The Male Boob Gaze

The Sexy Hawt Bodies discussion is back, and Zuska is in full iconic form, hypocrisies included. Well, maybe hypocrisy is too strong a word. Let’s just say bending the truth when not really necessary to make her point, and shutting out allies and reasonable voices by being, well, sexist.

Zuska: I puke on your shoes.

You imply (not very subtly) that I said: “It’s nature, baby – you can’t fight it!”

You lie.

Why do you need to lie when you have otherwise perfectly good arguments to make? *

Those of you who have commented may wish to go and see if you are on her suck up list or her enemy list.

Comments

  1. #1 PhysioProf
    September 10, 2008

    Laden, you are such an incoherent gibberer, no one ever has a single fucking clue what the fuck you are ever talking about. Your incomprehensible writing sucks shit, people struggle to glean some kind of point from it, and then you moan and groan about how no one understands you.

    Here’s a clue my friend: When no one ever understands what you are trying to say, maybe the problem is with you, not the entire rest of the world.

  2. #2 meh
    September 10, 2008

    Defensive much? Hahahaha. You’re almost getting euphemistic for ‘hysterical’ there. “shutting out allies and reasonable voices” OHHH THE HUMANITY!!

  3. #3 Greg Laden
    September 10, 2008

    Yea, well …… why don’t YOU try being a BLOGGER. With all these other …. BLOGGERS around. It is not as easy as it looks, you know!!!!

    Oh, and you have not see hysterical until you’ve seen the PhysioFuck/DripMonkey Hydra jump on this bit of troll bait. No sir.

  4. #4 CRM-114
    September 10, 2008

    Men look, yes. So do women. And puppies and kitties and horsies do too.

    We’re mammals. Figure it out.

  5. #5 Dunc
    September 10, 2008

    Men look, yes. So do women. And puppies and kitties and horsies do too.

    I rather think the point of the original discussion was that (a) there’s quite a significant difference between looking and staring, ogling, or drooling, and (b) behaviour which might be acceptable in other contexts is not necessarily acceptable in a profesional context.

    Do you regularly find that women stare intently at your groin when you’re talking to them at work?

  6. #6 nj
    September 10, 2008

    Do you regularly find that women stare intently at your groin when you’re talking to them at work?

    Well, yes, but it probably has more to do with the fact that I paste a picture of Brad Pitt on it every morning.

    Oh, and for the clueless…[/joke]

  7. #7 Becca
    September 10, 2008

    OMG UR SO OPPRESSED BY TEH OTHAR BLOGGERZA!!!11
    Seriously though… you should write a killer post about the perils of the Naturalistic Fallacy and how it acts as an obstacle to scientific progress.
    I’ve tried this strategy before, but I’m going to keep responding to your slightly-annoying posts and nudging you in a direction where I know you must have interesting stuff to say.
    Face it. You lack FeministStreetCred(tm). That’s ok- not everyone is gifted for shoe-puking.

  8. #8 Zuska
    September 10, 2008

    Greg, it must be horribly difficult to have your words quoted back to you and not have people believe you when you say “I know what I said, but that’s not what I meant! What I really meant was the opposite of what I said!”

    Just FYI, d00d, you don’t know the first thing about shoe puking. It’s not for amateurs like you.

  9. #9 Ghost of Minnesota
    September 10, 2008

    I agree with Zuska. Breast-looking in the workplace is inappropriate, unless you work at a strip club.

    I’m a heterosexual male, and while I’m not capable of changing the fact that I enjoy looking at breasts, I am capable of controlling myself. There’s a proper place and time for looking at breasts, and the workplace isn’t it. There’s also a proper way to look at breasts, and staring/leering isn’t it.

    Apparently I’m reasonably good at not crossing that line, as I’ve never gotten the impression that women find me creepy.

  10. #10 Stephanie Z
    September 10, 2008

    PP, if the comment Zuska linked to is so incomprehensible, why has it been in the quote rotator at DrugMonkey? Is that just where you put pieces of prose that “no one ever understands”?

  11. #11 PhysioProf
    September 10, 2008

    Stephanie, you’re a fucking blogger. See if you can figure it out.

  12. #12 Stephanie Z
    September 10, 2008

    PP, I’m not fucking just at the moment, but I get your point.

    Actually, I’d originally assumed that the quote was there because you understood and agreed with it and because you were grown up enough to recognize a good point even when it comes from someone you’ve disagreed with in the past. With your suggestion in this context that Greg is incomprehensible, however, that interpretation is called into question. Rather than jump on a less-flattering interpretation (sucking up to Greg for links, putting up a quote you didn’t understand, agreeing that it’s a good quote but missing no opportunity to take a shot anyway), I thought I’d ask what your point was.

    Since it wasn’t clear.

  13. #13 Greg Laden
    September 10, 2008

    Becca: You are absolutely correct about the naturalistic fallacy issue. I have written about that, but not nearly as much as I want to or should, and I very much appreciate the encouragement. If you don’t see something soon(ish) feel free to berate me.

    Regarding femcred, don’t worry, I’ve got all I need. I don’t count the peanut gallery that is Zuska, Mutt and Jeff (or is it good cop/bad cop?) as particularly interesting or important, though the commenters on those sites often have a lot of interesting stuff to say.

    Oh, the knee-jerkness of it all! We actually have Zuska claiming that males are not inherently evil. Just because I said so. Wow. That is not a team I wish I was on!

    BOO!

    Stephanie: Don’t be so mean to Physioprof, you might break him. He is very very delicate, and if you confuse him he starts to emit smelly odors. Ick. (Or is that drugmonkey … I always get them confused.)

  14. #14 k applegate
    September 10, 2008

    Laden, you are such an incoherent gibberer, no one ever has a single fucking clue what the fuck you are ever talking about.

    I think this is the third or forth time that this commentator has said, in essence “why would any one ever read this blog” but also been the first person to comment. Does he like to be confused?

  15. #15 Brad Pitt
    September 10, 2008

    Well, yes, but it probably has more to do with the fact that I paste a picture of Brad Pitt on it every morning.

    My lawyers are contacting you as we speak.

  16. #16 ali
    September 10, 2008

    “We’re mammals. Figure it out.”

    But that is the point made here and elsewhere. We are mammals but sentient ones with the option of not being territorial violent beings all the time.

  17. #17 Andrew
    September 10, 2008

    Zuska: I puke on your shoes.

    Bravo!

  18. #18 sjl
    September 10, 2008

    “why has it been in the quote rotator at DrugMonkey?”

    Will this be Drug Monkey and PP’s first fight?

  19. #19 duckman
    September 10, 2008

    How disappointing. I come to a page that I expect to be about manboobs and all I get are boobs.

  20. #20 Stephanie Z
    September 10, 2008

    K, sometimes PP is kidding about the confusing part, but if you don’t read much of his stuff, it can be a bit difficult to tell when he’s going OTT for humor value, as opposed to just going OTT. Hint: if he stops swearing, he’s not serious, but that doesn’t mean that he’s always serious when he’s swearing. If you catch him when he’s not swearing, he’s actually as funny as he claims to be.

    Greg, I think he can take it. As much as he dishes it out, if he couldn’t, he’d be permanently fetal by now.

  21. #21 Tim
    September 10, 2008

    “How disappointing. I come to a page that I expect to be about manboobs and all I get are boobs.”

    well, at least you did not get boob-men

  22. #22 cat lady
    September 10, 2008

    I rather think the point of the original discussion was that (a) there’s quite a significant difference between looking and staring, ogling, or drooling, and (b) behaviour which might be acceptable in other contexts is not necessarily acceptable in a profesional context.

    Men and women both look. Men look longer, and men look twice, three times. Men do not mind as much getting “caught” looking. Women do not want it known that they look. Women are able to take in the view with a very quick glance and not look again. This is why when a woman does look twice a man will tend to over estimate the significance of the “double take.” Has any one noticed this?

  23. #23 Greg Laden
    September 10, 2008

    Despite the rabid (and annoyingly unoriginal repetitive) protestations of one of my colleagues, my statement regarding the relationship between human behavior and society was very clear and could only have been misinterpreted intentionally (by Zuska). I consider that the lowest form of offensive blogging and that is why I have puked on her shoes though somehow, she seems unable to understand or accept that. Oh well. Not a big surprise there.

    I don’t really like “calling out” other bloggers … but I have been over the last several weeks/couple of months particularly annoyed at what I think of as rather self-centered pseudo-political jockeying by a handful of bloggers, Zuska, PP and DM included, and I don’t mind if some very public, very real, very large distance forms between me and them. Some see all sciencebloggers as part of a club, a borg, whatever. Nothing could be farther from the truth.

    I hope no one mistakes the back and forth, for example, between Physiprof and me as a bit of a Cosell/Ali act, where we chide each other but really, down deep, get along, have mutual respect, whatever whatever. No. That is not the case at all!

    But aside from all of that, I do want to reiterate what I have said most recently in the original posting that started this discussion: Boob staring or anything like that is an act of communication. You can say “hello” to someone, you can turn your head away hautily when someone speaks, you can tell someone to go fuck themselves, you can stare at someone’s body, you can give someone a hug, you can ask someone a question, you can punch someone in the nose.

    Whatever you do, though, may cause a reaction. The reaction will depend on what you have communicated, and your relationship with those around you will be shaped by those events. Men who stare slack jawed at boobs do not understand this. Bloggers who do what Zuska or PP (for example) do also do not understand this. When I see unsocializable bloggers like Zuska and Physioprof screaming at arbitrary men for staring at boobs, I think ….

    … right… boobs.

  24. #24 Mrs. Physioprof
    September 10, 2008

    “Greg, I think he can take it. As much as he dishes it out, if he couldn’t, he’d be permanently fetal by now.”

    That could explain …

    … oh, never mind.

  25. #25 PhysioProf
    September 10, 2008

    my statement regarding the relationship between human behavior and society was very clear and could only have been misinterpreted intentionally

    Of course you think that! The evidence for whether it is true is available to you in the fact that whenever you lurch into this particular area of discourse, you always end up accusing various people of “misunderstanding” or “misrepresenting” what you are trying to say. As I said before, if you want to figure out why all this “misunderstanding” and “misrepresentation” keeps occurring, look in the fucking mirror.

  26. #26 Andrew
    September 10, 2008

    Of course you think that! … look in the fucking mirror.

    PhysioProf, a question: Is there anyone on the entire internet as repetitive and unimaginative as you? Honestly?

  27. #27 Gary Bohn
    September 10, 2008

    Funny thing PhysioProf, I had no trouble at all understanding Laden’s comment despite the fact I am not the smartest lad at the ball. What did allow me to understand it the amount of time I spend reading and trying to understand the links between our evolutionary development and the development of society.

    Perhaps your difficulties in understanding a simple paragraph is because you come at it from the position of insufficient knowledge and perhaps a bias against the author.

  28. #28 Stephanie Z
    September 10, 2008

    PP, does this mean I don’t get an answer?

    Also, please consider that everyone in that thread was misunderstood at least once. There were three different topics being discussed at the same time, but most people thought there was only one. Confusion was bound to happen. You might be better served by waiting for another opportunity to try to make your case.

  29. #29 Becca
    September 10, 2008

    Stephanie Z- if you really want to know why that line got put in the quote rotator, I suspect it’s because DM agreed with it (in general).
    The fact that PP disagreed with it (or at least, what he thought it meant in the context of Zuska’s discussion) is not necessarily relevant.
    That said, the quote rotator may truly be a repository for prose “no one understands”- don’t those lines seem a little random? Actually, I think it functions as a way of manipulating people into feeling they are part of DM’s personal “sprawling, continuous scientists’ party” (complete with injokes). Or possibly those quotes are just things that struck DM as particularly valuable for one reason or another (point of interest- the source code calls them “moneyquotes”).

    Dr. Laden-
    1) Huzzah re: Naturallistic Fallacy (seriously!)
    2) (somewhat seriously) You can be honest. Were your feelings hurt because you felt left out of the psudeo-political jockeying? Or that Zuska thought so poorly of you she didn’t interpert your statement in the Obviously Harmless way it was Clearly Intended?

  30. #30 Joel
    September 10, 2008

    Is there anyone on the entire internet as repetitive and unimaginative as you?

    I don’t know about PP, but I probably rank right up there. But there are a lot of contenders. :)

  31. #31 Stephanie Z
    September 10, 2008

    Becca, I agree that there are plenty of reasons it could have gone into the “moneyquotes” (great name!). I really do want to know which one(s) it was. I wasn’t about to let that stop me from making a point about uncharitable interpretations, of course, but that’s me.

    It’s also possible PP has already answered. I know Greg has been trying to take him out of moderation since, oh, about two minutes after he put him in, but there’s a glitch in the software that won’t let him. So PP may just be stuck until Greg’s done campaigning or whatever. Then I’ll look silly for asking. :)

  32. #32 Greg Laden
    September 10, 2008

    Becca: Yes, I’ll do it.

    Regarding Zuska, well, you asked me to be honest so I have to be honest.

    I knew Zuska would misuse my words because I know that she dislikes me intensely. In other contexts, she has been much much more forthcoming about this than what you see in public, where she is relatively coy.

    (I’m LMAO right now. hold on a sec …..

    ……OK, hold on,…. ok… I need a kleenex and a drink of water…. OK .. I’m in control again…Hmmph. coy ……. )

    Where was I. Right. Yes, she’ll claim otherwise, because that is what she does (picks certain people or positions and claims otherwise) but this is true. I don’t think she cares about any of this (me included), don’t get me wrong. But she has made it very clear that she has the lowest possible opinion of me.

    The simple truth of it is this: Some time ago, I identified Zuska’s gig for what it was, and ever since then I’ve been waiting for her to puke on my shoes. I expected this because she has bullied a number of science bloggers that she did not like. Many of the science bloggers have felt the requirement of being either with her or agin’ her as that is how she defines the world that she lives in, and those with feminist tendencies AND weak spirits can only be ‘with’ her (witness: PP and DM). If you are not in the Zuska club than you are not politically OK.

    I am personally both amused and disgusted with this display, I think it is absurd. And they are absurd.

    But still, I wanted Zuska to puke on my shoes. I wanted it because I wanted that certification. Not certification of any particular thing she may accuse me of (that is of no consequence). I just wanted her to puke on my shoes much like a person burns a flag at a demonstration against a war wants jingoists to get mad at him/her. I even made a graphic that says “Zuska puked on my shoes” to use as a web badge for when she did this. But she never did. Zuska has never puked on my shoes. I can’t tell you how disappointed I am about that.

    Don’t tell her this. If she knows this, she’ll never puke on my shoes.

    (Now, you must understand, that while the above is entirely true and accurate, the totality of thought and effort involved in these considerations …. including throwing together the “Zuska Puked on my Shoes Web Badge” … amounts to about 11 minutes of my time. Roughly similar to flossing my teeth twice.)

    Joel: You are never repetitive. Again and again you are not repetitive.

    Stephanie: Nope, nobody in the dungeon. But I’m sure he’s reading every word of this because he can’t take his eyes off my blog.

  33. #33 Onkel Bob
    September 11, 2008

    Wouldn’t it be wonderful if the fateful million comment was someone puking on the shoes of someone else?

    Out of curiosity, is there a geographic correlation between the posters and commentators who break out the “F” word and otherwise use a hostile tone? 3:1 PP and DM work somewhere between Boston and Philadelphia. While I break out the Foxtrot Oscar Alpha Delta on occasion myself, it’s usually to end the conversation and to indicate to the second party that further communication is unwelcome.

  34. #34 Brian X
    September 11, 2008

    And I thought the Brayton-Myers and Nisbet v. everyone spats were ugly…

  35. #35 Colugo
    September 11, 2008

    Maybe this is a better to state what you were getting at:

    On an x-y graph with x as socioecological environment (many factors collapsed into a single dimension) and y is degree of assholishness, the modal human male reaction norm (leering, blustering, etc.) is shifted upwards relative the modal female reaction norm. (Yes, largely due to the organizational and activational effects of testosterone.)

    Even within the same societies males and females sometimes occupy different microenvironments (e.g. gender-specific socialization) and it is possible in principle to adjust male environment to reduce male expression of assholishness to low levels, even levels equivalent to that of females.

  36. #36 PhysioProf
    September 11, 2008

    Greg, your last near-illiterate comment in this thread is a perfect example of the problem with your writing. Can’t you just make a point using simple direct English sentences, instead of writing in your typical bizarre, allusive, discursive mode that no one can understand?

    Now, you must understand, that while the above is entirely true and accurate, the totality of thought and effort involved in these considerations …. including throwing together the “Zuska Puked on my Shoes Web Badge”, amounts to about 11 minutes of my time.

    Instead of being proud of this, why don’t you slow the fuck down and try to write decently? And for fuck’s sake, man, you have a Ph.D. from Harvard and you don’t know how to use a motherfucking ellipsis properly?

  37. #37 Greg Laden
    September 11, 2008

    Colugo: The study you describe is known as the “Six Culture Study” … a series of reports and papers by John and Bea Whiting.

  38. #38 Stephanie Z
    September 11, 2008

    PP, are you seriously turning into a grammar concern troll, or is this parody?

  39. #39 PhysioProf
    September 11, 2008

    I’m turning into a “writing so that people have a clue what the fuck you are talking about” concern troll.

    Despite the fact that when Laden gets agitated, he accuses everyone around him of acting in bad faith, I actually don’t doubt his good intentions. The problem is that his writing is so shitty, that no one knows what the fuck he is talking about, and thus readers frequently are led to interpretations that he then assures them after the fact are wrong.

    Hey Greg, instead of posting a bajillion times per day, how about actually taking a little more care with fewer posts? Maybe then you won’t repeatedly get into these arguments over what the fuck you meant.

  40. #40 Greg Laden
    September 11, 2008

    Stephanie: Honestly, I think Physiprof is addicted to being over the line. There is no way to know from the outside what his center is, and I’m not so sure he is always aware when in character.

    So many times I get the impression by looking really close that this is a person I’d like to meet and get to know. But then the opportunity arises and I think, “no, not now, the guy’s probably a chimp.”

  41. #41 Stephanie Z
    September 11, 2008

    PP, I have seen several people misinterpret Greg, although not nearly as many as you suggest. A large majority of them have either previously decided he’s an ass or have been linked to his writing by someone who previously decided he’s an ass and said so in the link. Neither of these situations suggest the problem lies with Greg’s writing. Nor do they suggest that he could solve anything by writing differently.

    Greg, I know. It’s weird. I’d totally let him cook me dinner, but if the subject of you came up, I’d probably have to throw it at him. That would be a waste, too (seen the recipe war?).

  42. #42 Greg Laden
    September 11, 2008

    I have not seen the recipe war. Does he cook? That is a redeeming quality.

  43. #43 Stephanie Z
    September 11, 2008

    It’s him and Isis. Must see.

  44. #44 Greg Laden
    September 11, 2008

    I have not seen the recipe war. Does he cook? That is a redeeming quality.

  45. #45 Colugo
    September 11, 2008

    As a former member of HBES, this blogwar is giving me nineties flashbacks.

    The good old days, when Richard Dawkins was (unfairly) reviled as a reactionary genetic determinist rather than lauded as a champion of atheism.

  46. #46 Becca
    September 11, 2008

    That makes a lot more sense. PP- you can rant till you’re blue in the face, but Dr. Laden isn’t going to clarify his writing. Dr. Laden is clearly a bright cookie. He was looking for a fight (or at leat a shoe-puking) and he got it (sort of). Therefore, his ambiguous writing must have been ambiguous on purpose.
    So Dr. Laden went over to Zuskas to leave two messages- one explicit that expressed a perfectly reasonable (albeit depressing) worldview, and one implict that said “I want a fight”.
    (It’s possible interpersonal communication between Dr. Laden and Zuska has deteriorated to a point where anything he said would have had a subtext of “I want a fight”)
    And Zuska obliged, and lumped him in with the nitwits.

    So Dr. Laden, my question for you is this… why bother? Is the fight fun for you? Are you trying to bring attention to Zuska’s aggression so you can be seen as the victim? What would that get you?

    As a tangential point, I think you can insult PP in many ways quite legitimately (and I will laugh if you can manage to be creative!). However “weak spirits” are not among his faults. I’m none too sure “feminist politics” are truly among his virtues, either (you should have seen the debate over his Feminist Street Cred @ feministe)… though of course it matters not what PP is, but what he seems to be to Zuska. I shall ask Zuska about that later.

  47. #47 Greg Laden
    September 11, 2008

    Becca, all excellent questions.

    My original comments way back in the old days (last week?) on Zuska’s post were because of my interest politically and academically in this issue. My more recent engagement has been because I want to express myself as distinct, to protect as I think is my right as a blogger my stance, or perception, in regards to issues that I think are important. It is not really fun. Reading your comments has been enjoyable, however, as usual.

    You may be right about PP, but I’m going to stick with the weak spirit idea for a while. It is vague enough to possibly work in this instance.

  48. #48 PhysioProf
    September 11, 2008

    Therefore, his ambiguous writing must have been ambiguous on purpose.

    No, Laden is just a careless shitty writer. The evidence for this is that the more agitated he gets, the shittier and more incomprehensible his writing gets.

  49. #49 Sven DIMilo
    September 11, 2008

    What I’m wondering? How does the so-called PhysioProf feel about Laden’s writing?

  50. #50 Andrew
    September 11, 2008

    I don’t think that comment was written by the real physiprof.

  51. #51 SvenDiMilo
    September 12, 2008

    sure smells like him to me!