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.
This reminds me of a conversation I was having with friends. They didn’t think Anne Hathaway was hot enough to play Catwoman. I thought they were ridiculous. They (these were a straight married couple) told me she had a more classic beauty to her, rather than a sexy look. To look “sexy” a woman must have features like Megan Fox- arched eyebrows, very full lips, pointy nose, etc. I’m just thinking great, now you have to be the right “type” of beautiful/sexy/whatever to be considered attractive enough to score a partner. It’s just ridiculous how we classify looks like that, and IMO I think she did a great job portraying Catwoman’s slinky/sexy persona.
Also this isn’t the first time I heard this argument. Another woman I know said the same. So its obviously not a case of mansplaining or a certain type of hot only men can see or something.
I won’t argue that SOME beauty standards are universal. But it’s not a lot. Even if you look at the old master painters…women didn’t look like Anne Hathaway OR Megan Fox. Very round faces and bodies. Childlike features. I’d be a hit back then.
Speaking of which, while I certainly don’t count myself as very attractive or even above average in appearance, I do fit many of those so called universal beauty standards. Clear skin, shiny hair (when I actually style it) soft features, small chin, somewhat baby faced and younger looking. Also even being chubbier I do have a visible waist and wide “childbearing” hips.
So evopsych, where the men at huh? or can they see my misandry waves or something…lol
Ick…I really hope that last part didn’t come off as stuck up. I really don’t think I’m that great overall. But if you have certain parts, even if it doesn’t complete the whole package, you should be able to get a chance no? this is why it drives me mad that MRAs think women can just pick out whatever man they want and bam- superhappyrelationshipsexyfuntime.
PS. The Dark Knight Rises soundtrack is chocolate covered bacon for the ears. Hans Zimmer done it again!
“The Dark Knight Rises soundtrack is chocolate covered bacon for the ears”
So thinking about it makes me wonder why it exists?
The genetic diversity of the human population does not imply that everyone is equal when it comes to sex appeal. Certain people(with certain traits) will ALWAYS be more attractive than others, while other unfortunate souls will be viewed as “ugly” by most people. As I pointed out in another post, men who are athletically and musically talented are very attractive to women; as are men with good social skills. Ever heard of something called crossover? It is the most important phase of genetic recombination and results in entirely new traits that are distinct from the parent organisms. THAT, is why sexual reproduction produces such genetic diversity(in the human population, among others).
Tangential to the convo with No-Face, but what would the sexuality of a man be who wasn’t particularly aroused by other men, but also wouldn’t mind having sex with them? Does the kinsey scale address that sort of thing?
I ask out of curiosity, but also because I feel like there is a rather strong distinction between sex (the act) and sexuality. Thus I’d take issue with Sans Nom’s labeling of sex as either gay or straight. I feel like those terms describe people, not acts.
Well kirby, there’s zoophilia(sex with animals), and pedophilia(which really should be in its own category regardless of teh sex of the child). As to your question, I think the answer is bisexual.
“As I pointed out in another post, men who are athletically and musically talented…”
Does that also apply to the geeks playing non-rock-band instruments? I’m truly curious as to when the oboe became sexy.
“Ever heard of something called crossover?”
Could you refrain from implying that crossover is the only cause of genetic diversity?
And can you explain what any of this has to do with whether “attractiveness” is evolutionarily advantageous? Since those “unfortunate souls” who are viewed as “ugly” still mate, generally speaking, it’s rather moot in any evolutionary sense.
… I’m pretty sure that, no matter how you look at it, humans do not follow the laws of natural selection-guided evolution anymore. People who would have died off in the distant past now can lead rich and fufilling lives. And in fact, individuals these days mostly couldn’t survive long without the vast infrastructure and society humans have developed.
In any case, Nommers, when it comes to beauty, there will be individuals who are always considered more beautiful than others. Only trouble is, those individuals are different for every culture and every time period. I may be completely wrong, but I think that in Japan, androgyny is a highly valued trait, and thin, feminine men are more attractive than muscley ones.
Don’t know what point your arguing, just thought I should warn you that your premise is wrong.
@Sans Nom:
Zoophilia and pedophilia are paraphilias, ie mental disorders, while homosexuality and heterosexuality are sexualities. So I don’t know why you’d mention them.
In any case, the reason I think the distinction should be made is that it’s common for homophobes to say that if a man fucks a man, then he is homosexual. And then say that prison rape is gay sex, and therefore gay men are violent and rapey. Yet when you actually talk to the guys who rape others in prison, they still identify as straight. The model that separates the desire from the act accounts for this, while the one that conflates the two doesn’t.
Because it’s the best thing EVER?!
Actually I’ve never tried it, but it could work. In theory 😛
“I’m truly curious as to when the oboe became sexy.”
OK, that made me literally LOL. Upon initial exposure to the oboe my first thought was that it sounded like a dying goose.
“I may be completely wrong, but I think that in Japan, androgyny is a highly valued trait, and thin, feminine men are more attractive than muscley ones.”
Hmm. Kind of? Depends who you’re asking – attractive to whom? Teenage girls? 40-something women? Conservative housewives or altern-chicks? Like any society, there’s a range of preferences. Also what’s considered “thin” in America (for men) is similar to or fatter than what’s considered “average” in Japan, ime*. What I’d call skinny-buffed (men who are thin, but with visible muscle tone) seems to be as close to universally appealing as it gets in Japan, but even then, there’s no such thing as “universally appealing” in any culture. I know a few Japanese women who love muscly macho looking dudes, a few who’re only attracted to men who could pass for women without much difficulty, and a few who have a strong preference for men who’re little and cute.
*To give some context, there’s a dude I’ve worked with multiple times who’s very famous in Japan who just about every Japanese woman I know seems to consider to have a great body. He’s 5ft10 and about 130 pounds – thin as a rail, but with visible abs, pecs, etc. Most of the other guys I can think of who occupy that same cultural space of common lust object for women are in a similar height/weight/level of muscularity range, maybe 10-15 pounds heavier at the most. Some are very androgynous, others not at all, but there is a striking similarity in body type.
Figured Om Nom would be one of those people who likes to imply that homosexuality and pedophilia are functionally similar sexualities.
@ Quackers
Bacon and chocolate are great things that don’t seem like they’d be great together. I’ve had a bacon donut, and I didn’t like it. Salted plus sweet I can go for, like salted caramels, but cured meat + candy just sounds nasty. Get thee behind me, Satan, and take that culinary abomination with you.
Now I want to make a product that is chocolate, shaped like bacon.
@Cassandra
Yeah that’s true, but you never know! sometimes the weirdest things taste good together. I’m so sure I’ve seen chocolate covered bacon before I think on EpicMealTime…
@2-D Man
I would eat this! seriously I would 😛
Chocolate shaped like a strip of bacon? Sure! Though a tiny little chocolate piggie would be cuter. But then I’d feel bad about eating it.
(Does anyone else get that with animal-shaped chocolate or cookies? I feel bad about biting off the little heads, feet, etc.)
@Quackers- there’s an ice cream in my town at the local ice cream shop called “The Vegan’s Nightmare.” It involves chocolate covered bacon and caramel ice cream. My husband looooooooves it.
Hehehe……
@Cassandra- Now you’re making me think of “Cats Don’t Dance…..”
“Now I want to make a product that is chocolate, shaped like bacon.”
That sounds like a sellable product actually, shaped chocolates tend to work, and you’d be capitalizing on the bacon craze without risking “ew gross”
@Nanasha
That sounds delicious!!! XD
On the whole sweet/salty subject, I have to say, salted caramel macarons? To die for.
http://www.mariniscandies.com/product/BACON-01/ChocolateCoveredBacon.aspx
Ok, I was wrong, it’s in MAPLE SYRUP ICE CREAM.
Still…….yummy.
Kind of reminds me of the Stormfront-y side of the internet going nuts about Idris Elba playing Heimdall. (Which I finally got around to seeing recently. He was pretty amazing.)
I’ve had it. It wasn’t bad, but it wasn’t really good either. It’s actually kind of weird, the flavors don’t really interact at all. There’s just chocolate taste and bacon taste, somehow completely separate.