The Periodic Table's Younger, Sexier, Sibling Thread...

Old subthreads
Steersman
.
.
Posts: 10154
Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2012 8:58 pm
Contact:

Re: The Periodic Table's Younger, Sexier, Sibling Thread...

#3781

Post by Steersman »

aweraw wrote:[spoiler]
Steersman wrote:
aweraw wrote:Addressing Caine's unwillingness to consider Alexa stats as evidence that more men than women visit FTB:

http://i.imgur.com/5Z7f1.png
I don’t know much if anything about Alexa’s methods of collecting stats, but I notice that when I do a mouse-over of the question mark adjacent to the “Gender; Male” line I see “relative to the general internet population, males are overrepresented at FTB”. And similarily with the Female line which says “females are underrepresented”. Whether that is 60-40 or 80-20 or even 30-70 seems to be a moot question. And there's also the question as to how the internet population correlates with the general atheist population.

Although it might yield some interesting results to actually ennumerate all of the commenters at FTB and assign sexes to them based on various statements they’ve made – still doesn’t say much about the lurkers but might still be of some use.
[/spoiler]

Not arguing strictly for their accuracy... more that Caine was provided evidence after asking for it, and then dismissed it without any consideration at all, based on flakey reasoning.
Maybe. Although her assertion that “a fuzzy algorithm” does not “equal actual statistics” seems a reasonable point: whatever method Alexa is using, the mouse-overs strongly suggest that they themselves are not putting a lot of weight on them.

However, Reap quoted some statistics here the other day which seem a little more credible: the Atheist Census suggests, on the basis of some 24,000 respondents, that 32% of the population are female while 67% are male – so about a 2 to 1 ratio in favour of males. How that correlates with the Internet and general populations is, of course, moot, but it seems like a reasonable starting point. Would be interesting to go through the commenters on Pharyngula and see whether that 2:1 ratio is at all close to being a valid approximation.

Useless Lurker

Re: The Periodic Table's Younger, Sexier, Sibling Thread...

#3782

Post by Useless Lurker »

Has anyone here noticed Richard Carrier's current post on his blog at FTB titled "Atheism+ : The Name for What’s Happening"?

He seems concerned that the "haters" might be the majority among atheists/skeptics, admits in the comments that he doesn't follow the A+ forum, displays considerable hostility toward opponents, and generally goes on at more length than I feel like commenting about at the moment.

He gets a surprising amount of push-back in the comments, but from who?

fascination
.
.
Posts: 338
Joined: Mon Nov 12, 2012 3:31 am
Contact:

Re: The Periodic Table's Younger, Sexier, Sibling Thread...

#3783

Post by fascination »

Steersman wrote:
And for the “heads-up”, although I only see one reference to me there by one Raging Bee – about whom Welch had some choice words – probably because she and I have had some “words” over Shermer in the context of Brayton’s rather sorry attempt to refute the charge that FfTB has turned into an “Atheist Cult”.
That Raging Bee is not very nice, eh? I noticed that she/he/they referred to you as "boy". Isn't that as sexist as referring to a grown woman as "girl"? Oh, there I go thinking again...

Lurkion
.
.
Posts: 707
Joined: Tue Jan 01, 2013 8:56 pm

Re: The Periodic Table's Younger, Sexier, Sibling Thread...

#3784

Post by Lurkion »

Women tend to be more religious (demographically, in the States).

This whole 'representative' crap is a sham.

http://www.pewforum.org/The-Stronger-Se ... aking.aspx

I've also read research that women in religious societies tend to be more pious.

Skep tickle
.
.
Posts: 5357
Joined: Fri Oct 05, 2012 12:04 am
Contact:

Re: The Periodic Table's Younger, Sexier, Sibling Thread...

#3785

Post by Skep tickle »

comslave wrote:
franc wrote:
EdgePenguin wrote:There is nothing that gets a Rad Fem riled quite like pubic hair removal

http://skepchick.org/2013/01/pubic-lice ... g-extinct/
"Like the last time I wrote about it, this story is getting a lot of popular press. However, what is presented is a lot of anecdotal evidence—stories without actual data"

So cute when a Skepchick says something like that. Needs a giggle soundtrack.
Did somebody try to force a pubic hair removal on her in an elevator? No? Then how is this her business? If a woman wants to get a brazilian, that's her business.
I think it's a very reasonable piece, up till one line near the end.

The author opens by saying she's had a slew of emails asking her about pubic lice because of a recent article, she comments on the evidence (still largely anecdotal, as it was the last time this topic made the rounds in the news), she points out that "conspicuously sprinkled through the article are links to a bunch of major grooming appliance and beauty product companies," she points out that injuries from genital grooming seem to be occurring more frequently, and she tells her readers "f you want to start trimming your shrubbery, go right ahead. But don’t do it because you think it will protect you from pubic lice; do it because you want to (for some inexplicable reason that I don’t understand myself, frankly)." She closes with "This is an attention-getting article, not news." She comments that the reason she's writing about it is because she's into bugs (not genitalia). I haven't followed her links nor checked the literature myself, but that all seems level-headed and reasonably evidence-based for a general-interest blog post (on a site that seems to favor any story with some link to sex).

The line that bugs me is the next to last one (bolding added by me): "But don’t forget that just because a few people in the US and Down Under (snorf!) remove their body hair, the vast majority of people have intact lady gardens."

...Leaving the impression that the author does not consider men to be people. (Or, she thinks men don't have pubic hair. Or, possibly, she thinks that the pubic hair of both sexes can be reasonably referred to as "lady gardens". The author - bug_girl - is an entomologist; these may be outside her area of expertise. :roll: )

Finally, the author's screen name once again highlights their double standard in the use of certain gender-referencing words. Terms like "lady-science" and "Skepchick" and "bug_girl" (and presumably "Godless Bitches") are accepted without comment when Skepchicks & friends use them, but grounds for conviction for the capital crime of misogyny if used by anyone who has dared to challenge them in any way, including by asking questions they don't want to face.

Steersman
.
.
Posts: 10154
Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2012 8:58 pm
Contact:

Re: The Periodic Table's Younger, Sexier, Sibling Thread...

#3786

Post by Steersman »

codelette wrote:
Steersman wrote:
codelette wrote: [spoiler]
Steersman wrote:
Edina Monsoon wrote:Surly Amy asked: "Who is/are your lady-science ... heroes and why?"
Wouldn't that be considered insanely sexist if not outright misogynist if anyone else said it?
Sexism seems to require some stereotyping and discrimination. I think that simply acknowledging that there are, or have been, some, many actually, top “lady-scientists” – e.g., Emmy Noether [“groundbreaking contributions to abstract algebra and theoretical physics”], Hypatia of Alexandria [“credited with various inventions including a hydrometer (and) an astrolabe”], Marie Skłodowska-Curie [“Nobel prize in 1903 (physics)”], and Barbara McClintock [studies of maize genetics led to “Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine in 1983”] – hardly qualifies as such.
[/spoiler]
Bull. Shit.
Those women are scientists and mathematicians, first and foremost. They are important because of their fucking contributions, not because they have chochas.
English a second language for you? Because I fail to see how you could get that I was arguing that “they are important for having chochas”. My list was designed to illustrate that there are a great many women who have made significant contributions in both science and mathematics - "lady scientists" - so that it would be perfectly reasonable for Amy to have asked which one might be an exemplary role model for those women who were applying for “Surly’s Woman’s Grant” and entirely consistent with her objective of “helping women to participate in Science and Rationalism – one woman at a time”. Not far removed from the same objectives and recommendations promoted by the American Association of University Women [AAUW].
Yes, little bitch, English is -as a matter of fact- my second language.
Well then, your command of it is actually pretty good, with some apparent exceptions.
codelette wrote:I think Harriet Hall said it better:
http://thunderf00tdotorg.files.wordpres ... .jpg?w=590

Your illustration of why Amy's stupid ass question (requests of "lady-science" examples) is "not sexist" is what they usually call a benevolent prejudice [i.e. scientists are men by default, so [let’s] specify that these other scientists belong to a different class of scientist, a "more specialer" kind because of their female condition.]
Well, learn something new everyday even if I think you’re using the label where it doesn’t apply. But actually she was requesting an answer to the question “Who are your lady-science heroes?” – you might want to have that translated into Spanish by someone who is more knowledgeable than you apparently are as I don’t see that she was asking for anything more than the name of a scientist – who happens to be female – who they would consider as “heroes”, as someone to emulate: maybe not the most important thing in the grand scheme of things, but as far as Amy was concerned it presumably and apparently has some relevance in inducing women to enter STEM [science-technology-engineering-mathematics] fields which is presumably of some benefit to everyone, including "real" feminists. But in that case my “illustration”, my list, wasn’t asserting any “specialness” to a particular class of scientist apart from – maybe – that implicit in “heroes”, but only showing a rather large set of cases which are plausible answers to that question. And if there are more answers of that nature – “female scientists” since “lady” seems to get your knickers in a twist in spite of it being, at least in English, a quite common and acceptable word – than there are for the question of how many “female sciences” there are – maybe one or two at a stretch and they do some damage to the word “science” – then it is more probable that Amy meant the former, i.e., “female scientists as heroes”.
codelette wrote:Those "ladies" that you mentioned on your little list are scientists that happened to be women; not "lady-scientists". Do you get it now or should I write it in Spanish, cabrón?
I get it – cabra – that you don’t get that my contention is that many of the interpretations associated with “lady-science heroes” are so many red-herrings, a misinterpretation of what Amy plausibly meant, which is suggestive of some obtuseness if not some egregious bias and prejudice.

As for writing it in Spanish: go big; fill your boots. Although to save some wear and tear on your brain – not that there’s much evidence of it having been overused or even used much at all – you could just think the thoughts in whatever language you’re most comfortable with since, as far as I’m concerned, the results are going to be pretty much the same, i.e., nil, nada, zip. Protip for you: kind of the nature of communication: if you wish to convey something the interlocutors have to agree on a language and the meaning of words therein.
codelette wrote:
Really. Shut the fuck up.
Up yours. Who pissed in your cornflakes this morning? Or do you just normally let your spleen get the better of your brain? Stupid cunt.
Spoken like a real cocksucker.
Well, I guess you would probably know better what that’s like and what it entails and what its consequences are as my tastes run more to pussy, although I’m at a complete loss how those statements of mine would necessarily follow from the first act. However, I could respond by calling you a puta, but they generally seem to have more honesty, integrity, and civility than what you’ve exhibited ….

Plonk
.
.
Posts: 58
Joined: Fri Dec 28, 2012 6:50 pm
Contact:

Re: The Periodic Table's Younger, Sexier, Sibling Thread...

#3787

Post by Plonk »

http://freethoughtblogs.com/carrier/archives/3018/

Jay:
"Have you been following what’s happening with A+ and the atheismplus.com forums?"
Richard Carrier:
"No. (Except peripherally.)"
:doh: That's fair dinkum unbelievable!

Lurkion
.
.
Posts: 707
Joined: Tue Jan 01, 2013 8:56 pm

Re: The Periodic Table's Younger, Sexier, Sibling Thread...

#3788

Post by Lurkion »

Here again: http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/ ... PZSAR2Tx8E

Women tend to be more religious worldwide AND LESS ATHEIST.

Instead of expecting that the % of women at conferences reflect the demographics of broader society, it should be expected to reflect the demographics of ATHEISTS.

(Then we can't just ASSUME it's because of sexism that women don't attend, because that would be too convenient. As skeptics, we need to consider all possible factors and weigh them up!)

Lurkion
.
.
Posts: 707
Joined: Tue Jan 01, 2013 8:56 pm

Re: The Periodic Table's Younger, Sexier, Sibling Thread...

#3789

Post by Lurkion »

Here again: http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/ ... PZSAR2Tx8E

Women tend to be more religious worldwide AND LESS ATHEIST.

Instead of expecting that the % of women at conferences reflect the demographics of broader society, it should be expected to reflect the demographics of ATHEISTS.

(Then we can't just ASSUME it's because of sexism that women don't attend, because that would be too convenient. As skeptics, we need to consider all possible factors and weigh them up!)

Lurkion
.
.
Posts: 707
Joined: Tue Jan 01, 2013 8:56 pm

Re: The Periodic Table's Younger, Sexier, Sibling Thread...

#3790

Post by Lurkion »

(Dammit. Sorry. Double-clicked. Again.)

Phil_Giordana_FCD
.
.
Posts: 11875
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 10:56 pm
Location: Nice, France
Contact:

Re: The Periodic Table's Younger, Sexier, Sibling Thread...

#3791

Post by Phil_Giordana_FCD »

Gumby wrote:
AnonymousCowherd wrote:How many open-shirted, gold chain wearing disco clowns do they need to be reminded of?
I'm thinking just one:

[spoiler]http://i225.photobucket.com/albums/dd24 ... 82f4e1.jpg[/spoiler]

*runs*
It's not gold, it's silver. I'll grant the open shirt, but I don't exactly dress like that every day ;)

Touché, nontheless. I may have to change my avatar for the sake of the Pit's "reputation"...

Skep tickle
.
.
Posts: 5357
Joined: Fri Oct 05, 2012 12:04 am
Contact:

Re: The Periodic Table's Younger, Sexier, Sibling Thread...

#3792

Post by Skep tickle »

CommanderTuvok wrote:
... Caine got caught out there, didn't he!

:lol:
I'm pretty sure Caine is female (from references others at Pharyngula made to s/h/it over the years, including once a couple of years back when Caine 'bout ripped my head off on my 2nd post ever there, soon after PZ had advised his horde to give noobies 3 posts before ripping their heads off).

I had long assumed Nerd of Redhead was female (because of s/h/it's pure bitchiness) but have noticed, here, a general consensus that s/h/it is male.

Re suggestions about going through PZ's comment sections to get an idea of gender distribution: really, how would you know? You'd have make assumptions based on name/nym, avatar, or references made by or about each poster, and you know that's going to be inaccurate. I've certainly "passed" as a male (meaning, have been assumed to be male).

In an only vaguely related vein, I LOL'd at those menstruation jokes a couple of pages back.

Steersman
.
.
Posts: 10154
Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2012 8:58 pm
Contact:

Re: The Periodic Table's Younger, Sexier, Sibling Thread...

#3793

Post by Steersman »

fascination wrote:
Steersman wrote:
And for the “heads-up”, although I only see one reference to me there by one Raging Bee – about whom Welch had some choice words – probably because she and I have had some “words” over Shermer in the context of Brayton’s rather sorry attempt to refute the charge that FfTB has turned into an “Atheist Cult”.
That Raging Bee is not very nice, eh? I noticed that she/he/they referred to you as "boy". Isn't that as sexist as referring to a grown woman as "girl"?
:-) I assume a she, although based on nothing I can put my finger. But, now that you mention it, that “boy” is rather sexist isn’t it? One could even make a case that it’s racist – if it hadn’t been so late I might have thought to respond with “Who you calling ‘boy’ – honkey?” ;-)
Oh, there I go thinking again...
That process could be the death of us all …. :-)

Seriously though, there seems to be a regretable dearth of it. Reminds me though of an article by Richard Lewontin on the topic that you might enjoy. It’s a review of Sagan’s The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark and he makes quite a good argument that:
Conscientious and wholly admirable popularizers of science like Carl Sagan use both rhetoric and expertise to form the mind of masses because they believe, like the Evangelist John, that the truth shall make you free. But they are wrong. It is not the truth that makes you free. It is your possession of the power to discover the truth. Our dilemma is that we do not know how to provide that power.

somedumbguy
.
.
Posts: 379
Joined: Fri Aug 31, 2012 12:53 am
Contact:

Re: The Periodic Table's Younger, Sexier, Sibling Thread...

#3794

Post by somedumbguy »

they're all sexist. they're all elitist. they're all racist.
it took social justice warriors and a heap of feminist to really turn me into a curmudgeon and I resent it.
anything that can fuck these assholes over the better.

they are their own worst enemies, the sad part is their message is so overwhelmingly accepted without question or critical thought.

justinvacula
.
.
Posts: 1781
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 12:48 pm
Location: Pennsylvania
Contact:

Re: The Periodic Table's Younger, Sexier, Sibling Thread...

#3795

Post by justinvacula »

comslave wrote:Opinion:
I strongly suspect if the Slymepitters held a convention, we may not get greater numbers, but we'd probably get a greater percentage of women simply because the women here don't seem to be scared shitless of men.

Select:
1. Agree
2. Disagree
1000 times this

Steersman
.
.
Posts: 10154
Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2012 8:58 pm
Contact:

Re: The Periodic Table's Younger, Sexier, Sibling Thread...

#3796

Post by Steersman »

somedumbguy wrote:they're all sexist. they're all elitist. they're all racist.
it took social justice warriors and a heap of feminist to really turn me into a curmudgeon and I resent it.
anything that can fuck these assholes over the better.

they are their own worst enemies, the sad part is their message is so overwhelmingly accepted without question or critical thought.
“It’s darkest just before the dawn” – or just before it goes pitch-black, depending on your residual optimism.

But it seems that there is some increasing willingness to face some of the problematic consequences of the dogma surrounding feminism – Thunderfoot’s video, among others, being a case in point, particularly within the skeptic and atheist communities. For instance, while I haven’t read all of it, a post by Kate Donovan on FTB’s Ashley Miller seems like a step in the right direction. ….

Skep tickle
.
.
Posts: 5357
Joined: Fri Oct 05, 2012 12:04 am
Contact:

Re: The Periodic Table's Younger, Sexier, Sibling Thread...

#3797

Post by Skep tickle »

Steersman wrote:
Edina Monsoon wrote:Surly Amy asked: "Who is/are your lady-science ... heroes and why?"
Wouldn't that be considered insanely sexist if not outright misogynist if anyone else said it?
Sexism seems to require some stereotyping and discrimination. I think that simply acknowledging that there are, or have been, some, many actually, top “lady-scientists” – e.g., Emmy Noether [“groundbreaking contributions to abstract algebra and theoretical physics”], Hypatia of Alexandria [“credited with various inventions including a hydrometer (and) an astrolabe”], Marie Skłodowska-Curie [“Nobel prize in 1903 (physics)”], and Barbara McClintock [studies of maize genetics led to “Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine in 1983”] – hardly qualifies as such.
[spoiler]
Steersman wrote:...My list was designed to illustrate that there are a great many women who have made significant contributions in both science and mathematics - "lady scientists" - so that it would be perfectly reasonable for Amy to have asked which one might be an exemplary role model for those women who were applying for “Surly’s Woman’s Grant” and entirely consistent with her objective of “helping women to participate in Science and Rationalism – one woman at a time”. Not far removed from the same objectives and recommendations promoted by the American Association of University Women [AAUW].
codelette wrote:...Your illustration of why Amy's stupid ass question (requests of "lady-science" examples) is "not sexist" is what they usually call a benevolent prejudice [i.e. scientists are men by default, so [let’s] specify that these other scientists belong to a different class of scientist, a "more specialer" kind because of their female condition.]
Steersman wrote:...actually she was requesting an answer to the question “Who are your lady-science heroes?” ...I don’t see that she was asking for anything more than the name of a scientist – who happens to be female – who they would consider as “heroes”, as someone to emulate: maybe not the most important thing in the grand scheme of things, but as far as Amy was concerned it presumably and apparently has some relevance in inducing women to enter STEM [science-technology-engineering-mathematics] fields which is presumably of some benefit to everyone, including "real" feminists. But in that case my “illustration”, my list, wasn’t asserting any “specialness” to a particular class of scientist apart from – maybe – that implicit in “heroes”, but only showing a rather large set of cases which are plausible answers to that question. And if there are more answers of that nature – “female scientists” since “lady” seems to get your knickers in a twist in spite of it being, at least in English, a quite common and acceptable word – than there are for the question of how many “female sciences” there are – maybe one or two at a stretch and they do some damage to the word “science” – then it is more probable that Amy meant the former, i.e., “female scientists as heroes”.
[/spoiler]
Steersman wrote:Protip for you: kind of the nature of communication: if you wish to convey something the interlocutors have to agree on a language and the meaning of words therein.
As a woman who was immersed in science training for ~6 years before bailing and going into medicine, I can assure you that "lady-science" is a term that noone but Amy Davis Roth (and, now, apparently you) use.

YOU have assumed a meaning for the term (equivalent to "women scientists") - but I don't agree with you that that's what it means, given that all-important hyphen, and I haven't seen anyone else agree with you either (here). (Maybe I just missed that part.)

In all my life I have never heard or seen the term before seeing it on Amy's application. I find scant reference to it online (one twitter account "ladyscience").

The meaning of "lady scientist" is much easier to determine; but that's not the same as "lady-science". "Lady scientist" comes across to me as almost pejorative. It's hard to fit the expectations of a "lady" and simultaneously do what a "scientist" needs to do.

English-speaking scientists simply do not (except perhaps barring rare exceptions) call themselves, or the women in their field, "lady scientists", nor do they EVAR (to my knowledge ) refer to women whose contributions to science they admire as "lady-science heroes" (or heroines).

Edina Monsoon
.
.
Posts: 51
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2013 1:23 am
Contact:

Re: The Periodic Table's Younger, Sexier, Sibling Thread...

#3798

Post by Edina Monsoon »

Plonk wrote:http://freethoughtblogs.com/carrier/archives/3018/

Jay:
"Have you been following what’s happening with A+ and the atheismplus.com forums?"
Richard Carrier:
"No. (Except peripherally.)"
:doh: That's fair dinkum unbelievable!
And yet just a few posts later:

Richard Carrier:
Anyone who is writing wanker limericks in a serious activist forum is acting like a child. It’s perfectly acceptable for the adults in the room to send them packing.

And that sounds like a healthy movement, not a dying one. Their forums are being actively moderated for adult conversation and planning. Like any healthy movement forum.
Because the guy who doesn't read that forum knows better than someone who does.

justinvacula
.
.
Posts: 1781
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 12:48 pm
Location: Pennsylvania
Contact:

Re: The Periodic Table's Younger, Sexier, Sibling Thread...

#3799

Post by justinvacula »

d4m10n wrote:
Lsuoma wrote:
decius wrote:
Lsuoma wrote:
d4m10n wrote: Oh, um... sorry?

Just needed something to put on Justin V. so that everyone can more easily recognize him at the Women in Secularism conference.

If you want profi output, then you need to wait a couple of weeks.
No problem. Anything you can do would be gratefully received...

Thanks for the support and interest in sending me to Women in Secularism. The largest costs, I think, would be transportation and hotel.

The bus fare doesn't seem to be bad: about $150 for a round-trip from Scranton to D.C.

http://i.imgur.com/qJYSK.jpg

$35 for student registration

~$150 a night for hotel room

http://i.imgur.com/KqRuA.jpg

$700 would cover this adventure. If I were to room share or stay in another hotel the price would go down significantly.

Skep tickle
.
.
Posts: 5357
Joined: Fri Oct 05, 2012 12:04 am
Contact:

Re: The Periodic Table's Younger, Sexier, Sibling Thread...

#3800

Post by Skep tickle »

d4m10n wrote:
justinvacula wrote: I am still a student - graduate level at Marywood University. Yes, unfortunatly these conferences can be expensive when considering travel, hotel especially.
Registration is fairly cheap for students. Shall we inquire of Melody whether you'd be allowed to attend?
I'd been envisioning the "try to slip in under the radar" approach, but actually asking ahead of time has some benefits.

First, it could potentially save JFV a wasted trip to DC & nonrefundable expenses if he were to get there & not be let in. (Though I suspect he'd actually turn it into lemonade - interview people outside the conference about some topic, oh say how they define "feminist", then turn it into a video.)

Second, if she said that he wouldn't be allowed to attend, there'd be an interesting opportunity to work down a list (whether or not others were considering attending) - though I suspect this is not what you had in mind. But it'd be interesting: If not Justin Vacula, then how about Al Stefanelli? How about ReneeHendricks? How about Wooly Bumblebee? How about Maria Maltseva? If not, why not? Where is the line? Aren't the latter 3 women in secularism? As the "Policy on Hostile Conduct/Harassment" for WiS specifically says: "Critical examination of beliefs, including critical commentary on another person’s views, does not, by itself, constitute hostile conduct or harassment. One of the underlying rationales of this policy is to promote the free exchange of ideas, not to inhibit it. "

BannedAid
.
.
Posts: 81
Joined: Tue Jan 01, 2013 9:03 pm
Contact:

Re: The Periodic Table's Younger, Sexier, Sibling Thread...

#3801

Post by BannedAid »

A halfhearted defense of Amy Roth's use of the phrase lady-science:

I've noticed a trend in pop-culture recently (read: in watching Parks and Rec and 30 Rock episodes) towards using "lady" as an analog for "guy." Used instead of "woman" or, even worse to feminists, "girl," or the worst of the worst, "female." She also used a hyphen wrong, which happens. No harm done.

Admittedly, the first time I saw the phrase "lady-science," I figured she meant science strong enough for a man, but pH-balanced for a woman.

Skep tickle
.
.
Posts: 5357
Joined: Fri Oct 05, 2012 12:04 am
Contact:

Re: The Periodic Table's Younger, Sexier, Sibling Thread...

#3802

Post by Skep tickle »

justinvacula wrote:... $700 would cover this adventure. If I were to room share or stay in another hotel the price would go down significantly.
I'd pitch in to help you attend.

comslave
.
.
Posts: 389
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2012 12:30 am
Contact:

Re: The Periodic Table's Younger, Sexier, Sibling Thread...

#3803

Post by comslave »

justinvacula wrote:
$700 would cover this adventure. If I were to room share or stay in another hotel the price would go down significantly.

Seriously, do you honestly think they'll let you in? I wouldn't be surprised if they had you arrested for stalking.

Steersman
.
.
Posts: 10154
Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2012 8:58 pm
Contact:

Re: The Periodic Table's Younger, Sexier, Sibling Thread...

#3804

Post by Steersman »

Skep tickle wrote:
Steersman wrote:
Edina Monsoon wrote:Surly Amy asked: "Who is/are your lady-science ... heroes and why?"
Wouldn't that be considered insanely sexist if not outright misogynist if anyone else said it?
Sexism seems to require some stereotyping and discrimination. I think that simply acknowledging that there are, or have been, some, many actually, top “lady-scientists” – e.g., Emmy Noether [“groundbreaking contributions to abstract algebra and theoretical physics”], Hypatia of Alexandria [“credited with various inventions including a hydrometer (and) an astrolabe”], Marie Skłodowska-Curie [“Nobel prize in 1903 (physics)”], and Barbara McClintock [studies of maize genetics led to “Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine in 1983”] – hardly qualifies as such.
[spoiler]
Steersman wrote:...My list was designed to illustrate that there are a great many women who have made significant contributions in both science and mathematics - "lady scientists" - so that it would be perfectly reasonable for Amy to have asked which one might be an exemplary role model for those women who were applying for “Surly’s Woman’s Grant” and entirely consistent with her objective of “helping women to participate in Science and Rationalism – one woman at a time”. Not far removed from the same objectives and recommendations promoted by the American Association of University Women [AAUW].
codelette wrote:...Your illustration of why Amy's stupid ass question (requests of "lady-science" examples) is "not sexist" is what they usually call a benevolent prejudice [i.e. scientists are men by default, so [let’s] specify that these other scientists belong to a different class of scientist, a "more specialer" kind because of their female condition.]
Steersman wrote:...actually she was requesting an answer to the question “Who are your lady-science heroes?” ...I don’t see that she was asking for anything more than the name of a scientist – who happens to be female – who they would consider as “heroes”, as someone to emulate: maybe not the most important thing in the grand scheme of things, but as far as Amy was concerned it presumably and apparently has some relevance in inducing women to enter STEM [science-technology-engineering-mathematics] fields which is presumably of some benefit to everyone, including "real" feminists. But in that case my “illustration”, my list, wasn’t asserting any “specialness” to a particular class of scientist apart from – maybe – that implicit in “heroes”, but only showing a rather large set of cases which are plausible answers to that question. And if there are more answers of that nature – “female scientists” since “lady” seems to get your knickers in a twist in spite of it being, at least in English, a quite common and acceptable word – than there are for the question of how many “female sciences” there are – maybe one or two at a stretch and they do some damage to the word “science” – then it is more probable that Amy meant the former, i.e., “female scientists as heroes”.
[/spoiler]
Steersman wrote:Protip for you: kind of the nature of communication: if you wish to convey something the interlocutors have to agree on a language and the meaning of words therein.
As a woman who was immersed in science training for ~6 years before bailing and going into medicine, I can assure you that "lady-science" is a term that no one but Amy Davis Roth (and, now, apparently you) use.
But that’s my point: I think she is just guilty of a malapropism, that she was trying for cute or baby-talk and it fell flat. And that on reading it and the context – and realizing she is an artist, although with some interest and familiarity with science – the logical conclusion, I think, is that she simply meant, as you say, “women scientists”. Maybe that is not the case, but I think she deserves the benefit of the doubt – if I had a twitter account I’d ask her directly even if only to give her the opportunity to apologize, correct the phrasing, or clarify what she meant, although I might try an e-mail.

And I am not using her term, but thinking that “women scientists” is what she meant. I wonder, is it really so hard to hypothesize that she simply fucked-up with her phrasing? Why insist in “that all-important hyphen” when its use seems so totally inconsistent with so many other facts. Seems like straining at a gnat – THE “hyphen” – while swallowing the camel – “Amy believes in some heretofore unknown branch of science called ‘lady-science’ for her own nefarious and twisted reasons" – whole.
English-speaking scientists simply do not (except perhaps barring rare exceptions) call themselves, or the women in their field, "lady scientists", nor do they EVAR (to my knowledge ) refer to women whose contributions to science they admire as "lady-science heroes" (or heroines).
Again, my point: she isn’t a scientist – she’s an artist with their own idiosyncratic language – so it seems not quite cricket to be demanding that she be familiar with all of the connotations they use.

Skep tickle
.
.
Posts: 5357
Joined: Fri Oct 05, 2012 12:04 am
Contact:

Re: The Periodic Table's Younger, Sexier, Sibling Thread...

#3805

Post by Skep tickle »

BannedAid wrote:A halfhearted defense of Amy Roth's use of the phrase lady-science:

I've noticed a trend in pop-culture recently (read: in watching Parks and Rec and 30 Rock episodes) towards using "lady" as an analog for "guy." Used instead of "woman" or, even worse to feminists, "girl," or the worst of the worst, "female." She also used a hyphen wrong, which happens. No harm done.
All righty then. Can someone please work either "lady-science" or, if that seems too forced, "lady science" into a comment at PZ, Zvan, or Benson's blogs at FtB, and report back on how it's received?
BannedAid wrote:Admittedly, the first time I saw the phrase "lady-science," I figured she meant science strong enough for a man, but pH-balanced for a woman.
:lol:

Steersman
.
.
Posts: 10154
Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2012 8:58 pm
Contact:

Re: The Periodic Table's Younger, Sexier, Sibling Thread...

#3806

Post by Steersman »

BannedAid wrote:A halfhearted defense of Amy Roth's use of the phrase lady-science:

I've noticed a trend in pop-culture recently (read: in watching Parks and Rec and 30 Rock episodes) towards using "lady" as an analog for "guy." Used instead of "woman" or, even worse to feminists, "girl," or the worst of the worst, "female." She also used a hyphen wrong, which happens. No harm done.
Exactly.
Admittedly, the first time I saw the phrase "lady-science," I figured she meant science strong enough for a man, but pH-balanced for a woman.
:-) I think you might have been watching too many deodourant commercials – or you’re in the business of making them ….

Edina Monsoon
.
.
Posts: 51
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2013 1:23 am
Contact:

Re: The Periodic Table's Younger, Sexier, Sibling Thread...

#3807

Post by Edina Monsoon »

Skep tickle wrote:All righty then. Can someone please work either "lady-science" or, if that seems too forced, "lady science" into a comment at PZ, Zvan, or Benson's blogs at FtB, and report back on how it's received?
"Who's your favorite lady-science hero?" would be an awesome topic for an AtheismPlus thread.

Skep tickle
.
.
Posts: 5357
Joined: Fri Oct 05, 2012 12:04 am
Contact:

Re: The Periodic Table's Younger, Sexier, Sibling Thread...

#3808

Post by Skep tickle »

Steersman wrote: ... But that’s my point: I think she is just guilty of a malapropism, that she was trying for cute or baby-talk and it fell flat. And that on reading it and the context – and realizing she is an artist, although with some interest and familiarity with science – the logical conclusion, I think, is that she simply meant, as you say, “women scientists”. Maybe that is not the case, but I think she deserves the benefit of the doubt – if I had a twitter account I’d ask her directly even if only to give her the opportunity to apologize, correct the phrasing, or clarify what she meant, although I might try an e-mail.

And I am not using her term, but thinking that “women scientists” is what she meant. I wonder, is it really so hard to hypothesize that she simply fucked-up with her phrasing? Why insist in “that all-important hyphen” when its use seems so totally inconsistent with so many other facts. Seems like straining at a gnat – THE “hyphen” – while swallowing the camel – “Amy believes in some heretofore unknown branch of science called ‘lady-science’ for her own nefarious and twisted reasons" – whole.

Again, my point: she isn’t a scientist – she’s an artist with their own idiosyncratic language – so it seems not quite cricket to be demanding that she be familiar with all of the connotations they use.
The point is that THEY police language, judging use of certain words (particularly gender-related ones that might be imagined as slights against women) as a sign of a permanent character flaw for which the user must be banned from participating, yet they & their buddies use these terms too, without appearing to flinch, much less allow for the possibility of hypocrisy. "Lady-science" sounds to me like it would fit in the "verboten words/phrases" category, as separating out women's-science from the rest of science (with the rest being men's science?). Though since it's a new term it's hard to be sure how others would react, if they heard it & didn't realize it came from her. :D

I was going to say that Surly Amy wasn't to my knowledge one of the language-police, but her reaction to Harriet Hall's TAM T-shirt might belie that. Kind of depends whether she was reacting to the smilie "I feel safe" on the front or the "I am a skeptic, not a..." on the back.

I do understand that Surly Amy is not a scientist. (Ever see the videotape of her (at a workshop at TAM ~2 yrs ago, I think) drawing a painful (IMO) analogy between creating art and the peer review process?) To my mind that makes it a little odd to have her asking about an applicant's favorite "science topic" or female scientist-hero; on what basis will she be judging the answers? It's like me asking what artist someone likes as part of the application process for me to send a student to an art conference. But, whatever, that's her call.

Skep tickle
.
.
Posts: 5357
Joined: Fri Oct 05, 2012 12:04 am
Contact:

Re: The Periodic Table's Younger, Sexier, Sibling Thread...

#3809

Post by Skep tickle »

Edina Monsoon wrote:
Skep tickle wrote:All righty then. Can someone please work either "lady-science" or, if that seems too forced, "lady science" into a comment at PZ, Zvan, or Benson's blogs at FtB, and report back on how it's received?
"Who's your favorite lady-science hero?" would be an awesome topic for an AtheismPlus thread.
:lol: Put on your Kevlar vest before wading into that one!

BannedAid
.
.
Posts: 81
Joined: Tue Jan 01, 2013 9:03 pm
Contact:

Re: The Periodic Table's Younger, Sexier, Sibling Thread...

#3810

Post by BannedAid »

Skep tickle wrote:
All righty then. Can someone please work either "lady-science" or, if that seems too forced, "lady science" into a comment at PZ, Zvan, or Benson's blogs at FtB, and report back on how it's received?
Oh, for sure, they'd freak the flip out. I dunno, I guess Roth is growing on me. I thought I'd stick up for her. She's done some eye-roll-worthy stuff, but so have I in my life. She seems like she might have enough self-awareness to reject the rift-makers and see reason. Eventually.

Glad people remembered those old deodorant commercials, too.

Michael J
.
.
Posts: 911
Joined: Sun Oct 21, 2012 9:42 pm
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: The Periodic Table's Younger, Sexier, Sibling Thread...

#3811

Post by Michael J »

Skep tickle wrote:
d4m10n wrote:
justinvacula wrote: I am still a student - graduate level at Marywood University. Yes, unfortunatly these conferences can be expensive when considering travel, hotel especially.
Registration is fairly cheap for students. Shall we inquire of Melody whether you'd be allowed to attend?
I'd been envisioning the "try to slip in under the radar" approach, but actually asking ahead of time has some benefits.

First, it could potentially save JFV a wasted trip to DC & nonrefundable expenses if he were to get there & not be let in. (Though I suspect he'd actually turn it into lemonade - interview people outside the conference about some topic, oh say how they define "feminist", then turn it into a video.)

Second, if she said that he wouldn't be allowed to attend, there'd be an interesting opportunity to work down a list (whether or not others were considering attending) - though I suspect this is not what you had in mind. But it'd be interesting: If not Justin Vacula, then how about Al Stefanelli? How about ReneeHendricks? How about Wooly Bumblebee? How about Maria Maltseva? If not, why not? Where is the line? Aren't the latter 3 women in secularism? As the "Policy on Hostile Conduct/Harassment" for WiS specifically says: "Critical examination of beliefs, including critical commentary on another person’s views, does not, by itself, constitute hostile conduct or harassment. One of the underlying rationales of this policy is to promote the free exchange of ideas, not to inhibit it. "
Well given how much they watch this site. I'm sure they now know that Justin is thinking of going

Steersman
.
.
Posts: 10154
Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2012 8:58 pm
Contact:

Re: The Periodic Table's Younger, Sexier, Sibling Thread...

#3812

Post by Steersman »

Skep tickle wrote:
BannedAid wrote:A halfhearted defense of Amy Roth's use of the phrase lady-science:

I've noticed a trend in pop-culture recently (read: in watching Parks and Rec and 30 Rock episodes) towards using "lady" as an analog for "guy." Used instead of "woman" or, even worse to feminists, "girl," or the worst of the worst, "female." She also used a hyphen wrong, which happens. No harm done.
All righty then. Can someone please work either "lady-science" or, if that seems too forced, "lady science" into a comment at PZ, Zvan, or Benson's blogs at FtB, and report back on how it's received?
Done and screenshoted. Posted on Zvan’s site; awaiting moderation:
Considering that absolutely no one has actually proven that Shermer’s “it’s more of a guy thing” qualifies as a sexist statement – no more so than an observation that most of the people in prisons for violent crimes are overwhelmingly males by a 10:1 ratio – yet virtually everyone – at least in FfTB-land – has been raking him over the coals for it, it seems to me that “crucified” and “witch-hunt” aren’t all that wide of the mark. Nor does it seem that “feminazi” and the like are inappropriate, particularly in light of the fact that Ophelia Benson compared, indirectly at least, TAM to Nazi Germany.

However, in passing though somewhat apropos to the question of language, I wonder how y’all feel about Surly Amy’s Woman’s Grants and the fact that her application form asks “Who is/are your lady-science or secular heroes and why?” What, pray tell, is “lady-science”? Some heretofore unknown branch of science that women are keeping for themselves, possibly as part of their nefarious plan to enslave all of mankind?

Methinks what she meant is “who is/are your favorite women scientists who you regard as heroes, and why?”

BannedAid
.
.
Posts: 81
Joined: Tue Jan 01, 2013 9:03 pm
Contact:

Re: The Periodic Table's Younger, Sexier, Sibling Thread...

#3813

Post by BannedAid »

Steersman wrote:
Considering that absolutely no one has actually proven that Shermer’s “it’s more of a guy thing” qualifies as a sexist statement – no more so than an observation that most of the people in prisons for violent crimes are overwhelmingly males by a 10:1 ratio – yet virtually everyone – at least in FfTB-land – has been raking him over the coals for it, it seems to me that “crucified” and “witch-hunt” aren’t all that wide of the mark. Nor does it seem that “feminazi” and the like are inappropriate, particularly in light of the fact that Ophelia Benson compared, indirectly at least, TAM to Nazi Germany.

However, in passing though somewhat apropos to the question of language, I wonder how y’all feel about Surly Amy’s Woman’s Grants and the fact that her application form asks “Who is/are your lady-science or secular heroes and why?” What, pray tell, is “lady-science”? Some heretofore unknown branch of science that women are keeping for themselves, possibly as part of their nefarious plan to enslave all of mankind?

Methinks what she meant is “who is/are your favorite women scientists who you regard as heroes, and why?”
Had to log in one last time before my insomnia relents to say:

a) That is an awesome comment, Steersman. Fingers crossed it sees the light of day.

b) Assuming Benson doesn't take the easy route and delete it, it's going to be a blast seeing the rationalizations her commenters come up with. Bet none are as good as my rationalization.

Steersman
.
.
Posts: 10154
Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2012 8:58 pm
Contact:

Re: The Periodic Table's Younger, Sexier, Sibling Thread...

#3814

Post by Steersman »

BannedAid wrote:
Steersman wrote: [spoiler]
Considering that absolutely no one has actually proven that Shermer’s “it’s more of a guy thing” qualifies as a sexist statement – no more so than an observation that most of the people in prisons for violent crimes are overwhelmingly males by a 10:1 ratio – yet virtually everyone – at least in FfTB-land – has been raking him over the coals for it, it seems to me that “crucified” and “witch-hunt” aren’t all that wide of the mark. Nor does it seem that “feminazi” and the like are inappropriate, particularly in light of the fact that Ophelia Benson compared, indirectly at least, TAM to Nazi Germany.

However, in passing though somewhat apropos to the question of language, I wonder how y’all feel about Surly Amy’s Woman’s Grants and the fact that her application form asks “Who is/are your lady-science or secular heroes and why?” What, pray tell, is “lady-science”? Some heretofore unknown branch of science that women are keeping for themselves, possibly as part of their nefarious plan to enslave all of mankind?

Methinks what she meant is “who is/are your favorite women scientists who you regard as heroes, and why?”
[/spoiler]
Had to log in one last time before my insomnia relents to say:

a) That is an awesome comment, Steersman. Fingers crossed it sees the light of day.

b) Assuming Benson doesn't take the easy route and delete it, it's going to be a blast seeing the rationalizations her commenters come up with.
Thanks, though in passing it’s on Zvan’s Almost Diamonds site – I think I’m permanently banned on Ophelia’s and PZ’s ….
Bet none are as good as my rationalization.
Sorry I didn’t think to include it; maybe I'll get another chance if you don't add it yourself …. ;-)

Phil_Giordana_FCD
.
.
Posts: 11875
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 10:56 pm
Location: Nice, France
Contact:

Re: The Periodic Table's Younger, Sexier, Sibling Thread...

#3815

Post by Phil_Giordana_FCD »

Steersman wrote:
Again, my point: she isn’t a scientist – she’s an artist with their own idiosyncratic language – so it seems not quite cricket to be demanding that she be familiar with all of the connotations they use.
Wait a second Steers. Weren't you arguing with me a few pages ago that she had good relations with scientists and knew more than a little about the subject?
Did you, as I suggested, actually look into any of her posts on Skepchick? Here is a sampler:

An “Ask Amy” referencing a discussion with another woman who happens to be a “Doctoral Candidate in genetics at Stanford University":

Doesn’t look to me much like she’s unfamiliar with the fact that women do “men-science”.

Another “Ask Amy” on fibromyalgia:

Doesn’t look much to me like she’s any pedlar of woo such as “homeopathy or Reiki” which might reasonably be suggested, hypothetically at least, as an example of “lady-science”.

And her interview by a Scientific American blogger which indicates more than a passing familiarity with the processes and types of science:


From those – and a great many others where they came from – I would say it is a serious stretch – i.e., highly improbable – to be arguing that Amy thinks that there is much in the way of any thing that could reasonably be called “lady-science”, particularly in contradistinction to “men-science”, much less that it would be something that many women are or should be interested in. To argue otherwise – strenuously if not dogmatically – seems to suggest some serious bias or prejudice. That Amy might be culpable for some other questionable activities – one of which she has, I think, more or less apologized for – really shouldn’t be sufficient to crucify her for everything that she says and does in spite of whatever evidence is available or offered in her defense.
So, which is it? Familiar or unfamiliar? Make up your mind. If she has more than a passing familiarity with the processes and types of science, she should know "lady-science" isn't one of them. And I'm still not buying the "accidental hypen" theory. This is not a blog post we're talking a bout, it's a form to be completed in order to get financial support to attend a conference.

And to clarify: yes, I do have a bias when it comes to that click.

All boldings mine.

ps: it's not a "gotcha", I'm just trying (maybe at my own risks) to see where you're coming from.

Steersman
.
.
Posts: 10154
Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2012 8:58 pm
Contact:

Re: The Periodic Table's Younger, Sexier, Sibling Thread...

#3816

Post by Steersman »

Skep tickle wrote:
Steersman wrote:[spoiler]... But that’s my point: I think she is just guilty of a malapropism, that she was trying for cute or baby-talk and it fell flat. And that on reading it and the context – and realizing she is an artist, although with some interest and familiarity with science – the logical conclusion, I think, is that she simply meant, as you say, “women scientists”. Maybe that is not the case, but I think she deserves the benefit of the doubt – if I had a twitter account I’d ask her directly even if only to give her the opportunity to apologize, correct the phrasing, or clarify what she meant, although I might try an e-mail.

And I am not using her term, but thinking that “women scientists” is what she meant. I wonder, is it really so hard to hypothesize that she simply fucked-up with her phrasing? Why insist in “that all-important hyphen” when its use seems so totally inconsistent with so many other facts. Seems like straining at a gnat – THE “hyphen” – while swallowing the camel – “Amy believes in some heretofore unknown branch of science called ‘lady-science’ for her own nefarious and twisted reasons" – whole.

Again, my point: she isn’t a scientist – she’s an artist with their own idiosyncratic language – so it seems not quite cricket to be demanding that she be familiar with all of the connotations they use.[/spoiler]
The point is that THEY police language, judging use of certain words (particularly gender-related ones that might be imagined as slights against women) as a sign of a permanent character flaw for which the user must be banned from participating, yet they & their buddies use these terms too, without appearing to flinch, much less allow for the possibility of hypocrisy.
Yes, I agree. And I sort of agree that language should be policed – if people change the meanings willy-nilly then we’re all hooped. What I object to is that, but also that meanings are selected according to who is making the argument. And while FfTB people are, I think, largely a bunch of weasels in that regard, I think “we” aren’t entirely blameless either.

And in this case and the related one of “sexism” illustrated by the attacks on Shermer, they might provide an opportunity to find some common ground.
"Lady-science" sounds to me like it would fit in the "verboten words/phrases" category, as separating out women's-science from the rest of science (with the rest being men's science?).
Certainly a possibility since it probably qualifies as a neologism if it’s not a malapropism. However, as I’ve argued, I think the latter is more probable and what was intended was “women scientists”.
Though since it's a new term it's hard to be sure how others would react, if they heard it & didn't realize it came from her. :D
Has some possibilities, including some serious trolling, along the line of Oscar Wilde’s The Importance of Being Earnest …. ;-)

Philip of Tealand
.
.
Posts: 259
Joined: Thu Aug 23, 2012 1:11 am

Re: The Periodic Table's Younger, Sexier, Sibling Thread...

#3817

Post by Philip of Tealand »

Sorry, let me get this straight

On a thread that clearly has it in RED CAPITALS that no moderation is done, had moderation done to it to cover up for the fact that FtBers are not to be disagreed with or proven wrong?

Damnatio Memorae anyone?

http://teafueledmadness.blogspot.co.uk/ ... morae.html

Steersman
.
.
Posts: 10154
Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2012 8:58 pm
Contact:

Re: The Periodic Table's Younger, Sexier, Sibling Thread...

#3818

Post by Steersman »

Phil_Giordana_FCD wrote:
Steersman wrote:
Again, my point: she isn’t a scientist – she’s an artist with their own idiosyncratic language – so it seems not quite cricket to be demanding that she be familiar with all of the connotations they use.
Wait a second Steers. Weren't you arguing with me a few pages ago that she had good relations with scientists and knew more than a little about the subject?

[spoiler]
Did you, as I suggested, actually look into any of her posts on Skepchick? Here is a sampler:

An “Ask Amy” referencing a discussion with another woman who happens to be a “Doctoral Candidate in genetics at Stanford University":

Doesn’t look to me much like she’s unfamiliar with the fact that women do “men-science”.

Another “Ask Amy” on fibromyalgia:

Doesn’t look much to me like she’s any pedlar of woo such as “homeopathy or Reiki” which might reasonably be suggested, hypothetically at least, as an example of “lady-science”.

And her interview by a Scientific American blogger which indicates more than a passing familiarity with the processes and types of science:


From those – and a great many others where they came from – I would say it is a serious stretch – i.e., highly improbable – to be arguing that Amy thinks that there is much in the way of any thing that could reasonably be called “lady-science”, particularly in contradistinction to “men-science”, much less that it would be something that many women are or should be interested in. To argue otherwise – strenuously if not dogmatically – seems to suggest some serious bias or prejudice. That Amy might be culpable for some other questionable activities – one of which she has, I think, more or less apologized for – really shouldn’t be sufficient to crucify her for everything that she says and does in spite of whatever evidence is available or offered in her defense.
[/spoiler]
So, which is it? Familiar or unfamiliar? Make up your mind. If she has more than a passing familiarity with the processes and types of science, she should know "lady-science" isn't one of them. And I'm still not buying the "accidental hypen" theory. This is not a blog post we're talking a bout, it's a form to be completed in order to get financial support to attend a conference.

And to clarify: yes, I do have a bias when it comes to that click.

All boldings mine.

ps: it's not a "gotcha", I'm just trying (maybe at my own risks) to see where you're coming from.
Good point. Although one can be familiar with some aspects and terminologies of a science - or, presumably, arts: music and painting for examples - and be clueless about others.

She does, as indicated, have some abilities to talk to various scientists and incorporate those conversations into her own posts, but, as Skep tickle noted, her analogy between science and art was at least somewhat forced. Although I also happen to think that that there is some overlap there, at least in the sense of creating hypotheses and then testing them. Seem to recollect that I’d posted something on that earlier ….

But time to call it a day; night all ….

Phil_Giordana_FCD
.
.
Posts: 11875
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 10:56 pm
Location: Nice, France
Contact:

Re: The Periodic Table's Younger, Sexier, Sibling Thread...

#3819

Post by Phil_Giordana_FCD »

Steersman wrote: Good point. Although one can be familiar with some aspects and terminologies of a science - or, presumably, arts: music and painting for examples - and be clueless about others.

She does, as indicated, have some abilities to talk to various scientists and incorporate those conversations into her own posts *snip*
Then, maybe consulting those various scientists, in the form of "is 'lady-science' a thing?" would have been a good idea to start with. And if the hyphen was a typo/mistake, proofreading works almost 100% of the time to avoid such. Again, this is not a blog post or a tweet, it's a somewhat important application form. I'll just chalk it up to lazyness/slopiness and thus give her credit for being consistent with the Skepchick MO.
But time to call it a day; night all ….
G'night Steers.

Mykeru
.
.
Posts: 4758
Joined: Wed Oct 03, 2012 6:52 am
Contact:

Re: The Periodic Table's Younger, Sexier, Sibling Thread...

#3820

Post by Mykeru »

Useless Lurker wrote:Has anyone here noticed Richard Carrier's current post on his blog at FTB titled "Atheism+ : The Name for What’s Happening"?

He seems concerned that the "haters" might be the majority among atheists/skeptics, admits in the comments that he doesn't follow the A+ forum, displays considerable hostility toward opponents, and generally goes on at more length than I feel like commenting about at the moment.

He gets a surprising amount of push-back in the comments, but from who?
Carrier complaining about the "anti-feminist" threats and harassment is so divorced from reality, along with his boilerplate acronym responses, that he's hardly worth engaging. Like Dillahunty he has some idealized model of what's happening, but being so very fucking effete, he's never get boots on the ground. But why? How is it that Carrier comes out on his moral high-horse without apparently having a clue what's actually going on, about the reality of the supposed harassment, and thinking the problem in atheism is swarming hordes of misogynists?

To really get Carrier, just read his self-wanking sidebar description:
He has also become a noted defender of scientific and moral realism, Bayesian reasoning, and the epistemology of history.
Bayesian reasoning?

In the case of Bayesian inference, folks like Karl Popper have rejected it because it's inherently non-falsifiable: "It is prone to the same vicious circle as any other justificationist epistemology, because it presupposes what it attempts to justify."

Pre-supposes what it attempts to justify.

Well, there's Richard Carrier in a nutshell.

AbsurdWalls
.
.
Posts: 863
Joined: Sat Dec 29, 2012 3:50 pm
Contact:

Re: The Periodic Table's Younger, Sexier, Sibling Thread...

#3821

Post by AbsurdWalls »

Skep tickle wrote:
d4m10n wrote:
justinvacula wrote: I am still a student - graduate level at Marywood University. Yes, unfortunatly these conferences can be expensive when considering travel, hotel especially.
Registration is fairly cheap for students. Shall we inquire of Melody whether you'd be allowed to attend?
I'd been envisioning the "try to slip in under the radar" approach, but actually asking ahead of time has some benefits.

First, it could potentially save JFV a wasted trip to DC & nonrefundable expenses if he were to get there & not be let in. (Though I suspect he'd actually turn it into lemonade - interview people outside the conference about some topic, oh say how they define "feminist", then turn it into a video.)

Second, if she said that he wouldn't be allowed to attend, there'd be an interesting opportunity to work down a list (whether or not others were considering attending) - though I suspect this is not what you had in mind. But it'd be interesting: If not Justin Vacula, then how about Al Stefanelli? How about ReneeHendricks? How about Wooly Bumblebee? How about Maria Maltseva? If not, why not? Where is the line? Aren't the latter 3 women in secularism? As the "Policy on Hostile Conduct/Harassment" for WiS specifically says: "Critical examination of beliefs, including critical commentary on another person’s views, does not, by itself, constitute hostile conduct or harassment. One of the underlying rationales of this policy is to promote the free exchange of ideas, not to inhibit it. "
Yeah, if Justin turns up "unannounced" (though obviously they will have read this thread) then they could just deny him entry. Checking first is probably the way to go. If I were Justin I would be a bit intimidated by the idea of going. Besides the likelihood of him being treated in a hostile manner by other attendees, there could very easily be accounts of his behaviour generated that do not correspond with reality.

On the other hand, people are often far more polite and reasonable in-person than they are online.

AbsurdWalls
.
.
Posts: 863
Joined: Sat Dec 29, 2012 3:50 pm
Contact:

Re: The Periodic Table's Younger, Sexier, Sibling Thread...

#3822

Post by AbsurdWalls »

Mykeru wrote:Bayesian reasoning?

In the case of Bayesian inference, folks like Karl Popper have rejected it because it's inherently non-falsifiable: "It is prone to the same vicious circle as any other justificationist epistemology, because it presupposes what it attempts to justify."

Pre-supposes what it attempts to justify.

Well, there's Richard Carrier in a nutshell.
Your ten-second Wikipedia understanding of Bayesian statistics does you no credit.

franc
.
.
Posts: 2465
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 7:03 pm
Location: Kosmopolites
Contact:

No Hitch to hate

#3823

Post by franc »

[spoiler]http://i.imgur.com/6DDk1.jpg[/spoiler]

Phil_Giordana_FCD
.
.
Posts: 11875
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 10:56 pm
Location: Nice, France
Contact:

Re: The Periodic Table's Younger, Sexier, Sibling Thread...

#3824

Post by Phil_Giordana_FCD »

AbsurdWalls wrote:
Yeah, if Justin turns up "unannounced" (though obviously they will have read this thread) then they could just deny him entry. Checking first is probably the way to go. If I were Justin I would be a bit intimidated by the idea of going. Besides the likelihood of him being treated in a hostile manner by other attendees, there could very easily be accounts of his behaviour generated that do not correspond with reality.

On the other hand, people are often far more polite and reasonable in-person than they are online.
It could be a win/win situation for Justin, though. If his attendance is announced to the organisation in advance and they refuse, it will be yet another exemple of secular shunning. If they accept and he is intimidated or harrassed (ha!) while there, even though he acts ciourteous and civil, it will yet be another exemple of secular shunning. If they accept and he is treated well, it will be a feather in their cap, and no mistake.

If he turns up unannounced and they refuse his attendance, it will be yet another exemple of secular shunning. But at least he can visit DC (very scenic, I've been told). :D

AbsurdWalls
.
.
Posts: 863
Joined: Sat Dec 29, 2012 3:50 pm
Contact:

Re: The Periodic Table's Younger, Sexier, Sibling Thread...

#3825

Post by AbsurdWalls »

Steersman wrote:
aweraw wrote:Addressing Caine's unwillingness to consider Alexa stats as evidence that more men than women visit FTB:

http://i.imgur.com/5Z7f1.png
I don’t know much if anything about Alexa’s methods of collecting stats, but I notice that when I do a mouse-over of the question mark adjacent to the “Gender; Male” line I see “relative to the general internet population, males are overrepresented at FTB”. And similarily with the Female line which says “females are underrepresented”. Whether that is 60-40 or 80-20 or even 30-70 seems to be a moot question. And there's also the question as to how the internet population correlates with the general atheist population.

Although it might yield some interesting results to actually ennumerate all of the commenters at FTB and assign sexes to them based on various statements they’ve made – still doesn’t say much about the lurkers but might still be of some use.
The bolded bit is key. It doesn't matter if their sampling method is biased so they get data from more men than women, or if they have some non-veridical function mapping between the true number of women and their estimate, neither of those errors will account for FtB being relatively male compared with the rest of the internet.

Lurkion
.
.
Posts: 707
Joined: Tue Jan 01, 2013 8:56 pm

Re: The Periodic Table's Younger, Sexier, Sibling Thread...

#3826

Post by Lurkion »

AbsurdWalls wrote: If I were Justin I would be a bit intimidated by the idea of going. Besides the likelihood of him being treated in a hostile manner by other attendees, there could very easily be accounts of his behaviour generated that do not correspond with reality.
I need to emphasise this.

If they're willing to lie about internet harassment, I can't see how they wouldn't like about IRL harassment.

AbsurdWalls
.
.
Posts: 863
Joined: Sat Dec 29, 2012 3:50 pm
Contact:

Re: The Periodic Table's Younger, Sexier, Sibling Thread...

#3827

Post by AbsurdWalls »

Phil_Giordana_FCD wrote:
AbsurdWalls wrote:
Yeah, if Justin turns up "unannounced" (though obviously they will have read this thread) then they could just deny him entry. Checking first is probably the way to go. If I were Justin I would be a bit intimidated by the idea of going. Besides the likelihood of him being treated in a hostile manner by other attendees, there could very easily be accounts of his behaviour generated that do not correspond with reality.

On the other hand, people are often far more polite and reasonable in-person than they are online.
It could be a win/win situation for Justin, though. If his attendance is announced to the organisation in advance and they refuse, it will be yet another exemple of secular shunning. If they accept and he is intimidated or harrassed (ha!) while there, even though he acts ciourteous and civil, it will yet be another exemple of secular shunning. If they accept and he is treated well, it will be a feather in their cap, and no mistake.

If he turns up unannounced and they refuse his attendance, it will be yet another exemple of secular shunning. But at least he can visit DC (very scenic, I've been told). :D
Yeah, they will all be great examples, to us. To FtBers etc. though:
If his attendance is announced to the organisation in advance and they refuse, it will be...
This man has a record of harassing women and we will not allow him to continue to do so at this conference.
If they accept and he is intimidated or harrassed (ha!) while there, even though he acts ciourteous and civil, it will yet be...
Either: That didn't happen.
Or: He was being disruptive.
Or: So he can dish it out but he can't take it?
If he turns up unannounced and they refuse his attendance, it will be...
This dangerous misogynist tried to gatecrash our conference we made to get away from his kind!
The only one I can agree with is: "If they accept and he is treated well, it will be a feather in their cap, and no mistake."

AbsurdWalls
.
.
Posts: 863
Joined: Sat Dec 29, 2012 3:50 pm
Contact:

Re: The Periodic Table's Younger, Sexier, Sibling Thread...

#3828

Post by AbsurdWalls »

rocko2466 wrote:
AbsurdWalls wrote: If I were Justin I would be a bit intimidated by the idea of going. Besides the likelihood of him being treated in a hostile manner by other attendees, there could very easily be accounts of his behaviour generated that do not correspond with reality.
I need to emphasise this.

If they're willing to lie about internet harassment, I can't see how they wouldn't like about IRL harassment.
I am beginning to wonder if it might be prudent put a wire on him.

RichardReed84
.
.
Posts: 23
Joined: Thu Dec 27, 2012 10:28 am
Contact:

Re: The Periodic Table's Younger, Sexier, Sibling Thread...

#3829

Post by RichardReed84 »

Did anyone notice how racist Richard Carrier was in his latest Atheism Plus meltdown piece?

http://richardreed84.wordpress.com/2013 ... eism-plus/

Phil_Giordana_FCD
.
.
Posts: 11875
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 10:56 pm
Location: Nice, France
Contact:

Re: The Periodic Table's Younger, Sexier, Sibling Thread...

#3830

Post by Phil_Giordana_FCD »

neither of those errors will account for FtB being relatively male compared with the rest of the internet.
And knowing that the rest of the internet is mostly porn*, what does that say? (smiley here)


*"If they took out all the porn from the internet, there would be only one page left, and it would be called 'bringbacktheporn.com'"

-Perry Cox, Scrubs

AnonymousCowherd
.
.
Posts: 1708
Joined: Fri Jul 20, 2012 2:49 am
Location: The Penumbra of Doubt
Contact:

Re: The Periodic Table's Younger, Sexier, Sibling Thread...

#3831

Post by AnonymousCowherd »

d4m10n wrote:
Just needed something to put on Justin V. so that everyone can more easily recognize him at the Women in Secularism conference.
What about a target? Poor Justin.

Phil_Giordana_FCD
.
.
Posts: 11875
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 10:56 pm
Location: Nice, France
Contact:

Re: The Periodic Table's Younger, Sexier, Sibling Thread...

#3832

Post by Phil_Giordana_FCD »

AbsurdWall @3827:

Yes, these are more than likely responses, to which the usual "evidence or STFU" would probably be impervious. Which makes me tend to agree with your @3828. But now that you've outed the idea here, you can be sure they will know he's wired. But if your first proposition re refusal was to happen, it would need to be placared everywhere until demands for evidence are met. It is, after all, a national convention, not some obscure website/blog. They have to back-up their claims.

Lurkion
.
.
Posts: 707
Joined: Tue Jan 01, 2013 8:56 pm

Re: The Periodic Table's Younger, Sexier, Sibling Thread...

#3833

Post by Lurkion »

Phil_Giordana_FCD wrote: If he turns up unannounced and they refuse his attendance, it will be yet another exemple of secular shunning. But at least he can visit DC (very scenic, I've been told). :D
I've been to DC, but they didn't let me in the White House. Because the Australian embassy wouldn't organise it. Bastards.

I was surprised by the amount of homeless people - mostly African American.

That's my holiday facts for ya.

Notung
.
.
Posts: 644
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 2:49 am
Contact:

Re: The Periodic Table's Younger, Sexier, Sibling Thread...

#3834

Post by Notung »

Can anyone else not access the Shermer article? Is the site down? I haven't read it yet!

AbsurdWalls
.
.
Posts: 863
Joined: Sat Dec 29, 2012 3:50 pm
Contact:

Re: The Periodic Table's Younger, Sexier, Sibling Thread...

#3835

Post by AbsurdWalls »

Phil_Giordana_FCD wrote:AbsurdWall @3827:

Yes, these are more than likely responses, to which the usual "evidence or STFU" would probably be impervious. Which makes me tend to agree with your @3828. But now that you've outed the idea here, you can be sure they will know he's wired. But if your first proposition re refusal was to happen, it would need to be placared everywhere until demands for evidence are met. It is, after all, a national convention, not some obscure website/blog. They have to back-up their claims.
The point of sticking a Wire on Justin would be to prevent "He threatened to kick me in the cunt!" rather than to catch out people who talk to him (it would actually be pretty shitty to release recordings of private conversations he had unless it were necessary for him to defend himself against some accusation). If he only has to be "Schrodinger's bugged conference-attendee" for that function to be performed then all the better.

BarnOwl
.
.
Posts: 3311
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 4:18 pm
Location: The wrong trouser of Time
Contact:

Re: The Periodic Table's Younger, Sexier, Sibling Thread...

#3836

Post by BarnOwl »

AbsurdWalls wrote: On the other hand, people are often far more polite and reasonable in-person than they are online.
The cynic in me knows that this is because they're either physical and emotional cowards, or hypocrites, or both.

Philip of Tealand
.
.
Posts: 259
Joined: Thu Aug 23, 2012 1:11 am

Re: The Periodic Table's Younger, Sexier, Sibling Thread...

#3837

Post by Philip of Tealand »

Notung wrote:Can anyone else not access the Shermer article? Is the site down? I haven't read it yet!
I can't access it either, must be a very popular article!

Lurkion
.
.
Posts: 707
Joined: Tue Jan 01, 2013 8:56 pm

Re: The Periodic Table's Younger, Sexier, Sibling Thread...

#3838

Post by Lurkion »

Philip of Tealand wrote:
Notung wrote:Can anyone else not access the Shermer article? Is the site down? I haven't read it yet!
I can't access it either, must be a very popular article!
Secularhumanism.org seems to be down?

MUST BE FROM ALL THE PEOPLE WHO AGREE, AMIRITE!?

Phil_Giordana_FCD
.
.
Posts: 11875
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 10:56 pm
Location: Nice, France
Contact:

Re: The Periodic Table's Younger, Sexier, Sibling Thread...

#3839

Post by Phil_Giordana_FCD »

AbsurdWalls wrote:
The point of sticking a Wire on Justin would be to prevent "He threatened to kick me in the cunt!" rather than to catch out people who talk to him (it would actually be pretty shitty to release recordings of private conversations he had unless it were necessary for him to defend himself against some accusation). If he only has to be "Schrodinger's bugged conference-attendee" for that function to be performed then all the better.
Shitty? I have to wonder if it wouldn't even be illegal, without the concerned person's consent. Anyway, that line was a joke to insinuate they always lurk here.

AnonymousCowherd
.
.
Posts: 1708
Joined: Fri Jul 20, 2012 2:49 am
Location: The Penumbra of Doubt
Contact:

Re: The Periodic Table's Younger, Sexier, Sibling Thread...

#3840

Post by AnonymousCowherd »

Jan Steen wrote:
I’m glad to hear that Shermer is a climate-change denier. It helps me to know that his inability to deal with reality is general.
You must be hearing voices and you know nothing. But it is nice to see how prejudice works in feeble brains.

Another commenter talks about the 'pits "obsessive photoshopping of obscene images of Ophelia, P.Z. et al (well, not Al anymore; he’s over there now)" and the "creation of fake accounts in the name of Ophelia and Rebecca". There is no evidence that the latter was done by 'pitters, and as far as I can remember, I have never seen 'obscene images' of Ophelia or PZ here.

OB's blog is a cesspool of lies.
But The 'Pit is everyone who is not them, who can be a tiny minority one minute, and a raging torrent of haters the next. What can be the source of its power? We are the expelled, the fallen, anything that must be suppressed, at least from their own minds. In short we are The Other! - monsters from the Id!

https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com/imag ... 5WHv3tvH8R

Locked