"What you are doing is reducing to a SEXUAL OBJECT one of the GREATEST SCIENTIFIC MIND THE WORLD HAS EVER SEEN." - blah that is just his opinion. She's still a great scientist, even if some guys whistle. I think the author doesn't understand even half of whats going on. He thinks he's making the world a better place, but I think the opposite is true.
Furthermore, I fear creating a world where such a behaviour, even if appropriate (but some might say, typically male), is completely outlawed, we will lose more than we gain. - I suspect that a world in which everyone is always politically correct and polite, would also be a world of hypocrites and liars. Not a desirable outcome.
Let guys be guys, even if they behave like idiots sometimes.
Spectacularly wrong. Either way you fail to notice that he DID let boys be boys, he simply educated them afterwards as to why they had been idiots. He didn't say it should be illegal or shit, he just changed those "lads"' perspectives on what it was they were participating in.
I agree. Even as an opinion, it was probably wrong for the majority of men. Whistling doesn't "reduce" the woman to just a sexual object, it just points out that she is also a sexual object. I think a woman can be both beautiful and smart (and I think most men-loving persons would say the same for men), claiming otherwise seems plain ridiculous to me.
First, if you define women under the same criteria as objects, then you need to seriously reconsider your vocabulary. The world is different then Java™ will have you believe.
In everyday language I talk about objects in terms of things that are not subjects. Subjects are characters --people and non-human animals-- that I attribute personality to, and can identify with. Objects are things that are not subjects.
To objectify someone is, by definition, to treat a subject like an object. Heckling and wolf whistling is removing the characteristic of emotions from a subject. It is therefor treating a human being like an object. And, by definition objectifying.
Ok, that's better now. What seemed circular to me was probably just redundancy. The core point is now: what are the characteristics that subjects have and objects don't?
You have mentioned personality, identifiability and emotions. I'd add to that, even more central: free will (motivations and goals).
Which brings us back to my original question: why/how do wolf whistles remove any of these (which?) from women?
Oh, I bow before the philosophical might of a Telegraph article :/
As a female engineer, with lots of female friends that are lawyers, doctors, architects etc, I don't know a single one that appreciates being wolf-whistled in a professional context.
Actually, we don't even appreciate it in a non-professional context. It usually generates a certain unease about physical safety, but at least in a non-professional context you can roll your eyes and attribute it to the fact that you're dealing with a neanderthal.
> Oh, I bow before the philosophical might of a Telegraph article :/
I'd love to read a randomized survey, but in principle, a single counterexample invalidates a general claim.
> I don't know a single one that appreciates being wolf-whistled in a professional context.
Have you actually discussed this with all of them?
> It usually generates a certain unease about physical safety
Why? Because of the stereotypes that go with it? Would a stranger walking up to you and telling you that you're sexy be more acceptable or less? What if they said beautiful instead? Or is it that you (your friends? all women?) generally don't want men to show their interest in you unless you first have given your premission in some subtle way?
It seems to me that all of this is stuff is way too individually different to make such broad, sweeping statements. Heck, it probably is different for the same person depending on what mood they're in.
>Have you actually discussed this with all of them?
Also a woman here, with many friends in STEM: none of us like it. All power to those who do - but give us some space to work, and when we want to blur those boundaries we'll do it outside of the office or in our private relationships (office or not).
>Let guys be guys, even if they behave like idiots sometimes.
Women do not expect adult men to treat them primarily as sex objects in an intellectual context: There is a time and place for sexualizing each other, and part of becoming an adult is learning context.
Is there a time to sexualize people? -> no there isn't, you can do it every second of your life without feeling bad, because everything else is just society/morale babbling etc.
I think that if we want civilization, which is to say cities, societies, arts, sciences: there is involved some repression on all biological levels. I would rather lie in the sun on the beach all day but I 'repress' this, so I can find meaningful achievement with my intellect. The same goes for sex: I decide to choose my partners. I can't think of any successful modern human community that survived long without repression.
I'm a guy too. I find all that "guys just being guys" crap incredibly obnoxious. It's good for nothing. Only the people infected with it think otherwise, or women with Stockholm Syndrome.
Just as the OP wrote: "Where could we be now if we hadn’t repressed half of our society throughout our entire history?" We already lost so much, so how about cutting our losses, and doing away with the cavemen (which will become easier going forward, since the world kinda shifted from brawns to brains).
This isn't 'guy' behaviour, it is, to use a colloquialism, knobhead behaviour. The kids in the audience who actually wanted to learn something interesting about science weren't wolf-whistling. The people who are perpetuating that kind of behaviour are idiots with a stupid, narrow view of what it means to be male. These are the same people who will use 'geek' as an insult and think that if you don't conform to their idea of how to behave that you're not a 'proper' man. For the love of god I have no idea why you're trying to suggest that they might be right.
