There was an outcry over the new Disney movie Moana because some Polynesian people thought they were depicting their heroic demigod Maui as being fat. There is a negative stereotype of all Polynesians being fat. This seems to have mostly died down.
Derek is ignoring all the actual issues they brought up, and acting like just having Maui in the film at all was the issue. And further than having non-white people was offensive now. So he alleges they are a rock in hard place, being unable to use an all white cast, and being unable to use non-whites.
Of course, the The Princess and the Frog, Lilo and Stitch, and so on show that he’s wrong, but he’d probably pretend that was before “PC culture” existed.
It’s not a problem at all. You’ve just described how activism works. What are they afraid of? Speech. You know, that thing we have a right to do. I have every right to make a campaign against someone who I think is awful. I have every right to tell you you are awful. I have every right to tell people (including your bosses) that you deserve to be fired. I have the right to boycott them if they don’t listen to me. Or tell everyone about how awful they are being.
You are right now belittling liberals, characterizing their concerns as just bees under bonnets. And you have the right to do that. But god forbid the other side belittle someone for doing things they think are wrong.
Tim Hunt’s situation is not as you described. He didn’t just make the statements and then wind up fired. He gave an apology that showed he did actually believe those things. He defended the idea of girls crying in labs and falling in love and how it disrupted science.
He also was acting as an ambassador for science, and doing something like that which caused an international incident is bad PR for the whole group. That’s why he was encouraged to resign.
What Tim Hunt learned was that what you say can have consequences. He said things that did not represent his job well, and then, when called to apologize, still hung on to part of those things. So he had to resign.
There actually are people who wind up unfairly treated by the media and have bad consequences. People who jump to conclusions without all the facts. But what you describe is not that. And there is nothing wrong with a culture enforcing its mores.
The international incident was caused by a blatantly tendentious distortion of what the man said.
The problem is, people like the journalist that created the incident can ruin a person’s life with the expectation that there will be no consequences against them as long as they portray themselves as champions for a good cause and any objection to their actions as being nothing short of evil; that, when people get to the point that their own sense of moral superiority is an acceptable substitute for ethical behaviour and they can get away with it, is a recipe for disaster.
I suggest you go through this video to see how that particular dumpster fire came to be.
Ah yes, the I’m sure this look at a feminist issue is going to be completely fair and unfiltered coming from the man with such hits as “Feminist Frequency Debunked”, “The Sarkeesian Method”, “The Sarkeesian Conclusion”, “A Sarkeesian Film”, and “Rape, Dogs, and Feminism, Oh My”.
I don’t see many liberals “squirming” about this, since liberals tend to be much less Manichean in outlook than their conservative brethren (and sistren ). Based on the multiple times this accusation has come up, the argument seems to go like this (in highly condensed form):
Conservative: “Muslims are bad.”
Liberal: “Muslims are not all intrinsically bad.”
Conservative: “You like Muslims. Many Muslims do bad things. Therefore you are okay with these bad things when Muslims do them. You have opposed these bad things when non-Muslims do them. Therefore you are a hypocrite.”
This approach tends to ignore the fact that it’s possible to believe that one’s religion does not make one intrinsically evil and therefore religious freedom is a good thing AND to oppose specific bad practices even if one’s religion is ostensibly the driving force behind those behaviors. So “liberals” can oppose religious bigotry against Muslims but simultaneously oppose the “backwards practices and beliefs” of many Muslims (as well as opposing the “backwards practices and beliefs” of many non-Muslims while supporting their right to practice their faith). There’s no inconsistency there. There is no obligation to support everything any Muslims do just because we object to the vast amount of bigoted bullshit that gets aimed at them (cf. the OP).
Personally I’m all in favor of people of all faiths being allowed to worship freely*. I also oppose homophobia, sexism, sectarianism and general murder, mayhem and persecution carried out in the name of the deity of one’s choice. These are not contradictory positions. It’s the well-worn principle about the right to swing one’s arm ending where the other man’s nose begins; one’s right to belief does not trump another person’s right not to be persecuted by that belief. Why is this so hard for some people to understand?
Funnily enough there is a group that insists that supporting “religious freedom” requires people to also support the most distasteful beliefs and practices derived from that religion. Also, funnily enough, it’s not “liberals”.
*Except possibly Scientologists.
Hillary Clinton, the Democratic nominee for President, is still repeating the “77 cents on the dollar for the same work” myth years after it was debunked. Is Hillary Clinton imaginary?
He wore a shirt designed by a female friend. But hey, she doesn’t hate female sexuality and therefore doesn’t qualify as a* real* woman.
Correct; they need to regard women with fear. He made the mistake of treating women as if they weren’t enemies, the way his critics demand that men treat women and that women treat each other. He had a female friend, did something for her instead of treating her as threat, and was punished for it.
Criticism isn’t punishment. People thought there were problems with his t-shirt and spoke up about it. Why is this a problem? Would you be complaining about the criticism if the t-shirt had had exaggerated and sexualized imagery of black women – all big butts and big lips?
It’s not the end of the world to be criticized. He listened to the reasonable criticism and apologized. Good on him – that shows growth and personal responsibility. He was praised by the women who wrote that reasonable criticism for his heartfelt apology. This was a good outcome, not a bad one.
No it wasn’t. His great accomplishment was tarnished, his reputation wrecked, and he was coerced into betraying a friend. It was about humiliation, trauma and submitting to bullying; not “growth and personal responsibility”. And you are deluding yourself if you think he had a “heartfelt apology”, instead of choking down rage and depression.
Bullshit. Men can be criticized. It’s not bullying, or humiliation, or traumatic – it’s criticism. It’s not betrayal of a friend, it’s not a reputation wrecked (quite the contrary, in fact – he comes out looking like a smart and compassionate guy and a good listener, and was justly praised for his apology by many of those who initially criticized his t-shirt choice).
Men aren’t special snowflakes – sometimes we screw up. I hope women call me on it when they think I’ve screwed up. Conversations about these things are good, not bad.
Matt Taylor is doing fine and is a better person for it. He still has his job and he still has a good reputation.
Bullying is the death and rape threats those who criticized Taylor for his t-shirt choice received, not thoughtful and reasonable criticism.
Again, I’ll ask you if you would say the same thing if it was sexualized and exaggerated imagery of black women that emphasized big butts and big lips. Would you be saying it’s wrong to criticize that?
Der Trihs – you really seem like you have a personal problem with women, based on this and other conversations we’ve had. I think you need to look within yourself to see why you have such a problem with women who choose to speak up and criticize the actions of men they disapprove of. There’s absolutely nothing wrong with saying “that t-shirt is problematic because it portrays women in an objectified way”.
Are you saying that women can’t design inappropriate shirts, or that this woman specifically is incapable of designing inappropriate shirts? I’m a man; am I therefore incapable of designing a shirt that other men might find inappropriate? If I made a shirt that a man found inappropriate, would a good defense be “but it was designed by a man?”
Ugh. I was going to comment on this, but I think it’s pretty clear that you’re a lost cause.
Oh please, he came out looking like a victim of bullying. And yes, he was forced into betraying his friend, since that was the shirt she made for him. When he apologized he was implicitly condemning her as well.
Was it made by a black woman for her friend?
Yes, they are. These people are demanding that women be treated as paranoid, hyperaggressive paranoids who should be given neither trust, aid nor respect. That’s treating them as enemies even if they never use the word.
Bullshit. And the gender of the t-shirt designer is irrelevant. Women can make things that other women think is misogynistic. Jews can make things that other Jews think is anti-Semitic. Black people can make things that other black people think is racist. The gender/race of the creator doesn’t invalidate criticism of what they create. Do you disagree with this?
It wouldn’t matter. If a Jew made a t-shirt with a bunch of swastikas and Nazi imagery for his friend, and then other Jews criticized the friend for wearing the shirt, that criticism is still valid. Do you disagree?
Suppose it was a black woman who made such a t-shirt. Then suppose other black women wrote articles saying “that t-shirt diminishes and sexualizes black women and contributes to a hostile environment for black women”, and then the t-shirt wearer deeply apologized for wearing it. Why would that be a problem? Would you complain about that?
). Based on the multiple times this accusation has come up, the argument seems to go like this (in highly condensed form):