“Human beings are born with different capacities. If they are free, they are not equal. And if they are equal, they are not free.”
― Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn

Monday, September 18, 2017

Why he was called Mr. Whizzard

Standing Up to Pee Gives Boys an Unfair Advantage in Physics

The authors note that "there is no simple way to provide girls with the same opportunities for exploring projectile motion that boys have in playing with pee." Nonetheless, they make a feeble attempt: "However, we can make a change: it’s not necessary for physics curricula to begin with projectile motion. Other topics, such as energy conservation, which is more central to physics, could be taught first instead."

This abjectly weak proposal shows a decided lack of imagination, especially given the novelty of their "discovery." It fails to address the issue; females must eventually confront a topic in which they are hopelessly deficient. You know this to be true if you've ever tried to mansplain to a female how the gearing works on a 10-speed bicycle. Women have difficulty visualizing 3D schematics and, particularly, parts in motion. This problem goes beyond physics to engineering, chemistry and the programming of computer games.

Now we know why: Sitzpinkling is biologically determinative. Females lack the early ballistics and fluid dynamics training natural to males, and cannot, therefore, be successful in STEM disciplines. From this, we can conclude that Marie Curie had the advantage of countless hours playing with hoses when she was little. Judith Curry's success is explained by the near rhyme of her surname, but we cannot expect thousands of parents to change the family name in order to get female offspring an MIT scholarship.

All is not lost. As a public service I suggest five ways in which the cosmic unfairness of this patriarchal oppression may be mitigated by the State.

1- Population-wide forced gender reassignment surgery (male to female)

Advantages:
  1. Would resolve the raised toilet seat debate
  2. Would cost far less for surgery (than female to male surgery), since there are more females than males, and since female to male surgery is more expensive per individual
Disadvantages:
  1. Would slow advances in physics
  2. Would vastly increase bathroom lines at Tupperware parties
  3. Extinction of the species
2- Population-wide forced gender reassignment surgery (female to male)

Advantages:
  1. Would resolve the raised toilet seat debate
  2. Would decrease bathroom lines at football games
  3. Would speed advances in physics
Disadvantages:
  1. Would cost much more for surgery than Option 1, since there are more females than males and since female to male surgery is more expensive per individual
  2. Extinction of the species
As noted, the surgery could swing both ways, so to speak, and absent the cost and effectiveness issues, I'd pick advancing physics and shorter lines to pee for everyone.

But the clear choice is male to female:
As a solution to being able to aim your urine the female to male surgery is problematic: "Extending the urethra to allow standing urination has proved to be perhaps the most difficult part of the process..."

Also, "converting part of the colon into a vagina" is easier than building a penis.

But I can't choose either option. On the merits, human extinction makes me reject both Option 1 and Option 2.

3- Forced catheterization of females

Advantages:
  1. Would speed advances in physics
  2. Would vastly decrease bathroom lines at Tupperware parties
  3. Would resolve the raised toilet seat debate
Disadvantages:
  1. Would require significant remodeling of existing female facilities to add urinals
  2. Would be uncomfortable for females
4- Require males to sit down

Advantages:
  1. Would resolve the raised toilet seat debate
Disadvantages:
  1. Would require significant remodeling of male facilities to remove urinals
  2. Would increase bathroom lines at football games
  3. Would slow advances in physics
5- Mandate a certain amount of time and frequency (five times a day) for girls to play with hoses (increasing time spent and reducing flow and accuracy as they age, in order to match the effects of enlarging prostates)

Advantages:
  1. Would speed advances in physics
  2. Would increase business for hose manufacturers
  3. Would add to the time females spend on government mandated activities (to some this is a drawback)
Disadvantages:
  1. Would require building indoor hose practice facilities in cold climates
  2. Would add to the time females spend on government mandated activities (to some this is a benefit)
I invite comments regarding advantages and disadvantages, and suggestions for any options I may have missed. I'll be happy to pass them on to our elected representatives for urgent action.

Update, 4:57PM It occurs to me upon re-reading this, that we need not force catheterization upon women. It can be a choice, which I'm told they like. In fact, choice of catheterization could become a female admissions requirement at elite STEM educational institutions. From the State's POV, this would be more efficient.

Update, 5:13PM Oops. Maybe the entire question of sex bias in STEM is a tempest in a teapot. The Gender Gap in STEM is NOT What You Think

No comments: