Outrage of the Week

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/blog/2010/jul/09/seed-editorial-indep…

Wherever you do end up writing, I'll certainly tag along.

Maybe it sounds stupid (and hopefully not cookie begging), but however much my eyes are now open to gender issues (and we're talking that "sort of barely open, pretending to be asleep" level - still an improvement on the "eyes rolled back in head" state), I trace a good portion of it to things I've read here.

Keep on writing if you leave here. You have plenty of people who want to read, and will follow you. I'm one of em.

Me too.

I, too, will redirect my browser to wherever you choose to hang your blogular hat.

I'm with you. Enjoy your week away Z.

I just submitted this comment on Adam Bly's first post. We'll see if he censors it.
(I will follow you too, Zuska as will many over at IBTP. I am sure word will spread. (Hey, if you need the bread, I won't judge you ill if you stay. It is easy to be righteous when you don't need dough, when you do it gets tricky.)

Here's the comment. Gaia wrote it in her comment section of the "ridiculous article" in the Guardian. Don't women write ridiculous articles often? She reads pretty damn intelligent to me.

"GaiaV

10 Jul 2010, 1:19AM
Contributor Contributor

Hello, to respond specifically to comments made by Seed editors in response to my article above (more detail on this is on my website):

The first response came from Lee Billings, senior associate editor of Seed magazine, who in a series of tweets, wrote: âthat the Seed editor in question is no longer with the companyââ¦âfor what should be obvious reasonsâ, and âBehavior unacceptableâ.

So, to Lee, I say: yes, it is unacceptable. The individual who wrote me the email detailing Seedâs edvertorial policy rejecting my piece, while reproachable is not ultimately responsible. All responsibility for this must and does rest with the CEO Adam Bly. And to imply, as Lee Billings does in his tweet, that the individual is no longer with the company because they were sacked due to their lack of editorial integrity, is a pretty serious character assassination that I doubt bears out. I say, grow up, stop blaming the fall guy and accept responsibility for your companyâs actions.

Lee Billingsâ further response in a comment above, details some articles published by Seed that criticize companies, some of which advertise with the Group. âIt stands to reason,â he says, âthat if the supposed editorial policies Ms. Vince claims are endemic here at Seed actually held sway, none of these articles would have ever seen the light of day.â

Firstly, I didnât suppose any editorial policies in my article, I merely retold my experience â having heard since from other people, I know understand that my experience was not a one-off, but that such editorial policy likely is endemic. Anyway, I donât have the time or inclination to read the articles Lee lists, suffice to say that all that might be reasoned from them is that Seed has also published material that is critical of its advertisers.

Now to Adam Bly who has commented on his own blog site:

Firstly, he says: âThe Guardian article is ridiculousâ before deferring to Lee Billings. But he does eventually manage to speak for himself, to call the rejection of my Bhopal article âan isolated mistakeâ. Is that an apology, Adam? He then tangentially asks whether any of my âother big employers have made any mistakesâ, which is a rather bizarre response to being caught with your pants down in the ethics office. I canât answer for other media Iâve worked for, of course, except to say: not in my experience.

Adam Blyâs second par, complains that âthe Guardian article is not balancedâ â er, itâs not supposed to be balanced, Adam. Itâs a blog, an opinion piece. I have no doubt that the Guardian would afford you your right to reply, should you choose. The rest of the paragraph boasting your âeditorial freedomâ is another bizarre irrelevance in my opinion.

In terms of this being âa malicious attackâ, I donât intend malicious sentiment, but the facts do paint an unflattering light on your character and editorial decisions.

A proper response to my article (and to the Science Bloggers), would, I think, be an unreserved apology and a recognition of why your actions have caused such offense."

Zuska, didn't realize all your proceeds go to charity;

"Every click here is more cash for the Mautner Project for Lesbians with Cancer - I thank you for your donation!!!!"

This cheers me considerably. All the manswers from the mansplainers are as good as gold. Irony I love you.

That editorial is amazing, and I am in awe of Steinem and the rest of the Ms. editors who took on that fight. They make Seed look like a bunch of little kids playing in a sand box.

I'll follow you wherever you go, if you do. Thanks for writing. I'm more aware now (through reading your blog) about the issues that women have to constantly put up with.

The editorial by Gloria Steinem is an excellent piece. Thanks for pointing it out. It just made me realize how hard these women fought to subvert patriarchy and how much more there is to do.

One more who will want to know where to find you.

veganrampage, thanks for that update.

Any idea what the cover price of an ad free magazine would be? The thought srose because in the linked article it was mentioned that Australian magazines generally had a higher cover price so could be firmer with advertisers.

That would get around the advertising problems that Ms suffered from, just wondering if such a magazine would be viable.

Chris- Adbusters doesn't have ads. It is about 10$ on the news stand (last I checked), much less by subscription, as usual.

Hi all;
A fatal flaw was that they failed to have any representative posts ready to go up when the blog went live.

Had they done so, and had the content been surprisingly acceptable, the reception might have been better.

Instead we get this "Hi! Welcome to ShillBlog!" (crickets) and everyone, quite reasonably, expects the worst.

Goddamn it. Well, the weak response to the Guardian column* leaves me no other choice but to take my infinitesimal contribution to bandwidth and quasi-civilised discussion elsewhere... as of tomorrow.

I'll certainly look fwd to reading Zuska, Isis and DM elsewhere, though.

Huh. Seed... it's for the birds.

* it's not really the possibility of expedient censorship that frustrates, so much as the wagon-circling, the finger pointing, and the "But..! But...!" BS. I don't understand the childish aversion to falling on one's sword in this day and age (one of the many things the Romans did for us); particularly because, in this day and age, one can usually get back up and make use of the recovered dignity.

Wow, that "response" to the Guardian is such a non-response!

This Adam Bly person doesn't know how journalism works, does he? His strawman that an article needs to be "balanced" smacks of someone who only watches FOXNews.

Alright, still haven't boycotted Seed yet. Tomorrow. But would you check this shit out! WTF? The comments are just outa there.

Now I'm gone.

@Helen Huntington- It was my sincere pleasure and I thank you for your thank you! Captain Adam Bly did indeed censor my comment. I am shocked, shocked I tell you.

(Pardon me for doing this here Zuska, but this may amuse Zuskateers while you vacate on your much needed vacation.)

@Skeptifem- I am unable to comment on your blog for "reasons unknown" as per Beckett.
Fantastic posts on this Pepsi mess so thank you.

History Punk, notorious mansplainer in the comment section here, left you a message, an inviation in point of fact, on Comrade PhysioProf's blog under the post entitled Pepsiblodgate 7/10. I repost it here for it's vomitous value.

"July 13, 2010 at 3:26 pm

skeptifem

I have been on and off for a few months now. Anyway, if youâre in the Baltimore area, my friends and I are getting together to discuss the role of the Marine Corp in liberating the women of Afghanistan. Youâre welcome to attend."

You may read MY dainty and lady-like answer to his missive on CPP's Blog if you wish. If anyone else is bored or infuriated or both and you want to let loose the hounds on this fool, this is the link to the good comrades blog. Good blog too.

http://physioprof.wordpress.com/2010/07/10/pepsibloggate/

Bringing people together; it is what I DO.
Happy Day de le Bastille!

@skeptifem on 11 July

Thanks.
I had a look at their website and circulation is only 110000 and they survive and seemingly prosper.

Could Ms have survived or be revived in the same way? Perhaps not in the long ago but today with all the cost savings the internet and modern printing provides.

Ms did claim to have 450,000 sales at one point, so would only require a third of those to subscribe, or have the internet blogs made it superfluous as a communication method for its demographic?

It might not be bad to leave a world in which every wrinkle and kerfuffle is cast a a -geddon.

Let Them Eat...Fresh Meals For Pets!

thusspakezuska — Mon, 26 Apr 2010 16:45:54 +0000

Let Them Eat...Fresh Meals For Pets!

I was making a quick jog through the local supermarket the other night, seeking out cough drops and a few other things for a sad soul at home with the croup, when I rounded a corner and came upon this fresh new vision from hell:

And here I am wasting my extra cash on donations to food pantries for hungry humans in the greater Delaware Valley area. You, poor sap, may be throwing away cash on stupid causes like earthquake relief in Haiti, or trying to save birds from extinction. Let's just all live it up and make sure Fido has a nice Fresh Meal. Maybe we could give the leftovers to the hungry in Philly, or send them off carefully wrapped up to the Haitians. I don't think they'd fit well in a bird feeder.

thusspakezuska Mon, 04/26/2010 - 12:45

Tags

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Famine,_Affluence,_and_Morality

Technology Gone Bad

I just shake my head at some things people do for their pets. I love my dog, totally and completely. But she's a dog.

Can't people feed their dog leftover people food?

I mean, really, if they don't want them eating kibble, they could just feed them table scraps.

I love my little Fifi;
She's a fully papered Pom--
It costs a bit to feed her,
So we're feeding less to Mom.
We found a cheaper meal-plan
At Mom's "Friendly Acres" home,
Cos puppy needs her energy,
And Fifi loves to roam!
It was this or house the homeless;
It was this or feed the poor;
If I cannot splurge on Fifi,
Tell me, what's a paycheck for?

(As I learn about humanity,
I'm finding that it's true:
If you want a moral compass,
Just ask "What would Zuska do?")

I just let my pets supplement their diets with neighborhood varmints, that I'd share in too if I went starving - ie rabbits, mice, raccoon, possums, urban deer(okay only wild dogpacks could bring them down)

Rachel Ray's dog food and a bunch of other ones emphasize how they put good cuts of meat into the pet food. There is a weird refrigerated one that is like a loaf of pet food, it looks like insanely girthy sausage or something. In addition to being gross, I get squicked out at the amount of effort that goes into effing pet food. I wish people would just give them the left overs that get thrown out every single day, I think its something like 1,100 calories on average per day? Most dogs would get fat on that.

I feel better about my anger towards consumerist crap like that when I read about other people who feel the same. Thanks for your post, Zuska.

The indignation might be easier to evaluate if the price of the product were actually specified, since it's only the incremental cost that is diverting mush from the orphans.

You only just noticed the existence of these things? I've been buying the "fresh"* food for my cats for almost a decade. (*where fresh=refrigerated, but heavily laden with preservatives.)

It's for occasional treats, such as a reward after visiting the vet. And to tempt their appetites when they are sick. They like meat more than dry biscuits, go figure! And it's considerably cheaper than giving them human grade meat. And also cheaper than some of the "science diet" specialist pet foods. (That's not hard - fillet steak is cheaper by weight than my old cat's k/d.)

I doubt that my expenditure on these foods would come within cooee of their annual upkeep in vaccinations and vet checkups and tooth cleanings and flea and worm treatments, and drugs when they are sick. Yes, keeping a pet is a luxury if you're going to do it responsibly. Regardless of what you feed them.

I find it interesting how many people seem more upset if you spend "too much" on your pet or give money to the "wrong" charity than if you just spend your money buying a new TV or buying a luxury vacation, or what about ludicrously expensive wine, chocolate and caviar you might also find in that store? How does that compare to helping the homeless?

As the commenters make clear ... Hell is right.

Well, not a fan of the fresh meats for pets in the fridge case, but I'm also not a fan of industrial pet food. The reason is that feedlots lose one out of every seven cows to the incredible toxicity of feedlot life. Looking at the numbers on CAFO meat profitability, it becomes clear that without a market for downed cows to pay for the marginal losses, feedlots wouldn't be profitable, and they wouldn't be able to exist in a way that kills so many cows and makes them inedible even by the really pathetically low standards we have for meat for humans.

I have no idea what's in those fresh meals, but if it is offal from non-feedlot animals, as is often the case for high end pet products, that's probably in the net a better thing than keeping the feedlots in business, given that they do plenty of harm to the poor as well.

I haven't done a piece recently on the implications of pets and our meat impact - I should, it is both horrifying and fascinating.

Sharon

The most amusing part is the dog doesn't even know the difference. Like it cares whether its meal was individually packaged.

Or we could give the leftovers to animal shelters. Due to the economic upheaval, a lot of people have had to make the tough choice between feeding themselves and their pets; shelters are overflowing. Maybe the packages could have pictures of shelter animals on them.

I'm pretty sure dogs can distinguish the difference between dry kibble and moist food. The same way you now the difference between cereal and chicken. Whether this food is healthier for them or not is debatable, but what's wrong with wanting to care for your pet if you can afford it?

Apparently one can make the money is better spent on X than Y fallacy when it comes to pet food. Nice to know you have a double-standard Zuska. I'm not trying to be antagonistic, just... pointing out the double-standard here. You criticize men(or at least posters with male usernames) for making the same fallacy when it comes to gender-equality.

For cats, at least, most commercial foods (including most commercially-produced "fresh meals") contain a high percentage of grain, and therefore wreak havoc on the health of the cat. After reading up on this a while back (when we rescued our cats), I came to the conclusion that feeding them kibble would be tantamount to animal abuse. Cats' bodies are not built to digest a lot of grain, and commercial diets very often result in diabetes, obesity, hormonal disorders, etc. (just as with human beings).

My husband and I are vegan. But our cats are obligate carnivores. We live in a city, and letting them outside to hunt for food would drastically shorten their expected lifespans. We pay significantly more money to buy them the least-bad "fresh" meat we can find (or afford), usually rabbits grown on a small regional farm specifically for pet food, or (supposedly) "cage-free" chickens. It's not a perfect situation, but what is?, and we do our best. We sacrifice other luxuries (like what Thomas mentions, above), in order to afford this, for the wellbeing of our companion animals. I don't think it precludes us from being decent people. At least, it doesn't prevent us from donating money to charities that benefit human beings. Which seems to be how you are measuring decency, here?

In any case, just because a person concerns herself with human welfare doesn't mean she has to treat animals like crap. (In fact, I suspect that mistreatment of animals highly correlates with mistreatment of *human* animals, particularly of the female gender.)

Perhaps some commenters here are unaware that I have two cats, and struggle myself over how to ethically feed them.

The grocery store display horrifies me on many levels, the least of which is the notion that people are spending money to feed their pets, because I believe that pets do have a positive role to play in lives of humans - though I look forward to Sharon's promised post on the topic. I just don't think we need to devote refrigerated grocery store space to processed, packaged food for pets - which also implies refrigerated transport, not to mention the time, effort, and research and development funds that went into developing the processed, packaged pet food, and the extra packaging that will end up in a landfill somewhere.

As with humans, so with pets - processed, packaged, individual meals are more resource intensive at every step of the way and more costly to the consumer per meal. Money spent on Fresh Meals For Pets means less money available for anything else. And spending money on those meals is a vote of support for the industry that produces them and damages the environment in the process. All that is true no matter how one feels about the rightness or wrongness of any one person having a pet.

Our little shelter cat "Shelly" gets dry kibble in the economy bag. She's never known anything else, aside from the occasional nibble of scrap left on a plate post-meal. Anything more than a couple of licks upsets her delicate tummy.

I view our relationship as thus:

We grant her the luxury of never having to fight for her life or scrounge for food. Her benefits include a multitude of snuggle places to nap, all of the toys she cares to hide and two people who dote on her constantly.

In exchange she gives us affection and amusement. We love our little house guest and are quite pleased that she thrives in our company, despite the fancy-free fare.

However, if you read the information about the processing of these food on the FreshPet website, and you take their words at face value, then you would see that there is actually LESS processing in these meals (2/3 less according to their calculations) than in dry kibble. They don't use processed ingredients and they lightly cook their food instead of heating it to the dehydrated kibble we typically feed our pets (we includes me). So this seems like it would be LESS resource intensive than dry kibble.

Further, it looks like these are packaged in plastic, which is likely recyclable. The paper bags that dry kibble comes in is not recyclable (unless you separate the inner from the outer lining of the bag - but the inner lining is not recyclable). So I don't follow the comment about the extra packaging ending up in a landfill. Canned food containers are recyclable, but so is plastic shown here.

Do you know whether food processing or refrigerated transport has the larger carbon footprint?

What gets me is that even if you adhere to one of these "raw foods" diets for your carnivorous pets (by many accounts healthier for them, though I feed mine primarily meat-based kibble and they are all very healthy either because or inspite of this diet), these packaged and processed "fresh meat" pet foods are dollar for pound more expensive than a truly raw and fresh inexpensive cut of meat in the butcher section of your local grocer (not sure about the price breakdown at the farmer's market but I just found out that one of the local growers will bring packages of cheap "dog cuts" to the market for pickup on request). No need for extra marketing or packaging - just buy what's on sale in the butcher case. You've saved much of the environmental impact and have more dollars left over for whatever else you spend it on.

"I just don't think we need to devote refrigerated grocery store space to processed, packaged food for pets - which also implies refrigerated transport, not to mention the time, effort, and research and development funds that went into developing the processed, packaged pet food, and the extra packaging that will end up in a landfill somewhere."

Doesn't most refrigerated grocery store space imply refrigerated transport, not to mention, time, effort, and R&D funds for processing and packaging?

Thomas- I don't know where you got the idea that people who are angry at the fresh pet food are ok with huge tv sets and luxury vehicles. I for one, am not. I think it is all terrible.

There is a link to the entire essay at the bottom. It is very much worth a look.

I saw this post this morning, drafted a comment, reviewed it, and deleted it without posting. But it's been bugging me all day.

Here's the deal: Peaseblossom has been my companion for over twenty years. She has been sweet and thoughtful and judgmental and violent by turns. She is incredibly smart for a cat and incredibly dumb for a human, and charming and affectionate when she wants to be, and thoroughly wonderful at all times. She has always had a great sense of humor, in that if some felid behavior makes me laugh, she will repeat it over and over until it's not funny any more. She has survived her adoptive brothers and sisters by several years, and she is a boon friend to me. We love each other.

And now that she's 147 in human years, and suffering from the weaknesses that flesh is heir to, I don't want her to slowly starve to death because she can't chew kibble and canned food gives her gas. Her organs will shut down soon enough, and I will be left behind to grieve, but in the meantime she can eat refrigerated cat food.

A little humor here. We had cats and they were having kidney problems. A cat savy friend said we were feeding them too much dry cat food. Took her advice. A couple of months later we were talking and she mentioned she was having kidney problems. (You can anticipate . . .) I told her to quit eating so much dry cat food, and we had a good laugh.

Are these meals supposed to appeal to the organic crowd at all? I dunno, I mean let's face it buying food for pets ethically dubious no matter where you're shopping. It's either "white fish/tuna" that's been hauled out of over-fished waters or the cartilaginous detritus of badly regulated meatpacking plants. Or, in the case of kibble, barely digestible pills of protein-supplemented cellulose and corn-related matter.

You criticize men(or at least posters with male usernames) for making the same fallacy when it comes to gender-equality.

Wow. Quite a leap of (non) logic, there, scooter. The coherency fail is also spectacular.

And ON topic, I have no idea which kind of food is better for pets, but I agree that it rankles a bit (on a primitive subconscious level) to see refrigerated pet food when people are still starving.

I save my real wrath for pet owners who refuse to neuter their male animals because "they'll lose their personality".

From my point of view I'm not supporting an evil meat packing industry, because the refrigerated cat food that I buy is kangaroo. It's not processed, not full of cereals, and it is definitely cheaper then the meat graded for human consumption.

High protein diets is actually a problem for cats with kidney disease - the order of preference I have ben given by the vet is 1) wet k/d prescription food 2) dry k/d prescription food 3) wet commercial catfood (for older cats if possible) 4) dry commercial catfood (for older cats if possible) 6) anything that they will eat, including fresh meat. Kidney diets for humans are a hilarious reversal of the usual healthy eating guidelines - avoid whole grains, bran, bananas, dark leafy greens, dairy, nuts, lentils, dry fruits, restrict fluids...

I'm very fortunate that as a snake owner I can raise food for my own pets. My prey colonies are treated as well as my pets because even prey animals deserve to be no less happy or healthy during their own lives.

It changes your perspective somewhat when you're responsible for caring for the prey animals that will feed your pets one day. In wanting the best for your pets it makes you address the needs of your prey animals in a better and more informed way since their health and well-being determines how well your pets will thrive.

One part I personally struggle with is killing the prey animals to feed one of my pets or to save some for later meals. No matter how I do it I'm forced to acknowledge that in order to keep one life going I must end the lives of others.

I have the same gut reaction Zuska, and I have spent much time pondering this subject.
Keeping a clowder of cats make me a hypocrite of the highest order. I should be rescuing discarded Easter rabbits, and I recently did. She was a joy to know, and we miss her terribly.
To properly take care of a lagomorph is a very expensive proposition.
I am poor, disabled, single (got out alive),and child-free as well as having made the massive mistake of being born female.
These characteristics make me a less than valuable person in this society's eyes.
Screw em' all.
Krishnamurti said "to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society is no measure of health." That's about all I know of him, and all I need to.(He made terrible first impressions apparently; don't know if this is true but found it way too funny-wink, wink nod,nod.)
In this violent, insane, patriarchy we live in (The VIP)it is impossible to lead an ethical life.
Just do the best you can do, and try not worry about it too much.
If only I could follow my advice.

Let Them Eat...Whatever's In These Dented Cans From The Back Of My Pantry

thusspakezuska — Mon, 15 Feb 2010 17:26:13 +0000

Let Them Eat...Whatever's In These Dented Cans From The Back Of My Pantry

Don't you just love food palaces? Round these parts in Philly, we have several new Wegmans stores to choose from, and of course Whole Foods. A new Whole Foods opened not far from where I live that includes a little bar - you can have a beer or glass of wine and a little something to eat if you find the experience of shopping for your whole foods wholly exhausting and need to partake of serious refreshment. The big chain grocery stores have even stepped up their games to stay in competition. In downtown Philly, there is Di Bruno Brothers, a gourmand's shopping paradise, not to mention Reading Terminal Market, the Italian Market, and who knows how many other little gourmet shops throughout Philadelphia and the surrounding environs.

When you're pushing a cart around at, say, Wegmans - or any other food palace - loading up the goodies, and finally wheeling your way to the checkout, you probably aren't thinking to yourself, "where do those employees shop for their food?" At least one Wegmans employee in this area, it turns out, shops at a local food bank.

The food bank in question, The Lord's Pantry in Downingtown, has won honors and praise for its operation. Unlike many pantries that just hand people a bag of food, people who come to the Lord's Pantry can come in, look around, shop and choose what they need and want. It is a place with dignity. And they help people figure out what other benefits and assistance they might be eligible for, and how to apply for it. Here's some frightening data from the article:

In 2006, the Lord's Pantry served just 1,200 people; in 2009, 15,336. Last month, an all-time high of 60 families showed up on a single day. To be eligible, a family of four can earn up to $33,075 a year, individuals $16,245.

It should be noted that the food pantry is located in a upscale community where the median income is $82,979.

The day after this article appeared in my paper, another ran explaining how anger against the poor was on the rise, and how the percentage of people who think the poor have become "too dependent" on government assistance has increased from 69% to 72% in the last few years. This has happened, mind you, at the same time that my state legislature is cutting aid to the poorest elderly and disabled.

A previously undisclosed detail of Pennsylvania's brutal budget deal calls for slashing the state's already modest $27 to $42 monthly SSI supplement by 20 percent to 25 percent. Individuals will lose $5 a month, couples $10.

How much does it cost to take paratransit to a grocery store, to buy the groceries you can't afford? Why, $10. Please remember these cuts are being proposed for people who are getting about $600 a month. I invite you to make out your monthly budget with that figure. No, wait, make that $590. Because we do not want you becoming too dependent upon government assistance.

I know in these past few weeks that everyone has been emptying their pocketbooks for the disaster in Haiti and surely the need is great there. It is great to see the outpouring of support and sympathy. Hopefully we can channel a little of that love and sympathy for the needy right next door - sometimes literally - too, and stop blaming them for their need. A lot of those people using The Lord's Pantry in Downingtown used to donate to it not so long ago.

I like to give to Philabundance. I like that their vision of hunger relief includes fresh produce and dignity, not dented expired mystery cans from the back of someone's pantry. I am grateful I have some extra to share.

And yet even the have-nots recognize that others may be worse off.

"If we're having a good month, I don't come," Borden says. "I leave it for someone else who needs it."

If only the "haves" in the state legislature had half as much empathy and sense.

thusspakezuska Mon, 02/15/2010 - 12:26

Tags

What's the margin of error on the comparison between 69% and 72% for that Pew poll item? I am horrified enough by seven in ten, regardless, but if measurement error within each poll is the usual 2%, I'm not worried about this as an indication of *increase*.

Nice to hear about a food bank with a little dignity. Every experience I've had with a food bank highlights how desperate you have to be to go there, since the food is either moldy or leftovers of some test product that no one buys.

Thanks for this article. I'd like to know more about the Wegman's employee. I don't live in Wegman's territory anymore, but I wish I did- they had good food at reasonable prices and had a reputation for treating their employees very well (great benefits, scholarships for students, etc.) The Wegman's I know would be very concerned about their employees being unable to afford food. I don't want to be a corporate apologist, but I think they're a bit unfairly maligned here.

Whole Foods does donate quite a bit to the food bank where I volunteer, but I have a feeling their employees might have some complaints about how they're treated (re: health care).

Jess, I don't know anymore than what was in the article - the fact that one of the people using the food bank was wearing a Wegmans uniform. The food bank is located in an affluent area where the cost of living is relatively high, so even with Wegmans nice benfits package, I imagine it would still be pretty hard to make ends meet on a Wegmans salary if one had kids and any significant medical expenses.

Ginger good point about the poll, on both counts - margin of error and the horridness of 7 in 10 blaming the poor.

I don't honestly understand what people who think the poor have become "too dependent" want to happen, since they also seem to be strongly opposed to programs that involve job training or creating jobs. Do a majority of Americans really want to return to the conditions of Dickens' London, with beggars literally starving to death in the street?

Size, I think they do! Witness the number of people who are so, so angry with the poor for having cell phones, which might come in handy if you're trying to get or keep a job. They'd rather the poor be further marginalized and kept from contributing than take the chance that one of them, somewhere, might get something they haven't "earned."

Without constantly spouting the bit about how anyone can achieve anything they want if they just work hard enough or smart enough is essential to keeping an extremely unequal class system in place. I doubt that most americans truly want to see anyone dying in the streets; people here are extremely charitable when tradgedy strikes. It is difficult to escape a constant propaganda campaign without absorbing some of the messages though.

The illusion of a meritocracy is the only thing that can keep the current state of affairs going. The actual level of injustice becomes apparent when our economic circumstances are seen for what they are (often chance). The propaganda about the rich and poor both truly earning what they get in life is pushed hard by the vast majority of the media in the country for that reason. Caring about accumulating wealth and possessions (rather than about other people) is also pushed hard by just about every form of major media; it alienates and depolitisizes people in the same way that the line about 'free market' meritocracy does. Things like violent labor rights struggles happen when people do not simply accept their lot in the economy, or care about the state of affairs of people less fortunate. Controlling the mind of the general population is extremely important when use of force is impractical. The owners and makers of mainstream media and politicians all belong to an economic class that the vast majority of americans never will, I am not sure why any of them would say something to undermine their own authority in society. It is working out super for them so far.

I also think other people's poverty makes people uncomfortable. And many people's response to things that make them uncomfortable is "I don't want to look!"

And that then turns into "it should be hidden so I don't see it by accident." It's the same belief that's behind some of the foot-dragging about disabled access: if people in wheelchairs can get into the mall and the bus and the movie theater, they will go to the mall and wait in line for movies like everyone else, and then the squeamish able-bodied person will be reminded that disabilities exist.

This depresses me more than I have words for.

There is a definite attitude in America that if you're poor it's because you're not good enough, and you don't DESERVE help, which is tremendously Victorian if you think about it. Also a much *easier* option than having to actually, you know, think about causes of poverty or understand the workings of the poverty trap.

It used to be (in my experience, anyway -- may be different in other people's experience) that people who had actually experienced poverty themselves were a bit more understanding of the situation.* These last few years, though, I've been seeing even people who are in the poverty trap themselves condemning people in poverty for not getting themselves out of that situation and being "too dependent", even while they themselves are relying on charity to bail them out. This, I don't get.

----
*A closely related phenomenon, which I noticed when I collected for a food bank as a teen, was that people who have experienced poverty and hunger ALWAYS gave more generously and sensibly than people who had plenty and had probably never missed a meal involuntarily.

There's a new food distribution site here in South Dakota that just opened. I believe it is through a church organization and they announced that you don't have to "prove" that you need the food in order to receive it. I see the inherent problems with this, but I am completely on board with it.

So what if someone gambled or drank their money away? They're still hungry. Period.

I don't give as much to the food pantry as I should, but one of my firm rules is that I never, ever, give food that is expired (or going to expire tomorrow). We had a quite heated discussion about it at work, where one of my co-workers insisted that there was nothing wrong with donating expired canned food, since she would eat it anyway. I felt like, if I won't eat it because it's expired, why would anyone else? Just because you need the food pantry doesn't mean that you should have to put up with expired food.

I'm with you JustaTech. In fact, I mostly just give money to the food bank. They can get bulk deals and have said they prefer cash, so that's what I give them.

However, someone in my neighborhood organizes a can drive every holiday season. I use that as the reminder to update our emergency food stores. I give away what I have (which still has a long time left before expiring) and buy new. I figure it is a win-win. The food bank gets some extra food, and I won't be eating 10 year old cans of soup if there is an earthquake.

Oh, and they'll take diapers that are in an open pack. So that is how I get rid of the diapers left over when my kid graduates a size.

I think people like to believe that they got to where they are by hard work, and that they couldn't end up poor. The truth is that there is a lot of luck in just about every success story, and any one can end up poor.

What's With The Makeovers?

thusspakezuska — Tue, 04 Aug 2009 14:19:01 +0000

What's With The Makeovers?

You are a male physics professor, and you want to improve science education. What could possibly be a better idea than to team up with a bunch of professional cheerleaders and make a video of them shouting out science tidbits while they shake their pompoms? Science cheerleaders!

I know, right? You wish you'd thought of it first, don't you?

The only thing worse than this loathsome idea is the Chronicle of Higher Education reporting on it with the headline "Blonded By Science". Seriously.

I am not sure whether James Trefil, of George Mason University, seriously thinks that women students would be attracted to science in this manner, or whether he even bothered to think at all about the possibility that the students he ostensibly wants to recruit to science might, just possibly, include both women as well as men. And no, don't bother commenting to tell me how the former Sixer-cheerleader-turned-science-journalist collaborating with Mr. Trefil makes it all okay. Women are perfectly capable of being complicit in their own objectification.

These god-awful videos are akin to the long-standing practice of sexist science dudes including cheesecake photos in the middle of their science slide presentations for "comic relief" or to "entertain the audience". In fact, they are just an extension of that practice. "Look! Sexy babes 'n' science! Did I get your attention?"

This truly craptastic pedagogical experiment is no better than the current repugnant series of ads for T-Mobile "Mobile Makeover" ads with Catherine Zeta-Jones. You know the one where the "team of economists" go out to try and sell "average Americans" on a mobile makeover, only to be soundly repulsed. So they try a different approach - sex. The message of this ad (and another in the series, where a husband and wife listen to C Z-J's sales pitch, husband drooling at the mouth, wife clearly unhappy with husband) seems to be this: men are too stupid to purchase our product based on the clearly superior economic value. But we can sucker them into it if it is accompanied with a hot pair of tits. Women? Are we selling to women? Who knows what motivates them? (Interestingly, in the ad with the married couple, C Z-J actually speaks to the wife about the facts of the plan, but her dress and posture is designed to "speak" to the clearly besotted husband, thus sowing discord between the couple. Not a very good overall sales pitch.)

The unarticulated assumption underlying the ad series - and the Brain Makeover videos - is that the main target audience is comprised of heterosexual men who will respond favorably to having the product (science, cell phone plans) pitched to them by hot, hot babes. Women are the afterthought audience and the pitch to them, if there is one, is a confusing one. If women are encouraged to identify with the cheerleaders or C Z-J then they aren't really picturing themselves as scientists or consumers. If they attempt to place themselves in the target audience, then the sexy-babe-sells-you-science/product doesn't make sense to them, except perhaps for the lesbians. And one has to wonder how much the caricature of femininity designed to appeal to straight male fuck fantasies really turns on the majority of lesbians. I can't speak for that demographic, so I don't know.

Mobile Makeover or Brain Makeover, it's all the same crap. Just because one is gussied up as physics pedagogy doesn't make it any less puke-on-your-shoes worthy.

N.B. Mr. Trefil's website is here, but I was not able to get it to load. You can find plenty of the stupid videos on YouTube by searching on "brain makeover".

thusspakezuska Tue, 08/04/2009 - 10:19

Tags

http://provost.gmu.edu/robinson/faculty/trefil/

I often think I should have studied economics. In the first place, I find it interesting. In the second, sex doesn't sell me on a product. I look for maximum value for my investment and if I pay any attention to the ads (unlikely) then trying to use sex to sell me on it is only going to bias me against the product for using such an idiotic and frankly offensive* ad campaign.

If they were to at least provide balance, and have male cheerleaders as well, then it might not be *as* awful. But it would still be awful.

Also, the search terms aren't required to get stupid videos on youtube ;)

*offensive both to the women who are objectified and the men whose intelligence is being insulted (though apparently justifiably considering they keep using the sexism and it appears to work on a lot of guys, which we should be embarrassed by).

... And on top of being totally misguided, stupid, sexist, and counter productive, the "factoids" the cheer leaders are shaking their pom poms to are innane and uncontextualized. Even if someone 'learned' something they would not be learning anything.

One saving grace is that the commenters at the Chronicle are so far unanimous in their disgust. Although it is only a matter of time before the "can't you take a joke" "harmless fun" crowd shows up.

You were right CPP - they just got one now. Puke!

Bananas, Bananas, Go Go Bananas
B A N A N A S!
Go Go Bananas!

Ok, I get it. Cheerleading helped my laydee brane lurn 2 spel. I can haz scienz 2? YAY! *herky*

It's just peachy how women have to be d00d-compliant and all cheery, supportive, RAH RAH! of the menz, to gain access to their fucking games. Well, to the sidelines.

Oh, for heaven's sake. Have you nothing better about which to complain?!

You are, of course, entitled to your own opinions. And, of course, it is your blog. Fair play to you.

Nevertheless, you seem unable to follow a link and uncover Darlene Cavalier's story. Had you done so, you might recognize that this isn't the "D00dz, you has to check out these hot lady parts on behalf of science!"-type story that you seem to think it is. Misguided though she may be (I, for one, am not well-versed in the most effective ways of communicating and popularizing science), her efforts seem to stem from a genuine desire to make a difference, using her previous experience as a cheerleader for the 76ers.

Omfg!!!! Pathetic.

Ah, I see you already mentioned Darlene. Never mind. While I still don't agree with you entirely, I recognize and respect your objections.

Brian: (1) Yes, it is my blog. And I am certainly entitled to my own opinions. Yet I feel it necessary to point out to you that these are not just "my opinions". This blog post presents a comparison and analysis of Brain Makeovers and Mobile Makeovers based on feminist theory. I'm sure it may be difficult to comprehend that analyzing something using the perspective of feminist theory is not exactly the same thing as giving a purely personal opinion based on nothing other than one's own personal feelings and reactions to whatever one reads, but there is a difference. Example: your comment on my blog post is an opinion, to which you are entitled. It is not the same thing as an analysis of my blog post based on a theoretical stance.

(2) You seem to have breezed right by this part of my post: And no, don't bother commenting to tell me how the former Sixer-cheerleader-turned-science-journalist collaborating with Mr. Trefil makes it all okay. Women are perfectly capable of being complicit in their own objectification. Maybe you want to go back and read that again and think on it some more. It would have been especially nice if you had read and comprehended it before you spent all that time typing your comment to let me know how having a woman and former cheerleader involved in the project makes it all okay.

Brian, I see your second comment came in while I was posting my reply to your first. Nevertheless, it seems a bit disingenuous to say you "recognize and respect your objections" after saying "Oh, for heaven's sake. Have you nothing better about which to complain?!"

I can't even begin to tell you how sick to death I am of men coming on this blog and telling me how whatever the hell it is I am writing about is something that I ought not to be upset or concerned about, because it's either (a) not sexism or (b) not an important enough case of sexism to bother about or (c) is sexism, but I really ought to be concerned with something else, or....blah blah blah. If you all would just shut up for five minutes and think about what it is women are saying instead of rushing in to give your d00dly wisdom, that would be a far far better thing. I promise you, the world will not come to an end if you don't IMMEDIATELY give your important opinion about How Women Are All Wrong About Patriarchy the minute it pops into your head.

My official lesbian opinion is that the pom poms and the plasticine ladies are distracting me from the vaguely amusing science facts.

That's not what I think at all, honestly. I recognize that me being d00dly means that there are some subtleties that I can't hope to appreciate, but at the same time, I think it a bit dismissive for you to assume that my disagreement with you about this particular post stems from my inability to realize that "the world will not come to an end if you don't IMMEDIATELY give your important opinion about How Women Are All Wrong About Patriarchy the minute it pops into your head." Often, I find myself agreeing with you. This time just ain't one of 'em.

Sorry my first post came off a bit... heated.

Telling the author that she should concern herself with something more important than sexist, ineffective marketing that excludes women is just a little more than coming of a bit heated. It is arrogant and comes from a place of pure priviledge. And it is fucking anoying. Also you can not only hope, but actually learn the subtelties even as a d00d. A good starting point would be to shut up and listen.

Oh Brian â¦ âsubletiesâ? What about this is subtle? This âscience cheerleaderâ stuff is so over-the-top that Iâm not convinced it isnât some sort of joke. I noticed that Trefil doesnât seem to have a webpage at GMU â then again, heâs in his seventies. I wonder what the local (i.e., at GMU) reaction will be.

About the T-Mobile campaign â I tend to interpret that more along the lines of ads that poke fun at the whole âsex sellsâ bit, especially after the ad w/the couple and the one w/the teenage boy. But I can think of two better executed examples of this genre: one is for a hair product that uses a male biker with long, gorgeous locks; the other advertises seafood, with two traditionally sexy female stereotypes and one clearly less-than-sexy guy. Of course, I donât remember the products they were actually trying to sell meâ¦.

I guess it's not that important to target physics factlets to girls because they usually just choose to pursue other subjects anyway. And of course that choice is always based on their inherent interests, and has absolutely nothing to do with being bombarded by explicit and implicit messages telling them that physics is a boys club. Right?

Or perhaps there is a follow-up series of videos with hot dudes in the works. They could get Robert Pattinson in full vampire makeup and learning Newton's laws would become the cool thing to do.

It's not "make over", it's "may cover" - they may cover something remotely interesting, but probably not....

Hi,

I know you said you couldn't find information about James Trefil, so I just wanted to provide some links for more information about him and his research and work. Here is his bio on the George Mason University web site:

And here are some articles about his work, including one on the cheerleader partnership:

http://gazette.gmu.edu/articles/8839

http://news.gmu.edu/articles/419

Hope this helps.

By the reasoning that leads to the conclusion that âwomen are perfectly capable of being complicit in their own objectificationâ we may assume that women in the test sample for the national marketing campaign were also complicit in their response to this objectification.

The tested broad demographic that responded favorably to the advertising included women who identified with either the objectified woman, C Z-J, or with the proposition of males being reduced to drooling idiocy in her presence.

I think it is fair, to use that commercial make to a cultural indictment.

âA comparison and analysis of Brain Makeovers and Mobile Makeovers based on feminist theoryârenders that indictment rather thin.

There are certain aspects of the commercial that lend themselves to semiotics and those elements are revealed by semiotic analysis to be atrocious. They are bigotries that in the context of telling and retelling, that is the nature of advertising, rise to the sense of mythologies.

1. The correlative of the level of intellectual competence and attractiveness and or social competence.

2. The Objectified (stylized symbolic) woman as geisha/b-girl with the product being a form of lucre that buys her attention.

3. The degraded male whoâs intellect/morality/self preservation/reason is enthralled by sex drive.

As to the physics cheerleaders, the comparison is awkward because whereas they fulfill the second mythology (the product being an understanding of physics) they do so under the pretense of dispelling the first mythology (they donât of course but that is the rationale presented). The third mythology only operates as a presumption. It is there certainly, the unspoken premise is science is an insufficient end in and of itself requiring the mesmerism of secondary sex characteristics to make it palatable. physics=overpriced chicken wings

The comparable element in the two examples, although both are certainly parades of bigotry, is the expectation that the cliches, elevated to the point of mythology, will be found uniformly amusing to both men and women. They are all horrible and some sexist. But the issue is that their respective manufactures were correct in their appraisal of just how disgusting their audience is.

I apologise if this is a stupid question, but have you (Zuska) written at all about the Skepchick calendars? I would be very interested in your opinion.

I haven't written specifically about the Skepchick calendars. But I have written in the past about other calendars. See Geek Gorgeous vs. Sexy Science, Feedback From the IT Screen Goddess Gals, and Let Them Eat Cake: Beef vs. Cheese, all from the earlier version of my blog. I know I wrote about one other similar calendar but can't recall the post or find the link right now. The three posts actually discuss two different calendars, both based on IT.

Following Isis's Lead...

thusspakezuska — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 19:41:20 +0000

Following Isis's Lead...

While I've been away from the blogiverse, it appears that you've had the misfortune to be treated to all manner of disgusting ads popping up here at ScienceBlogs. Mail Order Brides, Naughty Singles, and I don't know what all else. Isis has some details here. She says:

...if you've been visiting me for any length of time then you know how I feel about the exploitation of women, especially racial minorities and women from economically disadvantaged backgrounds. That's the entire point of the Letters to Our Daughters Project and the Silence is the Enemy Project, right?

That said, I cannot in good faith continue to contribute content here while these ads remain visible. This also makes me sad because I love being at ScienceBlogs. I love my Sciblings (well, most of them) and I believe in the establishment of community for the promotion of science. But, it would not be right for my page views to generate revenue that funds individuals who exploit women. The morality in this matter seems pretty black and white.

I believe the management here at ScienceBlogs when they tell me that they are working to have their ad agency remove the ads, but the traffic generated in the meantime while those ads still appear still puts money in the pockets of those who exploit women. So, until I receive confirmation from the Overlords here at ScienceBlogs that these ads are gone, I'm taking a hiatus.

Well said. Can't think of a thing to add at this point. I'll be back when the ads are gone. In the meantime, I sincerely apologize to those of you who have been offended by the ads, and I hope that someday you'll receive an apology from ScienceBlogs, too.

thusspakezuska Thu, 07/02/2009 - 15:41

Tags

I hope you can come back soon, Zuska!

Fie on sleazy ads. I'll miss reading you. Do you blog anywhere else?

I don't, but there is still the old obscure original site of TSZ...could possibly post there. Will let you know on blog here if I decide to do that.

I've never seen the ads. They're probably based on geographic region. The program serves different ads based on your ip (location).

I would love to see what all the fuss is about. That being said... I find it funny using words such as "exploit women".

The only person you can call exploited is one who has a gun pointed to their gun and physically forced to do something. Women who voluntarily choose to sell their looks and dignity in exchange for a better life can hardly be called "exploited".

I find it kind of ironic that most of these commentaries about "exploitation" are coming from rich, white women who've never seen a day of hardship in their life. When was the last time you saw such a complaint coming from one of the actual women affected?

So you get the ads removed. Does ignoring the problem solve it? Those women will still be poor and barely making ends meet. How about fighting FOR something, like say donating to groups that go around the world and provide those women with education? Its very easy to fight AGAINST something, but it never solves a problem.

Also hoping that you'll return soon, with more Gender Knot posts, and that you're feeling better. I had to play a bit of catch-up, but I'm in the middle of Chapter 2 now.

A related question has popped into my head while perusing ScienceBlogs this week - not sure whether it's addressed in The Gender Knot, but perhaps I'll send you an e-mail about it.

With you 100%, Zuska. Sorry this is happening, and maybe I'll contact ScienceBlogs to let them know that an apology/statement against such ads would be in order.

We see, even in this very thread, how necessary your work is, so I hope you and Isis can continue soon in good conscience.

The advertising is really unfortunate. It's not just the exploitation aspect of the Russian bride ads, which is bad. It's also the "ads targeted only to Doodz" aspect, which makes me feel a bit unwelcome.

FWIW, at the moment Greg Laden's Russian-bride related post is still showing Russian bride ads, but neither your blog nor Dr. Isis's blog seem to be currently showing them, which is a tiny improvement, I guess.

Oops, Greg Laden's post is showing a Russian dating site, not a Russian bride site. Still, any ads that are "selling" a bikini-clad woman are clearly not meant for me or other heterosexual women (and I'm not sure the web site includes same sex dating either).

The ad at the top of the page right now is from Snap Linkad and reads: Mail Order Brides Click Here Steam Iron Click Here Ironing Click Here Migraines Click Here Mail Order Bride Click Here Private Insurance Click Here Timekeeping Click Here Omni Click Here Animal Behavior Click Here Windows Install Click Here Gould Click Here Wrinkles Click Here Pillow Cases Click Here Molybdenum

On Isis, the top of her page was the "WarCraft" ad. yeah, better.

Alek d00d, take yer head outta yer privileged ass and troll elsewhere.

Come back Zuska! So you can post on this: http://bit.ly/HVMi1

Isis says she got an apology letter and SciBlogs have stopped it - have you gotten one too? Thanks for taking this on.

unfuckingreal. I WAS going to write that the ad is gone. I checked a few times in the past few hours, and it was not there. The ad at the top was about credit scores before I clicked on this post to submit a comment that the shit was gone. and Poof!

This is at the top right now! GRRRRRR!:
Mail Order Brides Click Here Animal Behavior Click Here Medical School Click Here Omni Click Here Dispensing Click Here Migraines Click Here Gould Click Here Private Insurance Click Here Windows Install Click Here Russian Brides

Zuska, I emailed you a screenshot of it to send the overlordz.

To readers who are still seeing text ads for mail dating services- you may need to clear your cache for the ads to disappear.

Nothing's Too Good For My Precious Pooch, or, Why Our Planet Is Dying

thusspakezuska — Sun, 15 Mar 2009 08:30:12 +0000

Nothing's Too Good For My Precious Pooch, or, Why Our Planet Is Dying

This past Friday morning, as per my usual routine, I sat down to read the Philadelphia Inquirer with my coffee and breakfast. And I came across an article that nearly made me vomit back all that delicious Toy Cow Farms blueberry yoghurt I had just spooned down. I refer, of course, to the piece on the "quaint Victorian home" shared by Darla, Chelsea, and Coco Puff.

Their dwelling has a cedar-shake roof, vaulted ceilings, and hardwood floors, heating and air-conditioning, moldings and casement windows, drapery with valences, and fanciful wallpapers.

At Christmas, music from the RCA Victor radio carried outside to a grassy yard surrounded by a white picket fence. A sign on the porch reads: "Three spoiled dogs live here."

Yes. Darla, Chelsea, and Coco Puff are dogs. They live in a home that cost "$20,000 in construction, transport, and equipment, if [you include] the painting, landscaping, screened doors and windows, miniblinds, and ceiling fans, as well as the yard with artificial turf." (Do follow the link and check out the photo.)

The doggie mansion, at 8 by 11 feet, has just slightly fewer square feet of living space than the room my mother now calls home at the assisted living facility. The dogs at least have their own yard to poop in. My mother has to go down the hall to a shared bathroom. This is the best facility we can afford for her on her monthly income, without spending down her investments. (We have been hanging on to her investments for the time we can see coming when she will need nursing care, which is much more expensive than assisted living. I don't have to tell you what has happened to her investments over the last year.)

I traveled to western Pennsylvania today to be with mom for the next five days or so. On Monday, she is going to move into a new room, basically the same size as the old one. This room was once someone's office, in a building that was once her high school. It is reasonably nice, with an attractive (though not fanciful) wallpaper and new carpet. Underneath the new carpet is extra padding, which bespeaks the reason for the move. Mom has begun having frequent falls. The staff at the AL facility felt it would be safer for her to live in the part of the facility with more intensive oversight of residents, rather than where she is now, in the section for residents who need somewhat less care.

This is no doubt the best thing for my mother, and there are even some benefits to the move beyond enhanced oversight and thus more safety. Her current room has one small window which looks out on an interior courtyard rooftop. Because of constraints presented by the room layout, the only place to put her recliner chair is with its back to the window - so she can't even see out the small window with no view. The new room has two large windows with views of trees, hillsides, houses, a street. She'll see more life and activity out of these windows - indeed, even being able to see out the windows at all is a major plus. She'll be able to see out them from both her chair and her bed.

But it is hard to go through this move with her. She doesn't want to move. It was hard enough to move from home to the AL facility. She lived in the house she was (literally) born in, for 79 years, before the move. Over the past year, she has managed to make her tiny room feel like a home to her. Many times, in recounting conversations she's had with other residents, she has let me know that they refer to their rooms as their houses. So this isn't really just a simple room change. It's leaving home all over again. Even though she often complains about various aspects of her room, it is her house, and I am complicit with the staff in evicting her from it.

The move also signifies another step downhill to her, another small loss of autonomy. My mother does not like the idea of needing to go into the area for higher-care residents, and indeed, she doesn't have much in common with many of them. She is more mobile than many of them, has much more of her mental faculties intact than many of them and, except for the weakness in her legs and balance problems, can handle more activities of daily living than many of them. Yet there are signs that some things are beginning to slip. She is at the top of the slippery slope, and does not like it, not one bit. It is my chore to help her through this move, soothe her and ease her transition, and try to start the process of making the new room feel like her "house" - and try to keep her spirits up through this.

So you see, when I look at this woman who used to run a household of nine people ranging in age and type from retired coal miner to toddler child; who used to run up and down the stairs from second to first floor, first to basement, basement out to back yard with laundry to hang, back into the house, back upstairs, over and over all day; who was a Girl Scout leader and Band Booster, a Civic Club member and a Rosary Altar Society member; who made sure we had books to read at home and access to the lending library in Carmichaels 14 miles away; who used to write me three letters a week when I was in college and talked me out of quitting engineering my freshman year when my advisor was no help at all; when I look at this woman reduced to life in a 9 by 11 foot former high school office room, and I see three dogs living in a custom-built $20,000 doggie mansion...

...well, I wanna do some serious shoe-pukin'.

You know, even if you don't give a crap about my mother's situation compared to the cushy life of these dogs - I mean, you could argue that my mother is living quite well compared to the situation of many a person on this planet - you should still be outraged. Because people like Tammy Kassis, with her "three spoiled dogs", living in a $20,000 heated and air-conditioned, decorated doghouse, are the reason this planet has so little chance of surviving our presence on it. If you asked Tammy what we should do about starving children in Africa - hell, about starving children in our own U.S. cities - do you think she would just reply "let them eat cake"? After all,

She has her eye on a small plasma-screen TV for her pups. "They love to watch Animal Planet," Kassis says. "It's their favorite."

Well, I suppose we ought to let the little pups enjoy it - while the planet is still able to support any animal life for us to film.

thusspakezuska Sun, 03/15/2009 - 04:30

Tags

Isn't It Ironic?

Tales From The Coal Patch

unsustainable consumption

Field Negro--also a Philadelphian--has written a lot about how white Americans treat their pets better than other human beings.

...you should still be outraged. Because people like Tammy Kassis, with her "three spoiled dogs", living in a $20,000 heated and air-conditioned, decorated doghouse, are the reason this planet has so little chance of surviving our presence on it.

Nope. This is just one example of someone with more money than I have spending a chunk of it in a way that I consider silly (or wasteful or obscene or whatever description you want). There are others, some of which offend me personally more than the doggie example.

And "... so little chance of surviving our presence on it"? Please ... this is arrogance pure and simple. We couldn't destroy the planet if we tried. We can certainly degrade it in ways that some of us would find unacceptable, but let's not give humans more power than they have.

Although George Carlin is far from the only person to comment on this, his formulation is brief and pithy - "The planet is OK ... the people are fucked!!"

Dear Scott "Head In the Sand" Belyea: Perhaps you have not hearing about climate change, rising seas, decreasing biodiversity, widespread deforestation, increasing desertification, native plants threatened by invasives, declining bird populations, not to mention our polluted air, land, and water...no, I do not think the planet is OK. But enjoy your blissful ignorance while it lasts.

Sure, the "earth" wont be destroyed. Its a giant ball of rock. What people mean by "earth" is the ecosystem we live on. I understand the point, being deliberately obtuse so as to deny the degradation of the ecosystem to one that is at best miserable to live in.

Wow, that dog house is bigger than Bernie Madoff's cell ...

I think Scott's point is that the planet will survive, with new species evolving to fill the niche created by large crumbling buildings after we are gone. It might even sort of survive when its sun goes into its red giant stage.

What Scott misses is that her actions will speed the day when her children will struggle to survive in the absence of petro-fertilized crops. Even that nice artificial green turf yard helped deplete what is left of our oil. But it might be that she is spending money on dogs in lieu of children and doesn't care about that.

What is really nuts is that someone has a business building these dog houses, and that they moved this one from their old home to a new one!

BTW, my own theory is that building houses out of wood is a form of carbon sequestration, just not a very good one.

Yeah, it only takes 10-30 million years for global ecosystems to recover from a big mass extinction event. It's really not such a big deal - as long as you're not irrationally emotionally attached to one of the species that goes extinct.

Zuska, I don't think you get Scott's point. All the calamities you describe may well make the planet unlivable for the likes of us, and then when we all die a miserable death or are at least reduced to a final few that have survived the massive wars that will result, but in the end life of some form will go on without us. Life in all its forms have no special place for the Earth of today or even of 500 years ago -- life just goes on living in one form or another. We along with a great many species may rely on the Earth of today, but not life in general.

I agree with everything you say above. The following is a little off topic but hopefully will help with what is coming.

My mother started down her slippery slope two years ago. We are the sandwich generation with children on one shoulder and aging parents on the other. Our culture is not set up for this. We have entered into uncharted territory with such long lifespans. I hope I don't offend when I say that the dying process when it comes will be difficult for all involved. A good book on the subject:

http://www.amazon.com/How-We-Die-Reflections-Chapter/dp/0679742441

It was a living nightmare (and this is how most people describe it) with my mother suffocating from heart failure and put on morphine to keep her unconscious. Morphine, I learned, actually extends the life of dying heart patients by unloading the heart. When she awoke calling "Help me" we increased the dose.

Basically, I had given permission to starve my mother to death by carrying out her do not resuscitate orders, which withheld all medications, water, and food. Sores were developing. The nightmare lasted 12 days. I was lucky to be there, holding her hand when she took her last breath. I just wish she hadn't suffered so. I've been told this is how most of our parents die now. It is wrong. Something has to change. Washington State has passed a death with dignity law along with Oregon. I just hope I have the strength and wisdom to take advantage of it when my time comes. Again, please forgive me if I have offended by talking about death while your mother is still alive.

The question is not whether the Earth will survive us (it will); it's whether we (and other species like us) will survive the changes that we're effecting to the Earth. I agree that that seems pretty unlikely when there are people whose dogs have as significant a carbon footprint as a person in a wealthy, industrialized nation.

On what level can dogs possibly care that some thrips-brained human spent $20,000 to provide them with a landscaped, air-conditioned kennel with hardwood floors and miniblinds? This isn't even about loving pets -- it's about loving money. Seriously, obsessively loving it to the exclusion of all things alive, human or otherwise.

Amazing what people will do to avoid training their dogs.

Yo people. If you and they had had the gumption to plan ahead a bit and try to develop preventative treatments, your momma might still be happy and healthy. Instead you decided you would like to impose your morals on everyone else an the future generations by avoiding research on anti aging therapies.

Check out the methelusah foundation (www.mprize.org) for examples of how this attitude still prevails. Being fairly young, if you don't support anti aging, remember I will be laughing at you when you are old and feeble and suffering, as you would apparently so gladly have others be.

wow, Gregor, that's an amazingly insensitive thing to say to someone writing about her mother's experience with aging. Zuska would certainly not be overstepping any boundaries by banning you outright.

Ditto for me...your ass should be banned!

I was not addressing Zuska in isolation, but rather the populace in general, and I made that clear enough.

If there had been as little research on fundamental cancer therapies for the past 50 years, and you replaced "aging" with "cancer," it would easier to see how my post is appropriate.

No regrets, no apologies.

Gregor, you are an insensitive selfish ass. Your post was not in any way appropriate, especially after Russ Finley's heartbreaking post - you just came across as downright rude. Go off into your nut zone of the "methelusah" project (and maybe learn to spell it) and leave us alone here. The last thing our over-consuming society needs is people like Tammy Kassis living forever. Because of course, it's the jerks with tons of money who will pony up for shit like that - it won't be the poor folks in developing countries who get to take advantage of all your wonderful anti-aging discoveries. Gah. Go away and leave me alone.

Sometimes aging just sucks. I'm sorry. And I agree that the doggie houses are outrageous. Remember what happened to Marie A? Unfortunately that kind of ostentatiousness sets up revolutions, which not only harm the careless perpetrators of extravagance, but ordinary people too, because violence begets violence and totalitarianism, not democracy. Those people who still have a say in it should think about that.

Is that 20K doghouse really worse than a 500K(depending on local housing costs) house for people?

Scott 1
Zuska 0
Gregor -1000

Zuska, I'm so sorry -- about your mom, and about the resident trolls being such asses. I don't think they even realise how bad they make themselves look, but you shouldn't have to deal with that kind of nonsense right now.

I hope your mom can get some comfort and enjoyment from her new view. Maybe you can get her a windowbox, which would allow her to expand her "domain" to a little way outside the room; my experience with my grandmother was that this gave her a degree of satisfaction, as a small way of pushing back against smaller digs.

I'm getting a house for my dogs. Why not? It's my hard earned money and if people have an issue with it OH WELL! LIFE is too short might as well enjoy every minute of it! By the way I'm a fan of Tammy Kassis!!!!

Locking the Barn Door

thusspakezuska — Thu, 14 Aug 2008 10:50:24 +0000

Locking the Barn Door

You are a university president. You naturally wish to avoid scandal and negative publicity during your administration. The time to make it mandatory for all faculty and staff to undergo training in how to avoid sexual harassment is:

A: When you take office, or shortly thereafter.
B: After one of your professors is caught emailing female students a quid pro quo: A's if they would expose their breasts and allow him to fondle them.

If you are University of Iowa president Sally Mason, you will, of course, pick option B.

If this is only the first time the esteemed Professor Miller has engaged in such shenanigans, I will eat his shoes rather than puke on them. I'm betting it's not.

Meanwhile, over at the University of Missouri,

Two tenured faculty members at the University of Missouri at Kansas City have agreed to resign to avoid disciplinary action, one year after the university paid $1.1-million to settle a lawsuit alleging rampant sexual harassment by those professors.
In July 2007, the University of Missouri reached a settlement with two female employees who claimed the university had been unresponsive to their complaints about two professors, C. Keith Haddock and Walker S. Carlos Poston II (The Chronicle, July 27, 2007). The lawsuit, filed in 2006, alleged that the two faculty members created a "sexually hostile work environment" in the health-research laboratory they jointly supervised by making sexual advances, cracking explicit jokes, and groping female colleagues.

At the time of the lawsuit, Mr. Haddock and Mr. Poston, both professors of psychology, were removed from the lab and reassigned to the medical school at the Kansas City campus. A court deposition indicated the two were among the university's top grant winners.

On Monday the two men agreed to resign their tenured faculty positions, effective September 30, rather than face tenure-revocation or dismissal proceedings. Under the terms of the deal, Mr. Haddock and Mr. Poston will be permitted to complete their academic and research obligations and will receive salaries until August 31, 2009, the end of their contract year. The two men have agreed not to seek future employment with the university.

Emphasis added by me. Do you suppose that has anything to do with why they get to keep collecting salaries for one whole year more, AND "complete their academic and research obligations", after they've already cost the university a million dollars? This isn't even a case of locking the barn door after the horse is out. It's more like going over to the barn door and asking the horse not to continue shitting all over the barn, if you don't mind, until you see fit to leave.

I really wonder what you have to do to get fired from a university.

I swear to christ, this blog must be grinding down my sense of outrage. Check out this post on a similar topic from two years ago. I just can't muster up the same rhetorical level I used to, it seems. I can't tell you how tired I am of writing about this shit. I can't tell you how tired I am of getting to use my "sex offenders" blog category. I can't tell you just how fucking tired I am that 36 years after Title IX, I am still writing about professors wanting to see their students' boobies. Go to the store and buy a fucking tittie mag if you really need to see some boobies!

Of course, this is what the system counts on. It counts upon there being so much of this shit flung in our faces day after day after day that we stop trying to get at the source of the shit-slinging and just call it a good day when we keep the shit wiped out of our eyes for a few hours.

Alas, I am all too unfunnily reminded of this cartoon, which I used to keep taped over my desk during my graduate school days. (Ah, the eighties! It was fun to be a feminist then!)

The title is "The Feminist Enlightenment Takes Time" (artist is Wendy Hoile). Indeed. I doubt that poor washerwoman has made it much beyond that white dude's eyeglass she was working on back in the eighties.

Feminist enlightenment. Some days I think I'd call "we'll try not to grope you anymore because hard as it is for us to believe, it seems like you don't like it" a major victory.

thusspakezuska Thu, 08/14/2008 - 06:50

Tags

Sex Offenders

sexual harassment

I think your cost-benefit from the university's side is wrong as far as the harsh economics go. Over a career, an NIH funded investigator that is the best at the university might bring in several million dollars.
Now, to the degree that everytime I (and I hope everyone else) hears "University of Missouri" and thinks "sexist pigs!", it might cost them more over the long run. But then, there are probably some very nice people there who really don't deserve to be associated with this stuff. It's hard to know what a sufficiently targeted punishment would be.
Similarly, if these profs have grad students that did not perpetuate this nonsense (or worse, female grad students who were unnnamed victims), then hurrying the professors out might leave those students (i.e. the ones carrying out the research programs) in the lurch.
I don't like this kind of shit at all, but I think the university president has a hard job, no mistake.

One note on Mason--it's already policy here that anyone in a supervisory position (research, teaching, etc.) is required to take such training; she's just extended it to all faculty and staff. So theoretically, Miller should have already taken the training.

Zuska - Locally a political appointee is getting a hand-slap for nearly the same action: http://www.honoluluadvertiser.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=20088081304… . It has irked me so much I've called my representative. But clearly I'm not one of the power brokers in this town providing the 'overwhelming' community support.

Would sexual harassment avoidance training have made any difference in the University of Iowa case? I find it very difficult to believe that a professor wouldn't know that offering to improve grades in return for sexual favors was not OK (to put it mildly).

Also, I'm curious whether anyone has studied the behavior of individuals before and after such anti-sexual harassment courses. In my experience, the type of behavior the women describe in the Missouri case is as much about bullying as it is about "sex". The fact that the women on the receiving end are made uncomfortable is part of the game. So what I'm wondering is if you make explicitly clear that sexual harassment in any form won't be tolerated, whether the perpetrators shift to some other form of bullying.

Over a career, an NIH funded investigator that is the best at the university might bring in several million dollars.

You are off by orders of magnitude. I'm just a fucking punk, and I bring in just under $1 million per year. The best funded investigators can be bringing in from several to $10 million per year, adding up to many tens of millions over a career.

Would sexual harassment training have made any difference? I don't know. I do know that in the absence of clear, explicit, repeated messages from management that harassment will not be tolerated - followed up by meaningful AND timely action when harassment occurs - people who want to harass will, rightfully, believe that they can do so with impunity.

It's not just about having everyone show up once during their career lifetime for a class on sexual harassment so they can check that off on their "to do" list and be done with it forever. You have to create a climate, a culture, where it is known, made explicit, that harassment is not tolerated, respectful treatment of all is a community value, equity is a common goal. The would-be harassers need to be made to feel that they are outside the margins of polite society, not that they can operate as they wish and not have a care in the world. My feeling is that, sure, it's a drag having to resign your tenure, but keeping your salary for another year while you wrap up your research program isn't all that harsh a punishment. It will be interesting to see how quickly they land a position somewhere else. And whether, of course, they are able to continue getting federal grants funded. If they have no problem with those two things, then there really isn't any community sanction for sexual harassment at all.

The eighties were both good and bad. There was no anti-feminist backlash back then, true, but we were so much more innocent that our activism was really pretty pathetic. Not that we had any way of doing better than the washerwoman at the time.

What amazes me is that these bozos think women will put up with this sort of behaviour now. What are they thinking? Obviously, since women's gullibility is genetic, they must be just as stupid as they were in the eighties, right? Fortunately, I never had such a low trick played on me, but that was because there were so few females in my field in those days that The Boys were probably still in shock about our existence.

Sexual harassment and bullying are not the same thing. Sexual harassment might be thought of as a form of bullying, I suppose, but one can be bullied by a general jackass without being made to feel that there is something about one's innate unalterable nature that is wrong and inferior. Sexual harassment is the form of bullying predicated on the assumption that you, the bullied person, are inferior by virtue of being female. Your particularness matters not a whit; it is your vagina that matters.

Similarly one can't shed one's color to escape racial harassment, or one's sexual orientation to escape homophobic harassment.

I was bullied by a postdoc in graduate school in a non-sexually harassing manner. I didn't like what he was doing, and I had to find ways to cope with it, but it didn't make me feel like there was something wrong with me. It didn't make me feel as if I had to defend the right of women to be involved in science. I have been sexually harassed, and the feeling is quite different. I think it is much easier to cope with "mere" bullying - although that in itself is quite a difficult thing to take. Sexual harassment is much more devastating, IMHO.

Carrie, I love this from the article you cite:

Carey said terminating the HTA head now is not in the best interest of the industry or the agency. "By way of analogy, I believe a firm slap on the wrist is far more appropriate than a beheading at this time," he said.

More written testimony came from former state deputy director of transportation Glenn Okimoto, who served under Johnson as director.

"While I am not minimizing the seriousness of his actions, they do not rise to the level of termination," Okimoto said.

Yep, a slap on the wrist. And we all know how painful and effective that is. Sheesh. Good to know the porn purveyor can keep collecting his $240k/yr salary.

Yes, sexual harrassment is harder to deal with. But I'm old enough to remember the days when proposals of breast fondling were par for the course, and one didn't even raise an eyebrow, just continued walking. Bullying, on the other hand, often involves physical or situational obstacles which one has to fight to overcome.

Because I remember the anti-feminist backlash as starting in the 80s, I thought your comment about it being fun to be a feminist in the 80s was tongue in cheek. Did I misunderstand?

No, not tongue in cheek. I guess I was still pretty young then, and in another part of the world, so I remember it differently.

You have to create a climate, a culture, where it is known, made explicit, that harassment is not tolerated, respectful treatment of all is a community value, equity is a common goal.

One of the things that is key to this is for individual men to make it clear to individual women that they are ready and willing to call out other individual men on unacceptable behavior. In other words, men need to personalize their intolerance for sexual harrassment, and not solely consider it an institutional issue.

About the 80s: not tongue in cheek. Back then theory was bright and shiny and new to me and seemed to offer some serious hope for transformation of scientific practice. I may be romanticizing my graduate school days but it seems to me the backlash against feminism is harsher and meaner now than it was then. Also we didn't have scads of people walking around telling us all of feminism's battles had been fought and won and now we could just be empowerful by dressing like whores. Back then we did our feminism walking uphill to school in the snow, BOTH WAYS!

Maybe I'm just missing my graduate feminist reading group, which was the single best learning experience of my lifetime. Which speaks volumes about how unfriendly my formal engineering and scientific training was, that the discipline I pursued out of love, made me miserable, and the discipline I pursued to understand the source and meaning of that misery, gave me the intense pleasure I should rightfully have been reaping in the laboratory.

Amen to that. I've taken an indefinite hiatus from blogging on such topics because I feel like I've come to sound like a broken record. Saying the same things over and over again about the seemingly never ending supply of new incidents of the same-old-same-old crap is officially wearing me out.

"...it seems to me the backlash against feminism is harsher and meaner now..."

Yes, and it seems to me harsh meanness becomes more prominent in public life when a certain other social/political movement establishes dominance in political life. Speaking of dominance, it seems to me dominance behaviors comprise a big part of that other social/political movement.

That's a hypothesis, of course. Data gathering continues ... daily. Unfortunately.

As an update, you can find here a follow up news item on the UMKC story. Professors Haddock and Poston defend their innocence, claiming they only resigned to avoid the stress of a lawsuit. Personally I'm not buying it but maybe you'll be more convinced.

Funny to read this post today. Poison Ivy II was on tv last night. Talk about creepy professors. Yeesh.

I like the cartoon, btw.

tion somewhere else. And whether, of course, they are able to continue getting federal grants funded. If they have no problem with those two things, then there really isn't any community

what I'm wondering is if you make explicitly clear that sexual harassment in any form won't be tolerated, whether the perpetrators shift to some other form of bullying.

What are they thinking? Obviously, since women's gullibility is genetic, they must be just as stupid as they were in the eighties, right? Fortunately, I never had such a low trick played on me, but that was because there were so few females in my field in those days that The Boys were probably still in shock about our existence.

The Bimbo Game

thusspakezuska — Mon, 30 Jun 2008 13:07:43 +0000

The Bimbo Game

Rarely, it happens that I am left speechless.

thusspakezuska Mon, 06/30/2008 - 09:07

Tags

Gendering Technology

Stereotypes We Know And Love

Oh, yes. And just on the heels of another blogger looking for educational games... Hmph.

(Partially cross-posted on the linked blog):

While I have no patience for anyone who'd say something like "Children’s innocence should be protected as far as possible" (I remember being a child; "children's innocence" is a cultural fiction - sheer ignorance with a halo or an illusionary artifact of the willful blindness of ignorant adults, depending on the child - and efforts to "protect" it are at best a sham and at worst a destructive suffocation of intellectual and moral growth), but I can see this sort of game as an unhealthy influence; if my daughter ever played anything like this it'd be with me sitting beside her and helping her "MST3K" it.

I'll definitely be checking out the Amelia Bloomer Project, though. Thanks for the link. ^.^

Actually it'd be a great incentive for young women to design their own game in response, wouldn't it?

...um, wtf happened to the link?

No freakin' idea what happened! I shall try to find out.

As best I can tell, Kylie has moved her blog. The current link for the post I referenced in my post above is http://podblack.com/?p=431 Podblack Cat is now at http://podblack.com/

The Reproduction of Sexism

thusspakezuska — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 09:22:55 +0000

The Reproduction of Sexism

For a long time now, I have not been what you would call a believer in progress. That is, I do not think things are bound to improve in the gender equity arena. I think we are in the middle of a backlash (more on that later); women's enrollment in undergraduate engineering has stalled or declined; it isn't just a matter of waiting for the old fogies to die off and be replaced with young men who won't be sexist asshats. Since sexism is structural and institutionalized, it is perfectly capable of replicating itself unless it is actively fought and dismantled.

And if you don't believe me, read this post from Female Science Professor. (Hat tip to PhysioProf.)

My colleague sighed and said that now some of the younger generation do the same thing. He sits in hiring committees and hears young male faculty question whether female applicants are capable of having their own ideas and working independently, but these issues are not raised for male applicants. He has been fighting this attitude for so long, he was discouraged that it wasn't something that went away as younger faculty were hired.

We can't afford to just sit around and hope that someday all the sexists will be dead. They're busy reproducing themselves. When they prefer hiring "people just like me", it's not just because they're white and male. It's because they share - or will tolerate - egregious sexism.

thusspakezuska Wed, 04/30/2008 - 05:22

Tags

Stereotypes We Know And Love

Sex Discrimination

Why Aren't You Reading This?

Or, of couse, it could be that since men and women are different, they may not have an equal interest in pursuing engineering as a career. Thus, to expect an equality between the number of men and women pursuing engineering as a career is a fool's errand.

When women are interested in pursuing a field as a career, women seem to have no problem bursting through such resistence. (Witness, for example, the skyrocketing of female enrollment in law schools.)

This is not to say that sexism doesn't exist or that it is justified, but merely to note that preserving the freedom of one woman to choose engineering presupposes preserving the freedom of the vast majority to NOT choose engineering.

Yeah, that's the ticket! Teh bitchez don't want to do hard stuff like science and engineering! They really like stuff like cooking and cleaning and looking all pretty!

Unfotunately, sexism is such an overriding factor that to discount it is pretty much laughable. Why is engineering unique or different compared to any other field that has traditionally been claimed as a "Man's Job" in the past?

In my own field, Animation, sexism is prevalent, but thankfully getting better. I too, heard the old argument that the creative spark for animation is primarily a male phoenomena: If women want to create, they have children.

Culturally though, the prevalence of sexism is much more obvious. The roots of the industry started before WW2, when most jobs were considered the domain of men. Most of the cartoons we consider as the "Golden Age" of animation (MGM, Disney and Warner Brothers cartoon shorts) reflected and perpetuated the prevailing stereotypes of the 40's and 50's: both sexist and racist. So not only was the industry male-dominated, but the animation that inspired new recruits into the industry appealed more to males that were insulated from the stereotypes they contained.

It's not until my generation that there have been inspirational cartoons that have appealed to increasing numbers of women; and encouraged their entrance into the field. The industry is still male-dominated, especially at the executive stage that controls the money to new projects. But even in the 10 years since I graduated, I've seen many more women entering the industry. Many of them are simply incredible; all of them every bit the equal to men. Yet, when it comes to the top-level creative jobs, it's still a struggle to break through.

"Unfotunately, sexism is such an overriding factor that to discount it is pretty much laughable."

I'm not discounting sexism, especially in advancement once in the field. I'm simply saying that it is fooling to expect female engineering enrollment to be equal to men's enrollment, if engineering is a field which is, statistically speaking, more attractive to men than to women. It would be foolish to simply ignore the probability that a large part in that difference has nothing to do with sexism, but has to do with statistically average preferences.

"Why is engineering unique or different compared to any other field that has traditionally been claimed as a 'Man's Job' in the past?"

I don't know. I know, however, that in other areas that were traditionally seen in the past as "men's jobs", such as lawyering and doctoring, where that enrollment disparity simply doesn't exist.

Sexism is everywhere. Take a look at this study of what happened when orchestra auditions were blinded:
http://www.irs.princeton.edu/pubs/pdfs/376.pdf

Study after study, in field after field, all with the same depressing conclusion...

Pat O' Hurley is totally right. Lots of women don't want to be engineers. But, why?

I grew up on a farm and helped my parents drive tractors and lay out pipe and all that good farm stuff that just needs bodies to do simple tasks. But, when it came time to weld or fix something or change the oil, my father asked my younger brother to help and "learn something." Later, when I abandoned biology for mechanical engineering, my dad was astonished. "But, you don't like machines!" he protested. When I asked him to teach me to weld, he said, "Why the hell do you want to learn how to weld?" When my brother wanted to buy a motorcycle, the prerequisite was that he get an old scooter running from scrap.

My father is not "sexist" and he knows and exclaims that I the smartest person he knows. He just never thought that I would be interested in greasy mechanics. He didn't think he should force mechanical knowledge on me, but he did think my little brother needed it. In the end, my little brother is studying to be a history teacher and I am building an enormous test facility at graduate school. But, other children internalize their parents' ideas more than we did.

The fact is that our society already has certain expectations of boys and girls and people of all sub-sects. They are not ALWAYS malicious; they are often just inherent misunderstandings. The answer to this problem is to start very young and expose girls and boys to non-traditional ideas before the traditionalism takes hold. So, instead of fighting with the idiot boys my age (23) who already have these stupid ideas, we need to start reaching out to the very young kids all across the nation. That is where real progress will take hold.

P.S. I am a counselor at two youth engineering camps this summer, just so you all know I practice what I preach.

P.S.S. My dad is an avid recycler now because I came home and scolded him when I learned about recycling in 2nd grade. Kids do have a real impact on their parents!

I'm bemused as why Pat thinks women might be less interested in engineering than men. But then I'm a woman and did not become an engineer. The reasons are connected to sexism in an obscure way. My relationship with the education system crashed in flames when I was about 14. After what seemed like at least 6 years of waiting to be taught something, I gave up and pretty much dropped out. In other words, I was pretty bright, self-taught in science to beyond the classroom level, and probably ideal engineer material.

The thing is, my parents let me drop out partly because they figured (and said) that as a girl my career wasn't so important, it didn't really matter what I did, etc. My brother didn't get away with it, and didn't try too hard, probably because he had been brought up knowing that his career did matter.

"Sexism is everywhere."

I'm not saying it's not. But even conceding that point, it does not mean, therefore, that the difference in the number of men and number of women who are interested in pursuing a career in engineering is caused by that sexism.

Think about it this way: if the best that you could hope for, even if you were able to eliminate sexism and every other compulsion completely, is a 70:30 enrollment ratio between men and women in engineering (I'm picking the number out of the air), then it is ridiculous to work towards a 50:50 ratio.

And since, even with this ubiquitous sexism, the fact that enrollment rates in areas such as the law or medicine do approach or exceed that 50:50 ratio, one must acknowledge (or at the very least consider) that the failure of enrollment rates in engineering to meet that goal of equal numbers may simply be due to a difference in the attraction of the work to men as compared to women.

Which is really my only point.

Please see this post for my response to Pat.

FSM, it's like Pat didn't even read the post he was replying to.

Pat? Hello? The post contained a quote describing male academics sitting around and questioning the credentials of women in ways they never questioned the credentials of other men? And yet you start spouting ridiculous things about women not wanting to be engineers.

Way to miss the point and change the subject, sport. Now go get me a beer.

Sexism is so prevalent in the making of animation that it infiltrates the films without causing comment. Why do so many animated features celebrate that closest of human bonds, between a boy and his FATHER, relegating the mother to a peripheral or conveniently dead role? ( UP was a particularly offensive use of the device, since an unrelated father-figure was portrayed as more worthy of sharing in a child's achievement than the child's own mother.)
It's no wonder that sexism persists when films show such bred-in-the-bone discrimination. As go the cartoons, so go the (women's) careers.

Gender Bias in Particle Physics: A Statistical Analysis

thusspakezuska — Thu, 17 Apr 2008 17:23:27 +0000

Gender Bias in Particle Physics: A Statistical Analysis

UPDATE: After posting this entry, I found out that the paper I discussed here is not actually slated at this time to be published in a peer-reviewed journal; it is merely available as a preprint. Nevertheless, I hear that the folks at Nature have picked up on this and have interviewed the author; we may see something next week there about it.

Remember that famous line about how women need to be twice as good as men to be considered half as good? A new statistical study by Sherry Towers available on ArXiv.org shows just how true this is in the world of particle physics.

Here's the scoop:

...the females in our cohort had to be on average 3 times more productive than their male peers in order to be awarded a conference presentation...if conference presentations were allocated by the administration of the experiment in a gender-blind fashion, we would expect that around 50% more of the females in our cohort would have moved on to faculty positions. The gender-biased allocation of conference presentations...appears to be an effective gate-keeping mechanism that chooses which females can move on to faculty positions and which cannot.

Towers presents a statistical analysis very similar to that of Wenneras and Wold
in their landmark paper in Science. (Wenneras and Wold, 1997, "Nepotism and Sexism in
Peer Review" Nature vol 337 pp 341) Wenneras and Wold, you'll remember, found that females had to be 2.5 times more productive than males to receive a postdoctoral fellowship.

In particle physics experiments, conference presentations are a chance for postdocs to make themselves known to potential future employers. It's a way to stand out in a world where publications can have as many as 700 coauthors. But you have to have permission from the experiment administrators to give a conference presentation, and this is where the bias enters in. Towers looked at productivity defined as number of internal papers (physics analysis papers and service papers) produced by a postdoc and found that the ratio of conference presentations to internal physics papers for females was about half that of males.

The analysis is more complicated than the brief description I've given here, but the paper reads very clearly and is easy to follow.

Disclosure: Towers thanks me at the end of the paper for "insightful discussions". I don't really know that I was more than a sounding board for her as she worked on this paper, so that was very kind of her.

I have also blogged previously (on the earlier version of this blog) about Towers' personal experiences at Fermilab, in response to a Chronicle of Higher Education article about her. (subscription needed for the Chronicle piece.)

thusspakezuska Thu, 04/17/2008 - 13:23

Tags