Support NeoGAF

[Kano on the Phone]

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

Yup.

It literally doesn't exist. It's entire concept is based on theories of gaze that are quackery.

This thread has officially gone to some weird and sad places.

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

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

What you said has nothing to do with the assertion Mumei made. You're disconnected from what's actually being talked about and just yelling at ghosts.

 

[ICKE]

"Feminism is in danger of becoming toxic"

When even radfem of radfems Julie Bindel thinks you're in danger of undermining the entire movement with trivialities then perhaps it might be time to start to reassess tactics?

It does seem as if feminism as a word is becoming increasingly toxic even among young females. When I passed the admission test to law school and there was an introduction class to gender studies, most girls raised their hand (this was a clear majority, around 100 people or more) to signal that they perceived modern feminism as something negative. This is obviously based on my personal experiences so I don't have anything substantive to back up my statements. Most girls I know, who work in business life or for the public sector, just do not want to have anything to do with these shirt scandals and believe it is nonsense.

I don't really have strong opinions one way or the other but this just feels like another distraction from real issues.

 

[Cybit]

Yup.

It literally doesn't exist. It's entire concept is based on theories of gaze that are quackery.

<sigh> That's not quite what they mean by that. Gonna try to give you the benefit of the doubt here.

So, the point trying to be made is that what is often referred to as the "male gaze" stems from the assumption that all males are straight white men who want more or less the same thing out of their prototypical female (big breasts, tiny waists, etc etc). This was based on work done in the...1970s or so I think. Obviously, we know that not to be the case now, so that very narrow traditional definition of the "male gaze" was debunked.

The article linked...woah. Julie Bindel is not someone who would remotely fall under anything besides "strident feminist". Those are pretty strong words from her.
That said, if you look at it from a broader perspective, gaze in so much as defined by "those in power will push towards things they like seeing" is still definitely a thing.

Now, if you want to argue that trying to remove sexual objectification of women (and to a lesser extent, men, see: Avengers and yummy men in tight, tight spandex) in media is a losing proposition because people innately are inclined to objectify folks in entertainment, that's a different argument. But you can't say that gaze doesn't exist as a broad concept.

 

[Hari Seldon]

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



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

I don't disagree with the findings of the study, however I disagree that this study should be used to make general conclusions about why females aren't entering STEM. It is one thing to say that geek culture can deter females, but in order to make use of this you have to quantify exactly how much geek culture there is in STEM compared to other fields of study with higher female representation. I think the lack of females in STEM is a much deeper problem in western culture.

 

[SwissLion]

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

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

First of all, the bolded? Hilarious. Just wonderful work.

Are you really using the words that literally say "Your Shirt is sexist" as some sort of 'slam dunk' evidence that it's an article calling the guy a misogynist? Do you know that shirts are not people?

Do you really, honestly not see how ridiculous you're being? A person is not solely defined by their acts. Intentions matter. Changing and Learning matter. They acknowledge and seem to believe his apology was genuine and appreciate it. The only additional apology they desire isn't from him at all, but from the institution that should have policies in place to prevent these kinds of screw-ups.

You're arguing that characterising someone's actions is "Objectively" exactly the same as characterising the person as a whole.

I'm comfortable calling your argument idiotic. This doesn't mean I'm calling you an idiot as I don't believe I have enough data points for me to comfortably say that. These are different things.

 

[berzeli]

I don't disagree with the findings of the study, however I disagree that this study should be used to make general conclusions about why females aren't entering STEM. It is one thing to say that geek culture can deter females, but in order to make use of this you have to quantify exactly how much geek culture there is in STEM compared to other fields of study with higher female representation. I think the lack of females in STEM is a much deeper problem in western culture.

And as I said it wasn't used as evidence of why fewer women enter STEM fields, it was used as an analogue to illustrate how people perceive the larger issue and the importance of culture signifiers and their effect.

As for your second statement, apart from China which definitely stands out (~40% women in STEM workforce, compared to ~25% US) but does so for a multitude of reasons. I can't really say that I agree it's a deeper issue with western culture, I've had a look at the 2012 Global Employment Trends for Women published by the International Labour Organisation. It unfortunately doesn't include data specifically for STEM but it is pretty clear that you can't reduce it down to something that is unique to western culture since the cultural differences within any larger geographical area are enough to put a stop to the notion of a cohesive western or eastern culture.

 

[GameGuru59]

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

Well, if it ever got to the point that it was no longer socially acceptable to do so, yes I guess such an opinion would have that effect in the end. Keep in mind, feminists also advocate ceasing criticism of evaluating clothes women wear as a relevant criticism of many work environments (see the story about the Australian news anchor). That opinion, if socially accepted, would effectively ban criticism of those clothing choices.

@berzeli, I understand the shirt is offensive to others, and not offensive to me, but I just posted plenty of examples of shit that WAS offensive to me but I tolerated, even in my hometown. The point is that I beleive the world is better of if people are free to express themselves as much as is reasonably possible. That includes legally free and socially free.

With respect to your argument about maintaining "a healthy working environment," while I cannot prove whether the ESA ld have acheived its goal without the guy wearing the shirt, I can prove that it did. Therefore, there isn't really a need to exclude his shirt from acceptable dress, unless you want the ESA to be more welcoming to women (a contention to which I re-submit my previous argument). And I'm not going to stop conflating freedom at home to freedom at work because the whole purpose of my argument is to make the workplace a place workers are more comfortable in- much like the home.

 

[homegrowndub]

"Feminism is in danger of becoming toxic"

When even radfem of radfems Julie Bindel thinks you're in danger of undermining the entire movement with trivialities then perhaps it might be time to start to reassess tactics?

This was my feeling on the situation. Maybe an article such as this will actually get those in the movement to see that they are in fact only harming themselves with the way they are carrying themselves.

 

[Mindwipe]

<sigh> That's not quite what they mean by that. Gonna try to give you the benefit of the doubt here.

So, the point trying to be made is that what is often referred to as the "male gaze" stems from the assumption that all males are straight white men who want more or less the same thing out of their prototypical female (big breasts, tiny waists, etc etc). This was based on work done in the...1970s or so I think. Obviously, we know that not to be the case now, so that very narrow traditional definition of the "male gaze" was debunked.

It was a little more than debunked. There were academic papers that had gone to the point of saying watching a film would cause brain death, despite the writer having watched a film and still being alive to watch the paper. It was laughable.

But it was much more fundamental. The point of gaze is that it assumes that any two people have a neurologically common response, coming from both their own collection of experience and reactions, so you can generalise it and the behaviour. That fundamentally isn't true. It is a reductist argument that simply can't apply to anything as neurologically complex as a human being. Heck, it simply can't apply to anything as neurologically complex as a tapeworm.

As such, the entire notion of how people react to an image is fundamentally flawed, as is the notion that people will link representations to groups of human beings.

The article linked...woah. Julie Bindel is not someone who would remotely fall under anything besides "strident feminist". Those are pretty strong words from her.

Generally speaking, she's a nutcase - fundamentalist terf and anti-sex as they come. But if even she is acknowledging that some parts of feminism are reaching the point of undermining the useful parts.

That said, if you look at it from a broader perspective, gaze in so much as defined by "those in power will push towards things they like seeing" is still definitely a thing.

That's not a useful definition, nor is it true, not least for the reasons outlined above.

Now, if you want to argue that trying to remove sexual objectification of women (and to a lesser extent, men, see: Avengers and yummy men in tight, tight spandex) in media is a losing proposition because people innately are inclined to objectify folks in entertainment, that's a different argument. But you can't say that gaze doesn't exist as a broad concept.

I really can say gaze doesn't exist in a broad concept. It doesn't.

Even if it did, we would be able to demonstrate that it doesn't create objectification, and even if it did, objectification doesn't apply to a gender as a group, and nor does one set of objectification create another generalised set merely by exposure, and nor is sexuality any different to any other interaction in human history.

 

[Mindwipe]

It does seem as if feminism as a word is becoming increasingly toxic even among young females. When I passed the admission test to law school and there was an introduction class to gender studies, most girls raised their hand (this was a clear majority, around 100 people or more) to signal that they perceived modern feminism as something negative. This is obviously based on my personal experiences so I don't have anything substantive to back up my statements. Most girls I know, who work in business life or for the public sector, just do not want to have anything to do with these shirt scandals and believe it is nonsense.

I don't really have strong opinions one way or the other but this just feels like another distraction from real issues.

Exactly.

There are absolutely issues facing discrimination that happen to women.

And they are almost entirely economic in nature, because we live in a capitalist system that is fundamentally based around never having to be able to take time off for health, pregnancy or maternity reasons. They need to be fixed. And there are issues of widespread theocracies which literally do treat women as second class citizens.

But the fight against those is actively hurt by the church of anti-sex and it's belief in objectification.

 

[berzeli]

Well, if it ever got to the point that it was no longer socially acceptable to do so, yes I guess such an opinion would have that effect in the end. Keep in mind, feminists also advocate ceasing criticism of evaluating clothes women wear as a relevant criticism of many work environments (see the story about the Australian news anchor). That opinion, if socially accepted, would effectively ban criticism of those clothing choices.

@berzeli, I understand the shirt is offensive to others, and not offensive to me, but I just posted plenty of examples of shit that WAS offensive to me but I tolerated, even in my hometown. The point is that I beleive the world is better of if people are free to express themselves as much as is reasonably possible. That includes legally free and socially free.

With respect to your argument about maintaining "a healthy working environment," while I cannot prove whether the ESA ld have acheived its goal without the guy wearing the shirt, I can prove that it did. Therefore, there isn't really a need to exclude his shirt from acceptable dress, unless you want the ESA to be more welcoming to women (a contention to which I re-submit my previous argument). And I'm not going to stop conflating freedom at home to freedom at work because the whole purpose of my argument is to make the workplace a place workers are more comfortable in- much like the home.

You choosing not to speak up about something that you find offensive doesn't objectively make you morally superior and it is not objectively the right thing to do. In your opinion it is the right thing to do, but I do not agree. If you are as you say you are a proponent of freedom of expression that freedom of expression includes the freedom to express criticism. To say that people should be silent about the things they dislike since that may affect others is censoring free speech in the name of free speech.

Yet again, the assumption that if an organisation achieves its goal makes anything to occurs within that organisation okay is something I can't accept. And here is Matt Taylor in the process of achieving that end goal whilst wearing something that is totally inoffensive and seems to be a standard issue ESA polo.

 

[GameGuru59]

I will say, when I first saw that Stephen Fry quote I thought it was kind of a mean spirited and bombastic framing of the issue. But I'm starting to agree more with it. If more peope held that opinion, I feel as though we'd all be alot more ability to express ourselves. That is essentially the opinion I wish the majority of people had. I feel as though you need to present more evidence than "I'm offended" for me to care about your issue (and to be fair, many of you have in this thread).

You choosing not to speak up about something that you find offensive doesn't objectively make you morally superior and it is not objectively the right thing to do. In your opinion it is the right thing to do, but I do not agree. If you are as you say you are a proponent of freedom of expression that freedom of expression includes the freedom to express criticism. To say that people should be silent about the things since that may effect others they dislike is censoring free speech in the name of free speech.

Yet again, the assumption that if an organisation achieves it goal makes anything to occurs within that organisation okay is something I can't accept. And here is Matt Taylor in the process of achieving that end goal whilst wearing something that is totally inoffensive and seems to be a standard issue ESA polo.

Never said I was morally superior. In fact, my argument depends on the assumption that no one is morally superior based on expression alone. Intent matters more than whether you are offended by a form of expression. Moreover, our argument is precisely over what freedom of expression (speech) means. I'm arguing it to mean you should be completely (legally free and socially free) to express character traits, while you are arguing people should be leagally and socially free to criticize anything they want. With respect to criticisim, I'm with you on the leagally free part. We fundementally disagree on the social part. "You're offended? Okay... what else?" That is my argument.

 

[The Technomancer]

It was a little more than debunked. There were academic papers that had gone to the point of saying watching a film would cause brain death, despite the writer having watched a film and still being alive to watch the paper. It was laughable.

But it was much more fundamental. The point of gaze is that it assumes that any two people have a neurologically common response, coming from both their own collection of experience and reactions, so you can generalise it and the behaviour. That fundamentally isn't true. It is a reductist argument that simply can't apply to anything as neurologically complex as a human being. Heck, it simply can't apply to anything as neurologically complex as a tapeworm.

As such, the entire notion of how people react to an image is fundamentally flawed, as is the notion that people will link representations to groups of human beings.

Wait, what? So your argument is that because when a room full of people watch a sad movie their resultant brain states are not identical down to the neural configuration we therefore cannot make any characterizations about what effect has been induced? As for the bolded, I don't even know where to start with that. One of its implications would be that no-one ever has an emotional connection to figures in media.

 

[jakonovski]

"Feminism is in danger of becoming toxic"

When even radfem of radfems Julie Bindel thinks you're in danger of undermining the entire movement with trivialities then perhaps it might be time to start to reassess tactics?

That's a really good article. And it's not especially about feminism either, I feel the root problem is first world navel gazing.

 

[MacNille]

I just saw this on my Twitter feed. Why is he so angry?

I used to think he was a pretty cool guy as well.

Check out his twitter feed. He went mental over someone saying that whites can't experience racism. He is from Ireland. Put two and two together.

 

[SwissLion]

Well, if it ever got to the point that it was no longer socially acceptable to do so, yes I guess such an opinion would have that effect in the end. Keep in mind, feminists also advocate ceasing criticism of evaluating clothes women wear as a relevant criticism of many work environments (see the story about the Australian news anchor). That opinion, if socially accepted, would effectively ban criticism of those clothing choices.

@berzeli, I understand the shirt is offensive to others, and not offensive to me, but I just posted plenty of examples of shit that WAS offensive to me but I tolerated, even in my hometown. The point is that I beleive the world is better of if people are free to express themselves as much as is reasonably possible. That includes legally free and socially free.

With respect to your argument about maintaining "a healthy working environment," while I cannot prove whether the ESA ld have acheived its goal without the guy wearing the shirt, I can prove that it did. Therefore, there isn't really a need to exclude his shirt from acceptable dress, unless you want the ESA to be more welcoming to women (a contention to which I re-submit my previous argument). And I'm not going to stop conflating freedom at home to freedom at work because the whole purpose of my argument is to make the workplace a place workers are more comfortable in- much like the home.

People slinging shit at professional women exclusively because of their appearance is not the same as questioning someone's unprofessional and degrading bowling shirt. You keep talking about things being "Effectively banned" and seem to imply that this is a bad thing. I can't tell for sure because your argument is extremely muddled.

By your definition there are many things that are "Effectively banned". It's called the social contract. It's called rules and policies for workplaces. Slurs are "Effectively Banned" by your definition. I think that taking that manner of people "expressing themselves" is unequivocally a great thing. I couldn't wear a T-Shirt with a giant dick on it to work, and I work somewhere considerably less prestigious and professional than the ESA. That is okay. That's not censorship, oppression, fascism, or a banning. That's just the social contract.

And no, to your final paragraph, a "Healthy Work Environment" is not solely defined by "Did they achieve their stated goal?"

By your definition, they could be bonded workers on 20 hours shifts upon pain of death, and as long as they got that probe onto the comet, Healthy Work Environment achieved!

Comfortable work environments involve people interacting in a system and environment together. At what point does your desire to have people be able to "express themselves" impinge on the comfort of others? Wearing this shirt or not wearing it is a very minor variance in this guy's "Comfort" in the workplace. However, many people within the scientific community have expressed the fact that it would make them uncomfortable.

At what point does your weird equation tip and it's okay for people to say "Nah don't wear the shirt with pin-up girls on it on international television"?

 

[Mindwipe]

Wait, what? So your argument is that because when a room full of people watch a sad movie their resultant brain states are not identical down to the neural configuration we therefore cannot make any characterizations about what effect has been induced?

Yup.

As for the bolded, I don't even know where to start with that. One of its implications would be that no-one ever has an emotional connection to figures in media.

No it isn't. It's that the emotional connection relies on a sufficiently large collection of past information in the holder's mind and their unique neurology that their reaction is, to all intents and purposes, completely random, and hence the determinism of gaze can never apply.

 

[Dash27]

"Feminism is in danger of becoming toxic"

When even radfem of radfems Julie Bindel thinks you're in danger of undermining the entire movement with trivialities then perhaps it might be time to start to reassess tactics?

From the article

Instead of attacking the root cause of women’s inequality, we’ve moved towards the vilification of individuals.

No no... can't you read? They aren't vilifying him, they used the word casual.

 

[The Technomancer]

Yup.

No it isn't. It's that the emotional connection relies on a sufficiently large collection of past information in the holder's mind and their unique neurology that their reaction is, to all intents and purposes, completely random, and hence the determinism of gaze can never apply.

Emotional connection to media fundamentally relies on our ability to conflate representations with reality. Your argument about randomness is accurate, but its accurate in the same way that a thermal system can be described as random: yes the position of any given particle is fundamentally random, but that doesn't stop us from using trends about that distribution to draw conclusions.

 

[berzeli]

Mindwipe, if you say that there were academic papers published, would you be kind enough to link to those papers and if you could their reception in the scientific community?

And saying that something is self-evident is not enough proof when it is a contested subject.

 

[Mumei]

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

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

Sure, there is. There's a difference between saying, 'This thing that Matt Taylor did is an example of the sort of sexism that keeps women out of STEM" and "Matt Taylor is the reason women aren't in STEM." These aren't the same statement. And saying that Matt Taylor did something misogynist or sexist is not the same as calling him a misogynist or sexist.

 

[GameGuru59]

At what point does your weird equation tip and it's okay for people to say "Nah don't wear the shirt with pin-up girls on it on international television"?

When it becomes detrimental to the organization's mission, basically. I understand that in this case it WAS (sort of, if maintaining a good public image is tangentially to the ESA's mission) because of the current social contract, but someone has to break the mold to change the norm. I appluad this guy for inadvertedly trying.

Oh, and by the way. Feminists are trying to do the exact same thing when they're trying to discourage (ban via social contract) commentary on news anchorwomen'ls outfits. Those outfits are beneficial to the station's mission of getting decent ratings for news programs.

 

[Christine]

Well, if it ever got to the point that it was no longer socially acceptable to do so, yes I guess such an opinion would have that effect in the end. Keep in mind, feminists also advocate ceasing criticism of evaluating clothes women wear as a relevant criticism of many work environments (see the story about the Australian news anchor). That opinion, if socially accepted, would effectively ban criticism of those clothing choices.

If I accept this framing, we are talking about rival goods--a situation in which free expression is a zero-sum game or something like it. This is fair enough, but you cannot ground your preference for which expressions ought be permitted and which ought be restrained on the principle of freedom of expression itself. This, in my view, means that most of the arguments you've made in this thread need to be reconstructed from the ground up in order to be internally valid.

 

[SwissLion]

From the article

No no... can't you read? They aren't vilifying him, they used the word casual.

Care to actually address my response to your argument rather than snarking into the void?

 

[Dice//]

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

Re-quoting so it doesn't get paged.

Spoiler

...And honestly, it also sums up in a very concise manner a lot of what we've been saying here too

 

[Mindwipe]

Mindwipe, if you say that there were academic papers published, would you be kind enough to link to those papers and if you could their reception in the scientific community?

On gaze? I'm sure I can but I'll need a bit of time, we're talking about forty year old papers here. These things were laughing stocks even in the 70s.

But this was hardly outside the realms of the mainstream - any good film course will still teach you about the (nonsense) of Soviet Montage Theory and it's effects on the likes of Sergei Eisenstein, which are based on similar theories (weird how certain bits of feminism has adopted Russian Formulism as a political discourse). If they worked, we'd all be communists. They don't.

And saying that something is self-evident is not enough proof when it is a contested subject.

You're going to have to be more specific.

 

[Jak140]

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

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

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

Look, he said that he found a lot of what you said interesting and that you were making good points, if you don't consider that conciliatory I can't change your mind as to what that means if you disagree, but to me that is a conciliatory gesture. Like I said, I accept that you don't see it that way, but from an outsider perspective, that was the appearance to me.

Ultimately, the study found that cultural signifiers (in this case geeky items) affect whether women feel as if they fit in an environment (a negative outcome), we do not disagree on that point. The reason I brought it up is to address this specific statement you made:

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

I brought it up to address that just because something negatively contributes to the work environment, it isn't unreasonable to disagree over whether that means it should be outright disallowed. I agree that this specific shirt is more complex an issue for some who are also bothered by the arguably sexual nature of the the shirt in this context, but my purpose in bringing up that study was addressing the generalized statement you made in the quote above. I mean it's absolutely terrible that geeky items could potentially dissuade women from feeling as though they fit in in an environment, and the reasons are complex and intertwined with cultural stereotypes, but I don't think anyone here is advocating that we ban all geeky items from the workplace even if a potential consequence is that women in general feel less welcome there. If someone were making that argument, I can understand how others might feel that it was potentially dystopian. That's why I thought it was important to clarify that the issue is more complex than "a shirt is negatively contributing to the work environment, therefore people should not be allowed to wear it."

 

[sir_kevith]

Sure, there is. There's a difference between saying, 'This thing that Matt Taylor did is an example of the sort of sexism that keeps women out of STEM" and "Matt Taylor is the reason women aren't in STEM." These aren't the same statement. And saying that Matt Taylor did something misogynist or sexist is not the same as calling him a misogynist or sexist.

Is it a reasonable example as the "sort of sexism that keeps women out of STEM" to begin with when it's kind of a one-off outlandish occurrence? I've worked in STEM fields my whole life and that shirt wouldn't have been tolerated in any building I've worked in regardless if his female friend made it or not. I just don't see that shirt as the product of sexism in STEM it's way too absurd. I see how it's not a black and white issue though.

 

[berzeli]

On gaze? I'm sure I can but I'll need a bit of time, we're talking about forty year old papers here. These things were laughing stocks even in the 70s.

But this was hardly outside the realms of the mainstream - any good film course will still teach you about the (nonsense) of Soviet Montage Theory and it's effects on the likes of Sergei Eisenstein, which are based on similar theories (weird how certain bits of feminism has adopted Russian Formulism as a political discourse). If they worked, we'd all be communists. They don't.

You're going to have to be more specific.

Oh, yeah. You don't seem to be aware of how Soviet Montage theory is taught or what people nowadays claim that its effects are. And linking 40 year old studies may not help your argument, there is a lot of old papers/research that is no longer are relevant and may even seem silly. Not exclusively related to social sciences, see for instance the expectations for DDT or Thalidomide.


You can't state that sexual objectification doesn't exist because it just doesn't exist. You need to clarify and source that claim.

note: pre edit it said You can't state that male gaze doesn't exist because it just doesn't exist. You need to clarify and source that claim.

 

[jakonovski]

You can't state that male gaze doesn't exist because it just doesn't exist. You need to clarify and source that claim.

As someone who doesn't know about modern research of male gaze at all, I think we're missing the crucial step of linking some good ones. Because it can't all revolve around what a single person wrote back in the day. Unless of course I've passed the links by without noticing.

 

[Dash27]

Sure, there is. There's a difference between saying, 'This thing that Matt Taylor did is an example of the sort of sexism that keeps women out of STEM" and "Matt Taylor is the reason women aren't in STEM." These aren't the same statement. And saying that Matt Taylor did something misogynist or sexist is not the same as calling him a misogynist or sexist.

We're arguing semantics.

No, it doesn't say "Dr Matt Taylor is the sole reason there are no women in STEM". Of course, nobody is claiming that. . Now, if I were to say someone "is dressed slutty" because they were dressed like the cartoon girls on the shirt. Technically I'm not calling them a slut, but the implication is there and it's not subtle.

Of course this is all beside the point. Nothing here was sexist at all let alone misogyny, casual or otherwise.

 

[The Technomancer]

We're arguing semantics.

No, it doesn't say "Dr Matt Taylor is the sole reason there are no women in STEM". Of course, nobody is claiming that. . Now, if I were to say someone "is dressed slutty" because they were dressed like the cartoon girls on the shirt. Technically I'm not calling them a slut, but the implication is there and it's not subtle.

Of course this is all beside the point. Nothing here was sexist at all let alone misogyny, casual or otherwise.

A huge swathe of this thread was people misconstruing the argument as "that shirt is the reason why women aren't in STEM" and saying "well if that single shirt is why you wouldn't go into science you have bigger issues:

 

[Dash27]

First of all, the bolded? Hilarious. Just wonderful work.

Are you really using the words that literally say "Your Shirt is sexist" as some sort of 'slam dunk' evidence that it's an article calling the guy a misogynist? Do you know that shirts are not people?

Do you really, honestly not see how ridiculous you're being? A person is not solely defined by their acts. Intentions matter. Changing and Learning matter. They acknowledge and seem to believe his apology was genuine and appreciate it. The only additional apology they desire isn't from him at all, but from the institution that should have policies in place to prevent these kinds of screw-ups.

You're arguing that characterising someone's actions is "Objectively" exactly the same as characterising the person as a whole.

I'm comfortable calling your argument idiotic. This doesn't mean I'm calling you an idiot as I don't believe I have enough data points for me to comfortably say that. These are different things.

The shirt that girl was wearing is slutty and it offends me.

I'm not calling her a slut, people are not solely defined by their actions. Why can't you see the nuance in this?

That's what you're arguing. Sexist and Misogyny *should* be powerful words that are used in circumstances that warrant it. Not for racy bowling shirts.

 

[berzeli]

Look, he said that he found a lot of what you said interesting and that you were making good points, if you don't consider that conciliatory I can't change your mind as to what that means if you disagree, but to me that is a conciliatory gesture. Like I said, I accept that you don't see it that way, but from an outsider perspective, that was the appearance to me.

Ultimately, the study found that cultural signifiers (in this case geeky items) affect whether women feel as if they fit in an environment (a negative outcome), we do not disagree on that point. The reason I brought it up is to address this specific statement you made:



I brought it up to address that just because something negatively contributes to the work environment, it isn't unreasonable to disagree over whether that means it should be outright disallowed. I agree that this specific shirt is more complex an issue for some who are also bothered by the arguably sexual nature of the the shirt in this context, but my purpose in bringing up that study was addressing the generalized statement you made in the quote above. I mean it's absolutely terrible that geeky items could potentially dissuade women from feeling as though they fit in in an environment, and the reasons are complex and intertwined with cultural stereotypes, but I don't think anyone here is advocating that we ban all geeky items from the workplace even if the potential consequence is that women in general feel less welcome there. If someone were making that argument, I can understand how others might feel that it was potentially dystopian. That's why I thought it was important to clarify that the issue is more complex than "a shirt is negatively contributing to the work environment, therefore people should not be allowed to wear it."

Being conciliatory to me means more than agreeing on facts, and I don't understand why you are being insistent with this line of questioning with regards to the tone that you are ascribing to me and the other poster.

You have taken that quote of me out of its context both in the post and as its part in a larger discussion, I was trying to explain that his point of discussion wasn't "I agree with you except on this", his point of discussion was "I acknowledge the facts but this is my opinion". He was (and is) arguing that the working environment doesn't matter and even if you dislike it you shouldn't speak up. He wasn't being conciliatory he was presenting his argument.

 

[berzeli]

As someone who doesn't know about modern research of male gaze at all, I think we're missing the crucial step of linking some good ones. Because it can't all revolve around what a single person wrote back in the day. Unless of course I've passed the links by without noticing.

I'm not the one making a claim that something doesn't exist without backing it up.

Here is a link to a modern-ish study that includes the male gaze as its premise.

 

[SwissLion]

The shirt that girl was wearing is slutty and it offends me.

I'm not calling her a slut, people are not solely defined by their actions. Why can't you see the nuance in this?

That's what you're arguing. Sexist and Misogyny *should* be powerful words that are used in circumstances that warrant it. Not for racy bowling shirts.

You've twice now resorted to this ridiculous abstracted situation in which we know nothing but that you think an imaginary woman's manner of dress is "Slutty"

But to roll with it. No. You're not actually "calling her a slut" because English typically works on a distinct object/subject system. The articles weren't calling him a sexist. They say his actions were.

Every one of us, even the most diligent feminist, will occasionally engage in sexist though or action. Most people don't think those small actions make us sexists, and people describing them accurately (as sexist) does not suddenly become an attack on us personally. They're an opportunity to learn, as Taylor clearly has.

You seem to think "slutty" and "sexist" are equivalent manners of describing someone's attire. Is that something you actually believe?

"Let's not call small sexist things sexist because big sexist things exist" might be my new most hated defence of things though.

 

[Shosai]

When someone's actions or attire is called "sexist", most casual observers construe that to mean that the person itself is sexist. Similarly, when a person's demeanor or actions are referred to as "racist". These qualities don't exist in most people's minds as passive attributes.

 

[The Technomancer]

When someone's actions or attire is called "sexist", most casual observers construe that to mean that the person itself is sexist. Similarly, when a person's demeanor or actions are referred to as "racist". These qualities don't exist in most people's minds as passive attributes.

Which is, well, basically the problem. We think of issues like sexism and racism as things that are done maliciously by "bad people" instead of as descriptors of activities that all of us engage in to varying degrees.

 

[wildfire]

Which is, well, basically the problem. We think of issues like sexism and racism as things that are done maliciously by "bad people" instead of as descriptors of activities that all of us engage in to varying degrees.

Which is why a few years ago when I write posts I have changed my posting habits from saying you're being stupid to that is a stupid statement. Extending that to other descriptors is still a work in progress but it is important to acknowledge how much we are nuanced beings.

 

[The Technomancer]

Which isn't to say that there aren't racists or sexists in the world, just that not all racism or sexism stems from them. The key difference, to me, is the degree to which their racist or sexist opinions or actions either inform or stem from their worldview.

 

[Reishiki]

"Feminism is in danger of becoming toxic"

When even radfem of radfems Julie Bindel thinks you're in danger of undermining the entire movement with trivialities then perhaps it might be time to start to reassess tactics?

This is extremely surreal.

 

[Napoleonthechimp]

I'm not the one making a claim that something doesn't exist without backing it up.

Here is a link to a modern-ish study that includes the male gaze as its premise.

Laura Mulvey coined the term in her 1975 essay "Visual Pleasure and Narrative Cinema" in reference to how men - who controlled the film industry - altered the perception of women in film. I know this because I learned all about it decades ago in a film studies class.

"The male gaze occurs when the camera puts the audience into the perspective of a heterosexual man."

In the real world our perception of a subject isn't locked to one narrow view. Unless of course you choose to see it that way, and judging from the outrage a lot of people are doing just that.

 

[Jak140]

Being conciliatory to me means more than agreeing on facts, and I don't understand why you are being insistent with this line of questioning with regards to the tone that you are ascribing to me and the other poster.

You have taken that quote of me out of its context both in the post and as its part in a larger discussion, I was trying to explain that his point of discussion wasn't "I agree with you except on this", his point of discussion was "I acknowledge the facts but this is my opinion". He was (and is) arguing that the working environment doesn't matter and even if you dislike it you shouldn't speak up. He wasn't being conciliatory he was presenting his argument.

My intent wasn't to hang the point on the word conciliatory, but the fact that he was saying that you were making interesting posts and that he thought valid points were being made about the difficulty women face in STEM even if he had a difference of opinion on the importance of the shirt itself. To me those are conciliatory gestures, to you they may not qualify, but my point was that they seemed like a good jumping off point for further discussion, but were ignored in favor of dissecting the fascism statement. I was glad to read more discussion on that difference of opinion between you today, because I thought it was an interesting view even if I don't ultimately agree with it.

You asked me why I felt the need to bring up that study regarding geeky items making women feel as though they don't fit in in an office environment. My reason was to respond to that statement you made to me about that point of discussion which I thought was too broad. I don't think that context changes the broadness of that statement.

 

[berzeli]

Laura Mulvey coined the term in her 1975 essay "Visual Pleasure and Narrative Cinema" in reference to how men - who controlled the film industry - altered the perception of women in film. I know this because I learned all about it decades ago in a film studies class.

"The male gaze occurs when the camera puts the audience into the perspective of a heterosexual man."

In the real world our perception of a subject isn't being locked to one narrow view. Unless of course you choose to see it that way, and judging from the outrage a lot of people are.

I screwed up in my original post. He was talking about how sexual objectification didn't exist, not the male gaze. Also the concept of "gaze" has been along for longer even if it is as you say that the term 'male gaze' was coined by Laura Mulvey.

Luckily that study I linked was talking about both.

I think I got stuck in film theory mode when the other poster started talking about Soviet montage theory.

 

[Napoleonthechimp]

I screwed up in my original post. He was talking about how sexual objectification didn't exist, not the male gaze. Also the concept of "gaze" has been along for longer even if it is as you say that the term 'male gaze' was coined.

Luckily that study I linked was talking about both.

Objectification is the product of lustful desire of one for another, and both men and women have the ability to do that.

Which is why "male gaze" becoming synonymous with objectification annoys me.

 

[berzeli]

Objectification is the product of lustful desire of one for another, and both men and women have the ability to do that.

Which is why "male gaze" becoming synonymous with objectification annoys me.

Yeah, like I edited in into my post above, I think I got stuck in film theory mode when the other poster started talking about Soviet montage theory. Thank you for pointing it out to me.

 

[The Technomancer]

Objectification is the product of lustful desire of one for another, and both men and women have the ability to do that.

Which is why "male gaze" becoming synonymous with objectification annoys me.

Objectification in even non-sexual contexts is something that everyone engages in internally to some degree or another, sure. But when most people talk about it they're talking about externalized objectification, when one party uses objectification (consciously or not) to influence a second party, usually in media. I agree that that, while the concept of gaze has value, it gets a bit overplayed these days and I'm not entirely sure of its specific relevance here other then the discussion turning to film.

 

[KingK]

I had no idea what this whole "controversy" was until today and haven't read this whole thread. The shirt is tacky as fuck and unprofessional for such an event but the accusations and vitriol thrown at the guy was a fucking ridiculous overreaction. To make the guy apologize in tears on tv when he should be happy and celebrating his achievment just seems like bullying/"let's mock the awkward nerd" to me.

I consider myself a feminist and normally agree with the feminist opinion on stuff like this, but this seems like a case where people are just reaching for something to be offended by. It's just a shirt with some cartoon women on it. It's an ugly looking shirt but who honestly gives a shit? Am i supposed to feel offended or objectified every time i see an image of a half naked guy on a poster or calendar or something that a woman owns?

 

[FoneBone]

I had no idea what this whole "controversy" was until today and haven't read this whole thread. The shirt is tacky as fuck and unprofessional for such an event but the accusations and vitriol thrown at the guy was a fucking ridiculous overreaction. To make the guy apologize in tears on tv when he should be happy and celebrating his achievment just seems like bullying/"let's mock the awkward nerd" to me.

I consider myself a feminist and normally agree with the feminist opinion on stuff like this, but this seems like a case where people are just reaching for something to be offended by. It's just a shirt with some cartoon women on it. It's an ugly looking shirt but who honestly gives a shit? Am i supposed to feel offended or objectified every time i see an image of a half naked guy on a poster or calendar or something that a woman owns?

a. I'm not sure you've read any of this thread, since the same points have been made in response to posts like yours over and over again
b. For about the 100th time here: that he was breaking into tears because of mean feminist bullies, as opposed to genuinely thinking he made a mistake, is entirely your subjective interpretation of events

 

[FoneBone]

BTW people insisting (as though it were objective fact) that he was only apologizing because he felt bullied into it do not strike me as arguing in good faith. Hence my annoyance.