TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

474
475

This is baffling and a little disturbing.

http://badgerherald.com/news/2014/04/21/madison-host-first-feminist-biology-post-doc-program-nation-rl/#.U1j354o_7Fp

A few institutional feminists have decided they're being oppressed by biology and have created "feminist biology" a misleading women's study program which aims to fight against the gender bias in science...

Promoting research using a feminist lens to approach biology, University of Wisconsin will be home to the nation’s first post-doctorate program in feminist biology this fall after a donation.

Looks like they got sick and tired of science proving all the differences between men and women.

Looking at science through a feminist lens allows old questions to be observed in new ways, she said.

Lets just go back and re-write all tbe shit proving we're wrong.

Hyde said they hope to make advances in approaches to science that detect gender bias in traditional biology and also pioneer new approaches to biological research that counteract those biases.

Proving sexual dimorphism is literally rape.

What we need to do is produce more feminist biologists,” Hyde said. “We’re hoping to encourage that now and to make it a much larger and vibrant field.

Mmm yea totally sister. We also need more creationist biologists to combat all that evolution nonsense.

How about more fat biologists to stop all the proof.. er I mean discrimination that being a fat fuck is bad for you.

Soon we can have feminist physics and chemistry. Math has for to long oppressed women by being hard to do in my opinion.


[–][deleted] 177 points178 points  (71 children) | Copy Link

Combining a social movement with hard science? What a "good" idea. Why haven't we thought of this before? There is no way any biases will occur and everyone will totally take their findings seriously...

[–]goodbyeniceguy111 points112 points  (48 children) | Copy Link

There is no way this will not be the laughing stock of the science community. This has to be the tipping point for feminism I mean come on this shit is just getting ridiculous.

[–][deleted] 21 points22 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

The laughing stock they will be will play into their victim card that much more. The 'normal' scientists are laughing because they are 'discriminatory'

[–]Endorsed ContributorRedPillDad14 points15 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

The laughing stock they will be...

Actually, they'll be irrelevant, working in some shitty job unrelated to their useless degree. This program is just a clever marketing ploy - packaging a consumer-friendly product to sell to a gullible market segment... We should all be exploiting women's gullibility so effectively.

[–][deleted] 22 points23 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

Agreed, they'll most likely be ignored by the scientific community at large.

There's no room for their bullshit in a world of hard facts.

[–]thibit14 points15 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

There's no room for their bullshit in a world of hard facts.

There is a majority bias that does occur in some branches. Don't pooh-pooh this lest it gains too much of a weight to be ignorable.

[–]desylid41 points42 points  (41 children) | Copy Link

Doubtful that this will be the tipping point. The scientific community was deliberately infected with sinister political ideology 100 years ago during the Progressive Era and it is showing no signs of healing.

The fact that the humanities even contain the term science in "social sciences" is disgraceful.

One of first "scientists" in reddit's Science AMA series was Stephan Lewandosky, an experimental psychologist who researches public acceptance of conspiracy theories. That piece of shit is about as adept at science as the fake interpreter at Nelson Mandela was at sign language. The only difference in the situation is that fraud of the latter was immediately and widely recognized. People like Stephen Lewandosky, glorified shills of political ideology who are using science to spread their propaganda, are actually taken seriously!

Maybe I'm overly cynical but I only imagine it getting worse.

Science is apolitical and acultural. The laws of nature are independent of language. Unfortunately language is often necessary in order to express information. Progressives/leftists/socialists/collectivists are masterful at manipulating language. When science disagrees with ideology they simply change the language and pretend to be justified by the scientific method.

[–]Lightning1424 points25 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

The fact that the humanities even contain the term science in "social sciences" is disgraceful.

I respectfully disagree. Scientific methodologies and statistical analysis are applied in the social sciences. They will never give us as accurate/defining answers as the hard sciences are capable. That is the nature of trying to isolate cause and effect in complex social structures. But they are a collective effort at better understanding the social world around us.

Theories are posited and are tested against what we observe. Patterns are revealed and we then build a knowledge base around those patterns. TRP itself is a form of social science. It is a study in the mechanics of sexual interaction in which we have built a theory around based on a collection of statistics, patterns, and anecdotes (experiments).

[–]desylid-3 points-2 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

We aren't in disagreement about most of this. I didn't say (or intentionally imply) that the scientific method isn't applied to the humanities. I also didn't mean to imply that no valid a posteriori knowledge could be acquired by this application of the scientific method.

But because the "[social sciences] will never give us as accurate/defining answers as the hard sciences" they should not be regarded in the same regard as the natural sciences.

The scientific method can be applied to every discipline. Tagging science to all of them makes the concept of natural science (that which is not human behavior) practically meaningless. Political Science, Education Science, Business Science, Economic Science, et cetera.

My rant is against those in the humanities who have perverted the scientific method to the point of absurdity for ideological purposes. Instead of applying the scientific method objectively to their hypotheses and then continually attempting to falsify the results, they are reversing the scientific method to justify a subjectively predetermined conclusion in order to market their agenda.

With few exceptions, the best way according to their scientific research on society turned out to be control by the State or another governing body. It is begging the question on a worldwide, multi-generation scale.

[–]Misterlulz11 points12 points  (10 children) | Copy Link

Progressives/leftists/socialists/collectivists are masterful at manipulating language.

I have to disagree. I would say that anyone, regardless of their political or social orientation is capable of manipulating language. Just look at Frank Luntz, for instance. He has made a whole career out of it, and he is known for being a political conservative. :)

[–]tedted88880 points1 point  (5 children) | Copy Link

It comes from both sides. Just the progressives have been better at convincing the public at large

[–]vaporfarts2 points3 points  (4 children) | Copy Link

Because they use a language everyone can relate to, feelings. Those heart strings also attach to peoples arms, legs and fingers. And like puppets they will dance to the tune of self righteousness.

[–]tedted88884 points5 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Feelings, and they tend to do glib 3rd grade level analysis of problems. Like how do you solve poverty? obviously give the poor more money duh. Then the right says well raising minimum wage would actully cause the poorest of people to be unemployed. Its somewhat counter-intuitive to the general population, and I dont really understand how you can tell some emotional sob story about how raising the minimum wage will cause highschoolers to loose jobs. The dogma runs very deep. The left is great on social issues and the right is great on economic issues. Thats why i'm a libertarian.

[–][deleted] 5 points6 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

It wasn't the language of the land until women's suffrage. I would argue that politics has moved quite a bit closer to feelz and quite far from logic once that happened. Hell I don't think the Constitution would be recognizable if it was written today. We'd have amendments like speech should be restricted if hurtful, arms should be restricted because Chicago is literally Baghdad, etc

[–]Dokkobro0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

Beautiful what's this from?

[–]vaporfarts0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

My brain.

[–][deleted] -2 points-2 points | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]DrXaos1 point2 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

But not in the most important one, i.e. human caused climate alteration.

Changing the climate substantially from the state which has supported human civilization for 10,000 years is exceptionally risky.

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Since reading up on /r/TRP I've been opened up to more faults of Liberal thinking, and I can't just help but feel that political ideologies, much like women, are solipsistic in nature. They polarize and expand their own spheres of influence while potentially suppressing or ignoring information that contradicts or disturbs their worldview.

So in the same way that some who swallow the pill become momentarily bitter towards the nature of women, they become bitter towards Liberal values. Except in this case, I've noticed a higher tendency to retain that hostility toward Liberal thinking.

Liberals thinking has a nature of its own, as does Conservative thinking. They both want control, they both want power. What's best is to take the most positive attributes from either, and get past the pointless squabbling that distracts us not from "the real issues" but from getting shit DONE.

[–][deleted] 17 points18 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

Progressives/leftists/socialists/collectivists are masterful at manipulating language.

Crazy comes both way on the political spectrum. I am surprised it's taken feminists this long to create a propaganda machine under the guise of science. The crazies on the right have done far more damage to science education, let's not forget the creationists and their constant push for fairy tales in public schools.

e.g. http://www.icr.org/

[–]Heuristics-5 points-4 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

Stickers on textbooks on history is not all that dangerous.

[–][deleted] 5 points6 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

Progressives/leftists/socialists/collectivists are masterful at manipulating language. When science disagrees with ideology they simply change the language and pretend to be justified by the scientific method.

My personal favorite is "strong objectivism."

[–][deleted] 5 points6 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

Economics, international relations, archaeology and anthropology all fall under the guise of social science...

[–]ScannerSloppy-1 points0 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Yes, and anthropology is ideologically-driven nonsense with no legitimate basis in hard science.

[–][deleted] 1 points1 points | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]physics-teacher2 points3 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

Where do you go that props up Freud in the psychology department? I wasn't a psychology major, but I had some experience with the psychology department at my university (UChicago) and Freud was given very little mention. Most of it was along the lines of "he was not a scientist and most of his ideas turned out to not be correct." The psychology department there was very much based in real science. Freud readings were primarily done in social sciences ("sosc") classes or sometimes philosophy classes.

