Found via
hrafn, the URL says it all.
http://contexts.org/socimages/2009/12/08/the-discovery-channel-not-for-womens-eyes/
Like I said in another recent post, there's reasons I don't usually reveal my gender in a science context, and now the Discovery Channel has joined those reasons.
(Edited to the correct name of the channel: Discovery Channel. Not to be confused with Discover Magazine.)
http://contexts.org/socimages/2009/12/08/the-discovery-channel-not-for-womens-eyes/
Like I said in another recent post, there's reasons I don't usually reveal my gender in a science context, and now the Discovery Channel has joined those reasons.
(Edited to the correct name of the channel: Discovery Channel. Not to be confused with Discover Magazine.)
no subject
Date: 2009-12-16 06:39 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-12-16 06:43 pm (UTC)(no subject)
From:no subject
Date: 2009-12-16 06:50 pm (UTC)I expected better of Discovery.
no subject
Date: 2009-12-16 07:06 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-12-16 07:21 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-12-16 07:27 pm (UTC)I guess that's probably been obvious to everyone for a long time, hasn't it?
Also, I've been increasingly offended by Mike Rowe's sophomoric sexism, and I don't think it's because I've just gotten touchier about it.
(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:no subject
Date: 2009-12-16 08:15 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-12-16 08:26 pm (UTC)(no subject)
From:no subject
Date: 2009-12-16 09:20 pm (UTC)(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:no subject
Date: 2009-12-16 10:19 pm (UTC)Seriously, what the left-handed tap-dancing h-e-double-hockey-sticks is that noise?
I mean, I assume that what's going on is that some dumbass marketroid thinks that the Discovery Channel in the Netherlands is getting a lot of female viewers and not so many male ones, and is trying to stir up some interest among male viewers.
But this is so incredibly dumb that I have to wonder if it's a parody (in poor taste).
(no subject)
From:no subject
Date: 2009-12-17 05:50 am (UTC)