Between managing a class of 750 and desperately trying to organize some old data into something analyzeable (yes, I just made up that word), I have not been able to work on a post I really want to write on the history of the study of menstruation. I should be able to get it up next week.
In the meantime, here are a few things to keep you busy:
This article would have you believe that good, productive scientists work 20-hour days, continually risk their health, and ignore their families in the name of science. This editorial provides a counterpoint.
Women who are public figures on the internet, even fairly non-controversial ones, get attacked all the time. Two examples from just this week: Gluten free girl and Itty Biz. And yes, the second one includes considerable, specific death threats. No wonder there is real value to people, particularly from underrepresented groups, being able to be pseudonymous online. For more related to this from a scienceblogs perspective, check out the panel from Science Online 2011 on women blogging with their real name, and my post following up on it. I would also encourage you to think on how this affects other underrepresented groups in science.
Next, Boing Boing covers Emily Anthes's cool post/interview on the science of speech and gender. This really demonstrates the importance of a biocultural approach to understanding gender and gendered behavior.
Want tips on how to write faster? I sure do, and Michael Agger has some helpful tips over at Slate.
Finally, NPR tries something new. Similar to the flexibility allowed Google employees, they have come up with Serendipity Day, a day when developers get to mess around, try to fix problems, and come up with creative new ideas to improve the organization. It sounds like it involves a fair bit of preparation, but was worth it. I wonder, how could we incorporate this into teaching or research at the university level? Can we have Serendipity Days in our labs? Our classrooms?