tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-44065445333092184972024-03-13T17:32:21.033+00:00Vagina DentataNaomi Mchttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06033949035632165385noreply@blogger.comBlogger47125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4406544533309218497.post-10036647866828550782009-10-04T20:02:00.003+01:002009-10-04T20:05:46.973+01:00On the move....Hi All<br /><br />I've moved sites, to a pretty wordpress blog site with a url of my very own: <a href="http://www.vaginadentatablog.net/">www.vaginadentatablog.net<br /></a><br />Please change your bookmarks and RSS feeds - I would hate you loose you :)<br /><br />I'll keep this address for a few more months but it won't be updated. <br /><br />Thanking you.<br /><br />Naomi McNaomi Mchttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06033949035632165385noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4406544533309218497.post-66262250155476549282009-09-21T12:09:00.004+01:002009-09-21T13:06:44.256+01:00Looking at boobs. Saving the world.Boo-hoo. My Mac is not well and I have to wait till Wednesday to see a Genius to cure the little mite. In the meantime, read this <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/isisthescientist/2009/09/lets_cure_cancer_to_keep_hot_w.php">fabulous blog by Dr Isis</a> on misogynistic breast cancer campaigning.<br /><br />This reminded me of PETA campaigning which has been frequently branded sexist. Feel the anger from <a href="http://www.feministing.com/archives/008699.html">Feministing</a> (Vote for the worst PETA ad), <a href="http://jezebel.com/5140840/peta-disgusts-americans-with-adolescent-advertising">Jezebel</a> (PETA explicit ad "banned" but actually not), <a href="http://www.opposingviews.com/articles/news-is-new-peta-campaign-featuring-overweight-woman-sexist">Opposing Views</a> (Save the Whale ad), <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2008/apr/04/women.voluntarysector">Julie Bindel</a>. A colleague of mine used to work for PETA and said that their strategy was to be as shocking as possible regardless of the fall-out - all publicity being good publicity. Defence from the President of PETA, Ingrd Newkirk <a href="http://www.feministing.com/archives/011650.html">here </a>and <a href="http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2008/10/mojo-audio-peta-co-founder-and-president-ingrid-newkirk">audio here</a>.<br /><br />Hilarious The Onion take on this:<br /><object width="480" height="430"><param name="allowfullscreen" value="true" /><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always" /><param name="movie" value="http://www.theonion.com/content/themes/common/assets/onn_embed/embedded_player.swf?image=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.theonion.com%2Fcontent%2Ffiles%2Fimages%2FPETA_PROTEST_article.jpg&videoid=97306&title=Advocacy%20Group%20Decries%20PETA's%20Inhumane%20Treatment%20Of%20Women" /><param name="wmode" value="transparent" /><embed src="http://www.theonion.com/content/themes/common/assets/onn_embed/embedded_player.swf"type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowScriptAccess="always" allowFullScreen="true" wmode="transparent" width="480" height="430"flashvars="image=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.theonion.com%2Fcontent%2Ffiles%2Fimages%2FPETA_PROTEST_article.jpg&videoid=97306&title=Advocacy%20Group%20Decries%20PETA's%20Inhumane%20Treatment%20Of%20Women"></embed></object><br /><a href="http://www.theonion.com/content/video/advocacy_group_decries_petas?utm_source=videoembed">Advocacy Group Decries PETA's Inhumane Treatment Of Women</a>Naomi Mchttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06033949035632165385noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4406544533309218497.post-41483721157873742902009-09-17T20:44:00.009+01:002009-09-18T09:09:42.349+01:00Science reporting: is it good for you?The Royal Institution in London was packed to the rafters last night (I know because I was in the rafters) with bloggers, academics, journalists, bloggers, science communicators and bloggers for the Drayson/Goldacre face-off (watch the full debate <a href="http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/webcast.html">here</a> or read New Scientist's <a href="http://www.newscientist.com/blogs/shortsharpscience/2009/09/science-reporting-is-it-good-f.html">report</a>).<br /><br />Less rumble in the jungle, more grumble in the letters page of a peer-reviewed journal (come on, it half rhymes if you say it quickly).<br /><br />The debate didn't really set the world alight and neither of them strayed away from their (after numerous radio interviews) well-trod arguments. My issue, as ever, is the trouble with gender and on this Lord Drayson used a pretty annoying headline to illustrate his point on the benefits of sensationalism. The front page story from <span style="font-style: italic;">The Sun</span> on HPV and cervical cancer has a killer headline...<br /><br /><div style="text-align: center;"><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_SxR0SGZwvpY/SrKyTtyif6I/AAAAAAAAAQQ/7oLnWQLhPwk/s1600-h/drayson.jpg"><img style="margin: 0px auto 10px; display: block; text-align: center; cursor: pointer; width: 240px; height: 320px;" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_SxR0SGZwvpY/SrKyTtyif6I/AAAAAAAAAQQ/7oLnWQLhPwk/s320/drayson.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5382560556439994274" border="0" /></a><span style="font-size:85%;">[thanks Kate Arkless Gray <a href="http://twitter.com/RadioKate">@radiokate</a>]<br /><br /></span></div>What I found interesting is the sub-heading 'ALERT TO ALL WOMEN'. To all those who read the Daily Mail, you will know that the Government has been rolling out a comprehensive HPV vaccine to girls and young women. The <a style="font-style: italic;" href="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-510221/Alert-jab-girls-die-following-cervical-cancer-vaccination.html">Daily Mail</a> is running a series of scare stories about this continuing a rich tradition in anti-vaccination journalism.<br /><br />(As an aside: If any of the researchers I know from my old alma mater who did some work on Cervarix and Gardasil are reading this, please do comment/link to your research).<br /><br />One thing that this policy decision does is put the responsibility for sexual health again squarely with females. And before, you roll your eyes and exclaim 'boys can't get cervical cancer', they can and do pass on HPV and they do get genital warts. I acknowledge that there is a cost-effectiveness argument but this call did get passed at the last <a href="http://www.bma.org.uk/whats_on/annual_representative_meeting/arm09_thursday/arm09bmanewsthursday06.jsp">BMA ARM</a> - not the most rabidly feminist organisation I've ever come across.<br /><br />My point is not to get into the ins and outs of the HPV vaccine, but more to take issue with Drayson's, and to some extent Goldacre's, view that sometimes 'sensationalism isn't such a bad thing', that it can publicise an issue that should get a high profile. Drayson used the <span style="font-style: italic;">Sun</span> headline above to illustrate the benefits of sensationalism. My concern is that there are negative fall-outs from such an approach to medical or scientific PR; namely, that sensationalist stories can reinforce and feed society's prejudices, stereotypes and negative attitudes.<br /><br />This is infuriating for those who campaign to challenge social attitudes whether on gender, race, immigration status, sexuality etc. It is hard enough to combat the Melanie Phillips' and Richard Littlejohn's of this world, without having scientists 'proving' that immigrants are coming over here stealing our women, eating our swans AND giving us HIV and TB.<br /><br />I'm not advocating censorship, I'm pleading for responsible reporting. Sensationalism can and does regularly undermine scientific reporting of delicate and nuanced findings. This can both lead to health scares and dangerous health practices but can also feed negative stereotypes about social groups being diseased, stupid, promiscuous or all of the above.<br /><br />However much we might point to outstanding examples of science journalism in certain papers, all newspapers are writing for their specific audience, influence their audience and have a political bias.<br /><br />Plus there is a huge amount of research into the way people read newspapers and news online. Using eye-tracking and socio-semiotic research, we know that people tend to read the headline and first couple of paragraphs if you're lucky (this is a <a href="http://www.ojr.org/ojr/stories/070312ruel/">fascinating article</a> on some eye-tracking research). Which means that if you leave the caveats, the nuances or other statistical 'health warnings' to the end of the article - they'll rarely be read.<br /><br />Science reporting doesn't happen in a vacuum. It takes place in a society with historical legacies, prejudices, tensions and pretty low levels of scientific understanding and critical thinking. Journalists and scientists need to take responsibility for the presentation of findings (assuming it's good research in the first place) that can fuel discriminatory or unhelpful attitudes.<br /><br />I only picked on one small aspect of the talk, coz I knew the blogosphere would do the rest. Here's some more on the talk and arguments:<br /><a href="http://www.badscience.net/2009/09/debate-with-lord-drayson-on-rubbish-science-coverage-live-streamed-7pm/">From Ben Goldacre himself</a><br /><a href="http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/technology/basheerakhan/100003571/goldacre-v-drayson-what-it-comes-down-to-is-that-all-journalism-is-crap/">Basheera Khan at The Telegraph</a><br /><a href="http://www.newscientist.com/blogs/shortsharpscience/2009/09/science-reporting-is-it-good-f.html">New Scientist</a><br /><a href="http://www.skeptobot.com/2009/09/open-letter-to-lord-drayson.html"><span style="font-weight: bold;"></span>Skeptobot</a><br /><a href="http://nathan.chantrell.net/20090917/science-reporting-is-it-good-for-you/">Nathan Chantrell</a><br /><a href="http://skepticbarista.wordpress.com/2009/09/17/science-reporting-rickety-bridge-analogy/">Skeptic Barista</a><br /><a href="http://blogsearch.google.co.uk/blogsearch?hl=en&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-a&um=1&ie=UTF-8&q=drayson+%2B+goldacre&btnG=Search+Blogs">And many many more.</a>Naomi Mchttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06033949035632165385noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4406544533309218497.post-54862108119977141542009-09-15T21:20:00.006+01:002009-09-15T21:47:27.665+01:00More Periods.<a style="" onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_SxR0SGZwvpY/Sq_7MotI7jI/AAAAAAAAAQI/TpM2DuifzKY/s1600-h/potty.jpg"><img style="margin: 0pt 10px 10px 0pt; float: left; cursor: pointer; width: 320px; height: 213px;" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_SxR0SGZwvpY/Sq_7MotI7jI/AAAAAAAAAQI/TpM2DuifzKY/s320/potty.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5381796274234781234" border="0" /></a><br />Further to an earlier <a href="http://avaginadentata.blogspot.com/2009/09/periods-periods-periods-periods.html">period post</a> (which interestingly has been the most commented on post both here and from friends in person) I've only just stumbled upon the fantastic blog by the <a href="http://menstruationresearch.org/blog/">Society for Menstrual Cycle Research</a>.<br /><br />I particularly liked the post on the <a href="http://menstruationresearch.org/2009/07/02/the-blood-they-cannot-show-2/">hidden nature of menstrual blood</a> in film and TV as opposed to the graphic depiction of blood via fighting, shooting and crashing.<br /><br />Oh, and having just moved into a new flat, <a href="http://menstruationresearch.org/2009/08/19/designer-gets-his-rag-on/">THIS</a> is the shelving unit I've been looking for!<br /><br />Periods and science: a veritable wellspring of menstrual blood!Naomi Mchttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06033949035632165385noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4406544533309218497.post-22431381593550564442009-09-09T08:50:00.002+01:002009-09-13T23:00:27.935+01:00My outfit does not consent on my behalf<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_SxR0SGZwvpY/Sq1qaHmTpUI/AAAAAAAAAQA/aXUvM1JTLt4/s1600-h/cilice.jpg"><img style="margin: 0pt 10px 10px 0pt; float: left; cursor: pointer; width: 303px; height: 320px;" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_SxR0SGZwvpY/Sq1qaHmTpUI/AAAAAAAAAQA/aXUvM1JTLt4/s320/cilice.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5381074126726473026" border="0" /></a><span style="font-size:85%;">[a <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cilice">metal cilice</a>, kind of thing worn by Opus Dey faithful for 'corporal mortification']</span><br /><br />Inspired by a blog sent to me about <a href="http://arstechnica.com/gaming/news/2009/07/ea-puts-sexual-bounty-on-the-heads-of-its-own-booth-babes.ars">EA Games ‘Booth Babes’ at ComicCon</a>, I thought I’d write a blog about spanking. You know, as you do. Issues of Bondage, Discipline/Dominance, Sado-Masochism (BDSM), pornography and objectification are so huge I’m not going to pretend that I’ve done them justice here, but these are my initial thoughts so lets get, erm, cracking….<br /><br />I’ve written before about misogyny in the gaming industry (<a href="http://avaginadentata.blogspot.com/2009/07/nerds-leave-fortress-of-solitude-for.html">here</a> and <a href="http://avaginadentata.blogspot.com/2009/06/female-geeks-and-nerds-of-world-unite.html">here</a> frinstance), which is ridiculous when <a href="http://www.womengamers.com/news/2008/07/18/40-us-gamers-are-women/">40% of (US) gamers are female</a>. There was also a lot written recently about EA Games employing ‘Booth Babes’ and then asking for them to be sexually harassed by ComicCon delegates. But the <a href="http://pandorablake.blogspot.com/2009/07/ea-games-promote-sexual-harassment.html">most interesting blog</a> (not worksafe) I have read on this was from a submissive model on the UK spanking scene.<br /><br />This was interesting because it challenged me and my preconceptions about women engaged in BDSM. It wasn’t what she said on the EA Games issue, all of which I agree with: this objectifies women, ‘Booth Babe’ is a demeaning term, it encourages sexual harassment not just of the ‘Booth Babes’ but all women attending ComicCon etc.<br /><br />There are two things that I find challenging about this: empowered feminists being sexually submissive and BDSM models criticising the objectification of women.<br /><br />Now I’ve read a couple of blogs by sexually submissive feminists (such as the very good <a href="http://girlwithaonetrackmind.blogspot.com/">Girl With a One Track Mind</a>) and it’s something I’m really trying to get my head around. It seems counter-intuitive to me because my instinct is to encourage women to be powerful and assertive against a historical backdrop of oppression. But this blogger dresses up in school uniforms and other costumes, and is spanked, dominated, tied-up and sexually submissive.<br /><br />Plus she is a model on the BDSM scene and so is photographed in these situations and yet identifies the fact that encouraging men to get dodgy pictures with some ‘booth babes’ crosses a line into objectification.<br /><br />I realise that finding these two things ‘challenging’ is an emotional response rather than an intellectual or philosophical one. So here’s why my emotional response is wrong….<br /><br />What is definitely unfeminist, is a feminist telling another woman how to have sex and what she can and can’t get her kicks out of. I want my feminism to include, for example, those women who have a gendered analysis of the world, they campaign for women’s rights, they challenge people’s everyday sexism and yet they're also down with consensual arse-slapping.<br /><br />The counter argument is: these women are perpetuating rape myths, they’re playing out their own internalised misogyny and they are making it harder for other women who are fighting against patriarchy. I simply do not think that this is true.<br /><br />Firstly, I have found that those involved in the BDSM scene or burlesque tend to have far greater social rules and sexual etiquette than in society at large. Because of the nature of the activities, trust, self-awareness and boundaries are far more strictly defined. These are people with a greater awareness of their own sexuality and the concept of empowerment through sexuality than your average non-handcuff owner.<br /><br />Secondly, if you believe in the empowerment of women you have to accept that they should be empowered to do things you personally wouldn’t want to do. This sometimes manifests itself as ‘feminism going too far’ or ‘women just acting like men’. Well yes, because if you want to give women choices you can’t then try and make those choices for them.<br /><br />If a woman chooses to engage in a bit of ol’ spanking then that is her choice. To say that I have a greater analysis of her motivations and am more aware of her sexuality than she is herself is deeply patronising, condescending and simply wrong. And it is particularly wrong when the women in question clearly demonstrate their political awareness, identify themselves as feminists and critically engage with debates around consent, sexual freedom and privacy.<br /><br />This doesn’t mean that non-spankers can’t engage in debate about the issues, but it does mean you have to do so from an informed position and with a sophisticated understanding of human sexuality which goes beyond ‘sexual practice A is wrong, sexual practice B is alright - says me’.<br /><br />Finally, I am deeply uncomfortable with the idea that individual women are responsible to women at large for their personal sexual proclivities. Women regularly bear the burden of their gender; if they succeed they are personally responsible for breaking down social barriers. If they fail, it in some way implicates all women in that failure.<br /><br />The second ‘thing I found challenging’ was a BDSM model criticising the objectification of women in the EA Games example. The simple question being “isn’t that what you’re doing?”. Again this needs a little more sophistication on my part.<br /><br />Two (linked) issues involved in the 'pornography: right or wrong' debate are female sexuality within the broad context of patriarchy and whether all porn is therefore objectification.