Really, they (American culture as a whole ) have always been acting just like Americans in their puritan sexual morals.
Isn't third-wave feminism the one that you commonly see on Tumblr, the "yes all women, poisoned M&Ms, all men are rapists, kill all men, trans men are evil gender traitors" type?
I'm just saying, when I hear "third-wave feminism", that's what I think of. And second-wave was the 1970's stuff, which varied from "make birth control affordable" to "outlaw porn".
First-wave was the voting stuff and legal rights stuff. I think.
What if he wore an anti-semitic shirt? Would it have been legitimate to be angry about that? Or is there some bubble in time that prevents discussion of that, also?
I'm just saying, when I hear "third-wave feminism", that's what I think of. And second-wave was the 1970's stuff, which varied from "make birth control affordable" to "outlaw porn".
First-wave was the voting stuff and legal rights stuff. I think.
First-wave feminism made a tactical decision to elevate women from the depictions at the time of base sex-obsessed machines to very pure, very Puritan beings that could be trusted to vote. It worked in the sense that they got womens' suffrage, but it also saddled American culture with even more Puritan bullshit (e.g. the ingénue, Prohibition, outlaw porn, etc.) that later waves of feminism rebelled against.
Feminism is a big enough movement now that they get all sorts; I know the Tumblrinas are somewhere in there, but they're on the fringe of the movement.
What if he wore an anti-semitic shirt? Would it have been legitimate to be angry about that? Or is there some bubble in time that prevents discussion of that, also?
Apples and potatoes. Dude's wearing a shirt with depictions of women he finds attractive, not a shirt with a massive swastika on it or one covered in A. Wyatt Mann comics. There's a rather VAST distance between the two that makes the Grand Canyon look like a pig wallow.
I didn't see any misogynistic slogans or anything on that shirt.
And besides, it was a gift from a female friend of his. A gift she made herself.
Er, didn't this guy choose to apologize? I see no evidence that his job was at risk or he was at risk, just that people complained about a tacky shirt and he said sorry for it.
Isn't rushing to defend him sort of the essence of white knighting?
I didn't see any misogynistic slogans or anything on that shirt.
And besides, it was a gift from a female friend of his. A gift she made herself.
Yeah, and the female gender has those magical sexism anulling powers, really it doesn't.
The main complaint of his critics, which were pretty mild (https://storify.com/cantfakethefunk/shirtstorm-dr-matt-taylor-and-the-truth), was that wearing a shirt using women literally as objects of decoration (http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/11/a-pornographer-and-atheist-explains-why-the-science-guys-shirt-crash-landed/) sent an unintended message to women wanting to enter, and those currently working in STEM fields because he was wearing it while making an announcement about a significant scientific discovery.
Don't get me wrong, the guy is clearly several different types of awesome-he landed a rocket on a freaking comet. I just think he received some justifiable rebukes because it wasn't the right place or time to be wearing that shirt!
Er, didn't this guy choose to apologize? I see no evidence that his job was at risk or he was at risk, just that people complained about a tacky shirt and he said sorry for it.
Isn't rushing to defend him sort of the essence of white knighting?
I'm *this close* to not giving a shit about it, except PZ and co. said the apology wasn't enough (http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2014/11/14/the-apology). I don't particularly mind how the whole thing was handled except the social justice contingent getting angry post-apology. Once they have anyone marked as the other, they will not accept anything he does to apologize.
I'm *this close* to not giving a shit about it, except PZ and co. said the apology wasn't enough (http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2014/11/14/the-apology). I don't particularly mind how the whole thing was handled except the social justice contingent getting angry post-apology. Once they have anyone marked as the other, they will not accept anything he does to apologize.
Who honestly gives a toss what PZ wants? I'd be surprised if he was satisfied with a public apology.
Also criticism=/=bullying. The guy was told his shirt wasn't appropriate. He said sorry. End of story.
Whatever happened to PZ, anyway? I'm pretty sure he wasn't always a joke.
And you really think it was about women in science? No, they were just looking for an excuse to be offended.
If you think this is just complaining from wannabes who can’t hold a candle to someone who just landed a probe on a comet, you’re wrong. Talk to my friend, the cosmologist Katie Mack. Or the planetary scientist Sarah Horst. Or geologist Mika McKinnon. Or planetary geologist Emily Lakdawalla. Or radio astronomer Nicole Gugliucci. Or professor and science communicator extraordinaire Pamela Gay. Or Carolyn Porco, who worked on the Voyager mission and is the leader of the Cassini imaging team, the space probe that’s been orbiting Saturn for over a decade now.
In fact, they're actually hurting science by saying that something as banal and superficial as a few spots of skin on a shirt is more worthy of attention than a spacecraft landing on a comet for the first time in human history.
What if he wore an anti-semitic shirt? Would it have been legitimate to be angry about that? Or is there some bubble in time that prevents discussion of that, also?
Apples and potatoes. Dude's wearing a shirt with depictions of women he finds attractive, not a shirt with a massive swastika on it or one covered in A. Wyatt Mann comics. There's a rather VAST distance between the two that makes the Grand Canyon look like a pig wallow.
There’s clearly a problem at ESA that allowed this to happen — somebody should have said, “Whoa, Matt — you’re not going in front of the cameras looking like that.” The administration needs to speak up, too, and confess their failure.
There needs to be more commitment to equality and diversity. It’s all well and good to say you’re sorry after you screw up, but it’s more important to have an active program of support for women and minorities in science…and by reputation, engineering-heavy enterprises are particularly in need of a culture shift.
And finally, there’s a problem that can’t be pinned on Taylor or his bosses: our internet assholes. The reaction was far worse than the shirt, with, for example, @roseveleth getting goddamned death threats for a sarcastic remark. We had our own share here of ponderous, tedious, clueless guys expressing their inability to understand how having soft porn pictures all over your mission leader’s clothing might possibly create a chilly work climate for the women on the team.
@Fred: I never said it was okay to degrade women, I just don't believe an effing shirt contributes toward the degradation of an entire gender, unless it crosses a rather easily visible line. Basically, a shirt with sexy women on it is no reason for outrage, maybe a comment of "that isn't entirely appropriate," but not the vast amounts of bitching we see from members of the Internet Whinging Machine.Cart before the horse, he did initially receive mostly mild rebukes from fellow scientists. The “internet whinging machine” cranked into gear when people got wind of the story and started shouting about “political correctness gone maaaaaadddd…
@Tol: I fail to see how a shirt like that would be in any way intimidating to anyone except the most thin-skinned people on the planet, the same goes for it being offensive.I’ll let Phil Plait (http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2014/11/17/casual_sexism_when_a_shirt_is_more_than_a_shirt.html) answer this one
Yes, STEM fields need to be more accessible to women, institutionalized sexism in those areas is markedly prevalent to an unsettling degree, but folks are jumping over one dude wearing a tacky shirt. Where the hell is the outrage when little girls are told by society that they should be homemakers, seamstresses, or bakers, but not physicists, engineers, or programmers? Where is all this outpouring of anger toward STEM field employers who pass over well-qualified female candidates in favour of a male candidate with inferior qualifications? Once again, we see people attacking the symptoms, but not the actual disease, because actually dealing with the cancer rotting away the guts of social, scientific, and technological progress is hard, and its much easier to just be angry at a dude in a tacky shirt.
So yeah, it’s just a shirt.
And it’s just an ad.
It’s just a saying.
It’s just a TV show.
It’s just the Internet.
Yes, but you almost make as much as a man does.
It’s just a catcall.
It’s a compliment!
It’s just that boys will be boys.
It’s just that she’s a slut.
It’s just that your dress is too short.
It’s just that we want to know what you were wearing at the time, ma’am.
It’s just it’s just it’s just.
It’s just a death by a thousand cuts. No one cut does the deed. In the end, they all do.
We must destroy outdated notions like women caring more about fashion than science by focusing on a guy's shirt rather than his scientific contributions.Those “imbeciles” being:
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B2chfXFCEAAgqI5.jpg:large)
cosmologist Katie Mack. Or the planetary scientist Sarah Horst. Or geologist Mika McKinnon. Or astrophysicist Catherine Q. Or planetary geologist Emily Lakdawalla. Or radio astronomer Nicole Gugliucci. Or professor and science communicator extraordinaire Pamela Gay. Or Carolyn Porco, who worked on theVoyager mission and is the leader of the Cassini imaging team, the space probe that’s been orbiting Saturn for over a decade now.
From what I've heard, he wore the shirt because his wife's friend made it, and he wore it to commemorate their friendship. It's okay to be offended, but I think the feminists went too far. They made him cry ffs.A guy makes a genuine, heartfelt apology and the internet can’t accept it for what it is-rather they draw a narrative where the only way anyone could do that was if they were shown the instruments of torture!
Yes, STEM fields need to be more accessible to women, institutionalized sexism in those areas is markedly prevalent to an unsettling degree, but folks are jumping over one dude wearing a tacky shirt. Where the hell is the outrage when little girls are told by society that they should be homemakers, seamstresses, or bakers, but not physicists, engineers, or programmers? Where is all this outpouring of anger toward STEM field employers who pass over well-qualified female candidates in favour of a male candidate with inferior qualifications? Once again, we see people attacking the symptoms, but not the actual disease, because actually dealing with the cancer rotting away the guts of social, scientific, and technological progress is hard, and its much easier to just be angry at a dude in a tacky shirt.
For those who actually are attacking the real problems, this rant does not apply to you. You guys are cool, keep doing what you're doing. For those folks who are out there just to hit soft targets, grow a pair and take on the actual issues. We need people who can actually fight a war, not just participate in petty border skirmishes.
@Fred: I never said it was okay to degrade women, I just don't believe an effing shirt contributes toward the degradation of an entire gender, unless it crosses a rather easily visible line. Basically, a shirt with sexy women on it is no reason for outrage, maybe a comment of "that isn't entirely appropriate," but not the vast amounts of bitching we see from members of the Internet Whinging Machine. If the shirt had pictures of women getting screwed or said "Women are sluts, fuck them on sight," or something equally vulgar, then it'd be cause for outrage. As it is, some people have decided to jump on something that is a complete non-issue, outside one of personal taste and maybe tact.
Wow, Fred. Wow.
I don't suppose STEM enrollment would be helped by helping to dispel the notion that its only for nerds and geeks running around wearing lab coats and pocket protectors. ;DWorkplace gear is a fashion statement now?
And now Boris Johnson weighs in:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/space/11234620/Dr-Matt-Taylors-shirt-made-me-cry-too-with-rage-at-his-abusers.html (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/space/11234620/Dr-Matt-Taylors-shirt-made-me-cry-too-with-rage-at-his-abusers.html)
As far as I'm concerned, this is a non issue. He apologized. That's it. This is nothing, a unissue. Let the man get back to work on the data.*Claps*
Ironbite-hate this generation.
Actually, builders wear yellow so they don't get run over by a bulldozer. Chefs on the other hand wear checks because they like it.I don't suppose STEM enrollment would be helped by helping to dispel the notion that its only for nerds and geeks running around wearing lab coats and pocket protectors. ;DWorkplace gear is a fashion statement now?
So builders must really dig neon yellow and chefs must just love their black and white checks!
Ok, how bad was his harassment anyway? And don't say "bad enough to drive him to crying." because that just tells me his own reaction.
I mean, I better see some really fucked up rape/death threats to justify Up and Dpar's comparisons.
I linked to a storify of the tweets aimed at the offending shirt a few pages back. Not at a proper keyboard now so can't post links.So basically Paragon and Dpar's comparisons were both completely uncalled for?
Suffice to say they were pretty mild and mostly just saying that it wasn't appropriate for work.
Which is true of most workplaces that aren't-you know, monster truck rallies.
