Thursday 16 January 2014

RadFems and I

A detour from my usual content...




The Horsehoe Theory, born out of political science, observes that the far left and far right linear ends of the political spectrum resemble each other more than the moderate areas of either view. Hence the idea that political views and their real-world applications are more easily mapped in the curve of a horseshoe than a straight line.

This phenomenon has more recently been observed in the world of Radical Feminism. Whilst most decent human beings would consider themselves feminists in the true sense of the word - a feminist being one who desires equality for all - a very small but increasingly vocal group has begun to taint societies view of the movement.

The goal of RadFems appears not to be the equal treatment of all, but the degradation of men for the benefit of women. Perhaps I have "internalised misogyny" but to me that seems to replace one bigoted system with another rather than generating any improvement.

My first encounter with the world of Radical Feminism was, of course, in that circlejerk of ego and victim complexes that is Tumblr. In a post now deleted a young woman took it upon herself to explain why the female mind is best suited to the study of the arts and social problems rather than sullying itself with the "masculine STEM fields". I naturally took umbrage with this and clicked through to the main blog, expecting a wall of Daily Mail-esque conservatism. In fact, she was a RadFem and Social Justice Warrior (a group who appear to have confused social justice with hating white men).

I never quite managed to follow her line of thought as to why my "creative feminine mind" would be sullied by pursuing my chosen career path but it was enough to realise that the movement of radical feminism had come full circle. Now the aim is to hate those based on characteristics that they were born with. Are you a straight, white male? Well then apparently you are the scum of the earth and most likely a rapist too.

For all my misgivings, I do believe that the general RadFem is mostly harmless. Likely aged around 15, she blogs from her comfortable bedroom in a generally affluent suburb in a comparatively safe Western country. She hates men, specifically taking issue with those of the male gender that look at her funny, cat-call and take up too much room on public transport.

People are not stereotypes to be classified into "victims" and "oppressors"
Eventually though, maintaining such a level of hatred and anger towards half of the world's population becomes exhausting (as explained by an ex-RadFem here). Larger problems facing women on our planet, such as FGM, lack of access to education and equal rights across many countries, are perceived and the "Rad" gets dropped. Yes, it is annoying to be wolf-whistled at on your way to work but there are no laws preventing you from driving a car.

People are not stereotypes to be classified into "victims" and "oppressors" but rather individuals, good or bad, who are to be given the same rights and freedoms as everyone else. Men in general are not evil, individuals among them may be but they do not represent the gender as a whole. Likewise women are not all repressed victims of a patriarchal society - we are, in this country at least, able to make our own choices as to how to live our lives and should not be looked down upon if that choice doesn't meet some other individual's ideal.

Feminism still has a long way to go, both across the world and here in the UK (with Birmingham City Council recently wasting public money on legal fees to drag out the equal pay tribunal) . Feminists, and I like to hope that includes everyone of you reading this, are part of a movement and thought process that is not based around hate but rather acceptance. It doesn't matter if you were born male or female, if you fancy the same gender or the other or both, if you are trans or not. People are people and I find any view point that considers one group as "less" than another to be reprehensible.

The Yorker Online 16th January 2014

A new super-toxin identified

Botulinum toxin, a neurotoxin secreted by the bacterium Clostridium botulinum, is the most poisonous substance known in nature.  It takes the injection of just 3 billionths of a gram to kill a 70 kilo adult human.

 Botulinum toxin interfere with the nervous system by blocking the release of acetylcholine, the main muscular neurotransmitter. This leads to muscle paralysis and will cause the victim to suffocate as the muscles controlling the heart and lungs give out.

Until recently, seven exotoxins have been identified as secreted by C. botulinum,  - A, B, C1, C2, D, E, F and G.  People poisoned with these toxins can be treated with monoclonal antibodies (artificial immune proteins) to reverse the toxic effects. Botulinum toxin A is used to induce muscle weakness lasting about six months, which can alleviate issues such as bladder incontinence and is used for cosmetic treatments on facial lines.

In October 2013 it was announced that an eighth type of botulinum toxin, H, had been discovered in the feces of a child suffering from botulism. Genetic sequencing of the bacterial DNA encoding this toxin has revealed that it is part of a separate branch on the botulinum family tree.

Upon the discovery of a new gene, it is common practise that the genetic data is submitted to the public database GenBank. However is has been decided that the coding for toxin H is best kept out of the public domain.

Tests of toxin H antibodies (grown in rabbits) upon mice have shown that, whilst the antibody is capable of protecting against toxin H, a huge dose is needed. Until a better, stronger antibody can be created it various US government agencies have felt that it is in the public interest to limit knowledge of this toxic.

Monday 6 January 2014

The birds, the bees and the Cretaceous plants

cluster of 18 tiny flowers was found preserved in amber in Burma. This very well preserved budding plant shows the oldest direct evidence of sexual reproduction in flowering plants. Scientist from Oregon State University, collaberating with researchers in Germany, published their findings in the Journal of the Botanical Institute of Texas.
The plant has been named Micropetasos burmensis and each flower is only a couple of millimeters long. Preserved in the mid-Cretaceous period, these flowers give a sense of how the environment of the Earth begun to change with the emergence of flowering plant life. Whilst dinosaurs where still very much the dominant form of life, new lineages of mammal and birds where gradually emerging and the Earth began to change.
At that time much of the plant life was composed of conifers, ferns and mosses - a rare few of these species survive to this day. The evolution of flowering plants promoted a huge change in the biodiversity of the planet, especially around the tropic. Although the plant species found preserved in amber is now completely extinct, this is the most complete specimen of any flowering plant from that era of our planet's history.
100-million year old flowers. Image credit: Oregon State University ©Oregon State University; Image credit: Oregon State University
The most remarkable thing about this find, however, are the pollen tubes growing out of two grains of pollen. These penetrate the flower’s stigma (for those whose GCSE biology is rusty, that is the receptive part of a plant's female reproductive system) which would then go on to develop seeds. The rapidness of amber preservation allows this action to be seen now, frozen in time, in "mid-act" as it were.
The pollen is said to appear "sticky", possibly it was carried by insects from flower to flower. Many flowering plants today rely on insect pollination, hence why the declining bee population is so worrying. It is these mechanics of flowering plant reproduction that are still in play 100-million years later.
Unfortunately for the keen Jurassic Park fans out there, it is not possible to grow the seeds preserved in the lump of amber. DNA has a half life of about 500 years (half of it will have degraded after that time) and after 100-million years there is nothing left to sample.

The Yorker, 5/1/14