By all rights, the furor over rocket scientist Matt Taylor’s cheesecake shirt should have died down by now. After being chided earlier this week for marring the celebration over the landing of a space probe ON A GODDAMNED COMET by doing interviews in a tacky shirt covered with half-naked ladies, Taylor offered a brief but heartfelt apology. You would have thought we’d all be able to move on.
Not so fast. Because these days apparently no controversy can ever be over as long as it serves someone’s interest to keep it going. And so a loose but very familiar coalition of reactionaries and antifeminists and angry techies have started flogging an amorphous cause they call #Shirtgate or, more popularly, #Shirtstorm, purporting to be outraged that Taylor was “humiliated” into apologizing.
So many of the angriest voices in this, er, conversation are #GamerGaters it looks a lot like a sequel. Call it GamerGate Part Two: The Straw Graspening. And it’s not just me making the connection: #GamerGaters and #Shirtstormers, often one and the same, are making the connection:
So radical #shirtstorm SJW have attacked my games my #gamergate revolt and now they are attacking #science. Am i allowed to be mad ?
— Anti-ProcrusteanBed ☀️🏴 (@antiprocrustes) November 16, 2014
I am a man. I'm sick of hearing that because of my gender, my opinions don't count and sexism towards me isn't real. #GamerGate #shirtstorm
— Lord Inquisitor Ineptus Astartes (@AstartesIneptus) November 16, 2014
https://twitter.com/Scrumpmonkey/status/533409838207078400
Heck, our old friend Milo is making the connection:
Note to those infuriated by poor Dr Matt Taylor and #shirtstorm: this is what #GamerGate has been fighting against. Are you getting it yet?
— Milo Yiannopoulos (@Nero) November 15, 2014
Oh, it’s a veritable #GamerGate Old Home Week! GG mainstays Thunderf00t and Mundane Matt have rushed out videos about The Shirt.
People are making graphics covered with hard-to-read text:
There are giant complicated conspiracy theory graphics covered with red lines and angry red text. This one notes that Chris Plante, who wrote an article criticizing Taylor’s shirt, also wrote one of the now-notorious “Gamers are Dead” pieces.
https://twitter.com/Reyeko_/status/533482641774100480
Apparently there were a few dudes who were none too pleased with Plante’s story on The Shirt:
https://twitter.com/plante/status/533244307105648640
#Shirtstormers wrote angry “letters” in too-small-type. (Click here for larger, more readable version and here for one with angry graphics, too.)
https://twitter.com/Alpha_duck1/status/533698520100777984
While others tried to draw a parallel between Taylor’s alleged “humiliation” and … rape.
#shirtgate #SupportMattTaylor #GamerGate pic.twitter.com/L8s1GrOow7
— Mark 🐸 🗑 Samenfink (@MSamenfink) November 16, 2014
#ShirtStorm #shirtgate Matthew 7:1 pic.twitter.com/bRXr7bA1Si
— Be Just & Fear Not | Let None Survive (@SuperNerdMike) November 16, 2014
Neo-reactionaries and “Dark Enlightenment” types see opportunity in the #Shirtstorm hashtag.
https://twitter.com/voxday/status/533336186535030784
Don't judge me because of what I'm wearing – unless I'm a guy. Then you can define my personality and try to ruin my life. #shirtgate #NRx
— VDARE (@vdare) November 15, 2014
https://twitter.com/antidemblog/status/533341319184531456
https://twitter.com/BernardChapin/status/533628518077186049
As do MRAs:
https://twitter.com/deanesmay/status/533758421158227969
As does this familiar name:
Women do not face a hostile climate in science. And they can handle seeing a guy in an edgy shirt. #GamerGate https://t.co/8gvTyo0bg6
— Christina Hoff Sommers (@CHSommers) November 16, 2014
They’re all there, all hoping to turn a debate over a shirt into another endless internet Benghazi.
If I call myself a believer in racial equality and then join the KKK I am not a person who simply has a different view of what racial equality entails, or someone who is failing to live up to my beliefs, I am a liar, and my public insistence that I am simply a different kind of activist for racial equality should be viewed with deep suspicion by anyone who isn’t a complete idiot.
@Fibinachi:
My understanding of her beliefs is that she has a very narrow view of what “feminism” covers, and agrees with that narrow view. She talks of feminism being “stolen,” and has really absurd notions of what modern feminists stand for.
Source
Her own wold view is, at least at a rough glance, consistent. It just doesn’t match up with reality.
You seem to think I’m defending Sommers. I think she’s deliberately saying things she doesn’t believe in order to get attention and money. She’s like a politician who believes in racial equality but joins the KKK to advance his career. She is a liar, and she is in no sense a spokesperson for feminism. I do think in her heart she believes that women are equal and should have equal rights — she’s just willing to sell out. Yes, IMHO, she’s not a sincere anti-feminist (which I could respect even though I would disagree), she’s a lying sack of shit.
Again, what you are not getting is that a woman who is a feminist would not do that. Perhaps a male feminist would – I’d like to hope not, if he was sincere in his beliefs – but a woman who genuinely believes in the basic principles of feminism would not do this shit. The existence of “e
@GrumpyOldMan
Would you say that Ted Haggard is a gay rights activist? Sure, he preached bitter hatred from a pulpit of lies about the Bible and himself, but he was secretly gay and he certainly brought attention to the topic! Same deal here.
Was it you or somebody else who once asked to be called out if you’re ever caught mansplaining? Either way, you’re mansplaining now.
(cont) “equity feminists” like Sommers is an attempt to undermine feminism by presenting a fake “alternative” version of feminism and arguing that it is in fact the true version, what feminism should be. In order for that to work, people have to believe that the women presenting those ideas really do believe themselves to be feminists, just a different kind of feminists.
You are currently assisting them in that effort, whether or not you realize it, and insulting women who really are feminists by suggesting that a woman with genuinely feminist beliefs would involve herself in those efforts. Knock it off, right now.
(Everyone else) I’m taking a break. Trolls I can deal with, but this kind of shit from supposed allies? Nope, that exceeds the limits of my patience.
GrumpyOldMan, CHS isn’t a feminist. It’s pretty simple. I could call myself a physicist if I wanted to, doesn’t mean I am one. I’m not a physicist. She’s not a feminist. Feminists, even bad feminists, at the very least work for the benefit of women. She does nothing but try to discredit all attempts to do just that. She’s a FeMRA who calls herself a feminist just to have credibility in feminist discussions. Nothing more.
@Kirbywarp:
Right, yeah – gender and equity feminism split. I remember now, thanks. The “I’m okay” and the “They want to change the name of things and ban shirts!” school of social analysis.
I don’t know if you are, don’t really care. Defend the people you find worth defending! I was (and is) just confused what your point really is! Again, if I believe in racial equality but have no problems joining the KKK for personal gain, clearly racial equality just isn’t that big a deal to me.
It’s not an important belief, because the moment it was a choice between my professed belief and a modicum of power for myself, I happily decided that joining the KKK was quite absolutely dandy, despite well bloody knowing that the KKK isn’t exactly your go to folk for racial harmony. So what does my belief in equality amount to? My happy ministrations that, yes, sure, I believe in racial equality while I’m actively attending KKK rallies?.
Then, I ask, what good is it? If I believe in the wonders of vegan living, but all my meal are meat based, then by no metric that I know can I call myself a vegan. How does this change in any other context?
I’m sure the knowledge that I personally believe in equal opportunities for all will be of great comfort to the people denied equal opportunities for all because, in part, of my helping sponsor organizations intending the annulment of laws that guaranties equal opportunity for all.
If I actually belief in racial equality, or capitalism, or socialism, or liberatarianism, I would not participate in organizations that ran contrary to those beliefs. If I was mercenary enough to do so, my beliefs would not be “I’m for racial equality”, my belief would be “I need a paycheck, and I can get it by joining the KKK and rustling up some outrage. I believe outrage is good for my wallet!”. Once I’ve joined those organizations, said the things they want me to say, done the dance they wanted me to do, quoted the scripture, read the lines, and proclaimed on national television that they’re the right thinking people, ain’t no one going to benefit much if I somehow still actually believe X while working on an Anti-X campaign, because my belief doesn’t even warrant being honest.
I mean… I just don’t get it.
If I call myself a guy with theoretical physicist leanings, that doesn’t make it true, because I don’t know any theoretical physics.
GrumpyOldMan, a person can understand the actual elements of feminism, and even take personal advantage of them, without being a feminist in any way, shape, or form. CHS uses anti-feminism rhetoric to destroy rights for other women, with the underlying assumption that her personal status (money, career, rights, freedoms) will not be affected.
Believing in feminism *requires* supporting other women. There is no self-feminism.
I get what GrumpyOldMan’s saying.
He’s saying that CHS is like Ted Haggard if Ted Haggard privately thought, “Yes – of course homosexuality is biologically determined and gay people absolutely deserve equal rights and protections, but I make my money by saying that engaging in anything but monogamous heterosexuality is a sin and a crime against the Creator. I say what’s convenient for me and my pocketbook.”
I’m not sure that I /agree/, but I honestly don’t know much about the woman.
Also, something else entirely.
I think the idea that you can just drop your convictions when they become inconvenient chains around your neck is a hella odd way to think of belief, and sort of implies a certain kind of, well, let me go with: “Complete lack of ethical boundary”.
I mean, it’s not a phrase I use a lot, but the idea of being able to just ignore the parts of your belief in order to gain a bit of dosh while suffering no negative repercussions for that? That’s kind of a privileged stance to take, isn’t it?
“Oh, sure, I believe in female emancipation – what do I care, I’ll have the vote anyway, I’m a man”
“Oh, sure, I believe in racial equality, Martin Luther King, I have a dream yatta yatta— wait, what’s that? Donation to the local KKK chapter? Sure! Vote Ibif 2016, The Candidate For Literally Everyone!”
What I mean is – if you’re in a situation where you can, on a whim, just drop your core beliefs to get on the good sides of some organization without suffering for it? You’re not the person that’s going to need that belief the most. I’d love to see an african-american politician be happily able to drop their belief in racial equality and gain some support from the KKK by joining them. I’d love to see a woman who isn’t, oh, say, rich, white and university educated be able to happily argue that gender-feminism is ruining the country and that all the problems of women everywhere are forever solved.
But they don’t, because they actively, actually, in reality, literally cannot.
But some people can. And when those people do, it makes the world a worse place for everyone who doesn’t have the happy freedom to make a living fighting against their own best interests.
Oh, well, thanks for clarifying.
Ultimately, as my granny used to say “only God and her own conscience know” if CHS is a really real feminist in her heart, and if she sold that out to make a buck, or just has a bizzaro world floating definition of feminism.
I think we can all agree, however, that she is a liar and a hypocrite and all round unpleasant person. Her BS is also a threat to other women, and feminism in general.
In which case, cool, now provide some evidence that Sommers actually holds some basic feminist beliefs.
Yup. I’m not sure whether this is a case of “person is telling us something about themselves” or “person is telling us something about what they believe women to be like”, but in either case, I’m not so much backing away slowly as running at top speed in the opposite direction.
OK, back on break now, before I’m forced to resume banging my head against the wall.
Well, I was trying to organize my thoughts into words that would make sense to read, and here Fibinachi’s done it already:
Yeah, anyone call themselves anything they want, and can, deep in their hearts, believe in things; but it’s their actions that define them. And CHS’s actions, what she actually supports, makes it very clear that she is an anti-feminist.
It’s a little bit like MRAs calling themselves “egalitarians” or racists calling themselves “race realists.” It’s a crass PR move, a cynical co-opting of social justice language and acceptable terms designed to make their horrible views sound more palatable.
And even if, deep down, CHS agrees with feminists; she’s proven herself perfectly willing to sellout every other woman on the planet in order to be a reactionary darling. Which, again, would make her not a feminist. Which is Cassandrakitty said.
Pardon, putting thoughts into words is not coming easy to me today.
Media(ite) posted a video of Dr. Taylor’s apology, along with an incredibly snarky write up on the controversy surrounding the shirt. The comments that followed are completely nauseating. “My ulcers are flaring up” nauseating, even, so read at your own risk:
http://www.mediaite.com/tv/comet-scientist-breaks-down-in-tears-apologizing-for-sexist-shirt/
Compare this to NPR’s more neutral-sounding, less feminist-bashing piece on the same subject:
http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2014/11/14/364083954/shirtstorm-leads-to-apology-from-european-space-scientist
Christina Hoff Summers and women like her (Camille Paglia, etc.) make me feel like they picked up a copy of The Handmaid’s Tale, took one look at Aunt Lydia, and said, “I like the cut of that gal’s jib. Golly, I wanna be just like her.”
No, Sparky, I think you are good at the putting thoughts into words today. There’s a bunch of stuff in your last post that I wanted to QFT, but why spam the thread?
I got into this discussion because somebody called CHS stupid. IMO, She is not one bit stupid; she is very smart and clever, she knows exactly what she’s doing; and that’s what makes her dangerous. I will admit that I made a serious mistake in not drawing a distinction between a “feminist” and “a person who holds feminist beliefs but chooses to betray them for ulterior purposes,” but what I was trying to say is that people are making a bad mistake if they “misunderestimate” CHS — she is a very effective spokesperson for anti-feminist views. I think she likes to be the center of controversy, and I think she may be privately amused at how easy it is for her to manipulate men. That might, in fact, be the ultimate payoff for her.
I did not intend to get into a discussion of who is a real feminist — as a man, that’s not my call. I do believe you can hold feminist views and deny them for the sake of convenience. I was trying to warn people not to take CHS too lightly, and if that is damaging to feminism, so be it.
In any case, I see that I have worn out my welcome here. No need to show me the door; I can find it myself.
Also, check out USA Today’s ridonculous, manospherian-esque screed on Dr. Taylor’s apology:
http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2014/11/15/shirt-comet-girls-feminism-column/19083607/
TLDR: “Taylor was bullied by a feminist lynch mob into apologizing for wearing a shirt that a female pal made for him. If men criticize what women wear that’s sexist but not when women criticize men. Geeks are not Don Draper. Double standard, grumble, grumble fart.”
I’m adopting a new corollary to Lewis’ Law, “Reactionary Op/Eds in third rate publications bullying feminists and their allies justify feminism.”
THANK YOU, USA TODAY FOR PROVING THAT FEMINISM IS NOT ONLY RELEVANT, IT’S NECESSARY.
Oh, now I get it grumpyoldman. Thank you for clarifying also! That’s… really rather a different point than I thought you were talking about, and one to which I can only say: “Oh, yeah, probably?”.
My apologies for missing that, though.
You still haven’t even bothered to demonstrate that she has feminist beliefs, though, you’re just saying that she probably has and expecting everyone to agree that’s the case despite all the evidence to the contrary. If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck why would you assume it’s actually a swan? Much less expect all the other swans to agree with you.
OK, I could be talking stupidly here, so feel free to shoot me down.
I don’t think GOM meant feminist. I think he meant that she believes that women are at least the equal of men.
This is not the same thing.
Feminist means promoting that women are the equal of men.
CHS is happy to pander and manipulate men for her own benefit by saying what they want to hear.
This dosen’t mean that she truly believes women are inferior.
It means she has no principles.
She has found a way to get publicity and approval by what she says.
I don;t think what she says has any relevance to what she might believe.
We don’t know what she believes. We know what she says, and that she gets a benefit for saying it.
All GOM was saying was that she might be lying.
In that case don’t call her a feminist or say that she has feminist beliefs. Words mean things.
Also, the fact that she believes she herself to be the equal of the men around her doesn’t mean she believes the same about other women. Remember Ayn Rand? History is full of women who thought of themselves as special snowflakes and other women as subhuman.