TIME magazine, fresh from its triumph at electing the word “feminism” as the Worst Word in the World, has given the job of reporting on sexist shirts in the workplace to Katha Pollitt Amanda Marcotte Soraya Chemaly Cathy Young. Cathy Young of Reason magazine, Cathy Young who is Christina Hoff Sommers’s favorite colleague in feminism-bashing.
When I first heard about the outrage over a scientist from the Rosetta Mission, which landed the Philae space probe on a comet, wearing a “sexist” shirt for a press appearance, I racked my brain wondering what the offensive garment could have been. A T-shirt showing a spacecraft with a “My secret fort—no girls allowed” sign? An image of a female scientist with the text, “It’s nice that you got a Ph.D., now make me a sandwich”?
Right – if it’s not spelled out as literally and unmistakably as possible, then it’s not sexist at all. If it doesn’t say “no women allowed” then it’s not sexist. Hooray! Feminism has won and we can all move on – because people don’t put “no women allowed” signs on the doors any more, except in religious institutions. But guess what: actual signs saying “women get out” are not the only form of sexism there is. There are others.
This is true of so many things – of everything that social and political, in fact. A workplace where the men are always grabbing the women’s butts but there is no sign anywhere saying “women get out” – that is still a sexist workplace. There is such a thing as implication. I don’t believe that Cathy Young is genuinely so stupid that she doesn’t get that. I think she chooses to pretend she doesn’t get it.
Dr. Taylor’s shirt may not have been in great taste. But the outcry against it is the latest, most blatant example of feminism turning into its own caricature: a Sisterhood of the Perpetually Aggrieved, far more interested in shaming and bashing men for petty offenses than in celebrating female achievement.
No, that’s not true. The question of how to make STEM fields more attractive to women is not petty at all. One way not to make them more attractive to women is to ignore low-level sexism. Sure, it is low-level. That shirt is far from the worst kind of sexism or the worst thing anyone could have done. (Mind you, paired with “I didn’t say she was easy” it gets a bit worse.) But low-level sexism also matters, and when it’s amplified by being the face of an exciting event like this, then it matter more. It’s not petty.
[T]his particular brand of feminist ideology, which inevitably stigmatizes straight male sexuality, is at the center of the recent culture wars.
It doesn’t “stigmatize straight male sexuality” to say “not in the workplace.”
Sadly, the brouhaha over Dr. Taylor’s shirt overshadowed not only his accomplishments but those of his female teammates, including one of the project’s lead researchers, Kathrin Allweg of the University of Bern in Switzerland. More spotlight on Dr. Allweg, Dr. Grady, Dr. Alexander and the other remarkable women of the Rosetta Project would have been a true inspiration to girls thinking of a career in science. The message of ShirtStorm, meanwhile, is that aspiring female scientists can be undone by some sexy pictures on a shirt—and that women’s presence in science requires men to walk on eggshells, curb any goofy humor that may offend the sensitive, and be cowed into repentance for any misstep.
Thanks for ruining a cool feminist moment for us, bullies.
Thank you TIME magazine for joining the war on feminism.
Reason?? Seriously? Time chooses a Libertarian (and I think we all know how they feel about minority issues) to report? Head–>desk
On a related note, here is a fantastic comment that JL made in response to a troll over at LG&M. Obviously it could be expanded beyond STEM to just about every professional environment with only the details changing slightly:
‘More spotlight on Dr. Allweg, Dr. Grady, Dr. Alexander and the other remarkable women of the Rosetta Project would have been a true inspiration to girls thinking of a career in science.’
Yes, it would have. Why didn’t we do that? Maybe they should have worn gaudier shirts.
@2 guest….
Naw, they probably weren’t good looking enough. But a little bit of cleavage and maybe some lipstick wouldn’t hurt, would it?
‘And it’s a self-inflicted paper cut when you see that you’re the only female-presenting person in the room and you instinctively feel proud of that and then you realize what you’re doing.’
Ohhhhh yes. I cringed at that.
Maybe they should have worn gaudier shirts.
You can be sure that if a woman had been wearing a shirt covered with Tom of Finland artwork, someone would have told her it was inappropriate.
“Reason” is a tad bit of a a misnomer for the magazine Cathy Young writes for. Of course, “libertarian” is a tad bit of a misnomer the ideology attached to the magazine as well, so I can’t say I am surprised.
This is really starting to piss me off now. What outcry is she talking about.The only outcry has been from their side in response to some people doing the written equivalent of an eyeroll when they saw the shirt.
How can anybody not get it.Nobody lost their shit over that one shirt*.People mildly commented on the shirt being part of a bigger problem,that lot’s of little things that don’t seem much build up and build up.Nobody can be that stupid , they are deliberately not getting it.
*Well actually plenty of people have lost their shit over the shirt but not on this side.Dawkins ,Sommers, Young and the rest of that crowd over the rift really need to get some self awareness.
Dawkins and Blackford followed Matt Taylor on twitter.
Oh well I followed Matt Taylor on Twitter too.
But Blackford has been shouting about “call-out culture” and “antisex” and even “Elevatorgate” for days, and saying he “supports” Matt Taylor – by which he does not mean he supports Matt Taylor’s apologizing.
Why?
And yes, Russell’s rants have been off the scale, even by his standards LOL. I just thought it was such a pathetic transparent symbolic gesture by Dawkins and Blackford, to follow the guy as a show of support against the evil feminazi agenda.
Why not? I like following scientists, and he seems interesting apart from the recent unpleasantness. Plus he apologized.
“[T]his particular brand of feminist ideology, which inevitably stigmatizes straight male sexuality, is at the center of the recent culture wars.”
I find that it always anti feminists with insulting and degrading ideas of “straight male sexuality. “
No, I think the message of ShirtStorm is: “When you see something you think might be causing women to feel unwelcome in a particular environment keep your fucking mouth shut about it!”
The only outrage I saw was in the vitriolic and irrational response to the initial comments about the shirt. In a sane world the response would have been: “Oops, I hadn’t thought of that. I won’t do that again.” This tendency to react to criticism with level 11 hostility strikes me as vehement defensiveness or dissonance reduction by those who subconsciously feel “guilty as charged”.
AKA pretty much everything they’ve said/done for the past 3 years.
An addition to #1:
It’s a paper cut when a male non-scientist turns to another male non-scientist for validation of the scientific work of a female scientist.
(One hell of a huge paper cut, that. Happens all too often, too. My body and brain are raw and bleeding from paper cuts of that particular sort)
Yeah, it’s bizarre the way the anti-feminists are still obsessing over the shirt, when the critics have all pretty much said, “Hey, good apology, thanks for that, Mr. Taylor, and good job on the science stuff,” and moved on.
And of course, the original critiques were about as harsh as, “Guys, don’t do that.” So I suppose comparing it to Elevatorgate makes some sense, after all, just not in the way the antis think it does.
It is so easy for these to go all wide-eyed and confoozed about the fuss… Because after all, it was ‘only’ a tasteless shirt. But it is the ‘meta-reaction’ that really counts. The uncoiling misogynist rage that was rumbling along below the surface.
REASON? Really? Just because Ayn Rand disclaimed belief in any god except herself, does not make Objectivism or Libertarianism any real part of any atheist ‘movement.’ Penn Jillette’s faith-based denial of second-hand smoke’s risks, or global warming, or addiction/alcoholism, is as good a demonstration as one could need.
“Why not? I like following scientists, and he seems interesting apart from the recent unpleasantness. Plus he apologized.”
This is a fine reason, all by itself.
Plus, one doesn’t only “follow” one’s friends, you know. It’s important to keep an eye on a lot of people, and not only when they are friends. If you know what I mean.
One way to monitor someone on Twitter without adding to their follower count is to add them to one of your own curated tweep lists without following them. Then you can check their timeline out when and only when you’re in the mood, so that they don’t pollute your general feed.