Shirtstorm (split from Rosetta Mission thread)

[Starglider]

I will accept legislation banning men from displaying any image or slogan that has not been specifically approved by the Joint Global Jezebel-Feministing Twitter Council, if it is paired with legislation requiring all women to wear Sailor Moon costumes to work. Because frankly both pronouncements make as much sense.

[Arthur_Tuxedo]

It has too much negative connotations. Its a bit like the term "Men's Right Activist". Actual people for men's rights (shit like sometimes divorce or child custody being unfair towards, the fact men cannot legally be raped in some areas, prison rape being treated as funny, male spousal abuse being treated like a joke, etc) cannot use it for fear of being grouped in with the people who use the topic of men's rights as a jumping off point to attack the rights of women. Those sorts are labeled MRAs by themselves and thus the term takes a negative light. People can then use the term to try to label others, making people want to back to so as not to risk being associated with "those people".

Someone trying to call themselves a SJW would be lumped in with the negative nancies who aren't really about social justice but complaining on the intertubes that someone dares call a kid a boy or girl, or buys their little girl something pink, or even just the time honored tradition of hating on white straight able bodied men for every fucking thing (leave white straight able bodied men alone, they never did nothing to nobody). Any actual points they would want to make or changes they would like to enact would be drowned in a sea of vitriol as they are accused of being with the hateful tumblr crazies.

Thinking about it, I wonder if the recent blowback against people labeled "feminists" is because of people working to associate it only with the more extremist "man-hating" feminists who are like the female equivalent of Men Rights Activists.

Could just be opponents seeing everyone opposed to them as pure enemy. Things like for Conservatives the term "Liberal" being almost a dirty word and for Liberals the thought that all Conservatives being stupid brutish rednecks that hate all minorities. Nobody sees the moderates and only applies the worst aspects of the enemy to the whole group.

Even your use of "bigoted regressive assholes" to describe anyone anti-SJW seems like this crap I be spewing from my eatery hole. The enemies of the SJW could not be people who hate on SJW for their rather bigoted attitudes, people angry at their misuse of actual social ills to play the hating game, or even just actual SJW who have a mad on about the so named SJWs preventing them from calling themselves SJW without being unfairly labeled as hateful nutters, just bad bad people.

I'm not immune to such sentiments either. Being a young atheist in a rather un-atheist friendly location has shown me the poorer side of Christianity and resulted in my labeled all Christians as bigoted, hateful, spiteful, backwards fools who preach peace and love even while spitting violence and hate. While of course some are, quite clearly or else I probably wouldn't have had that view, plenty of others are not. It is very tough trying to relabel Christians in my mind but I try.

I had the same realization when I started expanding my professional and social circle and having discussions with more conservatives. As long as I didn't assume they were raging homoraceophobobigots and explained my ideas instead of using word grenades that mean wholly different things to different people, I found that most of them were extremely reasonable and even if their philosophical ideals about taxes and the role of government in a perfect society were worlds apart from mine, their practical ideas about the real world were pretty similar.

The only thing that surprises me now is that any of this came as a surprise to me. I suppose part of that is the inexperience of youth and part is the tendency of the Internet to produce silo's of thought where one's own beliefs are reinforced and the "enemy" is thought to be solely comprised of the worst aspects of their group. Any encounter with the out-group is likely to be a bloody affair where the conservatives are lobbing ammunition at the strawman of the jealous and lazy Robin Hood liberal and liberals are throwing everything they've got at the Fred Phelps / David Duke lovechild they assume all conservatives to be and no one is taking the time to understand the actual points being made.

This is the main problem with terms like SJW. It's an excuse for both sides to stop trying to understanding and incorporate the others' point of view, which is very intellectually draining and unpleasant, and bring out the ready-made attacks against the stereotype. The heat goes up, and any chance of a discussion where learning might have occurred gets burned to a crisp.

[mr friendly guy]

How the term "social justice advocate" or "social justice activist" to describe someone who tries to push forward a social justice agenda. Egalitarian can also be used for those who believe in such things but doesn't necessarily imply they push it forward.

I will also submit the terms SJW which turns out on some youtube videos and some atheist blogs outside of red pill subreddit or whatever that site is, uses it as perjorative, but not in the way Ziggy is describing. That is "ha, you're a SJW, I win hur hur hur." I would contend the language has moved on.

Edit - and yes I was unaware of the origins of the term, but most people aren't aware of the origins of a term especially when its change from the original.

[Simon_Jester]

I will accept legislation banning men from displaying any image or slogan that has not been specifically approved by the Joint Global Jezebel-Feministing Twitter Council, if it is paired with legislation requiring all women to wear Sailor Moon costumes to work. Because frankly both pronouncements make as much sense.

Can a line be drawn anywhere, or is it within the bounds of acceptable professionalism for men to post nude pinup girls in their cubicles?

[salm]

I will accept legislation banning men from displaying any image or slogan that has not been specifically approved by the Joint Global Jezebel-Feministing Twitter Council, if it is paired with legislation requiring all women to wear Sailor Moon costumes to work. Because frankly both pronouncements make as much sense.

Can a line be drawn anywhere, or is it within the bounds of acceptable professionalism for men to post nude pinup girls in their cubicles?

I doubt you can draw a line. It depends on a couple of factors and is more of a gray transitioning area than a line and needs to be evaluated on an individual basis. Like most social constructs.

[Simon_Jester]

To clarify, what I mean is:

Can we say that there are clearly unacceptable cases?

I feel I can present a good argument for why, as a matter of basic professionalism and courtesy in the workplace, people should not be allowed to put up outright pornographic imagery. Even though in theory that falls under the envelope "You can't ask me to stop this just because it makes you uncomfortable!" argument.

So the real question is not "is there such a thing as imagery too sexualized for a man (or woman) to bring to work?"

The real question is "is this imagery too sexualized?"

Which, yes, becomes a gray area... but at that point we're getting into the details. It's a very different class of argument than having people saying "you have no right to criticize my choice of shirt!" Because yes, people do have a right to criticize a shirt as too sexualized to wear in a professional environment. It might be wrong or excessive to criticize this particular shirt, but it's not like all shirts are forever off limits.

[salm]

To clarify, what I mean is:

Can we say that there are clearly unacceptable cases?

I feel I can present a good argument for why, as a matter of basic professionalism and courtesy in the workplace, people should not be allowed to put up outright pornographic imagery. Even though in theory that falls under the envelope "You can't ask me to stop this just because it makes you uncomfortable!" argument.

So the real question is not "is there such a thing as imagery too sexualized for a man (or woman) to bring to work?"

The real question is "is this imagery too sexualized?"

Which, yes, becomes a gray area... but at that point we're getting into the details. It's a very different class of argument than having people saying "you have no right to criticize my choice of shirt!" Because yes, people do have a right to criticize a shirt as too sexualized to wear in a professional environment. It might be wrong or excessive to criticize this particular shirt, but it's not like all shirts are forever off limits.

I guess child porn and other illegal things are clearly unacceptable.
But just pin ups or legal porn? No.

Let´s take an extreme case and assume you work in a porn shop, brothel or strip club. It would be absurd to disallow
putting up images of naked people on the wall of your office.

Or a not so extreme case and you work at a disco. It would be absurd to disallow putting up images of naked or almost naked people in your office when there are go-go girls dancing in cages above the dance floor and bar tenders wearing almost as little.

Or a completely non extreme case and you work in an advertising agency. It would be absurd to disallow hanging up naked people in your office when you just shoveled out the nth TV add in which a naked person shows her/his ass and tits in order to sell margarine or soap.

[LaCroix]

I have a general rule-of-thumb - If it's ok as an ad on a billboard (where it's deemed ok for public consumption, including children), it's ok on a shirt.

[Simon_Jester]

My main issue with this is that with advertisement, a person who would be made uncomfortable can generally at least try to avoid it. Even if they can't avoid seeing it, they don't have to pay attention.

In the workplace, you can't just walk away from things that make you uncomfortable, not if you value your job. It's the lack of freedom to leave that makes it appropriate for us to try and make the workplace inoffensive to the people that work there. Including people who, say, are uncomfortable with hearing sex jokes because they have their own reasons to not want to think about sex at all. Or people who dislike being made to feel as if they are judged chiefly on their appearance and viability as a bikini babe.

The practical expression of this is that (among other things) dress codes in the workplace tend to be more conservative than those of society at large. Personally, I think that's a good thing. Everyday external life is everyday life. The workplace is supposed to be about making sure that the maximum number of people can concentrate on a job as efficiently as possible. What is appropriate in every day life, has may not be appropriate in the context of making sure everyone gets work done on behalf of an organization.

[salm]

I don´t see it that way. Advertisment and its mechanisms are specifically designed to make people consume it who don´t want to consume it. Furthermore it is so omnipresent that I´d claim that it is impossible to permanently not pay attention or to walk away.
If you can not pay attention to clearly visible adds or loud blarring commercials from the radio you should be able to not pay attention to a shirt.

You also don´t address workplaces that involve naked people like brothels, strip clubs and advertising agencies. Or film production agencies. Or the gaming industry and the music industry, photographers, web programming companies and so on. This isn´t just a list of exceptions. Jobs that deal with naked or nearly naked people are widely spread.

Personally I think that dress codes are a bad thing. Societies fascination with judging people by their clothes or appearance in general, is, while not being very high on my priority list, still on the obnoxious side. There are industries, like the so called creative industry and the tech industry where dress codes are very lax compared to other industries and they work just fine. Why should this not work in other industries as well?

[jwl]

The way I understand it, social justice warrior is specifically derogatory based on its definition:

The definitions of related words as far as I am concerned:
SJW: someone who pushes pointless stuff that restricts and/or harasses people and/or organizations in the name of "social justice" - obviously derogatory
White knight: a man who defends a woman in order to try and win sexual favors - again, obviously derogatory
PC: changing terms with the aim to reduce offense of a minority of people - this one isn't derogatory, which is why people say "PC gone mad" i.e. it is a good thing that has been somehow perverted.

I would say it is better for people to use the word SJW: a term which has a specific definition as derogatory, rather than tarnishing the reputation of feminists, which is the alternative in the majority of cases, unfortunately. Personally, I would prefer simply using the term "moron" if I wanted to be derogatory, but that's just me.

[Simon_Jester]

The way I understand it, social justice warrior is specifically derogatory based on its definition:

The definitions of related words as far as I am concerned:
SJW: someone who pushes pointless stuff that restricts and/or harasses people and/or organizations in the name of "social justice" - obviously derogatory
White knight: a man who defends a woman in order to try and win sexual favors - again, obviously derogatory
PC: changing terms with the aim to reduce offense of a minority of people - this one isn't derogatory, which is why people say "PC gone mad" i.e. it is a good thing that has been somehow perverted.

I would say it is better for people to use the word SJW: a term which has a specific definition as derogatory, rather than tarnishing the reputation of feminists, which is the alternative in the majority of cases, unfortunately. Personally, I would prefer simply using the term "moron" if I wanted to be derogatory, but that's just me.

My basic objection is that it's a term with no particular purpose except to denigrate people who are trying (perhaps misguidedly) to improve things.

I've been called a "white knight" just for pointing out that being polite is a good idea. Or, more precisely, that it is bad to be being deliberately rude by deliberately ignoring something someone says, purely because it fails some arbitrary "directness test."

The accusation was bluntly stupid. But because it was in the context of a 'gendered' debate ("women are less direct in their speech than men")... I got accused of being "a man who defends a woman in hopes of obtaining sexual favors." By someone who had lapsed firmly into the grossly antisocial misogynistic caveman role himself and had pretty clearly passed the threshold of being able to tell the difference between "PC absurdity" and "people not putting up with my insane bullshit."



In my opinion, the new "social justice warrior" term (and for that matter "political correctness" itself) is basically the same. Sure, it describes a thing that actually exists (oversensitive self-conscious 'leftists' who live in a fog of manufactured outrage). But it also serves as a handy club to bludgeon people who have a damn good point, if you yourself are an asshole.

We've seen "social justice warrior" so heavily, so recently, in the Gamergate fiasco, where it is blatantly being used by misogynistic cretins to justify threatening and harassing basically every woman in the gaming community, while dismissing or ignoring men who call them on their bullshit.

Under the circumstances, I find its use to be inherently suspect. It's not the kind of thing you'd think to say repeatedly unless there's something nasty going on in your headspace.

[Simon_Jester]

I don´t see it that way. Advertisment and its mechanisms are specifically designed to make people consume it who don´t want to consume it. Furthermore it is so omnipresent that I´d claim that it is impossible to permanently not pay attention or to walk away

If you can not pay attention to clearly visible adds or loud blarring commercials from the radio you should be able to not pay attention to a shirt.

There's a difference between advertisements in a public space you can choose to leave or on entertainment media you can choose to shut off, and pictures and speech in a workspace you must spend time in or coming from people you must interact with in order to make a living.

You can switch off the radio. You can't switch off your boss's "dumb blonde" jokes. Thus, the one can be harassment while the other isn't.

You also don´t address workplaces that involve naked people like brothels, strip clubs and advertising agencies. Or film production agencies. Or the gaming industry and the music industry, photographers, web programming companies and so on. This isn´t just a list of exceptions. Jobs that deal with naked or nearly naked people are widely spread...

Basic common sense applies, I'm actually not an idiot here. If your job involves dealing with casual nudity, depictions of casual nudity can easily be part of your job, in which case clearly it's not something extraneous to the work environment.

On the other hand, the use of casual nudity and near-nudity as a means of selling products to horny males may very well drive certain people (e.g. women) out of your field.

Personally I think that dress codes are a bad thing. Societies fascination with judging people by their clothes or appearance in general, is, while not being very high on my priority list, still on the obnoxious side. There are industries, like the so called creative industry and the tech industry where dress codes are very lax compared to other industries and they work just fine. Why should this not work in other industries as well?

The issue isn't so much "dress fancy" as it is "dress in a way that is unlikely to provoke strong emotion in others." Yes, that means your ability to be a fiery proponent of your subculture is impaired in your workplace. Guess what? That applies to everyone, or it should.

In my opinion, the Jesus-freak types aren't supposed to proselytize at work for the same reason you aren't supposed to wear shirts with political slogans. It's irrelevant to everyone doing their jobs, and actively counterproductive to people concentrating on their jobs, because it leads to harassment and antagonism between people who are supposed to be working together. And semi-naked women on a shirt can fall into the same category for (some of) the women in your workplace.

Obviously, a person who doesn't want to observe naked or semi-naked women on a regular basis won't go working for a strip club in any capacity. But there's no obvious reason they should be expected to avoid working for a space exploration research team.

[salm]

There's a difference between advertisements in a public space you can choose to leave or on entertainment media you can choose to shut off, and pictures and speech in a workspace you must spend time in or coming from people you must interact with in order to make a living.

You can switch off the radio. You can't switch off your boss's "dumb blonde" jokes. Thus, the one can be harassment while the other isn't.

Well, I guess you can choose to avoid advertisments if you lock yourself up at home, don´t use TV, Radio and Internet and have your food brought to your door. But in a normal life it is absolutely impossible to avoid advertisment. Now, since most people have to get to work somehow they will encounter a gazillions of advertisments on this trip. Be it on banners they see on the road or in the subway stations and trains. In most offices I´ve ever worked the radio was on because most people want to listen to something while working. Of course you can turn it off but your co workers will hate you. So no escape here either. The internet banners you see while researching something for work on the internet can not be turned off because for some reason IT doesn´t allow you to install AdBlock on your office computer.
The possiblity to avoid advertisments doesn´t exist in this world.

Basic common sense applies, I'm actually not an idiot here. If your job involves dealing with casual nudity, depictions of casual nudity can easily be part of your job, in which case clearly it's not something extraneous to the work environment.

Ok, so there´s no line that can be drawn because different jobs involve naked people to a different degree. Even if the job itself doesn´t have anything to do with people at all the company you work for is likely to advertise with naked people. Say, you work as an engineer for a car maker. They don´t produce anything having to do with naked people. But they let advertisment agencies produce ads in which naked, objectified people sell their cars.
A case like this blurrs the line even more.

On the other hand, the use of casual nudity and near-nudity as a means of selling products to horny males may very well drive certain people (e.g. women) out of your field.

It doesn´t seem to drive away women from advertising agencies. The majority of people working in advertising agencies are women. That is 62 percent and rising in Germany acording to a study by the Gesamtverband Kommunikationsagenturen. Internet searches tell me that the percentage of women in advertising in the US are even higher.
Also, naked, objectified women are used to sell stuff to women all the time. It´s not only to horny males. So, either a lot of women like to see naked, objectified women or the advertisment industry has been wasting money for years. Since I don´t like the adverisment industry i hope the latter is correct but I kind of doubt it.

The issue isn't so much "dress fancy" as it is "dress in a way that is unlikely to provoke strong emotion in others." Yes, that means your ability to be a fiery proponent of your subculture is impaired in your workplace. Guess what? That applies to everyone, or it should.

In my opinion, the Jesus-freak types aren't supposed to proselytize at work for the same reason you aren't supposed to wear shirts with political slogans. It's irrelevant to everyone doing their jobs, and actively counterproductive to people concentrating on their jobs, because it leads to harassment and antagonism between people who are supposed to be working together. And semi-naked women on a shirt can fall into the same category for (some of) the women in your workplace.

Obviously, a person who doesn't want to observe naked or semi-naked women on a regular basis won't go working for a strip club in any capacity. But there's no obvious reason they should be expected to avoid working for a space exploration research team.

So, can you argue this point without trying to make it look bad by associating it with silly subcultures?

Actually I don´t even disagree too much on this point. In my last post I said I disagree with dress codes in general but you are right, I was distracted by the dress fancy aspect of dress codes. I have no problem to regulate out political statements and similar things if the situation requires it. However, I don´t think there´s a particular, general line that can be drawn because it depends so much on the circumstances.

[sarevok2]

I think misogyny need to be defined. Barring women from entering STEM fields would be it. But if someone feels offended by a shirt that's their problem. Why should another person be forced to bend over for that ? What gives one person the right to dictate what another person wears ? Can muslim men also demand female coworkers come to work in hijab because western clothes offend them ?

If someone does not want to go to STEM fields because they feel offended then so be it. They have no right to dictate other peoples choice of clothing.

[biostem]

I think misogyny need to be defined. Barring women from entering STEM fields would be it. But if someone feels offended by a shirt that's their problem. Why should another person be forced to bend over for that ? What gives one person the right to dictate what another person wears ? Can muslim men also demand female coworkers come to work in hijab because western clothes offend them ?

If someone does not want to go to STEM fields because they feel offended then so be it. They have no right to dictate other peoples choice of clothing.

In some respects, I agree with you. The key components in this case are:

A. Was the shirt within the organization's dress code policy, (if there was one).

B. Were there any complaints regarding said shirt.

C. Was this person's position/standing within the organization a factor in deciding whether to coach them on what is appropriate, if points A & B deemed that the shirt should not be worn.

To me, it is a person's behavior that determines whether they are sexist or not - I couldn't care less if a person had a pinup calendar in their cubicle, as long as they are respectful of female coworkers and adhered to all regulations about conduct, dress code, and didn't show favoritism toward one sex, etc. Now obviously, there is a practical line that needs to be drawn as well - if the shirt had nude women on it, or graphic sexual portrayals, then yes, that should not be worn.