Rulers of Science


Rulers of Science and Great Women Rulers of Science rulers - $2.95

After their scientific achievements, it should be a cinch for the likes of Isaac Newton, Benjamin Franklin, and Charles Darwin to help you measure things. Here's the perfect gift for students, scientists, teachers and history buffs: The Rulers of Science and the Great Women Rulers of Science wooden rulers over at the NeatoShop.

See also: Fun and Unusual Back to School Items | Office & Desk Items


@Katy

Agreed. Why can't a few women just be included in the rulers of science too? Does the other one say "great male rulers of science"?
Abusive comment hidden. (Show it anyway.)
Probably because they needed the space to squeeze in those extra names due to the higher number of listed names. It's also interesting that the both of you don't mention the lack of any great transsexual rulers of science, or great unichs of science. It seems we are not as politically correct as we should be... in fact, we never will be.
Abusive comment hidden. (Show it anyway.)
@Katy and Jess, yep, not cool...Marie Curie and Jane Goodall measure up (ha!) in awesomeness to Albert Einstein and Ben Franklin and deserve to be mentioned alongside their male counterparts on the same ruler.
It seems like a petty thing to gripe about, but it sends a subtly powerful message about gender equality to the kids using those things...
Abusive comment hidden. (Show it anyway.)
Wow, how hypocritical have we become? The patriarchs just can't win.

On the one hand, they would be criticized for not emphasizing women if they were on the same ruler as men. On the other hand, they're criticized for trying to emphasize the importance of scientific women.

The message they were obviously trying to send with the separate ruler is that there are a lot of women in the history of science, and trying to encourage girls to excel. Instead, they get bitched at.
Abusive comment hidden. (Show it anyway.)
@ted

I wouldn't criticise them for including just a few women. There's no denying that the achievements of men throughout the history of science far outweigh those of women due to the historical discouragement of women receiving education. But as iSAWiWASi pointed out, the achievements of at least a select few woman scientists are certainly on par with those of men, meaning that they should be included on the ruler.

Now I can't read the entire rulers of science ruler, so if I am wrong and there are at least a couple of women included, then I'll be happy.

Somehow I wonder if it were men criticising a product, it wouldn't be referred to as bitching.

And perhaps you should check your use of the word "patriarch".

From Dictionary.com:
Patriarch:
1. the male head of a family or tribal line.
2. a person regarded as the father or founder of an order, class, etc.
Abusive comment hidden. (Show it anyway.)
Wow, Jessss. Wow.

Let's quote Wikipedia: "Within feminist theory, patriarchy refers to the structure of modern cultural and political systems, which are ruled by men. Such systems are said to be detrimental to the rights of women."

You do acknowledge that words can have a context beyond their dictionary definition, do you not?

I referred to it as bitching not knowing the genders of the previous commenters (except Gauldar, and for once we agreed), so your sexist stereotyping of my gender attitudes is off base. The word "bitch" as a verb is not exclusive to the female gender, so please don't put attitudes in my mouth that aren't there.

This hypocrisy is like the example of the all-male gym being sexist, but the all-female gym is non-threatening. Or the all-male school is sexist, but the all-female school is empowering.

As I said, you can't win for trying. I'm so sorry the rulers didn't measure up to your standards.
Abusive comment hidden. (Show it anyway.)
I think the time of ''great women'' lists is behind us. It was interesting in my day, but this is 2010. We can just include all the great ones on the same rulers. It's not about criticizing men again. For all we know, these rulers were designed by women!
Abusive comment hidden. (Show it anyway.)
@ ted, so it wasn't inherently obvious that a "jess" and a "katy" were female? And even with your quote, I still don't see how your use of the word patriarch was relevant.

Where I come from (Australia), the word bitch is generally only used in regards to women. For men, people tend to say things like "winging" or "carrying on". So forgive me for that one.

"I'm so sorry the rulers didn't measure up to your standards."

There is no need to be so sarcastic or patronising.
Abusive comment hidden. (Show it anyway.)
Jessss.

katy would be a female name. Jessss could be either. I wouldn't want to draw any assumptions, like the one you're drawing about katy's comment. How do you know katy's comment was critical? She said "interesting". katy could as easily be agreeing with my comment, as your first comment appears to be agreeing with my comment.

I don't see the need for a separate ruler, but it's obvious why it was done. It wasn't to demean women of science, but to highlight women, in order to inspire young women to emulate those "great women of science". However, the attempt draws ire: "You're demeaning us by giving us our own ruler."

That's why I said you can't win for trying.

You see, I was referring to the feminist concept of the patriarchal society, where men rule (no pun intended), and how the poor patriarchs just can't get it right: Catch-22, "damned if you do, and damned if you don't". Therefore, I do think it was appropriate and relevant to the conversation.

I cannot forgive you for your misinterpretation of my use of the verb "to bitch", if you cannot forgive me for my (indeed!) appropriate and relevant use of the word "patriarch".

And for my pun about "measuring up to your standards", I think you're taking this entire conversation too seriously; you didn't notice that I was trying to make a good-natured pun? Although I have been known to be sarcastic on occasion, I assure you wholeheartedly that was not my intention.

As for being "patronising", I object to your use of a term that demeans the male gender (philologically speaking, "patron" comes from medieval latin from "patronus" or master, from the latin froot "patron" or father). Please use a non-gender-specific term like "condescending". If you're not sure what that means, I can quote you a few lines from Dictionary.com - no, that would be condescending.

Hmmm. Maybe that last bit was a little sarcastic...
Abusive comment hidden. (Show it anyway.)
ted

I said "criticising" because of your quote:

"On the one hand, they would be criticized for not emphasizing women if they were on the same ruler as men. On the other hand, they're criticized for trying to emphasize the importance of scientific women."

It just seemed like the relevant and appropriate word to use.

I did notice your pun, but your whole comment was pretty patronising e.g. "Wow, Jessss. Wow." You forgot to insert the "I can't believe how much of an idiot you are" afterwards. Anyway, it was more the use of "I'm so sorry..." that I found to be sarcastic.

To be honest, I never really cared about justifying each of my comments and the use of certain words to you, and I think I can safely assume that you never truly cared to do so either. Yet somehow we continue pretending to care. It appears that this has become a tit for tat dance of nit-picking.

What can I say? I will do anything to procrastinate.
Abusive comment hidden. (Show it anyway.)
lol.

No, I don't worry about justifying my comments either (except when I spell things incorrectly), although I will elaborate on them from time to time. I usually think my comments are too obscure. I only continued this conversation because I perceived that you had no idea how condescending your own comments sounded.

If there was an "I can't believe how much of an idiot you are", that was entirely a product of your own fertile imagination, although that phrase could as easily have been inserted in your comment after your initial quote of the definition of the word patriarch.

You may want to consider how your statements may be interpreted before you interpret and embellish those of others.

It's been fun, anyways. Thanks for the dance. :)
Abusive comment hidden. (Show it anyway.)
Login to comment.
Click here to access all of this post's 16 comments




Email This Post to a Friend
"Rulers of Science"

Separate multiple emails with a comma. Limit 5.

 

Success! Your email has been sent!

close window
X

This website uses cookies.

This website uses cookies to improve user experience. By using this website you consent to all cookies in accordance with our Privacy Policy.

I agree
 
Learn More