It’s that time of the year again: Science’s reporters and editors are homing in on the Breakthrough of the Year, our choice of the most significant scientific discovery, development, or trend in 2018. That selection, along with nine runners-up, will be announced when the last issue of the year goes online on 20 December. ...So AAAS views #MeToo as a scientific breakthrough, and endorses that ethically fraught work?!
The #MeToo movement made significant gains in science. Several institutions upheld long-standing allegations against prominent scientists accused of sexual harassment, discrimination, or bullying, and a U.S. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine report called for systemic changes to prevent such abuse. ...
Editor’s note: We originally included the claim of gene-edited babies as a candidate; we have since removed it to avoid giving the mistaken impression that Science endorses this ethically fraught work.
The winner is being determined by an online vote, so we will see if the feminists have taken over.
Recent victims of #MeToo include Larry Krauss and Neil DeGrasse Tyson. I am not going to repeat the gossip here. In one accusation, a fan showed him a solar system tattoo on her arm, and he asked to see if it included Pluto. I thought that women get tattoos to show them. The accusations are extremely petty, and do not belong in a science journal.
Complaining about MeToo accusers is like complaining about termites. Termites do what termites do. It is unfortunate to see the leading science popularizers get maligned like this. Who is going to take on the responsibility to explaining science to the public? Maybe eunuchs or lesbians or Moslems will have to be recruited.
Maybe 2018 will go down in the history of science as the beginning of the end of modern physics. The period started with Maxwell and others in the late 19th century. Now physics news is dominated by ridiculously overhyped bogus stories about the multiverse and other nonsense, failed attempts to find susy particles and quantum computers, censoring physicist Alessandro Strumia for telling the truth about women in physics, and the MeToo movement sabotaging careers.
Well, with the direction things are going, women will soon find themselves segregated again... by their own hand. To better protect themselves from the threating evils of any scurrilous or course activity or interaction with men which they now consider on par with rape and even worse than death, they will isolate either the men from academia, or have women in their own special academic enclaves. The end result will be that men will still do lots of math and physics, but without women. Women of course will realize what they wanted isn't what they want... five minutes after they get their hearts desire and find themselves hoisted on their own intersectionally genderless socially de-constructed petards.ReplyDelete
Men are going to be men like it or no, make boorish bad jokes like men occasionally, tease each other like men, and sometimes misbehave like men, which should not be a surprise to anyone really except those who don't know what gender actually means outside of academia, or how basic human biology works.
When I see professional working women removing all their visual sexual lures of femininity and enticement from the workplace (no lipstick, blush, eyeliner, concealing foundations and powders and creams, no cleavage showing or enhancing blouses, revealing necklines, sheer semitransparent materials, no long fake nails and loud finger nail polish, noticeable perfume, impractical high heels in sizes they can barely walk in...
...impractical or unsafe hairstyles, ridiculous inhuman hair colors, revealing dresses, too tight pants, etc, )as well, I will begin to take them remotely seriously about what they claim to want, but it has to work both ways. Third wave feminists want harmless, sexless men, ok, are they also willing to be harmless sexless women? And will they still feel feminine when they are told they have to forgo all their sexual adornments? And give up any entitlements whatsoever that stem from their actual biology?
No maternity leave, strict adherence to sick leave and insurance policy on parity with men, in cases of divorce there is no division of the man's family inheritance or earned assets (an end to gold-digging!), no more than a brief alimony if the woman isn't in the workforce at the time of the divorce, and if the child is not genetically the husbands he has no obligation to pay child support either, and the father is considered equally in choices of legal custody of children.
But this isn't actually what modern third wave feminists really want. They don't actually want true equality and what it would entail (Camille Paglia is an excellent read on this topic). It would be far harder on women than men if they couldn't get men they aren't even in a relationship with to financially subsidize their children or lifestyles. What modern feminists really want is social and political dominance over men, this is justified because... they wish to be offended, it gives them leverage and the power to condemn without evidence, much like the Salem witch trials or the Kavanaugh hearings.