We dont care that you landed a spacecraft on a comet, you shirt is misogynist!

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

I really dont know what to think about this piece here. Is this really that big of a deal. Let him wear what he likes and face the consequences like no women going anywhere near him, not this demonization that is happening to him. Its utterly ridiculous that the tshirt is getting more media than the spacecraft landing on the comet.

I know what their talking about i went underwear shopping the other day and there were pictures of scantly clad me in sexy poses.

Misandry is running wild and must be stopped. i'll never visit another target as long as I live.

Really people, this is getting ridiculous.

Well, in my opinion this is an extremely silly article.

But, I just don't think you need to worry about it. He has the right to wear sleazy bowling shirts, and she has the right to compose overblown articles about it. All is well, and I promise that comet landing is still a global headline.

Hot women a problem again?

I can't say I agree

The title is incorrect - the article says "sexist and ostracizing", not misogynist. One is about the treatment and assumptions and outcomes of those treatments and assumptions ... the other is about hate.

No serious minded person would debate that the shirt is sexist (though I *would* debate it being called misogynist, as that infers a mind-state simply not supported).

And yes, the article is silly - it points out something so blatantly obvious that it seems silly to point it out ... and the people who think the premise is silly don't get it and won't get it, because they have no issue with professional, intelligent women being treated like objects and demeaned and harassed if they speak up.

It is a changing attitude, but slowly ... to me it is silly that people hold attitudes that treat women as functionally subservient to men, that their primary position is not self-directed but instead should be motivated towards the visual or physical pleasure of men. But hey, I believe people are equal and stuff ... unlike the demonstrated attitudes of many here, and way too many men around the world.

txa1265 said:

The title is incorrect - the article says "sexist and ostracizing", not misogynist. One is about the treatment and assumptions and outcomes of those treatments and assumptions … the other is about hate.

No serious minded person would debate that the shirt is sexist (though I *would* debate it being called misogynist, as that infers a mind-state simply not supported).

And yes, the article is silly - it points out something so blatantly obvious that it seems silly to point it out … and the people who think the premise is silly don't get it and won't get it, because they have no issue with professional, intelligent women being treated like objects and demeaned and harassed if they speak up.

It is a changing attitude, but slowly … to me it is silly that people hold attitudes that treat women as functionally subservient to men, that their primary position is not self-directed but instead should be motivated towards the visual or physical pleasure of men. But hey, I believe people are equal and stuff … unlike the demonstrated attitudes of many here, and way too many men around the world.

Click to expand...

Bullshit.

Displaying beautiful half-naked women isn't the same as necessarily discriminating against them.

It's this kind of irrational stupidity that's part of why we have such a big problem communicating in the first place.

The way such a thing would be sexist is if the shirt indicated "hot" is all a woman can be.

There's absolutely nothing to suggest that's the case.

That people are dumb and think that because they see a beautiful half-naked woman it automatically means that it's a stereotype and that the woman in question can't also be full of intelligence or be able to contribute to the world in other meaningful ways - it doesn't mean it has to be true.

The real trouble with this is that you're not the only ignorant person to believe this. In fact, it's become the "norm" - because SOME women are being exploited and SOME examples of objectifying women is done in a harmful way.

It's tremendously sad that men can't appreciate the physical traits of women - and women can't appreciate the physical traits of men without making it into something sexist.

I thought that was the same thing.

As for women being treated like objects, of course that is wrong. But is that what you would be thinking about if Neil Armstrong wore that shirt as he landed on the moon?

txa1265 said:

No serious minded person would debate that the shirt is sexist...

Click to expand...

When did "sexy" and "sexist" merge? Probably then when the definition of "sexist" had something else added to its main meaning, "prejudice or discrimination based on sex", and the side meaning of "attitudes that foster stereotypes of social roles based on sex" became popular. Still, if you use the word "sexist", the main meaning of the word is still there. Using such an imprecise word then also leaves the tag "misogynist" hover over this. Silly article.

Still, I wouldn't wear anything like that because I think it looks slightly tacky, though not really cheap. Compared to a typical Boris Vallejo piece, it's outright chaste. My (female) boss would probably have laughed out loud. Then again, I'm a scientist, and most scientists I know don't care what they wear. Which basically means that clothing that looks somewhat off for a situation is pretty common. Scientists are usually not hired because of their sense of clothing.

So, now we also get dress codes? Let's see what they come up with next.

I don't care what he wears on his spare time... but when you're at work representing an organization, in this case even partially funded by my tax money, it is for sure a reason to be upset.

I think he wore the shirt because there were a bunch of homosexual males at the event and he wanted them to know, before making a pass, that he wasn't interested

It's a complicated issue, with a lot of room for interpretation.

The first question, I think, is whether there is anything fundamentally wrong with images of scantily clad women? I would say that there is not. If you go to ComiCon, or something similar, there are hundreds of women running about in skimpy cosplay, being shieldmaidens and alien warriors, striking poses, and having a marvelous time. If you printed their selfies on a T shirt, would that T shirt become sexist?

But it's not that simple, because we didn't just pop into existence in a vacuum – there is the unfortunate matter of most of the history of western civilization treating women as second class citizens, and we are still a long way from globally divesting ourselves of that legacy. Imagery and popular representation clearly play their part.

Now, the Oxford definition of sexism is this: “Prejudice, stereotyping, or discrimination, typically against women, on the basis of sex”

It is the matter of stereotyping that is relevant in this case. But can we say that this man's shirt is definitely stereotyping women, rather than just being a kitschy garment? As an individual case, I don't think we can. The problem arises when he represents a major public science body. The argument then becomes, that portraying images which could be interpreted as a casually reductive representation of women in that context is unhelpful and unwelcome. Agree or not, I think it's a perfectly respectable argument.

The silliness of the article, in my opinion, is a question of proportionally and hyperbole:

“I don't care if you landed a spacecraft on a comet, your shirt is sexist and ostracizing . That's one small step for man, three steps back for humankind”

Well, a garment can't ostracize you, for a start, that's just an excessive choice of word. And I don't think an epic scientific achievement is rendered null by a potentially problematic shirt. “Three steps back for humankind” - really?

If the article had made a more measured complaint, it might have been helpful. As it is, the guy should simply be told by the boss not to wear shirts with bikini-clad women on them when he's representing the space agency on the telly, because that's bloody silly too.

Long since stopped trying to make sense of the priorities of western civilization.

Reality television & Kim Kardashian's ass >> sociopolitical awareness & a probe landing on a comet slingshotting across the solar system.

No doubt about that – it's bread and bloody circuses for the most part.

Now, we're all gamers, but even the gaming culture has grown a bit grotesque, IMHO.

I like this video on E3 from Tam McGleish – funny, but language NSFW.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g4w26Xv3QQQ

I work in a predominately male environment and hardly any clients come to our office but I will get told off from my boss if I wore that shirt to work.

I have no problems with pictures of half-naked women but there is a time and place for them and I don't believe work is one of them.

People who want to be offended shockingly get easily offended. Fuck em.

Drithius said:

Long since stopped trying to make sense of the priorities of western civilization.

Reality television & Kim Kardashian's ass >> sociopolitical awareness & a probe landing on a comet slingshotting across the solar system.

Click to expand...

You don't understand. Unless we address the issue of our sexism first, that probe is just spreading the patriarchy.

blatantninja said:

People who want to be offended shockingly get easily offended. Fuck em.

Click to expand...

I'm not going to change how I think or act based on somebody's opinion of how I should be. I could care less if I fit in somebodies little "politically correct" box. It's funny how everybody assumes "their" way is the right way. You know if there had been a woman scientist with a pic of some bodybuilders, nobody would have noticed or commented.
It doesn't fit the agenda.

Oops, this sounds as if I disagree with blatant and I'm totally in agreement

blatantninja said:

People who want to be offended shockingly get easily offended. Fuck em.

Click to expand...

Well, I half agree with you.

If someone wants to express themselves in a manner which is highly offensive in the context of a TV show, stage act, a book, or anything that people have the option to simply avoid, then just about anything goes. If the response is “This shouldn't be allowed, because it offends me,” that complaint simply shouldn't be respected in a free society. “If you don't like it you can fuck off,” is harsh and unpleasant, but it sums it up.

However, in places like public institutions, schools and workplaces – places where people have no choice but to participate, I think the question of offence has to be considered much more carefully and sensitively. When I was at school, there was an obese Polynesian boy, and our teacher used to call him “Round Brown Boy”.

“Where's Round Brown Boy this morning? Oh, there he is!”

“AH HA HA HA HA!

And, of course, he had to show up every morning for this. In that case, anyone who says “he can fuck off, he shouldn't be so easily offended”, would be, to be frank, a massive twat. I'm sure you'd all agree with that - but if you take this seriously, you have to be open-minded to things that offend other people in ways that don't immediately appeal to you.

A teacher wouldn't get away with that any more, because so-called social justice warriors have made a huge fuss about such things for years. I would call that progress, even if imperfect.

Ripper said:

When I was at school, there was an obese Polynesian boy, and our teacher used to call him “Round Brown Boy”.

“Where's Round Brown Boy this morning? Oh, there he is!”

“AH HA HA HA HA!

A teacher wouldn't get away with that any more, because so-called social justice warriors have made a huge fuss about such things for years. I would call that progress, even if imperfect.

Click to expand...

Your example doesn't fit because it obviously describes (i) individual harassment, (ii) repeated harassment, and (iii) abusing a position of power. That's a far cry from some anonymous people who are targeted in no way get some vague feeling of being "stereotyped". I said I thought the shirt was tacky, as it makes the guy look a bit desperate and like somewhat of a loser. The joke's on him. On the other hand, the "oh, I'm feeling stereotyped" is just looking silly.

Turjan said:

Your example doesn't fit because it obviously describes (i) individual harassment, (ii) repeated harassment, and (iii) abusing a position of power. That's a far cry from some anonymous people who are targeted in no way get some vague feeling of being "stereotyped". I said I thought the shirt was tacky, as it makes the guy look a bit desperate and like somewhat of a loser. The joke's on him. On the other hand, the "oh, I'm feeling stereotyped" is just looking silly.

Click to expand...

The conversation has evolved, though, and I was directly responding to the more general comments made, that were not specific to the original issue:

"People who want to be offended shockingly get easily offended. Fuck em."

"I could care less if I fit in somebodies little "politically correct" box."

What I said is entirely applicable there, and is, if you like, a general defence of political correctness, and a greater sensitivity to the question of offence in certain contexts.