[eisvogel]

Shotwell is also awesome, that is certain. They all are. I personally think the first man down the ladder on mars should be a woman, and it would be great if it were her. However, Elon founded that company (and personally hired Shotwell) and has been a continual source of engineering inspiration, for several decades. His direction has pretty much forced the global automotive industry to go electric. People may not like some of the things he tweets, but at the end of the day, he is not going to be a historical footnote.

[CydeWeys]

She's way too important to risk on the first crewed mission to Mars (which is going to be very risky). This is what astronauts are for.

[alex_sf]

> I personally think the first man down the ladder on mars should be a woman, and it would be great if it were her.

Probably not your intent, but this sounds incredibly patronizing.

[93po]

I disagree, I think it's an awesome sentiment to want to get out of the way of women pioneering advances in space flight.

[anon84873628]

Is it patronizing to say, "I think the next president should be a woman?"

[FeepingCreature]

Yes of course. It implies that the most impactful thing your presidential candidate can do is have a female gender.

[anon84873628]

Nah. It could imply that there are many equally qualified people for the job, and having a woman do it is beneficial in its own right. Y'know, to show that it is possible in the first place, contrary to our entire history so far??

[fastball]

Patronizing whom?

[throwntoday]

> I personally think the first man down the ladder on mars should be a woman

Shouldn't it just be the commander of the mission?

The way you speak is so condescending to women, as though they wouldn't have the ability to earn their place and it has to be handed to them. I can't speak to your intentions but it's not equality if you thought it was.

[93po]

There is absolutely nothing condescending about that statement

[nonethewiser]

It’s unapologetically sexist

[anon84873628]

You're making the meritocracy argument and it is disingenuous. You don't have a monopoly on understanding "equality" and it is certainly not as simple in our society as you assume.

[nonethewiser]

> You're making the meritocracy argument and it is disingenuous.

You’d need to prove intent for that claim. Merit based seems fair to me.

[anon84873628]

"seems fair to me" is hardly enough basis for a claim either. I did go on to state how it is impossible in our society today - do you actually disagree with that?

[throwntoday]

Theres nothing disingenuous about thinking the person that earned the honor should be the one to do it. Your claim that I think I have a monopoly is disingenuous. GP stating it should be a woman, just for being a woman, is being disingenuous.

Most women I know appreciate the "perks" of being a woman, but none of them are under any delusion about it. They would be insulted if they lost on equal footing, and were rewarded for it anyway. I've never met anyone who was happy knowing someone let them win.

If you want to make an argument that men and women are never on equal footing, I could understand that but I'm not even sure what you are proposing instead.

[anon84873628]

What I'm saying is that "earned the honor" - or rather that there is a single "best person" - is already a flawed assumption. Meritocracy is thoroughly debunked so anyone asserting it is either way out of touch or being disingenuous.

The reason is because of historical oppression and entrenched systems of oppression still in place today. In that context, meritocracy only serves to reinforce the status quo.

I'm sure NASA can come very close to a true meritocracy - but that doesn't change the fact that there are benefits to having women in visible positions of power, accomplishment, etc. There will be multiple qualified people for any job, and it is 100% acceptable to choose someone because they come from a historically underrepresented group, solely to increase visibility and enfranchisement of that group.

[throwntoday]

> but that doesn't change the fact that there are benefits to having women in visible positions of power, accomplishment, etc

So you're making the same proposal. You want to hire a woman because she's a woman. This is a massive disservice to female empowerment.

> There will be multiple qualified people for any job, and it is 100% acceptable to choose someone because they come from a historically underrepresented group, solely to increase visibility and enfranchisement of that group.

This is an absurd line of thinking. If two people truly are equally qualified, some immutable trait like race, sex, etc. should not be the determining factor. If you are ok with someone being hired for a job because they are a native american or a woman, then you should also be ok with someone choosing to only hire white men and asian men. Both of these scenarios are racist/sexist.