Dr. James Barry, Albert Cashier, Charley Parkhurst, Billy Tipton, and Dr. Alan Hart could have each written “I am a man and want to be recognized across history as such” and transphobes would still be like… “wow what misunderstood butch heroes… lesbian icons!!!!”
interesting how they… didn’t all write that. across history women have disguised themselves as men in order to escape misogyny cus u couldn’t get anywhere much in life (much less become successful doctors) as women. and anyways, of course a woman constrained by sexism would prefer to be given the privileges of a man. i can’t confirm these women were lesbians, but you cannot confirm they were transmen either.
Interesting how… I didn’t argue that women haven’t disguised themselves throughout history. I mentioned specific instances of historical trans men for whom there is evidence to conclude they identified as men and not women. I said nothing against lesbians in my post either, only about transphobes.
i have been fucked up ever since i took a mythology class in college and learned that the greek mythology we know today is not only deliberately patriarchal (i mean duh) but was put in place specifically to abolish the matriarchal religion that came before it, nearly all traces of which were systematically erased. AND, the reason the modern west is so obsessed with greek mythology specifically is that it aligns so closely with our own patriarchal values. like we are literally taught greek mythology IN SCHOOL, that’s how hugely important it is in our culture. (i mean think about it… there is no real benefit to placing that much emphasis on greek mythology specifically over any other part of history)
learning this literally ruined greek mythology for me lmao
artemis and aphrodite are the classic madonna (virgin) and the whore
athena is deliberately stripped of her femininity in order to be goddess of wisdom, springing fully formed from zeus’ head instead of being born from a woman
hera is the jealous, vindictive ball and chain, etc etc.
and the kicker? pandora was a revamped character from an older myth, in which she created every single thing in the universe, good and bad. she didn’t just open a box and ruin everything by not being able to follow orders. pandora literally means “all-giving”. and in the greek mythology we know today, she’s the first woman on earth and manages to fuck things up for everyone. sound familiar? like eve, maybe?
i don’t have sources because i learned this in a college class like 3 years ago but if anyone has access to their college’s academic database and wants to source this for me that’d be awesome. i haven’t tried but i’m guessing you’d be hard pressed to find info about it on google.
here’s a book i’m reading abt it that i picked up at a half-price bookstore. it’s a bittersweet read. there’s references inside the front cover, too, for further reading.
Thank you for adding this! Reblogging so y’all can see it
This book is the bomb diggety. Bittersweet read indeed.
The university existed before capitalism, and has sometimes resisted obedience to the dictates of the capitalist market, pursuing not profit but truth and knowledge. But capitalism devours what it can, and as it extends its domination, it comes as little surprise that the modern university becomes increasingly subservient to what Ellen Meiksins Wood calls “the dictates of the capitalist market — its imperatives of competition, accumulation, profit-maximization, and increasing labour-productivity.”
In academia, that imperative manifests itself in visible ways: publish or perish, funding or famine.
Without public investment, universities are compelled to play by private sector rules, i.e., to operate like businesses. Businesses, of course, are all about the bottom line — and the health of the bottom line depends on profit maximization, which in turn depends on careful and constant evaluation of inputs and outputs. The result for academic science, according to researchers Marc A. Edwards and Siddhartha Roy in their paper“Academic Research in the 21st Century: Maintaining Scientific Integrity in a Climate of Perverse Incentives and Hypercompetition,” has been the introduction of a new regime of quantitative performance metrics, which governs almost everything scientific researchers do and has observable impacts on their work practices.
These metrics and benchmarks include “publication count, citations, combined citation-publication counts (e.g., h-index), journal impact factors (JIF), total research dollars, and total patents.” Edwards and Roy observe that “these quantitative metrics now dominate decision-making in faculty hiring, promotion and tenure, awards, and funding.” As a result, academic scientists are increasingly driven by a frenzied desire to get their research funded, published and cited. “Scientific output as measured by cited work has doubled every 9 years since about World War II,” note Edwards and Roy.
But quantity does not translate to quality. On the contrary, Edwards and Roy track the effect of quantitative performance metrics on the quality of scientific research and find that it has a detrimental effect. As a result of rewards systems incentivizing publication volume, scientific papers have become shorter and less comprehensive, boasting “poor methods and increase in false discovery rates.” In response to the growing emphasis on work citations in professional evaluations, reference lists have become bloated to meet career needs, with an increasing number of peer reviewers requesting that their own work be cited as a condition of publication.
Meanwhile the system that rewards increased grant funding with more professional opportunities results in scientists spending an outsize amount of time writing grant proposals and overselling the positive results of their research to catch the attention of funders. Likewise, when universities reward departments for ranking highly, departments are incentivized to “reverse engineer, game, and cheat rankings,” eroding the integrity of scientific institutions themselves.
The systemic consequences of increased market pressure on academic science are potentially catastrophic. As Edwards and Roy write, “The combination of perverse incentives and decreased funding increases pressures that can lead to unethical behavior. If a critical mass of scientists become untrustworthy, a tipping point is possible in which the scientific enterprise itself becomes inherently corrupt and public trust is lost, risking a new dark age with devastating consequences to humanity.” In order to maintain credibility, scientists need to maintain integrity — and hypercompetition is eroding that integrity, potentially undermining the entire endeavor.
Furthermore, scientists who are preoccupied chasing grants and citations lose opportunities for careful contemplation and deep exploration, which are necessary to uncover complex truths. Peter Higgs, the British theoretical physicist who in 1964 predicted the existence of the Higgs boson particle, told the Guardian upon receiving the Nobel Prize in 2013 that he would never have been able to make his breakthrough in the current academic environment.
“It’s difficult to imagine how I would ever have enough peace and quiet in the present sort of climate to do what I did in 1964,” Higgs said. “Today I wouldn’t get an academic job. It’s as simple as that. I don’t think I would be regarded as productive enough.”
If ever there was a paragraph that described Canadian-Brand Racist Jackassetry, THIS IS VERY IT.
‘When you believe niceness disproves the presence of racism, it’s easy to start believing bigotry is rare, and that the label racist should be applied only to mean-spirited, intentional acts of discrimination. The problem with this framework–besides being a gross misunderstanding of how racism operates in systems and structures enabled by nice people–is that it obligates me to be nice in return, rather than truthful. I am expected to come closer to racists. Be nicer to them. Coddle them.’
