Guest post: So, should I make poutine instead?

Jul 2nd, 2015 8:23 am | By

Guest post by Anthony K, inspired by a conversation about multicultural cooking and eating as “appropriation.”

“Hi, you’ve reached ‘Livin’ Liberal’. Anthony from Edmonton, you’re on the line.”
“Hey, love the show. First time caller. It’s Canada Day, and we’re going to a party. My wife wants me to make avocado dip. Is that allowed?”
“Well, that depends. What’s your nationality?”
“Canadian. So, should I make poutine instead?”
“Do you speak French?”
“I know where my aunt’s pen is.”
“Then, non. What’s your ethnicity?”
“Croatian and Lithuanian. But I don’t speak those languages either.”
“Alright. Well, what’s the first thing your parents taught you to cook?”
“Breaded fried chicken.”
“No good. What else?”
“Oh, I remember we ate a lot of potato pancakes. That’s a Lithuanian thing.”
“Are you Jewish?”
“No, we were Catholic. I think the Catholics appropriated the potato pancakes from the Jews. My grandmother used to bake bagels before church.”
“Well, I think we can give you a bit of a pass. Thanks for call—”
“—I hate ’em.”
“What’s that?”
“Potato pancakes. Can’t stand them.”
“Alright, well, what do you like to cook that’s close?”
“Roti. First thing I taught myself to cook. And curry.”
“But you’re not—”
“Nope. Not as far as I know.”
“Well caller, there’s only one thing you can do: fake sick and stay home. Thanks for calling.

Folks, you’re listening to ‘Livin’ Liberal’. You check your cat’s litterbox, but do you check its privilege? Find out why you should after these messages from our sponsor.”

(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)

Posted in Notes and Comment Blog
Tags:


What’s next? Donating the proceeds from sale of his unicorn?

Jul 1st, 2015 5:20 pm | By

A blistering explanation of what’s sexist about the backlash against the response to Tim Hunt’s day out by medical doctor Amy Tuteur.

Tim Hunt made offensive comments about women scientists in front of a group of women scientists. He apologized and he resigned.

Many men feel very bad about this.

No, not bad about the fact that Hunt felt free to humiliate women at a meeting designed to honor them. Be serious! They felt bad that any male scientist should be held to account for his not so subtle put down.

Maybe they wouldn’t mind it so much if he were a young bench scientist – but Tim Hunt is senior and important. Senior important guys shouldn’t be held to account, because not being held to account should be one of the perks of being senior and important.

There are a few apologists that are willing to acknowledge the obvious, but then minimize its significance. Jonathan Dimbleby, a broadcaster and writer has resignedhis honorary appointment at University College of London, in solidarity with Tim Hunt.

According to Dimbleby:

This is not an offence that should be enough to ensure a distinguished scientist should be told to resign his position.

Woah! What’s next? Donating the proceeds from sale of his unicorn? Nothing like demonstrating your support (resigning an honorary post) in a way that changes nothing and costs you nothing.

I like the unicorn line.

Moreover … and let me see if I can spell it in terms Hunt’s apologists can understand … the issue is not the joke. The issue is the gender bias behind the joke. Someone who feels free to make women the butt of his jokes at a conference designed to honor women may be so clueless about his own gender bias that he feels equally free to display and act on it in his treatment of his female graduate students.

Tim Hunt was entirely free to make offensive remarks to women. Connie St. Louis was entirely free to report his remarks. UCL was entirely free to condemn him for it.

The fact that apologists think there should be no consequences for Hunt’s speech, but condemnation and worse for those who were offended by it, is a classic tactic in dismissing gender bias, and it is unacceptable.

Damn right.

(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)

Posted in Notes and Comment Blog
Tags: ,


Just like treat her like you don’t even like her

Jul 1st, 2015 11:13 am | By

Frontline did a show on trans children and adolescents yesterday.

One was Alex Singh.

As he and his family navigate this new landscape, Alex also been forced to grapple with fundamental questions about gender and identity — beyond a beard or an Adam’s apple, for example, what does it take to be a guy?

“I always like see these really cool guys and I’m always like, I want to be like them,” says Alex. “Morgan and Ben were those like cool guys that I wanted to be like. Once I really realized that they were perfectly fine with me being transgender, it was like a whole new world for me.”

In the show you see the three of them hanging out and talking. One thing that one of the cool guys jumped right out at me, in a mix of sorrow and anger and frustration…

In the video below — the second in a series of Facebook first mini-documentaries from FRONTLINE tied to our new film, Growing Up Trans — Ben and Morgan share some advice with Alex. For example, “If you have to burp, just let it fly.” And when it comes to talking to girls, “try not to really show any emotion … just like treat her like you don’t even like her.”

Oh.dear.god.

No, don’t do that. Don’t be an asshole. Don’t buy into the message that being a guy requires being an asshole. Don’t train yourself to have no feelings, and don’t train girls to put up with being hit on by guys who don’t even like them.

The advice, Alex says, has helped him to fit in.

“The like tactics and all the information that they’re giving me, I definitely use it,” says Alex. “People thought I was weird so I think they just kind of push away. Now that I have friends that actually like accept me and respect me, that are guys, I feel very comfortable and I feel like I’m definitely more … guy-ish, I guess. You could say. I’m more myself.”

Or more like them, which is just sad.

(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)

Posted in Notes and Comment Blog
Tags:


Church fires

Jul 1st, 2015 10:02 am | By

An AME church burned to the ground last night in Greeleyville, South Carolina. It was burned down once before, twenty years ago. An anonymous fed told reporters the preliminary indications are not arson.

The predominantly African American congregation is more than 100 years old. Their church building had previously been burned to the ground in June 1995, almost exactly 20 years before Tuesday’s blaze.

Two young white men with ties to the Ku Klux Klan were arrested in connection with the fire, according to documents from House Judiciary Committee hearings held in 1996. The men were members of the KKK during the time of the burnings, but since renounced their membership, their lawyer said.

Arrested but not tried or convicted? The Post doesn’t say.

Many onlookers on social media speculated that it had been intentionally set, the latest in a number of arson cases at black churches that have broken out since nine people were slain in a hate-fueled shooting at Emanuel AME in Charleston last month.

Pete Mohlin, a meteorologist with the National Weather Service in North Charleston, told the Post and Courier that the Greeleyville area saw a great deal of lightning between 6:30 and 7 p.m. But, he added, there is no way of knowing whether lightning started the fire.

Jim Lippard pointed out on Facebook that there are a lot of churches in this country, so there are bound to be a lot of fires, and we need comparative numbers.

The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives is also on the scene. The agency is leading investigations of five other fires that have struck Southern predominantly black churches in recent weeks. So far, three of the incidents have been identified as arson or potential arson, but none are confirmed to be hate crimes.

…

Church fires are not all that uncommon, according to a 2013 report from the National Fire Protection Association, the trade association that develops fire codes. The group found an average of 1,780 fires per year at churches, mosques, temples and other religious buildings between 2007 and 2011, of which 16 percent were intentionally set. It does not identify how many of the blazes turned out to be hate crimes.

On the other hand none of the intentional ones were messages of friendship, I think we can all agree.

Churches have long been symbols of freedom and sites of resistance in the African American community. Much of the political organizing and activism of the civil rights movement took place in church sanctuaries and involved religious leaders.

In his eulogy at the funeral of Clementa Pinckney, pastor at Emanuel AME who was slain in the shooting, last Friday, President Obama called the black church, “Our beating heart. The place where our dignity as a people is inviolate.”

But their political and cultural power has also made these congregations targets in high-profile attacks like the 1963 bombing of the 16th Street Baptist Church and in hundreds more smaller and less widely-covered incidents.

Next time send a letter.

(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)

Posted in Notes and Comment Blog
Tags:


Quite the rabbit hole

Jul 1st, 2015 9:20 am | By

Phil Plait says ALL the things.

He starts with Tim Hunt’s day out.

He made a series of sexist comments, saying that the problem with “girls” in science is that they fall in love with the men, the men fall in love with them, and when you confront them they cry. He then went on to suggest labs should be single-sex.

He thought at first it was a very bad joke, but found there’s more to it than that.

Many science journalists were at the lunch and witnessed the whole thing, including Deborah Blum, Ivan Oransky, Charles Seife, and Connie St. Louis. After discussing what they saw and heard, they decided St. Louis should write an article about it on her blog at Scientific American. What’s very important to note here is that both Blumand Oransky have corroborated St. Louis’s report, multiple times. Seife did as well. Blum asked Hunt about his comments, and he confirmed that he thought women were too emotional to work with men in labs.

In other words, it’s clear that even if he framed it as a joke, he was being sincere in his meaning and intent.

As is so often the case with jokes, especially with snotty put-down jokes like this one. The disingenuous claims of shock and disbelief about this strain my credulity until all the bolts pop out. You have to live inside a tree trunk to be unaware of people who use “jokes” as ways to get away with saying shitty things.

Plait goes through the response, #distractinglysexy, the resignations from his honorary position at UCL and the board of the European Research Council and the Biological Science Awards Committee of the Royal Society, and reminds readers that these were all honorary positions and he lost no income by resigning them.

At this point the backlash began. Richard Dawkins, who, honestly, should know better by now than to wade into controversies about sexism, defended Hunt against what he termed a “witch hunt.”

He should know better, shouldn’t he. People keep telling him. He keeps ignoring those people.

Hunt’s comments and the defense of them were bad enough, but the situation has taken an even worse turn.

The execrable Daily Mail has waded into this. On Friday, it published what can only be called a hit piece on Connie St. Louis which, bizarrely, was endorsed by Dawkins.

Bizarrely in some ways, but not in others. Bizarrely if you expect him to have standards, but not bizarrely if you know how intensely he hates feminism at this point.

To say the article is problematic is to severely understate the case. It attacks St. Louis’s credentials; however, she is an award-winning journalist, former President of the Association of British Science Writers and was recently elected to the Board of the World Federation of Science Journalists. The City University London (where she is a Senior Lecturer) has publicly supported her after the Daily Mail article came out. St. Louis points out numerous errors in the article there as well.

Not-so-incidentally, the very basis of the attack appears to be based on nothing as well.

This attack is deeply, deeply ironic, given that the Daily Mail has been known to brazenly plagiarize science journalists specifically, and has been accused of other less-than-savory tactics in journalism. Even when it’s original, the publication’s level of science journalism is appalling.

But at least its heart is in the right place.

Hahahaha totally kidding.

And now another attack piece on St. Louis has been posted on the far-right-wing Breitbart site, saying she has become immune from criticism because she’s black.

Yes, you read that right. And that’s not all. In a sentence so tone deaf I’d swear it’s parody, the author, Milo Yiannopoulis, writes:

St Louis is responsible for the sacking of Sir Tim Hunt, a Nobel prize-winning biochemist who became the target of an online lynch mob after his comments about women in science were taken out of context.

Yes, again, you read that right. You might ignore the obviously incorrect statements in that one sentence (Hunt wasn’t sacked, he was asked to resign from an honorary position; and as we’ve seen his comments were not taken out of context), but it’s much harder to ignore that, in an article attacking a woman because she’s black, Yiannopoulis used the phrase “lynch mob.”

Yikes.

Yiannopoulis, for his part, is a vocal advocate for Gamergate, a movement that claims it’s  “actually about ethics in gaming journalism” (a phrase so thin it’s become a standard Internet joke), but which has also been viciously attacking women online. Yiannopoulis appeared on the British 24 hour news channel Sky News to “debate” this topic with Dr. Emily Grossman; while glib, his arguments were unconvincing, and unsurprisingly Grossman has been receiving misogynistic backlash for her appearance (that link also shines a light on more of Yiannopolous’s incorrect statements).

Clearly, this is quite the rabbit hole.

Isn’t it? Isn’t it just? It should have been over three weeks ago, and instead it’s grinding on like the mills of god.

The good news is that at least this important issue is getting airtime, getting discussed. The problem is it’s also getting hijacked, distorted, and drowned out by nonsense. This happens every time institutionalized sexism is discussed.

But discuss it we must. Connie St. Louis has called for systemic change. Science writer Matthew Francis wrote about this in context of the Nobel Prize itself. Science philosopher Janet Stemwedel wants scientists to be more vocal in decrying statements such as Hunt’s. Emily Grossman shows we need to quash sexism so that at the very least women don’t feel unwelcome in STEM fields. Stemwedel has written along those lines, too. Uta Frith, writing at the Royal Society blog, talks about the impact this has and will have on diversity in the science.

That’s the upside: lots of good writing, and lots of people better known.

Thank you Phil Plait.

(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)

Posted in Notes and Comment Blog
Tags: ,


Thankfully former

Jul 1st, 2015 8:22 am | By

Tim Fenton at the blog Zelo Street has, like me, been watching the obsessive bullying by Louise Mensch of anyone who reported on Tim Hunt’s crappy sexist “jokes” at that fateful lunch in Seoul.

[A]s the first paper to indulge in whataboutery over Hunt’s comments was the Murdoch Times, it should surprise no-one that (thankfully) former Tory MP Louise Mensch has gone off on one about the story – and is still at it, two and a half weeks later. “He said it in a very lighthearted manner with no outward hint of malice, condescension, or derision” she claims of Hunt’s remarks, omitting that this was someone’s opinion, delivered after the event.

He shares a lot of her rude, aggressive, imperious, threatening tweets – a lot yet they are a fraction of the number she has sent. Stuff like this –

– and my favorite for sheer peremptory issuing of orders yesterday, this –

She talks like a cop or a prosecutor. On Twitter.

And she wasn’t letting Ms Bishop off the hook: “answer the question did you personally demand his resignation before speaking to him or establishing the facts … did you personally speak to Connie St Louis whose account is a proven lie”. Ms St Louis might have something to say about that. But what Ms Mensch has to say about Tim Hunt will not move the story forward one millimetre.

She’s been banging on about this for the last fortnight. Incessantly and obsessively. Nobody who matters will care what she writes.

All that, in aid of saying sexist “jokes” weren’t sexist. What a noble cause.

(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)

Posted in Notes and Comment Blog
Tags: ,


If a highly respected and liked Nobel Laureate can say it

Jun 30th, 2015 5:27 pm | By

Something Hilda Bastian said in a comment on Dorothy Bishop’s post on the media spin of Tim Hunt’s day out.

The differences here do not seem to be so much “what” was said, but whether or not it was meant to be “self-deprecating.” And that is rather beside the point. The statements included some extraordinarily hurtful stereotypes about a gender, and about one gender in the scientific workplace. That sends a message, if a highly respected and liked Nobel Laureate can say it, then there’s something ok with it. The outpouring of both sexist, misogynist, and now racist statements across the comment streams of newspapers and the internet generally, with people clearly thinking they have some kind of common cause with a Nobel Laureate, proves the point of how harmful social sanction for sexist remarks can be. That’s not less so if it’s a joke, and not less so if they are not intended to be malicious. Saying afterwards “hey, just kidding!” doesn’t make it alright.

All of that. This whole phenomenon of people raging about feminist lynch mobs is yet another bit of social sanction for sexist remarks (and sexist diatribes and sexist rants and sexist lectures). I’m not as depressed and disgusted as I might be, because there are a lot of excellent people pushing back against the sexism…but I’m still pretty disgusted by how quick people are to attack feminism while denying obvious sexism.

Those who think attacks on Tim Hunt are wrong, but attacks on journalists doing what journalists are mean to do are fully ok, are being utterly hypocritical. Our societies need scientists and journalists. And we need to be able to debate issues without ad hominem attacks. Tim Hunt is clearly a good and highly respected person – and so are Connie St Louis, Deborah Blum and Ivan Oransky. Attempts to denigrate them as people are sickening and the sooner it stops, the better. In particular, the attacks on Connie St Louis, which include a vast amount of racist bile, are colossally offensive. That our society seems unable to stem the misogyny and racism that has been unleashed is the strongest possible argument for why respected people must not themselves add discriminatory remarks to the public discourse.

Exactly so.

City University London has released a statement in support of Connie St Louis:

29th June 2015

A spokesperson for City University London said:

“We have spoken to Connie and are satisfied that her academic qualifications are correct. We will be working with her to update her profile page to include more recent publications and professional activities.”

Connie St Louis, a Senior Lecturer in Journalism at City University London, said:

“An article in Saturday’s Daily Mail makes a number of inaccurate and misleading allegations about me, and attempts to discredit me after I reported comments by the Nobel prize-winning scientist, Sir Tim Hunt.

“I reject the accusation that I have ‘hounded’ Sir Tim. The action I took was to draw attention to comments that Sir Tim made during a speech to delegates earlier this month at the World Conference of Science Journalists in Seoul. A number of newspapers and broadcasters around the world, including the Daily Mail, reported the story and quoted me. I consider that by reporting controversial comments by Sir Tim I was simply fulfilling my role as a science journalist.

“Since the story broke, the response to the story has been overwhelmingly positive and has resulted in the excellent #distractinglysexy campaign. However, recently I have been subjected to an increasing number of personal attacks, including receiving a number of abusive e-mails and I have also been attacked on social media. Now my professional reputation is being attacked by a story which draws attention to an out-of-date version of my website profile that I will be updating.

“I should perhaps not be surprised by the treatment I have been receiving for reporting, as a science journalist, Sir Tim’s comments about women scientists. Nevertheless, I am disappointed that the Daily Mail has chosen to publish such an inaccurate and misleading article.”

So there’s that.

(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)

Posted in Notes and Comment Blog
Tags:


“Bigoted is a huge word that gets thrown around”

Jun 30th, 2015 3:38 pm | By

Have the sick-basin handy for this one.

You’re not alone. [voice choked with tears] You’re not alone.

//www.youtube.com/watch?v=I6PPk2NOQXs

(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)

Posted in Notes and Comment Blog
Tags:


Call him a cynic

Jun 30th, 2015 3:28 pm | By

One of those think-pieces that just don’t need to be written…by Charles White, Deputy Editor of The Tab Durham.

Last week saw a landmark moment as LGBT and straight people celebrated equal marriage in America and another year of Pride –– just by changing profile pictures on Facebook.

You must have seen the rainbow photos which started appearing on your newsfeed from Saturday. If you’re straight you can add the colours to your profile and everyone will know you’re down with Pride.

