hey you know how this man moves a refrigerator
― Οὖτις, Tuesday, 7 October 2014 23:10 (nine years ago) link
he pays someone else to do it
xp neither have i! that aside, it made me angry and curious about what other total horseshit people say on daytime tv. what a cesspool!
― cross over the mushroom circle (La Lechera), Tuesday, 7 October 2014 23:14 (nine years ago) link
damn if i could only find a girl could move her own fridge
― zero content albums (darraghmac), Tuesday, 7 October 2014 23:17 (nine years ago) link
i expect the woman to move all the refrigerators on a first date
― outback bumfuc (electricsound), Tuesday, 7 October 2014 23:17 (nine years ago) link
I have never moved, nor had the need to move, a refrigerator
― my jaw left (Hurting 2), Tuesday, 7 October 2014 23:21 (nine years ago) link
I mean seriously terrible example, that's like one thing you virtually never move. You get it delivered, that's it til the day it dies! Most places you move into already have one! You are in television guy, think of a better example!
He's crazy, I move the fridge every time I sweep the floor. They SCOOTCH, you know. No one is picking them up with one hand like a super hero--not even MEN.
― Orson Wellies (in orbit), Tuesday, 7 October 2014 23:22 (nine years ago) link
he is disgustingno families without men? tell that to bazumpteen thousand single moms, asshole. he sucks.
― cross over the mushroom circle (La Lechera), Tuesday, 7 October 2014 23:24 (nine years ago) link
He's terrible.
― Orson Wellies (in orbit), Tuesday, 7 October 2014 23:25 (nine years ago) link
hope he gets crushed while trying to move a fridge
― Ƹ༑Ʒ (imago), Tuesday, 7 October 2014 23:31 (nine years ago) link
It's Impossible to Prevent Someone From Eyefucking You
We asked 10 women in eight countries to record every instance of street harassment -- every catcall, every ass-ogle, every creepy look -- for an entire week. The results? A strong argument for just becoming a shut-in.
― mookieproof, Tuesday, 7 October 2014 23:35 (nine years ago) link
http://www.rookiemag.com/2014/10/ugly-as-i-want-to-be
― mookieproof, Saturday, 25 October 2014 02:43 (nine years ago) link
http://www.modernluxury.com/san-francisco/story/im-rich-youre-hot
― mookieproof, Saturday, 1 November 2014 03:07 (nine years ago) link
that article is basically an ad for the sugar daddy site?
― Walter MIDI (Crabbits), Sunday, 2 November 2014 17:40 (nine years ago) link
Most of us will never be rich enough or beautiful enough to qualify, so this is just another media story using our fantasies as the bait on their hook.
― oh no! must be the season of the rich (Aimless), Sunday, 2 November 2014 18:11 (nine years ago) link
http://photos2.meetupstatic.com/photos/event/8/1/f/8/600_404433272.jpeg
― LIKE If you are against racism (omar little), Sunday, 2 November 2014 18:16 (nine years ago) link
At happy hour, Boston’s coworkers pump him for details: How is going out with a sugar baby different from hiring an escort? He answers that he hires escorts, too, but that sugar babies are more like real dates. He doesn’t care if his peers judge him—he is transparent (Bruce Boston is his real name), awash in women, and, frankly, effervescent about it. Sugaring, he says, has changed his life. - See more at: http://www.modernluxury.com/san-francisco/story/im-rich-youre-hot#sthash.YwXUpvjs.dpuf
― LIKE If you are against racism (omar little), Sunday, 2 November 2014 18:17 (nine years ago) link
https://medium.com/matter/the-uber-of-gentleman-companions-4416b25f6491
― peace, joy, pancake (doo dah), Sunday, 2 November 2014 18:38 (nine years ago) link
the uber of creepazoids
― Steve 'n' Seagulls and Flock of Van Dammes (forksclovetofu), Monday, 3 November 2014 00:30 (nine years ago) link
http://youtu.be/M2KPeMcYsuc
What's with all of the smug / scary "atheist" / libertarians attacking or misrepresenting feminists? The woman in the video is not impersonable at all! She makes a fair point.
I don't understand sexist atheists at all.
― Threat Assessment Division (I M Losted), Monday, 3 November 2014 14:40 (nine years ago) link
What's wrong with being a sexy atheist?
― my jaw left (Hurting 2), Monday, 3 November 2014 15:33 (nine years ago) link
Hypothesis: atheist libertarians are just your basic, simple-minded libertarians, who see feminism as a special interest group that distorts the free market by demanding equal pay for equal work and promotes other types of government meddling with their efforts to turn society into the war of all against all.
― oh no! must be the season of the rich (Aimless), Monday, 3 November 2014 18:01 (nine years ago) link
http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/2014/12/09/gender_bias_in_student_evaluations_professors_of_online_courses_who_present.html?wpsrc=sh_all_tab_tw_top
One of the problems with simply assuming that sexism drives the tendency of students to giving higher ratings to men than women is that students are evaluating professors as a whole, making it hard to separate the impact of gender from other factors, like teaching style and coursework. But North Carolina researcher Lillian MacNell, along with co-authors Dr. Adam Driscoll and Dr. Andrea Hunt, found a way to blind students to the actual gender of instructors by focusing on online course studies. The researchers took two online course instructors, one male and one female, and gave them two classes to teach. Each professor presented as his or her own gender to one class and the opposite to the other. The results were astonishing. Students gave professors they thought were male much higher evaluations across the board than they did professors they thought were female, regardless of what gender the professors actually were. When they told students they were men, both the male and female professors got a bump in ratings. When they told the students they were women, they took a hit in ratings. Because everything else was the same about them, this difference has to be the result of gender bias. “The difference in the promptness rating is a good example for discussion,” MacNell explains in the press release for the study. "Classwork was graded and returned to students at the same time by both instructors. But the instructor students thought was male was given a 4.35 rating out of 5. The instructor students thought was female got a 3.55 rating.” Considering that professors were rated on a five-point scale, losing an entire point on the "promptness" question just because students think you're female is a major hit. This particular study is small, so we shouldn't get carried away about its results. But it certainly suggests an important avenue for future research. Students penalized the perceived female professor in all 12 categories, including in qualities that women are usually assumed to excel at, such as being caring and respectful. This comports with other studies that show that while female professors are judged somewhat less harshly if they conform more to female stereotypes, men still get bonus points for showing up male.
The results were astonishing. Students gave professors they thought were male much higher evaluations across the board than they did professors they thought were female, regardless of what gender the professors actually were. When they told students they were men, both the male and female professors got a bump in ratings. When they told the students they were women, they took a hit in ratings. Because everything else was the same about them, this difference has to be the result of gender bias.
“The difference in the promptness rating is a good example for discussion,” MacNell explains in the press release for the study. "Classwork was graded and returned to students at the same time by both instructors. But the instructor students thought was male was given a 4.35 rating out of 5. The instructor students thought was female got a 3.55 rating.” Considering that professors were rated on a five-point scale, losing an entire point on the "promptness" question just because students think you're female is a major hit.
This particular study is small, so we shouldn't get carried away about its results. But it certainly suggests an important avenue for future research. Students penalized the perceived female professor in all 12 categories, including in qualities that women are usually assumed to excel at, such as being caring and respectful. This comports with other studies that show that while female professors are judged somewhat less harshly if they conform more to female stereotypes, men still get bonus points for showing up male.
― 龜, Wednesday, 10 December 2014 14:27 (nine years ago) link
Hmm. Yes.
― Orson Wellies (in orbit), Wednesday, 10 December 2014 14:53 (nine years ago) link
I recently readthis interesting article on American teaching, which touches on its genderedness among other things. at center is the following conception of the teacher:
Indeed, the biggest insult to the intelligence of American teachers is the idea that their intelligence doesn’t matter. “The teaching of A, B, C, and the multiplication table has no quality of sacredness in it,” Horace Mann said in 1839. Instead of focusing on students’ mental skills, Mann urged, teachers should promote “good-will towards men” and “reverence to God.” Teachers need to be good, more than they need to be smart; their job is to nurture souls, not minds. So Garret Keizer’s first supervisor worried that he might have too many grades of A on his college transcript to succeed as a high school teacher, and Elizabeth Green concludes her otherwise skeptical book with the much-heard platitude that teachers need to “love” their students.
I wonder if American perceptions of woman faculty at American universities is shaped in reaction to American students' experiences with primary & secondary ed teachers who model that conception: shaped by a sense that there must be some reason there are a lot of men teaching at the university level but not at the primary & secondary levels, and that whatever that reason is, it entails that women university teachers are worse than men. if so, then as with many problems with American university learning, the source of the problem is in American attitudes toward primary & secondary ed.
― droit au butt (Euler), Wednesday, 10 December 2014 15:57 (nine years ago) link
Also American attitudes toward gender and gender roles.
― Orson Wellies (in orbit), Wednesday, 10 December 2014 16:05 (nine years ago) link
good, that's one of the roots of American attitudes toward (esp) primary ed
― droit au butt (Euler), Wednesday, 10 December 2014 16:16 (nine years ago) link
http://www.onthemedia.org/story/44-prostitute-laundry/
― goole, Thursday, 29 January 2015 23:01 (nine years ago) link
10 min podcast about two women who write via tinyletter
― goole, Thursday, 29 January 2015 23:02 (nine years ago) link
Charlotte Shane is pretty cool in general.
― Wristy Hurlington (ShariVari), Thursday, 29 January 2015 23:26 (nine years ago) link
http://savedbythe-bellhooks.tumblr.com
― mookieproof, Saturday, 31 January 2015 03:47 (nine years ago) link
so that's what a podcast sounds like
― j., Saturday, 31 January 2015 04:40 (nine years ago) link
i'd put this in the right-wingery thread, but nobody reads it
http://www.kirkcenter.org/index.php/bookman/article/a-cause-lost-and-forgotten/
conservative writer considers the forgotten female anti-suffragists (while rerehearsing a bunch of their arguments, and airing out some dirty suffragette laundry [like the one who became a fascist: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norah_Elam seriously the 20th cent was so fucked up]). she's right about one thing: i'd never heard of any of these people.
really tho it's an explicit warning to the anti-gay-marriage crowd (see the closing). it's a weird phenomenon now to hear your NOM types speak in full knowledge they are destined for oblivion.
― goole, Wednesday, 4 March 2015 00:20 (nine years ago) link
That essay was gross.
― That shit right there is precedented. (cryptosicko), Tuesday, 10 March 2015 15:44 (nine years ago) link
However, you will never be able to see these women clearly if you insist, anachronistically, on seeing suffrage as a fundamental human right. ... No one was having their humanity denied—not £7 householders in 1866, not women in 1914. If you do not understand that, you will never understand women like Mary Ward.
A loss I can live with.
― Orson Wellies (in orbit), Tuesday, 10 March 2015 15:51 (nine years ago) link
And wow it only gets more gross from there.
― Orson Wellies (in orbit), Tuesday, 10 March 2015 15:52 (nine years ago) link
amen
We so rarely hear from those who really choose to be childless, and there are few essays from women who don’t regret having had an abortion, who wouldn’t have been “ready” at a later age, who had the money for IVF and childcare but who chose not to go there. The mainstream conversation is colored by if-arguments, eerily reminiscent of the 1950s, when women without children were pitied (and, possibly, pitied themselves). If I had found the right partner… If I had had enough money… If my childhood hadn’t been so bad… Whatever the reasons, they all suggest that something went wrong.
I don’t have any if-arguments (which doesn’t mean that things don’t go wrong in my life). I simply never wanted to have children. Not when I was 20, not when I was 30 and not today.
I didn't read the whole thing but this part sums up my feelings so well that i just wanted to put it somewhere http://blog.longreads.com/2015/04/02/the-answer-is-never/
― groundless round (La Lechera), Thursday, 2 April 2015 15:26 (nine years ago) link
yep.
― Maybe in 100 years someone will say damn Dawn was dope. (forksclovetofu), Thursday, 2 April 2015 19:33 (nine years ago) link
good piece!
― Pic Verry (mattresslessness), Thursday, 2 April 2015 19:57 (nine years ago) link
i should really read more simone de beauvoir. what a writer.
― Pic Verry (mattresslessness), Thursday, 2 April 2015 20:14 (nine years ago) link
she is my very favorite of the old school anarchists, especially search her pieces in the Mother Earth anthology called "Anarchy!"
https://libcom.org/history/anarchy-anthology-emma-goldmans-mother-earth
― sleeve, Thursday, 2 April 2015 20:18 (nine years ago) link
argh so sorry I thought you meant Voltairine De Cleyre
I also need to read more SDB
― sleeve, Thursday, 2 April 2015 20:19 (nine years ago) link
i am looking at facebook's live feed of people sharing the report on the rolling stone's retracted campus rape story, and it's incredibly disheartening
― ♛ LIL UNIT ♛ (thomp), Tuesday, 7 April 2015 04:52 (nine years ago) link
the report itself, the article, the things people say about it ("why does no one talk about the war on men on our nation's campuses" oh god)
― ♛ LIL UNIT ♛ (thomp), Tuesday, 7 April 2015 04:53 (nine years ago) link
the retraction article is pretty excellent i think? i mean what people are going to say about it is still gonna be terrible but as far as case studies in how journalism goes wrong it seems like it really is something people can read and learn from.
― creaks, whines and trife (s.clover), Tuesday, 7 April 2015 04:55 (nine years ago) link
idk im at the bit where the authors claim erdedy should have shared all the details of her investigation with phi kappa psi because she had no reason to believe they would not have acted in good faith and ... really?
― ♛ LIL UNIT ♛ (thomp), Tuesday, 7 April 2015 05:00 (nine years ago) link
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/12/books/review/selfish-shallow-and-self-absorbed-sixteen-writers-on-the-decision-not-to-have-kids.html?smid=tw-share
― mookieproof, Tuesday, 7 April 2015 20:30 (nine years ago) link
" a morass of resentment, insecurity, longing and disappointment for those who don’t find the right man in time to mate (the terms “childless by circumstance” and “social infertility” have been coined to describe this group); an ungovernable tangle of anxiety, confusion and exhaustion for those who combat infertility issues with costly and invasive assisted reproductive technologies; and a pervasive fog of self-recrimination and angst for those who simply don’t know what they want. "
skim-reading this I initially mistook it for a description of those who do have kids; obv I am projecting a hell of a lot bc I read blogs about how parents find themselves feeling 'not cut out for this'
― kinder, Tuesday, 7 April 2015 20:53 (nine years ago) link
i got an email from statewide library org with this:
http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y153/struggin/l1.jpg
immediately started writing a response to the guy who sent it, a reference librarian for the LDS church btw, pointing out that it was sexist ageist and disrespectful etc. then revised to say how it "could" be read the wrong way. now i feel like there's probably nothing worthwhile about pointing out possible negative interpretations in a dumb email instigated because i was offended by some typically tone-deaf thing sent from someone who works for the stupid church i hate so fn much. two hours gone. blechhhhhhhhhh. is it even objectionable in any way? i can't trust myself tbh.
― Epic Verry (mattresslessness), Thursday, 9 April 2015 21:48 (nine years ago) link