Maybe one individual's choice doesn't harm other people, but if everyone makes the same "choice," then it becomes a lot harder for people to choose differently. That's the harm we're talking about here. That doesn't mean I can pretend to know Amal Clooney's reasons for choosing to take her husband's last…

As I see it, being critical of something isn't the same as shaming—or at least, it shouldn't be. None of us knows Amal Clooney's reasons for changing her name. Some women do it because of internalized patriarchy; some women do it because they like the new name better; some do it because they've experienced abuse or…

I think it reinforces the fact that women should be able to do whatever they want without being judged for it.

I love what blind peer review stands for—the idea that your paper should rise and fall on its merits, not where you went to grad school, who your adviser was, etc. Given how many other aspects of academic careers are not strictly meritocratic, it's lovely to have one area (and an important one) that still seems to…

I've mentioned this elsewhere, but this is apparently pretty different across fields—in mine, papers are blinded (yes, if you're very familiar with the subfield, you can sometimes guess who it is, but you don't have the names in front of you). We also get some pretty strict warnings about including only people who…

I'm certainly learning that peer review standards in other disciplines from my own are rather different! At the same time, the system you describe (where you can guess the author—or their advisor, at least—based on their topic) would matter only for real human beings who had established a body of work, not made-up…

That's interesting—in sociology, we generally have to create a version of the paper that's had the authors' names removed, and there are rules for how you cite yourself in the initial submission so that it's not *too* obvious who you are.

This is not the kind of reason that an editor would STATE as their rationale—it's how the author perceives their decision. Kind of like saying, "He broke up with me because he couldn't handle my passion!"

I doubt whether the name made a difference in any way, since most respected academic publications use blind peer review to decide what to publish. Barring unusual circumstances, the people judging the quality of the paper wouldn't have seen the authors' names.

The conclusion that many people seem to be drawing from this story—that adding this fake author's name was the difference between publication and rejection—seems pretty fishy to me, because it ignores the fact that most respected academic publications use blind peer review to make these decisions.

I wonder if this works, in part, because people are already used to paying an "optional" charge when they eat out, in the form of tipping. It's technically optional—at least, the amount you pay is—but it's governed by social norms about what's an appropriate amount. I know some people are resentful of the pressure to…

I'm always charmed when someone brings out an obscure or weird—but totally appropriate—insult. A recent example was in Orphan Black, when one character called another a "turnip" (being intentionally vague to avoid spoilers here!). It gave me pause, but then I thought YES - "turnip" perfectly captures something about…

I'm glad to hear that he's spoken about this with a bit more nuance in the past... on the other hand, it's frustrating that he thinks eliminating that nuance is a way to score political points. Sigh.

Not to be that person, but since this is a space that tries to be inclusive and thoughtful about language (note: I said tries...that doesn't mean we always succeed), could we not use the word "fucktard" here? It's basically just a reworking of "retard," which I think most people agree is some messed up ableist…

That makes a lot of sense. I thought you meant it was benevolent sexism toward the men, which would be confusing (because benevolent sexism works by giving someone faux compliments to maintain the gender order—and, at least on the face of it, calling guys stupid isn't much of a compliment). But yes, I agree, the…

Dumbness isn't what keeps men from cleaning-it's not exactly brain surgery. What keeps them from cleaning is laziness.

I agree that the "women are so smart, they're the only ones who can figure out how to wash the floor" is benevolent sexism (toward women), but isn't it just sexism/misandry toward the men who, by implication, are stupid and immature?

I agree, with regard to social pressures and traditional gender norms. But it seems to me, in an ideal world none of us would clean house for weird, status-obsessed, keeping-up-with-the-Joneses reasons—we'd do it in order to make our homes comfortable and accessible for the people we live with. Because it's the…

I know we like to joke about misandry and male tears and all that, but you know what's actually misandry? Claiming that men aren't as smart as women, and that they can't possibly be expected to know how to act like adults. And it's coming from the (male) President of the U.S. of A.

I particularly appreciate how the twerking changes to match the lyrics, including pure poetry like "spread that jelly, spread it good." Fun fact: last year, Big Freedia set the Guinness World Record for assembling the largest simultaneous twerking event—more than 300 people twerking in unison for 2 minutes.