Archive for the 'AntiFeminist Asshole' category

Guys who do more housework get less sex

Feb 07 2014 Published by under #FWDAOTI, AntiFeminist Asshole

No, really. It is science.

Sabino Kornrich, Julie Brines, Katrina Leupp. Egalitarianism, Housework, and Sexual Frequency in Marriage American Sociological Review February 2013 vol. 78 no. 1 26-50 doi: 10.1177/0003122412472340


Data are from Wave II of the National Survey of Families and Households published in 1996, interviews from 1992-1994.

The division of labor:

Core tasks include preparing meals, washing dishes, cleaning house, shopping, and washing and ironing; non-core tasks include outdoor work, paying bills, auto maintenance, and driving.

As you can see in the graph, the more of the "core" tasks a man completes, the less sex he gets.

The covariates for overall marital happiness and specific happiness with spouses' contribution to housework did not change this relationship. The covariate for gender-traditional ideology on household labor likewise did not change this relationship. Thus, none of these factors explains the relationship between sex frequency and the participation of the man in "core" chores.

One interesting tidbit of note in surveys like this:

women reported having sex with their spouses slightly more than five and a half times in the past month, and men reported lower frequencies, about .4 times fewer over the past month. Although it may appear surprising that husbands’ reports are lower than their wives’, existing research comparing husbands’ and wives’ reports has found similar results

I'm sure that won't cause any hilarious disagreement over which is the true value.

I'm sure the overall finding is entirely intuitive and agreeable to your sensibilities.

h/t: @seelix and @docfreeride

also, The Times is ON it.

23 responses so far

I'm sorry....but you brought this on yourself, honey.

Jan 23 2014 Published by under Anger, AntiFeminist Asshole

The intro may be trigger-y for some.

Continue Reading »

98 responses so far

No, this doesn't mean you need to avoid your female colleagues like the plague

Oct 18 2013 Published by under Academics, Anger, AntiFeminist Asshole

Bora Zivkovic has been a skeevy, predatory harasser of women. He was accused in online public and confessed. Subsequent revelations from other women who were similarly preyed upon follow a similar narrative. So even if Bora's original confession admitted only to one incident, well, nobody believes that and nor should anyone.

Continue Reading »

40 responses so far

Just try to be a decent frikken person, okay?

Oct 11 2013 Published by under Academics, Anger, AntiFeminist Asshole, Careerism

Some low normal trying to get some free content written for his science-blog type of site seems to miss this point.

Here is a kindly reminder from @DNLee5 of The Urban Scientist blog.

Hmmm, can't find Danielle Lee's original post anymore so go over to dristorm's pad and read the text of Danielle's response too.

No responses yet

When 75% plus 75% equals 30%

tl;dr version: Your Humble Narrator is a sexist pig apologist for the old school heteronormative stultifying patriarchal system, hates women, resents his spouse and would leave his kids with the dogcatcher at the slightest excuse.

More after the jump....
Continue Reading »

75 responses so far

Your Republican Party thinks quite a lot about rape

Oct 25 2012 Published by under #FWDAOTI, AntiFeminist Asshole, General Politics

Via brain wrap at DailyKos


Obama has a better approach

9 responses so far

SfN 2012: Professors behaving badly

I don't actually know Dario Maestripieri although I have read some of his scientific work now and again over the years. His areas of interest include primate social behavior as well as mating systems and reproductive strategies. Apparently his interest extends to the human primate.

Professor Maestripieri has posted a rather idiotic observation about the Society for Neuroscience meeting and his apparent disappointment in the lack of  eye-candy available for his personal enjoyment. Now yes, he posted this on Facebook which is nominally private-ish. But clearly he has enough "friends" that someone was offended and saw fit to screen capture and send it around.

There is a very simple response here. Don't do this. It's sexist, juvenile, offensive and stupid. For a senior scientist it is yet another contribution to the othering of women in science. In his lab, in his subfield, in his University and in his academic societies. We should not tolerate this crap.

Professor Maestripieri needs to apologize for this in a very public way and take responsibility for his actions. You know, not with a nonpology of "I'm sorry you were offended" but with an "I shouldn't have done that" type of response.

UPDATE: I have now heard this tale from about a half dozen independent directions. Several people expressed thanks to me and mentioned their channel on the info hesitated to publicize for fear of some sort of retaliation. Well, the cat is well and truly out of the bag and there are multiple lines of revelation on this. If you are one of the original sources, you have company. I thank you all for bringing this behavior to light.

As always, feel free to sock up in the comments, use something other than your usual in the email field though.

See Janet's post here.

And Isis' post.

And Jezebel.

281 responses so far

Not all work/life balance issues are equal

May 15 2012 Published by under AntiFeminist Asshole, Careerism

There are differences in importance within the scientific career arcs, for different work/life balance issues. And yes, the reason most presentations sponsored by your local post-doc association and/or academic society focus on child-bearing and child-rearing issues is because they are deemed most important.

So while you are feeling miffed at "yet another one focused on the family" try to keep your shit together.

Is it that you are genuinely unable to get the info you need from these or another source? Or is it that you are sitting there fuming about your *perception* that the world finds your issues unimportant or is "telling you" to reproduce? Because some of that is on you and you need to deal.

Can you really not generalize the points being made for your own situation? Elder care, spouse with disability, self with disability... sure, there are differences but there are also a lot of parallels. So take the baby-focused stuff and adjust it for your situation. Interpret!

Or is it that the world does not accept your issue of "balance" as being important?

"I can't go to that meeting, I have my first Ironman that weekend!"

or perhaps,

"My pitbull needs walkies three times a day so I'll be missing for two hours at lunchtime"

yeah, good luck with that.

UPDATE: posts from microdro and BabyAttachMode. The latter reminded me that I failed to link to this trigger for the day's discussion. In it one Clara B. Jones (@cbjones1943) opines:

It is my personal opinion that the major disadvantage for females in
research science careers concerns how to arrange UNDIVIDED, UNINTERRUPTED,
FOCUSED TIME...sometimes, for protracted &/or unpredictable periods.
10. My own "solution" was to surrender custody of my children; however, I
am not recommending this choice to anyone else and know, from personal
experience, that this decision is one that most females are averse to
thinking about.

you know, in case you think *I* make outrageous statements or anything.....

84 responses so far

Shocked, I am.

Mar 01 2012 Published by under AntiFeminist Asshole

Perusing the 'pedia on the 19th Amendment to the US Constitution I found what I was looking for. I.e. just which States were dragging their heels on giving the wimminfolk the right to vote (like real citizens and everything!)

I was shocked, I tell you, shocked.

8 responses so far

I only read it for the articles

Jan 02 2012 Published by under AntiFeminist Asshole

ah, a tragic conundrum emerges from the thickets.

Carl Zimmer (yeah, science writer! blogger! our dude! woot.) has published a new profile of Neil deGrasse Tyson (popular science! woot! one of the bigger media presences on science right now, yay!!!).

Then @MiriamGoldste noticed that there was some objecting going on in commentary to her Gplus (which nobody sees cause nobody is on the geeeplus). And she asked,

Should respectable authors publish in Playboy?

My kneejerk response was "No.". No, I do not think that respectable authors should participate in the continue oppression of women that is instantiated by the laddie-mag, porn-lite, "lifestyle magazine" or whatever you care to call Playboy. The magazine that, articles or not, sells based on youngish women appearing naked and air-brushed and photoshopped to a fair-thee-well.

In both the gplus discussion and in a Twittply to me, @miriamgoldste seems to be pursuing the thesis that Playboy itself is so irrelevant and dinky at this point, not to mention kinda tame, compared with internet pR0n and other sources, we should not be getting our knickers in a twist over this.

So I'm conflicted. I tend to agree that Playboy is tame stuff, the print magazine (even pR0n!) is dying a slow, inevitable death and as far as such venues is semi respectable. However, given that it is the granddaddy of mainstream legitimized pornography, we also have to appreciate the role that this magazine has played in normalizing the pornification of culture. Also the resulting impact on women.

Which ain't good.

Despite the way I sound, I'm not particularly prudish on this issue. One ideal of Playboy, that of releasing all of us from puritanical restrictions on our sexual beings, is not half bad. I'm down with that. Problem is, the impact seems not to have been as good as it could have been. We're still fighting the whole woman-expresses-the-sexxah-and-was-asking-for-a-rapin' thing. And the grown ass men who are fixated on a single age-range of extremely young women as their only appropriate sex target. Not to mention lots of women trying to fit themselves into the 1% plus cosmetic surgery body type/image with a lot of resulting disorders of affect, behavior and eventually metabolism and physiology.

Not being a social scientist, I'm uncertain as to the direction of I turn to you, Dear Reader. Is our revered scribe off science Carl Zimmer off the reservation on this one? Should he have thought twice?

Should we recognize that free lance writers have to take their pay where they can?

Should we be happy for the opportunity to present something, anything about science to the Playboy audience?

68 responses so far

« Newer posts Older posts »