Monday roundup

As I've been essentially grounded this weekend--I laid low to recover from oral surgery--I managed to catch up on all the tabs I opened over the last couple of months and hadn't gotten around to reading until now. So here we go, starting with the Middle East and moving onto science and then some Carolyn, with some other stuff sprinkled in between.

Two different but not conflicting perspectives on Saudi Arabia, and one on Iran in Syria.

Take North Korea seriously.

How many more elements could there be and how should we name them?


Don't buy anything with 'quantum' in the name.

What we now know about Pluto.

The meat industry doesn't want you to know how bad it is for the planet.

A conversation between garbage humans.

Jezebel rounds up the responses to the Times article and its own response on the sulking bachelors.

We've talked about this before, but it's worth repeating: when dudes demand "no drama," they're asking you to play the undesirable role of "the cool girl."

The same concept extends beyond romantic relationships:

If you can’t say what you really feel to a friend without fear of triggering a meltdown, then you can’t conduct the essential business of that friendship... Lies and stalling are low roads masquerading as courtesy.

Carolyn appears to know my mom.

Clearly she gains attention; behold her starring role in a drama where she’s the can-do gal in a family of slackers, incompetents and ingrates.

If instead your mother builds her sense of self from the rubble of everyone else’s... Mom (or anyone else) can’t meet your needs when her every word and deed is rigged toward feeding her own needs. Hoping or expecting otherwise from such self-focused people is the source of so much pain.

Love this:

Life kicks sand in all of our faces. The face full of sand (or the dune up to your earlobes) is an invitation to be a jerk, but not a license to be one.

 

No matter how constricting your situation looks, remember you still have choices, if not the ones you’d planned on having. You can choose to be wed to your diagnosis, or you can choose to be bigger than mere physical stuff. You have no choice about being in need, but you can choose not to be needy. No matter how reduced your circumstances, you still have a responsibility to be alive.

Halloween roundup

Laptop still acting up (maybe gone forever); blogging from the iPad.

By now, the regularity of toddler shootings is old news, as is this brilliant display of what's banned but not deadly .

On and from Svetlana Alexievich. also: love Marlon James.

When the default viewpoint is that male feelings take precedence over women's security.

On harassment in science.

If you really understand what I nonetheless appreciate to be a great explanation, more power to you.

I get not teaching kids gender roles but I'd tell this woman to chill the f* out.

How f*ed in the head do you have to be to ask cosmonauts how they'll manage without makeup.

An insightful set of perspectives about sex in the era of nobody cares.

I love, love this explanation of when it's controlling to make demands about your SO's appearance. Also love these two Ask Polly pieces (yes, I know I already linked to one) about being open about your needs and owning them (see also Modern Love). Actually, Tracey Stewart's profile speaks some to just saying no to people who don't accept you as-is, and to the ethics of eating animals.

The symbolism of Lisa's vegetarianism.

I never tweeted about my cat going down to the kebab shop; apparently I'm the only one.

Most vegetarians who eat meat aren't actually vegetarians.

Big Sunday roundup

Refugees face a harrowing journey to and through Europe.

Lebanon's governance crisis demonstrates that even people enured to dysfunction, are limited in what they can tolerate.

Also on governance: pair what's going right in Guatemala with the article I linked to earlier about how Brazil's instutions are keeping the country together.

Surprise! The company behind the Tianjin tragedy made money from endangering people by flouting regulations.

Egypt's prisons are horrible.

This is a great article about Russia and its but you can take the line about how "Hints, insinuations, and doublespeak are the weapons of the weak" as applying to both the personal and political (see last week's ramble). An excerpt (from the article, not the ramble):

Professor Barbara Geddes, a prominent researcher of authoritarian regimes, classifies Russia as a "personalist autocracy," as distinct from a single-party or military autocracy that exists elsewhere in the world...

Most personalist regimes are less durable than single-party dictatorships and more susceptible to economic and exogenous shocks, because a “heaven-sent leader" must continuously prove his ability to turn water into wine and multiply loaves of bread or fish. Any difficulties must be temporary in nature. Also, personalist regimes need to continually buy off their elites: when the rewards for loyalty run out, the ranks of supporters suddenly evaporate.

Replicability issues are not unique to the social sciences. Case in point.

I rarely agree with Gary Taubes, but it is a no-brainer that starvation is unsustainable. This is behind the misconceived interpretation of research--that weight loss doesn't work because people gain it back; they only gain it back if they were starved, because of course few people will starve themselves in the long run. This is not to say that sustainable, long-term lifestyle changes won't help people drop pounds.

