But what are they?

Editor in chief and Senior VP Mariette DiChristina explained on Twitter

Re blog inquiry: @sciam is a publication for discovering science. The post was not appropriate for this area & was therefore removed.

And got what is apparently an infinite number of replies – the page is still loading and I’ve been reading and scrolling for several minutes. The replies are stinging and clarifying.

A few:

Christie Wilcox @NerdyChristie

.@mdichristina Since when does @sciam censor blogs for lacking science content? No one took down my posts like this: http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/science-sushi/2012/11/12/musical-monday-stay-near-me/ ….

Maggie Koerth-Baker @maggiekb

Expectation of free work is big deal. Treatment of women who refuse paradigm, even more.

Seth Zenz @sethzenz

Science blogging is best w/ writers’ work/lives. You picked a very bad time to define it narrowly.

Janet D Stemwedel @docfreeride

Can you please clarify what “discovering science” means in context of @SciAmBlogs? cc @BoraZ

Martin Robbins @mjrobbins

This is a complete and utter screw up on your part. The sooner you guys get on top of it, the better.

Mariette DiChristina responded:

@hannahjwaters @sciam @BoraZ @DNLee5 “Partner” connection not a factor.

More infinite responses:

Ben Lillie @BenLillie

@mdichristina @hannahjwaters @boraz @dnlee5 Doesn’t matter. Pulling that post sends an incredibly bad message for diversity and support.

Chris Clarke @canlistrans

@mdichristina a staggeringly bad decision on scism’s part. Not too late to fix it. @hannahjwaters @sciam @BoraZ @DNLee5

The editor in chief says the reason was not the partner connection, but does not say what the reason was. Hm.

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

Ah, nice – Sean Carroll (the physics one) has a post on the how not to address a colleague who has the bad taste to be a woman issue, and Scientific American’s response to same.

Where I grew up, when people politely turn down your request for free stuff, it’s impolite to call them a “whore.” It’s especially bad when you take into account the fact that we live in a world where women are being pushed away from science, one where how often your papers get cited correlates strongly with your gender, and so on.

DNLee was a bit taken aback, with good reason. So she took to her blog to respond. It was a colorful, fun, finely-crafted retort — and also very important, because this is the kind of stuff that shouldn’t happen in this day and age. Especially because the offender isn’t just some kid with a website; Biology Online is a purportedly respectable site, part of the Scientific American “Partners Network.” One would hope that SciAm would demand an apology from Ofek, or consider cutting their ties with the organization.

Sadly that’s not what happened. If you click on the link in the previous paragraph, you’ll get an error. That’s because Scientific American, where DNLee’s blog is hosted, decided it wasn’t appropriate and took it down.

It’s true that this particular post was not primarily concerned with conveying substantive scientific content. Like, you know, countless other posts on the SciAm network, or most other blogs. But it wasn’t about gossip or what someone had for lunch, either; interactions between actual human beings engaged in the communication of scientific results actually is a crucial part of the science/culture/community ecosystem. DNLee’s post was written in a jocular style, but it wasn’t only on-topic, it was extremely important. Taking it down was exactly the wrong decision.

I have enormous respect for Scientific American as an institution, so I’m going to hope that this is a temporary mistake, and after contemplating a bit they decide to do the right thing, restoring DNLee’s post and censuring the guy who called her a whore. But meanwhile, I’m joining others by copying the original post here. Ultimately it’s going to get way more publicity than it would have otherwise. Maybe someday people will learn how the internet works.

Bat signal, bat signal.

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

Good grief. Scientific American actually pulled DNLee’s post from their site yesterday. Wow.

I knew it was gone, because I clicked links to the SciAm post via three different tweets of DNLee’s and each one got a 404 – but I assumed it was a glitch, not a removal. Then DNLee tweeted the link to Isis’s post, and I put SciAm behind me. But now, also via Isis, via a comment at PZ’s, I learn that Scientific American deliberately took the post down and explained on Twitter why it doesn’t want it. Isis gives the details:

I was glad later in the day to see that DNLee had posted about her experience on her Scientific American blog.

Then I went to lab meeting, came back, and the post was gone. Vanished into the ether. Rumor circulated around Twitter that it had been pulled. I talked to DNLee and she very graciously provided me its content to post and was classy as fuck about what had gone down, refusing me any additional comment.

