By Jonah Goldberg
Wednesday, November 19, 2014
The European Space Agency’s Rosetta project accomplished
one of the most impressive scientific feats in our lifetime. They essentially
moved a clunky machine from one speeding bullet onto another, by remote
control, from 310 million miles away. It’s hoped this achievement will help
usher in a new era of space exploration by teaching us how to exploit the raw
materials swirling around the solar system. Also, it was really cool.
But it wasn’t cool enough for some feminists who found
the shirt worn by Matt Taylor, Rosetta project scientist, to be a bigger deal.
Taylor’s shirt, designed by a female friend, depicts a bunch of attractive,
scantily clad women drawn from comic books holding guns. (Slate’s Amanda Marcotte
oddly described their stances as “pornographic poses.”)
Rose Eveleth, a science writer, tweeted in response to a
televised interview with Taylor: “No no women are toooootally welcome in our
community, just ask the dude in this shirt.”
A meteor shower of hashtagged rage rained down on both
sides of the Atlantic. “Shirtstorm!” “Shirtgate!” and similar bullshirt.
What should have been the best week of Taylor’s
professional life ended with him weeping on TV as he apologized for his alleged
crime.
Many of my friends and colleagues on the anti-PC right
have responded with understandable outrage. And it’s true: Taylor’s confession
of wrongdoing did feel forced — awfully North Korean.
Still, the feminists have a point. Although I like the
shirt (which is now selling like hotcakes), I would never wear it to a nice
restaurant, never mind on a globally broadcast TV interview. The reason I
wouldn’t wear it has very little to do with my fear of offending feminists.
It’s simply unsuitable professional attire. I’d ask critics of the feminist
backlash, would you wear it on a job interview? How about to church or
synagogue?
Where feminists seem remarkably self-absorbed is in their
assumption that only their sensibilities matter. It is hardly as if
feminist-friendly career women in STEM professions (science, technology,
engineering, and math) are the only people who might reasonably dislike the
shirt. But here’s astrophysicist Katie Mack tweeting: “I don’t care what
scientists wear. But a shirt featuring women in lingerie isn’t appropriate for
a broadcast if you care about women in STEM.”
Okay, maybe. But why are feminist motives so special?
What if you’re a devout Christian, Muslim, or Jew working in the humanities?
What if you like cartoonishly sexy ladies, but you hate guns? What if you’re
simply the kind of person who thinks male professionals should wear a jacket
and tie on TV?
In short, feminists want a monopoly on when everyone must
be outraged or offended. A few weeks ago, feminist idiots rolled out a video of
little girls dressed as princesses, cursing like foul-mouthed comedian Andrew
Dice Clay. Unlike Taylor, they set out to offend. But that was in support of
feminism, so it was okay. (I’d like to see the parents of those kids tearfully
apologizing for exploiting their kids as cheap propaganda props.)
We live in an age of diversity, defined not merely by
gender and race, but by lifestyles and values. That’s mostly a good thing —
mostly.
Like all other good things in life, diversity comes at a
cost. And a big part of the tab is a lost consensus about what constitutes good
manners and propriety. So instead of knowing how to behave, we spend vast
amounts of our time worrying and arguing about it, with combatants on every
side insisting it’s “Live and let live” for me but “Shut up! How dare you!” for
thee.
In this age of unprecedented cultural liberty, we’ve lost
sight of the fact that common standards of decency and decorum can be
liberating. They inconvenience everyone — a little — but they also free us from
worrying about who we might offend or why. School uniforms, remember, constrain
the wealthy kids for the benefit of the poor ones.
For millennia, good manners were understood as the means
by which strangers showed each other respect. Now, too many people demand
respect but have lost the ability, or desire, to show it in return.
No comments:
Post a Comment