"Without my clothes I should be as destitute of authority as any other naked person. Nobody could tell me from a parson, a barber, a dude. Then who is the real Emperor of Russia? My clothes. There is no other.... [W]hat would man be — what would any man be — without his clothes? As soon as one stops and thinks over that proposition, one realizes that without his clothes a man would be nothing at all; that the clothes do not merely make the man, the clothes are the man; that without them he is a cipher, a vacancy, a nobody, a nothing...."
From "The Czar's Soliloquy," which is Mark Twain riffing on — one might well say blogging — an item he read in the London Times Correspondence: "After the Czar's morning bath it is his habit to meditate an hour before dressing himself." Twain supplies the hour of meditation, which ends with the Czar deciding to put on his clothes:
"There is but one restorative — Clothes! respect-reviving, spirit-uplifting clothes! heaven's kindliest gift to man, his only protection against finding himself out: they deceive him, they confer dignity upon him; without them he has none.... Mine are able to expand a human cipher into a globe-shadowing portent; they can command the respect of the whole world — including my own, which is fading. I will put them on."
I ran across a quote from that yesterday as I was writing about the rocket scientist's sexy-lady shirt and expounding my enigmatic "In the broad span of human culture, fashion is more important than space travel."
AND: Let me add a few questions for the champions of Matt Taylor's shirt: Do you know whether Matt Taylor wants to be used as a poster-boy for anti-feminism? If you don't know — and certainly if he doesn't (and I suspect he doesn't) — are you supporting his self-expression or are you appropriating him as a device for your self-expression? He cried when criticized for wearing a pinup-festooned shirt, but maybe you are making him cry by prolonging the exposure of the image he himself rescinded and by using it to attack the women that he chose to appease. Now, excuse me while I write "Matt Taylor's Soliloquy" in the style of Mark Twain.
१७ नोव्हेंबर, २०१४
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
१५६ टिप्पण्या:
Somebody pleas tell Lena Dunham.
I don't know what Matt Taylor wants, but I do know that Janay Palmer does not want to by a poster girl for other people's crusade against domestic violence. She wants her husband to have his job back. The world doesn't respect those sorts of wishes. Get over it.
The white, elite, perpetual faux victims girlies stepped all over themselves on this one.
It's interesting to see one who is in accordance with them now wonder if Matt has feelings and is he a bit wounded by his defenders?
I don't remember concern for his emotional well being in the last set of posts here.
Do you know whether Matt Taylor wants to be used as a poster-boy for anti-feminism?
Not sure, more data is needed. He might be interested in the poster-child-for-anti-bullying gig, though.
Matt Taylor dressed like a clown, and that was inappropriate and unprofessional, but in line with the way too many supposed adults think and behave now. I wouldn't defend him dressing like that, whether the shirt had hotties on it or it had clowns or puppies or some other unprofessional nonsense on it.
My criticism of the feminists complaining about the hottie pattern on the shirt (I'm pretty sure they wouldn't have cared if the pattern was puppies or clowns) is their idea that it was not "welcoming" to women. It points out the fundamental difference in worldview between men and women - men compete for resources and conquest (science and technology being a major way of gaining an advantage there), women nurture and worry about feelings.
To a woman it feels perfectly sensible to complain about the emotional tone of a work environment, since there is an instinct in women to want to turn their environments into nurturing kindergartens. But men are busy competing and it is ridiculous and unmanly to complain about feelings in such an environment.
This is what happens when women are allowed entry into male spaces. They want to turn them into female spaces. The result for our culture is that we are making men unmanly and women unfeminine, which is going to sink us. The women are increasingly unfit for their role (childbearing) and the men are increasingly unfit for their role (war and competition).
It doesn't matter who they go after we have to defeat the "feminists."
Matt Taylor is a free man. If he wants to grovel to a bunch of soul sucking wrinkled harpies he can go for it.
But for me the harpies are despicable and no matter who they go after we need to fight them. They switch skins when needed but they are always pushing the same agenda no matter what the current target of their attentions are.
-They are still trying to undermine the Armed forces. Their yammering about "equality" is lowering standards and eroding readiness as we speak.
-Gamergate. Gamers are mostly males. They are also likely the people that write the code for your apps and make the software on your computer (not)work. They are the people behind the scenes who make this world work.
-Trade Jobs. There aren't enough plumbers, carpenters, drywallers, etc. These jobs are denigrated to the extent that if you don't go to college you are a failure in society. But they are 1000000X more useful than a womyn's studies major.
I have to go to work. There are several more examples of parts of our society under attack by women and castrates who have stupid womyn studies sociology psycology performance art majors. They contribute nothing to society.
Do you know whether Matt Taylor wants to be used as a poster-boy for anti-feminism?
Well, I have it on good authority that he must have been trying to send a message when he chose that shirt to wear, and that it's perfectly valid to speak publicly about him as if the message I inferred was the one he meant to imply, so...
"The champions of Mark Taylor's shirt?"
There are a few of them out there, it's true. But are they the largest or most important group of people objecting to Rose Eveleth calling Mark Taylor an "asshole?"
It would be harder, and more interesting, to engage with those who think Taylor's shirt is in poor taste, but that it's dangerous and terrible to call him an "asshole" for wearing it.
Once a man cries because feminists bully him about which shirt he chooses to wear, it no longer matters who he is or what he's rumored to have done. By its own evacuations it has now become a cipher, a vacancy, a nobody, a nothing....
Is the proposition "Rose Eveleth and the other scolds should mind their own goddamn business" really the same thing as "championing the shirt"?
I noticed Althouse's tag "light weight religion" and followed it for an interesting trip.
In one, the Hindus got popular printed T-shirts withdrawn for the offense of having their elephant god's images on them.
Mediterranean pagan religions have long included the great mother goddess whose image is a woman with an abundance of nurturing breasts.
So is offense all about marketing heavy weight religions in a light weight way.
Is the proposition "Rose Eveleth and the other scolds should mind their own goddamn business" really the same thing as "championing the shirt"?
No. They made the man cry after he landed on a comet. That's some high level mean girl shit right there. If they had just said it was tacky, that would still be low level mean girling. None of it is ok.
Third thread, and I didn't have time to read the others. Did anyone mention Zuckerberg saying he wears nothing but grey tshirts so he can focus on the important things and people getting mad? Reminded me of Michael Kors saying he wears all black so he can focus on what he considers important, designing other people's clothes.
If you count the tattoos as clothing, and I think you should, Matt Taylor can never be as naked as Twain's Czar.
Mark Taylor's shirt has a beautiful Celtic strawberry blonde on it. No one could not love that hair color.
Just a little self-expression here.
I'm a big fan of Charles "Big Ol' Women of San Anton" Barkley. His reply to the harpies, Fuck You if you can't take a joke!
What you wear is very important. When you pick out your clothes in the morning, you're trying to make a statement.
For example, when a woman picks out revealing clothes she is saying, "I'm a slut, come have sex with me."
I disagree with your take on this incident, Prof. Althouse, but it's not because I'm a champion of Matt Taylor's shirt.
I'm a champion of not hijacking a private person's moment of richly-deserved success and fame with overwrought criticism of what he was wearing as being "pornography" or any other kind of big deal that should detract from his and his teammates' genuinely historic and admirable accomplishments.
I'm sad that you have such a small view of human potential that you can't see the value of space exploration, but that's also not what this is about.
I want a world where wearing a tacky shirt isn't a fucking political statement. I guess that isn't possible, but it should be.
We should feel terrible for defending Matt Taylor and trying to shame those who made him cry. Who are we to assume Matt Taylor wants us to think he was wronged?
Let me add a few questions for the champions of Matt Taylor's shirt: Do you know whether Matt Taylor wants to be used as a poster-boy for anti-feminism?
This may well be the most obtuse thing said on the subject.
Methinks these various formulations about the shirt make it increasingly impossible to talk about the shirt. It is like a Borges story of multiple meanings, a shirt from the country of Uqbar in which the basic unit of speech is the adjective and there are no nouns.
Up to now, I've resisted, but I have had a thought about one of Althouse's first questions: "Why did he think it was okay... not just okay, but a good idea?"
Clearly, it was his lucky shirt. He wore the shirt, the spacecraft landed. He took off the shirt, the spacecraft died. The spacecraft died!
Ann Althouse said...Let me add a few questions for the champions of Matt Taylor's shirt: Do you know whether Matt Taylor wants to be used as a poster-boy for anti-feminism? If you don't know — and certainly if he doesn't (and I suspect he doesn't) — are you supporting his self-expression or are you appropriating him as a device for your self-expression?
Champions of Dr Taylor's shirt? That's a bit tendentious, no? I don't champion his shirt, I don't think it was an appropriate choice given his audience, and I don't think he should have worn it. People on Dr Taylor's "side" mostly aren't focused on his shirt. They're responding to the (self-styled) Feminists' over-the-top criticism of Taylor (& his shirt). They called Taylor an asshole and said he's a symptom of the machine keeping women out of STEM. That was ridiculous and people pushed back. You could say the Feminist critics appropriated Dr Taylor as a symbol and the "champions" on the other side fought against THAT.
"Maybe you are making him cry by prolonging the exposure" is also a bit silly--the push back had barely begun before Dr Taylor's weepy apology and I'm not aware of any tears from him since, so either you've got the timeline wrong or you're speculating w/o evidence. Hey, maybe he's not crying now, maybe he saw Instapundit's post and he's more proud of that than of his work on Rosetta. I mean, it's not likely, but I have as much evidence for that as you have for saying his "champions" are "making him cry" (present tense).
Dr Taylor has a wife and a daughter. From what I've read he seems like a thoroughly decent guy. The "defense" from his sister your dismissed yesterday was from an interview that occurrred prior to #shirtgate, so I give a lot of credence to her characterization of him. All of that highlights how ludicrous the attacks against him (by Feminists) were. I'm willing to bet he does not want to be a symbol of anti-feminism. Fighting back against Feminists who appropriated Dr Taylor to score points (and in the processed insulted him personally) is not appropriating him as a device for anti-feminist self-expression. They appropriated, we objected.
Do those pictures of Kim Kardashian's ass discourage little girls from entering the SLUT fields? Oh, that's right. When women treat their bodies as sexual playthings, that's empowering.
Let me add a few questions for the champions of Matt Taylor's shirt: Do you know whether Matt Taylor wants to be used as a poster-boy for anti-feminism? If you don't know — and certainly if he doesn't (and I suspect he doesn't) — are you supporting his self-expression or are you appropriating him as a device for your self-expression
Those are women's concerns.
Men dismiss it, just as they dismiss the original feminist.
The inability of women to get past this kind of stuff, moving instead to what seems to them more important than science, is why women suck at STEM.
They're more interested in other things than man.
It's a sexual difference.
A spouse will go along with it, men in general will not.
This is not about his shirt. It's about feminism run amuck. As for Taylor, if he was anti-feminist, then he would wear a shirt with an image of a feminist on the front, holding a scalpel to a baby's throat, and pro-choice emblazoned across the black dripping blood.
So, what does the feminist faction opposing fashion discrimination think about his shirt choice? What does the feminist faction supporting women in combat think about depicting armed women on a shirt? It seems that Feltman's fortune is that the shirt was unlicensed and ripe for exploitation.
Some people's choice of what they will normalize, tolerate, or reject is wholly inconsistent. It's a political or consensus issue.
If the shirt fits, wear it.
- Man
He should not have apologized. I would have told the complaining harpies to F themselves. But I'm a fifty something woman and I'm at the point in life where I don't give a crap about what some useless Twitter feminist and member of the Junior Anti-Sex League has to say about my clothing choices.
It was a cool shirt!
Dumbass Clemens, using the word "clothes." It's called fashion, Samuel.
He should not have apologized. I would have told the complaining harpies to F themselves.
Me too, but then I was once a teenage girl, which is about the level Ms.Whatever was at when she called this guy an asshole.
Also, on wednesdays we wear pink.
Mark Twain would spin in his grave if he knew some third rate feminist was appropriating his material for her tripling down on idiocy.
Some of the people on that team have worked on that comet landing for over 15 years. The mission was launched 10 years ago. People have spent a significant percentage of their adult lives to advance science and achieve something remarkable, and some twit at the Atlantic believes what one man was wearing is a major story and condemns him. What an asshole. Glenn Reynolds is right - she is a horrible person. To her and those who think like her, consume excrement and expire.
Amazing. Althouse attacks us because defending Martin is causing him more pain than the woman who put his reputation in the ashcan and his career in jeopardy.
So the assailant has done her injury to an innocent but should get off scot free because her victim has already suffered enough?
And when you quote a bloody-handed Czar of Russia as a moral authority...
At this point I think it's fair to ask how many people are anti-third-generation-of-feminists? What have the socialism loving shitstains done to improve the lot of any subset of people?
Who gives a damn about a shirt? People with first world problems who make hashtag complaints to Boko Haram while women and girls are raped and forced to convert religions so they can raise more Islamists should be ignored. These incompetent fools pick on a scientist's shirt because he might be cowed.
We must quit rewarding this behavior with apologies.
Ann is completely ok with Matt being made a target of a bigotted attack by feminists and smeared as a sexist by airhead women and then expresses a concern that he might not like it that more reasonable people are defending him.
WTF are you smoking, Althouse?
I have some respect for 1st generation "feminists" but they have long passed real suffrage issues and, like current crop of race industry entrepreneurs, they are now less concerned about wrongs and more concerned about self aggrandizement.
This will all blow over in a few weeks. And then on to the next person or issue, unless it's Islam or some of their followers. The steel curtain protecting Islam from criticism is high and most critics are cowards. Matt Taylor or his friends aren't going to cut heads off because they've been criticized. They are sivilized.
It appears the men cannot be left alone either way:
"Mark Zuckerberg was asked why he wears plain gray t-shirts apparently every waking moment of his life. 'I’d feel I’m not doing my job if I spent any of my energy on things that are silly or frivolous about my life.'"
“Is it just me or does the mindset of the Silicon Valley Power-Schlub imply that caring about clothing or how you look invalidates your ability to work?” wrote New York magazine’s Allison Davis in an essay titled, “Zuckerberg Explains His Gray T-Shirts, Sounds Pretty Sexist.”
From a New Republic article by Sally Kohn.
http://www.newrepublic.com/article/120272/lena-dunham-zuckerberg-controversies-dangers-feminist-overreach
"Do you know whether Matt Taylor wants to be used as a poster-boy for anti-feminism?" What an unfathomably silly thing to say. You aren't worried about what he wants, having used him nonstop as a poster-boy for your views on the relative importance of fashion and science for several days now. Did you get his consent?
More important, it's a logical fallacy to conflate defending the guy's shirt or mocking the pearl-clutching outrage of the people who don't like the shirt with "anti-feminism." That's your characterization, adopted to help justify your anti-shirt position. There is a perfectly strong and rational feminist position in defense of the shirt, and several of us (me included) have been articulating it. Like so: It does women no good whatsoever to premise feminism on the theory that women are such frail will-o-the-wisps that they must be defended from every possible source of offense that might come their way from those awful hairy men who don't know what to wear to please women, or they won't be able to do scary difficult things like STEM. A feminist who genuinely believed in the strength and "empowerment" of women might say, "Oh for crissakes, it's a SHIRT! Could we talk about the comet, and maybe the genuinely offensive treatment of women in the Muslim world, now?"
Think deeply about the choice of the word "champions," everyone. Consider the historical example of fighters appointed or hired to fight on an accused person's behalf in a trial by combat. People sticking up for Dr Taylor are obviously white knights, making Dr Taylor the damsel in distress. His champions are upholding a chivalric code. That code treated women as special and worthy of protection--obviously a retrograde idea that keep women "in their place," below the feet of men. By phrasing the conflict in this way it's obvious Taylor is wrong, his champoins are behind the times/backwards, and any defense of him or on his behalf is de facto sexist.
Quit being sexist, everyone.
Do all law professors have this much trouble admitting they are wrong?
Hole .. digging .. stop.
Ann simply cannot admit being mistaken on this issue.
I'm not wrong. This anti-feminism is being expressed very badly right now, and I'm trying to give you a heads-up, a gentle heads-up.
It's like same-sex marriage all over again. I am being nice to you and trying to help. Fine if you don't appreciate it, but I'm not going to stop, so find other things to say than that I need to shut up.
Your love of freedom of expression has been noted.
It's never what is said as anti-feminist, it's what is done. Men are not going to college in anywhere near the numbers women are. As soon as men stop joining the military as much, people will start understanding the problems.
If I am anti-feminist because I object to some gal berating a guy for his choice of shirt, then Professor, guilty as charged.
I'm far more angered by female genital mutilation, the mass rapes committed by ISIS, and the continuing subjugation of women all over much of the Middle East.
But since those are difficult problems to solve, particularly when the weapon of choice these days is a Twitter hashtag, some self-styled feminists prefer to go after a scientist in a goofy shirt.
"I've been asked what the shirt I'm wearing says to women. Many of those people have then put words in my mouth, telling me and you what my shirt says to them. I think it's time I spoke for myself, addressing particularly young women considering their education and career choices.
Tell me - how much time do you spend trying to decide what to wear when you go to school, or a party, or to work? Why? Do you worry a lot about what other people will think? Do you worry about what they will say, or how they will judge you? Do you spend a lot of time and a lot of money choosing and buying the 'right' clothes, only to do it all over again in a few months?
Well then - get a STEM education and become a scientist or an engineer. Because I'm the living proof that in these fields what matters, what you are judged on, are your ideas and your work. Obviously nobody gives a damn what you wear."
Well, I have followed all the posts on this pathetic topic that was originated perhaps mostly out of resentment toward Glenn Reynolds and immediately got out of control as the Professor has been pounded relentlessly by nearly every commentor, including those of her own gender.
Instead of seeing how completely wrong she was, she has dug in her heels and lost all sense of perspective, demonstrating in the most obvious way, her extreme feminist viewpoint on the one hand and her mighty ego on the other. It's hard to tell which is driving her most in this overworked discussion.
Althouse: "I'm not wrong. This anti-feminism is being expressed very badly right now, and I'm trying to give you a heads-up, a gentle heads-up."
Gee, thanks. But given the (according to you) poor performance of the commenters thus far, I'll just let the words from the Mayor of London speak for me on this issue:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/space/11234620/Dr-Matt-Taylors-shirt-made-me-cry-too-with-rage-at-his-abusers.html
snip: "I watched that clip of Dr Taylor’s apology – at the moment of his supreme professional triumph – and I felt the red mist come down. It was like something from the show trials of Stalin, or from the sobbing testimony of the enemies of Kim Il-sung, before they were taken away and shot. It was like a scene from Mao’s cultural revolution when weeping intellectuals were forced to confess their crimes against the people.
Why was he forced into this humiliation? Because he was subjected to an unrelenting tweetstorm of abuse. He was bombarded across the internet with a hurtling dustcloud of hate, orchestrated by lobby groups and politically correct media organisations.
And so I want, naturally, to defend this blameless man. And as for all those who have monstered him and convicted him in the kangaroo court of the web – they should all be ashamed of themselves."
And now the defender of the abusers of this scientist want those who are defending this scientist to take stock of their position and reword or reposition or alter how we defend this guy?
All in our best interest of course.
Sorry, we've already seen just how much those in academia and the left in general "love free expression" so we opt to not play your little game of "crawl decorously into my pre-arranged intellectual cubby-hole".
"Do you know whether Matt Taylor wants to be used as a poster-boy for anti-feminism?"
Do you know if the people who savaged him and made him a poster-boy for misogyny gave a damn about his feelings?
I am sure Matt Taylor didn't want to be a poster-boy for anything, he was more concerned about landing rockets on comets, but feminists turned him into a poster-boy anyway, without his permission.
The "concern" is utter bullshit, Althouse. You are completely ok with bullying this guy while expressing her own civility bullshit.
The issue is consistency. The problem with corporate feminism, is the same problem with selective normalization. Feminism is a juvenile enterprise of some women to create artificial leverage in their competition with men and women. Selective normalization of dysfunctional, unproductive and fetish behaviors creates moral hazards. Neither feminists nor homosexual advocates are willing to address these issues. Go along to get along (e.g. pro-choice) is an option, but it is an immature delegation or deferment of responsibility.
That said, I think Taylor's shirt is unsuitable for a professional environment. It is not appropriate for the relevant context. Still, this is not about his shirt. His shirt is merely a symbol to unite people who oppose the perpetration of inconsistent policies. Perhaps it would be different if feminism restructured to recognize individual dignity and intrinsic value. Perhaps it would be different if homosexual advocates distinguished between orientation and behavior equally.
Amazon has some deals on backhoe excavator attachments for your tractor. They won't sell you a plain old excavator, which kind of sucks because with separates the colors never match and you end up looking like a dork when you're digging the world's biggest hole.
"Your own civility bullshit."
I'm not wrong. This anti-feminism is being expressed very badly right now, and I'm trying to give you a heads-up, a gentle heads-up.
What is wrong with the way that the anti-feminism is being expressed? The whole episode has been ridiculous, and of all of the players, the female journalist and those who joined her are the most worthy of scorn. What they did was anti-expression, anti-male (as opposed to pro-female), and incredibly childish and petty.
So those of us who feel this way are not wrong. The feminism was being expressed badly and we are trying to give you a heads up.
The two comments I agree with:
"[it's]increasingly impossible to talk about the shirt. It is like a Borges story of multiple meanings, a shirt from the country of Uqbar in which the basic unit of speech is the adjective and there are no nouns."
And someone else asked:
Why isn't there the same problem with the story about Kim Kardashian's ass?
I mean if the guy had been wearing a T-shirt with that picture of Kim on it, would that have been OK? No it would not. And yet that story/pix of Kim is supposedly OK if it's a magazine not a T-Shirt? Because it's all a Borges story anyhow
Fine if you don't appreciate it, but I'm not going to stop, so find other things to say than that I need to shut up.
You don't need to shut up, but what you are saying is awfully silly, and your foot-stamping only makes you look even more petty.
"This anti-feminism is being expressed very badly right now...."
By whom? Honestly, what is the proper way to express irritation at over-the-top criticism of a geek's shirt?
The idea of a "last straw" comes to mind. How many insults do innocent people have to take before feminism has gone too far?
Adding in the obligatory statement that I care about human rights, equal opportunity, and equal treatment before the law, much of what poses as feminism disgusts me. Anyone who has a son or a grandson must fear for the future.
As for Taylor specifically, was his violation of decorum extreme or habitual? Why didn't Feltman engage with Taylor in a private conversation to address her concerns?
It's NOT like same-sex marriage all over again.
It's a shirt and an internet bully.
Give it a rest already.
She's not serious, is she?
There were two different possible objections to the shirt. One has to do with professionalism and the other is sexism.
The first complaint is much more justifiable. It was flamboyant (which encompasses the potential issue of hogging attention) and too casual.
The second category of complaint is rather silly IMO, especially given that feminists often object to women being called out for sexualized clothing. It is inconsistent to take that stance and then act as though pictures of scantily clad women are demeaning.
In either case though....the main issue is whether the "offended" party acted appropriately in raising the complaint. The answer to me is so obviously "no" that the extended discussion becomes stupid and tedious,
Elizabeth Warren, Hilary Clinton, Ann Althouse.
Can we all agree that stupid old white women in their 60s should not be in positions of authority?
Anyone who has a son or a grandson must fear for the future.
Yes, this...and I fear for my daughters as well because this kind of crap isn't good for women either.
Awww, Professor Stompy Feet doesn't like it when her idiocy is pointed out an mocked.
No wonder she voted for President Stompy Feet.
And will vote for President Cankled Feet.
I say leave Matt Taylor alone - men and women. Men (here) are on his back for reacting "inappropriately" to criticism; women (out there) are on his back for his shirt. Get off him, already.
Mark Twain: some men look incredible without clothes - the inequality is the real issue. Mark Twain probably never met any of them.
"This anti-feminism is being expressed very badly right now...."
This has nothing to do with feminism. It's straight up, jr. high, mean-girling of a nerd for his poor fashion sense.
Elizabeth Warren, Hilary Clinton, Ann Althouse.
Can we all agree that stupid old white women in their 60s should not be in positions of authority?
None of the women you listed is stupid. Hillary and Warren are fundamentally dishonest. Althouse (or at least the version that plays out on this blog) seems like a mostly honest person who just won't (can't?) listen when people give her a "gentle heads-up" when she makes the occasional dopey comment.
Althouse, your characterization of the critics of the mean girls is Femicentric and sexist.
Smarter Lil Lena Stompy Feet is gonna have to take her clothes off, if ya'll don't behave. Then she will wail about the nausea, masquerading as anti-feminism.
I seriously doubt he wants to be the poster-boy for anything apart from his, or his team's accomplishment. However, when a person's image is appropriated on a massive scale they lose control of the image and it's attendant messages. It is sad when it happens to someone who wasn't seeking it and is seemingly uncomfortable in the spotlight when it's focused on something outside his field.. Many have suggested he shouldn't have worn the shirt if he didn't want the attention but from what I have read, he appears inept at reading social cues. I think his message was one of exuberance, I am happy and I'm going to wear a shirt that makes me happy! In any case, yes he is being used, certainly on this and by this site, for people to vent their frustration. My own frustration was the knee-jerk reaction by some women who seemed to have to look very closely to find those images on his shirt and to then proclaim those images, in their faces, were illustrative of women's problems in STEM. It felt like bullying. SJW have no trouble with bullying if it furthers their cause. It's an ouroboros.
Let it go, Ann.
"so find other things to say than that I need to shut up."
Althouse -- that's the first occurrence of the phrase "shut up" on this page, and I can't find any posts that suggest that what you ought to do is stop saying things.
Is there anything to indicate that "I need to shut up" is anything other than a strawman?
[Prior comment deleted to correct typo.]
Insisting that it's anti-feminism, just because you say it is, is not exactly the kind of logic that usually characterizes high-powered law professors. Consider the possibility that the reason you think there's a "poorly expressed" anti-feminist message is that you have misunderstood the comments in question, there is no anti-feminist message in them, and you have failed to understand them because you're too involved in projecting your own beliefs and insisting that others did too say what you say they say, so there!
Mom:
To be fair, there is no anti-woman message. Women's rights and the feminist movement are separable. Women have the same rights as men subject to the limits of their individual merits. Neither men nor women are granted rights not afforded to the other. The remainder rests with reconciling principles of individual dignity and intrinsic value of human life within the limits of the natural order.
"Anglelyne said...
Let it go, Ann."
It's over.
There is a big difference between anti-feminist and anti-women.
The two sets, feminist and women, overlap.
Feminism is a political position; political positions encourage political opposition.
Actually, admitting you were wrong would be the opposite of shutting up.
It seems Ms. Althouse will go to any lengths to defend feminism, no matter how ludicrous the positions she is forced to defend.
"It seems Ms. Althouse will go to any lengths to defend feminism, no matter how ludicrous the positions she is forced to defend."
This.
This is the Althouse equivalent of the Madison Dough Boy's nonsensical SECRET ROUTERS! obsession.
Boris Johnson: Dr Taylor deserves the applause of our country, and those who bash him should hang their own heads and apologise.
Bingo.
Birkel:
Set theory is the right tool to analyze and understand this issue.
Let it go.
Ann Althouse said...Ann Althouse said...
I'm not wrong. This anti-feminism is being expressed very badly right now, and I'm trying to give you a heads-up, a gentle heads-up.
Characterizing those of us on Dr Taylor's side as using him "as a poster-boy for anti-feminism" is wrong. I've read most of the comments in these threads, and we're not doing that. Possibly people somewhere are, but we're not.
I don't think the reaction to Dr Taylor's shirt (from the harsher Feminist critics) was warranted--I don't think it was fair nor correct. I don't think the reaction advanced the goals of feminism. I think feminism as a movement would do better if reactions such as that one were not put forward. I oppose something that I believe hurts feminism. Is that anti-feminist?
Note: I'm not trying to claim I believe the reaction was wrong BECAUSE it hurts feminism. I think the reaction was wrong and would oppose it even if that opposition did hurt feminism. I don't think it does, so that's a two-fer.
Saying "reactions like Rose Eveleth's show that women can't handle STEM" would be anti-feminist and counterproductive. I haven't said that.
I've said "reactions like Rose Eveleth's are wrong and show that Feminism (as those reacting that way define it) is ridiculous and harmful to the goals they claim to desire (equality, etc)."
Have I expressed anti-feminism badly?
The abusive use of Hawain shirts has long been a problem in society, and most especially among those in the engineering field. Thanks to feminists and Althouse for bringing this problem to the attention of the general public. If you can't see how a shirt like this leads to women dropping out of MIT then you are too immersed in your own sexism for redemption. There is, however, hope for the younger generation. I'm pretty sure the next rocket scientist who does something fabulous will not announce his triumph wearing a Hawain shirt. By such baby steps does mankind progress.
Any chance that this is an elaborate send up by Althouse?
On the empathy front, which is more empathetic:
"Dr. Taylor must have meant to communicate something by his choice of that loud shirt, and I won't believe any other theory" or "some people say Dr Taylor may not have meant to communicate anything with his choice of that loud shirt, and while that's difficult to believe from my perspective I'll try to imagine things as he sees them and allow for the possibility that he was maybe just picking a shirt that he liked/was special to him without any larger communicative intent."
Stating "I refuse to believe something that does not comport to my worldview/outlook" is more or less the inverse of empathy, right?
I don't see how artistic depictions of sexy, strong female space denizens armed with ray guns is an affront and insult to women.
Unless you're a sex hater or some sort of weirdo anti-woman heterophobe.
Althouse keeps trying to make the story about Matt Taylor and his shirt... Dig, dig, dig, scratch, scratch, scratch...
The story is Rachael Feldman, poster girl for anti-science.
Do you know whether Matt Taylor wants to be used as a poster-boy for anti-feminism?
No idea. My guess is, prior to this he had real-world things to worry about and his shirt was nothing more than a shirt.. a gift from a friend he wore because he appreciated it, perhaps liked it and her...
Realistically, by far, the most effective poster-children for anti-feminism are all too many of today's feminists themselves...
In terms of raw anti-feminist power, Taylor as poster-boy is insignificant compared to a poster of quotes from Lena Dunham's book describing in detail how she molested and abused her baby sister for years, surrounded by glowing quotes other feminists celebrating Dunham's book.
I go with the lucky shirt theory.
Until it became his un-lucky shirt.
I work in IT; guys wear silly bowling/Hawaiian shirts sometimes. If a guy wore one like Matt Taylor's one day, I wouldn't run and cry in the bathroom, nor would I stomp over to HR to complain. I wouldn't quit my job or feel less worthy. I'd think maybe he was being a bit forward in his enthusiasm for the female form.
On the other hand, I just left the women's rest room where I encountered one of the female executives wearing boots, tights, and a sweater dress the length of which barely covered her derriere.
Now, that outfit would make me uncomfortable if I had to be in a meeting with her. I was kind of embarrassed for her walking around like that. Lots of women wear F-me heels and nearly thigh-high boots and no stockings year round to work. I think they show poor fashion judgment for the workplace. Still not going to cry or run to HR.
I think their fashion choices reflect on them individually, not on "men" or on "women" or on me. So I'm against the feminists who took one guy's shirt and made an issue out of it. I find that I am generally anti-feminist because of this kind of overreaction to human foibles. It seems like today's feminism has nothing positive to contribute.
I think Ann is expressing her feminism badly on this one, by trying to get into this guy's head and finding out why - WHY did he choose to wear that shirt?
I don't see any there there. My guess is he liked the shirt and wore it for luck.
I'm with Althouse here. The shirt is over the top. He didn't have to wear it to that press conference. He did, he apologized, and he appears to regret it. So, "defending" him, at this point, requires disagreeing with his current position. He would probably like to forget the whole thing ever happened.
That said, why is the shirt over the top? It is a bit flamboyant, although a woman could get away with a dress in those colors without drawing much comment. The real issue is that the shirt depicts women, in poses that are sexualized, although not pornographic, and implicitly treats that depiction as playfully decorative.
I tend to agree that such depictions are not appropriate for a scientific press conference. But in a culture that celebrates Beyonce waving her fat ass at a video camera, this is hardly the most egregious instance of sexualizing the female body. Do the soi-disant feminists really wish to suppress all sexual depictions of women? By all means, gals, get to it. You can start with the cover of Cosmo. Or Vogue, if that is more to your (dis)taste.
Your odds, Althouse, of equaling Mr. Clemens' mustache, are better than your chances of getting near anything he ever wrote.
Jupiter said...So, "defending" him, at this point, requires disagreeing with his current position. He would probably like to forget the whole thing ever happened.
No, that's not what I'm doing (and in your paradigm I consider myself to be "defending" him) and not what I'm saying. His shirt choice was wrong. He recognized that it was wrong. I agree with him.
The criticism he faced from self-styled Feminists was wildly disproportionate in tone, scope, and vigor. He was attacked in a way he shouldn't have been. The attacks were personal and acccused him of outrageous things. Many of the attacks were seemingly made in bad faith and without consideration of him as a person or the importance of the event itself. The attacks, through their vehemence, subject matter, and the high status of the attackers needlessly diverted attention away from a real accomplishment(people listen when prominent female science writers call a scientist an asshole and say he ruined the landing, etc). The attacks served to discredit valid feminists causes like equality in STEM workplaces by painting all feminists with the shrill, unreasonable brush of the over-the-top attackers. I oppose all of that and on that basis "defend" Dr Taylor. That does not mean I disagree with his current position (that it was a mistake to wear that shirt at that time).
I own no shirt like that worn by the doctor. I own no particularly bright or outlandish clothes. Had Dr. Taylor asked me, I would have advised a boring, solid colored, 3-button polo or solid colored, button-down, collared. That the fashion sense of the doctor was goofy and a bit offputting is beyond any serious doubt from me.
But the reaction of the modern bicycles to the shirt some fish wore is much worse, to my mind.
Meanwhile, I have enjoyed reveling in Althouse's Pauline Kael moment.
As an aside, who is telling whom to shut up?
Rose Eveleth called Dr Taylor an asshole, said he ruined the landing for her, etc. Prof Reynolds called Rose Eveleth a horrible person. Supporters of Rose Eveleth said Prof Reynolds' words had unleashed attacks on Eveleth, were irresponsible, and could cause harm. Prof Reynolds, of course, pushed back against what he characterized as potentially defamatory speech, but notice how that series of exchanges played out.
FemCrit attacks someone. Defender/someone else responds in part by attacking the FemCrit. FemCrit or her supporters complain that they're being attacked and raise the specter of harassment or actual harm--they state or imply the counterattack is out of bounds, dangerous, or possibly illegal. Who in that scenario is trying to shut whom up? The FemCrit position seems to be that they can personally attack someone but they're off limits for attack, and don't seem to mind characterizing attacks against them as dangerous. The analogy is to "playing the race card" to in an argument--by claiming harassment (or racism, etc) one side tries to shut down the other.
Now, Prof Althouse was not doing that here, but I thought it was worth pointing out in the context of her (correctly!) saying she shouldn't be told to shut up.
HoodlumDoodlum said ...
"The attacks served to discredit valid feminists causes like equality in STEM workplaces by painting all feminists with the shrill, unreasonable brush of the over-the-top attackers."
Dood, there is nothing "valid" about "equality" in STEM workplaces. Rose Eveleth is a prime example of "equality in STEM workplaces". That is, a person who got her job because of her genitalia. A bag with baggage. Why exactly do we need more DFC's with PhD's?
A real feminist wouldn't be threatened by this.
A real feminist would wonder why there was only one woman on the team.
So quit yer bitchin and get back to work.
Rose Eveleth doesn't have a PhD and is not a practicing scientist; she is a journalist. From her CV:
New York University, M.A, Journalism Science, Health and Environmental Reporting
New York University, M.S., Science, Health and Environmental Reporting
University of California, San Diego, B.S., Ecology, Behavior and Evolution
Jupiter said...Dood, there is nothing "valid" about "equality" in STEM workplaces.
Sorry, I was imprecise. By "equality in STEM workplaces" I meant equality of opportunity in STEM jobs and more generally an atmosphere where every qualified person feels welcome. That's a valid goal, and it's a valid goal of feminism (as I understand it). I don't buy the arguement that Dr Taylor's shirt choice in any way harmed that goal.
As for what "we" need more of, I'd say we need more good PhDs--male, female, whomever.
I don't care what Matt Taylor wants. What I want is a world where whining censors get laughed off the stage when they try their fainting couch BS.
What I want is a world with actual justice, which means standards that everyone is held to. What do that mean? That means if you ever object to "slut shaming", then turn around and criticize someone for what they wear, you get laughed out of public life and never listened to again.
These evil would-be tyrants are a threat to every decent human being, and should be attacked wherever and whenever they slime their way into public. So I'm glad it's happening, and I support it happening, and I'm disappointed in you for being on the wrong side on this one.
Do you know whether Matt Taylor wants to be used as a poster-boy for anti-feminism?
He's a "poster boy" for justice, and against double standards. So are you saying that feminism is against justice, and for double standards?
" Let me add a few questions for the champions of Matt Taylor's shirt:"
Good to see that the postergurl for lubbing the pre-elected Obama has still not really changed her intellectual oil and flushed her brainpan.
Vox site Verge posted these sentences: “This is the sort of casual misogyny that stops women from entering certain scientific fields. They see a guy like that on TV and they don’t feel welcome.”
That's wrong. It's so wrong it's worthy of ridicule, an the people who wrote it should be subjected to ridicule and contrary argument. Would ridiculing those authors (and others who hold the same belief) make one a "champion of Matt Taylor's shirt?"
I'm not wrong. This anti-feminism is being expressed very badly right now, and I'm trying to give you a heads-up, a gentle heads-up.
It's like same-sex marriage all over again. I am being nice to you and trying to help.
Althouse, you're never more obtuse than when you're asking us to think deeply.
Could someone please find a woman who actually decided not to go into science because she didn't like the clothes a scientist was wearing, and interview her? Apparently there are a lot of them out there; it should not be that hard to locate some of them. Prof Althouse, maybe some of your female students really wanted to be scientists, but were so uncomfortable with the dress code there that they went into law instead. That would put a human face on this horrible situation, and then we could understand it better.
Did you know there are special clothes you need to be a Texaan?
When I moved to Texas in 1998 I quickly got two invitations to social gatherings which said we all should wear our special clothes. Cowboy hats? Western shirts? Jeans? Boots? Great big belt buckles? No, Hawaiian shirts!
So I bought one, but I did not choose the space-gals-with-guns pattern for my Sunday School class party. I think I chose well.
The trouble is all the pure people who celebrate diversity except when they excoriate it.
In many cases, the only difference between thinking deeply and wanking is that the latter keeps your hands busy.
I find myself missing the days when John Ashcroft was laughed to scorn for trying to make the Department of Justice more welcoming to womyn.
And now, the host can complain that we did not listen. We took the conversation off direction. Away from where she was trying to gently lead us.
Pfffttt. Most of us have graduated and no longer need professor-as-mommy to lead us.
How I used to love this site. Now all I see is a host ready to stamp her foot and snap at the first one to challenge her overwrought view. And to return any contrary opinion not with intelligence and wit, but with condescension and petty immaturity while looking down her nose at the lesser beings that dare question her superior cruel neutrality.
Sad. I miss the old Ann that loved to explore for exploration's sake and not to instruct us poor lower life forms.
Blogger HoodlumDoodlum said...
"By "equality in STEM workplaces" I meant equality of opportunity in STEM jobs and more generally an atmosphere where every qualified person feels welcome. That's a valid goal, and it's a valid goal of feminism (as I understand it)."
Who decides who is "qualified"? You? Rose Eveleth? I would say that Taylor is "qualified", but Eveleth would clearly prefer that his place be taken by some DFC with a PhD. The only qualifications that interest the Left are political.
Althouse's wrongness started with the presumption that he meant anything at all when he wore the shirt.
Those on or near or in the penumbra of the spectrum are brilliant in some ways, but completely clueless in social areas. Unless there is some other proof that he hates women and did this to make some kind of anti-feminist statement, Althouse and the rest should LEAVE BRITNEY ALONE!
And no, this is not at all like SSM. Being treated equally by your government to allow enjoyment of the privileges of marriage is not comparable to criticizing feminists for criticizing a dude's choice of shirt.
Jupiter said...Who decides who is "qualified"? You? Rose Eveleth?
Not Rose Eveleth, and certainly not me, no. Qualified by their work, capacity, and output--academically and professionally. I don't think we disagree much on what "qualified" means, Jupiter. And to be fair to Rose Eveleth (although she was anything but fair to Dr Taylor) I don't think she called his qualification as a scientist into question during her attack.
Texas Annie:
Let's be fair to Professor Althouse. While she may disagree with others on certain issues, she does not prevent people from expressing their opinion. We really don't know what her principled position may be. If anything, she enjoys playing Devil's advocate to encourage exploration of an issue. On this issue, she seems fixated on the merits of the shirt; but, ostensibly refrains from exploring further, perhaps with a purpose. Perhaps the purpose is to hone our intellectual, emotional, and rhetorical abilities.
I may be mistaken, but she exhibits an unmistakeable motherly orientation towards her children, students, and commenters. That doesn't mean that she will always be right. Mothers are human, too. With moderated but distinct egos.
Did you notice he is wearing two shirts. The space-gals shirt is over a black polo shirt. I suspect that he is wearing the outer shirt either to keep warm in a poorly heated office or just to get in the spirit of space exploration on the team's big day.
Blogger HoodlumDoodlum said...
"I don't think we disagree much on what "qualified" means, Jupiter. And to be fair to Rose Eveleth (although she was anything but fair to Dr Taylor) I don't think she called his qualification as a scientist into question during her attack."
I think that had Dr. Taylor not issued his tearful apology, Rose Eveleth and her co-conspirators would be calling for his firing right now. But you were talking about "an atmosphere where every qualified person feels welcome". Are you suggesting that Eveleth was trying to make Taylor feel welcome? Due to his nifty qualifications, which even she cannot deny?
My point is precisely that calling "equality in STEM workplaces" a "valid goal of feminists" is saying that men have displaced better-qualified women, and that situation warrants rectification. My own view is that very high intelligence is much more common in men than in women -- pretty much what Larry Summers got fired from Harvard for suggesting. In which case, the "valid feminist goal" is a bunch of self-serving twaddle. But effective. Larry was replaced by a woman. No doubt you think she is better qualified.
The judges never excoriate the models on "Project Runway." Althouse should be going after Matt's taylor, not Matt Taylor. Else it's all just a stupid controversy about appropriateness.
Without exploring, usually digitally and sometimes orally first, the female anatomy ending up in a tube, that sacred space, there is no human race.
Freud knew about folks fear of sex-of being afraid to talk about it.
This fear is hampering you all from seeing the truth. I have no problem with any of it. You all serve your role.
I'd like to hear Althouse and other feminists opine on whether Matt Taylor's shirt is ever appropriate.
By the way, the woman who called for Summers' head -- and got it, on a plate -- said that it made her "physically ill" to hear him describe a scientific hypothesis. I guess she must be just one hell of a biologist. Wait until she finds out where babies come from! At least she didn't complain about his shirt.
"Let me add a few questions for the champions of Matt Taylor's shirt: Do you know whether Matt Taylor wants to be used as a poster-boy for anti-feminism?"
And the companion question: "Do you know whether Rose Eveleth wants to be used as a poster-girl for feminism?"
My guess is that Rose Eveleth would be delighted: that would be seen as a great achievement in her world; his achievement was landing the space-craft on a comet.
And yes, I used poster "girl" -- to pair with the previous usage of poster "boy".
Pity poor Rose Eveleth: her greatest moment on the world's stage will consist of complaining about a shirt.
The next shirt for Matt Taylor is the hair-shirt, most likely.
Important moments of Fashion in History: on November 22, 1963 Jacqueline Bouvier Kennedy wore a double-breasted, strawberry pink and navy trim collared Chanel wool suit.
Over at Instapundit, one of the commenters mentioned that there are more women in Computer Science than other scientific fields.
And thus is explained Windows 8...
Important moments of fashion in History: on June 12, 1994 O.J. Simpson may or may not have worn a pair of Isotoner Lights by the Aris Glove Co.
Important moments of Fashion in History: on July 22, 1934, Anna Sage wore a red dress to the movies.
Laslo Spatula said...
Important moments of Fashion in History: on July 22, 1934, Anna Sage wore a red dress to the movies.
What about the "extra pocket" Dillinger had sown in his pants? The whole rumor got started on that morgue slab.
Important moments of Fashion in History: in February of 1997, Monica Lewinsky wore a blue dress from the Gap.
I agree with several commenters here and elsewhere that the Zuckerberg kerfluffering is a perfect compare and contrast story to this one.
Laslo Spatula said...
Important moments of fashion in History: on June 12, 1994 O.J. Simpson may or may not have worn a pair of Isotoner Lights by the Aris Glove Co.
11/17/14, 8:33 PM
Are you forgetting the Bruno Magli shoes?
Important moments of Fashion in History: on May 19, 1962 Marilyn Monroe wore a dress of a sheer and flesh colored marquisette fabric, with 2,500 rhinestones sewn into it.
In my opinion, the real "deep thinking" problem here is that ever since Joan Rivers' death, no singular fashion policewoman has emerged. The Manolos may not be fillable.
n.n said...she exhibits an unmistakeable motherly orientation towards her children, students, and commenters. That doesn't mean that she will always be right. Mothers are human, too. With moderated but distinct egos.
11/17/14, 6:37 PM
Similar to the orientation of the mother who threw her son off a bridge?
I may or may not be laying the groundwork for another Althouse post on fashion. What role does fashion play in our remembrance of historical events?
I am a Rorschach test.
Waiting with bated breath for "Matt Taylor's Soliloquy", although I do suspect it will be more likely "Matt Taylor's Eulogy".
Grundoon wrote: When I moved to Texas in 1998 I quickly got two invitations to social gatherings which said we all should wear our special clothes.
Special clothes? Is that anything like special education?
averagejoe:
Similar to the mothers who conceive, birth, and raise children to populate this Earth. Today, all 7 billion of us. Not the women who choose to abort their children's life prematurely for money, sex, ego, and convenience. There is a difference. Despite Althouse's pro-choice position, I will not presume to know her choice(s).
Ann Althouse said...
"I'm not wrong. This anti-feminism is being expressed very badly right now, and I'm trying to give you a heads-up, a gentle heads-up.
It's like same-sex marriage all over again. I am being nice to you and trying to help. Fine if you don't appreciate it, but I'm not going to stop, so find other things to say than that I need to shut up.
Your love of freedom of expression has been noted."
Oh. My. God.
Ironic. Dispositive. Causative. Capitulation. Encapsulating.
All at once.
"We must quit rewarding this behavior with apologies."
This.
The true shames of the entire Taylor episode are two: first, that anyone paid the slightest attention to the fools who criticized him, and second, that he didn't have enough sane people in his life to encourage him to tell these folks to FOAD.
Trashhauler,
"Anyone who has a son or a grandson must fear for the future."
Forget fear, try despair. It's too late for fear.
Texas Annie, Sgt Ted:
Althouse has many virtues and runs perhaps the best general-interest blog on the planet. I read here every day.
But she also has her flaws, and being unable able admit error is one of them. Who can find links to previous instances of her having done so? (And no, acknowledging a typo does not count.)
Has anyone noticed that Betamax3000 and Laslo Spatula never seem to post here at the same time? :)
Over at Instapundit, one of the commenters mentioned that there are more women in Computer Science than other scientific fields.
If someone wrote that they're wrong. Unless biological science, chemistry, and mathematics aren't scientific fields.
Check here for some charts:
Women in Selected Fields, 1966-2004.
The charts only go through 2004, but a minimum of effort with google yields the fact that the trend lines in all subjects continue. That is, the percentage of women taking computer science degrees has continued to decline in opposition to the trends in other subjects.
In terms of raw numbers, the number of women taking degrees in engineering vastly exceeds the number in computer science, which is a more specialized field.
"the percentage of women taking computer science degrees has continued to decline"
Dr. Taylor's shirt continues its reign of terror.
I think Prof. Althouse is right inasmuch as some of the anti-feminism expression is coming out "wrong." It usually does. But she does seem to exhibit more interest in the wrongness of that expression rather than the wrongness of the "feminist" messaging on this matter. Could be because, as she said, she's trying to help those of us who sympathize with the anti-feminist message hone our skills. Could also be because of where her sympathies lie. Personally, I've found the back-and-forth on this blog, and between this blog and Instapundit, on feminist stuff to be among the most interesting conversations on this topic anywhere. Thanks!
We all need to keep in mind that Althouse is the same person who bursts into tears at dinners.
http://reason.com/blog/2006/12/29/grande-conservative-blogress-d
Why don't you cry about the shirt too, Ann?
Well that's just mean. And people who take ideas seriously, when first exposed to radically different ones than they're used to, react strongly. That kind of dissonance is painful. If you've been reading this blog over the last eight years, I would suggest that Prof. Althouse has subsequently engaged pretty forthrightly with those ideas.
In other words, the blog demonstrates that she's learned something from that night, about ideas and their strong expression, and how to communicate with those of different persuasions. Have you?
I agree with daskol. Pure ad hom invective is rarely if ever effective. I use it occasionally in comments but usually in response to commenters and bloggers who dish it first.
Kirk parker said:
Trashhauler,
""Anyone who has a son or a grandson must fear for the future."
Forget fear, try despair. It's too late for fear."
Pass on the fear part. These harpies have only what we give them. If they win and they feminize the entire male population then they get to watch their pet castrates get beheaded right before a Muslim puts a burkha over their head and teaches them sharia law.
My daughter won't get vapors over a shirt. She won't whine about the patriarchy. She will learn to take responsibility for her decisions.
The real fight here is the "feminists" waging war on responsibility. "Feminists" want to take easy classes in college and get paid the same as men and women who get useful majors. They are unhappy with all that judgement stuff.
Thing is, rational discourse with the type of lunatics that pilloried Dr. Taylor is impossible. They arent interested in rational discourse. They are only interested in welding power. Such people deserve only scorn and ridicule and push back.
I present the solution to the entire issue: a shirt imprinted with images of Kim Kardashian, which should make the heads of feminists explode, or maybe at least ache, with cognitive dissonance over their vigorous approval of Kim simultaneous with disapproval of women on shirts.
http://imgur.com/gallery/AbjDWTc
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा