-
An interesting discussion about how what we think we need to do for our readers or our connection to the blogosphere can create stress for us and impinge on our non-virtual lives.
-
Why might women be less interested than men in fields like math or computer science? Someone really interested in the answer has to look at some of the crap girls put up with.
-
What do ethics demand as far as community in the blogosphere? (Is it different for people blogging about science vs. those blogging about politics, I wonder?)
- Log in to post comments
More like this
see jane in the academy: one by one.
An interesting addition to the tenure dossier: a public talk on one's research.
(tags: academia tenure)
Leiter Reports: A Philosophy Blog: "As a profession, is philosophy in a better or worse state than it was in 1997?"
I think the philosophers quoted have…
Since Alice and Sciencewoman and DrugMonkey and Razib are discussing it (and because Zuska has discussed it before, including in real life), I wanted to say something about my reaction to the observation that science blogosphere in general, and ScienceBlogs in particular, seems pretty white:
I'd…
The del.icio.us automatic blog posting that usually produces the daily links dump posts here has been broken during the recent ScienceBlogs upgrade. The links dump posts from last Thursday on didn't happen, but we've kludged up a way to get that material back. These are the links that should've…
I'm on my annual summer hiatus for the month of July so I'll be only publishing my weekly Friday Fun posts as well as re-posting some of the interviews I did a few years ago on the old blog with people from the publishing, library and science worlds. Not that my posting of late has been…
It's the kind of psychological defense that allows George W. Bush to go on thinking he "hit a triple" when he was really "born on third base." What kind of merit can be cited as the basis of his status as president, other than having been born to a wealthy, powerful, political family named "Bush"? It's the kind of psychological defense that led to Forbes listing as "self-made" people who inherited their wealth and merely speculated their way to greater wealth, based on the advantage of wealth and status they did not earn.
Putting aside whether Bush actually thinks such a thing, or the details of the broken link about Forbes -- that's a pretty stupid line of reasoning to apply to any of the bloggers he mentions, with the possible exception of Arianna Huffington (who is still 'self-made' in her own creepy way).
Does he think Kos or Atrios or any of those nutroots leaders were born with blog traffic? Arguably they started with privilege in the sense of being 20th century, native English-speaking Americans (although IIRC Kos didn't even have that) but the jealous low-level "progressives" whose resentment is quoted didn't have it any different.