans, pushed into transsexuality. Mostly, because this suggests a disturbing attitude that being transsexual is something pushed on people who do not conform to assigned gender roles in order to make them over into something which fits their behaviour. It doesn't work that way, and trans people nearly always have to push to get what they want from the medical establishment - it is not forced on them - and it is unfortunately not unusual for medical professionals to torment their patients with arbitrary hoops and waiting periods more extreme than officially required.

I would find it laughable if this idea were not so pervasive, with so much social force behind it, but since this is such a common feminist criticism of the existence of trans people, I find it disturbing instead. It is not, nor should it ever be, about people being forced into something they do not wish. The issue is bodily and behavioural autonomy, and although they may seem to be, I do not think comments like this are helpful on this subject.

As a note to people who may not be aware of this, what Zucker does with the children brought to him seems to me very akin to one of the major (the major?) standard 'treatments' designed to render autistic children more normal.
aesmael: (tricicat)
(11:22:35 AM) celestialjayde: http://www.feministing.com/archives/011752.html#comment-190065
Amanda Marcotte can go back to her hole now.

(11:23:24 AM) Ami angelwings: she's still alive?
(11:23:27 AM) Ami angelwings: i'll brb
(11:23:39 AM) Ami angelwings has signed off.

The original post is enough of a bother, with its bleak and judgemental characterisation of long distance relationships, without having that rubbish added in. Certainly I personally would prefer more proximal living arrangements with those I love, but doing so practically is still at least a year in our future.

I do personally have difficulty meeting and associating with people in person, but I am actually trying harder to do so now I have people in my life, and previously I was much more socially isolated. However I do not like to make the argument that long distance relationships are acceptable on the basis that they promote socially approved outcomes. A person's relationships are eir own business so long as they are consensual and non-abusive for all involved, and while consideration of environmental footprints is important, I dislike seeing LDRs singled out as particularly egregious in this matter when so far as I see this fits better as part of discussion about daily living in general.

Mostly, this reads to me as yet another lament that on-line socialising is somehow an antisocial act, that connecting with people in unapproved ways is an act of disconnection.

Edit: [livejournal.com profile] pecunium makes a whole slew of good points in his post, which was where I found out about the feministing post originally.
I think I got it entangled with the previous lot. Drat.

Links )
aesmael: (tricicat)
Google Reader Shared Items
  1. Thank You Thursdays: Your (Notice I Didn't Say Female) Brain [via [livejournal.com profile] gentle_gamer. Comments to the post made me warier of this video. Did she have that brain cut in half to illustrate her point? Am pretty sure most brains I have seen are in a single piece unless cut. Much of her described experience of having a stroke is not unfamiliar to me, if to a greater degree. Not, I stress, identical, but apparently similar to something which can be accessible to me. If I were to release certain brakes, if I could remember how. I have a lot of hostility to the frame in which she presents her thesis, despite finding much recognition or even agreement in the details.

    I dislike the way people jumped on ropty's comment ("Non-gendered? Dividing the world into two parts, one is linear, unemotional, calculating and the other about feeling, emotions, timeless oneness. Gee, that sounds rather gendered to me.") because this is a thing which is done, this is a way in which brain functioning is presented and those traits are very gendered in this society. Also that my readings of other writings on neurobiology suggest this is a highly oversimplified perspective on human brain hemisphere functioning, though as this was a talk for a lay audience that may have been deliberate. And it still seems to me her described experiences are very 'on point' even if I am not so fond of her presentation of them.

