Month: March 2012

by Doctor Science

While following up some of the points raised in comments to the previous post, I learned something new (to me) about human reproduction. I figure if it’s new to me, it’s probably new to a lot of (most?) other people, too. And it really

A woman doesn’t get pregnant when she has sex. She doesn’t even conceive when she has sex.[1]

… At least, if by “when” you mean “the same night as”, and mostly “the same 24 hours as”.

I suspect my mental image of the timing of conception is symbolically expressed by this picture of The Annunciation to Mary:

Angel appears, Mary goes, “Who, me?!? Well, sure, I guess,” then it’s INCOMING DOVE, conception right then and there, see you at Christmas.

Cut for length, and for discussion of a natural process with many natural aspects which might cross into TMI.

Read more

by Doctor Science

So you’ve probably been wondering why I haven’t posted about the current battles in the War on Women. Mostly it’s because I’ve been very busy with that “work” thing, and I don’t think it’s right to make such posts if I don’t have time to moderate the comments, because they can get a bit … heated.

The other reason is that I’ve been reeling from one day to the next, as the hits just keep coming. You can refresh your memory by glancing through Balloon Juice’s War on Women tag, or Charles Pierce’s Lady Parts tag, or pretty much the whole thing at Reproductive Health Reality Check. I’ve been basically too choked with outrage and unbelief to figure out where to begin, and what to say that wasn’t just a string of Carlin Words.

Now I’ve got (a little) time, so I’m going to ask:

In what kind of world does this make sense?

Read more

by Doctor Science

It recently occurred to me that one reason people like unscripted “reality” TV so much is because it does two of the basic storytelling jobs better than scripted TV:

Characterization and continuity.

When fanfiction writers are working with a character from a scripted TV show, we have to figure out “what sort of human being would do these things, if they were done by a real human being?” And the fact is, after the first 20 episodes (at best) of most shows there is generally no real human being who would do all the things any given TV character would do, there are too many contradictions and implausibilities. Characterization on the show will inevitably be trumped by plot, or by “wouldn’t it be neat?” plotting, or to set up exciting special effects. Fanfic writers then have to decide which parts of canon to throw out as “bad data” as we re-imagine the canon character until they’re more like a real person.

Read more

by liberal japonicus

In Thailand recently, there has been a lèse majesté case that has attracted attention in that it was against a high school student. The Grauniad has a summary at this link. 

We've got some folks here who are a lot more familiar with this part of the world, so I'll leave it to you to read about it rather than summarize it and screw it up, but this link puts a face to the name, while this link, a portion of an interview with the rector of Thammasat University, which accepted the student while a number of other universities refused (and is cool because he gives a reference to Twilight, and, if I am not mistaken, alludes to Monty Python) followed by an interview with the girl, hints at some of the deeper currents in Thai society. What readers first coming to this might not realize is that Thammasat University has a particular history as well, making it hard to say precisely what image this brings to mind in the average Thai person.

While a few of our esteemed commenters here may argue that nice girls don't do lèse majesté, so if a parent had been a bit more firm in his or her advice, we wouldn't be here, I'll give my take on the whole concept.

Read more

by Doctor Science

Khiara Bridges teaches Criminal Law at Boston University. She says:

This week, I began teaching the unit on sexual assault to my Criminal Law class. I – untenured, female, and in my second year of teaching – walked into my classroom and wrote “carnal knowledge of a woman forcibly and against her will” on the chalkboard, thus beginning a two week exploration of the law of rape. Am I brave? Am I foolish? Or am I simply doing what I am supposed to do as a Criminal Law professor?

A couple of senior professors from other law schools had advised me not to cover sexual assault as part of my Criminal Law class at all. It was too risky, I was told. … Will my question about the mens rea of nonconsent yield a response that indicates that one of my students has been accused of rape? Will another response indicate that another student has been raped? Will a screaming match break out? Will someone break down in tears? Will that person be me?

…

I have my strategies, though: first, I avoid any attempts at humor during the unit, which is a departure from my approach to the rest of the class. Criminal Law frequently involves people doing horrible things to other people. The fact patterns of the cases are awful much of the time. So, as a professor, one could go into the classroom and lament man’s inhumanity to fellow man for an hour and a half; or, one could treat it like a dark comedy. I typically choose the latter. I prefer the Fargo approach to the There Will Be Blood approach … except during the unit on sexual assault. During those weeks, I am Daniel Day-Lewis as a turn-of-the-century oil prospector.

…

My second strategy: instead of calling on students at random, I only call on volunteers. But, I am not entirely comfortable with this strategy. Undeniably: rape is terrible, and talking about it can make some people profoundly uncomfortable. But, you know what else is terrible? Murder. Voluntary manslaughter – which involves case after case of men experiencing sometimes adequate/sometimes inadequate provocation and killing their wives – is terrible, too. Yet, I do not hesitate to call on students randomly during the homicide unit. Some Constitutional Law professors tell me that, during their units on abortion (and definitely on the day that they teach Gonzales v. Carhart, if they teach it at all), they only call on volunteers.

So, why should we, as professors, be especially sensitive about abortion and sexual assault? Does our sensitivity construct women as especially sensitive? Or does it reflect the belief that crimes against women and gendered issues such as reproductive rights are Other?

TRIGGER WARNING: discussion of rape, which may be triggery (especially in comments).

Read more