I linked to a storify of the tweets aimed at the offending shirt a few pages back. Not at a proper keyboard now so can't post links.So basically Paragon and Dpar's comparisons were both completely uncalled for and emotionally manipulative?
Suffice to say they were pretty mild and mostly just saying that it wasn't appropriate for work.
Which is true of most workplaces that aren't-you know, monster truck rallies.
I linked to a storify of the tweets aimed at the offending shirt a few pages back. Not at a proper keyboard now so can't post links.So basically Paragon and Dpar's comparisons were both completely uncalled for and emotionally manipulative?
Suffice to say they were pretty mild and mostly just saying that it wasn't appropriate for work.
Which is true of most workplaces that aren't-you know, monster truck rallies.
There's that link (https://storify.com/cantfakethefunk/shirtstorm-dr-matt-taylor-and-the-truth), you tell me.
Let's put it this way, it's as deeply critical to most of our day to day lives as Ethics in Videogame Journalism!
Something tells me you and Dpar both enjoy wearing fur suits and have accounts on FA.I linked to a storify of the tweets aimed at the offending shirt a few pages back. Not at a proper keyboard now so can't post links.So basically Paragon and Dpar's comparisons were both completely uncalled for and emotionally manipulative?
Suffice to say they were pretty mild and mostly just saying that it wasn't appropriate for work.
Which is true of most workplaces that aren't-you know, monster truck rallies.
There's that link (https://storify.com/cantfakethefunk/shirtstorm-dr-matt-taylor-and-the-truth), you tell me.
Let's put it this way, it's as deeply critical to most of our day to day lives as Ethics in Videogame Journalism!
Something tells me there are some details we're not getting.
Just a general thought:
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B2oGKmoIYAA3xJF.png:large)
This is clearly true about me as well. I don't think that's necessarily a flaw unique to myself; I think a lot of people probably don't care about stuff that has direct significance to their life - or, at least, a symbol of something of significance in their life. Hence this shirt becomes a big deal. Nobody lands on a comet every day, but they do experience casual sexism.
What does that mean for science? I'm not sure. Is it really necessary for this stuff to be publicly popular? Obviously everyone wants their efforts to be recognised, but does it matter that the public don't follow science closely?
From a journalistic perspective, I think most science journalism is a waste of time and resources. The public interest, after all is: what I need to know to live happily. You have to know all sorts of complicated things about government to make an informed vote, because otherwise we have a distorted political system. If we have a broken political system, you can't live happily. Almost all journalism is not in the public interest, including all crime journalism, all sports journalism, ect.
So, why do we think science should be in the headlines? I have an emotional, intuitive support for that view, but no actual reason for it. Can anyone give me a good argument?
Out of curiousity, what do you think I'm implying?Ok, how bad was his harassment anyway? And don't say "bad enough to drive him to crying." because that just tells me his own reaction.
I mean, I better see some really fucked up rape/death threats to justify Up and Dpar's comparisons.
I'm sorry, but do you know what you're implying?
The past few days have seen extensive international discussion of an incident (known online as #shirtstorm or #shirtgate) in which a participant in a European Space Agency media conference wore a shirt with sexualized images of gun-toting women and made an unfortunate remark comparing the featured spacecraft to a woman. Viewers responded critically to these inappropriate statements, especially jarring in such a highly visible setting (one in which very few women appeared), and the scientist apologized sincerely. But in the meantime, unacceptable abuse has been directed toward the critics, from criticism of “over-active feminism” to personal insults and more dire threats.
We wish to express our support for members of the community who rightly brought this issue to the fore, and we condemn the unreasonable attacks they experienced as a result, which caused deep distress in our community. We do appreciate the scientist’s sincere and unqualified apology.
The AAS has a clear anti-harassment policy, which prohibits “verbal comments or physical actions of a sexual nature” and “a display of sexually suggestive objects or pictures.” Had the offending images appeared and comments been made under the auspices of the AAS, they would be in clear violation of our policy.
Well, I'll never call a ship "her" again.Danm feminazis :(
Well, I'll never call a ship "her" again.Danm feminazis :(
Well, I'll never call a ship "her" again.Okay, what exactly did this joke even mean?
Wow.Huh? Oh, didn't completely get the context (Tbh i just skimmed the letter). I wasn't being serious about the Jewluminati.
Yiff, you two. I was joking about him comparing the satellite itself to a woman, unaware if it had any negative context. Also, female-based personification is...like really old.
Vhat.Wow.Huh? Oh, didn't completely get the context (Tbh i just skimmed the letter). I wasn't being serious about the Jewluminati.
Yiff, you two. I was joking about him comparing the satellite itself to a woman, unaware if it had any negative context. Also, female-based personification is...like really old.
(http://25.media.tumblr.com/3a54fd3a66b0c8df6339c5d87177e47f/tumblr_mlf8paqMSm1sou3fto1_r1_250.png)
Well, I'll never call a ship "her" again.Danm feminazis :(
FemiStasi- excuse me.
Feminazi is insufficiently culturally Marxist!
LONG LINES TO GET CANNED SOUP!Well, I'll never call a ship "her" again.Danm feminazis :(
FemiStasi- excuse me.
Feminazi is insufficiently culturally Marxist!
Stasi was insufficiently culturally Marxist! (It would have needed at least 22,3% more Marxsist culture!)
Paragon and Dpar pls acknowledge.
That's not hypocritical at all.Paragon and Dpar pls acknowledge.
Hi.
The point is that it's hypocritical to say that, on the one hand, there are things people don't deserve because of what they are wearing, and on the other that there are things that people do deserve because of what they are wearing.
That's not hypocritical at all.Paragon and Dpar pls acknowledge.
Hi.
The point is that it's hypocritical to say that, on the one hand, there are things people don't deserve because of what they are wearing, and on the other that there are things that people do deserve because of what they are wearing.
It's no different than saying it's wrong to kill someone for giving an opinion but it's okay to mock or criticize them.
Someone wearing revealing clothing is expressing their own sexuality using their own body and even then people usually realize where and when it's appropriate to do so. By wearing the shirt the scientist was objectifying other people, not himself. This wouldn't be such a big issue if it wasn't a symptom of a greater problem. Erotic displays are fine in proper context but in this case him wearing the shirt was an example of the boys' club mentality in the community that's making many women uncomfortable. That mentality is is the ultimate target of the criticism, not the shirt itself. So yes, these are two different things and no, there is no hypocrisy.Paragon and Dpar pls acknowledge.
Hi.
The point is that it's hypocritical to say that, on the one hand, there are things people don't deserve because of what they are wearing, and on the other that there are things that people do deserve because of what they are wearing.
Nope. You're missing the point.
It's not that rape is comparable to criticism. It's that the defence of the action--that the person deserved it because of what they were wearing--is the same, and it's hypocritical to use that defence in one case and say it's invalid in another.
Just a general thought:
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B2oGKmoIYAA3xJF.png:large)
This is clearly true about me as well. I don't think that's necessarily a flaw unique to myself; I think a lot of people probably don't care about stuff that has direct significance to their life - or, at least, a symbol of something of significance in their life. Hence this shirt becomes a big deal. Nobody lands on a comet every day, but they do experience casual sexism.
What does that mean for science? I'm not sure. Is it really necessary for this stuff to be publicly popular? Obviously everyone wants their efforts to be recognised, but does it matter that the public don't follow science closely?
From a journalistic perspective, I think most science journalism is a waste of time and resources. The public interest, after all is: what I need to know to live happily. You have to know all sorts of complicated things about government to make an informed vote, because otherwise we have a distorted political system. If we have a broken political system, you can't live happily. Almost all journalism is not in the public interest, including all crime journalism, all sports journalism, ect.
So, why do we think science should be in the headlines? I have an emotional, intuitive support for that view, but no actual reason for it. Can anyone give me a good argument?
1) Exciting new science is a big draw for science popularization, and science popularization is how you get people interested in becoming scientists, which are big plus to civilization (but adjust for my obvious bias here).
2) People having at least some knowledge of what scientists are working on helps bridge the gap between academia and society. The more approachable science seems, the more likely people are to take it into account.
3) Some science has direct relevance to decision-making, e.g. global climate change. Some science has indirect relevance, e.g. knowing what NASA is doing can help you evaluate whether we might want to cut or increase its budget.
4) It would be pretty fucking sad for the average person in a technologically advanced society to have no idea what their society is capable of, be it genetic engineering or space travel or analysing brains with an fMRI. I admit "it would be sad" is not an argument, but going with instinct here, I suspect there are relevant effects from the average non-scientist knowing at least where the cutting edge of science is roughly located. Even if it is just to be able to tell at a glance whether some proposal is currently impossible or not.
1) Exciting new science is a big draw for science popularization, and science popularization is how you get people interested in becoming scientists, which are big plus to civilization (but adjust for my obvious bias here).
Are there better ways to do this? I think there are probably better ways to do this.
In any case, the moralistic, nerdier-than-thou ethic proposed by the pro-sexism side of this "debate" is counter-productive. You make science interesting to children by making it interesting, not by demanding human nature change and abusing children for acting like people have always acted when faced by something fairly boring (like a science experiment, if you don't do it right).
In short, if children don't find some scientific discovery cool, that's your fault, not theirs. Shouting at them will make it worse. This is probably why it is done.
There is a lot of shit science journalism, and I'm all for fixing that. I don't think that requires scrapping the whole thing.Quote2) People having at least some knowledge of what scientists are working on helps bridge the gap between academia and society. The more approachable science seems, the more likely people are to take it into account.
I agree with this, to a degree. I definitely agree that the academia/layperson divide is destructive. This is an issue individual scientists have made a lot of headway into fixing. Sites like the Conversation routinely explain major scientific discovery in an easily digestible way. So the problem is no longer the way scientists present information. This is just shit journalism, the primary problem behind perhaps 50% of what is wrong with humanity.
Quote3) Some science has direct relevance to decision-making, e.g. global climate change. Some science has indirect relevance, e.g. knowing what NASA is doing can help you evaluate whether we might want to cut or increase its budget.
This is true. The instrumental effects of gee-whiz science are useful. It's difficult for Republicans to cut funding from something really cool. Again, I think the easier solution is to remove the Republican rather than make everything cool. Human nature isn't going to change.
Quote4) It would be pretty fucking sad for the average person in a technologically advanced society to have no idea what their society is capable of, be it genetic engineering or space travel or analysing brains with an fMRI. I admit "it would be sad" is not an argument, but going with instinct here, I suspect there are relevant effects from the average non-scientist knowing at least where the cutting edge of science is roughly located. Even if it is just to be able to tell at a glance whether some proposal is currently impossible or not.
Would it though? How much do you know about, say, medical science? I know roughly nothing. I don't think this is unusual.
Read what I said above, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you didn't understand what I was saying do I'll explain it again.That's not hypocritical at all.Paragon and Dpar pls acknowledge.
Hi.
The point is that it's hypocritical to say that, on the one hand, there are things people don't deserve because of what they are wearing, and on the other that there are things that people do deserve because of what they are wearing.
It's no different than saying it's wrong to kill someone for giving an opinion but it's okay to mock or criticize them.
Nope. You're missing the point.
It's not that rape is comparable to criticism. It's that the defence of the action--that the person deserved it because of what they were wearing--is the same, and it's hypocritical to use that defence in one case and say it's invalid in another.
So, Dpar, are you not responding because you've lost interest, because you don't want ashirtstorm to occur, or because you've accepted my god like point as truth.
https://www.fanfiction.net/tv/Seinfeld/ (https://www.fanfiction.net/tv/Seinfeld/)
Except that this thread wasn't completely pointless. While on the other hand, the scandal over the shirt was an overreaction.1. Okay, it wasn't pointless, just meaningless in a cosmic sense.