Items of interest found recently in my RSS feed. Please share what you've been reading (and writing!) in the comments.
- First steps to legislative change on rape
- Blogathon Updates
- The contentious debate about pain relief during childbirth
- Josh Can Help: Web strategy links and Rescources for July 17th
- Encouraging the Participation of Female Students in STEM fields – the Congressional Hearings
- There is no such thing as Mommy Instinct
- AI: Questions on Racism
- Skepchick Quickies 7.23
- On the claim that men are also warned on their behavior
– “As I have argued before, consent is a positive process, not an absence of denial. Of course there is a grey area, but that grey area lies somewhere between “she said yes” and “I’m am not sure whether she said yes”, not between, “she said no” and “she did not say no.” If this positive notion of consent is embodied in the law, then yes, people will have to be much more careful about their sexual behaviour, and whether their partner(s) is consenting to the activity. How can this be anything but a good thing?”
– Cara needs links and suggestions for posts about sexual violence for her Blogathon, and some sponsorships would help her get closer to her fundraising goal, too.
– Was the response to Denis Heath’s opinion on epidurals gender-prejudiced? Quote: “This whole episode raises a number of questions – like why have women reacted so strongly to a man recommending more options for women during childbirth, while actions to limit choice – the new restrictions on homebirths – have been almost entirely unremarked upon? Why would a woman feel guilty about her labour? And what can be done to make childbirth a more positive experience for women?”
– a collection of interesting links on getting the most out of the Web
– “It’s not clear to me that the gendered assumption that girls and women would be more interested in science if they understood it’s role in taking care of people and the planet is an accurate one. It certainly doesn’t explain why women who are interested enough in science to obtain their Ph.D.s seem to be dropping out of academia.”
– short, sharp and sweet
– interesting discussion on a post with a deliberately provocative tag
– women in science, glowing humans, HIV in chimps, drug use mapped from sewer water, call for papers on skepticism & culture for a con in Texas
– Some nice examples of the double standard
Salon’s When sports culture meets rape culture – a rape victim launches a civil suit against her attacker, a famous quarterback. Employees at ESPN (the specialist sports broadcaster) are instructed not to report the fact. Apparently it’s not really rape unless pursued through the criminal courts. (The victim chose not to pursue a criminal charge because her employer sided with the footballer – refusing to investigate and then breaking into her accommodation to wipe files from her computer.)
I…. don’t really find the third-to-last discussion “interesting.” Sounds like a lot of people making assumptions based on the police’s assumed authority (might be “skeptics” but would never apply skepticism to them eh?) and jumping to blame it on Gates. Presumably because it’s the contrarian position, which is really what “skepticism” is a code word for much of the time.
Sorry. Just a little bitter about something. Maybe I should keep my mouth shut. (Not you, tigtog, just… mmf, should shut up.)
That’s what I found interesting about it, actually. How many people were jumping in with all sorts of assumptions, how many people were jumping back with contrasting assumptions, and how very few people were actually being rigorously skeptical.
DEM – re: the link. Great read and, as I read it, some excellent points made.
Although I made the foolish rookie error of reading the comments – as I can choose my own surroundings in my little internet bubble, and prefer blogs along the line of HAT, I consistently have few moments actual shock and disorientation when the majority of comments on an intelligent and incisive post on rape culture go down the “He’s innocent – he hasn’t even been charged”, “She’s clearly a golddigger” route.
Ah, tigtog, that makes sense – thanks.
I was surprised to see the leading questions in the OP for a site that claims to be skeptical/reasonable.
That’s the difference, honestly. I’d rather get to the real issue, if in an unsweet tone, than perpetrate the same old BS, but spoken civilly.