The epidemic of sexual violence.
There has been a shift in the discourse, in spite of some really confused stragglers (let's just all look forward to the day when potential employers google him and see,
We turn our noses up at smokers and just made our campus tobacco-free. Yet, nothing is done about sexual assault, short of blaming the "attacker," a guy who was likely as drunk as his "victim." We do everything we can to mitigate the small risk of lung cancer, but nothing at all to mitigate the much greater risk of sexual assault.Speaking of the risk of sexual assault, a lot of us identify with this adventurer's story of the times she was not assaulted, even though she was--you know--out, living. The secondary effect of victim-blaming is an attempt to put women in "their" place. Leaving aside the obvious flaws in logic--not having a life is not going to keep you safe--we can't let anyone try to bully us into constraining our lives through the threat of violence.
Apparently, also shifting is the political discourse on birth control.
Especially in light of my ramble on poverty: see this obituary of Michael Katz, who changed the way (some) people thought about poverty.
In light of the same ramble, which touched on anti-science shaming of anyone who doesn't wholeheartedly embrace GMOs as the answer to food insecurity, see Raj Patel's take.
On anti-science shaming anyway, see this:
The diversity of public issues around science encompasses everything from global warming to GM crop to nuclear fusion. What hope do we have of providing citizens with an all-encompassing ‘toolkit’ that let’s them understand any scientific topic thrown at them? It’s not as if being a word-leading researcher studying the genetic basis of some chronic disease will make you fully understand the implication of geoengineering. This is why today it is public engagement, rather than some vague notion of scientific literacy, that is seen as our best hope to increase the public understanding of science issues.Or just remember the tale of Linus Pauling.
Elise Andrew (of IFLS) has an attribution problem.
The Times should be ashamed of itself for its sloppy reporting on the carb/fat study, even though they slightly corrected course later. See a much clearer description of the study here.
This star is crazy.
Wow, NYC really f*ed up post-Sandy reconstruction.
Brilliant, heartfelt, compassionate advice to women: no, there's nothing wrong with you... but by trying too hard to be the agreeable, low-maintenance one, dudes who aren't that interested can keep you around without incurring any consequences on themselves. So many of them will. This is what I mean about letting dudes do some of the work.
In the category of comments-more-worth-reading-than-the-post, I bring you:
Two must-see Daily Show videos (after the jump, so they don't automatically start):
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment