Rosetta mission scientist Dr Matt Taylor persecuted by SJWs

[Benuty]

Bullshit. If a woman scientist was forced to apologize and was threatened to be fired for a revealing dress she wore at a press event, you hypocrites would be rioting in the streets.

Wicker Man much?

Does it involving Nicholas Cage doing this?

Not the Bees! My Eyes! My Eyes!

[Untaroicht]

Bullshit. If a woman scientist was forced to apologize and was threatened to be fired for a revealing dress she wore at a press event, you hypocrites would be rioting in the streets.

Wicker Man much?

Your revealing shirt offends me and my beliefs! I will proceed to "criticize" you en masse over twitter about it….oh wait, I wouldn't do that, because that would actually be harassment.

[Benuty]

Wicker Man much?

I hate that movie.

The original where they guy gets burned alive with dozens of animals inside a huge ass wicker man by Christopher Lee was fucking great.

Don't insult it.

[Gauthier]

Wicker Man much?

Does it involving Nicholas Cage doing this?

Not the Bees! My Eyes! My Eyes!

Edward Woodward is crying in his grave.

[Avenio]

We've been over this. Being criticized on twitter is not comparable in any meaningful way to being raped.

Bullshit. If a woman scientist was forced to apologize and was threatened to be fired for a revealing dress she wore at a press event, you hypocrites would be rioting in the streets.

Not the same issue. The issue is the objectification of women inherent to that shirt, not the hypothetical revealingness of clothing.

[-The Unified Earth Governments-]

I hate that movie.

Not the beeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeees!

The bear part is fucking funny though.

But come one people here, Unt does have a point, the example is complete trash, but he has a point.

People have an inherent right to dress how they want and they should be looked down upon for their attire.

Of course there are exceptions, but our freedom of speech has exceptions too.

The guy was wearing a shirt that at most wasn't professional, as I have said before I think he would deserve a lot of this if it was say...the rape shirt.

You know, "A Rape is a surprise hug" or whatever....

That I can understand, but imo a lot of this issue is linked to the image Unt posted.

It is a puritan issue, there is nothing wrong with the Human body.

[Untaroicht]

…Did Nicholas Cage just break the thread?

[-The Unified Earth Governments-]

Bullshit. If a woman scientist was forced to apologize and was threatened to be fired for a revealing dress she wore at a press event, you hypocrites would be rioting in the streets.

Not the same issue. The issue is the objectification of women inherent to that shirt, not the hypothetical revealingness of clothing.

There is no objectification of woman in the shirt, the shirt itself is an object, but not women.

Again.

There is nothing wrong with the Human body and there is nothing with enjoying it any any capacity.

[Gravlen]

(Image)

Nice way to demonstrate that you fundamentally don't understand what's going on, and the arguments presented.

We've been over this. Being criticized on twitter is not comparable in any meaningful way to being raped.

Bullshit. If a woman scientist was forced to apologize and was threatened to be fired for a revealing dress she wore at a press event, you hypocrites would be rioting in the streets.

1) There was never any threat to fire him.

2) Two different things. He wasn't criticised for wearing revealing clothes. He was criticised for wearing a shirt on a live broadcast which some people felt were objectifying women and sending a signal that women aren't welcome in the field of science.

[The Floating Island of the Sleeping God]

Not the beeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeees!

The bear part is fucking funny though.

But come one people here, Unt does have a point, the example is complete trash, but he has a point.

People have an inherent right to dress how they want and they should be looked down upon for their attire.

Of course there are exceptions, but our freedom of speech has exceptions too.

The guy was wearing a shirt that at most wasn't professional, as I have said before I think he would deserve a lot of this if it was say...the rape shirt.

You know, "A Rape is a surprise hug" or whatever....

That I can understand, but imo a lot of this issue is linked to the image Unt posted.

It is a puritan issue, there is nothing wrong with the Human body.

What is held to be acceptable dress for someone with the eyes of the world on them and what should be held to be acceptable dress are two entirely different issues.

[Avenio]

Not the same issue. The issue is the objectification of women inherent to that shirt, not the hypothetical revealingness of clothing.

There is no objectification of woman in the shirt, the shirt itself is an object, but not women.

The women depicted are objectified by the fact that they're strewn all over the shirt as ornamentation, without any sort of context other than the heterosexual male aesthetic interest in the nearly-nude female body. This is like, a textbook example of what objectification is.

[-The Unified Earth Governments-]

The bear part is fucking funny though.

But come one people here, Unt does have a point, the example is complete trash, but he has a point.

People have an inherent right to dress how they want and they should be looked down upon for their attire.

Of course there are exceptions, but our freedom of speech has exceptions too.

The guy was wearing a shirt that at most wasn't professional, as I have said before I think he would deserve a lot of this if it was say...the rape shirt.

You know, "A Rape is a surprise hug" or whatever....

That I can understand, but imo a lot of this issue is linked to the image Unt posted.

It is a puritan issue, there is nothing wrong with the Human body.

What is held to be acceptable dress for someone with the eyes of the world on them and what should be held to be acceptable dress are two entirely different issues.

Don't pretend the issue is just that, there have been people claiming he is a misogynist for that shirt.

Its clear with in their intents, now some of them may just be trolls, but still.

People have gone down that line of thought.

[Tahar Joblis]

Speaking of conflation... the image does not say "raped." The image says "objectified." Floating Island is a bit off.

Read their signs.

Some of their signs are about rape. The idea of the SlutWalk is centrally inspired by rape. Nevertheless, it is not inaccurate to say that feminists object to objectification of women based on their choice of attire - or, for that matter, any backlash against women for wearing the "wrong" clothes. This is particularly visible in discussions of dress codes, burqas, slut-shaming of women [though generally not in discussion of slut-shaming of men], etc.

"Objectification" is what the image actually said. Those were the words you were replying to. Which makes you guilty of conflating rape and objectification; and therefore guilty of deploying a strawman.

[-The Unified Earth Governments-]

There is no objectification of woman in the shirt, the shirt itself is an object, but not women.

The women depicted are objectified by the fact that they're strewn all over the shirt as ornamentation, without any sort of context other than the heterosexual male aesthetic interest in the nearly-nude female body. This is like, a textbook example of what objectification is.

Are flowers mere ornamentation? Or the sun?

You're acting like only heterosexual men like the female body, you don't think a lesbian would find that appealing to have or wear? Again, whats wrong with liking the Human body and having an appreciating for it? Why is it so bad that a guy wants to wear a shirt which interest him?

Is it because its a man wearing it? Is it because he is heterosexual?

What if the dude was fucking gay but just liked the shirt?

Is the woman that made the shirt for him objectifying women? You know, the nonexistent blank representations of woman on his shirt.

I have sleeping shorts with Moose on them, what does that say about my opinions of Moose.

[Avenio]

Are flowers mere ornamentation? Or the sun?

Flowers and the sun are objects. By drawing them or depicting them, you're not objectifying them since they were already objects to begin with.

You're acting like only heterosexual men like the female body, you don't think a lesbian would find that appealing to have or wear? Again, whats wrong with liking the Human body and having an appreciating for it? Why is it so bad that a guy wants to wear a shirt which interest him?

Because it's inherently tied to the notion that the nude or nearly-nude female body is for nothing but the visual stimulation of other people. It's turning the female body into a commodity to plaster around wherever you like to be visually appealing, but in so doing it also cheapens the female body and removes sovereignty away from the people who actually own the sorts of bodies you're depicting.

Is it because its a man wearing it? Is it because he is heterosexual?

What if the dude was fucking gay but just liked the shirt?

Who's wearing the shirt doesn't make it any less objectifying.

Is the woman that made the shirt for him objectifying women?

Yes. Yes she is.

I have sleeping shorts with Moose on them, what does that say about my opinions of Moose.

It says that you like turning moose into ornamentation. Seeing as they're not human, that's not a huge problem.

[Tahar Joblis]

Bullshit. If a woman scientist was forced to apologize and was threatened to be fired for a revealing dress she wore at a press event, you hypocrites would be rioting in the streets.

Not the same issue. The issue is the objectification of women inherent to that shirt, not the hypothetical revealingness of clothing.

The fact that you refuse to recognize a real issue does not mean that it doesn't exist.

He's telling you that feminists are hypocrites because they would, under gender-reversed circumstances, be rallying to the defense of Maddie Taylor. Avoiding even acknowledging that claim and attempting to claim that the only issue under discussion is objectification is inappropriate.

I believe the reason you are refusing to address his claim is that you do not see any method of arguing against it.

[Tahar Joblis]

Are flowers mere ornamentation? Or the sun?

Flowers and the sun are objects. By drawing them or depicting them, you're not objectifying them since they were already objects to begin with.

So are you saying that the most hard-line Muslim clerics are right about representational art? Because that's the impression I'm getting from your argument at present.

[The Floating Island of the Sleeping God]

Read their signs.

Some of their signs are about rape. The idea of the SlutWalk is centrally inspired by rape. Nevertheless, it is not inaccurate to say that feminists object to objectification of women based on their choice of attire - or, for that matter, any backlash against women for wearing the "wrong" clothes. This is particularly visible in discussions of dress codes, burqas, slut-shaming of women [though generally not in discussion of slut-shaming of men], etc.

"Objectification" is what the image actually said. Those were the words you were replying to. Which makes you guilty of conflating rape and objectification; and therefore guilty of deploying a strawman.

In that case, I apologize for responding to the message displayed by the women in the image (my clothing is not my consent, etc) instead of the clearly biased caption, therefore technically attacking a strawman. That said, I would note that several times previously people in this thread have compared the criticism of Taylor to victim-blaming a rape victim, so it wasn't unreasonable to assume that this person was making the same comparison.

[Avenio]

The fact that you refuse to recognize a real issue does not mean that it doesn't exist.

He's telling you that feminists are hypocrites because they would, under gender-reversed circumstances, be rallying to the defense of Maddie Taylor. Avoiding even acknowledging that claim and attempting to claim that the only issue under discussion is objectification is inappropriate.

I believe the reason you are refusing to address his claim is that you do not see any method of arguing against it.

If Dr. Maddie Taylor had shown up to the press conference in a dress showing her own body and people were criticizing it for being 'too revealing', then sure, there'd probably be people defending her for her choice. And they'd have perfectly sound reasons for doing so.

So are you saying that the most hard-line Muslim clerics are right about representational art? Because that's the impression I'm getting from your argument at present.

No. If you had actually gotten to the bottom of my post, you'd note that the issue here is the objectification of humans. Depicting flowers doesn't objectify flowers because they're already objects - they already are 'things', and not 'people'.

[The Floating Island of the Sleeping God]

What is held to be acceptable dress for someone with the eyes of the world on them and what should be held to be acceptable dress are two entirely different issues.

Don't pretend the issue is just that, there have been people claiming he is a misogynist for that shirt.

Its clear with in their intents, now some of them may just be trolls, but still.

People have gone down that line of thought.

The predominant claim isn't that he's a misogynist, it's that his shirt unintentionally seemed, to some people, to support the idea that the sciences are still a "boys' club" where women would feel unwelcome. People have gone down the line of thought that he's a misogynist, but some people have gone down the line of thought that the pyramids were built by aliens and we don't consider them to be representative of SETI, now do we?

[Tahar Joblis]

1) There was never any threat to fire him.

Oddly, Gravlen stated this before, and I replied before, and Gravlen didn't see fit to respond to that reply.

I haven't even seen anyone calling for him to be fired, nor any calls for him to kill himself either.

I didn't make this, I just found it on the Google.

Did you miss the part where I linked you directly to an article that called him a sexist pigdog, said that "not being a sexist pigdog" should be a requirement for scientists, and then issued a call for a letter campaign to his employers? And said he was guilty of harassment? And said he needed to be in "big trouble?"

See, I'd call that calling for him to be fired.

http://smallpondscience.com/2014/11/12/ ... st-pigdog/

[Occupied Deutschland]

There is no objectification of woman in the shirt, the shirt itself is an object, but not women.

The women depicted are objectified by the fact that they're strewn all over the shirt as ornamentation, without any sort of context other than the heterosexual male aesthetic interest in the nearly-nude female body. This is like, a textbook example of what objectification is.

I wasn't aware objectification was synonymous with anything falling outside of Victorian-era classifications of what was tasteful for women to be seen wearing.
Would the design have been A-OK if the women depicted had been wearing clothing that covered up their dirty, disgusting bodies more?

I'm seriously not seeing this. It's a Hawaiian shirt (already a pretty kitschy pattern to start with) with clothed women holding firearms on it with multiple bright garish colors utilized in some kind of pseudo pop-art 50s/60s era style...Where's the objectification, exactly? Because it seems to only enter in at a few people's interpretations. Which would tend to suggest the issue is with those people's interpretation.

[Keyboard Warriors]

1) There was never any threat to fire him.

Oddly, Gravlen stated this before, and I replied before, and Gravlen didn't see fit to respond to that reply.

I didn't make this, I just found it on the Google.

Did you miss the part where I linked you directly to an article that called him a sexist pigdog, said that "not being a sexist pigdog" should be a requirement for scientists, and then issued a call for a letter campaign to his employers? And said he was guilty of harassment? And said he needed to be in "big trouble?"

See, I'd call that calling for him to be fired.

http://smallpondscience.com/2014/11/12/ ... st-pigdog/

His employers, ie the only ones with the ability to terminate his contract, did not and have never threatened to fire him. The wacko side of the internet means diddly squat.

[Tahar Joblis]

The fact that you refuse to recognize a real issue does not mean that it doesn't exist.

He's telling you that feminists are hypocrites because they would, under gender-reversed circumstances, be rallying to the defense of Maddie Taylor. Avoiding even acknowledging that claim and attempting to claim that the only issue under discussion is objectification is inappropriate.

I believe the reason you are refusing to address his claim is that you do not see any method of arguing against it.

If Dr. Maddie Taylor had shown up to the press conference in a dress showing her own body and people were criticizing it for being 'too revealing', then sure, there'd probably be people defending her for her choice. And they'd have perfectly sound reasons for doing so.

If she wore a shirt with, say, a montage of romance novel covers on it, and was viciously attacked as causing serious social harm and being misandrist for wearing the shirt, feminists would also rally to defend her.

Not that anyone of note would have attacked her as a "misandrist pig-dog" for doing so, either. The worst she would be actually called by any public figure is "tacky."

That is to say, there is, in fact, a sexist double standard present, which is... how shall I put this? ... an abomination unto the principle of gender equality.

No. If you had actually gotten to the bottom of my post, you'd note that the issue here is the objectification of humans. Depicting flowers doesn't objectify flowers because they're already objects - they already are 'things', and not 'people'.

Muslims have no objections to depicting flowers. Controversy on the subject revolves around representing human beings, and to a slightly lesser degree animals.

What you've said implies that the Mona Lisa is problematic. I want to make what you believe about art precisely clear.

[Royal Hindustan]

These social networking sites hold so much sway, and sadly a big part of these identify as feminists. Whenever you see the tag proud feminist on someone's profile be prepared for them to be offended at anything involving gender, unless it advocates for female superiority. In my opinion their opinions are so worthless now that most of the things they spew, they just do to get attention. Celebrities also cater to them in order to not be ostracized by them. The best thing we can do is ignore them as bunch of entitled little brats. If a woman wore these clothes but with male models on there, she would be praised as a "breaker of gender norms" and "voice for the young generation".