Shocking News: Scientist Revealed To Have Poor Fashion Sense And Social Skills

Many people on twitter have fallen into their default 'outrage' setting this week as a genius who worked on the comet landing has revealed himself to be far from that in the wardrobe department. In fact his distasteful dress sense was so appalling that he genuinely thought a shirt as in your face as the one he chose to wear, featuring scantily clad and heavily armed women, was the right choice to make during the highlight of his career thus far. My annoyance with the ridiculousness of this outrage is three-fold.

Firstly, and most importantly, he is a scientist. If you expect anything other than social awkwardness and a twinge of sexual desperation from one, or indeed are experiencing the opposite when you interact with one, then you are not speaking, listening, or reading something from a very good scientist. Okay I appreciate that is a gross over simplification of the facts (with a huge dose of stereotyping to boot) but you cannot argue that there is not a 'geek' culture within the science community, and that culture does unfortunately come with its many misogynistic characteristics. Do not mistake what I am arguing for here, I am not apologizing or making excuses for the shirt. What I am saying is that being outraged over the awful attire choices from a scientist, who quickly changed his shirt once it became apparent to him that it was sexist and inappropriate, is perhaps not the most constructive of things to rally against. He is not the cause of the culture of misogyny, merely a symptom of it, a geek fooled by the culture that surrounds 'geekdom' and the wider society. The comet landing took place on 12th November, the same week that everyone started going bonkers over these photos with the strap-line 'break the internet'. BREAK THE INTERNET! The point of that strap-line really needs no explaining and just highlights my argument. Symptom or cause, individual or bigger picture, I know which one I consider more worthwhile and constructive in confronting. Only made all the more significant by the worrying racial connotations of the champagne butt balancing picture.

My second point is that the guy just helped land a man made object designed to gather data on comets onto a comet! Give the guy a break and just enjoy the scientific achievement for a little while before discussing the appropriateness of his shirt. This was the stuff of movies until the team at ESA achieved it. Beyond that it is a vitally important step towards further understanding comets. What we learn may even save the planet from a devastating impact on day, or help us further understand the origins of life on this planet. In fact there is a lot we do not know about comets, and at a crucial time in the proceedings, surely it would have been better to just let the man get on with his job and kicked up a storm over his inappropriate shirt choice after all of the butt-clenching had died down?

My final grievance with this outrage is the presumption that women will not what to engage with science because of his shirt choice, that it shows how unwelcome women are in the scientific community. Again I would argue that the clothing choice of one man does not hinder the impact women can have upon science any more than it helps it. I would argue that the society in which we live, through the means of socialisation, was the bigger reason for the disparity in the number of female scientists in relation to men. Everyone is familiar with the term 'women's work', that women have specific roles differing greatly from men that are determined by their biology. What many people fail to realise is that gender is socially constructed, because of this so to are the roles that men and women play in society. From schooling to pop-psychology we are told that these fictional gender differences matter, that men are better at certain things physical or intellectual pursuits (like science) because of their biological make-up, women are much more adept at caring, creative, or communicative roles. This is largely nonsense beyond the very real differences, those being that men are on average 30% stronger than women (although there are obviously exceptions), so many men are slightly better equipped than women for very heavy manual labour (although that does not mean they would be any more competent than large numbers of women or that there aren't just as many women who would excel in these roles) and women have the required gear for childbirthing. Everything else to do with gender specific roles, or what society tells us are such, is blatant misinformation. To suggest that this man and his shirt are going to put women off entering the scientific professions is just as equally misleading. It is not his shirt that would do that but the years of socialisation the young female will receive. The socialisation you see all around you from toys, to television or film, to subtle nudges towards an easily identifiable and socially acceptable gender identity from her parents, all conspiring to tell her that she is only suitable for 'gender appropriate' work and to leave the science to the boys. To lambast a man who wore a sexist shirt on a internet stream, however important that stream may be in shaping a child's future, I believe is missing the point and trivialising the actual problem facing those who want to get more women entering into high-status, scientific careers. Foremost among these is a culture that encourages women to turn their backs on science to engage in 'feminine' activities long before a person's (lack of) fashion sense has any bearing on their futures.

#bearface #heroic

No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No.

No.

It is not.

I could probably end it there, but I feel like I really should explain. Children in Need have launched an advert providing helpful 'tips' on how ordinary people can raise money for charity, which every time I've seen I have felt an unstoppable urge rising inside of me, forcing whole body into a frenzy of uncontrollable bouts of violence, my jaw clenching until the grinding turns my entire jaw into bone meal, the anger only quenched and fading once it is expelled in its final moments as a scream, either loudly or internally, leaving behind a hollow shell where once belonged a man, forlorn and frustrated with what was witnessed, yet calm once again.

I am well aware of how this looks. Usually when I choose to moan about something I feel fairly confident that anyone with a fully functioning brain, with at the very least a modest mental capacity, would understand, relate, and most of all share in my frustration. But here, on this occasion, I look like a right miserable sod. I am but that is beside the point. 

What I find so frustrating about this advertisement is not the cause, or its good intentions, or its god awful cheesiness. It is the #bearface bit! Why is that something that should be considered heroic? Good on you ordinary woman for not wearing a product you are expect to wear under intense, and ridiculous, societal pressures. Good on you for showing the world the 'real you', without actually making much of a meaningful attempt to change the appalling and damaging way those products, that you so heroically discarded, are marketed at females. Good on you for listening to Abbey Clancy, a lingerie model who happens to be married to footballer (I was not at all surprised when I searched who the hell was doing the voice-over), for not subscribing to the nonsensical beauty ideal for a brief moment. Somewhat ironic given that she is a large part of its continued existence. Just good for you. You are simply the most heroic person to have walked this planet.

It is at this point when I come to realise I have made myself sound like a complete arse, I am sure that for many 'ditching the make-up' is truly terrifying. I appreciate that. What I do not appreciate is why it should be considered such a feat of bravery and the damaging effects the beauty myth can have upon women. Perpetuating this myth, that beauty is achieved through cosmetics and as such it is brave to 'ditch the make-up', will not help anyone beyond the obvious short-termist goal of raising a few bob for a 'celebrity' charity event. One I suspect is staffed almost entirely by people seeking only publicity and whom have, in all likelihood, contributed very little of their own 'hard-earned' cash.

What the people at Children in Need should be doing, if they had any sense, would be showing the useful ways in which people can contribute to charities and their fundraising. Bake a bloody cake, or do a challenge, as are suggested in the advertisement. Hell even do the tired dressing up to show how 'zany' you are, despite always coming off as a tosser with no imagination and looking like a twat all day. Dare I say it... shock horror... you could even collect money in a truly unique way (at least for these public, celebrity, charity event things)... with dignity and information!!! Crazy! 

Just don't think you are helping anyone in the long-term by listening to Abbey and "ditching the make-up and donning the paw" because ultimately, the idea that not wearing make-up is something abnormal gets enough children to be in need of help as it is. Poor form from Children in Need who raise for, as one of their many supported charities, the anorexia charity beat.

If you want to donate to them do so, just please don't humour the #bearface suggestion.