Politička korektnost

[Miralem]

 

zivot je komplikovano sranje. i ova politichka korektnost ga pojednostavljuje na glup nachin. 

ocu da sam ja ovo reko, aj mi prodaj izjavu. 10 evra?

 

fali jos argument da su zene u nauci ionako grdane

jok, bolje su od instruktorki fitnesa.

[gagorder]

inace, ja da sam ovaj naucnik, istetovirala bih dezen te kosulje. valjda ima mesta negde. i onda mi nista ne biste mogle, zenturace. moje telo, moje platno.

Edited November 21, 2014 by gagorder

[ToniAdams]

da su bolje ribe, ne bi im smetale cice na kosulji. ovako, sigurno se osecaju ugrozeno. mislim, kao ribe. sto nisu. pa moraju da se bave naukom.

 

+100000

[gospa buba]

jao bre nemojte molim vas

[Venom]

+100000

 

Jer to binarno ili decimalno? Lep sam i glup. Nisam naucnik.

[gagorder]

jok, bolje su od instruktorki fitnesa.

miraleme, fitnes je za tebe na-u-ka. astrofizika. inace bi imalo nekog efekta to tvoje bavljenje po teretanama. znaci, instruktorke fitnesa da knjizis u naucnice.

[ToniAdams]

 

Jer to binarno ili decimalno? Lep sam i glup. Nisam naucnik.

 

to su valjda oni arapski brojevi

Edited November 21, 2014 by ToniAdams

[Venom]

 

 

 

to su valjda oni arapski brojevi

 

 

+MDCCLXII

[3opge]

treba se baviti naukom da bi znao da cenis sisate ribetine koje ne razlikuju jednacinu i jebacinu 

[gospa buba]

aj nemojte stvarno. svaka pricha izadje na isto sranje, chvp <_<

[Miralem]

miraleme, fitnes je za tebe na-u-ka. astrofizika. inace bi imalo nekog efekta to tvoje bavljenje po teretanama. znaci, instruktorke fitnesa da knjizis u naucnice.

e ako je fitnes nauka onda vise necu da idem na njega.

 

aj nemojte stvarno. svaka pricha izadje na isto sranje, chvp <_<

a sta drugo da radimo? ladno napolju <_<

[gagorder]

treba se baviti naukom da bi znao da cenis sisate ribetine koje ne razlikuju jednacinu i jebacinu

vecini ne treba doktorat za to

[betty]

scientific american (blogs): The Rosetta mission #shirtstorm was never just about that shirt.

 

jedan od linkova unutar teksta vodi do teksta u kom se izmedju ostalog kaze ovo: 

 

In terms of the first question - "do people percieve sexualized women differently?" - the answer is a resounding "yes." As I have talked about in previous posts (here, here, and here), research (here) shows that men and women rate these women as less intelligent, and even have less concern for their physical well-being. Women who are scantily dressed are even implcitly dehumanized (likened more to animals) compared to women who are not scantilly dressed. In fact (here and here), even having men and women focus on a woman's appearance reduces perceptions of the woman's intelligence, morality and competence, even if she is modestly dressed.

 

In terms of the second question - "do sexualized images of women impact how other women are perceived?" - the answer is again a resounding "yes," at least for men. Specifically, in one study researchers randomly assigned men to view sexualized or neutral images of women. They were then told that they would have to rate the female experimenter for a task unrelated to the images. When the men had just viewed sexualized images of different women, they rated the experimenter, even though she was modestly dressed, as less competent and intelligent.

 

These studies are important because every time someone sees a sexualized image of a woman (which studies show are far more frequent than those of sexualized men), this likely is detrimental to how women are perceived.

 

a prvi tekst, izmedju ostalog, kaze:

(...)

 

To some viewers, Taylor’s shirt just read as a departure from the “boring” buttoned-down image the public might associate with scientists. But to many women scientists and science communicators who commented upon it, the shirt seemed to convey lack of awareness or concern with the experiences of women who have had colleagues, supervisors, teachers, students treat them as less than real scientists, or science students, or science communicators, or science fans. It was jarring given all the subtle and not so subtle ways that some men (not all men) in science have conveyed to us that our primary value lies in being decorative or titillating, not in being capable, creative people with intelligence and skills who can make meaningful contributions to building scientific knowledge or communicating science to a wider audience.

 

The pin-up images of scantily clad women on the shirt Taylor wore on camera distracted people who were tuned in because they wanted to celebrate Rosetta. It jarred them, reminding them of the ways science can still be a boys’ club.

 

It was just one scientist, wearing just one shirt, but it was a token of a type that is far too common for many of us to ignore.

 

There is research on the ways that objectifying messages and images can have a significant negative effect on those in the group being objectified. Objectification, even if it’s unintentional, adds one more barrier (on top of implicit bias, stereotype threat, chilly climate, benevolent sexism, and outright harassment) on women’s participation.

 

Even if there wasn’t a significant body of research demonstrating that the effects are real, the fact of women who explicitly say that casual use of sexualizing imagery or language in

professional contexts makes science less welcoming for them ought to count for more than an untested hunch that it shouldn’t make them feel this way.

 

(...)

 

Voicing a critique (and sometimes steps it would be good to take going forward), rather that sighing and regarding the thing you’re critiquing as the cost of doing business, is something you do when you believe the person hearing it would want to know about the problem and address it. It comes from a place of trust — that your male colleagues aren’t trying to exclude you, and so will make little adjustments to stop doing unintentional harm once that they know that they’re doing it.

 

Matt Taylor seemed to understand the critique at least well enough to change his shirt and apologize for the unintentional harm he did. He seems willing to make that small effort to make science welcoming, rather than alienating.

 

Now we’re just waiting for the rest of the scientific community to join him.

Edited November 21, 2014 by betty

[Budja]

Paaa, opet masi.

 

Da li bi publika bila distracted da je tip nosio drugi dezen iste kosulje onako istetoviran?

Savsim verovatno.

 

Sto se kosulje tice, asocijacija je na superheorine i supermene, kako je neko vec napisao, a ne na zecice plejboja.

 

S tim u vezi, bilo bi zanilmjivo videti kakve su slike davane muskarcima u tim eksperimentima: fotografije stvarnih zena, slike Rubensa ili stripovane superheroine? 

(dva linka na clanke ukazuju da su u pitanju fotografije stvarnih zena).

 

Onako, na prvu loptu, deluje mi da bi bilo razlike u eksperimentalnim rezultatima.

[Takeshi]

These studies are important because every time someone sees a sexualized image of a woman (which studies show are far more frequent than those of sexualized men), this likely is detrimental to how women are perceived.

 

jos samo da se dogovore sa advertajzerima, i problem je resen.  -_-

 

usput, ovog leta je na slicnu temu mnogo gori bio gamergate , i po obimu, i po reakcijama.

a jos je u najvecoj meri vezan za osetljivu tinejdzersku populaciju.

probao sam malo da ispratim, ali mi je bilo previse... online svet postaje sve cudnije mesto (priblizava se onom stvarnom).