Jump to content
Lyudmilascience

things I used to love are turning feminist

Recommended Posts

I used to really like to watch ted talks and the youtube channel dnews. i also am a big fan of hermiony from the harry potter series. I like the actress who played her and now there are more social justice or feminist videos on ted talks, laci green who hosted dnews is a feminist and same with the actress who plays hermiony in harry potter. I think there is a good kind of feminist that is for equality but the represented in the media feminist is trying to give women more rights then men and they usually use all their arguments just to complain about something. these feminists are going along with the more radical feminists in the media. I just cant believe how so many people in the media are going along with feminism to protect their image. they might not even agree with it they just want financial supporters and if they have a good image they will get more supporters. will feminism in the main stream die out soon? how can the media have so many people saying something so illogical like the pay gap? its been disproven many times yet reputable people still say its true. I think women have all the political rights they fought for. feminism is no longer needed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Isn't it GREAT?! I joined Emma Watson's UN Women's group HeForShe, men in support of women's human rights and gender equality. I think the organization does a lot to educate people who think there is no pay gap, and who have been misinformed from years of misogynistic leadership at multiple levels.

 

It's about equality, not about giving women more rights than men, which is another ignorant point that needs to be clarified. I've said it before about US politics, but it applies here too. If your ship has been mis-steered to starboard for too long, you can't just bring it back to the middle to get back on course. You need to go farther to port to correct.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just cant believe how so many people in the media are going along with feminism to protect their image.

 

 

This, along with many uses of "you're just being politically correct" really irk me. You are suggesting that these people don't actually believe what they are supporting. That they're actually misogynist (in this case), along with the people uttering the phrase, but lack the courage of their convictions. Maybe these "people in the media" actually believe in equality. But equality seems to be such a foreign concept to the "you're just being politically correct" people.

 

It's about equality, not about giving women more rights than men, which is another ignorant point that needs to be clarified. I've said it before about US politics, but it applies here too. If your ship has been mis-steered to starboard for too long, you can't just bring it back to the middle to get back on course. You need to go farther to port to correct.

 

Also, when you've gotten used to a bias in the system, equality feels like a bias in the other direction.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think women have all the political rights they fought for. feminism is no longer needed.

 

This is very obviously not true, even in those places where the laws says it should be so.

If your ship has been mis-steered to starboard for too long, you can't just bring it back to the middle to get back on course. You need to go farther to port to correct.

 

And the ship hasn't even been brought back to the middle yet!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While I agree with you, guys about the disadvantages females face, rights are not equivalent to a ship that's off course.

I would very much like to see more women participating in our forum, and get their perspective, for one thing.

It would get rid of the 'novelty' and this avatar foolishness for one thing.

( I personally favor Hypervalent's approach; I simply consider her an intelligent person, neither male nor female )

 

But back to the boat analogy....

Say my ancestors were disadvantaged in some way compared to yours, Phi.

Would it make sense to 'oversteer' in the opposite direction and grant me more rights than you so as to 'correct' past injustices and bring the 'ship back on course' ?

I don't see how two injustices, on different groups, yielding twice the suffering, cancel out and make everything 'hunky-dory'.

 

Or am I misunderstanding you ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Or am I misunderstanding you ?

 

Of course you are.

 

It's not enough to just let the wheel of the ship come back to the middle. You need over-correction, but that doesn't mean give women more rights. That's crazy, and it just seems like a purposely obtuse way to diffuse an argument that you don't want to gain traction.

 

It means that more attention should be given on a daily basis to gender inequality, and going out of your way (to port) to correct abuses. Over-correcting by joining women's support groups even if you're a guy. Over-correcting by reaching out to help educate those who've misunderstood the whole movement.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think men take advantage of women way too often when they have children. Moreover, children are a cultural resource, not just family of the parents and other relatives. A culture that mistreats children will not be healthy and may die. Thus, I believe a parent or parents should receive aid for dependent children that permits a parent to care for their children. I think women would take advantage of this aid more than men; OK.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's not a lot I can say here that smarter people than me haven't already said more eloquently. Instead, I would encourage the OP to read this article, about an event at my university that recently made headlines. http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/apr/06/the-feminist-cupcake-sale-that-led-us-into-the-darkest-depths-of-gender-inequality

Edited by hypervalent_iodine
Linked the wrong article

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's not a lot I can say here that smarter people than me haven't already said more eloquently. Instead, I would encourage the OP to read this article, about an event at my university that recent made headlines. http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/apr/06/the-feminist-cupcake-sale-that-led-us-into-the-darkest-depths-of-gender-inequality

I don't have the words to express my sadness after reading that, Hypervalent. I often feel betrayed by my own silence because I can't count the times I've been bullied by men into silence online and offline; I say it with shame that I've learned to ignore it and not retaliate. The worst part about it is, if you work in a male dominated industry it could be detrimental to your career to speak up against the sexism. I've read this thread several times today before posting because I know the emotional turmoil it's going to bring.

 

http://www.news.com.au/finance/work/careers/surgeon-blows-whistle-on-medical-sexism-she-would-have-been-much-better-to-have-given-him-a-blow-job/news-story/7d1be4aabb608e0405bfa6827ca71f9e

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-09-10/damning-report-reveals-bullying-harassment-among-surgeons/6763490

http://www.smh.com.au/national/health/silence-about-sexual-harassment-in-hospitals-a-major-issue-doctors-say-20150308-13y9ki.html

 

I feel guilt that I don't have the emotional strength to speak up in the workplace or online. There is that aspect of futility when you're out numbered.

Edited by Sirona

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Unbelievable. There was a similar thing in the UK when a woman campaigned to get Jane Austen put on the £10 note and, as a result, received death and rape threats on Twitter. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/10207231/Woman-who-campaigned-for-Jane-Austen-bank-note-receives-Twitter-death-threats.html


But I assume these high profile cases are just the tip of the iceberg. I assume there are many women who receive threats like this for equally innocent on-line activity. (I get the impression that hypervalent_iodine has got a certain amount of abuse just for moderating the forum.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Personally I think it is a shame that the Guardian blur out the names of those issuing threats - it is peer group judgment that helps us weigh our actions and publicly enforced anonymity stops the feedback which allows people to realise that their views are far from universal and are deeply disapproved of by friends and family. I always want to be sure that these young men (and they are almost all youngish men) are confronted by their Mums, Sisters, Aunts, and Grannies with a "we need to talk about what you said..."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Personally I think it is a shame that the Guardian blur out the names of those issuing threats - it is peer group judgment that helps us weigh our actions and publicly enforced anonymity stops the feedback which allows people to realise that their views are far from universal and are deeply disapproved of by friends and family. I always want to be sure that these young men (and they are almost all youngish men) are confronted by their Mums, Sisters, Aunts, and Grannies with a "we need to talk about what you said..."

 

I found this interesting article:

 

http://www.gsb.stanford.edu/insights/neil-malhotra-having-sisters-makes-men-more-likely-be-republican

 

It's saying that men who have sisters tend to be more conservative. I'm not certain of it's validity, however, it's an interesting read. According to the article, men who have sisters do less housework and grow to associate housework with 'woman's work' and have a more traditional view of gender roles.

Edited by Sirona

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Personally I think it is a shame that the Guardian blur out the names of those issuing threats - it is peer group judgment that helps us weigh our actions and publicly enforced anonymity stops the feedback which allows people to realise that their views are far from universal and are deeply disapproved of by friends and family. I always want to be sure that these young men (and they are almost all youngish men) are confronted by their Mums, Sisters, Aunts, and Grannies with a "we need to talk about what you said..."

 

Interesting point. It's not like the paper needs to worry about violating their privacy as they have already chosen to publish their views on the Interwebz.

 

At least in the Criado-Perez case some people were prosecuted for their behaviour.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I often feel betrayed by my own silence because I can't count the times I've been bullied by men into silence online and offline; I say it with shame that I've learned to ignore it and not retaliate.

While we can't control what happens elsewhere on the internet, we do have the ability to act on SFN. If this sort of thing happens here, to anyone, let the staff know.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Personally I think it is a shame that the Guardian blur out the names of those issuing threats - it is peer group judgment that helps us weigh our actions and publicly enforced anonymity stops the feedback which allows people to realise that their views are far from universal and are deeply disapproved of by friends and family. I always want to be sure that these young men (and they are almost all youngish men) are confronted by their Mums, Sisters, Aunts, and Grannies with a "we need to talk about what you said..."

 

I think this social approach is the key to social media abuse. We've seen it work here many times. We have some posters who only seem interested in questions about homosexuality, or about Jews, and many have expressed a disdain for efforts to empower women. Extreme views need tempering. Many people who hold them do so because of misinformation, rather than any outright hatred. For them, education is the key, imo. And an earful from grandma or another respected source goes a long way to help correct the problem.

 

It does bother me that so many young men feel no responsibility for their words posted online, and use it to vent such bile and abuse. I rather hope these types are easily spotted, foaming at the mouth with a blinking red face, but I fear they're the smiling young men bagging my groceries, and the teen who's crafting my take-n-bake pizza, and just maybe the nice young man who wants to take my daughter to dinner.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Has this effect become much more prevalent during the last 15 yrs of internet activity ?

 

People who were afraid to look you in the eye when talking to you will now tear a strip off you for the slightest reason, and may actually threaten you; from behind the screen of their computer.

Guys who were once afraid to talk to girls, will say the most vile things to them online, again because of the 'protection' ( anonymity ) afforded by their computer screen.

 

People should realise that they're not so anonymous, and their identity can always be found.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Extreme views need tempering. Many people who hold them do so because of misinformation, rather than any outright hatred. For them, education is the key, imo. And an earful from grandma or another respected source goes a long way to help correct the problem.

I agree with you completely that education is the key and like almost everything I've learned, I draw from my personal experience. Being a first generation Australian I can say attitude is largely cultural and stems from understanding, knowledge and experience. I was raised in a very conservative family with culturally Islamic views on my fathers side (I say culturally because Islam had very little influence on our lives except when it came to the position of women and eating pork; alcohol, male promiscuity, violence and doubt in God was perfectly acceptable). I am eternally thankful for my secular state education and although I can't say I learned a great deal academically, I learned how to be a good citizen; to not marginalise women and minorities, embrace multiculturalism, hate is born from fear, the need to control is born from insecurity. Some might say I was indoctrinated by leftists but I believe it has made me a better person. I may be wrong. This is my belief.

 

I've said before many times, I am a technology native and grew up online. Over the years I've participated in many forum discussions and these conversations were no less important in shaping my views and perspective. When you're posting online you should be mindful that you have the power to influence, cause change, inflict harm, educate and inform. I have a great deal of love and respect for those that have made it their goal to inform the misinformed with well thought out, well researched and evidence based knowledge.

 

I've not been here a long time, but there are a lot of excellent role models here (I'm not just speaking of moderators either) who I respect immensely and what makes it such a nice place to be is the diversity and opportunity to learn and educate, but something more too, there is an opportunity to inspire and cause change. Use your time online for good.

Edited by Sirona

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

MigL" While I agree with you, guys about the disadvantages females face, rights are not equivalent to a ship that's off course.

I would very much like to see more women participating in our forum, and get their perspective, for one thing.

It would get rid of the 'novelty' and this avatar foolishness for one thing.

( I personally favor Hypervalent's approach; I simply consider her an intelligent person, neither male nor female )"

I understand there are many disadvantages that females face but I dont want men to not have a voice and i see in America they are being shamed by women guilt tripping them about men's history of oppressing woman's rights and I dont want men to have less power then women. I think things are starting to head in that direction. I guess not many women are interested in science. I am, but I didn’t go into that field in college because I was worried I would not be able to pass, im not good at math. I'm glad you want to see women's perspective in science too. women are overlooked in science or discouraged from science and math.

I like the article you suggested hypervalent-iodine I don't understand though did only men have to pay a dollar women had to pay less for one? is that what started the outrage?

phi for all "It does bother me that so many young men feel no responsibility for their words posted online, and use it to vent such bile and abuse. I rather hope these types are easily spotted, foaming at the mouth with a blinking red face, but I fear they're the smiling young men bagging my groceries, and the teen who's crafting my take-n-bake pizza, and just maybe the nice young man who wants to take my daughter to dinner."

I agree that men can post things and not take any responsibility for it because of it but don’t you think that women also do this? I think we should focus on both genders equally when we are looking at inequality or sexism towards one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you have two houses across the street from each other and one is on fire, do we demand that the fire department spend an equal amount of time and resources on each when they arrive for the sake of fairness?

 

Men have had a much larger voice in the world than women for some time. If we want equality, our (i.e. men's) relative say in the world is going to decrease. It has to because we already have a disproportionate amount of power and the only way for women to get an equal piece of the pie is if we give them some of the extra that we've been hogging.

 

Yes, that means that we're going to occasionally shut up and listen a bit more than has been the case for our gender in the past. No, that doesn't mean that we're currently in danger of women having more power than men.

 

Take a look at the gender ratio in government. There are 435 members of the United States House of Representatives. 84 of them are women. There are 100 members of the US Senate. 20 of them are women.

 

That's not even close to parity, let along "women taking over." The trend is going to have to be a shift in the balance of power towards more for women and less for men until we reach reach a more equitable balance. Yes, that's in the direction of what you are afraid of, but there is no way to make progress without heading in that direction and then stopping when we get to the correct place.

 

Trying to make progress without moving in that direction is like getting on an elevator at the 10th floor and trying to get to the ground floor without hitting any buttons for floors below the one you are currently on because you are afraid that if the elevator starts going down, you'll wind up in the basement.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While I agree with you, guys about the disadvantages females face, rights are not equivalent to a ship that's off course.

 

 

I believe the point was unequal rights was like a ship that's off course. A long-standing bias, which is still present, though worse in the past.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I understand there are many disadvantages that females face but I dont want men to not have a voice and i see in America they are being shamed by women guilt tripping them about men's history of oppressing woman's rights and I dont want men to have less power then women.

How are men NOT getting a voice in this? Besides, it's not an opinion issue. Hard numbers and documented incidents hold a lot more weight than "You should treat women better!" If a man wants to argue that women are just fine, he's going to have to answer to the huge list of evidence of disparities and prejudices.

 

 

I agree that men can post things and not take any responsibility for it because of it but don’t you think that women also do this? I think we should focus on both genders equally when we are looking at inequality or sexism towards one.

Sorry, but that's misinformed centrism. Men are by far more likely to be internet abusers, and they tend to abuse based on gender, whereas abuse from women is usually not targeted that way. Focusing on both genders in this instance is the wrong approach, since it mistakenly attempts to cast this as a problem both sexes have. It is NOT.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

MigL" While I agree with you, guys about the disadvantages females face, rights are not equivalent to a ship that's off course.

I would very much like to see more women participating in our forum, and get their perspective, for one thing.

It would get rid of the 'novelty' and this avatar foolishness for one thing.

( I personally favor Hypervalent's approach; I simply consider her an intelligent person, neither male nor female )"

I understand there are many disadvantages that females face but I dont want men to not have a voice and i see in America they are being shamed by women guilt tripping them about men's history of oppressing woman's rights and I dont want men to have less power then women. I think things are starting to head in that direction. I guess not many women are interested in science. I am, but I didn’t go into that field in college because I was worried I would not be able to pass, im not good at math. I'm glad you want to see women's perspective in science too. women are overlooked in science or discouraged from science and math.

I like the article you suggested hypervalent-iodine I don't understand though did only men have to pay a dollar women had to pay less for one? is that what started the outrage?

phi for all "It does bother me that so many young men feel no responsibility for their words posted online, and use it to vent such bile and abuse. I rather hope these types are easily spotted, foaming at the mouth with a blinking red face, but I fear they're the smiling young men bagging my groceries, and the teen who's crafting my take-n-bake pizza, and just maybe the nice young man who wants to take my daughter to dinner."

I agree that men can post things and not take any responsibility for it because of it but don’t you think that women also do this? I think we should focus on both genders equally when we are looking at inequality or sexism towards one.

 

It was based on colour, gender, and what field you were studying towards. White men paid $1, where a black female law student did not (for example). That's what started it.

 

I don't know where you get the idea that things are heading in a direction where men suddenly have less rights etc., than women. What is your evidence for that? Because all the evidence I've seen suggests we aren't even on an equal footing with men by most measures, let alone surpassing them.

 

You are incorrect to say that less women are interested or go into science. I can't remember the exact numbers, but generally, there are more or equal numbers of women going into STEM degrees as there are men. Where things fall apart is during and after graduate school, where suddenly, we have more men. This is something that has been discussed here a few times.

 

Do women also spew vile on the web? Probably some do, but you'd have to be kidding yourself if you're suggesting that there are anywhere near as many. You should be equally condemned regardless of gender. However, when speaking of the issue in general terms, this is undoubtedly a male dominated problem. Why speak of it in any other way?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The responses in this thread are pretty disgusting and show a terrible ideology picked up by some members here at SFN. Usually things are pretty stagnant around here, but with the recent thread by Engineer, this is a throb. If you don't understand, here's an anecdote: I was on another board and found that a few (AFAIK non-religious) people supported ISIS as a righteous cause correcting the west's interference in the region.

 

Here's a dishonest tactic often used by religious people: throw up straw-men and assert the unargued. And here we have people attacking OP for hating women and wanting inequality, for arguing against gynocentrism and misandry (what he, understandably, associates with 'feminism').

 

*arguments against religion being institutionalized and supremacist views among some religious* "Why do you hate Christians, why do you want to take away our religious freedom?".

 

Another: minimizing the threats and fear given off by institutions, onto those who express views that oppose them.

 

Look at Tim Hunt, a biologist and STEM equality advocate who gave a talk on progress in gender equality in the sciences in South Korea. For a joke specifically denigrating sexism and disparaging himself, to much applause from the audience and later their defence, he was alienated, ostracized, kicked out, and attacked in/from a bevy of institutions in the UK. A self-proclaimed feminist journalist took snippets from his comment and wrote a highly-reviled article that he was sexist. Even after it was shown to be completely misinformative and misrepresentative, and the author was shown to have a history of dishonesty, even a heavily fabricated CV, each institution that shamed him stood by their side and the author (along with the vocal feminist community).

 

More recently, dongle-gate. Two developers joked to each other, at a tech presentation, something about "big dongles" and forking (an action in version control systems and lesbianism). Another "feminist", who was sitting nearby them and overheard, decided to take a picture of them and tweet it out, then asserting they were sexist and misogynist. A social-media storm came and the jokester was fired from his job as an engineer for it (his job, you know, what supports his livelihood). For releasing a picture without their consent and inciting a burst of online harassment against them, she was fired from her job too. The result? The media institutions, social, traditional, e-zines and all, stood by her, demonized anyone who thought ill of the treatment of the developers as sexist and mysognistic, as well as those who criticized her own actions and her former-employer, as "why we need feminism".

 

Even more recently there was an outrage that one of the people running Nintendo's relations and communications team,if you don't know, one of the largest developers for video games for the children and pre-teens demographic—was pushed to leave her job because of sexism and misogyny. Nintendo and those who advocated for the decision were labelled, in all those same institutions, as sexist and misogynistic. She deeply and robustly advocated for the legalization and normalization of child pornography and many child-protection groups rallied against having someone like this, for good reason I believe, influencing decisions at Nintendo (a primarily child media company, though I still do play Mario sometimes). Nintendo's control-structure isn't stationed in the west, so all this to little effect, but here there was an overwhelming rush to defend her and attack the others, evidence for "why we need feminism".

 

And even Richard Dawkins, who sees these problems in feminism too, has been attacked with flak for voicing this, and even kicked from a conference (I hope reinstated since all the support) for retweeting a video criticizing feminism for appeasing islamism, in the same humour many atheist videos criticize Christianity, such as those actually made by the organizers of the conference. I've long been in the atheist community and was very familiar with Christian communities, especially in the southern US, persecuting/ostracising/alienating atheists. It looks like its secular counterpart has risen up and begun doing the same things.

 

I was and am uncomfortable making this post. If I have opinions in social groups in real life or on online boards I'm most often pressured to omit or even attack my own feelings about this (if forced to say anything). It's the same as when I lived in a very conservative community, how I felt when thinking to speak about homosexuality. Acting like people, most certainly those in the media, aren't pressured by political correctness is... what's the word for when you disregard the oppression of someone for acknowledging it would undermine your ideology? And I say surely, I'm as certain here as I was about revealing my "liberal" feelings in that conservative community, that some members here will make decisions, subtle or significant, treating me differently, or poorly, for these views. As they do generally, when people puncture.

 

OP is not crusading against equality, or even the misandry affecting people at the ground, but against the 'feminist' (in the sense above) structure of popular media, that ignores men's problems and demonizes masculinity while promoting misandrist ideas and applauding femininity. I say this as a former 'feminist' with now-fluid and formerly-queer gender inclinations. I was attacked for these qualities early-on, but grew in a mostly egalitarian community, and have met many women I take as peers or even superiors in my interests, in math, technology, poetry, etc.. But that was an ivory tower, where in actuality many women are oppressed for their gender's sake. It looks like the responders here too live in ivory towers, perhaps uninformed, or too far removed from the Appalachian redneck to sympathize: that many men too, are oppressed for their gender's sake. In fact, here it looks like many have moved past sympathy and activism into an ideology that immunizes its adherents from the idea that misandry is unjust or that it deserves opposition, much to the grief of those affected.

 

Months ago there was some case where a homophobic bakery refused to bake a wedding cake for a homosexual couple. This policy is obviously disadvantageous for me, and for many others. People here, who posted in this thread, attacked the bakers on the forum when it was mediafodder. I did not read the thread about it when this was happening. However, feminists, in the sense of those who responded in this thread, have a taste for hypocrisy. To ignore death threats, rape threats, and persecution by one group, and grab them by the tail when they come from another, is the kind of thing that my prejudices would expect.

 

So, wouldn't it be fitting if they advocated/ignored discrimination by one group and used vitriolic public response as justification for the need for that discrimination, while demonizing such discrimination when done by another group and advocating/ignoring murder, rape, and disenfranchisement threats as public response as if it was trivial or justified? But we need a standard here. At the bake-sale that discriminated on students based on their race and gender at the University of Queensland, the kids on campus were unlikely to go hungry because of the policy, and they could simply heed to the pressures and hide-away their own gender identity and get the cupcake for however much money they actually had available. The gay couple for whom the bakery refused to bake a wedding cake had access to dozens of bakeries in and around their city, thousands of successful gay marriages in their state (barring that they've all been cakeless), and could have gone in and simply ordered a wedding cake (often done by proxy) without revealing their sexuality. A quick search, a sweep through the thread, and lo and behold the bakery was vilified and did not say that the death, rape, and threats of disenfranchisement were justification for the discrimination, nor censure the attackers in any way. Yet, in this thread, the whole focus has been on those who broke out against the bake-sale, with meagre mention of the actual discrimination, which would have been as substantial to the victims as much as the homophobic bakery's. It's a hypocrisy that doesn't end in this specific example, but pervades most of their ideological linchpins.

I am a jew. I did not appreciate seeing someone here try to minimize what I personally, and many in my family, have experienced in trying to minimize the presence of feminism with it. Despite that perhaps misogyny is more widespread by the numbers, you'll find many more people who actually hold rich, robust, deeply rationalized anti-semitic ideologies here on the internet. And I don't mean people who say "kike" anymore than I mean people who say "cunt".

 

I am aware that in the US, jews have higher incomes on average as compared to christians and muslims (matched only by asians, pacific-islanders, and Hindus). But coming from a comparatively unwealthy jewish household, I would be pretty pissed, and very offended, if my university held a "privilege bake-sale" and charged me two quarters I didn't have for a snack. What if they told me that I can simply pretend not to be jewish, say I was christian or muslim, and be given a discount? That might actually piss me off more. I even know some "self-hating" jews who I can imagine actually supporting the event. I'm sure, and a bit thankful, that people might spew vitriol online for me as well. And that vitriol would be evidence for the Rothschilds' judaification of America. But fundamentally such an event would be in direct opposition to my values, as was the one held in Queensland. And people who've adopted somewhat bigoted ideologies would spoon it as "just an event in cultural education", and most surely ignore the actual discrimination going on and focus on the verbal vitriol it drew in response.

 

...

Did any of you notice how stout theists will seem to somehow not see, even if written clearly in english, new information, missteps in logic, and counterpoints? As in, they're probably right there reading it, connecting the syntax to the semantics in their head, and in result... poof, it's as if nothing was said, or some giant chunk of information was blacked-out. If you've ever been in a Christian community, ever notice how any attempts to discuss how horrendous events in history were motivated by christianity, end up turning completely into a discussion about how Stalin, Pol Pot, and Mao killed so many more people, and how atheist they were? These are the kinds of things that happen with feminists, and feminist communities.

 

How do you communicate to a fundamentalist Christian? From my experience, long chains for reasoning, information, and counterpoints like this one are usually sent to the butcher. So I have no idea. Since 'feminism' exhibits a similar pathology to many theistic faiths, and experience says this entails responding to reasoning and information in similar ways, how do you communicate to someone who will acquire rosacea and tinnitus after a moment's glancing, much of whose view of gender and society is rooted in the ideology? I don't know.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

With regard to Tim Hunt, he did receive significant support from colleagues once it got out that the journalist in question was distorting the facts. The wider reactions varied but he got another appointment by the Royal Society. The major institutions you are referring to are likely the UCL (which was an administrative decision) and the Association of British Science Writers who mainly stated that they are not going to investigate or sanction the journalist in question. Major outlets have reported that the original accounts were widely distorted.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

With regard to Tim Hunt, he did receive significant support from colleagues once it got out that the journalist in question was distorting the facts. The wider reactions varied but he got another appointment by the Royal Society. The major institutions you are referring to are likely the UCL (which was an administrative decision) and the Association of British Science Writers who mainly stated that they are not going to investigate or sanction the journalist in question. Major outlets have reported that the original accounts were widely distorted.

 

I appreciate the titbit, and do not know if you're intending to add more, but that isn't so material to heart of the matter. The Royal Society reinstated him, perhaps because some people there saw that kicking out someone with the research capacity of Tim Hunt was "bad science", yet maintained that his comments and behaviour were unacceptable, that he was deserving of denigration. Tim's an honest-to-heart scientist, so it's no surprise he's willing to continue contributing to their projects however he can, but that he's been "accepted" back to an institution like that is no reconciliation. Months of his life, work, and career were turned to a toxic molasses and media ripped him throughout, UCL and the ABSW were substantial players, for after the details became clear and obvious, they maintained. He's now moved away to Japan IIRC, from an offer that, in interview with friends of the Hunts, his wife wouldn't have taken without the fiasco. He has, however, been completely civil, maybe too polite, throughout this whole thing. Trying to trivialize his treatment and the feminist bigotry of those institutions is not appreciated.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.