feminism – Page 4 – Alex Acks: Sound and Nerdery

Interesting post here about “The facts about diamonds.” The author of the post mostly focuses on the cultural/social aspects of diamonds, and for the most part I agree with him. I’ve always found jewelry commercials in general irritating, and even more so the ones that dig up the rotting corpse of “diamonds are a girl’s best friend” and display it on national television. I don’t like the message that women are shallow beings that can be bought off with a shiny bauble; it’s demeaning for women (we’re coin-operated sex bots) and men as well (since apparently men have nothing going for them except their ability to give us shiny things.) It’s not any better if you approach it from the angle of “jewelry as a means for men to show off their wealth” since that places women squarely in to the category of an ornament for men, the vehicle by which they do their social posturing.

Bah. Bah, I say.

I actually do own two pieces of jewelry that involve diamonds. One of them is a small pair of earrings that a good friend of the family gave me for my birthday several years ago. I bring them out for special occasions. The other is actually my engagement ring. It wasn’t something I asked for; I always told Mike that if he wanted to get married, I’d be just as happy with a plastic ring out of a vending machine, or no ring at all. But Mike is an earnest, wonderful guy, who likes to feel as if he’s doing things properly when he’s moved to do them. In this case, that meant finding a really cool looking ring (no standard gold band with a rock on it for him) and giving it to me at the most bizarre moment imaginable. I think that’s what makes me feel okay about the outward appearance of tradition, there; I didn’t demand anything, I didn’t expect¹ anything, and Mike did what he did because he had the financial means and wanted to. As anti-diamond and anti-jewelry as I tend to be, I also respect that in the great game of give and take that is a relationship, I’ve got to do my share of giving.

I like the shiny diamond ring and wear it every day because I love Mike to bits and know how important it is to him. Not the other way around.

I’m always left wondering, between the slime of advertising campaigns and these little events that make up my own life, where I sit relative to other women. Are there actually women whose affection can be bought by jewelry? I hope not, and I’ve never personally known any, but I also don’t think I’d be friends with someone like that to begin with. I’ve already learned far more about the seedy underbelly of human relationships than I ever wanted to know, just while trying to plan a wedding.

Social stuff aside, diamonds themselves are, I think, pretty interesting rocks. If nothing else, they intersect nicely with my favorite non-sedimentary rock, kimberlite. As far as anyone has ever seen, you don’t get diamonds unless there’s an Archean-age craton for the kimberlitic eruption to punch through; what we get from those kimberlites are the little bits and bobs that the magma carried up with it. This is why you get diamonds in Canada (and even in Wyoming), but not in Colorado. We’re just a bit too far south of the remaining, long-buried Archean age rocks.

So, there was something about geological conditions back in the Archean (about 2.5-3.7 Ga) that allowed diamonds to form then and not since. So any “natural” diamond is quite old. There was much higher heat flow and there was full mantle melting back then, as opposed to the partial melting we get today. This different melting/depletion of the mantle probably is what allowed diamonds to grow.

Cratons are actually part of the lithosphere, the basement that the crust sits on top of. They’re also remarkably stable; it’s actually a matter of great interest how the Archean cratons have managed to hang in there so long. So the majority of diamonds – which haven’t been dragged to the surface by a kimberlitic freight train – “live” more than 100 km below the surface.

Which is why Steven Shirey says:

“Diamonds aren’t just for spectacular jewelry,” commented Shirey. “They are scientific gems too.”

Jewelry? Meh. Science? WOOHOO!

1- Literally. He caught me completely by surprise, the brat.

Abortion and breast cancer: The manufacturversy that won’t die – Orac takes a look at this steaming pile of BS. I remember the last time the awful people with the giant mutilated fetus posters were making life miserable on campus, they were pushing this claim. And seemed very puzzled that I was angry they were actively lying to people.

Cruise ships still find Haitian berth – this is certainly one messy issue to think about. On the one hand, there’s the utterly squeamish thought of people being on vacation (and eating their bbq) that close to a disaster site. On the other hand, there’s the aide, the promised proceeds, and at least some money being put in to the Haitian economy. My brain’s chasing itself in circles just thinking about this.

Science project prompts SD school evacuation – from the department of *facepalm*.

The student will not be prosecuted, but authorities were recommending that he and his parents get counseling, the spokesman said. The student violated school policies, but there was no criminal intent, Luque said.

I know, right? Kid wants to play with science and engineering outside of school. There MUST be something wrong with him. Ugh.

Is Refusing Bed Rest a Crime? – This story made me so very, very angry. I understand that there is something of a public interest in babies being born healthy. That said, it’s not your goddamn body, and being pregnant doesn’t mean you give up your fundamental rights as an adult human being. Seeing women treated like public incubators with no rights really scares the crap out of me.

Haiti, HAARP, and conspiracy theorists – an excellent roundup from BoingBoing about the new nutty conspiracy theories about how HAARP somehow caused the earthquake in Haiti, since it’s a death ray. Or something. Mmm, I love the smell of crazy in the morning.