Top 10 feminist fiascoes

[Jokodo]

I think women should have equal rights and opportunities to men. However, I do not see how banning certain clothing or joking among employees would accomplish that. I.e. I do not see why women should be seen as "measure of all things" when it comes to what is appropriate in the workplace.

- - - Updated - - -

The "wailing and gnashing of teeth" was almost entirely on the side of the "how dare they tell him it's inappropriate" camp. You're engaging in it right now.

Obviously not.

Very obviously yes.

NASA? Sweet. You do know that there's a world outside of the US of A, don't you?

My bad. It was a mistake. Got any other nits to pick?

It's not nitpicking to point out that you don't know shit about the object of your rage.

 

[Derec]

It's not nitpicking to point out that you don't know shit about the object of your rage.

I know Rosetta is an ESA mission. As I said, I merely made a mistake when replying to the post.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Hate to interrupt your latest lets all attack Derec thread, but what was this tshirt incident? This is the first I heard of it. Anybody have a link?

 

[Jokodo]

Hate to interrupt your latest lets all attack Derec thread, but what was this tshirt incident? This is the first I heard of it. Anybody have a link?

From astronomer, blogger, and (in Derec's universe) fifth column man Phil Plait (author of the Bad Astronomy blog):
http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astr...sexism_when_a_shirt_is_more_than_a_shirt.html

Matt Taylor, the Rosetta mission’s project scientist, went on the air to talk about the successful landing. However, his choice of attire was unfortunate.

He was wearing a bowling shirt covered in pinup-style drawings of scantily clad women.

...

Importantly, the next day, clearly upset he had caused such a fuss, Taylor apologized on air sincerely and graciously for his actions. For the most part, the people who were upset accepted his apology and moved on.

But it doesn’t end there. As you might expect, when people complained about the casual sexism of the shirt and the mission description, a frothing torrent of backlash misogyny swept over social media, another in a long line of demonstrations of Lewis’ law (“Comments on any article about feminism justify feminism.”)

...

If you think this is just women complaining, you’re wrong. Certainly many have, and rightly so. But the fact is, I’m writing about it. I can point you to many men, friends of mine, scientists and science communicators all, who have spoken up about it. It’s important that men speak up, and it’s important that we listen, too.

 

[Jokodo]

Or also:

A pornographer (and atheist) explains why the science guy’s shirt crash-landed

So, I’m a pornographer. I have written pornography, produced it, published it, edited it, sold it, bought it, reviewed it, modeled for it, narrated it, read it publicly, and performed in it. I have written, produced. published, edited, sold, bought, reviewed, modeled for, narrated, read, and performed in pornographic fiction, video, photography, comics, and probably other media I can’t remember now.

[...]

So. Please bear that in mind.

I am sick to death of hearing that feminists are sex-hating prudes because we don’t want imagery of women in video games to be overwhelmingly sexual. I’m sick of hearing that we’re sex-hating prudes because we want conferences to have rules and guidelines about sexual conduct at conferences, so people are not harassed and groped and assaulted against their will. I’m sick of hearing that we’re sex-hating prudes because we think there are times and places where explicit sexual imagery is not appropriate — such as, oh, say, just for example, the public media announcement of a major landmark in scientific discovery.

Repeat for other issues, as appropriate.

The idea that sex-positivity and sexual liberation means everybody expressing every sexual thought and acting on every sexual desire, the minute it pops into our heads — this is bullshit. Sex-positivity and sexual liberation means… well, it means somewhat different things to different people. But one of the central things it means is a celebration of consensual sexuality, an acceptance of a variety of consensual sexual orientations and activities, a philosophy that sees consensual sex as, overall, a positive and valuable experience.

Why is this so hard to understand?

The particular incident that sparked this piece was the “sexy pinup girl” shirt that Rosetta Project scientist Matt Taylor wore while talking to reporters about the Philae comet landing. As a feminist — and as a pornographer — I think this was sexist, demeaning, and wildly inappropriate. There are appropriate places and times to wear clothing with sexual imagery on it — sex parties, erotica readings, erotic art openings, I can probably think of a few others. But the very public announcement of a major event in the history of scientific discovery — landing a robot on a comet! — is not one of those places or times.

[...]

 

[AthenaAwakened]

What I found interesting was that when my husband and I watched, HE noticed the shirt and commented on it (being inappropriate). He is an engineer.

So, no it's not all the fem-nazis noticing these things (or making them up). It's fathers, brothers and uncles wanting more their daughters, sisters and nieces.

Well, I have noticed that when men actually have women in their lives and not just their fantasies, they tend to see the world with more empathy and insight.

 

[Derec]

This is the shirt in question. While it can be argued that a shirt like that is not professional enough for a public appearance like that no matter the subject matter (say cars or planes or Star Wars) I fail to see how it's "sexist" or "demeaning". It doesn't even have any nudity on it, and it's obvious that the theme is more "sexy sci-fi babe" than "pin up".

 

[Nice Squirrel]

I fail to see how it's "sexist" or "demeaning".

Of course you don't.

 

[RavenSky]

I fail to see how it's "sexist" or "demeaning".

it's obvious that the theme is more "sexy sci-fi babe"...

snort

 

[Davka]

This is the shirt in question. While it can be argued that a shirt like that is not professional enough for a public appearance like that no matter the subject matter (say cars or planes or Star Wars) I fail to see how it's "sexist" or "demeaning".

Well, then, can we try looking at it from a different direction?

Do you agree that the images on the shirt are essentially hyper-sexualized male fantasies, rather than accurate depictions of women? In other words, can you see that these cartoon versions of women are intended to be at least partially erotic, just as similar cartoons of men with rippling muscles are intended to be partially erotic?

To me, there's no real difference between the pics on the shirt and the cover of a standard "chick-lit" bodice-ripper such as this one:

Do you see the similarity?

 

[Derec]

Do you see the similarity?

Well there is a similarity, except that Fabio there is naked while the women on the shirt have most of their body covered. Perhaps you should have chosen a different picture to make your point. And I do not think those images are sexist or demeaning. Again, I did acknowledge the shirt was not professional.

Or take advertisements. Feminists often complain that ads that eroticize women are "sexist". They do not have similar complaints about ads that eroticize men. Neither do they complain about actual sexism (I do not consider eroticization to be sexist) in commercials, for example the usual portrayal of men as bumbling idiots who have to shown by their wives how to do even the simplest household tasks.

 

[Metaphor]

This is the shirt in question. While it can be argued that a shirt like that is not professional enough for a public appearance like that no matter the subject matter (say cars or planes or Star Wars) I fail to see how it's "sexist" or "demeaning".

Well, then, can we try looking at it from a different direction?

Do you agree that the images on the shirt are essentially hyper-sexualized male fantasies, rather than accurate depictions of women? In other words, can you see that these cartoon versions of women are intended to be at least partially erotic, just as similar cartoons of men with rippling muscles are intended to be partially erotic?

To me, there's no real difference between the pics on the shirt and the cover of a standard "chick-lit" bodice-ripper such as this one:

Do you see the similarity?

The T-shirt has clothed women -- the 'bodice ripper' artwork depicts a nude man (who incidentally needs a haircut).

Is the bodice ripper depiction sexist and demeaning towards men? If a person at my workplace was reading a book with a cover like that on their lunchbreak, would that be sexist and demeaning?

 

[arkirk]

max, when did you go so far to the right?

Pretty recently. Let me check my calendar...hmmm, says here it was September 21st of 1969...

Yup max; that seems about right! I have never been able to link anti-woman to conservative politics so easily as to read one of your posts. There have been some feminist fiascoes indeed, but mostly these have come from women who have been so beaten down all their lives, they react with violence or become so prickly and self defensive against men, they cannot tolerate them for even a few minutes. Abuse leads to aggression from the abused. You seem to desire to devote none of your attention to ameliorating the effects of discrimination by eliminating the causative discrimination but instead seem to want to ratchet it up. I might just ask you why you do this.

 

[ZiprHead]

Bet he won't tell you.

 

[PyramidHead]

I don't think max has any actual opinions, he just uses right wing talking points as an excuse to bring out his favorite vocabulary words. Like "puffery" and "muttonhead". At least that's the charitable reading of his posts.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

Well, then, can we try looking at it from a different direction?

Do you agree that the images on the shirt are essentially hyper-sexualized male fantasies, rather than accurate depictions of women? In other words, can you see that these cartoon versions of women are intended to be at least partially erotic, just as similar cartoons of men with rippling muscles are intended to be partially erotic?

To me, there's no real difference between the pics on the shirt and the cover of a standard "chick-lit" bodice-ripper such as this one:

Do you see the similarity?

The T-shirt has clothed women -- the 'bodice ripper' artwork depicts a nude man (who incidentally needs a haircut).

Is the bodice ripper depiction sexist and demeaning towards men? If a person at my workplace was reading a book with a cover like that on their lunchbreak, would that be sexist and demeaning?

Yep, and it you were wearing a shirt with that print it would be workplace inappropriate.

 

[Toni]

Well, then, can we try looking at it from a different direction?

Do you agree that the images on the shirt are essentially hyper-sexualized male fantasies, rather than accurate depictions of women? In other words, can you see that these cartoon versions of women are intended to be at least partially erotic, just as similar cartoons of men with rippling muscles are intended to be partially erotic?

To me, there's no real difference between the pics on the shirt and the cover of a standard "chick-lit" bodice-ripper such as this one:

Do you see the similarity?

The T-shirt has clothed women -- the 'bodice ripper' artwork depicts a nude man (who incidentally needs a haircut).

Is the bodice ripper depiction sexist and demeaning towards men? If a person at my workplace was reading a book with a cover like that on their lunchbreak, would that be sexist and demeaning?

