The Finkbeiner Test: A Tool for Writing About Women in their Professions
lastwordonnothing.com
The Finkbeiner Test: A Tool for Writing About Women in their Professions
1–10 of 62 posts
Re: The Finkbeiner Test: A Tool for Writing About Women in their Professions
#2> Take the things that are said about a female subject and flip them around as if they were said about a male. If they sound ridiculous, then chances are good they have no business in the story.
Exactly. Every time I read something that fails this test, I can't help but dismiss it as identity politics. If somebody does great work, let's praise the performance. All this focus on male/female, black/white, rich/poor, etc. only creates an environment where people can't think straight about the issue at hand.
Re: The Finkbeiner Test: A Tool for Writing About Women in their Professions
#3Worth looking at this article that includes embedded tweets of mock bios for men written in the fashion bios tend to be written about women:
https://www.sciencealert.com/someone-on-twitter-is-writing-a...
Re: The Finkbeiner Test: A Tool for Writing About Women in their Professions
#4Another thing I’ve noticed is articles using large headshots of women for companies where they could use product photos. With men it’s much rarer... they even prefer to run cheesy graphics of “AI” instead of headshots.
Re: The Finkbeiner Test: A Tool for Writing About Women in their Professions
#5> Take the things that are said about a female subject and flip them around as if they were said about a male. If they sound ridiculous, then chances are good they have no business in the story. Exactly. Every time I read something that fails this test, I can't help but dismiss it as identity politics. If somebody does great work, let's praise the performance. All this focus on male/female, black/white, rich/poor, et…
To me, this sounds like an excuse to pretend that systematic inequality doesn't exist, and thereby imply that not being able to rise above it is a personal failing.
Re: The Finkbeiner Test: A Tool for Writing About Women in their Professions
#6> Take the things that are said about a female subject and flip them around as if they were said about a male. If they sound ridiculous, then chances are good they have no business in the story. Exactly. Every time I read something that fails this test, I can't help but dismiss it as identity politics. If somebody does great work, let's praise the performance. All this focus on male/female, black/white, rich/poor, et…
That assumes neither side is in a disadvantage when it remains unmentioned. Which isn't the case.
Re: The Finkbeiner Test: A Tool for Writing About Women in their Professions
#7> Take the things that are said about a female subject and flip them around as if they were said about a male. If they sound ridiculous, then chances are good they have no business in the story. Exactly. Every time I read something that fails this test, I can't help but dismiss it as identity politics. If somebody does great work, let's praise the performance. All this focus on male/female, black/white, rich/poor, et…
To me, this sounds like an excuse to pretend that systematic inequality doesn't exist, and thereby imply that not being able to rise above it is a personal failing.
To me it sounds like you don't like anyone who dares challenge your personal orthodoxy.
Re: The Finkbeiner Test: A Tool for Writing About Women in their Professions
#8> Take the things that are said about a female subject and flip them around as if they were said about a male. If they sound ridiculous, then chances are good they have no business in the story. Exactly. Every time I read something that fails this test, I can't help but dismiss it as identity politics. If somebody does great work, let's praise the performance. All this focus on male/female, black/white, rich/poor, et…
That assumes neither side is in a disadvantage when it remains unmentioned. Which isn't the case.
Does it? Or does it just mean it isn't relevant to this scientific article? I think the latter.
I grew up very poor, got my degrees on academic scholarships, and have published scientific findings. I'd hate it if my work attracted media attention, only to have the bulk of it focus on my impoverished childhood. What about my work? Why doesn't that merit a focused discussion?
Re: The Finkbeiner Test: A Tool for Writing About Women in their Professions
#9> Take the things that are said about a female subject and flip them around as if they were said about a male. If they sound ridiculous, then chances are good they have no business in the story. Exactly. Every time I read something that fails this test, I can't help but dismiss it as identity politics. If somebody does great work, let's praise the performance. All this focus on male/female, black/white, rich/poor, et…
The article isn't saying that we shouldn't focus on women in science or that we shouldn't be writing articles about them. It says we shouldn't emphasise stereotypes about their femininity, but it still talks about how we have to address the inherent sexism that exists.
> The issue, she says, is that when you emphasize a woman’s sex, you inevitably end up dismissing her science.
That's the point. Write about women. We need to hear about more women. Just don't emphasise how exceptional their sex is. That's how you normalise women in science.
Re: The Finkbeiner Test: A Tool for Writing About Women in their Professions
#10And yet, anyone assuming this position might be wise to ask themselves whether, if the suggestions were actually implemented, many women would be up in arms about a _lack_ of special recognition of their gender-distinctive qualities, "doing it all" and the rest.
I'm sure I'll be downvoted, but I'm coming from a place of sincere intellectual commitment to this concern. There is a rift among the feminist-minded about whether women should be "neutered" in this way in our observational language. The way this polemic shakes out overall seems to be opportunistic; sometimes women receive distinctive treatment, when it's convenient, and other times not, when it's (reputedly) oppressive.