Is anyone allowed to disagree with you about whether or not distributed punishment incited by careless journalists and carried out by mobs of bored and uninformed strangers is the best way to "drag our culture out of millennia of patriarchy, race-based dominance, and other primitive idiocy"? Or does asking questions like that make me a supporter of patriarchy, race-based dominance, and other primitive idiocy?
"And today we have a lot of people whose toes have been stepped on all their goddamn lives."
So it's okay to destroy someone who had never been one of the toe-steppers for wearing the wrong shirt?
See, this is the thing. You can bang on all you like about the evils of patriarchy, but at the end, you are advocating that random people who at best committed a minor faux pas that should be dealt with in their own workplace should be destroyed by the mob. It's as if I decried the number of people who die in traffic accidents and in response advocate that anyone who gets a speeding ticket get put in front of a firing squad. It's wrong, and you're trying to distract yourself from that fact by pretending that you are somehow bravely fighting the patriarchy by choosing the least intimidating possible target.
If you can personally demonstrate the effectiveness of a better way than calling out people causing problems, I am sure plenty of people will follow your example. But if all you have to contribute is armchair carping, don't expect anybody to take you very seriously. That's not a novel position here; few programmers on HN weight highly the advice from non-programmer managers on how to program.
Also, I agree with arrg that you're being ridiculously hyperbolic. The guy spoke to the world; the world spoke back. The guy wasn't "destroyed" or put in front of "a firing squad"; he's still a functioning human being who is employed and everything. He apologized and as far as I know the apology was generally accepted. The only people I see bringing this up now are dudes apparently sore over the fact they are no longer beyond criticism for various sexist idiocies that, yes, no matter the intent, are part of how patriarchy is maintained.
"If you can personally demonstrate the effectiveness of a better way than calling out people causing problems, I am sure plenty of people will follow your example."
I have a great suggestion which would have worked perfectly and not caused any excessive harm: if anyone in his workplace was bothered by his shirt, they should have talked to his manager, and those actually affected could have resolved the issue like adults. Does every trivial workplace slight need to be dealt with in the international media?
"That's not a novel position here; few programmers on HN weight highly the advice from non-programmer managers on how to program."
Except this is not a situation where a bunch of managers weighed in and said that this guy should be shamed worldwide. This is a situation where a whole bunch of random bored strangers decided to make an example of him. Please forgive me if I'm not convinced this is how an experienced manager would deal with it.
I say again that basically nobody who's taking action on this issue is interested in advice from anonymous peanut-gallery members. If you want to change how activism is done, demonstrate your better way.
> Does every trivial workplace slight need to be dealt with in the international media?
No, only the ones where the person has chosen to represent a major project in the international media. Which is the case here.
> This is a situation where a whole bunch of random bored strangers decided to make an example of him.
He spoke to the world. The world spoke back. The people doing so were generally neither random nor bored. Quite a lot of them were working female scientists, for whom this is a major and very personal issue.
Also, you aren't getting the analogy. Here, you are the useless manager trying to tell feminist activists how to better do their work, work you show no sign of understanding or even caring about.
"If you want to change how activism is done, demonstrate your better way."
Here's the change I want: I want people not getting mobbed for what are, at the absolute worst, trivial infractions that should be taken care of in the context of their own workplace. A lot of other folks who might be sympathetic to your goals feel the same way. Maybe if you want your activism to be more successful in changing minds, as opposed to just temporarily cowing opponents into resentful silence, you should put some thought into how it's coming across.
Sorry, you don't get to judge what's trivial. But keep acting otherwise if it makes you feel better.
But you aren't getting my point. As somebody who is not actually working to solve the problem, your peanut-gallery "you're doing it wrong" is basically irrelevant. E.g.: "Hey firefighters! Do you really have to use axes on that front door? You should just ring the doorbell and maybe leave a note. That's the polite thing to do." A firefighter might take tips on techniques from other firefighters, but will (and should) have very little interest in the shouted suggestions of random passers-by, and even less in what arsonists think they should do.
People unhappy with social progress are forever telling the people making that progress that they are doing it wrong. Here's a famous example:
If you compare it with the death rate, it suggests that progress was made on this issue not because most people change their minds, but because most of the people opposed to interracial marriage died off.
This is hardly unique to social change; Max Planck, one of the inventors of quantum theory, wrote, "A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it."
So although I would like to change minds, I will settle for some amount of resentful silence. Because a) it reduces the direct impact of oppression, and b) it means that Planck's "new generation" will pick up the new truths. If I have to choose between civil rights and civil dialog, I'm generally going to pick civil rights.
"[If] anyone in his workplace was bothered by his shirt, they should have talked to his manager, and those actually affected could have resolved the issue like adults."
You're implying that only people within ESA could have been affected by his choice of clothing. But he wore that shirt in public; worse, on broadcast media, which means that those potentially affected includes the media-consuming population of the whole world. And anyone who is concerned about access to and diversity in science and technology has a right to be "bothered" by the message it sent out.
"those potentially affected includes the media-consuming population of the whole world"
I really don't know what to say. Here we have people insisting one moment that I'm blowing this way out of proportion, and then the very next moment insisting that billions of people were harmed because an obscure space scientist wore a shirt.
I mean, what’s this non-sensical hyperbole disconnected from reality? What’s wrong with criticizing someone and saying that what he was doing is not ok?! I mean, what are you even talking about?! The hell.
He was representing this mission to the world and he was in that position as an obvious role model and, in that moment, in a public facing role. If we cannot criticize someone like that, who are we allowed to criticize?
Also, how disconnected from any resemblance of reality can one comment be. I’m just astonished at you complete hyperbole.
Once again, let's be clear what he did that required criticism -- or, more accurately, furious accusations of sexism from dozens of news outlets, mass public shaming from an angry worldwide mob, and an tearful apology on international television.
He wore a shirt.
That's what you're energetically defending. Worldwide mobbing, targeting by the media, and a forced public apology reminiscent of misbehaving Party officials. For wearing a shirt. Let's be absolutely clear about this, please.
Also, this is not some defenseless guy, caught by some camera on accident. Position of power, public role in that instance – and consequently also the responsibility that comes with that. You act like this is some little defenseless kid, unable to handle one little criticism … and you are constantly blowing the actual response and the actual criticism completely out of proportion, pretending it to be bullying or mobbing or some such bullshit. This was a tiny, tiny, tiny story. (The wailing misogynists made it big, you know.)
I think he just might be able to handle a bit of harsh criticism. Because that’s what this was. The horror. (Also, he had hordes of misogynists defending him within seconds, though I doubt he liked that.)
I’m absolutely clear about being absolutely in love with free speech and consequently criticizing someone for wearing a dumb shirt. Sure.
Thousands of people on social media, reacting to dozens of instances of journalistic incitement by launching ill-informed attacks and accusations of the worst possible social sin in the Western world, to the extent that he had to deliver a tearful apology on worldwide television? Sounds like a mob to me.
"Position of power, public role in that instance – and consequently also the responsibility that comes with that."
You're describing a politician, not a scientist. This guy was not "famous" except among the microscopic sliver of people who follow space science. He was not "powerful" except in a tiny group of ten people or so. He was briefly in the public spotlight and the response was a ginned-up mob. Let's say you briefly become famous for something you do in your day job. Is it fair for a mob to come after _you_?
"I’m absolutely clear about being absolutely in love with free speech and consequently criticizing someone for wearing a dumb shirt. Sure."
Nobody's saying you don't have the free speech to criticize a scientist for wearing a shirt. You certainly do! And similarly, everyone else has the free speech to tell you how overwrought and disproportionate your criticism is.
Anyway, since you've stated clearly that you're fine with what happened to him for wearing a shirt, I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree and leave it at that.
"And today we have a lot of people whose toes have been stepped on all their goddamn lives."
So it's okay to destroy someone who had never been one of the toe-steppers for wearing the wrong shirt?
See, this is the thing. You can bang on all you like about the evils of patriarchy, but at the end, you are advocating that random people who at best committed a minor faux pas that should be dealt with in their own workplace should be destroyed by the mob. It's as if I decried the number of people who die in traffic accidents and in response advocate that anyone who gets a speeding ticket get put in front of a firing squad. It's wrong, and you're trying to distract yourself from that fact by pretending that you are somehow bravely fighting the patriarchy by choosing the least intimidating possible target.