Er...I think you're mistakenly conflating "sexualization" with "objectification."
They're not the same thing.
Spartan448 said:
The problem here is not that he had a shirt with people with bikinis on it.
The problem is that YOU ARE A GODDAMN SCIENTIST WHO JUST LANDED A GODDAMN PROBE ON A GODDAMN COMET. AND YOU ARE GIVING A PRESS CONFERENCE. WEAR A GODDAMN SUIT.
Sincerely. Why? Some of the absolute worst things in human history have been said and done while dressed "appropriately" or in a suit.
I don't care if he came out wearing nothing but a lamp shade on his head. They landed a god damned robot on a comet. Frankly, we're lucky the guy, let alone the group, was clothed and not drunk off his/their asses after the ten years it took building up to it.
The shirt was a uniquely created gift from his friend, a female tattoo artist, and he was celebrating the achievement.
Digi7 said:
Plus you ruined the best day of that guy's life. Fuck you.
The man who, with his team (made up of both sexes, mind), accomplished something truly spectacular that these petty troglodytes will never, ever match...and they broke him, dragged him through the muck, for wearing a particular configuration of woven fibers that they just didn't like.
I just don't understand people sometimes.
Priorities are so fucked up.
insaninater said:
Mcoffey said:
insaninater said:
Anyone else think that landing a rocket on a fucking comet should give you the right to wear whatever you damn well please the the press conference?
You can't back up a subjective argument with facts. You're missing the point a bit. This one instance of a douchey shirt is not doing anything. It's a thousand thousand incidents stacked up over the years. It's men wearing douchey shirts, and men being hired over women consistently over a long period of time, and the women that are hired being isolated and excluded in a male-dominated workplace.
Yet if history is any indication people might be annoyed over men being hired over women. Women being isolated, and excluded will all take a back seat to the real issue... anything involving sex will pretty much be more important then the rest of that.
It's just easier. You usually have to hear or read about problems women face in the work place, or how often women are mistreated. And by the time any of that gets written up there's not much that can be done about it. A dude wearing a douchey shirt is immediately apparent, and can be immediately called out on.
Or sexy is just what really pisses people off and people really really want to control it.
Why do you call the shirt douchey?
I am trying to find a article I read a few weeks ago about how immigrant women were being abused at this one facility and there was a petition to shut it down... but all I can find is petition stuff about the UK banning Julien Blanc... how about that.
Er...I think you're mistakenly conflating "sexualization" with "objectification."
They're not the same thing.
Spartan448 said:
The problem here is not that he had a shirt with people with bikinis on it.
The problem is that YOU ARE A GODDAMN SCIENTIST WHO JUST LANDED A GODDAMN PROBE ON A GODDAMN COMET. AND YOU ARE GIVING A PRESS CONFERENCE. WEAR A GODDAMN SUIT.
Sincerely. Why? Some of the absolute worst things in human history have been said and done while dressed "appropriately" or in a suit.
I don't care if he came out wearing nothing but a lamp shade on his head. They landed a god damned robot on a comet. Frankly, we're lucky the guy, let alone the group, was clothed and not drunk off his/their asses after the ten years it took building up to it.
The shirt was a uniquely created gift from his friend, a female tattoo artist, and he was celebrating the achievement.
Digi7 said:
Plus you ruined the best day of that guy's life. Fuck you.
The man who, with his team (made up of both sexes, mind), accomplished something truly spectacular that these petty troglodytes will never, ever match...and they broke him, dragged him through the muck, for wearing a particular configuration of woven fibers that they just didn't like.
I just don't fucking understand clothes, I really don't. Who fucking cares what shape and colour the pieces of material you have plastered to your body to hide your shameful parts are? Why are some shapes and colours more appropriate than others? Who CARES? If you do care, WHY?! Fuck humans.
And exactly, they made this poor fellow cry because he thought he would dare to wear something with something fun and funky on it for his day in the light. FUCK you, you pathetic little worms.
These people put a fucking MAN MADE OBJECT into fucking SPACE and they landed it on a FUCKING COMET farther away than the human mind can comprehend, and these people brought it back down to the guy's FUCKING CLOTHES.
Here's a simple rule that I've recently designed based on all the things that have been happening lately, and it's served me well.
Does the content of this movie/book/game/show/shirt/etc. have anything that could possibly arouse or sexually interest a straight male? If yes, then it IS sexist.
Does the content of this movie/book/game/show/shirt/etc. have anything that could possibly arouse or sexually interest a straight woman, gay male, gay woman, or anyone else you'd like to add? If yes OR no, then it is NOT sexist.
Methinks you missed the joke. It was to point out that everyone but a straight guy could wear/watch/play/read anything and not be made to feel bad about it, but if a straight male like myself enjoys anything of a sexual nature, then apparently I hate women and only view them as sexual objects.
No problem. But while it was a joke, there is a part of me that kind of feels like that's the way things are going. Granted, I don't think that's necessarily the way it is NOW, but I think in general once we as a society say that something is bad or "whatever-ist" the moment anyone is offended, we're in trouble. If that's the standard for what is and isn't acceptable and the offended party has the power to immediately call for something to change or it's creator to be punished (and it can be made to happen), then freedom of expression is a lot harder to come by.
And that's not to say that people shouldn't be able to be criticized or that I think all games should be nothing but blatant Dead Or Alive pandering, but once creative people start second-guessing their every idea and not doing this or that because they're afraid of the backlash they might get just because someone percieves a message or idea that isn't there and was never intended...entertainment isn't going to be very entertaining anymore.
When you get right down to it this shirt really is a great example of sexy = sexist imo. I think we can all agree the shirt is not professional, but the guy looks like a rockstar and obviously the place he works at is not about the dress code, or it might very well have even been time to pop the Champagne and relax. People took issue with his shirt because it was sexy and that flips people right the f*ck out.
You could make the game winning penalty kick for the Women's World Cup championship but that will be second place to the finger wagers upset you showed your sports bra.
You can land a rocket on a comet but that hardly counts if there is sex involved somehow.
The problem here is not that he had a shirt with people with bikinis on it.
The problem is that YOU ARE A GODDAMN SCIENTIST WHO JUST LANDED A GODDAMN PROBE ON A GODDAMN COMET. AND YOU ARE GIVING A PRESS CONFERENCE. WEAR A GODDAMN SUIT.
Sincerely. Why? Some of the absolute worst things in human history have been said and done while dressed "appropriately" or in a suit.
I don't care if he came out wearing nothing but a lamp shade on his head. They landed a god damned robot on a comet. Frankly, we're lucky the guy, let alone the group, was clothed and not drunk off his/their asses after the ten years it took building up to it.
The shirt was a uniquely created gift from his friend, a female tattoo artist, and he was celebrating the achievement.
It's all about promoting the importance of your own position. When you have something important to say, you wear a goddamn suit - it adds weight and professionalism to what you are saying. That is why even when it's an open and shut case for the Prosecution and you're the public Defender, you wear a suit. It's why even if you're just giving a press conference to wish the Secretary of State a happy birthday, you wear a suit. It is why when you give a speech at a funeral or a wedding, you wear a suit. A suit tells people "Hey, fucking listen to me, because what I have to say is fucking important." It prevents shit like this from happening.
And plus, it looks awesome as fuck, why wouldn't you wear a suit?
It's all about promoting the importance of your own position. When you have something important to say, you wear a goddamn suit - it adds weight and professionalism to what you are saying. That is why even when it's an open and shut case for the Prosecution and you're the public Defender, you wear a suit. It's why even if you're just giving a press conference to wish the Secretary of State a happy birthday, you wear a suit. It is why when you give a speech at a funeral or a wedding, you wear a suit. A suit tells people "Hey, fucking listen to me, because what I have to say is fucking important." It prevents shit like this from happening.
And plus, it looks awesome as fuck, why wouldn't you wear a suit?
So, basically it comes down to arbitrary societal expectation/constructs?
Allow me to go full Godwin all up in this *****:
I'll be the first to admit, I'd probably take the guy with the lamp shade on his noggin and naught for clothing but air molecules less seriously... but if he'd just landed a robot on a comet? I'd definitely be paying attention, regardless of his state of dress.
Kind of like what happened here.
Hell. He looked more like a real, live, genuine person than a thousand dudes posturing in suits.
The problem here is not that he had a shirt with people with bikinis on it.
The problem is that YOU ARE A GODDAMN SCIENTIST WHO JUST LANDED A GODDAMN PROBE ON A GODDAMN COMET. AND YOU ARE GIVING A PRESS CONFERENCE. WEAR A GODDAMN SUIT.
Sincerely. Why? Some of the absolute worst things in human history have been said and done while dressed "appropriately" or in a suit.
I don't care if he came out wearing nothing but a lamp shade on his head. They landed a god damned robot on a comet. Frankly, we're lucky the guy, let alone the group, was clothed and not drunk off his/their asses after the ten years it took building up to it.
The shirt was a uniquely created gift from his friend, a female tattoo artist, and he was celebrating the achievement.
It's all about promoting the importance of your own position. When you have something important to say, you wear a goddamn suit - it adds weight and professionalism to what you are saying. That is why even when it's an open and shut case for the Prosecution and you're the public Defender, you wear a suit. It's why even if you're just giving a press conference to wish the Secretary of State a happy birthday, you wear a suit. It is why when you give a speech at a funeral or a wedding, you wear a suit. A suit tells people "Hey, fucking listen to me, because what I have to say is fucking important." It prevents shit like this from happening.
And plus, it looks awesome as fuck, why wouldn't you wear a suit?
So context is everything. Wearing that shirt at a club, or a movie theater? Fine. Wearing that shirt at a very important gathering where you are representing thousands of people? Maybe a poor call.
Basically this; I'd hate to be that guys Manager because some fucker is getting his arse kicked for letting him walk out in that thing; totally inappropriate for a global media event of that caliber.
All that should have happened was for the bosses to give a statement that the employee is being reprimanded for a breach of dress code/code of conduct and let the matter lie.
It's simple, and it's only the fringe folks who's agenda is solely to "defeat" the other side that don't get it.
Someone looking sexy isn't a problem. Someone ONLY looking sexy is.
Perhaps that might seem oversimplified to some, but the truth is that there's nothing wrong with a woman looking good, flaunting her sexuality and suchlike. There IS something wrong with women only being sexy props for the purpose of men.
So to answer, is sexy bad? No, it's just the application of sexy that can be abused.
I am not a fringe folk and I"m not interested in defeating anyone, and yet I don't agree with you at all, at least with the way you've stated your case. The problem with your statement isn't necessarily that it's over simplified but that it is a statement that seems to be lacking an argument. You assert that someone just looking sexy is "wrong." Can you form a logical argument as to WHY someone just looking sexy is wrong? Can you clarify what you mean by "wrong" (immoral, unethical?) Is this just an opinion you are stating or are you claiming this as fact?
What you claim is provocative and not useful and I could simply come back at you with, "No, you're wrong, just being sexy isn't wrong at all." But that would be just as provocative and equally useless. So what I will say is this: There is nothing inherently immoral or unethical about a character, piece of art or piece of pron being just sexy or for titillation. I would also argue that the shirt in question does not portray a character that is just sexy, but that's because I read more into the shirt's images than some might. If someone says, "There's nothing more to that shirt's image than a woman being a sex object." I can't prove them wrong, because they are interpreting a piece of art. Nor could they prove me wrong when I respond with, "No, I think the shirt represents a female character who is both sexy and strong and is suggestive of fantasy art which often portrays female warriors who stand proudly on the line between sexuality and badassery."
Now, all of that said, I think the shirt he wore is not at all appropriate for the circumstances in which he wore it but that's nothing more than a fashion faux pas, not an indictment of sexism.
Well, I think that perhaps the word that I most misused is "wrong". I didn't want to write "sexist" because that's not a useful term, and I think that "degrading" is a bit extreme, but think along those lines. In consideration of broader media, a woman used only for her looks is objectified, because there's no character there, they're a visual plot device only. That's insulting, and that's what I was referring to when I said "only sexy". A woman who is sexy, but that drives or develops her character isn't "only sexy" and isn't sexist. When referencing images or pictures, it really boils down to what the image represents. Does it represent a sexy woman doing something, or does it represent a woman doing something with her sexiness exaggerated for the viewer?
Are both women badass? Sure. Are both sexy? Yeah. As a nerdy male, are both appealing? Yup. There's a clear difference between the first image and the second image, and while I'll always argue that there's a place for the second image, the current issue is that the second image is currently the default in most areas of fantasy and fiction - where a woman is a sex object above all else. It's not even really down to how much clothing she's wearing, because sometimes being scantily clad is appropriate:
You're right though, context is everything. An example of this being used to subvert the audience is in Eddie Murphy's "Coming to America". In the opening scenes, there are women as decoration everywhere, who bathe him and throw petals at his feet. He's matched to a beautiful woman who's been trained to do nothing but obey every command, even ridiculous ones. This takes objectification of women to the extreme to serve a purpose - that the place he lives in is highly patriarchal, and that as a man he is considered above all else. Some may say it's because he's a prince, but even his man-servant is waited on by beautiful women. His father encourages him to become a sex tourist to prepare for being married even. Is this sexist? Sure, purposefully so, but it's not "wrong" because of the intentions of the film. Were this a serious film where that was represented as an actual ideal, then you'd have problems. So yeah, "wrong" is the incorrect word to use.
The shirt scandal is nonsense, and even hardline feminists have come out in support of the guy. A shirt like the one he's wearing lacks context, so it's pretty difficult to make a call on it either way. Although, like you said, it's more of a fashion crime than anything else.
Getting directly to the question at hand, "sexy" is a tool. Like a hammer, maybe? You can build bridges with it, or you can smash in someone's skull. It can be a symbol of hope, or one of oppression. It's all in how it's used, and who it's used for.
Honestly, if people are upset, then maybe you're swinging it at people a bit too much.
In their free time, I agree; but he wasn't on his own time - he was on company time. ***** about the constructs all you want but we have created them to serve a purpose; and that purpose is to avoid these very situations where a load of old piss-whiffle overtakes the achievement being announced. Hell he could have been met halfway and just worn a lab coat over the shirt, made the announcements, basked in all his very deserving adulation and glory, then gone to the after party and taken the coat off.
When you're on paid time, the boss gets to dictate how you're dressed. This is why Google and Microsoft employees wear jeans and tee's, and civil/public servants wear suits - their bosses make it so.
"Sexist" has become this bullshit dilluted meaningless term just like "misoginy".
I try to stay far away from it and find other things of actual substance like his shirt looks kinda ugly but whatever, female characters in X can only be sexy girl templates and never creatures or somesuch and that's boring, cover Y with naked lady on it annoys me because it supposedly is marketet towards meand I don't want to be in a group associated with that, the "form fitting" outfit of that character makes no sense and is only designed that way out of a sense of "tradition" etc.
I think that makes it less confusing. If you just stand there saying "this is sexist", you're not saying much at all.
Was the shirt tacky, hell yes. Let me be clear, I wouldn't be seen dead wearing a shirt like that.
Was it inappropriate, in my opinion, no. This was someone who had just contributed to a huge achievement and he had every right to wear something he was comfortable in. He isn't a PR person or corporate executive, a suit and tie is not what he wears to work, he is a scientist and thats how he dresses when he goes to work. The media wanted to interview a scientist and that's what they got. However you might feel about his choice of fashon, the shirt was hardly obscene and taking pot-shots at him for his choice of atire is basically just bullying someone for their dress sense.
There is also a part of me that can't help but feel this probably wouldn't have been such an issue in a different context either. When I recall people talking about this there was alot of "Considering the job he does?" and "It wasn't very professional". It almost felt like what people were really digging at was "The science nerd doesn't look the way we expect a science nerd to look!" Of course if it really upset people that much, maybe next time the media interview a scientist, so as to ensure no one gets upset they should just force them to wear a white lab coat for the interview? Then everyone can see that they are totally a 100% authentic scientist right? Maybe get them a big pair of glasses too, y'know, to reassure everyone that they are super-smart?
I'm coming down on the side that the occasion probably deserved a tie, and a shirt that you would wear a tie with. Now if he had been wearing that shirt in mission control with the robot touch down, seems fine to me.
If he was interviewed and knew he was going to be interviewed immediately after touchdown, then plan for it.
But the important part is, did we offend the comet?
Abit tacky maybe but ppls pre conceived notice of what certain ppl should look like. Have tou been to the UK ? for years the popular thing for assholes to wear is a half naked chick on their t-shirt. ALOT "worse" then that, basicly the from cover of an FHM on your shirt.
This guy landed a fucking WALL-E on a moving rock in SPHEEES. Who the fuck cares about his shirt.
Stop watching the Big Bang Theory and thinking thats what they all must look like.
Well, I think that perhaps the word that I most misused is "wrong". I didn't want to write "sexist" because that's not a useful term, and I think that "degrading" is a bit extreme, but think along those lines. In consideration of broader media, a woman used only for her looks is objectified, because there's no character there, they're a visual plot device only. That's insulting, and that's what I was referring to when I said "only sexy". A woman who is sexy, but that drives or develops her character isn't "only sexy" and isn't sexist. When referencing images or pictures, it really boils down to what the image represents. Does it represent a sexy woman doing something, or does it represent a woman doing something with her sexiness exaggerated for the viewer?
Thanks for responding, I appreciate you taking the time to write all that you have and explain your points. However, I don't find myself agreeing with basically anything you say here. Sexist/sexism is a useful term if we understand what we mean when we use it. I wrote a bit in my original post about how a shirt could be sexist both in its statement and/or in the context in which it is worn. It is true that a "woman" (I wouldn't use this term, I would say female character, but I take your point) who is used for only her looks is being objectified. I don't actually agree with that statement, since a person's looks can denote a lot of different things not all of which are objectifying. But let's say I agree that in some instances, maybe even this one, the female characters represented on his shirt are objectified. I ask you, so what?
Objectification is not inherently wrong or bad; you'd need to demonstrate that the objectification you are seeing in this piece of art is wrong or bad. You also say it's insulting, but again, so what? People get insulted by all sorts of things, why should anyone care if someone just says something is insulting? A piece of art being "insulting" to one or more viewers only demonstrates that those specific viewers have an issue with it, it does not demonstrate there is anything immoral or unethical or "problematic" about the art. People claim the teletubbies are insulting, Barney the Dinosaur is insulting, every military shooter ever is insulting.
I also disagree where you say that a woman who is sexy, but who develops her character, isn't sexist. You can have a fully fleshed out character that's sexist as hell given certain traits of that character and the context in which the character is used. A character who's objectified, even for sexual purposes, may not be sexist and a character who's fully fleshed out and isn't sexy at all can be sexist as hell in the way the character is portrayed. By way of example, consider a female character who isn't designed to be physically attractive but who is written to fit a bunch of negative stereotypes and is held up by the piece to be an example of how a woman "should act." That would be sexist even though we get to see a fully fleshed out, unattractive woman.
Are both women badass? Sure. Are both sexy? Yeah. As a nerdy male, are both appealing? Yup. There's a clear difference between the first image and the second image, and while I'll always argue that there's a place for the second image, the current issue is that the second image is currently the default in most areas of fantasy and fiction - where a woman is a sex object above all else.
There is a clear difference between the first and second image, though I don't agree that it's in their level of sexist content. For the sake of brevity in what will already be a long post, I'll avoid going into detailed criticism of both images, but I will say I don't find either to be sexist, at all, even a little. On their own they are simply images depicting attractive female characters. One is more sexually suggestive than the other but that is not indicative of sexism on its own. As far as the second image being a default in contemporary fantasy, I can't say that I agree. That kind of image is used often but there are plenty of variations, even if there is pervasive sexual undertones or overtones to most fantasy art depicting female characters.
I don't agree that either depiction renders the character a "sexual object above all else" even if both are suggestive and the second one VERY suggestive. Even if the second image did render the character that's depicted a sex object above all else, and you were right that this was the default for fantasy, then the image itself would still not be the problem, it would be the overwhelming number and pervasivity of such images. In other words, no one image would be the problem but the lack of any other kind of depiction would be the problem, and even then it'd be a creative problem not an ethical one.
Even if the second image was, say, printed on a shirt some guy wore during a television interview, it wouldn't make the man or the shirt he was wearing a sexist. I don't see anything sexist about the image or the context in which he wore it making it a sexist issue, though I am willing to be convinced.
It's not even really down to how much clothing she's wearing, because sometimes being scantily clad is appropriate:
I agree with your assessment of the above image, though you seem to be thinking along that lines that these images are either empowering, and thus okay, or objectifying and therefore not okay. This would be a false dichotomy if that's what you intend but I won't presume you mean that. I would reiterate though that there's nothing inherently wrong with objectification.
You're right though, context is everything. An example of this being used to subvert the audience is in Eddie Murphy's "Coming to America". In the opening scenes, there are women as decoration everywhere, who bathe him and throw petals at his feet. He's matched to a beautiful woman who's been trained to do nothing but obey every command, even ridiculous ones. This takes objectification of women to the extreme to serve a purpose - that the place he lives in is highly patriarchal, and that as a man he is considered above all else. Some may say it's because he's a prince, but even his man-servant is waited on by beautiful women. His father encourages him to become a sex tourist to prepare for being married even. Is this sexist? Sure, purposefully so, but it's not "wrong" because of the intentions of the film. Were this a serious film where that was represented as an actual ideal, then you'd have problems. So yeah, "wrong" is the incorrect word to use.
Great criticism of the film! That is precisely the intent behind those scenes and serves as the bedrock for Murphy's character growth in the film. I'm 100% behind everything you say in the above paragraph.
The shirt scandal is nonsense, and even hardline feminists have come out in support of the guy. A shirt like the one he's wearing lacks context, so it's pretty difficult to make a call on it either way. Although, like you said, it's more of a fashion crime than anything else.
I'm a pretty hardline feminist myself, in that I believe very strongly in the core ideal of the feminist movement and don't like the idea of compromising that core ideology. I'm glad you and I can agree on this last point because that's really the crux of the issue in this situation; there's nothing about the shirt or the context in which he wore it that demonstrates sexism. I think this is especially apparent when we learned that he wore the shirt because a friend made it for him. If you take his word for that, we have the context of the interview and his reasoning and none of it suggests a sexism.
Thanks a bunch for the conversation by the way. I love reasoning stuff like this out with people like yourself. You're a stand-up person!
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
