Dry Clean Only
Jeremy Knowles, discussing the complete lack of recognition Cecilia Payne gets, even today, for her revolutionary discovery. (via alliterate)
She correctly suggested that silicon, carbon, and other common metals seen in the Sun were found in about the same relative amounts as on Earth, but that helium and particularly hydrogen were vastly more abundant (by about a factor of one million in the case of hydrogen). Her thesis thus established that hydrogen was the overwhelming constituent of the stars. When her dissertation was reviewed, she was dissuaded by Henry Norris Russell from concluding that the composition of the Sun is different from the Earth, which was the accepted wisdom at the time. However, Russell changed his mind four years later when other evidence emerged. After Payne-Gaposchkin was proven correct Russell was often given the credit.
Fuck the patriarchy.
I’m all for equal rights, feminism is not for equal rights but for a change of power from men to women.
Wrong. The definition of feminism is defending equal rights for women. It’s not some rebellion against men; it’s getting each gender to be treated equally.
The definition of feminism does not speak for equal rights. It speaks for women’s rights I did look it up, at several different sources:
Wikipedia:Feminism is a collection of movements aimed at defining, establishing, and defendingequal political, economic, and social rights for womenDictionary.com:
fem·i·nismnoun1.the doctrine advocating social, political, and all other rights of women equal to those of men.2.( sometimes initial capital letter) an organized movement forthe attainment of such rights for women.3.feminine character.Meriam-Webster:organized activity on behalf of women’s rights and interestsOxford Dictionary:the advocacy of women’s rights on the ground of the equality of the sexes.
the belief that women should be allowed the same rights, power and opportunities as men and be treated in the same way, or the set of activities intended to achieve this state
Women here are actually more favoured then men in court. Even without a child involved you can get spousal support after a divorce IF you are a woman (if you are a man, even if your ex-wife was the bread maker fuck you no spousal support for you).
Women are also more likely to be judged in favour of for child custody.
You are correct that child custody will almost always favor the mother rather than the father, even if this is not just. You do not get spousal support if you signed this lovely thing called a prenup.
Women are also most likely to be believed in court for allegations against sexual abuse. (even though it’s easier to wrongfully accuse someone than it is to prove your innocence even if you are innocent)
Guess what!? we live in a victim-blaming, slut-shaming, rape-culture infested world! I am not sure where you’re getting your information, but there is a long history of women being dismissed when they accused someone of rape, making a travesty of any kind of justice.
I have met many men who had to be put on “Rapists”lists for having sex with a a girl and then not be on good terms with her and having to face rape charges because they made a mistake of succumbing to her advances.
Statutory Rape is a good example of when a man has sex with a girl who’se parents do not approve of him bring the fact that they had sex to court.
There was this man in Russia who was charged with assaulting a woman because he “raised his hands at her” when what happened was that she was hitting him with a cane and he was raising his arms in self-defence. He was told that in order for him to have been found not guilty he should have turned his back and ran away instead of physically trying to stop her from hitting him.
Women are also more favoured when it comes to traditional industries such as plumbing and constructions because the government gives grants to girls who wish to launch into those careers to meet desired quotas. A young girl with no experience therefore might be selected for a coveted job instead of a qualified man better suited for the job simply because she is a woman.
Wrong. In areas that are traditionally male dominated, they fight tooth and nail to keep women out of those areas. Women who are better suited to do a job are passed over in favor of less qualified men. If they are forced to hire a woman to fill the quota, they make sure she knows that she’s unwanted, her opinion is not valued, and no matter what her expertise - and if she’s managed to get a position in a male-dominated area, she has expertise, believe me - she will still not be treated as an equal, facing accusations that the only reasons that she got the job are that she’s a woman or she’s pretty.
My friend (who is a girl) works as a welder, a very “male dominated” career. She currently works, in her early 20’s, the same position as men in their 40’s.
In the area of employment law, political correctness shoulders gender realities aside. Gender quotas in hiring and promoting employees – the politically correct term is “Affirmative Action” – are mandated by social levelers, ignoring traditional sex roles.
Thanks to Affirmative Action, males are finding it increasingly difficult to obtain employment and to gain admission to institutions of learning. If a well-qualified man applies for work or promotion in government or big business, and a woman applicant is even remotely qualified, it is likely she will get it; though it is usually the men who must bring home the bacon.
A good read on the fallacies of Gender Quotas:AND:Over the last half-century, women have made significant advances in education, labor forceparticipation, and political activism across the globe. Gender gaps still exist in low-incomecountries, but are much smaller than in previous decades. In middle- and high-income countries,many of these gaps have been reversed. Women have overtaken men in some areas ofeducational participation and performance: in lower-middle income countries, women areenrolling 11:10 in tertiary education compared to men, and the ratio is 14:10 in upper-middleincome countries.1The U.S Bureau of Labor Statistics reported in 2009 that women constituted51% of all workers in high-paying management, professional, and related occupations.
Women who wish to be electricians, plumbers, construction workers etc. and will be subject to the blames of her co-workers because the government is unfairly favouring women. Often, the reason she got the job IS because she is a woman and therefore her peers accusations are not incorrect, simply misguided as the government and not the individual woman is to blame.
A woman can now do whatever she wants and no one will oppose her or tell her “it’s a man’s job, you shouldn’t be here” but if a man wants to be a ballerina or a hairdresser or a receptionist people will say “oh he must be gay” or “that’s a woman’s job”.
You’re right about the stigma against men doing “girly” jobs. Hyper-masculinity works in partnership with hyper-femininity in the media to shame people who would prefer to take jobs traditionally taken by the other gender. That’s bad. For your bullshit regarding the “no one will tell her it’s a man’s job,” see above.
I stand with the guys, sorry ladies.
oh wow, look. A quick trip to google would have fixed your whole post! You don’t know what the fuck you are talking about.
And a wonderful response. Thank you!
Thank you for suggesting a quick trip to Google, now I feel even more entitled to my opinion.
Sup. In all of your definitions of feminism, it says EQUAL or SAME rights for women because right now, women and men are not treated equally in society. It’s called feminism because women were always getting the shorter end of the unequal stick and it’s for the advancement of women’s rights. So yes, no shit, it’s for the empowerment of women - so that they can be treated EQUALLY to men, not take over in some insane conspiracy. Not MORE rights than men - EQUAL rights as men. “The definition of feminism does not speak for equal rights.” You’re just wrong. Learn to read
For your affirmative action gender quota argument, here’s some quotes from that PDF YOU SENT ME:
“Despite significant advances in education and political participation, women remain underrepresented in leadership positions in politics and business across the globe.”
“Adoption of quotas by countries is likely correlated with attitudes about women within a country. However, the randomized allocation of political quotas in India and the unanticipated introduction of board quotas in Norway have allowed researchers to provide causal analysis and this review focuses on evidence from these two settings. The Indian evidence demonstrates that quotas increase female leadership and influences policy outcomes. In addition, rather than create a backlash against women, quotas can reduce gender discrimination in the long-term.The board quota evidence is more mixed. While female entry on boards is correlated with changing management practices, this change appears to adversely influence short-run profits. Whether this is partly driven by negative perceptions of female management choices remains an open question. Returning to the broader cross-country context, we find evidence in many different settings that political and corporate entities often act strategically to circumvent the intended impact of quotas. Consistent with this, we report suggestive evidence that the design of the quota and selection systems matter for increasing female leadership.”
Again, can you read?
Also, good for your friend for getting her job because men are still chosen over women when both candidates are equally qualified. Here’s these, going into why it’s like that, why women have a harder time working in those fields:
You especially need this one: http://www.understandingprejudice.org/readroom/articles/affirm.htm
On to your view of rape:
You’ve met some “rapists?” I haven’t. And unless I knew them well, which I assume that you do, I have to take your word for it that you’re able to take their word for it that they were seduced and then that fickle women had buyer’s remorse and charged him with rape! That sounds really fucking unlikely. And a fucking lot like victim-blaming. Also, for every personal anecdote you have of the wrongfully accused, I have stories of the never accused and wrongfully acquitted.
Statutory: DON’T HAVE SEX WITH UNDERAGED PEOPLE. I understand if one’s a year above the age and one’s a year or two below the age. Judges aren’t likely to convict an 18 year old for dating a 16 year old. But if an older person is dating a much younger person, good for their parents for protecting them. Also, is this another “I have a friend” example?
In elementary school we learned that if someone was hitting us, the only way we wouldn’t get suspended also was if we didn’t hit back, which I did feel was wrong, because if there were no teachers around to save you, your attacker got open license to keep whaling on you. But I do hope the woman who was assaulting the Russian man was charged. Obviously she was wrong to be assaulting someone with a cane.
In my opinion… your opinion is still an uneducated pile of shit. Anyway, next time you want call a movement that wants people to treat other people EQUALLY “dumb,”
DATS MAH BITCH. GET IT.
From the comments:
“So what would happen if suddenly, magically, men could menstruate and women could not?
“Clearly, menstruation would become an enviable, worthy, masculine event:
“Men would brag about how long and how much.
“Young boys would talk about it as the envied beginning of manhood. Gifts, religious ceremonies, family dinners, and stag parties would mark the day.
“To prevent monthly work loss among the powerful, Congress would fund a National Institute of Dysmenorrhea. Doctors would research little about heart attacks, from which men would be hormonally protected, but everything about cramps.
“Sanitary supplies would be federally funded and free. Of course, some men would still pay for the prestige of such commercial brands as Paul Newman Tampons, Muhammad Ali’s Rope-a-Dope Pads, John Wayne Maxi Pads, and Joe Namath Jock Shields- “For Those Light Bachelor Days.”
“Statistical surveys would show that men did better in sports and won more Olympic medals during their periods.
“Generals, right-wing politicians, and religious fundamentalists would cite menstruation (“men-struation”) as proof that only men could serve God and country in combat (“You have to give blood to take blood”), occupy high political office (“Can women be properly fierce without a monthly cycle governed by the planet Mars?”), be priests, ministers, God Himself (“He gave this blood for our sins”), or rabbis (“Without a monthly purge of impurities, women are unclean”).
“Male liberals and radicals, however, would insist that women are equal, just different; and that any woman could join their ranks if only she were willing to recognize the primacy of menstrual rights (“Everything else is a single issue”) or self-inflict a major wound every month (“You must give blood for the revolution”).
“Street guys would invent slang (“He’s a three-pad man”) and “give fives” on the corner with some exchenge like, ‘Man you lookin’ good!’
“‘Yeah, man, I’m on the rag!’
“TV shows would treat the subject openly. (Happy Days: Richie and Potsie try to convince Fonzie that he is still “The Fonz,” though he has missed two periods in a row. Hill Street Blues: The whole precinct hits the same cycle.) So would newspapers. (Summer Shark Scare Threatens Menstruating Men. Judge Cites Monthlies In Pardoning Rapist.) And so would movies. (Newman and Redford in Blood Brothers!)
“Men would convince women that sex was more pleasurable at “that time of the month.” Lesbians would be said to fear blood and therefore life itself, though all they needed was a good menstruating man.
“Medical schools would limit women’s entry (“they might faint at the sight of blood”).
“Of course, intellectuals would offer the most moral and logical arguements. Without the biological gift for measuring the cycles of the moon and planets, how could a woman master any discipline that demanded a sense of time, space, mathematics– or the ability to measure anything at all? In philosophy and religion, how could women compensate for being disconnected from the rhythm of the universe? Or for their lack of symbolic death and resurrection every month?
“Menopause would be celebrated as a positive event, the symbol that men had accumulated enough years of cyclical wisdom to need no more.
“Liberal males in every field would try to be kind. The fact that “these people” have no gift for measuring life, the liberals would explain, should be punishment enough.
“And how would women be trained to react? One can imagine right-wing women agreeing to all these arguements with a staunch and smiling masochism. (“The ERA would force housewives to wound themselves every month”: Phyllis Schlafly)
“In short, we would discover, as we should already, that logic is in the eye of the logician. (For instance, here’s an idea for theorists and logicians: if women are supposed to be less rational and more emotional at the beginning of our menstrual cycle when the female hormone is at its lowest level, then why isn’t it logical to say that, in those few days, women behave the most like the way men behave all month long? I leave further improvisation up to you.)
“The truth is that, if men could menstruate, the power justifications would go on and on.
“If we let them.” —Gloria Steinem
- (via mollay)