But she Googled, and discovered that Biology Online is part of the Scientific American Partners Network. So…protect the partners, is that the deal? Bad move, SciAm. Majorly fuck you type of move.

And, Isis found the smoking tweet.

 And then Isis delivers a truly glorious telling off.

You see, science is about discovery, yes. But, more importantly, at its core science is about discovery with integrity. It’s about accepting data for what they are, even when they challenge our view of the world. It’s about reporting your conclusions, even when they are not popular and create conflict. Science is about chasing the truth and uncovering more of that truth with each new discovery. Not obscuring it.  I became a scientist because science is about honesty and curiosity and that little moment of excitement when you’re holding something brand new and you can’t wait to show it to the world.

I have a vision of what science should look like. When I close my eyes, I see a community where we are fascinated by the world around us. Our core value is, indeed, discovery, The more senior of us extend our hand to raise up those more junior than us.  We mentor them, care for them, love them, and protect them. We respect and value that our diversity makes us stronger. We empower those folks to feel like super heroes, because they are. They really, truly are. More so than any character, these folks have the power to shape our future for the better.

What you’ve taught me today is that you do not share my values. You may post glossy, sexy pictures of science, but you are not interested in discovery. You do not value truth, honesty and integrity – the core values that I hold most dear as a scientist.  Most importantly, you did not empower my friend.  You shut her down when she shared that she had not been respected. You put the dollar before the scientist.

I can’t read you anymore, Scientific American because there is truly nothing scientific about you.

What I can do, is to support my friend and fellow scientist and I can ask my fellow readers and scientists to join me in boycotting your publication.

Bad, bad move, Scientific American.

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

We’re requested to repost this to amplify its signal, so I’m doing that. DNLee is asked to write for a blog, politely declines, and gets a less than polite response.

DNLee reports:

wachemshe hao hao kwangu mtapoa

I got this wrap cloth from Tanzania. It’s a khanga. It was the first khanga I purchased while I was in Africa for my nearly 3 month stay for field research last year. Everyone giggled when they saw me wear it and then gave a nod to suggest, “Well, okay”. I later learned that it translates to “Give trouble to others, but not me”. I laughed, thinking how appropriate it was. I was never a trouble-starter as a kid and I’m no fan of drama, but I always took this 21st century ghetto proverb most seriously:

Don’t start none. Won’t be none.

For those not familiar with inner city anthropology – it is simply a variation of the Golden Rule. Be nice and respectful to me and I will do the same. Everyone doesn’t live by the Golden Rule it seems. (Click to embiggen.)

The Blog editor of Biology-Online dot org asked me if I would like to blog for them. I asked the conditions. He explained. I said no. He then called me out of my name.

My initial reaction was not civil, I can assure you. I’m far from rah-rah, but the inner South Memphis in me was spoiling for a fight after this unprovoked insult. I felt like Hollywood Cole, pulling my A-line T-shirt off over my head, walking wide leg from corner to corner yelling, “Aww hell nawl!” In my gut I felt so passionately:”Ofek, don’t let me catch you on these streets, homie!”

This is my official response:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q9kTZx1vq7c

It wasn’t just that he called me a whore – he juxtaposed it against my professional being: Are you urban scientist or an urban whore? Completely dismissing me as a scientist, a science communicator (whom he sought for my particular expertise), and someone who could offer something meaningful to his brand. What? Now, I’m so immoral and wrong to inquire about compensation? Plus, it was obvious me that I was supposed to be honored by the request..

After all, Dr. Important Person does it for free so what’s my problem? Listen, I ain’t him and he ain’t me. Folks have reasons – finances, time, energy, aligned missions, whatever – for doing or not doing things. Seriously, all anger aside…this rationalization of working for free and you’ll get exposure is wrong-headed.This is work. I am a professional. Professionals get paid. End of story. Even if I decide to do it pro bono (because I support your mission or I know you, whatevs) – it is still worth something. I’m simply choosing to waive that fee. But the fact is I told ol’ boy No; and he got all up in his feelings. So, go sit on a soft internet cushion, Ofek, ’cause you are obviously all butt-hurt over my rejection. And take heed of the advice on my khanga.

You don’t want none of this

Thanks to everyone who helped me focus my righteous anger on these less-celebrated equines. I appreciate your support, words of encouragement, and offers to ride down on his *$$.

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

Some Christian groups in Kansas are suing the state board of education over science teaching in schools.

There’s the Pacific Justice Institute for example. (Wha? The Pacific is nowhere near Kansas.)

Topeka, Kansas–Families across Kansas became one step closer, today, to protecting their children from forced atheistic teaching in their public school system. Pacific Justice Institute filed a complaint in Federal District Court challenging the State Board of Education’s (BOE) adoption of certain science standards which would create a hostile learning environment for those of faith. The standards being challenged are the Next Generation Science Standards adopted by the BOE June 11, 2013, and the corresponding Framework for K-12 Science Education: Practices, Crosscutting Concepts and Core Ideas.

In addition to citing numerous areas of law that the standards violate, the complaint cites that the standards cause the state “to promote religious beliefs that are inconsistent with the theistic religious beliefs of plaintiffs, thereby depriving them of the right to be free from government that favors one religious view over another.”

I’m not a lawyer or a legal scholar, but that seems like a very contorted argument. “Favoring” science doesn’t become favoring a religious view just because some religious people decide to get bent out of shape about it. And if science would “create a hostile learning environment for those of faith” then that shows what’s wrong with faith, doesn’t it. It’s threatened by unfamiliar knowledge and it demands deference as a matter of survival. That’s way too high maintenance.

Brad Dacus, President of Pacific Justice Institute noted, “it’s an egregious violation of the rights of Americans to subject students—as young as five—to an authoritative figure such as a teacher who essentially tells them that their faith is wrong.” He continued, “it’s one thing to explore alternatives at an appropriate age, but to teach theory that is devoid of any alternative which aligns with the belief of people of faith is just wrong.”

No it isn’t. What if some students believed in magical agents who can cause major events while leaving no historical record? Would it be ”just wrong” to teach history without taking such agents into account?

Now that one is a rhetorical question.

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

So there’s one bit of progress perhaps.

A judge has ruled that sisters aged 15 and 11 must have the MMR vaccine even though they and their mother do not want it, BBC Newsnight has learned.

The High Court decision, made last month, came after the girls’ father brought a case seeking vaccination.

The parents, now divorced, had jointly agreed not to vaccinate the girls in the wake of the MMR controversy.

But the discrediting of concerns about an MMR autism link and recent measles outbreaks changed the father’s view.

A step.

When outlining her decision in the latest case, Mrs Justice Theis emphasised it was a specific case “only concerned with the welfare needs of these children”, but lawyers say as one of a series it confirms there is no longer any debate
about the benefits of the vaccine.

Definitely a step.

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

Originally a comment by SallyStrange on “The rules”.

Funny, I was having a conversation on FB yesterday along these lines. Nice guy, uneducated about feminism and the ins and outs of dehumanizing language. People were explaining why it’s not okay to use “female” as a noun to refer to women.

“So are you saying that I’m not ALLOWED to do that?” He’d respond. Or, “I see, so, saying cunt isn’t permitted because it doesn’t fit with civil discourse.”

No, people would say, you’re ALLOWED to do whatever you want. It’s just that this kind of language is inadvisable for the following reasons. And again he’d fall back on the allowed/permitted/forbidden paradigm.

I think I actually ran into an authoritarian who’s well-intentioned AND introspective self-aware. Kind of a novelty.

I ended up explaining to him that nobody has the power to enforce anything here. If he disregards us, the only thing that will happen is that some people will feel upset or angry and might express that. And others–namely  misogynists–might feel vindicated. His framing made it seem as if he only refrains from dehumanizing women because there are rules about it and he follows rules. But that isn’t how morality works, or, at least, it isn’t how it ought to work, in my opinion. Saying, “These are THE RULES” removes the need to take responsibility for making your own moral choices. So, I said as much, and now he’s mulling it over.

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

No.

Jack Vance of Atheist Revolution seldom misses an opportunity to fume about you-know-what – the divisive dogmatic atheoplussoFTbullyo bloggers and their friends. He always misrepresents the facts when he does so. (For instance he casually said I misrepresented Michael Shermer. Not true. I quoted exactly what Shermer said.) He drags the subject in again now when one would have thought the subject was something quite different.

If you read Hemant Mehta’s (Friendly Atheist) recent post about how the London School of Economics (LSE) recently freaked out over two atheist students wearing Jesus & Mo t-shirts during a student organization fair, you’ll know that the title was a perfect description of the take-home message: Wearing Jesus & Mo Shirts Doesn’t Mean You’re Discriminating Against Christians and Muslims. Indeed, it doesn’t.

So far so good. Ok for another three paragraphs. But then we get to the real subject, the subject that must never be put aside if it can be helped.

As I read Hemant’s post, I found myself gripped with an odd sense of deja vu. Taking offense at a silly t-shirt and equating it with things like discrimination…why did that sound so damned familiar? And then it hit me – it is not just religious believers who do this stuff. Remember the t-shirt Dr. Harriet Hall wore at TAM and the reactions she received? Some atheists took offense and equated wearing a t-shirt with harassment.

No.

The two are not the same.

You know what? If Chris and Abhishek had worn Tshirts saying “I am not a stupid mozzie” then I wouldn’t be defending them, and neither would other reasonable people. But then of course Chris and Abhishek wouldn’t wear Tshirts like that, because they’re not assholes.

Vance goes on.

In concluding his post, Hemant asked the important question:

At what point should we stop caving in to people who can’t handle fair criticism of their beliefs?

Now. Now is the point at which we should stop caving in to those who refuse to tolerate criticism of their beliefs. Hemant is right that this is the question we should all be asking. Bad ideas, whether they are religious or not, must be criticized. And as long as we are criticizing ideas, we cannot let ourselves be dissuaded by misplaced howls of discrimination, harassment, and the like.

No. A personal insult or taunt is not the same thing as criticism of beliefs. Now is the point at which people should stop conflating the two.

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

What’s wrong with invoking “the rules” when you’re trying to explain a perceived problem with certain kinds of speech or action or display or performance? Is there anything wrong with it? I think there is, yes, so I’m thinking about why. (This started with a reply to Minnow on The proud tradition of a free press.)

What’s wrong with it? It’s that it doesn’t get at the issues. It’s a shortcut, and shortcuts aren’t good for getting at issues. It doesn’t help significantly to talk about unwritten rules, because the rule quality remains, and that’s what falls short.

There are things I strongly think people should not do, though, so doesn’t that amount to rules? No, I don’t think so, although I could put them into rule form if I had to.

• don’t make fun of the school bus driver and tell her how ugly and fat and hopeless she is
• don’t call the high school atheist an evil little thing, especially in public, especially if you’re a legislator
• don’t make clucking sounds while a legislator who is a woman is speaking

That helps to clarify one reason it’s not useful to invoke “the rules” – it’s because such rules shouldn’t be needed, because they fall under a broader heading, which isn’t itself really a rule, it’s more like a basic requirement for being a decent human being. It’s basically “don’t be shitty to people”…and I think that isn’t a rule so much as an orientation.

It isn’t a rule because people shouldn’t want to be shitty in the first place. If they don’t have that basic gut-level instinct, they need more work than rules can give.

But then we disagree on the details. I argue that personal insults=being shitty, but challenging beliefs is not being shitty. Others argue that challenging beliefs is indeed shitty; others again argue that challenging beliefs is shitty if it’s done in a particular way – with cartoons for instance.

I argue that personal insults in the form of group-based epithets – racist, ethnic, homophobic, nationalistic, and sexist – equal being shitty. Others argue that personal insults in the form of group-based epithets – racist, ethnic, homophobic, nationalistic, but not sexist – equal being shitty. Somebody was arguing that at me yesterday on Twitter, and very annoying it was. I don’t think I have yet seen anyone argue that racist epithets don’t equal being shitty, but I’m sure such people exist.

So would rules help to settle these disputes? Maybe. Possibly. Sexist epithets are popular because they’re popular; if rules made them less popular, they would spread less, and maybe the fashion would simply wither and die. But what rules wouldn’t do is get people to understand why they’re shitty in the first place.

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

Sofia Ahmed, activist, student, and aspiring journalist, takes to the Huffington Post UK to explain why watching people applauding Malala Yousafzai makes her want to puke.

The sight of white men in suits applauding and gushing at Malala Yusufzai’s speech at the United Nations, the media frenzy and vociferous support on social media was nauseating for me. Not because I deny Malala the right to campaign for what she does.

That’s very generous of her, isn’t it.

It was more due to the sickening double-standards at play and the thought that while she was being lauded hundreds of other Muslim girls were being blown up, raped and bombed into oblivion because of those very men sitting with her that day.

During the period of time that Malala addressed the UN, hundreds of Muslim girls were being blown up, raped and bombed into oblivion by “white” military forces? I don’t think that’s true.

So it was refreshing to see that there were some commentators out there who have the moral courage to look beyond the PR stunts and tactics and analyse the deeper motivations behind this entire charade. However, there does seem to be a systematic attempt at stifling debate on this matter, with stooges of the West trying to use petty tactics, straw man arguments and accusations of “jealousy” in order to curb diversity of opinion.

One comment piece that struck me as particularly nefarious was Tehmina Kazi’s (British Muslims For Secular Democracy) for the Huffington Post UK. It was the most self righteous and sanctimonious load of drivel I have ever had the misfortune to read.

I knew before I even began to read it that essentially it was not a defence of Malala at all – it was quite obviously a thinly-veiled attempt to degrade those who refuse to fall into line and stand in defence of Western imperialism and those who help to impose a universal liberal agenda.

Ah yes that terrible “universal liberal agenda” – the one that opposes any kind of imperialism and that defends universal human rights; what a terrible agenda. It’s so much better to have purely local rights, like the right to be married off by one’s father at age 9, the right to be kept out of school, the right to be whipped for refusing to wear a hijab or a burqa.

When I tried to offer my comments and criticisms of Tehmina’s piece on the Facebook page for BMSD, those great bastions of all things “liberal” and “democratic” chose to censor me and curb my fundamental right of freedom of speech by removing my comments and blocking me from the page within minutes of my first post. Kazi also went on to personally contact at least one news outlet in order to ask them not to print anything I submit.

I am not surprised by Tehmina’s tactics and attempts at shutting down debate. Ordinary Muslims who may have alternative views have been progressively marginalised and shouted down by these purveyors of a particular brand of Islam tinged with a Eurocentric fundamentalism.

A Eurocentric fundamentalism – what’s that when it’s at home? Belief in universal human rights and secular government, perhaps? The opposite of fundamentalism?

Tehmina and her ilk have one goal, and that is providing ideological support to the advancement of colonial interests and Western tyranny. Her article is not about the defence of Malala, it is about defending the privileges and opportunities of the elite.

I can’t help hoping Sofia Ahmed fails in her aspiration to become a journalist, at least unless she learns a good deal first.

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

En français.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ev_J_xZvyHk

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

Sexism? What sexism?

The sexism where a male conservative MP makes clucking noises while a female Green MP is speaking.

The incident was widely denounced as sexist in a country where the word chicken is often used as a derogatory term for women.

Véronique Massonneau was forced to stop her address to the National Assembly in Paris when her conservative rival, Philippe Le Ray, began to make the noises.

However, as she resumed her speech on planned pension reform the heckling resumed, prompting the president of the National Assembly to step in.

Watch the video. See the other conservative male MP, talking to the camera in the hall outside afterwards, say “Vive le macho!” and walk away then turn around to smirk happily.

Yeah.

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

As Bjarte mentioned – the Hawkeye initiative is pretty funny.

About THI and FAQ

About The Hawkeye Initiative

Created on December 2nd 2012, The Hawkeye Initiative uses Hawkeye and other male comic characters to illustrate how deformed, hyper-sexualized, and impossibly contorted women are commonly illustrated in comics, books, and video games.

Like so:

themenarchbutterfly:

From Red Hood and the Outlaws, Issue 14. Art by Pascal Alixe.

John Holbo has a great post on Mannerism and the Hawkeye Initiative.

I’m reading a book on Mannerism [amazon] and stumbled on a pair of amusing quotes. The first, from Alberti’s On Painting (1435) really ought to be some kind of epigraph for The Hawkeye Initiative. (What? You didn’t know about it. Go ahead and waste a few happy minutes there. It’s hilarious. Now you’re back. Good!)

As I was saying, here’s Alberti, warning us that, even though good istoria painting should exhibit variety and seem alive with motion, you shouldn’t go all Escher Girl boobs + butt Full-Monty-and-then-some:

There are those who express too animated movements, making the chest and the small of the back visible at once in the same figure, an impossible and inappropriate thing; they think themselves deserving of praise because they hear that those images seem alive that violently move each member; and for this reason they make figures that seem to be fencers and actors, with none of the dignity of painting, whence not only are they without grace and sweetness, but even more they show the ingegno of the artist to be too fervent and furious [troppo fervente et furioso].

The chest and the small of the back at the same time – yeah that would be a tricky pose.

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

Malala’s getting a head start on the prize-winning.

Malala Yousafzai, who was shot last year by Taliban militants for her advocacy of girls’ education, has been awarded theSakharov Prize for Freedom of Thought by European lawmakers.

The 16-year-old, considered a contender for this year’s Nobel Peace Prize, joins previous winners of Europe’s top human rights award, including Peace Prize laureates Aung San Suu Kyi and Nelson Mandela.

You know, maybe shooting her in the head wasn’t such a good idea after all. Talk about a Streisand effect…

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

Malala was on the Daily Show on Tuesday.

Check it out.

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

Another UK religious state school interfering with students’ science education.

The Oxford, Cambridge and RSA Exam board (OCR) launched an investigation into exam malpractice at the Yesodey Hatorah Jewish Voluntary Aided girls’ secondary school after the National Secular Society formally asked it to follow up unconfirmed reports that teachers had redacted questions in this year’s GSCE science exam.

The precise questions that were blacked out has not been revealed by OCR, but earlier this year a Jewish education consultant warned that evolution in the new GCSE science curriculum could pose problems for strictly Orthodox schools.

The investigation confirmed pupils were left disadvantaged by being unable to access 3 marks out of 75 for a unit in a higher GCSE science exam, and 1 mark out of 75 for a unit on a lower paper.

Earlier this year, Rabbi Avraham Pinter, principal of Yesodey Hatorah, admitted “sometimes Charedi schools, if they find anything in the paper which could be offensive to parents, advise children to avoid that question”.

Because people who are deeply entrenched in their ancient obsolete religion find science “offensive” and allow that infantile attitude to impede their children’s education, and state schools help the parents do that.

A spokesperson for OCR said: “We have tried to respect the religious and cultural sensitivities of this community whilst protecting the integrity of our exams. That said, we do not consider obscuring aspects of question papers to be good exam practice. We are raising the matter with the Department for Education and Ofsted as well as our fellow Awarding Bodies, through the Joint Council for Qualifications. We are also in the process of agreeing safeguards with the centre to ensure good exam practice in the context of today’s pluralistic society. Ofqual are also fully aware of our investigation and its outcome.”

I wish officials of all kinds would just stop saying things like that. It shouldn’t be the job of secular officials to “respect the religious and cultural sensitivities” of any community or of all communities. Furthermore, officials should stop talking about “communities” in that way at all, because it assumes that everyone in the putative community thinks exactly the same. It ignores the part played by coercion and pressure and approval/disapproval. It ignores how suffocating and stultifying it is to be trapped in a “community” and jostled into accepting all its beliefs, no matter how wrong and unsupported by reasons.

Yesodey Hatorah was founded in 1942 and operated as a private school until 2005 when it opted in to the state sector. It was launched as a state school with a high-profile visit from faith school enthusiast Tony Blair, then prime minister.

Girls attending Yesodey Hatorah are strongly discouraged from going to university. According to Rabbi Pinter: “Our experience, is that the better educated girls turn out to be the most successful mothers. For us, that’s the most important role a woman plays.”

Who’s “us”? Who’s the we in that “our experience”? And what good is that experience when it’s the product of coercion such as “strongly discourage[ing]” girls from going to university?

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

There’s a place for Subjects. Under Subjects, there’s a place for Islamic Studies.

At the heart of Al-Madinah School is the Quranic and Islamic Studies department, supported by a team of experienced and dedicated servants of Islam. Our commitment to Islam in the school is reflected by the fact that each week, six lessons will be dedicated to Islamic, Quranic and Arabic Studies in the secondary school along with numerous lessons in the primary school. In this programme, great attention and effort will be geared to subject areas such as Quranic reading with the correct pronunciations (Tajwid), Quranic translation and commentary (Tafsir) and the memorisation of the Quran (Hifz). In addition to this we also teach Islamic Jurisprudence (Fiqh), the flawless biography (Sira) of Prophet Muhammed (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him), Islamic history, Islamic beliefs (Aqidah) and Islamic morality (Akhlaq).

In other words, time will be taken from other subjects and spent on items like the flawless biography (Sira) of Prophet Muhammed (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him).

Also, is taught in those many lessons will be utter shite. The lessons will be taught by dedicated servants of Islam.

Every effort will be made to imitate the way medieval people thought, when they didn’t have the accumulated stores of knowledge that we have, nor the much-tested and refined methods of inquiry that we have.

All this in a school funded by the state.

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

Originally a comment by zibble on First rule: make them insipid.

I think the problem isn’t even that they have to keep the characters pretty.  The problem is that they define female prettiness as an absence of features.

It’s like the bad-anime face.

The total lack of identifiable human features forces you to project idealized features onto their void of a face.  There are enough face-like qualities for the mind to recognize that a face is supposed to go there – but with no specific information, your brain picks all the features it likes the best.  Whereas if they tried to make a female character actually modeled off of a real female face, like Angelina Jolie, they have to deal with the fact that not everyone finds that specific face attractive.

I think that’s the core problem with objectification.  It’s not just that women are sexualized – when you watch cartoon films like Hercules or anything by Don Bluth, the men are designed to be sexualized and pretty too.  It’s just done in a radically disparate way, in which women are sexualized not according to their individual characteristics, but by having their individuality covered up.  It’s essentially the same mentality as a burqa – an attempt to define women as only being one particular set of things through a campaign to hide their actual attributes.

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

It’s sad being a Disney animator if you have to animate women, we’re told. Fortunately the problem doesn’t arise much because hey – Toy Story? Lion King? But when it does arise, damn, it’s difficult.

Lino DiSalvo, the head of animation on Frozen, claimed that it was “really, really difficult” to animate women because they have to be kept pretty while expressing emotions:

“Historically speaking, animating female characters are really, really difficult, because they have to go through these range of emotions, but you have to keep them pretty and they’re very sensitive to — you can get them off a model very quickly. So, having a film with two hero female characters was really tough, and having them both in the scene and look very different if they’re echoing the same expression; that Elsa looking angry looks different from Anna being angry.”

I have a solution. Ditch the rule. Ditch the “you have to keep them pretty” rule. Forget all that. Just think of them as people, instead of as girruls, who have to be pretty no matter what.

There are other reasons to ditch that rule, actually, such as the fact that it imposes such a narrow range of types. Male characters don’t have to meet that kind of criterion, so why should female characters? You really don’t have to keep them pretty; you don’t even have to make them pretty to begin with.

Try thinking of women as being just as varied and complicated as men are and it will instantly become clear to you that keeping them “pretty” just doesn’t have to be a rule. It works quite well in real life, too.

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

Did you (those of you in the US) see Frontline on football and concussions last night? It was pretty fascinating. The CBC (Canadian Broadcasting Corporation) has been reporting a lot on hockey and concussions, too. The Frontline show made some interesting points about how violent, and intentionally violent, football is. It’s marketed as violent, and apparently people like that.

Huh. Why? What a strange thing to like.

It reminded me of a lot of things. Jousting, for instance. Tweedledum and Tweedledee, and Tenniel’s illustrations of them. Jousting must have caused a lot of concussions and CTE (Chronic Traumatic Encephalopathy). Henry VIII received a bad head injury in a joust, and he was a monster as he aged – maybe the two were connected.

I don’t like watching athletes padded up like bolsters, so that’ll be part of why I’ve never liked (US) football. I like soccer-football, where it’s just shorts and jerseys and running like hell.

It’s all quite sick, in my view. I’ve always thought boxing is sick and shouldn’t be allowed; now I think the same about football. The game is designed in such a way that head injuries cannot be avoided. Bad idea, folks. Jousting wasn’t a good idea, and football isn’t a good idea. Fix it. Make it into a different kind of game.

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