Pair Dr. Nerdlove's wise words about boundaries--

• People who assume (or try to take) a greater level of intimacy than they actually have are creepy because they’re ignoring your boundaries.
• Respecting somebody’s boundaries, on the other hand, is a mark of respect as well as social calibration. It shows you that you value their comfort and respect their social, emotional and physical safety. 
• Once again, this is boundary-pushing behavior; by insisting that you are somehow “owed” something, you are saying that the other person does not have the right to decide their own actions or responses. If you already are demanding things of strangers – even something as relatively innocuous as a smile or a “hi” back – you’re establishing a precedent where you expect more of your desires to be reciprocated, regardless of whether the other person is interested or not. 

 --with all my RM posts and this piece about approaching women in public. And these pieces on rape culture.

Also on boundaries--in the sense that some people like to deliberately flout them as a power move--as well as other essential relationship skills that we value: you can bypass the need for them by going the sugar route. [This is an exceptionally well-written piece and I highly recommend that you read it in its entirety.] Some excerpts:

Drama, according to Thurston, includes taking your time to decide whether you want to have sex, having any motive beyond the one you stipulated up front (which was greed), and a presumption that you will be courted. No, sir, Thurston's courting days are over.

and

“A lot of them are very lonely and they don't have time to go through traditional dating because they're so successful. And they really don't have time to woo a woman or to like, you know, answer your phone calls.”

The other interesting thing about the article is the equivalence with housewife-ism (to counter the default equivalence with prostitution)--isn't it all on the same spectrum? I'd argue--without judging either of the three--that there is a difference: spouses with unequal incomes are each contributing in different ways to a shared goal; there's a relationship there, and the health of the relationship is something both parties have committed to sustaining. It's not transactional. This article makes it clear that, in sugar relationships, each party is in it for him/herself and wants no part in the work it would take to have a relationship. And there's nothing wrong with that, since the terms are clear; everyone knows what to reasonably expect.

PSA: existing with breasts =/= trying to distract with one's cleavage. Another PSA: do not clean your lady parts with lysol (or anything else). Remember what Doctor Gunter said: they're a self-cleaning oven.

This Times thing about narcissists reminds me of mom, although she's not quite as bad as any of these (or at least hasn't always been).

Serena Williams is amazing, but we knew that.

Mostly agree with the inadvertent coiner of 'Manic Pixie Dream Girl,' except I'd argue that Zoe Kazan brings it on herself (I've had the misfortune of watching two of her films--which she herself wrote--on planes). She revels in the MPDG, and thus is part of the problem.

Great video about actual vs. stereotypical vegans.

Meditation is good.

Stunning photos of bark.

Tweet Follow @rgbrb

Monday roundup

There's probably enough here for several theme-based posts... but let's stick with one for now.

Pakistan's water crisis has some roots in bad policy (doesn't every country's?).

Ukraine's impromptu aid workers risk their lives to save lives.

Two books about Russia today.

The First Crusade did, indeed, hit Jews hard. As that column says, religious violence rarely sticks to its intended victims; it likes to maximize its harm.

Nazi Nobelists and Einstein's Jewish science.
 

I can't even type this without getting angry: women scientists of color get mistaken for janitors.

 

Trying to hard to annoint the deserving poor and exclude the "undeserving" leads to screwing over the most vulnerable. Keep in mind that "welfare" is in the eye of the beholder.

People do change their minds (maybe just not right away). Also, even scientists are prone to tribalism when it comes to deciding what to believe.

Could everyone reveling in righteous indignation over the public health risks from antivaxxers please also find some rage for the threats--such as MRSA--from antibiotic resistance in pigs? It's an international threat.
 
Nasdaq is warning investors about the end of meat.

There've been many moving tributes to David Carr; Jelani Cobb's is beautiful. Heer Jeet's is informative.

Plant-based eating helps obese kids. Also: here are some polite responses to stupid vegan questions.

There can be value in unrequited love. And science.

Saccogate, the sequel, may deserve its own post but I don't want to deal with it. Adria Richards has come out accusing Jon Ronson of factual errors regarding her part of the story, and there's the larger overall issue of recentering. Ronson has an important case to make--and you do feel bad for one or two of his case studies, particularly the sign selfie girls--but by spinning the stories, he detracts focus from all that. That being, in this digital age, there's disproportionate punishment for what could be incidental transgressions. There's a mob mentality that relishes the takedown, and next thing you know, the instigator could be the next target. But spinning the offenses to make them seem like innocent mistakes--or just neglecting to explore the damage they inflict or the social context they stem from--takes away from that argument. He could say, "Sacco tweeted something stupid and offensive, here's why it's so offensive even if she didn't realize it" instead of "poor Sacco was misinterpreted." And the point has been made that's it's not the Internet that fired her, or any of those people; the internet merely amplified the transgressions. I maintain that we should forgive people for stupid tweets, statements, etc... but that only works when there's an honest apology.

 

Charles Blow points out that we're already having a conversation about race, and that we don't have to agree about everything to keep having it.

This Jezebel piece is so bad I almost don't want to link to it (read this instead). The irony is that the first piece rants about how uninteresting science is (while noting its importance), but the second, more sciency piece is much better written, more interesting, more compelling. In terms of content: remember when someone accused me of being on the payroll of big food (because I noted that science did not support the assertion that salt was unhealthy)?

Louisiana is getting back in touch with its French side.

This was painful to read. More sex don'ts here and here.

This isn't new, and Jennifer Weiner doesn't add much value to the conversation, but let's take this opportunity to note that we don't need products to fix us.

Big Saturday roundup

Boko Haram is horrendously violent.

I can't believe people are in denial about Christianity's violent history.

People in Ukraine are really hurting. Even people who are hurting, need art.

Somalia can't afford a loss of remittances.

Genital cutting is a horrible thing.

Livestock is sucking the west dry. Agriculture's impact on the climate.

Food security isn't just about growing more.

Measles kills, and it's heartbreaking.

Guatemala's child brides.

There is no perfect victim, but Cathy Young sure goes out of her way to discredit women.

Everyone heals in her own way.

Self-declared feminist man preys on women (and men). That story is horrible, and I'm not equating my own (non-violent) experience with it, but it does remind me of the vocally self-declared feminist man I dated years ago. He was manipulative and gas-lighting, and he was either uncomfortable with women on their own terms or thoroughly confused about what feminism meant.

Meet the face of the Men's Rights movement.

Who else betrays some very unflattering views about women? I could go on.

This village in India got its first fridge.

Your tax dollars at work: diagnosing Putin from a distance.

Rich people don't understand why Picasso's granddaughter has to go lowering the value of their collections to make money for charity.

The problem with McDonald's pay-with-love campaign (link to the cited Nation article here):

But at The Nation, Bryce Covert argues that the campaign’s problems go beyond its potential awkwardness. She calls the mandate that McDonald’s employees request “lovin’” from customers “a pretty blatant example of emotional labor: the requirement that a low-wage employee not just show up to work and adequately perform her duties, but that she put on a veneer of happiness and cheer for the customer to elicit an emotional response in him.” Emotional labor, she writes, “requires poorly paid people to slather a smile onto their face and cover up the real conditions under which they labor.”

And, she adds:
“McDonald’s has been one of the fast-food companies hit by massive, repeated waves of labor unrest by striking workers demanding better pay, the ability to form a union and an end to retaliation for their actions. Workers have been vocal about the fact that they and their families can’t survive on the money they make. But the company instead wants its customers to see employees who are genuinely delighted that a mother hugged her son in front of them.”

For Ms. Bachelder, the “lovin’” campaign embarrasses customers and maybe McDonald’s itself. In Ms. Covert’s formulation, it may do something worse: force McDonald’s workers to do more work for their already-low wages, and to pretend that they like it.

Whither general relativity?

Thought experiment: would you rather your kid grew up to be this man who walks walked miles to work, or Conrad Hilton III? 

You don't need more protein.

What kind of entitled jerk doesn't understand that kids aren't welcome at all weddings?

Which languages are hardest for native English speakers to learn?

The quotative like has gone mainstream.

Cats, and the Times is on it.

Saturday roundup (normal edition)

Nepal's child grooms' tough life.

For the gazillionth time: yes soy means deforestation, but that's mostly the soy animals eat, not the soy people eat.

Do what you will with this information, but the article has a very handy and reasonable take on what veganism is and isn't about.

Why does government research have to support animal torture?

It's silly to call vegan food "fake." Coconut milk and soy milk, for example, have always been called milks.

Cory Booker explains that plant-based eating shouldn't be considered subversive.

Factory farms continue to be the nightmare that keeps on giving.

As a child of Blockade survivors: I cannot overstate how f*ed up the concept of a 'Leningrad Blockade Diet' is. 

The haters can suck it; Picky Woman has found love.

Algorithms aren't everything.

Medical errors are significant.

Don't take medical advice from celebrities and certainly don't steam your genitalia.

Have you ever seen a small child try to crawl into a uterus? Are you confused when it's appropriate to refer to women as females?

Sadly, Tom Stoppard's latest appears to be disappointing, at least in the science department.

Why do we hate the sound of certain words?

 

This week has me thinking I've been unfair to Alexandra Petri; I've found her column to be a waste of space, or at least mostly so, but her take Obituaries for Men are brilliant (though you could also check out #myozobituary). Her other column this week was only a 50 percent waste of space; she made some excellent points, but could have made them in half as many words. So really, maybe it's just that her editor is falling down on the job. Because Petri really nails the leggings issue:

It is not your responsibility to protect men from themselves. Or to protect people from themselves. It is your responsibility to be yourself, as beautifully and fully as loudly as you wish. That should include being considerate, of course. That should include being polite, sure. It would be lunacy never to take anyone’s possible reaction into account. That’s the essence of politeness — making allowances for others. But you are not answerable for the thoughts and reactions of others. They are.

You are not here for their convenience.

That's it for this post... I need a whole other post for Chaitgate, and even then I'm not going to spend a lot of time on it.

 

Wednesday roundup

There's hope for the world's forests.

Egregious animal abuse at a dairy farm.

PETA's heart is in the right place but its tactics are not.

Twitter doesn't think rape or death threats constitute harassment. Some told Lindy West that it was just a joke, to which she replied,

It’s the kind of “joke” told by people who think rape is funny, who think rape is a punchline for them to wield for sport, who think the threat of sexual violence is a fitting punishment for mouthy women. It’s not a joke that skewers the atrocity of rape. It’s not a joke that somehow exists in a contextless vacuum, unrelated to the climate of dull, throbbing fear that circumscribes women’s lives. In fact, this “joke” is entirely dependent on the weight of the word “rape” and the sick flutter it stirs up in women’s chests. It says, “Quiet, sex thing.” It says, “Your humanity is illusory, it is conditional, it is ours to mete out as we please, and we can take it away if you don’t behave.”

Dudes, we were just talking about this: our style choices are not about you, and we've had it with the body-shaming. Yes, I know the other end has it tougher and may actually care, which I don't, but since someone bothered with 'You Did Not Eat That' or whatever, I'm gonna say it: I did eat that, I am a size (double) zero, and I will be frolicking on the beach in a bikini very soon, so suck it. Better yet, deal with your own body acceptance issues instead of attacking others.

If the headline concerning a study--or an inferred conclusion of the study itself--is too stupid to be true, it probably is. Here are some not-true things that went viral.

You don't need to take control of other people's circuses.

A relationship ends when one person isn't getting what he or she needs, and stops trying.

Satan doesn't care how old you are.

Fools Do Art may be my favorite thing, ever.

Massive Saturday roundup

Holy $hit, the torture report. And the political responses.

Why better policy needs data:

As scholars Dara Kay Cohen and Amelia Hoover Green argued in the Journal of Peace Research in 2012, such figures persist in part because there are incentives for advocacy groups to base their campaigns on dramatic claims. Assuming that a global public is ever more inured to tales of horror, it becomes tempting to choose the most shocking number over the most accurate one. This is not to say that advocacy groups maliciously distort known data, but to warn that the periodic fixation on extreme cases necessarily means that responses are less consistent than they could be, and may fail to address the social and conflict dynamics that lie beneath shock figures.
The challenge for policy professionals is identifying when sexual violence is being orchestrated for the purpose terror, and when it is a spontaneous criminal act. On the one hand, they must deal with gaps in data and the considerable complexity of sexual violence across diverse settings, and on the other, they cannot allow ongoing debates over that complexity to stand in the way of concrete action.
This tension between knowledge and action can in part be resolved by seeing reliable research not as a distraction from, but as in fact integral to, effective policy. Organizations — whether governmental, non-governmental, or inter-governmental — need to invest in knowledge.

It's been a big week for blaming victims, with Bob Jones University coming in worst, followed closely by Princeton Mom. Sexual assault isn't something anyone "deserves" in spite of what you may find even in literature (oh, when writers we admire disappoint). So yeah we can train women to be prepared with language, or we can move toward a yes-means-yes paradigm because the onus is not on them, not on 'no.'

Lena Dunham speaks out on speaking out. Patton Oswald on Bill Cosby.

Also--in reference to some of these comments--it's not up to any of us to tell victims how they should feel.

Ironic that we're talking about what is about ethics in journalism; fact-checking isn't optional.

That's also, as we know, an issue in science, and press releases matter.

Toronto man is arrested for banking while black.

In appreciation of Michel Du Cille.

The cromnibus is bad for food. Organic farming really does deliver, but the certification system is broken. Wheat is very sustainable.

A teacher is fired for speaking out about dairy.

Very few chickens are humanely raised.

This is a more interesting discussion than I have time to address right now, but I've written on these pages about how I don't love the labels vegetarian/vegan not because, as suggested in the article, some vegans are jerks (guess what: some omnivores are jerks, too) but because I choose not to define myself by the way I eat. There's a fine line between "I don't eat animal products" and "I'm a vegan," and it's the line between "this is what I do" and "this is what I am."

Also on atheists and vegetarians.

I'm not advocating baking with animal products, but here's some interesting science-of-baking info.

We're coming up on the year of the pulses.

The prof took it too far, but we should hold restaurants and other establishments more accountable for posted prices.

There's even more plastic in the oceans than you thought.

Note that people who suffer from kids on planes complain about the parents, not the kids. Probably these parents (but not the last one, who is awesome).

What do you call the DC-area airport in Virginia that does not suck.

Penguins with iPads (because they improve their sex lives!)

Saturday roundup

Helene Cooper's beautiful reflection on Liberia.

China's war on corruption is messy.

Factory farms are even worst than you thought, and so are antibiotics in meat. Worry about that, among other things, instead of ebola. And be angry that nobody's doing anything about it.

I love that Roxane Gay declined to write about Gaza because she didn't know a lot about it. It's not surprising that people kept asking her to. The most beautiful words in the English language may be "I don't know enough about this topic to have an informed opinion." You can (and should) still be horrified by violence and carnage, but leave the analysis to those who actually know enough for the analysis to be valuable.


What is settled science?

The Farm Bureau gets all pissy about living wages for farmers.

Speaking of douchebags... they're getting a lot of press these days. Not just the ones renting out apartments in the Halsteads of this world (like my ex-bf), but even more so the ones who feel entitled to women's time (like my ex-RM). And the ones who not only don't understand the difference between being friendly to women and cornering them, but don't seem to understand that the world that women inhabit doesn't lend itself to friendliness. Just like I wished (initially) that I could be nice to RM--but I couldn't, because he'd immediately take that as an opening for conversation that he made it very difficult to close, so I had no choice but to be cold--I wish we lived in a world where women could let their guard down in public. And it's adorable that (some) guys think that we do. Do read Lindy West's piece and see if it reminds you of RM at all:

I was sitting there thinking about how women’s time is treated like a public commodity (yes, I am available for wedding toasts and bar mitzvahs) when, coincidentally, another young blonde woman came and sat down in the same chair. And then a completely different annoying old dude plunked himself down and launched into – I am not joking – a 30-minute, condescending lecture about the history of sampling in popular music. It happened all over again. He wanted her attention, so he took it. Because there’s no law against talking to a pretty woman. And, again, she sat through it.

Why is it that interrupting someone in a quiet moment, wilfully oblivious to their verbal and physical cues, is considered friendly, but rebuffing such an interruption is considered rude? Interrupting is objectively worse than not wanting to be interrupted. We only get one life. Wasting someone’s time is the subtlest form of murder. So why do we let this bizarre inversion dictate so many of our interactions?

We were all wrong about Gamergate.

Growing up is about being foolish and getting drunk and making mistakes. Why are young women held to different standards?

Annie Lennox is confused about a lot of things.

Bonoir and Hax on body issues.

I'm so grateful that very few of my friends--maybe one or two--would ever be in an STFU-parents situation (especially this one). I went to the ballet with a friend who's a new parent the other night, and she hasn't changed a bit. She talked a little about her baby (of course, I asked her) but she was still fully capable of and interested in talking about other things.

Great, balanced advice about cooking oils (contrast to all-or-nothing nutrition advice).

Don't inadvertently give your kid a stripper name.

Did anybody celebrate Mole Day?

Cool science pictures!

OMG this kitty!

Saturday roundup

Israel's external enemies are the least of its concerns if it's going to cannibalize itself.

Painkillers can do more harm than good. But do people really grow out of addiction?

Personality and alzheimers.

Another great refugee farmer story.

Couple has to contend with racial injustice now that they are (inadvertently) raising a mixed-race child.

Meet an inadvertent ISIL Twitter star.

How is it okay to charge people for unknowingly out-of-network emergency services?

Are we getting to the point where we'll expect girls to wear burqas to school? Because women should be ashamed for having bodies, or, as the writer aptly said, "for being female and having the gall to put on clothing that suggested they were female."

Reddit does hit a new low, but at least the guy is transparent: sexual assault is about putting people (usually women) in their place.

As degrading as Eric Bolling's comment was from a military perspective, it was just plain awful from any perspective. Could we quit reducing women to any given body part?

Many seemingly progressive movements have a misogyny problem.

"I don't see what the problem is/you're too sensitive" is the wrong response (particularly when crassly put).

Women would do well to embrace our inner honey badger and not give a shit.

I can't believe Carolyn even has to say this, but I'm glad she does: The right response is often, "that is not remotely your business."

Just ewwww.

Fertilizer runoff is killing turtles, but let's keep pretending organics don't matter. Also, don't drink the "Monsanto is harmless" kool-aid. Farmers have to fight it off to save themselves. So, no, GMO labeling won't fix the food system, but it will give people more input in it.

What would really help: less meat, because that is one horrific industry, and it's killing the planet.

Ag-gag, implemented.

Scientists love to hate on Malcolm Gladwell and Dr. Oz (and they kind-of have a point, but, again, as the comments in the second article reveal, there's more to the GMO debate).

Not all scientists, know everything. Best quote from that article:

Being a smart physicist can just give you more elaborate ways to delude yourself and others, along with the arrogance to think you can do so without taking the time to really understand the subject you are discussing.

I didn't read in full so I won't take an overall position, but I agree that it's okay not to be a science, i.e., science isn't the only way to truth out there.

While I'm partially agreeing: sure, children may get too much parental devotion these days at their own expense and that of others, but I've never understood the concept of loving someone more.

Just say no to changing diapers where people are eating.

 Salt is eating our buildings.

Rarely do I take the side of the fashion industry over that of Susan Faludi, but I just disagree with her, and I love that Kate Moss persevered.

I've never cared much for the concept of authenticity in the realm of food. I just had some horrendous authentic Thai food earlier this week. Quality is much more important.

Parents who couldn't handle talking to their kids about sex, instead insisted on separating happily-in-love donkeys.

Monday roundup

Syrian refugees are marrying young, with consequences.

The justice system is stacked against survivors.

Canada warns its citizens about seizures by U.S. police.

You've heard by now about the "prostitute" detained by the LAPD.

Yes, hiring veterans isn't always a win-win (but no hiring is).

Wither Germany's big bet on renewables?

There's a term to describe when regulators are overly deferential to the industry they regulate: regulatory capture. It rarely ends well.

Mark Sanford is classy as ever.

Texas is all over academic integrity.

Vegans needn't let carnivores define us or put us on the defensive.


Have we already talked about the science of auroras?

It's about time women reclaim our mammary glands.


When a random man has an opinion about how you should carry your face.

When it takes having daughters to convince men to treat women as humans.

Thursday roundup

Perhaps you're following the #whyIstayed/#whyIleft hashtags; here's one illustrative story.

Frozen pizza learns its hashtag-crashing lesson, but a brick-and-mortar pizza place in Baltimore does it better. Also: is anyone surprised at the douchebaggery at Fox and Friends?

First of all, literary snobs are missing out; the "Harry Potter" books are excellent; they aren't in the same category as plastic butterfly clips (and yes, I write that with irony, since the reference to the books is merely an example of the writer's self-aware, misplaced judgmentalism). That aside, there's some interesting stuff in A.O. Scott's rambling thoughts on the decline of adulthood and/or patriarchy, to include thoughts on the "disaffected man-child":

As before, the rebellious animus of the disaffected man-child was directed not just against male authority but also against women. In Sandler’s early, funny movies, and in many others released under Apatow’s imprimatur, women are confined to narrowly archetypal roles. Nice mommies and patient wives are idealized; it’s a relief to get away from them and a comfort to know that they’ll take care of you when you return. Mean mommies and controlling wives are ridiculed and humiliated. Sexually assertive women are in need of being shamed and tamed. True contentment is only found with your friends, who are into porn and “Star Wars” and weed and video games and all the stuff that girls and parents just don’t understand.

A megachurch pastor on homeless penises.

All separatist eyes on Scotland.

Think twice before moving that capital.

Good ozone news.

Sleep and anxiety meds are even worse for you than previously known.

No, no, no! The biggest salad mistake is not adding fat to your salad; it's thinking that a salad without fat will sate you.

Massachusetts tackles food waste.

Fewer people are buying cereal.

This is all true but beside the point; it's not about hipsters and it's not about fear of technology. It's about corporate control of the food system. See: this awesome video on food security (if I can get the link to work).

How Big Food works in Australia.

There's a place for settled science and dismissing crackpots as such, but draw that line so that you're not just quashing legitimate differences.

Feeling stupid only means you're doing science right.

Science funding has to be sustained, i.e., not erratic.

Dean Burnett's warning labels for science journalism.

Things you don't need to worry about.

Arlington truly is soulless.

It's okay not to enjoy parenting.

Your kids may not be the geniuses you think they are.

On mindfulness.

Big Saturday roundup

Ebola's economic toll.

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.

Along those lines: here's exactly what you can do to guarantee your intimate photos won't be stolen. Another sign of more enlightened times: charities aren't taking money from the thieves.

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:

 Yesterday 2:31pm

Legitimate question (I think): if I think women are more attractive without makeup, does that make me sexist?

Yesterday 2:43pm

if you acknowledge that your boner is not law that's all good.

Two must-see Daily Show videos (after the jump, so they don't automatically start):

Tuesday roundup

A "culture of institutionalized sexism" enabled the systemic sexual assault of girls in Britain. The girls blamed themselves; one family left the country, after going to the police and being turned away because--you guessed it--it was the girl's own fault.

 

The hacking you've heard more about isn't hacking; it's sexual predation. For the gazillionth time, no one is entitled to women's bodies. Ever. 

 

Here's some hacking we can believe in (and here's some political shaming to believe in).

Revisionist history is a good thing when there's truth in revision.

 

Birds are better at quantum mechanics than you are.

How the sun works. And how Saturn's rings work.

You have every right to take pictures of yourself. For added protection, follow these steps.

Marion Nestle on the New Yorker Vandana Shiva piece.

Technology is not the answer to food security. The answer is, eat less meat and waste less food.

Employers are biased against parents.

Thursday morning roundup

Anti-semitism in Europe is getting more intense. Then there's Taiwan, or is that just cluelessness?

The new strategic deterrence.

Charles Blow on how to overcome our cowardliness in talking about race.

In good news: Dr. Kent Bradly has recovered!

A dark matter candidate other than WIMPs.

This is why they had to move the UFO from Long Island to Chicago.

Did you know that counterillumination was a thing? And that polarization isn't just for sunglasses?

Perfectly valid reasons not to vaccinate your kids (must read).

Thursday roundup

For Ferguson coverage, turn to Twitter. I haven't ready any full-length articles that get at the issues any better than the tweets do. I've been retweeting quite a bit, so check my timeline if you're not sure where to start.

Why arming Syria's rebels wouldn't have been the answer.

Koko mourns Robin Williams.

Speaking of spot-on tweets, one of the best I've seen with regard to Robin Williams' death was that depression isn't about the level of sadness, but about not being able to find joy. It reminded me of Jonathan Franzen's essay after David Foster Wallace's suicide (key excerpt on this blog, or search the New Yorker or follow the link within the link for the whole thing).

Two excellent pieces on outspoken former vegans. I don't agree with anything in either, but I've made the key point before: don't stop eating everything but air and then go write about how you felt better when you started eating meat again.

Okay, buddy, I don't disagree with your overall point, but I've got to call you out on some misinformation:

Agricultural production, too, is an area ripe for innovation. In most parts of the world, agricultural production accounts for a significant share of all water use. Short of asking humans to scale back on the amount of fruits and vegetables they consume, we are going to need new ways of farming and crops that aren’t as water-intensive or that take advantage of innovative new techniques for “agricultural water management.”

Fruits and vegetables are NOT THE PROBLEM. Do you know what the midwest mostly grows? Corn and soy (for animal feed, not for human consumption). These are important facts.


And two excellent pieces (well, one article, one comic) on the toll of harassment. I thought, as I was reading this and then another piece written by another survivor, how can anyone still not get it? Still not understand the space that women have to operate in? An excerpt:

There are plenty of things people do to rob women of their sexuality, though... There’s catcalling, which in essence is men making sexual demands of me without ever talking about consent, and reducing me to their sexual desire without ever asking or thinking about my sexuality or desire. The total goal, here, seems to be to make it so that women are empty sexual vessels, stripped of our own sexual identities and needs and wishes and fantasies, ready to give both our bodies and the way we think of ourselves over to what other people prescribe for us. They don’t want us to be less sexual, they want us to be less sexual in our own right.

There's a lot of sanctimony in this well-meaning essay, but there's more good than bad:

People silently struggle from all kinds of terrible things. They suffer from depression, ambition, substance abuse, and pretension. They suffer from family tragedy, Ivy-League educations, and self-loathing. They suffer from failing marriages, physical pain, and publishing. The good thing about politeness is that you can treat these people exactly the same. And then wait to see what happens. You don’t have to have an opinion. You don’t need to make a judgment. I know that doesn’t sound like liberation, because we live and work in an opinion-based economy. But it is. Not having an opinion means not having an obligation.

On a lighter note, "side boob," among other things, is in the OED.  So are "mansplain" and "douchebaggery."

Most of the stars you see are still there.

Kristof on the humanities.

Kale is still popular.

Thursday roundup

A poignant essay on having children in a f*ed up world.

A more comprehensive takedown of David Brooks' latest column (than the more basic one I wrote earlier).

I've always said, quantum mechanics makes my head hurt.

Here's some sloppy science writing: "Plasma" is undefined in the text, but defined in the video as ionized gas. Is that what plasma always is, because I don't think that that's how people refer to plasma in the son. Also, I don't think the solar system and the heliosphere are the same thing.

Scientists out of their field love to tell you that organics are pointless, but recent events indicate otherwise. Similarly, I'll answer this call to explain why "GMO denial" is different from anti-vaxxing: because vaccines are a known, proven solution to a real problem (i.e., disease). If the question is, "are GMOs harmful to one's health," than that's as useless a question as, "do organics have more nutrients." Those are narrow questions that don't get a t the actual issue. And global food insecurity is not a matter of more technology in agriculture.

The Supreme Court is backsliding on women's rights, even as other human rights issues move forward.

I cannot deny it: Maureen McDonnell evokes epic schadenfreude in me, even though she's so pathetic--as Robin Givhan bitingly points out--that she merits pity instead:

At the highest levels, the fashion industry produces much that is breathtakingly original, beautiful and inspiring. But it also churns out those products that serve far more crass purposes. They equate money with inherent value.  They offer a flimsy validation of self-worth. They exploit the superficial belief that power, ambition and success can be encapsulated by few rarefied brands that have — through cynical marketing and false scarcity — come to signify that one has arrived.

Read the whole column; it's spot-on.

I feel like I could write an entire post--and maybe I will, this weekend--about dudes who insist on doing things for you (even after you've asked them not to). I was recently talking to my WMF (search the blog if you care enough), and for whatever reason, BE came up. I was somewhat surprised at even her reaction ("and then you owed him something"); um, no, I didn't. I don't owe anybody anything, much less for continuing to do things I've explicitly asked them to stop doing, even if they're generous things on the surface. It's called, boundaries. I stood up to BE the way I stood up to RM; I wasn't about to let either of them bully me into friendship or more. But WMF also said, "ah, you friendzoned him." What?? I mean, I declined to date him. Because I had no feelings for him and knew I never would, and because he annoyed me. Why does refusing to date someone--a perfectly normal thing to do--get its own derogatory name? 

Anyway, thinking about BE--a serial mansplainer--reminded me of when he tried to mansplain me to me. This isn't the first time a dude has done this, and it's even more egregious than mansplaining something tangible (even if you know more about it). I.e., BE would try to mansplain to me the issue I work on (and he wasn't the only one). Anyway, BE once mansplained to me that I was attractive, but that my sense of democracy prevented me from acknowledging it. The only possible translation of that is, "you're not as much of a bitch as you might be, given how attractive you are, because you don't look down on ugly people." More accurately, I don't believe in the concept of ugly people, except in the proverbial sense.

But this speaks to a bigger issue: we're--to paraphrase Eric Holder--cowards in how we talk about attractiveness. So much so that we judge people who handle it better (I keep telling you guys that Russians don't have this hangup). 

Smile! Because dudes you don't give a $hit about think you should.

I was not so lucky as this woman (before she was ever on the receiving end of an obscene selfie), but I'm glad I didn't have to assess so many of them.

Parents: it's wonderful that you think your babies are adorable, but nobody else should have to deal with their $hit (literally). Seriously.

Sunday roundup

On the cold chain and food waste.

What if scientists had Twitter earlier on?

George Ellis on philosophy in science (or lack thereof):

The belief that all of reality can be fully comprehended in terms of physics and the equations of physics is a fantasy. As pointed out so well by Eddington in his Gifford lectures, they are partial and incomplete representations of physical, biological, psychological, and social reality.

It’s very ironic when [Lawrence Krauss] says philosophy is bunk and then himself engages in this kind of attempt at philosophy...

If [Krauss, Stephen Hawking and Neil deGrasse Tyson] really believe [that philosopy is a waste of time,] they should stop indulging in low-grade philosophy in their own writings. You cannot do physics or cosmology without an assumed philosophical basis. You can choose not to think about that basis: it will still be there as an unexamined foundation of what you do. The fact you are unwilling to examine the philosophical foundations of what you do does not mean those foundations are not there; it just means they are unexamined.

I recommend reading the whole interview.

In the interest of remaining above internet name-calling, I'm going to edit an earlier post in which I'd referred to Ash Jogalekar as a moron. Because he actually read and responded to my comment about him, but not because the content of his response--which was basically, "who the f* are you?"--does him any favors. Nonetheless, I didn't intend a personal attack, and I don't need to pile it on (goodness knows his silly Feynman column invited enough critique on its merits). I maintain, for what it's worth, that I never got much out of his rambling columns--to each her own--and I take his point that he's not impressed with whatever he's seen on my blog. Let's agree to be unimpressed with one another's work without name-calling.

As always, Carolyn nails it on boundaries:

There’s nothing wrong with your boundaries... you just need to accept that people won’t always respect them, receive them warmly or allow you to set them without consequences. That’s just part of the deal with boundaries, and the boundary-crossing people who inspire them.

Raise kinder kids.

This is a sort of flip-side to the non-white feminism question (or, more precisely, exclusion of WOC from whatever 'mainstream' feminism is). These movements--human rights movements--needn't, shouldn't be mutually exclusive or even at odds.

I have little to add to the responses to Lauren of Apples; I'd like to echo/elaborate on two aspects of the response I've linked to: I wish for her to love her body and also to know that her marriage is stronger than other women's mammary glands. And that the insecurity that is causing the problems is internally driven and can't be helped by anything on the outside. It's just self-defeating to be threatened by women. 

Ooh, Jonathan Yardley reviews Alan Connor's new book on crosswords.