hbdchick a white supremacist

at least that’s what anonymous** says. not once, but twice. once i woulda taken as an interpretation, albeit an incorrect one. twice — well, then you’re just trying to cast aspersions. and my response to that?

f*ck off.

you wanna come ’round here and say — “hbdchick, your ideas are supremely stupid|wrong because of this, that and the other” — fine. you wanna come ’round here and say — “hbdchick, you are the dumbest creature to ever walk the planet because of this, that and the other” — i’m cool with that.

you gonna come ’round here with your giiiiirlie-man shaming techniques and try to bully me into shutting up by calling me nasty, nasty, baddy names — well, that sh*t ain’t gonna fly ’round here, pal, so don’t even bother.

anonymous’ problem with what i had to say (apart from the fact, i think, that he thinks that i was trying to insult east asians) is: “I do not see how you can examine history to look at biology.”

well, what is history? it’s the totality of human behaviors, plus freaky acts of nature like earthquakes and tsunamis and sh*t, isn’t it? and where do human behaviors come from? well, we behave the way we do because of our innate natures and the effects of the environment on those natures. so, human history is, at least partially, rooted in biology. that’s why i think you can examine history to look at biology. it’s complicated, sure, but so what? dontcha wanna KNOW?

**some people don’t like online anonymity. i think it’s the greatest f*cking thing since the invention of stone tools — or maybe even sliced bread! that people can voice their opinions without the fear of being watsoned? awesomesauce! i will fight to the death (or until i break a nail) for anonymous’ right to be anonymous, even tho he comes off sounding like a ‘tard.

(note: comments do not require an email.)

Advertisements

science bloggers are so mean!

science bloggers|blogging networks are waaaaycist sexist! (god-d*mm*t, is there nowhere safe from nasty, baddy-baddy people?!?!)

it’s true! there’s PROOF!

you see, some geek compiled a list and he (oh, the irony) found (on researchblogging.org):

– 505 boy science bloggers
– 160 grrl science bloggers
– 50 grrl+boy science blogs (nudge, nudge, wink, wink!)
– 43 sex unknowns (huh? wha?)

so, yeah, that’s like … what? … for every one grrl science blogger there’s something like three boy science bloggers. (the horror! the horror!)

from seed:

“In the aggregate, it seems clear that women are—whether actively or tacitly—discouraged from blogging about science.”

yeah. right. the explanation for the fewer numbers of grrl science bloggers MUST that someone ELSE is discouraging them. it’s probably (*gasp*) SEXISM! it HAS to be!! what ELSE could it be?!

oh – and all those boy science bloggers|boy-dominated science blogging networks|boy scientists are just such meanies (“mooooommmm! timmy’s not playing nice!”):

“Kathryn Clancy, an anthropologist at the University of Illinois, recalls her transition from staying out of the limelight, reading academic blogs, to reading blogs focusing solely on science—and writing her own blog. The academic blogs she had been reading were written primarily by women, and discussed career and personal issues along with science. The science-blogging world, by contrast, was dominated by male voices. She thinks this may lead to a hostile environment for women bloggers. Women worry a lot about being attacked and threatened online: ‘It’s not just a fear of these things, it’s that these things actually happen,’ Clancy says. ‘Women are attacked for taking a stand.‘”

*facepalm*

kathryn has obviously not spent a lot of time online. women are not attacked for taking a stand online — EVERYONE is attacked for taking a stand online! that is the nature of the internet. people say things pretty freely – things they wouldn’t necessarily say to someone’s face – ’cause (for the most part) they don’t have to worry about getting punched in the nose for their comments.*

kathryn oughta spend some time on some political blogs – even “mainstream” sites like the huffington post or breitbart’s big sites. take a look at some of the comments on those sites and see who gets “attacked for taking a stand.” or maybe she should try somewhere like (heh) 4chan or (snicker) gfy.com. or how about over @ roissy’s?! i mean, just LOOK at what the mostly GUY commenters say to OTHER GUY commenters over there!

THIS is the internet, like it or not. this is also the “world o’ guys.” most guys – especially most young guys – play rough. that’s what they do. (they’re vying for position in the hierachy, dontchaknow. it’s one big, ongoing game of “king of the hill” just without an actual hill.) so, if you set yourself up in competition with guys, don’t be surprised if they don’t play nice – unless they’re trying to get into your panties (god love ’em!). if you wanna burn your bras and leave the kids at home with the guatemalan nanny so you can go out and play with the boys, then you’re gonna have to learn to play rough (if you can).

the reality is: NO ONE IS STOPPING YOU FROM HAVING A BLOG!

let me repeat that in case you missed it.

NO ONE IS STOPPING YOU FROM HAVING A BLOG!

it takes a total of, oh, five minutes max to sign up with blogger or wordpress or some other blogging platform and voila! you are a blogger. any idiot can do it! (just look at me for a shining example!)**

granted you’re probably not going to become a wired science or discover magazine blogger overnight. but that’s not how it works. most of those bloggers had been blogging INDEPENDENTLY for absolutely ages before hitting the big time.

(btw. i loved the response of both wired and discover when they were asked why they don’t have more grrl science bloggers: “Discover Magazine and Wired said they simply chose the best available bloggers, without regard to gender or other factors.” good for them! i hope they stick to those policies. then i’ll know where to go to read the best available science bloggers!)

if you’re worried about being “attacked” online and would rather blog in a safe environment where you’ve got some moral support and backup, THEN BUILD YOUR OWN NETWORK. get a bunch of grrl scientists together and JUST DO IT! (note to self: seek trademark on catchy motivational phrase i just came up with.) no one is stopping you. really.

quit whining already. you sound like a bunch of girls. (oh, wait….)

update 09/28: dave munger (the guy who compiled the data re. the grrl vs. boy science bloggers and who wrote the article @ seed) tweets, “Yes. Apparently the Web is a war zone and anyone not prepared to engage should just stay away.”

well, that’s not what i said, and certainly not what i meant, although perhaps he misunderstood me when i said anyone who feels concerned about being attacked online ought to “BUILD YOUR OWN NETWORK.” i didn’t mean such people should build their own internet – i just meant that they might consider developing their own blogging network – you know, like how seed magazine has a science blogging network or discover magazine has a science blogging network. i thought a bunch o’ gals concerned about being attacked online but interested in science blogging could, you know, get together in a group so they could support each other. “safety in numbers.”

/clarification

*update 10/05: i said, “people say things pretty freely – things they wouldn’t necessarily say to someone’s face – ’cause (for the most part) they don’t have to worry about getting punched in the nose for their comments.”

sometimes, though, you do have to worry about someone taking a shot at you – and i don’t mean with a paintball gun (note that in this case it was a man being attacked by a woman):

“Woman Travels 200+ Miles to Kill Internet Commenter”

**update 10/26: @the nyt“‘My friends keep talking to me about how they want to start a Web site, but they need to get some backing, and I look at them and ask them what they are waiting for,’ Mr. Sicha said. ‘All it takes is some WordPress and a lot of typing. Sure, I went broke trying to start it, it trashed my life and I work all the time, but other than that, it wasn’t that hard to figure out.'”

update 01/05/11: see also they’re at it again and oh noes!

update 03/10/11: see also the hard sciences are soooo sexist!

(note: comments do not require an email)