Last week The Verge columnist Chris Plant published a column with an idiotic headline "It doesn't matter what you put a spacecraft on a comet, your shirt is sexist" after seeing, in fact, a shirt with idiotic prints with half-naked women in candid poses on the scientist Matt Taylor. The internet got agitated. Then Matt Taylor with tears in his eyes apologized for his indiscretion - and the Internet exploded, not forgetting to add even more idiocy and complaints about how radical feminists ruin everyone's life. We explain why in the end everyone lost and how it could have been avoided.
What really happened?
The Verge's note did not appear suddenly, it is part of a long and painful discussion that has been unfolding for quite some time. This discussion is about the place of women in the scientific and IT community, about the inequality reigning there (or lack of it) and ways to get around it (or do nothing). In Russia, they are still looking at this discussion with unequivocal bewilderment; in the same place, such a stage has already passed and moved on to discussing the details. Also, there has long been a discussion about objectification, and there they have also more or less reached a consensus that the perception of women exclusively as a sexual object is at least wrong.
Both debates were shaken by the recent Gamergate, which resulted in intense persecution of key members of the feminist side. Because of this, many people close to the geek, gaming, scientific and technical communities began to feel as uncomfortable as possible. Imagine that you live in Russia, love your country, but at the same time share European values, and now you have adopted a law banning gay propaganda. And you are not only upset by this, but also by the fact that for your European acquaintances you have become part of a homophobic system. And it is all the more important to show that besides you there are many other people who do not support this system. In a similar way, many IT journalists feel about Gamegate, and it is just as important for them to show that not all geeks are chauvinists who can threaten women with rape simply because these women say something unpleasant to them.
Therefore, it is very important for journalists, whose sphere has been so strongly discredited recently, to show that everything is not so bad. For example, scientists put a spacecraft on a comet, everyone loves them, they are definitely cool and probably not sexist … Oh, what is he wearing? The Atlantic's technical reviewer Rose Efelet was the first to ask this question on her Twitter account, and the claim was formulated as follows: "Well, no, that you, in our community of women, are certainly welcome, ask at least this guy in this shirt." In response, Rose, of course, received threats of rape. It was then that the author of The Verge exploded (which, looking ahead, does not paint him at all).
Uh-uh, you wanna say
that Matt Taylor's shirt is really sexist?
Actually, yes. In light of these discourses, Matt Taylor's shirt does feel unambiguously sexist. And many do not even need to explain this. But for many - it is, of course, not for everyone. So: this, of course, is not the inscription "rape and kill all women", but this is a manifestation of that very everyday everyday sexism, which is found every day everywhere and because of this is not striking to many. Moreover, usually he is not condemned, but this does not cease to be sexism. For example, he is akin to whistling after a woman (which even many women still take for a compliment) or staring at a girl in the neckline of a blouse while talking. No matter how deep this cut may be.
Such a print on a shirt brings to the world the image of "sexy heifers", which many people like so much, and in particular, the person who has put on such a shirt. And therefore, Matt Taylor's shirt is his small contribution to the widespread indifference to sexual objectification, which should be changed. It is wrong to present the most striking feature of a woman with her sexuality. It is difficult to imagine the same print with half-naked men in candid poses. Such a print is really inappropriate in the context of the current situation in the nerd world: when it is said around that it is difficult for women in the scientific environment, one of the key speakers of this environment in such a shirt will definitely not help solve the problem. And Matt Taylor himself - to whom all this discourse is clearer than to us - for this very reason apologized.
So The Verge did everything right?
No and no again. None of the above justifies the boorish tone of The Verge's article. Nothing justifies the overtly provocative headline and subtitle "One Step for Man, Three Steps Back for Mankind." The fact that Matt Taylor is wearing a sexist shirt does not make him a conscious sexist who should be immediately branded and lynched. Yes, after Matt Taylor's apology, the authors edited the text, removing the claims from the scientist and redirecting them towards the European Space Agency, which inadvertently allowed its employee to present himself in this form. But all this does not matter when the headline is an obvious trolling and provocation, a ready and almost conscious call to persecute a person for what he did, in fact, even unintentionally. Not an attempt to explain to Taylor the inappropriateness of an act, but an instant accusation. And even worse, the authors of The Verge began to behave in the comments in the article, answering even more rudely. Thus, instead of discussing what was really worth discussing in this vein, The Verge received a wave of reaction in response, concentrated solely on the shirt itself.
And what is it all about if
not about the shirt?
Initially, The Verge, of course, aimed at the audience, which does not need to be explained that this shirt is sexist, but to tell what conclusions should be drawn based on this fact. And these conclusions are about something completely different. Here is the person who landed the spacecraft on a comet - he is a hero. Here is a person who presents his community in a negative light - he is wrong. Should one affect the other? Actually, no. A conversation that would be worth raising is a conversation about indulgences and gray zones, about the fact that a person's achievements in one area should not in any way affect his status in another.
Today the world is so arranged that, having reached somewhere heights, a person can fall low in another sphere - and society will forgive him for this. A radical manifestation of this logic is the ex-senator, who received a suspended sentence for raping a graduate. Why? Because he did it “to celebrate the birth of his daughter,” and he is also an ex-senator. We can say that this is not at all such a situation, because this is politics - but no, such situations are not taken even in politics from scratch. For example, a judge, who needed to somehow smear an official, took advantage of a loophole in the form of a public consensus that since a child was born and an exemplary family man, it is supposedly possible to stumble a bit.
And bring scientists to tears, and poison girls
from home is equally terrible, but the public reaction
on these two cases turned out to be completely different
In a more down-to-earth version, this situation unfolds in the American film industry. Only now have they begun to seriously investigate allegations of rape against Bill Cosby, America's favorite comedian. He has been accused for a long time and more than once, but the fact that Cosby is the favorite of the country has always helped him to disown the accusations. In 2002, his lawyers were able to intimidate the actress, who intended to describe the fact of rape in her memoirs, they say, this is how it is. And who are you, no one will believe you. But today it has already become somehow clearer to everyone that Cosby can be both a brilliant comedian and a rapist - and the old accusations have returned.
This thing works both ways: for example, director Brian Singer had to refuse all interviews this year because of accusations against him of having sex with underage boys. And while these allegations certainly need to be investigated, this does not in any way affect which director is Singer. Or an artist rapes a girl, and other artists say about him “he is a freak, but our freak”. Or the liberal and worthy journalist Plyushchev writes about the death of the official's son, asking whether this is "proof of the existence of higher justice", but other liberal people shield him, because he is a good person and has the right. Of course, rape and a shirt with a stupid print are generally incomparable, but it's rather about how, without ignoring the gray spots, to prevent black ones. And how to start the discussion so that it does not look like discrediting.
For example, I really like Ivan Dorn's album, this is the best Russian-language album of the year, but there is still a slightly misogynistic song "Actress" (with a bunch of theses in her defense, but nevertheless) and for the promo album Ivan nevertheless showed everyday racism, repainted in black (yes, he did not mean anything bad, like Matt Taylor, but again). How to start this discussion so as not to devalue the music - I do not know, and this is sad. In general, all this is a question about the status of a reputation and about when it should mean something and when not, and what privileges it can give and which not. This, incidentally, also applies to a respected site that fights for equality, but as a result, suits the unfortunate scientist trolling. And it's also about journalistic ethics.
What does journalistic ethics have to do with it?
This is ironic, because the supporters of "Gamergate" also tried to justify their behavior by the fact that they oppose the unethicalness of game journalism. But here everything is a little more specific, it is about the title and subtitle of the article The Verge. The current state of online journalism requires editors to announce their materials as loudly as possible: the attention of the reader with an announcement in social networks must be attracted at any cost and provocations are only welcome here. Whether the provocation contradicts the meaning of the note, whether the submission turns out to be too yellow - many editors are already worried about this in the second place, because you will not get views - you will not get ad impressions and, accordingly, money. Such realities of capitalism sometimes push journalists to do things like the designated ones, and this should not be so. You need to remember the social mission of the journalist and try to control yourself. The Verge didn't do it.
Okay, Matt Taylor screwed up, The Verge screwed up, that's all right. But how did the others screw up?
The above is how you can explain in a civilized way why The Verge is wrong. The Internet has shown how this can be explained in an uncivilized way. Death threats, indignant columns, attempts to prove that everything is in order with the shirt, and the main statement: "He landed the apparatus on a comet, and what have you achieved?" In every possible way, the discussion of controversial sexism was brought into an unambiguously sexist channel - and The Verge themselves contributed to this with their presentation and manner. So that this statement does not look like an accusation of the victim, it is worth noting that if The Verge had written everything without provocation, the reaction could have been exactly the same. This reaction looked especially ugly in the light of Gamergate: here one scientist was brought to tears, and there at least two girls were threatened to leave their homes. But in the case of the scientist, the entire Internet stood up for him in chorus, and in the case of the girls, a discussion flared up "Are they so innocent?" It is equally awful to bring scientists to tears and to poison girls from home, but the public reaction to these two cases turned out to be completely different and showed that women still dream and dream about equal rights. And the Runet got into the discussion monstrously.
Why Runet at once?
Without the mentioned context, Russian-speaking Internet users unequivocally interpreted this story into a story about how tolerance has brought this America of yours. And okay, when Komsomolskaya Pravda and LifeNews speaks in this spirit, no one expects anything else from them, but the same point of view was accepted by people who seem to be for European values and the words “Geyrop” are not in their lexicon. Furfur likened "radical feminists" to "Orthodox thugs," and Meduza, in its coverage of history, did nothing but translate a column on how the case shamed the "feminist movement" written by an unambiguously controversial author. And all this despite the fact that it’s ridiculous to complain that feminists harass someone. It’s even worse when they say that instead of shirts, feminists would be better off tackling "real problems."
So what, let them do it
In fact, every person has the right to deal with exactly the problem that worries him. Someone for the global and for education and protection for women scientists, and someone for the private and against everyday sexism in scientific circles. This is their right to choose the field of struggle, and this is pure chauvinism - to tell people where to fight.
But wait, feminist radicalism does exist - and that's a problem too
Look, radical feminists do exist, as do, say, radical believers. But we do not seem to judge Orthodoxy solely by the actions of Dmitry Enteo, and this case (in which, moreover, 0 radical feminists were involved) should not be a reason to judge the entire movement. Yes, and there is no movement - there is a discussion about the rights of women widespread throughout society and a changing situation in the world, which has no obvious people-locomotives. In our case, we are talking about "bullying", bullying. And it is precisely the persecution - of a scientist for sexism or an anti-sexist for tactlessness - that is never feminist or chauvinist.
When they ask you for a cigarette on the street, you answer that you do not smoke, and you get in the eye and lose your wallet - this is not due to the fact that the opposite side is disgusted with your position in relation to smoking. So here too, bullying is just bullying. It can be judged regardless of the reasons, but to focus on the fact that the persecution is feminist is, you will laugh, sexism. Among other things, special cases in the attention of the media, as a rule, should illustrate a trend. When millions of gamers persecute two girls, it is about a thousand of the same persecuted by tens of millions of gamers. This is a partial illustration of a really big general problem. And one scientist who wept is one scientist who wept. This is a very bad, very sad, but not tendentious case, which can only illustrate the tendency of the Internet towards entropy and persecution, regardless of the reason, but not the presence of the totalitarian power of radical feminism. And it's sad to read notes like this, where three more private ones are added to the Taylor case, and the author builds a trend of them, while there are hundreds of cases of oppression of women in geek culture, but they are not enough for the culture carriers to come to their senses.
So now feminists can forbid us to wear certain clothes and so on? Are you out of your mind?
And here lies the main misconception of both the supporters of "Gamergate" and opponents of criticism of Matt Taylor. The point is that feminist discourse never prohibits anything. At all. Even women are raped. It's just that a normal person would never think to rape a woman (although a couple of hundred years ago there were a million excuses for that), in the same way feminists are trying only to influence the mass consciousness so that when a person, for example, committed an act of domestic sexism, he understood that this is everyday sexism, and was not mistaken that this is something else. There is no punishment or prohibition.
Considering Anita Sargsyan's criticism of the gaming industry and The Verge's criticism of the sexist shirt in the context of prohibitions, you betray only your own obedience to this logic of prohibitions, which is guided by MPs Mizulina and Milonov. You shouldn't tell a child that being homosexual is better than being straight - but very few people would think of this and don't need such a law. You can tell the child that in his game about Mario, the princess is depicted as a spiritless object and that this is wrong - but the child does not need to prohibit the game itself or lobby for a law that prohibits such games.
The task of feminism is to teach people to understand that some of your words and actions offend others - as we understand that when we hit a person with a stick, it will hurt him (and, accordingly, being in our mind, we do not do this). In playing Bayonetta, you understood that you are facing a character who uses his body as a sexual weapon, and not just saw a sexy chick. So no one has ever tried to ban the print on Matt Taylor's shirt (well, that is, private exclamations with attempts to ban can be found, but they certainly will not be indicative), I just wish both Matt and others understood that this is not just funny a print that shows that not all scientists are bores. When Matt realized this, he cried and apologized. And the Internet did not understand anything, and The Verge contributed to this.
And what are the conclusions now?
Sad. They all screwed up. The Verge tried to fight a righteous fight in dirty ways. The Internet responded even dirtier, destroying and eradicating all the grains of reason that were in the original message of The Verge along the way. Runet trampled on the ruins. Sexism did not go away, but tripled, and the opponents of sexism contributed to this. Feminism will be even more skeptical. People have shown that they are not ready for change and that they proceed from the logic of prohibitions and logic, when a person's achievements in one area justify failures in another. Matt Taylor cried, but his apology only made things worse. The European Space Agency did not try to rectify the situation. Entropy has won. All good fellows.