> This isn’t a win for science. It’s the science-washing of one of the most bullshit patriarchal rituals there is. You seriously cannot ever please some people

> This isn’t a win for science. It’s the science-washing of one of the most bullshit patriarchal rituals there is. You seriously cannot ever please some people. Seems things can't just be changed gradually over time to be better; they either have to be radically changed or slashed and burned. > It is upsetting to me that people still think a woman having interests outside of being poised and beautiful is a revelation worthy of a headline With journalists and activists always bringing up the issue that there's a disproportionately low number of women in STEM, I don't see how it's not worthy of a headline. After all, you(the author) thought it was big enough of a deal to write your own article complaining about it. I don't think you(the author) actually believe what you're saying here because, if you did, you wouldn't even be paying much attention to it and you'd just allow the issue to die a quiet death. > We’ve known for ages that women have interests! And if it weren't the year 2019 your(the author) article could easily be titled "Miss America: Women Have More Interests Than Just Beauty And Grace!" Why does that even matter, anyway? People can't enter contests and show off their interests? I reread this article 3 times and I still don't get what exactly this author has a beef with over Miss America besides that it's a "bullshit patriarchal ritual".