QuoteStudy Suggests That Winnie the Pooh Isn't Gender Equal, But Does it Matter?
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.
Some people have to look really hard to find something to be offended over.
LINK (http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/05/06/study-suggests-winnie-pooh-isnt-gender-equal-does-matter/?test=latestnews)
Clearly, Dr. McCabe does not have enough to do.
Question #1: Why is FSU employing a doctorate-level sociologist? Question #2: Assuming that Dr. McCabe is teaching something to someone, why is her workload so light that she has time to pursue such nonsense?
Quote from: tbone0106 on May 07, 2011, 06:05:01 AM
Clearly, Dr. McCabe does not have enough to do.
Question #1: Why is FSU employing a doctorate-level sociologist? Question #2: Assuming that Dr. McCabe is teaching something to someone, why is her workload so light that she has time to pursue such nonsense?
Did someone take her Winnie the Pooh from her at a very young age?? :o
I believe the woman needs a life. :o
And yes Tbone what a waste of money. 8)
I took a college sociology course back around 1981. The instructor was one of the best teachers I've ever had! One of his favorite themes was historical comparison, that is, how things have changed from one time to another.
"What was different 100 years ago?" he would ask. "There were no environmentalists," someone said. (Not true, but the environmentalists of 1881 were, uh, not very important.) "New houses had big front porches," someone else volunteered. Then ensued a big discussion of the hows and whys of front porches, from a social, and thus sociological, point of view. "Women couldn't vote in the U.S." was another fact pointed out. You get the idea.
One of the most important principles the instructor sought to stress was the fact that all the weird crap we have come to know and love in our modern society has come about because of one thing that was nearly non-existent in 1881 -- leisure time. In the span of just a few generations, life in the U.S. of A. changed from the subsistence-based activity set of the period to the leisure-driven modern pace. We once chased prairie chickens for food; now we buy fat farm-raised chickens, already dead, plucked, skinned, butchered, and ready to cook.
Back in the day, folks just didn't have time to get worked up about much of anything beyond subsistence activities.
Quote from: tbone0106 on May 07, 2011, 07:30:31 AM
I took a college sociology course back around 1981. The instructor was one of the best teachers I've ever had! One of his favorite themes was historical comparison, that is, how things have changed from one time to another.
"What was different 100 years ago?" he would ask. "There were no environmentalists," someone said. (Not true, but the environmentalists of 1881 were, uh, not very important.) "New houses had big front porches," someone else volunteered. Then ensued a big discussion of the hows and whys of front porches, from a social, and thus sociological, point of view. "Women couldn't vote in the U.S." was another fact pointed out. You get the idea.
One of the most important principles the instructor sought to stress was the fact that all the weird crap we have come to know and love in our modern society has come about because of one thing that was nearly non-existent in 1881 -- leisure time. In the span of just a few generations, life in the U.S. of A. changed from the subsistence-based activity set of the period to the leisure-driven modern pace. We once chased prairie chickens for food; now we buy fat farm-raised chickens, already dead, plucked, skinned, butchered, and ready to cook.
Back in the day, folks just didn't have time to get worked up about much of anything beyond subsistence activities.
Which is why I love how Solar and I live. I have people at work who look at me like I am crazy for hanging our clothes out to dry. I bake bread every weekend because I prefer Solar have something healthier than what we can buy in the store. I would love chickens for eggs and yes I do know how to clean when the time comes to butcher them... I look forward to a garden with fresh tomatoes and cucumbers. There is something about the simplicity that grounds me. :)
Shes just freakin creepy!!!
(https://conservativepoliticalforum.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.segashiro.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2010%2F03%2Fwinnie-the-pooh.jpg&hash=383b40b5629a2726fb57b50539f7cc527be8348d)
Quote from: Solar on May 07, 2011, 08:08:04 AM
Shes just freakin creepy!!!
(https://conservativepoliticalforum.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.segashiro.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2010%2F03%2Fwinnie-the-pooh.jpg&hash=383b40b5629a2726fb57b50539f7cc527be8348d)
Will she travel? Just curious.
Quote from: tbone0106 on May 07, 2011, 10:13:14 AM
Will she travel? Just curious.
If you can handle a three way with Pooh? :))
Quote from: Solars Toy on May 07, 2011, 07:49:34 AMI look forward to a garden with fresh tomatoes and cucumbers. There is something about the simplicity that grounds me. :)
Just to make you jealous.. Ma and I have a garden with tomatoes and cucumbers. We also have squash, radishes, jalepenos, onions, cilantro, and bell peppers.
===
BTW, I never watched Winnie the Pooh. My dad wouldn't allow me. He said Winnie the Pooh would make me stupid. My brothers weren't allowed to watch it either. Ma can vouch for this.
Quote from: Rachel on May 07, 2011, 10:43:01 AM
Just to make you jealous.. Ma and I have a garden with tomatoes and cucumbers. We also have squash, radishes, jalepenos, onions, cilantro, and bell peppers.
===
BTW, I never watched Winnie the Pooh. My dad wouldn't allow me. He said Winnie the Pooh would make me stupid. My brothers weren't allowed to watch it either. Ma can vouch for this.
Yep. Winnie was/is a lil on the shallow side.
Btw, when did you stop calling me Mom?
Well, I had you as Mom on my cell phone, but that put you below Mark, Melanie, Melissa, and Molly. It was annoying having to scroll all the way down to Mom after going to the Ms, so I switched you to Ma. Now you're at the top of my M list on my phone. :P
Quote from: Rachel on May 08, 2011, 09:19:26 AM
Well, I had you as Mom on my cell phone, but that put you below Mark, Melanie, Melissa, and Molly. It was annoying having to scroll all the way down to Mom after going to the Ms, so I switched you to Ma. Now you're at the top of my M list on my phone. :P
There ya go, Kay! It's a cell phone world, and for that reason you're just gonna have to learn to answer to "ma." :P :P :P
I suppose Ma is better than calling me Maw! I'll have to look at it from this perspective to appreciate Ma.
@ T~ Yes it is a cellular phone world. I dont know how we lived without them.
Quote from: tbone0106 on May 07, 2011, 06:05:01 AM
Clearly, Dr. McCabe does not have enough to do.
Question #1: Why is FSU employing a doctorate-level sociologist? Question #2: Assuming that Dr. McCabe is teaching something to someone, why is her workload so light that she has time to pursue such nonsense?
Doesn't have enough to do? It sounds like this
is what she does. This study isn't outside the scope of sociology, certainly not for a sociologist whose areas of specialization include "Social Inequalities - Gender, Race, and Ethnicity," "Sociology of Childhood and Youth," and "Sociology of Sexuality."
#1) Because they have a sociology department. http://www.fsu.edu/~soc/ (http://www.fsu.edu/~soc/)
#2) It sounds like Dr. McCabe has a research faculty position. Professors whose research is fully supported by external funding often have different duties at Universities and will teach few courses. The FSU website has her teaching two grad courses and three undergrad courses so she is probably teaching three courses a semester. While that's not a huge teaching load it will keep one busy and certainly eat into ones time for research.
So how does she find the time? She, like many research scientists working at Universities, probably goes into overdrive during the breaks in the academic calendar.
Quote from: GreyRaceGlobalist on May 27, 2011, 06:32:39 AM
Doesn't have enough to do? It sounds like this is what she does. This study isn't outside the scope of sociology, certainly not for a sociologist whose areas of specialization include "Social Inequalities - Gender, Race, and Ethnicity," "Sociology of Childhood and Youth," and "Sociology of Sexuality."
#1) Because they have a sociology department. http://www.fsu.edu/~soc/ (http://www.fsu.edu/%7Esoc/)
#2) It sounds like Dr. McCabe has a research faculty position. Professors whose research is fully supported by external funding often have different duties at Universities and will teach few courses. The FSU website has her teaching two grad courses and three undergrad courses so she is probably teaching three courses a semester. While that's not a huge teaching load it will keep one busy and certainly eat into ones time for research.
So how does she find the time? She, like many research scientists working at Universities, probably goes into overdrive during the breaks in the academic calendar.
I guess Tele Tubby grant money was all used up, so she settled for Pooh? ::)
Am I the only one that sees the stupidity in this?
Its a freakin cartoon character.
What next, studying the sociopathic qualities of Bugs Bunny?
Quote from: Solar on May 27, 2011, 06:42:47 AM
Am I the only one that sees the stupidity in this?
Its a freakin cartoon character.
What next, studying the sociopathic qualities of Bugs Bunny?
Exactly what do you think "this" represents? I'm genuinely curious if you read what the article had to say about the study, and what the PI had to say about her work.
Her study wasn't about the gender of Winnie the Pooh. It seems like an informatics study about gender disparity in children's literature. You can still argue that the work isn't worth funding or isn't worth doing but given that her study was about children's literature it isn't stupid at all for there to be cartoon characters involved.
Quote from: GreyRaceGlobalist on May 27, 2011, 07:22:33 AM
Exactly what do you think "this" represents? I'm genuinely curious if you read what the article had to say about the study, and what the PI had to say about her work.
Her study wasn't about the gender of Winnie the Pooh. It seems like an informatics study about gender disparity in children's literature. You can still argue that the work isn't worth funding or isn't worth doing but given that her study was about children's literature it isn't stupid at all for there to be cartoon characters involved.
No, the point is, sometimes a tree is just a tree.
Bark, leaves, and wood. Not a sentient being, just a tree.
Quote from: Solar on May 27, 2011, 07:38:25 AM
No, the point is, sometimes a tree is just a tree.
Bark, leaves, and wood. Not a sentient being, just a tree.
That's your point? A retreat into analogy?
I'm no longer curious as to whether you read the article linked in the OP.
Quote from: GreyRaceGlobalist on May 27, 2011, 07:41:58 AM
That's your point? A retreat into analogy?
I'm no longer curious as to whether you read the article linked in the OP.
Nope, didn't need to.
Sometimes people read way to much into things, which was the point of the analogy.
But I'll read it and see if I can figure out your point.
OK, read it, and my analogy stands!
The woman is seeing something that is irrelevant, and trying to give it relevance.
Seriously, what does it matter if there are more male characters in children books?
Do parents not have the sense to pick what they want their children to read?
Did this woman look at every book published since 1900 for children, or just the better written and more popular ones.
Bottom line, I smell an agenda, despite her claims to the contrary.
Where did ya go Grey? This is just getting started, looks like an interesting subject to delve into.
Quote from: GreyRaceGlobalist on May 27, 2011, 08:18:37 AM
Don't be absurd.
Huh? I was serious, I find this an interesting subject in how we both view it differently.
Quote from: Solar on May 27, 2011, 08:00:11 AM
OK, read it, and my analogy stands!
The woman is seeing something that is irrelevant, and trying to give it relevance.
Seriously, what does it matter if there are more male characters in children books?
Do parents not have the sense to pick what they want their children to read?
Did this woman look at every book published since 1900 for children, or just the better written and more popular ones.
Bottom line, I smell an agenda, despite her claims to the contrary.
Whether her study is relevant or not is very debatable. She's asking a question that is relevant to the field of gender studies in sociology. I say "very debatable" because I think the issue would quickly become one of the relevancy of sociology itself.
One of us would have to read her paper to answer your questions about the research, but methodology is certainly vital to judging conclusions.
You seem to be railing against non-existent government control that one could imagine coming from some tyrannical do-gooder enacting as a result of taking this research to an illogical extreme and making unrelated value judgements about what is right and wrong for children, but its being directed at the scientist that states a reasonable scientific goal: to observe and report to make others aware.
What is the reason for your suspicion of a hidden agenda? Just general pessimism?
Quote from: Solar on May 27, 2011, 08:23:17 AM
Huh? I was serious, I find this an interesting subject in how we both view it differently.
I know.
What struck me as absurd is the assumption that I'd always be available to quickly respond to your posts.
Reality beckons from time to time. I'm grilling breakfast this Friday morning.
Quote from: GreyRaceGlobalist on May 27, 2011, 08:32:39 AM
Whether her study is relevant or not is very debatable. She's asking a question that is relevant to the field of gender studies in sociology. I say "very debatable" because I think the issue would quickly become one of the relevancy of sociology itself.
One of us would have to read her paper to answer your questions about the research, but methodology is certainly vital to judging conclusions.
You seem to be railing against non-existent government control that one could imagine coming from some tyrannical do-gooder enacting as a result of taking this research to an illogical extreme and making unrelated value judgements about what is right and wrong for children, but its being directed at the scientist that states a reasonable scientific goal: to observe and report to make others aware.
What is the reason for your suspicion of a hidden agenda? Just general pessimism?
Thank you for the well thought out post.
I guess where we differ is her idea that there is a need for balance of gender books.
Do children not lean toward what interests them?
Like girls love Nancy Drew, or my Friend Flica, Little Women and boys toward the Hardy Boys and and comic books.
But the point is, it is blatantly she sees an issue where none ever existed, till she created one.
Oh, and I too am in the middle of cooking my second breakfast, so sorry for the delay. :D
Quote from: Solar on May 27, 2011, 08:58:57 AM
Thank you for the well thought out post.
I guess where we differ is her idea that there is a need for balance of gender books.
I don't see where she states that there is such a need. She says that there is a disparity and that it matters.
I guess I can see how such a need could be seen as the next logical inference, but I'm granting her the benefit of the doubt that her research stops short of attempting to make subjective distinctions about policy.
That's just conjecture anyway. Her words indicate to me that she's attempting to follow a model of empiricism, making observations and asking questions. I for one think that questions about why we are the way we are are worth asking.
Quote from: GreyRaceGlobalist on May 27, 2011, 09:15:11 AM
I don't see where she states that there is such a need. She says that there is a disparity and that it matters.
I guess I can see how such a need could be seen as the next logical inference, but I'm granting her the benefit of the doubt that her research stops short of attempting to make subjective distinctions about policy.
That's just conjecture anyway. Her words indicate to me that she's attempting to follow a model of empiricism, making observations and asking questions. I for one think that questions about why we are the way we are are worth asking.
Impiricism? Only in true science, in her case, agenda driven research.
If this were truly for research purposes, what would be the need, what would it matter?
To truly get an answer, 1600, 2000, 10,000 books is not enough, one would need to study every book written with the family in mind to truly get an idea of a balance of characters.
But this woman specifically chose a certain number of books, that hardly qualifies as research, more like a term paper.
Two thousand books is less than 1% of all books written for the family/children since 1900.
I'd like to see her criteria for selecting such a small sampling.
Yeah, I still smell agenda.
Quote from: Solar on May 27, 2011, 09:25:33 AM
Impiricism? Only in true science, in her case, agenda driven research.
If this were truly for research purposes, what would be the need, what would it matter?
To truly get an answer, 1600, 2000, 10,000 books is not enough, one would need to study every book written with the family in mind to truly get an idea of a balance of characters.
But this woman specifically chose a certain number of books, that hardly qualifies as research, more like a term paper.
Two thousand books is less than 1% of all books written for the family/children since 1900.
I'd like to see her criteria for selecting such a small sampling.
Yeah, I still smell agenda.
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."
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 (http://www.fsu.edu/%7Esoc/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 (http://www.fsu.edu/%7Esoc/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/ (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 (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 (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?
Quote from: Solar on May 27, 2011, 05:22:43 PM
OK, lets look at what she claims...
Okay, let us. Her claims and the FOX new story about her study are not the same thing.
You keep saying why does it matter, but really what you're asking is why does it matter to someone who isn't a sociologist and again this is questioning the relevancy of the whole field.
Males are females are represented in humanity at a certain rate which is relatively steady. If we represent ourselves in a different way in our works it is reasonable for someone to ask why. For this issue of children's literature one could ask if the over-representation of males to females (relative to the actual state of gender occurrence) correlates to the gender of the author: Are there simply more male characters in children's lit because more children's lit is written by males?
I agree that the tone (or connotation if you will) of the gender representation seems relevant. Without looking at her actual study how do our know if this is considered or not? The fact that it's not mentioned in the article in the OP doesn't mean anything more than just that.
Quote from: GreyRaceGlobalist on May 28, 2011, 08:10:52 AM
Quote from: Solar on May 27, 2011, 05:22:43 PM
OK, lets look at what she claims...
Okay, let us. Her claims and the FOX new story about her study are not the same thing.
You keep saying why does it matter, but really what you're asking is why does it matter to someone who isn't a sociologist and again this is questioning the relevancy of the whole field.
Males are females are represented in humanity at a certain rate which is relatively steady. If we represent ourselves in a different way in our works it is reasonable for someone to ask why. For this issue of children's literature one could ask if the over-representation of males to females (relative to the actual state of gender occurrence) correlates to the gender of the author: Are there simply more male characters in children's lit because more children's lit is written by males?
I agree that the tone (or connotation if you will) of the gender representation seems relevant. Without looking at her actual study how do our know if this is considered or not? The fact that it's not mentioned in the article in the OP doesn't mean anything more than just that.
Which brings us full circle.
Her sampling is way to small, and pretty irrelevant.
One would need to take 2/3 of all children books printed since 1900 and do a count, but what does it matter?
So there is a disproportionate number of males to females, or vice versa, why is it even remotely important?
What is even more important, were the authors male or female, were there more human heroes than animal heroes, were the heroes male or female humans.
Her study is a total waste of time and not one that would get a passing grade in a college class.
She has totally failed to make any point, other than to show her bias masked as research.
And for you to try and say otherwise exposes your leftist bias.
Quote from: Solar on May 28, 2011, 08:44:55 AM
Which brings us full circle.
Her sampling is way to small, and pretty irrelevant.
One would need to take 2/3 of all children books printed since 1900 and do a count, but what does it matter?
So there is a disproportionate number of males to females, or vice versa, why is it even remotely important?
What is even more important, were the authors male or female, were there more human heroes than animal heroes, were the heroes male or female humans.
Her study is a total waste of time and not one that would get a passing grade in a college class.
She has totally failed to make any point, other than to show her bias masked as research.
And for you to try and say otherwise exposes your leftist bias.
My whole position is that you're making conclusions about a study without actually viewing the material you are judging.
I've already said that while you could be right I just don't see any reason to assume you are right without examining a primary source regarding the topic so save the partisan dismissal. I'd be making the exact same argument to someone who was assuming that a Christian was incapable of researching evolutionary biology without allowing their personal feelings to bias their results.
Claiming bias in research without examining methodology, and the snippets of actual information in the linked article do not outline a methodology, is making an unreasonable assumption unless their is some exceptional circumstance such as a history of academic fraud on the part of the researcher.
My only question is who is paying for this study? If this is my tax dollars at work then she has wasted my money. 8)
Quote from: Solars Toy on May 28, 2011, 09:32:18 AM
My only question is who is paying for this study? If this is my tax dollars at work then she has wasted my money. 8)
It's a question worth asking.
From what I saw yesterday it looks like the research hasn't actually been published yet. Funding should be acknowledged in the article though.
Interesting site. Comments stated "she was and easy A and treated us like elementary school kids". Personal favorite...
Taught a very one-sided view of feminism. Lectures were almost unbearable and tests were very broad and difficult to study for. I would not take another class with this professor.
http://www.ratemyprofessors.com/ShowRatings.jsp?tid=934742&page=3 (http://www.ratemyprofessors.com/ShowRatings.jsp?tid=934742&page=3)
I would like to know what she is paid (one website said an Assistant Professor at FSU makes $72,300) and how many classes she teaches to earn that salary. Or is most of her time spent on research such as this one? ::)
Quote from: GreyRaceGlobalist on May 28, 2011, 09:30:13 AM
My whole position is that you're making conclusions about a study without actually viewing the material you are judging.
I've already said that while you could be right I just don't see any reason to assume you are right without examining a primary source regarding the topic so save the partisan dismissal. I'd be making the exact same argument to someone who was assuming that a Christian was incapable of researching evolutionary biology without allowing their personal feelings to bias their results.
Claiming bias in research without examining methodology, and the snippets of actual information in the linked article do not outline a methodology, is making an unreasonable assumption unless their is some exceptional circumstance such as a history of academic fraud on the part of the researcher.
This so called research is akin to greenies taking every incident of minor injury and taking the total to justify why nuclear energy is harmful.
Point is, they lumped in minor scratches that didn't even require a band aid, as part of the research.
That is what she has done, she gave no explanation as to why there is an imbalance, only that one exists.
That is not research, that is agenda.
It is beyond me as to why you accept this as a valid study when it doesn't follow the basic rules of research.
Quote from: Solar on May 28, 2011, 01:14:03 PM
That is what she has done, she gave no explanation as to why there is an imbalance, only that one exists.
You're saying she has an agenda because she fails to apply subjective interpretation?
That really doesn't make any sense.
More importantly though, aren't you just assuming she has no explanation to offer? Have you actually seen the work and read her conclusions? I'm pretty sure the research isn't published yet so that seems unlikely.
Quote from: GreyRaceGlobalist on May 29, 2011, 03:19:20 PM
You're saying she has an agenda because she fails to apply subjective interpretation?
That really doesn't make any sense.
More importantly though, aren't you just assuming she has no explanation to offer? Have you actually seen the work and read her conclusions? I'm pretty sure the research isn't published yet so that seems unlikely.
No, I base it on the fact that she is a self described feminist, that is her main focal point in teaching.
So it goes without saying, she has an agenda in everything she does.
Did you see what one of her students had to say?
Taught a very one-sided view of feminism. Lectures were almost unbearable and tests were very broad and difficult to study for. I would not take another class with this professor.
Quote from: Solar on May 29, 2011, 04:34:26 PM
Did you see what one of her students had to say?
Taught a very one-sided view of feminism. Lectures were almost unbearable and tests were very broad and difficult to study for. I would not take another class with this professor.
Nope, hadn't seen that.