Support NeoGAF

[Opto]

Ahhh so he deserved the outcome because of what he wore. I wonder what you'd say if I changed HE to SHE. I have a feeling the response would be different.

This doesn't even begin to make sense. You're haphazardly trying to use a few tactics you don't understand to try to make yourself look like you're actually debating. Like copying a fight move without knowing what it's really used for.

 

[params7]

This topic moved on from talked about Matt Taylor to other gender issues. The people here don't shun or hate Matt Taylor besides an initial poor choice in clothes for international television, but the debate is passed that (besides moments where we've had to bring up "the shirt" because someone else brought up "the shirt".

Please read what I wrote here since I"ve been posting here for a while:
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=139049902&postcount=1370

I suggest that discussions on gender issues be discussed in another thread then as due to the subject and source of this thread, Matt and his shirt will be hauled into discussion on every page with new visitors.

A lot of men in here who don't understand what it is like to be marginalized in multiple industries because gender based culture permeates throughout them. This specific shirt isn't the biggest part of how women are represented and treated in STEM fields, but it does serve to reinforce the idea of it being a boys club. Every little thing like this adds up, especially when it is public facing like this and especially during a huge scientific milestone.

The fact it didn't cross this guys mind that the shirt would be offensive before he was called out on it goes to show you the kind of environment he works in. A lot of businesses, those with a little better gender balance, would consider that shirt sexual harassment. And just because the source of the shirt is a female doesn't change anything. Its basically the "a lot of my friends are black" excuse before opening with a racist comment.

And complaining that we're not talking about the actual comet landing is basic deflection. There is plenty of news coverage and excitement over the landing but people can handle more then one topic at a time. In fact, most people cannot do anything with the news of the comet landing, but as a culture we have to work on issues with sexism in STEM fields (among other areas). It isn't something that can be ignored and it is something we should be bringing up when it happens.

The fact that he apologized, and did so meaningfully is very important. The fact so many people want to play this off as being overblown or just social justice warrior whining is incredibly depressing. Especially with how a number of posters doing so have 'Engineer' in their GAF profile.

I am trying to understand the whole 'boys club permeates sexism' logic. Just because a university allows fraternities to exist does not mean it promotes sexism. Sororities and genderless/co-ed clubs have equal rights to exist and be a part of the environment. As well as those who don't want to be part of any clubs (like me, haha).

There are fields which attract males and females in balanced proportions, then there are fields which attract genders in polarizing contexts such as Stem and Nursing. So it may seem like 'Boys Clubs' or 'Girls Clubs' simply dominate those fields as you put it, but I don't think merely the existence of those 'Clubs' should be taken as evidence of sexism. Unless these clubs are harassing, abusing and selectively hiring.

I think the shirt is offensive, but in a general - wearing inappropriate sexual themed attire to a professional environment kind of way. It may be suggestive but I can't tell if the guy is sexist from that shirt alone. I can look at that shirt and figure out the kind of movies and music this guy enjoys, and maybe that's what he wanted to get across.

 

[Dice//]

"Guys what if the context was... completely different!"

I laughed. xD

 

[Alchemy]

There are fields which attract males and females in balanced proportions, then there are fields which attract genders in polarizing contexts such as Stem and Nursing. So it may seem like 'Boys Clubs' or 'Girls Clubs' simply dominate those fields as you put it, but I don't think merely the existence of those 'Clubs' should be taken as evidence of sexism. Unless these clubs are harassing, abusing and selectively hiring.
.

Except this is bullshit. There is no inherent gender draw in these fields, the issue is the culture that drives those gender proportions. Growing up girls are largely discouraged from pursuing STEM related fields, despite research that shows young kids being interested in science regardless of gender. The growing up in a society that places specific behavior norms on you based on your gender is what causes this divide. Pretending that gender specifically is the root cause of the divide is basically hand waving the issue away.

The nursing example is the other side of the same coin. Males are expected to be doctors in the medical field while women nurses. There is a gender related stigma that pushes people to choose which occupation to pursue. It is culture that is creating that divide, not gender specifically. Men would lead while women would be dictated to. You think women actively choose this role in the medical field and it wasn't created by the structure of western society when women weren't see as equals in the work place?

Men used to associate pink with masculinity and would wear high heels, but that flipped because of culture. The idea with equal gender representation is to be aware that culture defines these divisions, and work to avoid it. These divides work only to push people away from pursuing something, not to positively reinforce anything.

 

[Warm Machine]

Except this is bullshit. There is no inherent gender draw in these fields, the issue is the culture that drives those gender proportions. Growing up girls are largely discouraged from pursuing STEM related fields, despite research that shows young kids being interested in science regardless of gender. The growing up in a society that places specific behavior norms on you based on your gender is what causes this divide. Pretending that gender specifically is the root cause of the divide is basically hand waving the issue away.
.

When I was growing up girls publicly wouldn't be caught dead being interested in computers and actively tried to dissuade boys from being interested in them too. Being interested in computers or math was deemed geeky and uncool. This was the mid 80s. Societal pressures and all of that. The age result for the people who lived through that culture clash would now be between 37 and 47 years old. If there is a tangible boys club mentality it is likely in response and retaliation of that period of time. Doesn't make it right, just provides context.

It was at the beginning of the internet age when a lot of the stigma of interests in technology began to wear off. We are now living in an era where tech is taken for granted and used by pretty much every active generation. As time goes on I think you'll see a rise in all people being interested in sciences. We also have a pretty big wave of science appreciation going through our culture at the moment.

 

[Yrael]

Some public perspectives of people in the fields of astrophysics and science communication (by no means exhaustive):

Alice Bell, science and technology writer:

Sad that the following apparently needs saying. But my mentions column suggests it does. I don't personally have much of a problem with the existence of Matt Taylor's shirt. And certainly not with its designer. Scientists should be able to wear what they want. Science could do with a greater diversity of cultural expression. Dr Taylor and I have PhDs from same institution. I have a lot of sympathy for how much crap he must have had about tattoos and clothes. It was amazing to go and work in other unis, to suddenly be able to wear a skirt and not have your legs stared at, like you were an alien. It wasn't just gender. I got comments about my CND badge. I remember colleagues hating pressure to wear a tie. It was mainly gender though.

What I do have a problem with is that no-one thought it'd be a problem to wear that shirt in that context. They didn't see it. We sometimes talk about women being invisible in science. Truth is more complex. Some aspects of men get to be invisible. So it's partly Dr Taylor's fault. But only partly. He's part of a much bigger scientific system, and it is not fair to focus on him. Journos going "legend!" without noticing what was on the shirt -- or that it had upset people -- is big part of the problem. A big part. My blogpost on the Guardian was about the larger context the controversy around the shirt reflected, and saying I wanted that to change. We need to train scientists and sci journalists to see gender (and race, and class, and more). Not get too hung up on shirts. We also need to structure science differently so comms professionals have more power in the community to catch stuff like this, and help. Cos it's really not fair that this should be left on Taylor's shoulders (whatever else he covers them in). ESA need to look at themselves. And that's all I have to say on the subject. Sorry, not replying to any more. Got better things to do.

https://twitter.com/alicebell

Katie Mack, theoretical astrophysicist:

I don't care what scientists wear. But a shirt featuring women in lingerie isn't appropriate for a broadcast if you care about women in STEM

https://twitter.com/AstroKatie/status/532509765989965824

Jennifer Hoffman, astronomer:

@weswt @missafayres Am I serious about being respected by colleagues in my professional environment? Uh, yes.

@weswt @missafayres I'm a professional astronomer, yes. And he wasn't in "his environment", he was on international TV.

https://twitter.com/astroprofhoff/status/532762036510285824

Chanda Hsu Prescod-Weinstein, theoretical astrophysicist:

If you're already a woman in STEM feeling worthless and then some guy goes on international broadcasts wearing a sexist shirt, he is reinforcing that feeling. You're just a joke on cloth, you see.

https://twitter.com/IBJIYONGI/status/532769640762445824

Seth Zenz, CERN particle physicist:

Dear @esascience, as a professional physicist, I publicly insist that @mggtTaylor's shirt is not appropriate for science outreach. It's a big mistake for you to promote the shirt given the good work @esa and other scientific organizations do to promote #WomenInSTEM.

https://twitter.com/sethzenz/status/532508092752478208

Sean Carroll, theoretical cosmologist:

Rosetta landing shows humans are awesome; Rosetta scientist shows individual humans have a long way to go.

https://twitter.com/seanmcarroll/status/532672520357306369

Renee Hlozek, theoretical cosmologist:

When I opened up my social media this morning to get ready for the pre-announcements and hype (because these moments are what I live for as a scientist) I was shocked by something I saw in a colleague's post. She mentioned that the Rosetta Project Scientist Matt Taylor (@mggtTaylor) was on multiple media sources (an official BBC video, his own, and ESA's twitter feed etc.) wearing a crazy shirt. And sure enough, when I looked it up, this is what I saw:

Ok, wooaah.

There were also articles about the fact that Matt wants to challenge stereotypes of scientists and openly wear his tattoos - and this is something I whole-heartedly support. This is something I've blogged about before. It is extremely important to me that we concentrate on the science that someone has to offer rather on their appearance, because scientists come in all sizes and shapes and we should let them be just like everyone else.

So isn't this a double standard? I spend time writing about how I should be able to wear what I want as a scientist and here I am really upset by his shirt?

This is the really important reason why it is different, in case it wasn't immediately obvious to you right away. It objectifies women.

Matt's shirt portrayed several images of a naked woman, allegedly as a tribute to a sci-fi character.
He also allegedly said on air (and this is something I'll admit I didn't hear myself - it was relayed to me): "She's sexy, but I didn't say she was easy." [Edit: I've since been shown the link where Matt gives the "sexy" quote. He's talking about Rosetta, not the woman on his shirt! Thanks to Dave for reminding me to get the facts straight.]

Now - we have a huge problem getting women and girls into STEM fields. And spend lots of energy talking about how women aren't in science and should be (note: a Google search will yield many articles, that is just a recent one!).

And yet, here is a male scientist at a predominantly male science press conference from a male-dominated field - that is going to be broadcast to schools around the world - wearing a shirt objectifying women.

So, obviously the internet exploded. I, and many other people tweeted about it and were very angry, and later Matt changed his shirt (thank goodness before the most watched part of the landing).
But this begs the question, why did Matt choose to wear the shirt? Or rather, did he think about the message it would send? Did he care? Did anyone at the press conference even look at the shirt?

I hope that in the coming days we will hear more from Matt and/or ESA, but I feel like now I need to redouble my efforts to remind young women interested in science that yes, your mind is important. That yes, you are capable of being taken seriously in STEM fields. That yes, we do want you here (come and join me). And that no, your body isn't what defines you.

Until then, I'm going to look at pictures of the glorious mission and hope my anger subsides. It is a great day for science. It is not a super day for getting women into science.

http://statsandstrings.blogspot.com.au/2014/11/hey-grrrl-reasons-why-im-furious-about.html

Women in Astronomy:

Some people may see Taylor’s dress as harmless or eccentric. For example, the UK newspaper, the Daily Mail, basically calls Taylor a rockstar, highlighting public comments on his tattoos and his “wild dress sense.” Erin Brodwin, journalist with The Business Insider science column, however, was not having any of that nonsense. Brodwin focused solely on the issue of sexism, noting that Taylor had recently answered questions on his acceptance as a scientist despite his tattoos. Taylor said then: “The people I work with don’t judge me by my looks but only by the work I have done and can do. Simple.” Brodwin notes with irony: “If only women could hope to someday be judged that way too.”

Analytical Chemist Dr Raychelle Burks noted that a prominent scientist appearing before the world’s media might have chosen a different shirt to make a statement about STEM. If he wanted to appear with a woman on his shirt, why not try Ada Lovelace? Or any other prominent woman in astronomy and astrophysics whose fight for inclusion reshaped space history? Instead of celebrating STEM at this momentous event, women are reminded of our objectification and exclusion.

This matters on many levels: it matters because of the uphill battle we face in STEM fields trying to get everyone to understand that sexism in STEM is an issue that affects us all. It matters because girls are continually told that STEM is not for them. It matters because people want to find excuses for the under-representation of girls and women, rather than focusing on solutions.

Some people on social media are under-playing this incident, telling women scientists to stop spoiling the achievement with feminist discussions. One woman tweets at astronomy Professor Jennifer Hoffman, "We've officially all become prudes." Another man accuses feminism for bumming out a momentous feat. Professor Hoffman argues this is not about prudishness, it's about professional respect of women colleagues:

.@weswt @missafayres Am I serious about being respected by colleagues in my professional environment? Uh, yes. #shirtstorm
— Jennifer L. Hoffman (@astroprofhoff) November 13, 2014

The reason why some people are under-playing the significance of Taylor’s choice of shirt goes to the heart of the way in which sexism works. Sexism is not simply maintained through active harassment and discrimination. It thrives because of deeply held values that go unexamined.

On our blog post, we pay special attention to how men can help reduce the burden on women in STEM, by actively challenging sexism in professional settings. This includes calling out the lack of awareness and bias of colleagues which objectify, denigrate and otherwise make women feel excluded from science. Sexism is more than insults and physical harassment. Sexism describes the culture, organisational patterns and other practices that perpetuate inequality. The things that we say and do, whether conscious or otherwise, are connected to broader patterns of gender inequality. This is known as everyday sexism - the types of social interaction that reinforce women's lesser status at work and in wider society. This #ShirtStorm incident allows us to see how everyday actions are connected to institutional sexism; that is, the organisational and policy barriers that women face throughout their education and careers. To learn more about how this incident helps us to better understand both everyday and institutional sexism in STEM, and how you and your organisation can help address the exclusion of women, keep reading on the Stem Women website.

http://womeninastronomy.blogspot.com.au/2014/11/rosetta-shirtstorm-sexism-stem.html

Maryn McKenna, science journalist for Wired and National Geographic:

in case any of you are still “oh just a shirt,” here’s a close-up. professional? welcoming? sciencey?

https://twitter.com/marynmck/status/532981583905849344

Phil Plait, astronomer and public speaker (runs the "Bad Astronomy" blog on Slate):

I tweet about the sexist shirt worn by a scientist & get thoughtful replies. @roseveleth does the same and gets monumentally harassed.

https://twitter.com/BadAstronomer/status/533105970575331329

Thomas Levenson, Professor of science writing at MIT:

.@ofhdirector which is that the shirt isn't just a shirt; it's both the straw the broke a camel's back + synecdoche for much more.

https://twitter.com/TomLevenson/status/533359454470045696

Meg Rosenburg, science communicator:

"Pointing this out is not a distraction to the science. It’s part of it." @alicebell on the problem with #ThatShirt: http://www.theguardian.com/science/...nnoyed-at-rosetta-mission-scientists-clothing …

https://twitter.com/trueanomalies/status/532961893967622144

Carolyn Porco, planetary scientist, Cassini imaging lead, CICLOPS director (responding to a tweet by Richard Dawkins in which he called the shirt's critics "bullies who could never do anything 1/100th as clever as landing on a comet"):

@SidnellD @RichardDawkins Bullies? Sorry, I HAVE done something 1/100th as clever as land on a comet& I think he deserved the criticism

https://twitter.com/carolynporco/status/533728652739899392

Emily Willingham, scientist and science writer:

Shirt was an intersection: His choices, #STEM, sexism, ppl who didn't stop him, women who noticed&men who threatened them

https://twitter.com/ejwillingham/status/533356011168346112

Jacquelyn Gill, assistant professor at University of Maine:

To me, #shirtstorm is not even just about one guy and one shirt. It's that we're still. Having. The. Same. Conversations. About. Sexism.

https://twitter.com/JacquelynGill/status/533472965967757312

Janet Stemwedel, philosopher and blogger at Scientific American:

Pro-tip: Your interactions with others shape whether your workplace/profession is welcoming or hostile. Includes messages from your shirt. Some of my smart-alecky T-shirts don't end up in workplace rotation because they might make people uncomfortable & get in the way of work. Why a responsible employee would think it's OK to wear a graphic on a broadcast that objectifies large % of potential viewers … help me out. If you are on camera because want people to talk about your cool project, don't distract from cool project w/problematic shirt. (Also, describing comet landing in sexualized language might not be best way to sell space exploration in grade school classrooms, bub!)

To specific question of whether @mggtTaylor's porny shirt on #ESA #Rosetta broadcast is actually going to discourage girls from science…What boosts its chilly-climate impact: y'all science guys' fierce commitment to INSISTING it can't be a problem, despite women's experiences

https://storify.com/docfreeride/to-the-science-guys-who-want-to-understand-shirtst

 

[Log4Girlz]

"Guys what if the context was... completely different!"

What if, hypothetically, the friend who made him this shirt asked him to wear it only at home. I bet this wouldn't even be an issue! I smell hypocrisy.

 

[mjontrix]

From @deadmau5

 

[neorej]

Gender equality according to some people: women get to wear whatever they want, because empowerment and independence. Men get to wear what women tell them to.

 

[KHarvey16]

Gender equality according to some people: women get to wear whatever they want, because empowerment and independence. Men get to wear what women tell them to.

And by "some people" you mean absolutely no one.

 

[Krixeus]

From @deadmau5

 

[KHarvey16]

From @deadmau5

http://www.reactiongifs.com/r/2013/09/dead2.gif

Wait...do you guys think that last line is making a coherent point? Or are we laughing at how bad it is?

 

[Kano on the Phone]

Wait...do you guys think that last line is making a coherent point? Or are we laughing at how bad it is?

I have to believe laughing at how awful it is.

No one here is gross enough to make that argument.

 

[smokeandmirrors]

From @deadmau5

take that feminists!

 

[neorej]

And by "some people" you mean absolutely no one.

Nobody would've cared two shits if they had interviewed a woman wearing a blouse with men in underwear. Hell, if a woman would've worn this exact same shirt, it would've been a token of empowerment.

 

[Kite]

lol they're rapidly becoming the next PETA, the ideas behind the movement are valid and important but goddamn they focus and harp on the dumbest and most inconsequential things possible.

 

[KHarvey16]

Nobody would've cared two shits if they had interviewed a woman wearing a blouse with men in underwear. Hell, if a woman would've worn this exact same shirt, it would've been a token of empowerment.

So in other words you don't have a clue as to what you're talking about.

Another person dropping in, not reading a damn thing, and proudly sharing their ignorance. It's getting to be very tiring.

 

[Vulcano's assistant]

Seems like group think effect. One become more extremist in our views when we are able to surround ourselves with others of similar ideas and end up skewing our perception of the real average stance.

edit: Neogaf is also a good example that can help us understand it better.

 

[3phemeral]

From @deadmau5

But you see, here's the difference:

A man chooses to wear a shirt which portrays women objectified =/= woman having agency in choosing what she wants to wear.

One is a reflection of attitudes about women which he made the personal choice to wear and people are allowed to discuss the message it perpetuates. The other is the woman's own attitude about herself and how she chooses to represent her own sense of comfort.

But I'll give you the benefit of the doubt under the assumption that you and who your quoted are pointing out his harassment as unwarranted behavior for something he's apologized for profusely. No one here is advocating that he deserves to personally attacked, so it adds nothing to the discussion.

 

[A Link to the Past]

Nobody would've cared two shits if they had interviewed a woman wearing a blouse with men in underwear. Hell, if a woman would've worn this exact same shirt, it would've been a token of empowerment.

Well first off, a fair number of people would probably object to tawdry outfits worn by anyone.

Secondly, you might want to consider WHY there's a gap in these situations. Objectifying marginalized voices is different from objectifying people who have power in the field.

 

[neorej]

Well first off, a fair number of people would probably object to tawdry outfits worn by anyone.

Secondly, you might want to consider WHY there's a gap in these situations. Objectifying marginalized voices is different from objectifying people who have power in the field.

If you want equality, you need to treat every party involved equally. Promoting inequality because of a unequal current standing will only lead to more inequality. The first thing Mandela did was treating black and white people equally, after a long history of apartheid, not promoting blacks over whites.

 

[Brakke]

Thanks for the awesome roundup, Yrael. Great post.

I have to believe laughing at how awful it is.

No one here is gross enough to make that argument.

There's a post quoted on this very page that made the argument earnestly ;_;

 

[KHarvey16]

If you want equality, you need to treat every party involved equally. Promoting inequality because of a unequal current standing will only lead to more inequality. The first thing Mandela did was treating black and white people equally, after a long history of apartheid, not promoting blacks over whites.

Ok neorej, if you can find a woman wearing a shirt with a bunch of objectified men on it at a very public STEM event we'll get mad along with you. As it stands I don't think you have any idea what the fuck is going on.

 

[Deaf Spacker]

The world has gone insane, the shirt in question was made by a mutual friend who is a woman, as for saying the guy deserved what has happened because he wore it... That sounds awfully similar...

 

[Shosai]

But you see, here's the difference:

A man chooses to wear a shirt which portrays women objectified =/= woman having agency in choosing what she wants to wear.

One is a reflection of attitudes about women which he made the personal choice to wear and people are allowed to discuss the message it perpetuates. The other is the woman's own attitude about herself and how she chooses to represent her own sense of comfort.

But I'll give you the benefit of the doubt under the assumption that you and who your quoted are pointing out his harassment as unwarranted behavior for something he's apologized for profusely. No one here is advocating that he deserves to personally attacked, so it adds nothing to the discussion.

True, clothing can send a message. Even unintentionally, people can see clothing and get a signal that was never meant to be sent by the wearer, as was in the case of Matt Taylor.

Or skin-tight clothing on females. We just need to figure out which people should be held responsible for getting the wrong signal from clothing. Sexual harassers are one.

 

[3phemeral]

The world has gone insane, the shirt in question was made by a mutual friend who is a woman, as for saying the guy deserved what has happened because he wore it... That sounds awfully similar...

I encourage you to read the last few pages. Even this last page.

 

[A Link to the Past]

If you want equality, you need to treat every party involved equally. Promoting inequality because of a unequal current standing will only lead to more inequality. The first thing Mandela did was treating black and white people equally, after a long history of apartheid, not promoting blacks over whites.

But here's the thing - you need to invent the scenario you describe. The opposite scenario actually happened.

I encourage you to read the last few pages. Even this last page.

Considering his post was about comparing "your shirt hurts the progress of the advancement of women into STEM fields" to "you dressed like a slut, you deserve whatever happens to you," I have a feeling that literally no research would get him to understand why these situations cannot possibly be compared.

 

[KHarvey16]

True, clothing can send a message. Even unintentionally, people can see clothing and get a signal that was never meant to be sent by the wearer, as was in the case of Matt Taylor.

Or skin-tight clothing on females. We just need to figure out which people should be held responsible for getting the wrong signal from clothing. Sexual harassers are one.

Please be joking please be joking please be joking please be joking

 

[Deaf Spacker]

I encourage you to read the last few pages. Even this last page.

I can see that the thread has moved on which is fair enough, I'll stop typing now.

 

[Brakke]

Kano was so, so wrong ;_;

 

[DarkFlow]

So is there any discussion going on in here anymore or is just people getting shouted down at this point?

 

[KHarvey16]

So is there any discussion going on in here anymore or is just people getting shouted down at this point?

All we seem to have right now are posters swooping in to vomit ignorance in front of us, then look at it and grin proudly.

 

[Shosai]

Please be joking please be joking please be joking please be joking

I'm not joking, people who see clothing as a signal for sexual advances must be held accountable for their own actions, because they're the ones making a mistake. "Molest me" is not the message anyone means to send when wearing skimpy clothing, that message exists only in the heads of the perpetrators

 

[KHarvey16]

I'm not joking, people who see clothing as a signal for sexual advances must be held accountable for their own actions, because they're the ones making a mistake. "Molest me" is not the message anyone means to send when wearing skimpy clothing, that message exists only in the heads of the perpetrators

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume this isn't an embarrassing attempt to be clever.

 

[Instro]

So is there any discussion going on in here anymore or is just people getting shouted down at this point?

"Hey, this guy just helped land on a comet, amazing! Let's now ruin this moment for him by freaking out about his shirt"

The irony.

 

[DarkFlow]

All we seem to have right now are posters swooping in to vomit ignorance in front of us, then look at it and grin proudly.

Yeah that can get annoying, but from the pages I've been reading I can see why people are doing it. As soon as someone says something they are getting dog piled and told "Your wrong! now listen to me because I am right."

That's not a very conductive to a conversation, so you're just going to get people who come in angry and post some crappy stuff feeling like they need to score points or something before the cavalry arrives.

The irony.

Case in point. Also I have no idea how that is related to the other... I'm not shouting anyone down in that post. I'm expressing my feeling, but take it as you will.

 

[Shosai]

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume this isn't an embarrassing attempt to be clever.

I didn't mean to sound redundant, it sounded like you disagreed for a second there.

 

[A Link to the Past]

Yeah that can get annoying, but from the pages I've been reading I can see why people are doing it. As soon as someone says something they are getting dog piled and told "Your wrong! now listen to me because I am right."

That's not a very conductive to a conversation, so you're just going to get people who come in angry and post some crappy stuff feeling like they need to score points or something before the cavalry arrives.


Case in point. Also I have no idea how that is related to the other...

Your original post was toxic to civil discussion. That's the relation - you're complaining about dogpiling, and yet made posts that suggested that this controversy shouldn't exist. Not because it isn't controversial, but because he did something really impressive.

 

[KHarvey16]

Yeah that can get annoying, but from the pages I've been reading I can see why people are doing it. As soon as someone says something they are getting dog piled and told "Your wrong! now listen to me because I am right."

That's not a very conductive to a conversation, so you're just going to get people who come in angry and post some crappy stuff feeling like they need to score points or something before the cavalry arrives.


Case in point.

Thoughtful discussion is consistently met with logical fallacy, poor reasoning, arguments in bad faith and any number of poorly constructed positions. No one has offered a coherent, logical defense of "it's just a shirt!" or "this isn't important" despite the patience being shown to those who at least begin the conversation as if they might not disregard all semblance of reasonable discourse. The dogpiling on people who can't even manage that is inevitable, expected and justified.

 

[DarkFlow]

Your original post was toxic to civil discussion. That's the relation - you're complaining about dogpiling, and yet made posts that suggested that this controversy shouldn't exist. Not because it isn't controversial, but because he did something really impressive.

Well this post pretty much sums up this thread now. You would rather attack my post history then answer the question I asked in the here and now. Thanks for answering.

Thoughtful discussion is consistently met with logical fallacy, poor reasoning, arguments in bad faith and any number of poorly constructed positions. No one has offered a coherent, logical defense of "it's just a shirt!" or "this isn't important" despite the patience being shown to those who at least begin the conversation as if they might not disregard all semblance of reasonable discourse. The dogpiling on people who can't even manage that is inevitable, expected and justified.

Thank you for answering this in a civil manner. I agree with pretty much everything you said.

 

[A Link to the Past]

Well this post pretty much sums up this thread now. Thanks for answering.


Thank you for answering this in a civil manner. I agree with pretty much everything you said.

I literally did nothing more than criticize what you said. You getting pissy because you said something bad and then people called you out on it is embarrassing. That post literally cannot have produced any civil, good faith discussion because there is no valid reply to it besides rolling eyes or agreement.

 

[DarkFlow]

I literally did nothing more than criticize what you said. You getting pissy because you said something bad and then people called you out on it is embarrassing. That post literally cannot have produced any civil, good faith discussion because there is no valid reply to it besides rolling eyes or agreement.

KHarvey16 must be a warlock then.

 

[A Link to the Past]

KHarvey16 must be a warlock then.

Except he didn't respond to your original post, he responded to you griping about dogpiling.

"Hey, this guy just helped land on a comet, amazing! Let's now ruin this moment for him by freaking out about his shirt"

This is not a post made by someone who entered a thread thinking, "time to make a valuable, good faith contribution to the discussion." What in the world could you possibly have expected for having made that post? What value were you looking to add?

 

[Lethe82]

Nobody would've cared two shits if they had interviewed a woman wearing a blouse with men in underwear. Hell, if a woman would've worn this exact same shirt, it would've been a token of empowerment.

To this I would agree, but I would also say that context matters (that's why we can have your example holding true in the first place), particularly that of historical power dynamics.

Maryn McKenna, science journalist for Wired and National Geographic:
in case any of you are still “oh just a shirt,” here’s a close-up. professional? welcoming? sciencey?

She's listing this as though the shift failing all of them is a transgression when frankly only the bolded matters. We shouldn't be pressuring people into being artificial and molded into a stereotypical norm. You do more for Science by allowing your scientists to reflect that science is by and for everyone from all walks of life.

He wasn't wrong to wear it, but he was right to apologize once it became clear that people found it offensive. He seems like a good guy who was not intentionally harming anyone and does not deserve harm to come to him in response.

Like I said though, the only criteria that matters is 'welcoming'. Was it reasonable for it to be considered offensive to a marginalized people or persons? No one should give two shits about what is 'professional' or 'sciency' because 9 times out of ten that is just societal norms pushing a certain look and standard of homogeneity based on pre conceived and mostly meaningless metrics of tribalism that have little to do with actual professionalism or competency at a given task.

The answer to problems in Stem isn't going ape shit over his shirt (that is not to say that people should have not spoken up, but the degree of vitriol on all sides of this is symptomatic of a issue in Western society currently), it only inflames each side and makes perceptions (rightly or wrongly) like this foster

lol they're rapidly becoming the next PETA, the ideas behind the movement are valid and important but goddamn they focus and harp on the dumbest and most inconsequential things possible.

The real answer to 'sexism in stem' is this:

He's part of a much bigger scientific system, and it is not fair to focus on him. Journos going "legend!" without noticing what was on the shirt -- or that it had upset people -- is big part of the problem. A big part. My blogpost on the Guardian was about the larger context the controversy around the shirt reflected, and saying I wanted that to change. We need to train scientists and sci journalists to see gender (and race, and class, and more). Not get too hung up on shirts. We also need to structure science differently so comms professionals have more power in the community to catch stuff like this, and help. Cos it's really not fair that this should be left on Taylor's shoulders (whatever else he covers them in). ESA need to look at themselves.

https://twitter.com/alicebell

But also to go deeper than that, by not gender biasing toys, activities and careers from the outset as 'male' or 'female' dominated roles.

I suggest that discussions on gender issues be discussed in another thread then as due to the subject and source of this thread, Matt and his shirt will be hauled into discussion on every page with new visitors.

I am trying to understand the whole 'boys club permeates sexism' logic. Just because a university allows fraternities to exist does not mean it promotes sexism. Sororities and genderless/co-ed clubs have equal rights to exist and be a part of the environment. As well as those who don't want to be part of any clubs (like me, haha).

There are fields which attract males and females in balanced proportions, then there are fields which attract genders in polarizing contexts such as Stem and Nursing. So it may seem like 'Boys Clubs' or 'Girls Clubs' simply dominate those fields as you put it, but I don't think merely the existence of those 'Clubs' should be taken as evidence of sexism. Unless these clubs are harassing, abusing and selectively hiring.

This is 100% true BUT - if we are being rational about this then we have to be rational about it. Studies have shown for instance that interest in science at a young age is not gender based. Therefor we can come to the conclusion that a large part of the discrepancy is culturally influenced. It's the old thing with girls toys and boys toys even, boys tend to get construction and science sets much more than girls, girls toys, frankly, kind of suck. Here's your EZ Bake Barbie oven! Give people the opportunity to be what they want and do what they want regardless of gender or any other factors (within reason).

 

[livestOne]

Why couldn't she have tweeted the guy personally, or sent an email in, why did she have to rile up a crowd.

 

[Brakke]

lmao in this thread, DarkFlow's guilty of all the things KHarvey called out as inimical to worthwhile discussion: logical fallacy, poor reasoning "it's just a shirt", etc. This is also at least the second meta complaint about the "state" of the thread.

So forgive me for being somewhat cynical about this "I'm just here to be civil" turn you're making.

 

[DarkFlow]

lmao in this thread, DarkFlow's guilty of all the things KHarvey called out as inimical to worthwhile discussion: logical fallacy, poor reasoning "it's just a shirt", etc. This is also at least the second meta complaint about the "state" of the thread.

So forgive me for being somewhat cynical about this "I'm just here to be civil" turn you're making.

Hey whatever, enjoy the acoustics.

 

[RiccochetJ]

Wait...do you guys think that last line is making a coherent point? Or are we laughing at how bad it is?

I'm getting an an idea where you go into dismissal mode.

 

[Lethe82]

All we seem to have right now are posters swooping in to vomit ignorance in front of us, then look at it and grin proudly.

Stop poisoning the well. Even if that's true, your acidic tone only worsens the problems.

 

[3phemeral]

True, clothing can send a message. Even unintentionally, people can see clothing and get a signal that was never meant to be sent by the wearer, as was in the case of Matt Taylor.

Or skin-tight clothing on females. We just need to figure out which people should be held responsible for getting the wrong signal from clothing. Sexual harassers are one.

The thing with Matt's shirt is that the artwork is very much a message despite Matt Taylor not being aware of it. So, without him explicitly mentioning that he wasn't aware, people could assume he promoted what it represents because he made the choice to wear it. We, of course, now know he was not aware of it.

A woman dressing in what other people might assume as "provocative" is not sending any message. The only message she sends is what she actively vocalizes and communicates herself. There's no parity here.