Jump to content

TerraPrime

Board Moderators
  • Content count

    20,044
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About TerraPrime

  • Rank
    Owner of A Ravenous Parting of Unspeakable Sins

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Middle of Illinois, USA

Previous Fields

  • Name
    TerraPrime

Recent Profile Visitors

12,979 profile views
  1. This is the part of advising that gets a little dicy for me. I value people's agency and self-determination. So I really do respect your decision to go on with this ambiguously half-satisfying non-committed pseudo relationship, if that's your pick. At the same time, what Kelli said. And, just for compare and contrast: My husband and I are very independent. We speak less than 3 sentences to each other most evenings. He'd go see movies I don't care about, and vice versa, and then we would go to see movies we both like. So the point is that relationships do not have a fixed quantity of inter-mixing. It's as much or as little as you two want, and are happy about. Granted, when you love someone, you'd naturally want to spend time with them. And I do want to spend time with my husband, just not in a way that makes us always do things together as a couple. It's okay that he likes to watch B-horror movies from the 50s while I play online games, and it's okay that he goes to brunch with a group of people while I sleep in on Saturdays, etc. Giving each other space is an important reason why our relationship works for us. So if you were feeling suffocated while in a functional relationship, I just want to make the point that being emotionally supportive doesn't have to _also_ mean suffocating.
  2. I agree with the marvelous Kelli. Except I would probably use a less harsh set of speech. Because I am more wimpy lol. Though, seriously, Min. I get that you see clearly why you're crushing on him and why that's a comfortably dysfunctional thing to do. I think I get it, at least. But maybe, the question to ask, is when are you ready to move away from enjoying dysfunctional relationships at all. And I use the word "enjoying" in the sense that you're taking preference to avoidance of non-dysfunctional relations here, not that you're necessarily having a good time. Yeah, you like the will-we-won't-we tension, but I am not hearing from you confession of emotional support and sustenance that we typically want from relationships. This work dude is an emotional vampire. He lives off of the infatuation and crushes that he cultivates in his marks. He'll reciprocate your affection only as a way to keep you tethered to him. He expects dedication and loyalty while offering none in return. On one hand, if you see clearly through this and just want to "enjoy" it for what it is worth, then great. On the other hand, "enjoying" this type of interaction isn't a sign of healthy emotional wellbeing. You're a great person - intelligent, witty, compassionate, talented, attractive. It'd be a shame if you just settle for rotting table scraps like this work dude.
  3. TerraPrime

    Feminism - Post-apocalypse version

    At least they didn't just stop after #1. Hurray for small advances. Maybe?
  4. TerraPrime

    Feminism - Post-apocalypse version

    Sorry if it's a bit off topic, but regarding the lack of follow-up of research: it's usually not the case that the researchers lost interest. Rather, it's the money. For most countries, the government agencies control the RD funding. So if they don't fund something, then it doesn't get done. Most researchers actually want to follow up and dig deeper into a topic because they already have the background and they have the resources set up. But if you can't secure the funding then... :-(
  5. TerraPrime

    Feminism - Post-apocalypse version

    There's a lot of truth to that. Here's an example that pops into my head: kilts. It's still very nerdy and off-the-mainstream but there are guys who are kilt advocates now. So, that's one area of dress code that's being worked on. Is it a good thing? Because this is explicitly about being okay with wearing a "skirt" because it's NOT A SKIRT. Even though it totally is one. But we brand it as masculine (culture and tradition help), and so it's more okay for a man to wear a kilt than it is for him to wear a skirt. Also, thinking historically, women wearing pants was indeed a socially scandalous thing for quite a while. To this day we have conservative religious groups that forbid women wearing pants. So maybe, in that context, the situation isn't as dire? Just spitballing here.
  6. TerraPrime

    Feminism - Post-apocalypse version

    Acceptance of femininity in men is a really difficult topic to unpack. I don't know if anything can be done that will make any headway if it's not coming from cis heterosexual men. They are the ones who need to change because they are the ones most impacted. Any and all changes need to be embraced by them. I don't deliberately go look for them, but I also haven't come across any sort of credible group of male writers on femininity in men, either. I am rather dourly pessimistic at the whole prospect of finally reaching parity in valuing both masculinity and femininity. This is not to say that I don't think it's worthwhile - it absolutely is. But I am just highly pessimistic on this issue.
  7. TerraPrime

    Feminism - Post-apocalypse version

    I am sure someone more intelligent has already coined the term and defined it, but it is something you see in almost all movements. Like in the gay movement, the "mainstream" gays look down on the fem bois, the drag queens, the butch dykes, and they are blamed for the hostility of the straight people against us. They would say "we would be treated more equally if it weren't for you freaks," all the while ignoring that there would be no movement to speak of without those "freaks." Similarly in feminism, if there weren't angry women upset at the unfairness, there'd be no galvanizing force to organize around. It is so much bullshit to turn around and blame them for, essentially, contributing to the difficulty. The bottom line is that backlashes and anger from the dominant cultural group is not a sign of failure. It is a sign of success. When they are pissed and angry, that means we're doing something right. No social justice has ever been earned by being polite. So, all of this is to say that when we encounter those things, let's just adopt a "fuck'em" attitude. :-)
  8. TerraPrime

    Feminism - Post-apocalypse version

    [mod hat] Derailment obliterated. Please continue with discussions that are actually useful. [/mod hat]
  9. TerraPrime

    Feminism - Post-apocalypse version

    Ahahahaha. One of those. Fortunately, on my campus we only have fuckwit admins who are clueless about diversity and inclusion pretending to be experts on it, and my faculty colleagues are all pretty kickass.
  10. TerraPrime

    Feminism - Post-apocalypse version

    Re: Lily I recommend your first entry to the topic be the book called "Whistling Vivaldi." It is a book written by the researcher who pioneered the study on stereotype threat. The book is intended for general audience so it's easier to digest than following the paper trail yourself. It's a good starting point. To distill karadin's explanation further, if you're a woman taking a math test, and if during or before the test, you are reminded of your status as a woman, and/or that women in general do more poorly at math, then your performance will be suppressed. This means that sometimes, well-intended prompts can actually backfire. As for classroom interactions, there are so many variables to account for that it is very daunting to set up the "ideal." I think you're already doing a lot to address the issue, so the following is just sort of my brainstorming, not meant in any way to imply that you're somehow deficient in your classroom. ;-) Assuming that the ratio is a bit lop-sided in your physics classes, I think directed group-membership like you're doing is critical. Try to even out the groups so that female students aren't segregated away. I would also suggest providing structure to talk about cooperation and collaboration. Shockingly, most college students don't know how to collaborate. I do assign group projects, and so I spend half a lecture talking about productive team work, and offering them guidelines on how to get the most out of collaborations. This way, I forestall most of the calamities of group work. When the group doesn't function well, I can easily see resentment being built up, and race, gender, and national origins are easy fault lines to absorb those types of resentment. In other words, if a group performs well, your students will be more likely to walk away with a positive view of working with a minority member. If the group doesn't perform well, then the white/male students will find it easy to blame the black student, the female student, the foreign student. So, I think fostering productive group work is a proactive step to enhance people's appreciation of diversity. Another thing I try to do is to not be afraid to talk about minority issues in science openly in class. I think it models a behavior where we are not politely ignoring a problem for fear of stepping out of line. I think sometimes, some professors veer too strongly away from the possibility of being perceived to be a leftist indoctrinating their students. This means that they avoid talking about diversity and inclusiveness even when the time and opportunity are right. In my discipline, there are so many historical examples that I can use to talk about gender and science, and I pick them when the time is right. For instance, I talk about Rosalind Franklin and Barbara McClintock, not just for their scientific achievement, but also the ways in which their sex led their work to be sidelined. I also talk about the sexist remarks from Watson and why that's not helpful. Finally, if your campus has a group that promotes diversity and inclusiveness, I'd recommend being a part of it if you're not already. There are 3 different groups on my campus that work on diversity issues and I am on one of them. It's good to be amongst friends sometimes, like in this thread, where you are not constantly defending your premise and you can actually work out remedies. Re: karadin That's an interesting bit of new info on erasing negative associations. I can see how you can operationalize it into an experimental design. Hope you can develop the idea into a thesis! :-)
  11. TerraPrime

    Feminism - Post-apocalypse version

    It is a fascinating phenomenon. The part that bothers me about it is that they don't have a good framework to explain it, yet, imo. The explanation is still heavily hand-waving at this stage. My exposure to it is from "Whistling Vivaldi." I did follow up on about half a dozen of the original research articles cited, but I didn't look further to discover any dissenting views. Now that I read your comment, I am wondering how that maps onto the trans experience. Is that where you're thinking of going with your thesis? I think it's very interesting. :-)
  12. TerraPrime

    Feminism - Post-apocalypse version

    That whole LBGTQ part is off topic here, but I encourage you to bring it to the LBGTQ thread. The short form is that there are queer and trans people participating in this thread and sharing our experience. Over in LBGTQ thread, there isn't an orthodoxy on "born this way." I diligently refute it every time anyone posts it. So, what you're seeing as the discourse on this issue seems like a pretty narrow slice of what's going on in the LBGTQ community at large.
  13. TerraPrime

    Feminism - Post-apocalypse version

    The thesis is that gender is culture-specific, and so, in its genesis, gender is a construct imposed and enforced by culture and customs. Since we all live in one culture or another, we are all susceptible to that influence. So in order for someone to not have been influenced by culture, they'd have to be uber-special to escape its grasp. It is entirely possible that for many (most?) women, they are "naturally" (however you define it) nurturing, BUT it is indisputable that women, as a group, are socialized to be nurturing, as well. How could you tell that a woman's nurturing traits are all "natural" and none of it was from cultural enforcement? Second, while sex hormones do have an impact on neural development, I am not aware of evidence saying that one type of hormone level biologically predisposes one to be nurturing. That said, I also don't think all humans are complete blank slates, identically void of predispositions or predetermined traits. The mere existence of trans* people will dispute this idea. However, this doesn't then follow that the traits that our cultures choose to assign for each gender are rooted in biological determinism.
  14. TerraPrime

    Feminism - Post-apocalypse version

    Parenting skills are learned. When you see young girls pushed/enticed into playing "keep house" and "tea party" while boys are shoehorned into playing "cowboys and indians," you're witnessing socialization by gender in action. When girls pick up a doll, they are practicing care-giving. When boys are denied the freedom to play with dolls in similar ways, they are being denied the chance to learn that skill. When young girls are more entrusted with baby sitting than young boys, we are socializing one gender differently than we do another. When young girls are taught house work more often than young boys are, we are socializing one gender differently than we do another. So when you tell me that your mom is better at parenting, I say, of course she is. She either has a knack of it, and/or she's really benefited from all the social training. Your dad, on the other hand, probably never had the same chances to develop his parenting skills. Maybe, in part, it's because he didn't feel he could afford it by spending more time at home at the expense of career advancement? Which, you know, circles back to the issue. And this is not a litany of complaint against the evils of men. Men suffer in these cases, too. I have mentored 3 graduate students, all male. In all cases, they were clueless on basic survival skills like ironing your shirt or putting together an outfit for a professional setting. Are there women who are deficient in these skills, yes. But I suspect (no data here) that proportionately, there are more men who are lacking in housekeeping skills. This is not an advantage, if you measure successful adulthood with self-sufficiency. Socialization based on gender roles harms both sexes. Re: Hereward LoL Thank you. If I could say that phrase while riding a tracker, I would. For you.
  15. TerraPrime

    Feminism - Post-apocalypse version

    Yes, we do make these decisions for ourselves. But let's not pretend that the rubrics we use to reach those decisions are free of cultural biases, social pressures, or internalized gender norms. Culturally, "what is best for women, men, and child" has a funny way of becoming "what's best for the men, first." To use the child-rearing example here, interviews of mothers who work full-time jobs showed that they have a much better chance at equitable sharing of child-rearing duties if the couple explicitly talk about it and negotiate the limits. If certain things aren't explicitly negotiated, then it tends to default to the women. For instance, a couple may negotiate who's taking the kids into daycare, and obtain an equitable workshare. But if there's no discussion on who will take care of the contacts with pediatricians, then in that same couple, it tends to default onto the woman's shoulders, regardless of her career workload. As for monetary/financial incentives in family decisions - I think that's begging the question. I think the core of the discussion, least to me, is the ways, both clear and opaque, in which women's career choices are penalized financially vis a vis men's career choices. Then, on the flip side, how men's decisions on family are penalized. So, to me, saying the economic incentive is a key factor is not really shedding insight, because that's precisely the question I am interested in - why is there a disparity in economic incentive in the first place.
×