codelette wrote: Steersman wrote: codelette 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 â€œlady-scientistsâ€ â€“ e.g., Emmy Noether
[â€œgroundbreaking contributions to abstract algebra and theoretical physicsâ€], Hypatia
of Alexandria [â€œcredited with various inventions including a hydrometer (and) an astrolabeâ€], Marie SkÅ‚odowska-Curie
[â€œNobel prize in 1903 (physics)â€], and Barbara McClintock
[studies of maize genetics led to â€œNobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine in 1983â€] â€“ hardly qualifies as such.
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 â€œthey 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 â€œSurlyâ€™s Womanâ€™s Grantâ€ and entirely consistent with her objective of â€œhelping women to participate in Science and Rationalism â€“ 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.
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 [letâ€™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 youâ€™re using the label where it doesnâ€™t apply. But actually she was requesting
an answer to the question â€œWho are your lady-science heroes?â€ â€“ you might want to have that translated into Spanish by someone who is more knowledgeable than you apparently are as I donâ€™t see that she was asking for anything more than the name of a scientist â€“ who happens to be female â€“ who they would consider as â€œheroesâ€, 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 â€œillustrationâ€, my list, wasnâ€™t asserting any â€œspecialnessâ€ to a particular class of scientist apart from â€“ maybe â€“ that implicit in â€œheroesâ€, 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 â€“ â€œfemale scientistsâ€ since â€œladyâ€ seems to get your knickers in a twist in spite of it being, at least in English, a quite common and acceptable word
â€“ than there are for the question of how many â€œfemale sciencesâ€ there are â€“ maybe one or two at a stretch and they do some damage to the word â€œscienceâ€ â€“ then it is more probable that Amy meant the former, i.e., â€œfemale 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, cabrÃ³n?
I get it â€“ cabra â€“ that you donâ€™t get that my contention is that many of the interpretations associated with â€œlady-science heroesâ€ 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 â€“ not that thereâ€™s much evidence of it having been overused or even used much at all â€“ you could just think the thoughts in whatever language youâ€™re most comfortable with since, as far as Iâ€™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.
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 thatâ€™s like and what it entails and what its consequences are as my tastes run more to pussy, although Iâ€™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 youâ€™ve exhibited â€¦.