• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

'Shirtstorm' Leads To Apology From European Space Scientist

Status
Not open for further replies.
How has he been censored. His choice of attire was criticized. Sometimes that changes things.

censorship = when someone disagrees with your article of clothing = dictating and oppressing clothing choices

:>

from now on none of y'all is allowed to criticize my choices ever again or i will call you a censoring dictator of oppressing oppressor
 

Dash27

Member
How has he been censored. His choice of attire was criticized. Sometimes that changes things.

He was censured and thus in effect censored, but I'm referring specifically to your comment:

"Then, maybe after that's been internalized by everyone, and no woman is afraid to enter any field because she knows she'll be respected, maybe a dude can wear a shirt with sexy ladies on it."
 

berzeli

Banned
You have someone who was striking a fairly conciliatory tone here, who agrees with a lot of what you have to say, but with reasonable difference of opinion. Why not work with him on that common ground instead of berating him for what is perhaps a somewhat off-color statement, but not especially out of the ordinary for internet vernacular? At worst, what he said was essentially, "yeah I agree with your quote that dress codes aren't fascism, I'm not saying it was bad as this specific extreme example of fascism or anything as ridiculous as that." Is the end goal of this discussion to convince people or pummel them into submission? Even though I'm inclined to agree that it's possible Matt Taylor's shirt inadvertently sent the wrong message, this is the kind of thing that makes me uneasy about the way events unfolded.

I know beating someone in an argument and trying to get them to see something from your point of view can sometimes seem like the same thing, because I've been there and sometimes I unfortunately still subconsciously find myself there even against my better efforts, but they aren't the same thing. I know sometimes I feel so right about something that it is easy to get carried away. Passion becomes like tunnel vision to the point that it's difficult to step outside of your perspective and see why it's so hard for someone else to see things the way you do, but if you really want to win people's hearts and minds empathy is a good first step.

Look I see what you are coming from, but you are projecting malice onto my comments where there is none. I was illustrating why I couldn't engage with him in a more constructive manner (especially with regards to what should be allowed in a profession/academic setting) since he had made what still in my mind is an extraordinarily insane comparison. I asked him not to do that ever again. The ensuing hubbub is me trying to explain that he had in fact made a comparison. (Though I will freely admit that the Venn diagram might have been unnecessarily snarky). Your interpretation of my tone as hostile and his as conciliatory is in your head not in reality. Trying to assert tone from the written word, and then asserting state of mind from tone is hardly ever possible and will end up more often than not being you projecting yourself onto their words rather than them emerging from their words.

And acting as if any discussion has a clearly defined, easily quantifiable end goal that can be attained is frankly silly. A discussion shouldn't be viewed as something that can be won, that is infinitely reducing its purpose . It's an exchange of ideas, not a battleground.
 

Cybit

FGC Waterboy
That was an interesting read, aside from his point about responding to people doing threats, by going into the vigilantism area somewhat.
On the one hand i get where he's coming from, but on the other hand, i really don't trust the collective to know the limits of decency, because of points he himself made in the piece.
And i'm thinking of the Boston bombing and the infamous Reddit hunt for the terrorist, as an example of how good intentions can get out of hand.

Its up to the collective (us) to apply our real world limits of decency to everyone, not just people we agree with.
 

Jak140

Member
Look I see what you are coming from, but you are projecting malice onto my comments where there is none. I was illustrating why I couldn't engage with him in a more constructive manner (especially with regards to what should be allowed in a profession/academic setting) since he had made what still in my mind is an extraordinarily insane comparison. I asked him not to do that ever again. The ensuing hubbub is me trying to explain that he had in fact made a comparison. (Though I will freely admit that the Venn diagram might have been unnecessarily snaky). Your interpretation of my tone as hostile and his as conciliatory is in your head not in reality. Trying to assert tone from the written word, and then asserting state of mind from tone is hardly ever possible and will end up more often than not being you projecting yourself onto their words rather than them emerging from their words.

And acting as if any discussion has a clearly defined, easily quantifiable end goal that can be attained is frankly silly. A discussion shouldn't be viewed as something that can be won, that is infinitely reducing its purpose . It's an exchange of ideas, not a battleground.

I say conciliatory because he specifically said that valid points were being made about the difficulty women face in STEM, even though he had a difference of opinion on whether the shirt was significant enough of a contributor to trump individual expression. I don't necessarily agree, but it's a reasonable point of discussion. I mean if your point is that you can't engage with him in a more constructive manner and conveyed in a way that even you admit is snarky, where can the discussion go from there?
 

Opto

Banned
He was censured and thus in effect censored, but I'm referring specifically to your comment:

"Then, maybe after that's been internalized by everyone, and no woman is afraid to enter any field because she knows she'll be respected, maybe a dude can wear a shirt with sexy ladies on it."

I know it's hard to think about context, but please think about the context of the post.
 

berzeli

Banned
I say conciliatory because he specifically said that valid points were being made about the difficulty women face in STEM, even though he had a difference of opinion on whether the shirt was significant enough of a contributor to trump individual expression. I don't necessarily agree, but it's a reasonable point of discussion. I mean if your point is that you can't engage with him in a more constructive manner and conveyed in a way that even you admit is snarky, where can the discussion go from there?

His point of discussion was that even if a shirt was contributing negatively to the work (which he didn't think) people should be allowed to wear it. That isn't really being conciliatory.

Just because someone agrees that women in STEM face issues (and that should be clear by now) doesn't make them open-minded for a discussion about what should be done. And saying that dress codes are oppression and that they will lead to a dystopian future (which he had done previously) is far from being reasonable.

You're misreading what I wrote. I wasn't being snarky in my point about how I can't engage with him in a constructive manner. The snark came later when he refuses to acknowledge reality. He did make a comparison even if he doesn't want to admit to that.
 

Jak140

Member
His point of discussion was that even if a shirt was contributing negatively to the work (which he didn't think) people should be allowed to wear it. That isn't really being conciliatory.

Just because someone agrees that women in STEM face issues (and that should be clear by now) doesn't make them open-minded for a discussion about what should be done. And saying that dress codes are oppression and that they will lead to a dystopian future (which he had done previously) is far from being reasonable.

You're misreading what I wrote. I wasn't being snarky in my point about how I can't engage with him in a constructive manner. The snark came later when he refuses to acknowledge reality. He did make a comparison even if he doesn't want to admit to that.

Saying you agree with aspects of someone's view strikes me as a conciliatory gesture, but I can accept that you disagree. I do think the degree to which something negatively affects the work environment vs the degree to which it negatively affects individual expression is a reasonable point of discussion. Consider that study posted earlier which stated that geeky items in an office could dissuade women from STEM. Yes, it is terrible that that would negatively impact the presence of women in the STEM workforce, but does that mean a worker shouldn't be able to have a Star Trek poster in his or her cubicle? I am not saying this is exactly the same thing because people are obviously concerned that there are also issues of objectification at play here, I am just saying that even though I think the shirt was likely inappropriate in this context, I can also recognize that the issue is not as simple as, "this negatively affects the workforce, therefore ban it."

Similar to your argument that I am interpreting your statements in a way that you maybe did not intend, I will say that I similarly do not interpret that fascism statement you quoted from him in the manner that you do. To me it seems like he was just saying, "Yeah, obviously dress codes aren't as bad as this terrible example of fascism, it would be ridiculous of me to think that, but I do still hate them." Maybe a little off color, but hardly the discussion ender you seem to interpret it as.
 
You know how stereotypically people say men are too solution-focused, and even when they just want to vent or talk about something, we have to take it to logical extremes and solve the problem immediately? This thread feels like that.

It's just a discussion at this point, and people are still tossing out words like "ban" that no one has used. Can we just accept that STEM has gender problems? It's possible to talk about the issues without needing to solve them right away.
 

Jak140

Member
You know how stereotypically people say men are too solution-focused, and even when they just want to vent or talk about something, we have to take it to logical extremes and solve the problem immediately? This thread feels like that.

It's just a discussion at this point, and people are still tossing out words like "ban" that no one has used. Can we just accept that STEM has gender problems? It's possible to talk about the issues without needing to solve them right away.

Hey I apologize if "ban" was too extreme a word, I was referring to this statement specifically when I said that:
His point of discussion was that even if a shirt was contributing negatively to the work (which he didn't think) people should be allowed to wear it. That isn't really being conciliatory.

I interpret not being allowed to wear something as it being banned from work (which in this case wouldn't be a position I necessarily disagree with), but it's possible I overstated his meaning.
 

Cybit

FGC Waterboy
If you want some more popehat goodness; @clarkhat is tweeting about shirtstorm.

Be warned, it is not for the faint of heart or those who believe themselves to be purely on the side of the angels.
 
So essentially, yes. Rhetorical dancing aside, the target has been Matt Taylor, and subconscious or otherwise, the charge misogyny. Rather than see a brilliant colorful guy who just helped make something very cool possible, it's more important to raise this shirtstorm over something that even if a problem exists, this is an insignificant example of it.

I think you're just reading the keywords or something because that is not what was written there at all...

Most people in this thread don't consider the shirt wearer to be a bad guy. He made a mistake, and no one is trying to diminish his achievements by pointing out that he was wearing a terrible shirt that represents a larger problem in the stem field.

Trying to shoehorn this shirt into STEM participation is academically bankrupt. There are deeper issues at hand. Gender differences in brain development makes mathematics and logic more easily understood to the average male compared to the average female, while women are on average better at communicating and empathy.

694.png


Seriously? This kind of argument is just so terrible it hurts.
 

SwissLion

Member
Arguments about average aptitudes with certain things between sexes (The biological term) are usually super lazy and belie a denial of any additional issues.

Nobody actually denies that on average there are differences between different sexes.

But unless you consider the differences entirely biologically motivated (Cultural exposure during brain development influences that brain development just like genetic factors) or consider them an adequate explanation for the sheer scale of the disparity in many of these areas it's a pointless reminder.

Everyone accepts average (Which by the way tends to ignore the experiences of individuals) biological differences are a contributing factor. The exact mechanics of those differences has yet to be fully explored, and they are far too minor to adequately explain the totality of the problem.

Everyone else is talking about the other contributing factors. The ones that are clearly having more of an affect. Maybe get on the same page.
 

Morrigan Stark

Arrogant Smirk
Wearing a shirt like that, he was asking to get harassed.
Ohhh boy.

People are so desperate to be offended these days. Why? I have my ideas, but they'd get me banned.
If they're that bad, you might want to reconsider these ideas.

The fact this guy had to apologise for this is utterly pathetic
No, the fact that people are so offended (hah!) that the guy did apologize is what's truly pathetic here.

you chase a 50 year old man around a stage with a 10ft shitty zombie prop from the 80s and it's embarrassing. you do it at an iron maiden show and it's awesome.

there is a context to the shirt, which is the guy himself. he likes metal, tattoos and science. there's a whole lot of room for expression there and the shirt sits right along side the portrait of the dragon riding a harley he's got over his mantle piece. a heavy mix of humour, irony and outlandishness.

he's speaking to you in a language too metal for you to understand.
As a metalhead for 20+ years, all I can say to this is: huh?

A pornographer explains why the shirt was sexist:

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/11/a...jjs6N-.twitter

so yeah, don't say people against the shirt are sex-negative
Great link. Thanks for that.

What if it was just about being playful with eroticized imagery?
"being playful with eroticized imagery" is not exactly appropriate for work, unless you work in a sex shop or in porn or something where it's, well, appropriate. Not science work. It's not fucking hard.

We're already so sexually repressed as a society, and now even images like the ones on this shirt should be removed?
Yes, we should remove these images. That's exactly what everyone is saying: ban them all! Burn them! RAHHHHH

Should we just become Saudi Arabia?
Oh for fuck's sake...

I would like to remind all of you again that the real victim here is the shirt.
I laughed so hard at this. Thanks.

Reminds me of this Colbert skit about gun violence where he says "I want to remind you who the real victims are: the guns."

Peace out.
Hahahaha perfect finishing touch. 10/10

Haha, wow, yeah I think you hit every comment that the people who have Post Count of 1 in here have said.

7ditQ9Y.gif
I am, I am!
 

Opto

Banned
Here's something that we really haven't talked about, but Matt Taylor did say this about the mission: “She’s sexy, but I never said she was easy.”

Which compounds on the inappropriateness of the shirt.
 

ronito

Member
Here's something that we really haven't talked about, but Matt Taylor did say this about the mission: “She’s sexy, but I never said she was easy.”

Which compounds on the inappropriateness of the shirt.

By how much? I mean is it a 1.5x multiplier to the inappropriateness? Or are we talking like a 2.4x multiplier to inappropriateness?
 

Yrael

Member
The Astronomical Society of Australia has released a statement about this.

B2shGH_CYAAZACi.jpg:large


The ASA supports members who speak up for a gender inclusive science community

At a recent European Space Agency media conference, a scientist wore a shirt with sexualised imagery of women, and used an analogy with sexual references. Scientists and science journalists (both women and men) made the fair and reasonable criticism that this was inappropriate for an official media conference and scientific workplace. The relevant scientist has since apologised.

Subsequently, a number of media articles about this incident have been critical of feminism, and the scientists (particularly women) who criticised the sexual imagery and references have been abused through social media. The media criticism is unwarranted and the abuse is reprehensible.

The Astronomical Society of Australia is strongly committed to making all of its members feel accepted within the scientific community, and to remove the historical legacy of sexism within science. Displays of sexual imagery and use of sexual references are at odds with this goal, and hence unacceptable. We fully support the members of our community who made fair and reasonable criticisms of inappropriate images and comments.

The Astronomical Society of Australia will continue to strive for an equitable and diverse scientific community.
 

jorma

is now taking requests
It's pretty funny / really shameful that a topic about sexism is again about the assumed feelings of a man involved instead of a discussion about sexism.

It is a topic about how a european space scientist was made to apologise for wearing a shirt that offended some people, i'd say this thread is a pretty good place to talk about his "assumed feelings".
To reduce him to "a man involved" is seriously dishonest when he is the main target of the entire shitstorm.
 

BocoDragon

or, How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Realize This Assgrab is Delicious
I'm happy about the ASA statement too.

It really doesn't matter what you think of the shirt incident in particular... it's a good thing to further women's chances in STEM, and it's a bad idea to attack feminists who are trying to improve the world on this issue.

I have issues with the view of the shirt - what it really means. But I think it is totally right that this shirtstorm is a "teachable moment" and maybe goes on to progress women's chances in STEM and society at large.
 

SwissLion

Member
It is a topic about how a european space scientist was made to apologise for wearing a shirt that offended some people, i'd say this thread is a pretty good place to talk about his "assumed feelings".
To reduce him to "a man involved" is seriously dishonest when he is the main target of the entire shitstorm.

He's central to it but the women who criticised his choice have unequivocally caught way more flak.

Seriously. Dude was not called misogynist by any of the articles involved. At worst his shirt was. Or the act of wearing it. That's it. That's "Political Correctness gone mad!"

The only people over-reacting in this situation are those reacting to the reaction.

I don't doubt he caught some shit on twitter but this supposed media campaign to slander him and belittle his achievements simply didn't exist.
 
His point of discussion was that even if a shirt was contributing negatively to the work (which he didn't think) people should be allowed to wear it. That isn't really being conciliatory.

Just because someone agrees that women in STEM face issues (and that should be clear by now) doesn't make them open-minded for a discussion about what should be done. And saying that dress codes are oppression and that they will lead to a dystopian future (which he had done previously) is far from being reasonable.
Where did I say the shirt being banned would lead to a "dystopian" future? I never said that. However, what is true is that I think the future would be worse if people are not allowed to express themselves at work within reasonable limits. My problem is that all the complaining about this shirt will lead to a more buttoned down ESA (and other STEM workplaces) that are devoid of the unique expression that makes people interesting. Furthermore, in light of the Austrailian statement, it seems as though my prediction that the shirt would be banned as a result of this conflict will inevitably come true. Even if you don't want the shirt banned, the effect of this discussion is that it will be.
 

Dash27

Member
He's central to it but the women who criticised his choice have unequivocally caught way more flak.

Seriously. Dude was not called misogynist by any of the articles involved. At worst his shirt was. Or the act of wearing it. That's it. That's "Political Correctness gone mad!"

The only people over-reacting in this situation are those reacting to the reaction.

I don't doubt he caught some shit on twitter but this supposed media campaign to slander him and belittle his achievements simply didn't exist.

Of course he was. Actually the guy that wrote this mess should get the worst flack from the articles I've read:

http://www.theverge.com/2014/11/13/7213819/your-bowling-shirt-is-holding-back-progress

This is the sort of casual misogyny that stops women from entering certain scientific fields. They see a guy like that on TV and they don't feel welcome. They see a poster of greased up women in a colleague's office and they know they aren't respected. They hear comments about "bitches" while out at a bar with fellow science students, and they decide to change majors.

And the woman who called him an asshole too, but the verge article is far worse although funny in its breathless hysteria over The Shirt.
 

unround

Member
Of course he was. Actually the guy that wrote this mess should get the worst flack from the articles I've read:

http://www.theverge.com/2014/11/13/7213819/your-bowling-shirt-is-holding-back-progress



And the woman who called him an asshole too, but the verge article is far worse although funny in its breathless hysteria over The Shirt.

For the 584th time, calling it "casual misogyny" implies that it was a careless act rather than a malicious one. I don't think the dude hates women, but you don't have to to act in a misogyistic way.
 

berzeli

Banned
Saying you agree with aspects of someone's view strikes me as a conciliatory gesture, but I can accept that you disagree. I do think the degree to which something negatively affects the work environment vs the degree to which it negatively affects individual expression is a reasonable point of discussion. Consider that study posted earlier which stated that geeky items in an office could dissuade women from STEM. Yes, it is terrible that that would negatively impact the presence of women in the STEM workforce, but does that mean a worker shouldn't be able to have a Star Trek poster in his or her cubicle? I am not saying this is exactly the same thing because people are obviously concerned that there are also issues of objectification at play here, I am just saying that even though I think the shirt was likely inappropriate in this context, I can also recognize that the issue is not as simple as, "this negatively affects the workforce, therefore ban it."

Similar to your argument that I am interpreting your statements in a way that you maybe did not intend, I will say that I similarly do not interpret that fascism statement you quoted from him in the manner that you do. To me it seems like he was just saying, "Yeah, obviously dress codes aren't as bad as this terrible example of fascism, it would be ridiculous of me to think that, but I do still hate them." Maybe a little off color, but hardly the discussion ender you seem to interpret it as.

He isn't agreeing with someone's views, he is agreeing with the reality that women face hardships within STEM. That is not reconciliation.

I don't know how many times I'm going to have to clarify that study to people, it's not about whether or whether not a Star Trek poster in and of itself is a deterrent to women. It is about how cultural signifiers affect women's perception of a field of study.

If you don't believe that they're the same thing then why are you bringing it up? It is a massive difference between having a discussion about an item that in and of itself has issues and an item that is associated with a culture that has issues. It is possible to have a discussion about what you can and can't do in a professional environment that don't involve hyperbole such as claiming that asking someone not to wear a singular piece of attire is trying to kill off individuality.

I literally just don't want him to make that comparison ever again. It's as if I were to say make a statement that Matt's decision to wear that shirt wasn't a worse decision than the killing fields of Cambodia. Even if it's "off-colour" it's an insane statement that ends up serving no other purpose than undermining the credibility of what I write.

Seriously? This kind of argument is just so terrible it hurts.

You missed the part were that poster came back with a study that supposedly supported his argument when in actuality it directly contradicted it. Good Times.

Where did I say the shirt being banned would lead to a "dystopian" future? I never said that. However, what is true is that I think the future would be worse if people are not allowed to express themselves at work within reasonable limits. My problem is that all the complaining about this shirt will lead to a more buttoned down ESA (and other STEM workplaces) that are devoid of the unique expression that makes people interesting. Furthermore, in light of the Austrailian statement, it seems as though my prediction that the shirt would be banned as a result of this conflict will inevitably come true. Even if you don't want the shirt banned, the effect of this discussion is that it will be.

You kind of are even in this post, you are consistently using terms such as "oppression" and "enforcement" when talking about behaviour in a professional setting, you see not being allowed to wear a tacky shirt as the death of personal expression. But the worst offence is that you continue to act as the supreme moral arbiter, with your continued assertions about "reasonable limits" that comes across as you dismissing any and all perspectives about what is suitable in a workplace environment that don't confirm to your subjective standard as just being unreasonable.
 

poppabk

Cheeks Spread for Digital Only Future
I don't know how many times I'm going to have to clarify that study to people, it's not about whether or whether not a Star Trek poster in and of itself is a deterrent to women. It is about how cultural signifiers affect women's perception of a field of study.
The issue with that is that 'geeky' items like a star trek poster aren't inherently gendered. The stereotype that is likely having that effect is the big bang theory type stereotype of geeky men who are socially awkward and uncomfortable around women. A stereotype that I think this guy was consciously or subconsciously trying to go against.
 

berzeli

Banned
The issue with that is that 'geeky' items like a star trek poster aren't inherently gendered. The stereotype that is likely having that effect is the big bang theory type stereotype of geeky men who are socially awkward and uncomfortable around women. A stereotype that I think this guy was consciously or subconsciously trying to go against.

The study is intentionally creating a stereotypically geeky environment, it is not a flaw of the study, it is its design. If your only take away from the study is "hey, Star Trek isn't inherently anti-women" (and I agree with that), you are not understanding the design, intention and results of the study on a fairly fundamental basis. It is about how a culture surrounding an academic field can cause people to avoid that field, in this particular case it is the geek culture surrounding computer science.

Now why is geek culture perceived as unwelcoming to women? It is a complex issue that I've been willing to discuss in this thread but ultimately that is a discussion better reserved for another topic.
 
You kind of are even in this post, you are consistently using terms such as "oppression" and "enforcement" when talking about behaviour in a professional setting, you see not being allowed to wear a tacky shirt as the death of personal expression. But the worst offence is that you continue to act as the supreme moral arbiter, with your continued assertions about "reasonable limits" that comes across as you dismissing any and all perspectives about what is suitable in a workplace environment that don't confirm to your subjective standard as just being unreasonable.
To me, professionalism is oppression because personal expression one may have is repressed in support of a larger organizational goal. Now, depending on the situation, this may be necessary (like working in customer service). I would contend that it is not necessary here- which is why ESA team members are allowed to dress casually in the first place. One should not cloak all office work under the guise of professionalism. Different offices have different organizational goals they need to achieve, many of which do not require office staff to dress "professionally" to achieve and exceed goals. The ESA is one of these organizations, and it's goals were met without professional dress (clearly).

With respect to the larger issue of women being dissuaded from professional fields, there is a valid argument to be had that women may be turned away from professions that allow people to wear shirts with scantily clad and objectified women that offend them. However, in my opinion, that sentiment alone is not enough to ban them. I'm for all forms of expression being tolerated to the greatest extent possible. The recent string of fraternities (and apparently New Zealanders) wearing blackface offends me as a black person, but it does not offend me to the extent that I would ban them, or really speak out against them (in effect, banning them). I simply don't really care because they don't really affect my day to day life. I wish others would do the same, but apparently that's not going to happen anytime soon. That's why I oppose people being speaking out about this, because I wish they would stop doing that.

To put it another way. Living in Alabama and Georgia, lots of white people around here ride around with Confederate flags on their cars and have them flying outside their homes. That offends me, and doesn't make me feel welcome in their neighborhood. I don't speak out about it (even though I could) because I support their (legal) right to fly the Confederate flag and the social state where they are not ridiculed in public for flying it. On the other side of the coin, we're allowed to blast uncut rap music as loud as we want in our neighborhoods that probably offends their sensibilities. Live and let live.
 

Christine

Member
The recent string of fraternities (and apparently New Zealanders) wearing blackface offends me as a black person, but it does not offend me to the extent that I would ban them, or really speak out against them (in effect, banning them).

Are you right now, in effect, banning criticism of what people choose to wear?
 

jorma

is now taking requests
Now why is geek culture perceived as unwelcoming to women? It is a complex issue that I've been willing to discuss in this thread but ultimately that is a discussion better reserved for another topic.

But who really shuns whom? I think it's the other way around. Women tend to be perceived as unwelcoming to geeks.
 

berzeli

Banned
To me, professionalism is oppression because personal expression one may have is repressed in support of a larger organizational goal. Now, depending on the situation, this may be necessary (like working in customer service). I would contend that it is not necessary here- which is why ESA team members are allowed to dress casually in the first place. One should not cloak all office work under the guise of professionalism. Different offices have different organizational goals they need to achieve, many of which do not require office staff to dress "professionally" to achieve and exceed goals. The ESA is one of these organizations, and it's goals were met without professional dress (clearly).

With respect to the larger issue of women being dissuaded from professional fields, there is a valid argument to be had that women may be turned away from professions that allow people to wear shirts with scantily clad and objectified women that offend them. However, in my opinion, that sentiment alone is not enough to ban them. I'm for all forms of expression being tolerated to the greatest extent possible. The recent string of fraternities (and apparently New Zealanders) wearing blackface offends me as a black person, but it does not offend me to the extent that I would ban them, or really speak out against them (in effect, banning them). I simply don't really care because they don't really affect my day to day life. I wish others would do the same, but apparently that's not going to happen anytime soon. That's why I oppose people being speaking out about this, because I wish they would stop doing that.

To put it another way. Living in Alabama and Georgia, lots of white people around here ride around with Confederate flags on their cars and have them flying outside their homes. That offends me, and doesn't make me feel welcome in their neighborhood. I don't speak out about it (even though I could) because I support their (legal) right to fly the Confederate flag and the social state where they are not ridiculed in public for flying it. On the other side of the coin, we're allowed to blast uncut rap music as loud as we want in our neighborhoods that probably offends their sensibilities. Live and let live.

It is not about if an organisation can achieve their intended purpose, it is about what constitutes a healthy work environment. To flip your argument, if Matt Taylor wasn't wearing that shirt, would the mission have failed? (And no before you try, you can't prove that Matt Taylor wouldn't have worked with ESA if he hadn't been allowed to wear the shirt)

It does not offend you, it doesn't compel you to a speak out, it doesn't affect you. But that doesn't make it so that it is your standards that are the valid ones. You say "I'm for all forms of expression being tolerated" but using the free expression of political opinions isn't allowed? "That's why I oppose people being speaking out about this". You speaking out against people speaking out isn't inherently more just than them speaking out against the shirt.

And stop conflating the freedom to do as you wish at home with a professional environment, they are two very different milieus.


But who really shuns whom? I think it's the other way around. Women tend to be perceived as unwelcoming to geeks.

You are treating it as though women and geeks are two separate groups, it is about the culture and why women aren't more interested in it. Putting the blame on women as if it's their fault that they don't appreciate geekdom is not constructively engaging in the issues keeping them less interested in geek culture. There is nothing inherent about women that are keeping them away from a specific culture.
 

Cybit

FGC Waterboy
More popehat truth bombs (via twitter & clarkhat)

Retweeted first
@Nasdaq89 @frymasteruk @ClarkHat The stupidity here is almost all in the folks overreacting to things that weren't actually said.

Response from ClarkHat

A feminist shitstorm resulting in a grown man crying on TV is "mild snark" but ppl disagreeing w her is overreaction? Lunacy. @ncoghlan_dev

Second retweet
@Nasdaq89 @frymasteruk @ClarkHat But "evil feminists ruining people's fun" is a more comforting narrative, as it reinforces the status quo

Second response from ClarkHat

Those who cleave to the status quo are evil, but those who cleave to the status nouveau are angels? Neo-Calvinist prog tripe. @ncoghlan_dev

Popehat and Clarkhat are fun twitter follows, even if you are not necessarily ideologically aligned with them.
 

Hari Seldon

Member
You are treating it as though women and geeks are two separate groups, it is about the culture and why women aren't more interested in it. Putting the blame on women as if it's their fault that they don't appreciate geekdom is not constructively engaging in the issues keeping them less interested in geek culture. There is nothing inherent about women that are keeping them away from a specific culture.

I don't think geekdom keeps people out of STEM. I guess it depends on how you define geekdom. If you define it as liking video games and comic books and that kind of stuff, then this has absolutely nothing to do with STEM at all. Maybe a career in the video game industry, but I don't even consider that STEM (the amount of actual hardcore CS programmers is dwarfed by all the other professions in the industry).

If you however define a geek as someone with an extremely analytical mind and willingness to work hard on a single problem, then that is the exact trait that it takes to succeed in a STEM program. I think the real problem is why doesn't our Western Culture produce enough females with this type of mindset. Toys, children shows, shared parental expecations? I dunno the answer to this. China certainly doesn't share this flaw with Western Culture.
 

berzeli

Banned
I don't think geekdom keeps people out of STEM. I guess it depends on how you define geekdom. If you define it as liking video games and comic books and that kind of stuff, then this has absolutely nothing to do with STEM at all. Maybe a career in the video game industry, but I don't even consider that STEM (the amount of actual hardcore CS programmers is dwarfed by all the other professions in the industry).

What is being discussed is a study which was posted to illustrate how people can take an issue with the shirt in a context bigger than its imagery. This study examined computer science and the stereotypical geek culture and its role in how women feel about computer science. To quote the study "But when the geek factor was removed from the surroundings, women showed equal interest to men." So it clearly plays a role with regards to computer science. The larger discussion of women in STEM and how the culture in STEM academia and workplaces plays a part is the discussion we should be having not the one about what geek culture is and how it affects people. They are two separate discussions, albeit with some overlap.

If you however define a geek as someone with an extremely analytical mind and willingness to work hard on a single problem, then that is the exact trait that it takes to succeed in a STEM program. I think the real problem is why doesn't our Western Culture produce enough females with this type of mindset. Toys, children shows, shared parental expecations? I dunno the answer to this. China certainly doesn't share this flaw with Western Culture.

There have been research linked in this thread that discusses how women are dissuaded from STEM. And as for solutions; it is a very complex issue and how we as a society construct gender norms and expectations need to change. There needs to be promotion of diverse role-models within STEM. You need to take a look at how maths and sciences are being taught in school). And there won't exist a single magic bullet answer.
 

Mumei

Member
From the article: "This is the sort of casual misogyny that stops women from entering certain scientific fields. They see a guy like that on TV and they don't feel welcome. They see a poster of greased up women in a colleague's office and they know they aren't respected. They hear comments about "bitches" while out at a bar with fellow science students, and they decide to change majors." They also include Rose Evelyth's tweet, that they endorse as her 'brilliantly capturing' the situation: "No no women are toooootally welcome in our community, just ask the dude in this shirt."

If you don't think that's blaming him for women not feeling welcome in STEM fields then you might be the one with poor reading comprehension.

It's not. It is not saying, "Matt Taylor is the reason women don't feel welcome in STEM fields." It is saying, "This thing Matt Taylor did is the sort of thing that makes women feel unwelcome in STEM fields," and yes there is a difference between the two.


I don't want to sound ungrateful but I was asking him because i expected he was going to connect specific brain differences to the specific cognitive differences in logical thinking, empathy, and communicative ability, rather than a generalized link about brain differences. But I'll just say that the existence of many, if not necessarily all, of the differences mentioned in that link are highly contentious at best, and in other cases while the physical differences exist, the cognitive differences that are supposed to follow are not well-established. I'll be more specific if he decides to respond to me, though.

That doesn't automatically mean there's anything wrong with the environment. If that's how people percieve computer science, then that's on them. Because - obviously - you don't actually have to be a geek to successfully explore computer science. And it's still not exclusion, it's "i don't want to be included".

And his uncovered tattoos also communicated something. And if anyone finds fault with having him representing ESA on TV with those tattoos uncovered (like a lot of people in Japan undoubtedly would), then i'd think they were also in the wrong.
Since you don't actually have to be in the yakuza to work on european space programs :)

But it's not.

Women are not saying, "I don't want to be included." They said that they didn't think they would fit in. This fear decreased when women weren't presented with Women's interest increases when they aren't given cues that you must be a geek stereotype in order to participate. If women were saying, "I don't want to be included", their interest would not suddenly go up when they learned that they did not themselves have to be geeks to fit in to computer science - they still would have no interest because they did not want to associate with any geekiness within computer science.

Yes, it's true that you don't have to be a geek to successfully explore computer science. But the entire excerpt I quoted is about how over time people begin to view the stereotype as not simply a stereotype of a field, but a description of the personal characteristics a person needs to have to succeed in that field. And the entire point is that by communicating this to women in very subtle ways - the décor of the computer science building, for instance - you can erase some of that.

And that tattoos argument is silly and I'm going to assume one that is meant to be a joke, as there is no stereotype connecting the two things.
 

berzeli

Banned
I don't want to sound ungrateful but I was asking him because i expected he was going to connect specific brain differences to the specific cognitive differences in logical thinking, empathy, and communicative ability, rather than a generalized link about brain differences. But I'll just say that the existence of many, if not necessarily all, of the differences mentioned in that link are highly contentious at best, and in other cases while the physical differences exist, the cognitive differences that are supposed to follow are not well-established. I'll be more specific if he decides to respond to me, though.

He did get back at you, the study he posted directly contradicted his original claim about biological differences being the deciding factor. So he tried both revising his claim to just being about women and men achieving different results and also tried to claim that article "probably should" read more like his claim but it was a typo or something. (Also note that he conveniently leaves out the part of the study I quoted where it says that "give us promise that education can play a great role in eliminating or reducing gender differences in mathematical problem solving.)
 

Mindwipe

Member
Objectification and being found sexually attractive are not the same thing. Objectification implies that all other aspects of one's being are treated as completely irrelavent. In the case of sexual objectification, one is literally regarded as a sexual object and nothing more. Hopefully you can see the problem with this.

The problem is that it literally doesn't exist.
 

Dash27

Member
It's not. It is not saying, "Matt Taylor is the reason women don't feel welcome in STEM fields." It is saying, "This thing Matt Taylor did is the sort of thing that makes women feel unwelcome in STEM fields," and yes there is a difference between the two.

People keep saying this and it's still not true. There is no substantive difference. There is no objective reading of the article quoted as saying anything but the guy is a misogynist. Placing "casual" in front of it, or saying it was subconscious, or any other subtle manipulation of phrase is irrelevant, and does not make it ok to attack the man. Especially in the context of a headline that contains the words "Your shirt is sexist". That article is, as they say, a slam dunk.

Now not only does the author explicitly call it misogynist, he also says explicitly it's what stops women from entering science fields. It's compared it to "greased up women" and comments about bitches and so on. Then, after noting that the man was harangued by the mob and reduced to tears (again it should be noted this was during what should be a great scientific achievement for him and his team)... the Verge said that's not enough. We need more apologizing... for The Shirt.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom