Nature’s sexism

The magazine, that is, not the natural world. They’ve published a good editorial today in which they acknowledge inequalities in their editorial staff (14% of their editors are women, 6% of the researcher profiles they did in 2012 were about women).

Unfortunately, they do make a few excuses.

One can speculate that there also may be a tendency for women to be less willing than men to push themselves forward, which may lead to editors being less aware of them. But it is certainly the case that women typically spend more time than men as homemakers and looking after children, further reducing the time available for journal contributions

One could say there is also a tendency for men to shout down women, and to assume that they’ll be the ones taking care of the babies. These are all self-perpetuating stereotypes, you know, and the first step in breaking them involves consciously rejecting them.

But the editorial goes beyond that to recommend steps to break unconscious biases.

However, we do not believe that these considerations can fully account for, or excuse, the imbalance in Nature’s pages. Nor do we believe that our own editors consciously discriminate against women.

That leaves the unconscious factors, and here we believe that there is work to do. We believe that in commissioning articles or in thinking about who is doing interesting or relevant work, for all of the social factors already mentioned, and possibly for psychological reasons too, men most readily come to editorial minds. The September paper speculated about an unconscious assumption that women are less competent than men. A moment’s reflection about past and present female colleagues should lead most researchers to correct any such assumption.

We therefore believe that there is a need for every editor to work through a conscious loop before proceeding with commissioning: to ask themselves, “Who are the five women I could ask?”

Under no circumstances will this ‘gender loop’ involve a requirement to fulfill a quota or to select anyone whom we do not know to be fully appropriate for the job, although we will set ourselves internal targets to help us to focus on the task. It is not yet clear just what difference this workflow loop will make. But it seems to us to be a step towards appropriately reflecting in our pages the contributions of women to science.

This is the same step many of us asked meeting organizers to take in the atheist community, to simply start being aware of the gender balance in their speaker rosters and to think about bringing good and interesting women to the fore…which was no problem for anyone and has resulted in great progress. Honestly, I believe that most people want to be fair and can respect people of all sexes, but it takes work to overcome deeply ingrained cultural assumptions.

Only manly men are permitted in the American Taliban

It’s a sad story: the Niagara Falls Reporter was one of those urban weeklies that have been popping up all over the place in the last few decades. A good paper, apparently, with a lot of popularity…and then it was sold to a new publisher, a guy who dreamed of being Rupert Murdoch, perhaps, and it began to go downhill into teabaggery and censorship of the more liberal columnists. A movie reviewer, Michael Calleri, found his submitted reviews disappearing, strangely, so he asked why. The publisher wrote back and explained. It’s a long post with a long letter, but do not be daunted: it’s horrifying. The publisher did not like him reviewing movies with strong female characters.

I don’t want to publish reviews of films where women are alpha and men are beta.

where women are heroes and villains and men are just lesser versions or shadows of females.

i believe in manliness.

…

with all the publications in the world who glorify what i find offensive, it should not be hard for you to publish your reviews with any number of these.

they seem to like critiques from an artistic standpoint without a word about the moral turpitude seeping into the consciousness of young people who go to watch such things as snow white and get indoctrinated to the hollywood agenda of glorifying degenerate power women and promoting as natural the weakling, hyena -like men, cum eunuchs.

the male as lesser in courage strength and power than the female.

it may be ok for some but it is not my kind of manliness.

That’s just a short excerpt, and there’s much more. That guy really does not like women, except the meek and mild ones, and he hates movies that feature strong women so much that he doesn’t even want to know they exist.

He doesn’t even notice that in most movies, women “are just lesser versions or shadows of” men. I guess all we need to see in the future are more remakes of The Expendables (which so far I consider the very worst big budget movie of the decade.)

It also reflects something insidious. You can be a world-class idiot and regressive asshole and be filthy rich; there are economic niches, like, say, running a casino or a coal mine, where you can actually thrive with those characteristics, or even better, you can just inherit the wealth. And then what you can do is take over media and poison the intellectual environment.

The teabaggers know this. Christians know this. Look around you and you see it everywhere: there are so many lower level opportunities that can be snapped up and used to shape the culture: you don’t have to run for president or be rich enough to own Fox News. Run for school board, edit the local paper or entertainment weekly, charge into your regional political caucus and twist the agenda of your county. Conservatives are great at doing that, and if they don’t succeed in building something up, they’ll at least have destroyed a public school system or newspaper.

Look around your community. Stark raving lunatics can get positions of influence at the local level. And before you know it, conspiracy theorists and kooks are taking over your state, and instructing legislators on the finer points of madness:

Keep this in mind. We managed to get a conservative Democrat elected to the presidency. He’s going to be crippled because he has to work with a hierarchy of wingnuts.

Somebody needs to have a little talk with the Nerd Council

Again, one of the nerds — who I’ve always considered my people — babbles away and reveals an unimaginable depth of cluelessness and privilege. Some comic book artist named Tony Harris was on a tear.

I cant remember if Ive [Note: strong dislike of apostrophes] said this before, but Im gonna say it anyway. I dont give a crap. [No? Then why the tirade?] I appreciate a pretty Gal [Weird capitalization, too. And “Gal”? Really?] as much as the next Hetero Male. Sometimes I even go in for some racy type stuff [Ooh! Daring!] ( keeping the comments PG for my Ladies sake [Because, as we all know, Ladies can’t cope with R] ) but dammit, dammit, dammit I am so sick and tired of the whole COSPLAY-Chiks [Then don’t be one, Tony!] . I know a few who are actually pretty cool-and BIG Shocker, love and read Comics.So as in all things, they are the exception to the rule. Heres the statement I wanna make, based on THE RULE: “Hey! Quasi-Pretty-NOT-Hot-Girl [I’m a scientist, give me numbers. So not 10, but say, 7? 6? What? Do you rate the attractiveness of all the girls you meet on some objective scale?], you are more pathetic than the REAL Nerds, who YOU secretly think are REALLY PATHETIC. [This is a contest: who has the lowest opinion of the other?] But we are onto you. Some of us are aware that you are ever so average [On average, we all are] on an everyday basis. But you have a couple of things going your way. You are willing to become almost completely Naked in public [SLUT!], and yer either skinny [We are going to judge you by your dimensions] ( Well, some or most of you, THINK you are [FATSO!] ) or you have Big Boobies [(.)(.)]. Notice I didnt say GREAT Boobies? [Actually, no] You are what I refer to as “CON-HOT” [Because, face it, my fans at conventions are all really ugly people]. Well not by my estimation [Tony Harris has a special term for an estimation he never uses?], but according to a LOT of average [And Tony Harris is, if anything, not average] Comic Book Fans who either RARELY speak to, or NEVER speak to girls [So far, he’s done a fine job of insulting everyone who attends comic book conventions. He’s going to be popular on the circuit now!]. Some Virgins [The only thing worse than a Virgin is a Slut.], ALL unconfident when it comes to girls, and the ONE thing they all have in common? The are being preyed on by YOU [Because the first thing a predator will do is expose herself to scorn and judgment]. You have this really awful need for attention [How awful that humans might need affirmations from others], for people to tell you your pretty, or Hot, and the thought of guys pleasuring themselves to the memory of you hanging on them with your glossy open lips [I know this is weird, but really, most women don’t find the idea of men going off and masturbating over thoughts of their lips to be particularly attractive], promising them the Moon and the Stars of pleasure, just makes your head vibrate [Shaking their heads in disgust is not “vibrating”]. After many years of watching this shit go down every 3 seconds around or in front of my booth or table at ANY given Con in the country, I put this together [Years? To put this together? A bit slow and stupid, aren’t you, Tony?]. Well not just me. We are LEGION. [Oh, right. Legions of male comic book fans are sickened by fan service] And here it is, THE REASON WHY ALL THAT, sickens us: BECAUSE YOU DONT KNOW SH-T ABOUT COMICS, BEYOND WHATEVER GOOGLE IMAGE SEARCH YOU DID TO GET REF ON THE MOST MAINSTREAM CHARACTER WITH THE MOST REVEALING COSTUME EVER [I hate to break this news to you, Tony, since it may damage your self-esteem: but it doesn’t take years of Ph.D. level research and gargantuan efforts to figure out what comic book character you like, or what costume you find attractive. Oh, wait: for Tony this might be a major effort, given that it took him years to justify his rant]. And also, if ANY of these guys that you hang on tried to talk to you out of that Con? You wouldnt give them the f–king time of day.[Maybe not. Context matters. Woman in costume at a con: she would like her effort noticed. Woman walking to the bus to get to work: she has other things on her mind than being told how nice her clothes look, and would rather you didn’t harass her] Shut up you damned liar, no you would not. Lying, Liar Face. Yer not Comics. Your just the thing that all the Comic Book, AND mainstream press flock to at Cons. [What happened to the LEGION sickened by these tramps?] And the real reason for the Con, and the damned costumes yer parading around in? That would be Comic Book Artists, [Like Tony!] and Comic Book Writers who make all that sh-t up. [Actually, most of the people I’ve met at cons are there for the community.]

Shorter Tony Harris: “Hey, girl, you don’t know as much about comics as I do, and your breasts aren’t that great anyway.”

It gets tiring, doesn’t it? I’m not even a woman, and I just want to sigh in exasperation, flip this guy off, and never hear from him ever again. I do think he’s pathetic, but not because he has deep expertise in an esoteric field…but because he’s so lacking in confidence in himself that he finds himself infuriated by the mere existence of women who dare to intrude in any way into what he considers his domain. That’s just sad.

One of the things I’ve liked about the cons I’ve attended is the openness and acceptance — people are there with diverse and sometimes weird expertise, whether it’s skill at sewing and costuming or deep knowledge about otherwise utterly useless comic book lore, and everyone just enthusiastically shares (and sometimes, over-shares, but that’s OK). You don’t have to get angry if someone has a better sense of humor than you do, or knows more about Big Bang Theory, or can wear a costume with more brio, or completely rules in the video game competition — even the most obscure niche has a place. Poor Tony Harris can’t cope with the fact that even though he may have talent as an artist, his lips aren’t as glossy as some woman he considers insufficiently attractive for his standards. He’s sickened that they don’t know as much about comics as he does, and knowledge of comics is, of course, the standard by which we should all be judged.

Well, that and the size and shape of your breasts, if you’re a woman.

John Scalzi mocks this guy, and Foz Meadows rather thoroughly dismantles him. That was a pleasure to read; Harris’s petty rant, not so much.

I’m pretty sure, though, that Mr Harris has now been appointed to this Nerd Council:

Aaaaaieee! Why did you have to tell me that?

I lived in blissful ignorance, once upon a time. And then people told me about symphysiotomy, a medical procedure in which doctors sawed through the pubic symphysis to crack open the pelvis and open it wide…to make childbirth easier. From the comments at that link:

They viewed symphysiotomy (wrongly) as a gateway to childbearing without limitation, seeing Caesarean section – the norm for difficult births – as morally hazardous, capping family size and leading to sterilisation and contraception. Symphysiotomy was promoted as permanently widening the pelvis, enabling an unlimited number of vaginal deliveries, whereas four C-sections was widely regarded as the maximum for safety.

Thousands of Irish women had this done to them. Thanks, Catholic Church, for doing your part to increase pain and suffering all in the name of turning women into better baby-making machines.

Oh, joy…there’s a documentary on the subject. It’s grim.

If you feel like going back and watching that Camp Quest video instead, I don’t blame you.

Voting while brown

Ah, those Republican poll watchers: here’s one phoning in his report on the election.

People were orderly and polite, they were helpful to one another but not to the point of electioneering, but uh-oh, there sure were a lot of non-white people exercising their rights. Just the existence of brown people voting was grounds for suspicion.

It never seems to have crossed his mind that maybe at an open civic function in which all people have an interest, he might see a different group of people than he’d find on the golf course at his country club.

Exterminate!

Oh, man, let’s hear it for JohnTheOther, that wacky MRA. He’s posted another of his unctuous screeds, this time decrying all of feminism, even the liberal/progressive/humanist kind, because he associates them with his fantasy feminism.

When you pursue your noble goals under the banner of feminism, even when you prefix it, and say liberal feminism, or humanist feminism, or sex positive feminism, you are giving cover to those who openly call for the extermination of men.

And that’s why I don’t care what flavor of feminism you practice. You’re using the same brand name as murderous, eugenics enthusiast, destroy due process sexual apartheid gender ideologue elitists for whom violence isn’t just an unpleasant option. Violence, when contemplated against children, or men, especially when doled out by state functionaries is what gets them wet. That’s the big, funded, organized and politically established collective with which you identify by name.

Wait…there’s a big, funded, organized and politically established collective of feminists who have the goal of murdering men and carrying out violence against children? I know a lot of feminists, but none of them are particularly well-funded for that activity, and none of them are getting paid to exterminate men. I know there are a few extremists out there, but the liberal feminists, and humanist feminists, and sex positive feminists are more the mainstream. Much more the mainstream. And the primary feminist sources are not making excuses for man-murder.

But that’s the Manosphere for you — completely disconnected from reality.

Here, rinse that unpleasant taste out of your mouth with a video of one of those real aggressive, assertive feminists.

Think of it as God’s bloody practical joke

Wow. I had no idea that some Catholics would go so far as to prevent simple procedures to remove ectopic pregnancies. These are conditions in which the zygote implants in the wrong place — the fallopian tube, rather than the uterus. The embryo can grow for a while, but not long, before it reaches a size that ruptures the fallopian tube and causes the mother to bleed to death. The solution is easy: either surgically remove the doomed embryo before it can become deadly, or use a drug, methotrexate, that kills dividing cells to destroy it.

But no, that’s an abortion and some Catholic hospitals prohibit even procedures that would end an utterly futile pregnancy.

Yes, some Catholic ethicists argue that the catholic “Directives” preclude physicians at Catholic hospitals from managing ectopic pregnancies in a way that involves direct action on the embryo. So a woman can have her whole tube removed (an unnecessary procedure that could reduce her future fertility), but she can not have the pregnancy plucked out (as is done with the standard therapy, a salpingostomy, where a small incision is made in the tube and the pregnancy removed) and she most certainly could not have the methotrexate.

How common is this practice? Well, it is pretty sad that someone had to study it. According to a study from 2011 by Foster e. al., (Womens Health Issues, 2011) some Catholic hospitals refuse to offer methotrexate (three in this study of 16 hospitals). The lack of methotrexate resulted in changes in therapy, transferring patients to other facilities, and even administering it surreptitiously. All of these expose women to unnecessary risks, expense and are, quite frankly, wrong.

These patients who are turned away go, we hope, to less ideologically abusive hospitals, where they get treated. Imagine a country with nothing but Catholic hospitals, though: they’d be sending these women away to die.

I have no understanding at all of the logic that justifies a Catholic hospital refusing to remove a deadly embryo, but does allow them to chop out the whole organ bearing the deadly embryo, at a cost of reduced fertility. It seems somehow un-Catholic…but on the other hand, the fact that it requires twisted theological logic that ignores basic human needs makes it profoundly Catholic.