79 thoughts on “Signs Of Progress

  1. Jonickal

    The great thing about science is that it doesn’t care if you’re right or wrong because it’s always right.

  2. Clampers Outside!

    Hijacked nonsense…. science me hoop! Just more regressive left nonsense…. http://acsh.org/news/2017/02/02/why-scientist-wont-be-attending-science-march-10811

    More on the nonsense….
    https://twitter.com/i/moments/826577845929381888

    Apparently “intersectionality” is a science… or so say the social science-ists because like… subjectivity is the new objectivity…. roight… because “science without intersectional feminism is white supremacy”
    https://twitter.com/makerspaceu/status/825226180676681729

    I think Jonathan Haidt put it well…. https://twitter.com/JonHaidt/status/825893391787520000

    As did Steven Pinker… https://twitter.com/sapinker/status/825769152627482624

    Science march me hoop !
    More fuppin’ regressive left nonsense is what it is.

        1. edalicious

          Why does it annoy you so much that scientists in the US are trying to address the underrepresentation of women and minorities in STEM fields? Surely that’s a good thing, no?

          1. Clampers Outside!

            Because that was not the original intention, and scientists have said feck this… they’ve changed the march to an identity politics parade.

            If you look at STEM and what feminism is doing to the subjects at college level, it’s a joke. Young men, and women, who have paid a fortune to study science like physics are now having to spend part of their degree learning about the social history of physics, and the gender implications of physics, and other bull**** accusations from the non-scientific heads in feminism who come out with claptrap like ‘astrology is sexist’ or ‘astronomy is sexist’ or my absolute facepalming favourite….
            ‘Science Is Sexist Because It Is Not Subjective’
            http://thefederalist.com/2016/09/29/feminist-phd-candidate-science-sexist-not-subjective/

            There are more….

            https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2016/08/17/are-the-constellations-sexist-the-atlantic-goes-the-way-of-salon-grania-responds/

            http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2014/11/17/casual_sexism_when_a_shirt_is_more_than_a_shirt.html

            http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/mythic-misogyny-feminist-writer-claims-astronomy-is-sexist/article/2599440

            I have no problem with women in science. So please do not make it out that I do by su7ggesting I made any such claim when you ask “Why does it annoy you…”.

            Please, if you are going to reply, please address what I said and not what you desire for me to have said.

          2. mildred st. meadowlark

            Apologies to Clamps, but I think he has a *serious* chip on his shoulder about women. He may defend this but as his comments begin to resemble something akin obsessive ramblings, sarcastic rants and at times, outright spite towards women, it’s harder to give them any kind of credence.

            I think it’s quite sad, as I always thought of Clamps as someone who was very good at seeing both sides of any argument and very good at respecting any opposing p.o.v. But increasingly it just seems that he’s resorting to shouty shjt-throwing comments.

            Now he is not the only one guilty of this (Nigel, I’m looking at you) but his… insistence at discrediting anything done by feminists, or indeed women, to highlight women’s issues is frankly tiresome now and screams of someone who just doesn’t like women.

            Whether or not any of this is true, or simply my own conjecture remains to be seen, but, to me, that’s what it’s looking like.

          3. Tony

            +1 @ Mildred

            Where is cheesy nice guy Clamps?

            Who is this poisonous lady hatin’ trapdoor spider lashing out of his manhole any time women are mentioned?

            Creepy as fupp

          4. Clampers Outside!

            I can see both. I don’t think most others make an effort. I do try.

            You say this is what you see… “insistence at discrediting anything done by feminists, or indeed women, to highlight women’s issues is frankly tiresome now and screams of someone who just doesn’t like women.”

            I say this is what I’ve done…. I have only ever discredit genuine lies by feminists. Mostly around their role in domestic violence research and the suppression of the truth around domestic violence perpetration; and rallied against the feminist ideological theory of patriarchy that informs The Duluth Model of DV intervention (still in use today) that teaches that ONLY women are victims and ONLY men are perpetrators.
            ( I leave this here – http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4200704/Ex-wife-stabbed-tried-disembowel-former-husband.html )

            I don’t blame you for seeing more than I’ve actually said or done. It is to be expected. It’s pretty normal for people to see things worse than they are when a thing that they have believed in for so long was believed to be a thing solely for good…. but the truth is coming out, it has many, many failings and perpetuated falsehoods based on spurious ‘research’, and feminism’s massive failings and lies are being brought to light – I’ve been down this route a few times.