Man people claiming "let guys be guys" are only interested in straight guys being straight guys, and tell us other guys to "not be so public" etc. Do you really support all guys being themselves? Even gay men, crossdressing men, effeminate men and straight butch guys?
>Where could we be now if we hadn’t repressed half of our society throughout our entire history?
And where could we be now if we hand't repressed all of our society throughout our entire history? Men were repressed too, and in many cases more than women (hard labour, conscription etc). Men and women have gender roles which limit their lives.
Ah, this old argument. Yes, and modern feminism would not disagree with you. What this argument does is try to shift the responsibility away from the oppressor (in this case, patriarchy), akin to the slave owner saying to the slave that he's also had a hard life.
Nonsense. It's equivalent to a Victorian child tin miner saying to the slave that he's also had a hard life. The set of people who actually owned slaves was always a tiny minority who were only able to own slaves because they were wealthier and more powerful than the vast majority of people alive in their own time.
This is not to say that the child tin miner had a worse life than the slave, but they clearly both have more interests in common than either of them do with the slave owner.
Slave owner wasn't sent to do part time in a coal mine, BECAUSE he was slave owner. You can't equate some people having hard life with all people having because they had some role in society. And yes some people managed to eschew their role, but they are exceptions.
Don't get me wrong. There is a lot to hate in patriarchy, it's a very bad system, but it has some advantages for women. As well as disadvantages for men. However paltry they are.
No, it doesn't. But say it did. What now? What's your point? The quote also doesn't make note of the struggles of the Australian Aboriginal peoples; why not take issue with that too? Where are you going with this?
Repeating the same false argument won't make it true, but aside from that: what is your point? Were you conscripted? Were you "oppressed" as a man? Are women not oppressed? What are you actually trying to say here? A middle-schooler knows that the world is full of oppressed people, and that no one group has an exclusive license to the title of "oppressed". What's the goal of trying to deflect attention from this example of repression?
Are you sure this was a smart argument to make? A reasonable person might attribute unfortunate subtext to it.
So what you are saying, is there is a hierarchy of hierarchies. Westerners suppress non-westerners. Within western society, whites suppress non-whites. And within white westerners, the upper-class suppresses lower classes. And within the white- upper-class western society, males suppress females... One can continue.
Perhaps there is a tradition of suppression, starting at the bottom and reaching the top. I mean, women are suppressed within all classes, all societies, all races. (Generally speaking of course). Perhaps any kind of repression breeds further repression?
My point is. There is no need to stop focusing on systematic suppression on one group, just because other groups are also being suppressed.
EDIT: Before anybody comments on this, I know this presented hierarchy doesn't exist. I mean, I could as well have started with, "males suppress females, and within male society western males suppress..." (so there is more like a heap of hierarchies). I just used this as an example to make a point.
Sometimes I hear animal right activists argue that there is a direct link between animal oppression and minority oppression. I think they might not be far off. If you have the heart to oppress non-human animals, what's stopping you from oppressing the homeless, and if you have the hart to oppress the homeless, why do immigrants deserve your respect? why do the gays, why do women?
I hadn't heard about intersectionality before, but knowing how dynamic the societal hierarchy is, and knowing that individuals are often times worse oppressors then governments, it makes sense that people would cast their oppression in various ways down the hierarchy.
Yep, some vegetarians claim that people who claim to be feminist should be vegetarian. Me? I'm a speciesist.
> it makes sense that people would cast their oppression in various ways down the hierarchy.
It's not always linear. A black man might be margalized in the work place (or the criminal justice system), but in a position of power at home over his wife, but if he is in prison, he might be in a position of power. "It's complicated" is a term commonly used by people within the social justice scene.
And just because there are loads of systematice oppressions doesn't mean we can't fight them all and try to end them all. Classism and sexism and homophobia and ... are all wrong.
>My point is. There is no need to stop focusing on systematic suppression on one group, just because other groups are also being suppressed.
My point is that we need to also focus on the systematic suppression of one group. For example, the minority gender in my country still has to do forced labour, and nobody seems to care because the focus is on women.
Point taken. It's just that the article in question is focusing on a particular kind of suppression.
I too live in a country where ageism and xenophobia attribute far more alienation and oppressive behaviour then sexism. But oppression is oppression, and whenever somebody is oppressed, it is worth fighting against, be it general, like you want to fight against, or specific, like this article is fighting against.
A lot of the marginalisation that men suffered were actually misogynistic patriarchial systems. ("Women are delicate flowers, ergo only the men should do the hard work", "Women are too weak to fight, so only the men should be conscripted").
Modern Feminism aims to get rid of these gender roles. Women should be able to be in the army and men should be able to be full time dads.
Yes, the feminists in my country succeeded in giving women the right to be in the army, but not the responsibility. Conscription still forces men to be in the military, but women have the freedom to choose. They haven't really talked about the military after that.
The other day, my colleague received a wolf whistle, and turned around to remonstrate with the guy behind her.
He then pointed out, it was actually the woman next to him who had actually whistled. She smiled and replied it was her, and she didn't mean any harm, she just thought my colleague was 'cute'.
It's not really a problem about peacocks, or feminists, it is simply a problem about respect, in each we treat others and how in turn we would expect others to treat us.
There is no way a room full of teenage boys wolf whistled that photo of Marie Curie in earnest. It was obviously a rowdy bunch of teenagers looking for any excuse and means to be disruptive.
But hey, let's not let that stop the author from drawing a connection with men everywhere. Obviously as a licensed penis carrier I'm completely driven by testosterone and hormones, and most easily understood if compared to cavemen or lower life forms.
Not quite sure how you read a remonstration of all men out of that article which was, by the way, written by a man.
> There is no way a room full of teenage boys wolf whistled that photo of Marie Curie in earnest. It was obviously a rowdy bunch of teenagers looking for any excuse and means to be disruptive.
At some point young people have to be taught that certain behavior is unacceptable. Seemed like a good opportunity to smack that shit down relatively early in those boys' lives.
> This teenage silliness was based on men feeling the need to overtly display their heterosexuality by the reduction of any female to that of a potential conquest.
> Beware cavemen your days are numbered the decent among us are standing up and by goodness our cheering will drown out anything you try and throw at us.
I'm well aware it was written by a man, but that still doesn't make him right.
You miss the point. No one claims that the whistler had a sincere sexual interest in Curie. Such wolf-whistling is disruptive because it is a reminder, to both the men and the women in the room, of the social status of women and men. Even if you think that era of objectification and oppressionf of women is largely over (I don't), we're only in the first few decades of relative equality after centuries without even a pretense of it.
That was a weird way to respond. The problem is not the sexualization of the picture, but the fact that they felt the need to externalize it much more intensely than a pack of apes would ever do (seriously, have u ever seen a group of apes whistling because they saw a female?) in a context that is totally inappropriate. Maybe the picture of the sexually starving guy has become de riguer, and it's expected of guys to act accordingly.
Nigella Lawson exists as a sexualized foodie. That's a significant part of her shtick.
Bond girls are predominantly sexualized. That is their shtick.
By the time Marie Curie rolls around, after being berated by the speaker for crassly acknowledging the first two, it probably seemed funny to "acknowledge" the third.
Yes it's crass. Yes it's inappropriate. Yes it makes people (male and female) uncomfortable.
But I really feel like the speaker played a part too. With his tiresome "we'll talk about this later" condescension in response to the unacceptable-but-provoked whistle, he's challenging the audience from his position of perceived power. He's on stage, but has forgotten the asymmetry of heckling.
The Bond girl is an extra, more overt challenge, and his righteousness about it elevates the volley even higher.
It's all despicable, but shouldn't be surprising. I'm glad the smarter portion of the audience felt accommodated enough to applaud the speaker's indignance, but part of me thinks he's like the "hero" that saves kids from a house fire that he started himself.
I was wondering the same thing wrt the Bond girl. Perhaps he wanted to create a "teachable moment"? If so, and the result was as positive as he claims, then I'm fine with it.
Edit: Also, you say it isn't so black and white but the point of it is not that somewhere, some boys were bad (SHOCKING), but that he got a good reception to his response.
Don't kid yourself. There are no "teachable moments" in all-boy high schools. Just varying degrees of perceived ridiculousness as performed by adults.
I feel certain that the situation was manufactured, possibly even intentionally, but if it was manufactured "for the good of the children", I would assert that this guy doesn't know anything about much.
From ColinWright's comment [1] upthread, it doesn't seem like it was manufactured. But even if it was, the point of the article did not seem to be that, look, horrors, boys were acting out. That's utterly unremarkable. It was that they (or the audience as a whole) responded well to his lecture at the end. He seems to think this is a new phenomenon.
Edit: on re-read.. This presentation was given at an all-boys adolescent school. So, OK, the condescension comes from a place of teacherdom. And I guess the pop sex icon imagery thrown in was to relate to the audience.
A pox on all that.
This guy didn't even save the kids from the metaphorical fire. He lit a match in a dry field and wrote a blog post about how he railed earnestly against the coming of the conflagration.
> This presentation was given at
> an all-boys adolescent school.
No, it wasn't. It was a mixed audience at a large, central (non-school) location. Schools had brought students to the event, and some of those schools were single-sex schools.
Can you point at the part of the submission where you deduced the presentation was at a single-sex school? It needs editing if it's giving that impression, and I'll pass your comments on.
> the appearance of Nigella had an interesting and unexpected effect: a rowdy all-boys school started wolf whistling.
You're right, I misinterpreted that quote to mean that the audience was an all-boys school. My apologies.
My criticism stands, though. Poorly-considered reactions all around, including the folks who applauded the speaker's indignance -- for rushing blindly into the arms of the less offensive.
The Bond girl ideal is uncomfortable for women because they are only objects: they exist for a single purpose, to be gazed at. Maybe they have a cheeky few words but they are one-dimensional. Real sexuality is 2-way: both people are involved. For a really good look at how frustrating this is for women see Helen Mirren's famous interview with Michael Parkinson, where he tells her she is "projecting sluttish eroticism".
It's hard for me to come up with a better analogy, because I don't watch the traditional female equivalent of a Bond movie, whatever that may be. However, I sure know that Thor's bathing scene, with his perfectly tanned, flexing muscles glistening in the candlelight in the newest movie sure as hell wasn't for my benefit. And from the annoying hoots from the group of girls behind me, I can surmise they felt their price of admission justified.
Again, I know it's not a great analogy. Thor, while not being the most interesting character by far, is surely not just on screen as simply a flexing bicep. That said, the Beast from Beauty and the Beast didn't transform into a scrawny ugly man, either.
I've been on stage when there's been an inappropriate response from an audience. In one case it turned out that a phrase I used had a specific and completely unexpected meaning in that geographical area. I looked it up later, and I'm not surprised it got the response it did.
But having got that at an unexpected moment, when you're on stage in front of a large audience, working out the exact correct response can be difficult. Really difficult. To the point where you need not to respond immediately, and give it time.
I'm spoken with the author, and he's used this exact presentation in the past with a variety of audiences and had no inappropriate responses before this one. There was no a priori reason to believe this occasion would be different, and I think his response was perfectly reasonable.
You, speaking in hindsight, will have a different point of view. For me, as a speaker with over 150 engagements every year, having given presentations to various audiences for the last 25 years, I think your assessment is misguided.
Yes, there are serious issues here that need to be addressed, and no doubt there will be many self-appointed experts about what should and shouldn't be done, shown, and said. Personally, when something like this happens I think it's brave for a speaker to put in the public domain the choices made in the moment, in front of an audience, with no time to choose your words.
He trotted out sexualized imagery, and objected when a subgroup of adolescent boys connected Nigella and Bond girls to sex instead of his intended SCIENCE. There is science in food, but Nigella is not in the science camp of the food media world.
In hindsight, his error should be obvious even to him. He addressed that point not at all, instead focusing on the offensiveness of adolescent boys.
I can appreciate that perhaps he wasn't prepared for this audience, and I certainly agree that an unexpected response requires the speaker to improvise. He improvised poorly, as many of us would, even experienced speakers. That's not my objection.
My objection is that he doesn't own up to his part in the construction. If he was presenting it any less triumphantly, I'd give him the benefit of the doubt.
He taunted, and tried to shame, a rabble of 15-year old boys. That never ends well, and even if you pull off the most honorable response possible, your victory is hollow.
If he can't see that adolescent boys will generally not be on their best behaviour, and will almost always take rebuke from a stranger on a stage -- that they don't even want to be in the audience of -- as a challenge to be met with volume...well he doesn't get it.
Ironically, perhaps, he's running the same game as the adolescents in his defense of his actions. I didn't do it, you misunderstood, it wasn't that bad, so what anyway, eff off if you disagree, I'm a great speaker so you're obviously wrong, etc.
(Also, did he mean Qatar the country with stellar womens' rights, where he was invited to give the speech again, after his performance?)
When I think Nigella (or Giada) I think "sexy woman who cooks on TV". I suspect most people do too.
If he had wanted to suggest "food and SCIENCE", there would be fewer people better suited to this suggestion than Alton Brown, at least in the US. I don't know if he's popular in the UK, but his Good Eats show presented a great mashup of popular science and cooking.
There's a lot of attention around the objectification of women. Objectification is a problem. What people fail to appreciate is that objectification of men happens also but it isn't as overt as a wolf-whistle.
