sorophx Posted March 11, 2014 Posted March 11, 2014 yeah, we'll have to wait for one of our in-house Sith lords to come branch the thread 1 Walsingham said: I was struggling to understand ths until I noticed you are from Finland. And having been educated solely by mkreku in this respect I am convinced that Finland essentially IS the wh40k universe.
babaganoosh13 Posted March 11, 2014 Posted March 11, 2014 (edited) It will go away, and then come back in another (edit) 3 months or so when either some really over-the-top game comes out, or when someone(s) does something really stupid (perhaps at one of the upcoming conventions.) Edited March 11, 2014 by babaganoosh13 You see, ever since the whole Doritos Locos Tacos thing, Taco Bell thinks they can do whatever they want.
jillabender Posted March 11, 2014 Posted March 11, 2014 [...] Food for thought, though it's difficult to confirm/deny how common the omission/irrelevance of women contributions in history was. First you need to believe that it's possible that that happened, and then also believe that it happened regularly enough to skew our perception of history. I remember some of my university professors bringing up the point that, in a lot of cases, the problem isn't only that women's contributions weren't included in the historical record, and more that we today often overlook those parts of the historical record that involve women's experiences. In other words, in many cases, we today, and not historians in the past, are the ones making women's contributions invisible. 1
BruceVC Posted March 12, 2014 Posted March 12, 2014 [...] Food for thought, though it's difficult to confirm/deny how common the omission/irrelevance of women contributions in history was. First you need to believe that it's possible that that happened, and then also believe that it happened regularly enough to skew our perception of history. I remember some of my university professors bringing up the point that, in a lot of cases, the problem isn't only that women's contributions weren't included in the historical record, and more that we today often overlook those parts of the historical record that involve women's experiences. In other words, in many cases, we today, and not historians in the past, are the ones making women's contributions invisible. Here is an interesting link that discusses exactly what you have mentioned, the fact that in many cases the historical contribution of women in society has been marginalized http://fozmeadows.wordpress.com/2012/12/08/psa-your-default-narrative-settings-are-not-apolitical/ "Abashed the devil stood and felt how awful goodness is and saw Virtue in her shape how lovely: and pined his loss” John Milton "We don't stop playing because we grow old; we grow old because we stop playing.” - George Bernard Shaw "What counts in life is not the mere fact that we have lived. It is what difference we have made to the lives of others that will determine the significance of the life we lead" - Nelson Mandela
Monte Carlo Posted March 12, 2014 Posted March 12, 2014 [...] Food for thought, though it's difficult to confirm/deny how common the omission/irrelevance of women contributions in history was. First you need to believe that it's possible that that happened, and then also believe that it happened regularly enough to skew our perception of history. I remember some of my university professors bringing up the point that, in a lot of cases, the problem isn't only that women's contributions weren't included in the historical record, and more that we today often overlook those parts of the historical record that involve women's experiences. In other words, in many cases, we today, and not historians in the past, are the ones making women's contributions invisible. That's right. It's a conspiracy. D-Day was planned by Mrs. Eisenhower, who chose Utah beach. Meanwhile, Martin Luther was really known as Martina. Marco Polo was a chick, as was King Leonidas. University professors... university professors never change. All of them need to lose tenure and spend a year working for a living. Irony is, of course, that if the university professors took a break from their risible gender war they'd see lots of women in history who are documented and did do incredible things (and outside of the grindingly dull chapters of 'Social History' too).
alanschu Posted March 12, 2014 Posted March 12, 2014 [...] Food for thought, though it's difficult to confirm/deny how common the omission/irrelevance of women contributions in history was. First you need to believe that it's possible that that happened, and then also believe that it happened regularly enough to skew our perception of history. I remember some of my university professors bringing up the point that, in a lot of cases, the problem isn't only that women's contributions weren't included in the historical record, and more that we today often overlook those parts of the historical record that involve women's experiences. In other words, in many cases, we today, and not historians in the past, are the ones making women's contributions invisible. Fair enough. Occasionally I see the "famous women you probably haven't heard of but probably should have" posts that go around social media from time to time. Clearly their contributions are documented, but it's true that despite their contributions in similar fields such as physics/astronomy and the like, but male names are easier to recall (at least personally speaking).
alanschu Posted March 12, 2014 Posted March 12, 2014 Irony is, of course, that if the university professors took a break from their risible gender war they'd see lots of women in history who are documented and did do incredible things (and outside of the grindingly dull chapters of 'Social History' too). Jill's point was that the women ARE documented, and that our failure to educate on them is a problem with us now, now recording them back then. So this statement is actually in agreement with her, though your hostile tone seems to indicate that you think you're refuting her statement.... 1
BruceVC Posted March 12, 2014 Posted March 12, 2014 Irony is, of course, that if the university professors took a break from their risible gender war they'd see lots of women in history who are documented and did do incredible things (and outside of the grindingly dull chapters of 'Social History' too). Jill's point was that the women ARE documented, and that our failure to educate on them is a problem with us now, now recording them back then. So this statement is actually in agreement with her, though your hostile tone seems to indicate that you think you're refuting her statement.... Of course he is refuting what she is saying, in Monte's world there is no need for discssions around equality because women already have equal rights and recognition....thats as long as they don't disagree with him on any level .... "Abashed the devil stood and felt how awful goodness is and saw Virtue in her shape how lovely: and pined his loss” John Milton "We don't stop playing because we grow old; we grow old because we stop playing.” - George Bernard Shaw "What counts in life is not the mere fact that we have lived. It is what difference we have made to the lives of others that will determine the significance of the life we lead" - Nelson Mandela
Monte Carlo Posted March 12, 2014 Posted March 12, 2014 Monte has the scars on his back from the original PC wars in the 1980s and is sick and tired of it. I saw the Gramscian long-marchers and Frankfurt schoolers, butt-hurt from the Berlin Wall falling, begin their Kulturkampf insurgency on the campuses and in the Media. The current crop of twentysomethings are seeing through it, men and women both. 1
Monte Carlo Posted March 12, 2014 Posted March 12, 2014 Irony is, of course, that if the university professors took a break from their risible gender war they'd see lots of women in history who are documented and did do incredible things (and outside of the grindingly dull chapters of 'Social History' too). Jill's point was that the women ARE documented, and that our failure to educate on them is a problem with us now, now recording them back then. So this statement is actually in agreement with her, though your hostile tone seems to indicate that you think you're refuting her statement.... My ire is aimed at hang-wringing professors who would rather meta-game history and feminism than actually teach.
BruceVC Posted March 12, 2014 Posted March 12, 2014 Irony is, of course, that if the university professors took a break from their risible gender war they'd see lots of women in history who are documented and did do incredible things (and outside of the grindingly dull chapters of 'Social History' too). Jill's point was that the women ARE documented, and that our failure to educate on them is a problem with us now, now recording them back then. So this statement is actually in agreement with her, though your hostile tone seems to indicate that you think you're refuting her statement.... My ire is aimed at hang-wringing professors who would rather meta-game history and feminism than actually teach. Did it ever occur to you that maybe accurate representation of gender equality is part of the teaching process? "Abashed the devil stood and felt how awful goodness is and saw Virtue in her shape how lovely: and pined his loss” John Milton "We don't stop playing because we grow old; we grow old because we stop playing.” - George Bernard Shaw "What counts in life is not the mere fact that we have lived. It is what difference we have made to the lives of others that will determine the significance of the life we lead" - Nelson Mandela
Sarex Posted March 12, 2014 Posted March 12, 2014 Did it ever occur to you that maybe accurate representation of gender equality is part of the teaching process? Depending on what class you are teaching! There is no room for anything but hard cold facts in a history class. "because they filled mommy with enough mythic power to become a demi-god" - KP
BruceVC Posted March 12, 2014 Posted March 12, 2014 (edited) Did it ever occur to you that maybe accurate representation of gender equality is part of the teaching process? Depending on what class you are teaching! There is no room for anything but hard cold facts in a history class. Exactly, and there is no point not recognizing the facts around the role women have played historically in our societies Edited March 12, 2014 by BruceVC "Abashed the devil stood and felt how awful goodness is and saw Virtue in her shape how lovely: and pined his loss” John Milton "We don't stop playing because we grow old; we grow old because we stop playing.” - George Bernard Shaw "What counts in life is not the mere fact that we have lived. It is what difference we have made to the lives of others that will determine the significance of the life we lead" - Nelson Mandela
Humanoid Posted March 12, 2014 Posted March 12, 2014 How do you set a curriculum? a) Cover the events of history by order of significance and explore their protagonists by their roles in said event. b) Select figures of history by their physiology (not just gender) in proportions according to some set quota, then explore what events each happened to be involved in. I think the perception that the latter is happening in some institutions is what's mainly drawing ire here. 1 L I E S T R O N GL I V E W R O N G
Malcador Posted March 12, 2014 Posted March 12, 2014 Glad I took Engineering so didn't have to deal with all this crap. 4 Why has elegance found so little following? Elegance has the disadvantage that hard work is needed to achieve it and a good education to appreciate it. - Edsger Wybe Dijkstra
Humanoid Posted March 12, 2014 Posted March 12, 2014 I studied some form of computing and am therefore on safe ground as male and female connector plugs occur in almost 1:1 proportions. 6 L I E S T R O N GL I V E W R O N G
Monte Carlo Posted March 12, 2014 Posted March 12, 2014 (edited) Bruce, seriously, you need to press the eject button and take that CD Rom with 'political correctness 101' out of your head. Edit: Oh, and read my post. You are, yet again, summoning your crap strawman army. Edited March 12, 2014 by Monte Carlo 1
jillabender Posted March 12, 2014 Posted March 12, 2014 [...] Food for thought, though it's difficult to confirm/deny how common the omission/irrelevance of women contributions in history was. First you need to believe that it's possible that that happened, and then also believe that it happened regularly enough to skew our perception of history. I remember some of my university professors bringing up the point that, in a lot of cases, the problem isn't only that women's contributions weren't included in the historical record, and more that we today often overlook those parts of the historical record that involve women's experiences. In other words, in many cases, we today, and not historians in the past, are the ones making women's contributions invisible. Fair enough. Occasionally I see the "famous women you probably haven't heard of but probably should have" posts that go around social media from time to time. Clearly their contributions are documented, but it's true that despite their contributions in similar fields such as physics/astronomy and the like, but male names are easier to recall (at least personally speaking). That definitely seems to be the case from my perspective, too. Of course, you are right to point out that, as you said in an earlier post, the claim that we today are excluding women's contributions from history is difficult to prove, and I'm certainly not claiming that I'm in a . It's easy for me to think of examples of women whose important contributions are documented, but little known, but the fact that it's easy to think of examples of something is not in itself conclusive proof of a trend. So, it's not the kind of thing that I would expect anyone to simply take my word for (although I encourage people to take a look at the Foz Meadows article, which addresses the issue and is very well-done). Irony is, of course, that if the university professors took a break from their risible gender war they'd see lots of women in history who are documented and did do incredible things (and outside of the grindingly dull chapters of 'Social History' too). Jill's point was that the women ARE documented, and that our failure to educate on them is a problem with us now, now recording them back then. So this statement is actually in agreement with her, though your hostile tone seems to indicate that you think you're refuting her statement.... My ire is aimed at hang-wringing professors who would rather meta-game history and feminism than actually teach. I can't speak for your university experience, but the professors that I was thinking of weren't single-mindedly focused on using everything as a platform for a particular kind of feminism. The context of their bringing up the issue was that they were challenging the idea that women are barely present in the historical record, and challenging the idea that times and places like Victorian England and the European Middle Ages were monolithic and uniformly sexist through-and-through (by pointing out that there were conflicting ideas about what gender roles ought to be back then, just as there are now). 2
Malcador Posted March 12, 2014 Posted March 12, 2014 So were these courses focused on something ? Or was this just a module the professor made about women in history ? Why has elegance found so little following? Elegance has the disadvantage that hard work is needed to achieve it and a good education to appreciate it. - Edsger Wybe Dijkstra
HoonDing Posted March 12, 2014 Posted March 12, 2014 (edited) Cherchez la femme. History 101. Edited March 12, 2014 by Drudanae The ending of the words is ALMSIVI.
sorophx Posted March 12, 2014 Posted March 12, 2014 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women's_History_Month coincidence? Walsingham said: I was struggling to understand ths until I noticed you are from Finland. And having been educated solely by mkreku in this respect I am convinced that Finland essentially IS the wh40k universe.
jillabender Posted March 12, 2014 Posted March 12, 2014 So were these courses focused on something ? Or was this just a module the professor made about women in history ? The position of women in the historical record wasn't the focus of my courses, or even of a specific module within the courses – the courses I was thinking of were English Literature courses where the issue happened to come up on a couple of occasions. In the case of one professor, some of his research was focused partly on challenging certain ideas about the status of women in the Middle Ages, and it was pretty much unavoidable to talk about that in the class because it was a course on the Canterbury Tales, and some of the Tales directly address ideas about gender roles. But it wasn't the main focus of the course. 1
Malcador Posted March 12, 2014 Posted March 12, 2014 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women's_History_Month coincidence? Conspiracy! Anyway, Hearthstone launched a while ago. http://us.battle.net/hearthstone/en/blog/13154923 1 Why has elegance found so little following? Elegance has the disadvantage that hard work is needed to achieve it and a good education to appreciate it. - Edsger Wybe Dijkstra
marelooke Posted March 12, 2014 Posted March 12, 2014 (edited) Interesting (imho) interview with Swen Vincke (also linked from the latest KS update, so you might have seen it already) about the role of user feedback in Divinity: Original Sin's development, some history about Larian (which most here probably already know) and a little bit about their (possible) plans for the future (apparently he's not exactly opposed to making a non-fantasy RPG, huzzah!): http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2014/03/05/larian-on-near-closure-divinitys-future-gender-parity/ Edited March 12, 2014 by marelooke
rjshae Posted March 12, 2014 Posted March 12, 2014 How do you set a curriculum? a) Cover the events of history by order of significance and explore their protagonists by their roles in said event. b) Select figures of history by their physiology (not just gender) in proportions according to some set quota, then explore what events each happened to be involved in. I think the perception that the latter is happening in some institutions is what's mainly drawing ire here. History has always been interpreted through the filter of current interests... "It has just been discovered that research causes cancer in rats."
Recommended Posts