Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

For 40 Years, This Russian Family Was Cut Off From All Human Contact

blogs.smithsonianmag.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 256 posts

Re: For 40 Years, This Russian Family Was Cut Off From All Human Contact

#161

Post by untog »

Xcelerate wrote: post #127
cowpewter wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not to start drama, but that's a bit sexist, isn't it? Can't she just be 'stronger than any person you know'? There's nothing inherently 'manly' about being a strong independent person.

> Not to start drama, but that's a bit sexist, isn't it? There's absolutely nothing sexist at all about the post. It was a compliment, geez. > Can't she just be 'stronger than any person you know'? No, men are generally stronger than women; it's why we have different classifications in sports. Would you rather we lumped them together?

But you yourself have assumed that 'man' == 'strong'. The OP said nothing of the sort. That in itself is pretty sexist.

Taking attributes and ascribing them to gender is useless at best, and insulting at worst. I might just as easily say that a rapist was "more of a man than any man I know"- after all, men tend to commit acts of rape far more than women, so it's a manly attribute, right?

Re: For 40 Years, This Russian Family Was Cut Off From All Human Contact

#162

Post by untog »

Xcelerate wrote: post #131
seldo wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Complimenting a woman by saying she's like a man is pretty much the definition of sexism.

Sheesh... Let me translate the post for you: "This woman is so good that a certain physical difference between genders that has historically been regarded a prestigious male trait can be made even more of a compliment by giving it to a woman". I don't understand the obsession I find online of people searching for insults and controversies that don't exist.

But what you've translated isn't what the post said. You are inferring that the OP was talking about the physical differences that favour a man in that situation. If that's what they meant, they should have said so.

What the post actually says is "being a man is a good thing, this woman is being manly as opposed to being womanly, and this is a great thing".

Re: For 40 Years, This Russian Family Was Cut Off From All Human Contact

#163

Post by incision »

saalweachter wrote: post #97
Florin_Andrei wrote: post #65

> Old Karp was usually delighted by the latest innovations that the scientists brought up from their camp, and though he steadfastly refused to believe that man had set foot on the moon, he adapted swiftly to the idea of satellites. The Lykovs had noticed them as early as the 1950s, when "the stars began to go quickly across the sky," and Karp himself conceived a theory to explain this: "People have thought something…

It makes me a little jealous of the quality of sky they must have had.

Yeah, I can only imagine.

Though, my own recently re-ignited interest in astronomy has taught me that you can actually see quite a bit, including satellites in even thoroughly light polluted areas as my back yard rates red on these charts [1].

1: http://www.jshine.net/astronomy/dark_sky/

Re: For 40 Years, This Russian Family Was Cut Off From All Human Contact

#164

Post by Xcelerate »

untog wrote: post #161
Xcelerate wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Not to start drama, but that's a bit sexist, isn't it? There's absolutely nothing sexist at all about the post. It was a compliment, geez. > Can't she just be 'stronger than any person you know'? No, men are generally stronger than women; it's why we have different classifications in sports. Would you rather we lumped them together?

But you yourself have assumed that 'man' == 'strong'. The OP said nothing of the sort. That in itself is pretty sexist. Taking attributes and ascribing them to gender is useless at best, and insulting at worst. I might just as easily say that a rapist was "more of a man than any man I know"- after all, men tend to commit acts of rape far more than women, so it's a manly attribute, right?

> Identifying strength as solely being a 'manly' attribute is pretty sexist.

No, you're missing this completely.

Let me try something different, but analogous. Back when I was in high school, I ran track. My sister (in 8th grade at the time) was fast enough to have been 4th on the men's varsity team. So people told her, wow, you're as good as a guy! Did we value speed as a "solely" male attribute? No, it was valued separately in its own classification (men and women race separately). However, the fact that my sister was good enough to actually compete with the men (who are overall much faster than women), came across as a compliment.

I would go so far as to invoke "isomorphic" as the most apt term in describing the type of compliment involved in mine and scrapcode's scenarios.

> Taking attributes and ascribing them to gender is useless at best.

Useless at best? I see this phrase a lot on the internet lately, and it must be a fad because it wasn't in popular usage a few years ago.

Men and women have different traits. It is a completely, scientifically, undeniable fact. Men will be better at certain skills, and women will be better at other skills. The latest social trend cannot change that.

If a woman is good enough to play in the NFL, great for her, we'd all be glad to see that! But that doesn't change the fact that the odds are ridiculously stacked against her being capable of doing such a thing. Maybe start a separate women's NFL? Alright, but since no one's done that, let's use common sense and say football is a man's sport. What is an activity that's typically only associated with females only: ballet dancers. Sure, there are male ballet dancers but until the ratio is close to 50/50, the term "ballet dancer" will continue to be associated with females, and for good reason.

Re: For 40 Years, This Russian Family Was Cut Off From All Human Contact

#165

Post by untog »

Xcelerate wrote: post #164
untog wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But you yourself have assumed that 'man' == 'strong'. The OP said nothing of the sort. That in itself is pretty sexist. Taking attributes and ascribing them to gender is useless at best, and insulting at worst. I might just as easily say that a rapist was "more of a man than any man I know"- after all, men tend to commit acts of rape far more than women, so it's a manly attribute, right?

> Identifying strength as solely being a 'manly' attribute is pretty sexist. No, you're missing this completely. Let me try something different, but analogous. Back when I was in high school, I ran track. My sister (in 8th grade at the time) was fast enough to have been 4th on the men's varsity team. So people told her, wow, you're as good as a guy! Did we value speed as a "solely" male attribute? No, it was valued s…

(I had edited my comment so that your quote doesn't apply any more- apologies)

This is an apples and oranges comparison. In your example, people were saying quite specifically that "you can run as fast as a man, and men tend to be faster runners than women". The OPs post said nothing of the sort.

You are inferring that they were referring to strength, but there's nothing to indicate that. Living by yourself in the woods is apparently manly. Maybe it's physical strength. Maybe it's mental strength. Maybe it's tool making. Maybe it's hunting. But saying that she is "more of a man" basically puts any and all of these things under the bracket of "man's activities", which is indeed, sexist.

To use the inverse, would you have said that someone who tried to live in the wild and failed was "more of a woman than any woman I know"?

Re: For 40 Years, This Russian Family Was Cut Off From All Human Contact

#167

Post by Xcelerate »

untog wrote: post #162
Xcelerate wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sheesh... Let me translate the post for you: "This woman is so good that a certain physical difference between genders that has historically been regarded a prestigious male trait can be made even more of a compliment by giving it to a woman". I don't understand the obsession I find online of people searching for insults and controversies that don't exist.

But what you've translated isn't what the post said. You are inferring that the OP was talking about the physical differences that favour a man in that situation. If that's what they meant, they should have said so. What the post actually says is "being a man is a good thing, this woman is being manly as opposed to being womanly, and this is a great thing".

If I took an opinion poll (appropriately administered in, say, the US) on who has the more accurate translation of the original post, I would bet a large sum of money that the vast majority would say mine. Here is the juxtaposition of the original post and your inference by the way:

> This is absolutely amazing. This woman is more of a man than any man I know, living in some desolate valley for all of those years now absolutely ALONE? One word: Wow.

> Being a man is a good thing, this woman is being manly as opposed to being womanly, and this is a great thing.

Re: For 40 Years, This Russian Family Was Cut Off From All Human Contact

#168

Post by jlgreco »

Someone wrote: post #139
saalweachter wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It makes me a little jealous of the quality of sky they must have had.

It isn't that hard to see satellites in the sky. The ISS, in particular, can be very bright, to the point where you can see it in daylight ( http://www.hobbyspace.com/SatWatching/ , http://blogs.crikey.com.au/planetalking/2009/06/18/how-to-se... ) The 1950 ones would have been a lot harder to spot, of course, but might at times have reflected the light of the below-the-horizon sun.

In fact, aside from the Moon, the ISS is the brighest object in the night sky. Brighter than Sirius, and even brighter than any of the planets including Venus.

Re: For 40 Years, This Russian Family Was Cut Off From All Human Contact

#169

Post by jlgreco »

RivieraKid wrote: post #150
mhurron wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They mean they have a very narrow definition of what makes a man a man. For example - I can not do many repairs to my car and so I take it to a mechanic. To a great many people, this makes me less of a man.

They?

Non-gendered singular pronoun.

Re: For 40 Years, This Russian Family Was Cut Off From All Human Contact

#170

Post by untog »

Xcelerate wrote: post #167
untog wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But what you've translated isn't what the post said. You are inferring that the OP was talking about the physical differences that favour a man in that situation. If that's what they meant, they should have said so. What the post actually says is "being a man is a good thing, this woman is being manly as opposed to being womanly, and this is a great thing".

If I took an opinion poll (appropriately administered in, say, the US) on who has the more accurate translation of the original post, I would bet a large sum of money that the vast majority would say mine. Here is the juxtaposition of the original post and your inference by the way: > This is absolutely amazing. This woman is more of a man than any man I know, living in some desolate valley for all of those years now…

If you took an opinion poll split by gender, I think you'd find some interesting results. You, as a man, see it as a simple equivalence to physical strength, but do women see it the same way? At best, we can say "I don't know". So why not just use 'strong' in the original post, rather than talk about being a man?

And I'm not sure what is wrong about my original inference. The story is of a woman being "more of a man". It is "amazing", "wow". It's not a huge leap to see that being more of a man is portrayed as a positive attribute.

Post reply on HN