No Right Answer: Is Sexy Bad?
- Thread starter Firefilm
- Start date
People are such up tight prudes. US morality and thus "offensive" line is heavily influenced by Puritan religious beliefs. These are people who fled Europe because they were too uptight and found the culture of the day too "offensive".
As a result we have a US society that gets uptight about about the slightest bit of exposure of the human body and tries to label it under modern "sexist" argument to try and censor it. Where as in Europe they hardly take offensive at nudity but instead get very uptight over violence.
This is really shown in various laws regarding media and video games. Things looking for an international release tend to make a lot of decisions regarding their product which to outsiders seems odd. For example many have probably noticed over the years you can't kill kids in games, such as Skyrim, Fable, and etc. The reason for this is not that the Developers thought it was inappropriate but rather curtain European countries have laws that you can't depict violence against children in games. Thus if they want to sell their game in those countries they have to make it so you can't kill kids in their game.
They don't do regional versions with different features enabled/disabled because it would cost more to maintain and test. Plus could provide legal issues if any distribution mistakes happened sending copies of the "bad" versions into a country that has those parts sensors.
Personally I think the problem with "offensive" stuff is a personal one. We are suppose to live in a tolerant society which means accepting people for who they are, not demanding they change to fit other people's ideal norm and political correctness.
But instead we live in a society were a rather large scientific achievement is made and all people can do is discuss whether or not the guy explaining the achievement is wearing "appropriate" cloths.
As a result we have a US society that gets uptight about about the slightest bit of exposure of the human body and tries to label it under modern "sexist" argument to try and censor it. Where as in Europe they hardly take offensive at nudity but instead get very uptight over violence.
This is really shown in various laws regarding media and video games. Things looking for an international release tend to make a lot of decisions regarding their product which to outsiders seems odd. For example many have probably noticed over the years you can't kill kids in games, such as Skyrim, Fable, and etc. The reason for this is not that the Developers thought it was inappropriate but rather curtain European countries have laws that you can't depict violence against children in games. Thus if they want to sell their game in those countries they have to make it so you can't kill kids in their game.
They don't do regional versions with different features enabled/disabled because it would cost more to maintain and test. Plus could provide legal issues if any distribution mistakes happened sending copies of the "bad" versions into a country that has those parts sensors.
Personally I think the problem with "offensive" stuff is a personal one. We are suppose to live in a tolerant society which means accepting people for who they are, not demanding they change to fit other people's ideal norm and political correctness.
But instead we live in a society were a rather large scientific achievement is made and all people can do is discuss whether or not the guy explaining the achievement is wearing "appropriate" cloths.
Justin was not the pop singer we deserved, but he was the one we needed. But though his deed may be lost to memory and myth, we shall enjoy this offering of sexy he fought so bravely to return to us. We must fight for the sexy, lest another person be saddled with the burden of retrieving it from those that would take it from us. How many must we sacrifice Aerotrain, how many?Aerotrain said:
Do you think perhaps that people crying that this guy is discouraging women by the clothes he wears are making much to do about nothing? That they've basically mobbed this poor guy far beyond anything a person could possibly deserve in some effort to combat an unrelated issue?maninahat said:
Maybe not the sexual dimorphism, but it still probably plays a role. We have seen differences (on average, mind you, not every woman and every man would hit the norm) between the way men and women approach certain scenarios. Some of them are social programming but some of them even show differences in the way the brain physically processes information from the areas that show activity in response to certain stimuli to the degree of activity shown.
As a society, we need to get away from the touchy feelies and get to the hard facts, the science, the truth. Humans are both a combination of biology and sociological. Forgetting one is to err. Just as genders specialize (again, on average) in physical activities, so too are we likely to have different predispositions towards certain mental or social activities.
Once we are honest enough to evaluate that sort of thing. We may learn that women aren't just going into social work because society says to but maybe they have been evolved to specialize in those areas in a way that men are commonly weaker or less disposed to. Specialization is good and it should be considered equally erroneous to think that one line of work is necessarily more valuable than another when we need them all. Being able to recognize and accept our differences should result in the ability to rely on and celebrate them rather than be afraid of them. I think everyone is afraid that acknowledging or researching these differences is going to mean that we find one gender is "better" than another. I suspect we'll find that for every specialization one gender has, we'll find the other with their own. Even then, individuals of either gender could break from the average and excel in the areas the other gender has a higher propensity for so leaning heavily on the numbers would be stereotyping where individuals are concerned.
Tattoos are also an inappropriate thing to have in most work places. The tech/IT/engineer industry is different. Girls and boys are allowed to express individuality. Him wearing that shirt and having those tattoos isn't a sign of the patriarchy. It's a sign that the company wants their employees to feel like they can be individuals. A double standard would have been if women weren't allowed to dress how they please. Equal opportunity isn't everyone has to consider your feelings. It's that you are treated the same as everyone else. If they are treated like shit, you are treated like shit. If they are treated well, you are treated well. That's equality, not you or anyone else imposing their sensibilities on others and tipping the scales towards their own world views.
Take my tech office for example. People are wearing flip flops and hoodies with skulls on them and all sorts of different forms of self-expression. So what if someone wears a shirt with girls on it? He's incurring the risk of being seen as socially awkward or whatever and potentially isolating himself from his coworkers. That's his cost, not us demonizing him or demanding he dress more like us. Just like in social circles.
The goal of equality should err on the side of everyone having more rights and freedoms. Otherwise it's simple to make everyone equal by taking away everyone's rights. People should be free to express themselves and free to incur the
Not at all. Look at everyone else on that team:Lightknight said:
They are all clearly wearing the same mission design polo shirt. Polos and slacks being a pretty common workplace appropriate clothing for a wide variety of jobs.
Then we have Matt:
It certainly appears that unlike everyone else on the floor, he has covered up his mission shirt with another one. At least, it certainly appears he is wearing a polo under the other shirt.
If everyone else were wearing their own funky shirts for the day, that would be one thing, but that's not what we are seeing. It's a sign that the company wants them to look like a professional team, which he does not do. It is not workplace appropriate clothing (largely because it uses women's bodies as decoration), and he appears to be the only one who had to stand out by covering his polo with something else. Hardly the agency promoting individualism.
It takes two to tango.Lightknight said:
There was one, random-ass tweet from one woman, regarding how this shirt is an example of the industry's hostility to women.
She got charming replies such as "Fucking retard hope you get ebola", "Jump off a cliff. Please.", "quit your bitching", "Sometimes try sex. You'll be better", "Why is it ugly women gripe about this stuff?", "calm your tits it's just a shirt", and that she "looks like kind of ***** who can?t park her car on the first try". (source [http://www.mgtow.com/asteroids/] and source [http://jezebel.com/woman-gets-death-threats-for-tweeting-about-disliking-a-1658337612] for tweet collections)
It's the classic rule about how every discussion about feminism proves the need for feminism. Yes, afterwards there were supportive articles and discussions too, and plenty of those went back to engaging in the debates about whether or not "the shirt was sexist". They got big enough that the ESA had to respond to it.
Just like with all the other recent gender controversies, there is no single person who decided that this issue should get as much coverage (from either side) as it did. Not one feminist editorial writer stated that this shirt is an important deal and the ESA must be buried in accusations as if they store women in sex dungeons. And vice versa, no single person decided that Eveleth deserves to be buried under sexist abuse, they all just posted their indicidual few words to her. The rest is just escalation by people with too much free time on their hands.
So your argument is that because you found a picture of people wearing a particular shirt that my comment is somehow incorrect?Belaam said:
That's a picture of one room. If you watch the video the other people aren't wearing those shirts. In fact, the two people manning the pcs who got the news first aren't wearing mission shirts either. One is wearing a zip down sweater and the girl is wearing a light purple shirt with jeans. The other people there are dressed more formally but none wearing that shirt. So what exactly are you trying to prove about the company's desire to allow their employees to dress comfortably? Sorry, but you're wrong. The company does allow comfortable clothing and that picture is just of one section of the company that decided to wear that shirt.
As stated above, that's everyone in only one room and not "everyone else on the floor".
That aside, how does that make you feel? Does it bother you that this scientist didn't dress the same as all the other kids? Maybe you and people like you should respond by bullying him to tears because he didn't dress in a way you approve of. In fact, let's do this to everyone who behaves differently than what we expect. Let's just go ahead and plunge the world into a pseudo-high school environment where the superficial cheerleaders are the ones that win every time.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2014/11/15/shirt-comet-girls-feminism-column/19083607/
This isn't a positive backlash. Women aren't so fragile and treating them as such is a step back for feminism. This shames real feminists that people do this kind of thing in their name.
Oh no, how did the youtube commentors get twitter accounts too?!!! Quick, let's consider their comments as legitimate as journalists!Entitled said:
You don't get it. What does a man wearing a shirt have to do with feminism? He wasn't oppressing women with his shirt. How does does people getting offended at people insulting a man who just played a major role in human history because of what he's wearing translate into showing that feminism is even more needed than before?! Feminism isn't that guys can't find the female form beautiful or like sexiness. Feminism is just a pursuit for equality. The fact that a girl on the team could have worn a shirt with he-men all over it IS equality. Controlling what other people can do? That's just fascism and even censorious.
Is feminism necessary? Sure, wherever inequality for women exists. But inequality isn't merely a world where some people disagree with something someone says "in the name of feminism". That's just silly.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/space/11234620/Dr-Matt-Taylors-shirt-made-me-cry-too-with-rage-at-his-abusers.html
Look, this was a bunch of people just bullying a nerd. F-em.
Basic standards of workplace attire giving you flashbacks to high school drama is your own issue; I'd advise some counseling if you've been out of high school for more than a summer and still obsessing over the time a cheerleader called you a weirdo. In the real world, professions have standards of what employees wear to work. This guy clearly violated those standards or A) it wouldn't have been an issue and B) he wouldn't have apologized. Appropriate workplace attire is not a vast conspiracy to create an Orwellian nightmare, it's a basic fact of working for a company pretty much since the creation of companies. Again, I'd invite you to list professions wherein this would be appropriate work clothing.Lightknight said:
How do you know? Several people found it problematic. Your inability to see that problem doesn't mean it doesn't exist.Lightknight said:
Can we lay of the hyperbole? He was one of many research scientists and was brought on nine years into the project. Due to problems with the landing (not something he was responsible for- not blaming him), there won't really be any data collected to use in research. I'm not questioning that he is a good scientist, but these rebuttals about his "major role in human history" make him sound like he was Bruce Willis in Armageddon. And the idea that this was some sort of "nerd harassment" is absurd; I'd argue that everyone involved and almost everyone watching was a nerd.
It's frankly starting to sound more like you are personalizing this from being harassed as a nerd in high school by cheerleaders. That may just be the vibe coming off your responses, but it might be wise to take a deep breath and try to not link this to whatever memories this seems to be dredging up.
Basic Standards? Whose standards? Yours?Belaam said:
I'm telling you that IT and high-end development companies have different dress codes than the typical company. They are on the cutting edge of allowing casual attire as a perk of the job.
Right now, I'm wearing tennis shoes, jeans, and a t-shirt (albeit a nice one). It isn't casual Friday, there is no casual Friday because every day is casual. I can wear this kind of stuff any day of the week. What's more is that I'm probably the most dressed up person here. People here wear shorts and flip flops and heavy metal t-shirts just like him. Why? Because that's what nerds do and it's not right for you to judge us for it just because you have some sort of preconceived notion that people have to wear slacks and a button up for the company to succeed. We are a far happier workplace and I have turned down job offers for higher pay because I value the level of comfort this provides more than a few thousand dollars a year.
In short, casual dress codes are a form of compensation. It attracts and maintains talent.So try to think outside of the box the traditional workplace has put you in and consider that other people do things differently and it's their prerogative to do so. It is entirely petty of people to fashion police this guy. Was he poorly dressed? Sure. But it isn't any of our fucking business, is it?
Okay, I'm starting to think this is just willful ignorance and a dead end to respond. Yes, business casual is my own personal invention. I'm quite proud of how well it's caught on and the royalties do well for me.Lightknight said:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_casual
And thanks for the info on IT. I spent years at an international engineering firm and our IT was always in those amazing business casual guidelines I created. I am currently teaching and doing IT in a major school district. Our IT also follows "my" business casual guidelines. Part of the reason we have dress codes at those places is because we interact with the public often. Contractors, bidders, and the people running the projects we were bidding on were regular visitors at the CH2M sites and schools, obviously, are full of public interactions. I'm guessing whoever mainly works with clients in your office also probably follows "my" standards. That's awesome that you are willing to give up money for the ability to wear a T-shirt. But like with defining when people can be offended, your personal experience does not dictate others.
And clearly, I am just anti-nerd. Because escapist forums are THE hangout for ignorant jocks. e.e
You said "Basic Standards", not business casual. Implying that you are the sole definer of the "standards". You're not though. And please understand that I'm not saying that I am either. If you owned a business then all of your employees would conform to whatever the heck you said as though God demanded.Belaam said:
But the way you or I think people should or shouldn't dress is absolutely irrelevant except anywhere in which you have authority to impose your beliefs. No amount of experience that you've had in any IT company or regarding any dress codes has any impact on the standards of other companies. Sorry, it just doesn't. There is no, "Space engineers must dress for success to succeed!" requirements. That's all superficial nonsense.
Times are changing and your ideals just aren't coming along with it. Not in the tech industry anyways.
If you are pro-the people who bullied this man to tears for how he dressed, then sure. Because social awkwardness in multiple ways including dressing in out of fashion ways is basically our (nerds) shtick. Maybe they should go after women who wear "demeaning" bikinis or something if they're upset about women being depicted with a lot of skin. Surely showing real skin is a lot more harmful than mere depictions of it. Something that sexualizes actual women rather than drawings of them. But hey, that would also be puritanically insane and feminists have made good progress in stopping people from judging them based on how they dress. So instead we need to abuse and harass a guy that wore a tacky shirt that a friend of his made him to progress absolutely no cause. Yeah, that's totally justified.
It's not that I don't get it, it's that I don't care.Lightknight said:
Rose Eveleth made a single comment ("No no women are toooootally welcome in our community, just ask the dude in this shirt.").
Maybe she was correct to imply that even shirts like this can demonstrate an old boys' club mentality. Maybe she was off the mark, and it really is just a whacky shirt. Or more likely, this is all a subjective cultural issue with many ideological viewpoints and.... No Right Answer.
But that's not the point. The point is, that where you see abuse, there is only opinions, and if there is abuse, it's all over the place in all directions, not organized by a huge group attacking a single person.
Because "insulting a man" consisted of a one-liner with a rather mild feminist stance on male-centric workplace culture, and the people "getting offended" at that included lots of sexualized or misogynistic slurs being thrown at her, and their "cause" being picked up by sites like MGTOW, that also called this controversy "as tragic as when NASA put a female in space", and recommended to "Never, never, ever apologize to women", since "Only in a woman?s deluded mind will she conjure up ANY other beliefs before even admitting a man somewhere is totally awesome."Lightknight said:
What you think about the original statement's accuracy, is irrelevant, even this Stormfront-for-misogynist wouldn't spend an article on every case of a random woman on twitter being incorrect, this issue has passed into the ritual of good old gender warring, long ago, with it's usual cycle of abuse.
On the other hand, describing what other people should do, is not. Otherwise, your post that says SJWs shouldn't have argued against that shirt, would also be fascist and censorious, along with Rose Eveleth, and every other person who ever commented on anyone else's behavior.Lightknight said:
No, this is a bunch of people bullying a bunch of other people in both directions, along with a few people writing negative op-eds about a few other people.Lightknight said:
It's irrelevant what you think about who is CORRECT, your original narrative that people just randomly "mobbed this poor guy far beyond anything a person could possibly deserve", is certainly incorrect. There was no NEED for this to become a big damn controversy, it could have easily stayed a single tweet of someone's opinion, if not for anti-feminists turning it into another gender war, that escalated until even the ESA heard about it, and then some more.
Certainly? He deserved to be harassed and vilified like this for a shirt he wore?Entitled said:
I haven't said wrong, I said incorrect. Misrepresenting the truth of the situation. Didn't happen that way. Based on a misunderstanding of the various stances, the participants' identity, the degree and content of their writings, and the motivations.Lightknight said:
You have taken a situation where a single twitter post referencing the effects of a male-centric workplace recieved an abusive mob, then some op-ed articles defended the twitter post, and others criticized it. Then you have reinterpreted it as a bunch of op-ed articles "bullying" some guy by having negative stances on the male-centric workplace.
If the constructs didn't exist in the first place wearing inappropriate clothing for the situation wouldn't even be a concept. As long as it is a piece of material that covers up the majority of you and keeps you warm it should NOT matter what clothing looks like, but this is deconstructing thousands of years of (frankly bizarre) human thinking.Gordon_4 said:
It was painful to read this one, but let me explain what is wrong with post.
Sexualization is big part of lust.
And love without lust is friendship.
So no, there are times and circumstances when sexualization is good and desired.
Do you really believe this?
Do you think that half-naked women on my t-shirt can somehow rob any agency of anyone?
Unless I use said t-shirt to tie someone up, no, it can't.
If I whistle at your ass, there is no fucking way it can rob your agency to do anything.
If it does however, then it indicates that you simply lack willpower and confidence.
And frankly, it is your problem not mine.
So no, unless my sexualization leads to drugging you, then handcuffing you in my basement, my sexualization in no way can diminish your agency.
Yeah while reading this I became angry, but not at you- I felt angry at people who say shit like this.
"she's stripped of some of her agency and is reduced to mere object"?
The fuck is this?
Do you understood what you wrote?
You know how much agency Bayonetta (or any other character) has?
None.
My chair arguably has more agency.
My dog definitely has more agency.
You and I have more agency.
Why?
Because she (or any other character) IS NOT REAL.
I know she may seem real, after all you have seen her on TV talking, kicking ass, sucking lollipop and spanking enemies, but still she is not real.
There is no real person behind her character.
Anything she does on screen is something her creators decided.
She is property of her creators.
Bayonetta is object that looks like "she" to begin with.
So no, you can't strip agency of something that lacks agency to begin with.
And no, you can't objectify objects.
The last part is what REALLY worries me.
You're not the first who said this and you won't be the last.
And every time my brain struggles to understand their thought process.
How people can't see things THAT obvious?
When did people stopped noticing what is real and what isn't?
Somewhat true, unwanted sexualization is bad, but there is such thing called lust.Ikajo said:
Sexualization is big part of lust.
And love without lust is friendship.
So no, there are times and circumstances when sexualization is good and desired.
This is the part when I felt sad.
Do you really believe this?
Do you think that half-naked women on my t-shirt can somehow rob any agency of anyone?
Unless I use said t-shirt to tie someone up, no, it can't.
If I whistle at your ass, there is no fucking way it can rob your agency to do anything.
If it does however, then it indicates that you simply lack willpower and confidence.
And frankly, it is your problem not mine.
So no, unless my sexualization leads to drugging you, then handcuffing you in my basement, my sexualization in no way can diminish your agency.
Remember when I felt sad?
Yeah while reading this I became angry, but not at you- I felt angry at people who say shit like this.
"she's stripped of some of her agency and is reduced to mere object"?
The fuck is this?
Do you understood what you wrote?
You know how much agency Bayonetta (or any other character) has?
None.
My chair arguably has more agency.
My dog definitely has more agency.
You and I have more agency.
Why?
Because she (or any other character) IS NOT REAL.
I know she may seem real, after all you have seen her on TV talking, kicking ass, sucking lollipop and spanking enemies, but still she is not real.
There is no real person behind her character.
Anything she does on screen is something her creators decided.
She is property of her creators.
Bayonetta is object that looks like "she" to begin with.
So no, you can't strip agency of something that lacks agency to begin with.
And no, you can't objectify objects.
The last part is what REALLY worries me.
You're not the first who said this and you won't be the last.
And every time my brain struggles to understand their thought process.
How people can't see things THAT obvious?
When did people stopped noticing what is real and what isn't?
To be honest, how I feel? I feel like the dude did nothing wrong really. I've got nothing to say on the shirt itself. Part of me feels that we're becoming way too uptight about shit and need to loosen up before people pop. I'm not denigrating the equality struggle but I don't feel that shirt (ok I had something else to say, sue me) lessened women's equality in any way.
Also I think we can allow for some eccentricity here and there with our rocket scientists, just not if they're spouting gender-biased epithets and/or racist slurs. Focus less on ephemeral shit and more on what was accomplished.
Also I think we can allow for some eccentricity here and there with our rocket scientists, just not if they're spouting gender-biased epithets and/or racist slurs. Focus less on ephemeral shit and more on what was accomplished.
It's a fitting comment. I feel similarly to sexuality. It's good for everyone, IMO. Men, women. Well, maybe not so much children. Still, everyone should feel good about themselves to the extent they want. I think that's what helps really define sexy. How good you feel about yourself, not so much how you try to make others.Gordon_4 said: