NationStates

Avenio wrote:

-The Unified Earth Governments- wrote: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.

-The Unified Earth Governments- wrote: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.

-The Unified Earth Governments- wrote: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.

-The Unified Earth Governments- wrote:Is the woman that made the shirt for him objectifying women?

Yes. Yes she is.

-The Unified Earth Governments- wrote: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.

Benuty wrote:Does the Rosetta mission have a stone?

The Floating Island of the Sleeping God wrote:

-The Unified Earth Governments- wrote: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 wrote: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.

Tahar Joblis wrote: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.

Ostroeuropa wrote:

Alyakia wrote: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!!!!!!"

Knask wrote:

Ostroeuropa wrote:
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.

Gauthier wrote:

Ostroeuropa wrote: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.

Avenio wrote:

Tahar Joblis wrote: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.

Tahar Joblis wrote: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.

Tahar Joblis wrote:

Keyboard Warriors wrote: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 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.)

Royal Hindustan wrote: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.

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

L Ron Cupboard wrote:

Royal Hindustan wrote: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?

Degenerate Heart of HetRio wrote:

Kubrath wrote: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.

Kubrath wrote:

Degenerate Heart of HetRio wrote: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 wrote: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.

Kubrath wrote:

Degenerate Heart of HetRio wrote: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.

Gauthier wrote:

Ostroeuropa wrote: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...

Central Slavia wrote:

Gauthier wrote:
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.