ZombiePlatypus
Member
Thankfully a great many, is not all work environments.
It's really sad they had to save face by putting out an official statement regarding what should have just been a non issue.
-
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
Thankfully a great many, is not all work environments.
It's really sad they had to save face by putting out an official statement regarding what should have just been a non issue.
Brawndo Addict
Banned
Even if you decide to take an absolutist position that all content is merely a black and white dichotomy with no nuance, i.e. it is just sexual or nonsexual, violent or nonviolent, that has no relevance or bearing on the impacts and effects of said content. You can label content differently, but the effects of said content will remain the same regardless of your preferred vocabulary. Besides that, limiting yourself to two super generalized groups provides little or no explanatory strength or resources. It would be like studying customers for a business and only using male and female as your groups, or 18+ and minors. That would provide little to no relevant information about what you want to know. It would be so generalized as to be completely useless and unmeaningful.
From an article series Dr. Caroline Heldman wrote aboutSexual objectification sexual content.
From an article series Dr. Caroline Heldman wrote about
So sexy is now verboten so long as it's relative proximity to the word easy? Sexy is often used all over the place in tech by nearly everyone. "That code is sexy" or the like. And yes, in conference presentations and keynotes.
YesNOnoNOYes
Member
"That code is sexy" = nongendered.
"She's sexy but she isn't easy" = .......................... do we need an explanation on the gender-biased created by this statement here? really?
:x
Morrigan Stark
Arrogant Smirk
I don't think this post could be any more disingenuous if it tried...
I love how the Simpsons nailed it like over a decade ago. <3
radios shipping overview
Member
You are being intentionally oblivious to context and the ways female objectification reinforces existing power structures and gender roles. Sexuality is not harmful in itself. Portraying women as sexual objects merely to be utilized by men is harmful. The shirt in question references male fantasies of scantily-clad fantasy women from another era, which reinforces the idea of science as a boys' club and creates an unwelcoming environment for women. It's like a nudie calendar on the wall of an auto body shop. It creates an environment that's not welcoming to female employees, just like a photo of a vulnerable, beefy dude in leather and chains, heavy with homoerotic overtones, would make a work environment unfriendly to male employees. A workplace where all colleagues are equals shouldn't contain visual references that reduce a person's entire worth to the total of their sexuality, nor should it emphasize sexuality in a situation that is about work toward a common goal and not about getting lucky.
Kano on the Phone
Member
Ronito has already dropped some drive by, dense comments in this thread without any follow up.
This seems to go back to my original point in this thread. You outline how sexually objectifying 'content' may have a detrimental effect on society, especially women. From the perspective of 'feminism' though, it seems like a contradictory message to me. Sexual objectification through advertising and other content needs women to willingly participate in the production of such sexual imagery. Behind sexually objectifying content are women who as a job pose or have some part in the production of such content. Feminism seems to say this is okay because the women have 'agency' and control over their body and affirms their ability to choose how to live their life. It goes so far as to stress that women should be able to express themselves sexually however they please, without being 'slut shamed' and so on.
Pornstars it is said are 'empowered' by their job. They're the ones in control and have power over their body and sexuality. Yet, it seems to me 'porn', which is extremely widespread, is one of the most sexually objectifying industries around. It portrays women as easy targets that will do anyone, and literally do anything.
This is the new feminism. It seems on one hand to champion women's right to express themselves sexually as job and not to be judged for doing so, yet chastises men and society in general for consuming what they produce.
This new feminism incidentally is touched upon in one of your links:
If it is fine within feminism for women to produce sexual content that arguably contributes to the sexual objectification of women within popular culture, because they have 'agency' and 'power' over their bodies, then how can they turn around and say the content they produce is sexist?
Funny considering how women were rising so prolifically in Programming decades ago. Have we gotten any studies trying to figure out what happened?
Let's see, first there was backlash to the shirt
then backlash backlash
now it looks like we're on backlash backlash backlash and descending to the next level
Can't find a perfect scholarly example on short notice but just because the models who participate in advertising are celebrated for doing whatever the fuck they want, doesn't mean that the end product of their work which involves many more people than just the models, mostly men, can't be harmful, sexist and damaging.
The way model's bodies are manipulated and "perfected" through photoshopping has been widely criticised by feminist critics and models alike. The way their images are used are often not up to them. And in a competitive industry, people will often not have the greatest ability to pick and choose work.
People aren't "Slut shaming" the women who appear in sexist advertising. People are criticising the people who actually conceive of and produce that advertising or other content. Which again. Is mostly men. Especially as you go higher up.
This is a pretty commonly repeated semi-myth. The porn industry is certainly a lot better than it used to be with regards to exploitation. And there are certainly many people working independently or for reputable, safe companies who can do what they are comfortable with and what they enjoy and get paid for it. That's great. That empowerment tends to disappear very very quickly as soon as you look down a few rung on the porn stardom ladder. It's still an industry plagued with horrific problems, pretty unsurprisingly.
Painting it as black and white as this is really counter-productive and simplistic. "You say porn stars are empowered! But look at this exploitative shit over here!" Yes. It's a nuanced situation and requires a nuanced perspective. This isn't doublethink or anything. It's just treating a complex situation with the complexity it deserves.
And all I'll say to your final point is that women are just as capable of participating in misogynistic and oppressive behaviour and thinking as men are. I'd say the rates of such vary, obviously. But it's not cut and dry.
BocoDragon
or, How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Realize This Assgrab is Delicious
My FB has been flooded with "WTF feminism" memes over this... and I'm in Canada and my friends list is liberal, left-leaning, and probably in most senses general supporters of gender equality.
This was a divisive issue....
The fact that they tried is hopeful.
The fact that they failed kind of points to the flaws of Barbie. Her whole character is being an airhead and being surrounded by pink.
This was a divisive issue....
The fact that they tried is hopeful.
The fact that they failed kind of points to the flaws of Barbie. Her whole character is being an airhead and being surrounded by pink.
That's not really the point I was making. It's not about whether it is harmful, sexist or damaging, it is a particular view in this brand of 'new' feminism that champions women in this field (as well as women in general). that sex is power, and that it is okay to express yourself sexually (in this case specifically in your work) as long as you have 'agency'. I just find it somewhat contradictory then to argue the consumption of the content that they produce is then sexist. In some way they are contributing to sexually objectifying content within popular culture.
And photoshopping imagery doesn't necessarily change the fact that it is sexually objectifying in the first place.
I'm not sure what point you are actually making here. The argument made against 'slut shaming' is that it is a double standard. Women should be able to wear what they want and have sex with who they want without being judged or criticised for doing so. That is perfectly fine. It is a specific attitude that ties in with other views of women's right to express themselves sexually. Sex is power, and being able to freely express that power sexually is a woman's right.
And this is where it starts to confuse me. It seems to me the line is blurred, or somewhat arbitrary when it comes to what is and isn't sexually objectifying. Viewing women as sexual objects. To me it is not so much sexually explicit content in and of itself, but rather the quantity and pervasiveness of it within society, that paints a picture of women in a certain way; It is advertisement, TV, porn, music, etc.
I'm really not sure personally how anyone can say porn is not sexually objectifying, it seems to be so in its very nature. A woman who always seems extremely easy to lay being banged in every orifice with a nice face full of cum for afters. I'm not sure there is a man out there who thinks, "I wonder what her view on politics is?". It's not something that enters a person's mind, she is quite literally an 'object' for your sexual gratification.
I'm not going to argue whether sexual objectification is really as detrimental to society as some may believe. Hypothetically though, if it was, then I would assume first that, it's not so much porn in and of itself, but rather the accumulation of things that sums up to a portrayal of women a certain way. Porn would not be the sole cause but rather something that may contribute to that attitude. In the same way, it is not advertisement or the content, as such, but rather the pervasiveness of that advertisement within society. It could be a woman in underwear in a sexy, provocative pose. It is not simply that sole image in a vacuum, but rather the sheer amount of it that portrays a woman a certain way, right?
Well, sorry for that then. I just quoted his post after reading it but not after reading the rest of the thread.
Won't happen again.
fushi
Member
I am only now getting a read on this whole topic and #shirtstorm in general, but I have been wondering about another, related subject for some time now, actually ever since gamergate took off.
Have there been any articles or studies on the way the media is portraying these controversies and whether they are purposefully publishing polarising, possibly vitriolic articles to gain clicks? I know that this is nothing new in regards to the general trends in internet-based clickbait media, but the oft-quoted the Verge article about the shirt signaled a new low for me, both in regards to their site and the feminist discourse. They make great attempts at focusing at the offense (a poorly-chosen shirt by a man), rather than the larger, complex issues (women in tech, objectification), so as to keep the subject simple, hot and fresh.
And this in turn suffocates reasonable, thought-out discussions and keeps moderate feminists such as myself from even voicing an opinion. Partly because I don't want to end up being ostracized by either side, but mostly because the subject itself immediately becomes an overblown shouting match, where only the loudest prevail. And the media keeps fueling it, rather than playing the part of the mediator (pun somewhat intended).
