A title I’ve stolen shamelessly from Orwell & Goode:
A new superstitious belief has emerged in some areas of Mozambique – that bald men have gold in their head. However, the head has to be taken to a witchdoctor who will use magical powers to extract the gold – and make them rich. As a result, police say five bald men have been killed in central Mozambique.
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.
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.
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.
It’s four minutes long and somewhat alarming:
With space exploration, we have to consider how we are using language, and what it carries from the history of exploration on Earth. Even if words like “colonisation” have a different context off-world, on somewhere like Mars, it’s still not OK to use those narratives.
In the pages of National Geographic, Nadia Drake and Lucianne Walkowicz competitively fret about how terribly problematic the language of space exploration is:
I think the other [word not to be used] is “settlement.”
I’ll give you a moment to process that one.
That comes up a lot and obviously has a lot of connotations for folks about conflict in the Middle East. I think that’s one that people often turn to when they mean “inhabitation” or “humans living off-world.”
Apparently, notions of our species expanding into space are “born from racist, sexist ideologies that historically led to the subjugation and erasure of women and indigenous cultures,” and must therefore be corrected by the lofty and woke. And so, “government agencies, journalists, and the space community at large” are “revising the problematic ways in which space exploration is framed.”
Numerous conversations are taking place about the importance of using inclusive language, with scholars focusing on decolonising humanity’s next journeys into space, as well as science in general.
You see, any attempts to colonise other worlds, or to explore and exploit astronomical objects, will have to be pre-emptively “decolonised” and purged of gender by the neurotically pretentious. Lest our astronauts and astronomers instantly start oppressing their black or female colleagues, rendering them tearful with the words unmanned probe, while spitting on the floor and shouting about the merits of Arcturian poontang.
Needless to say, the word frontier is also deemed “problematic,” due to “narratives… based around European settlement.”
Recent Comments