Author Topic: Rosetta scientis in trouble for sexist shirt  (Read 666 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Azdgari

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 12441
  • Darwins +292/-32
  • Gender: Male
Re: Rosetta scientis in trouble for sexist shirt
« Reply #87 on: November 22, 2014, 08:39:02 AM »
Can you give me some examples?

Post #6 in the other thread we're in right now is a good example.  Thing is, as far as I can tell, the condescension was earned condescension.  Yours generally is.  So, do what you like with that.
I have not encountered any mechanical malfunctioning in my spirit.  It works every single time I need it to.

Online One Above All

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 11134
  • Darwins +294/-37
  • Supreme ruler of the multiverse; All In One
Re: Rosetta scientis in trouble for sexist shirt
« Reply #88 on: November 22, 2014, 08:50:41 AM »
I am not talking about perception.  I am saying that the message is objectively different.  Not entirely objectively different, but different enough to be worth remarking on it.

There we have a disagreement. I think it's purely perceptual. If a physicist claimed that they had found a way to create a true 2D object, and a layman said the same thing, who would you be more likely to believe, assuming you had only heard one of them speak?

Oh, it could still be a sexist message.  It just wouldn't be as strong of one.  I think you missed my edit:  I am not discriminating based on sex, but on privilege.

Whose privilege?

Men and women do have different amounts of privilege in most cultures.  That difference arose because of sexism, and now it's real.  Acknowledging it isn't sexist, and discriminating based on it is also not sexist.

I think it is because, in the end, it's indistinguishable from discriminating based on sex, since the privilege itself was attained due to one's sex (more accurately, society's perception of said sex, but they're also indistinguishable from each other).

Post #6 in the other thread we're in right now is a good example.  Thing is, as far as I can tell, the condescension was earned condescension.  Yours generally is.  So, do what you like with that.

What about "not generally"?
The truth is absolute. Life forms are specks of specks (...) of specks of dust in the universe.
Why settle for normal, when you can be so much more? Why settle for something, when you can have everything?
We choose our own gods.

A.K.A.: Blaziken/Lucifer/All In One/Orion.

Offline Azdgari

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 12441
  • Darwins +292/-32
  • Gender: Male
Re: Rosetta scientis in trouble for sexist shirt
« Reply #89 on: November 22, 2014, 09:04:33 AM »
There we have a disagreement. I think it's purely perceptual. If a physicist claimed that they had found a way to create a true 2D object, and a layman said the same thing, who would you be more likely to believe, assuming you had only heard one of them speak?

Actually the messages there are objectively different as well.  Unpacked somewhat, here it is:

"Working in my field of study has enabled me to create a 2D object."
The phrase "...my field of study..." has a different meaning for the physicist compared to the physics-layman.  Similarly, if an airplane pilot claimed to have personally flown a plane to China and back, and a restaurant chef claimed the same thing, the messages would have different credibilities, far beyond differences of perception.  Acknowledging different peoples' different likelihoods of achieving something is not an argument from authority, ad-hominem, or any other kind of personal-identity-specific fallacy.

Whose privilege?

That of the man and the woman, who, all other things being equal[1], have different levels of privilege in Western culture.  Men have more, women have less.

I think it is because, in the end, it's indistinguishable from discriminating based on sex, since the privilege itself was attained due to one's sex (more accurately, society's perception of said sex, but they're also indistinguishable from each other).

And here is where I was trying (and failing) to focus us back in post #72.

What you're saying, then, is that acknowledging that black people in America have suffered and do suffer from racism, is itself racist?  In a sense, I agree.  But I also think that it's a trivial assignment of the term "racist".

Closer to the topic, with a more extreme example:  Imagine we're talking about Iran.  Someone mentions that women have dramatically less privilege there, and suggests ways to try to change that, or at least suggests we have a conversation to that end.  Another person comes along and objects to having that conversation, on the grounds that distinguishing between the plights of men and women in Iran is sexist.  Does the latter person really have a point?


What about "not generally"?

That was just me trying not to make a universal claim that I wasn't willing to go to the work of verifying.
 1. No other differences have been brought up yet, so I'm assuming all other things are equal.
« Last Edit: November 22, 2014, 09:23:09 AM by Azdgari »
I have not encountered any mechanical malfunctioning in my spirit.  It works every single time I need it to.

Online One Above All

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 11134
  • Darwins +294/-37
  • Supreme ruler of the multiverse; All In One
Re: Rosetta scientis in trouble for sexist shirt
« Reply #90 on: November 22, 2014, 09:33:37 AM »
Azdgari, I'll post a response later today. If I forget, send me a PM. Right now I'm trying to focus on something else.
The truth is absolute. Life forms are specks of specks (...) of specks of dust in the universe.
Why settle for normal, when you can be so much more? Why settle for something, when you can have everything?
We choose our own gods.

A.K.A.: Blaziken/Lucifer/All In One/Orion.

Offline Azdgari

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 12441
  • Darwins +292/-32
  • Gender: Male
Re: Rosetta scientis in trouble for sexist shirt
« Reply #91 on: November 22, 2014, 09:34:18 AM »
All good.  I need to make dinner.
I have not encountered any mechanical malfunctioning in my spirit.  It works every single time I need it to.

Offline Azdgari

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 12441
  • Darwins +292/-32
  • Gender: Male
Re: Rosetta scientis in trouble for sexist shirt
« Reply #92 on: Today at 05:29:41 AM »
Here's a good analysis of the issue and the cultural non-vaccum it took place in:
http://womeninastronomy.blogspot.ca/2014/11/its-not-about-that-damn-shirt.html

Quote
Women said "Dude, wearing that shirt is not cool". Men are now spending days telling those women the graphic, specific ways they would like to rape and murder them.
I have not encountered any mechanical malfunctioning in my spirit.  It works every single time I need it to.

Online One Above All

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 11134
  • Darwins +294/-37
  • Supreme ruler of the multiverse; All In One
Re: Rosetta scientis in trouble for sexist shirt
« Reply #93 on: Today at 05:45:10 AM »
Actually the messages there are objectively different as well.  Unpacked somewhat, here it is:

"Working in my field of study has enabled me to create a 2D object."
The phrase "...my field of study..." has a different meaning for the physicist compared to the physics-layman.  Similarly, if an airplane pilot claimed to have personally flown a plane to China and back, and a restaurant chef claimed the same thing, the messages would have different credibilities, far beyond differences of perception.  Acknowledging different peoples' different likelihoods of achieving something is not an argument from authority, ad-hominem, or any other kind of personal-identity-specific fallacy.

Your "unpacking" inserts terms that weren't there before. Here's a more specific wording:
"Working in my lab[1], I've created a 2D object."

That of the man and the woman, who, all other things being equal[2], have different levels of privilege in Western culture.  Men have more, women have less.
 2. No other differences have been brought up yet, so I'm assuming all other things are equal.

I meant in this particular situation. These same (self-proclaimed) feminists are the ones who complain that a woman should be allowed to wear what she wants without any repercussions.

And here is where I was trying (and failing) to focus us back in post #72.

What you're saying, then, is that acknowledging that black people in America have suffered and do suffer from racism, is itself racist?  In a sense, I agree.  But I also think that it's a trivial assignment of the term "racist".

No. Acknowledging the facts is not discriminatory. Discriminating against someone based on said facts, however, is. You are effectively discriminating against someone because of the way they were born. Men can't wear shirts with women on them because they're sexist. Women can, though, because... men have more rights? You don't see the contradiction there?

Closer to the topic, with a more extreme example:  Imagine we're talking about Iran.  Someone mentions that women have dramatically less privilege there, and suggests ways to try to change that, or at least suggests we have a conversation to that end.  Another person comes along and objects to having that conversation, on the grounds that distinguishing between the plights of men and women in Iran is sexist.  Does the latter person really have a point?

No. Thankfully, that's not what I'm saying.

That was just me trying not to make a universal claim that I wasn't willing to go to the work of verifying.

I was hoping for examples for the purpose of self-improvement. I am officially disappointed. :(
 1. The layman may or may not have a different idea of what a "lab" is compared to the physicist, but, then again, a lab can be shitty, even if professionals use it.
The truth is absolute. Life forms are specks of specks (...) of specks of dust in the universe.
Why settle for normal, when you can be so much more? Why settle for something, when you can have everything?
We choose our own gods.

A.K.A.: Blaziken/Lucifer/All In One/Orion.

Offline Azdgari

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 12441
  • Darwins +292/-32
  • Gender: Male
Re: Rosetta scientis in trouble for sexist shirt
« Reply #94 on: Today at 06:02:21 AM »
Your "unpacking" inserts terms that weren't there before. Here's a more specific wording:
"Working in my lab[1], I've created a 2D object."
 1. The layman may or may not have a different idea of what a "lab" is compared to the physicist, but, then again, a lab can be shitty, even if professionals use it.

Your more specific wording also inserts terms that weren't there.  That's what including subtext does.  Anyway, this all side-steps the fact that your example isn't a good one to demonstrate your otherwise valid point.  A good example would be the following statement:

"A 2D object is possible."

Unlike the previous examples, this one avoids reference to the speaker (no "I made..." or "in my lab...").  In such a case, yes, the difference in the message between speakers is subjective.  Though I'd argue that it's not as hard and fast a distinction as one might think, considering that we communicate more information than is contained in our literal words.  In daily life, we depend on doing so.  And keep in mind that in the situation under discussion, the message isn't a literal one.

I meant in this particular situation. These same (self-proclaimed) feminists are the ones who complain that a woman should be allowed to wear what she wants without any repercussions.

Do they?  Do you have a quote?

No. Acknowledging the facts is not discriminatory. Discriminating against someone based on said facts, however, is.

So, objecting to a white pride celebration, while not objecting to a black pride celebration, is discriminatory?  Well, yeah.  It discriminates based on facts.

You are effectively discriminating against someone because of the way they were born. Men can't wear shirts with women on them because they're sexist. Women can, though, because... men have more rights? You don't see the contradiction there?

See above.  Discriminating based on real-world facts is justified.  It's how we operate in the world all the time.

Closer to the topic, with a more extreme example:  Imagine we're talking about Iran.  Someone mentions that women have dramatically less privilege there, and suggests ways to try to change that, or at least suggests we have a conversation to that end.  Another person comes along and objects to having that conversation, on the grounds that distinguishing between the plights of men and women in Iran is sexist.  Does the latter person really have a point?

No. Thankfully, that's not what I'm saying.
(quote left in for clarity)

Okay, but according to what you're saying, it seems like the latter person in my example really should have a point.  After all, the men in Iran shouldn't be discriminated against just because of how they were born.  It's not their fault they have privilege.  Why should the women in Iran get considerations that the men don't?[2]  Discriminating between them based on who has a history of oppressing whom would be sexist, according to the principles you've laid out.

Also, I suggest reading the article I linked.  It's some good perspective.

I was hoping for examples for the purpose of self-improvement. I am officially disappointed. :(

If you like, I'll keep my eye out.
 2. Not meant seriously.
« Last Edit: Today at 06:04:40 AM by Azdgari »
I have not encountered any mechanical malfunctioning in my spirit.  It works every single time I need it to.

Online One Above All

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 11134
  • Darwins +294/-37
  • Supreme ruler of the multiverse; All In One
Re: Rosetta scientis in trouble for sexist shirt
« Reply #95 on: Today at 06:47:08 AM »
Your more specific wording also inserts terms that weren't there.  That's what including subtext does.

Wrong wording on my behalf. :P
I meant it inserted terms that weren't there, based on your projection, while ignoring the point.

Anyway, this all side-steps the fact that your example isn't a good one to demonstrate your otherwise valid point.  A good example would be the following statement:

"A 2D object is possible."

Unlike the previous examples, this one avoids reference to the speaker (no "I made..." or "in my lab...").  In such a case, yes, the difference in the message between speakers is subjective.  Though I'd argue that it's not as hard and fast a distinction as one might think, considering that we communicate more information than is contained in our literal words.  In daily life, we depend on doing so.  And keep in mind that in the situation under discussion, the message isn't a literal one.

That depends on how you define "communicate". We attempt to transfer information by being as clear as possible (unless our purpose is not to do so, like some theists here have done and still do), but different meanings are perceived by the listener depending on who the speaker is, who they appear to be, and the way in which they say things, than by what they're actually saying. And this is just based on the speaker; the listener's own biases also take precedence over what the speaker says.

Do they?  Do you have a quote?

It's hyperbole that led to a fallacy[1]. Ignore it.

So, objecting to a white pride celebration, while not objecting to a black pride celebration, is discriminatory?  Well, yeah.  It discriminates based on facts.

Different intents and means. "White pride" celebrations are conducted by white supremacists and probably feature hate speech. "Black pride" celebrations are not conducted by black supremacists and probably do not feature hate speech.
This, of course, according to what I recall reading on the subject.
If someone wanted to organize a "White pride" celebration without hate speech, and without all the "whites are better" sentiment, among other things, I'd let them. I wouldn't join them, mainly because I think such things are frivolous, but I'd support their right to do so.
What you're doing is saying that men can't wear shirts like Dr. Taylor's because it "sends the wrong message" (id est: you're discriminating against someone wearing whatever they want because others might get the wrong idea, rather than whether or not that idea is even legitimate), and because he's a man, rather than a woman. You're not discriminating because it's sexist ("discrimination levels" don't vary depending on who's doing it; a black person calling a white person the c-word is just as bad as a white person calling a black person the n-word), but your discrimination itself is sexist.

Okay, but according to what you're saying, it seems like the latter person in my example really should have a point.  After all, the men in Iran shouldn't be discriminated against just because of how they were born.  It's not their fault they have privilege.  Why should the women in Iran get considerations that the men don't?[2]  Discriminating between them based on who has a history of oppressing whom would be sexist, according to the principles you've laid out.
 2. Not meant seriously.

The issue here isn't that women are getting rights equal to men. Men do have privileges women don't have, and it's a good thing that the inequality is being fixed (albeit slowly). However, as you yourself mentioned, a woman doing this exact same thing in this exact same situation would not be considered as sexist (and that's only if it would be considered sexist at all). That is what the issue's all about - men being discriminated against because they did something that's only wrong for them to do solely on the basis that they're men.

Also, I suggest reading the article I linked.  It's some good perspective.

I was unaware that was directed at me. I'll read it when I get back from college. I have a test today.

If you like, I'll keep my eye out.

That'd be great.
 1. Association fallacy.
The truth is absolute. Life forms are specks of specks (...) of specks of dust in the universe.
Why settle for normal, when you can be so much more? Why settle for something, when you can have everything?
We choose our own gods.

A.K.A.: Blaziken/Lucifer/All In One/Orion.

Offline Azdgari

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 12441
  • Darwins +292/-32
  • Gender: Male
Re: Rosetta scientis in trouble for sexist shirt
« Reply #96 on: Today at 07:51:11 AM »
That depends on how you define "communicate". We attempt to transfer information by being as clear as possible (unless our purpose is not to do so, like some theists here have done and still do), but different meanings are perceived by the listener depending on who the speaker is, who they appear to be, and the way in which they say things, than by what they're actually saying. And this is just based on the speaker; the listener's own biases also take precedence over what the speaker says.

Without the biases of listeners, we'd be forever spelling out every single thing we say down to the most pedantic literal word.  Without the speaker doing so, listeners have to make some assumptions based on their own biases.  Usually that leads to a good-enough exchange of information.  This is how the majority of our communication is done.  We don't spell everything out literally.  Hell, even on this forum, where such a thing is much more easily possible, we still don't spell everything out.  We leave some responsibility to the listener/reader.

Different intents and means. "White pride" celebrations are conducted by white supremacists and probably feature hate speech. "Black pride" celebrations are not conducted by black supremacists and probably do not feature hate speech.

There's a reason for those differences between intents.  Even without the hate speech, there's still a difference, isn't there?

If someone wanted to organize a "White pride" celebration without hate speech, and without all the "whites are better" sentiment, among other things, I'd let them.  I wouldn't join them, mainly because I think such things are frivolous, but I'd support their right to do so.

Well, free speech and all that.  So far legal restrictions havn't been brought up, right?[1]

What you're doing is saying that men can't wear shirts like Dr. Taylor's because it "sends the wrong message" (id est: you're discriminating against someone wearing whatever they want because others might get the wrong idea, rather than whether or not that idea is even legitimate), and because he's a man, rather than a woman. You're not discriminating because it's sexist ("discrimination levels" don't vary depending on who's doing it; a black person calling a white person the c-word is just as bad as a white person calling a black person the n-word), but your discrimination itself is sexist.

Actually, it's not just as bad.  Why?  Because, at least in America, the white man doesn't need real-world defenses from racism and the black man does.  There is a difference between the objectively-existing social realities the two people live in.  I think that's what you're missing:  Racist comments from one group to another don't have the same meaning or impact when mirrored, nor do sexist comments from one sex to another.

The issue here isn't that women are getting rights equal to men. Men do have privileges women don't have, and it's a good thing that the inequality is being fixed (albeit slowly). However, as you yourself mentioned, a woman doing this exact same thing in this exact same situation would not be considered as sexist (and that's only if it would be considered sexist at all). That is what the issue's all about - men being discriminated against because they did something that's only wrong for them to do solely on the basis that they're men.

No, not solely on the basis that they're men.  Solely on the basis that they don't need protection from a more privileged group.  That the difference is a result of prior sexism doesn't mean that it isn't real and isn't a valid factor to react to.

I was unaware that was directed at me. I'll read it when I get back from college. I have a test today.

It wasn't.  But it's a good read anyway, and it's pertinent.
 1. Except by eh!, who claimed that I was talking about defending rights.
I have not encountered any mechanical malfunctioning in my spirit.  It works every single time I need it to.