[1] http://www.metalsucks.net/2014/11/13/dr-matt-taylor-dude-put...
I would personally be surprised to find out that tattoo artists are the kind of thing that keeps women away from science. I mean, it's probably a rare interaction. Blaming their parents seems more productive.
as an extreme comparison, if it was a woman dominated field and they commonly wore shirts depicting scantily clad men with bulging pants, I think it would impact my desire to enter that field.
I don't know that the parents can be blamed so readily. Here in Los Angeles at least, I've been very dissaspointed with what my classmates consider appropriate.
Feminism is not about being precious, it's about equality (which shirts have very little to do with).
It was a hand-made gift from a friend. He did it to make her smile. In such circumstances I'd probably do the same thing.
The entire fiasco is not about science, it is LITERALLY the thing that I would want to avoid if I had planned going into this field, and I assume that women also do not want long drawn out discussions about what they are wearing INSTEAD of their impressive scientific achievements.
While the rest of us are busy trying to help provide opportunities for more women to get into STEM careers, there's a whole cadre of privileged, middle class noise generators doing a great deal of harm (or at the very least, not helping) with these sexist stereotypes.
But science does have a sexual abuse problem. Some established male scientists do choose their female collaborators according to taste. Sexual violence does have a tendency of being initiated by men against women.
All this "it's not a big deal" talk is a symptom of not understanding this issue, lacking information and empathy. And this lack of empathy does have an impact.
I dont think you are wrong about this, but painting individual men with the same broad stroke that is frequently is being applied to women to dehumanize them and discount their achievements isnt the right answer to right the wrongs you are listing.
There are plenty of women's issues that are waiting to be championed that are not what amounts to bikeshedding.
"Not all men!"
'No, his shirt wont keep women away from science. The entire fiasco is not about science, it is LITERALLY the thing that I would want to avoid if I had planned going into this field, and I assume that women also do not want long drawn out discussions about what they are wearing INSTEAD of their impressive scientific achievements.'
This all started with s.o. being offended by it while watching the original interview, but how can you come to such a conclusion based on that? Did the female student's lecture attendance/signup rate plummet since that interview? Is there any kind of imperial evidence that this person's shirt is making female students turn away from science?
I honestly don't understand how it's even possible to get to that conclusion. If there's s.o. interested in a specific field and (s)he witnesses a major scientific breakthrough, then the last thing on your mind would be '...but how could the person be wearing that?'.
If you're offended by it, then ask why this happened in the first place, because maybe there's an actual good explanation behind it.
For me it's in the same category as people saying they don't want anything to do with computers because Turing was gay - how does one thing have anything to do with the other?
I don't think anyone can prove it right now, only find it plausible or probable. Of course that's a long way from proof, but the opposite is also true - can you demonstrate that this shirt, in the context of a wider trend of what people can and do wear, does not affect the number of women in science?
> Did the female student's lecture attendance/signup rate plummet since that interview?
This is disingenuous, I'm sure you know that no criticism of the shirt is because this specific, individual incident would be perceived to be of overwhelming importance for any given statistic, and I think your attempt to portray things this way is a strawman or a horrible misunderstanding. As above, it is the example of wearing this shirt in the context of wider trends in what people do (and wear) that people are criticising. You can still disagree with them, but at least disagree on a point you didn't just make up.
We also can't demonstrate that it was in fact the shirt that made him such a great scientist.
More likely this type of overreaction and hysteria will keep free thinking individuals out of science.
Thus, while I think that lern_too_spel is incomplete, in that some men may also stay out of science for these reasons, I strongly object to your name calling. I am not "weak" for my decisions on the sort of work environments I will participate in.
Nor do I think that others, women or men, who make the same decision are weak. Yet, oddly, you want to call me and them names for making what I think are principled decisions. That sounds like a back-handed taunt by you to those who stay out of a given workplace for these reasons.
There's of course no clear cut line. Would a shirt using Botticelli's "The Birth of Venus" instead be a problem? Playboy's famous "Lenna" picture for image processing? The full original Lenna centerfolds hanging on the wall? A background screensaver showing people having sex? Or on a related subject, a cross hanging on the wall, along with quotes from "Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God", and prayers to start off each workplace meeting? Mounted trophy heads from all of the hunts from various staff outings? A mariachi band walking through the offices every 10 minutes? Unairconditioned offices next to a pig farm and under the approach path to Atlanta's Hartsfield-Jackson airport?
Each case is personal, and one's personal decision to avoid a certain workplace or even career must not be considered a weakness.
Women don't need thicker skin. No man or woman should be criticized for how they dress.
misunderstanding is all yours. Equal sexism results in worse experience by the members of minority. Equal experience would necessarily require lower sexism displayed by the members of the majority - read the Petrie multiplier post again if you don't understand that statement. Thus push for equal experience in a male dominated environment is an equivalent of push for the males in that environment to display lower sexism than the women in the same environment. In other words it is an "attack on men".
>I posit to you that there is no reason why it shouldn't be zero.
And there is no reason why people shouldn't violate red light. In theory. They do it in practice.
His shirt is the kind of thing that keeps women away from science, so the fact that he publicly acknowledged his error will make other scientists more consciously think about inclusivity, helping science in the long run.