With unrelenting racial divisiveness:

According to her own publicity material, Ms Rao studied law at the University of Virginia and NYU, and is “one of the country’s strongest voices for social justice, equity, and inclusion.” Which may explain the self-satisfied double standards, the paranoid hyperbole, the pronounced cognitive dissonance, and the daily epithets about “white people” and their many, many faults. And the next time you hear sweet cooings about “social justice, equity and inclusion,” you may want to bear in mind the kinds of creatures most attracted to these things. 

As noted before, many times, “social justice” is antithetical to expectations of reciprocity. And so, despite the theatrical piety, it corrodes the moral senses. Quite quickly.

Update, via Greg in the comments:

Ms Rao invites you to an evening of dinner and pretentious racial scolding. And you’re paying.

Professor Child’s presentation was not explicitly concerned with space exploration or Mars, which is not surprising since her area of expertise is indigenous education and history. She told us that indigenous people have travelled extensively – specifically, by canoe – and mentioned some indigenous people who travelled to Europe in earlier eras, though not by canoe.

A panel of woke scolds share their thoughts on space travel – which turn out to be rather limited and not of obvious use. They do, however, have thoughts, many thoughts, on how terrible able-bodied white men are.

Janice Fiamengo takes notes:

When not rambling about canoes, seemingly in search of a point, the five panellists – billed as a “diverse group of thought leaders” – inform us of the apparent need for deaf and disabled astronauts, in the name of “social justice,” and ask whether a mission to Mars would benefit Black Lives Matter.

No, really.

Lucianne Walcowicz, who appears in the video, complete with septum piercing and adolescent blue ‘do, has been mentioned here before. Readers may recall her insistence that the words frontier and unmanned are morally corrupting and should therefore be purged, along with any trace of gendered language.

And let’s not forget Marcie Bianco, whose ruminations on the subject of interplanetary travel also entertained us. Not least her claim that sending spacecraft to Mars is an act of “male entitlement” and akin to grabbing ladies’ genitals.

Oh, and do watch to the end. The closing exchange, around 20:40, is somewhat telling.

Update, via the comments:

Readers with even minimal knowledge of the topic may have noted that the contemporary space industry is hardly an exclusive domain of white men, able-bodied or otherwise. The head of SpaceX is female, and the last time I checked around half of NASA’s astronauts are female and of various colours. Female astronomers and planetary scientists are too numerous to list.

The panellists’ implicit conceit – that women and minority “folks” are somehow being excluded from space-related industries and subsequent discussions – is about as convincing as Dr Nord’s hair, or Ms Walkowicz’s unattractively incongruous shoes.

Dr Nord doesn’t seem remotely interested in the kinds of competence required to become an astronaut or astronomer, or engineer or whatever. Instead, he waffles about “power,” and speaks of being brown as if it were a credential in and of itself.

When pressed for particulars, he doesn’t appear to have any thoughts, beyond skin colour, on what attributes might be desirable among candidates for space exploration – a subject that doesn’t enthuse him. Which is a little odd, given that it’s the ostensible premise of the discussion. The reason for his presence.

Perhaps the doctor’s energies were directed to more pressing matters. Hairstyling, one assumes.

Given their alleged expertise, the panellists don’t seem very clear on what it is they want, beyond disdaining white men, the subject foremost on their minds, or how whatever it is that they want would improve space travel – the actual topic at hand – the practicalities of which appear to them entirely alien and boring.

The postscript to the video, with its awkward silence, is quite instructive in this regard and does rather reveal the panellists’ priorities. Despite the topic supposedly being discussed and despite their supposed expertise, the five panellists – this “diverse group of thought leaders” – have no response, nothing at all to contribute, and they seem to regard even the asking of the question with a kind of smug disdain.

As if it were unsophisticated. Terribly déclassé.

We are, however, told that we need more deaf and disabled people in space. Because space exploration just isn’t difficult enough and dangerous enough as it is. And choosing astronauts with hearing problems, poor eyesight and motor-control issues will make things much more exciting.

And frankly. when you’re asking, apparently in all seriousness, how a mission to Mars would benefit Black Lives Matter, as if it somehow should, I think we can say that the foolishness in the room has risen to hazardous levels.

In niche eatery news:

A feminist-owned and operated cafe that made headlines around the world after introducing an 18% “man tax” on male customers will be closing its doors at the end of the month. Handsome Her, a vegan establishment located in Melbourne, Australia, will be going out of business on April 28, according to an announcement on its website.

It turns out that “brazen public discussions of structural inequality and oppression,” rules about women having “priority seating,” and serving turmeric lattes with macadamia milk, isn’t in fact the basis of a thriving business. Even in Brunswick, Melbourne. However, the empowered proprietors insist that the mockery aimed at their pricing policy merely “showed us how fragile masculinity is and solidified the necessity for us to confront and dismantle patriarchy.”

Via Orwell & Goode.

As a teenager and self-proclaimed militant feminist, it was simple to fight the patriarchy; I just had to pick fights with my father.

Why, yes, it is a Guardian article. Specifically, A Feminist’s Guide to Raising Boys by Bibi van der Zee.  

In the 1970s, from my child’s-eye point of view, it seemed pretty much agreed that boys and girls were essentially the same; it was just society that turned us into “boys” and “girls.” Simone de Beauvoir had said: “One is not born a woman but, rather, becomes a woman,” and the whole planet had nodded in agreement, and that was that.

Readers of a certain age may find that their memories of the 70s, and of boys and girls being supposedly interchangeable, and of the whole planet nodding at this conceit, are somewhat different.

In the early years of my career in journalism, being a woman was no brake on being able to work as late, be paid as little and drink as much as any of the male reporters I knew. Then I had sons. It may sound naïve, but I hadn’t really thought about how that would work. I had a vague plan that… my life would more or less carry on as before.

It does sound a tad unrealistic.

This was not what I had expected… Because I was the one with the womb and the mammary glands, I would be the one carrying the children and then feeding them.

At which point, readers may wish to remind themselves that Ms van der Zee writes political commentary, and guides to activism and protesting, in order to share her insights with the world.

It was a startling window into other times and worlds, where, if you had no birth control and your body belonged to your husband by law, then you could just be impregnated over and over again, side-lined and kept at home. 

Ah, yes. The modern marriage.

Lifted from the comments:

A feminist educator in the United Kingdom is making a point not to step aside when men walk in her direction, playing what she refers to as “patriarchy chicken.” […] “A few days ago, I was having a bad morning: my train tickets were expensive, my train was delayed, and my coffee was cold,” [Dr Charlotte] Riley wrote. “But I cheered myself up by playing a game on my commute. The game is called Patriarchy Chicken, and the rules are simple: do not move out of the way for men.” If that sounds like something that would be ungentlemanly conduct if perpetrated by a man, you would be correct in your assessment.

Dr Riley, you’ll note, is a grown woman.

Our feminist lecturer’s New Statesman article, in which she elaborates on Patriarchy Chicken and its allegedly empowering effects, can be found here. We’re told, somewhat implausibly, “It’s important to note that Patriarchy Chicken isn’t about anger.” When not applauding herself for repeatedly and deliberately colliding with male commuters, Dr Riley informs us that “war and peace can only be understood through gender.” 

Also, open thread.