• 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.

raphier

Banned
What? No, that's not what he's saying at all. Did you miss the point where he said "a field that currently has problems being friendly and welcoming to women"?

It is implying that a representative should be wearing less personally for an international event, which is kind of true, except that people don't actually give a single shit. This wouldn't be an issue if he was wearing any other tacky T-shirt out there. It wasn't an issue at the workplace which has a large staff of female workers and it shouldn't even be considered problematic part of "a field that currently has problems being friendly and welcoming to women." because it isn't.

Imagine if the shirt had pictures of cigarette thumbs instead, what would that tell you about the field overall? Would the perperator be apologizing for it?
 

berzeli

Banned
It's a absolute shame, this man has helped accomplish a great feat yet they gave to time of day to people who contribute nothing to society [citation needed]. He should have never apologized, it's kind of sad that he did.

Why is it somehow sad that he seemingly agree with the criticism and apologised?

I guess the fundamental point you might have missed is that many (most) people don't see sexual imagery as inherently *sexist*. [citation needed] And I guess for those who do it's just too bad. Conversely, a written message on a shirt that is explicitly derogatory to one gender *is* sexist.

Let's flip the genders of everyone involved in this story. A female scientist is interviewed by a man, while she wears a garish shirt with cartoon biker guys in skimpy leathers and displays her arm tattoos. The reaction here would be completely different. You wouldn't call her sexist, you'd be using words like empowered and confident.
Let's take that further though and have a male journalist use twitter to call this female scientist an 'asshole' for her choice of attire. Are we even going to pretend that you wouldn't (rightly) be outraged at said fictional male journalist?


Sexism is applying standards to one gender that you don't to the other.

Thank you for inventing this entirely hypothetical scenario and populating it with strawmen. I would've responded to your concerns if you weren't busy writing my responses for me.
 

Mumei

Member
I feel like this has been quoted every few pages and still people haven't read it.

It hasn't, been I'm going to repost it anyway:

From what I've read of this thread, this is highly relevant because a lot of people have a very shallow understanding of why this shirt is viewed as problematic. If you don't understand, hopefully this will help you:

It doesn’t require any special sociological training to read the barely veiled message being communicated to these talented and ambitious women: You don’t belong here. We tend to think of this sort of outright sex discrimination as being a thing of the past in Western, industrialized nations. The Sexual Paradox author Susan Pinker, for instance, writes of barriers to women as having been “stripped away.” Her book is peopled with women who, when asked if they’ve ever experienced ill-treatment because of their sex, scratch their heads and search the memory banks in vain for some anecdote that will show how they have had to struggle against the odds stacked against women. As we’ll see in a later chapter, blatant, intentional discrimination against women is far from being something merely to be read about in history books. But here we’re going to look at the subtle, off-putting, you don’t belong messages that churn about in the privacy of one’s own mind.

[…]

What psychological processes lie behind this turning away from masculine interests? One possibility is that, as we learned in an earlier chapter, when stereotypes of women become salient, women tend to incorporate those stereotypical traits into their current self-perception. They may then find it harder to imagine themselves as, say, a mechanical engineer. The belief that one will be able to fit in, to belong, may be more important than we realize - and may help to explain why some traditionally male occupations have been more readily entered by women than others. After all, the stereotype of a vet is not the same as that of an orthopedic surgeon, or a computer scientist, and these are different again from the stereotype of a builder or a lawyer. These different stereotypes may be more or less easily reconciled with a female identity. What, for example, springs to mind when you think of a computer scientist? A man, of course, but not just any man. You’re probably thinking of the sort of man who would not be an asset at a tea party. The sort of man who leaves a trail of soft-drink cans, junk-food wrappers, and tech magazines behind him as he makes his way to the sofa to watch Star Trek for the hundredth time. The sort of man whose pale complexion hints alarmingly of vitamin D deficiency. The sort of man, in short, who is a geek.

Sapna Cheryan, a psychologist at Washington University, was interested in whether the geek image of computer science plays a role in putting off women. When she and her colleagues surveyed undergraduates about their interest in being a computer science major, they found, perhaps unsurprisingly given that computer science is male-dominated, that women were significantly less interested. Less obvious, however, was why they were less interested. Women felt that they were less similar to the typical computer science major. This influenced their sense that they belonged in computer science - again lower in women - and it was this lack of fit that drove their lack of interest in a computer science major.

However, and interest in Star Trek and an antisocial lifestyle may not, in fact, be unassailable correlates of talent in computer programming. Indeed, in its early days, computer programming was a job done principally by women and was regarded as an activity to which feminine talents were particularly well-suited. “Programming requires patience, persistence, and a capacity for detail and those are traits that many girls have” wrote one author of a career guide to computer programming in 1967. Women made many significant contributions to computer science development and, as one expert puts it, “[t]oday’s achievements in software are built on the shoulders of the first pioneering women programmers.” Cheryan suggests that “t was not until the 1980s that individual heroes in computer science, such as Bill Gates and Steve Jobs came to the scene, and the term ‘geek’ became associated with being technically minded. Movies such as Revenge of the Nerds and Real Genius, released during those years, crystallized the image of the ‘computer geek’ in the cultural consciousness.

If it is the geeky stereotype that is so off-putting to women, then a little repackaging of the field might be an effective way of drawing more women in. Cheryan and her colleagues tested this very idea. They recruited undergraduates to participate in “a study by the Career Development Center regarding interest in technical jobs and internships.” The students filled out a questionnaire about their interest in computer science in a small classroom within the William Gates building (which, as you will have guessed, houses the computer science department). The room, however, was set up in one of two ways for the unsuspecting participant. In one condition, the décor was what we might call geek chic: a Star Trek poster, geeky comics, video game boxes, junk food, electronic equipment, and technical books and magazines. The second arrangement was substantially less geeky: the poster was an art one, water bottles replaced the junk food, the magazines were general interest, and the computer books were aimed at a more general level. In the geeky room, men considered themselves significantly more interested in computer science than did women. But when the geek factor was removed from the surroundings, women showed equal interest to men. It seemed that a greater sense of belonging brought about this positive change. Simply by altering the décor, Cher-yan and colleagues were also able to increase women’s interest in, for example, joining a hypothetical Web-design company. The researchers note “the power of environments to signal to people whether or not they should enter a domain,” and suggest that changing the computer environment “can therefore inspire those who previously had little or not interest . . . to express a newfound interest in it."


That is the problem with that shirt: It sends the same sort of exclusionary message to women as the geeky décor does.


And as follow-up to arguments I've seen since that this post: These aren't mutually exclusive issues. Yes, environmental factors can send the message to women that they aren't a good fit for a career and discourage them from joining. Yes, the problem of stereotype threat can work to diminish women's performance in stereotypically masculine fields (the same is true of stereotypically feminine fields (or skills) and men, though this is generally less of a focus because those jobs tend to be lower prestige and lower (or not at all) paid less). Yes, overt discrimination still exists and is a problem. Yes, it is true that gender roles and biological factors work together so that there are careers in which women have to give up having children in order to pursue them, because women actually have to bear children and it is the expectation that women sacrifice their careers for the sake of their children (and oftentimes this is the best decision from a purely financial perspective because women are paid less in the first place). Yes, all of these things work together to lower the representation of women in certain fields, like some STEM fields.

But the shirt's still a problem. It's like a writ small version of the environmental factors. You might think that the shirt is jsut cheesecake, and that anyone "offended" by it should get over it. But we're not talking about "offense." We're talking about the internalized understanding that the shirt says, "You wouldn't be welcome here." And sure, it's only one guy, wearing one shirt, on one occasion. But what does it say about the ESA that evidently no one thought to say, "Matt, that's really not a good idea to wear that"? To me, it suggests that no one thought it was enough of an issue to say something about, and I'm sure most women are smart enough to see that subtext and what it says about the larger culture.

Does this mean that no women will be interested? No; as Cheryan's study said, they still had interested women even in the geeky décor room. But it did negatively impact how many women were interested, and incidents like this can send the same sort of exclusionary messages.
 

Walshicus

Member
That's a nice story. Do you believe that a female scientist dressing unprofessionally during a televised event wouldn't be raked over the coals, have her credibility questioned, and be called all sorts of nasty names?
Not here I don't. And anyone who did would be an idiot.


Thank you for inventing this entirely hypothetical scenario and populating it with strawmen. I would've responded to your concerns if you weren't busy writing my responses for me.
A hypothetical scenario which is identical at the outset to the one that actually happened except the genders of those involved have been switched?
 

berzeli

Banned
According to google criticism is...

the expression of disapproval of someone or something based on perceived faults or mistakes.

Even rude criticism is still criticism.

Of course some people take it to far... we've seen it all the time. Internet gonna internet.

Just because some people go to far doesn't disqualify the many people who have legitimately criticized this in a reasonably respectable manner.

Also there are a million reasons why he could of apologized and even if he did think it was sexist that doesn't mean the general masses have to agree with him.

So why were you dismissing the initial criticism of his shirt? And I don't think it is fair to dismiss the backlash as "Internet gonna internet.", there is an ongoing problem that women in technology/gaming/in general face massive harassment on the internet when expressing opinions.

It doesn't matter if this particular shirt itself were sexist, it doesn't matter if Matt Taylor is or is not sexist. There is (rightly or wrongly) the public perception that STEM is a boys club and this feeds into that narrative.

Yes there are multiple reasons why he may have apologised, but I don't see why people are rushing to his "defence" when he called it a mistake. And even if (and I stress that "if") the masses doesn't have an issue with the shirt that in and of itself is not a reason for dismissal. Vox populi isn't automatically correct.
 

berzeli

Banned
A hypothetical scenario which is identical at the outset to the one that actually happened except the genders of those involved have been switched?

It isn't identical in the same way that white power and black power isn't identical, in the same way that straight pride and gay pride isn't identical. You can't just ignore context when it comes to these things, I'll say this once more: nothing exists in a vacuum and there exist a public perception of STEM that it isn't welcoming to women and minorities, therefore things such as this will feed into that narrative.

And I still take issue with your strawmen, you can't with 100% accuracy predict how people will respond to a situation.
 
No, that's not what is being suggested.

Then what is being suggested?

So why were you dismissing the initial criticism of his shirt? And I don't think it is fair to dismiss the backlash as "Internet gonna internet.", there is an ongoing problem that women in technology/gaming/in general face massive harassment on the internet when expressing opinions.

It doesn't matter if this particular shirt itself were sexist, it doesn't matter if Matt Taylor is or is not sexist. There is (rightly or wrongly) the public perception that STEM is a boys club and this feeds into that narrative.

Yes there are multiple reasons why he may have apologised, but I don't see why people are rushing to his "defence" when he called it a mistake. And even if (and I stress that "if") the masses doesn't have an issue with the shirt that in and of itself is not a reason for dismissal. Vox populi isn't automatically correct.
The shirt is a minor issue that didn't require being blown up to a massive degree. It certainly didn't need to be pursued to the point where Matt Taylor ended up crying as he apologised due to the vastly exaggerated vitriol that was aimed at him.
 

berzeli

Banned
Neither's vox offensi...

Huh? I have no idea what you mean.

The shirt is a minor issue that didn't require being blown up to a massive degree. It certainly didn't need to be pursued to the point where Matt Taylor ended up crying as he apologised due to the vastly exaggerated vitriol that was aimed at him.

The shirt is a minor issue, discrimination in STEM fields isn't. It is not just about the shirt, the shirt is part of a larger narrative.

And you have no way of knowing why he cried, so don't so-opt it to fit your narrative.
 

bryehn

Member
Instead of focusing on this guy's shirt (regardless of your personal taste, it was totally not appropriate for the situation as much as a regular tacky Hawaiian shirt would be) as being a detriment to women in STEM, why not pay more attention to the fact that one of the very top people involved in this project was, in fact, a woman and say "hey, girls look how awesome and rewarding science can be, this could be you!"
 
Why is it somehow sad that he seemingly agree [citation needed] with the criticism and apologised?

He was bullied and forced to do so, for goodness sake he was crying through out the whole thing. If a shirt is going to keep someone from wanting to be a scientist then they just saved themselves a lot of trouble in the long run. Regardless of the narative he should not be the poster boy for a movement.


And you have no way of knowing why he cried, so don't so-opt it to fit your narrative.

Someone was probably cutting onions next to him for all we know right? This is just sad.
 

berzeli

Banned
He was bullied and forced to do so, for goodness sake he was crying through out the whole thing. If a shirt is going to keep someone from wanting to be a scientist then they just saved themselves a lot of trouble in the long run.

Christ, he said that he made a mistake, that is agreeing with the criticism.

Sure he could have "been bullied into making an apology", but unless you somehow can prove this I will go by his words.

People cry for a multitude of reasons and that was a highly emotional moment, it is not proof of bullying.

And yet again, it is not just about the shirt. The shirt is part of a larger narrative with regards to discrimination within STEM fields.

Someone was probably cutting onions next to him for all we know right? This is just sad.
See above.
 

AppleMIX

Member
So why were you dismissing the initial criticism of his shirt? And I don't think it is fair to dismiss the backlash as "Internet gonna internet.", there is an ongoing problem that women in technology/gaming/in general face massive harassment on the internet when expressing opinions.

I'm dismissing the initial criticism because I don't find it compelling. I see nothing wrong with men enjoying sex, women enjoying sex, men enjoying sexy things and women enjoying sexy things. We are biological creatures and sexual enjoyment is apart of that. I would have no problem with a woman wearing a shirt with men that she finds sexually attractive. At the absolute worst, it was a tacky.

The thing with the internet harassment is that it is sadly probably always going to exist. Some of it is people whose emotions get the best of them, others are trolls and some is completely sexist and misogynistic assholes. The problem is that I don't see a solution that already doesn't exist.

It doesn't matter if this particular shirt itself were sexist, it doesn't matter if Matt Taylor is or is not sexist. There is (rightly or wrongly) the public perception that STEM is a boys club and this feeds into that narrative.

This is really isn't the way to be solving it. One person wearing a shirt isn't even a blip on the radar.

Yes there are multiple reasons why he may have apologised, but I don't see why people are rushing to his "defence" when he called it a mistake. And even if (and I stress that "if") the masses doesn't have an issue with the shirt that in and of itself is not a reason for dismissal. Vox populi isn't automatically correct.

Because people see a man on the verge of tears apologizing for something that doesn't need a apology for. Yes, Vox populi isn't always correct but sometime it is.
 

Sloane

Banned
The shirt is a minor issue that didn't require being blown up to a massive degree. It certainly didn't need to be pursued to the point where Matt Taylor ended up crying as he apologised due to the vastly exaggerated vitriol that was aimed at him.
I think he was mostly crying because this was supposed to be the biggest moment of his career / life and he screwed it up by being inconsiderate and offending at least half of his US viewership, not because of the "vitriol" that followed.

Maybe he has also realized that men quickly become the least relevant part of our society, and this already might have been his 15 minutes of fame, who knows.

Whatever it was that caused him to cry, the guy should have been aware that his personal expression matters less than the public's perception of him as a human being, but he wasn't, thus he payed the price for his ignorance.
 

SkyOdin

Member
Then what is being suggested?

That people working in this scientific field (as well as other industries that hire a lot of science/tech people) start being more aware of their behavior and culture and how it alienates women. And hopefully once they are more self-aware, they start making changes to their culture to be more welcoming to women entering STEM fields.
 
Whatever it was that caused him to cry, the guy should have been aware that his personal expression matters less than the public's perception of him as a human being, but he wasn't, thus he payed the price for his ignorance.

Thats what our local pastors tell the young ladies around here.
 
That people working in this scientific field (as well as other industries that hire a lot of science/tech people) start being more aware of their behavior and culture and how it alienates women. And hopefully once they are more self-aware, they start making changes to their culture to be more welcoming to women entering STEM fields.

Oh I see, instead of having a group of people work to get past a self proclaimed "barrier" it's better if another group changes their culture to pave a scenic path for them. Gotcha, completely fair and void of sexual double standards and proves how everyone wants a equal chance not just equal results.
 

Irminsul

Member
Whatever it was that caused him to cry, the guy should have been aware that his personal expression matters less than the public's perception of him as a human being, but he wasn't, thus he payed the price for his ignorance.
And then people wonder why they face rejection even though they just support a good cause. I wonder why that is.

I also wonder if people really think the shitstorm approach is going to work well.
 

berzeli

Banned
I'm dismissing the initial because I don't find it compelling. I see nothing wrong with men enjoying sex, women enjoying sex, men enjoying sexy things and women enjoying sexy things. We are biological creatures and sexual enjoyment is apart of that. I would have no problem with a woman wearing a shirt with men that she finds sexually attractive. At the absolute worst, it was a tacky.

You don't agree with it, but I do and so does seemingly Matt Taylor.

The thing with the internet harassment is that it is sadly probably always going to exist. Some of it is people whose emotions get the best of them, others are trolls and some is completely sexist and misogynistic. The problem is that I don't see a solution that already doesn't exist.

Still not grounds to dismiss it as "internet gonna internet", just because something is persistent doesn't make it right or defensible.


This is really isn't the way to be solving it. One person wearing a shirt isn't even a blip on the radar.

What isn't the way of solving it? People were reacting to something they saw, this wasn't intended to fix any issues within STEM. It was people voicing their opinion on a specific issue.

Because people see a man on the verge of tears apologizing for something that doesn't need a apology for. Yes, Vox populi isn't always correct but sometime it is.

You do not see the need for an apology, that does not make it so, I for one thought it was needed and he delivered a good heartfelt apology making me happy to leave particular issue behind. And I don't want to drag up the times where the majority has been on the wrong side of history so I won't. I feel that dismissing this (and similar incidents) by saying "the majority doesn't care" (especially when you don't know the majority opinion) can do nothing but furthering the issues of discrimination within STEM.
 

Walshicus

Member
Huh? I have no idea what you mean.
Voice of the offended...


It isn't identical in the same way that white power and black power isn't identical, in the same way that straight pride and gay pride isn't identical. You can't just ignore context when it comes to these things, I'll say this once more: nothing exists in a vacuum and there exist a public perception of STEM that it isn't welcoming to women and minorities, therefore things such as this will feed into that narrative.
I guess I just take issue with that. I'm 100% committed to pure egalitarianism. Equality has no context, no social/historical baggage. It *does* exist in a vacuum. In my view if people want to delude themselves into thinking they can make society better by applying targeted, 'compensatory' inequalities then that's up to them.
 

Mumei

Member
Then what is being suggested?

To be honest, it makes me feel pretty ambivalent about investing time in an explanation of suggestions when you've somehow misinterpreted a list of some of the problems causing lower representation in STEM fields (not the STEM fields are the only fields with some of those problems) into my advocating for some sort of advertising push. I don't really get how you read that out of what had been written.

But I'll try!

In that post, I didn't make any overt suggestions, though the subtext was that by working on those individual issues - by making the environment more welcoming or by working to reduce stereotype threat - they could do something that ameliorate those factors. I think that those are within the power of individual organizations to change; they can also, assuming they are interested in increasing representation of women (and other minorities, for that matter) is to have an active program for supporting them. The other issues, such as the fact that women are expected to sacrifice their careers, or to be the primary caretaker, or that a man pursuing a STEM career might expect that his wife would sacrifice in order that he can both have a family and pursue his career single-mindedly and she doesn't have that assurance, aren't in and of themselves within the power of organizations to change and require a broader cultural shift. Perhaps someone else might have suggestions to how organizations can help to improve those things.

And since you mentioned advertising, there is one thing that could be done: When Stanford Math, Science, and Engineering majors were asked to give their opinion on an advertising video for a prestigious MSE summer leadership conference, two videos were shown. One with a realistic male-female balance of about 3 to 1, and another balanced 50-50. Not only did more women who had watched the second video express an interest in the conference, perhaps unsurprisingly, so did more men. And while men felt that they belonged at the conference regardless of which video they had seen, women who saw the realistic version were much less convinced that they belonged at the conference.

So, in advertising that universities already do, perhaps a white lie might help to make the lie more of a reality.

Huh? I have no idea what you mean.

He's still on the idea that this is primarily about "offense", when that's a misunderstanding of what the issue is.
 

ronito

Member
It's. Just. A. Shirt.

Who's honestly offended by this?
h2aGo.gif
 

berzeli

Banned
Voice of the offended...

Still not understanding your point, or did you just post that incorrect Latin to go "I know you are, but what am I?"? Because I was discussing how dismissing something just because the perceived/imagined majority doesn't agree with it as a terrible way of discussing these things.

I guess I just take issue with that. I'm 100% committed to pure egalitarianism. Equality has no context, no social/historical baggage. It *does* exist in a vacuum. In my view if people want to delude themselves into thinking they can make society better by applying targeted, 'compensatory' inequalities then that's up to them.

Huh? Equality has no history, have we always been equal? What? And what "compensatory inequalities"? I'm sorry but saying that people delude themselves when looking at the context when discussing societal issues is kind of ridiculous.
 
It hasn't, been I'm going to repost it anyway:



And as follow-up to arguments I've seen since that this post: These aren't mutually exclusive issues. Yes, environmental factors can send the message to women that they aren't a good fit for a career and discourage them from joining. Yes, the problem of stereotype threat can work to diminish women's performance in stereotypically masculine fields (the same is true of stereotypically feminine fields (or skills) and men, though this is generally less of a focus because those jobs tend to be lower prestige and lower (or not at all) paid less). Yes, overt discrimination still exists and is a problem. Yes, it is true that gender roles and biological factors work together so that there are careers in which women have to give up having children in order to pursue them, because women actually have to bear children and it is the expectation that women sacrifice their careers for the sake of their children (and oftentimes this is the best decision from a purely financial perspective because women are paid less in the first place). Yes, all of these things work together to lower the representation of women in certain fields, like some STEM fields.

But the shirt's still a problem. It's like a writ small version of the environmental factors. You might think that the shirt is jsut cheesecake, and that anyone "offended" by it should get over it. But we're not talking about "offense." We're talking about the internalized understanding that the shirt says, "You wouldn't be welcome here." And sure, it's only one guy, wearing one shirt, on one occasion. But what does it say about the ESA that evidently no one thought to say, "Matt, that's really not a good idea to wear that"? To me, it suggests that no one thought it was enough of an issue to say something about, and I'm sure most women are smart enough to see that subtext and what it says about the larger culture.

Does this mean that no women will be interested? No; as Cheryan's study said, they still had interested women even in the geeky décor room. But it did negatively impact how many women were interested, and incidents like this can send the same sort of exclusionary messages.

So the problem isn't necessarily that the shirt features women, it's that it perpetuates geeky stereotypes that tend to cater more to men?
 

Ether_Snake

安安安安安安安安安安安安安安安
Mohawk-Iranian NASA dude was a much more well executed marketing.
 

SkyOdin

Member
Oh I see, instead of having a group of people work to get past a self proclaimed "barrier" it's better if another group changes their culture to pave a scenic path for them. Gotcha, completely fair and void of sexual double standards and proves how everyone wants a equal chance not just equal results.

.... What?

The entire point is to have dialogue about the issue; to make people more aware of the unintended consequences of their actions.

Judging by how you called the barrier to women entering into STEM fields as self-proclaimed and put scare quotes around it the word, I presume that you think that it is an exaggeration. If that is the case, I think you are seriously underestimating how hostile geek/nerd culture can be to women. Feminists are not looking for a free ride, they have been working their hardest for a long time, dealing all the while with a brutal amount of hostility and resistance, in order to create a place for themselves and others where they can feel welcome and safe. The best way they have to do that is to have honest, open discussion about the issues they face.
 

AppleMIX

Member
Still not grounds to dismiss it as "internet gonna internet", just because something is persistent doesn't make it right or defensible.

It is merely a explanation as to why these thing happens not a endorsement or a dismissal. People who harass other people are fucking assholes but like i said, I don't see a solution to ending harassment that doesn't already exist. If you have a solution, i'm all ears.

What isn't the way of solving it? People were reacting to something they saw, this wasn't intended to fix any issues within STEM. It was people voicing their opinion on a specific issue.

Fair enough.

You do not see the need for an apology, that does not make it so, I for one thought it was needed and he delivered a good heartfelt apology making me happy to leave particular issue behind. And I don't want to drag up the times where the majority has been on the wrong side of history so I won't. I feel that dismissing this by saying "the majority doesn't care" (especially when you don't know the majority opinion) can do furthering the issues of discrimination within STEM.

I was merely taking about people who were rushing to his defense not a statement of the general population. The fact is, whats right is independent of what the population thinks. Which was my original argument was...

"Also there are a million reasons why he could of apologized and even if he did think it was sexist that doesn't mean the general masses have to agree with him"

I never claimed to know what the general masses thoughts are on this issues. I merely said that it wasn't necessary for them to agree.
 

Blair

Banned
Instead of focusing on this guy's shirt (regardless of your personal taste, it was totally not appropriate for the situation as much as a regular tacky Hawaiian shirt would be) as being a detriment to women in STEM, why not pay more attention to the fact that one of the very top people involved in this project was, in fact, a woman and say "hey, girls look how awesome and rewarding science can be, this could be you!"

But what does it say about the ESA that evidently no one thought to say, "Matt, that's really not a good idea to wear that"? To me, it suggests that no one thought it was enough of an issue to say something about, and I'm sure most women are smart enough to see that subtext and what it says about the larger culture



Nah, she isn't 'smart enough' according to Mumei's standards. Or perhaps she is an uncle tom. Take your pick from the ultra far lefts own brand of bigotry.
 

berzeli

Banned
It is merely a explanation as to why these thing happens not a endorsement or a dismissal. People who harass other people are fucking assholes but like i said, I don't see a solution to ending harassment that doesn't already exist. If you have a solution, i'm all ears.

Writing "internet gonna internet" comes across as dismissive since it implies that this is a natural thing that is inherent with the internet. I strongly disagree and instances of harassment should be condemned and condemned loudly.

I don't think that there is a magic bullet solution to this issue, companies need to take a bigger responsibility in directly combating the harassment (twitter took a baby step with the collaboration with Women, Action & the Media), people need to stop treating the internet as a separate entity in peoples lives where it is ok "to blow off some steam" by being obnoxious, and as I stated people need to help create an environment where harassment is viewed as abnormal and bad, not inherent with the medium.

I was merely taking about people who were rushing to his defense not a statement of the general population. The fact is, whats right is independent of what the population thinks. Which was my original argument was...

"Also there are a million reasons why he could of apologized and even if he did think it was sexist that doesn't mean the general masses have to agree with him"

I never claimed to know what the general masses thoughts are on this issues. I merely said that it wasn't necessary for them to agree.

I think we largely agree on this point. But to reiterate my point, the perceived/imagined masses opinion is not necessarily right or relevant.
 

Rayis

Member
The shirt doesn't offend my sensibilities, it offends what little sense of style I have.

but what hot ass bear he is *huff* *huff*
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom