It’s a proud day for the dudes over at A Voice for Men, which is celebrating the landing of the Curiousity rover on Mars by giving dudes everywhere serious dude credit for the event, which apparently involved no women at all. Well, maybe a few. But it certainly didn’t involve any of the women in the women’s studies department at Columbia University!
Actually it would be rather difficult for that to be the case. Impossible, really, as there is no women’s studies department at Columbia. Instead, Columbia has an Institute for Research on Women and Gender, an interdisciplinary center that works in cooperation with the Barnard College Women’s Studies department.
In any case, that once sentence is the entire text of the post, which linked to a live feed of the landing.
But to make sure everyone understands the MAN-significance of this MAN-vent, the AVFM dudes promoted it with this MAN-tastic blurb on the front page. (I mean the blurb on the right, of course, celebrating MEN and their UTTER MASTERYof technology. Just ignore that bit on the left about the technical glitches that AVFM has itself been having lately.)
The comments are more or less what we’ve come to expect from the AVFM crowd. I especially liked these two, from a manly fellow calling himself ActaNonVerba.
His followup is a bit Anthony Zarat-esque in its utopian grandeur:
Because nothing speeds up the rate of evolution better than . . . . . loss of the reproductive drive?
Science. I think he does not understand it.
And if the manly troll dudes get to claim that things have gotten worse since women’s suffrage and greater access to education, I get to claim that the increased development of science and technology and such is due in part to women’s suffrage and greater access to education!
*sticks tongue out at asshole CREEPY CRAWLY dudes*
Step 1: Systematically exclude women from military aviation.
Step 2: Systematically exclude women from STEM education.
Step 3: Draw NASA leadership from individuals with military aviation and STEM careers going back to the 1960s.
Step 4: Wonder why there are so few women, decide they must just not have the Right Stuff.
Step 5: Belatedly start including women in the 1990s.
Step 6: Declare that since women weren’t there all along and it took a deliberate decision to include them, they still must not have the Right Stuff.
Step 7: As achievements of NASA women become increasingly difficult to ignore or explain away, stick head in sand and start chanting “MISANDRY!”
There you go again, another bullshit article from a failed writer that only looks at one side of the debate. Then stupid people with no judgment or critical thinking will come here and say that they agree. Loser here loser for ever
Are women people capable of accomplishing things? LET’S LOOK AT BOTH SIDES OF THE DEBATE!
AVfM? Wait a minute, gotta put my emerald-tinted glasses on.
Aaaaahhhh, that’s better. Wow, the Emerald City really is green, isn’t it?
“There were a handful of women….in any case, it was an achievement BY MEN.”
He’s already explained away an unspecified number of the women shown as being ‘camera wh*res’ (??), or ‘human resources’ workers (‘res-wh*reses?’) (because that job is not necessary? i guess?) but what about the other women seen who did not fall under those categories? How do we explain away those women so that the achievement was BY MEN, as it were? Some options:
1. Those women were swamp gas.
2. Those women were a mirage.
3. Mass hysteria.
4. Manginas.
Any other ideas?
Teach the controversy!
Heidihi – 5. Affirmative action.
Never mind that a woman would still have to be an engineer/astronomer/etc. in the top of her field for NASA affirmative action to apply to her. Everyone knows that “affirmative action” means “hire any random woman right off the street.”
@Cliff, indeed, i was a womyn taking a dump and got given a plaque then asked to join NASA, so, it can totally happen.
I hate how dumb people sound when they carp about affirmative action because it’s like, wow, you became a rocket surgeon at the top of your class AND you did it with one hand tied behind your back??? It’s like, don’t we want exactly those people operating on our mars rovers?
@Justaloser:
You know, you’re right! I’m tired of David only showing us one side of the argument. We need both sides to balance out the discussion.
David, find some people who talk about all the great things women have done in the science fields to balance out the one-sided nature of the quotes you present. That way people can make up their own minds!
ActaNonVerba posts on AVfM, I guess he knows all about the petty and mundane.
oh, no, there’s a hellbeast cluttering up the team http://a.abcnews.com/images/Technology/gty_mars_curiosity_mitc_3_dm_120806_wg.jpg more than one even http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/02300/mars-curiosity-nas_2300836b.jpg what are these http://www2.journalnow.com/mgmedia/image/0/354/201008/mars/ and, look, behind that camera, yet another http://blogs.cfr.org/renewing-america/files/2012/08/Renewing-America-NASA-Curiosity-Mars-Landing-201208061.jpg
found in less than one minute on google images searching for ‘mars curiosity landing’
@darksidecat:
All of those women are exceptions that prove the rule. All. Of. Them.
quoting mras= not presenting their side of the debate
that makes just tons of sense
dang ninja’d by kirby
Ungrateful ladies! We hunted the Martian mammoth for you!
Also, the jet propulsion laboratory group includes men with such common masculine names as ‘Joy’ and ‘Grace’. http://mars.jpl.nasa.gov/msl/mission/missionteam/
DSC – Well, clearly they just made sure to put women in front of the camera because of their female supremacist ideology… never mind the dozens of men in those photographs.
HOW TO IDENTIFY ALLEGED SIGHTINGS
1. Those women were swamp gas.
2. Those women were a mirage.
3. Mass hysteria.
4. Manginas.
WHAT TO DO WHEN A WOMAN APPEARS
ONE
Drop under the seat of your desk and look away
TWO
Avoid eye contact.
THREE
If there are no eyes, avoid all contact.
Content Note: contains the line “How to inform your wife, and others under your command,” dismissal of concerns as insanity
What I don’t understand is, why aren’t you women genuflecting to me in thanks for making this possible? Goddamn m-feminists!!
It had eight legs and tusks out to here!
The least you could do is parade around naked for us!
Women aren’t going to be allowed to work at NASA unless they’re well qualified so it’s ridiculous to minimize their contributions while playing up the contributions of the men. Also, those men wouldn’t be able to acheive those accomplishments had a woman not given them birth, cared for them, and ensured they got a good education.
Maybe the MRAs were breastfed by their fathers.
Clearly the real question here isn’t about the women in the pictures, but how they managed to keep the alien helpers out of them. I suspect photoshopping.
*Goes to look for suspicious pixels*
It’s fucking hilarious to hear Elam criticize people for being ineffectual. How’s that anti-feminist doomsday plot of yours goin’, Paul?
For that matter, how’s that plan to have an MRA meetup, anywhere, ever goin’, Paul?
:p