Science Blogger Called A Whore For Wanting to Get Paid

Leaving aside the fact that we don't know this was an accurate rendition of the story, or what the guy's personal opinions/prejudices may or may not be...

What I find interesting is that the folks who leverage stories like this for causes tend to go for the smallest group that could be considered targeted. In this case, why not address the fact that it's not appropriate in most cases to call a random woman of ANY color or ethnicity a "whore?"

If racism is a factor it needs to be addressed, but why assume it when there's no evidence of that? For all we know, the guy may be an equal opportunity jerk.

Separate question: Is it common in academic circles to call people who wish to profit from their work "whores?" If so, this might be a case of non gender-specific stupidity from the get-go. (That's a genuine question. I don't know if it's the situation or not, but I know there's a strong prejudice in some academic circles against people who want to be paid to publish. Just wondering if that specific term is the one commonly used.)


Paul

Actually, in the context of the messages, it is really the only one that fits. Though she was OBVIOUSLY a woman and black, she was allowed to do what a white man would have. It is simply that, like MANY writers on such sites, REGARDLESS of color or sex, she wasn't paid.

HEY, don't start serving at applebees and figure you will get paid. You FIRST have to interview, be accepted, AGREE ON THE WAGE, FILL OUT FORMS, etc...

Steve

I'm being exposed to too MANY isms, thank you!

I looked at what holmes was said to look at for a while. I saw a LOT of anti semitism, racism, misplaced "white pride", etc... UGLY! I did it because I was curious, and they claimed things about those sites. I never posted, and don't even have a record of the URLs now.

I have visited similar sites that were full of racist minorities. I often go to youtube, and see a lot of good and bad there. I have been on sites where there were a lot of rich and poor. I think I have seen enough POVs, thankyou.

I was accused of listening too much to one of the most popular conservative talk show hosts around. Interesting, I knew/agreed with much of it before, but disagreed with his no limits to size/ecological footprint ideas. But the fact was that I listened more to a big liberal talk show host. It was simply that the timeslot was better.

OH, I already know what the biases would be. I knew that DECADES ago! I am simply saying they are unfounded given the article!

You think this is the ONLY place I have been? I guess you figure I went to private all white all male schools all my life! OK, I went to an all male school for about 1 year. Even THAT was far from all white. The school wasn't even like 50% born american. The native language of many in the school was NOT english! It was Farsi, Armenian, Spanish, and possibly a few others. And for the first few years, I DID go to a private school. It wasn't all male or all white, or even all born american. But most of the years were in public schools, which of course had a good mix, in some cases, I doubt even 1/4 was white and male. Most was in the LA school district in California. HECK, I even had people running up to me asking questions in SPANISH, ON THE STREET! I ALSO served on a project to the poor, delivered food to the poor, helped out on a city councilmans(He's serving on the US HR Energy and Commerce Committee) panel on the poor, and worked on a soup line in hollywood. I got to see a lot there.

REALLY? You think that there is a "cultural bias exists which have traditionally pushed white male perspectives to the forefront"?!?!?!?!? On what planet? What nation? If you were talking about the US and some european nations prior to say 1960, ok, MAYBE! Since then, it has been pushing them anyway BUT! That is NOT to say that people even THEN were saying blacks should be held back, etc... Affirmative action started before 1961. Jim crow and some other things ended in 1964. Of course, over half the nation WAS against Jim Crow. The supporters tried to compromise with the opponents as early as 1890.

Who's talking FEELINGS? It isn't what she FEELS about what the guy COULD have been thinking or COULD have meant. OK, I GIVE, MAYBE he is racist! MAYBE he is SEXIST! But the statements didn't really say anything sexist, and didn't say anything racist, and that is ALL I am talking about! ICSM. But really, it is immoral, unjust, and even ILLEGAL to persecute simply on FEELINGS! If you want THAT, imagine what could happen if YOU were accused of such a problem. There is NO defense!

HEY, if the owner of that blog were black and a woman, and said the SAME thing to me, under the SAME circumstances, I might have dragged her name through the mud for calling me a whore. I wouldn't have assumed she was sexist and racist though. And I haven't bothered to even ask anyone about whether they would pay me. I sometimes make jokes along that vein(asking for payment) here to illustrate a point, but that is IT!

Steve

Quincy, Really?

Where are you getting your demographic data? Certainly not from looking at the participants of this thread, which is all that's relevant to the discussion going on here. The average age of the participants in this thread is probably 15 to 20 years or more above the average age of the members of most forums in this market. A fair percentage of women, one gentleman we suppose to be of Chinese ancestry, and a few people whose race and ethnicity I couldn't even guess at. Because, of course, none of us have any life experience aside from this forum, and we have all limited our perspectives and exposure to that espoused by the white, male-dominated aristocracy. Define "validate," please.

If, by that, you mean "accept as accurate without questioning," you're barking up the wrong sub-section. Folks here in the lounge question everything.

If you want to find something worthwhile to argue about in the comments, look no further than the people who seem to think the word "whore" has racial connotations. That is truly offensive.

The consensus here seems to be as follows:

* The guy is definitely an insensitive boor. A jackass, even.

* The word "whore" had no place in the original discussion.

* He is probably at least somewhat sexist.

* He may or may not be racist, but there's nothing in the posted comments to support that claim.

Sticking to what was actually said is useful in avoiding pointlessly inflammatory situations, like the blogger's arbitrary dismissal of any opinions coming from people with "pale skin and penises."

'Cause, you know, we're all, like, evil plutocrats. And stuff.

She's right to discount comments from people who "drop the F-bomb" in their replies on her blog. Civility counts, especially in discussions of matters like this. But the race of the commenter simply shouldn't, and to couch the dismissal in the terms she did is as ignorant and insensitive as the "whore" comment that started the whole thing.

Race-baiting is not an appropriate way to fight racism, whether real or perceived.


Paul