    I wonder if making such experience accessible at will would have the effect on the world Dr Taylor describes.]
  2. Video: Blaser tournament unwisely fits Japanese robots with lasers -- PEW PEW [via [livejournal.com profile] soltice. If we intercut this with some footage of people we could make a movie of it.]
  3. New Hubble Images Reveal Plethora of Interacting Galaxies [via [livejournal.com profile] soltice. Pretty!]
  4. Young feminists just want to "go wild and pole dance" [via [livejournal.com profile] gentle_gamer.]
  5. How To Sing Like A Planet [via [livejournal.com profile] gentle_gamer. Wherever there be medium and motion, music. The article makes me angry, with it's talk of 'merely' as if scientific explanation of such magnificent happenings cannot be also magnificent, wondrous or beautiful themselves. I lost a lot of esteem for the writer's prior musings when I read that part.]
  6. Atheism is a condom for your mind [via [livejournal.com profile] soltice. The part I disagree with is the phrasing suggestive that removing religious belief is a part and precursor to mental hygiene and health -- I would place taking care of the mind first, and if that leads to the removal of religion then so be it. Someone eventually said so too.]
  7. Equality Through Intimidation? The Houston HRC Dinner Protest [via [livejournal.com profile] gentle_gamer.]
  8. Comical Surroundings [via [livejournal.com profile] soltice. This is interesting but I think I would not like my furniture to be displaying always the same images and words. After so many repetitions reading, wearying.]
  9. Modular, shape-shifting robots get right back up to creep you out [via [livejournal.com profile] soltice. Shiny! Still a ways to go before they are as capable as the version seen in Terminator 2 though.]
  10. Australia to Remove Antigay Discrimination From 100 Laws [via [livejournal.com profile] soltice. An improvement, but not enough.]
  11. Maintaining Moore's law with new memristor circuits [via [livejournal.com profile] soltice. Fascinating (a thing said when {in this case} interested but uneducated in a subject).]

  1. Vaccination doesn't cause autism volume what-are-we-up-to-now? [And yet we see how well the continued lack of evidence substantiating a connection is received. *sigh*]
aesmael: (haircut)
Bored with that titling system. Let's leave it blank for now.

Dispatches from the Culture Wars
  1. Thoughts on Day One of the DNC [Maybe I should amalgamate all the Scienceblogs postings under a single heading. I find something vaguely distasteful about this and the last post from here. Maybe it is an air of self-congratulation.]
  2. Effete Hollywood Elitists for McCain

Google Reader Shared Items
  1. The Future of Books [via [livejournal.com profile] soltice. Was expecting "E-books: Yea or abomination?" Instead, Pretty.]
  2. Laser pointers banned in New South Wales after rash of attacks on pilots [via [livejournal.com profile] soltice. But I want one.]
  3. Super Mario Girls [via [livejournal.com profile] soltice. Cute, yes. Not everything needs to be done with sex appeal in mind though. And since when are "fluffy clouds with faces and bubbly turtles and blocky landscapes" unmanly? But I like the picture.]
  4. Cat 5 wedding rings help nerds couple [via [livejournal.com profile] soltice. I, uh, don't know what these actually do.]
  5. Moe Angel with Headphones [via [livejournal.com profile] soltice. Cute cute cute! *save*]
  6. Bioware devs debate whether Wii is part of gaming [via [livejournal.com profile] gentle_gamer. It seems an odd question to me, since the Wii seems clearly a device for playing games, but the post is just a quick summary linking to an interview. No, wait. That was a preface too. Interview here. There are lots of words there at the beginning but I am not entirely sure these people are saying anything... a bit like reading some Post-Modern discourse. It seems like an interesting question though: what counts as gaming? I want to say "playing a game". This talk of narrative... that seems like something else to me. Something called 'narrative'. Describing the experience of playing a Wii as "toy-like", or making a distinction with sports such as tennis, this seems to me like an attempt to mark gaming as a particular kind of experience, a particular approach to an activity. I think what is being gotten at is a degree of seriousness and immersion. I think it probably does constitute a bundle of approaches, any subset of which can apply at a given time, and what the Bioware folks are talking about constitutes one of these subsets. Although reading to the end of the page I think I misunderstood them a bit. I am being vague because I am tired. Possibly follow up later with input from others?]
  7. Celebrate Mario Kart Wii with alternate karts, Wii wheel substitutions [via [livejournal.com profile] gentle_gamer. Funny.]
  8. Working NES squeezed into ... an NES cartridge [via [livejournal.com profile] gentle_gamer. Wow, neat! This title messes with my ideas of how it should be pronounced.]
  9. SIU responds to anti-feminist email [via [livejournal.com profile] gentle_gamer. Oh, wow! It feels so rare to see such a desirable response, it can get disheartening.]
  10. The Fag Bug is back! [via [livejournal.com profile] gentle_gamer. That's a pretty creative and great response to vandalism. Interesting seeing the change in tone of people's responses between the first post, in which Erin Davies starts her mission, and the second post, in which it is revealed she is getting a book and film deal out of this.]

Gmail Web Clip clickings
  1. David Wain Moves From Wainy Days to Role Models [Who is this guy? Why do I care what he does? I fear curiosity clicking from gmail has gotten the better of me...]
  2. Time to "Free the Airwaves" [Google would like people to be activist on their behalf.]
  3. Top Fun Date Ideas [These are not romantic? My idea of a going-somewhere date is to do something we will enjoy, so these seem more like standard date ideas than special fun ones. Admittedly I have been on very few dates in my life, but this makes it seem like something which is supposed to be very restrained in ways which are not interesting to me. At least now I know what an Interpretive Center is.*]

Respectful Insolence
  1. "To kill and cure cancer, you must first understand it" [Orac is as ever verbose.]

  1. The luxury of time [I've not encountered this blog before. This is... fascinating. Not much to say because processing.]

Uncertain Principles
  1. It's 4am [Labs are not supposed to be flooded. Unless you work in underseaology.]

My assignment is as done as it is getting, so I sleep now. Test in five hours.

*This whole response reads like something which I would respond to in someone else with scorn, as if they are trying to show off how special and above ordinary concerns they are. Ah well.
Because I hate love you. I really, really do.

8-bit Theatre
  1. Episode 1019: You Already Saw This One [And here we are again]
  2. Episode 1020: And then...
  3. Episode 1021: Open With A Joke [Aha. Funny. Especially the second row.]
  4. Episode 1022: Divine Right [Every time scanning, (I) laugh at Thief's first line]
  5. Episode 1023: Armed and Advantageous
  6. Episode 1024: Phase Two [Various giggly]

Arthur, King of Time and Space
  1. #1552
  2. #1553 [I thought this was something which would not make sense to if I had not been talking with [livejournal.com profile] lost_angelwings about Canada and the Olympics. Then I read the explanation underneath and now I think again I do not understand.]
  1. Issue [17?] [I feel kind of bad for being so blah about this magazine - it seems so sincere and enthusiastic - but I suspect I am not really the target audience. Still, makes my fingers twitch and I have the urge to say "Gah!"]
aesmael: (sexy)
"What if I told you I could give you something which could have you looking like the models and stars you see on tv and magazines in minutes?"

"No thank you; I already have image editing software installed."
aesmael: (tricicat)
From Zuska|Thus Spake Zuska via Julianne|Cosmic Variance:

This paper describes a statistical analysis showing clear discrimination by gender among postdoctoral researchers participating in a particle physics experiment. So far as I am aware it has not been published, nor is scheduled to be published. Nor am I capable of evaluating the rigour of the analysis, having only one mostly-forgotten class on statistics in my past (if anyone reading this can do so, that would be appreciated). Such constitutes my disclaimer.

For people interested in getting straight to the results, here is the most straightforwardly worded portion of this paper:
We find that females were allotted 40% more service work than males, and that the chances of this occurring in the absence of gender bias are less than 1%. This observation that females are significantly more often shunted into service work roles echoes the results of a study performed 27 years ago by Mary Gaillard (1980) on the status of of female physicists at CERN, a very large European particle physics laboratory. Particle physics has not progressed very far in this respect in the last three decades.

We also find that females were significantly more productive than their male peers in both
physics and service work, yet were awarded significantly fewer conference presentations; all 9 females in our sample were more productive than 24 out of the 48 males, yet the females had to be on average 3 times more productive than their male peers in order to be awarded a conference presentation. The chances of this occurring in the absence of gender bias are
less than 1%. This result is in remarkable concordance with the research of Wenneras and Wold, who found that females in their study had to be on average 2.5 times more productive than their male peers in order to receive a postdoctoral fellowship.

We note that this dearth of allocated conference presentations appears to hinder the ability of otherwise highly qualified females to become faculty members.

On a personal note, this study is one of many things convincing me I made a right personal choice not to pursue a research career. Although I still believe myself entirely capable of the work, I simply lack the drive required to overcome the obstacles of the non-scientific portions of the profession.
aesmael: (Electric Waves)
A few days ago [livejournal.com profile] lost_angelwings and I came across some thoroughly dreadful essays and decided to split the raging between us. I got this community (yay!) but have been sick since so am only getting to it now. Bah! Enough preamble.

Deal, teer - directly offensive to just about everyone )

And I think I am going to be sick now.

[cross-posted to [livejournal.com profile] feminist_rage ]



September 2017

101112131415 16
17 181920212223


RSS Atom

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated 2017-09-22 22:21
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios