RFK Jr. is not a serious person. Don't take him seriously.
3 weeks ago in Genomics, Medicine, and Pseudoscience
Markup Key:
- <b>bold</b> = bold
- <i>italic</i> = italic
- <a href="http://www.fieldofscience.com/">FoS</a> = FoS
Anonymous comments will NOT be approved. You must include a name at the very least.
I want to point out that celebrating female bloggers isn't the same as celebrating people for being female bloggers. Which is why in my post, I said "This is not a list of top female science bloggers; it's an all-female list of top science bloggers". They're all people I celebrate and try to promote *anyway*; they just happen to be women. The whole point of that exercise was to show other people who might not be reading them why they should, for reasons of quality not gender.
ReplyDeleteThat being said, your frustrations are understandable, and clearly you're not the only one thinking this. Sheril's been banging this particular drum for many years now, and gets an almighty earful from sexist wankers at every turn. I can only repeat what I said on her thread (which for some reason I can't seem to link to here) - that every time this gets raised, a few more people reflect on what they're doing or a take a few steps in the right direction.
And I heartily agree with the last paragraph. "Boys will be boys" is nonsense and frankly, it's demeaning to both genders. I am not programmed to be a wanker. It turns out that I have a certain responsibility and choice over my actions, and people have a right to expect me to exert those. Can't quite believe this is news to people.
You *should* be able to link to things here, not sure why you wouldn't be able to. I'll look into that.
ReplyDeleteI realized a little bit after the fact that it seemed like I really was picking on you even though I promise I wasn't. I'm not angry that people *do* the linkfests, I'm just annoyed by how most of the time, these women don't have that much thought paid to them unless women in science blogging is the topic du jour (and I'm speaking in broader strokes here, not about you). Traffic-sharing is obviously a good thing for everyone, I'm not faulting you for that. (I've even gotten a few hits from your post! Thanks, R.)
I hadn't thought about how that chestnut could be demeaning to men as well. Thanks for that, I'll keep it in my back pocket. ;)
This is great and captures how I've been feeling about all this in many ways, thank you! The circle jerk metaphor is particularly apt, and is perhaps at the heart of some of the problem to begin with--it's hard to break into the (often boys) club where everyone links to each other and pats themselves on the back for being such a good blogger. But the issue is of course bigger than links; sex, gender, and sexuality are "obvious" binaries to most people, and many scientists and science communicators continue to naturalize these ideas with posts about things from women in science to animal sex. The most discouraging for me by far has been that the few times I've written about gender or gendered issues, the troll hordes come out to tell me I'm being "unscientific!" I hope that we can have a little Gender and Queer Studies 101 before the next round of "where are all the lady science bloggers?"
ReplyDeleteHow many LGBTQ science bloggers can you name off the top of your head?
ReplyDeleteFive, including me, apparently: @jbyoder, @maggiekb1, @oystersgarter, and you.
Christina: I agree with you 100%. Someone should do a Gender and Sexuality Studies 101 ~FOR SCIENTISTS~ post. Emily actually has a pretty good start on it over here: http://biologyfiles.fieldofscience.com/2011/01/sex-gender-and-gender-identity.html
ReplyDeleteSteve: That's actually more than I could name at the time. :)
So obscene language is your key to emphasizing intelligent thought about sexuality?
ReplyDeleteJames
James, I am well within my right to use foul language when talking about a foul topic of discussion.
ReplyDeleteSteve, I'm pretty sure @oystersgarter is not LGBTQ (she has a hubby). But you might be thinking about @rmacpherson also from Deep Sea News who is?
ReplyDelete@alexley who doesn't blog so much these days is also LGBTQ. I know of at least 3 others who I'm not sure how open they are about their status so I won't mention their twitter handles.
I don't know @oystersgarter personally so I can't say. But for argument's sake, it *is* possible to be LGBTQ and married. What do you think the B stands for? ;)
ReplyDeleteYou are within your rights to say whatever you wish. If you feel that 'power' obcenities benefit you, then go for it. Just keep in mind that some of us are not interested in mental crutches. We are interested in your unadulterated opinion. The victim defense is not effective. You are no more a victim than have most or all of us been. I can go away if that is attractive to you?
ReplyDeleteJames
With you 100 percent. These categorical celebrations are getting old. We do it - in emulation - because it's proven to be an effective content crutch for the mainstream media, and when you need a "relevant" or "newsy" update, you can pull one of these out of your hat.
ReplyDeleteDiversity points and a fresh entry? Sure, why not.