[–][deleted] 2 points2 points | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]physics-teacher0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Indeed. I'm glad it seems as though the effect has been limited in your department.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

90% of his theories were garbage

I'd suggest 90% of his theories require cognitive ability far beyond what the average modern university student possesses, or contains uncomfortable truths that people would rather rationalise away than live with the resultant cognitive dissonance.

Feminists hate him because his explanations for behaviour are spot on. They'll point to his small sample set of upper class, neurotic, privileged, low-resilient women as invalidating his work, when, if anything, it makes it hugely-applicable to the women you'll meet at university: upper class, neurotic, privileged and low-resilient. They all deny their daddy issues, but replicable-experiments show that women have a preference for hair colour, eye colour and chest hair patterns that match their opposite sex parent. Chicks hamster away the fact that excess weight and snarky attitudes make them unattractive to the opposite sex. Do you think they can deal with the uncomfortable truth of that?

I always know the battle is won and I'm getting laid during a seduction: a chick suddenly slips up and calls me 'Daddy' instead of my name.

Hell, Freud is Red Pill. I wouldn't have had the success with women I've had without his work.

[–][deleted] 1 points1 points | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]Dokkobro0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

What exactly is "correct" when talking about the brain in any one human? Freud has a lot of good stuff, like the guy stated before, lots of people, mainly women, would like to see his science done away with, the fact is still true that he's done more experiments on people than I have, so I'll at least listen to what the guy has to say. Discrediting 90% of a very well respected psychologist/sociologist/madman is crazier than listening to Charles Manson religiously. Of course we've found new data and theories since Freud, he was the first to pave the way. Next.

[–]ScannerSloppy0 points1 point  (3 children) | Copy Link

Since you wrote "uni" and not "college", I'm going to assume your education in psychology took place outside the U.S. I know a woman with a master's degree in psych from a German university- yes, in Germany, psychology is taught as an actual science. In America? Nah, psych is an easy major, it's what lazy/stupid people major in. American psych majors borrow $100,000 to earn a degree that qualifies them for nothing but a dead-end social work job making $12 an hour.

[–][deleted] 1 points1 points | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]ScannerSloppy0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

They don't teach it like it's a joke. It's just an easy major that attracts slackers. I am just referring to undergrad psych though. I don't really know anyone in a graduate psych research program. I did, however, have a professor with a PhD in psych who consistently spelled the word "psychology" wrong.

[–]texture-2 points-1 points  (4 children) | Copy Link

Science is apolitical and acultural.

Not when you're dealing with humans. We are political and cultural creatures.

[–]desylid-3 points-2 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

Exactly. This is why the scientific method breaks down when applied to human behavior.

[–]texture2 points3 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

Your rant implies that we should not attempt to study human behavior lest we become pieces of shit.

Human behavior is complex, and understanding it is key to our survival. The best we can do is create models that approximate reality and attempt to develop systems that leverage these models. The same as the rest of science.

[–]desylid-1 points0 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

Sure study human behavior all you want. Just don't call it a science and pretend the (often Non reproducible) studies are valid because of analytical techniques.

You can study fashion trends but that doesn't make it fashion science.

[–]texture-1 points0 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Oh, I see you've heard of my work - The Institute for Fashion Sciences.

[–]qemist-1 points0 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Stephan Lewandosky

Can confirm. Shithead.

[–]icanteventhecat2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Well, actually this is a good thing. Any idiot who willingly associates themselves with this project will pretty much be excommunicated from the research community.

[–][deleted] 49 points49 points | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–][deleted] 15 points16 points  (7 children) | Copy Link

This is a sarcastic comment but it should be the top response to the OP.

Back in the 20s Feminists (an important movement at the time, unlike today) adopted social Darwinism and were all for engineering society to fit their outlook. Birth control was a means to an end.

Just for fun, google Margret Sanger; Eugenics. It's some intense shit

[–]WHY11111 points12 points  (6 children) | Copy Link

For example Planned Parenthood was created by Margret Sanger to provide abortions to black women so America would be more racially pure.

[–]IMissOsama 7 points7 points [recovered] | Copy Link

Is that implied or is there a source for that?

[–]WHY1117 points8 points [recovered] (4 children) | Copy Link

"Birth control must lead ultimately to a cleaner race." - April 1932 Birth Control Review, pg. 108

"We should hire three or four colored ministers, preferably with social-service backgrounds, and with engaging personalities. The most successful educational approach to the Negro is through a religious appeal. We don’t want the word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population, and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members." - Woman, Morality, and Birth Control. New York: New York Publishing Company, 1922. Page 12.

“The main objectives of the [proposed] Population Congress is to…apply a stern and rigid policy of sterilization and segregation to that grade of population whose progeny is already tainted, or whose inheritance is such that objectionable traits may be transmitted to offspring.” – Margaret Sanger, “Plan for Peace”, 1932 Senate hearings

Even today about 80% of abortion clinics are in minority neighborhoods.

[–]Canadian_Infidel1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Poor neighborhoods. People still think like this and they think it equally of poor people of any race or creed.

[–]IMissOsama 1 points1 points [recovered] | Copy Link

Holy shit that's blatant. Just to be perfectly clear, feminists look up to this woman?

[–]WHY1111 point2 points [recovered] (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]mothcock2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Communists too.

[–]youngpunx[🍰] 1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Makes femi-nazi a more credible insult.

[–][deleted] 11 points12 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Jawohl!

[–]Manuel_S2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Why, whats the problem? It's been done before.

What was it... eugenics? Somewhere in europe, it wasn't gender, it was some racial stuff... whatever, thats old news. This is made by women, and therefore right and non-aggressive and gender-positive.

Down with uber-patriarch ubermensch, let us join together to create a gender-equal maleified fem-male. Easy, there's already so many pussies that happened to have been born with an organ of oppression, we're already 56.2% there.

I'm all for it. Equality uber alles. Stop being reactionary, comrades. We shall all become equal, like it or not.

P.S.

How can you best invest in cat food and accessories? Any RP hedge fund out there?

[–]IM_PRETTY_RACIST4 points5 points  (6 children) | Copy Link

Hey eugenics wasn't so bad.

[–]Haraklus0 points1 point  (5 children) | Copy Link

Yeah, I'm personally all for eugenics. In fact, I think one of humanity's great failings at present is the massive aversion to eugenics we have. It looks like China will probably counteract this, though -- given their pro-PGD attitude and willingness to regulate births, it's not much further to go until not only is number of children limited, but Gattaca-like genetic selection of fittest embryos or something along those lines becomes very normal.

A smaller group of more elite people will mean a happier world. End of story.

[–]IM_PRETTY_RACIST0 points1 point  (4 children) | Copy Link

A smaller group of more elite people will mean a happier world. End of story.

I actually think we're trending towards that. That's the reasoning for the whole divergence of rich and poor people.

[–]Haraklus0 points1 point  (3 children) | Copy Link

We may. I have a suspicion that it will be too little too late, given that even if reproduction continues to taper off the way it does, we're still looking at capping out at around 10 billion people in a few decades.

[–]IM_PRETTY_RACIST0 points1 point  (2 children) | Copy Link

Ok I'm going to drop some conspiracy theory stuff on you so brace yourself.

I think we're going to see a lot of actual depopulation within the next 20-30 years. This will be caused by some bacteria (maybe engineered, maybe it just evolved in some place like India) that spreads quickly, is at least fairly deadly (5-10% mortality without treatment), and is resistant to a lot of antibiotics. We will see immense demand on a run of the antibiotics that are capable of treating this illness. The demand will FAR surpass the amount in existence and as a result, countries will go to war for existing stock. The resulting war and chaos will be worse than the original sickness.

Anyway, there you go. Probably shouldn't have gotten stoned before I wrote this response.

[–]Haraklus0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

I'm skeptical, but honestly, I would have to thank whoever had the balls to make that kind of decision.

[–]IM_PRETTY_RACIST0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Hell it may naturally play out. I first thought of this possibility a year or so ago during the whole AR/ammo madness (you couldn't buy a gun or ammo because everyone else was and prices skyrocketed). I got a cold or something and a couple of pharmacies were out of my antibiotic. I then realized how few extra antibiotics we actually had - combine that with the resurgence of some formerly all but eradicated diseases becoming antibiotic resistant because 3rd world countries would just give some antibiotics. If the bacterium survive the dose of antibiotics they become resistant to it.

[–]icanteventhecat0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Just like creation science!

[–]TRP Vanguard: "Dark Triad Expert"IllimitableMan103 points104 points  (54 children) | Copy Link

I fucking weep for any country that actually takes this shit on board. What a waste of time and energy. Feminism needs to die already, looks like this sick, perverted ideology is not going to down without a fight. They're probably getting scared as more and more people, men and women alike, are beginning to boycott feminism.

[–][deleted] 56 points56 points | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]Lightning143 points4 points  (5 children) | Copy Link

I know I'm not alone when saying this, but I would not be in this subreddit if it weren't for feminists.

Weird, but I rarely ever came across the term feminist before I came to TRP and saw so much discussion about it. I always just associated it with the civil right movements of the 20th century from when I was led to believe that women were 2nd class citizens. And that it no longer a movement people identified with. I understand now how many feminist principles have become so ingrained in normal society. I'm just confused where all of you guys are running into self-proclaimed feminists.

[–]vaporfarts1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

The modern iteration of feminists I believe is called "3rd wave" to differentiate it from the ones of the early 20th century.

[–]Haraklus-1 points0 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

Do you live in the midwest by any chance? It's definitely all over the coasts.

[–]Lightning140 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

I live in Los Angeles. Grew up here and did my undergrad at a public university in California.

[–]Haraklus0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Ah, I hadn't thought of LA. That surprises me less than other places on the west coast would. But it still surprises me.

[–]Gallente_One4 points5 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Hit the proverbial nail on the head. Have an up vote

[–][deleted] 6 points6 points | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]johngalt1234-1 points0 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Its a shame that idiocy gets promoted as creationism while the reasonable is either ignored or not well known.

[–][deleted] 16 points17 points  (32 children) | Copy Link

In modern day feminism, I see an ideology that is creating to a huge rift between sides. There is hardly a middle ground anymore, just radical fems and people (like RPers) who are essentially on the complete other end of the spectrum. Things are going to get VERY interesting in the next few years imo

[–]Canadian_Infidel6 points7 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

RPers are not on the other end of the spectrum. People who keep women as slaves from birth to death are on the other end of spectrum.

[–]RojoEscarlata6 points7 points  (4 children) | Copy Link

I'm suspecting that all this bullshit degrees like gender studies, and now femenist biology are ways to get the lower denominator into university and debt.

I mean, the degrees are bullshits, but I bet it ain't cheap.

Props to the people who are able to profit from the stupidity of people.

[–]Xiudo2 points3 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

Take solace brother. she will be in massive debt for a worthless degree.

[–]RojoEscarlata2 points3 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

I mean, what job could you even get with a bullshits degree like that?

[–]Xiudo6 points7 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

Feminist Biology teacher

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

That evoked a IRL LOL

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

In my experience, these types of programs and the people who run them have tremendous influence on college campuses, but ultimately accomplish little in industry. The most anyone will be able to bilk out of this is a tenured position as what basically amounts to a job as a pundit at a university. No one who gets a degree in "feminist biology" (or "MRA biology" or "Marxist biology" or anything other than just "biology") is ever going to get a job outside of Starbucks. These graduates will spend their entire careers competing with 5000 fellow feminist biology PhDs for the same 12 academic job openings.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

It's happening at Wisconsin-Madison, of all places. This is some scary shit.

[–]brave_sir_fapsalot1 point2 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

That's what surprised me the most. Not some tiny lib arts school in the north east, but a large and relatively prestigious public research university.

[–]HahahahaWaitWhat0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

I dunno man. I find the notion that the people who will spend their time and effort on this could be meaningfully contributing to real science to be dubious at best. It's going to compete with astrology and women's studies. Who cares? Oh, but it might take some hard core feminists out of politics. Our loss, I'm sure.

[–][deleted] 67 points67 points | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]1Watermelon_Salesman25 points26 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

Blame post-modernist thought.

[–][deleted] 10 points11 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

where EVERYTHING "depends on your perspective". 2+2 = 5

[–][deleted] 21 points21 points | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]Xiudo1 point2 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

Age of Reason I thought the age of reason was a massive return to Biblical studies?

[–]TRP VanguardCyralea14 points15 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

Feminism is essentially the philosophy that opinions equal facts.

[–][deleted] 18 points19 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Not quite. Feminism posits that facts are situated, which is a Marxist word synonymous with 'subjective'. The truth of the statement is contingent upon the person making the declaration, not reality. Hence facts declared by white males are 'oppression' while facts declared by black females are 'progress', etc.

It's like saying opinions equal facts, but with the caveat that some people aren't allowed to have opinions.

[–]biffsocko2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

don't worry about it. I love STEM because you're either right or you're wrong. If they've found people to waste their time following up on foolishness, that's ok. Real science prevails, to the chagrin of feminists like this.

For example, If one is to believe that "E=MC2" is a "sexed equation" because of privilege, that's fine - go build an atomic bomb in some equation that makes you feel more comfortable. In the meantime, the rest of us will just use this until you come up with something else. Good Luck!

[–]EducatedCavemen0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

too late, astrology is a thing.

[–][deleted] 48 points49 points  (11 children) | Copy Link

Calling her a "biologist" makes this seem a bit curious, indeed. It would be more correct to state that she's an anthropologist studying female hominids. I don't see how approaching science with a predetermined ideology helps in the process, but I can see how revisiting anthropological results is useful. The field is quite old and relies too heavily on speculation, in the past even more so than today.

Taking a different approach may actually give some interesting new hypotheses and interpretations of findings. Remember, science is peer reviewed. She's not going to go off on some limb and claim batshit crazy things and then get them published. It's a safe bet that anything which does get published as actual, scientific merit.

[–]SovereignsUnknown20 points21 points  (8 children) | Copy Link

yeah, i think they're in for a shocker when they realize how much higher standards science journals have for content compared to social science journals.
i'll be amazed if they manage a single paper

[–][deleted] 12 points13 points  (4 children) | Copy Link

This is dangerous though. Since some science journals do simply let whatever gets handed to them, get published. I'll try to find a source, but if I recall there was a post about it a couple weeks ago about someone who made an obviously fake report and it was published anyway.

Source

[–]thedarkerside6 points7 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

Well yeah, they could also just launch their own science journal (as did the bigfoot guys).

Having said that. Almost every field has one or two "reference" magazines, and I doubt very much they will just let it go through. Nature, Science etc. see themselves as gate keepers and they spend a lot of resources on "getting it right".

So by and large I don't think this will go anywhere beyond the "Creationist" realm, meaning, being annoying to real biologists but not going to change the way the world works. Or at least I hope I am right.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

Oh, I agree completely with this. However... The people who aren't likely to agree are feminists and people who aren't as knowledgeable about or less likely to understand the scientific method. All it takes is one article "women are just men with their penises cut off at birth" to spark an entire generation of batshit insane bitches cutting off their babies members and spouting false science as fact.

[–]thedarkerside1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

less likely to understand the scientific method

Point, that would be the vast majority of people, unfortunately.

[–][deleted] 9 points10 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

If they don't get published then they'll just claim sexism and misogyny.

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

They'll get published, and call misogyny on dissent....It's a sad and disgusting world

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Incoming enslavement of the masculine male.

Call crazy, strip rights.Medicate

Rinse, repeat on next male victim.

All in the name of mental illness and the APA

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

She's not looking to write scientific articles, she's trying to police current scientific study by deeming any dissenting fact as containing "gender bias".

[–]notnotnotfred23 points24 points  (32 children) | Copy Link

Richard Dawkins

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b1pJ8vYxL3Q

Newton's Principia is a rape manual.

Solid mechanics is privileged over fluid mechanics. bc men get solids.

"e=Mc2 is a sexed equation" bc privilege

[–]randomkloud7 points8 points  (4 children) | Copy Link

to expand (i just read about this couple days back):

e=Mc2 is misogynist because it prioritises the speed of light over all other speeds.

couple of relevant links someone else posted here before: http://isteve.blogspot.com/2012/12/intellectual-discourse-taking.html

https://arts.uwaterloo.ca/~kwesthue/regiftedxmas12.html

[–]varisforge7 points8 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

It doesn't set the speed of light as the fastest speed. It pegs the speed of light to the speed of time and information, and as we all know time favors men and men work better with concrete information so E=MC2 is a blatantly and inherently patriarchal construct.

Just because womyn benefit from the mathematical formula derived from it for everything from GPS to cell phone communications to whatever else it has achieved, allowing them greater relaxation and more ability to talk with one another over vast distances doesn't mean that it's not oppressing them.

(Maybe not obvious sarcasm but /s)

[–]cuntbh0 points1 point  (2 children) | Copy Link

Off-topic

It doesn't set the speed of light as the fastest speed.

My understanding of special relativity is that nothing in an inertial frame of reference can move faster than light does in a vacuum. That is to say, the speed of a particle relative to the space around it cannot exceed 3*1028 ms-1

At least, this an indirect affect of it, as mass increases with speed.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

Relative to another inertial frame of reference, not to the space around it. "Relative to space" is meaningless. c = 3e8 m/s as well, not 28.

[–]cuntbh0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

I was trying to explain it as if you weren't competent in physics.

I'm a physics student, and I don't even tell people the correct value of c. I know it is 108 , I was just being stupid.

[–]IIHotelYorba30 points31 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

...They're actually calling it feminist biology. Mother of god.

Christmas came early boys.

-Christian science

-Chinese medicine

-Feminist biology

[–][deleted]  (1 child) | Copy Link

[deleted]

[–]IIHotelYorba0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Haha! I did. The fuhrer would be proud these ladies are taking up the fight against Jewish biology.

