codelette wrote:Steersman wrote:codelette wrote:
[spoiler]
Steersman wrote:
Edina Monsoon wrote:Surly Amy asked: "Who is/are your lady-science ... heroes and why?"
Wouldn't that be considered insanely sexist if not outright misogynist if anyone else said it?
Sexism seems to require some stereotyping and discrimination. I think that simply acknowledging that there are, or have been, some, many actually, top “lady-scientists†– e.g., Emmy
Noether [“groundbreaking contributions to abstract algebra and theoretical physicsâ€],
Hypatia of Alexandria [“credited with various inventions including a hydrometer (and) an astrolabeâ€],
Marie SkÅ‚odowska-Curie [“Nobel prize in 1903 (physics)â€], and
Barbara McClintock [studies of maize genetics led to “Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine in 1983â€] – hardly qualifies as such.
[/spoiler]
Bull. Shit.
Those women are scientists and mathematicians, first and foremost. They are important because of their fucking contributions, not because they have chochas.
English a second language for you? Because I fail to see how you could get that I was arguing that “they are important for having chochasâ€. My list was designed to illustrate that there are a great many women who have made significant contributions in both science and mathematics - "lady scientists" - so that it would be perfectly reasonable for
Amy to have asked which one might be an exemplary role model for those women who were applying for “Surly’s Woman’s Grant†and entirely consistent with her objective of “helping women to participate in Science and Rationalism – one woman at a timeâ€. Not far removed from the same objectives and recommendations promoted by the American Association of University Women [
AAUW].
Yes, little bitch, English is -as a matter of fact- my second language.
Well then, your command of it is actually pretty good, with some apparent exceptions.
codelette wrote:I think Harriet Hall said it better:
http://thunderf00tdotorg.files.wordpres ... .jpg?w=590
Your illustration of why Amy's stupid ass question (requests of "lady-science" examples) is "not sexist" is what they usually call a benevolent prejudice [i.e. scientists are men by default, so [let’s] specify that these other scientists belong to a different class of scientist, a "more specialer" kind because of their female condition.]
Well, learn something new everyday even if I think you’re using the label where it doesn’t apply. But actually she was
requesting an answer to the question “Who are your lady-science heroes?†– you might want to have that translated into Spanish by someone who is more knowledgeable than you apparently are as I don’t see that she was asking for anything more than the name of a scientist – who happens to be female – who they would consider as “heroesâ€, as someone to emulate: maybe not the most important thing in the grand scheme of things, but as far as Amy was concerned it presumably and apparently has some relevance in inducing women to enter STEM [science-technology-engineering-mathematics] fields which is presumably of some benefit to everyone, including "real" feminists. But in that case my “illustrationâ€, my list, wasn’t asserting any “specialness†to a particular class of scientist apart from – maybe – that implicit in “heroesâ€, but only showing a rather large set of cases which are plausible answers to that question. And if there are more answers of that nature – “female scientists†since “lady†seems to get your knickers in a twist in spite of it being, at least in English, a quite common and acceptable
word – than there are for the question of how many “female sciences†there are – maybe one or two at a stretch and they do some damage to the word “science†– then it is more probable that Amy meant the former, i.e., “female scientists as heroesâ€.
codelette wrote:Those "ladies" that you mentioned on your little list are scientists that happened to be women; not "lady-scientists". Do you get it now or should I write it in Spanish, cabrón?
I get it – cabra – that you don’t get that my contention is that many of the interpretations associated with “lady-science heroes†are so many red-herrings, a misinterpretation of what Amy plausibly meant, which is suggestive of some obtuseness if not some egregious bias and prejudice.
As for writing it in Spanish: go big; fill your boots. Although to save some wear and tear on your brain – not that there’s much evidence of it having been overused or even used much at all – you could just think the thoughts in whatever language you’re most comfortable with since, as far as I’m concerned, the results are going to be pretty much the same, i.e., nil, nada, zip. Protip for you: kind of the nature of communication: if you wish to convey something the interlocutors have to agree on a language and the meaning of words therein.
codelette wrote:Really. Shut the fuck up.
Up yours. Who pissed in your cornflakes this morning? Or do you just normally let your spleen get the better of your brain? Stupid cunt.
Spoken like a real cocksucker.
Well, I guess you would probably know better what that’s like and what it entails and what its consequences are as my tastes run more to pussy, although I’m at a complete loss how those statements of mine would necessarily follow from the first act. However, I could respond by calling you a puta, but they generally seem to have more honesty, integrity, and civility than what you’ve exhibited ….