Yeah, I'm a feminist.

I've been to a few conferences and meetings where I mention feminism on my bio, and then people ask me why I'm a feminist. So here is at least a partial answer.

Before I go here, I refuse to bicker about definitions of feminism; if you want to have that discussion just go look it up and come back.

I could point to the formative years of my life raised by a single mom, or being surrounded by sisters or the three really smart girls who grew up next door and were my first close friends.  I could point to the brilliant, dynamic women I've been privileged to call "boss." I could point to my wife, the smartest person I've ever known. And while the experiences we've had and the people we've met certainly shape our perspective, my feminism isn't some odd mix of female bosses and daddy issues. I wasn't raised by she-wolves. I'm not enlightened, I'm not some knight in shining armor, I'm not fishing for compliments or trying to curry favor with anyone. 

I'm a feminist because I have basic, common sense. 

Feminism is great for the economy, here and around the world.  It doesn't take a genius to understand that when men and women get paid basically the same amount for the same work, a market is more efficient, transparent and stimulative.  Now that it's more "acceptable" for women to be entrepreneurs, women are currently creating small businesses at twice the rate of men - generating enormous economic benefits for all of us at a time when we desperately need it. Now that it's more "acceptable" for women to serve on corporate boards, the companies with the most women on their boards are outperforming the companies with the fewest. It's also easy to understand that when women have basic rights like property ownership in less developed countries, agricultural productivity and home welfare improve. In virtually every example, in any economy, more rights and opportunities for women mean more benefits for us all. 

I've had the opportunity to see this closely.  While I confess years ago I never expected to read as many blogs as I do in my current job, I've been amazingly fortunate to witness an explosion in women's entrepreneurship.  Yes, I'm looking at you Liz Kristen Julie Beth Rachael Emily Cooper Isabel Lisa Elisa Jordy Stefania Catherine Joanne Alana Karen Kelly Maria Leah Katherine Morra Susan Jeanne Emily Sheril Darlene Christina Carin Carmen Cecily Catherine and Maryn. Among many, many others. 

Of course, feminism is more than an economic argument.  There are just so many things women have to endure that men don't.  And here's the thing: we don't need major changes in laws to fix many of these problems.  We just have to get some men to stop acting like scumbags. 

Seriously, that's really all it would take. You don't have to completely change everything about yourself. You can do the small things that signal to the world that you're an adult.  You know, like stopping it already with the "sammich" joke.  Resisting the urge to take close up pictures of women's breasts without them knowing it, and then posting them to Reddit. Realizing that someone who shares her opinions with members of Congress or simply asks a candidate a question isn't a slut. Wondering aloud why we're hearing so much about requiring women to give birth to their rapists' babies but not a single thing about how we prevent rape in the first place. 

It's really not that hard.   It's just common sense. 

Oh, and not for nuthin' but this speech is so incredibly chock-full of awesome I can't stand it.  Seriously this is a milestone in Australian history, and an example for the rest of the world.

The curious case of Michael Brutsch

"Liberty exists in proportion to wholesome restraint."

 - Daniel Webster, May 10, 1847

If you follow the Internet closely you may have heard about Michael Brutsch, a moderator on the wildly popular site Reddit who went by the name Violentacrez.  Brutsch gained his notoriety, anonymously, as a troll - someone who enjoys annoying people by posting provocative, incredibly offensive material online. Brutsch reportedly posted a wide variety of racist, sexist items - sometimes publishing close-up "creepshot" pictures of women's bodies, taken without their knowledge or consent. As he did this he cultivated strong relationships with many members of the (small) staff at Reddit, providing himself a layer of protection when calls inevitably came to ban the content he published and promoted. 

Last week Brutsch was outed by Adrian Chen, a writer at Gawker. Once his name was associated with his words, and with the content he promoted, Brutsch lost his job at a financial services company. Other people have launched similar efforts to identify those who posted the same kind of material, and one might expect consequences there as well.  

The Reddit community has reacted with shock and horror at these developments - not with horror at Brutsch's content, but at Chen's outing of him. "Doxing" - that is, revealing the identity of an anonymous online contributor - is prohibited at Reddit, and there are plenty of decent arguments to be made about protecting one's right to communicate anonymously (protecting whistleblowers, avoiding harassment, escaping abusive situations, and so on).  "Free speech" is sacred at Reddit, and one would think that censorship is considered sinful there. 

Here's where I get confused. 

Reddit banned links to Gawker from it site. (they removed the ban on the main site a bit later, but the ban remains in effect on moderator-controlled "subreddits.")  This was in reaction to something Adrian Chen did when he wasn't on Reddit, so it's not like he violated the site's terms of service. 

Brutsch published whatever he wanted - even when it was arguably violating the privacy of those he and others photographed.  Chen also published what he wanted - even when it was arguably violating Brutsch's privacy.  (Brutsch wasn't all that careful about protecting his identity, especially around other Redditors at social gatherings near his home.)  So controversial speech was met not with bans, not with restrictions, but with more speech - speech that compelled a provocateur to own his words and deeds.

Brutsch isn't in jail.  He isn't prevented from posting content to Reddit again.  He isn't prevented from stating his case on why Chen is wrong.  The only website engaging in censorship in this dispute is Reddit. 

I'd like to think I'm a strident advocate of free speech.  I understand that banning speech (or even creating a chilling effect) many deem offensive is a slippery slope.  But there are plenty of technology-induced free-speech hiccups that deserve more attention. In my opinion, Adrian Chen's free speech was the solution, not the problem.

I'm open to other opinions, but right now I think Reddit looks pretty silly.

Once more, with feeling...

Congressman Todd Akin, currently battling Congressman Paul Broun for the title of science denialism's "it girl," suggested this week there's "no science" behind evolution.  You'll recall Congressman Akin's comments about how women's uteruses somehow have the ability to block sperm from "legitimate rape."

So once again, let's share my favorite YouTube video, featuring the words of wise women on evolution and why it should be taught in schools.  I'm sure the Congressman will be relieved to know that they all speak with dignity, eloquence, and grace.

You might even call them ladylike.

Are science writers in denial?

While it's still a few months away, I'm really looking forward to ScienceOnline 2013 and the panel I'm co-moderating with Emily Willingham called "Tackling science denialism with a systematic game plan."

I'm very concerned about recent developments in politics and how they relate to science.  A lot of people know about Congressman Todd "legitimate rape" Akin of Missouri.  But if you don't follow science and science policy closely, you may not have heard about the issue of sea level rise in North Carolina or the recent comments from Paul Broun, a Congressman from Georgia.

I'm not simply concerned about these developments - I'm concerned that there are no strategies even under consideration to address them.

A few months ago a state government-appointed scientific commission estimated that the sea level in North Carolina would likely rise by 39 inches over the next century.  That represents an acceleration over previous years, mostly due to climate change.  The estimation is based on sound science, and it's actually a mid point of more and less severe estimates.  Unfortunately, it also means that the houses and offices and shops you build right on the beaches of the Outer Banks will likely be underwater in a few decades.

That didn't stop the state's construction industry, however. They got a law passed saying the scientists were wrong, and it was spearheaded by a business owner who says climate change isn't real.  So the commission has to go back to the drawing board - probably until they get the numbers to match something the builders like.

So the scientists and environmentalists did what in my experience they often do - they mocked the local building industry for a while, wrote some snappy blog posts, and then they moved on to another topic.

But I'm not interested in mocking adversaries.  I'm interested in beating them.

I'm interested in forming an alliance with insurers, who may be forced to provide coverage they know will cost them a lot of money.  I'm interested in passing new laws forcing people to take personal responsibility for the construction choices they make.  I'm interested in setting up a liability system similar to the one we have for brownfields - essentially, if you buy a building on land we know isn't suitable for construction, you're responsible for the cleanup costs and then some when that place is condemned.  And from a PR perspective, I'm interested in seeing what might happen if we start throwing that word around - "brownfield." I'm guessing that would get a reaction.  And I'm interested in sustaining that effort.

And now we have the curious case of Dr. Paul Broun, the man representing Georgia's Tenth Congressional District.  Video surfaced last week where Dr. Broun said that evolution, embryology, and the big bang theory are "lies from the pit of hell" designed to fool people into thinking they don't need a "savior."  That "as a scientist" he's seen data that say the earth is about 9,000 years old and was created in six days.  And yes, this man serves on the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology with Congressman Akin.

So cue the blog posts.  Cue the angry statement from Bill Nye. And then watch the community move on to the next outrage.

Dr. Broun is running unopposed.  In a district that is home to the University of Georgia, a man who sees "data" of a young earth is running unopposed.  So his comments truly have no consequences.  It's not as if he's going to be removed from the Science Committee.  To me, the strategy would be simple- it starts with fielding a candidate who offers a different approach to interpreting information.  But I'm concerned that this community - the one with so much to lose if issues are brought up and then forgotten - denies they can do anything more than write about it.

More thoughts on the basic pillars of denial in the science community as I find the time to write.