<br /><br />As a society we tend to make a direct link between female sexuality, what women wear, how they behave and how the rest of society should therefore react to them. This is the basis of the ‘she was asking for it’ rationale for rape, as though an outfit can consent to sex on behalf of its wearer. Just try and think what a man would have to wear in order to be asking for rape or sexual assault.<br /><br />Putting aesthetics and scaring little children aside, a woman should be able to walk down the street naked without the risk of being raped. Clothes, lack of clothes or the wearing of sexualised clothing (for want of a better phrase) does not over-ride your ability to consent to sex. Your clothes do not remove the ability of another human being to stop themselves committing an assault.<br /><br />Plus, I don’t think there is something intrinsically wrong with looking at sexual images of people. Yes there is a historical legacy of oppression of women, of women exploited by a male-dominated porn industry. That is context, not intrinsic so we try and change the context. This comes down to what sexual objectification means and its impact. Do all sexualised images, female or male, necessarily separate the physical appearance from their existence as an individual?<br /><br />I think not. And while I understand the corrosive effect that pumping out degrading images of people can have (whether women or indeed, starving Africans) that is not true of all representations or all ‘consumers’. There is no getting away from the class, race, sexual orientation, gender identity, age etc etc aspects of this. But they simply make this more complicated rather than less as many marginalised groups, identities and sexualities find great empowerment in representations of their sexual liberation.<br /><br />All pornography and/or erotica is exploitative, sexist, racist, homophobic, size-ist? I think you’ll find it’s a bit more complicated than that.<br /><br />In sum, if there is any walk of life where I want there to be feminists it’s in the BDSM scene.<br /><br />So, ahem, more power to your elbow.<br /><br />I am genuinely interested in debating this issue and am open to different points of view on it. Just don’t be pervy – I’ll just not publish your post and regard you a sad wanker.Naomi Mchttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06033949035632165385noreply@blogger.com7tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4406544533309218497.post-13132287053558311412009-09-06T17:05:00.012+01:002009-09-07T00:33:18.820+01:00Damien Hirst is a cock<a style="" onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_SxR0SGZwvpY/SqQcC_jhUoI/AAAAAAAAAPg/XeTG-R5Maxk/s1600-h/cartrain_correctedtn.jpg"><img style="margin: 0pt 10px 10px 0pt; float: left; cursor: pointer; width: 214px; height: 320px;" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_SxR0SGZwvpY/SqQcC_jhUoI/AAAAAAAAAPg/XeTG-R5Maxk/s320/cartrain_correctedtn.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5378454692732949122" border="0" /></a>I think we get the artists we deserve, which is why our money-grabbing, commercialised, shallow, turn of the millennia, Western society has produced Damien Hirst.<br /><br />Last century, and for century's before, most artists died in poverty usually syphilitic, earless, reputationless - apart from a reputation for opium and shagging prostitutes - they were on the fringes of society. OK not the court artists, but you get what I mean.<br /><br />Now they are multi-millionaires, who employ people to produce their art in <a href="http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/arts/article-23410356-details/Inside+Damien+Hirst%27s+factory/article.do">three factory workshops</a> for them and swagger around threatening to sue 17 year old artists who make collages of their work and then <a href="http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/art/news/damien-hirst-in-vicious-feud-with-teenage-artist-over-a-box-of-pencils-1781463.html">getting them arrested</a>.<br /><span style="font-size:85%;"><br /></span>Art has always involved copying and appropriating. It's how the Greats learnt their craft. Mentors would encourage their protege to learn from them.<br /><br />But not today. Today we live in a world where art is brand and brand is money and all that matters is how much Saatchi will pay for your pile of shite (which is my idea fuckers - any of you try and sell your own pile of shite I'll sue!). In 2009, we get a multi-millionaire shitty brand artist like Hirst with a righteous desire to stamp on a 17 year old street artist.<br /><br />So what happened? Street artist Cartrain made some collages using an image of Hirst's disgustingly expensive diamond-encrusted skull, <a href="http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/this-britain/for-the-love-of-god-a-16350m-work-of-art-451413.html">For the Love of God</a>. These collages were put up for sale on an art website. Hirst reported him to the Design and Artists Copyright Society and sent a bundle of legal letters to Cartrain's art dealer, Tom Cuthbert, at <a href="http://www.100artworks.com/">100artworks.com</a>.<br /><br />After the legal threats, 100artworks.com surrendered the offending pictures to Hirst with a verbal apology. Cartrain, the artist in question took this all very well, and in the spirit of the Dadaists went to Tate Britain and stole a box of pencils part of Hirst's £50m Pharmacy installation. Cartrain was arrested, released on bail, and is waiting to find out if he will be formally charged with causing damage to the artwork. His father was also arrested in connection with the theft from Tate Britain, on suspicion of harbouring stolen pencils probably.<br /><br />It doesn't feel a lot different from McDonald's stopping local family-run businesses using the name 'McDonald's'. In fact there are a lot of similarities, as the <a href="http://www.mcspotlight.org/case/">McLibel Two</a> will tell you.<br /><br />So Twitter has been buzzing with <a href="http://search.twitter.com/search?q=%23hirstisacock">#hirstisacock</a> and some have been debating whether Hirst is a shit artist or Cartrain is a shit artist. Both may be true but neither are important. What is important is a rich, establishment, art figure trying to stamp on a child artist because he can. This is why Hirst is a cock. He is a bully, <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/754680.stm">a hypocrite</a> and a sickening anti-competition capitalist.<br /><br />Cartrain and 100artworks.com <a href="http://www.100artworks.com/catalog/Cartrain%20Tate%20Mailout%20New.html">have asked that bloggers</a> and twitters bring attention to this story. Woop here it is.Naomi Mchttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06033949035632165385noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4406544533309218497.post-49549483168501449142009-09-05T15:41:00.011+01:002009-09-06T23:51:25.412+01:00New "Scientist" at it again<a style="" onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_SxR0SGZwvpY/SqQ8KrPLv7I/AAAAAAAAAPo/QkfMlFUb4Ac/s1600-h/spider+woman.jpg"><img style="margin: 0pt 10px 10px 0pt; float: left; cursor: pointer; width: 200px; height: 300px;" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_SxR0SGZwvpY/SqQ8KrPLv7I/AAAAAAAAAPo/QkfMlFUb4Ac/s320/spider+woman.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5378490009089982386" border="0" /></a><span style="font-size:85%;">[<a href="http://marvel.com/universe/Spider-Woman_%28Jessica_Drew%29">Jessica Drew</a> was down with the spiders, that's radiation for you]</span><br /><br />At the risk of copyright infringement, I would like to quote directly from the <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/8237691.stm">BBC story</a> on girls being afraid of spiders. This is a report on an article in the <a href="http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17697-girls-are-primed-to-fear-spiders.html">New Scientist</a> which has a worrying habit of reproducing this <a href="http://avaginadentata.blogspot.com/2009/07/new-daily-mail-scientist.html">kind of shite</a>.<br /><br /><blockquote>A new study in the US suggests that women have a genetic aversion to dangerous animals, such as spiders.</blockquote>Let's focus on the words 'genetic aversion', what kind of evidence do you think you would need to establish a 'genetic aversion'? I would, for example, expect a geneticist to perhaps be involved in the research or maybe for it to be a twin-based study. But...<br /><br /><blockquote>The research, published in the New Scientist, says women are born with character traits that were ingrained in our hunter-gatherer ancestors.</blockquote>FACT. This research PROVES that women (i.e. all) are born with character traits (presuming manifesting in behaviours) that were ingrained (genetically pre-programmed?) in our hunter-gatherer ancestors (a catch-all term but where our character traits were cemented and untouched by 10,000 years of agricultural and pastoral society). Again, for this assertion I would expect an archeologist, palentologist, ethnographer, paleoanthropologist, or someone with some understanding of prehistoric societies to be involved in this research.<br /><br /><blockquote>Previous research suggested women were actually up to four times more likely to be afraid of creatures like spiders.</blockquote>Previous research. Not this research. Not credited research. Just other research.<br /><br /><blockquote>The new research was headed up by developmental psychologist, Dr David Rakison, from Carnegie Mellon University in Pittsburgh, 10 baby girls, and 10 baby boys were subjected to a number of pictures of spiders to gauge their reactions.</blockquote>OK, so let's recap shall we: no geneticist, no archeologist, no paleontologist, no ethnographer, no paleoanthropologist. A study on 20 babies where they GAUGED their REACTIONS to PICTURES.<br /><br />A sample of 20 individuals who cannot adequately communicate were show pictures of things that they may have never seen before and the claim is that this research shows that women have a genetic aversion to dangerous animals.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;font-size:130%;" >Methods</span><br /><blockquote>First the babies were shown a picture of a spider with a fearful human face, followed by images of a spider paired with a happy face - alongside an image of a flower twinned with a fearful face.</blockquote>This is supposed to be science. They are showing babies pictures of spiders with happy and sad faces (learnt behaviour) and stating that this in any way contributes to evidence for genetic aversion.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;font-size:130%;" >Results</span><br /><p></p><blockquote><p>The results showed that the girls - some as young as 11 months old - looked longer at the picture of the happy face with a spider than the boys, who looked at both images for an equal time. </p><p>The researchers concluded that the young girls were confused as to why someone would be happy to be twinned with a spider, and were quick to associate pictures of arachnids with fear. </p><p>The boys, it seems, remained totally indifferent emotionally. </p></blockquote><p>"The researchers concluded that the girls were confused". Seriously, why do these people bother working in a university when they could just prop up a bar somewhere shouting "I reckon..." into the air? Oh yeah, its on the BBC website...</p><p>I particularly like the caveat "it seems" in the last sentence. Because of course they don't know, they weren't even measuring heartbeat never mind any other tests of emotion. They just reckon.</p><p style="font-weight: bold;"><span style="font-size:130%;">Discussion</span></p><p></p><blockquote><p>Mr Rakison attributes this genetic predisposition to behavioural traits inherent in our hunter-gatherer ancestors. </p><p>Men, he purports, were the greater natural risk takers, the ones who took greater risks were more successful when going out to hunt for food. </p><p>With women, in their role as natural child protectors, it made sense for them to be more cautious of animals such as snakes or spiders, Mr Rakison adds. </p><p>By contrast, the research concludes that modern phobias such as the fear of hospitals - or that of flying - show no differences between the sexes. </p></blockquote><p></p>Only at this stage in the article do words like 'attributes' or 'purports' come into play. It is interesting to compare what Dr Rakison is quoted as saying above and what he says when he is interviewed on the BBC's <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8238002.stm">The World Today</a>. The interview is worth listening to for the vox pops they do with a few women at the beginning (none of whom are afraid of spiders) where one says she's not frightened of spiders but is of men. Anyway, Mr Rakison says in his interview explicitly that this is a learnt response and that "its not that we're born with the fear".<br /><br />Also the study is published in <a href="http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6T6H-4X0MPHF-1&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=09c1ed623797049222d44fa245d71390"><span style="font-style: italic;">Evolution and Human Behaviour</span></a> and is about fear learning.<br /><br />So where does the 'genetic' and 'hunter-gatherer' bullshit come from? It's made up. It had no basis. It's just a cultural meme perpetuated by repetition. I'm not saying that humans do not have 'instincts' or that everything is environmental. I'm saying that the hunter-gatherer concept pisses me off. It invokes an image of big strong men hunting mammoths and home-bound women collecting berries which feeds cultural stereotypes about male and female characteristics which are false.<br /><br />Apparently Dr Rakison thinks men are greater risk takers despite later stating that the is no gender difference in things like the fear of flying.<br /><br />And on the point that this was a study of 20 babies, I came across <a href="http://www.thepsychologist.org.uk/archive/archive_home.cfm?volumeID=22&editionID=179&ArticleID=1563">this fascinating article</a> in The Psychologist about psychology's problematic relationship with empiricism.<br /><br />Oh, and this was another one for <a href="http://search.twitter.com/search?q=%23bullshitbingo">#bullshitbingo</a> and its sister game <a href="http://search.twitter.com/search?q=%23BSbingo">#BSbingo</a> (bad science bingo).Naomi Mchttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06033949035632165385noreply@blogger.com9tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4406544533309218497.post-84153731230160090432009-09-05T01:47:00.001+01:002009-09-07T00:38:14.374+01:00periods. Periods. PERIODS. P.E.R.I.O.D.S.<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_SxR0SGZwvpY/SqRHxx-XPUI/AAAAAAAAAP4/J50ehw25kcQ/s1600-h/AlamoCarrie.jpg"><img style="margin: 0pt 10px 10px 0pt; float: left; cursor: pointer; width: 222px; height: 320px;" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_SxR0SGZwvpY/SqRHxx-XPUI/AAAAAAAAAP4/J50ehw25kcQ/s320/AlamoCarrie.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5378502775541284162" border="0" /></a><span style="font-size:85%;">[Carrie, the period horror film]</span><br /><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-size:85%;"><br /></span>It is about time, in human evolution – in Western society’s evolution – that we started talking about periods. We talk, joke and laugh about shitting, farting and puking but not about women bleeding for a week a month. Why? Because it’s dirty that’s why - Biblically unclean.<br /></div><br />We don’t talk about menstruation - and by ‘we’ I definitely mean men AND women - yet pretty much all women do it all the time. Its something that looms large in our lives. We fear, expect and will it when it starts. It mortifies us when it leaks. It ruins romantic weekends and when you’re in an intimate relationship with a woman it is something you both have to bear (x2 for lesbians).<br /><br />This post has been inspired by a conversation I have just come from in the pub with two men (can you tell?). They took it well. One of them admitted that the first time he spoke about periods at the age of 8-ish he said he was confused about the blue stuff that came out of women. I have had a handful of conversations in the past mostly with women about periods but it’s only ever come up with good friends and sometimes in hushed tones.<br /><br />This is the point. Girls and boys are rarely told about the ‘stuff’ that happens to the opposite sex during puberty and beyond. It leads to fear, misunderstanding, shame and repulsion. The natural functions of women has for millennia resulted in the notion of women as fundamentality ‘unclean’. The woman who shouldn’t be touched during her monthly period or you will be unclean till evening (<a href="http://bible.cc/leviticus/15-25.htm">Leviticus</a>, which is all about the periods, and sleeping with animals). It has spawned a fascination and abhorrence with female functions and feminine ‘dirt’.<br /><br />It is 'the curse' and the ‘sin of Eve’. It has as many euphemisms: having the painters and decorators in, on the blob, got the curse, Aunt Flo is visiting, time of the month, on the rag, women’s problems, riding the crimson wave, closed for maintenance, ketchup on the burger (OK, I made that one up).<br /><br />I’m not the biggest fan of Tracey Emin, but I admire the fact that she brought dirty femininity to the fore in her art. The visceral reaction to her work is often due to her use of things like used-sanitary products in her ‘self-confessional’ work. Yeah, you might not like it and think its lazy and attention-grabbing – but what attention! The reaction to a woman laying bare her ‘filth’ and remnants of menstruation still has the ability to shock.<br /><br />Menstruation is something that punctuates women’s lives, a regular reminder of your potential fertility. I’m not saying that it puts me in tune with the earth or the moon but it is a regular reminder to me that I’m a mammal.<br /><br />There is interesting research around blobbing and contraception where randomised controlled trials have been conducted on extended oral contraceptive cycles. The fact that most women on OC take the pills in 21 days followed by a pill-free and bleeding week is not medically necessary. Women can stay on OC <a href="http://journals.lww.com/greenjournal/Abstract/2001/11000/Menstrual_Reduction_With_Extended_Use_of.11.aspx">pretty much permanently</a> with minimal spotting and few ill effects over the general OC side effects and recommendations for use over time (i.e limit to <a href="http://www.ffprhc.org.uk/admin/uploads/KeyStatementOralConcCancerLink07.pdf">8 years</a> [pdf]). And yet many choose, if made aware of the choice, to allow for a pill-free period if not monthly than every three or so months. This suggests that there may be a desire to menstruate which may be for a number of reasons: confirming no pregnancy, excuse for not having sex, the ancient Greek feeling of <a href="http://www.mum.org/greekmen.htm">menstrual catharsis</a>?