Quote from: GreyRaceGlobalist on May 27, 2011, 09:33:20 AM
How many children's books have been published since 1900? I agree that it seems reasonable to assume that 1600 represents a small sampling, but if they're the 1600 most popular (measured by some consistent metric) than it may represent a numerically small but still significant sampling.

The justification for her sampling size could also as easily be a matter of logistics as much as agenda. Really, surveying 1600 books is larger in scope than a "term paper."

You're right, I should have said thesis. ;D

But as I suspected, "Agenda".

February 23, 2011

Teaching Feminism

Dr. Amy Koehlinger from Religion, Dr. Carrie Lane from Psychology, and [/color]Dr. Janice McCabe, from [/color]Sociology will discuss their experiences teaching feminism and take questions about incorporating feminism in the classroom.

http://www.fsu.edu/~soc/sws/meetings.html

Quote from: Solar on May 27, 2011, 09:44:29 AM
You're right, I should have said thesis. ;D

But as I suspected, "Agenda".

February 23, 2011

Teaching Feminism

Dr. Amy Koehlinger from Religion, Dr. Carrie Lane from Psychology, and [/color]Dr. Janice McCabe, from [/color]Sociology will discuss their experiences teaching feminism and take questions about incorporating feminism in the classroom.

http://www.fsu.edu/~soc/sws/meetings.html

Well, obviously she's a feminist. I don't see how that changes things.

Are her methods or conclusions biased as a result of an agenda? That's really the pertinent question isn't it?

Without reviewing the actual research article it seems impossible for either of us to offer anything other than predisposition. You assume she it violating her scientific integrity, I'm give her the benefit of the doubt in the absence of evidence of bias, but we're both making assumptions.

Quote from: GreyRaceGlobalist on May 27, 2011, 10:09:17 AM
Well, obviously she's a feminist. I don't see how that changes things.
Are her methods or conclusions biased as a result of an agenda? That's really the pertinent question isn't it?

That is the answer to your question right there.

QuoteWithout reviewing the actual research article it seems impossible for either of us to offer anything other than predisposition. You assume she it violating her scientific integrity, I'm give her the benefit of the doubt in the absence of evidence of bias, but we're both making assumptions.

Creating disparity, where none exists is what the research was all about.
Any researcher will tell you, that to get a clear picture, one needs to look deeper at each character.

Were some of the males the bad guy, while a greater number of female characters may have been portrayed as moral, and above reproach?

Pure numbers never tell the whole truth, its obvious to the casual observer, that she did the research for the sole purpose of creating an illusion.

Lets take Winnie the Pooh, the Roo is a female, a character that is always above reproach, while Eore is a pessimist, Piglet a total coward, Rabbit self centered.
Its obvious she looked no further than the numbers alone.

That is not research, that is pure garbage when you stop at the numbers as the sole of your research.

Quote from: Solar on May 27, 2011, 10:33:53 AM

That is the answer to your question right there.


Creating disparity, where none exists is what the research was all about.
Any researcher will tell you, that to get a clear picture, one needs to look deeper at each character.

Were some of the males the bad guy, while a greater number of female characters may have been portrayed as moral, and above reproach?

Pure numbers never tell the whole truth, its obvious to the casual observer, that she did the research for the sole purpose of creating an illusion.

Lets take Winnie the Pooh, the Roo is a female, a character that is always above reproach, while Eore is a pessimist, Piglet a total coward, Rabbit self centered.
Its obvious she looked no further than the numbers alone.

That is not research, that is pure garbage when you stop at the numbers as the sole of your research.

Again, isn't this all based on an assumption of what her conclusions are or are not.

That seems a lot to conclude from just an article about an article.

Quote from: GreyRaceGlobalist on May 27, 2011, 11:02:37 AM
Again, isn't this all based on an assumption of what her conclusions are or are not.

That seems a lot to conclude from just an article about an article.

Nope, it proves beyond a doubt, that she is agenda driven.
And to back my evidence up even further.

QuoteManuscripts in Progress:

   
• Douglas Schrock, Janice McCabe, and Christian Vaccaro.  "Batterers' Tragic Relationships: Narrative Resistance In and Out of a Batterer Intervention Program."
• Janice McCabe and Brandon A. Jackson.  "The Financial Aid Grapevine: How People and Organizations Impact Students' Experiences with Financing College."
• [/color]Janice McCabe.  "Making Theory Relevant:

http://www.fsu.edu/~soc/people/mccabe/

Her manuscript cements my claims of, creating issues where none exists.

Quote from: Solar on May 27, 2011, 11:21:17 AM
Nope, it proves beyond a doubt, that she is agenda driven.
And to back my evidence up even further.

Her manuscript cements my claims of, creating issues where none exists.

As you're presenting it, your conclusions are their own proof.

Is there some reason why you only gave the first half of the manuscript title?

Janice McCabe. "Making Theory Relevant: The Gender Attitude and Belief Inventory."

What policy suggestions does she make regarding policy in this document that show she is attempting to advance the feminist agenda through dissemination of biased research? I assume that you've read the things as opposed to assuming the content of a work based only on it's title.

Making theory relevant would seem more likely to refer to describing how something that seems abstract, like gender bias in children's literature, has some sort of tangible effect on us as a society.

This has been going on long enough that I'm actually finding myself interested some of this and at least one of us should actually read some of the work that we're discussing.

Maybe Dr. McCabe needs an invite to join the discussion herself.

Quote from: GreyRaceGlobalist on May 27, 2011, 11:38:29 AM
As you're presenting it, your conclusions are their own proof.

Is there some reason why you only gave the first half of the manuscript title?

Janice McCabe. "Making Theory Relevant: The Gender Attitude and Belief Inventory."

What policy suggestions does she make regarding policy in this document that show she is attempting to advance the feminist agenda through dissemination of biased research? I assume that you've read the things as opposed to assuming the content of a work based only on it's title.

Making theory relevant would seem more likely to refer to describing how something that seems abstract, like gender bias in children's literature, has some sort of tangible effect on us as a society.

This has been going on long enough that I'm actually finding myself interested some of this and at least one of us should actually read some of the work that we're discussing.

Maybe Dr. McCabe needs an invite to join the discussion herself.

A self proclaimed feminist is all the evidence needed.
My evidence supporting an agenda would actually stand up in court.

If a convicted pedophile known to stalk children wrote a childrens book, would you not suspect an agenda?

If a known racist wrote a book on the lack of diversity in children books, would you not suspect an agenda?

I see no reason to continue, I have made a solid case against her credibility, but if you want to think she has no hidden agenda, that says more about your inability to read people, that or you are purposefully ignoring the truth.

Quote from: Solar on May 27, 2011, 11:47:21 AM
A self proclaimed feminist is all the evidence needed.
My evidence supporting an agenda would actually stand up in court.

If a convicted pedophile known to stalk children wrote a childrens book, would you not suspect an agenda?

If a known racist wrote a book on the lack of diversity in children books, would you not suspect an agenda?

I see no reason to continue, I have made a solid case against her credibility, but if you want to think she has no hidden agenda, that says more about your inability to read people, that or you are purposefully ignoring the truth.

We're not asking the same question though. You're only asking if she has any agenda, which as a feminist she does. You then assume that she practices biased science to further this agenda.

I'm asking if this assumption is accurate.

Almost every scientist has some agenda. Scientific research tends to be tedious, tiresome, and prone to failure after large investments. Somethings needs to be driving a person to take on the task of producing research of high enough rigor to maintain an acceptable rate of publication and secure continuous funding. For some of us it a genuine quest for knowledge, but I'm physical sciences. Social sciences are going to attract people who feel passionately about a social matter. It is their responsibility as a scientist to prevent their personal feelings from biasing their observations and conclusions.

If you always assume that this is not the case you are basically rejecting the validity of a tremendous body of commonly accepted work.

Quote from: GreyRaceGlobalist on May 27, 2011, 12:00:44 PM
We're not asking the same question though. You're only asking if she has any agenda, which as a feminist she does. You then assume that she practices biased science to further this agenda.

I'm asking if this assumption is accurate.

Almost every scientist has some agenda. Scientific research tends to be tedious, tiresome, and prone to failure after large investments. Somethings needs to be driving a person to take on the task of producing research of high enough rigor to maintain an acceptable rate of publication and secure continuous funding. For some of us it a genuine quest for knowledge, but I'm physical sciences. Social sciences are going to attract people who feel passionately about a social matter. It is their responsibility as a scientist to prevent their personal feelings from biasing their observations and conclusions.

If you always assume that this is not the case you are basically rejecting the validity of a tremendous body of commonly accepted work.

Yes, my assumption is correct.
http://www.google.com/search?q=Dr.+Janice+McCabe+feminist&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a

Quote from: Solar on May 27, 2011, 02:16:31 PM
Yes, my assumption is correct.
http://www.google.com/search?q=Dr.+Janice+McCabe+feminist&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a

Exactly what on that list of google search results validates your opinion?

Most of the hits just mention the story in the OP. One notes she was a keynote speaker at a Women's Studies Research Symposium.

Quote from: GreyRaceGlobalist on May 27, 2011, 02:23:52 PM
Exactly what on that list of google search results validates your opinion?

Most of the hits just mention the story in the OP. One notes she was a keynote speaker at a Women's Studies Research Symposium.

I guess I misunderstood your point.

My point is, by claiming she is a feminist, her work is destined to reflect that, and if you read through her work, that is all she does, project feminism.
So it proves my claim that her work on this paper had one purpose, to promote feminism.

Are you seriously denying that?

Quote from: Solar on May 27, 2011, 02:44:35 PM
I guess I misunderstood your point.

My point is, by claiming she is a feminist, her work is destined to reflect that, and if you read through her work, that is all she does, project feminism.
So it proves my claim that her work on this paper had one purpose, to promote feminism.

Are you seriously denying that?

You're saying that a feminist is incapable objectivity about anything dealing with gender. I'm saying that I don't know if her personal feeling cause her to bias her research accordingly, intentionally or otherwise.

Using the research to promote feminism would involve using the study to dictate policy. I haven't seen her suggest that some program need be instituted to correct the disparity in gender representation that she has reported.

Quote from: GreyRaceGlobalist on May 27, 2011, 03:17:33 PM
You're saying that a feminist is incapable objectivity about anything dealing with gender. I'm saying that I don't know if her personal feeling cause her to bias her research accordingly, intentionally or otherwise.

Using the research to promote feminism would involve using the study to dictate policy. I haven't seen her suggest that some program need be instituted to correct the disparity in gender representation that she has reported.

When I broke down the characters in Pooh, I proved her research to be invalid.
Personally, I'd love to go through the list and do a random sampling to research the characters.
I'm willing to bet, the male will invariably be the villain, proving even further that her research is bogus.

Quote from: Solar on May 27, 2011, 03:53:03 PM
When I broke down the characters in Pooh, I proved her research to be invalid.
Personally, I'd love to go through the list and do a random sampling to research the characters.
I'm willing to bet, the male will invariably be the villain, proving even further that her research is bogus.

Have you actually read her methods and conclusions or are you still assuming that the story from FOX tells you all you need to know to make an informed decision?

Even the FOX news story doesn't suggest what you are, so unless you've taken the time to look at a primary information source I'm not sure where you've pulled this conclusion out from.

If the capacity for bias were proof of bias everything would be worthlessly biased... and perhaps it is but I think you're being more specific than a full indictment of the empirical model of science.

You talk about disproving things that don't even seem the necessarily be part of her findings. I think you're making a lot of concrete assertions about something that you really only have the loosest of impressions of.

Quote from: GreyRaceGlobalist on May 27, 2011, 04:47:02 PM
Have you actually read her methods and conclusions or are you still assuming that the story from FOX tells you all you need to know to make an informed decision?

Even the FOX news story doesn't suggest what you are, so unless you've taken the time to look at a primary information source I'm not sure where you've pulled this conclusion out from.

If the capacity for bias were proof of bias everything would be worthlessly biased... and perhaps it is but I think you're being more specific than a full indictment of the empirical model of science.

You talk about disproving things that don't even seem the necessarily be part of her findings. I think you're making a lot of concrete assertions about something that you really only have the loosest of impressions of.

OK, lets look at what she claims.

Quote
A comprehensive study of traditional children's book characters has determined that Pooh Corner may be rife with gender inequality.

Dr. Janice McCabe, a sociologist at Florida State University, examined nearly 6,000 children's books between 1900 and 2000 and determined the stories have a definitive gender bias and a disproportionate representation of genders.
"We found that males are represented more frequently than females in the titles and the central characters in the book,"

Why does it matter?
And further more, why does it even matter if they aren't even human?
Shouldn't she have distinguished that as part of her research?
Simply saying there is a gender imbalance is a moot point, that is, unless you are a feminist with an agenda.

What is important, is how are the characters portrayed?
Would you not agree?