Like I said, it takes an autistic reading of the text.

It was almost half a century ago

♻️ Reduce. Reuse. Recycle. ♻️

Except that 9 months took place on a space station. There were regular cargo missions to the station. And they could have been brought back at any nearly any point if necessary. Other astronauts literally went up and came back from the Station in that 9 months.

The timeframe being so long was almost entirely about the Starliner itself and what they were going to do with a known defective and potentially unusable spacecraft, where the only trained pilots were those astronauts, not anything with the astronauts themselves.

If the station wasn’t an option for whatever reason (despite it literally being part of the planned mission), then other contingencies would have been available or at least planned already. This wasn’t an Apollo 13 situation where not making it back was a serious concern.

To be fair, at the time, there was no ISS for the shuttle to dock to, the shuttle pretty much was all they had. It was designed for missions of about 10 days, and could be expanded to about 17 days if needed. If they needed to stretch it up to a month to go beyond that for her to have a second period, I suspect that would rather have used that cargo capacity for some extra food and such and dealt with her free-bleeding, and much beyond that they’d need to come down one way or another or just die in space.

They last 4-8 hours. Most women bleed for 3-7 days. So on the outer edge, you could need 42. I’ve never gone through more than a box of 24 in a cycle. But the US hadn’t put a menstruating person in space before, who knew if being in space would somehow unleash a geyser of mysterious lady fluids never before seen by man.

Even your face

Spontaneous is actually the thermodynamic jargon in this case though :)

No, I’m explaining the pedantry, not agreeing with it. I said almost valid pedantry.

Yes, that’s the point. I’m explaining a very pedantic point, ofc that requires ample amounts of pedantry.

This should have been the correct answer to Kev, and not that thing about mansplaining.

Yes, I already said it is correct when viewing it as specific water boiling.

Yes. Pedantry doesn’t make the guy more correct. He’s still being an ass. I’m not agreeing with him. So the fact you still don’t understand is a bit… sad for you. Do you treat autistic people like shit because they don’t operate on social norms and the most common understandings of statements? If you say, “no”, then I’d suggest you introspect a LOT more, because the answer is clearly yes.

No, many things in chemistry are functionally spontaneous. That’s why her usage of the word is totally fine.

He’s just taking an autistic reading of the text as I’ve described already. He’s being a bit of a pedantic ass, sure, but mansplaining is not simply being an ass.

Well said.

I think you may have meant to say “confidently incorrect dismissal” in your definition of mansplaining.

Nah you just don’t understand language or pedantry.

I said it takes an autistic reading to come to the non-standard conclusion. I’m also not agreeing with the pedantry, hence “almost valid”.

I’m sorry you do not understand how autistic people misread things or jump to funky conclusions, but I am wholly correct and you just want to be an asshole.

You’re probably one of those people that perpetuates the mistreatment of autistic people for shit like this. Pathetic of you.

Pressure almost by definition is external influence…

You are telling me the vacuum pump makes it not an apparent external influence? It is kinda loud?

Idk man, my ears are pretty good at estimating quick relative pressure changes.

Also, were I in a spavesuit, I’d probably have trouble judging temperature changed as well.

Yes, that is why I used the quotation marks & further explained that the “heat up the room” in your case would be ‘a simulation of environment’.

Eg, a tree at 20°C has an extremely low chance of spontaneously combusting into a self-fueling oxidation event (lol, shit’s on fire, yo) in your average environment, but those chances at 200°C are much higher.
In order to test this spontaneous combustion theory (whilst having no regard for the life of the tree) you would need to simulate that 200°C environmental conditions. … by heating the air around the tree.
In that case you would heat up a chamber or whatever and in turn eventually maybe burn the tree.
This wound still test/prove the spontaneous combustibility thing.
You bringing open flame in contact with the tree however would not* be that - that is just actively (non-spontaneously) starting a reaction.

This is an experiment trying to test some natural conditions. Every test as such (eg if witnessed by a clueless alien observer) is you doing something actively so ofc none of it is spontaneous.

*unless the environmental conditions you were testing/simulating would be “open 1000° flames/plasma completely everywhere” … but you may not get a grant for testing “if wood added to fire also burns”

“Spontaneous” in this usage is highly dependent on frame of reference.

Yes, actually. The autoignition point is the temperature at which a given material will spontaneously (as in, without a spark or the like) catch fire, given a source of oxygen.

If it were, it wouldn’t be a good joke, because this exactly conforms to the thermodynamic definition of spontaneity. Saying it is spontaneous is, quite exactly, simple thermo.

A lot of them probably haven't taken a thermodynamics lesson.

Sure, but in that case the replier could've phrased their response as such. As it stands they're addressing the poster, not other people seeing the exchange.

Lots of people going for the downvote button but still no better word for the concept has come up.

Which is a shame. I was hoping to find a word where you could use the meaning without the topic suddenly changing to sexism.

(New person here)

The big issue is that we don’t see men being pedantic towards other men at nearly the same rate. Absolutely it happens, but there is definitely a problem with men not respecting women specifically.

Part of it, I think, comes from social conditioning and it’s more of a reaction than anything on purpose when it comes to a large subset of the people doing it. Even still, it’s important to gender it at least sometimes to highlight why we might be doing it and to give us the correct thing to reflect on. I’ve done it before where I could say it to a man but I realized that I what I was saying or doing was fueled, at least in part, by some internalized misogyny. Knowing that has helped me get to it before I do something stupid.

Sure, but being an arrogant prick that thinks they’re smarter than anyone else, regardless of gender, is already a thing that should be derided. Having only a single or few instances of this behavior being aimed at women as an example of his arrogance may mistakenly lead one to attribute that to misogyny instead of a general prickishness behavior, sure. But that’s a perfectly understandable assumption to make in that situation and the mistake of calling them the wrong kind of asshole, I feel, is less of a concern than him, indeed, being an asshole.

they are really just pedantic twits that very well could have commented the same stupid thing to a man.

Yes, but men experience this at a slightly lower rate.

So if an astronaut man were to get, say, 10 of these comments, while an astronaut woman gets 15 of these comments, it’s fair to infer that about 5 out of the 15 comments wouldn’t have been made to a man. Problem is that you can’t exactly tell which 5 they are. But you know it’s happening.

Of course, if the ratio is actually closer to 50 versus 10 comments like this, then you’ve got a pretty good sense that 80% of the pedantic overexplainers-to-an-expert are doing it because the original poster is a woman.

And one thing you find for these types of examples with a woman who has clear, unmistakable, objective indicators of expertise (literal astronaut) in the topic at hand is that the ratio is much higher for women than men, in a way that might not have been obvious for lesser credentials (like a high school science teacher). But yet, it still happens.

It’s a name for a phenomenon that has existed for a long time. It’s a concise way to describe that phenomenon, and I still think it’s a good word to have in the vocabulary.

I think the problem a lot of people here are having is that they’re assuming the accusation is active sexism. Like it’s a cognitive decision to go “phht, what would she know, she’s a woman”.

I suspect the vast majority of mansplaning scenarios are subconscious. They probably don’t even know that’s what they’re doing abs would never see themselves as being sexist. I think that’s because everyone sees the word “sexist” and associates it with clichéd extreme sexism, like cat calling, not wanting a Female pilot, ignoring their ideas in meetings etc.

The thing about subtle unconscious bias is that you’re almost never aware you’re doing it, but it still has similar effects on the affected group.

The healthy thing to do is to listen to the person it’s affecting, analyse the scenario, and reflect on if it’s something that you, or people you know, might have been doing without realising.

That’s a great way to put it.

that’s mansplaining /s

Funnily enough, assuming men are likely to be sexist is sexist

Yup! Somehow you can drown in your own sweat and or emesis not to mention any glob of free floating water that gets attached to your face.

Until you hit ice9

Simple aerodynamics

And there’s the issue with it being treated as a criticism of an entire group, and not as a comment on a single person’s behavior. There are obviously exceptions to behavioral norms, and as a result any interaction between humans is going to be uniquely contextual. But presenting the concept as a whole as anti-intellectual (or as is commonly done, as some kind of attack on the ability for an enthusiastic person to explain something they are passionate about) fundamentally mischaracterizes the concept. It is not an automatic label that is applied, it’s a description of a common and very complex negative behavior.

To explain something needlessly, pedantically or condescendingly and to someone (usually female) that is already versed or even an authority on the topic are the traits of ‘mansplaining’. What is happening in the OP, where someone is condescendingly and needlessly correcting a woman (who can be assumed to be aware of 3rd-grade level science like phase transitions given she is qualified to be an astronaut) on her use of a term (that was already a correct explanation) is the issue that makes it mansplaining.

You can be enthusiastic about a topic and share that knowledge all you want, nobody is saying “no don’t explain things to girls” (or whatever, I don’t think that’s what you’re claiming to be clear it’s just an example). They’re saying “don’t be rude to other people while explaining things, and this was a rude way to do that”.

Edit: Clarity

I guess the question is who they were even talking to. Where they talking to the astronaut, or anyone reading their message. That would make a difference.

If I say: “When the sun rises…” and someone comes along to enlighten me about astronomy and how the sun doesn’t rise, that would be mansplaining and not correcting. If they talk to someone else because my words inspirerd them to think about this, then it wouldn’t.

He’s obnoxious and uncalled for 🤷🏼‍♀️

He is, because spontaneous is, in fact, the correct term here.

But also, mansplaining just means that someone explains something to another person when it’s painfully obvious that the other person knows everything they’re explaining, often way better than the person who’s doing the explaining. Usually requires the over confidence that comes with unreflected privilege, such as being a man who subconsciously assumes that their gender gives them intellectual authority. Being wrong isn’t a requirement for mansplaining. This would be a textbook example even if he had left out the first sentence (the part where he’s wrong).

kind of a dick measuring contest IMO.

A nice sum-up of the Cold War, yes. Carlin said it best.