Goddamnit, I was going to make that joke!Blachman201 said:
His wife made it for him. I feel really bad for him since most women campaign to wear what they want without prejudice and then someone like Matt gets grilled like that after taking part in something incredible.Story said:
Question.ryukage_sama said:
I see your point, I really do, but where we differ is that you saw it as objectification, no question about it. Meanwhile I've never understood that mindset; when I look at a drawing of an attractive woman, however sexualised, I do not consider them and less of a human being. As such, when I see a woman walking around with something showing a photo of a mostly naked man I am not offended by this. To say that the only purpose of art is to make an object of that depicted, is sad. I don't see why people think a sexualised character is any less of a human being. That being sexual isn't a valid part of one's humanity. It's sad that society rates people's humanity on their clothing. Take a statue such as The Thinker, it is not objectifying men just because it is naked, but is it sexualised? Well at the end of the day it is just a recreation of a human figure; sexualisation is something society invented as a consequence of clothing.ryukage_sama said:
The whole point of this is that it isn't about what YOU think, or how YOU feel. It is about how others, in this case women specifically, feel. You don't see it that way. Fine. But you're ignoring the significance of this social construct. Pointing out that "Sexualization" is a social construct shouldn't detract from the fact that it is a modern, functional construct that affects ourselves and those around us. You're right that the "Thinker" isn't widely considered to be sexualized, and I agree with that evaluation. You could also point to the Venus de Milo as an example of beauty of the female form that isn't considered sexualized. But we're not talking about examples of artwork on display at the office. We're talking about images of women in a sci-fi/fantasy setting wearing tight leather/vinyl/etc. with fantastic proportions. Those images widely recognized as being sexualized. Even without a universal consensus, it's wrong to ignore the way that brandishing such imagery around a work place negatively impacts those around them. I have positive view of sex and sexual imagery (especially of women), but I respect the fact that not everyone feels as comfortable about it as I, especially outside the privacy of one's home. So I respectfully don't bring such depictions with me to work or in public in general. We make our society a happier, healthier place by doing what we can to keep our work spaces a positive, inclusive environment, respecting what our coworkers are comfortable with. It's not their fault if he/she isn't at open to depictions of the human form. It remains our collective responsibility to respect the sensibilities of others.Alexander Kirby said:
While plenty of people do riff on Barbie on some sort of principal, this specific objection is based on her depiction in this book on being a programmer. It looks like the writers were trying to be instructive by having other people (in this case, all men) instruct Barbie on how to be a programmer. The problem is that, as its depicted, all of the work is being done by people helping her and not her doing it for herself. It's made worse when, at the end of the story, Barbie presents the work that the reader has seen other people, exclusively men, doing for her as her own work.Staskala said:
That's a highly colored and -for journalism- non-professional thing to state so blatantly.roseofbattle said:
If they want to feel welcome in STEM, bulling a nerd on the peak of his career because they don't like what he wears won't help much.roseofbattle said:
"I don't care if you landed a spacecraft on a comet, your shirt is sexist and ostracizing"roseofbattle said:
I love the subtitle: That's one small step for man, three steps back for humankind. Seeing that society unlearned not to judge (let alone condemn) others by how they look or dress, I would say it's very accurate.NuclearKangaroo said:
absolutely, and hell it is not meant to offend people, just some guy who happens to like girls, is not a shirt saying "fuck you" for instanceCaitSeith said:
