STEMinism & Women in Biology: The Female of the Species

[SD_Film Artists]

It reminds me of when the girl scouts wanted to join the boy scouts rather than replicating what the boy scouts does. Or in other words:

"we shouldn't be stereotyped into old fashioned 'girly' activities, we can do adventurous stuff too!"

"Ok, then do adventuerous stuff. No one is stopping you.."

"No, we want to do stereotypical girly activities!"

It's so funny how you're conflating individual girls and a big organisation.

Care to expand on that part? The organisation is made of individual girls. Unless you count senior staff it's impossible to have one without the other.

[Ifreann]

It's so funny how you're conflating individual girls and a big organisation.

Care to expand on that part? The organisation is made of individual girls. Unless you count senior staff it's impossible to have one without the other.

There are semi-regular stories about individual girls wanting to join the Boy Scouts and participate in their scouting activities. Asking why that one girl doesn't just replicate what the Boy Scouts do within the Girls Scouts is obviously stupid, she isn't in charge of the whole national organisation, she doesn't get to decide what activities Girl Scouts do, and likewise every other girl who's in one of these stories. But you've phrased it so as to make the organisation seem hypocritical, as if the Girl Scouts as a whole, rather than multiple individual girl scouts, want to disband their organisation and join the Boy Scouts in order to participate in their activities but stupidly won't just organise those activities themselves. Which might be amusing to imagine, but obviously isn't true if you give it even a moment's thought.

[Gormwood]

Girl Scouts of America is too addicted to sweet, sweet cookie money to have the individual Girl Scouts do anything besides push cookies. Blaming the scouts themselves for the organization's unwillingness to incorporate more intense activities in their curriculum is a disingenuous copout

[Risottia]

If you want my question in question form, here it is: why the increased focus of women in non-biology related STEM fields and the downplaying of female achievement in biology? Why not celebrate female biologists? The vetenarians, the marine biologists, the microbiologists, the ecologists and all the other women working in biology are doing great work. Why exclude them from the girl power science party?

The veterinarians aren't even scientists. Just like engineers, architects and physicians, they're technicians.
And biology and ecology are considered not as "hard science" (as in maths-based) as physics and chemistry. So, they're still somewhat shunned by the Actually Serious Science community.

This is how the Actually Serious Science community sees the world.

{Mathematicians, they're still axe-crazy though} <---side branch---> {Epistemologists, only if they passed at least three courses in Analysis, Algebra and Logics}
{Theoretical Physicists} <---side branch---> {Computer scientists because we like computers and they know their weird sort of maths}
{Experimental Physicists} <--side branch--> {Astronauts because sitting on a rocket and doing experiments IN SPAAAACE is fucking awesome and we still wish to become one eventually}
{Chemists because they're crazier than us, maybe because of all the illegal stuff they cook up in their labs at evening}
[ABOVE THIS LINE ARE THE COOL FOLKS ---------------------------------------------------------------------- ]
{Biologists,Neuroscientists,Geologists and all those weird folks that sometimes pop up at the Physics Department café}
{Physicians,Engineers and other technicians who at least know how to read and write a paper. Well, maybe}
{Other humans and non-humans}

[Ethel mermania]

Girl Scouts of America is too addicted to sweet, sweet cookie money to have the individual Girl Scouts do anything besides push cookies. Blaming the scouts themselves for the organization's unwillingness to incorporate more intense activities in their curriculum is a disingenuous copout

Srsly dude? You have a kid in the GSA or participate in their activities? Please explain how you know this.

[Gormwood]

Girl Scouts of America is too addicted to sweet, sweet cookie money to have the individual Girl Scouts do anything besides push cookies. Blaming the scouts themselves for the organization's unwillingness to incorporate more intense activities in their curriculum is a disingenuous copout

Srsly dude? You have a kid in the GSA or participate in their activities? Please explain how you know this.

If individual Girl Scouts express a desire to join the Boy Scouts to participate in more intense activity it stands to reason GSA is not meeting their needs to instead focus on marketing cookies while trying to appease with soft activities probably the likes of home economics

[Ostroeuropa]

Srsly dude? You have a kid in the GSA or participate in their activities? Please explain how you know this.

If individual Girl Scouts express a desire to join the Boy Scouts to participate in more intense activity it stands to reason GSA is not meeting their needs to instead focus on marketing cookies while trying to appease with soft activities probably the likes of home economics

This doesn't stand to reason. That male only barbers faced lawsuits, death threats, and organized harassment demanding he let women go there too. It was not the only barbers in town either. It's entirely plausible that they wanted to join boy scouts because they were told they couldn't and there's not actually anything more to it. Certainly this is the motivation of at least some of the adults in the situation.

Girl scouts does plenty of activities outdoors and so on.
https://www.girlscouts.org/en/our-progr ... doors.html

[The Holy Therns]

This is a thread that exists.

[Cekoviu]

This is a thread that exists.

You're wrong.

[SD_Film Artists]

Care to expand on that part? The organisation is made of individual girls. Unless you count senior staff it's impossible to have one without the other.

Asking why that one girl doesn't just replicate what the Boy Scouts do within the Girls Scouts is obviously stupid

Obviously I wouldn't expect one girl to change things unilaterally. That's a strawman.

she isn't in charge of the whole national organisation

Again didn't say that.

But you've phrased it so as to make the organisation seem hypocritical, as if the Girl Scouts as a whole, rather than multiple individual girl scouts, want to disband their organisation and join the Boy Scouts in order to participate in their activities but stupidly won't just organise those activities themselves. Which might be amusing to imagine, but obviously isn't true if you give it even a moment's thought.

If Girl Scouts is at all representative of their name then they'd logically change to make it appealing to their members. Of course not all girls like the same things so it's only natural that some girls will want to do things which are different from the crowd, but it's disingenious to imply that the Boy Scouts are forcing girls into gender stereotypes* or for the Girl Scouts to get mad at the Boy Scouts for undercutting them when it's the Girl Scouts who are independantly responsible for their own activities. If girls are being denied the chance to do more traditionally 'male' activities then that's the fault of the Girl Scouts management for enforcing gender stereotypes.

* which IIRC is what the orginal thread I was refering to was saying.

[Ostroeuropa]

Care to expand on that part? The organisation is made of individual girls. Unless you count senior staff it's impossible to have one without the other.

There are semi-regular stories about individual girls wanting to join the Boy Scouts and participate in their scouting activities. Asking why that one girl doesn't just replicate what the Boy Scouts do within the Girls Scouts is obviously stupid, she isn't in charge of the whole national organisation, she doesn't get to decide what activities Girl Scouts do, and likewise every other girl who's in one of these stories. But you've phrased it so as to make the organisation seem hypocritical, as if the Girl Scouts as a whole, rather than multiple individual girl scouts, want to disband their organisation and join the Boy Scouts in order to participate in their activities but stupidly won't just organise those activities themselves. Which might be amusing to imagine, but obviously isn't true if you give it even a moment's thought.

It would have been simply to focus their efforts on reforming girl scouts than reforming boy scouts, and yet they decided not to and produced more social inequality as a result.

[Valrifell]

If you want my question in question form, here it is: why the increased focus of women in non-biology related STEM fields and the downplaying of female achievement in biology? Why not celebrate female biologists? The vetenarians, the marine biologists, the microbiologists, the ecologists and all the other women working in biology are doing great work. Why exclude them from the girl power science party?

The veterinarians aren't even scientists. Just like engineers, architects and physicians, they're technicians.
And biology and ecology are considered not as "hard science" (as in maths-based) as physics and chemistry. So, they're still somewhat shunned by the Actually Serious Science community.

This is how the Actually Serious Science community sees the world.

{Mathematicians, they're still axe-crazy though} <---side branch---> {Epistemologists, only if they passed at least three courses in Analysis, Algebra and Logics}
{Theoretical Physicists} <---side branch---> {Computer scientists because we like computers and they know their weird sort of maths}
{Experimental Physicists} <--side branch--> {Astronauts because sitting on a rocket and doing experiments IN SPAAAACE is fucking awesome and we still wish to become one eventually}
{Chemists because they're crazier than us, maybe because of all the illegal stuff they cook up in their labs at evening}
[ABOVE THIS LINE ARE THE COOL FOLKS ---------------------------------------------------------------------- ]
{Biologists,Neuroscientists,Geologists and all those weird folks that sometimes pop up at the Physics Department café}
{Physicians,Engineers and other technicians who at least know how to read and write a paper. Well, maybe}
{Other humans and non-humans}

I strongly object to having CS above the cool line.

[SD_Film Artists]

Girl Scouts of America is too addicted to sweet, sweet cookie money to have the individual Girl Scouts do anything besides push cookies. Blaming the scouts themselves for the organization's unwillingness to incorporate more intense activities in their curriculum is a disingenuous copout

If the Girl Scouts are forcing gender stereotypes onto their members then they're evidently a sucky organisation. On the other hand, if the Girl Scouts are doing those gendered activities by popular demand (80+% of the girls enjoy it) then that proves that they are indeed 'girly activities' and so they're catering to their ordience. That does of course leave the 20% of girls with nothing to do, but is it really the fault of the Boy Scouts if the Girl Scouts are boring? Idealy the Girl Scouts should change (if they haven't already, since the thread I'm refering to is about 2 years old now) to make it exciting for all girls.

[Ethel mermania]

Srsly dude? You have a kid in the GSA or participate in their activities? Please explain how you know this.

If individual Girl Scouts express a desire to join the Boy Scouts to participate in more intense activity it stands to reason GSA is not meeting their needs to instead focus on marketing cookies while trying to appease with soft activities probably the likes of home economics

So you have absolutely no basis making your claim.
Individuals have different preferences and the organizations support different goals. It really shouldn't be surprising some girls prefer boy scouts, and some boys prefer girl scouts.

https://www.girlscouts.org/en/our-progr ... ogram.html

And engineering badges.

https://www.girlscouts.org/en/our-progr ... /stem.html

[Ostroeuropa]

Girl Scouts of America is too addicted to sweet, sweet cookie money to have the individual Girl Scouts do anything besides push cookies. Blaming the scouts themselves for the organization's unwillingness to incorporate more intense activities in their curriculum is a disingenuous copout

If the Girl Scouts are forcing gender stereotypes onto their members then they're evidently a sucky organisation. On the other hand, if the Girl Scouts are doing those gendered activities by popular demand (80+% of the girls enjoy it) then that proves that they are indeed 'girly activities' and so they're catering to their ordience. That does of course leave the 20% of girls with nothing to do, but is it really the fault of the Boy Scouts if the Girl Scouts are boring? Idealy the Girl Scouts should change (if they haven't already, since the thread I'm refering to is about 2 years old now) to make it exciting for all girls.

Pretty much this. Offloading the responsibility for girls onto an organization dedicated to boys is unfair to those boys and removes a male space from society.

[Tokuopolis]

If the Girl Scouts are forcing gender stereotypes onto their members then they're evidently a sucky organisation. On the other hand, if the Girl Scouts are doing those gendered activities by popular demand (80+% of the girls enjoy it) then that proves that they are indeed 'girly activities' and so they're catering to their ordience. That does of course leave the 20% of girls with nothing to do, but is it really the fault of the Boy Scouts if the Girl Scouts are boring? Idealy the Girl Scouts should change (if they haven't already, since the thread I'm refering to is about 2 years old now) to make it exciting for all girls.

Pretty much this. Offloading the responsibility for girls onto an organization dedicated to boys is unfair to those boys and removes a male space from society.

IDK, in the UK, the Scouts have been for both genders for years. I never felt excluded because their were girls and women in the club back when I was a member. But my experience could be different to others.

Therefore what?

Males will be the first to involve into transhuman machines naturally and become cyborgs first. They will surpass their female counterparts as they stay in an inferior, biological and fleshy world.

Whereas the females will genetically modify themselves into Catgirls.

[Stanmenistan]

This is a thread that exists.

I just felt the Women/Feminism in STEM discussion often excluded or downplayed the prominence of women in the field of Biology.

Most of these sources don't really help us, are too imprecise, or are outdated. Narrowing it down to what's relevant:

• Source 2 - Female students are more likely to take biology and chemistry A-level science courses in the UK than male students.
• Source 6 - Women are underrepresented in all "hard science" fields, with a slightly lower disparity in life sciences.
• Sources 7 and 8 - Technology and engineering are more prioritized in terms of STEM-related toys for kids. No comparison to a site geared towards boys, so we can't really say this is disparate between girls and boys.

2 and 6 are contradictory

Actually, they are not contradictory at all. Biology is simply another term for the life sciences. Let Toys Be Toys is a gender neutral campaign, PinkStinks is female-orientated. Both have the same end goal of removing Gender stereotypes from children's toys. I am unaware of any male directed campaigns of a similar nature.

7 and 8 don't really say anything about the situation being gender-related

Let Toys Be Toys is a officially a gender-neutral campaign, designed for both boys and girls. But it is another example of overt focus on the non-life sciences, as they are not seen as quote on quote Hard enough.

I really don't think we can say with certainty that women are equally represented or overrepresented in biology based on this evidence, and it seems to suggest that women are still dealt at least a slightly unfair hand. Furthermore, if we check the numbers in terms of actual outcome rather than student ratios, we find some unpleasant gender imbalances, as in these (non-exhaustive) examples:

• Entomology (my field): Women are underrepresented in entomology in terms of academic and government positions
• Ecology (somewhat hazy): Women are more likely to have their ecology/evolution papers rejected and their papers are cited less often
• Biology generally: Women are heavily underrepresented in high-achieving biology labs and in biology professor positions at universities

So it's clear that even if women are as or more interested in biology, they aren't seeing the same kind of results. We can argue as to why that is and it's pretty much impossible to get a solid conclusion, but I think it's pretty likely that confidence differences ultimately resulting from what one might call "toxic femininity," combined with both unconscious and conscious discrimination by biologists, are the main cause. If we assume I'm right, then the answer seems to be combating said toxic femininity through programs intended to get women interested in science

Well, you have a point. Those are some interesting articles. But STEM Feminism's overt focus on Engineering, Technology, Mathematics and non-biological sciences can't be helping. If they don't support the women in the field of Biology, who will?

That brings us to your point about biology being ignored in favor of technology, engineering, and physics. I'm not convinced that it's really a gendered thing at the moment; rather, we see general patterns across education where young children are educated about science in a very biology-exclusionary manner. Typical in-class activities and toys for kids tend to revolve around entertaining chemical reactions (baking soda volcanoes, most famously), building things (e.g., LEGO), or basic coding (e.g., Scratch). While elementary classes sometimes engage in biology-related activities (growing a class plant or keeping a caterpillar and watching its life cycle), they tend to be long-form and take a backseat to those other activities. I think I know why: good biology is often expensive, resource-intensive, difficult to perform spontaneously, and/or not always immediately visible, and kids are very interactive by nature. The symbioses and behavior that help form a leaf-cutter ant's fungus garden are incredibly fascinating, but you need to go into the field to see a colony really acting naturally, it takes a long time to form, and you can't necessarily see everything going on. In contrast, you can very easily grab baking soda and vinegar from your pantry, make a papier-mâché volcano, and make it run in less than an hour with immediately visible and incredibly entertaining results. Which one of these is a teacher going to do to sate their hyperactive 5-year-old students?

Good point, but you don't have to teach young children biology by experiments. You can show them nature documentaries like Deadly 60, Planet Earth or African Cats. You can have them play card games like Phylomon. You can have them do reports on species of animals they haven't heard of before. You can take them on field trips to natural history museums. All of which can be done on an elementary school budget.

So because of this, biology kind of lags behind in our collective psyche. We know it's a science, but we never really learned to associate it as much with science as physics and chemistry because it was largely omitted in this formative period. That's part of why organizations promoting women in STEM might unconsciously focus away from the life sciences. The other reason is that life sciences require a lot of education and outside of medicine, aren't tremendously lucrative or in high demand. We need computer scientists and engineers because the first world has gotten used to constant innovation and convenience, and we're willing to pay technologically skilled individuals a pretty penny to give that to us. Combine that with the extra underrepresentation of women in those fields and you start to generate a really good set of reasons that we should be promoting women in tech and engineering.

I don't really know what the right solution here is, but your criticisms are kind of jumbled and appear unwarranted in this particular instance.

I'm not sure what the solution here is either, but discouraging women and girls from going into the scientific field that may interest them the most is definitely not it. My criticism was that there is no need to promote women in tech and engineering whilst ignoring women in the field of Biology. Would it kill these feminists to talk about Jane Goodall, Mary Alice McWhinnie or Rita R. Colwell (among others) whilst discussing female engineers and women in non-life science STEM fields? That's all I'm asking. Don't deprecate the achievements of female biologists as lesser, or discourage girls and young women who want to be veterinarians, marine biologists or in the medical profession from following their dreams.

The other reason is that life sciences require a lot of education and outside of medicine, aren't tremendously lucrative or in high demand. We need computer scientists and engineers because the first world has gotten used to constant innovation and convenience, and we're willing to pay technologically skilled individuals a pretty penny to give that to us

Human beings are biological creatures and will remain so for the foreseeable future. Until the day when we are all machines, we still need biologists. A pandemic is currently gripping the globe. Our planet is dying and many animals are endangered. We need environmentalists, anatomists, microbiologists, doctors and other biologists because we are not apart from nature, we are a part of nature.

[Ifreann]

Asking why that one girl doesn't just replicate what the Boy Scouts do within the Girls Scouts is obviously stupid

Obviously I wouldn't expect one girl to change things unilaterally. That's a strawman.

she isn't in charge of the whole national organisation

Again didn't say that.

So you're clarifying that when you said "when the girl scouts wanted to join the boy scouts rather than replicating what the boy scouts does" you were saying that the organisation Girl Scouts of America officially tried to merge with the Boy Scouts of America, specifically out of a desire to participate in the activities organised by the BSA, and repudiated the idea of simply organising those activities themselves? You really believe that that happened?

But you've phrased it so as to make the organisation seem hypocritical, as if the Girl Scouts as a whole, rather than multiple individual girl scouts, want to disband their organisation and join the Boy Scouts in order to participate in their activities but stupidly won't just organise those activities themselves. Which might be amusing to imagine, but obviously isn't true if you give it even a moment's thought.

If Girl Scouts is at all representative of their name then they'd logically change to make it appealing to their members.

It is appealing to its members. That's how it has members.

Of course not all girls like the same things so it's only natural that some girls will want to do things which are different from the crowd, but it's disingenious to imply that the Boy Scouts are forcing girls into gender stereotypes*

I am not aware of any such implication, and no reference to any such thing can be read in your earlier post.

or for the Girl Scouts to get mad at the Boy Scouts for undercutting them when it's the Girl Scouts who are independantly responsible for their own activities. If girls are being denied the chance to do more traditionally 'male' activities then that's the fault of the Girl Scouts management for enforcing gender stereotypes.

But you didn't criticise the GSA for failing to organise activities that their members want to participate in. You mocked them for hypocritically wanting to join the Boy Scouts to do the same activities as the Boy Scouts but refusing to just organise those activities themselves. Something that I don't believe happened.

* which IIRC is what the orginal thread I was refering to was saying.

What thread?

[SD_Film Artists]

Obviously I wouldn't expect one girl to change things unilaterally. That's a strawman.


Again didn't say that.

So you're clarifying that when you said "when the girl scouts wanted to join the boy scouts rather than replicating what the boy scouts does" you were saying that the organisation Girl Scouts of America officially tried to merge with the Boy Scouts of America, specifically out of a desire to participate in the activities organised by the BSA, and repudiated the idea of simply organising those activities themselves? You really believe that that happened?

I meant the girl scouts as in the membership. And no I'm not saying that a single girl scout can change things unilaterally. It's kind of moot now anyway as some Boy Scout groups are non-gendered and thus said girls are able to join.

If Girl Scouts is at all representative of their name then they'd logically change to make it appealing to their members.

It is appealing to its members. That's how it has members.

So you accept that the membership is broadly representative of the organisation and thus the 'It's so funny how you're conflating' bullshit was uncalled for?

Of course not all girls like the same things so it's only natural that some girls will want to do things which are different from the crowd, but it's disingenious to imply that the Boy Scouts are forcing girls into gender stereotypes*

I am not aware of any such implication, and no reference to any such thing can be read in your earlier post.

Which is why I provided the footnote to give better context.

or for the Girl Scouts to get mad at the Boy Scouts for undercutting them when it's the Girl Scouts who are independantly responsible for their own activities. If girls are being denied the chance to do more traditionally 'male' activities then that's the fault of the Girl Scouts management for enforcing gender stereotypes.

But you didn't criticise the GSA for failing to organise activities that their members want to participate in. You mocked them for hypocritically wanting to join the Boy Scouts to do the same activities as the Boy Scouts but refusing to just organise those activities themselves. Something that I don't believe happened.

Well yes I do think it's rather odd to lay the blame at the Boy Scouts when in reality the Boy Scouts are at wost only refusing to provide an answer for a problem which was caused by the GSA members and/or management and thus the blame should be left with the GSA. Or are you pointing out that it would be stupid for me to literally say that a girl scout wanted to do camping but then stopped herself as her alter-ego wanted to do cookie-making? Of course I didn't literally mean that. I'm not sure what you're trying to prove.

What thread?

An NSG thread about 2 years ago where I said something similar to my reply to Gormwood. Note that I said 'It reminds me of when...' ie a past event.

[Stanmenistan]

Everyday Feminism's STEM Outreach article called Biology a social science rather than the hard science it really is. That is incredibly unfair to both female biologists and female social scientists.

[Cekoviu]

Everyday Feminism's STEM Outreach article called Biology a social science rather than the hard science it really is. That is incredibly unfair to both female biologists and female social scientists.

Ah, good old Everyday Feminism. Never ceases to get basic stuff wrong in the most idiotic way possible.

[Stanmenistan]

Not All Feminists. I just wish more Feminists (heck, more people) encouraging girls and young women to get into science would pay a little more attention to female biologists, especially given a female biologist (Rita R. Colwell) coined the term STEM in the first place

A bit late on the response, but we do pay attention to women in biology. But, take for example myself and the numerous women I went to school with in STEM - every one of us experienced overt sexism in the classroom. It's not necessarily about "we need exactly half of STEM majors/degree holder to be women" and more "We need an environment where women feel encouraged and welcomed the same as men".

Sure, but Biology gives us a roadmap for the other scientific disciplines. Are women treated 100% fairly in biology? No, but the increased female presence in biology proves that progress has been made. It's just whenever I hear about girls/women in STEM, female biologists seem to be (in my eyes, rather unfairly) excluded.

[Ethel mermania]

Everyday Feminism's STEM Outreach article called Biology a social science rather than the hard science it really is. That is incredibly unfair to both female biologists and female social scientists.

Its bullshit and insulting to all biologists Male and female.

[Ifreann]

So you're clarifying that when you said "when the girl scouts wanted to join the boy scouts rather than replicating what the boy scouts does" you were saying that the organisation Girl Scouts of America officially tried to merge with the Boy Scouts of America, specifically out of a desire to participate in the activities organised by the BSA, and repudiated the idea of simply organising those activities themselves? You really believe that that happened?

I meant the girl scouts as in the membership. And no I'm not saying that a single girl scout can change things unilaterally. It's kind of moot now anyway as some Boy Scout groups are non-gendered and thus said girls are able to join.

Okay, let's re-visit your post in light of this clarification.

when the girl scouts wanted to join the boy scouts rather than replicating what the boy scouts does

How was it an option for one girl in one town to replicate what the Boy Scouts organisation does? There's a whole lot of differences between going camping with a dozen other scouts and adult supervision and doing it presumably with just a parent. Not really interchangeable activities.

It is appealing to its members. That's how it has members.

So you accept that the membership is broadly representative of the organisation and thus the 'It's so funny how you're conflating' bullshit was uncalled for?

I maintain that it was called for, given how your post reads.

I am not aware of any such implication, and no reference to any such thing can be read in your earlier post.

Which is why I provided the footnote to give better context.

But you didn't criticise the GSA for failing to organise activities that their members want to participate in. You mocked them for hypocritically wanting to join the Boy Scouts to do the same activities as the Boy Scouts but refusing to just organise those activities themselves. Something that I don't believe happened.

Well yes I do think it's rather odd to lay the blame at the Boy Scouts when in reality the Boy Scouts are at wost only refusing to provide an answer for a problem which was caused by the GSA members and/or management and thus the blame should be left with the GSA.

What blame?

Or are you pointing out that it would be stupid for me to literally say that a girl scout wanted to do camping but then stopped herself as her alter-ego wanted to do cookie-making? Of course I didn't literally mean that. I'm not sure what you're trying to prove.

I'm trying to understand your post. You're clearly trying to mock someone for wanting to join the Boy Scouts and do Boy Scouts thing but hypocritically refusing to simply doing those things without joining the Boy Scouts, but it isn't remotely clear whether you are mocking individual girls or the GSA organisation, and it doesn't make sense to act like it's hypocritical for distinct entities to have different opinions. It seems that you are talking about both without making any distinction between them in order to create an appearance of hypocrisy.

What thread?

An NSG thread about 2 years ago where I said something similar to my reply to Gormwood. Note that I said 'It reminds me of when...' ie a past event.

Very helpful.

---

Everyday Feminism's STEM Outreach article called Biology a social science rather than the hard science it really is. That is incredibly unfair to both female biologists and female social scientists.

Who cares? These distinctions, "hard vs soft", are irrelevant.

[Ethel mermania]

I meant the girl scouts as in the membership. And no I'm not saying that a single girl scout can change things unilaterally. It's kind of moot now anyway as some Boy Scout groups are non-gendered and thus said girls are able to join.

Okay, let's re-visit your post in light of this clarification.

when the girl scouts wanted to join the boy scouts rather than replicating what the boy scouts does

How was it an option for one girl in one town to replicate what the Boy Scouts organisation does? There's a whole lot of differences between going camping with a dozen other scouts and adult supervision and doing it presumably with just a parent. Not really interchangeable activities.

So you accept that the membership is broadly representative of the organisation and thus the 'It's so funny how you're conflating' bullshit was uncalled for?

I maintain that it was called for, given how your post reads.

Which is why I provided the footnote to give better context.



Well yes I do think it's rather odd to lay the blame at the Boy Scouts when in reality the Boy Scouts are at wost only refusing to provide an answer for a problem which was caused by the GSA members and/or management and thus the blame should be left with the GSA.

What blame?

Or are you pointing out that it would be stupid for me to literally say that a girl scout wanted to do camping but then stopped herself as her alter-ego wanted to do cookie-making? Of course I didn't literally mean that. I'm not sure what you're trying to prove.

I'm trying to understand your post. You're clearly trying to mock someone for wanting to join the Boy Scouts and do Boy Scouts thing but hypocritically refusing to simply doing those things without joining the Boy Scouts, but it isn't remotely clear whether you are mocking individual girls or the GSA organisation, and it doesn't make sense to act like it's hypocritical for distinct entities to have different opinions. It seems that you are talking about both without making any distinction between them in order to create an appearance of hypocrisy.

An NSG thread about 2 years ago where I said something similar to my reply to Gormwood. Note that I said 'It reminds me of when...' ie a past event.

Very helpful.

---

Everyday Feminism's STEM Outreach article called Biology a social science rather than the hard science it really is. That is incredibly unfair to both female biologists and female social scientists.

Who cares? These distinctions, "hard vs soft", are irrelevant.

Because it insults everyone in the field so they can ignore the preponderance of women in biology and whine about "harder" parts of science being girl unfriendly.

Fuck them.