Women are objectified sexually. Men are objectified by status. A sexually attractive woman always has to ask herself "does he like me because of my looks?" A man with status often asks himself the parallel question "if I was poor or a nobody would she be with me?"
It doesn't happen with a wolf-whistle, but it is just as insidious.
As a woman I completely agree with this - which is why it's hard to see issues like this on HN. The argument suddenly turns to "but men have it hard too!" instead of "wow, we're messed up, let's all acknowledge this together".
Yes, acknowledging is good. I wonder whether we'll ever be able to "fix" it.
Objectification is a cognitive function. We all do it to some degree. When our attention turns to a person, it isn't always at their core. For instance an employer might see her employees in a utilitarian way at one moment and appreciate their humanity and feelings the next. The big issue is whether it's hurtful or the dominant mode in a person.
Maybe I'm just slightly retarded, but I can't see what peacocks have to do with anything in the article. The word itself occurs only once, in the title.
About the article itself: this "Jamie" person seems to enjoy lecturing others about how to be politically correct. Yeah, because being told what to do and how to act isn't exactly the same thing the women in his lecture were forced to endure, eh?
Hypocrite, just like all others that reckon they've figured out a better way of being human and must now convert the rest of mankind to the New Wave of Behavin'.
> I'd be curious to see the presentation, which
> from what he says of it sounds like a crock.
I've not seen this particular presentation, but I have seen several of his other presentations. The author is a gifted and enthusiastic presenter, and I seriously doubt that this presentation is a crock. Not least, he has given it before, and is invited to give it again.
You are basing your conclusions only on the very small parts that provoked this particular incident.
He sounds like an enthusiastic presenter, but he does not write particularly well:
"An enthusiastic audience is the best kind; to get people excited about science is a sight to behold. When it came to talking about gold and in particular the human obsession with it I showed a picture of the iconic scene in Goldfinger where Bond discovers Jill Masterson dead and gilded."
He seems from his account to be longer on enthusiasm than on content, which is well enough, I think, if one is lecturing to students in the primary grades. But--I don't know the English system--aren't these students in the secondary grades, and shouldn't we beyond the "science can be cool stuff"?
I'm pretty sure that while still in the primary grades I knew about gold's ductility, malleability, resistance to most solvents, etc., all of which tidbits, if not science do have something more to do with it than a gilded actress. Or maybe this is just sour grapes because my parents wouldn't let me see the Bond films the first time around?
As mentioned elsewhere, I give about 150 talks a year, and have been doing presentations for over 25 years. Jamie is exactly the sort of presenter that gets otherwise jaded, bored, and disengaged kids back into enjoying science. Yes, this was to secondary school aged students, probably about 15 years of age, and I've seen him excite and engage similar audiences, and get them buzzing about how science can be interesting.
Maybe he doesn't write well, but his account was of this incident, and not intended to be of the science content.
Maybe you're right, maybe we should be beyond the "science can be cool" stuff, but my personal experience tells me we're not. Not by a long chalk.
It seems perfectly normal that an auditorium of teenaged boys would react in an noisy, approving manner to sexy Nigella Lawson or sexy Bond girls. The writer's "shocked, shocked!" manner is rather disingenuous.
I find it surprising that they would have done likewise for Madame Curie (the photo in the blog post is not the slightest bit "sexy").
Maybe they were just trolling the speaker, since he had revealed himself to be somewhat humorless and scolding in his earlier comments on their responses?
84 comments
[ 3.3 ms ] story [ 162 ms ] threadFurthermore, I fear creating a world where such a behaviour, even if appropriate (but some might say, typically male), is completely outlawed, we will lose more than we gain. - I suspect that a world in which everyone is always politically correct and polite, would also be a world of hypocrites and liars. Not a desirable outcome.
Let guys be guys, even if they behave like idiots sometimes.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/objectification
Why exactly do wolf whistles fall under this definition?
> That is treat a human being like something that is an object. > http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/objectification
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circular_definition
In everyday language I talk about objects in terms of things that are not subjects. Subjects are characters --people and non-human animals-- that I attribute personality to, and can identify with. Objects are things that are not subjects.
To objectify someone is, by definition, to treat a subject like an object. Heckling and wolf whistling is removing the characteristic of emotions from a subject. It is therefor treating a human being like an object. And, by definition objectifying.
This is the only part of your statement that is not circular definition. And it is an unfounded assertion.
1. An object is something that is not a subject.
2. A subject is a character, something I can identify with, something I can attribute some characteristic to.
3. To objectify is to remove from a subject the characteristics that makes it a subject.
You have mentioned personality, identifiability and emotions. I'd add to that, even more central: free will (motivations and goals).
Which brings us back to my original question: why/how do wolf whistles remove any of these (which?) from women?
As a female engineer, with lots of female friends that are lawyers, doctors, architects etc, I don't know a single one that appreciates being wolf-whistled in a professional context.
Actually, we don't even appreciate it in a non-professional context. It usually generates a certain unease about physical safety, but at least in a non-professional context you can roll your eyes and attribute it to the fact that you're dealing with a neanderthal.
I'd love to read a randomized survey, but in principle, a single counterexample invalidates a general claim.
> I don't know a single one that appreciates being wolf-whistled in a professional context.
Have you actually discussed this with all of them?
> It usually generates a certain unease about physical safety
Why? Because of the stereotypes that go with it? Would a stranger walking up to you and telling you that you're sexy be more acceptable or less? What if they said beautiful instead? Or is it that you (your friends? all women?) generally don't want men to show their interest in you unless you first have given your premission in some subtle way?
It seems to me that all of this is stuff is way too individually different to make such broad, sweeping statements. Heck, it probably is different for the same person depending on what mood they're in.
Also a woman here, with many friends in STEM: none of us like it. All power to those who do - but give us some space to work, and when we want to blur those boundaries we'll do it outside of the office or in our private relationships (office or not).
Women do not expect adult men to treat them primarily as sex objects in an intellectual context: There is a time and place for sexualizing each other, and part of becoming an adult is learning context.
Is there?
Is there such a time for real or is this just a society-thing some people thought of because they think it was "good"?
Unless you'd rather we go extinct?
I wanted to imply the opposite.
Is there a time to sexualize people? -> no there isn't, you can do it every second of your life without feeling bad, because everything else is just society/morale babbling etc.
Just as the OP wrote: "Where could we be now if we hadn’t repressed half of our society throughout our entire history?" We already lost so much, so how about cutting our losses, and doing away with the cavemen (which will become easier going forward, since the world kinda shifted from brawns to brains).
Man people claiming "let guys be guys" are only interested in straight guys being straight guys, and tell us other guys to "not be so public" etc. Do you really support all guys being themselves? Even gay men, crossdressing men, effeminate men and straight butch guys?
And where could we be now if we hand't repressed all of our society throughout our entire history? Men were repressed too, and in many cases more than women (hard labour, conscription etc). Men and women have gender roles which limit their lives.
Ah, this old argument. Yes, and modern feminism would not disagree with you. What this argument does is try to shift the responsibility away from the oppressor (in this case, patriarchy), akin to the slave owner saying to the slave that he's also had a hard life.
This is not to say that the child tin miner had a worse life than the slave, but they clearly both have more interests in common than either of them do with the slave owner.
Don't get me wrong. There is a lot to hate in patriarchy, it's a very bad system, but it has some advantages for women. As well as disadvantages for men. However paltry they are.
Yes, it does.
>why not take issue with that too?
The problem is not that it doesn't highlight the oppression of men, but that it implies that men were not oppressed.
Are you sure this was a smart argument to make? A reasonable person might attribute unfortunate subtext to it.
Perhaps there is a tradition of suppression, starting at the bottom and reaching the top. I mean, women are suppressed within all classes, all societies, all races. (Generally speaking of course). Perhaps any kind of repression breeds further repression?
My point is. There is no need to stop focusing on systematic suppression on one group, just because other groups are also being suppressed.
EDIT: Before anybody comments on this, I know this presented hierarchy doesn't exist. I mean, I could as well have started with, "males suppress females, and within male society western males suppress..." (so there is more like a heap of hierarchies). I just used this as an example to make a point.
I hadn't heard about intersectionality before, but knowing how dynamic the societal hierarchy is, and knowing that individuals are often times worse oppressors then governments, it makes sense that people would cast their oppression in various ways down the hierarchy.
Yep, some vegetarians claim that people who claim to be feminist should be vegetarian. Me? I'm a speciesist.
> it makes sense that people would cast their oppression in various ways down the hierarchy.
It's not always linear. A black man might be margalized in the work place (or the criminal justice system), but in a position of power at home over his wife, but if he is in prison, he might be in a position of power. "It's complicated" is a term commonly used by people within the social justice scene.
And just because there are loads of systematice oppressions doesn't mean we can't fight them all and try to end them all. Classism and sexism and homophobia and ... are all wrong.
My point is that we need to also focus on the systematic suppression of one group. For example, the minority gender in my country still has to do forced labour, and nobody seems to care because the focus is on women.
I too live in a country where ageism and xenophobia attribute far more alienation and oppressive behaviour then sexism. But oppression is oppression, and whenever somebody is oppressed, it is worth fighting against, be it general, like you want to fight against, or specific, like this article is fighting against.
Modern Feminism aims to get rid of these gender roles. Women should be able to be in the army and men should be able to be full time dads.
Yes, the feminists in my country succeeded in giving women the right to be in the army, but not the responsibility. Conscription still forces men to be in the military, but women have the freedom to choose. They haven't really talked about the military after that.
The existence of a patriarchial system in a country doesn't mean "all feminism is now incorrect".
He then pointed out, it was actually the woman next to him who had actually whistled. She smiled and replied it was her, and she didn't mean any harm, she just thought my colleague was 'cute'.
It's not really a problem about peacocks, or feminists, it is simply a problem about respect, in each we treat others and how in turn we would expect others to treat us.
But hey, let's not let that stop the author from drawing a connection with men everywhere. Obviously as a licensed penis carrier I'm completely driven by testosterone and hormones, and most easily understood if compared to cavemen or lower life forms.
> There is no way a room full of teenage boys wolf whistled that photo of Marie Curie in earnest. It was obviously a rowdy bunch of teenagers looking for any excuse and means to be disruptive.
At some point young people have to be taught that certain behavior is unacceptable. Seemed like a good opportunity to smack that shit down relatively early in those boys' lives.
> This teenage silliness was based on men feeling the need to overtly display their heterosexuality by the reduction of any female to that of a potential conquest.
> Beware cavemen your days are numbered the decent among us are standing up and by goodness our cheering will drown out anything you try and throw at us.
I'm well aware it was written by a man, but that still doesn't make him right.
And what gave you the idea that the author was equating all men with the wolf-whistling boys?
Nigella Lawson exists as a sexualized foodie. That's a significant part of her shtick.
Bond girls are predominantly sexualized. That is their shtick.
By the time Marie Curie rolls around, after being berated by the speaker for crassly acknowledging the first two, it probably seemed funny to "acknowledge" the third.
Yes it's crass. Yes it's inappropriate. Yes it makes people (male and female) uncomfortable.
But I really feel like the speaker played a part too. With his tiresome "we'll talk about this later" condescension in response to the unacceptable-but-provoked whistle, he's challenging the audience from his position of perceived power. He's on stage, but has forgotten the asymmetry of heckling.
The Bond girl is an extra, more overt challenge, and his righteousness about it elevates the volley even higher.
It's all despicable, but shouldn't be surprising. I'm glad the smarter portion of the audience felt accommodated enough to applaud the speaker's indignance, but part of me thinks he's like the "hero" that saves kids from a house fire that he started himself.
Edit: Also, you say it isn't so black and white but the point of it is not that somewhere, some boys were bad (SHOCKING), but that he got a good reception to his response.
I feel certain that the situation was manufactured, possibly even intentionally, but if it was manufactured "for the good of the children", I would assert that this guy doesn't know anything about much.
1 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6833804
A pox on all that.
This guy didn't even save the kids from the metaphorical fire. He lit a match in a dry field and wrote a blog post about how he railed earnestly against the coming of the conflagration.
Can you point at the part of the submission where you deduced the presentation was at a single-sex school? It needs editing if it's giving that impression, and I'll pass your comments on.
You're right, I misinterpreted that quote to mean that the audience was an all-boys school. My apologies.
My criticism stands, though. Poorly-considered reactions all around, including the folks who applauded the speaker's indignance -- for rushing blindly into the arms of the less offensive.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gmlP_cFOoAM
It's hard for me to come up with a better analogy, because I don't watch the traditional female equivalent of a Bond movie, whatever that may be. However, I sure know that Thor's bathing scene, with his perfectly tanned, flexing muscles glistening in the candlelight in the newest movie sure as hell wasn't for my benefit. And from the annoying hoots from the group of girls behind me, I can surmise they felt their price of admission justified.
Again, I know it's not a great analogy. Thor, while not being the most interesting character by far, is surely not just on screen as simply a flexing bicep. That said, the Beast from Beauty and the Beast didn't transform into a scrawny ugly man, either.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bechdel_test
And for what it's worth, Thor passes the Bechdel test, if only barely.
But having got that at an unexpected moment, when you're on stage in front of a large audience, working out the exact correct response can be difficult. Really difficult. To the point where you need not to respond immediately, and give it time.
I'm spoken with the author, and he's used this exact presentation in the past with a variety of audiences and had no inappropriate responses before this one. There was no a priori reason to believe this occasion would be different, and I think his response was perfectly reasonable.
You, speaking in hindsight, will have a different point of view. For me, as a speaker with over 150 engagements every year, having given presentations to various audiences for the last 25 years, I think your assessment is misguided.
Yes, there are serious issues here that need to be addressed, and no doubt there will be many self-appointed experts about what should and shouldn't be done, shown, and said. Personally, when something like this happens I think it's brave for a speaker to put in the public domain the choices made in the moment, in front of an audience, with no time to choose your words.
In hindsight, his error should be obvious even to him. He addressed that point not at all, instead focusing on the offensiveness of adolescent boys.
I can appreciate that perhaps he wasn't prepared for this audience, and I certainly agree that an unexpected response requires the speaker to improvise. He improvised poorly, as many of us would, even experienced speakers. That's not my objection.
My objection is that he doesn't own up to his part in the construction. If he was presenting it any less triumphantly, I'd give him the benefit of the doubt.
He taunted, and tried to shame, a rabble of 15-year old boys. That never ends well, and even if you pull off the most honorable response possible, your victory is hollow.
He should realize that, at least.
Submitted here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6835021
http://therationaliser.blogspot.co.uk/2013/12/the-peacock-pr...
And the original speaker comes off defensive and simultaneously pleased with himself in his response:
http://www.jamiebgall.co.uk/the-peacock-problem-response/458...
If he can't see that adolescent boys will generally not be on their best behaviour, and will almost always take rebuke from a stranger on a stage -- that they don't even want to be in the audience of -- as a challenge to be met with volume...well he doesn't get it.
Ironically, perhaps, he's running the same game as the adolescents in his defense of his actions. I didn't do it, you misunderstood, it wasn't that bad, so what anyway, eff off if you disagree, I'm a great speaker so you're obviously wrong, etc.
(Also, did he mean Qatar the country with stellar womens' rights, where he was invited to give the speech again, after his performance?)
If he had wanted to suggest "food and SCIENCE", there would be fewer people better suited to this suggestion than Alton Brown, at least in the US. I don't know if he's popular in the UK, but his Good Eats show presented a great mashup of popular science and cooking.
Women are objectified sexually. Men are objectified by status. A sexually attractive woman always has to ask herself "does he like me because of my looks?" A man with status often asks himself the parallel question "if I was poor or a nobody would she be with me?"
It doesn't happen with a wolf-whistle, but it is just as insidious.
As a woman I completely agree with this - which is why it's hard to see issues like this on HN. The argument suddenly turns to "but men have it hard too!" instead of "wow, we're messed up, let's all acknowledge this together".
Objectification is a cognitive function. We all do it to some degree. When our attention turns to a person, it isn't always at their core. For instance an employer might see her employees in a utilitarian way at one moment and appreciate their humanity and feelings the next. The big issue is whether it's hurtful or the dominant mode in a person.
(Not that I remotely care, but if the author was unaware then you can imagine why the video had a strong reaction)
About the article itself: this "Jamie" person seems to enjoy lecturing others about how to be politically correct. Yeah, because being told what to do and how to act isn't exactly the same thing the women in his lecture were forced to endure, eh?
Hypocrite, just like all others that reckon they've figured out a better way of being human and must now convert the rest of mankind to the New Wave of Behavin'.
I'd be curious to see the presentation, which from what he says of it sounds like a crock.
You are basing your conclusions only on the very small parts that provoked this particular incident.
"An enthusiastic audience is the best kind; to get people excited about science is a sight to behold. When it came to talking about gold and in particular the human obsession with it I showed a picture of the iconic scene in Goldfinger where Bond discovers Jill Masterson dead and gilded."
He seems from his account to be longer on enthusiasm than on content, which is well enough, I think, if one is lecturing to students in the primary grades. But--I don't know the English system--aren't these students in the secondary grades, and shouldn't we beyond the "science can be cool stuff"?
I'm pretty sure that while still in the primary grades I knew about gold's ductility, malleability, resistance to most solvents, etc., all of which tidbits, if not science do have something more to do with it than a gilded actress. Or maybe this is just sour grapes because my parents wouldn't let me see the Bond films the first time around?
Maybe he doesn't write well, but his account was of this incident, and not intended to be of the science content.
Maybe you're right, maybe we should be beyond the "science can be cool" stuff, but my personal experience tells me we're not. Not by a long chalk.
http://www.jamiebgall.co.uk/the-peacock-problem/4581216632
A response from someone on Twitter:
http://therationaliser.blogspot.co.uk/2013/12/the-peacock-pr...
A follow-up from the original author:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6835021
I find it surprising that they would have done likewise for Madame Curie (the photo in the blog post is not the slightest bit "sexy").
Maybe they were just trolling the speaker, since he had revealed himself to be somewhat humorless and scolding in his earlier comments on their responses?