Items of interest come across recently in my feed-reader. Please leave your own interesting links in comments.
- Eight Anti-Woman Principles of The Most Extreme Types of MRAs
- Quick Hit: New Brunswick girl youngest to discover a supernova
- What does being pretty have to do with police work?
- On Manning.
- Oh, Huck
- Guy Talk
- Curiouser And Curiouser. Or the Media Bias About Gender
- What’s So Revolutionary About Women Traveling Alone?
- No More “Death Panels”
- Feynman called a woman “worse than a whore” for not exchanging sex for sandwiches.
- If audiences don’t want women as leads, why did Aliens succeed?
- Making it Manly, or How to Sell a Car
- Myth-Making and the “We Can Do It!” Poster
- A blow for consumers, an argument against libertarian wankery
– “What always strikes me as odd about the most fervent MRA guys is how very focused they are not on men’s rights but on the return of a complete patriarchy where women would have few rights. The position of the most extreme type of MRAs can be summarized as “Heel, bitch.” That there are so many of that type makes it hard for me to take the rest of the MRAs seriously.”
– Congratulations to Kathryn Gray!
– “Why would portrayals of female cops on television be especially detrimental to women, but portrayals of male cops on television not be detrimental to men, unless one kind of thinks women are too delicate for policework–and moreover, unable to distinguish television from reality?”
– “But let’s start with the most important thing, something simple: Bradley Manning is accused of trying really, really hard to do the right thing.
Bradley Manning is nobody special. He was an ordinary, unexceptional person, enlisted in the US Military, as many people are, and he allegedly found out that the military was doing something which — though we all might have suspected or feared or heard about it — betrayed its most basic promise. The promise that this was war, not murder.”
– “I think that, if the word “nigger” appears too many times in The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn to make it appropriate for school-children, it’s better to have them wait to read it when they’re ready than to give them a sanitized version. It goes back to our discussion this morning–let’s not bear false witness to kids about the book.”
– “If men are taught that it is acceptable to speak about women as if they are nothing but their bodies, their looks, the sex they can give to men, if they are taught that this kind of dialog is normal and should be expected among men, then we are living in a world where many forms of oppression of women are possible.”
– “This post is really about the horrible and ethically unacceptable sloppiness shown by the popularizations here, especially as there seems to be no study for them TO popularize. The BBC, in particular, is to blame here, because they give us the impression of some brand new research in the year 2011, whereas the research seems to come from the 1990s or perhaps even earlier.”
– “It’s no wonder my ex-friend assumed I was traveling halfway around the world to get laid. However, my feelings are accurately summed up in the last sentence. Couples who spend every single moment together simply don’t trust each other enough to be apart. Period.”
There is certainly an argument to be made that conceding one “controversial” component to save the rest of the legislation is “smart politics.” But that argument is contingent on ignoring the reality that the GOP will just find something else to wildly misrepresent and mendaciously use to undermine the legislation.”
– “(Of course, a man who wants intellectual justification for disrespecting women thinks that women are “worthless” when they are not sexually available to him. The non-sexual worth of a woman never occurs to him.)”
– “Or here’s a slight twist on my above theory: what if audiences never rejected female leads, but instead reject leads they can’t take seriously? When someone’s being served up on a sexual silver platter for you, it’s hard to imagine they’re in control of their destiny, or even trying to be.”
– “We know we live in an androcentric society because masculinized things (playing sports, being a doctor, being self-sufficient) are imagined to be good for everyone (we encourage both our sons and daughters to do these things), but feminized things (playing with dolls, being a nurse, and staying at home to raise children) are considered to be good only for women.”
– “When seen as just one in a series, rather than a unique image, Kimble and Olson argue that the collective “we” in “We can do it!” wouldn’t have been women, but Westinghouse employees, who were used to seeing such statements posted in employee-access-only areas of the plant.
Of course, having a woman represent a default factory employee is noteworthy. But our reading of the poster as a feminist emblem partially rests on the idea that this female worker is calling out encouragement to other women. The authors, however, point out a much less empowering interpretation if you think of the poster not in terms of feminism, but in terms of social class and labor relations:”
– “Plus, the They Have It Coming argument directly contradicts the Markets Can Regulate Themselves argument. A market that’s dictated by a bunch of people getting ripped off all the time is, by definition, not self-regulating.
It is, however, a perfect environment for scum-suckers and con artists, who are the only people who really benefit from libertarian arguments.”