Let's talk about the space-tampon story. OK, so this is a story confirmed by Sally Ride and Kathy Sullivan, where a male engineer asks if 100 tampons is good for one week, and she politely tells him he can go a lot lower. Very often repeated, and true so far as it goes. BUT

In an interview by Weitekamp with Rhea Seddon, the only MD among the women in that class, she said she was actually consulted on the decision! She said they ended up with a big number out of concern about microgravity effects and due to the NASA approach to redundancy.
Microgravity concerns were not unreasonable. In Sally Ride's biography by Sherr, she discusses how the first woman who actually had to use the tampons in space had issues with "capillary action." Space is horrible.
Anyway, so, the story Ride and Sullivan tell is true (and funny!) but there's some missing context. I am not a historian, and certainly not a historian on this topic, but I have read a lot of books. A plausible sequence goes like this:
1) Seddon is consulted as the lady MD.
2) Due to unknowns, gives a high number
3) NASA management doubles that number, out of abundance of caution
4) A kit with infinity tampons goes to the other women, delivered by some (happily never identified) male tech
This then gets told and retold as story about the idiocy of male NASA engineers, when it's more a story about bureaucracy creating weird results.

For the record, there ARE stories about funny/stupid things male engineers did, including bizarre early urine systems for women.
The latter were replaced by fancy adult diapers, which worked so well the men now use them too, instead of the old external catheter system which was kind of embarrassing (had to be sized to the individual) and tended to slip off.

More from Society

So, as the #MegaMillions jackpot reaches a record $1.6B and #Powerball reaches $620M, here's my advice about how to spend the money in a way that will truly set you, your children and their kids up for life.

Ready?

Create a private foundation and give it all away. 1/

Let's stipulate first that lottery winners often have a hard time. Being publicly identified makes you a target for "friends" and "family" who want your money, as well as for non-family grifters and con men. 2/

The stress can be damaging, even deadly, and Uncle Sam takes his huge cut. Plus, having a big pool of disposable income can be irresistible to people not accustomed to managing wealth.
https://t.co/fiHsuJyZwz 3/

Meanwhile, the private foundation is as close as we come to Downton Abbey and the landed aristocracy in this country. It's a largely untaxed pot of money that grows significantly over time, and those who control them tend to entrench their own privileges and those of their kin. 4

Here's how it works for a big lotto winner:

1. Win the prize.
2. Announce that you are donating it to the YOUR NAME HERE Family Foundation.
3. Receive massive plaudits in the press. You will be a folk hero for this decision.
4. Appoint only trusted friends/family to board. 5/
Two things can be true at once:
1. There is an issue with hostility some academics have faced on some issues
2. Another academic who himself uses threats of legal action to bully colleagues into silence is not a good faith champion of the free speech cause


I have kept quiet about Matthew's recent outpourings on here but as my estwhile co-author has now seen fit to portray me as an enabler of oppression I think I have a right to reply. So I will.

I consider Matthew to be a colleague and a friend, and we had a longstanding agreement not to engage in disputes on twitter. I disagree with much in the article @UOzkirimli wrote on his research in @openDemocracy but I strongly support his right to express such critical views

I therefore find it outrageous that Matthew saw fit to bully @openDemocracy with legal threats, seeking it seems to stifle criticism of his own work. Such behaviour is simply wrong, and completely inconsistent with an academic commitment to free speech.

I am not embroiling myself in the various other cases Matt lists because, unlike him, I think attention to the detail matters and I don't have time to research each of these cases in detail.

You May Also Like

Great article from @AsheSchow. I lived thru the 'Satanic Panic' of the 1980's/early 1990's asking myself "Has eveyrbody lost their GODDAMN MINDS?!"


The 3 big things that made the 1980's/early 1990's surreal for me.

1) Satanic Panic - satanism in the day cares ahhhh!

2) "Repressed memory" syndrome

3) Facilitated Communication [FC]

All 3 led to massive abuse.

"Therapists" -and I use the term to describe these quacks loosely - would hypnotize people & convince they they were 'reliving' past memories of Mom & Dad killing babies in Satanic rituals in the basement while they were growing up.

Other 'therapists' would badger kids until they invented stories about watching alligators eat babies dropped into a lake from a hot air balloon. Kids would deny anything happened for hours until the therapist 'broke through' and 'found' the 'truth'.

FC was a movement that started with the claim severely handicapped individuals were able to 'type' legible sentences & communicate if a 'helper' guided their hands over a keyboard.