Rosetta mission scientist Dr Matt Taylor persecuted by SJWs

[Gallifrey Secundaria]

Are you seriously saying that "He CHOSE to wear a stupid, shitty shirt to a huge event that he knew would be recorded" and that he made his own bed isn't equatable to the utter idiots that say "She wore open clothes, therefore she made her own bed and I can catcall her"?

Are you some kind of idiot, or did you accidentally equate sexual violence against women to potentially getting chastised by your boss?

Someone whistling at a woman is sexual violence now? Is a pointed look grave physical abuse?

And potentially getting chastised by his boss? He was threatened several times due to the shirt he wore at an informal event where he saw himself comfortable enough to wear a casual shirt that he had got as a birthday gift from a female friend.

[Gallifrey Secundaria]

I changed my post, to fit a more comparable situation.

Wearing a shirt doesn't warrant harassment. Wearing a skirt doesn't warrant sexual harassment. He received the first one due to the shirt he wore.

By harassment, you mean "hey man, your shirt sorta suggests that you view women in general sexual objects, maybe you shouldn't have worn it". Because, that's the response he received although I bet I'm now going to hear about all the death threats and disparagement he received because we have to take the opinions of the tier 10 loonies into account whenever we talk about a social movement right?

And there is nothing wrong with having sexual feelings for the opposite gender (Nothing wrong with having them for the same gender either), in my opinion at least. There's a large double morality in society today, in that sexualized women is something horrible according to society while sexualized men (In underwear commercials, for example) doesn't even make people bat an eye.

Sort of different in an STEM field which is dominated by men and little things like this reinforce the indirect message that women don't belong. In case you had your knickers in a knot over the poor men being oppressed by evil women, it would be equally wrong of nurses and kindergarten teachers to give conference talks wearing shirts featuring naked men and talking about all the sexual fantasies they have with generic men in the office.

So wearing a shirt with women that aren't even naked is equatable to wearing a shirt with nude men and talking about which sexual fantasies you have with said men?

What!?

And no, I don't have my knickers in a twist over men being oppressed by women. I am all for equality, just consider this particular instance to be overblown to shit.

[Occupied Deutschland]

To point something out, I'd mention once again this wasn't a formal event.

This was an ESA livestream and a BBC breakfast-show where his purpose was to talk about his bitchin' thigh-tattoo beause it was mission-related.

That is rather far away from any 'formal' event I have ever heard of. In fact, once the curling up of clothing to show off tattoos begins, I can confidently say formal is no longer an applicable adjective.

Then in that case: the reaction to the reaction to it is still overblown as hell. The man said he screwed up and apologized for it. That's all that needs to be said. Once someone admits that they think they're in the wrong, that is the time for people to stop defending them.

And the reaction to the reaction of the reaction is just continuing the long line of overblown reacting. Particularly when the initial reaction the reactions you are reacting to are reactionary reactions to unrelated actions.
*beat*
*ba-dum-tish*

[Keyboard Warriors]

By harassment, you mean "hey man, your shirt sorta suggests that you view women in general sexual objects, maybe you shouldn't have worn it". Because, that's the response he received although I bet I'm now going to hear about all the death threats and disparagement he received because we have to take the opinions of the tier 10 loonies into account whenever we talk about a social movement right?


Sort of different in an STEM field which is dominated by men and little things like this reinforce the indirect message that women don't belong. In case you had your knickers in a knot over the poor men being oppressed by evil women, it would be equally wrong of nurses and kindergarten teachers to give conference talks wearing shirts featuring naked men and talking about all the sexual fantasies they have with generic men in the office.

So wearing a shirt with women that aren't even naked is equatable to wearing a shirt with nude men and talking about which sexual fantasies you have with said men?

What!?

Yeah, can you not see how they are equatable? Can you like, not see that they are literally the same thing but with the genders reversed?

[Gallifrey Secundaria]

So wearing a shirt with women that aren't even naked is equatable to wearing a shirt with nude men and talking about which sexual fantasies you have with said men?

What!?

Yeah, can you not see how they are equatable? Can you like, not see that they are literally the same thing but with the genders reversed?

No, they aren't equatable. If he wore a shirt with women that openly displayed their genitalia, at the same time talking about what he wants to do to said women in the event, then I would think that he'd gone to far. Wearing a shirt with people that aren't naked are NOT equatable to wearing one with people that are naked. That's a ridiculous notion.

[Tahar Joblis]

So wearing a shirt with women that aren't even naked is equatable to wearing a shirt with nude men and talking about which sexual fantasies you have with said men?

What!?

Yeah, can you not see how they are equatable? Can you like, not see that they are literally the same thing but with the genders reversed?

1. "Nude" vs "scantily clad." (And not even obscenely so, by society's standards - you could wear those in public without being charged.)
2. Talking about sexual fantasies. (This did not happen.)

[Keyboard Warriors]

Yeah, can you not see how they are equatable? Can you like, not see that they are literally the same thing but with the genders reversed?

No, they aren't equatable. If he wore a shirt with women that openly displayed their genitalia, at the same time talking about what he wants to do to said women in the event, then I would think that he'd gone to far. Wearing a shirt with people that aren't naked are NOT equatable to wearing one with people that are naked. That's a ridiculous notion.

If you believe that the level of undress of those depicted on the shirt is the root of the problem then it's clear you've made no effort whatsoever to truly understand the sentiment of those feminist bitches you disagree with.

[Occupied Deutschland]

Yeah, can you not see how they are equatable? Can you like, not see that they are literally the same thing but with the genders reversed?

1. "Nude" vs "scantily clad." (And not even obscenely so, by society's standards - you could wear those in public without being charged.)
2. Talking about sexual fantasies. (This did not happen.)

2: Well, it did if you assume one of Taylor's fantasies (which he fulfilled) was to be stabbed repeatedly in the epedermis by an ink-covered needle wielded by an old high-school friend.

[Keyboard Warriors]

Yeah, can you not see how they are equatable? Can you like, not see that they are literally the same thing but with the genders reversed?

1. "Nude" vs "scantily clad." (And not even obscenely so, by society's standards - you could wear those in public without being charged.)
2. Talking about sexual fantasies. (This did not happen.)

Yes, because whether or not the women depicted were dressed, not whether they were depicted in a sexually suggestive way is the real issue here. And I'm sure that no sexual fantasies have ever been discussed in a laboratory before, oh wait I forgot, we're only talking about the shirt, we have to ignore everything else and talk only about the shirt.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

For fuck's sake. You guys can't shut up can you?!

Look, people thought he had a poor taste, they called him out on it, he apologized and even regretted it to the point of tearing up (which some people here say he shouldn't. Fuck, people cry all the fucking time for any sort of shit that happens to them. You're not above crying so don't consider yourself too fucking special in that regard) and that should have been that.

This seem to be too much for a 5 minute rant and comment of "wow what a dumbass" and that's it.

[The Floating Island of the Sleeping God]

Then in that case: the reaction to the reaction to it is still overblown as hell. The man said he screwed up and apologized for it. That's all that needs to be said. Once someone admits that they think they're in the wrong, that is the time for people to stop defending them.

And the reaction to the reaction of the reaction is just continuing the long line of overblown reacting. Particularly when the initial reaction the reactions you are reacting to are reactionary reactions to unrelated actions.
*beat*
*ba-dum-tish*

I don't know how to react to that statement.

[Tahar Joblis]

Yes, because whether or not the women depicted were dressed, not whether they were depicted in a sexually suggestive way is the real issue here.

[Accent="German, bad, theatrical"]That cigar you're holding looks sexually suggestive. Are you sure you don't want to kill your father and sleep with your mother?[/Accent]

... Seriously?

The shirt was not pornographic; it was not obscene; it could be viewed as titillating, but then, so could the man inside the shirt... or a real-life woman dressed in one of those outfits. Or a poor, innocent, abused cigar. The outfits of the women on the shirt, by the way, are outfits you could wear out and about on the street without fewer funny looks than someone wearing full Goth make-up or rocking a full Mohawk.

And I'm sure that no sexual fantasies have ever been discussed in a laboratory before, oh wait I forgot, we're only talking about the shirt, we have to ignore everything else and talk only about the shirt.

Wearing a shirt is one act. Talking about sexual fantasies is another act.

They are very different acts.

[Tahar Joblis]

For fuck's sake. You guys can't shut up can you?!

Look, people thought he had a poor taste, they called him out on it, he apologized and even regretted it to the point of tearing up (which some people here say he shouldn't. Fuck, people cry all the fucking time for any sort of shit that happens to them. You're not above crying so don't consider yourself too fucking special in that regard) and that should have been that.

This seem to be too much for a 5 minute rant and comment of "wow what a dumbass" and that's it.

They did not (just) "call him out on poor taste." They said it was sexist, misogynist, and a form of sexual harassment aimed at his female colleagues, and that his wearing the shirt was turning young women away from STEM careers.

If he had just been attacked as having poor taste, we wouldn't have this thread.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

For fuck's sake. You guys can't shut up can you?!

Look, people thought he had a poor taste, they called him out on it, he apologized and even regretted it to the point of tearing up (which some people here say he shouldn't. Fuck, people cry all the fucking time for any sort of shit that happens to them. You're not above crying so don't consider yourself too fucking special in that regard) and that should have been that.

This seem to be too much for a 5 minute rant and comment of "wow what a dumbass" and that's it.

They did not (just) "call him out on poor taste." They said it was sexist, misogynist, and a form of sexual harassment aimed at his female colleagues, and that his wearing the shirt was turning young women away from STEM careers.

If he had just been attacked as having poor taste, we wouldn't have this thread.

Even those responses seem overblown.

I admit the guy's a dumbass for putting on that shirt to appear in public as a scientist. However, does that mean he deserves all this attention? The answer is no. He's a dumbass but there's even bigger dumbasses in academia.

[Keyboard Warriors]

Yes, because whether or not the women depicted were dressed, not whether they were depicted in a sexually suggestive way is the real issue here.

[Accent="German, bad, theatrical"]That cigar you're holding looks sexually suggestive. Are you sure you don't want to kill your father and sleep with your mother?[/Accent]

... Seriously?

The shirt was not pornographic; it was not obscene; it could be viewed as titillating, but then, so could the man inside the shirt... or a real-life woman dressed in one of those outfits. Or a poor, innocent, abused cigar. The outfits of the women on the shirt, by the way, are outfits you could wear out and about on the street without fewer funny looks than someone wearing full Goth make-up or rocking a full Mohawk.

The last I checked, it's still possible to strike a sexually suggestive pose without being stark naked and subsequently whether or not these women were wearing clothes seems menial.

And I'm sure that no sexual fantasies have ever been discussed in a laboratory before, oh wait I forgot, we're only talking about the shirt, we have to ignore everything else and talk only about the shirt.

Wearing a shirt is one act. Talking about sexual fantasies is another act.

They are very different acts.

No doubt both of them are very conducive to a workplace environment where non-males feel welcome.

[Imperializt Russia]

Does it say more or less of me, as a future scientist or as a person, that I honestly had no idea what was happening for about a day?
I even shared an article on Matt Taylor on my facebook the day before it sort of exploded, which I titled "well... at least we're popular again", because I was concerned that physics was only being considered "cool" because there was a guy with a brash shirt and tattoos on TV. I assume because this is most people's opinion of space physicists:
http://history.nasa.gov/ap11ann/kippsphotos/39601.jpg
(for some reason, NS won't "determine the dimensions" so won't embed. It's Mission Control at Apollo 11)
I agreed it was nice to see something different, but worried it would turn physics into a fad. All I saw was "huh, sci-fi theme shirt".

Never noticed what I'd have considered a "sexualisation". I saw 1950s pop culture references.
Is this just me overlooking it or has sexualisation become so normalised?

[Tahar Joblis]

The last I checked, it's still possible to strike a sexually suggestive pose without being stark naked and subsequently whether or not these women were wearing clothes seems menial.

It is decidedly non-trivial.

What the shirt depicts is no more and no less attire than what is deemed suitable for wearing-in-public by Jane-on-the-street, Jill-on-the-boardwalk, or Joan-in-the-park. The only gaffe for any of those are the guns, which move it to Jackie-on-the-firing-range and Juanita-at-the-SF-con. Women wear more risque outfits out in real life in public places without any but the most moralistic busybodies telling them it's inappropriate.

You'll see more risque things in a grocery checkout aisle... on the covers of magazines primarily marketed to women. On "regular" literary novels, mystery novels, SF&F novels, etc - let alone romance novels.

Full male nudity, on the other hand, you will not see in public. A naked man on the street is very likely to be arrested. Only the most risque titles will show nudity on the cover - with prudish social conservatives, including some mainstream feminists, leading the charge to require that those titles be kept covered where minors can't glimpse even the cover photo.

Wearing a shirt is one act. Talking about sexual fantasies is another act.

They are very different acts.

No doubt both of them are very conducive to a workplace environment where non-males feel welcome.

Wearing a shirt with a montage of romance novel covers on it - which would be more risque than this shirt - would have very little effect on male or non-male co-workers feeling welcome.

A t-shirt with a message written on it, like "I bathe in male tears" or something like that, sure. That's a hostile message. RomanceNovelCoverShirt ... well, it suggests you're probably a fan of romance novels, but that doesn't mean you're terribly sexist.

Talking about your sexual fantasies, on the other hand, is something that's firmly coded as socially inappropriate in, say, a parent-teacher conference, or really anything other than an intimate conversation with a very close friend or lover, or in a brothel / swinger's club / online sex-related forum.

What you've done in comparing this to a teacher wearing a shirt with naked men and talking about her sexual fantasies in a parent-teacher conference only shows that you either have no real sense of proportion, you are subscribing to a worldview that is completely disconnected from reality, or you realized you couldn't get anywhere just by flipping the genders and posing the gender-reversed scenario.

(In fact, others have already pointed out that an exact gender-reversed scenario would generally not provoke any objections except fashionista kibbitzing.)

[Central Slavia]

To point something out, I'd mention once again this wasn't a formal event.

This was an ESA livestream and a BBC breakfast-show where his purpose was to talk about his bitchin' thigh-tattoo because it was mission-related.

That is rather far away from any 'formal' event I have ever heard of. In fact, once the curling up of clothing to show off tattoos begins, I can confidently say formal is no longer an applicable adjective.

Then in that case: the reaction to the reaction to it is still overblown as hell. The man said he screwed up and apologized for it. That's all that needs to be said. Once someone admits that they think they're in the wrong, that is the time for people to stop defending them.

Yeah, no, just like an admission of guilt isn't necessarily the end of a police investigation.
See, a person can have, in any context, far more reasons to admitting to a misdeed. They could be forced into it, they could see it as a politically more advantageous move to roll with the accusation than to fight it, they could get bullshitted to think they have acted wrongly, and lastly, they could be covering someone else's misdeed (though that's inapplicable here).
In all honesty, I'm not upset at the guy for doing this. Sure, it helps to create a dangerous precedent, and sure, I probably wouldn't have done it, but then, I'm not at the top of the game like he is, and thus have far less to lose. Who knows, maybe I'd crack too. Besides, it's not like his job involves being a political vanguard for any direction, it's his choice even though it might be disappointing.

However, none of this personal stuff persuades me to the least extent that the accusations aren't full of shit. The event wasn't a formal one - hell, he was showing off his tats there. The whole thing is analogous to, say, him wearing a say, Black Sabbath T-Shirt, and there being an international outcry because his T-Shirt was against christianity, and because the majority of scientists tend towards atheism it supposedly shows christians aren't welcome in science.

No ,wait, it's worse.
What TJ said applies to a t.
It's like him wearing this and being accused of being anti-christian because a fish can be interpreted as the symbol of christ's church in certain contexts, and he is accusing it of being dead.
Needless to say, it would be hillarious if the ideology-driven bullies haven't actually won.

[Knask]

I changed my post, to fit a more comparable situation.

Wearing a shirt doesn't warrant harassment. Wearing a skirt doesn't warrant sexual harassment. He received the first one due to the shirt he wore.

By harassment, you mean "hey man, your shirt sorta suggests that you view women in general sexual objects, maybe you shouldn't have worn it". Because, that's the response he received although I bet I'm now going to hear about all the death threats and disparagement he received because we have to take the opinions of the tier 10 loonies into account whenever we talk about a social movement right?

He never recieved any death threats, and the abusive tweets aimed at him count around three or less.

Funny thing is, he's actually got more abuse for his apology (Of the "What an absolute pussy he is for apologising, being bullied by a load of tumblr feminists" type. <- Actual tweet) than he ever did for his shirt.

[Knask]

Are you some kind of idiot, or did you accidentally equate sexual violence against women to potentially getting chastised by your boss?

Someone whistling at a woman is sexual violence now? Is a pointed look grave physical abuse?

And potentially getting chastised by his boss? He was threatened several times due to the shirt he wore at an informal event where he saw himself comfortable enough to wear a casual shirt that he had got as a birthday gift from a female friend.

He never got threatened. Not even once. He didn't recieve a fraction of the abuse aimed at the people who dared to criticise his shirt.

[Victoriala]

IMO, this is something that waa supposed to be as trivial as some random dude found to be insulting someone on the internet. For me this issue isn't supposed to be about gender. It's about wearing something put of place. Yeah, it can be ridiculed and be fun off, but such reactions and a shitstorm enough to make the man in tears and apologize for the wrong reason?

Yeah, I don't know how humanity works anymore.

[Manisdog]

30 pages of hate for a man who got a spaceprobe on a rocket just because he wore a funny shirt.

[Alyakia]

30 pages of hate for a man who got a spaceprobe on a rocket just because he wore a funny shirt.

actually no that's not what happened at all in fact you know for a fact that's not what happened because i know for a fact you read significant portions of this thread so why did you post this please don't do that

[The Holy Therns]

30 pages of hate for a man who got a spaceprobe on a rocket just because he wore a funny shirt.

...Really? Are we reading the same thread, here?

[Ifreann]

Fancy that, the top result for "sexist pigdog matt taylor". How weird that you just happen to read Small Pond Science.

Given how over-the-top (and rare) "pigdog" is as an insult, that's not surprising.

I didn't find it via search engine after the fact. I noticed it because people were sharing it and agreeing with it.

Whereas people who think that Dr. Taylor shouldn't be expected to be able to dress himself sensibly are rather more common, and yet seem to be going ignored by those who are supposedly on his side.

So tl;dr, you're not criticising the assumption that a supernerd can't be expected to dress himself because the feminists!

That's a lot of "didn't read" from you, but not a lot of accurate summarization.

I was talking about you declining to criticise the people insulting Dr. Taylor by calling him fat and socially inept and suggesting that he's obviously incapable of dressing like a real adult and so on, and you went on about feminist cyberbullying and how that's way worse than a shirt and did not actually address my point in any way. So I took that as you long-windedly confirming that you're not going to defend Dr. Taylor if it doesn't give you a means to attack feminists.

Hmm. Maybe I was overstating things when I said that was almost surprising.

---

He wore a really inappropriate shirt to work.

It just so happened that his workplace was the goddamned European Space Agency and he should know better.

And it's also his right to wear a shirt like that. Should he? That's a completely different story.

It's also people's right to criticise his choice of shirt.

---

I'm a feminist, and this is just a bit ridiculous. I mean, really? It's a shirt. And I don't really see what's offensive about it.

You say that sexism isn’t a problem? You say that “it’s just a shirt?” Look at how “just a shirt” has blown up into yet another aggressive campaign against those who call for an inclusive environment for all. We won’t back down. But take it as a teaching moment… these things exist and go on regularly and disrupt the lives and work of women in science careers.

And yes, on another level, it’s just a shirt and just a guy that, I believe, didn’t really intend any harm. In the grand cosmic scheme, WE PUT A ROBOT ON A COMET. However, it’s an indicator of a pervasive and destructive problem throughout the workforce, particularly in science and tech careers.

We’re turning the tide and we won’t stay quiet about it anymore. And that hurts sometimes. But we won’t go backwards.

Nicole Gugliucci, Ph.D astronomer

But the criticism was never just about just one shirt, and what has been happening since Matt Taylor’s apology underlines that this is not a problem that starts and ends with Matt Taylor or with one bad wardrobe choice for the professional task at hand.

Despite Matt Taylor’s apology, legions of people have been asserting that he should not have apologized. They have been insisting that people objecting to his wearing that shirt while representing Rosetta and acting as an ambassador for science were wrong to voice their objections, wrong even to be affected by the shirt.

If only we could not be affected by things simply by choosing not to be affected by them. But that’s not how symbols work.

A critique of this wardrobe choice as one small piece of a scientific culture that makes it harder for women to participate fully brought forth throngs of people (including scientists) responding with a torrent of hostility and, in some cases, threats of harm. This response conveys that women are welcome in science, or science journalism, or the audience for landing a spacecraft on a comet, only as long as they shut up about any of the barriers they might encounter, while men in science should never, ever be made uncomfortable about choices they’ve made that might contribute (even unintentionally) to throwing up such barriers.

That is not a great strategy for demonstrating that science is welcoming to all.

Janet D. Stemwedel, Associate Professor of Philosophy with a background as a physical chemist

If you think this isn’t a big deal, well, by itself, it’s not a huge one. But it’s not by itself, is it? This event didn’t happen in a vacuum. It comes when there is still a tremendously leaky pipeline for women from undergraduate science classes to professional scientist. It comes when having a female name on a paper makes it less likely to get published, and cited less. It comes when there is still not even close to parity in hiring and retaining women in the sciences.

So yeah, it’s just a shirt.

And it’s just an ad.

It’s just a saying.

It’s just a TV show.

It’s just the Internet.

Yes, but you almost make as much as a man does.

It’s just a catcall.

It’s a compliment!

It’s just that boys will be boys.

It’s just that she’s a slut.

It’s just that your dress is too short.

It’s just that we want to know what you were wearing at the time, ma’am.

It’s just it’s just it’s just.

It’s just a death by a thousand cuts. No one cut does the deed. In the end, they all do.

Phil Plait, astronomer

If it were truly one shirt – one isolated incident in women’s decades long careers – I could see their point. A woman leaving science over one shirt might earn her the fragile flower label. But, it’s never just one shirt.

[...]

So, the issue isn’t that it’s one shirt. It’s that as a woman scientist, I see the equivalent of that shirt numerous times a day. I would like to go even a single day without having to hear about some guy’s cock or balls or how frequently he thinks about fucking or who he wants to fuck or anything related to reproduction. And, Lord, if it were only one guy, but it’s not…

When I was a graduate student, one of my colleagues had pictures of mostly nude pinup girls over his desk. When I was a postdoc, I had to convince a group of scientists I was traveling with that having our social dinner at a restaurant with strippers might not be appropriate.

I may have stuck it out, but I don’t blame women who feel that all of the sex references make them feel too uncomfortable to interact with these men. The problem then rears its ugly head when, because you’ve avoided these men for all of their talk about their johnsons and where they’d like to stick them, that you start missing opportunities.

The worst part about this behavior is that it’s so easily forgiven as an inherent character trait. Scientists are quirky and lack social skills and common sense. Still, I’ve never seen a woman make a lewd reference while giving a professional talk.

No, it’s not that men scientists are inherently idiosyncratic and can’t be expected to act professionally for eight hours of their day, it’s that science operates with a power structure in which men are rarely taken to task for their tasteless behavior.

http://isisthescientist.com/2014/11/17/sometimes-a-shirt-is-more-than-just-a-shirt/

Now, ok, I understand that many of us become scientists because we’re unconventional, because we’re individuals, because we’re quirky. Sure, some of us dress funny. I know lots of scientists, great scientists, who are pretty fond of Hawaiian shirts. But, really, seriously, did it not occur to Matt Taylor for maybe just a nanosecond, that appearing on camera, as a scientist, at a defining moment in the history of space exploration, in a shirt festooned with sprawling half-naked women (and a couple o’ guns) might, I dunno, send the wrong goddamn message?!?!

Here’s the thing. I’m a 50-something, white, male scientist. This means that, in the traditional structure of science and academia, I’ve had it pretty easy. Harder than some, but easier than most. But I have to say, from my position as a 50-something, white, male scientist, that it’s about time science had a lot more people who do not look like me. We need diversity, and we need it badly. We need to make science and research and academia a fair and welcoming place for people who are not white, straight, males. I’m not entirely sure how we’re going to get there. But there are two things I do know for certain:

1. We are only going to get there if senior, white dudes like me either step up and say “yes, let’s change things” and then work to make that change happen, or just shut up and get out of the way.

2. We are not going to get there if some of our visible scientists use their brief moments in the spotlight to convey a message (unintentional or not!) that females are better suited to being decorations than to being colleagues.

Science took a huge step forward today, and, thanks to one dumb fashion choice, one step back.

Terry Wheeler, Professor of entomology

Now - we have a huge problem getting women and girls into STEM fields. And spend lots of energy talking about how women aren't in science and should be (note: a Google search will yield many articles, that is just a recent one!).

And yet, here is a male scientist at a predominantly male science press conference from a male-dominated field - that is going to be broadcast to schools around the world - wearing a shirt objectifying women.

So, obviously the internet exploded. I, and many other people tweeted about it and were very angry, and later Matt changed his shirt (thank goodness before the most watched part of the landing).
But this begs the question, why did Matt choose to wear the shirt? Or rather, did he think about the message it would send? Did he care? Did anyone at the press conference even look at the shirt?

I hope that in the coming days we will hear more from Matt and/or ESA, but I feel like now I need to redouble my efforts to remind young women interested in science that yes, your mind is important. That yes, you are capable of being taken seriously in STEM fields. That yes, we do want you here (come and join me). And that no, your body isn't what defines you.

Renée Hložek, cosmologist

I don't know, man, it might be that some people feel it goes beyond the shirt itself...

More feminist cyberbullying.

---

Because "your shirt is inappropriate in this time and place" is totally the same as "don't wear leggings you fat bitch".

Are you seriously saying that "He CHOSE to wear a stupid, shitty shirt to a huge event that he knew would be recorded" and that he made his own bed isn't equatable to the utter idiots that say "She wore open clothes, therefore she made her own bed and I can catcall her"?

holy shit people seriously need to knock this shit off. do you think you're original and funny? do you actually think being raped and being told that maybe you should have just kept your uniform on during what is essentially a PR conference for an intergovernmental agency that also happens to be broadcasting live to the entire world and the respective funding governments and their leaders? (instead of taking it off, putting on a shirt, then putting it back on again) have you not been paying attention to the internet for the past few years, don't actually know what you're saying implies and just saw someone else say it and thought it was the cool hip thing to do?

do you think that when prince harry said that he was sorry for offence he caused and that maybe dressing up as a nazi wasn't a good idea that "wow? wow?! so he deserves to be told that his choice of costume was dumb for dressing that way?!" would have been a good response? that if someone shows up to a meeting with a my little pony t-shirt and shorts and he gets told to fuck off and come back in a proper outfit the fucking president is going to see you what the fuck do you think you're doing that "so he deserves it for dressing like that? huh? didn't realize you were such a hypocrite..." is in any way a reasonable comparison?

there's a good chance you're just trolling but fuck it there''s probably one person out there that actually believes this. #yolo