I care about these subjects but don't want to touch them anymore. This fucking sucks.
Have there been any articles or studies on the way the media is portraying these controversies and whether they are purposefully publishing polarising, possibly vitriolic articles to gain clicks? I know that this is nothing new in regards to the general trends in internet-based clickbait media, but the oft-quoted the Verge article about the shirt signaled a new low for me, both in regards to their site and the feminist discourse. They make great attempts at focusing at the offense (a poorly-chosen shirt by a man), rather than the larger, complex issues (women in tech, objectification), so as to keep the subject simple, hot and fresh.
And this in turn suffocates reasonable, thought-out discussions and keeps moderate feminists such as myself from even voicing an opinion. Partly because I don't want to end up being ostracized by either side, but mostly because the subject itself immediately becomes an overblown shouting match, where only the loudest prevail. And the media keeps fueling it, rather than playing the part of the mediator (pun somewhat intended).
I care about these subjects but don't want to touch them anymore. This fucking sucks.
My point is that most models working for ad agencies aren't actually getting an opportunity to express themselves particularly. My point about photoshopping and the legions of people who make the decisions about that content is that beyond the choice to take that job or not, most models don't actually have agency over their image in that content.
This doesn't mean modelling = oppression or anything, but the industry just does not work like the idealised version you seem to be presenting here.
How is it a double standard to decry slut shaming? My point was that criticising these ad campaigns or other media stuff isn't usually criticising the women involved at all. It's a criticism of the larger creative effort that went into that content. The two coexist just fine.
The whole point is the line is extremely blurry. Lines usually are. Everyone is going to have a different scale for judging objectification and sexualisation and exploitation. And what you're describing is a pretty particular subset of porn. There's an increasingly large market for what is sometimes described as "Female-Friendly Porn". This doesn't necessarily mean it's specifically targeted at women. It's not soft-core, by any means. It just breaks the mould of what porn traditionally has been. Many of the people who find porn empowering are working in those kinds of areas. Or have enough cache to be able to set terms pretty adamantly. My point was that you can simultaneously say that sex work can be empowering, while also acknowledging the very serious problem with depictions of sex in porn.
Not treating a huge industry as a monolithic entity that is either bad or good helps to avoid that kind of black and white thinking.
Well, very few jobs give you total control, obviously. However, they do choose that particular line of work.
I never said it was. :s
Well, I was making a bigger point here. First of all, what I am describing is probably the norm as far as porn goes, not the exception. Much more 'tasteful' porn is more likely the exception.
I see porn as sexually objectifying in its nature though. As I said before, it seems to me it is the pervasiveness of the content within society, not really the content itself. And so, I don't think it really matters what the actual content of that particular porn movie is, it is rather the sheer amount of imagery within society that leads to a particular view about women. If the argument is that women are only viewed as sex objects with no other worth, then surely portraying women as a sex object in the form of porn, only serves to perpetuate that view? It is contributing to all the other imagery that amounts to something that is pervasive.
In that sense, they may have agency and control, but so what? If it in some way contributes to sexual objectification in society what difference does it make?
I was hesitating about bumping this, but people may wish to know that the American Astronomical Society has also released a statement:
http://aas.org/posts/news/2014/11/aas-issues-statement-shirtgateshirtstorm
http://aas.org/posts/news/2014/11/aas-issues-statement-shirtgateshirtstorm
Pretty good statement, and clarification is always a good thing.
That said, we'll see if those who decry harassment show the same passion defending the scientist or not.
YesNOnoNOYes
Member
Nice. Encouraging to know that the actual organisations involved are very progressive and inclusive.
:>
Thanks for the update, Yrael <3
Liu Kang Baking A Pie
Member
I love how specific it is about who it's calling out and why. Well done.
Boring. "All that we as women do is to fret about his shirt" is not a useful characterization of coverage of the event. "Fretting about the shirt" was not *all* that happened. It's something that *also* happened. In addition to celebrating the success and proselytizing the science.
YesNOnoNOYes
Member
It's almost as if Feminism is a one monolithical organisation that has to redirect its joint pool of resources towards a unified goal under the direction of one true matriarch's tyranny or something
Thanks for the article, CompyMKII. Always good to hear a woman's take on feminism. Though I think, one woman's definition of 'trivial bs' is not particularly a compelling ground to stop other women addressing a variety of issues we find relevant to feminism.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked