On From the Comments: Mansplaining the Currency of Outrage
Are you offering yourself to me as a young trophy wife, in the parlance of our times?
0
On From the Comments: Mansplaining the Currency of Outrage
Jezebel treats objects like women, man.
0
On When Life Hands You Incestuous Sexual Assault, Make Incestuous Sexual Assaultade
Angle is onto something. Fetus lemonade is the best kind there is. And to be fair, incestuous dad-rape can leave a kid with a sour taste in her mouth.
0
On Doctors Really Not Testing Drug On Pregnant Women So As To Prevent Lesbianism
I hate to say this, Abe Sauer, but I agree with your strong criticism.
What is the point of this article? Is it to criticize Dan Savage and John Byrne for their supposedly unfair criticism of a well-respected scientist for her forays into eugenics? If so, how about some quotes from both Savage and Byrne that directly prove the writer's claims? How about some evidence to back her thesis? Where's the citations? Are we to simply take her word for it that Savage and Byrne did a bad, bad thing?
Secondly, why is the much larger issue of the crazy eugenics lady not being investigated or mentioned? There's still much to learn online about Dr.New and her research. It's a very disturbing and important story. Frankly, this article detracts from it because it doesn't have anything substantial to offer. It shouldn't be upto Hippity, a commenter, to flesh out and clarify the writer's point.
It's ironic that an article about misleading headlines is in itself quite misleading. The article gives the impression that Dr.New has zero intention of testing the drug's effects on lesbianism in utero. Which is simply not true. There's way too much evidence to contradict that assumption. Dr. New is clearly invested in dex as a method of preventing not just lesbianism but even so -called 'masculine career choices'.
This is actually not a minor issue. It's the tip of an iceberg. So far the commentariat here has been too polite, too nervous (for fear of breaking the All Jokes All the Time culture) or too relieved that they're out of Gawker to notice or mention it. If the Awl wants to break into the big time, then they're gonna have to figure out what kind of content they provide. Right now, it seems like the site has a bit of an identity crisis at hand. You can't get yourself taken seriously with content like this that's lacking in focus, short on evidence, poorly fleshed out and that ignores a way bigger story that's burning up the Internet.
I don't think the editors and publisher at The Awl get that they're at a crossroads. So far, the site has worked as a refuge for ex-members of the Gawker commentariat. And that's great. But if the site is to grow beyond that and move from being a place rife with insider jokes, and the occasional lame pun, into something that actually provides us with real information and fulfill its laudable and purported aim of making us less stupid, then things are going to have change. You can't have liberal arts trained writers writing about scientific issues and consistently get cogent posts from them. Linking to a couple science stories every day with some joke-filled headline and little explanation isn't really gonna cut it. You can't sustain a website over the long term with general purpose cultural commentary. Because general purpose cultural commentary is everyfuckingwhere and a lot of it is on websites that are much prettier to look at. I think if The Awl really wants to differentiate itself from Gawker, then they need to get in a science writer or two into their roster. Basically, they need to get more writers who specialize in a field whether it's physics or history or music or public health. I can get superficial cultural crticism anyfuckingwhere.I don't need to come here for it. Most people here feel loyalty to The Awl because it isn't Gawker. What does this website have to offer all the people who don't really give a shit about Gawker?
The Awl ran a great article from a guy who went down to Ciudad Juarez and wrote what he witnessed about the drug wars there. That's the kind of specific, information-based writing that'll help propel the Awl into the big time. They gotta figure out what they want from their content providers. Sure there's a lot of jokes in the comments from the ex-Gawkerites for now. But over the long term, as a consumer, I think I'd like to see more focus and discipline in the content.
P.S: Balk, Choire and Cho: I just gave you guys some good and free business advice. I won't charge you but please do right by your readership. I really give a shit about this site's long term financial wellbeing.
0
On Doctors Really Not Testing Drug On Pregnant Women So As To Prevent Lesbianism
There's no evidence showing the ratio between the number of parents who legitimately want to treat their kids' disease and those who want to raise straight daughters. Who's to tell? But again that's not the issue with this case at all.
It's not about the drug really. It's about the doctor/scientist and her team that has published studies showing a subtle but clear and definite bias against non-normative gender behavior. And now apparently she's found a cure for it.
That's why I believe that the point of this article isn't particularly significant. No one is really attacking the parents of sick kids. Read the articles Bustillos cites. There's plenty of justifiable anger from the writers directed at the whackadoo doctor. She and her possible belief system are the focus of the articles. Not the parents of genuinely sick kids.
That's why I say below that this article is very misguiding and takes the focus away from an issue that is of great concern to the LGBT community.
0
On Doctors Really Not Testing Drug On Pregnant Women So As To Prevent Lesbianism
This is a little OT but I think it's high time that The Awl hired an actual science writer to cover issues like this. Liberal arts training is great, and yes it does develop critical thinking and argumentative skills. But it's simply not enough to analyze scientific problems and issues. You guys cover science stories all the time and your readership is clearly interested in sci/tech too. Given that, I think, at this point, you really need someone with a science background in your roster of writers. I think we'll all benefit from it. It prevents ambiguity and conjecture in the actual posts and we, the readers, get information that is of a much higher quality.
0
On Doctors Really Not Testing Drug On Pregnant Women So As To Prevent Lesbianism
And what deception is that exactly?
0
On Doctors Really Not Testing Drug On Pregnant Women So As To Prevent Lesbianism
What is the point of this post? That CAH is a serious illness? Nothing new there. That women whose kids are at risk for developing CAH might want to try dexamethasone? Perhaps.
Basically, Bustillos is saying that Savage and Byrne attacked women who might want to try dexamethasone for their kids having CAH. That's extremely debatable.
Please read their articles. Note the utter lack of quotes from Savage and Byrne in this post. There's actually very little in both the articles to suggest that they went after mothers of at-risk babies with pitchforks.
0
On Doctors Really Not Testing Drug On Pregnant Women So As To Prevent Lesbianism
No need to get snippy with me, Hippity.
Take a good look at both the articles Bustillos' cites as evidence that some nasty writers out there are attacking women whose fetuses are at genuine risk for developing CAH for being lesbian-haters. Both articles from Byrne and Savage do exaggerate somewhat in that they seem to imply that women right now are taking dex to prevent their kids from growing up into lesbians. Nowhere is there any callous attack on women who legitimately want to help their children grow up with CAH. So the point of the article is built on iffy evidence.
I think Bustillos read way more than was intended into Savage's and Byrne's articles. Which is too bad really because she has completely detracted from the real issue at hand and taken it down an irrelevant path.
0
On From the Comments: Mansplaining the Currency of Outrage
Kevin: OMG new shit comes to light!
Abe: Yeah, good thinking. You can't watch or you have to pay a hundred.