Religion and Ethics Forum
General Category => Science and Technology => Topic started by: Nearly Sane on November 06, 2017, 01:59:49 PM
-
Hurrah, and also for any Science Dads
https://www.forbes.com/sites/kavinsenapathy/2017/11/06/science-moms-documentary-aims-to-shift-parenting-narrative-from-fear-to-facts/#187811d2aaaf
-
Hurrah, and also for any Science Dads
https://www.forbes.com/sites/kavinsenapathy/2017/11/06/science-moms-documentary-aims-to-shift-parenting-narrative-from-fear-to-facts/#187811d2aaaf
I really hope this does some good , its sad that its necessary though. The general publics' understanding of science is on about the same level as show and tell in a 6 year olds class at primary school . Even my niece who has a psychology degree and a young baby falls for all the shit and gets defensive when I try to explain ,so I just leave her to it .
Her partner's just as bad , we were talking about loosing weight , he thinks there are good calories and bad calories . At that point I changed the subject
-
Sorry, but if that article is anything to go by it’s partisan bollockry. Lumping together anti vaxxers and homeopathy with a reduction in toxic chemicals in the environment is, well, bad science. There is a reason why the EU is about to ban glyphosate.
-
Sorry, but if that article is anything to go by it’s partisan bollockry. Lumping together anti vaxxers and homeopathy with a reduction in toxic chemicals in the environment is, well, bad science. There is a reason why the EU is about to ban glyphosate.
it would seem this documentary is aimed at people (women) like you
-
it would seem this documentary is aimed at people (women) like you
Don’t patronise me. It’s bullshit to hide the effects of weed killers such as glyphosate by pretending its the same as using homeopathy.
And if you had an allergy that means you are shit scared every time you buy clothes because you don’t know what’s been used on the fabric finishes, and you’ve been told by a consultant not to fly or buy new furnishings, and to wash your hands after reading a magazine or newspaper, you’d question the wisdom of overloading our environment with unnecessary chemicals.
Do you think I’m fucking stupid?
-
Don’t patronise me. It’s bullshit to hide the effects of weed killers such as glyphosate by pretending its the same as using homeopathy.
And if you had an allergy that means you are shit scared every time you buy clothes because you don’t know what’s been used on the fabric finishes, and you’ve been told by a consultant not to fly or buy new furnishings, and to wash your hands after reading a magazine or newspaper, you’d question the wisdom of overloading our environment with unnecessary chemicals.
Do you think I’m fucking stupid?
I haven't seen the documentary , have you ? I'm only going on the write up about it and can only surmise that it will be helpful to its target audience in dispelling some myths .
I'm guessing your question at the end is rhetorical.
-
I haven't seen the documentary , have you ? I'm only going on the write up about it and can only surmise that it will be helpful to its target audience in dispelling some myths .
I'm guessing your question at the end is rhetorical.
I know what you think of me, don't worry.
I made it clear in my first post on this that I was going by the write up. As the woman that wrote it is actually in it I'd guess its a fair representation. But as I'm not anti vaccination and I am anti homeopathy, and I'm pragmatic about organics and the like, I'm not sure I'd gain much from it.
-
I know what you think of me, don't worry.
I made it clear in my first post on this that I was going by the write up. As the woman that wrote it is actually in it I'd guess its a fair representation. But as I'm not anti vaccination and I am anti homeopathy, and I'm pragmatic about organics and the like, I'm not sure I'd gain much from it.
actually you have no idea what I think of you !
So ill give you a clue ; on some subjects I hold you in high regard .
As regards the documentary , even though I have a science background, I'm pretty sure I would benefit from watchin it .
-
actually you have no idea what I think of you !
So ill give you a clue ; on some subjects I hold you in high regard .
As regards the documentary , even though I have a science background, I'm pretty sure I would benefit from watchin it .
Fair enough.
I get so frustrated when I'm told I'm a goopshite devotee, when the reality is that I have a very good science-y reason to take seriously the drive for a reduction in chemical overload in the environment. We don't need anti crease, easy care finishes or glossy paper or MDF.
We do need vaccinations and a ban on homeopathy, however.
-
Fair enough.
I get so frustrated when I'm told I'm a goopshite devotee, when the reality is that I have a very good science-y reason to take seriously the drive for a reduction in chemical overload in the environment. We don't need anti crease, easy care finishes or glossy paper or MDF.
We do need vaccinations and a ban on homeopathy, however.
I wonder who calls you that? certainly wasn't me .
Not sure why you have a problem with MDF though . There is one particular thing which I have a problem with and that's fabric conditioner , its like pouring oil based 'pollution ' on nice clean clothes , its just wrong but people fall for the TV ads !
-
MDF, plywood, particleboard...all glued with formaldehyde.
Agree, fabric softener is of the devil. Haven't used it since I left home.
Another one..glade plug-ins.
-
MDF, plywood, particleboard...all glued with formaldehyde.
Agree, fabric softener is of the devil. Haven't used it since I left home.
Another one..glade plug-ins.
cant fault you there , talk about sneezing .
tbh normally I don't come in contact with these things in my lifestyle however I'm staying with my lovely sister at the moment (scented candles everywhere)
-
cant fault you there , talk about sneezing .
tbh normally I don't come in contact with these things in my lifestyle however I'm staying with my lovely sister at the moment (scented candles everywhere)
I like natural stuff - essential oils and fresh air.
-
Sorry, but if that article is anything to go by it’s partisan bollockry. Lumping together anti vaxxers and homeopathy with a reduction in toxic chemicals in the environment is, well, bad science. There is a reason why the EU is about to ban glyphosate.
Where in the article doesn't talk about not looking at toxicity as opposed to avoiding scare stories?
-
Where in the article doesn't talk about not looking at toxicity as opposed to avoiding scare stories?
It’s not just talking about avoiding scars stories, it’s talking about the positives of GMOs, for example. Bit of an issue with a glyphosate ban.
http://sitn.hms.harvard.edu/flash/2015/roundup-ready-crops/
-
It’s not just talking about avoiding scars stories, it’s talking about the positives of GMOs, for example. Bit of an issue with a glyphosate ban.
http://sitn.hms.harvard.edu/flash/2015/roundup-ready-crops/
And the issue of glyphosate means that all GMOs are wrong?
-
And the issue of glyphosate means that all GMOs are wrong?
No. But it means that there are legitimate concerns.
Likewise I have to live in an environment that is pretty much chemical free and it isn’t a trendy fucking fad. It’s boring as shit and it costs a fortune just to buy shampoo that won’t strip the skin off my scalp. If this chemical wasn’t so ubiquitous I wouldn’t have had an allergy triggered by over exposure.
-
No. But it means that there are legitimate concerns.
Likewise I have to live in an environment that is pretty much chemical free and it isn’t a trendy fucking fad. It’s boring as shit and it costs a fortune just to buy shampoo that won’t strip the skin off my scalp. If this chemical wasn’t so ubiquitous I wouldn’t have had an allergy triggered by over exposure.
And I don't think legitimate concerns are dismissed on the basis of the article.
-
And I don't think legitimate concerns are dismissed on the basis of the article.
I think it’s the patronising ‘natural isn’t best’ thing that pisses me off. Sometimes it is. Not always (my son is allergic to lanolin).
If you want people to engage don’t disappear up your own smugness. Someone who uses natural products isn’t necessarily a goopshitter.
-
I think it’s the patronising ‘natural isn’t best’ thing that pisses me off. Sometimes it is. Not always (my son is allergic to lanolin).
If you want people to engage don’t disappear up your own smugness. Someone who uses natural products isn’t necessarily a goopshitter.
dog shit is a natural product but you wouldn't want to wash your hair in it, surely .
-
dog shit is a natural product but you wouldn't want to wash your hair in it, surely .
I’m not aware that I said I did?
-
I’m not aware that I said I did?
I was just making a point
in fact I could list a whole page of natural products that would kill you before you could say gloopshit
its the misuse and misunderstanding of the term 'natural' that needs to be understood and also the term 'chemicals' really gets on my nerves
perhaps the documentary addresses this .
-
I was just making a point
in fact I could list a whole page of natural products that would kill you before you could say gloopshit
its the misuse and misunderstanding of the term 'natural' that needs to be understood and also the term 'chemicals' really gets on my nerves
perhaps the documentary addresses this .
The thing I’m allergic to is naturally occurring, but it gets over used in manufacturing in ways that are unnecessary.
-
The thing I’m allergic to is naturally occurring, but it gets over used in manufacturing in ways that are unnecessary.
have you been tested for the actual enzymes that cause the problem rather than the name of the substance its self ?
-
have you been tested for the actual enzymes that cause the problem rather than the name of the substance its self ?
I don’t even know what that means. Tbh I think I was pretty lucky to get the testing that I did on the NHS. So many people are left firefighting with treatments that dampen down the symptoms while never getting to the cause.
-
I think it’s the patronising ‘natural isn’t best’ thing that pisses me off. Sometimes it is. Not always (my son is allergic to lanolin).
If you want people to engage don’t disappear up your own smugness. Someone who uses natural products isn’t necessarily a goopshitter.
It's taking issue with a generalisation, and one that is incorrect. Added to that is the idea that 'natural' products are somehow not chemicals. I don't see anything in the article that suggests that you shouldn't use the best product for the situation.
-
It's taking issue with a generalisation, and one that is incorrect. Added to that is the idea that 'natural' products are somehow not chemicals. I don't see anything in the article that suggests that you shouldn't use the best product for the situation.
The time is that those who use natural products do so out of naivety. That’s bollocks. I don’t need to be de-gwynnied.
Maybe if she wants people to watch her film she shouldn’t alienate her potential audience when trying to sell it.
-
The time is that those who use natural products do so out of naivety. That’s bollocks. I don’t need to be de-gwynnied.
Maybe if she wants people to watch her film she shouldn’t alienate her potential audience when trying to sell it.
I don't see that in the article - it clearly states that it's about the idea that saying natural is better than synthetic is nonsense but not that anyone using natural is being naïve.
-
I don’t even know what that means. Tbh I think I was pretty lucky to get the testing that I did on the NHS. So many people are left firefighting with treatments that dampen down the symptoms while never getting to the cause.
unfortunately Rhi, the fact that you don't know what that means is very telling . I've been trying to post a link to a useful website but cant seem to do it properly . ill have another go if you are interested?
-
unfortunately Rhi, the fact that you don't know what that means is very telling . I've been trying to post a link to a useful website but cant seem to do it properly . ill have another go if you are interested?
I can only go by what my consultant has told me - that my allergy is an autoimmune response like any other - and that there’s no cure but I can prevent it worsening by avoiding the things I’m allergic to. I’ve researched and researched it and everything I’ve seen concurs with that. My consultant’s never mentioned anything else.
Thank you for troubling with this on my behalf, if you give me the website’s name I’ll have a google.
-
I’m finding stuff on food allergies and enzymes. :-\
-
I’m finding stuff on food allergies and enzymes. :-\
cant get it to link , but maybe try this
About this result
[PDF]
1 BIOTECHNOLOGY, ENZYMES AND ALLERGIES What are enzymes ...
www.enzymeassociation.org/wp-content/.../Biotechnology-Enzymes-and-Allergies.pd...
its a bit technical but you might find it useful , good luck Rhi
sometimes its difficult to isolate a true allergy from an irritant , which is what most people have , but they all colloquially get lumped together as allergies . I suppose it sounds more serious!
-
Thanks, Walter. I’m still not sure how relevant this is to nee but I’ll do some more digging.
I have a contact allergy to formaldehyde, diagnosed by a five day patch test. However because my skin is sensitive I also have to avoid irritants like chlorine and artificial perfumes. I’m well versed in the differences.
-
Thanks, Walter. I’m still not sure how relevant this is to nee but I’ll do some more digging.
I have a contact allergy to formaldehyde, diagnosed by a five day patch test. However because my skin is sensitive I also have to avoid irritants like chlorine and artificial perfumes. I’m well versed in the differences.
Really ... I would not bother.
Walter, do you actually have a clue or are you just another symptom of the problem?
-
Thanks, Walter. I’m still not sure how relevant this is to nee but I’ll do some more digging.
I have a contact allergy to formaldehyde, diagnosed by a five day patch test. However because my skin is sensitive I also have to avoid irritants like chlorine and artificial perfumes. I’m well versed in the differences.
You're welcome
unfortunately formaldehyde is a naturally occurring organic compound so it's going to be difficult for you to avoid I guess!
-
Really ... I would not bother.
Walter, do you actually have a clue or are you just another symptom of the problem?
not sure which problem I'm a symptom of , I'm not a medical doctor if that's what you mean?
I'm not a chemist or a biologist however I do have a science background and an interest in this thread
-
You're welcome
unfortunately formaldehyde is a naturally occurring organic compound so it's going to be difficult for you to avoid I guess!
Like most people with this allergy I’m ok with it if it’s not too concentrated, which includes most of the ways it occurs naturally. It’s when it’s concentrated into glues, resins, finishes and preservatives that there is an issue. It’s common among people who work with textiles and dry cleaning.
-
Don’t patronise me. It’s bullshit to hide the effects of weed killers such as glyphosate by pretending its the same as using homeopathy.
Who has claimed that it is?
According to the article, the documentary takes a rational scientific look at various issues that have all been subject to unscientific bollocks.
-
Like most people with this allergy I’m ok with it if it’s not too concentrated, which includes most of the ways it occurs naturally. It’s when it’s concentrated into glues, resins, finishes and preservatives that there is an issue. It’s common among people who work with textiles and dry cleaning.
is formaldehyde the major allergen or are there others that cause you problems ?
-
is formaldehyde the major allergen or are there others that cause you problems ?
Only one other - nickel, but then that’s very common, so many people have nickel allergy.
-
Who has claimed that it is?
According to the article, the documentary takes a rational scientific look at various issues that have all been subject to unscientific bollocks.
It would help to leave Paltrow out if it. Immediately you know what you will get - a patronising explanation for the goopshitters.
Actually even just the title is patronising. Like we need other ‘moms’ to explain what’s easily found on the media, on the web, or - heavens - in books. Some of us ‘moms’ have retained the gift of literacy.
-
It would help to leave Paltrow out if it. Immediately you know what you will get - a patronising explanation for the goopshitters.
Actually even just the title is patronising. Like we need other ‘moms’ to explain what’s easily found on the media, on the web, or - heavens - in books. Some of us ‘moms’ have retained the gift of literacy.
as of now I don't think you watch the documentary for free and being a Yorkshireman I'm not about to pay for it . Judging by the write-up I think many 'moms' ( I hate that with a vengeance)will benefit from it though
-
as of now I don't think you watch the documentary for free and being a Yorkshireman I'm not about to pay for it . Judging by the write-up I think many 'moms' ( I hate that with a vengeance)will benefit from it though
They might want to try a better way of hooking them in. 'We were thick too once' isn't a great one.
-
not sure which problem I'm a symptom of , I'm not a medical doctor if that's what you mean?
I'm not a chemist or a biologist however I do have a science background and an interest in this thread
The problem, as I see it, is everyone chucking around advice based on half-understood, or half-baked ideas instead of clear understanding or detailed knowledge.
In particular, on GMOs we are either channelled into the pro or anti lobbies, whereas what is needed is detailed understanding of the potential environmental effects of individual and accumulated modifications - not something we will get from any campaign group or their media output.
-
The problem, as I see it, is everyone chucking around advice based on half-understood, or half-baked ideas instead of clear understanding or detailed knowledge.
In particular, on GMOs we are either channelled into the pro or anti lobbies, whereas what is needed is detailed understanding of the potential environmental effects of individual and accumulated modifications - not something we will get from any campaign group or their media output.
detailed knowledge is available if you care to look for it ! whether you understand it or not is up to you
-
The problem, as I see it, is everyone chucking around advice based on half-understood, or half-baked ideas instead of clear understanding or detailed knowledge.
In particular, on GMOs we are either channelled into the pro or anti lobbies, whereas what is needed is detailed understanding of the potential environmental effects of individual and accumulated modifications - not something we will get from any campaign group or their media output.
I think there is a false equivalence here - those in favour of GMOs agree that the analysis has to be understood, those against don't think any analysis is worthwhile
-
I think there is a false equivalence here - those in favour of GMOs agree that the analysis has to be understood, those against don't think any analysis is worthwhile
bit like religious folk , nothing's going to change their mind ::)
-
It would help to leave Paltrow out if it. Immediately you know what you will get - a patronising explanation for the goopshitters.
Actually even just the title is patronising. Like we need other ‘moms’ to explain what’s easily found on the media, on the web, or - heavens - in books. Some of us ‘moms’ have retained the gift of literacy.
Too right!
-
Too right!
but these 'moms' have a science background , do you ?
and the gift of literacy does not equate to the understanding of the subject matter , that's why there's a problem in the first place.
-
Yes, given there is an obvious problem with people ignoring science, I'm at a loss as to why people trying to do something about that are being patronising.
-
Yes, given there is an obvious problem with people ignoring science, I'm at a loss as to why people trying to do something about that are being patronising.
Because you aren’t the one being patronised. To repeat, being told ‘we were once thick moms like you’ is alienating. Would it be ok from men aimed at educating the little women? No. So why is it ok that it’s other women doing it?
-
I think there is a false equivalence here - those in favour of GMOs agree that the analysis has to be understood, those against don't think any analysis is worthwhile
How should the pro GM (for specific cases) proceed then?
-
Because you aren’t the one being patronised. To repeat, being told ‘we were once thick moms like you’ is alienating. Would it be ok from men aimed at educating the little women? No. So why is it ok that it’s other women doing it?
I don't see it as doing that. It's dealing with the use of being a mother by those spreading bad science.
-
I don't see it as doing that. It's dealing with the use of being a mother by those spreading bad science.
And it assumes that women aren’t capable of thinking for themselves.
-
How should the pro GM (for specific cases) proceed then?
first of all, it needs to be accepted that GMOs are not by definition wrong. That's where the false equivalence is. You then put in place procedures for approval and understand that they can be improved.
-
And it assumes that women aren’t capable of thinking for themselves.
No, it doesn't. It works on the basis that there is a lot of bad thinking across the board.
-
No, it doesn't. It works on the basis that there is a lot of bad thinking across the board.
I’ve read it again and all I’m seeing is a bunch of ‘smart women’ wanting to ‘educate’ other ‘moms’ - presumably the ‘not smart’.
-
I’ve read it again and all I’m seeing is a bunch of ‘smart women’ wanting to ‘educate’ other ‘moms’ - presumably the ‘not smart’.
Or people who get science wanting to explain how it works. If someone is knowledgeable are you saying it is patronising for them to say that?
-
I’ve read it again and all I’m seeing is a bunch of ‘smart women’ wanting to ‘educate’ other ‘moms’ - presumably the ‘not smart’.
what's wrong with that?
-
what's wrong with that?
Because we aren’t stupid muppets who need ‘educating’. Would it be ok if this were men? No.
The information is out there. If people are Gwynnie adoring goopshitters then they aren’t going to engage with this and will probably be put off by it. But guess what? The majority of us don’t fall for the Goopshit in the first place.
-
Because we aren’t stupid muppets who need ‘educating’. Would it be ok if this were men? No.
The information is out there. If people are Gwynnie adoring goopshitters then they aren’t going to engage with this and will probably be put off by it. But guess what? The majority of us don’t fall for the Goopshit in the first place.
Absolutely it's ok if it is men. Some people fall for dangerous anti science shite. Some of the people who punt their idiocy use the fact that they are 'mothers' to do so. Why shouldn't it be answered by those arguing for science that that are mothers too?
-
Because we aren’t stupid muppets who need ‘educating’. Would it be ok if this were men? No.
The information is out there. If people are Gwynnie adoring goopshitters then they aren’t going to engage with this and will probably be put off by it. But guess what? The majority of us don’t fall for the Goopshit in the first place.
if the majority didn't fall for it there would be no need for what these women are doing . I applaud them and would probably benefit from the info in the documentary . I don't understand your attitude tbh
-
we live in a technological age and if people don't understand science , how are they going to navigate the world ?
-
we live in a technological age and if people don't understand science , how are they going to navigate the world ?
Sat-nav? :-\
-
Sat-nav? :-\
hihihihi ;D
-
if the majority didn't fall for it there would be no need for what these women are doing . I applaud them and would probably benefit from the info in the documentary . I don't understand your attitude tbh
Because their attitude is fucking rude.
Of course the majority don’t fall for it. Most of us wonder if we can afford to buy enough fresh produce to give our kids five a day to give a toss whether it’s organic or not, let alone swan around with crystal eggs stuffed up our fanjos.
-
Absolutely it's ok if it is men. Some people fall for dangerous anti science shite. Some of the people who punt their idiocy use the fact that they are 'mothers' to do so. Why shouldn't it be answered by those arguing for science that that are mothers too?
When you have experience of how mothers are treated come and tell me just how wrong I am.
-
When you have experience of how mothers are treated come and tell me just how wrong I am.
So those mothers are wrong, and I should just listen to the mothers you think are right?
-
Because their attitude is fucking rude.
Of course the majority don’t fall for it. Most of us wonder if we can afford to buy enough fresh produce to give our kids five a day to give a toss whether it’s organic or not, let alone swan around with crystal eggs stuffed up our fanjos.
fanjos.
that's another one for my little book. ;D ;D ;D
-
So those mothers are wrong, and I should just listen to the mothers you think are right?
Distortion of what i said.
-
Distortion of what i said.
It's a question so how is it a distortion? Why are the linked to mothers wromg and you right?
-
As it happens I quite like the idea of 'fact based parenting'. Parenting - both genders. And it should be for people who get science and who don't, who worship the goopshitter (the minority) but also those who just want more information, the latest information, to build on what they already know.
Saying, 'we were once stupid like you, but look, now we are enlightened, come let us tell you and you can be like us' isn't going to engage anyone.
-
It's a question so how is it a distortion? Why are the linked to mothers wromg and you right?
Where did I say they were wrong, I am right, and what did I say they are wrong about?
-
Where did I say they were wrong, I am right, and what did I say they are wrong about?
Then if that aren't wrong what is the issue? You mentioned glyphosate to start so and we hat you felt they were wrong on that, despite there being no mention of it in the post.
-
As it happens I quite like the idea of 'fact based parenting'. Parenting - both genders. And it should be for people who get science and who don't, who worship the goopshitter (the minority) but also those who just want more information, the latest information, to build on what they already know.
Saying, 'we were once stupid like you, but look, now we are enlightened, come let us tell you and you can be like us' isn't going to engage anyone.
Which isn't what they say.
-
Then if that aren't wrong what is the issue? You mentioned glyphosate to start so and we hat you felt they were wrong on that, despite there being no mention of it in the post.
Hang on, where have I said that you should 'listen' to me on science? I question that socio-economic factors are the only reasons to doubt GM, which seems to be the basis of their argument. Maybe they do have concerns about that too.
The issue is that the way that they are presenting the message. Patronising mothers is a shit thing to do, even if it is other mothers doing it.
-
Which isn't what they say.
Well that's what I hear. And Robbie is hearing it too, or similar.
-
Hang on, where have I said that you should 'listen' to me on science? I question that socio-economic factors are the only reasons to doubt GM, which seems to be the basis of their argument. Maybe they do have concerns about that too.
The issue is that the way that they are presenting the message. Patronising mothers is a shit thing to do, even if it is other mothers doing it.
So you as a mother state they are patronisong but their take can be ignored because it's you stating it?
-
Well that's what I hear. And Robbie is hearing it too, or similar.
Ad Populum fallacy
-
Ad Populum fallacy
Hmm, let me see the opinion of other mothers on this thread... oh yeah, there aren’t any. So you think patronising people is the way to go?
-
Hmm, let me see the opinion of other mothers on this thread... oh yeah, there aren’t any. So you think patronising people is the way to go?
And again you think that the mothers who produced the video can be ignored because you cite mothers on here. Your use of fallacy is as useless as any such use.
-
Hmm, let me see the opinion of other mothers on this thread... oh yeah, there aren’t any. So you think patronising people is the way to go?
as far as I'm aware you havnt seen the documentary yet so how do you know it's patronising
Or is it the fact they have the audacity to even propose such a thing ?
-
Rhi: "I’ve read it again and all I’m seeing is a bunch of ‘smart women’ wanting to ‘educate’ other ‘moms’ - presumably the ‘not smart’."
That is how it comes across to me and I'm not by nature a defensive person. Undoubtedly they mean well but how things are presented and put across is very important so as not to put off their target audience.
-
It would help to leave Paltrow out if it. Immediately you know what you will get - a patronising explanation for the goopshitters.
Actually even just the title is patronising. Like we need other ‘moms’ to explain what’s easily found on the media, on the web, or - heavens - in books. Some of us ‘moms’ have retained the gift of literacy.
You seem to be assuming that, just because this documentary doesn't tell you anything you didn't know already, it must be patronising. Plenty of people are taken in by Paltrow's snake oil. Plenty of people are anti-vaxxers. Plenty of people have a distorted view of the dangers of GMO's. Some of them are mums.
-
Because you aren’t the one being patronised. To repeat, being told ‘we were once thick moms like you’ is alienating.
I've read the article three times now, and I cannot find where anybody said that. Is it perhaps in the documentary, which I admit to not having watched.
Would it be ok from men aimed at educating the little women? No. So why is it ok that it’s other women doing it?
The people who made the film are doing it because there is a lot of anti-science propaganda aimed at mothers that they wish to counteract. I do not see anything wrong with that objective whoever it is that is doing the counteracting.
-
Rhi: "I’ve read it again and all I’m seeing is a bunch of ‘smart women’ wanting to ‘educate’ other ‘moms’ - presumably the ‘not smart’."
That is how it comes across to me and I'm not by nature a defensive person. Undoubtedly they mean well but how things are presented and put across is very important so as not to put off their target audience.
I really don't get this. You and Rhiannon seem to be making the claim that people shouldn't try to educate mothers that need educating because it is (in your opinion) patronising.
I've only read the article and not seen the documentary but I do not get any sense that anybody is patronising anybody else. If you have seen the documentary and you think it is patronising, fair enough, I concede the point.
-
Oh ffs. I made it clear in a post that everyone has ignored that I think the concept of ‘fact based parenting’ is a good one. Nobody is objecting to that. Parenting is shared though. And delivering the message as ‘smart women’ talking to ‘moms’ who just don’t get it because they are so caught up in the celebrity culture, bless them, is patronising bullshit.
Make it parenting for both genders, with dads included - or do you think they are already ‘educated’ but that they allow their goopshitting partners to prevent their kids getting MMR anyway? Make it inclusive - not just for those that ‘don’t get it’ but those that already get the science and don’t need ‘educating’, but who just want a resource. And make it dynamic. If this was made when my kids were small ‘fact based parenting’ said don’t give your kids nuts - especially peanuts - or you risk allergies. Now the science- based advice is to give nut products early in order to prevent allergies. Science isn’t fixed and nor should a resource like this be.
As an aside, we have two women here saying this makes us feel a certain way, as women, and a bunch of men dismissing our feelings, distorting what we are saying and telling us how we should feel about it. Wonder what that reminds me of?
-
And delivering the message as ‘smart women’ talking to ‘moms’ who just don’t get it because they are so caught up in the celebrity culture, bless them, is patronising bullshit.
No it isn't. It happens.
As an aside, we have two women here saying this makes us feel a certain way, as women, and a bunch of men dodmissing our feelings, distorting what we are saying and telling us how we should feel about it. Wonder what that reminds me of?
Arguing against you is not dismissing your feelings. Nobody is saying how you you should feel, I just think you are wrong on this occasion.
-
No it isn't. It happens.
Arguing against you is not dismissing your feelings. Nobody is saying how you you should feel, I just think you are wrong on this occasion.
It happens, but not as frequently as these people make out. Trust me, most women don’t engage with the goopshit- even those who don’t think it bollockry don’t have the time or money to think about Paltrow’s nonsense.
It could be a good resource for *all* parents. Instead it’s alienating.
And when you have two women saying ‘we feel patronised’ and a bunch of men say ‘well you are wrong’ what is that other than dismissing us?
-
It happens, but not as frequently as these people make out. Trust me, most women don’t engage with the goopshit- even those who don’t think it bollockry don’t have the time or money to think about Paltrow’s nonsense.
It could be a good resource for *all* parents. Instead it’s alienating.
And when you have two women saying ‘we feel patronised’ and a bunch of men say ‘well you are wrong’ what is that other than dismissing us?
did somebody say something?
-
It happens, but not as frequently as these people make out. Trust me, most women don’t engage with the goopshit- even those who don’t think it bollockry don’t have the time or money to think about Paltrow’s nonsense.
It could be a good resource for *all* parents. Instead it’s alienating.
And when you have two women saying ‘we feel patronised’ and a bunch of men say ‘well you are wrong’ what is that other than dismissing us?
I think this about right.
Even when everyone is fully educated and conversant on the facts and basic science of an issue there will still be disagreements about how to use any technology. It then becomes a matter of propaganda, nudging, identifying groups, applying peer pressure etc.
-
I think this about right.
Even when everyone is fully educated and conversant on the facts and basic science of an issue there will still be disagreements about how to use any technology. It then becomes a matter of propaganda, nudging, identifying groups, applying peer pressure etc.
Just to be clear,are you saying , even though the science is known and understood , people will then choose to disregard it and do what they want ?
-
Just to be clear,are you saying , even though the science is known and understood , people will then choose to disregard it and do what they want ?
No. What I am saying is that science will give us the facts (as determined at some point in time) but it does not tell you what to do or how best to use it.
Science can give you "killer apps" - say, cars, but people still have to decide how and when to use them and the extent of pollution they are prepared to endure.
-
Just to be clear,are you saying , even though the science is known and understood , people will then choose to disregard it and do what they want ?
How is that different from, say, smoking and drinking?
-
How is that different from, say, smoking and drinking?
eh?
-
You said: "Just to be clear,are you saying , even though the science is known and understood , people will then choose to disregard it and do what they want ?"
What I meant was that the scientific consensus on the dangers of smoking was in long ago - likewise drinking alcohol, apparently nowadays even in modest amounts - yet people continue to do both. So the answer to your question would seem to be: yes - even when the science is known and understood, very large numbers of people will disregard it and do what they want.
Note that I'm not saying for one moment that I'm exempting myself from this.
-
You said: "Just to be clear,are you saying , even though the science is known and understood , people will then choose to disregard it and do what they want ?"
What I meant was that the scientific consensus on the dangers of smoking was in long ago - likewise drinking alcohol, apparently nowadays even in modest amounts - yet people continue to do both. So the answer to your question would seem to be: yes - even when the science is known and understood, very large numbers of people will disregard it and do what they want.
Note that I'm not saying for one moment that I'm exempting myself from this.
yes , I see what you mean but I wasn't clear what Udayana meant?