Random dull video about nothing very much

[darmstadt]

Not naked - scantily clad.

Tried that, look what I got: Pin up girls mens pants by Loudmouth Golf | CEOgolfshop Blog - Best Gifts & Custom Promotional Products For Executives

[mudskipper]

Tried that, look what I got: Pin up girls mens pants by Loudmouth Golf | CEOgolfshop Blog - Best Gifts & Custom Promotional Products For Executives

Perfect for the office.

[SpontaneousOrder]

Ah, so you do think that the shirt objectifies women. Now we're getting somewhere.

Of course it does - if the shirt didn't in any way objectify women, then there would be no reason to have such a design over a floral pattern, or whatever, in the same way there would be no reason for women to want to appear feminine at the workplace, rather than androgynous in appearance. Of course that doesn't say anything about whether it objectifies women in the way you suppose that it does - the cartoon women in question were also sporting laser guns, so perhaps there is more to it that the objectification of women per se?

But you imply that objectification is necessarily a bad thing - yet you necessarily objectify all sorts of things, including people, on a daily basis in the course of living your life.

Beyond that, It's a perfectly natural thing for men & women to be objectified in a sexual context. It's an involuntary instinct based on physical attraction, and to suppose that we shouldn't do it is to suppose that we shouldn't recognise the difference between a man and a woman - in which case I'd ask you again, why do you (presumably) prefer to appear feminine rather than androgynous in the workplace? Saying "because it makes me feel good" is just begging the question. Why does it make you feel good?

Is it perhaps the case, then, that a certain amount of objectification is acceptable? Or is objectification a binary choice?

Perhaps you could then answer my other question further up the thread

Are you talking about a man's cartoon girl/lasergun shirt? or Sam Fox? And are we talking about the actual women who work with this guy? Or the women experiencing their discomfort vicariously via the internet?



But anyway... if the only way you can communicate is by fabricating straw men around things that other people didn't say (third time now), then are you sure you're really interested in talking about anything serious? Or are you just flapping your gums like the morons that gave Matt so much grief in the first place?

If so, then you needn't bother answering the above.

[mudskipper]

Of course it does

Well NAT seemed to think it doesn't, so perhaps not "Of course"

Beyond that, It's a perfectly natural thing for men & women to be objectified in a sexual context. It's an involuntary instinct based on physical attraction, and to suppose that we shouldn't do it is to suppose that we shouldn't recognise the difference between a man and a woman - in which case I'd ask you again, why do you (presumably) prefer to appear feminine rather than androgynous in the workplace? Saying "because it makes me feel good" is just begging the question. Why does it make you feel good?

Actually I don't. I wear trousers, flat shoes, no make up and have short hair. I have been told on more than one occasion that I look like a dyke, therefore looking/dressing in an androgynous way is no protection against comments about your sexuality.

Are you talking about a man's cartoon girl/lasergun shirt? or Sam Fox? And are we talking about the actual women who work with this guy? Or the women experiencing their discomfort vicariously via the internet?

I'm talking generally - not specifics - can you appreciate that going into a workplace with sexualised images of women on display may be offputting for many women?

[NotAllThere]

To summarise:

Guy wears bad shirt on telly.

Some people comment that said shirt doesn't do much for the cause of encouraging women to get into science.

Some people go over the top and hurl personal insults at the wearer and call him nasty things.

Some people go into overdrive and label anyone who has expressed a negative opinion of the shirt as a man-hater or femi-nazi.

Death threats ensue.

Pretty accurate, but you missed one:

Some people go into overdrive and label anyone who thinks the shirt is nothing to make a fuss over as a sexist woman-hating misogynist.

[SueEllen]

I'm talking generally - not specifics - can you appreciate that going into a workplace with sexualised images of women on display may be offputting for many women?

He won't answer you.

I find it interesting on topics like this that lots of men excuse it as being OK. However if the shoe is on the foot a lot of them get upset and a lot of them can't vocalise why.

[SpontaneousOrder]

Well NAT seemed to think it doesn't, so perhaps not "Of course"

Because as much as I often disagree with what NAT has to say, he was applying a bit of common sense to the use of the English language - while I was addressing someone who seems to use the word 'objectification' as a binary term. I suspect that only one of you understands what the word 'objectification' actually means.

Actually I don't. I wear trousers, flat shoes, no make up and have short hair. I have been told on more than one occasion that I look like a dyke, therefore looking/dressing in an androgynous way is no protection against comments about your sexuality.

So you are in no way representative of the population at large, statistically speaking. So why do you feel the need to speak, from your armchair, for the apparently voiceless women with whom the guy actually works? Or is it that believe that you have the right to not be offended by anything that you might see on television? None of this makes any sense.

I'm talking generally - not specifics - can you appreciate that going into a workplace with sexualised images of women on display may be offputting for many women?

Well I'm not talking about a general situation - I'm talking about a grown man brought to tears by bullies. Bullies who were virtual guests in his place of work after being invited to celebrate his and his colleagues achievements.

If you really want to talk about unspecified and arbitrarily abstract scenarios, then I'll be happy to give you an equally vague and meaningless response.

[SpontaneousOrder]

I find it interesting on topics like this that lots of men excuse it as being OK. However if the shoe is on the foot a lot of them get upset and a lot of them can't vocalise why.

Now that would be sexist. You're learning.

[SueEllen]

So you are in no way representative of the population at large, statistically speaking. So why do you feel the need to speak, from your armchair, for the apparently voiceless women with whom the guy actually works? Or is it that believe that you have the right to not be offended by anything that you might see on television? None of this makes any sense.

No woman on this board is representative of the female population at large because we work in technology, which you must be aware of is a male dominated area.

However we are aware of the issues that increase the likelihood of other women leaving careers in STEM subjects and not getting into them in the first place.

Well I'm not talking about a general situation - I'm talking about a grown man brought to tears by bullies. Bullies who were virtual guests in his place of work after being invited to celebrate his and his colleagues achievements.

We have gone past that.

If you really want to talk about unspecified and arbitrarily abstract scenarios, then I'll be happy to give you an equally vague and meaningless response.

I find it interesting you refuse consistently to answer Mudskipper's question and then try to shut her down.

[SueEllen]

Now that would be sexist. You're learning.

Not if the experiments were in my living accommodation with the full consent and participation of the others that also lived there.