            Dissing on the problem sides of feminism does not mean I am anti-woman. That’s ridiculous considering there are more women not feminist than are feminist.
            Women are well cool. Feminists, the hardcore ideologues of the movement, are not at all cool. They are closed minded hate mongers.

            I believe you are seeing things worse than they are.

            Remember that one can be an equity feminist and be egalitarian.

          5. Starina

            the daily mail? really?

            you’re like hateful clockwork, clamps. several keywords always appear, no matter the context of the post as long as women are involved: “virtue signalling” “duluth model” and DV. again, i’m really sorry you’ve experienced dv yourself and didn’t get the assistane you needed but your bile-filled hatred of women is worrying.

          6. mildred st. meadowlark

            “It’s pretty normal for people to see things worse than they are when a thing that they have believed in for so long was believed to be a thing solely for good…”

            Do you realise how condescending you sound? Clamps, until you’ve experienced the daily double standards and hypocrisy of a male-oriented society, as a woman, its very easy for you to say this. When you experience it every effing day, when it becomes so normalised, that this is the response when the shift in status quo occurs, it’s galling. I don’t think I do see it worse, because I actually understand the failings of modern feminism, and I’d be critical of much of it, but what you are doing is not that.

            If you were coherently critical, and invested meaningful, empathetic thought into your criticisms then yes, your points might not resemble hysterical finger-pointing.

            The issue is that there has historically always been assigned gender roles in society, and society does nothing but reinforce them, unless there is an active effort to affect change. And it is happening now. But we’re human, prone to error and excesses, so it’s not going to just run smoothly. We’ve an inclination to sort of rush from one extreme to another. It takes time for change to settle into something more moderate.

            I think also, the majority of women are feminists, just not extreme shouty nutjobs. It’s supreme arrogance to say that most women are not. Show me a woman who does not want better for her daughter. I am lucky that my child will grow up in a time where if she chooses to be a builder or engineer, she won’t be told that its not really a ‘girls job’. I want my daughter to have the freedom to make decisions about her own body without being told she broke the law. And being a feminist is part of that.

            Furthermore, most women I know want equality. They want men and women to be equal, and are aware that it is something that works both ways. We have huge steps to go, when you consider how society will favour women over men (eg, family courts, paternity law etc), and moat women see that, and support it. I’d consider myself to be the biggest type of hypocrite if I did not support the promotion of equality for men, as well as women.

          7. Clampers Outside!

            Wow Starina…. your delusion knows no bounds when you point to my persistence in exposing the “duluth model” as if it were nothing….

            It most definitely is of extreme and deathly importance. Your off handedness only shows you have no idea of the destructive nature of the Duluth Model.

            Sorry Starina, but your beloved feminist movement is engaged with oppression through the Duluth Model. And, if I were to use the “Intersectionality theory” it would point to the fact that feminism operates as an oppressor by maintaining systematically through govt and positions of power in the field of DV when it applies the Duluth Model to DV intervention.

            Your pathetic denial shows you up to be either completely ignorant of the truth behind the Duluth Model, or worse willfully ignorant of its’ gravity.

            I know the feminist movement is certianly not ignorant of the harm it does, and it campaigns to maintain the model.
            Not only that but feminist such as SAFEIreland invite radical feminists to DV conferences to speak about how statistics on male victims is “dangerous” to their movement…. Go away Starina… you’re creepy now in your denials.

            That creepiness really shows in this…
            “again, i’m really sorry you’ve experienced dv yourself and didn’t get the assistane you needed but your bile-filled hatred of women is worrying.”

            ” again, i’m really sorry you’ve experienced dv yourself ” – You are in your Barney. As faux as it gets that.

            ” and didn’t get the assistane you needed ” – I did Star, thanks. That’s why I’m still here. The faux sincerity out of you comes as thick as treacle.

            ” your bile-filled hatred of women is worrying.” – Again with the accusations. I have never attacked a woman on here for being a women. Not anyone for being who they are. I have attacked ideas. Bad ideas, hate filled ideas that the general public gets sold as truth when clearly not the case (such as: rape culture / only men are DV perpetrators). Feminism, is often seen, just like the old days when everyone in the parish took the look priest at his word… feminism often seen in a similar light and I like to puncture that. That’s not mysoginy, and if you think it is, then you are indoctrinated into the modern feminist thread of hate theory.

            And for doing that…. you call me names and take an ad hominem and make assertions that I hate women but whenever asked to give an example, you are never able to give a specific example, because there are none.

            If you want to know about when feminism meant something, check out Freedom Feminism by CHSommers; and then read Who Stole Feminism by the same author to find out where it all went wrong.

            You don’t like me fine. And I don’t like your accusations that are without any basis. Give examples please, or stop the accusations.

          8. Starina

            i’m not saying there’s not problems with the duluth model – as a former dvsas volunteer i fully support providing those services to men as well as women – but what i’m saying is you’re obsessed.
            i didn’t call you any names. you’re calling me creepy in revenge because Tony said you’re creepy in his comment above.
            i was being perfectly genuine, it’s your choice to interpret it as fakery. like why would i bother being fake nice, yo.
            and i agree with mildred, wanting better for your daughter IS feminism. it is you that wants to paint feminism as wholly militant misandry.

          9. Clampers Outside!

            ” “It’s pretty normal for people to see things worse than they are when a thing that they have believed in for so long was believed to be a thing solely for good…” Do you realise how condescending you sound? ”

            Sorry Mildred, but that is a perfectly normal way for that which has been described to be viewed by the person who holds the views dear that are being exposed.
            It’s normal human reaction. It’s not condescending. Please don’t personalise this in that way, it was not my intention to do so.

            Other than that… practically all of that comment I would be in agreement with accept for this assumption as given in your comment…
            ” Show me a woman who does not want better for her daughter. ” – this does not make a woman a feminist. This makes her a good and loving parent who wants better for their child.

          10. mildred st. meadowlark

            I think you missed the point I was trying to make re women and their daughter’s.

            If all women and all girls had the same chances and opportunities, the same choices and options (and to be fair, there has been massive steps in that direction), I would say yes, you’re quite right. I’d just be a loving parent wishing the best in life for my child.

            But what I, and most other women, want is for my daughter to be told that she will have all the same choices and chances, that her body is hers to do with what she will, that she will not suffer discrimination in work because of her sex. I will fight for her to have that.

            Similarly, I’d fight for my son to have an equal right to his children, for society to accept him if he cries, for him not be discriminated against as a man, and I’ll call myself a feminist doing it, because that is what it actually means to be a feminist.

            Wanting all of us, regardless of sex, shape, creed or colour to be seen as we are, and be equal.

            Its a literal pipe dream.

    1. Nigel

      Hm, are you saying that the scientific community who engage in the march are guilty-by-association if people who are concerned with issues like intersectionality also take part? What exactly are they guilty of? Are are you having hysterics about this to avoid talking about the anti-science of the Trump administration, which this is about?

      By the way, most of your links express distaste for intersectionality (which I don’t pretend to have anything other than superficial knowledge of) as an issue without explaining why it is wrong for people to be concerned with racism or sexism or other issues within the scientific community. Nobody claims it is a ‘hard’ science that I can see, and nobody really explains why it is ‘anti-science’ from the other side that I can see, either. It’s just important to one side and icky to the other, and to you it’s the most important defining aspect of the whole thing, rather than, say, the fate of the EPA, anti-vaxxers in the administration or US policy on climate change.

      To sum up, the guy who got so mad at Starina earlier over that golfing photo, but who screamed about the Sharia law thing at the women’s march, is now insisting that this march is discredited by the intersectionality thing. Don’t tell me you ain’t alt-right.

      1. Clampers Outside!

        The march was discredited by Steven Pinker and Jonathan Haidt to name two prominent academics.
        So, yes, it is ‘discredited’ to some degree Nigel. And many got the chance to know this info before hand and so did not march.

        The problem Nigel is that ‘intersectionality’ is NOT a science of any kind, regardless of whether anyone claims it (which would be funny) a “hard” science or not. It’s just not a ‘science’….. jaysus wept, grasp the basics please.

        It’s not ‘icky’ …it’s simply just NOT science Nigel.
        You don’t know what it is, by your own admission, but you’ll argue it is science… WTF kinda nonsense bullspeak is that Nigel.

        Those that took over the march idea, say it IS a science, most of whom are not actual scientists… but humanities and social “science” profs and what not.

        It is not science.

        – – – –
        On the Starina comparison… “To sum up”, your comparison of the two marches makes no sense. Scientists who didn’t want to march got advance warning that the ‘science’ of the march was tainted with hocus pocus humanities theories, and so they didn’t march.
        Not the same thing.

        – – – –
        Considering that you have admitted above that you are willing to accept theories you say you know little about as ‘scientific’ then it’s little wonder you continually come across as a regressive left collective thinking automaton.

        – – – –
        Troll harder

        1. Nigel

          Not discredited by the links you provided.

          ‘The problem Nigel is that ‘intersectionality’ is NOT a science of any kind’

          So?

          ‘but you’ll argue it is science’

          Deal with what I say, not what you make up for me to say, please.

          ‘Those that took over the march idea, say it IS a science,’

          The difference between a science and an issue within the scientific community. Not a difficult concept..

          ‘your comparison of the two marches makes no sense.’

          I was illustrating your flexible approach to guilt by association.

          ‘the ‘science’ of the march was tainted with hocus pocus humanities theories, and so they didn’t march.’

          There you go. Apparently wanting to address issues of racism and sexism in the scientific community is a taint.

          ‘Considering that you have admitted above that you are willing to accept theories you say you know little about as ‘scientific’

          You are lying, again, about what I said.

          ‘as a regressive left collective thinking automaton.’

          I’ll be back.

          1. Clampers Outside!

            ‘The problem Nigel is that ‘intersectionality’ is NOT a science of any kind’

            So?

            And there in lies the problem…. you don’t care that it is not a science and are happy to include it.

            There in lies the difference. I like science to be just that, ‘science’ nothing else. You like wishy washy social theories to be accepted as scientific factual based science. Remove objectivity from science and you have no science.

            I hope that answers your ‘So?’.

          2. Clampers Outside!

            Look Nigel… originally this march was conceived around the idea of improving scientific standings of research and researchers and then it got turned into a gender idfentity parade.

            My only argument from the start is that scientists pulled out pof the march because it was not sticking to its original tenet having been taken over by gender identity politics.

            That’s it. Your gender identity arguments and diversity arguments are not what the march was originally intended as. You are arguing about what occurred – an identity march for diversity.
            I am arguing for what was originally intended, a march for science. Instead there was another identity parade.

          3. Nigel

            ‘Include’ it in what sense? I like social theories to be used to analyse society and people, and since scientists are people and part of society, and since science itself constitutes a community and a society, they are entirely open to being analysed as such.

          4. Nigel

            ‘I am arguing for what was originally intended, a march for science. Instead there was another identity parade.’

            If some people are this hostile to other people talking about their experiences and problems of things like racism and sexism within, eg, the scientific community, and how to deal with it, then it’s all the more important to make it part of the protest. Imagine if you’re a scientist who has experienced systemic racism or sexism within the scientific establishment and want to do something about it, but doing so is regarded as a ‘taint.’ I expect that’s make you more determined to do something about it.

          5. Clampers Outside!

            ‘I am arguing for what was originally intended, a march for science. Instead there was another identity parade.’

            Read it again Nigel, because you are missing the point as are the rest of you.

            An identity politics parade about the state of diversity in STEM is not a march for science which was the marches original intent.

            Mildred and Star can +1 times infinity for all i care Nigel.

            Your point is not getting to what I have pointed to from the start.

            Again, one last time for the chorus….. the march was conceived as a ‘science march’.
            The march that proceeded was a ‘gender identity’ protest march about diversity in science fields, not a science march.

            They are not the same thing.

          6. Nigel

            Well whatever, so long as you get to attack the people criticising Trump as if they’re doing something wrong, i suppose.

    2. Unlucky in locks

      Just a heads up: the American Council on Science and Health is not an independent scientific body, but rather a front for industrial interests, posing as an independent body.
      One could just as easily say “science me hoop” about them.
      Their findings routinely line up with the wishes of those that fund them, e.g. downplaying the harmful health effects of pesticides or sugar.

      They’re a partisan group with an agenda to push. I would not be presenting them as unbiased evidence for your claim.

      Please feel free to read about their funding:
      https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/809483/acsh-financial-summary.pdf

      I suppose what I’d take from this, is that scientists have agendas and beliefs, just like everyone else. I’d suspect there is a correlation between pro-Trump scientists and anti-feminism views. There are also plenty of “hard” scientists who dislike the idea of being lumped in with social sciences.

      My belief is the science march was trying to promote inclusivity in the face of an administration that is very much setting up an “us vs them” mentality.

      Like it or not, gender identity studies are being approached from a scientific view point and are being peer reviewed, and the evidence points towards gender, and sexuality, being on spectra.

      e.g.: “White matter microstructure in female to male transsexuals before cross-sex hormonal treatment. A diffusion tensor imaging study”, Giuseppina Ramettid, f, Beatriz Carrillob, Esther Gómez-Gilc, Carme Junqueb, f, Santiago Segoviaa, Ángel Gomeze, Antonio Guillamona, Journal of Psychiatric Research, 45 2 2011, pp 199-204

      or

      “Regional cerebral blood flow changes in female to male gender identity disorder”, Nawata H1, Ogomori K, Tanaka M, Nishimura R, Urashima H, Yano R, Takano K, Kuwabara Y., Psychiatry Clinical Neuroscience, 64 2 2010

        1. Nigel

          It’s a march by scientists on scientific issues to highlight concerns with the administration’s scientific policies. But it has people who aren’t white men and who aren’t ashamed of it, so it’s a ‘gender identity parade.’

          1. Nigel

            I have and I’ve read your links to Pinker and Haidt. There is literally nothing else in this other than some conservative scientists taking shots at an ickily liberal anti-Trumo rally by scientists.

          2. Clampers Outside!

            So… by your ownm admission it;s an anti-Trump rally.

            Isn’t that my damn point from the beginning., That it was a science march and then morphed into something esle, as you say your self…. “ickily liberal anti-Trumo rally” …not a science march.

            Thanks Nigel for at least admitting that it is not a science march, but an anti-Trump rally.

          3. Nigel

            Oh. You didn’t know it was an anti-Trump rally. Pro-science, anti-Trump, that was the whole idea? Because of his anti-science anti-education policies and appointments? Weren’t you paying attention? Thanks for admitting you think it’s wrong to be anti-Trump… I guess?

        2. Unlucky in locks

          “My belief is the science march was trying to promote inclusivity in the face of an administration that is very much setting up an “us vs them” mentality.”

          That was poorly worded. What I should have said would have been along the lines of:

          “My belief is the science march is trying to inclusively encourage members of the scientific community to protest a decidedly unscientific agenda in the Trump administration. This is important in the face of an administration that is very much setting up an “us vs them” mentality.”

          “May be classified as science by some academics”

          No, is being actively researched and published in peer reviewed journals on psychiatric studies and neuroscience. I.e. science, as we define it today in our peer review approach to advancement in understanding.

          Believe me, I have my gripes with the peer review system, but you’re assertion is wrong there.

      1. mildred st. meadowlark

        Very interesting comment.

        We’re inclined to assume that because science -or rather, the facts of science- is an entirely unbiased thing, but we do forget that scientists do have their own biases and beliefs that will affect their reading and interpretation of certain information. (Andrew Wakefield, for example)
        I know I’m guilty of forgetting that scientists are fallible and capable of human error, as well as being swayed by things like money.

          1. Starina

            aye. i gave up on commenting over christmas cos the break was so nice, but y’all keep bringing me back again :)

        1. Unlucky in locks

          I currently work in a scientific area of academia (for my sins). We are right to assume that raw facts, specifically those obtained from the data of well designed and run experiments, are entirely unbiased. New, better experiments will be done which may confirm or refute previous observations, but as long as everything was above board with the scientific rigour applied then facts continue to be unbiased.

          Interpretations are biased and scientists are biased, sometimes innocently, sometimes with intent. Peer review should limit the problem of human bias, but it does not remove it entirely. As a rule of thumb, if you have the scientific understanding to make a good fist at reading a paper that a headline is based on, then I’d encourage that over accepting because it was published it’s innocent. Beyond that, peer review is the best system we have currently to decide what’s scientifically true and false.

          WordPress websites, blog posts by lobbying groups and Twitter feeds are not the place to be referring to for evidence.

          1. Nothing Else Matters

            Thanks

            Neither is the federalist, the Washington examiner etc. These are hate filled right wing tabloid rags for snowflake white male whingers

  3. Topsy

    No need to go to Boston/America for alternative facts. Didn’t we get blatant lies from the government on hospital waiting lists until found out last week.
    Didn’t Enda lie through his teeth until found out in the Dail.
    We have been getting alternative facts or lies as Joe Soap calls it, since the foundation of the state, from politicians dirt bags.

  4. petey

    clampers wrote:

    “I have only ever discredit genuine lies by feminists. Mostly around their role in domestic violence research and the suppression of the truth around domestic violence perpetration; and rallied against the feminist ideological theory of patriarchy that informs The Duluth Model of DV intervention (still in use today) that teaches that ONLY women are victims and ONLY men are perpetrators.”

    i would be sympathetic to this, having been the object of both sexual and physical violence from a gf and my (now ex-)wife. however, i can assure clampers that the women i’ve known, at least, don’t, in the majority, subscribe to such stuff but recognize implicitly that women have agency and responsibility just as men do.

    btw, don’t cite the Mail for anything.

    1. mildred st. meadowlark

      I am sorry you’ve been on the receiving end of abuse petey, that’s hideous stuff. I hope things are on the up for you x

      Your comment is great, it’s thoughtful and measured, and acknowledges the duality of equality, that it is indeed a two-way thing. Clampers ought to bookmark it.

      Respect works both ways.

    2. Starina

      excellent comment, petey, and as Mildred said, i’m sorry for what happened to you and glad you got out. x

      1. mildred st. meadowlark

        I feel like I should apologise for my own part of this particular comment storm.

        I got all self-righteous and made a mess… sorry… *blushes*

  5. Junkface

    My God! So many comments on threads just turn into angry rants especially anything remotely related to womens issues or rights.
    I mostly see people passionate about Science. Gender identity parades? I’d hardly call what you see above in those pics as primarily that. There’s one pic with the father and daughter that could be considered lightly. And so what if they want to tell the world that their mothers are scientists, its not hurting anyone. Get a grip lads

    1. Kieran NYC

      “Get a grip lads”

      But as usual, it’s just the one who lost it.

      Anyway. Back to the actual post – I’m loving the science-based puns and signs :)

      1. Junkface

        I only had time to read a few of the posts to get the jist. Okay so only one guy lost it, but I mean on forums online generally too.

  6. Sheik Yahbouti

    Whoops, made a mistake. I thought this would be an interesting thread. However, there were photos of ‘wimmin’. Therefore the whole thing sidelined by the obligatory lengthy rants from Clampers -. Gotta find subjects which are woman free.

    1. Clampers Outside!

      It’s the permissive bullpoo and sloganeering that irks and draws me in…. I do hear ya tho, but I think you mean subjects that are… free from the lies and the sloganeering of feminism and gender identity nonsense.

      Apologies for my dogged persistence in not being entertained into passivity and acceptance of the consistent flow of the bullpoo.

  7. jusayinlike

    Somehow the gender militia have tried to hijack science to try push their snot nosed agenda, shameless..

    keep up the fight clampers

Comments are closed.

Sponsored Link
Broadsheet.ie