Anonymous asked:
*mausoleum of tv and television
OH SHIT. WHY HAVEN'T WOMEN JUST ASKED MEN TO BE NICE? JUST TOLD THEM TO STOP BEING BIG OLD MEANIES? JUST SAID, "HEY, MEN. KNOCK IT OFF!"
🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔
🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔
🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔
We could have been done away with patriarchy as soon as it started, if only women had thought to ask nicely!
ALT
British government put radioactive salt on chapati that they fed to Punjabi mothers in Oxfordshire in the 1970s
This is more extreme version of a broader phenomenon described by Rebecca Solnit (among others): “A book without women is often said to be about humanity but a book with women in the foreground is a woman’s book.” This is the same logic that allows us to unreflectively give teenagers The Catcher in the Rye instead of The Bell Jar, because JD Salinger’s book seems to have universal appeal, while Sylvia Plath’s is an account of pathology (when in reality, of course, both books tackle the protagonist’s mental illness).
https://www.theguardian.com/books/2018/jun/04/incel-movement-literary-classics-behind-misogyny
it’s because women aren’t perceived as human
remember when crowder met actual blue collar union workers instead of cherry picked college kids
US conservatives have a lot to say about liberal college environments but there’s a specific brand of neocon commentator whose entire body of content is them debating college-age young adults. Kaitlin Bennett, Ben Shapiro, Steven Crowder, Charlie Kirk … there’s quite a few in this genre of self-styled intellectual conservatives (read: grown adults who come back to university campuses to pick on the students). And they get away with it partly because they’re debating people with less experience and knowledge than they have, but mostly because university campuses are the only place that allows this sort of thing to go on. Specifically because they are liberal environments that allow freedom of thought and expression. These guys say they want to change the thing that gives them freedom, fame, and payouts. And their fans believe them.
Okay something that bothers me is the fact physics is seen as the more prestigious of the three main sciences, with biology at the bottom and chemistry in the middle. Like. I doubt most people could name a famous biologist, but they could name 5 famous physicists. Why are Albert Einstein and Stephen hawking household names but Norman Borlaug and Jonas Salk aren't?
Not to dismiss the accomplishments of Einstein or Hawking, or their genius, but their actual tangible contributions to society have been miniscule compared to that of Borlaug or Salk who have each saved LITERALLY hundreds of millions, if not billions, of lives each. Half the food on your plate was probably grown thanks to Borlaug and Salk is the reason half your siblings didn't die of polio as a kid.
Sure Einsteins theory of relatively is important for modern satellite communications but really though how can it compare?
This is coming from someone who studied physics. I love physics, and years ago when i was at uni I looked down at biology and so did everyone else studying physics. And I know others did too. Retroactively of course I know this was so very wrong.
If society as a whole started treating biology with more respect then maybe more students would go into that field. If we had rockstars of medicine and agricultural science that were household names rather than just physicists? think of how many more lives could be saved, how many more lives could be improved.
I'm not saying physics isn't important, and more scientists of any kind is always good, but proportionally I think societies priorities are a little skewd.
ALTRelevant xkcd
Jonas Salk was a household name in his lifetime, and people do know the names Richard Dawkins and Louis Pasteur and Charles Darwin. But biology has been demoted to a "soft science" in recent decades, a phenomenon I can explain with a single image:
My prediction is that you will see this happen with chemistry next.
its already happening with chemistry-adjacent studies!!! chemical engineering used to be seen as the hardest form of engineering, until it became extremely popolar with women students, to the point where it is now pejoratively called ‘femical engineering’, and lookie-look which is now considered the *easiest* type of engineering. wanna venture a guess?
Someone in the notes actually took the time to inform me that “correlation does not equal causation” but there is actual scientific evidence that we value women’s work so low that when women enter a field, the prestige and pay in that field drops. We have seen this in numerous fields, even outside of the sciences and engineering fields. Biochemistry is being demoted to a soft science now too, but I think we will see, as the trends continue, that more women in chemistry will lead to devaluing of chemistry.
Some sources on this phenomenon.
The above two sources are discussed on the NYT article and show that, as women enter a field, the prestige and pay drops from that field. I found an interesting article on this below:
This third link is to an article that examines the long-term change in disparate prestige and pay experienced by women over time. In some respects, the gender pay gap is shrinking significantly and has been doing so since the 1980s. HOWEVER, when you control for other factors (more women are highly educated now, more jobs require higher education now than in 1980, more fields have earned a prestige and pay boost commensurate with these events) the negative effect of female percentage on overall pay an occupation receives has become stronger over time. In other words, the sex-based discrimination women experience has intensified as our net educational level and career choices have increased.
It’s interesting because there’s science behind this, there’s science behind the pay gap, but MRAs value women’s opinions so lowly that they can rebut it with “nu uh!” and people will go “well there’s really no way to tell who is right here.”
I had wanted to link them before, but I really didn’t want to do so in the context of an online argument. Either you believe in sexism or you don’t. If you don’t, then I won’t convince you it exists, and I don’t want to spend my free time trying.
J. Robert Oppenheimer And Albert Einstein, 1947
“and then say she has icy blue eyes like limpid tears that’d be the perfect imagery.”
"why shouldn't men be allowed in womens chess"
because they're men
"so you're saying women are worse at chess?"
no fuckhead thats a whole different sentence
It’s the same logic that I used to become a feminist to begin with. An objective look at the world shows differential outcomes for men and women. You see it in sports, in top-level business and academic and government jobs, in finances, and in virtually every facet of modern society. In this case, more chess competitive players are men and most grandmasters are men.
So then the question is, why? Is there something naturally inferior or detestable about women, or is there an artificial force keeping women and girls down? Based on my lived experiences and academic research, I concluded the latter, that society is biased in favor of men, against women. The issue is that you have people who assume the former projecting that belief onto people who believe the latter.
The rules of women’s leagues keep men out. Maybe because women have historically been excluded from a field, like in coding, chess, or academic competitions. Maybe men have an “unfair advantage” in some cases because of sex-based differences and the artificially imposed rules of the game (e.g.: cycling, track and field, or MMA fighting). Maybe there’s so little representation and space for women that having an environment made up of only like-minded women can seem like a safer alternative for getting into a potential hobby. Honestly, I don’t think the why matters so much. Those are the rules. Maybe society shouldn’t be set up in such a way that skilled athletes and competitors get so many unfair advantages, but it is. When you’re playing for money, for titles, for advantages, playing by the rules is all you have.
i believe that he loves balls
they know that their partner will want to try what's on their plate
so they order a small sample to make sure it's to their liking
they were scoping out the joint for their partner
to see if it's the kind of place they'd like beforehand
they ordered twice
because your sense of taste changes while you eat
one for if they asked outright to try it
the second to test for if they get hungry after their meal
that person really knows their stuff
to the point that i'm even left wondering
are they someone i know?
"why shouldn't men be allowed in womens chess"
because they're men
"so you're saying women are worse at chess?"
no fuckhead thats a whole different sentence
So why can’t men and women play chess together op?
They can because the vast majority of chess tournaments are open category :)
Oh okay so there really is no point in chess being sex segregated at all then
So then… why do you think they started female-only competitions, if they didn’t have any reason to do so?
We’re not in the 1950s anymore, if you’re a feminist, you shouldn’t be pushing for sex segregation anymore. So yes, originally it was because men wouldn’t share with women. If we’re playing together now though, is there any reason?
Yes of course there is, good of you to insinuate women don’t have a good reason for wanting a select few tournaments to be female-only. Women are just ridiculous amiright!
The reason being, in 2023, women chess players are still getting harassed by men. In 2023, the ratio of male chess players to female chess players is 16-1. So of course women would like some tournaments where they don’t get harassed and there are actually spots for them. Because in 2023, men still don’t like women chess players and treat them badly, because they still don’t want to share.
So really, what’s your specific qualm with female-only events? Are you also against affirmative action to combat the disproportionate amount of white students admitted to college? Or is it just affirmative action for women you don’t think is necessary? Do you think going completely 100% gender-neutral will be beneficial to the boys or the girls in the chess world?
And furthermore, do you believe everything got solved in the 60s and the world is totally without prejudice now?
Maybe instead of focusing on separating the sexes you should focus on making men behave?
How about this, then: you work on getting the men to behave and we'll keep making spaces for women to be free and unharrassed in in the meantime. Then once you're done you can just give us a shout and we'll know the men are all good now and we can open all the spaces to everyone.
Why do you think it's women's job to fix our oppressors? How do you think we're going to accomplish that? And why should we not get to have room for just us even if the end-goal is getting rid of the oppression as a whole? Do you think women should just grin and bear it or not play chess (or do anything) until patriarchy is abolished?
Even if men weren't harassing and pressuring women, does it not even occur to you that women want to spend time together? That we prefer playing together? We don't need a reason to spend time together and away from men. We don't owe men our time, our company, our attention. And we sure as shit don't need your permission.
I love how you use the term "segregation" to draw a comparison with racism, like a good little MRA calling us feminazis, as if women were oppressing men by not wanting to be around them. You never complain about all the spaces and activities openly hostile to women. But women playing chess together? Fucking crime against humanity apparently.
it’s so funny when people talk about porn like it’s this revolutionary counter-cultural thing. oh yeah the thing almost no one doesn’t watch that confirms every sexist, racist, homophobic myth imaginable and makes sex a commodity? yep you’re breaking barriers jacking to it. good work out there, champ.
tell me you you haven't seen any porn outside of pornhub without saying you haven't seen any porn outside of pornhub
anime porn will liberate us
my friend there is plenty of ethical, enthusiastic consent, body positive, disability positive, queer for queer porn out there if you actually take the time to look for it. both individual creators and production houses.
it's like saying the bdsm scene is just men who want to hit women. it proves to anyone who knows their shit that your entire education on the subject is based on surface level media impressions. immerse yourself before making broad statements on a subject.
porn addicts be like have you tried watching porn
It’s so weird to me because academia was sort of my booby prize career choice. I became disabled and had to leave my job in industry and join an environment where disability accommodations were given and taken seriously. They’re not in the corporate world, but that is now starting to change. So to see an outsider idolize how things are done in academia is almost interesting.
By the way, someone should inform “baby’s first burnout” that academics, especially the kind who study loaded popular topics like pornography, do their absolute best to avoid sounding elitist or calling other people stupid and misinformed for having a strong opinion on it. It’s the first thing you learn in science communication: you meet people where they are and you never want to make them feel stupid. Most of the time, it’s unintentional (academics sort of assume everyone has a baseline level of knowledge above what they do) but ESPECIALLY when you’re knowingly and intentionally insulting other people’s intelligence. It’s a bad look.
I know this person is at most an undergrad, and ignorant on actual psychological and media literacy studies of pornography, but it’s never too early to learn how to communicate your views effectively.