No Right Answer: Is Sexy Bad?

[default]

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.

Why does this matter?

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?

Go away with your pathetic little tacky human constructs. Suits are fucking stupid.

Judging ANYONE by what they are wearing at ANYTIME is fucking stupid.

 

[Gordon_4_v1legacy]

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.

 

[Verlander]

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?

Spoiler: Not so sexist

Spoiler: Little bit more so

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:

Spoiler: Fewer clothes, still empowering

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.

 

[Gordon_4_v1legacy]

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.

What was it Odin said in Thor? "The hammer Mjolnir has the power both to destroy, and to build. It is a fit companion for a king".

 

[Gordon_4_v1legacy]

Go away with your pathetic little tacky human constructs. Suits are fucking stupid.

Judging ANYONE by what they are wearing at ANYTIME is fucking stupid.

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.

 

[loa]

"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.

 

[TallanKhan]

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?

 

[bdcjacko]

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?

 

[AstaresPanda]

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.

 

[Gorrath]

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.

Spoiler: Not so sexist

Spoiler: Little bit more so

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:

Spoiler: Fewer clothes, still empowering

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!

 

[Aerotrain]

If only Timberlake hadn't brought sexy back on that fateful summer of 2006 none of this would be a problem. Why would you bring it back, Justin? Why?!

 

[Spyre2k]

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.

 

[Gorrath]

If only Timberlake hadn't brought sexy back on that fateful summer of 2006 none of this would be a problem. Why would you bring it back, Justin? Why?!

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?

 

[Lightknight]

You can see what I said; there are severe lack of women in STEM fields, and the fact that a guy can turn up to work dressed like that is a consequence of that. Similarly, the all male building sites I've worked on have a lack of women, and consequently, there are much more open displays of casual sexism (pornography, nude calenders, conversations about prostitutes etc) that won't exist in a better mixed work place. Presumably there is more sexism present in all female work places too, as a direct consequence of a lack of male representation. There is an argument to be made that the presence of such sexist things might be discouraging for woman in that environment, but I don't think I've seen any article actually saying that the lack of women in STEM fields is down to men's shirts.

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?

Agreed, mostly. Well, maybe not the sexual dimorphism part

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.

It is still an inappropriate thing to wear in most work places, and I could easily imagine how it could be an ugly reminder for women employees that they are in a boy's club, rather than a place of work that expects women and accommodates for them accordingly. It doesn't even have to be an arbitrary specified dress code; I think it is likely that if 50% of that guy's co-workers were women, it probably would have occurred to him to not wear that shirt to work.

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

 

[sexy=sexist]

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.

Unless it was not a breach of dress code... then what?

 

[Belaam]

It's a sign that the company wants their employees to feel like they can be individuals.

Not at all. Look at everyone else on that team:

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.

 

[Entitled]

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?

It takes two to tango.

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.

 

[Lightknight]

It's a sign that the company wants their employees to feel like they can be individuals.

Not at all. Look at everyone else on that team:

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.

So your argument is that because you found a picture of people wearing a particular shirt that my comment is somehow incorrect?

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.

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.

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.

 

[Lightknight]

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?

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)

Oh no, how did the youtube commentors get twitter accounts too?!!! Quick, let's consider their comments as legitimate as journalists!

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.

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.

 

[Belaam]

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.

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.

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 do you know? Several people found it problematic. Your inability to see that problem doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

How does does people getting offended at people insulting a man who just played a major role in human history ...Look, this was a bunch of people just bullying a nerd. F-em.

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.