[–]johngalt12340 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

"Christian Science" is a heresy. What they teach ain't biblical.

[–]Senior Contributor: "The Court Jester"GayLubeOil9 points10 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

In the Soviet Union the elite didn't like the study of economics so they created Soviet Economics. As you can guess Soviet economics was a bunch of bullshit, because it wasnt empirical. The whole point of Soviet economics was to play with numbers and statistics in an effort to justify the top-down bureaucratic system and discredit the Laissez faire approach.

Combining a social movement with science has been done before many times. Its fucking retarded beyond comprehension. If these feminist had any awareness of history or the world in general they wouldn't pull this kind of nonsense. But of course they don't. They don't care. All they care about is feelings and not getting offended. Which is why they don't belong in science in the first place.

[–]thedarkerside3 points4 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

Soviet economics was a bunch of bullshit, because it wasnt empirical.

I wouldn't call "Western Economics" empirical either. Economics is a very very soft science, working with oversimplified models. Every time their model doesn't play out (after destroying a few billion or ruining some people's lives) they say: "oops, let's try this.".

They are on par with Gender Studies and the other social sciences, namely: Making shit up while pretending they somehow have hard facts.

(Yeah yeah downvote me, but I challenge you to find me anything in economics that actually follows the proper scientific methods. Philosophy is more rigorous in their attempts to explain the world than economics is).

[–]watersign1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

I agree. It's a degree for people who didn't want to become accountants lol

[–]watersign-1 points0 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

All economics is bullshit, IMO. The problem with using mathematical models to describe human behaviour is that humans are irrational and random. Metal, for example..is not.

[–]coffeetablesex17 points18 points  (6 children) | Copy Link

can someone explain to me how feminism isn't sexism?

[–]smokeybehr21 points22 points  (5 children) | Copy Link

Impossible, because feminism is sexism. Anything favoring one sex over another for arbitrary reasons is sexist.

[–]ATLracing1 point2 points  (4 children) | Copy Link

Depends on the form of feminism. It's a broadly defined term, but it generally describes a movement that attempts to break down social barriers facing many women, which, sorry to say, is not sexism.

[–]Spark_Fiction0 points1 point  (3 children) | Copy Link

What women say is irrelevant;it's what they do that matters. That whole 'equality' angle is just a cover up, and always has been. Feminism is about leveraging female power, and nothing more.

[–]ATLracing0 points1 point  (2 children) | Copy Link

Don't make sweeping generalizations.

[–]Spark_Fiction0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

So you fear reality huh ?

[–]ATLracing1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Heh, not in slightest. I do, however, find it bizarre that you think the bitterness of this supposed reality evidences its validity. Seems like difficulty to swallow is a prerequisite for most "truths" around here, and any other philosophical idea is hastily brushed off as a worthless platitude.

[–][deleted] 5 points6 points  (9 children) | Copy Link

When (Caroline) begins the two-year fellowship in September, she will study the pelvic shape of female human ancestors to gain insight on childbirth anatomy over the course of human evolution.

I wonder where the part about wymyn's oppression comes in.

[–]MrsStrom12 points13 points  (6 children) | Copy Link

Some of the women's medical studies do need to be done. Men and women are biologically different. Medications affect us differently. We have different signs/symptoms for heart attacks!

Which leads me to my mini-rant: I'm sick and tired of breast cancer awareness. Heart disease is the single biggest killer of women because women don't know the signs/symptoms. All that money that's going to breast cancer awareness should be going to educate men and women of the signs/symptoms of both genders!

[–]orographic21 points [recovered] (1 child) | Copy Link

Breast cancer awareness isn't about treating breast cancer, it's a huge money generating industry.

[–]SigmaMu3 points4 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

And it's a huge money generating industry because sex sells. Putting a big pink ribbon eblazoned with "BREAST CANCER AWARENESS" on a bag of M&Ms in the closest you can get to just slapping a pair of tits on there. Similar principle with "rape culture". Feminists can't outright accuse Blurred Lines of contributing to rape, that's plainly ludicrous even to the layman. But accuse it of contributing to rape culture, and suddenly the smear sticks, Robin Thicke must be stopped, DJs playing his song must be fired, and sluts must be walked in protest.

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

A cardiologist did an AMA thread a couple months ago and went into detail about how all of the recent research into heart disease has been done on women. She expressed disgust at the lack of attention paid to research on men's heart disease.

Feminism is the last thing we need in science and medicine. We need to focus more on male health and dissemination of health related information to the public. We need to stop focusing so much on female health.

[–]Heuristics2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

As someone who works in a research group for heart imaging with MR cameras I would also say that very little research appears targeted at actually solving much of anything, it's mostly a game of what the researcher find most fun to work on. Naturally conferences somewhere warm halfway around the world is most fun so that gets top priority.

[–]grelknar0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

signs/symptoms of both genders

Sexes. Biology doesn't give a shit what phenotype you think you are.

[–]thedarkerside0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Some of the women's medical studies do need to be done. Men and women are biologically different.

That research is already been done. There are women's hospitals etc. who specialize on exactly that kind of stuff.

Biology isn't "blind" to the different sexes, this is pure ideology where in their mind biology == male which is incredibly far from the truth. I am not even sure that ever was the case. I came across an article that talked about medicine since the Renaissance and even back then they realized the differences between the sexes and researched / treated accordingly, with women getting way more attention it seems than men.

[–]orographic1 points [recovered] (1 child) | Copy Link

That sounds like a legit research topic. Can't wait to see how they inject "feminist science" into it

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

I'm sure they've told her to tone down the crazy feminist shit until they can gain some credibility. Next year is when they'll begin injecting "women have it so bad and deserve more resources!" into every single topic.

[–]biffsocko5 points6 points  (4 children) | Copy Link

University of Wisconsin has just lost its reputation

[–]Redpiller4561 point2 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

National rankings beg to differ. Top 10 rankings in a few scientific programs (2nd in biochemistry) and top 20 in many more.

I doubt any scientists here endorse this crap. This sounds like a social department program and is very likely not taken seriously by anyone in an actual science.

[–]biffsocko0 points1 point  (2 children) | Copy Link

A HA! You're a UofW Student. I hope you don't mind if I don't consider your opinion valid - based on your affiliation with that school.

[–]Redpiller4560 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

Sure, but don't take my word for it. As for the rankings, it's simply fact that UofW is highly competitive in science (US News and World Report). See for yourself:

http://grad-schools.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/best-graduate-schools/top-science-schools/university-of-wisconsin-madison-240444

What I'm saying is that I doubt this garbage "feminist biology" post-doc program is affiliated in any way with the scientific programs here. It is likely a humanities program.

[–]biffsocko0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

i hope you realize my comments were in jest.

[–]TRP VanguardWhisper3 points4 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

I'm not actually surprised.

I was raised as a flaming left-winger in a rightwing community. And I embraced it at first, because I despise smug, underthinking self-assuredness, and I was constantly being exposed to the rightwing variety of it.

But there was a moment that I realized communism was crap. That moment happened when I was reading the story of a Chinese dissident who had eventually been diagnosed by their state health system with a mental disorder. There was apparently a note in his chart, put there by some psychiatrist, that he had "failed to adjust to Socialist reality".

Not "reality".

Socialist reality.

The moment when you think the universe shares your prescriptive ideology, or needs to... you fail forever. The universe doesn't care about "should". The universe just is.

[–]TRP VanguardVZPurp10 points11 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Burn it to the ground.

[–]BouRayZa6 points7 points  (15 children) | Copy Link

What is lysenkoism?

[–]Senior ContributorSkorchZang11 points12 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

There was a man named Lysenko that duped the entire Soviet Union back in the day, with an "alternative" theory he said could produce amazing gains in wheat production. It turned out to produce nothing, besides embarrassment for all involved. Lysenkoism = crackpot science.

[–]BouRayZa2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Thanks, I thought that wikibot would provide a definition if I pose the question.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Seems quite fitting:

Hermann Joseph Muller (and his teachings about genetics) was criticized as a bourgeois, capitalist, imperialist, and promoting fascism so he left the USSR, to return to the USA via Republican Spain. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lysenkoism#Repercussions

[–][deleted]  (11 children) | Copy Link

[deleted]

[–]__ROOSTER__4 points5 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

Haven't spent too much time in sub Sahara Africa have you?

The time from when the three major races split is more than enough time for all kinds of differences to develop.

If I was to say that one race has a standard deviation faster reaction time and movement speed no one would argue much. Say that one race has a standard deviation difference in intelligence and all hell breaks loose.

Dog breeds have been around for a very short time. Do significant genetic differences exist in them, not just in observable physical differences but in behaviors and intelligence? The answer is obviously yes.

[–]vaporfarts0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

I sometimes wonder that if we were to take advantage of these strengths and breed accordingly, how society would work. Certainly very efficiently. The problem(and it's one that's unavoidable anyway) would be that since the onset of robotics, many people would be stuck in an archaic "warrior" class.

I mean, how many of us really have a real choice in finding a balance between what we enjoy and what we're good at in the first place?

Idk, excuse my stream of consciousness.

[–][deleted]  (1 child) | Copy Link

[deleted]

[–]__ROOSTER__0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Two main groups left Africa , that's fact. I didn't say there were three races I said "three major races " I stand by that.

[–]betagenic2 points [recovered] (5 children) | Copy Link

I don't believe that the racial differences in intelligence (preempting people's thoughts) are due to genetics

is this a hypothesis you have rejected out of hand, or something that you have found empirically invalid?

[–][deleted]  (4 children) | Copy Link

[deleted]

[–]betagenic1 points [recovered] (3 children) | Copy Link

Do you consider other causal interpretations of that observation? Or do they constitute a smoking gun in your mind?

[–][deleted]  (2 children) | Copy Link

[deleted]

[–]betagenic1 points [recovered] (1 child) | Copy Link

Why is "no difference" the null hypothesis? Shouldn't the everyday observable reality of group differences be the default assumption? Why assume that human evolution produces differences in every physical aspect except cognition? Is that really the proper convention of science?

Is the accepted paradigm a replicable empirical finding or a matter of ideological consensus?

[–]grelknar0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

It is funny though how we make fun of Lamarck and Lysenko but now epigenetics is all the rage.

[–]thredditsowaway4 points5 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

"Feminist physics"
"Feminist chemistry"
"Feminist medicine"

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

That last one sounds especially dangerous

[–]varisforge2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Future billboards if "feminist Medicine" takes the forefront of medical science:

"My doctor recommends castration as an antidepressant. Does yours? Find out what castration can do for you."

Also:

"Make a difference. Amputate your penis."

[–][deleted]  (1 child) | Copy Link

[deleted]

[–]MrsStrom1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

The fact that women have monthly menstrual cycles proves men and women are biologically different. That's a big part of the reason we have different drives and motivations. This is TRP at its most basic level.

[–]lol_What_Is_Effort3 points4 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

This is just inexplicably stupid

[–][deleted] 5 points6 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

"Post Doctorate"

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Wonder if they'll let me do a postdoc in Eugenics.

[–]memetherapy2 points3 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

I'm not going to rewrite the relevant comment I left in an MRA thread about about philosophy teachers being accused of sexism... but here's the copy/paste. I thought you guys might appreciate my anecdote...

"I go to McGill in Montreal. I love philosophy, so decided to pursue a double major in Cognitive Science, one of the majors being philosophy. Can confirm the feminist nonsense is taking hold there too. Accusations of sexism are somehow more relevant to "truth" than exposing reductio ad absurdums. The postmodernist gibberish is alive in, I'd say, at least a quarter of the philosophy students. Meanwhile, I'm also pursuing a Psychology major with a strong bend towards neuro and languages. Here too I encounter a slightly different issue, but with the same cause. Sex differences are often overtly ignored and dismissed by exaggerating possible issues or confounding variables... as if that isn't the case with all studies... ignoring the concept of converging evidence.

I shit you not... this is how a Psych major attempts to ignore obvious sex differences.

Me: "Isn't it interesting that women have consistently larger vocabularies than men across different cultures? Maybe that could be related to the difference in white/grey matter ratios between the sexes? (Men have more grey matter AKA neurons... women have more white matter AKA axons)"

Young seemingly intelligent lady: "But that's probably just cultural?"

Me: "Maybe... it could be. That doesn't imply the correlation is meaningless. It's, if anything, more interesting if it's all cultural... and can provide new evidence as to how the brain acquires concepts and words for those concepts"

Young lady: "Well, I don't really trust those studies. Boys and girls are raised differently."

Me: "Well... that's beside the point, but either way, it would be hard to dismiss all genetic sex differences... shouldn't the base assumption be that we're likely innately different since we have a whole chromosome that's different? I mean, they consistently find that young male infants are better than infant girls at 3D object rotation. And girls consistently acquire language skills faster than boys. Why would you assume our brains are exactly the same if the same genes that control their development also control our physical development? I hope you'd agree boys and girls are genetically programmed to develop physically in different ways."

Young lady: "No! rolls eyes That's obviously cultural. Boys are allowed to exercise and get stronger."

Flabbergasted me: "So, are you saying we're not a sexually dimorphic species? Why would we be any different from all the other sexually dimorphic species in which males are physically stronger?"

Lady: "Um... even in animals, boys and girls are treated differently growing up"

Me: "OKAY? Bye."

Give them another 10 years of not being called stupid and these people will start campaigns against female worker ants conditions. What is this, feminism for ants???"

[–]scallopkid0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

It needs to be at least... three times stupider!

[–]stalinbaby2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Those who are proposing that are simply scammers. They're taking money people are offering them on the promise of giving back bullshit results. I can only pitty the idiots who will try to enter that research line.

[–]blahbleblah22 points3 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

We also need more creationist biologists to combat all that evolution nonsense.

Nah, what we need is more pseudo-intellectuals who get their science from blog articles which gather information from researchers who were publicly denounced for bad science in an issued statement signed by 68 of their peers.

Blindly believing blog articles as long as they affirm your world view is nothing at all like what you're criticizing, as long as it's you doing it, right?

I'm sure when you cited that Psychology Today blog as a "peer-reviewed study," and failed to actually provide peer-reviewed research, it was because you're a real science enthusiast.

[–]johngalt12340 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Peer review is inferior to replication.

[–]symko2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Someone should have told feminists the issues that climate changers are dealing with. The last thing they expected was multitudes of people suddenly 180'ing from "settled science."

This is a great day though, when a movement constantly has to redefine itself to gain an advantage they are usually written off.

[–]bh32442 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

reminds me of the woman who tried to create feminist predicate logic. Where things are both true and false

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

The moment they put a lens over science is the moment it stopped being science.

It will also disprove anything they try to prove, since obviously there will be confirmation bias, and blindness of reality.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

I worry that this kind of thing will catch on. Feminist zeal generally seems to be accepted as a politically correct standpoint, especially among politians seeking public favor. There are enough problems faced by the scientific endeavour of the human race without another dark age of scientific repression.

The wikipedia rewrites died (I think), but how many attempts will feminists make before it catches on?

Feminism crusades againts men, not for equality. Just look at the "teach men not to rape" campaign. Do you think that it will stop there if they gain a foothold in scientific research?

Much like France during the industrial era, imagine having to run a new invention or theory past a feminist board for approval before release?

Would it be viable for them to villify a gender based on junk science and decree men all need to be chemically neutered to 'protect women'? Psychological indoctrination into feminist concepts from the earliest age? - It seems a stretch but more sinister concepts have taken root throughout history without political or main stream backing.

There are plenty of 'research teams' that will hand out skewed test results and shonky studies to pharmaceutical companies for money. With feminisim fitting the bill this will be no different. They will be able to say what they want, and pretend it's fact. And with feminism considered 'PC' they will not want for budget.

I hope that with the more outlandish statements made by feminist activists every day, people will begin to back away from it as it visibly shows itself as the hate group that it is.

[–]RAWR-Chomp2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Wait. They aim to fight gender bias in biology by adding a gender bias to the study of biology? This can't be a real thing.

[–]vereonix2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Biology is science, not opinion... You can't just go oh I think this because of my option on an irrelevant subject. No biology is a science, it is how it is, and your views don't change it.

[–]Redpiller4562 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Holy. shit.

I thought this was a joke when I read this article. This is the type of material you would read on The Onion.

This is probably the vaguest thing I've ever read because even after reading the article, I don't really understand what "feminist biology" even is. Investigating the evolution of the pelvic region of human ancestors to understand how child rearing may have progressed over time? That's science, and that's fine. I don't understand why feminism needs to be brought into it.

Eliminating the gender bias in biology? As a biochemist, I wasn't aware such a bias existed. In fact, there is federal infrastructure that is designed specifically to address bias in awarding grant money. For example, based on race or gender. Another objective of such programs is to figure out how to incorporate more research from these underrepresented groups.

Frankly, this is insulting to women who are in scientific fields.

[–]neutron_2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

I can't wait to see women competing men in olympics.

[–]1wakethfkupneo7 points8 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Here's my uneducated biological opinion: feminism is the leukemia of the society. It's unapologetically destructive, spreads everywhere with the final result being killing the organism as a whole and consequently self destruction.

[–]bassivemalls2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Looking at science through a feminist lens allows old questions to be observed in new ways, she said.

Yes, but the whole point of science is that you look at the facts from a detached, objective viewpoint. In science, admitting you are going to have a strong bias when interpreting results immediately discredits any conclusion you make.

These fucking dumb cunts are going make some scientific breakthroughs, yeah right. Won't don't you just stick with women's gender studies, honey.

[–]LadyLumen4 points5 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Reminds me of Creationism. Unhappy that science doesn't support your point of view? Create your own science! Goodbye objectivity!

[–]randomkloud1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Hyde said they hope to make advances in approaches to science that detect gender bias in traditional biology and also pioneer new approaches to biological research that counteract those biases.

looks like the outcome of their research has been determined before it even began. do they know the definition of a hypothesis?

[–]TRP VanguardArchwinger1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

"While your qualifications are impressive, we have decided to interview other candidates who better meet our needs at this time."

"But I have a PhD in woman's biology! I got a 4.0 GPA!"

"We're studying DNA from gram positive bacteria, not human females."

"That's what I'm talking about! Why is it even called Graham! That's a man's name! Bacteria can be studied by anybody!"

[–]biffsocko1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

While most of you are upset by how stupid this stuff is - it's actually beneficial. I was never able to interview someone for a job and ask things like: "Do you believe in God"? or "What is your take on religion"? To me the religious version of God is the adult version of believing in Santa Clause. I don't want to work or hire people like that, but I'm not allowed to ask that kind of question. I CAN however ask about what they think about new fields like Feminist Biology and what kinds of scientific contributions they feel it will make.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

In feminism there is no such thing as biology, everything is a social construct.

[–]Pecanpig1 point2 points  (5 children) | Copy Link

I'll bring the popcorn if someone else brings the lawn chairs.

[–]varisforge0 points1 point  (4 children) | Copy Link

Cheap much? You need to throw some brewskies into the deal, dude.

[–]Pecanpig0 points1 point  (3 children) | Copy Link

Pfft, I'm not a woman so no thanks, I'll bring some real liquor.

[–]varisforge0 points1 point  (2 children) | Copy Link

Gentlemen prefer beer. At least an ale.

[–]Pecanpig1 point2 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

I respectfully disagree.

[–]varisforge0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Fair enough. It's gonna be a good show wither way.

[–]Gold_Leaf_Initiative1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Do they actually say anything concrete about what is wrong with the current science? Like something factual I can sink my teeth into? The article doesn't feel like it's saying very much.

[–]watersign1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Unfucking believeable. "Thought crime"

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

"A man discovered how mitochondria work. But that man was probably a sexist shitlord. If he were a feminist he would have let a woman discover it."

That's how I'm imagining this...

[–]CouldntFindGudName2 points [recovered] (1 child) | Copy Link

They have been doing this for a while now, the work in a group. Look at github (iirc) they are making feminist friendly software or something. I don't even want to know what it means.

They changed the word women to womyn, because they didn't want anything to do with men.

They work together and rewrite history. They organize mass wikipedia edits in order to write what women have contributed. There are now paragraphs and paragraphs of nothing but self praise with generally dodgy source links.

What surprises me (maybe i admire) is that they are united in this. They work like a unit. While men will fight among themselves, or won't look at these problems because they have more important things to do.

This will continue for some time until it hits a tipping point, then some men will snap and reclaim everything and women's position will go back to square one, either that or a calamity. That usually puts the gender roles in place.

Yes what feminist are doing is a dirty practice, but that's what they have been doing for a long time. How insecure and unsatisfied do you have to be with yourself that you need to rewrite solid science to meet your views.

I am not angry, nor concerned, nor jelly. I am going to grab my popcorn, do what I always do,instead of changing others i improve myself. They are going on a path of destruction. This just accelerated it.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

No need to try to justify yourself. You are correct sir. Soon enough men will take back their claim. Afterall, it is men that gave women their rights, and men that can take them away. If they were smart, they would shut up already and enjoy what they have.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

Interesting. The last place I'm used to running into feminists is in the hard sciences. Honestly though, as a chemist I would be completely fascinated to watch someone TRY to integrate feminism into chemistry. Really, what could someone possibly hope to achieve? Too much chemistry named for men - clearly meant to keep women down. Major reactions named for male discovers should be renamed in hopes of not further discouraging female scientists. ... and now I'm worried.

[–]watersign-1 points0 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

haha exactly.

[–]BrazenBull00R1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Look up C+=

[–]trpalternate1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Approaching science with a Feminist viewpoint

If you're approaching science with any viewpoint, you're doing it wrong from the get-go. Science dispassionately looks at the data and draws conclusions from observable facts. That's it.

Trying to prove pre-concieved ideas by "interpreting" facts is as far away from science as you can get. They'll fit in well with the Creationists trying to prove that the Earth is 6,000 years old.

[–]Espiritu133 points4 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

For anyone wondering, this is par for the course in Madison. They live in their own little world where things like this can live. Once it attempts to applicable in the real world it will fall apart. Madison lives on it's own little planet and the rest of Wisconsin is kind of afraid of it.

[–]MockingDead1 point2 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

This is spot on. Madison is in this weird bubble, everything exists for the university. Any reasonable or intelligent people are shipped to the caption mines or ignored out of the place.

[–]Espiritu132 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Which is why I always call it "Planet Madison" and then proceed to tell them that everything makes sense only in their world. I always try to explain how they should just stay there so they don't get scared when someone else disagrees with them.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

"Newton's Principia Mathematica is a Rape Manual" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b1pJ8vYxL3Q

[–]NoFatChicks881 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Honestly, I love seeing this kind of news. It really helps show the world how god damned stupid feminism is. I've also noticed that RedPill threads are starting to show up on the front page now. Men's Rights is gaining more traction and people are starting to wake up and address the issues.

[–]veyron10011 point2 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

Feminist biology is in its self biased. Where as biology looks at both genders.

[–]vaporfarts0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

"Unusology", it should be called.

[–]sicsemperTrex-1 points0 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

You guys seem to read a little too much into the article.

[–]RedSpectrum1 points [recovered] (1 child) | Copy Link

Shit like this is only going to promote more bias. Science is science, facts are facts. Don't like it? Too bad.

Christian creationists have the Creation Museum based on unfounded science, if you can even call it that. Expect these feminist biologists to have their own little museum/conference/center if what they study and publish goes unchecked or gets a fast start. hopefully accreditation shoots them down and science journals refuse to publish their bullshit.

Edit: its a post doc program, so idk if accreditation can do anything about it. ahh the feminist downvote brigade has arrived.

[–]Nemester0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

More wealth transfer from taxpaying men to useless substandard female "scientists".

It is truly amazing what the cathedral will try to pull. /r/darkenlightenment

[–]FrostyGoingHisOwnWay1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

I'd love to see what Dawkins has to say about this, I suspect he'd intellectually shame this pretty hard and fast, it's an educational disgrace that this exists.

[–]ModAerobus1 point2 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

Soon we can have feminist physics

"Class, we will not be covering Einstein's e=mc2. It's sexist. Class dismissed. "

[–]varisforge1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Next class:

Gravity is the "man"ifestation of universal creepiness, because just like men gravity is holding us down.

Now we are going to research how to shame the universe into letting us fly.

[–]Buchloe1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Gravity is rape. Force and velocity are forceful sex terms. Mass and volume are fat shaming.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Feminism and science go together like a Reese's Peanut Butter Cup and shit.

[–]Endorsed ContributorrebuildingMyself1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Just think. When Hildog becomes president, this will be a mandatory department in all public universities. No such thing as separation between the Cathedral and State.

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

This course should be called "How to Propagandize Science Into False Theory"

Or

"How to Self-Righteously Destroy The Scientific Method"

[–]Dreamtrain1 point2 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

Feminist lens? Science is not a fucking book full of poems to be interpreted, it is a factual thing, there's no such thing as a lens, there is only simply observable, reproduceable results.

[–]Crackerjacksurgeon1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

"Reproductive sex is gang rape, because the eggs (that are obviously girls) are too young to give consent to the sperm that violate and penetrate them"

Bam, 'feminist lens'

[–]1Watermelon_Salesman0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

They're probably following the steps of Luce Irigaray.

[–]x7CR7x0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Can't wait for Roissy to see this.

[–]dave_is_not_here0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

there are certain assumptions about men, women, objectivity and knowledge that influence how science is often done

Yea, that fully objective scientific method that relies on evidence to create knowledge is just oppressive....

[–]cooltrip0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

They might get a Nobel one day.

Wait! No! the Nobel Academy is sexist! Most Science Nobels go to men!

[–]ScannerSloppy0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Would students actually get science credits for these classes, just like it was an actual science class?

[–]SiickNastikillr0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

I'm glad I chose to not apply there then. "Bullet Dodged"

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

my.head.just.exploded. im now as dumb as these idiots.

[–]vanzant380 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

This is why ETs won't contact us.

[–][deleted]  (1 child) | Copy Link

[deleted]

[–]cascadecombo0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

But they will bitch and moan and whine and lobby until they are guaranteed a spot because of "equality" despite whatever absurdity of their works.

[–]SSolus0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Didnt the Nazi's try to do something like this, with their whole "aryan" race being superior

[–]Dishmayhem0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

the bitterness is strong with this one

[–]cascadecombo0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

gender bias in traditional biology

Here is what I do not completely understand. Bias is to give something preferential treatment over the other something. In biology males and females are treated differently because they are, wait for it, different. Why do they want to counteract the beautiful difference in men and women, I sure as hell do not want to be skirt chasing some guy, do these feminists want to be pursued by a land whale?

[–]SaxualTigre0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Another step in their regime to take over; too bad they don't have the capacity for such a thing directly so they work through indoctrination. It's up to us educated about them and other people against feminism to stop it, between this and the facebook nonbinary genders, tumblr sjws are getting their way and it's a bit scary.

[–]Luckyluke230 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

this is just laughable.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Back in college I remember my friends and I would always joke about how this totally would become a thing. And I guess... it will.

I think that this will finally be the moment where intellectuals / academia just finally go ahead and admit that there is no such thing as objectivity / objective knowledge is no longer the ideal for academic pursuits. Hell, I was a liberal arts kid and my classes were more objective than this horseshit.

In a perfect world, this is the moment where universities kick back against the bullshit agendas they've been pushing for the last twenty years. In some reality out there, the Harvard board of trustees is calling up Larry Summers and apologizing for booting him because he commented on a controversial, but highly interesting and (in my understanding) well done study that produced results that feminists didn't want to hear.

This is more moronic than evolution. Theology and biblical literature is at least interesting; I know a creationist, like an honest to god the world is 4000 years young type of moron, and he never fails to entertain. At worst, his ideas are solid scifi / fantasy plotlines, and much of his religion is quite RP. It is rooted in more reality than this idea of "feminist biology". And at least this guy has the intellectual honesty to just say it - "I don't believe in science." Just say it, why the charade?

"I want to spend grad school learning about the extension of what I studied in undergrad (the easiest mandatory science / math classes, with gender studies, women's lit, soft psychology courses, and philosophy electives). But of course, I don't want this to be considered by everyone to be a massive waste of time and money. So please name it something legit and start a social movement about it. Make it sound science-y, so we are more employable, but please no real science, nobody got time for that!"

[–]byte80 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

As a current student, I just don't want you guys judging UW on this. We're a large ass school and with that comes compartmentalization and non-heriarchical oversight (e.g.: deans of specific programs don't really report to anyone, each college within the university does whatever the fuck they want.) This is not indicative of the quality of our school, but instead represents a small sector in the college of letters and science that wants to feel like they're doing something sociopolitically relevant. Our engineering and hard science fields are all laughing at this.

[–]Theophagist0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Looking at science through a feminist lens

So she literally says she wants to put an ideological spin on a practice of facts and evidence. How could anyone smart enough to put those words together be stupid enough to say them?

[–]anonymous_troll0 points1 point  (2 children) | Copy Link

I'm just going to chime in on this because I have a little bit of insight. I am currently a postdoctoral fellow at a university.

1) This isn't a degree granting program. A postdoc is a job. This is a postdoctoral fellowship and will fund one postdoc. The financial commitment will be between $150,000-$250,000 over three years. Given the funding source, it may be even less than this, and supplemented with funding from other sources.

2) The typical time a postdoc will spend in such a program is about 3 years. Postdoc contracts are generally given in 1 year increments.

3) This isn't an academic program, this will fund one person's existing research in biology. The specific research here will focus on female biology. If there's a feminist angle, it will be something like, "Women were as tall and strong as men, but their domestic social role caused these changes."

4) Everyone's always looking for more sources of funding. If a women's studies department offered me funding, I'd take it.

5) The postdoc in question probably will not start to adopt questionable research methods at this point in her career. She has nothing to gain from that. She'll still be doing bio.

I'm all for the Red Pill bit, but you guys are misunderstanding what this is.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

That's a fairly succinct description, I'm obviously unaware of this system. Good to know.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Thank you for posting this. As a person that chose to not go the PhD route and make money instead (stopped at MS) I can support this explanation. Still seems like a sketchy position, but post docs can be sluts for money.

[–]Nemester0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

The cathedral is completely delusional. What won't they try.

[–]HeadingRed0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

It's pretty much like regular biology, only a lot more unhappy and with extra cats.

[–]HighAngleAlpha03310 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Wittig was, of course a Jewess and isn't German at all. The other names seem rather Jewish as well.

[–]Endorsed ContributorRedBigMan0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Want to prove men and women have different traits... Throw them into a MMA Ring in a fight to the death. I certainly wouldn't put my money on the woman being the one to walk out that's for sure.

[–]Cypher2110 points1 point  (2 children) | Copy Link

It's difficult to find words to express just how ridiculous this is, shit like this is what will truly cause the decline of Western civilisation.

[–]Nemester1 point2 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

You might like /r/darkenlightenment

[–]Cypher2111 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

I just had a quick browse through the sub. Thanks very much for directing me there it's definitely got me interested, I'll check it out in more depth after this bout of work I'm doing

[–]Robot90050 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

So where is bullshit gene located on the X chromosome?

[–]lightfire4090 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Lol good luck publishing any peer review finding into any scientific journal. In b4 male oppression is keeping us from publishing.

[–]macsenscam0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

The problem is that biology has already been biased by the notoriously sexist male-dominated academic institutions. Hopefully these feminists aren't replacing it with more bias, but I do think that there have been scientific errors made because of sexism in the past (and possibly continuing).

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

this is no different from the "intelligent design" debacle several years ago, and this will flop in the same manner. they are trying to make data fit into a preconceived ideology, and that never lasts because it can't produce anything of tangible value.

i read a passage in The Heretics of Dune yesterday that is very relevant. rigid belief systems cannot last. dogmatism is stagnation. ideology installs blinders. continuous learning and optimization through empiricism and denial of the ego allows you see and accept reality as it is. when you can see and understand real systems entirely, you are free to work within or opt out of those real systems as you see fit. modern feminism and the blue pill are egocentric limiting belief systems, veritable blinders and illusions.

and don't kid yourself about the red pill, either. machismo is a limiting belief system as well. if you truly believe that all women are inferior and only good for sex, then the few great out women out there may be invisible to you.

By your belief in singularities, in granular absolutes, you deny movement, even the movement of evolution! While you cause a granular universe to persist in your awareness, you are blind to movement. When things change, your absolute universe vanishes, no longer accessible to your self-limiting perceptions. The universe has moved beyond you.

like philosophical scifi? pick up the Dune series.

[–][deleted] -2 points-1 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

No need to pretend negativity towards fatties such as myself helps anything. People don't really help fatties they just criticize them. I agreed everything else, but now you're just celebrating "discrimination" or whatever it is.

[–]cuntbh1 point2 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

That's like saying "people who wear white T-shirts should not be subject to negativity", if someone's fat, it's their choice. Losing weight isn't hard, keeping in shape isn't hard.

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

Come on. Have you ever been oveeweight?

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

See what I mean? Shutup. What you are demonstrating is bias and assumptions.

[–]hypnobearcoup-1 points0 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

They can get a minor in Pinterest while they're there.

[–]michael98118-1 points [recovered] (5 children) | Copy Link

I view myself as an Alpha male and pro-man, but let me try to share an opposing view.

What if it's true that historically men have given women a bad wrap in psychological/biological science? If that's the case, then what these women are trying to do will help bring truth to the science. It would in effect clear up the bad science and help us understand our world a little better.

With that said, I've not read the article, nor read the science. The truth is in the details.

I feel like I have to pipe in and water down the woman bashing just a bit. It's too early to see if this truly is as sinister as you purport.

[–]major_tom382 points3 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

I view myself as an Alpha male

Lol why would you say that?

[–]michael981181 points [recovered] (2 children) | Copy Link

Because that's what I said.

[–]major_tom380 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

How are you an alpha male?

[–]__ROOSTER__1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Coming of age in Samoa and Goodalls chimpanzee work are past examples of feminist biology that set back real understanding of the subjects by generations and still infect us with their bias.

[–]likechoklit4choklit-2 points-1 points  (13 children) | Copy Link

The op and supporters are all being hysterical about this. So what, some women are going to study biology from a standpoint that doesn't accept cultural stereotypes about social roles. From gynecology to idiopathy, there may be utility in permitting researchers work under different mental paradigms.

[–]watersign0 points1 point  (3 children) | Copy Link

What?? Scientific fields aren't biased, opinions that exist are largely data driven. The scientific method, you should learn about it.

[–]likechoklit4choklit-1 points0 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

Scientific method said thalidomide worked. Scientific method consistently doubted the epidemiology of hazardous waste. The scientific method was used to justify phrenology and eugenics. Science can be bent, and you are being unrealistic to think that it's unassailable. We are talking about biology, not physics, engineering or chemistry: all which have very little room for bias to inject itself.

More perspectives will ameliorate the myopia that homogenous academic thinking can rut itself into.

[–]watersign1 point2 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

Lol..eugenics is a real thing that works. It's just not politically correct. Yes.it can be bent..just like anything else.

[–]likechoklit4choklit-1 points0 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

When did eugenics work?

During genocide?

When it was used to prevent "miscegenation?"

When we sterilized the black poor?

I'm sure you'll make some point about selective breeding in dogs for functional utility. Or perhaps you assume some rich tobacco baron had a highly effective African slave breeding regimen that successfully selected for enough traits to modify the entire race in America, that you in your infinite genius can see today, 150 years later, despite when, you know, he and his sons weren't too busy raping their slaves.

You want to believe that eugenics works because it makes you feel bad that maybe some other race having intrinsic talent honed by skill is a threat to you. Or maybe you think random exterminations of groups of people (gay, gypsy, jew, native american) is based on solid science and could not possibly rob us of necessary genetic diversity.

[–]cascadecombo0 points1 point  (8 children) | Copy Link

biology from a standpoint that doesn't accept cultural stereotypes about social roles.

In what world has biology ever been influenced by culture or society? Facts are facts are facts.

[–]likechoklit4choklit0 points1 point  (7 children) | Copy Link

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_racism

But to address your second point. If facts are indeed facts, why the big panty wad about feminist biology. She will be using facts, biological facts. The things that you claim are unmalleable. It doesn't matter because the industry standard is facts facts facts. You can't have it both ways. Either biology can be bent by bias, or it is academically meritocratic based on fact and fact alone.

[–]cascadecombo0 points1 point  (5 children) | Copy Link

Thanks for the source, but that wasn't what I meant with what I said. That is using science in a perverted way to prove a personal belief, much like what the feminist biology will probably attempt to do.

I was trying to say that biology is filled with hard facts, males are designed more for hard labor and goal oriented endeavors, while women were designed to create offspring and tend to them. Both are different and excel in separate areas. Scientific racism is saying one man is superior to another because of minute/trivial physical differences which was convoluted and absurd as I stated before.

[–]likechoklit4choklit-1 points0 points  (4 children) | Copy Link

So you actually believe that women cannot be good scientists? Do you believe that feminist woman cannot create solid biological science, at all?

The sex differences you provided don't underscore any relevant points. Generally speaking, in western countries where these studies are carried out men do perform well in the categories that you highlighted. That goal oriented shit came from "Men are from Mars, Women from Venus" and is based on management studies. Find me a study that compares goal oriented behavior is higher amongst men, and then find at least 35 more, each from different world cultures, and maybe we can make a claim about what human men do. Otherwise we are jerking off our own culture and saying that it must be what our foraging polygamist ape ancestors did 150,000 years ago when our braincase started getting real big, and for another 3.3 million before that.

Sloppy biology leads us away from the truth. To really know what evolution did, we have to strip culture out of our etiological observations of humankind.

[–]cascadecombo1 point2 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

So you actually believe that women cannot be good scientists? Do you believe that feminist woman cannot create solid biological science, at all?

Where the fuck did this come from? I said trying to argue about bias and fixing bias from a biological standpoint sounds absurd. Both men and women have functioning brains, and thusly both can study the sciences.

The sex differences you provided don't underscore any relevant points. Generally speaking, in western countries where these studies are carried out men do perform well in the categories that you highlighted. That goal oriented shit came from "Men are from Mars, Women from Venus" and is based on management studies. Find me a study that compares goal oriented behavior is higher amongst men, and then find at least 35 more, each from different world cultures, and maybe we can make a claim about what human men do. Otherwise we are jerking off our own culture and saying that it must be what our foraging polygamist ape ancestors did 150,000 years ago when our braincase started getting real big, and for another 3.3 million before that.

Ignoring the fact that there are always outliers. An example we can use would be with the military. There are certain benchmarks needed to be achieved in order to do certain jobs. For the most part the women going after those are meeting the bare minimum where as the men who are doing such are meeting the requirements and then pushing themselves farther.

If you do not like that example, let's use the other recent survivor series where men and women were separated to two different islands. The men, with no actual leader decided what they wanted to do to contribute to their survival (knowing it would need to be done) and each found their purpose and served it. While the women, used up their supplies, didn't make any sort of shelter, and generally just lazed about until the producers had to send some men over to help them live. The women were very aware they were on their own and would need to do things on their own, but did not.

[–]likechoklit4choklit0 points1 point  (2 children) | Copy Link

I don't base my assumptions about what real normal american citizens do by the video demonstrations of a reality television series. I urge you to do the same. That is not a representative sample.

The military-like benchmarks already exist in biology. If Wisconsin want to make a feminist biology post doc position, they have to hire a phd, the process of which is the same for everybody. Considering that it's a position in biology, that means the candidates would all have a semester or two of calculus, chemistry, physics and biology classes in undergrad. 12 to 30 more credits as a graduate student wherein they have to design and execute a research project and defend it against other phds in the field. Then they have to get published. A couple times, with each publishing a novel discovery or report of experimental data.

The problem here is that you don't believe that biology as-it-stands-now has structural bias. You think that developing a feminist biology program injects bias into this pure objective realm that you believe biology to be. You see it as a contamination, or at least a potential contamination. You obviously agree with me that scientific racism was dumb. Those were apparently racist scientists talking about science thinking that it was as pure as you are currently assuming science is now. Racism isn't the bias du jour, we won't know what it is until it is sniffed out, but rest assured, something will sneak in.

I am willing to admit that I don't know how much bias is currently in biological science, but I don't trust that we are nailing it now just because a century went by: people are still the same now as they were then. I think the body of science is currently contaminated by social factors pointing us to ask dumb questions or to execute good science dumbly. To me, a couple feminists specifically working biology with their lens will be a net good: 1.) They'll catch when assumptions have heteronormative and other biases and 2.) even if they somehow inject pro-feminist bias into the scientific realm, it has to match our expectations of scientific replicability and reliance upon literature, so biology literature can absorb those reports along with its other biased reports from other practitioners.

[–]cascadecombo0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

From the article

detect gender bias in traditional biology and also pioneer new approaches to biological research that counteract those biases.

You seem to be a little more on the profeminist side, so I have an idea where you are coming from. However from what I have seen in life and media in regards to feminism, it is now less of an equality and more of a giving more power to the women to counteract the primal base power of man.

If there was a guarantee that facts wouldn't be skewed or even created to fit into the agenda of those looking to find "biological bias" then a new viewpoint would be nice.

In fact, I strongly support being in the company of those who do not think as you do because when you stay in a group of like minded people, you usually do get a circle jerk.

I may be repeating myself, but the track record for how feminism in it's current form bends twists and reconstructs things to fit its agenda and views sounds frightening. And once it is in the system, I can see them lobbying to get something absurd, probably miniscule, but something they want in, and then work from that.

The problem here is that you don't believe that biology as-it-stands-now has structural bias. You think that developing a feminist biology program injects bias into this pure objective realm that you believe biology to be.

You have a point, I am not a biologist, and in my head biology is a fact or fiction realm, where men have testicles and women have ovaries, where testosterone and estrogen serve different functions but are found in different balances in different sexes.
*Can you tell me some examples of what it's structural biases are now, because I sadly must admit I haven't a clue?

[–]likechoklit4choklit0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Evolutionary psychology, sexuality studies, and gynecology probably have the most social intrusion. Ask a midwife/doula and a doctor about pregnancy specifics and there is a world of difference in perspectives about the attendants needs (feet in stirrups please) versus the patients needs (I don't care lady, if it feels better to push in doggy style, push in doggy style, I can catch)

Evolutionary psychology is best embodied in the red queen by matt ridley. I suggest that you read it, it is an awesome layperson friendly survey of human behavior. It also has some gaping flaws, it doesn't manage sex abuse and sex trauma psychology and doesn't capture everything that humans do. Sex at Dawn is a feministy-er version of the same book and is very compelling as well. I feel that it also does a much better job at explaining why gay genes don't go extinct. Red queen supports a view that men were leaders through our evolution from a chimplike thing, that they are not very emotional creatures and that monogamy is our natural state of being. Sex at dawn questions monogamy, its evolutionary utility, and suggests that most of human history is polygamous. The truth is somewhere in the middle, look at red pill: Plates vs. monogamy, low status males with high sexual access versus rich men who are cuckolded. Evolutionary psychology from a traditionalist lens would fail to predict those things where a cultural anthropology lens or a feminist one could offer better explanations. From my perspective, relying on evo psych to tell people how they "should" act, is an act of one culture using science to legitimize their culturally held opinions. I see a lot of that in RP: "science" used to justify a cultural belief. If the science was more nuanced, maybe RP advice would be more effective more often. Maybe the relationship power dynamics that RP espouses can be better modified by incorporating what new discoveries these feminist biologist lend.

There are already a shitload of women in biology. Some test membrane proteins and others work on the kinematics of muscle movement. Feminist biology would round out the assumptions about sexuality that are generally more socially constructed.

If you don't want the reading assignment, I totally understand. But If you will indulge me in an analogy. Economics was developed within capitalism to describe the observable trends. Karl Marx used economics to describe observable trends but was accused of lens bias. Today, economists and lay people alike use a blend of marxist social theory and economic rationality. To have barred Marx from academic study is to have limited our understanding of the modern power systems. From Gandhi to MLK to the hipster radical dressed like a librarian in center city: the truth revealed by the different thinking of marx has sincere utility in how to understand the world. Marx didn't develop effective direct application of his theory, but the same can be argued over Keynes.

Edit:added a new idea

You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

© TheRedArchive 2024. All rights reserved.
created by /u/dream-hunter