Feminism Thread

[chazzyphizzle]

jabroni??? let's not say things we can't take back tyven

[Waraji]

rofl, can't remember the last time I heard jabroni.

[hey]

If a man wearing a shirt with gun toting babes stops you from pursuing science then your probably better off taking women studies or journalism in college anyway.

It's not about one shirt. It's about the million different things that all contribute to it, including this.

[GoggleHead]

If that shirt was inappropriate it was only because it was business casual instead of at least a button down shirt.

[Priran]

It's not about one shirt. It's about the million different things that all contribute to it, including this.

Besides how super sure I am that this writer for the Verge is intimately aware of the culture at the European Space Agency, it seems like you might be equivocating just a tad. You don't get to run the headline "THIS AWFUL MAN AND HIS SEXIST SHIRT ARE HOLDING BACK SPACE EXPLORATION" and claim it's "not about one shirt". You don't get to harass a man for how he's making it impossible for women to enter the field by wearing the shirt until he comes out on stage crying for forgiveness and say it isn't about the shirt. You're talking about the shirt, you're using the shirt to push your stupid agenda, it's about the shirt and you made it about the shirt.

[BaneTheBrawler]

its about ethics in games journalism

[Kuishen]

Fucking this.

I've always enjoyed the casual hypocrisy of feminism where women are simultaneously strong and independent, but somehow so weak-willed that one dude's shirt is powerful enough to stop a legion of women from pursuing their dreams. Or the doublethink where women are allowed to be smart and sexy (I agree with this), but somehow a man appreciating a woman's sex appeal is barbaric and demeaning.

Here's another one. A strong independent man would not give half a fuck if a woman wore a shirt with bare-chested He-Men on it. In fact, a strong independent man would probably high five the shit out of her.

Spoiler: show

And then get accused of harassment.

People who aren't trying to push agendas really don't give a fuck about this sort of thing.

[Charismatic]

Here's another one. A strong independent man would not give half a fuck if a woman wore a shirt with bare-chested He-Men on it. In fact, a strong independent man would probably high five the shit out of her.

Spoiler: show

And then get accused of harassment.

People who aren't trying to push agendas really don't give a fuck about this sort of thing.

muh power fantasy doe


Also, I'd like to re-link this video. Its topical now.

[Xantavia]

Can't wait for all these ladies to come out against Kirk Cameron for his obvious anti-feminist stances as seen here.

Cameron, an evangelical Christian made famous for his role in ABC's Growing Pains, took to Facebook on November 13 to instruct women on the necessity of remaining joyful this Christmas while cooking and decorating the home so as not to ruin the holiday for their families.

[Teryu]

Literally rape.

Edit: I think feminists went after him about the shirt because he actually accomplished something feminism has never done: anything.

[Stef]

These are the women who forged on despite the fact that they were told by elementary school classmates and the media at large that girls who like science are nerdy and unattractive.

While I don't think that his choice of shirt was a particularly wise one for many reasons, I find myself disagreeing with a lot of the points you make. But this one stood out in particular. Are you implying that men who go into science are typically popular studs? That certainly isn't my experience. Even a mild interest in math and science in boys past the age of 10 rewards them with regular beatings, an onslaught of mockery, and social ostracization by peers, mainly because these interests tend to correlate with introverted and socially awkward personality traits. As many of these individuals shun the social limelight, they shy away in fields where the focus of their work is machines or abstract concepts rather than people, where in many subfields they aren't necessarily paid very much.

There are definitely some things that make certain fields of science or engineering uninviting to women (plenty of scientific fields have large majorities of women), but I don't see how boys are overtly encouraged to go into the sciences any more than girls. The trope of the nerdy, unattractive male science student with his head down the toilet or stuffed into a locker is so overplayed it's almost absurd.

Also, the idea that there is an arbitrary, self-reinforcing, self-perpetuating dynamic - that people's expectations of a particular field perpetuate the gender balance in that field - would lead us to expect that representation would move to the extremes. If you as a minority are discouraged to enter the field due to covert messaging and social cues being sent your way then there should be a negative feedback loop that causes fewer and fewer people from minorities to enter.

But in many, many cases that has not happened. As soon as an arbitrary barrier is taken down the genders find a natural balance. Take veterinarians for example, 50 years ago it was practically impossible for women to be veterinarians… today they represent the majority by far. The same goes for psychology and developmental linguistics which also have majorities of women, Clinical laboratory technologists are over 70 percent women…. The self-perpetuating feedback loops you allude to haven't really played out as you'd expect in these areas.

I don't doubt that discrimination exists, I just don't think it's the main reason for the large imbalances we see in certain fields.

[hey]

Besides how super sure I am that this writer for the Verge is intimately aware of the culture at the European Space Agency, it seems like you might be equivocating just a tad. You don't get to run the headline "THIS AWFUL MAN AND HIS SEXIST SHIRT ARE HOLDING BACK SPACE EXPLORATION" and claim it's "not about one shirt". You don't get to harass a man for how he's making it impossible for women to enter the field by wearing the shirt until he comes out on stage crying for forgiveness and say it isn't about the shirt. You're talking about the shirt, you're using the shirt to push your stupid agenda, it's about the shirt and you made it about the shirt.

It's about how the shirt contributes to a wider problem. On it's own, it's just one dumb shirt. But it's not on its own. There are lots of other shirts, and other things that contribute to making women feel unwelcome.

What is with anti-femnists and their complete inability to see how an example of a widespread problem relates back to that?

[ringthree]

It's about how the shirt contributes to a wider problem. On it's own, it's just one dumb shirt. But it's not on its own. There are lots of other shirts, and other things that contribute to making women feel unwelcome.

What is with anti-femnists and their complete inability to see how an example of a widespread problem relates back to that?

The question for me is why do they care to point out some small article pointing out a problem and then acting like THAT is the problem? Why people care if there was an article point out that the dude wore a stupid shirt? There is a far larger reactionary tone to the anti-feminist defense and backlash then there is to the article about the shirt.

The response to someone being salty isn't to start your own salt mining operation in reaction.

[archibaldcrane]

Because you can't address the multitude of little things without pointing out some of said (high profile) little things.

[Priran]

It's about how the shirt contributes to a wider problem. On it's own, it's just one dumb shirt. But it's not on its own. There are lots of other shirts, and other things that contribute to making women feel unwelcome.

What is with anti-femnists and their complete inability to see how an example of a widespread problem relates back to that?

That's a lovely excuse to post this helpful article.

A reader responding to my comment above pointed out that this tactic had been described before in a paper, under the name “motte-and-bailey doctrine”.

The paper was critiquing post-modernism, an area I don’t know enough about to determine whether or not their critique was fair. It complained that post-modernists sometimes say things like “reality is socially constructed”. There’s an uncontroversial meaning here – we don’t experience the world directly, but through the categories and prejudices implicit to our society. For example, I might view a certain shade of bluish-green as blue, and someone raised in a different culture might view it as green. Okay. Then post-modernists go on to say that if someone in a different culture thinks that the sun is light glinting off the horns of the Sky Ox, that’s just as real as our own culture’s theory that the sun is a mass of incandescent gas a great big nuclear furnace. If you challenge them, they’ll say that you’re denying reality is socially constructed, which means you’re clearly very naive and think you have perfect objectivity and the senses perceive reality directly.

The writers of the paper compare this to a form of medieval castle, where there would be a field of desirable and economically productive land called a bailey, and a big ugly tower in the middle called the motte. If you were a medieval lord, you would do most of your economic activity in the bailey and get rich. If an enemy approached, you would retreat to the motte and rain down arrows on the enemy until they gave up and went away. Then you would go back to the bailey, which is the place you wanted to be all along.

By this metaphor, statements like “God is an extremely powerful supernatural being who punishes my enemies” or “The Sky Ox theory and the nuclear furnace theory are equally legitimate” or “Men should not be allowed to participate in discussions about gender” are the bailey – not defensible at all, but if you can manage to hold them you’ve got it made.

Statements like “God is just the order and love in the universe” and “No one perceives reality perfectly directly” and “Men should not interject into safe spaces for women” are the motte – extremely defensible, but useless.

As long as nobody’s challenging you, you spend time in the bailey reaping the rewards of occupying such useful territory. As soon as someone challenges you, you retreat to the impregnable motte and glare at them until they get annoyed and go away. Then you go back to the bailey.

Your bailey: This shirt is so fucking sexist can you believe how hostile this guy is making science to women?
Your motte: Are you saying certain fields don't seem unwelcoming to women?

[Priran]

As an aside, the shirt (which was given to Matt Taylor by the woman who makes them) is selling like misogycakes.

[Rhinox]

Wait I'm confused.. I thought it was only women who are judged by what they wear?

[Priran]

Wait I'm confused.. I thought it was only women who are judged by what they wear?

Work on that doublethink before you end up an unperson.

[hey]

That's a lovely excuse to post this helpful article.


Your bailey: This shirt is so fucking sexist can you believe how hostile this guy is making science to women?
Your motte: Are you saying certain fields don't seem unwelcoming to women?

No, the shirt is an excuse to talk about the larger problem.

[Priran]

No, the shirt is an excuse to talk about the larger problem.

Oh that explains the articles specifically talking about him, his shirt, and how it was good that he apologized. Because it was really about the larger problem all along.