After reading about gender-bias and conversation dominance in the classroom, I asked for a peer to observe a physics class I was teaching and keep track of the discussion time I was giving to various students along with their race and gender. In this exercise, I knew I was being observed and I was trying to be extra careful to equally represent all students―but I STILL gave a disproportionate amount of discussion time to the white male students in my classroom (controlling for the overall distribution of genders and races in the class). I was shocked. It felt like I was giving a disproportionate amount of time to my white female and non-white students.
Even when I was explicitly trying, I still failed to have the discussion participants fairly represent the population of the students in my classroom.
This is a well-studied phenomena and it’s called listener bias. We are socialized to think women talk more than they actually do. Listener bias results in most people thinking that women are ‘hogging the floor’ even when men are dominating.
my gender presentation preferences are to look boyish naked and then to wear the kind of clothes my next level girlbuds wear, but then sometimes I think “what would I look like with an angular bob” but I’d have to straighten it to make it look right and I’m opposed to straightening hair on a lot of levels and honestly the only reason I even am considering that idea at all is because I have a wig in that style so why wouldn’t I just wear the wig
I wonder what would happen if I asked for a pixie cut, like would they give me a pixie cut or would they try to adapt it because I’m a “boy” and like how do you adapt a subversively un-traditionally-feminine femme haircut to make it unsubversively masculine
I just realized these sideburns lower my selfie confidence so they’ve gotta go bye sideburns, relatedly: getting a haircut today unless it brings my discretionary spending for this month over 100 in which case lol waiting till October for THAT
was anyone else there for that time some basic bitch at the FUC meeting about misogyny in music tried to use Nicki Minaj as an example of a woman objectifying herself in her music, despite the incredible, flabbergasting incorrectness of that claim, and despite the fact that we had JUST WATCHED three videos of white women in music emphasizing their sexual value to men? wow what a time to be alive
sometimes I get emotional when I think about the development of Nicki Minaj’s brand
like she started out next-level in so many ways and then over the past few years she’s continued to improve, as a musical artist and as a fashion icon, to such a degree that when I watch old videos of hers I get this weird double vision where I’m like ‘this is in the top 100 music videos I’ve ever seen’ and then on the other hand I’m like ‘this is like looking at her baby pictures’, because it was and still is so good but even so she’s so much better now
I really recommend developing unrealistic body standards for the people you wanna be with because having realistic body standards for the people you wanna be with just means you’re surrounded by attractive people all the time and let me tell you it’s less fun than it sounds
college is catered towards the able bodied and able minded. school applauds people who can stay up all night, skip meals, and work endlessly. that kind of extreme contribution is expected. why are disabled people being squeezed out of academic institutions? why should I feel inferior because of some arbitrary and ridiculous standard?
you can’t announce on your Grindr profile that you’re only interested in being messaged by white dudes, then make your headline and display name PLEASE READ THE ABOUT ME, then get huffy with me when I say I don’t talk to open racists
Or should I say, introbligatory? Obligatroduction? Perhaps I shouldn’t.
Hello all! My name is Matthew Aston Seaver, and I am a senior linguistics student at the University of Mary Washington. This semester I’m undertaking an independent study on morphological blends.
What’s a morphological blend?
Well, it can also be called a portmanteau, a blend-word, or just a blend- but fundamentally, a blend is a word like brunch- from breakfast and lunch- that is formed by fusing together two other words. What’s interesting about blends is that they are not a simple case of compounding or affixation. (An example of compounding is icehouse, from ice and house; an example of affixation is affixation, from affix, -ate, and -ion.) Both of those processes act on morphemes, the smallest units in language that can carry their own meanings. Morphemes can be bound, like affixes, and be unable to stand on their own, or they can be free, like independent words.
The thing to notice here is that neither *br- nor *-unch is a meaningful unit on its own. (In this context, the asterixes mean something like unattested, ungrammatical, or just plain wrong.) Because the units aren’t morphemes, traditional approaches to morphology- here, the inner structure of words- have trouble analyzing blends. Breakfast is meaningful, and so is lunch, but some of the material from both words is missing; what happened to ‘eakfast’ and ‘l’?
For that matter, what about a word like slanguage (Irwin by way of Wood by way of Pound 1914), where slang and language both make it into the word intact? Or Lewis Carrol’s coinage slithy from slimy and lithe, where the words don’t even have the decency to occur linearly? Slimy wraps right around lithe- is that even allowed?
For my purposes- and this definition is subject to revision!- a blend is formed in such a way that there are at least two parent words, and in the output, there is no place where the end of one word is followed by the beginning of the other. You’ll notice in slanguage that the end of slang occurs well after the beginning of language, and that in slithy, lithe starts and ends entirely within the bounds of slimy.
Well, now that we’ve got that all cleared up, what’s left for me to talk about for this whole semester? I have a sneaking suspicion that there’s gonna be a whole lot.
Help me come up with a title for my research blog!
Hello y’all, I’m about to start a log of my research into morphological blends, otherwise known as portmanteaux, such as ‘brunch’ (breakfast + lunch) or ‘smog’ (smoke + fog). Like all blogs it needs a title, and it’d be pretty Uncool if the title wasn’t a blend. My efforts into title brainstorming have been unfruitful: ‘portmantopography’, ‘portmantorphology’ (portmanteau + morphology), ‘portmantodyssey’, ‘portmanteauverdose’??? Y’all have got to have better ideas than this.
The title should suggest ‘the study of morphological blends’ but other than that it’s totally up to you what it could be. I’ll naturally credit whoever comes up with the best title, unless I come up with the one I like best myself. Question mark so y’all can answer if you like?
Yeah it’s pretty fucked up how people don’t realize that ideas like oh he doesn’t speak English well = he’s stupid are inherently racist and were pioneered by racists to ensure separation in academic and professional field. The way you speak English will never be an indicator of your intelligence ever
<b><b></b> me:</b> I'm gonna get up at 7:30 so I can be out of the house by 8:30 and be super prepared for my first day of classes!<p>*alarm goes off at 730*<p><b>me:</b> *rolls over and looks directly at the camera like I'm on the Office*<p><p>