Comments on: Sex 2.0! Part Three: Ethical Research

By: James

James — Sat, 16 May 2009 01:38:03 +0000

Violet, the book is pretty cool too.

When I teach history of psychology, I have often included it in the readings – students need to be exposed to alternative histories of the science and profession of psych, and Guthrie’s text fits the bill (engaging, factual, and above all, a short read!).

By: violet

violet — Thu, 14 May 2009 23:37:35 +0000

Um, Seattle is… in the same country as me! :-p I’m in Denver. I might be in San Francisco next year, which is, at least, closer. Road trip!!!11!

By: Lisa Kansas

Lisa Kansas — Thu, 14 May 2009 18:08:52 +0000

I want to go too! but it’s sounding like it’s going to be in Seattle, which unless there’s a serious discount plane ticket offered by some airline at the right time…sigh. (Vi, is Seattle anywhere near you?)

By: violet

violet — Wed, 13 May 2009 17:47:39 +0000

”Even the Rat Was White”

That’s a wonderful title.

I really want to go to Sex 2.0 next year.

That is all.

By: Being Amber Rhea » Blog Archive » links for 2009-05-13

Being Amber Rhea » Blog Archive » links for 2009-05-13 — Wed, 13 May 2009 12:32:07 +0000

[...] Sex 2.0! Part Three: Ethical Research at PunkAssBlog.com (tags: sex2.0 sex2.02009) [...]

By: Lisa Kansas

Lisa Kansas — Wed, 13 May 2009 11:51:13 +0000

Amber–I hope I can go again next year! (Don’t have it in Seattle, that’s an almost guaranteed “can’t,” darn it! ) I’ve been cranking out these posts as fast as I can because I didn’t want to forget anything–if I do get to go next year, there will DEFINITELY be note-taking.

By: James

James — Wed, 13 May 2009 02:17:45 +0000

Also, please note that my blog has changed name and address. The Mahatma X Files went bye bye (long story – you don’t want to know).

The new blog (with all of the original content transferred to it) is called Notes From Underground. I appreciate that you have been willing to link to my humble blog in the past, as well as occasionally visit, and hope that you’ll continue to do so for the future. Peace.

By: James

James — Wed, 13 May 2009 02:15:00 +0000

I’m not sure I have a great response to what you write here. One problem that I notice as a social scientist is that our fetish for “objectivity” has led us to a tendency to view (wittingly or unwittingly) those we study through a primarily Euro-American lens – that is the implicit standard for “normality” with those who fall in out groups or marginalized groups also by implication fall outside the standard for “normality.” I’ve been reminded of this a bit as I’ve been re-reading works by Frantz Fanon, Robert V. Guthrie (“Even the Rat Was White”), and Lewis R. Gordon (from the book “Existentia Africana”). Then of course add to that the tendency for empirical research to – as you note above – be misused and misrepresented in mass media outlets. Part of the problem with media reporting of research, as I’m sure you’re savvy, is a matter of lack of expertise. Newspapers for example, rarely have on staff any more a competent science reporter (even then, the reporter may be savvy to the nuances of some sciences but not others). Then there is the constant pressure to sell papers (in the case of print media) or get viewers (in the case of other mass media, including the Internet), which leads to a practice of sensationalizing research. Our own EuroAmerican culture in the US tends to hold women in low esteem, hence a tendency to hone in on material that further “proves” the “danger” and “evil” posed by women – especially those belonging to out groups (such as those belonging to ethnic minorities) or marginalized groups (as in the case of sex workers).

This is all stream of consciousness rambling on my part. I’m in the midst of giving final exams, grading, and program assessment. I’ll hopefully be able to get back here and see how the conversation is developing.

By: Amber Rhea

Amber Rhea — Wed, 13 May 2009 01:16:29 +0000

Lisa, thanks for this great series of posts. I wish we had met at Sex 2.0! I had no clue you were there.