…and this is a 
One of the most cunning tools of the patriarchy is the assignment of woo as a feminine virtue. Women are supposed to be intuitive, nurturing, accepting, and trusting, unlike those harsh and suspicious men. It's a double-trap; women are brought up indoctrinated into believing that being smart and skeptical is unladylike and unattractive, and at the same time, anyone who dares to suggest that intuition and soothing, supportive words are often unproductive can be slammed for being anti-woman, because, obviously, to suggest that a human being might want to do more with their life than changing diapers and baking cookies is a direct assault on womanhood.
This naive imposition of unscientific modes of thought on women specifically leads to the state we have now. Assume a fundamental difference in attitude: women feel, while men think. Now declare an obvious truth: science requires rigorous thought. The conclusion follows that women will not be taking advantage of their strengths (that woo stuff) if they are trying to do science, therefore they will not be as good at science as men, and they will also be harming their femininity if they try to shoehorn their tender and passionate minds into the restrictive constraints of manly critical thinking.
I've seen that condescending attitude often enough; it was at its most vivid when I was working with surgeons in training, and if there were any women in a group, they would invariably be shunted off into some task like post-op animal care while the men would get the sharp scalpels and dental drills and do the hard work of cutting into the animal subjects. I once dared to ask the team I was assisting, after seeing that casually assumed division of labor, if maybe they should ask her what she wanted to do, and was told indignantly by the men that she would be so much better at taking care of sick cats, as if their concern was their inferiority at the nurturing part of the job. It's the academic version of the wheedle, "Honey, I couldn't possibly do housework as well as you do…", and it's just as phony.
Twisty Faster has the other side of this bias — it ends up portraying science as anti-woman, therefore women should embrace the woo.
The argument has been made that intuition is superior to science because it is somehow free of the oppressive misogynist entanglements that encumber its dude-dominated counterpart. A spin-off of this argument says that, because academia has traditionally given (and continues to give) women the stink-eyed bum's rush, science is antifeminist and, presumably, must be shunned in favor of this women-centric intuition dealio.
I have to say that I really like her two answers to this view.
Science, like everything else on the planet, is Dude Nation's minion, yes, but "intuition" doesn't exist in a magical patriarchy-free zone merely because it is associated with women's reality. In fact, it is because of patriarchy that women were assigned the supposedly unique and mystical power of hunchiness the first place.
Exactly. Woo is powerless; you want to make someone powerless, put them in charge of nothing, but give it a happy-sounding title. Women have been taken on a millennia-long snipe hunt. But, you know, it keeps them busy and out of the hair of the guys doing the real, important work.
Her reply to the argument that science is anti-feminist, is even better:
But the statement "science harms women" is not as accurate as is "the application, by misogynist knobs, of scientific method to systems of oppression harms women."
The answer seems clear to me. Women shouldn't be cornered into the realm of superstition because it is more touchy-feely, and they shouldn't be anti-science. What they need to do is take the toys out of the hands of the misogynist knobs.
Comments
Posted by: Shplane, some shit in french
|
June 3, 2010 5:31 PM
I am absolutely horrible at housework. I wouldn't say that it's because I'm a man, so much as because I'm lazy.
Posted by: circleh
|
June 3, 2010 5:37 PM
This is a highly commendable statement. May I link to it on my own blog?
http://circleh.wordpress.com/
Posted by: Algernon, elle sans chapeau
|
June 3, 2010 5:38 PM
Ugh. Yeah, science just hasn't dumbed itself down enough for me. Thanks.
Well, intuitively I think that's bullshit. And since I'm a woman I guess that makes me right!
Oh I almost wish Hyperon were here to quotemine that.
Posted by: Big Boppa
|
June 3, 2010 5:40 PM
I have just 2 words for anyone who says that a female scientist can't be feminine: Mae Jemison.
Posted by: Tabby Lavalamp
|
June 3, 2010 5:44 PM
There's another two words I would use, but then I'd be accused of not being "ladylike".
Posted by: Teshi
|
June 3, 2010 5:46 PM
I saw a list recently of top ten scientists whose inventions killed them. There were nine men and Marie Curie. Her description? Something along the lines of, "Her femininity got the better of her. She liked the pretty blue light of the radium and carried it everywhere in her pockets."
None of the men were described as having "masculine" traits kill them. No, it was just Marie Curie.
Posted by: Asclepias
|
June 3, 2010 5:46 PM
I was lucky enough to have biology professors in college and grad school who had no problem with women in science. One of my fellow graduate students, however, switched advisors because her advisor not only saw no reason for women to be in science, he saw no reason for women to be in graduate school. (He was from Russia, but I'm not sure how much that plays into the attitude.
And, let's see, I volunteered at a vet's office where the entire staff was comprised of women, including the vets, and while I was permitted to watch surgeries I did a lot of instrument cleaning and aftercare simply because I didn't have the expertise to go slicing things up. I know the attitude of "how women are supposed to be" persists in some sectors, but I think most people have hit the 21st century.
Posted by: KoleTrain
|
June 3, 2010 5:47 PM
Fully agreed. I've often encountered the phrase "female intuition," usually in the context of "females are intuitive; males are analytical." I usually call bullshit on that, pointing out that this women are, on average, equally good at analytical tasks. That said, women - given their biological roles as mothers - do tend to be more empathetic and better at reading social cues than men.
Posted by: snurp
|
June 3, 2010 5:48 PM
I do a significant amount of browsing in the sale section of the grad school bookstore, so I just finished reading Judith Walkowitz's City of Dreadful Delight (which was interesting enough that I'd recommend it despite repeated use of the word "allopathic" and a habit of quoting people paraphrasing Darwin as if she were quoting Darwin) which includes a section on the spiritualist movement. What I found most interesting was the "power" ascribed to young, preferably nubile women by wealthy male spiritualists. Female mediums were preferred because of the various stereotypes you've mentioned, and their given the appearance of power. But (and this is something that Walkowitz treats very, very briefly) that "power" was the power to abnegate the self so that an entirely different, often male, character could enter the body. It's the same storyline with a slightly modified mythic background.
Posted by: seemeisie
|
June 3, 2010 5:49 PM
Thanks PZ for putting Twisty's post out there for the hordes.
As a female plant pathologist I have experienced the little thoughtless sexist actions that by themself are excusable, but when lumped togeather are rather taxing on one's patience.
And for the record, I hate and suck at cooking. My male partner cooks -and does most of the housework really, since I work longer hours.
Yay equality!
Posted by: singemonkey
|
June 3, 2010 5:50 PM
It's one area in which post-modernist humanities students may be slightly more reasonable than scientists.
It's depressing because it's often so much more blatant than racism, and often both perpetrator and victim take it for granted.
p.s. Men don't get into science for its image of rampaging masculinity (sorry PZ). Even boys see scientists more as the cast from the big bang theory than the square jawed researchers in a Crichton movie.
Posted by: A. Nuran
|
June 3, 2010 5:56 PM
It gets even better. Men do. Women are. So they're supposed to be passive as well.
Posted by: frustum.myopenid.com
|
June 3, 2010 5:56 PM
Before jumping on PZ's bandwagon, let's not ignore the empirical counter-evidence.
Women have great intuition, as capably demonstrated by Warrior Mom Jenny McCarthy. She has shown that female intuition trumps that manly and emotionally dead sciency stuff.
Posted by: Hannah
|
June 3, 2010 6:00 PM
I could not agree more with this post. It is disturbing that there is a certain brand of supposedly feminist thinking (but actually anti-feminist) that claims that women are superior to men because we are more nurturing, caring, intuitive, etc. This view makes me sick. Anyone claiming that there are broad, sweeping differences between the sexes, besides the obvious physical ones, is a sexist. And the implication that women are not as good at critical thinking as men, no matter how awesomely "intuitive" we supposedly are, is ALWAYS insulting, whether it comes from a man or a woman.
Posted by: Mattir-ritated
|
June 3, 2010 6:03 PM
So I guess DaughterSpawn field dressing the deer and learning mammalian anatomy as a bonus is just plain unladylike? I knew something was wrong with a 13 year old girl up to her eyeballs in blood and guts, but she seems to have a nice intuition as to where stuff is located.
And haven't any of these bozos realized that "intuition" is just code for becoming aware of actual thinking that's happening in a preconscious part of the brain? It's not particularly wooish or weird, it's just preconscious, and women are taught to pay attention to it more than men are. Since it involves actual information processing, even if the person doing it isn't aware of what the information is, it might be useful to as a source of ideas to explore using that spiffy scientific method thingy? Ever heard of Martha McClintock?
Posted by: Jaycubed
|
June 3, 2010 6:03 PM
What is the difference between a "thought" and a "feeling"?
Nothing; except that a little squirt of "endocrine juice" accompanies a "thought" which turns it into a "feeling".
So a "feeling" is nothing more than a thought on "drugs".
Posted by: tms
|
June 3, 2010 6:04 PM
Perhaps I am blinded by my own gender, but in my career as a govt. biologist, I haven't seen a lot of gender bias in my field. In fact, the local AWIS (Association of Women In Science) chapter frequently hosts the best speakers to their meetings, and they are well attended by both women and men.
T
Posted by: Mak
|
June 3, 2010 6:10 PM
Sciency goodness + feminist thought? Seriously, PZ, stop hogging all the awesome.
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage
|
June 3, 2010 6:19 PM
I'm quite intuitive in my thinking. As a result, several people have assumed I must be gay because I exhibit this "feminine" trait.
Posted by: alex.asolis.net
|
June 3, 2010 6:20 PM
Although I'm not sure how it ended up like that, I agree that there is an expectation that women be into woo and that men be into hard science. It's stupid. This kind of sexist bullshit pisses me off.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
June 3, 2010 6:27 PM
Hmm...., does Kiltdown Fan sound like someone banned? Definite intuitive eau de troll...
Posted by: SaraJ
|
June 3, 2010 6:27 PM
Personal story: When I was in highschool, I LOVED math. I was good at it, I was passionate about it, I was the teacher's pet, and I actually loved to do my math homework. I went to a counseling appointment my senior year to talk about life after highschool, and shared with the counselor my passion for math. I really wanted to know what careers would be good for funneling that passion into. Her reaction (and I'm summarizing here): "But math is SO hard, and college classes in math are extremely difficult. There aren't a lot of women in math-based careers, so you'd really have to struggle with that as well. I would suggest you that you think about other things you might like to do." I am sort of sad to say that my love affair with math ended after highschool, because this counselor discouraged me so much.
Posted by: Brownian, Most Vicious & Petty of Pharyngulites
|
June 3, 2010 6:28 PM
Me too. How do you think I'm able to so effectively deduce the douche levels of new trolls here after so few posts? Why, does having a penis somehow render one unable to do that?
In fact, 'Kiltdown Fan' is twinging my 'intuition' right now.
Posted by: Kamaka
|
June 3, 2010 6:31 PM
Kiltdown Fan @ 21
Geez, go buy a sarcasm meter, will ya?
Posted by: 朴競花/박경화 (Gyeong Hwa)
|
June 3, 2010 6:32 PM
No, Hoax, it is not absolutely necessary to civilization. There has been and currently exist civilization where the homemaker is a communal jog taken about by different members of the community. You only think it is because that's all your misogynist mind has ever seen.
Posted by: Kamaka
|
June 3, 2010 6:35 PM
NoR @ 21
Oops! Missed that!
Posted by: PZ Myers
|
June 3, 2010 6:36 PM
There is no Kiltdown Fan anymore, but if there were, he would have written a couple of comments that actually strongly confirmed what I said in the post: that any attempt to widen the roles of women beyond child-raising and home-making would be argued as being anti-woman, rather than anti-constraints-on-women. I'd thank him if he existed anymore. Which he doesn't, and never did.
Posted by: blf
|
June 3, 2010 6:36 PM
The most woo-full person I can recall that I had to work with was a man. Really big on crystals, to the point he tried to convince people to put them in the petrol tank of their cars to do something or the other (I forget what, improve fuel economy or reduce emissions or something equally braindead). Truly stupid thing to do in a company full of engineers. It was great fun watching the motorheads—which included several ladies—hand his ass back to him after ripping it off and chewing it into very small bits.
Posted by: Brownian, Most Vicious & Petty of Pharyngulites
|
June 3, 2010 6:40 PM
Really? I'm sure there's got to be someone out there who likes open source UNIX mail clients.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
June 3, 2010 6:41 PM
The Redhead and I laugh at her mother. Her mother swears up and down she never learned algebra. But, she is capable of doing the analysis that the Redhead and I would use algebra for. The Redhead reports her mother just sets up the problems a bit differently, and doesn't call it algebra. But it essentially is.
Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe
|
June 3, 2010 6:43 PM
Big Boppa:
The sound you just heard was the point whooshing above and beyond your reach.
I'm intuitive and I'm also very suspicious, always have been. As Vimes said, there are no groups you can go to and say: "My name is Sam and I'm a really suspicious bastard."
Posted by: claire-chan
|
June 3, 2010 6:43 PM
Hahaha, I like the mental image of women taking the toys out of the hands of misogynist men!
How can't women be both scientific and nurturing, however?
Posted by: Garbledina
|
June 3, 2010 6:47 PM
It seems off topic, but this is exactly what drove me right over the edge about the movie Avatar. The movie was chock full of absurdity, but why, in a culture where it has been pounded into our heads that the males and females are equal in their division of labor and power, and both were warriors, etc, WHY is it that the man becomes the tribal, warrior leader, while the woman is destined to become the "spiritual leader"??? I hate the stereotype that women are just innately considered to be more spiritual and more intuitive and more nurturing, etc. It's absurd and it's damaging and it does a disservice to the entire human race.
/rant
Posted by: Audley Z. Darkheart OM, purveyor of candy and lies
|
June 3, 2010 6:48 PM
Thank you, thank you, thank you!
It amazes me how many people don't realize that gender roles/gendered behaviors are a societal construct. Women act "feminine" because a) they were taught that behavior while growing up and b) society then enforces that ideal of femininity.
Don't fit the mode? Why, you must be an bitchy, man-hating, uppity lesbo!
Posted by: Andrew Hall
|
June 3, 2010 6:49 PM
I have a 5 year old girl (raising as a non-theist) and we have the same expectations of her as her brother.
She seems to be independently minded and assertive (both virtues in my household). My goal is to innoculate her against the virus of Americanism (ant-math, anti-science, pro-consumerist). Only time will tell.
http://laughinginpurgatory.blogspot.com/
Posted by: Zoot Capri
|
June 3, 2010 6:50 PM
I am PZ's age and yes, I am a RN INSTEAD of a MD (although I am a very satisfied RN) because it was not exactly the thing in 1970's southern universities to be a really "smart girl" especially science or math smart ...Although it is usually the female RN's who keep the male MD's from killing patients... I would think we would be over this entire stupid stereotype that women are not good at science or math. But then, we STILL don't have an Equal Rights Amendment, and Title IX was not that long ago, and universities and high schools get around that all the time. As someone who has spent time tutoring dumb men in skills I was better at, and these men who eventually got ahead of me professionally, color me bitter!
Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe
|
June 3, 2010 6:51 PM
ODS:
Absolutely! I've been considered (and called) all those things, many a time. Honestly, it's uppity that always seems to provoke the most ire, I've met (and have had to work with) men who seem downright offended that a woman dare to venture an opinion. Oh my!
Posted by: Audley Z. Darkheart OM, purveyor of candy and lies
|
June 3, 2010 6:53 PM
You and me both, sister. *fist bump*
Posted by: tutone21
|
June 3, 2010 7:05 PM
Actually, the one woman that I work with in the lab is just as good if not better than me at staying on task and getting her work done. Luckily some of the lids on the chemicals are on too tight so I am still useful. Of course, I spend too much time reading this blog, and she doesn't read it at all, so I am at a severe disadvatage.
Posted by: Loreo
|
June 3, 2010 7:05 PM
Reminds me of one of the reasons I like the show Bones: the "intuitive" crime-solving partner who is "good with people" is the square-jawed dude played by David Boreanaz while the rational scientist is played by Emily Deschanel.
Of course, I'm still a little bugged by the fact that the writers maintain that split between the "human" one and the "logical" one, but I'm a sucker for crime drama and a science-ish setting.
Posted by: samilobster
|
June 3, 2010 7:07 PM
I'd like to thank PZ for finally giving me an excuse to post this SMBC comic from about a month ago:
http://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?db=comics&id=1883#comic
Posted by: rippingrich
|
June 3, 2010 7:08 PM
Anyone who thinks "Women are supposed to be intuitive, nurturing, accepting, and trusting", have never umpired a baseball game of women.
It was twenty years ago I did that, I still suffer from the trauma.
Posted by: seemeisie
|
June 3, 2010 7:09 PM
@ OurDeadSelves & Caine
My goodness, the number of times I've been called a bitchy, man-hating, uppity lesbo (usually separately, but sometimes in various combinations.
When I was a kid I had sexist stereotypes drilled into me so bad that I wanted to be a boy -so that I could do cool science-y things (and the hero in various make-believe re-enactments of movies etc). Glad I grew out of that. But it means that now I get royally pissed if someone implies that I'm denying my femininity by my choice in career, hobbies, clothes, lack of make-up etc.
Posted by: LogicallyYours
|
June 3, 2010 7:11 PM
two words: Madam Curie
Posted by: Kamaka
|
June 3, 2010 7:14 PM
Zoot Capri @ 36
But, it has had quite the impact. When I was in high school (the olden days), there were very few females involved in organised sports. It was considered...odd...lesbian, perhaps.
While I admit parity is still a long way off, things are a damn sight better than they were.
Posted by: Cath the Canberra Cook
|
June 3, 2010 7:14 PM
Oh, yes, I
And yes, I had that 70s girls are no good at maths & science shit, and am still angry at the branch off the feminist movement that embraced it. First I had men telling me I wasn't a proper woman because of my maths & physics, and then in the 90s it morphed into so-called feminists telling me I wasn't a proper woman because of my maths & physics.
I don't really know if I'd have become a proper research scientist if not for the various forms of discrimination I encountered. Sometimes I think so; sometimes I think I'm too much of a breadth person and not enough of a depth person. These days I'm into public health & welfare statistics, after a long stint in bioinformatics.
Posted by: derelicthat
|
June 3, 2010 7:17 PM
Hell yeah to this post! Growing up I wondered why everyone thought I was a bitchy, intimidating lesbian. It's because my fantastic mother and father actively worked to raise myself and my sister in a non-gendered way, encouraging our interests and activities in whatever direction we seemed to prosper in. Liked SF and biology? Hey, here's some books, enjoy! Had a thing for horses? Let's find lessons! As a result, I might scare the hell out of some people, and I do get confused by other's perceptions of me (why can't I enjoy baking and video games?). But you know what else? I have a blast and don't feel confined to what anyone else expects of me. I wish more people could have been raised by my parents.
Posted by: Audley Z. Darkheart OM, purveyor of candy and lies
|
June 3, 2010 7:20 PM
But, it has had quite the impact. When I was in high school (the olden days), there were very few females involved in organised sports.
IIRC (tooo lazy to look it up) Title IX was supposed to give girls the same exact educational opportunities as boys, but sports weren't even a consideration when the bill was written.
Posted by: Cath the Canberra Cook
|
June 3, 2010 7:20 PM
Ack, HTML fail, I forgot to use < in my I <3 Bones statement. Also lost in the HTML-fail, a remark that PZ+Twisty=awesome.
Posted by: Classical Cipher
|
June 3, 2010 7:22 PM
I've always been sort of uncomfortable with that criticism of "science in general", and I never really knew what to say to it. Frankly, this is because I couldn't believe that people who claimed to be feminists could actually be making the argument that women were naturally ill-suited to analytical thinking and that rigorous, logical thought was a way of shutting women out, so I thought I had to be misunderstanding their arguments! Gah.
Posted by: bad.faith5x5
|
June 3, 2010 7:22 PM
Women, know your limits!
Posted by: seemeisie
|
June 3, 2010 7:27 PM
@ derelicthat
*Sigh* Wish I had your family. SF, biology, gaming AND horses? The most science-y present I ever got was a book about astronauts... from a family friend who apparently stole it from the local library. That book changed my life though. It was like beacon of light amongst a trash-heap of pink barbie accessories.
Posted by: Kamaka
|
June 3, 2010 7:29 PM
seemeisie @ 43
Science-y things? No make-up?
I'd have been all over you for a date!
Posted by: Samantha
|
June 3, 2010 7:32 PM
To be fair, PZ, "intuitive, nurturing, accepting, and trusting" aren't by necessity "woo" if they're come about honestly by the person expressing them regardless of gender pressure. The fact that I am female is irrelevant in my mind when I consider my desire to be nurturing, accepting and trusting. However, I can still be those things AND be good at science and math. So can most other women and so can most men.
I don't like to hear positive qualities (which those are in many cases) being called woo any more than I like hearing women (myself included) being told they can't do math/science. People should be who they want to be, which can be any combination of a number of qualities, including adept with "soothing, supportive words" and/or with lab equipment. Let's just urge people to enjoy their strengths regardless of what those are and what gender the person is. If a woman feels honestly that her strength is in nurturing that's no worse than if a man felt the same or than if the woman felt her strengths lie elsewhere.
Suggesting that "a human being might want to do more with their life than changing diapers and baking cookies" is not an assault on womanhood, but calling those desires "woo" is an assault on humankind. There are men and women alike who want to do little more than that as much as there are both men and women who want to be the one to discover the cure for cancer. Neither group should have it suggested that their desire is somehow less or "woo".
Posted by: derelicthat
|
June 3, 2010 7:35 PM
@seemeisie
Like any bratty kid, I didn't realize it at the time, but now I'm so happy to have my family. My parents didn't buy me any gaming systems, but they also didn't object to me using my own money from work to buy that shiny new PS2, back in the day.
It helps of course, that my parents are total geeks themselves, and thus supportive of geek endeavors.
Posted by: Kamaka
|
June 3, 2010 7:36 PM
OurDeadSelves @ 48
Sports scholarships were the target of Title IX, I do believe.
Posted by: Audley Z. Darkheart OM, purveyor of candy and lies
|
June 3, 2010 7:36 PM
Not to derail, but oh what the hell...
Have you looked at children's toys lately? I have no children, but I've got a niece who is about to turn two and shopping for non-gender specific toys is the biggest fucking hassle. Now, her mom is okay with everything being pink and lavender (the poor girl already has her own "play" purse), but I'm not about to buy into that bullshit.
I always end up just buying stuffed animals, because there's really no other alternative. It's truly sickening.
Posted by: Audley Z. Darkheart OM, purveyor of candy and lies
|
June 3, 2010 7:41 PM
Oh Wikipedia:
Title IX:
Posted by: derelicthat
|
June 3, 2010 7:41 PM
@ OurDeadSelves
You know, I haven't been to FAO Schwartz in forever, but last time I was there a found a stuffed squid. Mr. Snuggles even has his little plush beak!
Perhaps some building blocks or legos for toys? They're always fun and appropriate.
Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe
|
June 3, 2010 7:43 PM
seemeisie:
*Nods* I just didn't care when I was a kid, my natural habitat was up a tree and I preferred to be nice and filthy. ;)
Posted by: Audley Z. Darkheart OM, purveyor of candy and lies
|
June 3, 2010 7:47 PM
Derelicthat:
Yeah, I've considering Legos for her birthday this month. Toys like that are always discouraged by her mom, though, presumably 'cos they're not educational "enough."*
Plus, and this is just my assumption, they're not "girl" toys.
*WTF? I know.
Posted by: Jadehawk, cascadeuse féministe
|
June 3, 2010 7:50 PM
they went and gendered legos, too:http://shop.lego.com/Product/?p=5585 (and on the same website, "girls" is a category; "boys" is not.now I want to go hurt someone.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
June 3, 2010 7:57 PM
*ducks for cover*Posted by: derelicthat
|
June 3, 2010 8:01 PM
You know what, I have an answer for that: Playmobil's Roman Colosseum playset. It's very educational, and can even teach her about early Christian history! :D
Posted by: Shplane, some shit in french
|
June 3, 2010 8:03 PM
#59
K'Nex bro. K'NEX
Posted by: seemeisie
|
June 3, 2010 8:09 PM
@ Caine #60
I'll say! We had some truly excellent climbing trees at primary school. And some fantastic mud marble tracks.
@ OurDeadSelves
I know! The girl's toy section scares me. Its like a pink portal to kitchen-and-babyland. At least the boys section has a variety of colour (though a little blue-heavy). I dont really understand why they need a gender-seperated section anyway. I always loved Lego -you can build barbie houses or marble tracks or most other things you can imagine.
Posted by: Audley Z. Darkheart OM, purveyor of candy and lies
|
June 3, 2010 8:14 PM
As far as I know, you can still get the big bucket o' Legos that are just a bunch of different shapes/sizes/colors. Those are the best, anyway*.
*Besides the pirate ship ones, I mean.
Posted by: vinniehew
|
June 3, 2010 8:14 PM
I don't disagree with anything PZ Myers says in this post. If one were to plot the distributions of the critical thinking abilities of men and women, the two would overlap almost exactly.
However, I think there is a genuine scientific question to be asked about possible cognitive differences between the genders.
For example, Simon Baron Cohen originally developed his theory of autism after being struck by how uncommon it is to see autistic traits in women. Men are far more likely to have Aspergers, autism, etc. When I say 'far more likely', I mean FAR, FAR more likely.
Hence, his 'empathizing-systematizing' theory. Males lean towards systematizing, while females lean towards empathizing. (Note: I use the word 'lean'. Please don't think that women can't be great systematizers or that men can't be great empathizers). When the male brain goes too far, it becomes overly systematizing and there are concomitant deficiencies in empathy and social awareness. That is why autism is sometimes referred to as the 'extreme male brain'.
Of course, this theory - if true - must not be used to pigeon-hole males into the 'uncaring, unempathic, unfeeling' box or to pigeon-hole females into the 'irrational, illogical, too intuitive' box.
Posted by: eumides
|
June 3, 2010 8:17 PM
'Tis Himself, OM at #19 wrote:
Heh! Just for fun, I get the exact reverse. Physics and maths background and I come across as very 'analytical'. It's astounding the number of people who can't believe that I AM gay.
At least until I show them photos or they meet my partner...
All my nieces and nephews have gone into computer sciences, but they are much more influenced by the fact that it's their family business.
Posted by: seemeisie
|
June 3, 2010 8:20 PM
@ #67
They have pirate ship lego!? Cool!
Posted by: https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawmOXBwkHNLMFQF1hFUcnfjWfHGjbGkoJrU
|
June 3, 2010 8:21 PM
It bugs the hell out of me that people seem to think that intuition is contradictory to analysis. BOTH are strengths and can coexist in the same person.
Posted by: JoeBuddha
|
June 3, 2010 8:22 PM
Not sure if different modes of thinking are a bad thing, but steering people away from what they're interested in surely is. I'm not a scientist, but I've always deplored the lack of women in computer nerdhood. It's gotten a BIT better, but still...
Posted by: https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawmOXBwkHNLMFQF1hFUcnfjWfHGjbGkoJrU
|
June 3, 2010 8:23 PM
Gender and cross cultural epistemology
And by the way, OF COURSE men are worse at housework... because they don't practice enough!
Posted by: Marella
|
June 3, 2010 8:25 PM
'put women in charge of woo'
In most of the western world this has happened with religion over the last 2-3 hundred years, men have stepped back from religion and largely handed it over to women as they realised that the real power was elsewhere. Even in the States women are taking a stronger role in religion because the men don't want it any more. They'd rather make some serious money and leave all that to the wife.
I know some 'ministers' make good money but most don't, it's a bit like novel writing.
Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe
|
June 3, 2010 8:25 PM
ODS:
Books. Get her books - they don't need to be age appropriate, she can have them read to her, especially Shel Silverstein's stuff, Where The Sidewalk Ends and The Giving Tree. One thing I did for my first cousin (I was all of 9 years older than her when she was born) was to start buying books, among them, all the Newbery Award Winners (King of the Wind, etc.) for her birthdays and xmases, so that by the time she started reading, she had a fair library amassed.
Posted by: Classical Cipher
|
June 3, 2010 8:25 PM
vinniehew,
I've only done a very little preliminary internet research on this, so do take it with a grain of salt, but is there any traction to the view that women are underdiagnosed with Asperger's and autism? As far as my limited reading goes, the idea of the "extreme male brain" is something of an outdated one that has since been superseded by other models.
Posted by: seemeisie
|
June 3, 2010 8:25 PM
@ vinniehew #68
And I suppose that couldnt have anything to do with some genes linked to brain function being located on the X chromosome? You know, kinda like the same reason there are more colour-blind men than women?
Posted by: Legion
|
June 3, 2010 8:28 PM
Great post as usual, but we take issue with this...
Specifically, we take issue with the word 'more' as if raising children is somehow 'less' important. It's not the first time we've heard similar, well meaning, but condescending comments like this that insult women, and men who, believe it or not, actually want to change diapers and bake cookies.
Our view is that childcare and home management are two critically important jobs that make it possible for a little girl to consider science as her future vocation. We do parents, particularly mothers, a disservice when we imply that parenting and working at home are somehow, less worthy occupations.
As someone who has worked in the corporate world (middle management for a multinational) and also changed diapers... and as someone who still loves to make cookies, our experience has been that managing five year olds is infinitely more pleasurable than working with adults who act like five year olds.
One last point, the image of the domestic houseslave is outdated. Work-at-home mothers and fathers have the internet, and all the benefits of the modern world. They can pursue any number of interests and still change diapers and make cookies.
Posted by: Classical Cipher
|
June 3, 2010 8:34 PM
Legion,
I took that "more" to mean "more things," as opposed to "more important things." As you suggest, people are perfectly capable of both caring for children and having other careers and interests, and limiting people to only taking care of children is what's at issue here. I could be mistaken.
Posted by: no-one
|
June 3, 2010 8:36 PM
"This naive imposition of unscientific modes of thought on women specifically leads to the state we have now."
This is nothing but pure wisdom, mr. P. Z. Mayers. I am very impressed.
This is the part I like best: "naive imposition of unscientific modes".
It has such a beautiful ring to it. I bet before long someone will be writing psalms about it.
Our science
hallowed be thy name...
Posted by: FossilFishy
|
June 3, 2010 8:39 PM
Meccano has re-issued it's classic metal construction set. When I saw them for sale I bought two for my daughter despite her being less than a year old. She's just under three now and we're going to wait a bit longer to break it out. I don't really care if she takes to it or not, but she's going to have the opportunity for that kind of constructive play.
My daughter is an intelligent, curious and energetic human being. You can almost see the potential radiating out from her, like some kind of Van der Graaf generated nimbus. I don't understand how anyone, male or female, could see that potential and want to limit it in any way. It makes me grit my teeth to think of it. Saying to your daughter "I love you." while shoehorning her into a narrowly defined gender role is the very height of destructive ignorance.
I can and will denounce, demean and fucking destroy if necessary, anyone who tries to limit my daughter because she's female.
Posted by: Owlmirror
|
June 3, 2010 8:43 PM
As long as you're using HTML entities, consider ♥ : "I ♥ Bones"
--------
For those who wish to see
Kiltdown Fana conservative Catholic defending a completely batshit insane misogynist and anti-Semitic Catholic, there is this old thread.And the essay being argued over, in the Internet archive, since the SSPX found it expeditious to purge some of Williamson's more extreme blatherings.
Posted by: llewelly
|
June 3, 2010 8:49 PM
Zoot Capri | June 3, 2010 6:50 PM:
You can thank the Mormon church for that.
Posted by: Legion
|
June 3, 2010 8:51 PM
Angel Kaida:
Agreed. The idea that childcare is the only thing that women are good at is offensive and needs to be continually challenged.
Our point is that too often when this subject comes up, the default view is that raising children is seen as less important than many other occupations.
Perhaps it's our personal bias with this issue that made PZ's choice of words sound unsympathetic toward work-at-home moms.
Posted by: loser-anda-user
|
June 3, 2010 8:53 PM
Oh my god, this post is so full of awesome I'm flailing. Like, seriously, when I saw the tweet about this I waved my hands around a bit.
Posted by: Lola
|
June 3, 2010 8:59 PM
Why must we be operating on animals when we seek information about human health? Why not operate on prisoners; they have a debt to pay and that would certainly do it. We preach about wrongs against women, but treat other animals with as much disrespect and derision. Hypocrites.
Posted by: alisonmtr
|
June 3, 2010 9:02 PM
Books! Get "The Stinky Cheese Man" and "Dogzilla". Early education in irreverence!
As a woman who has stayed home for almost 18 years and who dearly loves baking cookies, I can attest to the fact that you can do this and still be a rational thinker. Thinking rationally may come sporadically during your childrens' early years, though.
I know now that being granted imaginary superpowers isn't all it's cracked up to be. I no longer use my magic intuition. Knowledge and common sense are much more dependable. I grew up with the lesson that I had to avoid the manly man stuff and follow my natural girly girl predilections. Fortunately, I've had the opportunity to protect my daughters from that.
Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe
|
June 3, 2010 9:07 PM
Lola:
And I'm sure you are working constantly to right the wrongs against women and working tirelessly to change attitudes which abound, because if women were actually treated like human beings, perhaps attitudes would change towards animals, eh? You do realize what an assclam you're coming across as, right, Lola?
Posted by: Steve LaBonne
|
June 3, 2010 9:09 PM
My Northwestern-biology-professor sister would have a few choice four-letter words to say about this "science is anti-feminist" garbage. So would my future-scientist daughter. A pox on these idiots.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
June 3, 2010 9:14 PM
I saw a couple episodes of Bones as a try-out (last summer it was House). I will now be going through seasons 1-4. Smart ladies, prawwwww. All Bones needs is red hair...
Posted by: Shplane, some shit in french
|
June 3, 2010 9:15 PM
#86
Comparing semi-sentient creatures to human beings just doesn't cut it. Yeah, we shouldn't be giant dicks to animals for no reason, but they don't deserve the same rights as people. Not even adorable kittens.
Not that animal abuse laws shouldn't be a bit more punishing and unforgiving than they currently are, but calling someone a hypocrite because they find HUMAN suffering slightly more of an issue than rat suffering is just stupid.
Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe
|
June 3, 2010 9:18 PM
Shplane:
I'll have you know my rat doesn't suffer in the least. Spoiled rotten little monster, that one. ;D
Posted by: Antiochus Epiphanes
|
June 3, 2010 9:26 PM
Not to mention how we treat plants. For shame!
Posted by: timrowledge, Ersatz Haderach
|
June 3, 2010 9:34 PM
Anyone who thinks women can't think analytically should meet some of the female engineers I've enjoyed working with; not to mention the karate black belt holder. She'd quickly abuse them of their stupidity.
And I think I can claim that most of the competent bosses I've had were female too.
Posted by: Lynna, OM
|
June 3, 2010 9:36 PM
In the May, 2010 issue of The Scientist, there's an article titled "A Transforming Field". The article includes interviews with transgender scientists.
Ben Barres transitioned from Barbara to Ben.
Posted by: Mel Dahl
|
June 3, 2010 9:39 PM
Actually, let me offer an alternative viewpoint: We don't know if women-as-nurturers-men-as-thinkers has any basis in reality or not because nobody has actually done the necessary research (and remember, science requires rigorous thought). We don't know if stereotypes based on race or sexual orientation have any basis in reality or not either, for the same reason: Nobody has actually done the empirical science to find out.
Maybe women were forced into the role of nurturers by the patriarchy, but maybe they chose that role because of something in evolutionary psychology we haven't discovered yet. We just don't know. We assume the former because egalitarianism is our official presupposition, but it's just as erroneous to rely on the untested presupposition of egalitarianism as it is to rely on untested patriarchal presuppositions.
The egalitarian part of me would hope the answer would be that there is no objective basis for the stereotype, but I've seen scientific results that weren't what I wanted often enough that I'm not going to bet the rent on it until somebody actually does the science.
Posted by: First Approximation, L'esprit de l'escalier
|
June 3, 2010 9:50 PM
I've always hated this stereotype. I've known women who are great counter-examples and, at the same time, some women who have let this stereotype keep them from reaching their full potential.
Posted by: DominEditrix
|
June 3, 2010 9:57 PM
I remember being told by my middle school maths teacher that it was okay that I wasn't good at mathematics; it wasn't a "feminine" subject. This, despite the fact that I always got A's.
My high school bio teacher announced that women didn't have "rational" minds and were, therefore, no good at science. [Also, all A's]
The rather surly male maths teacher told me I was stupid, just like a girl, when I asked a question - but he never did answer it, so I think it was more a matter of his inability to do so. [I had, by that time, scored a 798 on the SAT maths section and an 800 on the Math II test. Yeah, teh maths, dey is 2 hard 4 teh girlygirl; boobs make one stoopid.]
My mother, who taught mathematics before she became a social worker, was appalled by all of this. I didn't really care, as I wasn't interested in a career in mathematics and I knew I was smart, so fuck 'em all. [The bio teacher's son was the only student who found dissecting sick-making - he vomited all over his foetal pig. The girls did the girly thing and played with bits of dead animals, our innate feminine abilities in the kitchen making us familiar with dead meat. Besides, starfish bits make such cute earrings.]
Oh, and back in the Olden Dayes, when our computers were carved from tree-trunks and Compuserve started hosting fora, I was accused by some nimwit in the Women Only section of being male. Why? Because I "wrote like a man". Y'know, in short, declarative sentences. Logically. Rationally That I did, as there was an hourly charge, a 300 baud connection speed and my typing frankly sucked*. Fortunately, I had met one of the other women who frequented that forum, who vouched for the girliness of my person.
*This is the reason that my papers in grad school were notoriously short. If the personal computer had been available, they would have been longer. Maybe.
Posted by: DominEditrix
|
June 3, 2010 10:09 PM
Oh - folding fitted sheets. I actually had a man claim that men couldn't fold them because women were "better suited" to doing so. I asked him why that was supposed to make any sense, if men were supposed to have better spacial skills. I then discovered that he couldn't read an exploded diagram, nor do those puzzles that required spacial skills. He just thought all men had these problems.
Posted by: SC OM
|
June 3, 2010 10:25 PM
I strongly suspect that this is the case.
***
(Incidental personal anecdote: When I was a kid in the gifted program, the time came for the big science fair and we were encouraged to do projects. I had seen a performer on...er...Johnny Carson who worked with bubbles* and I developed a fascination with them. When I told the program teachers that I wanted to do a bubble-related project, they simply ignored this and set up a project in which I observed children in an elementary school. Now, it may well have been that there wasn't anyone to help me with my plan, but what they pushed me into had zero to do with what I was interested in at the time. I was stubborn as all hell in school generally and not to be put off ideas easily, but in this case it was clear that there was no way I was doing the project I wanted. Still rankles. And bubbles are still cool.)
*Holy flashback - I think I've found it!:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VSadJ6jnS98
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
June 3, 2010 10:31 PM
Applauds Domineditrix, who did (barely) outscore him on the Math Tests. And I can fold fitted sheets, and also do carbon stereochemistry in my head.
Posted by: chaseacross
|
June 3, 2010 10:33 PM
Typical surgeons! Gotta' love those scalpel jocks.
Anyway, I wouldn't place the blame squarely on patriarchal men. Women have been pushing this same line too. At Fairhaven College (the hippie bullshit woo center at Western Washington University), the women's studies prof suggested seriously that written language is an artifact of male oppression (because you see, it's linear, and women don't like lines). This is the same school that taught a class on the holistic healing properties of sound.
Posted by: Shplane, some shit in french
|
June 3, 2010 10:45 PM
#102
... Would it be considered improper to burn this place to the ground? I'm not all that great with social nuance.
I want to think that it would be alright, so long as I keep my pinky extended while pouring out the gasoline. But again, not that good at these kinds of things.
Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe
|
June 3, 2010 10:46 PM
SC OM:
I can't watch vid, so excuse my asking, but was that the guy who blew smoke into bubbles and such? He was *amazing*.
Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe
|
June 3, 2010 10:49 PM
DominEditrix:
He should go tell that to all the men in the military. I've never met a man who had trouble with folding fitted sheets. It's not exactly rocket science. Or brain surgery. ;p
Posted by: SC OM
|
June 3, 2010 10:55 PM
Yes! His name is Tom Noddy.
Posted by: Tigger_the_Wing
|
June 3, 2010 10:56 PM
I think that ASDs are as under diagnosed in women as heart disorders are; and I blame the diagnostic criteria that are descriptive of typical presentation in males. Women and the experiences of women are conspicuous by our absence in all sorts of areas.
I was very fortunate. Being the only girl from my school to pass the 11-plus, I went to a selective all-girls state school. All but two of the teaching staff and all but one of the support staff were female. It was just assumed that we would all be good at maths and sciences and that we would go on to university and/or a serious career at a time when most girls were expected to get a temporary job after school and then become homemakers. I left school at eighteen and went straight into a junior research job in a pharmaceutical company. My boss was female.
Of course, I have my parents to thank for a lot of my confidence that I could do any job I wanted. They were decades ahead of their time in bringing us up with non-gendered roles (except in the matter of clothing; it still rankles forty-odd years on that I wasn't allowed to climb trees with my brother because people would see my knickers). The rest of it I put down to my autism making me largely oblivious to a lot of the sexism directed at me. Must have frustrated a whole lot of bigots when I failed to rise to the bait.
Most of my working life has been in male-dominated jobs, the last one being a postie. The rest of the women I worked with were pretty atypical if not necessarily on the spectrum.
Posted by: Audley Z. Darkheart OM, purveyor of candy and lies
|
June 3, 2010 10:56 PM
Oh, gack.
I wear my feminism proudly on my sleeve, but it's this type of fucked up thinking that's holding us back.
What the hell does that even mean, anyway*?
*I sense a women-as-bad-drivers joke here.
Posted by: A. Noyd
|
June 3, 2010 11:12 PM
My intuition amuses me in the same way I can be absorbed by prying open a clam and unravelling all the various gooey bits. I spend hours every week playing "how the fuck did I arrive at that conclusion?!" and "does the rationalization I just pulled out of my ass stand up to the cold light of day?!" My initial thoughts tend to survive about as well as the clams, though.
~*~*~*~*~*~
singemonkey (#11)
Try reading Alan Sokal's Beyond the Hoax if you don't mind being disillusioned. He makes the point rather well in the first few chapters that this is only possible if humanitarian social critics learn the difference between the social aspects of applying, funding, teaching, and interpreting science (where their criticisms would be legitimate and they'd have the potential to make a positive difference) and the epistemological value of science (where they tend to parade around their ignorance and little more).
~*~*~*~*~*~
OurDeadSelves (#57)
Might I suggest a kid-sized box of fully functional, basic tools? Or a decent magnifying glass and a box to keep bugs/frogs/snails/whatever in? I loved those in addition to my Legos, K-NEX, and Capsela. Also, BRIO trains are awesome.
~*~*~*~*~*~
DominEditrix (#99)
I can't fold a fitted sheet worth worth a damn. I can barely fold a t-shirt. Maybe I should send my ovaries back to the factory. Or maybe I'd be better at folding things if I started caring about having my things folded. Hmm.
Posted by: Jadehawk, cascadeuse féministe
|
June 3, 2010 11:22 PM
Posted by: Michael Hawkins
|
June 3, 2010 11:23 PM
I wouldn't define woo as being "intuitive, nurturing, accepting, and trusting". Those are some of the positive spins on it, but malarkey, dishonesty, and incompetence are its other characteristics. Being "intuitive, nurturing, accepting, and trusting" are not bad things - nor are they unique to one sex or the other.
And since people love to misinterpret everything in conversations about sexism, I'm not even commenting on the ways women face discrimination in science - much less disagreeing. But to restate my point: "woo" is not the term I think is appropriate for defining being "intuitive, nurturing, accepting, and trusting"; "woo" includes a number of other characteristics. It really sounds like it's the assignment of emotion over rationality that diminishes women's role in science - and emotion is only one aspect of woo, not the whole package.
Posted by: Jadehawk, cascadeuse féministe
|
June 3, 2010 11:23 PM
oops.
someone read that stupid The Alphabet vs. the Goddess book a couple too many times, I seePosted by: Teshi
|
June 3, 2010 11:32 PM
Same people who consider anything long and thin to be be masculine, even when it's the most logical shape. And anything round to be feminine, even when it's the most logical shape.
Gah.
I worked for a program this May which brought female scientists into schools with the explicit goal of providing decent science in schools with female role models. It's important.
Posted by: Jadehawk, cascadeuse féministe
|
June 3, 2010 11:34 PM
but it is, except maybe for the nurturing part:intuitive = gut feeling & "common sense" over research
accepting = not cynical like those "closed minded" skeptics
trusting = accepts arguments from authority.
actually, nurturing fits too, in the "I'm a mom, therefore i know best what's good for my child" crap that McCarthy is peddling.
Posted by: kb
|
June 3, 2010 11:36 PM
@ DominEditrix
I'm female, and fitted sheets drive me completely insane. I just shmush them down to a small size and stack things on top.
Posted by: Algernon, elle sans chapeau
|
June 3, 2010 11:41 PM
Actually I have a problem philosophically with the very foundation thought that splits all of reality into binary but complimentary states.
It's bigger than just male vs. female too. Just this insanely stupid drive to see everything as belonging to one of two ultimate powers in the universe.
No less stupid than the sky daddy.
Posted by: Jadehawk, cascadeuse féministe
|
June 3, 2010 11:44 PM
unless you're in the military, what possible reason is there to fold fitted sheets? It's not like you were going to wear those sheets outside, where someone might care about wrinkled fabric...
what possible reason is there to have more than one set (or two, if you don't have a drier) of sheets per bed, anyway?
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
June 3, 2010 11:52 PM
Jadehawk. Guest bed. May take days after washing to find time both that of us can work on it at once (night owl versus morning person). Meanwhile, everything folded...
Posted by: Algernon, elle sans chapeau
|
June 4, 2010 12:01 AM
Why wouldn't you fold fitted sheets? All sheets get folded. The method is as follows....
oh what you don't care?
Well enjoy your wrinkly sheets then madam!
And only one pair? I couldn't ever because I'd end up just going sans sheets once my only pair got dirty and I didn't have time to wash and dry it that day. I can't imagine having time to wash and dry sheets except maybe on Sun. So that'd be once a week cleaning at best. And frankly, that would start slipping back.
See, some one here hates laundry here and I guess it's not you. I didn't have washer and dryer for a long time. Did laundry once a month. So I needed a month's worth of changes for whatever at min.
Posted by: Algernon, elle sans chapeau
|
June 4, 2010 12:09 AM
Of all the strange strange things my father taught me how to fold a fitted sheet.
People who aren't me probably don't understand how very very strange this is.
Imagine Hunter S. Thompson teaching you how to set your table up for a formal dinner and you'd have the right idea.
Posted by: Rutee, Shrieking Harpy of Dooooom
|
June 4, 2010 12:11 AM
Are you not familiar against the indictment against Cruel and Unusual Punishment in the constitution? We operate on animals because it works.
Oh, and thanks for saying that it's more important to treat animals better then women.
Posted by: Cath the Canberra Cook
|
June 4, 2010 12:14 AM
Also, winter sheets. The flannies are so warm and snuggly now, but would be horrible to sleep in in summer.
As to the innate characteristics argument: "If I get my natural feminine instincts biologically, then I'm not having you tell me how to behave." If it's all so natural, why all the social pressure? *looks suspicious*
Posted by: Jadehawk, cascadeuse féministe
|
June 4, 2010 12:14 AM
oh dear, i still only do laundry about twice a month: once for blacks, once for whites.it's dirt I don't mind, not laundry. life is so much easier when you're a slob :-p
Posted by: Jadehawk, cascadeuse féministe
|
June 4, 2010 12:18 AM
that's laundry for two people, btw. so two loads of laundry for two people per month. if it were just me, the white load would probably only get done once every few months, since i only have a few white things...
Posted by: Algernon, elle sans chapeau
|
June 4, 2010 12:20 AM
But Jade? What do you do with the reds?
Posted by: Jadehawk, cascadeuse féministe
|
June 4, 2010 12:21 AM
the what?
Posted by: Joshua Zelinsky
|
June 4, 2010 12:22 AM
Somewhat on topic, but I recently read The Madame Curie Complex by Julie Desjardins (the book was the book of the month for the Boston Skeptics Book Club) which does a good job discussing the history of women in science. It has a few flaws but shows some interesting patterns. In particular, one moment made throughout is that women were constantly relegated to lesser positions in science even as the reasoning behind it completely changed. The book also discusses a lot of very interesting scientists, although I would have liked more focus on their actual scientific work which was often given short shrift. Overall, a good read.
Posted by: skeptifem
|
June 4, 2010 12:24 AM
Dear lord, I hope their isn't a dude invasion of IBTP because of this.
I wrote about this whole deal on my blog recently. It is kind of long, but pretty good.
http://skeptifem.blogspot.com/2010/05/sorry-i-was-off-blogging-somewhere-else.html
Posted by: Jadehawk, cascadeuse féministe
|
June 4, 2010 12:25 AM
actually, I went and checked; of the clothes that are neither black nor white, I have: one pair of khaki shorts and a pale green bra (goes in with the whites); two purple shirts, two blue shirts and one green shirt (goes in with the black); one green sweater (handwash).
colors ain't my thing
Posted by: Algernon, elle sans chapeau
|
June 4, 2010 12:30 AM
Yeah. Laundry for one Ol'Greg involves dry cleaning, and a lot of different colors.
So I'd let it build up, drop off the dry cleaning (ouch that costs), Sun morning I haul my massive load of clothing and sheets/towels and push as many things together as I could so I could use the frontloaders. Then I'd separate the hang-dry things and stick them in a plastic bag to go home and hang around my place. I don't dry delicate knits in a dryer or bras for that matter. Then dry the rest while watching the telenovelas. Folding. Stupid laundry can easily eat up a day.
Ol'Greg cares about her damned clothes!
Posted by: Mattir-ritated
|
June 4, 2010 12:31 AM
On the subject of folding fitted sheets - Martha Stewart has a lovely demo of this for anyone who's interested. Not rocket science, but I'm really not going to spend google energy finding it.
@ ODS - get the kid whatever you want. Even stereotypical girly stuff like how-to kits for knitting or spinning or weaving will teach actual mechanical ability, and you really don't want to provoke my lecture on how the history of textiles is really the history of technology - I can get boy scouts enthused about learning to spin. A good cookbook for kids - Marion Cunningham's is excellent - teaches nutrition and chemistry and some actual useful life skills all in one. Field guides are excellent. Dress up clothes from a thrift store are a lot of fun and allow one to be a princess or a murderer or a murdering princess, as one's mood changes.
Gender stereotypes are obnoxious for kids, but excessively stringent efforts to make gender-neutral toys is also obnoxious. The Spawn have each enjoyed swords, knitting, princess and knight costumes, legos, electronic circuitboard kits, and a zillion other things. Some were marketed to girls (the Playmobil Dream Castle), some were more clearly geared to boys. Didn't matter - they both played with everything. It's the parents, not the toys, that make the difference.
And Playmobil has way better pirates than Lego, IMO. Plus they have Vikings with a great sea monster.
Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe
|
June 4, 2010 12:38 AM
Jadehawk, OM:
Got me. I only have one set per bed. When they need to be washed, they get washed, then they go right back on the bed. I never fold sheets.
Posted by: bolasanibk
|
June 4, 2010 12:39 AM
<Channeling Rod Sterling>
Exhibit A, my 12th grade physics teacher. Who never needed to refer to a book to teach us Physics.
Who when she gave us tests, made up the problems on the spot. And thanks to her, three years later in college I am picking out mistakes in what my 'male' physics lecturer is teaching us in class.
</Channeling>
Wash the sheets!!, I thought you just used them until they get too heavy from all the dirt on them and use them to shore up your crumbling walls.
Posted by: Lynna, OM
|
June 4, 2010 1:09 AM
When my daughter went to college I gave her a present of a tool box full of tools -- good ones, especially one fine hammer.
Posted by: Azkyroth
|
June 4, 2010 1:11 AM
Perhaps, but given the extensive history of loaded and/or leading questions of that sort.....why?
This theory also fails to explain my doll-enjoying, die-cast-airplane-enjoying, littlest-pet-shop-enjoying, affectionate, playful, autistic daughter.
Posted by: DominEditrix
|
June 4, 2010 1:35 AM
That's why we prefer runes carved in circles, right?
I took half* of a History of Women Writers class once. The very earnest professor lauded The Tale of Genji, attributed to Lady Murasaki in about 1000 CE. The professor was nattering on about how lovely it was that a woman had written what some consider to be the first novel, in a world dominated by men. What she didn't seem to know was that, in Japan, writing tales was considered a womanly craft at the time.
Funny how being told X is more appropriate for one's gender frequently enables people to do things well.
*I quit the class when the prof insisted that George Eliot [Mary Ann Evans] was clearly a lesbian, despite the 20 year live-in relationship with George Lewes and the short marriage to John Cross.
Posted by: Algernon, elle sans chapeau
|
June 4, 2010 1:37 AM
Yeah, science is not the only place this rears its ugly head though.
Most artists know how to operate some kind of power tool, machining, casting... etc.
Even painters usually need to know how to build a stretcher.
Manual skill and physical ability are required, end of story.
So, you're a female grad student taking a sculpture class and the first thing out of the prof's mouth is "you girls will probably want to sit over there at the tables to work with clay the rest of you come over here for a demonstration" and you know you need to drop the class. Now.
(there is an *understanding* that female sculptors work with clay or fabric. Because those are soft.)
Posted by: Nepenthe
|
June 4, 2010 1:37 AM
Dear lord, I hope their isn't a dude invasion of IBTP because of this.
I have faith that
TwistyJill will sling the banhammer freely should that even hint of happening.Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe
|
June 4, 2010 1:44 AM
Lynna:
Always a good gift. My studio is bristling with tools, and I had a problem for a while with my husband kiting certain ones (and he has half a ton of tools of his own) so I spent some bucks and bought a full set of tools with the bright pink handles. That way, I could at least locate them more easily. My husband took one look and said "I need those!" He'd been having problems at work with other people getting into his tools, taking them and not returning them. He got a set of the pink, took them to work and never had another one missing. The idiots he worked with wouldn't pick up a tool with pink handles.
Posted by: DominEditrix
|
June 4, 2010 1:48 AM
What, they let boys in the military have fitted sheets? No more spiffy hospital corners? Bunch o' babies!
I never saw them as being difficult to fold; it's a fairly straightforward procedure. I fold 'em because they take up less room in the closet when they're flat.
The Biophysicist, when batching it, only did dark and light washes. I do black, white, blue, and, when [rarely] necessary, things that are neither black nor white nor blue. Green = blue, grey = black, occasionally red = black. That generally suffices.
Posted by: DominEditrix
|
June 4, 2010 1:55 AM
There are people who don't understand that my router was a very romantic birthday gift from The Biophysicist. As were the knives he brought me from the knife show he and his son went to last week. Now I have to resurrect my old throwing skills.
Posted by: jcmartz.myopenid.com
|
June 4, 2010 1:59 AM
The same goes for (ethnic) minorities.
Posted by: lilith
|
June 4, 2010 2:35 AM
I'm a female science student - I have a master and about to start my Ph.D. A lot of my friends are (male and female) science students. I don't think any of us have ever heard such bizarre opinion - that women are better at "feeling" and therefore cannot be good scientists. I sure haven't.
Maybe it's because I'm a Biologist, which counts as more "faminine"? but then again two of my friends are Chemists... It's all sounds just weird to me.
ps: I suck at houseworks.
Posted by: Walton, Marquis of Carabas
|
June 4, 2010 2:54 AM
:-O
That's awful. Did you complain to the university?
Posted by: truth machine, OM
|
June 4, 2010 3:41 AM
Oh, and back in the Olden Dayes, when our computers were carved from tree-trunks and Compuserve started hosting fora, I was accused by some nimwit in the Women Only section of being male. Why? Because I "wrote like a man".
See http://www.challengingdestiny.com/reviews/warmworlds.htm
Posted by: keenacat
|
June 4, 2010 3:47 AM
Ok, so I'm an avid cook, I make a terrfic nurse and caretaker (and probbly a mum as well), I win at caring for kids and the elderly and I am extremly sociable. Also, I choose a dissertation subject thats all touchy-feely in some peoples books (I do research on palliative sedation and its effects on relatives of dying patients).
But I'll be damned if I can't beat your sorry male ass at intubation, emergency management, handling anesthesia and trauma patients, draining a thoracic cavity and doing other tough-ass shit. And I'll be looking all cute and feminine while cutting a human skull in half with a handsaw and digging the inferior alveolar nerve out of its bony bed, thank you very much.
I also did the spinal canal prep because of me being awesome an shit. My boyfriend fell in love with me while doing exactly that - we had gross anatomy class together.
[/rant]
As I said up there, I'm a sociable person and I generally use this to my advantage (wait, a woman isn't supposed to do that, right?). But when I have some shithead trying to demean my skills and going all "You know, nursing would be THE job for you" on me, damned, I get rabid. If I wanted to be a nurse, I'd avoided med school.
Dude Nation can go fuck itself.
So then, I'm off to pediatrics class. Yes, i love itty bitty babys. Wanna drop any comments? :D
Posted by: truth machine, OM
|
June 4, 2010 3:52 AM
Here is more on the extraordinary Alice Sheldon.
Posted by: mikee
|
June 4, 2010 4:53 AM
And by the way, OF COURSE men are worse at housework... because they don't practice enough!
Excuse me! If people want to complain about sterotyping it works both ways. One of my male flatmates at university was an absolute neat freak. And while he couldn't cook, I've been able to cook quite well since my early teens.
With regards to female scientists, my PhD supervisor was a phenomenal organic chemist. When discussing synthetic methods she could refer you to relevant journals including the year and page number. When she had a child her husband took on the role of homemaker so she could continue with her career and she was made a full professor in her early 40's.
Also when I first started my PhD in the early 90's the majority of my fellow PhD's were male. When I look around chemistry departments now here in New Zealand over 50 percent of PhD students are female, and we are now starting to see more and more female academics.
Posted by: Rob Clack
|
June 4, 2010 5:16 AM
Prof. Jenny Clack made it, but it was a struggle. My particular prejudice is that recognition took far longer to arrive than if she'd been male. No evidence, of course.
Posted by: Tigger_the_Wing
|
June 4, 2010 5:18 AM
When I met my hubby (waaaay back in 1979) he was so good at housework that I was inspired to tell him that he would make someone a wonderful housewife one day.
Division of labour? Except when I'm going through a bad patch health-wise, I do almost all the DIY stuff. I have a good eye for a straight line! He is far better than I am at the more domestic stuff. I trained all five of our offspring (including our daughter) to be self-sufficient around the house by their mid-teens.
Mechanical stuff (bicycles, cars, motorbikes) is done by us both as it is so much fun.
Although hubby went to Uni to study chemistry, he diverted into IT; despite wanting to be a vet, and starting out in medical research, most of my working life was transport-related.
I think that each and every child should be encouraged to follow their strengths; there are NO 'boys' subjects/careers' or 'girls' subjects/careers'. So why pretend there are, and waste talent?
P.S. Most of the nurses I've known socially have been male. I agree that doctors shouldn't ever be allowed to take blood; nurses always do a better job. Gender doesn't come into it.
Posted by: Aquaria
|
June 4, 2010 5:47 AM
unless you're in the military, what possible reason is there to fold fitted sheets? It's not like you were going to wear those sheets outside, where someone might care about wrinkled fabric...
My mother cares.
Oh, does she care.
She goes through my bureau drawers, looks under my bed, and bitches about how filthy my dryer is because I don't wash the lint filter at least every other load.
No, I'm not kidding.
Posted by: Jadehawk, cascadeuse féministe
|
June 4, 2010 5:52 AM
O.o
Posted by: Peter Ashby
|
June 4, 2010 6:02 AM
No makeup, check; into hard sciences, check; plays video games, check. That describes my wife, she was doing a chemistry degree when we got together, then switched to Maths before adding another in CompSci where she was often the only woman in the class. I am a biologist (a science full of women) and our youngest spawnette is splitting the difference doing BioInformatics with our full support.
I have never understood men who are put off or nervous around smart, sassy women. They turn me on something shocking (for a married man). Go for it ladies, don't hide your lights under societal expectations. There are more guys like me out there than you think who will be overjoyed to love you, if that is what you want.
My idea of hell is being hitched to bimbo, don't care how gorgeous she is.
Posted by: DLC
|
June 4, 2010 6:11 AM
since when is science un-happy, cold and dead ?
Isn't the discovery of new things and the expansion of human knowledge just about the coolest thing since sliced bread ?
Why should anyone be forced into the dark ages where the way to cure an ill was to pray to a roman-empire era confidence trickster ?
Women are and should be the equal of any male in every field of endeavor.
Posted by: Moveable Type
|
June 4, 2010 6:11 AM
A former client of mine, Krishna Agerwal, was the first female Indian consultant anaesthetist in the NHS, and nobody but nobody would make the mistake a second time of patronising her; that would not be a healthy decision to make although she is only 4'10" tall and weighs about 6 stone wet through.
On the domestic front my wife has difficulty changing a light bulb, my son is a fair cook and my daughter can just about rewire a house (taught by her partner).
There is the same problem in business; the attitude of a significant minority of men does a lot of damage to the balance between men and women in this environment although I am pleased to say that it is changing, albeit slowly.
Posted by: El
|
June 4, 2010 6:41 AM
I hate generalizations.
"All the women complain more about cold". "I don't" "Because you are not a tipycal woman"
"The women never lead in alpinism" "I do", "but that's because you are not a tipycal woman"
"The women don't likes bivouacs, they prefer the campings" "I like bivouacs", "Because you are not a typical woman".
And so on. And if I say that I lead, and know a lot of women that lead too, the say "that's because you are not typical women"...Arrrrrrrrrrrg
Posted by: llewelly
|
June 4, 2010 7:06 AM
Random quote I got when refreshing this thread. Reminds of how in Christian myth it was Eve who first tried the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge.Posted by: vinniehew
|
June 4, 2010 7:27 AM
Comments 76 and 77:
The 'extreme male brain' hypothesis is not outdated. In fact it is travelling along quite nicely with some fairly convincing evidence coming to light recently.
In my view, the best evidence so far is the correlation between high foetal testoterone and social/language deficiencies in childhood. In other words, more male hormones in the womb = more autistic traits in childhood.
I also read about another study which links androgen-related genes to autism. In other words, genes that control male hormones may play a role in autism.
You have to admit, Simon Baron Cohen may be onto something.
Posted by: davita22
|
June 4, 2010 7:27 AM
derelicthat
I feel the same about mine!
I'm finishing a PhD in biochem this year and I've found that many people underestimate me simply because I'm female. At first I was on a mission to prove that "in spite" of being female, I could excel.. Now I've realised that its a lot more fun to feed peoples' sterotyped thinking and then mindblow them when they find out that the frivilous chick with the low cut shirts and the high heels is actually one freaking awesome scientist. :)
Posted by: ikt
|
June 4, 2010 7:30 AM
who is the equivalent pz myers?
Posted by: luna-the-cat
|
June 4, 2010 7:32 AM
@Caine, #75 --
The Giving Tree???????
SERIOUSLY?
In a discussion about how gender stereotypes hurt women, you are recommending a book about a completely self-sacrificing [explicitly female-gendered] tree who literally allows herself to be stripped and destroyed to give everything to a little boy (who doesn't even ever say "thank you") and is happy doing this.
Yeah. That book pissed me off even when I was four, although it was well over a decade later before I had words for why.
Posted by: scooterKPFT
|
June 4, 2010 7:41 AM
I would like to promote the stereotyping of women as the vast majority of federal employees over seeing regulations on corporate behavior.
What we learned from the BP disaster about the MMS is that men will sell out their country for sex and drugs.
Women are far more difficult to corrupt with sex or drugs, they need to be in charge.
Posted by: luna-the-cat
|
June 4, 2010 7:50 AM
@vinniehew #158 -- to the best of my knowledge (and I *DO* track this field) none of the recent genetics research has supported a particular hormonal link to autism. The "hypermasculinity" model isn't entirely dead, but it doesn't have a lot of support in the field. The recent research I have seen has instead indicated an extremely heterogeneous multi-loci problem with a heavy involvement of cell-signaling pathways which play a role in neuron communication, memory and learning. The reason why more males than females are affected is still an open question, but testosterone has not been demonstrated to affect any of these pathways, even though serotonin has.
To be honest, I haven't even seen Simon Baron Cohen still pushing this "hypermale" hypothesis much in the last few years. It has the smell of an interesting idea being dropped for lack of any evidence that it's close to reality.
Posted by: DominEditrix
|
June 4, 2010 7:51 AM
TM @145: He was rather embarrassed by that incident, as I recall.
There are a couple of urban fantasy writers out there whose names are ambiguous: Rob Thurman and Jes Battis. I had a brief spat with a guy at a bookstore who corrected me when I referred to Thurman as "she". [She is a "she".] It seems her Cal Leandros series had [and I quote] "too many good fight scenes" to be written by a woman.
Posted by: science-cyrano
|
June 4, 2010 8:13 AM
One of the most troubling things is that it's very often other women who are enforcing these stereotypes.
When I was an undergrad, I was nearly kicked out of a women's studies for being too analytical and 'male-centered'.
--If I had a nickel for every time I heard the 'not a typical woman' thing..
Posted by: neon-elf.myopenid.com
|
June 4, 2010 8:14 AM
It's moments like this that I realise just how lucky I am to have had the upbringing I did, given I was born in the 1950s.
I grew up playing with my dad's old Meccano set, an electric train set, various toy weaponry, and lots of Matchbox cars (mostly used in the dirt). Sure, I had dolls, but rarely touched them. My friends were all boys or very tomboyish girls like myself and we tended to spend a lot of time up trees, bike-riding, playing football/baseball/cricket in the backyard/park/street, or engaging in protracted 'wars' against other local tribes of kids, that usually involved throwing chunks of clay-heavy dirt at each other from ambush and resulted in all participants proudly taking home bruises, cuts, and grazes. We collected bugs, poked at dead things, looked at things under microscopes, and otherwise investigated the natural world, as our interests took us.
After my dad died when I was 8 years old, I lived in an all female household, where I learned basic plumbing, electrical work, and other handyman skills, as well as the more traditional cooking/sewing/etc (all of which both sexes should learn before they leave home, IMO).
I spent 13 years at a private girls' school that valued academic excellence, taught us that we could be anything we set our minds to, and especially favoured the students in the science/maths stream.
The result was that when I arrived at college in the early 1970s, I was horrified to discover that not all young women believed they could do anything, be anything, and were stuck in gender roles I never knew existed. Talk about culture shock!
Posted by: Janine, The Little Top Of Venom, OM
|
June 4, 2010 8:21 AM
DominEditrix, I wonder what that guy would make of Mary Gentle, author of Grunts and Ash:A Secret History? One of her hobbies is recreating and using the weapons and armors of the medieval era.
Posted by: luna-the-cat
|
June 4, 2010 8:43 AM
@DominEditrix #164 --
Oh, yeah. Goes both ways, that one. Have you seen http://www.stephenking.com/forums/showthread.php/13988-Gender-bias-in-publishing ?
Posted by: luna-the-cat
|
June 4, 2010 8:56 AM
@scooterKPFT #162 --
Women are neither more or less virtuous by men. Women are not inherently better or worse, period, or more or less backstabbing. Women are just human. Maggie Thatcher was not exactly either corporation-unfriendly or incorruptible, and just recently the same proportion of female UK MPs were caught out in the expenses corruption scandal here as male ones (fewer overall, obviously, but that is because there are fewer female MPs overall).
And, back when I first started computing, I was at first thrilled to find another female IT person working at BP -- first other one I'd found in what was at the time an almost totally male-dominated field. That is, I was thrilled until she somehow managed to acquire credit for a really slick little bit of programming I had done, quickly established that she would do that with and to anyone unwary enough to share what they were doing with her, and managed to get herself promoted on the back of that effort.
Posted by: Jadehawk, cascadeuse féministe
|
June 4, 2010 9:30 AM
*groan*oh god yes... I had to beat the boyfriend repeatedly over the head with a cluebat before he stopped with the "yeah, but you're different" crap.
Posted by: Endor
|
June 4, 2010 9:44 AM
"--If I had a nickel for every time I heard the 'not a typical woman' thing.."
I'd be a freaking millionaire. That statement is just a backhanded compliment. You're not a typical woman, so anything horrible, false or insulting I say about women, you can't take offense to."
*grrrr*
That aside, PZ linking to Twisty!! That's a feminist atheist fangasm right there.
Posted by: ButchKitties
|
June 4, 2010 10:02 AM
In my 8th grade science class, I had the best grades in the class. I finished the lab work in half the time it took the other students, probably because I *did* the lab work while they were socializing. I was pretty unpopular that year because I ruined the curve for the midterm and final exams.
When it was time for teachers to make recommendations for our high school classes, I was shocked to learn my teacher would not recommend me for honors science. He had attributed my success to cheating off a male classmate. His evidence: we had worked at the same pace and helped each other clean up our work spaces.
He knew his cheating accusation was bogus. The student I was supposedly cheating off of got questions wrong that I got right. If he had any real reason to suspect I was cheating, I would have faced disciplinary action. I found out that he hadn't recommended any girls for the honors course. A teacher recommendation was required to get into the class.
I got into honors science anyway, but I had to switch to a private school to do it. It's a sad day when a Catholic school is less sexist than a public school.
Posted by: Algernon, elle sans chapeau
|
June 4, 2010 10:21 AM
Oh I'm glad I'm not the only one who hated that book. I read it. Cried. Had nightmares.
My mom tried very hard to convince me it was a good book, and to try to get me to just recognize how the tree just loved the boy and that was what love meant. But she got stuck when I asked her how the tree was supposed to *keep* him from taking all that stuff.
I told my mom that the boy was bad and I hoped they'd chop him up and feed trees with him.
At which point my mom told me straight up that it was an allegory for parenting and *she* was the tree.
Yeah...
So I still hate that book, btw.
Posted by: Algernon, elle sans chapeau
|
June 4, 2010 10:25 AM
HELL NO! If that was the worst thing I'd seen happen, or if I hadn't learned first hand what could happen to you at that school maybe I would have...
I quit instead.
My poor choice in going there, but I'll do better things in the future.
Posted by: Chgo_Liz
|
June 4, 2010 10:54 AM
OurDeadSelves @ #57:
Unit Blocks (it's been argued that if a child have no other toy growing up, this is it)
Kapla Blocks (will take you through adulthood)
Magna Tiles (my children preferred the wooden building toys, but these are preferred by many)
Playmobil (US site) (Playmobil at Target is gendered; get the real stuff directly from the company)
Set math/logic card game (any age, and adults don't have to hold back)
Blokus game for 2, 3 or 4
That should get you started, at least.
Posted by: Chgo_Liz
|
June 4, 2010 11:15 AM
I suspect that every woman on here could spend the rest of the day typing to describe the many instances we've all had of either being discriminated against for being women or not being "woman" enough or....
It might be better in some areas, but not by much.
Gak. Just thinking about this is depressing. Too many memories.
________
This *seems* to have never made it to the thread, and I spent some time googling, so I'm reposting the info....
OurDeadSelves @ #57:
Unit Blocks (it's been argued that if a child have no other toy growing up, this is it)
Kapla Blocks (will take you through adulthood)
Magna Tiles (my children preferred the wooden building toys, but these are preferred by many)
Playmobil (US site) (Playmobil at Target is gendered; get the real stuff directly from the company)
Set math/logic card game (any age, and adults don't have to hold back)
Blokus game for 2, 3 or 4
That should get you started, at least.
Posted by: Le Moustier
|
June 4, 2010 11:20 AM
I hope people who haven't thought much about the many flavours of oppression of women in our societies take the chance to explore Twisty's blog a little further. It's usually thought-provoking, and always exceptionally well written with barbed humour.
Thanks to Twisty, I now blame the patriarchy once a day if possible.
Posted by: alisonmtr
|
June 4, 2010 11:24 AM
Ummm. . .just a side note. Clean the dryer lint trap. It can catch fire. You wouldn't want that.
Posted by: alysonmiers
|
June 4, 2010 11:32 AM
Of course. I read the "women are better than men because don't need to write in straight lines!" essay (what I just wrote is a reductio ad absurdum of the philosopher's thesis, but it was pretty damn ridiculous even without being filtered through my snark so whatevs) in a Philosophy of Feminism class, and as an English major concentrating in Creative Writing (which no one ever accused of being an overly mannish course of study), my reaction to that was basically, "What in the shit is THIS?!" As a budding writer I found it rather obnoxious that such "patriarchal" traits as organization and logic were treated as unnecessary byproducts of patriarchy. I LIKE being logical, organized and coherent when I put words on paper, dammit! I will apologize to no one for that! (Oh, and the professor of this course was totally with me on that. She was also the one who persuaded me to do a minor in Gender Studies.)
Furthermore, as a learning feminist, I found it even more obnoxious that the "women are different from men but that makes us special" subset simply reaffirmed the old restrictive gender stereotypes but flipped the old hierarchy around to say it was actually women who've been superior all along. I don't think it's wrong to explore how traditionally feminine traits and occupations are devalued mainly because they're associated with women, and to say those things are good for society and should be celebrated rather than denigrated. What I don't appreciate is when anyone tells me that if I don't meet certain criteria of womanhood, then I'm less of a woman and not worth defending. It's just as toxic when Difference Feminists do it as when beneficiaries of the heterosexist patriarchy do it.
This list is a very mixed bag. "Intuitive" is a word I don't like to use to describe people; the definition tends to change radically depending on who's talking. Solutions to problems are intuitive or not; people have different ways of thinking which should be described with less loaded adjectives.
"Accepting" and "trusting" are pleasant qualities to have in a friend, but not in a scientist. Trust without verification is the opposite of skepticism; accepting without questioning is basically the definition of faith.
"Nurturing," meanwhile, is not anti-scientific but as a role it can be oppressive. One half of humanity should not be pigeonholed into Society's Official Nurturing Duty at the expense of their own interests.
Why the hell should knitting still be considered a predominantly "feminine" hobby in the 21st century? When they're not aware that it's supposed to be something only their grandmothers do, little boys dive right into it, and why not? Knitting is about making useful stuff with your hands! And now that it's a hobby rather than a chore, we can have fun with it! I think all children should learn how to knit. I'd totally teach them if I could get someone to pay me a living wage for it.
Posted by: Erin Coda
|
June 4, 2010 11:37 AM
Occasional lurker, first time commenter, and late to the party. But I'll toss a token bench into the fray...
Most of the discriminatory crap I've encountered has been outside the university/science setting, and has been from other women. Who, of course, seem to think the comments are actually helpful (oh yessss, esp. when delivered in that slightly admonishing tone parents use with teenagers, oh yes they do!).
Like being told to "believe in yourself" when I was disappointed at not getting into my first-choice grad programs. Um, if I didn't believe in myself, I wouldn't be applying to A-list schools. Are they trying to insult me?
Or the ones who nag and chivvy, like they think if they don't push me hard enough, I'll get discouraged and quit. Um, got that one covered too, thanks.
Or the shopper who told me that I should "put yourself first once in a while" (or similar language) when I complimented her manicure. Sorry, I'm treating myself to a PhD and when I have a few spare bucks or 20 minutes, I'll probably spend it on food or fiction. CERTAINLY NOT on something that precludes the use of my hands while it's going on.
And don't even get me started on the inappropriate use of the word "deserve." We've got female generals and shuttle pilots now; we don't need to make a merit issue out of naps or chocolate.
Posted by: Chgo_Liz
|
June 4, 2010 11:40 AM
Sorry for the up-thread double post. Apparently even logged in responses are being held for approval. Must be a particular bad day for trolls here.
Posted by: Sastra
|
June 4, 2010 11:56 AM
science-cyrano #165 wrote:
Yes; it's called "difference feminism." The supernatural connection is supposed to be stronger for women, because they are more intuitive and "open-minded." They recognize that there are many truths with no right or wrong and we do not judge, we share, for there are many ways of knowing ancient wisdom indigenous people women closer to the earth and higher realms accept others blah, blah, blah.
Whenever I see some sort of local "Women's Expo" it's heavy on the woo -- reiki and 'discovering your angels' sandwiched in with financial advice, breast cancer awareness, and belly dancing. There's no point in my going with my friends, since the high level of crap would stress me -- and that's precisely the stuff they're going for. The only women I know who find this equation of women=woo insulting, are atheists or people I've met on the internet. Otherwise, any grumbling or complaining on my part is met with scolds about how I need to be less "judgmental" and the blah blah blah.
Posted by: ncc-74656
|
June 4, 2010 11:58 AM
Well... I'm very strongly inclined to agree with PZ as I'm not a fan of discrimination based on anything excluding real merit, but I'm a woman and I've noticed that indeed, I do have emotions, and they do interfere with my life. Also, I'm a diagnosed dyscalculic, meaning that I have much more ability to master useless things (that's why I ended up in the Arts faculty) than science (which I would like to do, and strive to get better at). Am I the only one? I think not.
If there truly is a difference between male and female cognitive abilities, then the best way to eliminate unfair discrimination is to eliminate the basis of the stereotype, namely, the difference in abilities. Heck, even devising a technological solution to reproduction without females. Because the female condition does not only entail hypothetical differences in intellectual skills, but very real physical pain and bleeding. This is not healthy.
Posted by: PZ Myers
|
June 4, 2010 12:08 PM
Men have emotions, too, that interfere with their lives. Or is it that emotions are an important part of all of our lives?
It would also be easier to develop a technical solution that would make males superfluous...much more significant plumbing in the female, after all. So why suggest eliminating females?
Women are no more victimized by pain than men, and as for bleeding...menstrual bleeding is normal, and not at all unhealthy. It may be a nuisance, but so is having to go to the bathroom several times a day, and men aren't beating their breasts and declaring themselves unhealthy and weak because they rip out a good loud fart.
Posted by: Steve LaBonne
|
June 4, 2010 12:08 PM
ButchKitties's story @172 is so appalling that it was all I could do to refrain from heaving a heavy object at my computer screen. I'd like to spend some quality time with that teacher in a dark alley.
If he had been one of my daughter's teachers I would have stopped at nothing to try to get him fired or at least reassigned.
Posted by: Azkyroth
|
June 4, 2010 12:17 PM
Citations plz. Really, really, really wanting something to be true doesn't make it true.
Posted by: chigau (◦_◦)
|
June 4, 2010 12:38 PM
SC OM #100
Thank you, thank you, thank you for posting that link. I remember seeing Tom Noddy on Carson and loving his act. I won't thank you for the hour (so far) I've wasted watching various bubble blowers on youtube.
-----
We recently purchased a new washing machine. A top loader with an "impeller" rather than an agitator. And a glass top. After installation we did a load of laundry. Three fully adult, sober people (2 males, 1 female) stood around the washer and WATCHED it clean the clothes.
Posted by: NateHevens
|
June 4, 2010 12:49 PM
Can someone please explain to me how being smart and skeptical is UNattractive in a woman? Those, right there, make up two MAJOR qualities of my dream woman.
Seriously... WTF?
Posted by: ronsullivan
|
June 4, 2010 12:50 PM
I've been taking it in very small doses, that thread over t' Savage Death island. Lately I don't have the heart for lots of depressing and/or infuriating stuff, what with all the background evil. I wondered if you were watching it, PZ. It started with a couple of reply posts from someone who'd clearly gone 'round the bend of Woo into flat-out counterfactual word loaf.
In other good news, the Deja Vu Bookstore and Psychic Crystal Aura Readings (on the phone!) HQ around the corner from me is going out of business. It's sandwiched between a chiropractor and North Atlantic Books publishing office.
I was a fan of Tiptree for years before she outed herself, and in an odd way it was a disappointment when she did. After "The Women Men Don't See" and "Houston, Houston, Do You Read" I'd been thinking, "Here's a man who Gets It, including some of the subtleties."
I've been accuse of writing like a man and thinking like a man a few times, yeah, and it's generally been what the speaker meant as praise.
Posted by: ronsullivan
|
June 4, 2010 1:02 PM
Also: Periods are a pain in the ass and elsewhere and I for one don't give a shit whether they're "normal" or healthy" and while hitting 60 has also trailed a lot of PITAs I'm glad to be rid of that one. And losing women's ahem duty in breeding doesn't mean losing women, ahem, except that that's what's followed in certain SF that I can't recall offhand just now. Y'all can take it on for a few centuries, that's OK. Lots harder than freezing sperm, tho'.
Somebody way upthread used the phrase "biological roles" and if I hadn't just skinned my right palm pretty good scrambling around on scree I'd'a' pointed out then that that's a contradiction in terms.
Posted by: https://me.yahoo.com/a/tL1MkU0ghY0gNMrxrvSjJFsEYJYQ0ZIPjQ--#5f870
|
June 4, 2010 1:10 PM
...god-given male superiority -- it will not die out until the big-3 monster-theisms are challenged, their political pretensions quashed.
Why keep up pressure against true believers?
To convince rational people that all true believers are vectors of serious mental disturbances.
Their mental and moral perversions, especially in xianity and islam, sicken the entire planet:
1. Harmful actions — time volunteered by believers, money donated, psychological energy perverted, and life itself destroyed (“martyrs”) — on nihilistic demands by religious authoritarians. (Priest and pastor, rabbi and imam are not some god’s proxies.)
2. Poor mental habits learned — illogical arguments, denial of well verified scientific truths, psychological projection of hatred, mindless praise of ignorance — as part of irrational inverted snobbery, so-called “apologetics”.
3. Diseased psychological predispositions fostered — denial of death, glorification of suffering, wallowing in “sin,” degrading the planet, unhealthy misunderstandings about sex and gender.
4. Arrogant moral and political absolutism demanded — misogyny, androcentrism, paternalism, pro-birth and anti-life, intolerance of ideological differences, theo-political drive to overthrow secular governments — as part of "mission to overcome" the world.
You need no longer wonder why a sick Ameristan — which every day more resembles Iran — threatens its own people with totalitarian rule and the entire planet with war.
the anti_supernaturalist
Posted by: Toidel_Mahoney
|
June 4, 2010 1:21 PM
Ladies are less likely to be bamboozled by the theory of evolutionism because there is no effective way for them to take part in the practice of evolutionism.
Those who believe ladies are less likely to believe in evolutionism--falsely called science--because of innate inferiority or artificial stupidity imposed by some patriarchy are both wrong. The womenfolk and their "woo" have clearly seen through the Darwinian propaganda machine!
Posted by: https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawnARs0CNQnEm1XRt0x6wznYdrTmb5e54kk
|
June 4, 2010 1:45 PM
Male person, here.
My ideal woman would be able to cook, sew, clean, wash, perform at least elementary calculus, have a basic understanding of evolved systems, be good at board games which have been played for over two centuries (back in time from right now but bonus points for archaic ones she might introduce me to), understand and be able to construct logically consistent arguments, understand the scientific method, be able to make basic electric circuits in a way which doesn't result in fire hazards (also mount a wall socket), be able to communicate effectively in at least three commonly spoken human languages (add in any uncommon or extinct ones and I'll love her more), be able to program a computer using a language with strict typing (bonus points if she can do asm), play a musical instrument (bonus points for singing better than a tonedeaf drunk), have at least a rudimentary understanding of history beyond the borders of her own country, have traveled internationally (bonus points for any additional continent she's been to), have the guts to tell me I'm wrong even when I don't think I am, be able to admit she's wrong, be able to enjoy fine foods or drinks with more depth than "ooh I like that!", be able to read maps, know how to read statistics, be brave even while scared, be able to defend herself against an average assailant, be self-confident, be able to act on her own, be compassionate but not naive, be generous but not to those who waste it, be diligent and precise (but stopping short of neurotic level), be able to deal with absence of luxury, manage to walk across other terrain types than pavement, be able to manage her own money, be willing to learn, be willing to tell people she's heard that shit before and has no more time for it, ...
Basically, I want a whole lot of things which don't include being pretty, having a cute little girl smile and talking like one, having specific sizes, and being obedient. All the things in the long list above are simply things I can do, and thus someone I'd call an equal would be able to do the same, what with being my equal and all.
Such women exist, and I only wish more of them did so I could come across one who's still available.
Posted by: Algernon, elle sans chapeau
|
June 4, 2010 2:43 PM
Hmmmm....
Check.
CheckCheck and some if you're interested in ancient shit.
Check.
Check. I can even work within its confines!
Should be no problem here. I'm handy with solder. I can repair your PC too!
English, German, American Sign Language, and I'll probably keep adding to them.
Whee! Score! Although I don't do much assembler stuffs.
Blogged it. Played piano since the age of six. Sing. Write music.
Studied Art Hist.
Just got back from Paris.
Prolly.
Prolly again.
Meh. Nothing wrong with "I like it" if you can figure out why. What else is one to base their exploration of aesthetics on?
Can anyone not?
Aced it.
Hahahaha. What choice do you have if you're scared?
LMAO. Depends, can I use my gun? How about my laser tits?
Sure.
No, I gotta call my daddy first. LOL
Ah, self defined I'm assuming or else what's the point? But, of course.
If you ask me.
I do my best.
Meh. I can deal with the absence of rudiments of civilization for a while if I have to.
What you mean like water? Because I've got that down!
Yep. And multiple properties!
I've heard all this shit before and have no more time for it.
...
Now I get to make a list right?
If I had an ideal man he:
Wouldn't come at me with a list of demands to meet in order to *win* him.
After all it's give to get on both sides isn't it?
Posted by: ask-who-knows
|
June 4, 2010 3:52 PM
Ol'Greg, I want to make divinity, file taxes, or put up crown molding for you. 194 beauty.
Posted by: https://me.yahoo.com/a/CmcUpM0h2eQXK59uQE5a80Vb74cwyvFNMMk-#20c72
|
June 4, 2010 4:07 PM
Female person here with a strange problem: I have matriculated at several institutions of higher learning in my life and always manage to land myself in the remedial math pile when I take the placement exams. This is despite having taken college/university Algebra THREE times and gotten an "A" each and every time. It just doesn't stick. What gives??
[changing subject]I work at a nationwide craft chain and can tell you from experience that knitting and crochet involve a lot of arithmetic. Especially if you want to design. So does, I've heard, quilting.[/subject change]
-dwarf zebu
Posted by: https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawnARs0CNQnEm1XRt0x6wznYdrTmb5e54kk
|
June 4, 2010 4:45 PM
hah, you score pretty high then.
Too bad it's not mutual though. I totally fail your list.
Posted by: Chgo_Liz
|
June 4, 2010 4:49 PM
It's nice to know I'm an ideal woman.
Not going to do anything with that info, but it's a nice ego boost for a Friday afternoon after a long week. Thank you.
Posted by: lenoxuss
|
June 4, 2010 5:20 PM
Lyrics: 21 Things
Posted by: starherbert
|
June 4, 2010 7:39 PM
And sorry, but I'm gonna have to call 'DUAL STANDARD' on THAT! Both stories might be bullshit, both might be true, but it's interesting how you have immediately assumed the 'analytical' story is bullshit and the 'empathetic' story is true, without any evidence for either.
Sorry, but.. live by the stereotype, die by the stereotype.
Posted by: Azkyroth
|
June 4, 2010 8:33 PM
Laser... tits.
...so, errm, are you seeing anyone? :P
Posted by: mikee
|
June 5, 2010 4:46 AM
I have to agree with starherbert at #200 regarding dual standards.
Granted women have suffered much more historically from stereotyping, but there are a few frustrating stereotypes used against men, for example that "men can't multi-task."
Posted by: Rorschach
|
June 5, 2010 4:58 AM
*circumcision deja vu*
What exactly is the effect of someone telling a guy who can multitask that they can't multitask ? Does it effect the jobs, study subjects or roles they get or find themselves pushed into ?
Posted by: naddyfive
|
June 5, 2010 10:18 AM
Even if you look at this kind of thing from a purely scientific perspective, it seems that you'd have to be under some strange misconceptions about genetics (and how brains operate) in order to believe that genders can be evenly split down the middle on any given cognitive trait.
You'd have to believe that *everything* about a person's intellectual aptitudes, all of their neural hardwiring, is determined or shaped by hormonal regulation in order to believe that men and women are essentially subspecies of H. sapiens with totally different cognitive styles. The problem with this is that we already know it probably isn't true- there are several genetic neurological diseases that affect men and women in similar numbers and with all but identical symptoms. There are very few genetic disorders that are inherited but then present differently in males and females solely due to hormonal regulation. We can observe individual cases that challenge sexist assumptions- more and more of all the time, in fact, as more opportunities are afforded to women.
One of the worst scientist offenders when it comes to propogating this kind of nonsense is Simon Baron-Cohen. I know he's a bright guy and he's done some good work, but a lot of what he says and claims is wild speculation.
Posted by: Kieranfoy, Faerie Godfather of Death, GMKSC, OED
|
June 5, 2010 11:36 AM
Oh, gods. What a thread!
I'll agree with a few other posters; feminism is good a healthy and awesome, but the varient which basically says "Every sexist cliche that was ever used to keep us down is true! We ARE warm and nuturing and intuitive and love circles and are in touch with nature and can't deal with logic and rhetoric... and it makes us BETTER!" is sooooo anoying. You can't embrace insulting and stupid cliches like that.
Posted by: Lyr
|
June 5, 2010 6:45 PM
Whenever anyone says something like "if women can be good in science and math, where are all the female physicists and mathematicians", I usually reply "with all the black NASCAR drivers". When a certain type of person feels unwelcome in a community, alot of them won't stick around. The constant battle for acceptance gets tiring after a while.
Posted by: Lyr
|
June 5, 2010 8:00 PM
Like they say, the best policeman -- or slavemaster -- is the one inside your head. People are indoctrinated into how they "should" behave early in their lives, and some people can never see a role beyond that.
I have some Wiccan and neopagan friends who have this attitude.
Posted by: Twisty
|
June 6, 2010 4:38 PM
This post and yall's commentary comprise some extremely decent patriarchy-blaming, and -- wait a sec while I brush a tear of spinsterly happiness from my jaundiced eye -- I'm not just sayin that because PZ has had the unmitigated good taste to more or less concur with a couple of my views.
But listen, why don't you nutty professors do us radical feminist ladies a solid and invent a goddam standalone cyborg uterus, already? I mean, what's the hold-up? Just a simple temperature-controlled synthetic meatsock is all I ask, no fancy AI required. A little thing like that should be pie to you lot. Email me when it's ready. Thanks!
Posted by: PZ Myers
|
June 6, 2010 4:47 PM
I'm thinking it would be a lot easier to engineer a stand-alone testicle and make men obsolete, first. A petri dish with some seminiferous tissue and a turkey baster is a much simpler solution than that whole elaborate uterine setup.
Posted by: spunmunkey
|
June 7, 2010 2:42 AM
[Once again – took awhile to respond as not been able to reply at the time – the curse of hand held lurking…]
*Gah!*
Story of my life.
My mother tried [read: forced] me to dress and act like a girl until she gave up when I was 14. From then on I pretty have lived in pants/trousers/slacks/however you want to call ‘em. I’ve been known to own and wear dresses/skirts – but it isn’t my default mode.
I’ve always been interested in how things work and building things (dad bought me a carpenters set when I was 5.) Owned more Lego than most boys I knew. Also had an awesome Meccano collection too. I’m handy with fixing things from broken toilets, to cars and industrial machines.
Seaweed does not freak me out.
I can also cook, clean, sew (but am crap at knitting – go figure!), and craft (embroidery/quilting).
I’m good with a gun, and can ride a horse like a stockman.
With my boyish ways, and rough & tumble nature – I have more male friends than I have female. In fact (which can be a curse) I’m considered one of the ‘boys’ in my current circle of friends – which sometimes can intimidate their girlfriends.
This also causes me pain as I’m attracted to men sexually, but seem to not be successful in the dating game. Well meaning (but totally ignorant friends) have suggested I drop the assertiveness, the ‘butch’ demeanour, and the pragmatic point of view – as being a more ‘girly’ [read: demure, submissive and weak] will get the lads flocking… *Ick!*
Don’t get me wrong – I haven’t gone without attention – and a few men I have dated have said how they find my blokeish ways attractive. Then again, I’ve dated arseholes who have tried to ‘tame’ me, and you can guess how that turned out. I have no intention of living out Taming of the Shrew.
Funnily, I’ve been part of the GLBT community – but find that they are just about pigeonholing people as any other group of people. To be ‘butch’ and not be a lesbian somehow frightens them. And the people I get on well with the most are drag queens, who love my ‘male’ sense of humour and can prattle about boys and shoes with me as well.
I truly look forward to the day that we are all considered HUMAN first – and treat each other with the humanity that implies.
“Some say I’m a dreamer. But I’m not the only one.” :)
@193 – knowing my luck, you live somewhere other than the southern hemisphere *g*
And I agree with Ol’Greg @194 – not keen on lists, getting to know someone’s potentials and capabilities are part of a fulfilling relationship IMHO. (BTW - Ol’Greg > this fan of the Boosh salutes you! *kotc*)
Posted by: spunmunkey
|
June 7, 2010 2:46 AM
*HEH*
Just realised - after 'listing' some of my qualities, I've gone and said I'm not keen on lists...
Be gentle with me...
Posted by: Walton, Marquis of Carabas
|
June 7, 2010 3:00 AM
Googlemess @#193: Wow... that's a very demanding list of criteria. :-/
I don't really find it helpful or healthy to think about an "ideal woman" (or indeed an "ideal man") though. Each person is an individual, and is interesting in his or her own way; and I'm attracted to a pretty wide range of people with a wide range of qualities, not just to those who fit some specific mould.
Then again, I don't know a lot about this particular area of life, so I could be wildly out of step with how everyone else thinks... I don't really know.
Posted by: Tigger_the_Wing
|
June 7, 2010 3:23 AM
PZ, I'm with Twisty.
The way I read her post #208, she is no more in favour of making women obsolete than I am, and I don't want men obsolete either.
But if we could choose to reproduce without all the life-threatening pregnancy business, that would be a plus in my book.
If both parents could have the same "put in the zygotes and wait" experience with no-one having to risk their life health in the process, wouldn't that be a positive thing? Had I not already had it removed fifteen years ago, I would certainly be willing to have my womb taken out and linked to a life-support system for the use of other people to reproduce.
Far safer and with fewer ethical problems than surrogacy using a whole women as the incubator.
Posted by: Twisty
|
June 7, 2010 8:46 AM
Exactly, except it would do so much more than eliminate the 9 months of personal misery and inconvenience. See, the cyborg ute, or, as we like to call it down at Spinster HQ, the Wombatron, would remove reproduction altogether from women's patriarchally-enforced duty list. This would essentially liberate us from much of the obsessive control wielded by politicians and godbags who compulsively monitor and legislate our behavior on the strength of the 5th-century idea that every sperm is sacred. Without state ownership of our reproductive organs, we women could flit about the countryside being human beings just like anyone else, as opposed to potential fetus repositories.
Result: Abortion "debate"? Over! 'Mommy track'? A thing of the past. Teen slut crises a la Bristol Palin? Sayonara! Dudes whining "she tricked me into marrying her by getting knocked up!"? Blammo! In fact, the cyborg uterus cures a whole slew of social ills too numerous to mention.
Later on, when the supply of humans begins to run dangerously low (as if!), just fire up the old Wombatron. Everybody wins.
Posted by: https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawk2V7NzhW6WMvXE4pMMP90tt725q8NiQhk
|
June 8, 2010 5:02 PM
I recently interviewed Google's VP of Search and User Experience, Marissa Mayer, on this question. You can hear a 3 minute audio of what she said here:
http://makingitbigcareers.com/googles-marissa-mayer-on-pet-peeves-and-women-in-technology
The full interview with Marissa is published in "Making it Big in Software" (details here: http://amzn.to/b08auR)
Sam
Posted by: amphiox
|
June 8, 2010 5:19 PM
I can think of just one potential disadvantage, and that is what if some unforeseen disaster or catastrophe occurs, wherein the technological civ that supports the wombatrons is destroyed, and the knowledge and/or capability to make them is lost? Wouldn't the whole species be screwed? (I guess some might say that's a feature, not a bug)
Worse yet, some odious fundamentalist sect that refused to use the wombatron and continued to keep their en-wombed females brutally suppressed would then inherit the earth!
I guess the rest of us would be extinct at that point and wouldn't care, but it would be mean and irresponsible thing to inflict on the rest of the earth....
Posted by: MichelleZB
|
June 10, 2010 10:02 AM
PZ, I forgot to thank you for this wonderful post. Thank you for not stereotyping me.
Posted by: short erotic stories
|
April 8, 2011 11:10 AM
This is a vast subject.
Posted by: MinnieTheFinn, kaamea ateistifeministinarttu
|
April 8, 2011 12:23 PM
Hi y'all again.
As always, most of what I think about the OT has been covered already by much better writers, but one thing kinda grates with me at the moment.
Some commenters spend an awful lot of time trying to assure us all that it's ok to be a lady scientist, because, ya know, lady scientists can be sexy and attractive and, yikes, feminine, too. And how intelligence can be a real turn-on in a woman.
How about this: it does not fucking matter whether I turn you on or not, as long as I am allowed to pursue the field I'm most proficient in to the best of my ability.
I'm in a relatively masculine profession, and I don't give a monkey's toss about whether my colleagues or clients find me sexy or attractive. I solve their problems, they pay me for it - as simple as that. If I wanted to be graded by my looks, I would have chosen something else to do with my life, I'm sure.
Somehow, it still seems to be a part of the female package, though: "yeah, sure, she won the Nobel prize for physics, but isn't it awesome she's also manages to be so fuckable!"
Posted by: a_ray_in_dilbert_space, OM, A little FUCKING ray of sunshine
|
April 8, 2011 12:41 PM
Minnie, Excellent point. What should matter for a woman scientist is whether she can advance understanding in her subject matter. Period. I think that some people are worried that women will perceive the sciences as "masculine" and so be put off thinking that they would have to sacrifice their femininity. I would just say that this is not my experience. I've worked with straight and gay men, straight women and lesbians. What matters is valuing your colleagues for what they can contribute to the project, not their outward characteristics.
Posted by: doom3435
|
July 26, 2011 4:58 AM
I don't think anyone has the ability to grasp all or even most reasons tires for sale behind stereotypes. Regardless what you think, any reasonable person can assume they haven't covered all the reasons. free samples
And
how to get rid of bed bugs from an experiential learning process standpoint, the reason isn't all that important. Regardless why our hand burn when we put free online dating sites it in a fire, we learn that it does and it hurts.