[lern_too_spel]

Nonsense. His achievement was celebrated as well.

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.

[jack-r-abbit]

But at the same time, this guy is bound to get other people interested in science that may not have been before. He's a freaking inked up metal fan.[1] I don't think every person needs to make "more women in STEM" their life's mission. It is something that needs to be done. But what about a mission of "more [other people] in STEM" for a few of them.

[1] http://www.metalsucks.net/2014/11/13/dr-matt-taylor-dude-put...

[Maxious]

How many people need to make it their life's mission before there is at least one person who could have explained to this guy to wear a hoodie over his shirt? Why does it take a world wide live stream audience before it is possible to find someone in the building to make that conversation happen?

[jack-r-abbit]

Maybe it took a world wide live stream audience to find enough loud people to complain about it. Not every one has an issue with his shirt. So it is not without reason to think that nobody he works with took offense to his shirt because they know him for more than his clothes.

[astrange]

His shirt was a handmade gift from his friend's wife, who's a tattoo artist.

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.

[NeverEnough]

it is that he found it an appropriate shirt to wear.

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.

[1stop]

As far as gender oppression goes... that shirt ranks pretty low. Lets solve, pay disparity and workplace harrassment before we deciding whether to worry about shirts.

Feminism is not about being precious, it's about equality (which shirts have very little to do with).

[TeMPOraL]

> it is that he found it an appropriate shirt to wear.

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.

[hobs]

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.

[bayesianhorse]

So you are saying pictures of scenes degrading and objectifying women as sexual objects can't make women feel degraded and objectified?

[jarin]

Consider that it may be more degrading and objectifying to treat all women as weak, fragile beings who must constantly be sheltered from things like shirts with retro tattoo art on them.

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.

[Evolved]

They're only scenes degrading and objectifying women as sexual objects if women feel degraded and objectified as sexual objects about the scenes. As a woman made the shirt and gave it to him then it seems to be the case that at least 1 woman does not feel degraded and objectified as a sexual object about it which makes your blanket assertion disingenuous and patently false.

[bayesianhorse]

It's appalling that in the science/tech community there is so little understanding for these issues. In a perfectly equal world, yes, such a shirt would be just completely inappropriate instead of demeaning.

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.

[hobs]

>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.

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.

[evan_]

> but painting individual men with the same broad stroke

"Not all men!"

[cbd1984]

And I'm sure not all women are going to make snap judgements about a whole field based on what one person in the field wears, yet here we are.

[jobposter1234]

No, he is saying this:

'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.'

[OSButler]

His shirt is the kind of thing that keeps women away from science?

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?

[inclemnet]

> but how can you come to such a conclusion based on that?

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.

[xtrumanx]

> 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?

We also can't demonstrate that it was in fact the shirt that made him such a great scientist.

[exstudent]

Incorrect, women aren't as weak as you think they are. He worked with many awesome women to make this mission happen BTW.

More likely this type of overreaction and hysteria will keep free thinking individuals out of science.

[dalke]

I wouldn't want to work in a workplace which wears its objectification on its sleeve like that. Your argument seems to be that I'm weak because of all the opportunities available to me I would prefer to work someplace else.

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.

[lern_too_spel]

If you think this is not a big deal, you should become familiar with the Petrie multiplier. Women shouldn't need thicker skin than men to work in science, but that won't get fixed as long as we keep ignoring the problem, limiting the speed of scientific advancement by limiting the population of scientists. http://iangent.blogspot.com/2013/10/the-petrie-multiplier-wh...

[exstudent]

This wasn't an attack on "men" it was an attack on a specific man and yes, it was totally outrageous.

Women don't need thicker skin. No man or woman should be criticized for how they dress.

[lern_too_spel]

You didn't even read what the Petrie multiplier is, making your whole post a straw man attack.

[trhway]

man, 'vei just read what the Petrie multiplier is. It clearly explains why, given equal sexism by men and women, women's experience is worst. Thus to equalize experience, according to the Petrie multiplier, men should decrease their sexism way below women's. Forcing men to decrease their sexism way below women's is an attack on men by definition, and the Petrie multiplier provides mathematical foundation for it.

[lern_too_spel]

Is it really that much of a burden not to be sexist or racist? The obliviousness I see in this supposedly enlightened industry astounds me.

[NeverEnough]

Is it hysteria to suggest that what men in a male dominated field think is appropriate might have statistical significance in the representation of women?