- Let’s Stop Neutralizing Men – An article about how we normalize men’s sports into just “sports.” “The male position is not the neutral position. It has a point of view, the male point of view, which not everyone shares, and which is not always superior. Either clarify everyone or clarify no one, otherwise it sends that message that one group is the norm and the other is a deviation, even when “the other” is more successful in the field. And next time someone on national TV refers to Landon Donovan as the all-time leading goal scorer for the U.S., it would be great if he displayed some of the dignity and grace we know he possesses and say, ‘All-time leading men’s scorer. There are seven U.S. women higher on the list than me.’ ” From Arturo.
- What It Takes To Make A Decent Cup Of Coffee In Space – Learn more about the science and complications behind the ISSpresso machine!
- Don’t Buy Eden Foods – “This is just a quick shout out to let you know that a popular brand that makes some vegan food products isn’t worthy of your hard earned cash. Eden foods doesn’t want to pay for life saving health care for women and so we don’t want to buy their beans.” From Amy.
- Ride like a girl – “Cycling is awfully similar to being a woman.” This metaphor has a lot going for it. From nowoo.
- Finally, Science Explains Why Rush Limbaugh Gets So Mad About Women Having Sex – “Overall, the more likely a given respondent believed women were economically dependent on men, the more likely they were to view female promiscuity as immoral. These were modest to medium effects, but they were statistically significant, even controlling for factors like religiosity and political conservatism.” From cerberus40.
- Because she didn’t die – Dr. Rubidium goes over the chemistry and forensic science used to solve a murder.
- The rise of the evolutionary psychology douchebag – The title says it all. From Courtney.
Re: the “Ride Like a Girl” article –
This is exactly what I’ve often thought, me being a female and a cyclist. Especially the victim-blaming that occurs whenever a cyclist is injured or killed, and the lack of consequences for most drivers that threaten or injure cyclists.
I also like that the author at least acknowledges that there is a debate about the efficacy of bike helmets. Having done an enormous amount of research into the pros and cons of bike helmet-wearing, and having decided that they do more harm than good (so I don’t wear one), I sadly know that if I were ever to be hit by a car, people would immediately decide that I’d have survived unscathed if only I’d been wearing one. Bike helmets are like magical force fields, apparently :-)
The first comment on the ISS coffee story suggests the name “Buzzed Aldrin” for it. We all know this name is already taken. Does anyone with a working NPR comment login care to offer a correction? (My login there seems to be broken… Endless loops of not logged in/try to log in/”need to create an account”/create account/try to log in/”need to create account”/… Also tried to log in using Facebook (got to the same place) Twitter (ditto) and google+ (wanted to know the names and email addresses of all my friends, relatives, employers, employees, plumber, dentist, etc.)
Re: soccer/neutralizing men article.
In the comments on the article, there is some discussion about what would happen if men and women played in the same league. For most sports, testosterone and/or body size/shape make men vs women competition uneven, and so they play in separate leagues. Tennis is an example. For a long time, women tennis players got smaller prizes than men. First the reason was that men’s tennis attracted bigger audiences, hence advertising revenue. When this ceased to be so, the reason was that women don’t play as long, as they play 3 set matches and the men 5 (and hence more advertising…). Eventually (as I understand it) the evident unfairness lead to changing to equal prize purses.
It seems to me that something was missed in this process. Why should women play 3 set matches and men 5? Although the men have an advantage in strength, they do not so far as I know have an advantage in endurance. Why not have some tournaments being 3 set matches and other tournaments 5 set matches, with the same duration applying to men and women? Can anyone shed light on this question?
(I’m not a great follower of sports, so my potted history of tennis prize purses may not be entirely accurate. Corrections are welcome.)