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
it seems objectionable to me; my sister is a librarian... think I'll share with her.
― Maybe in 100 years someone will say damn Dawn was dope. (forksclovetofu), Thursday, 9 April 2015 21:51 (nine years ago) link
thanks. this is what i'm considering sending in response but i'll have to sleep on it.
I’m looking forward to hearing more about this presentation. I just wanted to let you know that the promotional image in your email could be interpreted in an unfortunate way: the words could be read as a comment on the women in the photograph, not just the card catalog. I am sure that is not what you intended. I just wanted to pass this information along to you in the hope that you’ll consider it as you plan announcements in the future.
― Epic Verry (mattresslessness), Thursday, 9 April 2015 21:58 (nine years ago) link
my thirtysomething librarian sister just wrote back "yeah, this is tone deaf" so there you go
― Maybe in 100 years someone will say damn Dawn was dope. (forksclovetofu), Thursday, 9 April 2015 22:05 (nine years ago) link
Maybe if it were indicated that it's the librarians in the photo speaking, sharing the sentiment that they want/need better resources too? Could be like Married to the Sea speech bubbles or something.
― Orson Wellies (in orbit), Thursday, 9 April 2015 22:09 (nine years ago) link
agreed; the "we" doesn't read as the librarians, they read as "old resources"
― Maybe in 100 years someone will say damn Dawn was dope. (forksclovetofu), Thursday, 9 April 2015 22:12 (nine years ago) link
yes. i asked a colleague and she also said it could have been intended that the pictured librarians are "tired of the same old resources". i think tone-deaf is the accurate read then.
― Epic Verry (mattresslessness), Thursday, 9 April 2015 22:17 (nine years ago) link
i'm going to rewrite this imagining myself as a friend pointing out someone's innocent faux pas.
― Epic Verry (mattresslessness), Thursday, 9 April 2015 22:24 (nine years ago) link
^did that as briefly as i could, he responded that it hadn't even crossed his mind, thanked me, nbd.
― Epic Verry (mattresslessness), Friday, 10 April 2015 16:29 (nine years ago) link
I feel like I've seen dozens of things like that in the library world--especially because young digital folks are always finding lol old photos whiles scanning images
― Is It Any Wonder I'm Not the (President Keyes), Friday, 10 April 2015 16:33 (nine years ago) link
yeah i feel like it's been a pretty common angle on the "web" in library world ... for 20 years. he's asking for new web resources but afaict the best "new" content out there is digitized old stuff. using the "old is tired" angle prob. not the best way to reach the special collections / archives people.
― Epic Verry (mattresslessness), Friday, 10 April 2015 16:48 (nine years ago) link
http://tableflip.club/
― Premise ridiculous. Who have two potato? (forksclovetofu), Monday, 13 April 2015 20:13 (nine years ago) link
https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2015/04/14/study-suggests-stem-faculty-hiring-favors-women-over-men
― Mordy, Tuesday, 14 April 2015 13:53 (nine years ago) link
has this been posted? http://www.laweekly.com/news/how-hollywood-keeps-out-women-5525034
She was struck by how Johnston "would just happen to be at lunch with one of the guys that was hanging out with guys, and [they] would all get to know one another and all of a sudden they're making Cedar Rapids" — a movie written by a man, edited by a man, directed by a man and produced by five men, including The Descendants director Alexander Payne.
While not criticizing the industry's propensity for male bonding, Lee said that for women, "It's much tougher to fall into those casual relationships that lead to something."…"People hate risking anything, and they think it's doing something wild and crazy to hire a woman," says one female director. She asked to remain anonymous, saying that if she were identified by name, "I have a feeling that all the companies that I've been dealing with will be really evil to me."
― Florianne Fracke (La Lechera), Sunday, 3 May 2015 14:03 (nine years ago) link
'Where's My Cut?': On Unpaid Emotional Labor
― mookieproof, Saturday, 18 July 2015 01:38 (nine years ago) link
look at this bullshit
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/19/opinion/sunday/you-go-guy.html?action=click&pgtype=Homepage&module=opinion-c-col-left-region®ion=opinion-c-col-left-region&WT.nav=opinion-c-col-left-region&_r=0
― Treeship, Saturday, 18 July 2015 21:41 (nine years ago) link
"opinion"
― BIG HOOS aka the steendriver, Sunday, 19 July 2015 20:10 (nine years ago) link
But emotional labor? Offering advice, listening to woes, dispensing care and attention? That’s not supposed to be transactional. People are disturbed by the very notion that someone would charge, or pay, for friendly support.
wait, what? this is why a lot of people pay therapists.
― sarahell, Monday, 20 July 2015 08:27 (nine years ago) link
Yeah I don't get that opinion at all.
― mom tossed in kimchee (quincie), Monday, 20 July 2015 13:31 (nine years ago) link
that's just one line, the rest of the thing makes a lot of sense(although i can't say i love the hashtag)
― La Lechera, Monday, 20 July 2015 13:47 (nine years ago) link
not sure where to post it but i thought this article on spinsters was great
http://lareviewofbooks.org/essay/on-spinsters
These many magnificent spinsters and their unnamed sisters expand the range of femininity far beyond the familiar territory of the cute, cool, or easily commodified, and ignoring or shunning almost all of this classic spinster pantheon — as Bolick does — has political consequences. Above all, it domesticates the threat that the spinster poses to normative systems of love, sex, and power. There is a reason the word “spinster” has long been a queer-tinged insult with a straight-slicing edge — a reason why Katharine Hepburn, one of cinema’s great spinsters (Summertime! Desk Set! The African Queen!), was devastated in The Philadelphia Story when her ex-husband called her a “married maiden” and her estranged father called her a “perennial spinster.” Historically, spinsterhood has meant a kind of radical unavailability to straight men, implying either rejection of them or rejection by them or both.
― Merdeyeux, Tuesday, 21 July 2015 02:18 (nine years ago) link