Yes, I understand which article we're talking about. We're talking about the Verge article.
Recall Crashing's premise #1 of marxist feminism: "Society will inevitably subdivide itself into two classes, the proletariat and the bourgeoise." After the feminism-substitution, we have "Society will inevitably subdivide itself into two classes, the women and the men." This premise means more than simply acknowledging that men and women exist. It means to conclude that women vs men is the fundamental divide of the world. Certainly many shades of feminism do operate on that conclusion. But the article doesn't. Merely talking about women and things which might affect women differently than men does not imply that you believe that society is fundamentally divided along gender lines.
Yes, I understand which article we're talking about. We're talking about the Verge article.
Recall Crashing's premise #1 of marxist feminism: "Society will inevitably subdivide itself into two classes, the proletariat and the bourgeoise." After the feminism-substitution, we have "Society will inevitably subdivide itself into two classes, the women and the men." This premise means more than simply acknowledging that men and women exist. It means to conclude that women vs men is the fundamental divide of the world. Certainly many shades of feminism do operate on that conclusion. But the article doesn't. Merely talking about women and things which might affect women differently than men does not imply that you believe that society is fundamentally divided along gender lines.
Actually it does do that:
Quote from the article »
Still, Taylor's personal apology doesn't make up for the fact that no one at ESA saw fit to stop him from representing the Space community with clothing that demeans 50 percent of the world's population.
There's your division right there and then the author(s) say:
Quote from the article »
This is the sort of casual misogyny that stops women from entering certain scientific fields. They see a guy like that on TV and they don't feel welcome. They see a poster of greased up women in a colleague's office and they know they aren't respected. They hear comments about "*****es" while out at a bar with fellow science students, and they decide to change majors. And those are the women who actually make it that far. Those are the few who persevered even when they were discouraged from pursuing degrees in physics, chemistry, and math throughout high school. These are the women who forged on despite the fact that they were told by elementary school classmates and the media at large that girls who like science are nerdy and unattractive. This is the climate women who dream of working at NASA or the ESA come up against, every single day. This shirt is representative of all of that, and the ESA has yet to issue a statement or apologize for that.
This is why I agree with Crashing00, the message they are sending to readers is quite clear. Men are the oppressors of women, they prevent women from pursuing careers in science and those that do are considered nerdy and unattractive (presumably by men), so even those that do make it into those fields are still oppressed. They want you to conclude that men are holding women back.
They even put a point on it by including a sarcastic tweet with a picture to make the division and oppression clear to readers:
Quote from the article »
No no women are toooootally welcome in our community, just ask the dude in this shirt.
Sorry, Tiax - I think you're wrong here and I'm going to have to disagree with you.
Yes, I understand which article we're talking about. We're talking about the Verge article.
Recall Crashing's premise #1 of marxist feminism: "Society will inevitably subdivide itself into two classes, the proletariat and the bourgeoise." After the feminism-substitution, we have "Society will inevitably subdivide itself into two classes, the women and the men." This premise means more than simply acknowledging that men and women exist. It means to conclude that women vs men is the fundamental divide of the world. Certainly many shades of feminism do operate on that conclusion. But the article doesn't. Merely talking about women and things which might affect women differently than men does not imply that you believe that society is fundamentally divided along gender lines.
I feel like you're being purposefully obtuse and uncharitable in your interpretations of the premises. Yes, I'm sure we can all nitpick at the exact wording crashing chose, but that's not really the point here. The point is that the basic tenets of Marxism and academic feminism largely coincide.
Premise 1 is about the belief that there is an oppressor class and an oppressed class. In the narrative of the article, men are systematically oppressing women in much the same way that the bourgeois are said to oppress the proletariat in Marxist ideology.
I feel like you're being purposefully obtuse and uncharitable in your interpretations of the premises. Yes, I'm sure we can all nitpick at the exact wording crashing chose, but that's not really the point here. The point is that the basic tenets of Marxism and academic feminism largely coincide.
I think we've all agreed that various forms of feminism are Marxist-like. That's not the point at issue. The point at issue is whether this particular article is an example of that.
Premise 1 is about the belief that there is an oppressor class and an oppressed class. In the narrative of the article, men are systematically oppressing women in much the same way that the bourgeois are said to oppress the proletariat in Marxist ideology.
The argument of Marxist-style feminism is that men are monolithically an oppressor class and women are monolithically an oppressed class. If we're going to count any statement about things that might be detrimental to women, we've set the bar so low as to be meaningless. Same for counting any statement about women as a statement about the fundamental division of society.
The article talks about things that the authors feel are detrimental to women pursuing science. That does not mean that they believe men are engaged in a deliberate and unified campaign to keep women out. Nor does it mean they believe the world is a struggle between men and women.
If I say "Nudie anime girl card sleeves contribute to a FNM environment that is unwelcoming to women", am I engaging in Marxist-style feminism? I don't think so. Neither are the authors of this article.
The argument of Marxist-style feminism is that men are monolithically an oppressor class and women are monolithically an oppressed class. If we're going to count any statement about things that might be detrimental to women, we've set the bar so low as to be meaningless.
We didn't make any statements about what is detrimental to women, the article did. So if you feel that way, you should be taking issue with the article for setting such a low standard, this is what the article is being criticized for.
In other words, if the standard for what is detrimental to women is a guy wearing a t-shirt, the bar is too low and the article is hyperbole.
Quote from Tiax »
Same for counting any statement about women as a statement about the fundamental division of society.
I quoted a whole paragraph that does exactly that, from the article.
Quote from Tiax »
The article talks about things that the authors feel are detrimental to women pursuing science.
They are linking a t-shirt and more importantly they are linking men to these things, the t-shirt included.
Quote from Tiax »
That does not mean that they believe men are engaged in a deliberate and unified campaign to keep women out. Nor does it mean they believe the world is a struggle between men and women.
The tweet at the end of the article actually does express that belief. Why do you think they included that?
Quote from Tiax »
If I say "Nudie anime girl card sleeves contribute to a FNM environment that is unwelcoming to women", am I engaging in Marxist-style feminism? I don't think so. Neither are the authors of this article.
The authors of that article do much more than that.
We didn't make any statements about what is detrimental to women, the article did. So if you feel that way, you should be taking issue with the article for setting such a low standard, this is what the article is being criticized for.
In other words, if the standard for what is detrimental to women is a guy wearing a t-shirt, the bar is too low and the article is hyperbole.
Umm...what? I don't understand how this is a reply to what I said. The "low bar" I'm talking about is that you're counting statements of the form "such and such is detrimental to women" as "society is fundamentally divided into oppressors and oppressed, and women are the oppressed".
I quoted a whole paragraph that does exactly that, from the article.
Again, I don't understand how this is a coherent reply. I think you must've misunderstood me.
They are linking a t-shirt and more importantly they are linking men to these things, the t-shirt included.
What is "these things" in this sentence?
The tweet at the end of the article actually does express that belief. Why do you think they included that?
I can't imagine the mental gymnastics required to read that from the tweet.
The authors of that article do much more than that.
They really don't. They think the shirt contributes to an environment which is unwelcoming to women. They also cite other factors which they think contribute to that environment. That all is a far cry from saying that society is fundamentally a struggle of men against women in which men have conspired to keep women oppressed in general and out of sciences in particular by way of wearing kitschy shirts.
They are linking a t-shirt and more importantly they are linking men to these things, the t-shirt included.
What is "these things" in this sentence?
These things:
Quote from The Article »
This is the sort of casual misogyny that stops women from entering certain scientific fields. They see a guy like that on TV and they don't feel welcome. They see a poster of greased up women in a colleague's office and they know they aren't respected. They hear comments about "*****es" while out at a bar with fellow science students, and they decide to change majors. And those are the women who actually make it that far. Those are the few who persevered even when they were discouraged from pursuing degrees in physics, chemistry, and math throughout high school. These are the women who forged on despite the fact that they were told by elementary school classmates and the media at large that girls who like science are nerdy and unattractive. This is the climate women who dream of working at NASA or the ESA come up against, every single day. This shirt is representative of all of that, and the ESA has yet to issue a statement or apologize for that.
Do you see the link(s)? The T-Shirt is linked to the man, who is in the narrative representing the oppressor and the oppressor prevents the oppressed (women) from trying to get majors in scientific fields. Those that do, did so in spite of the oppression they faced, still face oppression in the workplace (the fields of physics, chemistry, and math), and that because the work place is full of oppressors, the environment is unwelcoming and thus women are still oppressed. They've laid out something they think is a problem/injustice, demand an apology for it, and want you to conclude that wearing this t-shirt is bad because it oppresses women.
The point they are making is blatantly obvious, Tiax. The authors have an obvious conclusion they want you as a reader to draw.
Quote from Tiax »
I can't imagine the mental gymnastics required to read that from the tweet.
Why do you think they included that in the article? What message do you think they are trying to get across to the reader by including it or do you think it's there as a meaningless decoration?
This is the sort of casual misogyny that stops women from entering certain scientific fields. They see a guy like that on TV and they don't feel welcome. They see a poster of greased up women in a colleague's office and they know they aren't respected. They hear comments about "*****es" while out at a bar with fellow science students, and they decide to change majors. And those are the women who actually make it that far. Those are the few who persevered even when they were discouraged from pursuing degrees in physics, chemistry, and math throughout high school. These are the women who forged on despite the fact that they were told by elementary school classmates and the media at large that girls who like science are nerdy and unattractive. This is the climate women who dream of working at NASA or the ESA come up against, every single day. This shirt is representative of all of that, and the ESA has yet to issue a statement or apologize for that.
Do you see the link(s)? The T-Shirt is linked to the man, who is in the narrative representing the oppressor and the oppressor prevents the oppressed from trying to get majors in scientific fields. Those that do, did so in spite of the oppression they faced, still face oppression in the workplace, and that because the work place is full of oppressors, the environment is unwelcoming and thus women are still oppressed.
The point they are making is blatantly obvious, Tiax. The authors have an obvious conclusion they want you as a reader to draw.
So, there's a few steps missing between that and Marxist-style feminism. First, there is no identification of men at large as a monolithic oppressor class. It's just not there. Second, there is no narrative of a deliberate effort to keep women out of the sciences. Instead, the authors feel it's "casual" misogyny - things that people might do without realizing what the effects might be. Merely discussing factors that the authors believe discourage women from pursuing science careers is a far cry from Marxism. What you've done is to overlay a Marxist narrative on the authors' words, and then claim that narrative was hiding there all along. But it wasn't. You decided up front that the article was going to be Marxist, read it through that lens, and then, shockingly, found what you were "looking" for.
Why do you think they included that in the article? What message do you think they are trying to get across to the reader by including it or do you think it's there as a meaningless decoration?
I would guess the message is that they think the shirt is unwelcoming to women.
First, there is no identification of men at large as a monolithic oppressor class. It's just not there.
I see, so unless it's spelled out specifically, it's not being said. It's not as though something like this could be implied in anyway through sentence structure or pictures right?
Quote from Tiax »
Second, there is no narrative of a deliberate effort to keep women out of the sciences.
No, just systematic ones that keep the oppressors in positions of power while keeping the oppressed, oppressed.
Quote from Tiax »
Instead, the authors feel it's "casual" misogyny - things that people might do without realizing what the effects might be.
and what do you think the author means when they use the word "casual misogyny"?
Quote from Tiax »
Merely discussing factors that the authors believe discourage women from pursuing science careers is a far cry from Marxism.
Well, we'll just have to agree to disagree. I'm not going to address anymore of your posts in regards to this tangent. Best regards, Tiax.
I see, so unless it's spelled out specifically, it's not being said. It's not as though something like this could be implied in anyway through sentence structure or pictures right?
If all the actual Marxist parts are blanks for the reader to fill in, maybe it's your reading that's making it Marxist, not the authors.
No, just systematic ones that keep the oppressors in positions of power while keeping the oppressed, oppressed.
If something is systematic, it is deliberate. Did you mean "systemic"?
and what do you think the author means when they use the word "casual misogyny"?
I think they mean things that are detrimental to women despite a lack of intention to be detrimental to women.
As I mentioned above, I think, as a woman, that the attitude expressed in that article, the one implying women are so easily swayed that a shirt can change the course of their lives (by pressuring them to change majors and thus careers) does a much greater disservice to women than any number of shirts.
Also given he apologised maybe Matt Taylor does think he made a mistake in retrospect and it is not that he was bulled by marxists (also are we really going along with the dailycaller and what is really just accusations of cultural marxism?).
That, or he wanted the stream of harassment and the bad press to stop.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
We have laboured long to build a heaven, only to find it populated with horrors.
@kedvesem ironically they also imply that even if you were to get a job In one of those fields you would considered nerdy and unattractive and men with their evil penises would only refer women as *****es and go out to bars to drink and put down women. That article says a lot of bad things about both men and women under the guise of social equality and justice.
Or maybe he meant it, unless we are going to get into mind reading what do we have to go on other than his word? A bunch of right wing pundits who want to use this as a stick to beat their opposition?
Consider for a second a hypothetical: Suppose you come across a fascinating scientific discovery. You write up a scientific report throughout which you use "he" where you might otherwise have used a more gender neutral pronoun and publish. Someone on twitter reads the report and complains that this is an example of casual sexism. Other people on twitter and blogs pick up the story and similarly complain, citing this as an example of how women are unwelcome in STEM jobs, and citing your report as a case of casual sexism. I at least don't see how the gender of a pronoun (or the shirt you wear) has the BAREST relation to your work, but now nobody is talking about the discovery, they're up in arms about minutia. You now have three options:
1.) Tell the people upset that they're wrong
2.) Ignore them
3.) Apologize
Well 1 and 2, whether you believe them or not are ultimately traps. In both cases, regardless of your actual opinions, beliefs, and prior actions, you are demonstrating a lack of empathy for women in science and showing yourself to be a supporter (either overtly or implicitly) of this male dominated culture. So 3 is really the only option. But guess what: I don't have to believe that I did anything wrong to come to that conclusion. The fear of punishment is what leads to that outcome. Effectively, an apology becomes meaningless because you are just as likely doing it to shut the mob up as you are sincerely expressing remorse.
@a guy who might post - the problem I have with your post is that you assume there is a problem in the first place because you are looking at the outcome. I don't believe equality is achieved by equal outcomes, but rather having equal opportunities as such there is no problem. Maybe women in general are less interested in certain fields than men are and vice versa.
The other problem with looking at outcomes is that you would have to then say there is a problem with men being underrepresented in fields like nursing, teaching, or childcare industries. You know fields where men in general are less interested.
If I say "Nudie anime girl card sleeves contribute to a FNM environment that is unwelcoming to women", am I engaging in Marxist-style feminism? I don't think so. Neither are the authors of this article.
What if you said:
Nudie anime girl card sleeves are "the sort of casual misogyny that stops women from entering" MTG. "They see a guy" playing those sleeves "and they don't feel welcome. They see a poster of greased up women..." Those sleeves are "representative of all of that, and the" guy playing those sleeves "has yet to issue a statement or apologize for that."
I would consider that a generally Marxist narrative. Maybe not perfectly 100% Marxist under the strictest possible definition you're trying to impose, but it certainly reflects a Marxist worldview.
In the statement I constructed above, that guy playing the sleeves is not some one-off dude who decided to be tacky. He's a cog in a larger machine of exclusion or oppression. He's "representative of all that." And his actions don't just impact a few hyper-sensitive people who overreact to his tasteless sleeves. In the narrative above, his actions prevent women, as a group, from participating in the game. That's a Marxist narrative.
Sounds to me like just about anything counts as Marxism for you.
What does it say about your position when you can't be bothered to substantively respond?
Let me posit a thought experiment for you to further support what I'm saying. Let's pretend the story is exactly the same, except the person wearing the shirt is a woman. What would the reaction be? It might be seen as tacky or weird. It might be seen as an avant-garde fashion statement along the lines of a Lady Gaga outfit. It might go completely ignored by media outlets. But we certainly wouldn't have articles like the one in the OP calling for an apology and framing this as part of a narrative of women being excluded from STEM fields. The fact that the article pivots on whether the person wearing the shirt is part of the oppressor class (men) and not the oppressed class (women) supports the idea that this is a fundamentally Marxist narrative.
What does it say about your position when you can't be bothered to substantively respond?
I've already substantively responded. Your post added nothing new to respond to.
Let me posit a thought experiment for you to further support what I'm saying. Let's pretend the story is exactly the same, except the person wearing the shirt is a woman. What would the reaction be? It might be seen as tacky or weird. It might be seen as an avant-garde fashion statement along the lines of a Lady Gaga outfit. It might go completely ignored by media outlets. But we certainly wouldn't have articles like the one in the OP calling for an apology and framing this as part of a narrative of women being excluded from STEM fields. The fact that the article pivots on whether the person wearing the shirt is part of the oppressor class (men) and not the oppressed class (women) supports the idea that this is a fundamentally Marxist narrative.
Let me posit a thought experiment for you to further support what I'm saying. Let's pretend the story is exactly the same, except the person wearing the shirt is a woman. What would the reaction be? It might be seen as tacky or weird. It might be seen as an avant-garde fashion statement along the lines of a Lady Gaga outfit. It might go completely ignored by media outlets. But we certainly wouldn't have articles like the one in the OP calling for an apology and framing this as part of a narrative of women being excluded from STEM fields. The fact that the article pivots on whether the person wearing the shirt is part of the oppressor class (men) and not the oppressed class (women) supports the idea that this is a fundamentally Marxist narrative.
This thought experiment assumes your conclusion.
If you sincerely believe a female scientist wearing that shirt would be accused of misogyny in mainstream outlets and forced to apologize, I have a bridge to sell you.
If you sincerely believe a female scientist wearing that shirt would be accused of misogyny in mainstream outlets and forced to apologize, I have a bridge to sell you.
The fact that a woman made the shirt hasn't calmed everyone down, why should I believe a woman wearing it would?
If you sincerely believe a female scientist wearing that shirt would be accused of misogyny in mainstream outlets and forced to apologize, I have a bridge to sell you.
The fact that a woman made the shirt hasn't calmed everyone down, why should I believe a woman wearing it would?
Was the woman who made the shirt asked to apologize? Was she accused of misogyny in mainstream outlets?
What I, as a woman, find particularly demeaning in this whole debacle is the article's author's implication that because I am a woman, I must be so delicate, fragile, and weak that something as trivial as some random guy's [i]shirt[/i] will overwhelm me, crush me to the point that I will [i]change my life goals[/i], abandoning the study of science. Because I am a woman I must be this wilting flower incapable of my own decisions because the slightest thing, including the fashion choices of strangers, sends me into fits. I can make only the choices that I am not frightened away from.
[i]That[/i] I find demeaning. Some guy's shirt? Sorry, I don't even notice guys' clothes.
This reminds me of the feminist protesters who protested against beauty pageants. Then being surprised that some women actually liked beauty pageants. The same with the Comic Book Code presuming children are so stupid that they need censors to protect them at every whim but encourage the protected little children to read the Bible.
Quote from Genesis 19[/quote »
So both of Lot’s daughters became pregnant by their father. The older daughter had a son, and she named him Moab[g]; he is the father of the Moabites of today. The younger daughter also had a son, and she named him Ben-Ammi[h]; he is the father of the Ammonites[i] of today.
If you're young and reading that unexplained, guess who gets to answer the complex questions for smart children.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Life is a beautiful engineer, yet a brutal scientist.
Was the woman who made the shirt asked to apologize? Was she accused of misogyny in mainstream outlets?
You're dodging the question. If the fundamental belief is that this shirt is a tool of the male oppressor class, how does that square with the fact that a woman made it?
I would guess that the reason the creator wasn't asked to apologize is that people don't object to the existence of the shirt so much as they object to wearing it at work. I suspect they would still be upset if a woman wore it to work.
Well as the article suggestions, it squares with it because she was ignorant of feminist wisdom, much like the man in the article was also suggested to be ignorant of the sexism. However, ignorance did not stop them from demanding that the man apologize, so why then does the woman get the free pass?
Recall Crashing's premise #1 of marxist feminism: "Society will inevitably subdivide itself into two classes, the proletariat and the bourgeoise." After the feminism-substitution, we have "Society will inevitably subdivide itself into two classes, the women and the men." This premise means more than simply acknowledging that men and women exist. It means to conclude that women vs men is the fundamental divide of the world. Certainly many shades of feminism do operate on that conclusion. But the article doesn't. Merely talking about women and things which might affect women differently than men does not imply that you believe that society is fundamentally divided along gender lines.
Actually it does do that:
There's your division right there and then the author(s) say:
This is why I agree with Crashing00, the message they are sending to readers is quite clear. Men are the oppressors of women, they prevent women from pursuing careers in science and those that do are considered nerdy and unattractive (presumably by men), so even those that do make it into those fields are still oppressed. They want you to conclude that men are holding women back.
They even put a point on it by including a sarcastic tweet with a picture to make the division and oppression clear to readers:
Sorry, Tiax - I think you're wrong here and I'm going to have to disagree with you.
I feel like you're being purposefully obtuse and uncharitable in your interpretations of the premises. Yes, I'm sure we can all nitpick at the exact wording crashing chose, but that's not really the point here. The point is that the basic tenets of Marxism and academic feminism largely coincide.
Premise 1 is about the belief that there is an oppressor class and an oppressed class. In the narrative of the article, men are systematically oppressing women in much the same way that the bourgeois are said to oppress the proletariat in Marxist ideology.
I think we've all agreed that various forms of feminism are Marxist-like. That's not the point at issue. The point at issue is whether this particular article is an example of that.
The argument of Marxist-style feminism is that men are monolithically an oppressor class and women are monolithically an oppressed class. If we're going to count any statement about things that might be detrimental to women, we've set the bar so low as to be meaningless. Same for counting any statement about women as a statement about the fundamental division of society.
The article talks about things that the authors feel are detrimental to women pursuing science. That does not mean that they believe men are engaged in a deliberate and unified campaign to keep women out. Nor does it mean they believe the world is a struggle between men and women.
If I say "Nudie anime girl card sleeves contribute to a FNM environment that is unwelcoming to women", am I engaging in Marxist-style feminism? I don't think so. Neither are the authors of this article.
We didn't make any statements about what is detrimental to women, the article did. So if you feel that way, you should be taking issue with the article for setting such a low standard, this is what the article is being criticized for.
In other words, if the standard for what is detrimental to women is a guy wearing a t-shirt, the bar is too low and the article is hyperbole.
I quoted a whole paragraph that does exactly that, from the article.
They are linking a t-shirt and more importantly they are linking men to these things, the t-shirt included.
The tweet at the end of the article actually does express that belief. Why do you think they included that?
The authors of that article do much more than that.
Umm...what? I don't understand how this is a reply to what I said. The "low bar" I'm talking about is that you're counting statements of the form "such and such is detrimental to women" as "society is fundamentally divided into oppressors and oppressed, and women are the oppressed".
Again, I don't understand how this is a coherent reply. I think you must've misunderstood me.
What is "these things" in this sentence?
I can't imagine the mental gymnastics required to read that from the tweet.
They really don't. They think the shirt contributes to an environment which is unwelcoming to women. They also cite other factors which they think contribute to that environment. That all is a far cry from saying that society is fundamentally a struggle of men against women in which men have conspired to keep women oppressed in general and out of sciences in particular by way of wearing kitschy shirts.
These things:
Do you see the link(s)? The T-Shirt is linked to the man, who is in the narrative representing the oppressor and the oppressor prevents the oppressed (women) from trying to get majors in scientific fields. Those that do, did so in spite of the oppression they faced, still face oppression in the workplace (the fields of physics, chemistry, and math), and that because the work place is full of oppressors, the environment is unwelcoming and thus women are still oppressed. They've laid out something they think is a problem/injustice, demand an apology for it, and want you to conclude that wearing this t-shirt is bad because it oppresses women.
The point they are making is blatantly obvious, Tiax. The authors have an obvious conclusion they want you as a reader to draw.
Why do you think they included that in the article? What message do you think they are trying to get across to the reader by including it or do you think it's there as a meaningless decoration?
So, there's a few steps missing between that and Marxist-style feminism. First, there is no identification of men at large as a monolithic oppressor class. It's just not there. Second, there is no narrative of a deliberate effort to keep women out of the sciences. Instead, the authors feel it's "casual" misogyny - things that people might do without realizing what the effects might be. Merely discussing factors that the authors believe discourage women from pursuing science careers is a far cry from Marxism. What you've done is to overlay a Marxist narrative on the authors' words, and then claim that narrative was hiding there all along. But it wasn't. You decided up front that the article was going to be Marxist, read it through that lens, and then, shockingly, found what you were "looking" for.
I would guess the message is that they think the shirt is unwelcoming to women.
I see, so unless it's spelled out specifically, it's not being said. It's not as though something like this could be implied in anyway through sentence structure or pictures right?
No, just systematic ones that keep the oppressors in positions of power while keeping the oppressed, oppressed.
and what do you think the author means when they use the word "casual misogyny"?
Well, we'll just have to agree to disagree. I'm not going to address anymore of your posts in regards to this tangent. Best regards, Tiax.
If all the actual Marxist parts are blanks for the reader to fill in, maybe it's your reading that's making it Marxist, not the authors.
If something is systematic, it is deliberate. Did you mean "systemic"?
I think they mean things that are detrimental to women despite a lack of intention to be detrimental to women.
That, or he wanted the stream of harassment and the bad press to stop.
Consider for a second a hypothetical: Suppose you come across a fascinating scientific discovery. You write up a scientific report throughout which you use "he" where you might otherwise have used a more gender neutral pronoun and publish. Someone on twitter reads the report and complains that this is an example of casual sexism. Other people on twitter and blogs pick up the story and similarly complain, citing this as an example of how women are unwelcome in STEM jobs, and citing your report as a case of casual sexism. I at least don't see how the gender of a pronoun (or the shirt you wear) has the BAREST relation to your work, but now nobody is talking about the discovery, they're up in arms about minutia. You now have three options:
1.) Tell the people upset that they're wrong
2.) Ignore them
3.) Apologize
Well 1 and 2, whether you believe them or not are ultimately traps. In both cases, regardless of your actual opinions, beliefs, and prior actions, you are demonstrating a lack of empathy for women in science and showing yourself to be a supporter (either overtly or implicitly) of this male dominated culture. So 3 is really the only option. But guess what: I don't have to believe that I did anything wrong to come to that conclusion. The fear of punishment is what leads to that outcome. Effectively, an apology becomes meaningless because you are just as likely doing it to shut the mob up as you are sincerely expressing remorse.
The other problem with looking at outcomes is that you would have to then say there is a problem with men being underrepresented in fields like nursing, teaching, or childcare industries. You know fields where men in general are less interested.
What if you said:
Nudie anime girl card sleeves are "the sort of casual misogyny that stops women from entering" MTG. "They see a guy" playing those sleeves "and they don't feel welcome. They see a poster of greased up women..." Those sleeves are "representative of all of that, and the" guy playing those sleeves "has yet to issue a statement or apologize for that."
I would consider that a generally Marxist narrative. Maybe not perfectly 100% Marxist under the strictest possible definition you're trying to impose, but it certainly reflects a Marxist worldview.
In the statement I constructed above, that guy playing the sleeves is not some one-off dude who decided to be tacky. He's a cog in a larger machine of exclusion or oppression. He's "representative of all that." And his actions don't just impact a few hyper-sensitive people who overreact to his tasteless sleeves. In the narrative above, his actions prevent women, as a group, from participating in the game. That's a Marxist narrative.
What does it say about your position when you can't be bothered to substantively respond?
Let me posit a thought experiment for you to further support what I'm saying. Let's pretend the story is exactly the same, except the person wearing the shirt is a woman. What would the reaction be? It might be seen as tacky or weird. It might be seen as an avant-garde fashion statement along the lines of a Lady Gaga outfit. It might go completely ignored by media outlets. But we certainly wouldn't have articles like the one in the OP calling for an apology and framing this as part of a narrative of women being excluded from STEM fields. The fact that the article pivots on whether the person wearing the shirt is part of the oppressor class (men) and not the oppressed class (women) supports the idea that this is a fundamentally Marxist narrative.
I've already substantively responded. Your post added nothing new to respond to.
This thought experiment assumes your conclusion.
If you sincerely believe a female scientist wearing that shirt would be accused of misogyny in mainstream outlets and forced to apologize, I have a bridge to sell you.
The fact that a woman made the shirt hasn't calmed everyone down, why should I believe a woman wearing it would?
Was the woman who made the shirt asked to apologize? Was she accused of misogyny in mainstream outlets?
This reminds me of the feminist protesters who protested against beauty pageants. Then being surprised that some women actually liked beauty pageants. The same with the Comic Book Code presuming children are so stupid that they need censors to protect them at every whim but encourage the protected little children to read the Bible.
If you're young and reading that unexplained, guess who gets to answer the complex questions for smart children.
Modern
Commander
Cube
<a href="http://www.mtgsalvation.com/forums/the-game/the-cube-forum/cube-lists/588020-unpowered-themed-enchantment-an-enchanted-evening">An Enchanted Evening Cube </a>
You're dodging the question. If the fundamental belief is that this shirt is a tool of the male oppressor class, how does that square with the fact that a woman made it?
I would guess that the reason the creator wasn't asked to apologize is that people don't object to the existence of the shirt so much as they object to wearing it at work. I suspect they would still be upset if a woman wore it to work.
Edit: added a bit more