I'm admittedly skeptical of Jezebel race politics, but frankly, this headline,
seems to focus on the (IMHO) backtracking and insufficient apology* of the (white female) Scientific American editor rather than on the substance of the actual story—which the post covers pretty well. All the more galling since "apology" is not used anywhere as this Wired writer points out. Do the Jezebel bloggers choose their own headlines?
Thanks to WitchMountainMama for calling attention to Danielle Lee's response this weekend. Thanks to you I have been riveted by Twitter and getting nothing done ;). I like this guy's discussion of the problematics of both a boycott and late response.
*I am perfectly willing to believe that this was the perfect storm of a holiday weekend and old-fashioned journal not being able to respond as quickly as a social media backlash, but much of this is BS. The original tweet said that the post wasn't "sciency" enough, not that they wanted to investigate legal issues. "Not science" is the default dismissal/derailing tactic for women and it is appalling that a woman editor resorted to that when talking about a black woman's work. In fact, several commenters on the various blogposts (a minority thankfully) said that she'd have less trouble if she would just stick to science.
So you Jezzie-scientists: is "smells like Rhincodon typus innards" a standard epithet amongst you guys?
ETA: My complaint is not about the article, but with the headline.