Call me a cynic, but how long do you really think these pictures will stay up? In a few days, they’re bound to disappear –– one by one, Rainbow filters will be replaced by Instagram Valencia again.

I don’t have an opinion on the subject…but even if I did, so what? They disappear or they don’t, so what? They were a celebration; who says they have to be permanent, or stay up for at least a month, to be ok? What need is there for cynicism about them?

Straight people can rest assured they’ve done their job. Everything around the world is great so, sit back, relax and change your Facebook profile picture back again.

These worthy right-on types have a time limit for this sort of thing. So how long? A week? Two?

This sort of easy slacktivism is the equivalent of “one like = one prayer”. Both are nonsense and an offensive simplification of reality.

Hey! Fuck you – I’m a straight people and I don’t think I’ve “done my job” – the thought never crossed my mind. I don’t have any illusion that a rainbow profile on Facebook means everything around the world is great. Sheesh – give us a Dear Muslima while you’re at it.

It’s not “slacktivism” – nobody I know of confused it with any kind of activism.

There is a dangerous foe we queers need to prepare against and it might just be you, the fair-weather ally.

Listened to one too many Ariana Grande bangers in the union bar, didn’t you? And now all of a sudden you’re ready to take on the heterosexual hegemony.

Was it a celebration of marriage equality? Well I don’t remember you flying to Belfast and to tear down the Peace Walls in an act of sheer ruddy queer optimism.

That’s a dumbass thing to say when writing a piece for a general audience – of course he doesn’t remember “me” or “us” flying to Belfast, because he has no idea who we are in the first place, so how could he?

Are you going to keep that banner up till every single queer in the world is liberated? Or will you just change it subtly in a couple of days and hope nobody notices?

It’s almost like you want them to notice so you can get more likes on yet another profile picture. Summer’s coming up so your beach bod needs immortalising in a perfect profile picture of hot brilliance, not worthy of being obscured by a rainbow.

And on it goes in the same vein, for many paragraphs, with several people’s profiles singled out for sneering. One interrogation too many.

I could easily see finding the rainbows personally irritating and cloying, and saying so, but that’s not political, it’s just a matter of taste. I have Grump-taste, so I know all about finding things too sentimental and saccharine, but spitting in people’s faces for no reason is a whole other thing.

(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)

Posted in Notes and Comment Blog
Tags:


Illustrious company

Jun 30th, 2015 11:44 am | By

Even someone who writes for the Telegraph thinks it’s bad and revealing that people are saying Tim Hunt did nothing wrong. Cathy Newman is a presenter for Channel 4 News and she thinks the “nothing wrong” claim is full of wrong.

[A] week after the pro-Hunt bandwagon really started to gather speed, broadcaster and writer Jonathan Dimbleby has leapt aboard and resigned his honorary fellowship at University College London in protest at its treatment of the Nobel prize-winning scientist.

He’s in illustrious company. The mayor of London Boris Johnson and fellow scientist Richard Dawkins have already publicly accused Sir Tim’s critics of a gross over-reaction.

So have Brian Cox and Brendan O’Neill.

Notice something? They’re all pale men – they’re all immune from the kind of casual contempt that Hunt expressed at that lunch, whether as a joke or not. They all have that in common with Tim Hunt, and all of them including Hunt do not have in common with their women colleagues the handicap of being subject to constant everyday sexism.

It surprises me how many high-profile and highly intelligent men – and some women – seem to think a sexist joke about women crying and falling in love with their professional colleagues is just a bit of fun.

While Sir Tim did make clear he meant his comments in jest – something which was overlooked in the initial reporting of the incident – he has fessed up to being a “chauvinist pig”, and lest Dimbleby et al forget, he’s also insisted that some of his remarks were meant in all seriousness, while others were ‘misinterpreted’.

“I did mean the part about having trouble with girls,” he said on BBC Radio 4’s Today programme.

And either way, joke or not joke, it’s still dismissive and belittling.

Dimbleby, Johnson and Dawkins would surely never dare to weigh-in on behalf of someone who’d cracked a racist gag.

So why is it still OK to be a little bit sexist – and Sir Tim has admitted as such – when society quite rightly has zero tolerance for other forms of discrimination?

Politicians who say something racist are immediately shown the door.

If sexism is their crime on the other hand, a raised eyebrow appears to suffice.

That comparison shouldn’t be pushed too far, because it’s horrifyingly easy to flip it – to cite ways in which racism is ignored while sexism isn’t. But still, when it comes to certain kinds of casual everyday discourse, people who wouldn’t dream of babbling into a microphone about their “troubles with black people” have no such inhibition when it comes to talking about…girls.

while wise-cracking men are tolerated, the women who call out sexism face a torrent of abuse for doing so.

The woman who brought Sir Tim’s remarks to public attention, British academic Connie St Louis, has since faced a right-wing smear campaign about her own CV.

No doubt simply writing this blog will earn me the “feminazi” badge again.

Can’t we take a joke? Yes of course we can. It’s just that what Sir Tim said wasn’t particularly funny.

Well, that plus the fact that it was casually sexist.

(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)

Posted in Notes and Comment Blog
Tags: , ,


Patients can be tricked into feeling better when they’re actually not

Jun 30th, 2015 10:18 am | By

Originally a comment by latsot on Ask the rocks.

The placebo effect is real, no disputing that. It’s weird, it’s complicated and it’s wonderful. There’s no doubt that it’s helpful, sometimes.

But let’s be clear, it ain’t gonna cure your broken leg, your cancer or even that ache in your knee that everyone older than 40 gets on a Monday morning that makes them think about phoning in sick. That might just be me.

And let’s be doubly clear: many if not most of the advocates of things that are really placebos are trying to persuade vulnerable people that whatever horrible thing they are desperate to have cured can be cured by snakewater. Lots of people die because of it.

I’m sure you see the difference between a physician prescribing a placebo and a random person selling someone a placebo in the guise of special medicine that actual doctors refuse to acknowledge is real… lending it legitimacy to many people.

One of them is… dicey and I’m not generally in favour of it. The other is wrong in just about every possible sense.

I have no sympathy at all for the idea that since there’s a placebo effect we’re justified in bullshitting patients.

For one thing, there’s no need: Medical-sounding placebos are just as effective as bullshit-sounding placebos, pretty much by definition. Co-opting someone’s beliefs in nonsense isn’t necessary. A physician would do better to foster their patients’ critical thinking and their critical examination about whether the medicine worked, I think.

But more importantly, patients can also be tricked into feeling better when they’re actually not. That’s one of the many reasons that the use of placebos by actual medial people is really dubious and why their use by people who feel entitled to practice medicine without knowledge or license should be criminal.

(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)

Posted in Notes and Comment Blog
Tags: , ,


Jonathan Dimbleby

Jun 30th, 2015 9:14 am | By

Energizer bunny still going.

Jonathan Dimbleby has resigned from his honorary fellowship at University College London in protest at its treatment of biologist Sir Tim Hunt after he made controversial remarks about women in science.

The broadcaster and writer accused the college of a “disgraceful” rush to judgment in forcing the Nobel prize-winning scientist to quit his honorary fellowship at UCL and urged other fellows to help change the college’s mind.

Dimbleby said: “The college has a long and honourable tradition of defending free speech, however objectionable it may be. Sir Tim made a very poor joke and it quite rightly backfired. He then apologised for that,” he told the Times.

The principle of free speech does not mean you can say whatever you want to with no consequences. “Sir Tim” wasn’t cracking wise at the pub or at a friend’s dinner table – he was doing it at a professional event at a professional conference. He was doing it in his capacity as Big Top Nobel Science Poo-bah. He was doing it, in fact, as among other things an Honorary Professor at UCL. UCL gets to say it doesn’t want him doing that in UCL’s name. UCL says right on the page for honorary academics that it reserves the right to withdraw the honor at any time.

“This is not an offence that should be enough to ensure that a distinguished scientist should be told to resign his position.”

That’s easy for Jonathan Dimbleby to say. He’s not the kind of person who is damaged by entrenched contempt in the work place.

Dimbleby said: “It seems to me the reaction of UCL was totally inappropriate. It was a rush to judgment led by a vociferous social media campaign and I think it is disgraceful.

“The idea that serious grown-up women thinking of pursuing a science career, and thinking of going to UCL to do so, would be put off by an elderly professor saying something silly then apologising for it seems bizarre.”

Boris Johnson, the mayor of London, and scientist Richard Dawkins have already attacked what they saw as an overreaction to Hunt’s remarks.

As have Brendan O’Neill and Louise Mensch. There’s a whole army of reactionaries pitching a fit about this.

(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)

Posted in Notes and Comment Blog
Tags: ,


From an infinite supply

Jun 29th, 2015 4:53 pm | By

Emily Willingham on those misappropriated metaphors for being sharply criticized:

How many Nobel laureates does it take to screw up a position? By my current count, nine. I’m sure someone, somewhere, has already observed the rich irony of using the collective privilege and power of the Nobel to try to shut up the less-powerful by claiming that they’re going to chill freedom of expression. If not, consider that observed.

The Tim Hunt story is redux redux, as though every time a stone is shifted from the power structure, another one simply takes its place from an infinite supply of the components of existing power.

Well – there’s a sentence I wish I’d written.

Just as nine Nobel laureates are evidently incapable of understanding how a man who calls for segregated labs might not be the best fit for an institution with a mission of diversity, many of their ilk also seem incapable of understanding the implications of the terms they select to attack those they wish to shut up. Herein, I offer a useful resource.

Lynch mob: I’ve written about this before, so I’ll just paraphrase me: The phrase ‘lynch mob’ is a loaded one. Here’s what lynch mobs did and do. Charles Blow has written in depth about how indefensible it is to co-opt this term to characterize the by-any-measure relatively mild complaints about … well, anything. Meanwhile, women of Twitter get this.

She goes through the whole list. It’s good.

(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)

Posted in Notes and Comment Blog
Tags: ,


The World Future Forum is the big annual event of the Secular Policy Institute

Jun 29th, 2015 4:03 pm | By

Edwina Rogers is emailing people to get them worked up about a thing they can go to. (Tim Hunt will be there, doing standup.) (I kid, I kid.)

Hi [your name here]

You’re invited to the most VIP political gathering in secular history.
The World Future Forum comes October 25-26 to DC.
It’s run by the Secular Policy Institute, the world’s biggest secular coalition and world’s biggest secular think tank.
Network with members of US Congress, big donors, international secular leaders, and top thinkers like emcee Lawrence Krauss, bestselling author and physicist, and keynote Gregory Copley, former US National Security Advisor.
Tickets will sell out quickly! Get yours at https://secularpolicyinstitute.net/world-future-forum-2015/.
-Edwina

It’s the world’s biggest biggest biggest biggest biggest. Go to it, because it’s biggest biggest. It’s Edwina’s institute and it’s THE BIGGEST.

Let’s check it out.

The World Future Forum is the big annual event of the Secular Policy Institute, the world’s largest secular think tank and world’s largest secular coalition. It draws the most prestigious scholars and scientists together with VIP decision makers from the US Congress and beyond. Open to influential policymakers but also the general public, it’s an unparalleled opportunity for an informed discussion on the critical global issues.

My god she is such a bullshitter. It’s not the world’s biggest anything…and people have been abandoning it because it became clear what a hollow shell it is. And that telltale word “prestigious” – which no one but a marketer would use. It’s a wonder she doesn’t call them luxurious.

Also note the “big annual event” item as if this has been going on for years…and will continue into the future.

Also? There are only two people listed on the program – the ones she mentions in the email, Krauss and Copley. Where are all the prestigious luxurious others? After all, it’s the world’s biggest secular coalition and world’s biggest secular think tank, so it can have its pick of fabulous people. Why aren’t they on the menu?

There is a schedule of events though, so that’s good.

9:00-10:30 am – Future of Earth’s Climate (Ballroom)
How will global warming affect life as we know it? Will climate interventions become commonplace mechanisms to save our planet?

10:30-10:45 am – Break

10:45-12:15 pm – Future of Violence and Terrorism (Ballroom)
How will violence reconfigure earth’s geopolitical borders, boundaries, and relationships? Is civilization heading in the direction of greater or lesser violence over the history of its evolution?

12:15-3:30 pm – Future of Space Exploration
Will humans colonize other planets? Will space travel become commonplace? Will time travel become possible?

3:30 – 4:00 pm – Conclusion

7-9 pm – World Future Forum Conversations & Considerations – The George Washington University Lisner Auditorium
The world’s foremost experts convene to talk about the future of everything. This event is ticketed separately and not included in conference registration.

I guess Laurence Krauss and Gregory Copley will sit on the stage and discuss all those things with each other in front of an enthralled audience from 9 a.m. to 9 p.m.? It sounds fabulous but tiring. Worth it to hear about the future of everything though!

Updating to add: I forgot to look at the logistical details.

For hotel reservations, call the Phoenix Park Hotel at 1-877-237-2082 or visit www.phoenixparkhotel.com and use Group Code 19849 for group rate of $249.

$249!!!

I suppose the little guest soaps will be wrapped in dollar bills.

(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)

Posted in Notes and Comment Blog
Tags: ,


Ask the rocks

Jun 29th, 2015 3:16 pm | By

Let’s have some refreshment – wisdom from a witch.

[screams, cries of “witch hunt! witch hunt!”]

No no no no, not that kind, and not the kind who object to sexism; the other kind.

While a big part of magic is claiming the parts of ourselves that are powerful, for me it’s also about discovering a solid set of tools to heal myself and my community. So however you identify on the witchy spectrum, here are five simple witchy practices that anyone can do to take care of themselves, and that most of us should be doing more often.

Eye of newt, toe of frog? No, casting circles of protection.

Each and every one of us has the right to decide what kind of energy we want surrounding us. Circles of protection help with that. You can put them around your bedroom or your whole house (provided you have permission of everyone who lives there). You can even put them around event spaces. You can cast them for just a night or you can put one up permanently.

Putting up a circle is taking a giant stand for your own mental and psychic well being. If you are a sensitive person this is almost essential.

Here are some simple ways to put some protection around your home or room:

  • Hang herb bundles on the doors. Rosemary works great for this.
  • Put four large and protective rocks at each corner of your yard (if you have one) and gently pour a little water over each one, asking them to protect your home.

What if they say no? What do I do then?

  • Stand in the center of a room and rotate clockwise as you visualize a white light moving to surround the entire space. If you do this one, remember to take it down at the end of the night, circles like this can be draining if left up too long.

I love it when they do that – pretend the magic is dangerous if you do it too hard or too long or too cold. It’s so transparent. “If there’s a warning it must be real!”

  • Ward your doors and windows by putting a tiny protective symbol on the glass. Eyeliner works great for this if you have some around.

I will admit I was skeptical when I first started working with circles of protection, but they really do work. Having a protected home makes it feel like I have a haven to escape to. I also think it really has literally saved me from being robbed a few times, but that is another story.

That’s another one – “I was skeptical at first but by golly if it didn’t work!”

Another thing you can do is grounding. Then people will say about you, “She is so grounded.”

Grounding is the process of literally getting in connection with the earth; the ground. The earth is like a big neutral absorbing force. That’s why we ground electrical systems, because the earth actually absorbs and dissipates electricity. It does that with us, too. Grounding reminds us that we have bodies, that we are made of solid material, and that we need some care and feeding from time to time.

The easiest way to ground is to actually put your bare feet on the ground. But if you live anywhere other than the tropics, that may not be so easy to do all year round. Another method of grounding is to do a visualization where you place your feet on the floor and imagine roots growing from the bottoms of your feet. Visualize them actually going through the floor of where you live, and traveling through everything that separates you from the earth, and see them actually going into the earth.

And when you’ve done that – well you’re grounded. I was skeptical at first but you know what, it works. I haven’t tried it, but I can tell just by looking.

Here’s the author’s blurb:

Allison Carr is a witch, writer, healer, and queer. She holds a master’s degree in Chinese Medicine and is currently a stay-at-home-mom. She writes articles and teaches workshops on self-acceptence, healing, magic and spirituality. She lives in Santa Barbara with her partner and their son. For more information find her at her blog.

Allison has written 1 articles for us.

Well I’m refreshed.

(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)

Posted in Notes and Comment Blog
Tags:


Piled higher and deeper

Jun 29th, 2015 12:16 pm | By

Louise Mensch (the Sun columnist and failed Tory MP) has been harassing people on Twitter for hours with grandiose claims about a story about to appear that would PROVE Tim Hunt really was joking. She tweeted this implausible promise at Deborah Blum and Connie St Louis and David Colquhoun among others – addressing DC as ‘Professor’ [in scare quotes], which is staggeringly rude even for the staggeringly rude Louise Mensch. She told all these people they would have to resign once the story appeared.

Then the promised story appeared. It’s in the Sun, and it’s ludicrous.

The headline and subhead:

‘Sexist’ Sir Tim WAS joking, photo shows
Picture could prove top scientist was wrongly hounded out of his job


Note the careful “could,” which is a lot more careful than Mensch has been. But note also the stunningly dishonest claim that Hunt was “hounded out of his job” when the Sun must know perfectly well by now that it was not his job.

The supposedly dispositive photo:

Sir Tim Hunt

Yeaaaaaah that doesn’t “prove” anything. One woman who is looking away from Hunt is smiling slightly. That “proves” nothing whatsoever. You can’t tell what he was saying at that instant, obviously, and you can’t tell why the woman is smiling slightly, either.

From the ridiculous sub-literate body of the story:

THIS is the picture which proves scientist Tim Hunt was joking when he cracked the joke that ended his career — according to a Facebook poster who was there.

The Nobel Prize winner was hounded out of his job after his comments about “the trouble with girls” sparked a sexism row on social media.

It doesn’t prove anything. Hunt’s career has not been ended. He was not hounded out of his job.

They can’t get the most basic things right. Mensch is a columnist for that rag, so that explains a lot.

The outrage forced him to resign from his honorary position at University College London as well as other posts at the Royal Society and the European Research Council.

But this picture appears to show a female conference delegate chuckling at Sir Tim’s humorous speech.

Filippino science journalist Timothy Dimacali posted it on Facebook saying: “Nobel Laureate Sir Tim Hunt at the exact moment he gave his now-infamous ‘Let me tell you about my trouble with girls’ comment.”

At least they finally got the “job” part right, but only after getting it wrong in two places – clearly deliberately, to amp up the fury. But the picture does not even appear to show a female conference delegate chuckling at Sir Tim’s humorous speech, because she looks as if she’s paying attention to something else.

And Dimacali’s claim about the exact moment? I don’t believe he knows that – I think that’s post facto “memory.”

Mr Dimacali added: “As I keep telling people, he said it in a very lighthearted manner with no outward hint of malice, condescension, or derision.

“I’m not defending him, mind you; what he said was wrong and definitely deserved to be called out. But it was, more than anything else, a joke gone horribly wrong.”

Sexist jokes are still sexist. Mensch is wrong about that too. She’s comprehensively wrong about this whole subject.

One of Sir Tim’s most vocal critics was Connie St Louis, a lecturer in science journalism at City University in London, who insisted the comments were not a joke and left women horrified.

She faced calls to resign herself today as the fresh evidence emerged Sir Tim was the victim of a witch hunt.

Sun columnist and former MP Louise Mensch said: “This photo is proof positive that Sir Tim Hunt was falsely accused of being serious.

“We were told nobody smiled and women were hurt, shocked and scandalized. On the BBC, Connie St Louis said ‘Nobody smiled, nobody laughed — everybody was stony faced’.

“Now she should resign from City University — and the other journalists who misreported him should also resign.”

Mensch and Dawkins should set up a Global Sexist Joke Council.

(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)

Posted in Notes and Comment Blog
Tags: ,


Worries about if she can manage well

Jun 29th, 2015 11:10 am | By

Sexism? What sexism?

Via Twitter:

Daniel Singleton ‏@dasingleton Jun 6
Reviewer to my daughter-in-law: You have kids, give up on silly pursuit of science. #fuckthissexistshit

Embedded image permalink

Strong point
-The stay will significantly benefit both the candidate and the host unit.

Weak point
-Worries about if she can manage well between the work and the family.

I don’t see any sexism, do you see any sexism??

(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)

Posted in Notes and Comment Blog
Tags:


Just that little drop

Jun 29th, 2015 9:50 am | By

Uta Frith FRS has an excellent, hope-restoring article on the Royal Society’s science policy blog In Verba.

Little did I know that, having just started as chair of our new Diversity Committee, that gender bias would suddenly come into the spotlight of public opinion. This followed the unacceptable remarks at a public event attributed to one of our most distinguished Fellows. Sir Tim Hunt was baffled by the effect of his words on others, and I admit that I too was baffled, but for very different reasons.

His remarks at first seemed to me just a drop in the bucket of millions of similar ones made every day about women in the workplace, often by decent men who would be horrified to be regarded as misogynists. For me they confirmed an age old stereotype of women as trouble, so old that it goes back to Adam and Eve. But they were the drop that finally caused the bucket to flow over. They became a catalyst for a deep-seated bitterness to pour out of people, not only women, who simply felt that enough was enough. This was an outpouring waiting to happen. It needed just that little drop.

It’s so true about that drop in the bucket observation. The only thing I would add is that it’s not just in the workplace, it’s everywhere – which of course is why it’s so pervasive in the workplace. And vice versa. There are millions of feedback loops re-enforcing the kind of thing throughout the culture.

That of course – now I think of it – partly explains Tim Hunt’s bafflement and the bafflement of his enraged supporters like Dawkins and Cox. It was “just a joke” and it was just one of millions like it and it was trivial and it was totally normal so what is the big deal??

You could agree with all that, as Dawkins and Cox and the rest of them do – you could agree that he shouldn’t be singled out for something at once so trivial and so normal. But you could also (instead) say yes but we’ve been trying to do away with that kind of “normal” belittling and dismissal for at least half a century. Half a fucking century, dude, don’t you think you could start to catch up by now? Yes, we know it’s an entrenched part of human history that people like to sneer at people below them in the pecking order, but that’s a bad feature of being human and we should change it.

But also it was the setting. Getting up in front of a group of women scientists and telling one of those stupid tired jokes to them. That’s why the “joke” was the drop that finally caused the bucket to flow over.

What is the bitterness about? Injustice, plain and simple. And it coincides with my own anxieties as chair of the Diversity committee. The bitterness is sustained by the strong feeling that women have not had a fair chance to succeed in science. This is a serious problem in science in general, but it is also a problem for the Royal Society. It is a fact that only 105 out of 1569 Fellows are women (6.7%). It is a fact that only 22 out of 106 of the awards and medals given by the Society over the last 5 years were given to women and that over those five years only 22% of the successful candidates on the Royal Society’s University Research Fellows and Sir Henry Dale Fellows were women.

She goes on to say what the RS is doing to make things better.

As the case of Tim Hunt has shown, prejudice is unacceptable even if meant in jest. The Royal Society as an institution quickly dissociated itself from his remarks. It was necessary to affirm the truth of its genuine wish to do away with the obstacles that stand in the way of women’s careers in science. To do nothing would send a signal that it is acceptable to trivialise women’s achievement in science.

Once it was a story, at least. If there had been no story, the Royal Society’s doing nothing wouldn’t have sent any kind of signal – but there was a story. You could say it’s Tim Hunt’s bad luck that there was a story when there’s no story about the millions of other “jokes”…or you could say that given the setting and the audience, Tim Hunt made his own bad luck.

How can we make science careers more attractive for talented and brilliant people who might be lost to science? What can we do to make labs and workplaces more supportive and the people in charge more accepting and respectful of people who are not currently part of the ingroup?

A number of Fellows including Athene Donald, Dorothy Bishop and David Colquhoun have spontaneously written about their determination to work for the advancement of women. We now have a strategy for Diversity, and this does not only encompass women, but also other currently disadvantaged groups. For example, we have a series of case studies that showcase different roads to science and unusual role models.

I believe that for us at the Royal Society the main problem is not overt prejudice, but the hidden anachronistic assumptions and attitudes, the sort that sometimes surface in jokes…[O]ur enlightened selves exert rather weak control on our everyday behaviour, and every one of us is only too ready to think of themselves as less prejudiced than the average person. It will be very difficult to root out the often subtle put-downs of women and other members of out-groups that slip into references or discussions. We can detect them more easily in others than in ourselves, and therefore we can help each other by calling them out. Calling out unacceptable remarks made by Fellows in public is a case in point.

But only if you first hold diplomatic talks with Richard Dawkins in hopes of persuading him to stop shouting about “witch hunts” and “lynch mobs” whenever someone does call out a subtle put-down. Without that, I fear our two great peoples will forever be at war.

At the Diversity Committee we are considering a number of activities that might tame our inner dinosaur and celebrate our enlightened phoenix. I will report on these activities as they happen, and they will actively involve the Fellowship, the grant holders, the alumni, the staff, in short, everybody connected with the Royal Society.

All of us on the committee are determined that what we do is not merely a gesture. There will be no overnight solution. We are in it for the long haul.

Good stuff. Sadly, the comments are full of people shouting about witch hunts.

(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)

Posted in Notes and Comment Blog
Tags: ,


This unfortunate incident must not be portrayed as a private story told as a joke

Jun 28th, 2015 5:38 pm | By

Also of interest, the letter that the Korea Federation of Women’s Science and Technology Associations sent to Tim Hunt asking him to apologize for being so obnoxious at the lunch they hosted.

Dear Sir Tim Hunt,
We, the members of the Korea Federation of Women’s Science and
Technology Associations (KOFWST), the sponsoring organization of the WCSJ
luncheon on June 8, 2015, decided to request your official acknowledgement
and apology for the remarks made at the luncheon. Attached, please find,
our call for apology. We hope to get your response within 24 hours. Your
prompt and sincere apology is the least we can ask for any future
collaboration with Korean scientists.
Yours sincerely,
Hee Young Paik, President

KOFWST call for apology over inappropriate comments
made by Sir Tim Hunt
At a luncheon hosted by the Korea Federation of Women’s Science and
Technology Associations (KOFWST) during the World Conference of Science
Journalists in Seoul on June 8, 2015, Nobel Laureate Sir Tim Hunt made
some inappropriate remarks over which KOFWST would like to express its
very strong regrets.
Sir Tim Hunt said that if men and women work in the same lab: “You fall in
love with them, they fall in love with you and when you criticize them, they
cry.” As women scientists we were deeply shocked and saddened by these
remarks, but we are comforted by the widespread angered response from
international social and news media: we are not alone in seeing these
comments as sexist and damaging to science.
In a subsequent BBC interview, Sir Tim Hunt elaborated on his statement,
saying that “I did mean [it]” and “I meant to be honest.” His “honest”
beliefs reveal deep gender prejudices and bias in how women’s role in
science is perceived. The international science community, including Korea,
has been making great efforts to overcome persistent gender inequalities in
science that prevent women advance on equal terms with men. During the
last several decades, efforts made by Korean society, government and
individuals helped make great strides toward a more gender equal society.
We cannot allow sexism to undermine this progress.
Although Dr. Hunt is a senior and highly accomplished scientist in his field
who has closely collaborated with Korean scientists in the past, his
comments have caused great concern and regret in Korea. They show that
old prejudices are still well embedded in science cultures. On behalf of
Korean female scientists, and all Koreans, we wish to express our great
disappointment that these remarks were made at the event hosted by
KOFWST. This unfortunate incident must not be portrayed as a private story
told as a joke. We cannot accept sexist remarks that threaten [to] reverse
the gains made towards equality for women scientists, and women in the
wider society.
On behalf of all women scientists in Korea and the world, we at KOFWST
ask Dr. Hunt to acknowledge the seriousness of his remarks and extend a
sincere and prompt apology in order for gender equality in science. Such
an apology is the least that he can do in order to facilitate his future
fruitful collaboration with Korean scientists.
KOFWST will continue to make every effort to foster a society, in which men
and women can collaborate harmoniously and without gender bias or
discrimination, to succeed.

Has Dawkins complained about them? Has Brian Cox? Has the Spectator? Has the Daily Mail? Do they all think the Korea Federation of Women’s Science and Technology Associations has no business asking a guest to apologize for patronizing and insulting them at their own lunch?

I haven’t seen any of them complaining about that – I’ve only seen them complaining about more local women, women from the US and the UK, who object to Tim Hunt’s patronizing insults. I’m going to guess that’s because they think they have more authority over local women – that local women are “their” women while Korean women are someone else’s business to keep in line. In other words they may feel a little more bashful about trying to bully women in distant foreign countries. They may have a vague sense that it wouldn’t look good.

Hunt did apologize by the way.

(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)

Posted in Notes and Comment Blog
Tags:


Harvard must be slipping

Jun 28th, 2015 5:18 pm | By

There’s a conservative blog called Legal Insurrection. I’d vaguely heard of it before, but that’s all. I saw that it had a post about Connie St Louis, so I took a look. I read the first few sentences, and was amazed. I skipped down to the comments and was amazed more. I googled Legal Insurrection and found the handy Wikipedia digest in the left margin:

William A. Jacobson
Professor
William A. Jacobson is an American lawyer, professor, and conservative blogger. Jacobson is a 1981 graduate of Hamilton College and a 1984 graduate of Harvard Law School.
Education: Hamilton College, Harvard Law School

Oh yes? Well then you would think he would be able to get the most basic facts right.

Here’s why my jaw dropped – his third paragraph:

I recently reported that Dr. Tim Hunt, a Nobel-prizing winning physiologist, a British knight, and a leading advocate for science education that is usually promoted by women’s rights activists, made a lame joke about single-sex labs. His punishment in the wake of a vicious social justice campaign was his forced resignation from the University College London.

No. No, no, no.

He was not employed by UCL. He did not resign from UCL. He did not work there so he couldn’t resign from working there.

Jacobson gets it wrong again at the end:

I will also note that given how brutally Hunt was treated in social media, and the consequences to his career, it is little wonder the sources wishes to remain unnamed.

There are demands that Hunt’s critics apologize. However, the talented scientists is still out of a job.

No he is not. He was already retired from his job. His honorary professorship at UCL was not a job.

But every single one of the comments on this wretched piece rages about Hunt’s loss of his job.

William A Jacobson of Harvard is a hack.

(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)

Posted in Notes and Comment Blog
Tags: