My only implication is that tossing around words like "sexism" and "misogyny" are not conducive to rational discussion. Feminists could have asked why he wore that shirt. They could have asked if his wearing that shirt might send a negative symbol to women interested in STEM research. There were plenty of ways to address the underlying issue without the venom spewed towards Matt (and by proxy, many other males in STEM fields).
-
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
- Thread starter richiek
- Start date
- Status
My only implication is that tossing around words like "sexism" and "misogyny" are not conducive to rational discussion. Feminists could have asked why he wore that shirt. They could have asked if his wearing that shirt might send a negative symbol to women interested in STEM research. There were plenty of ways to address the underlying issue without the venom spewed towards Matt (and by proxy, many other males in STEM fields).
Entropy912
Neo Member
You have a good point there, why did I offer my opinion in the first place?. I can tell you without a doubt that my intention was not to provide any evidence against all the various studies you've posted. I guess my train of thought was something along the lines of "I have a career in STEM, I've noticed many women in my profession, maybe others in the thread would find it interesting that I haven't noticed this disparity between men and women in my field."
You keep telling me that I'm wrong, wrong, wrong and I'm simply trying to tell you that I'm not arguing with you.
Dice//
Banned
Yup. Sadly there is a greater history and context there that extended beyond intention; and sadly one sex is historically much more sexualized and still "second-fiddle" compared to their male counterpart.
Really though, no one here has direct beef with Matt Taylor at all. It's more the commentary and dialogue surrounding the issues thats had greater discussion.
All of that quote is saying this is emblematic of a broader culture. "Casual misogyny" is accusing him of being careless, not malicious.
Nobody's upset about the shirt. The shirt is a jumping off point. People are upset by decades and centuries of women's opportunities being constrained and their interests discouraged, even after we should know better.
Because it directly contradicts you statement of:
And you can't "correct" it and assume that it is supposed to say what you want it to say. I've read the entire section on biology and the conclusions and it does not support your statement about mathematics and logic being more easily understood by males.
Yes but not that it is due to biology.
But sexism and misogyny were the correct terms. You really aren't reading what's being typed. Again, the fact he wore the shirt and it wasn't immediately clear to him, his colleagues and his superiors that it was a problem is a symptom of deep rooted, unchecked misogyny inherent in STEM today. That is literally the entire point.
I'd like to know the age difference. Perhaps 40 years ago, the gender imbalance in the STEM-fields were much much bigger, and so the most experienced and accomplished people today (that would gain the highest salary and earn the most quotations) are more likely to be male. In that case i expect the difference to even out with time.
lol nope
Well, lets not forget that the entire point of this thread is that some people can''t handle a shirt that a guy wore. So rational discussion was kicked out the door on day one.
It feels like you people are working from a script at this point.
Edit: ahaha were people seriously trying to claim that the women on the shirt weren't sexualized?
yup i'm the thought police that's why matt taylor is in jail right now
Dice//
Banned
And the casual hand-waiving and statements like "can''t handle a shirt that a guy wore" is missing the point and proving casual misogyny on certain levels and lacks a lot of perspective that has been discussed, to death, here because you cherry picked what you wanted to read.
I guess this can apply to both sides: But people don't want an opinion, just an accomplice.
ZombiePlatypus
Member
So what? Does objectifying a body someone finds sexy have to be a statement now about where one thinks said person falls in social-ranking? What if it was just about being playful with eroticized imagery?
We're already so sexually repressed as a society, and now even images like the ones on this shirt should be removed? Should we just become Saudi Arabia?
If anything I think we don't have nearly enough objectification. For starters, we can give the same treatment to the male form.
Brawndo Addict
Banned
I find it interesting that the initial reaction is to focus on critiquing and dismissing research rather than exploring or affirming what it's looking into. I mean let's be honest, even if I could present the magical research paper which completely satisfied and proved everything you wanted accounted for or controlled for, would that actually change anyone's minds? It's not like the traditional GAF reaction is empathy and curiosity, it's always about invalidating and overruling.
Research is not and cannot be comprehensive and perfect. Different research design means it may be doing a cursory investigation or a more in-depth analysis. In many cases, the 'problems' with research are intentional or unavoidable side effects, which the authors explicitly acknowledge and want to address when they do the next round.
We also demand a level of proof that research often cannot give us. A study showing a discrepancy in aggregated outcomes can never prove individual bias, but it's not possible to do that in the first place. The scientific response often is, we seem to have a general indication of a problem, we'll need to do more research to iron out the variables and try to pin down causes as best we can. But for GAF, we take that as proof that the study is worthless and offers no valuable information.
Research is not and cannot be comprehensive and perfect. Different research design means it may be doing a cursory investigation or a more in-depth analysis. In many cases, the 'problems' with research are intentional or unavoidable side effects, which the authors explicitly acknowledge and want to address when they do the next round.
We also demand a level of proof that research often cannot give us. A study showing a discrepancy in aggregated outcomes can never prove individual bias, but it's not possible to do that in the first place. The scientific response often is, we seem to have a general indication of a problem, we'll need to do more research to iron out the variables and try to pin down causes as best we can. But for GAF, we take that as proof that the study is worthless and offers no valuable information.
It is one article. Beyond that, the only people bringing it up and giving it a voice, so to speak, are the people that are angry it was even written. How many people have brought up that article in this thread in anything other than a negative light?
In other words, the people making that Verge article a story are precisely the people that, apparently, don't want it to be a story.
There, now it's settled. It is about Matt Taylor and the charge is sexism and misogyny. For all wondering why this was getting so many comments of "it's just a shirt".
That said! There are thoughtful posters on the other side of this. Mumei has a good post here: http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?p=138940918#post138940918
Which is a very different argument:
This contends that women simply don't connect with the stereotypical geeky environment and so if you make it more neutral or woman friendly you'd get more women. A much different argument from the misogyny spittle.
So if you accept this, that's fine, but that doesnt give you authority to police what a person wears any more than you could tell a woman to cover up if she wears a skirt that's too short for your tastes.
Firstly sorry for not getting back sooner, but I was busy laughing my ass off at someone linking a study that was directly contradicting their opinion.
Are you willing to concede that people within a culture voicing their concerns is different from an outside perspective? Because I know I may have oversimplified my arguments a tad. Yes sometimes there are instances where public perception lack any basis in reality. But hopefully all of the research that have been linked in this thread shows that this isn't the case in this particular example. And I think we probably shouldn't derail the thread any more with this discussion of the perception of geek culture if you are ok with that. (Feel free to PM me though).
The issues in geek culture are what is keeping women out, you can't get more women into the culture without combating the issues. But as I said above, we should leave this particular subject for another time.
Most people won't actually agree with your assertion that the shirt is undoubtedly sexist, and that Matt is (casually) displaying ingrained prejudice against women. Most people will actually and honestly think "but it's just a shirt, what's the fuss about".
And, speaking of setting up strawmen, your last paragraph.. uh. Yeah.
You must have meant to quote something else. Clearly nothing you've said here refers to the post you quoted.
Dice//
Banned
Why do we have to go to hyperbole? Is the world black and white to you?
Is there no middle ground or should we all wear shirts with half-naked people on it --- or risk "becoming Saudi Arabia"?
For the last bit, the problem is that it ISN'T that way.
The Technomancer
card-carrying scientician
God this shit is the worst, I'm so sick of being accused of being "sex negative" because of raising complaints about sexualization or objectification. I'm very sex positive, but people constantly misconstrue that phrase to mean that "sexy stuff everywhere is great!". Honestly as much as we have unhealthy problems with sexual repression we also have issues with sexual objectification and the ensuing alienation.
you're talking ABOUT TWO DIFFERENT THINGS.
You're assuming ignorance where there is none, and "GAF" isn't a single entity. If you present evidence to back up your argument then that evidence can be scrutinised. Sure, there is no comprehensive nor perfect research, but some are generally better than others, for example a meta-analysis vs a cohort, or a study with no major limitations vs a study with numerous ones, or a study with significant results vs one without.
ZombiePlatypus
Member
What would the middle-ground here be though? Clearly people upset by the shirt do not want this sort of imagery openly displayed in public. I grew up in Kuwait, and these were the types of images that were completely dragged through the ground as "filthy" there yet I'm sure all the naysayers had them behind closed doors while they promoted censorship publicly. Western films were frankenstined and chopped up to remove any bodies, album covers were haphazardly colored with markers to cover up exposed legs and torsos, same with magazines and posters, even shit like Little Mermaid was made to wear badly drawn shirts underneath her clamshell bra in "official" artwork. It basically intruded on and fucked up all sorts of artwork. Having an uproar over the images on this shirt is really reminiscent to all that non-sense.
My posts might be coming off a bit like a knee-jerk reaction, but I guess this sort of body-imagery-taboo is a bit of a hot-button issue for me.
As for men not being objectified, I agree that yeah it's the problem, but I don't think swinging back the other way and flipping the tables and saying women shouldn't be either is the solution.
No it doesn't. Not inherently. Being sexualized is very much part of being a human being. Of course consent and environment, parties involved, etc are all important, but blanketly saying objectification is bad is sex-shaming.
Brawndo Addict
Banned
No, I feel pretty comfortable in saying that there is a significant proportion of GAF who, when threads involving womens' experiences come up, don't listen or try to understand, but actively try to negate and overrule in an attempt to discredit the problem entirely.
I feel like people get up in arms about granular details of research design only if the implications of the research upsets the 'no problem' position. If someone believed that STEM had problems or that women faced bias, people wouldn't put so much undue attention and effort onto relatively minor issues in the grand scheme of the thread/issue/research.
If one's position is that nothing inherently is wrong, than any research which shows any correlation to a problem is deeply damaging to your position and must be vehemently opposed. If you hold a view that the issue is one of degree rather than existence, then research, well designed or not, would be addressed in a more neutral or positive way. Perhaps the person would look for their own research which they feel more accurately represents the problem. But when the thread is about an issue in general and research is offered about a generalized point of discrimination or bias (women in STEM), people suddenly making structural objections seems a bit disingenuous.
People will address the 'accepted' or 'positive' research in a sentence or two, or even not at all (like the stats on sexual assault in field research). But it's done in a very driveby and temporary way. It doesn't start a conversation or create context that carries over, it doesn't move forward with the thread. What will move forward is the 'negative' research where people will devote the bulk of their posts to discrediting it. The conversation ends up focusing entirely on all the ways you're wrong rather than addressing the real or undisputed issues.
Sexualizing and objectification are different. Objectification makes the person a prop, someone without agency, something to only be observed and robbed of choice or decision. Of course, this changes if something is curated in a different context. Don't accuse me of sex-shaming, and please read the article I linked.
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.
That's obviously not the case though. Straight from the OP:
Feels like you're going way too far in the other direction here. It's really the context.Alice Bell said:
I think it's just easier to keep quoting myself so I don't go insane
Yeah well, but at least noone said something in the lines of:
"Why even offer an 'opinion' that you don't think should be used to reach any sort of conclusion and that you don't think is evidence of anything?"
I mean i find it rather hypocritical that you call out people wanting to have more data on the research you presented, claiming they are being "all about invalidating and overruling" after dropping something like the sentence above a few minutes earlier.
And I would second that assertion, I did write a bit about it in a general way earlier but I'll quote the relevant part:
The need to deconstruct research that goes against their beliefs is almost unsettling and almost as bad is that a lot of people wilfully ignore the research when it is presented. The worst example of this behaviour is currently:
Where the poster manages to firstly link a study that contradicts their original argument about biological differences being the deciding factor. And then when I point that out the user says that the study probably meant to say that it was agreeing with the poster's beliefs.
ZombiePlatypus
Member
The author's arguments come down to:
- A) Shirt is bad because it's not sex-positive cause sex-positivity should include conscent. So, in this case where it's a fictional depiction of a gender, what, should the artist and person wearing said image ask for permission from everyone of said gender being depicted?
- B) This was not the place to wear it. I can at least entertain this argument unlike the previous one, but it comes back to social repression. I think he should be allowed to express some playfulness with some suggestive imagery. Relegating things like these only behind closed doors or sex-centered events would be socially stifling.
Who is the "one" here though? They're just sexual characters on a shirt. Why does it have to be about real people? If I saw some fit guy submissively on all fours in a speedo on some poster, I'd honestly feel like I'm flattering myself if I argued "oh yeah, this hot dude is a representation of me, merely because we both have penises."
All of this is a moot point though, because it's assuming some people do not enjoy being objectified or find it hot which is again, blanket generalizations, and feels like attempts at sweeping any sexual expression, imagery, roles under the rug.
robertsan21
Member
wow the world is fucked up when shit like this hits the news.
Seriously people lighten the fuck up.
Seriously people lighten the fuck up.
Your interpretation is almost the exact opposite of what KHarvey posted.
Brawndo Addict
Banned
Readers can judge me how they will based on their reading of it, but I stand by what I said about that poster. I don't believe their motivations were pure and found their explanations to be ad-hoc rationalizations to get around the obvious implications that their post was otherwise making. Maybe that was unintentional on the posters part, but it hit the check-marks I otherwise expected and I have less trust when seeing juniors, especially given the gamergate thread where "neutral" juniors pop up all the time.
The exact line you quoted makes sense even out of context to me though. If your opinion or statement or post is not supposed to have any informational content derived from it whatsoever, then why is it there? By their very nature opinions are supposed to show how we feel or think about things. Are we not allowed to correct posters if their opinion ignores facts? At the very least they did make a positive claim that women do not suffer bias in STEM, which is not true. None of these points were addressed by them however, the poster merely kept repeating that it was just an opinion.
An opinion that STEM has no gender bias or gender representation problems has latent informational content reflecting one's belief about said issues. You can't just say, "I see lots of women at my work". Okay, so what? I, and I assume others, scoff if someone claims it was just said because it was "interesting" and for no other reason. That's a dodge/code if I've ever seen one.
Brawndo Addict,
but the actual issue is that you got all huffy and puffy that someone had the audacity to post the researchers own issues with the research you presented as proof of gender imbalance that couldn't possibly be because of other reasons. And then it turns out the people doing the actual research thought that yeah, well, it could actually be because of a bunch of reasons.
(that would sort themselves out in a generation or two and that you really can't do anything about today).
And instead of acknowledging that you called that person out. "GAF has no empathy! It's all about invalidating and overruling! And they only do it if they don't agree with the assertions presented!". Fair enough, but that's exactly what you were doing yourself, so congratulations. You are part of the the very thing you identified and problematised.
but the actual issue is that you got all huffy and puffy that someone had the audacity to post the researchers own issues with the research you presented as proof of gender imbalance that couldn't possibly be because of other reasons. And then it turns out the people doing the actual research thought that yeah, well, it could actually be because of a bunch of reasons.
(that would sort themselves out in a generation or two and that you really can't do anything about today).
And instead of acknowledging that you called that person out. "GAF has no empathy! It's all about invalidating and overruling! And they only do it if they don't agree with the assertions presented!". Fair enough, but that's exactly what you were doing yourself, so congratulations. You are part of the the very thing you identified and problematised.
The whole subject of sexual objectification is confusing to me. I would assume for instance that 'porn' is sexually objectifying. When watching porn, you care nothing of the woman in it, she is quite literally an object for your sexual gratification. Does it really matter if a woman has 'agency' if it contributes to sexual objectification in the greater social context?
I was starting to wonder if I had gone crazy.
Somehow you still aren't understanding and I don't know how else to write it such that you do understand. My hopes are further diminished by the fact I'm maybe the 5th or 6th person to try.
Brawndo Addict
Banned
I have no idea how you reached this characterization of my posts. Perhaps you are conflating my responses to the junior with my responses to people raising issues about research? Here's the response I made to the junior posting their 'non-informational opinion'. This is different from my posts to other people about the research issue. Also, people took issue with the citation bias study in this post, not the other studies. So even if you take out that study, the post is still completely supported. What upset me is that people will implicitly accept the studies about huge gender disparities and bias in evaluating candidates/students ability/pay, but then focus entirely on negatives by making a mountain out of a molehill with the citation study and try to use that to discredit everything else by association. And where you got the bolded I don't know, but it fits with the 'do nothing' 'no real problem' narrative going on in these kinds of threads.
You said nothing about your 'curiosity' in the first post. This seems to be an ad-hoc addition to try to defend yourself by appealing to the particular STEM segments with higher female participation rather than STEM at large which is what you were talking about originally. Second, you can play the semantics game all day but people understand what you're arguing for even if you don't explicitly say it.
Objectively wrong.
Then you say...
Again untrue.
And finally...
Untrue again.
Clearly you haven't read much of the thread otherwise none of this would be news to you and you would have seen Mumei's detailed walk-through post.
The junior responding with "opinion, not trying to argue for anything" is ridiculous. At the very least his opinion is factually incorrect and there is nothing wrong with calling that out.
Second, you act as if I tried to hide the fact that the researchers did what all good scientists do and discuss their limitations and problems. But I didn't! I included the paragraph about one study where this was the case, and for the gender citation study, included the whole section about it when asked.
None of that means the studies are untrue or worthless. That's just part of the scientific process in discussing the limitations and implications of your research, and ideas for future research to narrow down the results. The part about the UK group saying it was not proof of gender bias is because science can't provide individualized causes like that and because they were researching the raw numbers. I can show you a study that blacks are hired less than whites, but it can never prove that any given individual white employer is racist or biased. Taken in the aggregate, it creates a stronger presumption that such biases are in play though.
Let me give it a try. Your position is "Matt Taylor's decision to wear a shirt that objectifies women, along with the fact that no one told him it might be offensive, demonstrates the misogyny that exists within STEM fields, which discourages women from pursuing careers in said fields." Is that accurate?
Essentially, yes. That Matt Taylor is a nice guy who never consciously chose to perpetuate misogyny is precisely the reason the issue needs attention. It's so deeply embedded that it doesn't require conscious effort to be continued and because of that these are often the toughest problems to solve. The answer is to raise awareness, which is why raising a big stink and talking about it isn't just slacktivism, it's concerted effort to address the problem.
Would discouraging the women who modelled for pictures used in the shirt help?
Edit: Actually looking at the shirt, they seemed to be drawn not actual pictures. There is a wider point I was making though. It is to do with my confusion of sexual objectification in general.
So you don't have a problem with the shirt itself, if he chose to wear it out in public as normal citizen, you wouldn't find it offensive? That he was seen wearing that shirt as a public representative of ESA is where the problem arises. Is that accurate as well?
No, the shirt itself, its creator and the women depicted on the shirt are not a problem.
Yes, the context is key. Again the issue we're concerned about is identified by the fact he chose to wear it and that no one stopped him from wearing it.
Liu Kang Baking A Pie
Member
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.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked