Here's a response to @paulisci's excellent thread about the bizarre spectrum of things women have been blamed for. Just a few of my #VintageMagTweets I can find include: how women wanting to have a nice time in bed has ruined sex for men:

Women are too lazy to fight off sexual violence or to ask for proper political representation. Their fault again.
The Peter in the first clipping is Peter Sutcliffe, who was convicted of murdering 13 women.
Submit entirely to a man's sexual assault or it's your fault if he gets violent.
Women at fault here for being awkward enough to have women's bodies.
Car accidents that happen in the morning are women's fault.
If your husband sits around in his underpants drinking beer, that's your fault, that is.
This one is absolutely heartbreaking and appalling.
Why are women under-represented in parliament? Because of women, of course.
Why aren't women paid fairly? Because they can't be bothered to ask.
Yes, restrict the freedom of the girls because it's entirely their fault.
As someone who works in schools, this made my blood boil. A schoolgirl writes to a teen mag agony aunt about a male teacher pressuring her to have a sexual relationship, and the girl gets told off.
Who's responsible for male chauvinism? Women. Obvs.
And lastly, a photo story about a boy who returns to his career in burglary. Who's to blame? His girlfriend who mentioned she liked another girl's watch.
I probably have a ton of other examples, but hunting them down is tricky. In any case, we don't need to look far. The reflex to blame women for whatever is evident in the press (and on here) every day.
Here is Paul's original thread.
https://t.co/fum4t2za1j

You May Also Like

A brief analysis and comparison of the CSS for Twitter's PWA vs Twitter's legacy desktop website. The difference is dramatic and I'll touch on some reasons why.

Legacy site *downloads* ~630 KB CSS per theme and writing direction.

6,769 rules
9,252 selectors
16.7k declarations
3,370 unique declarations
44 media queries
36 unique colors
50 unique background colors
46 unique font sizes
39 unique z-indices

https://t.co/qyl4Bt1i5x


PWA *incrementally generates* ~30 KB CSS that handles all themes and writing directions.

735 rules
740 selectors
757 declarations
730 unique declarations
0 media queries
11 unique colors
32 unique background colors
15 unique font sizes
7 unique z-indices

https://t.co/w7oNG5KUkJ


The legacy site's CSS is what happens when hundreds of people directly write CSS over many years. Specificity wars, redundancy, a house of cards that can't be fixed. The result is extremely inefficient and error-prone styling that punishes users and developers.

The PWA's CSS is generated on-demand by a JS framework that manages styles and outputs "atomic CSS". The framework can enforce strict constraints and perform optimisations, which is why the CSS is so much smaller and safer. Style conflicts and unbounded CSS growth are avoided.
This is a pretty valiant attempt to defend the "Feminist Glaciology" article, which says conventional wisdom is wrong, and this is a solid piece of scholarship. I'll beg to differ, because I think Jeffery, here, is confusing scholarship with "saying things that seem right".


The article is, at heart, deeply weird, even essentialist. Here, for example, is the claim that proposing climate engineering is a "man" thing. Also a "man" thing: attempting to get distance from a topic, approaching it in a disinterested fashion.


Also a "man" thing—physical courage. (I guess, not quite: physical courage "co-constitutes" masculinist glaciology along with nationalism and colonialism.)


There's criticism of a New York Times article that talks about glaciology adventures, which makes a similar point.


At the heart of this chunk is the claim that glaciology excludes women because of a narrative of scientific objectivity and physical adventure. This is a strong claim! It's not enough to say, hey, sure, sounds good. Is it true?