feminine (12c) & femme = woman in French.
isme = suffix forming nouns of action, state, condition, doctrine.
Féminisme (French) = feminism (English).
– Assata Shakur
If one can even say that Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris and Dennet actually lead the atheist movement. I think that a woman would make a fine addition to this quartet. It would have been nice if she was a “founding-member” so to speak.
I would suggest checking out Blag Hag’s list of influential and well known female atheists.
I would also check out
- Ophelia Benson, the author of Does God Hate Women.
- Greta Christina, blogger.
- Lyz Liddell, the campus organizer for the Secular Student Alliance.
- and Eugenie Scott, executive director of the National Center for Science Education.
We’re out there. We’re strong, we’re vocal, and we’re influential.
Polly Toynbee is actually the president of the British Humanist Association. The previous two before her were also women. There are four vice-presidents currently who are female (alongside Dawkins and others). The Secularist of the Year Award given by the National Secular Society (Britain) has been presented to four separate women or women groups since its inception (2005).
But I agree, atheist media is dominated by white men. Atheists like Dawkins shouting down atheist women when they discuss their oppression within the community doesn’t help.
I’ve been explaining this story to a lot of my friends recently, so if you’ve got any questions, then send me an ask!
I thought it’d be useful for peeps if I shared some of the better stories about it I’ve read:
Faster-Than-Light Neutrinos? (Cosmic Variance blog)
The things you need to know about this result are:
- It’s enormously interesting if it’s right.
- It’s probably not right.
By the latter point I don’t mean to impugn the abilities or honesty of the experimenters, who are by all accounts top-notch people trying to do something very difficult. It’s just a very difficult experiment, and given that the result is so completely contrary to our expectations, it’s much easier at this point to believe there is a hidden glitch than to take it at face value. All that would instantly change, of course, if it were independently verified by another experiment; at that point the gleeful jumping up and down will justifiably commence.
Scientists Question Faster-Than-Light Neutrinos (Ars Technica on Wired Science)
The end result is that the OPERA team doesn’t see any obvious problems in its measurements. All of the errors, when added up, shouldn’t be able to account for anything close to the 60ns gap between the neutrinos’ arrival and the speed of light. The difference between their speed and that of light is very statistically significant, and the neutrino data itself looks excellent. The team has recorded over 16,000 events now, and the profile of events over time very closely matches the structure of the proton bunches that created them.
Faster-than-light neutrino claim bolstered (New Scientist)
But only time will tell whether the result holds up to additional scrutiny, and whether it can be reproduced . There is still room for uncertainty in the neutrinos’ departure time, Plunkett says, because there is no neutrino detector on CERN’s end of the line. The only way to know when the neutrinos left is to extrapolate from data on the blob of protons used to produce them.
Dimension-hop may allow neutrinos to cheat light speed (New Scientist)
Sher also mentions a third option: that the measurement is correct. Some theories posit that there are extra, hidden dimensions beyond the familiar four (three of space, one of time). It’s possible that the speedy neutrinos tunnel through these extra dimensions, reducing the distance they have to travel to get to the target. This would explain the measurement without requiring the speed of light to be broken.
fucking science, folks