The image on the book cover depicts sexist representations of both the man and the woman. One difference between the book cover and the tshirt is that a book cover can be easily hidden behind another book cover to avoid offending anyone or betraying one's lower brow tastes in literature. The tshirt is being worn as work attire and more than that, is being worn by someone representing his employer in a public and official capacity. This is starkly diffetent than what one chooses to read on break but my employer would have a serious problem with employees reading material openly with such depictions as on the book cover.

If that shirt were worn under a sweater for example or if the same images were on this man's underwear, no one would have a reason to care.

As it is, he chose a garmet which should not be worn to most work places and certainly not to represent NASA in any official or public capacity. This lack of good judgement should warrant a stern reprimand from his supervisor. Worn at say, the mall? Who cares?

The other issue is how much of an issue is gender equity at NASA? What is the culture? Do all people feel welcome and respected or just straight white males.

 

[Davka]

Do you see the similarity?

Well there is a similarity, except that Fabio there is naked while the women on the shirt have most of their body covered. Perhaps you should have chosen a different picture to make your point. And I do not think those images are sexist or demeaning. Again, I did acknowledge the shirt was not professional.

So you see that the images are eroticised sexual fantasy - that's good.

Can you see how a woman might feel uncomfortable in a workplace where men felt free to wear such images?

Or take advertisements. Feminists often complain that ads that eroticize women are "sexist". They do not have similar complaints about ads that eroticize men.

Sure they do. Feminists dislike objectification of humans, period. It's just that the objections to objectified male fantasy-figures don't get as much press.

Neither do they complain about actual sexism (I do not consider eroticization to be sexist) in commercials, for example the usual portrayal of men as bumbling idiots who have to shown by their wives how to do even the simplest household tasks.

The feminists I've talked to (at length, since most of my friends are feminists) are equally annoyed by those things.

You are correct that eroticism in and of itself is not sexist. However, the creation of a work environment which accepts the open display of erotic female images is most definitely sexist. Such an environment is deeply uncomfortable and off-putting to most women. Most men, on the other hand, are either OK with it or simply don't notice. When an environment is disturbing and even threatening to one gender but not the other, that environment is inherently sexist.

And yes, that also goes for environments in which men are made to feel threatened and uncomfortable but women are not. But the truth is that woman-unfriendly environments are far more common than man-unfriendly environments, and STEM workplaces are extremely likely to be the former.

 

[bilby]

The T-shirt has clothed women -- the 'bodice ripper' artwork depicts a nude man (who incidentally needs a haircut).

Is the bodice ripper depiction sexist and demeaning towards men? If a person at my workplace was reading a book with a cover like that on their lunchbreak, would that be sexist and demeaning?

The image on the book cover depicts sexist representations of both the man and the woman. One difference between the book cover and the tshirt is that a book cover can be easily hidden behind another book cover to avoid offending anyone or betraying one's lower brow tastes in literature. The tshirt is being worn as work attire and more than that, is being worn by someone representing his employer in a public and official capacity. This is starkly diffetent than what one chooses to read on break but my employer would have a serious problem with employees reading material openly with such depictions as on the book cover.

If that shirt were worn under a sweater for example or if the same images were on this man's underwear, no one would have a reason to care.

As it is, he chose a garmet which should not be worn to most work places and certainly not to represent NASA in any official or public capacity. This lack of good judgement should warrant a stern reprimand from his supervisor. Worn at say, the mall? Who cares?

The other issue is how much of an issue is gender equity at NASA? What is the culture? Do all people feel welcome and respected or just straight white males.

The culture at NASA is unlikely to influence the shirt selection choices of people working at the ESA.

What is it with Americans, do you really have so much trouble grasping the fact that you are not the only people with a space program?

 

[Toni]

The image on the book cover depicts sexist representations of both the man and the woman. One difference between the book cover and the tshirt is that a book cover can be easily hidden behind another book cover to avoid offending anyone or betraying one's lower brow tastes in literature. The tshirt is being worn as work attire and more than that, is being worn by someone representing his employer in a public and official capacity. This is starkly diffetent than what one chooses to read on break but my employer would have a serious problem with employees reading material openly with such depictions as on the book cover.

If that shirt were worn under a sweater for example or if the same images were on this man's underwear, no one would have a reason to care.

As it is, he chose a garmet which should not be worn to most work places and certainly not to represent NASA in any official or public capacity. This lack of good judgement should warrant a stern reprimand from his supervisor. Worn at say, the mall? Who cares?

The other issue is how much of an issue is gender equity at NASA? What is the culture? Do all people feel welcome and respected or just straight white males.

The culture at NASA is unlikely to influence the shirt selection choices of people working at the ESA.

What is it with Americans, do you really have so much trouble grasping the fact that you are not the only people with a space program?

No I was just being dumb and lazy and following off of other posts citing NASA. My bad. Mea culpa. Unfortunately the US doesn't have much of a space program anymore....

Same points though, for the ESA.