cyborg, not goddess

Teenage girls know a lot more about democracy and what makes it tick than teenage boys, but when it comes to political ambition the boys win hands down.

A global study of 82,000 teenagers from 22 countries showed that almost without exception girls had a greater engagement with and understanding of government, equality, public trust, voting and representation, than their male peers.

But boys were more likely to say they were interested in becoming a politician

“Australian girls are outperforming boys on knowledge, attitudes and values that support a greater competency when it comes to participation in civic life,” said Rachel Parker, from the Australian Council of Educational Research, who worked on the study.

“One of the few areas where boys outperform girls in the study is the intention to be politically active.”

The report, Education for Citizenship in Times of Global Challenge, found that girls were far more knowledgeable about how parliament works, globalisation, independence of statutory authorities and voting and representation.

Girls were also far more likely than boys to support gender equality and equal rights for migrants and cultural groups to access education, employment and political participation.

They were more engaged with big issues such as environmental protection and more likely to participate in civic activities.

However, girls were less likely to report expecting to join a political party or a trade union or stand as a candidate in an election.

The study did not dig into the reasons why, but previous research identified parental influence and societal expectations as feeding gender norms relating to political ambition, as well as widely held perceptions that politics is a man’s world.

Indeed, 40 per cent of boys thought men are better suited to being political leaders than women, while 25 per cent agreed with the statement that women should stay out of politics.

Ella Curran, 18, harboured an ambition to become a politician when she was in Year 9, but a school excursion to Canberra cured her of that notion.

“I started to think more realistically about the sort of lifestyle I wanted for myself. And we did a legal studies excursion to Parliament House and watched question time,” she told AFR Weekend.

“I felt it was so aggressive and personal in the insults that were being thrown about that I just thought it was not the sort of workplace I could feel comfortable in,” said Ms Curran, a first-year arts and philosophy student at the University of Sydney.

“I’m just not prepared to face that kind of abuse or have my appearance or relationship status mocked in public rather than focus on what I am actually doing.”

Ms Curran’s two great passions are climate change and gender equality.

“I’m concerned about climate change, particularly Australia’s response to that because we are one of the worst countries in the world for our emissions,” she said.

Lulu Hamilton, 16, who counts women’s rights and climate change as her two greatest passions, also harboured a fleeting ambition to become a politician when she was younger but abandoned it without any fanfare.

“I thought it was the best platform to make change because if I could have power, I could make my goals become a reality,” Ms Hamilton said.

Having spent the first 12 years of her life in China, seeing democracy in action, including the free exchange of information and ideas, was a head-spinning affair.

“It was such a jarring difference. I never would have spoken to my friends in China about climate change, gender or politics. Even our textbooks had stuff whited out because the Chinese government didn’t want us to read about Tibet and Taiwan. We had very limited access to media.”

As for a future in politics? That’s out of the question.

The original post and the commentary from the article that I’ve added below is truth.

The nascent embryo isn’t even visible to the naked eye until around 9 weeks. And this truth makes some people uncomfortable because we have all been conditioned to think that an embryo is a tiny baby, and it’s shocking to see what the tissue actually looks like, but there it is. For women who are excited about their pregnancies it might be disappointing, and that’s also why so many diagrams and info sheets about pregnancy development show the embryo as more humanised, because it appeals to the soon-to-be mothers. But like the article says their purpose here isn’t to please everyone, it’s to spread the truth and combat misinformation, even if some people find it shocking or disappointing.

Embryo at four weeks (so 6th week of pregnancy)

Fetus at 8 weeks (about 1,5-2cm long)

Fetus at 12 weeks (about 5cm)

Knowing what it looks like does not mean abortion at these stages is somehow not ok. But the embryo is absolutely visible at 9 weeks. Here is what a 9 week ultrasound looks like. You can see the head and body and clear heartbeat.

RATING: RELIABLE

The above is from this article from The Guardian.  The images are from MYA Network. The caption on their website reads:

Source: ‘When a sperm and egg get together, the body creates tissue in order to support the developing pregnancy.  Here are photos of that tissue from 5-9 week pregnancies.  This is called the gestational sac, and it’s like the “house” for the pregnancy. Inside this sac there are cells that have the potential to become a fetus but there is no visible embryo at this stage. We rinsed off the blood and menstrual lining (decidua) for these photographs.’

The published images sparked a lot of debate, leading to the story being picked up by other news outlets. For example:

Source: ‘Last week, the Guardian published images of pregnancy tissue after abortions in the first 10 weeks of pregnancy. The small size and appearance of the tissue were shocking to many. We have all absorbed, knowingly and unknowingly, the pervasive anti-abortion narrative that a pregnancy resembles a tiny baby starting in the earliest weeks. Though an early embryo can be seen under the magnification of ultrasound, it can take months for it to be perceptible to the naked eye.’

Source: ‘People have responded in disbelief, citing the (magnified) images they’ve seen on ultrasounds. […] ”Think of the illustrations on pregnancy and medical websites. The Mayo Clinic, one of the preeminent medical organizations in the country, shows week-by-week illustrations of embryonic and fetal development without any context of scale, like the rulers in the MYA photos.’

