Impartiality? When Dealing With Chauvinists?

No. No, science is not a girl thing. Nothing is a girl thing - or a boy thing, for that matter. Cars are not a boy thing, computers are not a boy thing, Sanskrit is not a boy thing: nothing that involves logic is merely a boy thing, and nothing that involves passion is merely a girl thing - either gender can possess both. And any field can involve both. Then again, men in music don't seem to face that many stereotypes, do they?

There is no such thing as an '[insert gender here] thing'. You're your own individual: you don't have to be a brash leather-clad cricket fan if you're a boy, and you don't have to wear miniskirts and goggles and lipstick if you're a girl, let alone if you're a female scientist. You can be a female scientist if you like to wear miniskirts and goggles and lipstick, but you can also be one if you wear denim - or even if you are the kind of quirky person people think all scientists are. You don't have to conform to any stereotype in order to be, well, anything.

Science doesn't bloody discriminate. I'm sorry, European Union, but Jim Kirk had it right. There's only one kind of woman - or man, for that matter: you either believe in yourself or you don't. 

For the moment, Cain out.

Tweet

I Like To Torture Myself With Logic.

Dear, dear Delhi University, I'm fond of you and all (on occasion) and I do understand your intention when it came to implementing the semester system was to try and make Indian higher education more similar to that offered abroad, but you overlooked a rather important thing in connection with all that jazz: electives. There are, for instance, two compulsory physics courses for us chem honours students; the first pertains to optics and vector calculus and a fraction of mechanics, while the second is more electronics-focused. The general idea, no doubt, is to help one diversify intellectually - an admirable intention, certainly, but how about actually allowing one to diversify? I'll give you the fact that particle interactions are relevant to chemistry, but that's about it. I'll also give you the fact that our maths courses are kind of relevant, so there's that. On the other hand, there's English: Technical Writing. There's also bio. Cell theory and that whole jingbang. Whatever happened to biomolecules?

What I'm saying is, continuing from the physics angle, supposing you offered a choice of two or three courses, all of which included particle interactions but were otherwise different? I, for instance, would freakin' love more mechanics: kinematics, dynamics, hydraulics, engines; traction, torque and thrust. I'm sure there are people who would freak out on more electronics - or more optics. Or more nuclear stuff and radioactivity. Just sayin'.

As for me, engines. Give me engines.

Tweet

HI, SWEETHEART *loses voice*

So I was at the annual fête (oh, caaarnival they call it now) of my erstwhile school (dear me, I feel so old) when my dad, who was parked outside in Caffeine, messaged me saying he was parked in front of a Lamborghini. At which I squealed and drove my friends crazy until we all somehow barreled out to the gate, whereupon I took gleeful advantage of possessing a David.

He or she was a Gallardo Bicolore in a rather violent shade of orange - and I'll admit I don't like Bicolores because they look like sort of wannabe Spyders and I don't like convertibles - but it was a Lamborghini and it was tiny and purry and made of sex - not, incidentally, unlike KK.

I kinda talked to it (rather a quick gabble actually), and conclusively proved myself not as eloquent in hurried speech as I am in writing (or flirtation with showroom-bound specimens) - again, not unlike KK.





And now you're never going to be able to forget the KK/Lamb analogy. XD

YES I WATERMARKED THE PHOTOS WHAT DO YOU TAKE ME FOR

Tweet