<br /><br />There are gruesome facts about perioding that rarely get mentioned: that you shit differently, sometimes it hurts so much you vomit, it can make you uncoordinated and bump into things/knock things over, your breasts can swell and hurt, you get incredibly hot at night and can’t sleep, you get water-retention and go up a dress-size (BTW these things don’t happen every time or all at once, that would be really inconvenient).<br /><br />All women have had to make make-shift sanitary towels out of bog-roll at one time or other. We’ve all had to get blood stains out of our favourite pants and or jeans. We all have the stories about when we found out about what periods were, when we started, the chats with our mothers, sisters or teachers. But those chats were always hushed and never involved men.<br /><br />We have to pay (albeit <a href="http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/bud_bud00_presssanitary.htm">reduced</a>) VAT on ‘sanitary products’ or ‘feminine protection’ (the euphemisms upset me more than the bleeding) despite them being very far from ‘luxury products’.<br /><br />Sometimes it makes you emotional, sometimes it doesn’t – so it’s not alright to assume women are ‘over-emotional’ because of their ‘hormones’. Women are called ‘over-emotional’ and men are said to be ‘in a bad mood’. They both might be true, or it might be that they’re arseholes. There may be a chemical reason for it but it’s not necessarily because of a wandering womb or meandering testes.<br /><br />And then there’s sex and periods. There might be a few jokes about men becoming men when they get ‘blood on their helmet’ but what about women masturbating to relieve periods pains – (messy but it works). Some lesbians make a sexual act out of blobbing – anointing themselves on with menstrual blood – more power to it, even if it does make you look like Nosferatu.<br /><br />When do we ever talk about the blood clots, the changing colour of the blood over the period, heavy month followed by light month, sanitary towel – tampon transition, and let’s not even get started on moon cups (sorry, I’m a green but I draw the line here I’m afraid).<br /><br />Plus I can’t think of any better argument against intelligent design – bleeding every month, intelligent? No. Where’s our endometrium reabsorption?<br /><br />As it is such a regular function for half the world’s population, let’s stop pretending it doesn’t happen. If we do talk about it let’s not use it as yet another misogynistic insult (in a past workplace a twatish manager said of a woman: “Not sure if you can say this these days, but it was probably her time of the month!” NB: if you start a sentence with “Not sure if you can say this these days…” then you can’t say those kind of things these days).<br /><br />So please talk about periods. Let’s destroy the myths and stop pretending its not happening. If you’re a woman ‘of child-bearing age’ its happening. If you are a man who sleeps with women, works with women, is related to women or knows women, you are in the proximity a woman who is, was, or is about to bleed.<br /><br />There definitely are periods. Now stop worrying and enjoy your life.Naomi Mchttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06033949035632165385noreply@blogger.com13tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4406544533309218497.post-40490985268991989812009-08-31T23:57:00.005+01:002009-09-01T00:16:47.918+01:00Saying girls are rubbish at maths makes girls rubbish at mathsVery interesting interview with two researchers into the affects of stereotypes on women in their performance in maths tests.<br /><br /><object width="400" height="328"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/tjn6ZSU_zS0&hl=en&fs=1&"><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/tjn6ZSU_zS0&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="400" height="328"></embed></object><br /><br />This is based on <a href="http://www-news.uchicago.edu/releases/07/pdf/070524.beilock.pdf">their study (pdf)</a> published in the Journal of Experimental Psychology.<br /><br />See I'm not just wittering on about gender stereotypes, be they a love of pink or the *need* for women to remove every inch of hair from their body, because I find them irritating (physically and mentally); they can also be harmful.<br /><br />And immensely aggravating to those of us who can long divide. Again, I give you xkcd on <a href="http://xkcd.com/385/">this subject</a>.Naomi Mchttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06033949035632165385noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4406544533309218497.post-51015664171408133712009-08-27T20:22:00.010+01:002009-08-27T23:59:17.153+01:00The Game The Whole Family Can Play!<div style="text-align: center;"><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://i33.photobucket.com/albums/d98/sabotabby/evopsychbingo.jpg"><img style="margin: 0px auto 10px; display: block; text-align: center; cursor: pointer; width: 320px; height: 266px;" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_SxR0SGZwvpY/SpcPZWY41NI/AAAAAAAAAOo/Kva-vBQNb8w/s320/evopsychbingo.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5374781608471090386" border="0" /></a><span style="font-size:85%;">[Click image to enlarge, via the indefatigable <a href="http://www.thefword.org.uk/blog/2009/08/evolutionary_ps">The F Word</a>]<br /></span></div><div style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-size:85%;"><br /></span></div>Seriously, I'm getting a little upset by all the pseudo-evolutionary (Just So) psychology bullshit now. Oh yeah, and the Daily Mail. A work colleague today warned me that the Daily Mail might consider taking a restraining order out against me.<br /><br />OK then, this one is from the Daily Telegraph: <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/news/6049070/Men-prefer-websites-designed-by-men.html">Men prefer websites designed by men</a>. The very first sentence of this article?<br /><blockquote style="font-style: italic;">The differences spring from our caveman ancestors, said Gloria Moss, a specialist in human resources.</blockquote>Frankly, I am not going to dignify this article by pulling it to shreds. That first sentence is enough to condemn it to the shit heap it sprang from.<br /><br />JOURNALISTS LISTEN: Just because it is the bicentennial year of the birth of Charles Darwin does NOT mean that you have to get the word 'evolution' into every science story. If your writing about evolutionary biology or evolutionary psychology firstly, know the difference between the two and secondly, find out if the researcher you're quoting/cut n' pasting does too.<br /><br />RESEARCHERS LISTEN: Just because you work in Buck-Nowheresville university (or a <a href="http://avaginadentata.blogspot.com/2009/08/how-to-get-your-project-in-news-around.html">further education college</a>) do you really NEED to use nonsense, sexist, pseudo-evolutionary failytales to get your research into the papers? If the answer is yes, then kiss your credibility goodbye.<br /><br />I'll be tweeting all future pseudo-hunter-gatherer 'science' stories with the hastag <a href="http://search.twitter.com/search?q=%23bullshitbingo">#bullshitbingo</a>Naomi Mchttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06033949035632165385noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4406544533309218497.post-56021672767049299652009-08-26T01:32:00.007+01:002009-08-26T12:38:57.219+01:00Ruthless, sex-fiend, testosterone-fuelled women gamblers found by scientists<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_SxR0SGZwvpY/SpSGqywYH3I/AAAAAAAAAOg/M6PhXLA4tg8/s1600-h/attack-of-the-50ft-woman.jpg"><img style="margin: 0px auto 10px; display: block; text-align: center; cursor: pointer; width: 204px; height: 320px;" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_SxR0SGZwvpY/SpSGqywYH3I/AAAAAAAAAOg/M6PhXLA4tg8/s320/attack-of-the-50ft-woman.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5374068325097152370" border="0" /></a>The reporting of a particular study in the last couple of days sounded more like an ad for a kinky fetish party. “Risky women are ‘hungry for sex’” panted the <a href="http://www.google.com/hostednews/ukpress/article/ALeqM5itAOLm9xxohYcem1cQIuivK7fWJw">Press Association</a> over the newswires of the world. “'Traders' testosterone' fuels female financial flutters” was <a href="http://blogs.nature.com/news/thegreatbeyond/2009/08/traders_testosterone_fuels_fem.html">Nature</a>’s lame attempt. “Even female investors juiced by testosterone” was <a href="http://www.dailyfinance.com/2009/08/25/even-female-investors-juiced-by-testosterone/">Daily Finance</a>’s rather damp contribution.<br /><br />And I’m just generally baffled as to why <a href="http://www.themedguru.com/20090825/newsfeature/high-testosterone-levels-make-women-prefer-risky-jobs-study-86127385.html">The Med Guru</a> felt the need to use a picture of Scarlett Johansson with this story.<br /><br />So yes “researchers” have “found” that women with greater levels of testosterone are “greater risk takers” (notice my subtle highlighting of certain words there). And of course testosterone is a SEX hormone so some journalists thought it would be a good idea to talk about SEX a bit as frankly SEX is more interesting than financial trading which is what the study was actually about.<br /><br />The “researchers” were in fact an <a href="http://www.kellogg.northwestern.edu/Faculty/Directory/Sapienza_Paola.aspx">Associate Professor in Finance</a>, a <a href="http://www.chicagobooth.edu/faculty/bio.aspx?person_id=12826023936">Professor of Entrepreneurship and Finance</a> and a Professor of Comparative Human Development and Evolutionary Biology (<a href="http://experts.uchicago.edu/experts.php?id=483">who lists press cuttings</a> and press releases on web page rather than journal articles, but that’s just a particular prejudice of mine which has frequently been supported by evidence).<br /><br />They used <a href="http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2009/08/20/0907352106.abstract">the results</a> from a cohort of 460 (320 male, 140 female) MBA (management qualification) students at Chicago University of their levels of testosterone and compared this to their risk aversion and the careers that they went on to do after graduation (which were rated as ‘risky’ or not on the basis of whether they were in the financial sector).<br /><br />Now, I’m not in a position to judge the accuracy of the testosterone testing (saliva collection and digit ratio), so I’ll assume they’re sound.<br /><br />The risk aversion test and career choice data have huge confounding factors. The risk aversion test was a computer simulation where participants were asked to choose between a fixed cash amount (from $50 to $120) or to ‘gamble’ for a lottery prize or either $200 or zero. I do not believe that this is a credible test because it was 15 questions in a non-real life example, where participants were selected as ‘professional financial decision makers’ and were not intended to be representative.<br /><br />Students are a specific type of people, MBA students are even more specific, and MBA students having their risk aversion measured when fully aware of the concepts of risk aversion and financial decisions are likely to give specific answers. (BTW you can actually re-read the above sentence substituting the word ‘specific’ for the word ‘wanky’ and it is still true).<br /><br />Secondly, the career data was collected two years after the test with no follow-up interview. Therefore, it was assumed that graduates chose certain "high risk" professions (in the financial sector) because they were risk-takers and the risk-averse would take low risk jobs outside of the sector. In fact, there may have been many reasons why certain jobs were taken; offers, opportunities, location, having children, redundancy, not wanting to be surrounded by trading wankers, etc. That is not a measure of risk aversion, for me it would be a measure of bullshit tolerance.<br /><br />So I don’t think the research was great, but the reporting of the research was atrocious. None of the problems with the research were alluded to, they tried to sex it up by using words like ‘gambling’ and ‘excessive drinking’ and, er, ‘sex’. And they just made false and misleading statements:<br /><br /><a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/6085348/Women-with-high-levels-of-testosterone-take-riskier-jobs.html">Daily Telegraph</a>: <span style="font-style: italic;">“[The study] found that testosterone-driven women who liked to gamble went on to choose careers in finance”</span><br /><br />Press Association: <span style="font-style: italic;">“Women with an appetite for risk may also be hungry for sex, a study suggests.”</span> (No, it really doesn’t)<br /><br />I am most concerned by this quote from one of the researchers:<br /><span style="font-style: italic;"></span><blockquote><span style="font-style: italic;">"This is the first study showing that gender differences in financial risk aversion have a biological basis, and that differences in testosterone levels between individuals can affect important aspects of economic behaviour and career decisions," said Professor Dario Maestripieri.</span></blockquote>Now I have met enough academics who have been misquoted in the press to treat quotes with some suspicion. However, what is important is that this study DOES NOT show that gender differences in financial risk aversion have a biological basis. Even if the methodology was perfect it is still a small study on a select group of individuals who are members of an elite in a Western capitalist society. That is a long way from establishing a ‘biological basis’ for individual attitudes and behaviours.<br /><br />This also feeds into the argument that women are not making it into top financial or commercial sector jobs because they are risk averse and non-competitive: only women with unusual ‘male hormones’ can make it to the top and the fact that men are over-represented is “natural”. This is wildly reductionist. There are huge environmental and social determinants of managing and evaluating risk and humans are notoriously bad at doing it.<br /><br />So sorry to those who had hoped that scientists had found a bunch of sex-fiend, testosterone-fuelled women (you know who you are), you’ll probably find they’re too smart to be working in finance.<br /><br />Thanks to the ever-wonderful <a href="http://www.drpetra.co.uk/blog/">Dr Petra</a> for the tip-off on this.Naomi Mchttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06033949035632165385noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4406544533309218497.post-3774705261303716992009-08-24T01:36:00.008+01:002009-08-24T13:18:09.761+01:00Science on The Daily Show with Jon Stewart<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_SxR0SGZwvpY/SpKD25rsqtI/AAAAAAAAAOY/8ugMwNo3VzM/s1600-h/jon-stewart-painting.jpg"><img style="margin: 0px auto 10px; display: block; text-align: center; cursor: pointer; width: 227px; height: 320px;" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_SxR0SGZwvpY/SpKD25rsqtI/AAAAAAAAAOY/8ugMwNo3VzM/s320/jon-stewart-painting.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5373502284626701010" border="0" /></a><br />I LOVE the Daily Show and I LOVE Jon Stewart. It is frankly, where I get all of my information about American politics. I watch Fox News for the laughs. Anyway, inspired by After Elton which did a great round-up of Daily Show <a href="http://www.afterelton.com/TV/2007/10/thedailyshow">Greatest Gay Moments</a>, I thought I'd put together a Top Ten Great Science Moments list.<br /><br />This is by no means exhaustive and it would be easy to sub-divide and do a Top Ten Evolution clips, Top Ten Bush-being-stupid-about-science or Top Ten Woo (which I may well do). But here are some of my favs....<br /><br /><ol><li>John Oliver on the evil that is the Large Haldron Collider.</li><br /><table style="font-family: arial; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 11px; line-height: normal; color: rgb(51, 51, 51); background-color: rgb(245, 245, 245); font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal;" width="360" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" height="353"><tbody><tr style="background-color: rgb(229, 229, 229);" valign="center"><td style="padding: 2px 1px 0px 5px;"><a style="font-weight: bold; color: rgb(51, 51, 51); text-decoration: none;" href="http://www.thedailyshow.com/" target="_blank">The Daily Show With Jon Stewart</a></td><td style="padding: 2px 5px 0px; font-weight: bold; text-align: right;">Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c</td></tr><tr style="height: 14px;" valign="center"><td style="padding: 2px 1px 0px 5px;" colspan="2"><a style="font-weight: bold; color: rgb(51, 51, 51); text-decoration: none;" href="http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-april-30-2009/large-hadron-collider" target="_blank">Large Hadron Collider</a></td></tr><tr style="height: 14px; background-color: rgb(53, 53, 53);" valign="center"><td style="padding: 2px 5px 0px; overflow: hidden; width: 360px; text-align: right;" colspan="2"><a style="font-weight: bold; color: rgb(150, 222, 255); text-decoration: none;" href="http://www.thedailyshow.com/" target="_blank">http://www.thedailyshow.com/</a></td></tr><tr valign="center"><td style="padding: 0px;" colspan="2"><embed style="display: block;" src="http://media.mtvnservices.com/mgid:cms:item:comedycentral.com:225921" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="window" allowfullscreen="true" flashvars="autoPlay=false" allowscriptaccess="always" allownetworking="all" bgcolor="#000000" width="360" height="301"></embed></td></tr><tr style="height: 18px;" valign="center"><td style="padding: 0px;" colspan="2"><table style="margin: 0px; text-align: center;" width="100%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" height="100%"><tbody><tr valign="center"><td style="padding: 3px; width: 33%;"><a style="font-family: arial; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 10px; line-height: normal; color: rgb(51, 51, 51); text-decoration: none; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal;" href="http://www.thedailyshow.com/full-episodes" target="_blank">Daily Show<br />Full Episodes</a></td><td style="padding: 3px; width: 33%;"><a style="font-family: arial; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 10px; line-height: normal; color: rgb(51, 51, 51); text-decoration: none; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal;" href="http://www.indecisionforever.com/" target="_blank">Political Humor</a></td><td style="padding: 3px; width: 33%;"><a style="font-family: arial; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 10px; line-height: normal; color: rgb(51, 51, 51); text-decoration: none; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal;" href="http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-august-17-2009/heal-or-no-heal---medicine-brawl" target="_blank">Healthcare Protests</a></td></tr></tbody></table></td></tr></tbody></table><br /><br /><li>Just to remind us of the bad ol' days: science under Bush</li><br />Otherwise known as <i>The Endarkenment</i> (ref. David Colquhoun)<br /><br /><table style="font-family: arial; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 11px; line-height: normal; color: rgb(51, 51, 51); background-color: rgb(245, 245, 245); font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal;" width="360" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" height="353"><tbody><tr style="background-color: rgb(229, 229, 229);" valign="center"><td style="padding: 2px 1px 0px 5px;"><a style="font-weight: bold; color: rgb(51, 51, 51); text-decoration: none;" href="http://www.thedailyshow.com/" target="_blank">The Daily Show With Jon Stewart</a></td><td style="padding: 2px 5px 0px; font-weight: bold; text-align: right;">Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c</td></tr><tr style="height: 14px;" valign="center"><td style="padding: 2px 1px 0px 5px;" colspan="2"><a style="font-weight: bold; color: rgb(51, 51, 51); text-decoration: none;" href="http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-september-12-2005/chris-mooney" target="_blank">Chris Mooney</a></td></tr><tr style="height: 14px; background-color: rgb(53, 53, 53);" valign="center"><td style="padding: 2px 5px 0px; overflow: hidden; width: 360px; text-align: right;" colspan="2"><a style="font-weight: bold; color: rgb(150, 222, 255); text-decoration: none;" href="http://www.thedailyshow.com/" target="_blank">http://www.thedailyshow.com/</a></td></tr><tr valign="center"><td style="padding: 0px;" colspan="2"><embed style="display: block;" src="http://media.mtvnservices.com/mgid:cms:item:comedycentral.com:125447" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="window" allowfullscreen="true" flashvars="autoPlay=false" allowscriptaccess="always" allownetworking="all" bgcolor="#000000" width="360" height="301"></embed></td></tr><tr style="height: 18px;" valign="center"><td style="padding: 0px;" colspan="2"><table style="margin: 0px; text-align: center;" width="100%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" height="100%"><tbody><tr valign="center"><td style="padding: 3px; width: 33%;"><a style="font-family: arial; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 10px; line-height: normal; color: rgb(51, 51, 51); text-decoration: none; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal;" href="http://www.thedailyshow.com/full-episodes" target="_blank">Daily Show<br />Full Episodes</a></td><td style="padding: 3px; width: 33%;"><a style="font-family: arial; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 10px; line-height: normal; color: rgb(51, 51, 51); text-decoration: none; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal;" href="http://www.indecisionforever.com/" target="_blank">Political Humor</a></td><td style="padding: 3px; width: 33%;"><a style="font-family: arial; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 10px; line-height: normal; color: rgb(51, 51, 51); text-decoration: none; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal;" href="http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-august-17-2009/heal-or-no-heal---medicine-brawl" target="_blank">Healthcare Protests</a></td></tr></tbody></table></td></tr></tbody></table><br /><br /><li>THIS is the kind of science communicators we need. The amazing Neil deGrasse Tyson</li><br /><table style="font-family: arial; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 11px; line-height: normal; color: rgb(51, 51, 51); background-color: rgb(245, 245, 245); font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal;" width="360" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" height="353"><tbody><tr style="background-color: rgb(229, 229, 229);" valign="center"><td style="padding: 2px 1px 0px 5px;"><a style="font-weight: bold; color: rgb(51, 51, 51); text-decoration: none;" href="http://www.thedailyshow.com/" target="_blank">The Daily Show With Jon Stewart</a></td><td style="padding: 2px 5px 0px; font-weight: bold; text-align: right;">Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c</td></tr><tr style="height: 14px;" valign="center"><td style="padding: 2px 1px 0px 5px;" colspan="2"><a style="font-weight: bold; color: rgb(51, 51, 51); text-decoration: none;" href="http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-january-28-2009/neil-degrasse-tyson" target="_blank">Neil deGrasse Tyson</a></td></tr><tr style="height: 14px; background-color: rgb(53, 53, 53);" valign="center"><td style="padding: 2px 5px 0px; overflow: hidden; width: 360px; text-align: right;" colspan="2"><a style="font-weight: bold; color: rgb(150, 222, 255); text-decoration: none;" href="http://www.thedailyshow.com/" target="_blank">http://www.thedailyshow.com/</a></td></tr><tr valign="center"><td style="padding: 0px;" colspan="2"><embed style="display: block;" src="http://media.mtvnservices.com/mgid:cms:item:comedycentral.com:216998" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="window" allowfullscreen="true" flashvars="autoPlay=false" allowscriptaccess="always" allownetworking="all" bgcolor="#000000" width="360" height="301"></embed></td></tr><tr style="height: 18px;" valign="center"><td style="padding: 0px;" colspan="2"><table style="margin: 0px; text-align: center;" width="100%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" height="100%"><tbody><tr valign="center"><td style="padding: 3px; width: 33%;"><a style="font-family: arial; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 10px; line-height: normal; color: rgb(51, 51, 51); text-decoration: none; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal;" href="http://www.thedailyshow.com/full-episodes" target="_blank">Daily Show<br />Full Episodes</a></td><td style="padding: 3px; width: 33%;"><a style="font-family: arial; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 10px; line-height: normal; color: rgb(51, 51, 51); text-decoration: none; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal;" href="http://www.indecisionforever.com/" target="_blank">Political Humor</a></td><td style="padding: 3px; width: 33%;"><a style="font-family: arial; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 10px; line-height: normal; color: rgb(51, 51, 51); text-decoration: none; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal;" href="http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-august-17-2009/heal-or-no-heal---medicine-brawl" target="_blank">Healthcare Protests</a></td></tr></tbody></table></td></tr></tbody></table><br />Also watch an earlier interview with him <a href="http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-july-23-2007/neil-degrasse-tyson">here</a>.<br /><br /><li>Stem cell research, only slightly more crazy debate in the US than here</li><br /><table style="font-family: arial; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 11px; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; color: rgb(51, 51, 51); background-color: rgb(245, 245, 245);" width="360" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" height="353"><tbody><tr style="background-color: rgb(229, 229, 229);" valign="center"><td style="padding: 2px 1px 0px 5px;"><a style="font-weight: bold; color: rgb(51, 51, 51); text-decoration: none;" href="http://www.thedailyshow.com/" target="_blank">The Daily Show With Jon Stewart</a></td><td style="padding: 2px 5px 0px; font-weight: bold; text-align: right;">Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c</td></tr><tr style="height: 14px;" valign="center"><td style="padding: 2px 1px 0px 5px;" colspan="2"><a style="font-weight: bold; color: rgb(51, 51, 51); text-decoration: none;" href="http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-july-20-2006/headlines---war-on-terrorble-diseases" target="_blank">Headlines - War on Terrorble Diseases</a></td></tr><tr style="height: 14px; background-color: rgb(53, 53, 53);" valign="center"><td style="padding: 2px 5px 0px; overflow: hidden; width: 360px; text-align: right;" colspan="2"><a style="font-weight: bold; color: rgb(150, 222, 255); text-decoration: none;" href="http://www.thedailyshow.com/" target="_blank">http://www.thedailyshow.com/</a></td></tr><tr valign="center"><td style="padding: 0px;" colspan="2"><embed style="display: block;" src="http://media.mtvnservices.com/mgid:cms:item:comedycentral.com:114172" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="window" allowfullscreen="true" flashvars="autoPlay=false" allowscriptaccess="always" allownetworking="all" bgcolor="#000000" width="360" height="301"></embed></td></tr><tr style="height: 18px;" valign="center"><td style="padding: 0px;" colspan="2"><table style="margin: 0px; text-align: center;" width="100%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" height="100%"><tbody><tr valign="center"><td style="padding: 3px; width: 33%;"><a style="font-family: arial; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 10px; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; color: rgb(51, 51, 51); text-decoration: none;" href="http://www.thedailyshow.com/full-episodes" target="_blank">Daily Show<br />Full Episodes</a></td><td style="padding: 3px; width: 33%;"><a style="font-family: arial; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 10px; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; color: rgb(51, 51, 51); text-decoration: none;" href="http://www.indecisionforever.com/" target="_blank">Political Humor</a></td><td style="padding: 3px; width: 33%;"><a style="font-family: arial; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 10px; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; color: rgb(51, 51, 51); text-decoration: none;" href="http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-august-17-2009/heal-or-no-heal---medicine-brawl" target="_blank">Healthcare Protests</a></td></tr></tbody></table></td></tr></tbody></table><br /><br /><li>Michelle Obama promotes organic propaganda. Or not.</li><br /><table style="font-family: arial; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 11px; line-height: normal; color: rgb(51, 51, 51); background-color: rgb(245, 245, 245); font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal;" width="360" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" height="353"><tbody><tr style="background-color: rgb(229, 229, 229);" valign="center"><td style="padding: 2px 1px 0px 5px;"><a style="font-weight: bold; color: rgb(51, 51, 51); text-decoration: none;" href="http://www.thedailyshow.com/" target="_blank">The Daily Show With Jon Stewart</a></td><td style="padding: 2px 5px 0px; font-weight: bold; text-align: right;">Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c</td></tr><tr style="height: 14px;" valign="center"><td style="padding: 2px 1px 0px 5px;" colspan="2"><a style="font-weight: bold; color: rgb(51, 51, 51); text-decoration: none;" href="http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-may-14-2009/little-crop-of-horrors" target="_blank">Little Crop of Horrors</a></td></tr><tr style="height: 14px; background-color: rgb(53, 53, 53);" valign="center"><td style="padding: 2px 5px 0px; overflow: hidden; width: 360px; text-align: right;" colspan="2"><a style="font-weight: bold; color: rgb(150, 222, 255); text-decoration: none;" href="http://www.thedailyshow.com/" target="_blank">http://www.thedailyshow.com/</a></td></tr><tr valign="center"><td style="padding: 0px;" colspan="2"><embed style="display: block;" src="http://media.mtvnservices.com/mgid:cms:item:comedycentral.com:227353" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="window" allowfullscreen="true" flashvars="autoPlay=false" allowscriptaccess="always" allownetworking="all" bgcolor="#000000" width="360" height="301"></embed></td></tr><tr style="height: 18px;" valign="center"><td style="padding: 0px;" colspan="2"><table style="margin: 0px; text-align: center;" width="100%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" height="100%"><tbody><tr valign="center"><td style="padding: 3px; width: 33%;"><a style="font-family: arial; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 10px; line-height: normal; color: rgb(51, 51, 51); text-decoration: none; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal;" href="http://www.thedailyshow.com/full-episodes" target="_blank">Daily Show<br />Full Episodes</a></td><td style="padding: 3px; width: 33%;"><a style="font-family: arial; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 10px; line-height: normal; color: rgb(51, 51, 51); text-decoration: none; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal;" href="http://www.indecisionforever.com/" target="_blank">Political Humor</a></td><td style="padding: 3px; width: 33%;"><a style="font-family: arial; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 10px; line-height: normal; color: rgb(51, 51, 51); text-decoration: none; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal;" href="http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-august-17-2009/heal-or-no-heal---medicine-brawl" target="_blank">Healthcare Protests</a></td></tr></tbody></table></td></tr></tbody></table><br /><br /><li>In the bicentenery year of Darwin's birth and 150th anniversary of the publication of <span style="font-style: italic;">On the Origin of Species</span>, let's have a bit of dinosaur-denying</li><br />BTW, I didn't know about the Scopes Monkey Trial before watching this film. If you don't either, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scopes_Trial">here's the wiki on it</a>.<br /><br /><table style="font-family: arial; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 11px; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; color: rgb(51, 51, 51); background-color: rgb(245, 245, 245);" width="360" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" height="353"><tbody><tr style="background-color: rgb(229, 229, 229);" valign="center"><td style="padding: 2px 1px 0px 5px;"><a style="font-weight: bold; color: rgb(51, 51, 51); text-decoration: none;" href="http://www.thedailyshow.com/" target="_blank">The Daily Show With Jon Stewart</a></td><td style="padding: 2px 5px 0px; font-weight: bold; text-align: right;">Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c</td></tr><tr style="height: 14px;" valign="center"><td style="padding: 2px 1px 0px 5px;" colspan="2"><a style="font-weight: bold; color: rgb(51, 51, 51); text-decoration: none;" href="http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-september-12-2005/evolution-schmevolution---a-heritage-tour" target="_blank">Evolution Schmevolution - A Heritage Tour</a></td></tr><tr style="height: 14px; background-color: rgb(53, 53, 53);" valign="center"><td style="padding: 2px 5px 0px; overflow: hidden; width: 360px; text-align: right;" colspan="2"><a style="font-weight: bold; color: rgb(150, 222, 255); text-decoration: none;" href="http://www.thedailyshow.com/" target="_blank">http://www.thedailyshow.com/</a></td></tr><tr valign="center"><td style="padding: 0px;" colspan="2"><embed style="display: block;" src="http://media.mtvnservices.com/mgid:cms:item:comedycentral.com:125212" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="window" allowfullscreen="true" flashvars="autoPlay=false" allowscriptaccess="always" allownetworking="all" bgcolor="#000000" width="360" height="301"></embed></td></tr><tr style="height: 18px;" valign="center"><td style="padding: 0px;" colspan="2"><table style="margin: 0px; text-align: center;" width="100%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" height="100%"><tbody><tr valign="center"><td style="padding: 3px; width: 33%;"><a style="font-family: arial; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 10px; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; color: rgb(51, 51, 51); text-decoration: none;" href="http://www.thedailyshow.com/full-episodes" target="_blank">Daily Show<br />Full Episodes</a></td><td style="padding: 3px; width: 33%;"><a style="font-family: arial; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 10px; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; color: rgb(51, 51, 51); text-decoration: none;" href="http://www.indecisionforever.com/" target="_blank">Political Humor</a></td><td style="padding: 3px; width: 33%;"><a style="font-family: arial; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 10px; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; color: rgb(51, 51, 51); text-decoration: none;" href="http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-august-17-2009/heal-or-no-heal---medicine-brawl" target="_blank">Healthcare Protests</a></td></tr></tbody></table></td></tr></tbody></table><br /><br /><li>Ah, we were so optimistic about Mars missions in the olden days</li><br />And look you can have actual scientists on mainstream TV and people will be interested.<br /><table style="font-family: arial; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 11px; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; color: rgb(51, 51, 51); background-color: rgb(245, 245, 245);" width="360" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" height="353"><tbody><tr style="background-color: rgb(229, 229, 229);" valign="center"><td style="padding: 2px 1px 0px 5px;"><a style="font-weight: bold; color: rgb(51, 51, 51); text-decoration: none;" href="http://www.thedailyshow.com/" target="_blank">The Daily Show With Jon Stewart</a></td><td style="padding: 2px 5px 0px; font-weight: bold; text-align: right;">Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c</td></tr><tr style="height: 14px;" valign="center"><td style="padding: 2px 1px 0px 5px;" colspan="2"><a style="font-weight: bold; color: rgb(51, 51, 51); text-decoration: none;" href="http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-january-13-2004/catherine-weitz" target="_blank">Catherine Weitz</a></td></tr><tr style="height: 14px; background-color: rgb(53, 53, 53);" valign="center"><td style="padding: 2px 5px 0px; overflow: hidden; width: 360px; text-align: right;" colspan="2"><a style="font-weight: bold; color: rgb(150, 222, 255); text-decoration: none;" href="http://www.thedailyshow.com/" target="_blank">http://www.thedailyshow.com/</a></td></tr><tr valign="center"><td style="padding: 0px;" colspan="2"><embed style="display: block;" src="http://media.mtvnservices.com/mgid:cms:item:comedycentral.com:112438" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="window" allowfullscreen="true" flashvars="autoPlay=false" allowscriptaccess="always" allownetworking="all" bgcolor="#000000" width="360" height="301"></embed></td></tr><tr style="height: 18px;" valign="center"><td style="padding: 0px;" colspan="2"><table style="margin: 0px; text-align: center;" width="100%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" height="100%"><tbody><tr valign="center"><td style="padding: 3px; width: 33%;"><a style="font-family: arial; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 10px; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; color: rgb(51, 51, 51); text-decoration: none;" href="http://www.thedailyshow.com/full-episodes" target="_blank">Daily Show<br />Full Episodes</a></td><td style="padding: 3px; width: 33%;"><a style="font-family: arial; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 10px; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; color: rgb(51, 51, 51); text-decoration: none;" href="http://www.indecisionforever.com/" target="_blank">Political Humor</a></td><td style="padding: 3px; width: 33%;"><a style="font-family: arial; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 10px; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; color: rgb(51, 51, 51); text-decoration: none;" href="http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-august-17-2009/heal-or-no-heal---medicine-brawl" target="_blank">Healthcare Protests</a></td></tr></tbody></table></td></tr></tbody></table><br /><br /><li>Theories based on evidence vs theories based on Discovery Channel documentaries slug it out</li><br /><table style="font-family: arial; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 11px; line-height: normal; color: rgb(51, 51, 51); background-color: rgb(245, 245, 245); font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal;" width="360" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" height="353"><tbody><tr style="background-color: rgb(229, 229, 229);" valign="center"><td style="padding: 2px 1px 0px 5px;"><a style="font-weight: bold; color: rgb(51, 51, 51); text-decoration: none;" href="http://www.thedailyshow.com/" target="_blank">The Daily Show With Jon Stewart</a></td><td style="padding: 2px 5px 0px; font-weight: bold; text-align: right;">Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c</td></tr><tr style="height: 14px;" valign="center"><td style="padding: 2px 1px 0px 5px;" colspan="2"><a style="font-weight: bold; color: rgb(51, 51, 51); text-decoration: none;" href="http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-august-5-2009/human-s-closest-relative" target="_blank">Human's Closest Relative</a></td></tr><tr style="height: 14px; background-color: rgb(53, 53, 53);" valign="center"><td style="padding: 2px 5px 0px; overflow: hidden; width: 360px; text-align: right;" colspan="2"><a style="font-weight: bold; color: rgb(150, 222, 255); text-decoration: none;" href="http://www.thedailyshow.com/" target="_blank">http://www.thedailyshow.com/</a></td></tr><tr valign="center"><td style="padding: 0px;" colspan="2"><embed style="display: block;" src="http://media.mtvnservices.com/mgid:cms:item:comedycentral.com:240620" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="window" allowfullscreen="true" flashvars="autoPlay=false" allowscriptaccess="always" allownetworking="all" bgcolor="#000000" width="360" height="301"></embed></td></tr><tr style="height: 18px;" valign="center"><td style="padding: 0px;" colspan="2"><table style="margin: 0px; text-align: center;" width="100%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" height="100%"><tbody><tr valign="center"><td style="padding: 3px; width: 33%;"><a style="font-family: arial; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 10px; line-height: normal; color: rgb(51, 51, 51); text-decoration: none; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal;" href="http://www.thedailyshow.com/full-episodes" target="_blank">Daily Show<br />Full Episodes</a></td><td style="padding: 3px; width: 33%;"><a style="font-family: arial; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 10px; line-height: normal; color: rgb(51, 51, 51); text-decoration: none; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal;" href="http://www.indecisionforever.com/" target="_blank">Political Humor</a></td><td style="padding: 3px; width: 33%;"><a style="font-family: arial; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 10px; line-height: normal; color: rgb(51, 51, 51); text-decoration: none; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal;" href="http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-august-17-2009/heal-or-no-heal---medicine-brawl" target="_blank">Healthcare Protests</a></td></tr></tbody></table></td></tr></tbody></table><br /><br /><li>A little more optimism as scientists advise and enter the Obama administration</li><br />Very interesting interview about science/public policy interface.<br /><br /><table style="font-family: arial; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 11px; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; color: rgb(51, 51, 51); background-color: rgb(245, 245, 245);" width="360" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" height="353"><tbody><tr style="background-color: rgb(229, 229, 229);" valign="middle"><td style="padding: 2px 1px 0px 5px;"><a target="_blank" style="color: rgb(51, 51, 51); text-decoration: none; font-weight: bold;" href="http://www.thedailyshow.com/">The Daily Show With Jon Stewart</a></td><td style="padding: 2px 5px 0px; text-align: right; font-weight: bold;">Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c</td></tr><tr style="height: 14px;" valign="middle"><td style="padding: 2px 1px 0px 5px;" colspan="2"><a target="_blank" style="color: rgb(51, 51, 51); text-decoration: none; font-weight: bold;" href="http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-march-2-2009/harold-varmus">Harold Varmus</a></td></tr><tr style="height: 14px; background-color: rgb(53, 53, 53);" valign="middle"><td colspan="2" style="padding: 2px 5px 0px; overflow: hidden; width: 360px; text-align: right;"><a target="_blank" style="color: rgb(150, 222, 255); text-decoration: none; font-weight: bold;" href="http://www.thedailyshow.com/">www.thedailyshow.com</a></td></tr><tr valign="middle"><td style="padding: 0px;" colspan="2"><embed style="display: block;" src="http://media.mtvnservices.com/mgid:cms:item:comedycentral.com:219520" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="window" allowfullscreen="true" flashvars="autoPlay=false" allowscriptaccess="always" allownetworking="all" bgcolor="#000000" width="360" height="301"></embed></td></tr><tr style="height: 18px;" valign="middle"><td style="padding: 0px;" colspan="2"><table style="margin: 0px; text-align: center;" width="100%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" height="100%"><tbody><tr valign="middle"><td style="padding: 3px; width: 33%;"><a target="_blank" style="font-family: arial; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 10px; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; color: rgb(51, 51, 51); text-decoration: none;" href="http://www.thedailyshow.com/full-episodes">Daily Show<br />Full Episodes</a></td><td style="padding: 3px; width: 33%;"><a target="_blank" style="font-family: arial; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 10px; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; color: rgb(51, 51, 51); text-decoration: none;" href="http://www.indecisionforever.com/">Political Humor</a></td><td style="padding: 3px; width: 33%;"><a target="_blank" style="font-family: arial; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 10px; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; color: rgb(51, 51, 51); text-decoration: none;" href="http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-august-17-2009/heal-or-no-heal---medicine-brawl">Healthcare Protests</a></td></tr></tbody></table></td></tr></tbody></table><br /><br />And for another Nobel Laurate actually in the Obama cabinet, an interview with<a href="http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-july-21-2009/steven-chu">Secretary Steven Chu</a>. More importantly a member of the Nerds of America Society.<br /><br /><li>Finally, the critical question is who owns space</li></ol><br /><table style="font-family: arial; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 11px; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; color: rgb(51, 51, 51); background-color: rgb(245, 245, 245);" width="360" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" height="353"><tbody><tr style="background-color: rgb(229, 229, 229);" valign="middle"><td style="padding: 2px 1px 0px 5px;"><a target="_blank" style="color: rgb(51, 51, 51); text-decoration: none; font-weight: bold;" href="http://www.thedailyshow.com/">The Daily Show With Jon Stewart</a></td><td style="padding: 2px 5px 0px; text-align: right; font-weight: bold;">Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c</td></tr><tr style="height: 14px;" valign="middle"><td style="padding: 2px 1px 0px 5px;" colspan="2"><a target="_blank" style="color: rgb(51, 51, 51); text-decoration: none; font-weight: bold;" href="http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-april-22-1999/colbert---outer-space-available">Colbert - Outer Space Available</a></td></tr><tr style="height: 14px; background-color: rgb(53, 53, 53);" valign="middle"><td colspan="2" style="padding: 2px 5px 0px; overflow: hidden; width: 360px; text-align: right;"><a target="_blank" style="color: rgb(150, 222, 255); text-decoration: none; font-weight: bold;" href="http://www.thedailyshow.com/">www.thedailyshow.com</a></td></tr><tr valign="middle"><td style="padding: 0px;" colspan="2"><embed style="display: block;" src="http://media.mtvnservices.com/mgid:cms:item:comedycentral.com:105650" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="window" allowfullscreen="true" flashvars="autoPlay=false" allowscriptaccess="always" allownetworking="all" bgcolor="#000000" width="360" height="301"></embed></td></tr><tr style="height: 18px;" valign="middle"><td style="padding: 0px;" colspan="2"><table style="margin: 0px; text-align: center;" width="100%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" height="100%"><tbody><tr valign="middle"><td style="padding: 3px; width: 33%;"><a target="_blank" style="font-family: arial; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 10px; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; color: rgb(51, 51, 51); text-decoration: none;" href="http://www.thedailyshow.com/full-episodes">Daily Show<br />Full Episodes</a></td><td style="padding: 3px; width: 33%;"><a target="_blank" style="font-family: arial; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 10px; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; color: rgb(51, 51, 51); text-decoration: none;" href="http://www.indecisionforever.com/">Political Humor</a></td><td style="padding: 3px; width: 33%;"><a target="_blank" style="font-family: arial; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 10px; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; color: rgb(51, 51, 51); text-decoration: none;" href="http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-august-17-2009/heal-or-no-heal---medicine-brawl">Healthcare Protests</a></td></tr></tbody></table></td></tr></tbody></table><br />Feel free to add your favourites if I've missed them....Naomi Mchttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06033949035632165385noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4406544533309218497.post-1285455888715325912009-08-23T21:18:00.005+01:002009-08-23T21:38:24.384+01:00The trouble with pink – you’re being manipulated<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_SxR0SGZwvpY/SpGkbsYNVyI/AAAAAAAAAOQ/kwYcoYZce-M/s1600-h/pink+tools.jpeg"><img style="margin: 0px auto 10px; display: block; text-align: center; cursor: pointer; width: 320px; height: 242px;" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_SxR0SGZwvpY/SpGkbsYNVyI/AAAAAAAAAOQ/kwYcoYZce-M/s320/pink+tools.jpeg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5373256626105833250" border="0" /></a><br />I am a woman and I don’t like the colour pink.<br /><br />Now, I know most of you will think that I am therefore some kind of mutant whose ovaries must have shriveled up and dropped off, but I’ve never been much of a fan of the colour.<br /><br />And yet, we seem to be told regularly that females are in some way genetically programmed to prefer pink and that they would prefer that every inanimate object they come into contact with was in fact pink.<br /><br />You may be aware of the stories a few years ago when <a href="http://www.efluxmedia.com/news_Scientific_Fact_Women_Prefer_Pink_07931.html">scientists ‘proved’</a> that girls prefer pink. Except that’s not what they found, both males and females preferred <a href="http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S096098220701559X">blue</a> but that hardly matters when you have gender stereotypes to uphold.<br /><br />What was fascinating was the bullshit evolutionary biology/psychology (not sure which as the researchers involved were neither) tacked on to this misreporting of a study’s findings. I forget who once likened evolutionary psychology to ‘Just So Stories’ but I wholeheartedly agree. The ‘girls prefer pink’ story was padded out with rather implausible assertions that <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/3304225/Girls-really-do-prefer-pink-study-shows.html">female hunter-gatherers</a> (yes that old <a href="http://avaginadentata.blogspot.com/2009/08/how-to-get-your-project-in-news-around.html">chestnut</a> again) needed to be able to differentiate red berries when foraging.<br /><br />But the study wasn’t about female/male abilities to differentiate colours but about preference. And anyway, colour significance is entirely socially constructed. Pink was a boy’s colour and blue a girl’s as recently <a href="http://www.whats-wrong-with-the-zoo.com/pink-girls-blue-boys-jeongmee-yoon/">as 1914</a> (warning: includes pictures of highly spoilt children).<br /><br />“But,” I can here you cry, “my daughter/niece/friend’s kid loves pink and her parents have not forced it on her at all.” My first reaction would be really? Really have they not bought her pink things, not accepted gifts from friends and family that were universally pink? Did they not when she was under 1 year old and therefore indistinguishable from any other baby male or female, dress her in pink clothes and put a bow in her hair so that strangers wouldn’t say “Oh, what a lovely little boy”. Did they really? Really? Really, did they?<br /><br />If you’re answer is yes, then fine but the little cretin will still go to nursery with little pink fluffy Shirley Temples, be bombarded with pink advertising and be generally encouraged, corralled and forced into liking pink.<br /><br />This blue/pink thing has been largely manufactured by the advertising industry as a way of enabling product differentiation.<br /><br />Companies can sell more of their product and charge more for it if they put pink on it, say its ‘specially designed for women’ and point out that if women don’t buy it they will be fat, ugly and hairy.<br /><br />Look at razors. Only a few years ago the only ones both men and women bought were the orange and white bic razors. Yeah so they hacked half your face/legs off but progress in razor innovation has included marketing essentially the exact same product differently towards men and women. It has also *become important* to shave more and more bits of you, whether women needing to trim their bush:<br /><br /><object height="328" width="400"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/WAk77Kr_OwQ&hl=en&fs=1&"><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/WAk77Kr_OwQ&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" height="328" width="400"></embed></object><br /><br />Or men wanting to make their ‘tree’ ‘look’ ‘bigger’ (quote from Gillette website: “If you wanna see a tree you shouldn’t have to blaze a trail to get there. Trees look taller when there’s no underbrush”)<br /><br /><object height="328" width="400"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/1TiJNewpCnY&hl=en&fs=1&"><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/1TiJNewpCnY&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" height="328" width="400"></embed></object><br /><br />But who cares? I hear you cry. Well, apart from me… more and more gender stereotypes are less being propagating by the old forces such as religion, and more by rampant consumerism. For the nutritionist-<strike>bashing</strike> constructive critics out there, this is reflected in Vitabiotics different vitamin supplements for women and men, the women’s one advertised with the slogan “We are of course very different from men in many ways - so why take the same general multivitamin as them?”<br /><br />Why indeed?<br /><a href="http://www.pinkstinks.co.uk/"><br />Pink Stinks</a> is a campaign for real role models for girls.Naomi Mchttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06033949035632165385noreply@blogger.com5tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4406544533309218497.post-51786778236692592532009-08-16T17:17:00.004+01:002009-08-16T17:33:57.420+01:00When we’re talking about geniuses we’re not talking about you<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_SxR0SGZwvpY/SogzUY7uFTI/AAAAAAAAAOI/dQVWbHJ9Bgo/s1600-h/einstein+brain.jpg"><img style="margin: 0px auto 10px; display: block; text-align: center; cursor: pointer; width: 286px; height: 320px;" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_SxR0SGZwvpY/SogzUY7uFTI/AAAAAAAAAOI/dQVWbHJ9Bgo/s320/einstein+brain.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5370598981022651698" border="0" /></a><br />Ah, Harriet Harman. I really wish I could support you, but you are far too crap (great analysis on this from <a href="http://www.blogger.com/%20http://www.liberalconspiracy.org/2009/08/02/harmans-foot-in-mouth-feminism/">Laurie Penny</a>). Harman has reignited the debate about representation of women in politics which after years of looking at gender balancing political party selection procedures, makes me want to gouge my own eyes out.<br /><br />It really is this simple: we live in a society governed by a form of democracy which is tasked with responding to the needs of the population. That population has women in it, therefore those tasked with governing need to represent that population. While there have been great successes brought about by feminist men, giant leaps in social policy positively affecting women has been put on the agenda by women MPs.<br /><br />Equality campaigners of all equality strands see political representation as an important part, albeit only one, of their struggle. Indeed the representation of women in the governments of the world is cited by international human rights instruments (CEDAW and committee recommendations) as an objective in the campaign for equality.<br /><br />Strange then, that a call for equality always gets dragged down into a discussion of either female intelligence (or lack of) or the ‘fact’ that women just aren’t cut out for politics.<br /><br />I won’t get into the in-depth debate about the nature of intelligence here and will just stick to IQ. The evidence obviously varies often depending on how the test is weighted but in general there is no mean average difference between men and women. Where there is evidence of a sex difference it is in IQ variance, where there are findings (such as this <a href="http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6W4M-4M6458N-1&_user=10&_coverDate=10%2F31%2F2007&_alid=981742159&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=search&_cdi=6546&_sort=r&_docanchor=&view=c&_ct=15&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=399fce2799bf048278145365dea07a86">2006 study</a>) of more men than women in the top and bottom 2%, although this could also be due to <a href="http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6W4M-4TDYP01-1&_user=10&_coverDate=02%2F28%2F2009&_alid=981742159&_rdoc=3&_fmt=high&_orig=search&_cdi=6546&_sort=r&_docanchor=&view=c&_ct=15&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=1bc57e9697fd63ddffa4eefe5dbb3daf">sampling bias</a>.<br /><br />As with a lot of science, it doesn’t give people the definitive, unchanging and universal answer that they want. At the moment the very most that we can say is that there is some gender variation at the extremes and some gender differences in different cognitive abilities, but even that may be refined by new evidence.<br /><br />What is the real problem, as ever, is not the science but its interpretation. Specifically, the dumbass reduction to ‘men are cleverer than women’. It is as silly as using the same ‘logic’ at the other end of the scale and saying ‘men are stupider than women’, interesting how this flip side is never used….<br /><br />There are such things as female geniuses*, there are just more male ones. Conversely, there are females who are cognitively, er, challenged (?), there are just more males who are.<br /><br />There is a greater difference in IQ within sexes than there is between them.<br /><br />There are not many geniuses in politics (believe me I know a lot of politicians, hopefully none of whom read this blog…), indeed nor should they be over-represented. Our democratic institutions are intended to consist of laypersons. There are no qualifications to be an MP (other than eligibility issues; over-18, British citizen, not a bishop – <a href="http://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/document-summary?assetid=13282">seriously</a>…) which is to enhance the diversity and experience of our representatives.<br /><br />So I get a little tired of the inference being made that because of a over-representation of males in the higher IQ tail, we shouldn’t aspire to gender balance within politics. That argument misplaces the significance of statistical significance.<br /><br />The interpretation of information of this nature must be handled responsibly. We can’t look on wide-eyed and say ‘Look, I’m<span style="font-style: italic;"> just saying</span> there are more extremely intelligent men than women. It’s <span style="font-style: italic;">just</span> a statement of fact, you are doing the interpreting not little ol’ me’ It’s like Fox News <span style="font-style: italic;">just saying</span> that some of those responsible for the Glasgow terrorist attack were doctors in a <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2c-JEx-Kfvc">socialised health system</a>. Or <span style="font-style: italic;">The Sun</span> was <span style="font-style: italic;">just saying</span> that the numbers of swans in London had gone down in the same time-frame that numbers of <a href="http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/article81023.ece">asylum seekers </a>had gone up.<br /><br />In a society riddled with gender inequality, where women are <a href="http://www.fawcettsociety.org.uk/index.asp?PageID=321">paid less</a> than men, where traditionally ‘women’s work’ is undervalued and where women’s infuriating <a href="http://www.fawcettsociety.org.uk/index.asp?Pageid=645">habit of reproducing</a> is getting them sacked and <a href="http://women.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/women/article3645130.ece">publicly bollocked</a>,<span style="font-style: italic;"> just saying</span> that geniuses are more likely to be male than female is used by bigots to call women stupid and incompetent.<br /><br />I’m not calling for censorship here and I am not trying to shut down debate. I am saying that facts and debates do not happen in a vacuum unfettered by discriminatory attitudes and values. We have learnt the need to contextualise a debate about young black men and crime and not cherry pick statistics and pretend that the stats we use will not have insinuations and ramifications.<br /><br />Primarily, I’d like to point out that its unlikely that those who use the stat on male IQ are in the upper tail themselves and that you can’t get there by association. The <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning-Kruger_effect">Dunning-Kruger effect</a> frequently takes hold.<br /><br />*I’m using the (yes, sloppy and lazy) shorthand ‘genius’ to signify the top 2% on IQ variation.Naomi Mchttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06033949035632165385noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4406544533309218497.post-63631134373933579082009-08-11T22:22:00.003+01:002009-08-11T22:25:23.573+01:00Mitchell and Webb on lady advertsOK, apologies for being quiet on the ol’ blogging recently. But I’ve been moving flat. Here’s something to make up for it…<br /><br /><object width="400" height="328"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/M9fFOelpE_8&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/M9fFOelpE_8&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="400" height="328"></embed></object>Naomi Mchttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06033949035632165385noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4406544533309218497.post-31153425522935233472009-08-04T00:04:00.007+01:002009-08-04T02:05:54.440+01:00Rent-a-quote psychologists<div style="text-align: center;"><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_SxR0SGZwvpY/SneHnrgUxiI/AAAAAAAAAOA/-SEPtH_aHv0/s1600-h/lucy_post.jpg"><img style="margin: 0px auto 10px; display: block; text-align: center; cursor: pointer; width: 320px; height: 240px;" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_SxR0SGZwvpY/SneHnrgUxiI/AAAAAAAAAOA/-SEPtH_aHv0/s320/lucy_post.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5365906596798187042" border="0" /></a><span style="font-size:85%;">[<a href="http://comics.com/peanuts">Peanuts</a>]</span><br /></div><br />Now Dr Petra Boynton is a professional, eminent in her field and because of that is bound by professionalism and, er, eminence to talk euphemistically about a celebrity psychologist that she calls 'Psychologist A' in <a href="http://www.drpetra.co.uk/blog/?p=873">her blog here</a>.<br /><br />I, on the other hand, have no such shame and so can fairly confidently say; "Come on, Dr Petra, we all know you're talking about Dr Linda Papadopoulos." This shameless rent-a-quote academic will put her name to anything when not embarrassingly fronting a government campaign on the sexualisation of girls in British society (<a href="http://avaginadentata.blogspot.com/2009/07/next-im-celebrity-to-be-set-in.html">blogged on previously</a>) or seemlessly moving to comment on <span style="font-style: italic;">Big Brother </span>or <span style="font-style: italic;">My Big Breasts and Me</span>. (Believe me I am aching to divulge her government 'research' but its not public, bites lip)<br /><br />Dr Petra's blog was inspired by a <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2009/jul/27/michael-jackson-mental-health-psychologists">great article</a> by Martin Robbins on celebrity psychologists, so I thought I'd return to Dr Linda and share a few more gems from her academic-reputation-for-hire.<br /><br />Dr Linda, Celebrity Psychiatrist (sic), is naturally concerned by our consumerist-obsessed society that is fueling dissatisfaction and alienation. Her remedy? Why Lacoste's new perfume <a href="http://talkingperfume.com/news/lacoste-love-of-pink-fragrance/">'Love of Pink'</a> for women of course. Just as Dr Linda says:<br /><blockquote style="font-style: italic;">“The color pink is, in a lot of ways, the essence of what it means to be a young woman – love, romance, femininity and youth are all punctuated by this color. When a young woman wears LACOSTE Love of Pink, she wears the color of love.”</blockquote>Yeah, Linda, you are totally right. And I realise now that you are the PERFECT person for the government to employ to look into gender stereotypes which are fueling inequality and violence against women.<br /><br />But it doesn't stop at perfume, oh no. Remember, this woman is a serious academic. She does SCIENCE. And by science I mean research. And by research I mean stuff that a company makes up to sell shoes. Stuff like, the FACT that <a href="http://www.bio-medicine.org/medicine-news/Shoe-Shopping-Augments-Health-of-Fairer-Sex-21-21221-1/">women's heart rate increases</a> when they buy shoes:<br /><span style="font-style: italic;"></span><blockquote><span style="font-style: italic;">"Shoes have a particular draw to women as they are emotionally evocative items to them and they bring out women's socializing and nurturing instincts," the Mirror quoted [Dr Linda], as saying. </span></blockquote>You know she's right. A cute pair of Jimmy Choo's actually makes my womb ache (sorry, she was actually being paid by Brantano, er, who?). In fact there is a direct link between the shoe part of my brain and my genitalia because I'm a woman and therefore incapable of abstract thought.<br /><br />OK now, what's missing? I've got my shoes. I stink like the changing rooms in Top Shop on a Saturday afternoon. But I'm still not happy. Dr Linda knows why:<br /><blockquote style="font-style: italic;">"There is evidence that people are malfunctioning because they are not enjoying enough pleasure on a regular basis to be healthy happy people"</blockquote> It appears that I have 'Pleasure Deficiency Syndrome' which is something that only exists when drinks company <a href="http://www.paulcarr.com/tft/culture_and_society/000849.php">Bailey's pays for a survey</a> from YouGov and then pays Dr Linda to endorse the findings of the survey, make up a 'syndrome' and get people to drink more Bailey's. Now I am actually not getting enough pleasure on a regular basis but the one thing that will make this fact inexorably worse would be having to drink Bailey's.<br /><br />Seems Dr Linda is frequently hawking her academic wares around to the highest bidder, be they <a href="http://www.clickpress.com/releases/Detailed/56690005cp.shtml">Boots the Chemist</a>, <a href="http://www.tasteandsmile.com/tasteandsmile/asp/pdfs/Tate&LyleRecipes.pdf">Tate & Lyle</a> (pdf) or <a href="http://www.the-lottery.info/lotto-news.php?story=46">The National Lottery</a>. And of course her own line of psychological <a href="http://www.drlinda.co.uk/">face creams</a>.<br /><br />To think of the women who sacrificed so much to break through the glass ceiling of academia, who were the first to be admitted to male-only universities and colleges. And all so that in years to come, a lady psychologist can sell shoes, perfume and a creamy vomit liqueur.<br /><br />Does this increase the public's understanding of psychology and is this ethical as Dr Petra asks? Well no, I would argue that this devalues science, makes the public suspicious that academics will say whatever they are paid to say and perpetuates embarrassingly shallow gender stereotypes. However, when the government buys into the academic-PR complex that is Dr Linda, we achieve new heights of incredulity.Naomi Mchttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06033949035632165385noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4406544533309218497.post-1039230871644693652009-08-02T12:47:00.008+01:002009-08-03T14:28:48.459+01:00How to get your project in the news around the world: say that women are a bit crap at something<div style="TEXT-ALIGN: center"><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_SxR0SGZwvpY/SnW-SxQWPQI/AAAAAAAAAN4/w7rKvnuti6o/s1600-h/hunter_sm.jpg"><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5365403760750640386" style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN: 0px auto 10px; WIDTH: 218px; CURSOR: pointer; HEIGHT: 320px; TEXT-ALIGN: center" alt="" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_SxR0SGZwvpY/SnW-SxQWPQI/AAAAAAAAAN4/w7rKvnuti6o/s320/hunter_sm.jpg" border="0" /></a><span style="font-size:85%;">[Hunter from <a href="http://www.amazon.co.uk/Neverwhere-Authors-Preferred-Neil-Gaiman/dp/0755322800/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1249230471&sr=8-1">Neverwhere</a>. Female]</span><br /></div><br />This is one of the worst articles on gender and brains I've seen in a long time. A piece was written by an AFP agency journalist, has been cut n’ pasted into news sites across the globe. As far as I can tell, its only appeared in <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/5934226/Hunter-gatherer-brains-make-men-and-women-see-things-differently.html">The Telegraph</a> in the UK, but has made it to <a href="http://smi2.ru/nikandrovich/c186925/">Russia</a>, <a href="http://www.newkerala.com/nkfullnews-1-83551.html">India</a>, <a href="http://www.20minutos.es/noticia/490058/0/hombres/mujeres/datos/">Spain</a>, <a href="http://www.news.com.au/story/0,10117,25861063-401,00.html?from=public_rss">Australia</a>, <a href="http://yaplog.jp/kiyap50/archive/27">Japan</a> and <a href="http://www.playboy.co.uk/life-and-style/dating-and-sex/215282/4/Men-and-women-see-things-differently-thanks-to-hunter-gatherer-brains/">Playboy</a> (and many many more).<br /><br />It is a terribly written article about a <a href="http://bpsoc.publisher.ingentaconnect.com/content/bpsoc/bjp/pre-prints/bjp776">yet-unpublished paper</a> on a study of 48 people by an A Level teacher.<br /><br />Now, I'm not being dismissive about the researcher from Hammersmith and West London College, but this study has got more coverage than most research from the most eminent professors in the country.<br /><br />The article gives the impression that men are better at judging distances than women and that this is because of our hunter-gatherer past. Men would hunt and therefore have to throw spears long distances, women would gather berries and whatnot at close quarters. (And yes before all the archaeologists and anthropologists start jumping up and down on me, I know this is simplistic rubbish too, but that’s another story).<br /><br />Firstly, men being better at judging distances than women wasn’t really the finding of the ‘paper’ (i.e. what was contained in the abstract of the yet to be published paper). The article in fact contradicts itself internally:<br /><blockquote style="FONT-STYLE: italic">Men were more accurate than women when the target was placed far away at a distance of 100cm.</blockquote>And then<br /><blockquote style="FONT-STYLE: italic">In a second study, volunteers were asked to carry out the same tasks using a stick rather than a laser pointer. This time women were significantly better than men at judging both distances.</blockquote>Secondly, this is a study of just 48 people (24 men, 24 women) presumably from one locality (probably Hammersmith or West London) and unlikely to have been controlled for other factors (age, occupation, experience of archery etc). But I don't know, and nor does anyone else, because the paper hasn't been published.<br /><br />Thirdly, in a study about spacial awareness, comparing abilities over 50cms to 1m is fair enough. To define it as hand-reach (near space) and beyond hand-reach (far space) is clear. But leap from 1 metre being called ‘far space’ to the distance over which a ‘hunter’ would throw a spear at a mammoth, is more than a little ridiculous.<br /><br />Fourthly, as a psychology experiment on visomotor performance why is there an urge to link this randomly and in an ill-informed way to primitive human society and evolutionary biology?<br /><br />But lastly, this is an experiment conducted at a further education college which is about to be published in the <a href="http://bpsoc.publisher.ingentaconnect.com/content/bpsoc/bjp/pre-prints/bjp776">Journal of Psychology</a>. My problem is not with Stancey, seriously well done (as long as you take from this experience the media manipulation of science and how best to give comment to a journalist).<br /><br />My problem is with a media that doesn’t check its facts, that doesn’t do anything but cut n’ paste a poorly written article into their newspaper. Stancey is quoted as "Psychologist Helen Stancey, from Hammersmith and West London College". Googling Hammersmith and West London College you realise it is a further education college that runs A Levels, BTECs and the like.<br /><br />So how does this happen? We live in a world of lazy gender stereotypes: women can’t read maps, men take risks, girls like pink etc. When ‘science’ journalists come across a crappy story about women not being able to judge distances (which cognitively signifies women not being able to drive/play sports/walk past a shoe shop…) because they ‘were gatherers’, it makes culturally sense to us. Not scientific sense, but it fits in with society’s general assumptions, stereotypes and bullshit common-sense.<br /><br />This is why I think these kinds of reports are so damaging, they serve as the wallpaper of patriarchy. The constant mundane assumptions about male and female differences that support gender inequality.<br /><br />And for the record, I’m a dab hand at archery.Naomi Mchttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06033949035632165385noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4406544533309218497.post-45807740725299428842009-07-31T19:16:00.002+01:002009-08-07T00:10:36.926+01:00Beware the spinal trapI have reproduced the article below as part of <a href="http://www.senseaboutscience.org.uk/">Sense About Science </a>campaign to <a href="http://www.senseaboutscience.org.uk/index.php/site/project/333/">Keep Libel Laws Out of Science</a>. As a human rights activist I am well aware of the problems libel laws present for the work I am involved in, particularly when it involves private companies. It is vitally important that we have a society where people can critique scientific claims and subject them to scrutiny - that's how science works. So please read about the campaign and sign the petition.<br /><strong><em></em></strong><br /><strong><span style="font-size:180%;">Beware the spinal trap</span></strong><br /><em><strong></strong></em><br /><em><strong>Some practitioners claim it is a cure-all, but the research suggests chiropractic therapy has mixed results - and can even be lethal, says Simon Singh.</strong></em><br /><br />You might be surprised to know that the founder of chiropractic therapy, Daniel David Palmer, wrote that '99% of all diseases are caused by displaced vertebrae'. In the 1860s, Palmer began to develop his theory that the spine was involved in almost every illness because the spinal cord connects the brain to the rest of the body. Therefore any misalignment could cause a problem in distant parts of the body.<br /><br />In fact, Palmer's first chiropractic intervention supposedly cured a man who had been profoundly deaf for 17 years. His second treatment was equally strange, because he claimed that he treated a patient with heart trouble by correcting a displaced vertebra.<br /><br />You might think that modern chiropractors restrict themselves to treating back problems, but in fact some still possess quite wacky ideas. The fundamentalists argue that they can cure anything, including helping treat children with colic, sleeping and feeding problems, frequent ear infections, asthma and prolonged crying - even though there is not a jot of evidence.<br /><br />I can confidently label these assertions as utter nonsense because I have co-authored a book about alternative medicine with the world's first professor of complementary medicine, Edzard Ernst. He learned chiropractic techniques himself and used them as a doctor. This is when he began to see the need for some critical evaluation. Among other projects, he examined the evidence from 70 trials exploring the benefits of chiropractic therapy in conditions unrelated to the back. He found no evidence to suggest that chiropractors could treat any such conditions.<br /><br />But what about chiropractic in the context of treating back problems? Manipulating the spine can cure some problems, but results are mixed. To be fair, conventional approaches, such as physiotherapy, also struggle to treat back problems with any consistency. Nevertheless, conventional therapy is still preferable because of the serious dangers associated with chiropractic.<br /><br />In 2001, a systematic review of five studies revealed that roughly half of all chiropractic patients experience temporary adverse effects, such as pain, numbness, stiffness, dizziness and headaches. These are relatively minor effects, but the frequency is very high, and this has to be weighed against the limited benefit offered by chiropractors.<br /><br />More worryingly, the hallmark technique of the chiropractor, known as high-velocity, low-amplitude thrust, carries much more significant risks. This involves pushing joints beyond their natural range of motion by applying a short, sharp force. Although this is a safe procedure for most patients, others can suffer dislocations and fractures.<br /><br />Worse still, manipulation of the neck can damage the vertebral arteries, which supply blood to the brain. So-called vertebral dissection can ultimately cut off the blood supply, which in turn can lead to a stroke and even death. Because there is usually a delay between the vertebral dissection and the blockage of blood to the brain, the link between chiropractic and strokes went unnoticed for many years. Recently, however, it has been possible to identify cases where spinal manipulation has certainly been the cause of vertebral dissection.<br /><br />Laurie Mathiason was a 20-year-old Canadian waitress who visited a chiropractor 21 times between 1997 and 1998 to relieve her low-back pain. On her penultimate visit she complained of stiffness in her neck. That evening she began dropping plates at the restaurant, so she returned to the chiropractor. As the chiropractor manipulated her neck, Mathiason began to cry, her eyes started to roll, she foamed at the mouth and her body began to convulse. She was rushed to hospital, slipped into a coma and died three days later. At the inquest, the coroner declared: 'Laurie died of a ruptured vertebral artery, which occurred in association with a chiropractic manipulation of the neck.'<br /><br />This case is not unique. In Canada alone there have been several other women who have died after receiving chiropractic therapy, and Edzard Ernst has identified about 700 cases of serious complications among the medical literature. This should be a major concern for health officials, particularly as under-reporting will mean that the actual number of cases is much higher. If spinal manipulation were a drug with such serious adverse effects and so little demonstrable benefit, then it would almost certainly have been taken off the market.<br /><br /><em>Simon Singh is a science writer in London and the co-author, with Edzard Ernst, of Trick or Treatment? Alternative Medicine on Trial. This is an edited version of an article published in The Guardian for which Singh is being personally sued for libel by the British Chiropractic Association.</em>Naomi Mchttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06033949035632165385noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4406544533309218497.post-69364032705145154562009-07-29T23:40:00.003+01:002009-07-29T23:55:25.060+01:00Women and Open Source. AgainSorry for doing women and open source software AGAIN (also <a href="http://avaginadentata.blogspot.com/2009/04/may-open-source-be-with-you.html">here</a>). But the principles are important people!<br /><br />Anyway, <a href="http://infotrope.net/blog/2009/07/25/standing-out-in-the-crowd-my-oscon-keynote/">here's a presentation</a> from a female developer on some women-friendly projects. There's also some good tips on including women in your projects. The main one I'd like to pick out is:<br /><span style="font-weight: bold;"></span><blockquote><span style="font-weight: bold;">Call people on their crap.</span><br />If someone’s being an asshole, call them on their crap. How do you tell if someone’s being an asshole? Well, if there’s a naked woman on the projector screen, that’s a good sign.<br /><br />Let them know that their behaviour is making people feel unwelcome, and that <em>you</em> don’t like it.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Pay attention.</span><br />Pay attention to your own behaviour and the behaviour of others. This is possibly the hardest piece of advice I’m going to give. You’re not used to noticing this stuff. 80% of you haven’t noticed the sexism in our [OSS] community.<br /><br />As men, you are able to glide through life ignoring these things. If you are white, and straight, and speak English, and are university educated, there are a bunch of other things you’ve been able to ignore so far, too. I’m asking you to try not to ignore them. Keep your eyes and ears open and be aware of how things feel to people who don’t share your privilege.</blockquote>Just saying.Naomi Mchttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06033949035632165385noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4406544533309218497.post-45130292203199597082009-07-29T14:22:00.004+01:002009-07-30T00:18:55.395+01:00In celebration of hair<div style="text-align: center;"><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_SxR0SGZwvpY/SnBdGTmQWMI/AAAAAAAAANw/-Q4rWmT33Lw/s1600-h/frida-kahlo-self-protrait-1940.jpg"><img style="margin: 0px auto 10px; display: block; text-align: center; cursor: pointer; width: 238px; height: 320px;" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_SxR0SGZwvpY/SnBdGTmQWMI/AAAAAAAAANw/-Q4rWmT33Lw/s320/frida-kahlo-self-protrait-1940.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5363889519119587522" border="0" /></a><span style="font-size:85%;">[hairy and proud, Frida Kahlo]</span><br /></div><br />Yes, the Daily Mail is <a href="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-1202870/Are-things-getting-little-hairy-Kirstie-Allsopp-TV-presenter-keeps-stiff-dark-upper-lip.html">at it again</a>. A woman off the telly, went outside, in public, with possibly some hair on her lip (also possibly a shadow). Luckily, the Mail informs us that her young son "didn't seem to mind his mother's moustachioed look". That's nice.<br /><br />Female hair really seems to be one of the last taboos and causes all kinds of kerfuffle when celebrity women go outside, in public, without being suitably plucked, shaved, waxed, sugared and electrolysed. I know women who shave their forearms. Forearms!<br /><br />What I find disturbing about this is that bodily hair is a sign of pubescence and womanhood in women and there seems to be some very unhealthy drivers for making women look pre-pubescent. I find having hair sexy and womanly, and a micro act of resistance.<br /><br />Plus, and I'm willing to concede that this is just me, I would love to know what it felt like to have a beard. I can imagine stroking it and twiddling it. Although I couldn't be arsed with shaving every day so on balance I'm pleased I can't grow one (and am unlikely to gain that talent even in later life as I'm not from a hirsute family).<br /><br />It's time for hairy women to reclaim the mantel of Frida Kahlo and refuse to be bullied into expensive, painful and unnecessary treatments (particularly by the Daily Mail). If it feels more comfortable fine, but if not you should still be allowed out in public.Naomi Mchttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06033949035632165385noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4406544533309218497.post-2109362663654752322009-07-25T19:05:00.007+01:002009-07-25T20:21:10.292+01:00New Daily Mail Scientist<div style="text-align: center;"><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_SxR0SGZwvpY/SmtWuouy2JI/AAAAAAAAANo/fEN-BCcVw0Y/s1600-h/daily-mail-ad-1.jpg"><img style="margin: 0px auto 10px; display: block; text-align: center; cursor: pointer; width: 320px; height: 208px;" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_SxR0SGZwvpY/SmtWuouy2JI/AAAAAAAAANo/fEN-BCcVw0Y/s320/daily-mail-ad-1.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5362475140522367122" border="0" /></a><span style="font-size:85%;">[Daily Mail ad run in the Metro. Yes, in 2009]<br /></span></div><br />This may well be a foolhardy adventure, a titanic battle, an Icarian endeavour, I cannot help myself but carefully and scientifically dissect another <a href="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1201484/Fathers-DO-matter-Scientists-claim-play-crucial-role-childs-development.html?ITO=1490">Daily Mail article</a>. After I’m long dead I hope that the fossilised remains of my blog will be found so that others will know that there was resistance to this cancerous newspaper.<br /><br />I’ll address most paragraphs in turn.<span style="font-style: italic;"><br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Fathers DO matter: Scientists claim they play crucial role in child's development</span><br /><br />In a world where advances in cloning and genetics are threatening to make men redundant, scientists finally have some reassuring news.</span><br /><blockquote>No dipshit, it’s only in your paper that claims like this are made. </blockquote><span style="font-style: italic;">A study has shown that fathers play a crucial in family life - and that without a dad present in the crucial first stage of life, offspring grow up to be less sociable.</span><br /><blockquote>Let’s pick out the crucial words in this sentence: “father”, “family life”, “dad”. We all know what those words refer to don’t we. Yes, humans.</blockquote><span style="font-style: italic;">Although the findings come from a study of animals, it adds to the growing evidence that fathers influence the way children develop.</span><br /><blockquote>Right, so in fact a study HASN’T shown anything about “fathers” or “family life”. And given the variety of parenting models in the animal kingdom you are going to have to show applicability (who thinks they will?...)<br /></blockquote><span style="font-style: italic;">Previous studies have shown that girls reach puberty younger, become sexually active earlier and are more likely to get pregnant in their teens if their father are absent when they were young, New Scientist magazine says.</span><br /><blockquote>I will address these ‘previous studies’ at the end and the problems with them. I will also take the New Scientist out the back for a damn good thrashing.</blockquote><span style="font-style: italic;">Other work has suggested that sons of missing dads have lower self-esteem later in life. </span><br /><blockquote>Other work? What like that paper I wrote with my own shit through the motion of wiping my arse? Obviously no need to reference, it is accepted wisdom.<br /></blockquote><span style="font-style: italic;">The latest study looked for biological changes in laboratory mice when they were raised without fathers.</span><br /><blockquote>Here we go. Paragraph 6 and we find out you’re talking about mice. Five paragraphs on vague conjecture with a clue that this is a completely rehashed article from the New Scientist and we culminate in fucking lab mice.</blockquote><span style="font-style: italic;">A team at McGill University, Canada, used a strain of mice which, like people, are usually monogamous and tend to rear their young pups together.</span><br /><blockquote>A strain of mice, which like people, live in cages in laboratories, have tails and run around on wheels all day.</blockquote><span style="font-style: italic;">They removed the fathers from some of the mouse pups three days after birth until they were weaned at 30 to 40 days old.</span> <span style="font-style: italic;"><br /><br />The scientists, led by Dr Gabriella Gobbi, then analysed the behaviour and brain cells of the pups - and compared them to mice brought up with both parents.</span> <span style="font-style: italic;"><br /><br />Brain cells in the 'single parent' mice had a muted response to the 'cuddle hormone' oxytocin, a feel-good chemical released in the brain during sex or moments of intimacy.</span><br /><blockquote>‘Cuddle hormone’ is a technical term I’ll have you know. And given that the Daily Mail are anthropomorphising these mice to an alarming degree, does them talking about them having sex make this article paedophilic?</blockquote><span style="font-style: italic;">That meant they were less likely to feel positive when in the company of others. The fatherless mice were also more anti-social. </span><br /><blockquote>They found that they were feeling less positive through a survey where the mice were asked to rate their positivity on a scale of cheese to incontinence on a first date. Indeed fatherless mice are more likely to be Goths.</blockquote><span style="font-style: italic;">'Usually if you put two animals in the same cage they investigate and touch each other, but when we put to animals deprived of a father together they ignored each other,' said Dr Gobbi.</span><br /><blockquote>Maybe its because the offspring of divorce parents have less expectations of long-term relationships and decide not to get involved in an intimate relationship that will inevitably end in heart-break and despondency. Oh, wait a minute, they’re FUCKING MICE.</blockquote><span style="font-style: italic;">The scientists are unsure whether the same biological changes take place in human children raised without a father - and whether the findings are applicable to people.</span><br /><blockquote>But we’ll keep the headline and everything we've written up until this point because no one is really going to read this far and what can science tell us about the moral decline of Britain anyway.</blockquote><span style="font-style: italic;">In the strain of mice used in the experiment, the fathers lick and groom the young pups more than the mothers do. Because grooming affects the development of pups, it could be the lack of physical contact that cause the changes in the brain, the researchers say.</span><br /><blockquote>It seems that mice feminism has also gone to far and these mothers aren’t even looking after their children properly. OK, this paragraph does seem to entirely undermine the preceding drivel showing that mice parenting does seem to differ from human parenting somewhat, but apart from that the similarities are uncanny.</blockquote><span style="font-style: italic;">The finding follows another study which showed that men experience a huge surge in oxytocin after a child is born.</span><br /><blockquote>Let’s just randomly chuck this study in. Totally unconnected, but shit who cares?</blockquote><span style="font-style: italic;">Dr Ruth Feldman of Bar-Ilan University in Ramat-Gan, Israel tested oxytocin levels of 80 couples before a child was born and six months afterwards.</span> <span style="font-style: italic;">She found that levels of the feel-good chemical rose in mothers and fathers after the arrival of a child.</span><br /><blockquote>‘Feel-good chemical’ is another technical term, keep up.</blockquote><span style="font-style: italic;">The chemical affected the parents in different ways.</span><br /><blockquote>Banal sentence of the entire article. Congratulations.</blockquote><span style="font-style: italic;">Mothers with the highest levels spent much longer gazing at their children, stroking and kissing them and speaking in a "sing song" voice, she found.</span><br /><blockquote>i.e. become insufferable to be around.</blockquote><span style="font-style: italic;">Dads with the highest levels played more with their child than fathers with the lowest levels.<br /><br /></span><span style="font-style: italic;">'Fathers and mothers contribute in a very specific and different way,' she told the magazine.<br /><br /></span><span style="font-style: italic;">She believes fathers may be 'biologically programmed' to help raise children.</span><br /><blockquote>This is a very very bizarre statement.</blockquote>Right so let’s look at the studies the Daily Mail randomly chose to cite and how they arbitrary chose to report them. Sadly this Daily Mail article is a pretty much direct rehash of the <a href="http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20327184.000-fathers-arent-dispensable-just-yet.html">New Scientist article</a> it refers to. New 'Scientist' Fail.<br /><br />I’ve been warned before that the New Scientist can be sexist, but this is the first time I’ve come across such a biased and unscientific article.<br /><br />I have blogged <a href="http://avaginadentata.blogspot.com/2009/05/why-i-hate-oliver-james.html">here</a> about the studies looking at early female pubescence and absent fathers when Oliver “bad-parenting-causes-schizophrenia” James tried to peddle his social-conservatism as caring liberal. (In summary; "I think you’ll find it’s a bit more complicated than that").<br /><br />There are a number of social determinants that affect girls becoming sexually active earlier and teen pregnancy. Education, access to information, aspirations, abuse, gender inequality, coercion, poverty – can all play a role and interact with each other.<br /><br />The two studies referred to directly in the article are by Dr Gabriella Gobbi of McGill University Health Centre and Dr Ruth Feldman of Bar-Ilan Universit, were both unpublished studies from Conference Posters presented at the World Congress of Biological Psychiatry and the Society for Research in Child Development Biennial Meeting, respectively. Dr Gobbi's: T<span style="font-style: italic;">he fatherless brain: Impact of paternal deprivation in Peromyscus californicus on social behaviour and on Oxytocin, NMDA and monaminergic synapses in the prefrontal cortex</span>, poster, WCBP (<a href="http://www.wfsbp-congress.org/fileadmin/user_upload/WFSBP_Final_Programme_090625.pdf">pdf of programme</a>). <a href="http://www.srcd.org/meeting/schedule/2009/searchview2.cfm?author=13415">Dr Feldman</a>'s: <span style="font-style: italic;">Maternal and Paternal Bonding in the Postpartum: Hormones, Parenting Behavior, and Mental Representations</span>.<br /><br />I therefore doubt very much that the article reflects what these researchers will have concluded in their studies. Even if they themselves did make these giant leaps, the work is unpublished and there has not been an opportunity to peer-review.<br /><br />Reporting ideology rather than science is what the Daily Mail does. Which is why I am more annoyed with the New Scientist for this crappy article. Of course the Mail was going to pick it up and use it as more evidence to espouse its socially conservative and judgmental propaganda. But for a scientific publication to use a study in mice to comment on human social interaction, is willfully ignorant.Naomi Mchttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06033949035632165385noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4406544533309218497.post-81583156132984643302009-07-20T20:40:00.008+01:002009-07-20T22:51:11.827+01:00Nerds leave Fortress of Solitude for Playboy Mansion<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_SxR0SGZwvpY/SmTj9PwniTI/AAAAAAAAANg/v83s2bAgW_0/s1600-h/if-you-can-read-this.jpg"><img style="margin: 0px auto 10px; display: block; text-align: center; cursor: pointer; width: 249px; height: 184px;" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_SxR0SGZwvpY/SmTj9PwniTI/AAAAAAAAANg/v83s2bAgW_0/s320/if-you-can-read-this.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5360660097819707698" border="0" /></a><br />My recent lack of posting is due to going to <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/8158630.stm">Latitude Festival</a> over the weekend. Which was terribly lovely. But I got back to an emailed link to <a href="http://www.doublex.com/section/work/appallingly-sexist-origins-facebook?page=0,0">this story</a> from Double X on the biography of Facebook founders Mark Zuckerberg and Eduardo Saverin.<br /><br />Apparently, their lack of ability in the getting-laid department inspired the origins of Facebook and their (unofficial) biography seems to chart their success through the anonymous women they shagged.<br /><br />I've blogged before about nerd sexism (<a href="http://avaginadentata.blogspot.com/2009/06/female-geeks-and-nerds-of-world-unite.html">here</a> and <a href="http://avaginadentata.blogspot.com/2009/05/attracting-women-u-iz-doin-it-rong.html">here</a>), but I do have sympathy with the article's assertion that <span style="font-style: italic;">"sexism 2.0 is uglier than its early versions"</span>. Call it pop-psychology, but the misogyny within the geek-tech community seems to be driven by former rejection. Girls wouldn't kiss the geeks at school and now that they're billionaires they will wreak their revenge on women by objectifying them and spending their time developing rape-simulation games (great article on rape in games <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/mar/04/women-gaming-violence-computer-games">here</a>).<br /><br />This isn't a new form of sexism however, its the same-old same-old reaction by some to women not being constantly sexually available to men. As one male friend suggested to me; "Well, if those teenage girls would just snog the geeky boys at school..." Forgetting that a) teenage boys are repulsive and b) girls really shouldn't have to put out just so that boys don't go on to <a href="http://cerise.theirisnetwork.org/archives/891">'rape' female characters in <span style="font-style: italic;">Second Life</span></a>.<br /><br />Rather than male techies having a long hard look at themselves and seeing how they may be contributing to oppressive practices, <a href="http://www.destructoid.com/japan-s-erotic-game-sensitivity-continues-137298.phtml">they bemoan </a>the fact that the banning of <span style="font-style: italic;">Rapelay</span> has led to a decline of "erotic games".<br /><br />Although this might all stem from the same sexism that pervades our society, what makes it worse is that the men involved are often anti-authority, leftish, progressives (I have a link for this, bear with me). As I've said before - we expect more from you, don't let the abused become the abuser. Plus the undermining of women in tech, whether web company founders or a faceless Victoria Secret model, seems to come at a confluence of a sustained backlash to the feminist analysis of objectification and a desensitisation to sexual violence against women (in society at large as well as in games).<br /><br />Nerdy men need to be aspiring to more than the Playboy Mansion. You're not going to find a Starbuck there.<br /><br /><span style="font-size:85%;">Thanks to Liz. And sorry I've been a bit too techie recently. Will get back to health and medicine.<br /></span>Naomi Mchttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06033949035632165385noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4406544533309218497.post-31984600292835257702009-07-13T01:23:00.008+01:002009-07-13T14:14:08.011+01:00OW! F***, B*****ks, C***y, M*****F*****! I stubbed my toe.<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_SxR0SGZwvpY/SlqIwH_dz-I/AAAAAAAAANY/7fB7XRArFyY/s1600-h/be+polite"><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5357745067070967778" style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN: 0px auto 10px; WIDTH: 320px; CURSOR: pointer; HEIGHT: 180px; TEXT-ALIGN: center" alt="" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_SxR0SGZwvpY/SlqIwH_dz-I/AAAAAAAAANY/7fB7XRArFyY/s320/be+polite" border="0" /></a>This post was inspired by a Twitter conversation with <a href="http://twitter.com/evidencematters">@EvidenceMatters</a> about pain and swearing. <a href="http://journals.lww.com/neuroreport/Abstract/2009/08050/Swearing_as_a_response_to_pain.4.aspx">Apparently</a>, swearing can increase pain tolerance, increase heart rate and decrease perceived pain (when subjects put their hand in icy water) compared with not swearing. I guess it is the linguistic equivalent of rubbing the elbow you just banged. But the study did say specifically that this was only true for men. What about women?<br /><br />I went on the hunt for a study into female responses to pain and swearing. None. And yet I came across a whole plethora of <a href="http://www.springerlink.com/content/k3738855t6052575/">linguistic</a>, <a href="http://goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/gi_0199-1299589/Gender-and-swearing-a-community.html">gender studies</a>, <a href="http://www.marketwatch.com/story/what-the-bleep-swearing-in-the-office-can-inspire-teamwork">organisational psychology</a>, even <a href="http://www.reference-global.com/doi/abs/10.1515/JPLR.2008.013">politeness research</a> (?) studies into gender differences in swearing.<br /><br />Now, you may have noticed, I’m a big fan of swearing. I think it’s an important linguistic tactic. Plus, it is both big and clever. I love the fact that Armando Iannucci sends the scripts of The Thick of It to a ‘swear man’ who put more swearing into it.<br /><br /><object height="328" width="400"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/2T0Ofr6VYMI&hl=en&fs=1&"><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/2T0Ofr6VYMI&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" height="328" width="400"></embed></object><br /><br />However, if readers of this blog are true to form, you should be rather alarmed by my swearing and indeed think that this signifies my lack of morality. Of course, if you think that you can get tae fuck.<br /><br /><a href="http://goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/gi_0199-1299589/Gender-and-swearing-a-community.html">Culture and expectations </a>tend to mitigate against women's use of obscenity. Swearing is seen as an aggressive and masculine thing to do and therefore sweary women are seen as transgressing gender norms. Indeed, studies show that women are judged more harshly for swearing than men (de Klerk <a href="http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=2997456">1992</a>, <a href="http://books.google.co.uk/books?hl=en&lr=&id=iPHRUuUlDpQC&oi=fnd&pg=PR7&dq=Language+and+Masculinity.+Oxford:+Blackwell.&ots=T3gFYKhWf3&sig=uEHQCPqQzegi_ikmDyC5KtQD1Ts">1997</a>).<br /><br />Swearing is also associated with lower socioeconomic groupings and/or working-class culture. A study by <a href="http://www.jstor.org/pss/4168749">Elizabeth Gordon</a>, found that in addition to the expected judgments of lower social status, female ‘non-standard speakers’ were additionally perceived to be of lower moral standing, on the basis of their vernacular usage (slang as well as swearing). So not only am I a gobshite, I’m a filthy, loose gobshite.<br /><br />I admit to using swearing in a consciously gendered way. Just for shits and giggles. Calling men bitches, women wankers and requesting people suck my dick is part of my one-woman crusade to break down the gendered distribution of swear words. This isn’t unrealistic as <a href="http://encyclopedia.jrank.org/articles/pages/696/Gender-in-Swearing.html">apparently</a> “terms like bitch and sow, were first used of males (or of both sexes) and only later applied exclusively to women”.<br /><br />So could it be that the cultural norms that restrict women’s potty mouths could be doing them out of pain-relief? If you’re a woman and frequently find yourself frustrated, banging your legs on corners of tables or burning yourself with your cigarette – let out a screaming ‘fuck’. It’ll do you good on so many levels.<br /><br />And on a <a href="http://www.eupjournals.com/doi/abs/10.3366/E1749503208000087">positive note</a>, girls swear as much as boys on MySpace - progress of sorts!Naomi Mchttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06033949035632165385noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4406544533309218497.post-40691508454816718742009-07-11T23:59:00.008+01:002009-07-12T00:53:24.440+01:00Next 'I'm a Celebrity' to be set in Whitehall<div style="text-align: center;"><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_SxR0SGZwvpY/SlkgBwZeVdI/AAAAAAAAANI/KSPIJPYSvfI/s1600-h/jacqui-charity-415x259.jpg"><img style="margin: 0px auto 10px; display: block; text-align: center; cursor: pointer; width: 320px; height: 200px;" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_SxR0SGZwvpY/SlkgBwZeVdI/AAAAAAAAANI/KSPIJPYSvfI/s320/jacqui-charity-415x259.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5357348446277621202" border="0" /></a><span style="font-size:85%;">[Then Home Secretary Jacqui Smith with the necessary celebrities launch a consultation]<br /></span></div><br />It is a bad sign of the health of evidence-based policy making when the Government employs an academic on the basis of their <a href="http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1315442/">IMDB profile</a>. Almost as embarrassing as Gordon Brown phoning Simon Cowell to find out how Susan Boyle is doing, back in March the <a href="http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/03/27/papadopoulos_women_review/">Home Office employed Dr Linda</a> Papadopoulos to carry out a study into the sexualisation of girls in British society.<br /><br />Now I’m not saying Dr Linda (as she likes to be known) is a bad person, I just don’t think she is the right person to be advising the government on this aspect of social policy. The research into violence against women in the UK is extensive leading to an understanding of the ‘continuum of violence against women and girls’ and policy outcomes such as the integrated strategy on violence against women (which exists in Scotland and is currently being consulted on in England).<br /><br />This isn’t Dr Linda’s specialism. She seems in fact, <a href="http://drlinda.live.subhub.com/categories/20070501">far more comfortable</a> as the resident psychologist on Big Brother, a regular on The Wright Stuff and Celebrity Fit Club and a general rent-a-quote ‘Celebrity Psychiatrist’ (sic) on CNN, Sky News, Channel 5 news, ITN news and BBC breakfast. She has also written such weighty tomes as 'The Man Manual' and 'What Men Say, What Women Hear'.<br /><br />Dr Linda also has a <a href="http://www.lindapapadopoulos.com/index.asp">range of skincare products</a> which include ‘smart nutrients’ which can “boost memory, reduce stress and even help cognitive ability”. These are moisturisers. But the range is called ΨDerma [Psy-Derma]. Geddit? She’s a PSY-chologist who’s peddling moisturiser which makes them like, er, psychological moisturisers.<br /><br />The range includes:<br /><ul><li>Cleansing Thoughts Foaming Cleanser – ‘Foaming cleanser & detoxifier to wash away the stress of the day’</li><li>Intensive Therapy Facial Serum – ‘Profound stress relief serum for unhappy skin’ (£30 for 15ml)</li></ul>Now as I said, I don’t think Dr Linda is a bad person and a lot of her advice about women needing to boost their self esteem and not be body-obsessed is all well and good. What I do have a problem with is the Government’s use of pop-psychologists to advise on social policy and Dr Linda’s use of women’s self-esteem issues to sell over-priced moisturiser to them on the basis that it will in itself help deal with stress and anxiety.<br /><br />Dr Linda is getting dangerously close to misusing her ‘Dr’ title. And its not good clinical practice to speculate on the psychology of anyone on TV. As the fabulous <a href="http://www.drpetra.co.uk/blog/">Dr Petra Boynton</a> said at a recent talk: “I wouldn’t comment on a celebrity’s mental state if they were my patient as that would be unethical and I wouldn’t comment if they weren’t my patient as I would have no idea what I was talking about.”<br /><br />Wise words. I would also add: psychologists should think deeply about giving academic legitimacy to the exploitation of or intrusion into any individual's mental health issues for TV.<br /><span style="font-size:85%;"><br />Thanks to Heather for drawing this to my attention.</span>Naomi Mchttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06033949035632165385noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4406544533309218497.post-37675059476997323472009-07-08T23:36:00.004+01:002009-07-09T00:03:09.455+01:00Let's all laugh at working class women<div style="text-align: center;"><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_SxR0SGZwvpY/SlUkoJj_HuI/AAAAAAAAANA/8D-aPX_07-4/s1600-h/mitford.jpg"><img style="margin: 0px auto 10px; display: block; text-align: center; cursor: pointer; width: 237px; height: 320px;" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_SxR0SGZwvpY/SlUkoJj_HuI/AAAAAAAAANA/8D-aPX_07-4/s320/mitford.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5356227604007296738" border="0" /></a><span style="font-size:85%;">[Diana Mitford Mosley, mother of Max Mosley. And not a working class woman]</span><br /></div><br />This has really torn me. Yes I hate fascists. Yes I think they are ignorant and want to laugh at their stupidity. But Vice Magazine - which is a pile of shite - taking a dig at <a href="http://www.viceland.com/wp/2009/07/babes-of-the-bnp/">female members </a>of the BNP filled me with rage.<br /><br />I was uncomfortable about the article but what affirmed my position was the comments which were invariably from men referring to the women as "stupid cunts" and "ugly chavs".<br /><br />But why do they need to objectify women to get their point across? The BNP are ignorant, bigoted, anti-intellectual propagandists that feed on poverty and marginalisation. So why focus on the women and highlight how ugly, working class and stupid they are? Ah yes, its an easy target.<br /><br />But for fuck's sake, its the BNP! Its like beating a disabled, piss-covered gerbil to death. Momentarily rewarding but does it really achieve anything? Other than laughing at how stupid women can be, women who are not in the hieracrhy of the party and who did not just get elected to the European Parliament...Naomi Mchttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06033949035632165385noreply@blogger.com2