As stated in the article, whilst people talk about a ‘heartbeat’ at 6 weeks, there is no heart developed at this stage - only a group of cells that will become part of the heart.

Source: ‘But what exactly do we mean when we talk about a “fetal heartbeat” at six weeks of pregnancy? Although some people might picture a heart-shaped organ beating inside a fetus, this is not the case. Rather, at six weeks of pregnancy, an ultrasound can detect “a little flutter in the area that will become the future heart of the baby,” said Dr. Saima Aftab, medical director of the Fetal Care Center at Nicklaus Children’s Hospital in Miami. This flutter happens because the group of cells that will become the future “pacemaker” of the heart gain the capacity to fire electrical signals, she said.’

It should also be noted that the images show an embryo, not a fetus, until the 9th week.

Source: ‘In human pregnancies, a baby-to-be isn’t considered a fetus until the 9th week after conception, or week 11 after your last menstrual period (LMP).’

The co-founders of the MYA Network responded in a New York Times article.

Keyword: forced. They didn’t want to remove content containing kids. They didn’t want to remove content containing r@pe. They didn’t want to remove content that existed because of trafficking. They had to do it because they were threatened. That puts it into perspective a lot.

If you've been into historical dress for any length of time you're likely to have come across Janet Arnold. If you haven't: congratulations, you're in for a treat. Arnold's series of books covers European dress from the mid 16th century up to the 1940s. As so often, there's more information about womenswear than menswear, but volumes 3 and 4 do have some menswear. The volumes are rather slim, but beautifully detailed. For some time they were out of print and very hard to get hold of (well, very expensive), but since 2020 the rights have reverted back to the School of Historical Dress who have revised and republished them. They can be found here.

The School of Historical Dress also publishes other books, among them three books of 17th century patterns that almost made me cry because they're so gorgeously detailed (they've got x-rays!). Those can be found at the V&A: women's dress one, women's dress two, men's dress.

Apart from publishing books, the School of Historical Dress also does courses sometimes (list of past courses here if you like me wish to dream a little), and put on exhibitions at the school in London twice a year (I'm sad I missed the last one that was all about the colour black).

I guess there are some radfems who are into butch/femme stuff nowadays-- as I understand it, this was not at all cool back in the day, but radfem circles have drifted away from that-- and that implies some level of comfort with intentionally feminine and masculine self-expression. But ime the radfems who like butch/femme tend to do the "well when lesbians do it it's Completely Different than evil oppressive heterosexuality" thing. Like singling out their own investment in certain polarized gender expression, while treating other people's with the same suspicion and antipathy.

Why aren't we talking about the real reason male college enrollment is dropping? (Celeste Davis, Oct 6 2024)

"White flight is a term that describes how white people move out of neighborhoods when more people of color move in.

White flight is especially common when minority populations become the majority. That neighborhood then declines in value.

Male flight describes a similar phenomenon when large numbers of females enter a profession, group, hobby or industry—the men leave. That industry is then devalued.

Take veterinary school for example:

In 1969 almost all veterinary students were male at 89%.

By 1987, male enrollment was equal to female at 50%.

By 2009, male enrollment in veterinary schools had plummeted to 22.4%

A sociologist studying gender in veterinary schools, Dr. Anne Lincoln says that in an attempt to describe this drastic drop in male enrollment, many keep pointing to financial reasons like the debt-to-income ratio or the high cost of schooling.

But Lincoln’s research found that “men and women are equally affected by tuition and salaries.”

Her research shows that the reason fewer men are enrolling in veterinary school boils down to one factor: the number of women in the classroom.

For every 1% increase in the proportion of women in the student body, 1.7 fewer men applied.

One more woman applying was a greater deterrent than $1000 in extra tuition! (…)

Since males had dominated these professions for centuries, you would think they would leave slowly, hesitantly or maybe linger at 40%, 35%, 30%, but that’s not what happens.

Once the tipping point reaches majority female- the men flee. And boy do they flee!

It’s a slippery slope. When the number of women hits 60% the men who are there make a swift exit and other men stop joining.

Morty Schapiro, economist and former president of Northwestern University has noticed this trend when studying college enrollment numbers across universities:

“There’s a cliff you fall off once you become 60/40 female/male. It then becomes exponentially more difficult to recruit men.”

Now we’ve reached that 60% point of no return for colleges.

As we’ve seen with teachers, nurses and interior design, once an institution is majority female, the public perception of its value plummets.

Scanning through Reddit and Quora threads, many men seem to be in agreement - college is stupid and unnecessary.

A waste of time and money. You’re much better off going into the trades, a tech boot camp or becoming an entrepreneur. No need for college. (…)

When mostly men went to college? Prestigious. Aspirational. Important.

Now that mostly women go to college? Unnecessary. De-valued. A bad choice. (…)

School is now feminine. College is feminine. And rule #1 if you want to safely navigate this world as a man? Avoid the feminine.