Sections

Services

Information

UK United Kingdom

I F@#%ing Love … Sexism

martins.nunomiguel

What do you know? The creative force behind science’s favourite Facebook site is … a woman.

Holy mother of Christ.

Just over a year ago, Elise Andrew, then a biology student at the University of Sheffield, created a Facebook page, to which she gave the catchy name “I Fucking Love Science” (IFLS). Combining interesting facts, sumptuous pictures, quotes from celebrity scientists and geeky jokes, the site took off instantly.

Today it has more than 4.3 million fans. And for the many whingers who simply couldn’t bring themselves to like a page with the “F-word” in its name, she mirrored it at Science is Awesome (255,000 fans).

Apparently, IFLS amassed 1,000 “likes” in its first 24 hours, mocking the adoption rate of other pages (my own effort, Sex, Genes & Rock, took 18 months to amass 1,000 fans).

In the whirlwind year since she started IFLS, Andrew has relocated to Canada to work with the LabX Media Group, and now has a team at her disposal to maintain her spinoff Facebook pages: Evolution, The Universe, and The Earth Story.

Elise Andrew’s identity wasn’t any kind of secret, even if most IFLS fans had no reason to know her name. They could have clicked the “about” link on the IFLS page profile. All that changed early last week when she announced she had joined Twitter:

I got Twitter! I figured it’s about time I started exploring other social media. If you’re on there, can you Tweet me some science people worth following?

The IFLS post that alerted some of Elise Andrew’s slower-moving fans that she is of the female persuasion. Facebook

This being science and the 21st Century, you would expect those folks who hadn’t realised that IFLS had a curator - with a real live name and a gender - to file the info away and carry on with business as usual.

Instead, this apparent “outing” had all the surprise and slightly less panache than King Julian jumping from a cake at the beginning of Madagascar 2 wearing a coconut bra and yelling:

I’m a lady. I’m a lady everyone!…. Which of you is attracted to me?

Some days I’m ashamed to be a citizen of the internet.

Fans, seeing Andrew’s name and photograph for the first time, revealed a snapshot of their implicit assumptions. Some admitted their embarrassment at having implicitly assumed IFLS was run by a man.

By no means were men the only ones making the assumptions. According to Kelly Waitforit Fox:

Always pictured a guy lol … An I sexist against myself? Haha

But the commenters who felt obliged to share their delightful insights into Elise’s appearance were overwhelmingly male. This comment from one Lou Forbes number among the more benign:

you mean you’re a girl, AND you’re beautiful? wow, i just liked science a lil bit more today ^^

And some felt their implicit assumptions sprang from the robust language used to underline IFLS’s enthusiasm for science. According to a Scott Smedley:

I thought that because of all the ways you were so proud to spout off “I fucking love science” in a difient swary manner against people who hated sware words being used that you was a dude.

(I’m starting to wonder about starting a page called I Fuckig Luv Spelling)

More than 1,500 people have commented on Andrew’s latest “outing” – most, I am pleased to say, encouraging her to keep doing what she does. Others, too, have confronted those fans blurting sexist rubbish.

And yet, while science grapples with how best to encourage all talented and smart people to participate, an appreciable slice of the science-friendly public tend to assume that a clever, funny and profane site has to be the product of a male mind.

And these are people whose identities are known. The internet, as we well know, feeds legion shrivelled pseudonymed souls who spew their explicit bile and prejudice.

Even the usually intelligent comment pages at The Conversation attract their share of scared sexist droning. Forget motherhood statemements - have a look at the comments following Alessandro Demaio’s post about the global importance of maternal health. Or consider the furious debate about Linda Murray and Lesley Pruitt’s proposition that Ending violence against women is good for everyone.

The internet, and blogging in particular, promised to make communicating about ideas and their meaning more democratic. And yet women who blog about science still find the sexism, threats and unwanted sexual attention so common that a real need exists for workshops such as: The Perils of blogging as a woman under a real name.

It’s more than 150 years since Mary Ann Evans started publishing as George Eliot in order to be sure her work would be taken seriously. And yet women often have to choose between concealing their name and gender and being taken seriously.

Even on a fun and lighthearted Facebook page.


I’m interested to hear from women and men about reasons or pressure they feel to hide their identity, gender or name when communicating about science - @Brooks_Rob

Join the conversation

78 Comments sorted by

  1. Suzy Gneist

    logged in via Twitter

    Thanks for this article - loved it. And yes, standing by your gender and your views can require a lot of resilience - in public discourse or work environments especially. I know plenty of women who are interested in science or even maths, yet give this interest quite a different twist from the norm - like connecting it to personal insights, not just external phenomena. I think there is huge future potential for development of concepts and ideas departing from a different gender perspective. A few prejudices still have to fall though in some quarters...

    report
    1. Suzy Gneist

      logged in via Twitter

      In reply to emily vicendese

      Why not include (accept) gender, different cultures, age groups and all sorts of other perspectives?

      report
    2. Fred Bloggs

      Agent provocateur

      In reply to Suzy Gneist

      I agree, Suzy. However, the article is about denigrating perspectives other than a specific narrow set. I'm glad you agree that's unacceptable.

      report
    3. emily vicendese

      undergrad

      In reply to Suzy Gneist

      Because accepting "gendered perspectives" is reinforcing them: it's a feedback loop. And reinforcing "gendered perspectives" is reinforcing something that is not only based on twaddle but is socially divisive and personally repressive.

      report
    4. emily vicendese

      undergrad

      In reply to Fred Bloggs

      Some perspectives deserve denigration "Fred Bloggs" (dale bloom is that you?) For example, anti-immunisation, or white supremacism, just to name two.

      report
    5. Fred Bloggs

      Agent provocateur

      In reply to emily vicendese

      Quite so, Emily, however neither of those topics is being discussed.

      report
    6. Kim Darcy

      Analyst

      In reply to emily vicendese

      emily, I've got no dog in this, but Suzy's use of "different gender perspectives" screams pretty loudly that all perspectives on "gender" should be welcome to the conversation. She didn't mention numbers, but I'm pretty sure her intention was generous: 'come one gender perspective, come twenty'!

      report
    7. Suzy Gneist

      Multiple: self-employed, employed, student, mother, volunteer, Free-flyer

      In reply to emily vicendese

      No, Emily, in my understanding acceptance means respect and by respecting other perspectives, whatever difference they are based on, we value differences over homogenisation in my view. I want to be accepted and have my views accepted independently from my gender or cultural background, but at the same time these backgrounds give additional value and perspective to my views which add to those of others and which together form a diverse and multi faceted society and body of knowledge.

      report
    8. Stephen Ralph

      carer

      In reply to Suzy Gneist

      hi suzy

      like your thinking.

      i think we are at the moment where by and large women are accepted for WHO they are and not their gender. there will always be exceptions, but there are exceptions to everything and everyone.

      in some ways i think women are given a greater opportunity than men to be who they want to be!

      men tend to be stereotyped into a gender role.

      women can rise to be a CEO of a large corporation, and play hardball along side of men, or can if they choose (if economic…

      Read more
    9. Dianna Arthur
      Dianna Arthur is a Friend of The Conversation.

      Environmentalist

      In reply to Stephen Ralph

      Mornin' SJR

      "men tend to be stereotyped into a gender role"

      Absolutely. I cannot imagine what it must be like to fit a narrow definition of what a 'real' man 'should' be.

      Betty Friedan wrote about the female version of such straight-jacketing stereotyping in her seminal work "The Feminine Mystique".

      Men need freedom from other men as much as women do.

      report
    10. Sarah James

      Psychologist

      In reply to emily vicendese

      Presumably because your gender can often influence your perspective. For example, women have a diferent perspective around walking home at 2 in the morning than men do. Presumably a man's view on childbirth is diferent also. This is not to say that all women view things the same, obviously class, wealth, culture, age etc are significant factors. But the idea that gender is irrelevant seems a bit too far.

      report
    11. Stephen Ralph

      carer

      In reply to Dianna Arthur

      hi miz a

      sometimes its hard to feel sorry for men tho.......for all that intelligence, ignorance is never far away.

      report
    12. Stephen Ralph

      carer

      In reply to Sarah James

      hi sarah

      personally i wouldnt feel too safe walking home in many melbourne streets, or catching a late train.

      sad to say.

      report
    13. Julie Roccisano

      logged in via email @hotmail.com

      In reply to emily vicendese

      We all have different perspectives due to the many ways that we are different to others. To pretend that doesn't exist would be to ignore certain experiences or perspectives - usually those of minorities or the less powerful. I think we can acknowledge our differences and work towards equality.

      report
    14. Benjamin Arrow
      Benjamin Arrow is a Friend of The Conversation.

      logged in via Facebook

      In reply to Sarah James

      I have been following IFLS for a long time, and my reaction was indifference.

      Science is gender neutral, and sex shouldn't come into play at all. Hell, just go read some journal publications, you can't tell at all if it was a man or woman who wrote them. And I like it that way, because I don't care if you're a boy or a girl, if you do good science, you should get recognised.

      Unfortunately much of the rest of society has not caught up yet.

      You go girl :) IFLS rocks !

      report
    15. Marie Bosworth

      Administration

      In reply to emily vicendese

      I'm always disappointed by Dale Bloom. He has such a wonderful name (or nom de plume) but uses it to spout such idiocy.

      In my mind, anyone called Dale Bloom should be a glasses wearing, turtleneck-toting, black curly haired bookish gentleman. Such a waste of such a good name.

      Haha!

      report
    16. Fred Bloggs

      Agent provocateur

      In reply to Dianna Arthur

      Never mind, Fractel...Dianna, I'm sure you have no trouble maintaining your freedom from men, or should that be the other way 'round? Shame you don't have such success maintaining your freedom from other people's financial support in the form of Government handouts, but I guess freedom is all in the mind, eh?

      Set up any websites with "amusing" pictures of people that have had toothbrush moustaches drawn on them lately?

      report
    17. Dianna Arthur
      Dianna Arthur is a Friend of The Conversation.

      Environmentalist

      In reply to Fred Bloggs

      Nothing better to do than overdose on choccies over the long weekend, Fred?

      I understand that it is dark chocolate which is good for you - all that milky stuff does is pack on the kilos. Nor has it made any improvement in your comprehension skills.

      Normally I attempt to restrict myself from responding to serial pests, however some clarification is required:

      1. In my post to which you attempted a response - I stated quite clearly that both men and women need to be freed from stereotyping - surely even you can understand that?

      2. As to your attempts at sleuthing; I used the moniker Fractelle on the Online Opinion blogsite. Anyone can look up my contributions there now that they have the correct spelling.

      3. I have never set-up a website of any kind.

      report
    18. Fred Bloggs

      Agent provocateur

      In reply to Dianna Arthur

      What was that site you and the late CJ Morgan and a few others set up called again after you were banned from On-line Opinion? Ah, that's it, "Cyberia". As I recall, Graham Young threatened you with defamation and had it closed down, because of both the scurrilous stuff you posted about him and the childish pictures you put up of him with a hand-drawn Hitler moustache.

      Laugh-a-minute stuff.

      Now, what were you saying about stereotyping?

      report
    19. Dianna Arthur
      Dianna Arthur is a Friend of The Conversation.

      Environmentalist

      In reply to Fred Bloggs

      Anyone is free to check on the postings of the dearly missed CJ Morgan on OLO and other blogsites.

      Whether they will distort and misinform is a choice they are free to make as are you.

      I have never been threatened with defamation by Graham Young or anyone else.

      This is my final response as it is not on topic unless one believes the smear campaign you are attempting is a result of your own problems with women-who-dare-to-voice-their-opinions.

      report
    20. Fred Bloggs

      Agent provocateur

      In reply to Fred Bloggs

      Oh yes, "severin" was yours too, wasn't it?

      report
  2. Sue Ieraci

    Public hospital clinician

    The current version of the use of the George Eliot pseudonym, perhaps.

    report
  3. Stephen Ralph

    carer

    hi rob

    the ratio of women in science from say 1500 - 1950 was minimal. the role call of BIG names in scientific research and discovery is practically all male.

    but obviously that has changed and women are standing tall with the best. i am not a science person and as such not familiar with the current big names, but when i watch tv and see segments on science research, it is heartening to see women fronting the camera as much as men. (or at least thats the way it seems to me)

    the revelation…

    Read more
    1. Fred Bloggs

      Agent provocateur

      In reply to Stephen Ralph

      A gay "man" talking about "men"...

      Post-modern or what?

      report
    2. Kim Darcy

      Analyst

      In reply to Fred Bloggs

      Fred, I am pretty sure that 'talking about "men" is what gay men do, kinda a lot.

      report
    3. Fred Bloggs

      Agent provocateur

      In reply to Kim Darcy

      Good point, fairly made.

      report
  4. Sam Worboys

    Master of Arts in Journalism and Mass Communications (Griffith)

    To me this shouldn't be a debate about gender in this day and age - especially how ones value in the field should be about their work and nothing else. But instead about how awesome Elise Andrew has been and her contribution to generating interest around science.

    The fact is that she has successfully created a Facebook page and currently has up to 4.3 million people learning interesting, fun and at times comical facts about science. That needs to be applauded more than anything. Will this latest revelation change my opinion on the page? No.

    report
  5. Tim Scanlon

    Debunker

    I don't see the big deal. She announced she had a Twitter account, so I followed her on Twitter.

    I know there is a cognitive bias of some sort that means that we tend to assume that people we don't know are exactly like us (same education, same colour, same religion, same sex, same age, same country, etc). Unless it is implicit or obvious that the person is not like us, like someone calling 'Merica the best country eva, we tend to continue with that assumption.

    So maybe that is part of the reaction. Or maybe some people are just dicks.

    report
  6. Judith Olney

    Ms

    Interesting article, and something I can relate to. My area of work and interest has long been seen as male dominated, I am a computer technician, who deals most in hardware, and dabbles in software. I love technology and in particular robotics.

    I am one of a very few women in my class studying for my degree in Information Technology.

    I do a lot of building and fixing computers, to keep the wolf from the door, and bar a very few instances, people are always surprised that it is a woman that…

    Read more
    1. Fred Bloggs

      Agent provocateur

      In reply to Judith Olney

      Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't this reflect the relative proportions of men and women in your field? Would a male coming to do some baby-sitting be viewed as normal, or as a novelty?

      report
    2. Judith Olney

      Ms

      In reply to Fred Bloggs

      The point I was making was nothing to do with the relative proportions of men and women in my field, but the responses of others when finding out that I am a women, and this response being a negative one because I am a woman.

      report
    3. Fred Bloggs

      Agent provocateur

      In reply to Judith Olney

      Negative, or just surprised?

      How do you think the hypothetical male child-minder (or midwife, or pick your stereotypically female occupation of choice) would be received?

      report
    4. Suzy Gneist

      logged in via Twitter

      In reply to Fred Bloggs

      I had a male midwife and a male childminder at one stage and both were competent at their tasks.

      report
    5. Fred Bloggs

      Agent provocateur

      In reply to Suzy Gneist

      I'm sure Judith is competent as well. What does that have to do with the discussion?

      report
    6. Judith Olney

      Ms

      In reply to Fred Bloggs

      Some were just surprised, I've even had a few that thought it was a good thing, (they were women). The bulk of those that responded were negative.

      I don't do hypotheticals, I base my views on fact and experience.

      report
    7. Judith Olney

      Ms

      In reply to Fred Bloggs

      Its not the point, whether I was competent or not, I have proven my competency with my work, it is the fact that the negative responses were solely due to the fact that I was a woman. Just like many of the negative and abusive comments on some websites are due to the perceived gender of the participant, not whether they have anything of value to add to a discussion.

      This is what the author is discussing in his article.

      report
    8. Fred Bloggs

      Agent provocateur

      In reply to Judith Olney

      Of course you don't... Self-affirming anecdotes are so much more satisfying, aren't they?

      report
    9. Fred Bloggs

      Agent provocateur

      In reply to Judith Olney

      And of course, a male who engages in a female-dominated occupation would be welcomed with open arms and effusive expressions of joy that finally a man had shown up...

      Or perhaps not.

      report
    10. Judith Olney

      Ms

      In reply to Fred Bloggs

      Sarcasm is not needed Fred, it would be a good thing for gender not to be a factor in any profession or occupation, but it is, at least in today's society. It would be great if the world could move on from this, and many in society have and are doing so.

      There are some dinosaurs and those that will respond negatively to someone because of gender, but this doesn't mean we should accept this and not speak out against it.

      The author and some of those commenting on this article, are doing just that, giving their views and speaking out against this issue. Its good that you have brought up the negativity displayed towards some men in female dominated occupations, but this is not what this particular article is discussing. Maybe you could write an article yourself about this issue as it seems to be one you are passionate about.

      report
    11. Judith Olney

      Ms

      In reply to Fred Bloggs

      No need for nastiness Fred, I simply choose not to deal in hypotheticals, particularly when they are not relevant to the article.

      report
    12. Fred Bloggs

      Agent provocateur

      In reply to Judith Olney

      The article is a nasty piece of work, Judith. The hypothetical is relevant to your comment. If you are claiming that you have experienced a negative response to your performance of a specific occupation based on your gender, then it is reasonable to ask what you think the reverse situation might yield in the way of responses.

      What do you think the response to a male in a female-dominated occupation would be? Different to the one you have described in your anecdote?

      report
    13. Fred Bloggs

      Agent provocateur

      In reply to Judith Olney

      I'm not remotely passionate about it, Judith. I am quite passionately negative about hypocrisy, however.

      report
    14. Kim Darcy

      Analyst

      In reply to Judith Olney

      "I will know when this bias against women in science, maths, computing etc, has changed, because I will no longer see surprise, distrust,and sometimes even outright hostility, when I show up to do a job."
      Judith, I'm gonna go out on a limb here, and suggest you might no gender bias has changed, when you stop overridng people's sincere 'surprise' and imposing your own 'distust' and 'hostility'

      report
    15. Judith Olney

      Ms

      In reply to Fred Bloggs

      This article is not a nasty piece of work at all Fred, but if you see it as such then thats your choice. I have responded to you in a civil manner, but will not be responding further to your replies, as I don't think it would add anything new to this discussion.

      report
    16. Judith Olney

      Ms

      In reply to Kim Darcy

      Kim, I have done no such thing, and as you were not there, and did not experience the negative responses that I did, I would suggest that you refrain from trying to tell me about something you have absolutely no knowledge of.

      I know what surprise is, and I know what hostility and distrust is, and I know what the difference between the two is.

      report
    17. Fred Bloggs

      Agent provocateur

      In reply to Judith Olney

      Bye Judith. I think my point is well made. It's a shame you didn't feel able to respond more constructively to my hypothetical, but let's face it, your actions in this case speak volumes.

      The article was a rant, no more, concluded with some cheap shots from the safety of the authorial keyboard. I'm beginning to wonder just what it is that Professor Brooks thinks his job involves - from his publications here he would be more comfortable in the sociology department than the school of science. Lots of opinion and very little substance.

      report
    18. Cherish Bauer-Reich

      logged in via Twitter

      In reply to Fred Bloggs

      There's a significant amount of research showing that men in predominantly male fields tend to be viewed as extremely competent and tend to rise to higher levels more quickly than men in male-dominated fields. So even if there is initial surprise to having a male nanny, people get over it far more quickly than they do when a woman makes an appearance in a female dominated field.

      report
    19. Dianna Arthur
      Dianna Arthur is a Friend of The Conversation.

      Environmentalist

      In reply to Suzy Gneist

      One of the best nurses I ever had was male - nor should I be surprised at this.

      I use a pseudonym because I am intelligent enough to know that my ex-husband is an abusive, controlling stalker. I am certain that Judith is intelligent enough to recognise 'surprise' or 'hostility' - its something most humans can do.

      report
    20. Sarah James

      Psychologist

      In reply to Fred Bloggs

      Actually Fred generally they are. My experience in the world of education and child care has been that men have been received with cries of "yay, its good to see more men". As a parent that is also my response.

      report
    21. Fred Bloggs

      Agent provocateur

      In reply to Sarah James

      Sarah, I won't try to argue with your experience, but I think it's telling that few men choose to remain in either career. The reasons given often include being made to feel excluded.

      I'm glad that you, as a parent, would like to see more men in those fields. How do you think that could be achieved?

      report
  7. Fred Bloggs

    Agent provocateur

    All that to slag off at men.

    Sexist much, Rob?

    report
    1. Fred Bloggs

      Agent provocateur

      In reply to Rob Brooks

      Eisoptrophobia, Rob?

      Who is "Dale"?

      report
  8. Fred Bloggs

    Agent provocateur

    Rob, what does this article have to do with evolutionary biology?

    report
  9. Sean Lamb

    Science Denier

    I wonder if I find Dr Brooks's ultra-antisexism more creepy or more patronising.

    Since this site is full of women talking about science, the idea that women need to conceal their gender seems an extraordinary claim and quite condesceding.

    report
    1. Alice Kelly
      Alice Kelly is a Friend of The Conversation.

      sole parent

      In reply to Sean Lamb

      "This site is full of women talking about science"
      Amazing, and up pop you and "fred".
      I completely understand Judiths experiences, and the point of the article. In theory, gender should have nothing to do with jobs, competency, and money. But reality is quite different, and sexism is still very alive as soon as women start to earn more, and gain more power.
      The comments about child-minding and other female occupations have nothing to do with the point of the article.

      report
    2. Judith Olney

      Ms

      In reply to Alice Kelly

      Hi Alice, I found the replies to my post very interesting from a psychological view point. I was relating my own experience, as it was relevant to the article, but I have found when women speak up about their experiences of sexism, particularly here, the responses from some are very predictable. They follow a distinct pattern as well.

      Fred tried the old, "but what about the men" angle, and when that didn't get much traction, he resorted to insults and sarcasm. Kim came right out and tried to tell…

      Read more
    3. Fred Bloggs

      Agent provocateur

      In reply to Judith Olney

      All that and you're still dodging the question and trying to play the victim.

      Don't you think it's time to grow up?

      report
    4. Judith Olney

      Ms

      In reply to Mike Hansen

      Interesting isn't it Mike. Fred tries to portray men as the victims, when this is not what the article is about, then accuses me of trying to play the victim, simply because I posted my personal experience of sexism. Then in an immature manner tries to tell me to grow up.

      Projection much.

      report
    5. Fred Bloggs

      Agent provocateur

      In reply to Mike Hansen

      Coward is as coward does, Mike. It's always amusing to be called a coward by a keyboard hero.

      report
    6. Mike Hansen

      Mr.

      In reply to Fred Bloggs

      TC encourages the use of real names because it discourages the type of pathetic stalking and bullying that you have been involved in.

      From the TC's Community Standards.

      "We require real names. Contributors who want to comment must use their real names when signing up for an account on The Conversation (unless signing in using third-party services, such as Facebook or Twitter). Organisation representatives creating accounts also must use their own names. Requiring real names helps us maintain a transparent and credible forum for discussion and debate. We reserve the right to delete comments made from profiles with partial names or aliases."

      report
    7. Fred Bloggs

      Agent provocateur

      In reply to Judith Olney

      Not at all Judith, simply pointing out that your "experience of sexism" can cut both ways. Why are you so determined to deny that?

      report
    8. Fred Bloggs

      Agent provocateur

      In reply to Mike Hansen

      The Conversation has standards? How amusing.

      report
    9. Judith Olney

      Ms

      In reply to Fred Bloggs

      I'm not denying anything Fred, as you would see if you read my earlier comment on this thread. This article was about the sexism directed at women, not men.

      report
    10. Fred Bloggs

      Agent provocateur

      In reply to Judith Olney

      They always are,Judith.

      report
  10. John Kinder

    Professor of Italian, UWA

    Why did you say "Holy mother of Christ" in the second sentence of your article? Did this sentence have propositional content, or merely illocutionary force?

    report
  11. Brooke Berry

    logged in via Facebook

    Funny, this wasn't a surprise - I'm sure the curator had made numerous posts referring to herself that gave that game away. Shows people ignore what doesn't fit with their perceptions.

    report
  12. Marie Bosworth

    Administration

    The funny thing about this is that I, without knowing for sure, always assumed it was curated by a woman! Not sure why...maybe the fact that I normally see its posts via the "likes" of a female friend...?

    report
  13. Adam Richards

    Teacher

    "Even the usually intelligent comment pages at The Conversation attract their share of scared sexist droning. Forget motherhood statemements – have a look at the comments following Alessandro Demaio’s post about the global importance of maternal health. Or consider the furious debate about Linda Murray and Lesley Pruitt’s proposition that Ending violence against women is good for everyone."

    Which comments in particular are you talking about? I commented on the "Ending violence against women is good for everyone" article, not because I disagree with the sentiment, but because I believe that focusing on violence against women, as opposed to all violence, results in violence against men being ignored.

    I would love to see an article titled "Ending violence is good for everyone."

    report
    1. Fred Bloggs

      Agent provocateur

      In reply to Adam Richards

      I wouldn't hold my breath, Adam. Everyone "knows" that women are always victims - except when they're better at doing everything than men are.

      There's a weird sort of hyper-vigilant narcissism that has infected Australian women, reinforced by a certain type of approval-seeking man.

      For an excellent example of the impact on real people, have a look at http://www.perthnow.com.au/lifestyle/relationships/single-smart-over-40-and-frustrated/story-fnet0gly-1226609580913#ixzz2PAhBxxIp

      From the article: "Debbie Rivers, who runs Dare to Date, which organises social events for singles, said it was a challenge to get men over 40 to attend her events.They were often hurt by previous relationships and unwilling to give anything a go."

      Naturally, this must be because the men are faulty, it couldn't possibly be due to the behaviour of those narcissistic women...

      report
  14. Dale Bloom

    Analyst

    I wouldn’t place much reliance on a website that includes profanity in its title.

    Some Australian science websites I look at include the ABC’s science website, and Dr Karl appears regularly on JJJ (hurray).

    http://www.abc.net.au/science/

    There is Science Alert

    http://www.sciencealert.com.au/

    There is The Conversation

    https://theconversation.com/au

    One interesting science website that does not include profanity is e! Science News, which runs on fully automated AI, with no human editor.

    http://esciencenews.com/

    report
  15. Sean Manning

    Physicist

    If you start 'I Fuckig Luv Spelling' I will like it immediately!

    report