jinian

Having hung my laundry out on the balcony on a little round clippy thing like a good resident of Japan, I am off to the zoo and botanic gardens. First, some images to share.

I would date with this person: Oregon Trail cosplay

New baby capybara OMG

I have my quibbles, but human ponies with different body types are pretty great, especially Pinkie Pie.

Food paintings/dioramas must be seen to be believed

My very favorite kind of vandalism: Silly, clever Tube signage

From Smithsonian magazine (because presumably not everyone gets it sent to their house for free?) a couple of months ago: Henry VIII as a chicken

Wonder Woman being spanked by a giant doll? I have no explanation for this.

Lots going on lately that's making me think about women, sexism, and science.

It all started with the Science Cheerleaders. I was surprised at the amount of uncritical happiness I saw about them from feminists, since I had strongly mixed feelings from the first moment of exposure. Over at Blag Hag, I wrote:

"Represents empowerment right now" is exactly where I am on the Science Cheerleaders. Do I think they're making a free choice without social coercion to value and promote their sexiness? Of course not; they're getting literal, monetary compensation for being sexy, and I'm just guessing but there might be some tiny amount of social approbation as well. (Note that I am not saying they're not athletes; their brand of sexiness requires physical prowess.) But I am thrilled to see them, because they're compensating for other social pressures that are leading girls not to develop as the scientists they may want to be because it's considered unsexy, and sexiness is supposed to always be a good and necessary thing for girls. The reinforcement the cheerleaders provide to that idea worries me, but I predict that more critical thinking skills taught to more different people will lead to more questioning and social improvement later.

(I don't agree with much of Jen's very-third-wave original post, but I think my fellow UW grad needs to keep posting as long as the amazing Twisty Faster does, and I liked the discussion that ensued.)

In Science last week there was a review of two books on How Neuromythologies Support Sex Role Stereotypes (link probably requires subscription, sorry). The books are Brain Storm: The Flaws in the Science of Sex Differences by Rebecca M. Jordan-Young and Delusions of Gender: How Our Minds, Society, and Neurosexism Create Difference by Cordelia Fine Norton. As usual, when people get started on gender differences, even supposedly impartial scientists can say some idiotic shit, and the books point this out at length. The reviewer, Diane F. Halpern, wrote Sex Differences in Cognitive Abilities, which I have not read, and she does maintain that differences exist across cultures:

"Consider the finding that, in more gender-equal societies, females perform as well as males in mathematics (7), much better than males in reading (7), and much worse than males in visuospatial tasks (5). No simple theory, such as the hypothesis that sex differences reflect societal norms or that gender-equal societies will reduce all sex differences, can explain this pattern of results."

Halpern wanted a more balanced view of actual gender-difference science rather than mere mocking of pseudoscience, which is what these books deliver. I admit that I am more likely to read the mocking than I would be to read the balanced view; not only is it more entertaining, but it seems like you have to go too far to get anyone to listen to you at all, see also Richard Dawkins. Balance those scales, authors!

In a fine example of similar mocking, we have Fannie with Breaking: Boys and Girls Are Inherently Different, Except When Boys Prove Worse At Stuff. I particularly like her point that "...while I agree with many societal explanations for such [performance in school] disparities, especially racial ones, I think it's worth noting how rare it is for anyone to say, 'Well, now that girls have been attending school on parity with boys for awhile now, we are seeing that they are actually inherently smarter than boys.'" It's obviously untrue, but does that stop people from saying a bunch of other crazy shit? It does not, and the omission's noteworthy.

Tony Porter's TED talk about getting out of the "man box" (social rules for men) is pretty phenomenal. He owns up to complicity in perpetuating the nasty stuff, complete with creepy rape story, but he's clearly gotten way past it and he's telling people why. I was disappointed to see almost all women in his audience; this is a talk for men to hear.

Late in the game but well worth reading came Sady Doyle's wonderful "Ellen Ripley Saved My Life" (http://www.theawl.com/2010/12/ellen-ripley-saved-my-life). Doyle explicitly ties her own life to those of fictional heroines, and goes a beautiful job of it. I'm grateful that she doesn't fall into the fallacious science-as-villain trap despite noting that institutions are a real problem for these strong women.

For the first time, my electronic subscription to Science has been helpful! I discovered that the herpes vaccine study I was in a few years ago showed the vaccine to be completely unhelpful. Initially, a previous study had shown no benefit to most people, but there was a seemingly significant result that women who had no herpes virus infection whatsoever might have had boosted immunity against HSV-2 ("genital herpes" though either can infect you anywhere really). HSV-2 isn't usually considered all that dangerous, though it's really not pleasant and it's known to act synergistically with HIV. Because HSV-1 (cold sores) is so similar to HSV2, it's thought to offer some protection against later infection with HSV-2, and the people who did the original 2002 study thought that effect might have been swamping a weak vaccine effect in those with HSV-1. It was worth following up; a weak effect is a sign that the vaccine is doing something right.

Since I've never had a cold sore or anything resembling initial herpes infection, I joined the study and found that indeed I was virus-free. (Most people do carry HSV-1, even if they don't know it, so this was lucky!) I was vaccinated in two stages, and over about a year and a half, I returned to the study site and had blood draws. I never did hear whether I was treatment or control, or the study result, though I've moved since then. I'd been starting to wonder what the result had been. Turns out there was no benefit from this vaccine after all. No one can quite explain the protective effect that seemed to appear in the last study, though there's some idea that the populations recruited were different; the original study looked at women in "discordant relationships" where they were involved with someone HSV-2 positive, and this one didn't have that criterion. Possibly there's low-level exposure to herpes antigen in that situation, and the vaccine was sufficient to build immunity from that but not from zero.

Unfortunately, there is no other promising vaccine in development. It's now known to be non-easy, so it'll be harder to get funding from industry and others to work on the problem.

(In other disastrous science news, robots think we taste like bacon.)

I am all weepy now. Tim Gunn says It Gets Better.

(I was planning this anyway, but in honor of Rachel's excellent post on why negative reviews are a good thing, here you go right now, even though I ought to be working.)

I have read TWO books with sexual consent problems in a row. Come on, authors. Pleasure Town Is Invite Only.

( minor spoilers for House of the Stag and Nylon Angel )

Well, I've been badly depressed all today (at least; signs point back to Sunday evening for the start), but now I am just disturbed. Which I guess is better?

Cow-based music video goes through bouncy, misshapen, conjoined, fractal, spidermorph. Yikes. Thanks-I-think to nancylebov on friendsfriends.

(Rachel Maddow maintains that I shouldn't run my life by personal triumphs, and I agree, but these are still nice.)

1. Slept late through a bad bout of cramps this morning. It's clearly not all that the Evil Uterus has in store for me, but it's always preferable to check out mentally when possible even if I wake up tired.

2. Was on top of the material in journal club despite pain/tiredness. Guess I got mental clarity for a change.

3. Made it up to the HUB lawn just in time to catch a few Throw Me the Statue songs! The sound quality was Not Good, but the melody and energy were in there and they were having fun. Someone was spinning yo-yos like poi, too, very nice. There was a dunk tank featuring a guy in a College Republican t-shirt and an inflatable slide, too, but that was pretty much the sad extent of "HUB Lawn-a-palooza". Hey, I got what I wanted.

And not a personal triumph as such, except in that I did not betray my hilarity: Professor J has been keeping a weather eye on my hair and commenting occasionally about whether it was brighter, etc., so there was pre-journal-club conversation about it. She expressed a wish to have some kind of mood-regulated hair color signaling, so that you could see someone from a distance and think, "oh, I'm not getting on that elevator." This wouldn't be particularly amusing except that her lab staff have developed an entire field guide to her hairstyles and what they mean about her mood. :)

Headaches for six of the last seven days, especially bad yesterday. Bursts of chainsaw noise starting at 8:15 today are Not Helping. They've now added a chipper, which at least reduces variation. (I already feel more awake than I ever managed yesterday; hopefully it'll last.)

Ooh, Bioblitz! I don't think I'm doing anything more important than that on May 21-22.