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.
Varpole: This may be how you use the term, and that’s great; unfortunately, it is not common parlance. Insults like “creepy” and “neckbeard”, while they may sometimes have a basis in actual bad behavior, are more commonly employed as groundless pejoratives.
Or in other words…
because Dude…!
Case in point, there was a chick in high school who occasionally greeted me by cupping my nuts. Pretty girl, creepy as fuck
Ugh: The gender division of hunter gatherers is actually only something that can be believed by people with zero common sense. The paleolithic was one long period of starvation.
Not supported by the available evidence. People in hunting and gathering societies in the historical past were not at the edge of starvation. Some (e.g. the pacific northwest) had incredible surpluses of food. Even today, when the few remaining H/G societies still exist the amount of effort required to collect more than adequate food/provide for shelter, etc. is far less than the amount of work required to gain the equivalent levels in agrarian societies, or technological ones.
Agricultural subsistence is the one with the largest problems in terms of marginal living.
Varpole: I actually don’t know if the individual in question is autistic; I’ve merely made an educated hypothesis.
No, you didn’t. You chose a term meant to elicit sympathy for an unknown person, based on what you know about the community. I’d wager you did it so that any lack of sympathy to you allegation of mythandry, based on him being said to be creepy would give you one more pretense on which to spout off about “vile hypocrites”.
The thing is… (assuming, arguendo this actually happened) you don’t know why your dinner companion said this person was creepy, unless you were there for every interaction they’ve had.
You are making a knee-jerk reaction of hostile disbelief because you hate the word creep.
You are denying this woman’s rational agency, with your peurile accusation of misandry.
That, and you were too cowardly to stand up for your beliefs, though you are willing to calumnise her here.
Which is a pretty creepy thing to do, dude.
She cupped your nuts?! Holy shit balls. Yeah, that qualifies as creepy.
MrsBennet: Beauty is more or less innate and has very few criteria
Wha?
I mean wha?
Because there are lots of criteria which have been put forward for beauty, through the ages; and across cultures.
Heian Japan thought blackened teeth on women was the way to go.
We don’t.
So I have to say that, “innate” isn’t in it.
There actually were several studies on hip to waist ratio preference that showed a very strong correlation across cultures, breast size was not nearly as universal.
Again, not across time.
Corsets: In Tudor England the ideal shape for women was much closer to that of a cylinder, and corsetry reflected it, ergo that idea of beauty isn’t innate.
Shiraz beat me to it, but damn is that over any reasonable line.
Cookies exist. IT MUST BE HARDWIRED INTO THE HUMAN BRAIN. Cookies= evolution?
Sorry, I’m just head over heels with this damn cookie recipe. Pecan chocolate chip oatmeal cookies FTW. Tell me, how do cookies work into evo-psych?
The false notion that sexual orientation is not hardwired is ruthlessly exploited by fundies trying to turn gays into straights, and radfems trying to turn straights into gays.
In other news: Funny how the plasticity of the human mind contrasts with the rigidity of human behavior.
@Shiraz & Argenti
Yeah, she was definitely on the WTF spectrum of my friendly acquaintances. Really cool person outside of that creepy habit, but definitely not behaviour that I looked forward to
Are we doing “wrong info about corsets” again? Let’s start with a pictorial guide to corsets. Now, a more detailed list of period corsets (I’m fond of the 1770-1790 ones myself). They didn’t really get ridiculous until the early 20th century.
And in any case, the increased waist to hip ratio was usually obtained via a crinoline / bum roll / etc.
@Mr. Om Nom: Argument from adverse consequence fallacy.
Oh and do be careful sitting in a crinoline, at various periods in history they had a habit of flipping up straight into the wears nose, sometimes with enough force to result in a broken nose (the things we do for fashion *rolls eyes*)
If beauty was one thing for everyone, then millions of years would have selected for phenotypically similar women and men.
To be fair, evolution-wise, the LESS similar a species is, the better. Lots of little differences makes a population less likely to die off in a plague or famine because slight differences can adapt better. Humans mitigate the effects of evolution by adapting outside of genetic changes (ie: wearing a hat instead of evolving a huge head crest over millions of years by selecting for slightly larger foreheads to survive in extreme heat), and we also add all sorts of artificial things to our bodies (piercings, tattoos, even clothing) to change how we appear to others. Plus, artificial qualifiers, such as wealth and status, also influence mating. However, plenty of people who are very “attractive” are evolutionarily “unfit” because many of them have no children or very few children.
To be fair, the people having the most children and going the “evolutionary” route, tend to be the average to poor people- people of all shapes and sizes.
If genetics were passed on by only the hottest people, anyone who wasn’t “hot” would have diminished fertility or simply never have children at all. And we all know that this doesn’t happen.
Bottom line- evolution is not a good way to determine worth of people, or indeed, the worth of what is “valued” in a society, because evolution is basically the crapshoot “life at all costs” that seeks the highest amount of biodiversity and breeding in a species to attempt to resist extinction. It doesn’t have any conscious “goal” towards hotness or perfection, rather, the only imperative is to survive or go extinct.
Which, IMO, is a poor way to judge what humans should be doing on a non-geological time scale.
I have to agree on the time period of the corsets you like. I made a couple from around that time frame. Quite comfy.
@ Om Nom Nom:
Yeah, we know about the failed fundie attempts to “cure” gay people with their reparative therapy nonsense. Not only does that not work, its actually harmful.
I’m not sure why you’re bringing that up. What has that got to do with anything?
“The false notion that sexual orientation is not hardwired is ruthlessly exploited by fundies trying to turn gays into straights, and radfems trying to turn straights into gays.
In other news: Funny how the plasticity of the human mind contrasts with the rigidity of human behavior.”
Huh? To all of that, I say huh?
Human behavior is rigid? Is that why “straight men sleeping with other men” is apparently totally a thing? (I imagine the stereotypical “bi when drunk” college girl is a similar thing?)
Oh, nevermind, you just wanted to star on Spot That Fallacy!! didn’t you? Well here you go then!!
Appeal to fear – a specific type of appeal to emotion where an argument is made by increasing fear and prejudice towards the opposing side
Appeal to consequences (argumentum ad consequentiam) – the conclusion is supported by a premise that asserts positive or negative consequences from some course of action in an attempt to distract from the initial discussion
And for good measure, a dash of —
Appeal to nature – wherein judgement is based solely on whether the subject of judgement is ‘natural’ or ‘unnatural’. For example (hypothetical): “Cannabis is healthy because it is natural”
Shadow — that is seriously WTF-y
@ Nanasha
Cookies mustn’t be tainted by pseudoscience.
She was the face of women as astronauts. A promotional advert.
Do you have any evidence for this, or is it just a feeling you have?
What would a female astronaut (or a female anything, really) have to do to prove to you that she got there through her own talents and qualifications? How would you know she wasn’t just a token hire?
There have been a lot of female astronauts since Ride. Did any of them get there through their own talents and qualifications, or are they all promotional adverts?
What you are talking about is homosexual BEHAVIOR, not homosexuality itself. A person who experiments with gay sex is not automatically gay or bisexual! Do you have any stats about how common this behavior is? It is true, however, that straights will become de facto homosexuals when deprived of any sexual contact from members of the opposite sex. Like prison for example. 😛
Besides, you’re talking exclusively about sexual behavior which is not what humans do ALL of the time. The sexual behavior of most mammals is highly variable.
Yes, I picked sexual behavior, wasn’t that what was generally being discussed? Though, let’s debate whether typing styles are evolutionary, that might be more fun.
And goddamned dude, the point was that BEHAVIOR isn’t even easily labelled (and I’m going to laugh my ass of if you try claiming that ev-psych, and what you’d said, where not talking about BEHAVIOR).
As for “like in prison” — go join Ruby among the ranks of “I think prison rape is hilarious”.
But if “identifies as straight, is in a homosexual relationship” gets you all riled up that that’s BEHAVIOR, then how the fuck does “homosexual sex because that’s all there is” equal “de facto homosexual”? If choosing a homosexual relationship, while ID’ing as straight, is Not A Thing (or not a relevant thing) how the fuck is “choosing a homosexual relationship, while ID’ing as straight, because that’s all there is” have to do with anything?
The circular logic, it hurts!
Om Nom has definitely gone beyond circular into pretzel at this point.
Wow Om Nom. You really do hate everything, don’t you? Woman, humanity in general, logic . . .
So what is my topology at this point now? 😛