We’ve already heard from the so-called Thinking Housewife on the subject of Sally Ride. Meanwhile, over on The Spearhead, the regulars also have opinions about Ride. Regular commenter Keyster has this to say about Ride’s work in promoting science and technology education for girls:
She was supposed to have inspired a generation of girls to take science and math. While she may have inspired the “Grrl Esteem” movement, very few girls went on to get degrees in math and science as a result of Sally Ride … .
She was frustrated by the fact young girls were very interested in math and science initially, “…but for some reason we lose them around the age of 13.” MMmmm…I wonder why that would be. Because they discovered an interest in boys? Not surprisingly, Sally was able to keep her interest.
That’s right: girls are incapable of thinking about both math and boys. Lesbians are the only women who can sustain an interest in math, because their brains aren’t cluttered with thoughts of Justin Bieber. (Ok, bad example.)
In another comment, Keyster expresses his annoyance at the fact that Ride turned out to be capable of astronautery despite being a woman.
Sally Ride proved that a woman can have “the right stuff”, like Amelia Earheart proved a woman can fly long distances.
OK so now that we know she won’t become hysterical during her period while in outerspace and allow her used tampons to clog the toilet, what do we do with this information? Just because a woman accomplishes something normally associated with men, is this inspiring young girls to spontaneously excel en masse and compete against men in male dominated arenas? Or are women like Sally Ride the exceptions that prove the rule?
You know, “exceptions that prove the rule” aren’t actually a thing. The fact that Ride was a capable astronaut doesn’t actually “prove the rule” that women aren’t capable as astronauts, but instead suggests that this particular rule is not a real rule. You would think that Keyster, as a logical male, would understand this.
You said you thought the guy was autistic. This logically suggests that he has more than common-or-garden social awkwardness.
You then said the behavior he exhibited you attributed to his possible autism.
Then you said that someone finding his possibly-autistic behavior was a result of a general hatred of men.
… seriously?! You don’t see why this is y’know, appropriative?
(That and it’s a bad idea to go around slapping diagnosis on people without being specially trained, especially when it comes to Autistic Spectrum, where there is a lot of overlap and subtleties.)
Nah, yer good. It’s not like you’re a genocidal robot supremacist like MSN.
aworldanonymous — as long as the rest of us can opt-out if we want, have fun with that! (This is my general answer to life actually, if you aren’t bothering anyone, have fun!)
Cool story, dudebro.
@ aworldanonymous:
There’s nothing inherently bad about being a transhumanist. A lot of transhumanist ideas are pretty cool.
I’ll admit that if someone I’ve never interacted with before says that they are a transhumanist, that does set off some alarm bells because I’ve come across a lot of transhumanist jerks. But I’ve also come across transhumanists that were absolutely wonderful people, so I wouldn’t tar all transhumanists with the same brush. The most vocal Christians are often fundamentalists, but that doesn’t mean that all of the friendly, reasonable Christians out there have to invent a new name for themselves.
Steele, you vile nockboard, you should know by now that due to misandry your writing talent is not sophisticated enough to pull off “spic” and “I’m-calling-some-d*de-autistic-but-I-expect-you-to-assume-I-haven’t-diagnosed-him” and still have us understand your super nuanced subtext.
fuck i forgot to start with excuse me fuck
Excuse me, Tulgey? For shame!
So Steele what’s the bottom line? “Everyone should be nice to each other?”
Ok good. That has almost nothing to do with anything.
Has he said Excuse me in literally every post he’s made thus far?
Excuse me, but I’m not the first one to say it, but I am seriously getting to hate the way MRAs try to co-opt the actual prejudice that many real people face to try to back up their ludicrous nonsense. I mean, dude! That is just vile!
“fuck i forgot to start with excuse me fuck”
fuck excuse me how dare you vile misandrist feminist fuck
disgusting
Excuse me? I still think that it’s vile and slanderous for the dude to co-opt my disorder for use in his “crusade” against so-called MISANDRY!!!
Maybe posts directed at him henceforth should all start with
You’re not excused. (or you’re excused, whatever.) .
An onlooker might click in and think, hmmm what’s going on here, why do they keep saying that?
Excuse me, but can ya all be quiet while I watch the Dr? All these alerts on my phone are noisy, and distracting someone is misandry!
=p
@Dracula
I guess that means that it’s spreading through the MRM? There is no emoticon for the glee I’m feeling!!
Where’s Sharculese by the way, isn’t she pretty much Steele’s de-facto nemesis?
EXCUSE ME! I’M SORRY! PLEASE EXCUSE ME!!!!1
Because men don’t have hunches or intuitions ever. Right.
Okay, look, I am fully aware that Evolutionary Psychology does not explain the full range of human behavior. I am also aware that hunter gatherer women didn’t have as many babies as possible (my point was that it was much more difficult to be childless altogether). But seriously, do you think that peahens prefer a peacocks plumage because of social conditioning? Some things are hard wired. I also am fully aware that just because something may be natural, it does not make it universal, nor does it make it morally correct. Also, a scholarly article does not have to have to words evolutionary psychology in it to be relevant to the subject. Look up Mr. Pinker’s work in general. Also, look at his book review for “the moral animal, the new science of evolutionary psychology”. Eco psych is not always about sex. Pinker specializes in language acquisition.
My interest in the subject aside, I am here because MRM is ridiculous. I consider myself a feminist. I am striving for a more egalitarian society.
Hey, Om Nom, do you realize how transparent you are? I mean obviously your purpose here is mostly lulz trolling and to seek some form of revenge against the women who you think have wronged you by finding you creepy, but this latest derail into transhumanism reveals more about you than you may have intended.
So, basically, you are an unhappy person who feels persecuted by others, and you want to imagine your soul being transferred to a super-intelligent robot that can’t suffer. This is pathetic on multiple levels. First of all, the entire human race needs to go extinct because women have hurt your fee-fees by finding you creepy? Poor baby – here, have a tissue. Secondly, I’m not convinced of the existence of souls, but if they do exist, the carry the ability to suffer with them, so putting one in a robot wouldn’t remove that capacity.
I mean hey, fantasize about being a magnificent artificial brain in a jar all you want, but it’s kind of pathetic. And hilarious that you would do that, spent lots of time attempting to gain emotional gratification via trolling, and then insist that other people are overly motivated by their emotions.
Evopsych doesn’t apply to humanity though, you can use it to explain animal behaviour just fine, but when we invented civilization, we basically voided our natural selection warranty and started functioning based on our cognitive abilities alone. Instinct went bye bye.
Nope, but I do think there is a significant difference between the relative impacts of social conditioning versus biology of peacocks versus humans.
But that’s kind of the whole point- if things are hard wired, why aren’t they universal? Why does “evolution” only affect the preferences of straight, able-bodied, fertile couples? Why are many women who are so skinny that they no longer ovulate still considered attractive?
I mean, it seems like there should be a limit on how many “exceptions” a scientific model gets to have before it’s no longer considered valid.
I totally agree that human behavior stems from evolution–how could it not?
But we’re not automatons. It would probably be more correct to say that human psychological potential is evolved. How we develop that potential has a tremendous amount to do with environment and personal choice.
I’m evolved to seek water when I’m thirsty. The parts where I call it “water”, and turn a knob to put it in a pitcher and put the pitcher in the fridge and later take the pitcher out and pour it in a glass? That’s all environment and personal choice.
I think the ratio is similar for issues like mate selection or professional aptitude. Evolution counts, but evolved behaviors are just the very beginning.