Rosetta mission scientist Dr Matt Taylor persecuted by SJWs

[Benuty]

Does the Rosetta mission have a stone?

[Royal Hindustan]

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.

And those pictures are also not human. So unless the moose on his shorts have moose based on a specific moose, your argument is invalid because these pictures are also not based on someone specific.

[Royal Hindustan]

Does the Rosetta mission have a stone?

Quite a big one actually. They claimed it.

[Tahar Joblis]

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?

However, the History Channel can (and has been) justifiably criticized for prominently giving those particular nutjobs air time, support, and credibility.

The people who have claimed the shirt implied misogyny or sexism by Matt Taylor are well-represented. Links to numerous articles, blogs, etc calling him misogynist have been provided. This is not a fringe view; it is based on lines of reasoning endorsed, repeatedly, by many prominent feminists of our age. And as such, it is very well represented.

I will quote no less of an organ than the Guardian: "ESA can land their robot on a comet. But they still can’t see misogyny under their noses."

[Central Slavia]

http://i.imgur.com/j79EMOo.jpg

Dunno who made this, still win.

[Avenio]

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.

Romance novel covers? Like the Fabio hair-blowing-in-the-breeze glistening abs pictures? I doubt that. Again, she'd be objectifying someone else's body, not her own, which is the whole point. Though, I'm getting the feeling that nothing I could do or say would convince you of anything other than the whole 'wicked harpy feminists being hypocrites' song and dance.

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.

Say that title one more time out loud to yourself. Mona Lisa. It means 'Lady Lisa' in Italian - the painting is of a person, and the person is identified, specifically as Lisa del Giacondo. Leonardo da Vinci's own notes refer to the painting as being of her. Objectification only occurs if a person is being reduced to a nameless entity existing for the viewer's pleasure. The Mona Lisa is a portrait of a person, commissioned by Francesco del Giacondo as a present for his wife. There is no de-humanization, no commodification. It's not objectification.

[Gallifrey Secundaria]

it is entirely my choice to wear assless chaps at a press conference for an intergovernmental agency said hellene bachmier, 48, shorlty before being given a verbal warning and told to try again

It should be, yes. What's the problem?
People not conforming?
Boo hoo. Get over it. People can express themselves if they want to.

All you know about someone by the fact they wear assless chaps is that they like wearing assless chaps. That's it. They could still be entirely professional and have a strong work-ethic.
Some of the most friendly and professional people I know are total fashion nightmares, but oh well, it's THEIR fashion and MY nightmare.
I wouldn't have the gall to call them on it, because what would I be saying exactly?

"I wouldn't wear that."
"I'm not asking you to."
"Yeh, but you HAVE to be exactly like me! Or else my FEELZ!!!!!!"

Mod edit: Next time spoiler your pics add more content.

[Gallifrey Secundaria]

Oh really? How do you figure? It's a prolonged bitching out of a guy for his fashion sense.

The "bitching out" ended when he apologized.

What you're seeing now, is people outraged that someone dared to speak up.

There's a difference between speaking up and calling someone sexist misogynistic man-pig for DARING to wear that shirt.

EDIT: Also, no. It didn't stop.

"Of course, I personally hope that one day (when he's a little less busy) Taylor will say a bit more on the subject, and show that he understands why the shirt wasn't okay."

While not as bitchy as previous bitching-events was, that still shows that (according to them) one apology isn't enough.

[Gallifrey Secundaria]

How much clearer can I be on why i'm not an MRA?

It's like trying to call Colgate and Crest two different things even though they're both toothpaste. For all your claims about being Beyond Gender or some metaphysical shit like that, you still bitch primarily about feminists just like any other MRA.

Calling out modern feminism on the bullshit that is so often spewed into the public sphere is not the same as being an MRA and supporting the negligence of female rights.

I'm all for equality, for EVERYONE. However, I refuse to call myself a feminist these days due to the utter nutjobs such as Sarkeesian and other prominent figures such as the red-head (can't remember her name) who screams at people during a conference before encouraging to pull the fire alarm to stop said conference.

Now, before you (or anyone else for that matter) starts going apeshit about how "they aren't the norm", I already fucking know that. However, they are the loudest. And they are the ones that people connect the term feminist to.

[Tahar Joblis]

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.

Romance novel covers? Like the Fabio hair-blowing-in-the-breeze glistening abs pictures? I doubt that. Again, she'd be objectifying someone else's body, not her own, which is the whole point. Though, I'm getting the feeling that nothing I could do or say would convince you of anything other than the whole 'wicked harpy feminists being hypocrites' song and dance.

What do you doubt?

That feminists would come to her defense, were she attacked as misandrist?

That nobody of note would attack her as such?

Be specific.

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.

Say that title one more time out loud to yourself. Mona Lisa. It means 'Lady Lisa' in Italian - the painting is of a person, and the person is identified, specifically as Lisa del Giacondo. Leonardo da Vinci's own notes refer to the painting as being of her. Objectification only occurs if a person is being reduced to a nameless entity existing for the viewer's pleasure. The Mona Lisa is a portrait of a person, commissioned by Francesco del Giacondo as a present for his wife. There is no de-humanization, no commodification. It's not objectification.

Is it? For most of the Mona Lisa's history, the identity of the subject was hotly contested. Nor did the reproduction of the image have a thing to do with the subject. The painting has a name no more than, and no less than, a character has a name. The pictures the shirt is made up of? They have names.

For most people, the Mona Lisa is a picture of a nameless entity existing for the viewer's pleasure.

Do you know who have names? And whose names are plastered all over their "commodified" and "objectified" displays of widely-reproduced work? Playboy Playmates^TM. (The fictional women portrayed on Matt Taylor's shirt, for that matter, probably have names as far as the artist is concerned.)

Try again. Come up with an actual distinction that exists between Mona Lisa and what you're labeling as "objectification." You can't appeal to obscenity (the shirt isn't obscene). You can't appeal to names, because you can have a name attached to the work with it still being treated as objectification. You can't appeal to the fictional nature of the subject, because it's well established that images of both real women and fictional women can be considered objectification. You can't appeal to passivity, because the shirt is showing action scenes where this woman is doing various things, whereas in Mona Lisa, the woman is passively sitting there.

What will you appeal to?

[Keyboard Warriors]

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.

No it decidedly is. Being naked and being sexually suggestive are not dependent on one another. Therefore there's no reason for you to complain about your perceived inability to wear as few clothes as women and be judged for it. As such, I cut out the parts which I have no desire to enter into a debate about as I simply do not have the free time to discuss tangential issues.

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.)

What you've done is nitpicked an example to the nth degree to stroke your own sense of self-superiority. Let's look at the context of my ill-fated example. Seems like what I was trying to do was relate this issue to the context in particular.

As for your suggestion that a gender reversed scenario would not provoke any objections, you know damn well that is bullshit.

[Aahmerica]

Thats a cool shirt wish i had one.

Whats wrong with admiring the female body? I think the female body is beautiful, regardless of its size, shape or, color.

And besides she's totting a fun...looks more like bad ass empowerment to me.

Is it because it conveys some sort of unrealistic body image for girls?

Pretty sure Barbie already did that.

Also wheres the uproar in how certain women are drawn in Anime? Or comicbooks?
Heavy Metal(magazine and movie).
Yea I'm a pig, but i remember a lot of women going to see Magic Mike, not for its comprehensive storyline, dialogue or editing, but for well yall know.

[Royal Hindustan]

Speak up? What do you mean speak up? Do feminists have nothing better to do. Oh wait, I'll answer that. No! They have no right to tell him what he should wear or what he should not. He is a grown man and as long as he is not physically hurting someone, he is given that right in the constitution as pursuit to hapiness. These nitwit feminists probably didn't even care for what he did, but as long as it's a white male doing something remotely heterosexual, attack him.

[L Ron Cupboard]

Speak up? What do you mean speak up? Do feminists have nothing better to do. Oh wait, I'll answer that. No! They have no right to tell him what he should wear or what he should not. He is a grown man and as long as he is not physically hurting someone, he is given that right in the constitution as pursuit to hapiness. These nitwit feminists probably didn't even care for what he did, but as long as it's a white male doing something remotely heterosexual, attack him.

So you don't believe in freedom of speech for everyone, or just not for feminists?

[Central Slavia]

As for your suggestion that a gender reversed scenario would not provoke any objections, you know damn well that is bullshit.

No.
His suggestion is that a gender-reversed scenario would not provoke any objections from feminists and their allies which is highly probable.

[Victoriala]

Speak up? What do you mean speak up? Do feminists have nothing better to do. Oh wait, I'll answer that. No! They have no right to tell him what he should wear or what he should not. He is a grown man and as long as he is not physically hurting someone, he is given that right in the constitution as pursuit to hapiness. These nitwit feminists probably didn't even care for what he did, but as long as it's a white male doing something remotely heterosexual, attack him.

So you don't believe in freedom of speech for everyone, or just not for feminists?

There may be and there should, but it's been used to a chaotic scale nowadays. Like the thing for example.

And so it goes, if you have no good to speak of, silence.

Sadly some were too self righteous to discern.

[Kubrath]

People like you are a joke. This almost maniacal desire to label and demean everything that is of the "other" was supposedly only reserved for the most overt of conservatives, but now it seems that both extremes are just as vile and out of touch with reality. "Academicists", what the hell does that even mean? "Cis"? No, we're just people.

Cisgender: when you do identify with the gender you were designated at birth upon examination of your genitalia, often arbitrarily (in the case it was ambiguous or absent).

Synonymous with "not transgender". It is almost hermetic at that, the sole exception being intersex people who have lived experience to say they don't identify with these politics applying to them (they have authority on refusing a construct made by transgender activism because it is majorly dyadic, and given how Oppression Olympics is a bad thing, we should listen to them).

Academicism: to want to monopolize knowledge or intellectual propositions, guarding them under the shadow of hermetic communities and impenetrable jargon, denying that they be accessible to people of certain groups.

Academicism includes shooting at a person completely ignorant about a given subject a torrent of hard word, neologism and terms that they don't know or don't have an idea of what they designate. Academicism is to write in an obscure, purposefully stylized manner, to please a given isolated clique and alienate other people. (I re-appropriate it a lot to call attention to a person speaking on issues they should silence themselves before in respect of others, though, as people often undermine "internet justice warriors" protagonism on their own issues, branding them as "attention seeking amateurs" or whatever.)

Long story short, academicism is to think your ideas are so holy that they need this kind of shield, avoiding exposing it to the light of debate.

Speaking of a scientist as someone we should silence ourselves before even in political issues that are a concern they do not share as individuals is both a form of academicism and a heavy appeal to authority.

Piss off with your made up words. There's nothing arbitrary about identifying with your gender, nor for that matter about not identifying with it. What is arbitrary, however, is using a non-nsensical point of reference. Non-transgender? Sure, why not call green non-blue or people who can identify colours correctly - cisobservants or non-colour blind people?

The rest makes so sense whatsoever. It is at most a sad attempt to suggest that what isn't you is a product of cultural or political imperialism or an even sadder effort to redefine the elements of sophistic rhetoric to suit your biases. It's almost ironic how ideologues like you denounce this "academicism" while at the same time preach intolerance for opposing views.

[Ostroeuropa]

You know what really reveals it though?
If that woman on the shirt was a real woman, and she gave the interriew, and someone said
"She's dressed inappropriately."
feminists would be fucking furious that you're paying attention to her dress sense and not her scientific contribution.
But if you put that woman on a t-shirt and give it to a man?
Suddenly it's open season.
A woman can't dress innappropriately, unless she's on a t-shirt being worn by a man.

[Central Slavia]

Cisgender: when you do identify with the gender you were designated at birth upon examination of your genitalia, often arbitrarily (in the case it was ambiguous or absent).

Synonymous with "not transgender". It is almost hermetic at that, the sole exception being intersex people who have lived experience to say they don't identify with these politics applying to them (they have authority on refusing a construct made by transgender activism because it is majorly dyadic, and given how Oppression Olympics is a bad thing, we should listen to them).

Academicism: to want to monopolize knowledge or intellectual propositions, guarding them under the shadow of hermetic communities and impenetrable jargon, denying that they be accessible to people of certain groups.

Academicism includes shooting at a person completely ignorant about a given subject a torrent of hard word, neologism and terms that they don't know or don't have an idea of what they designate. Academicism is to write in an obscure, purposefully stylized manner, to please a given isolated clique and alienate other people. (I re-appropriate it a lot to call attention to a person speaking on issues they should silence themselves before in respect of others, though, as people often undermine "internet justice warriors" protagonism on their own issues, branding them as "attention seeking amateurs" or whatever.)

Long story short, academicism is to think your ideas are so holy that they need this kind of shield, avoiding exposing it to the light of debate.

Speaking of a scientist as someone we should silence ourselves before even in political issues that are a concern they do not share as individuals is both a form of academicism and a heavy appeal to authority.

Piss off with your made up words. There's nothing arbitrary about identifying with your gender, nor for that matter about not identifying with it. What is arbitrary, however, is using a non-nsensical point of reference. Non-transgender? Sure, why not call green non-blue or people who can identify colours correctly - cisobservants or non-colour blind people?

The rest makes so sense whatsoever. It is at most a sad attempt to suggest that what isn't you is a product of cultural or political imperialism or an even sadder effort to redefine the elements of sophistic rhetoric to suit your biases. It's almost ironic how ideologues like you denounce this "academicism" while at the same time preach intolerance for opposing views.

This.
Between equating disagreement with hate and oppression and trying to make the world a "safe space", SJWs' eyes are full of the precise log they see a straw of in their opponents' eyes. As soon as you are trying to impose your political views and their conclusions onto others who don't share them, or restrict them, you lose any right to whine when they disagree and push forth their opinion and stance in counter.

[Rhodisia]

Jesus fucking christ, this man landed the first human-made satellite on a comet over a billion clicks away (an incredibly long shot), and you're bitching because he's wearing a shirt you don't like?

Grow the fuck up, shut the fuck up and get out.

[Gauthier]

You know what really reveals it though?
If that woman on the shirt was a real woman, and she gave the interriew, and someone said
"She's dressed inappropriately."
feminists would be fucking furious that you're paying attention to her dress sense and not her scientific contribution.
But if you put that woman on a t-shirt and give it to a man?
Suddenly it's open season.
A woman can't dress innappropriately, unless she's on a t-shirt being worn by a man.

Looks Like a Duck, Walks Like a Duck, Quacks Like a Duck...

[Grand Britannia]

Cisgender: when you do identify with the gender you were designated at birth upon examination of your genitalia, often arbitrarily (in the case it was ambiguous or absent).

Synonymous with "not transgender". It is almost hermetic at that, the sole exception being intersex people who have lived experience to say they don't identify with these politics applying to them (they have authority on refusing a construct made by transgender activism because it is majorly dyadic, and given how Oppression Olympics is a bad thing, we should listen to them).

Academicism: to want to monopolize knowledge or intellectual propositions, guarding them under the shadow of hermetic communities and impenetrable jargon, denying that they be accessible to people of certain groups.

Academicism includes shooting at a person completely ignorant about a given subject a torrent of hard word, neologism and terms that they don't know or don't have an idea of what they designate. Academicism is to write in an obscure, purposefully stylized manner, to please a given isolated clique and alienate other people. (I re-appropriate it a lot to call attention to a person speaking on issues they should silence themselves before in respect of others, though, as people often undermine "internet justice warriors" protagonism on their own issues, branding them as "attention seeking amateurs" or whatever.)

Long story short, academicism is to think your ideas are so holy that they need this kind of shield, avoiding exposing it to the light of debate.

Speaking of a scientist as someone we should silence ourselves before even in political issues that are a concern they do not share as individuals is both a form of academicism and a heavy appeal to authority.

Piss off with your made up words. There's nothing arbitrary about identifying with your gender, nor for that matter about not identifying with it. What is arbitrary, however, is using a non-nsensical point of reference. Non-transgender? Sure, why not call green non-blue or people who can identify colours correctly - cisobservants or non-colour blind people?

The rest makes so sense whatsoever. It is at most a sad attempt to suggest that what isn't you is a product of cultural or political imperialism or an even sadder effort to redefine the elements of sophistic rhetoric to suit your biases. It's almost ironic how ideologues like you denounce this "academicism" while at the same time preach intolerance for opposing views.

My logical side thanks you; but my ocd, on the other hand, wants to slap you, but that's besides the point.

[Central Slavia]

You know what really reveals it though?
If that woman on the shirt was a real woman, and she gave the interriew, and someone said
"She's dressed inappropriately."
feminists would be fucking furious that you're paying attention to her dress sense and not her scientific contribution.
But if you put that woman on a t-shirt and give it to a man?
Suddenly it's open season.
A woman can't dress innappropriately, unless she's on a t-shirt being worn by a man.

Looks Like a Duck, Walks Like a Duck, Quacks Like a Duck...

That was very relevant to the point at hand.
In other news, SJWs are hypocrites.

[Gauthier]

Looks Like a Duck, Walks Like a Duck, Quacks Like a Duck...

That was very relevant to the point at hand.
In other news, SJWs are hypocrites.

It never ceases to amuse me how some people talk as if "social justice" is a bad thing. It's the same as Republicans using "liberal" and "progressive" as swear words.

[Bojikami]

Are they fucking serious?