Matt Taylor's shirt

[consortium11]

Yes, as opposed to that - the vast majority of feminist coverage of this (in fact, all of it that I've seen) has been "Fuck yeah, science! Look at this awesome thi-oh. Well, that's an issue that detracts from it. He shouldn't have done that. But fuck yeah probe on a comet!"

What mainstream feminist coverage of this was there before the shirt appeared? And the tone of most mainstream feminist coverage I've seen (at least before the backlash) was less "Fuck yeah science" followed by the shirt and more "Fuck no, misogyny!" followed by a brief mention of the science with a clear indication of what was more important; the "I don't care..." article which led the way on this contained a single sentence about the science.

The coverage I've seen, not counting replies to the ridiculous backlash, has been at worst equally divided between the mission itself and the issue of the shirt. "Three times" strikes me as pretty damn disingenuous. And again, it's not about "wearing something someone disapproves of", it's about "sending harmful messages to an already-disadvantaged group."

I used the term "three times" deliberately because it was deliberately used in the "I don't care..." article; "That's one small step for man, three steps back for humankind". Because someone wore a shirt someone disapproved of humanity has gone backwards three times more than it has advanced by landing on a comet.

1) He was in a PR role (and should have been conscious of this), but is a full-fledged contributing member of the team. No particular argument there, and I'm not sure where you saw it. (It's possible I'm overlooking or forgetting something here.)

People have already mentioned Slywyn's post where he describes Matt Taylor as "basically their PR guy and we're acting like he's the next Einstein." Now, I don't think anyone's treating him as the next Einstein... they're in rather different fields so it would be a strange comparison to make. But he is not "basically their PR guy". He's "basically" their project scientist and in charge of all the science to do with the mission who also happened to do a few interviews

3) and 4) Okay, let's look at broadly international stats on women in astronomy. Statistically indistinguishable from men, says you. Bullshit, says the IAU. Or perhaps you'd rather drill down to the level of the Rosetta team itself: Notice anything about the male:female ratio there?

I see you've retracted this point but I'll link anyway so others can see... there's a reason I said "retention and progression rate". I will note a typo; I said assistant professor twice when I meant associate professor for one of them. Once a woman gets "into" astronomy it appears they're just as likely to progress as a man is. The question therefore becomes why it is that more men then women enter astronomy in the first place rather than what happens once they're there.

5) "Constructive dismissal" is, to my understanding, something that an institution does as an unspoken but deliberate course of action. This is distinct from what Steampunkette is talking about, and thus a non-sequitur. Even if it weren't, "reasons sexual harassment and assault are vastly underreported" is its own topic - the short and relevant-to-this-discussion version is "no action in court does not mean nothing happened".

The example/definition Steampunkette used for micro-aggressions was:

Have you ever worked at a job where they explicitly try to get you to quit without outright firing you? First they make you work on the shift where no one likes you. Your job description gets stretched to cover work that no one likes to do but has to be done and is generally shared. Then your schedule gets changed to work odd hours, sometimes working 2 shifts back to back, other times coming in for work 4 times in a day for 2 hours per segment with a deadline coming up and a checklist you have to run through that makes it nearly impossible to get any work done before you're kicked off the clock because they're not able to pay you for overtime.

Eventually you just quit. It's easier than putting up with that bullshit, even though any one of those details is perfectly understandable and explainable as a unique event.

That's a textbook constructive dismissal case; a lawyer would leap at the chance to action it because if it was the example set out above it would be pretty much slam dunk and an easy win. As above I'm unaware of any of these sort of cases being brought against the ESA and it doesn't strike me as a good definition of micro-aggressions either which is why I changed it to what I think is a far more applicable one later in the post.

6) Be... because beards and tattoos (depending on the content of the tattoo, of course) don't objectify anyone? Are we really having this discussion?

But earlier in your post you said the issue was "sending harmful messages to an already-disadvantaged group." Some women consider beards sexist; is an environment where something sexist is openly allowed not a harmful message to an already-disadvantaged group? Some followers of certain religions consider tattoo's blasphemous... is an environment where something blasphemous is openly paraded around (and celebrated in the media in the case of Taylor's landing tattoo) not harmful to an already-disadvantaged group (remembering that the percentage of people in STEM fields who are believers is well below the average)?

If micro-aggressions are small things that in-and-of-themselves are not seemingly that serious and not necessarily done with malicious intent but which make a field or discipline less welcoming and more hostile to certain people and thus mean they're less likely to become involve to begin with or stay involved... even limiting it to certain already-disadvantaged people... then I still can't see how you can exclude groups of people who may receive a harmful message. Not all women consider the shirt sexist or off-putting (and so clearly it doesn't count as a micro-aggression for them) but some do. Not all women consider beards sexist (and so clearly it doesn't count as a micro-aggression for them) but some do.

7) No, because calling this shit out is how it stops, and because the people fighting it are also encouraging women in STEM. Perhaps you've heard of the Ada Initiative, for example? This is a blatant "sit down and shut up" argument against discussing sexism at all.

It's not, it's to point out the flaws in this micro-aggression theory. Isn't telling women that if they apply for a job in STEM disciplines they're less likely to get a job and if they do they'll be paid less sending out a harmful message to an already-disadvantaged group? Isn't it likely to put women off going into STEM disciplines? It doesn't matter if the intent was positive, negative or neutral... it still seemingly counts as a micro-aggression.

Focusing on the men to the exclusion of the women? Yes, that's a problem - one that I'd rank above the shirt, to be honest, though they're on the same spectrum. Let's fix that, if only in a small way. (Please note that this, literally the only coverage of the project's women I could easily find, is also by someone citing the shirt as a problem issue.)

There's quite a lot of coverage of the project's women... it just tends to come from the generic press rather than feminist bodies. To simply use Kathrin Altwegg as an example one could watch her TEDx talk, see her quoted about what the comet tells us about the earth's water, more quotes from her about the mission in general, extensive quotes from her (and Claudia Alexander), more quotes about why the landing would be the icing on the cake and she was frequently mentioned for her comments on what the comet might smell like. Pretty much all those links came from putting "kathrin altwegg rosetta" (and some just by putting "kathrin altwegg") into google... and excludes the multiple foreign language sources.

But why celebrate women when you can shout at men instead?

9) This is a Gish gallop. Which of the extremely large topics you've brought up here would you actually like to discuss in depth?

Can anyone else see the irony in accusing someone of a Gish gallop during a discussion largely focusing on micro-aggressions; a subject about which the very basic concept is that there are a huge range of separate things which all combine together to create a picture? Because that's largely what I'm saying here. There is a distinct whiff of anti-academia (or, as I say, non-feminist academia) and science within modern feminism often pushed by prominent figures in the movement and the coverage of this story... complete with hyperbole, minimizing the science and the seeming refusal to mention women involved in the mission by the feminist press... fits firmly into it.

10) You... you realize that you opened this post by quoting a discussion about an article written by a kink-positive sex-positive feminist, right? Feminism and BDSM are not remotely enemies; the focus of mainstream feminism is on consent, not on what consensual activities are taking place. Further, even if this were an issue, it's completely irrelevant to the topic at hand.

And the sort of consent mainstream feminism is focused on, particularly the sort of consent that led to California SB 967 and the general "ongoing affirmative/enthusiastic consent", turns almost all forms of consensual BDSM play into sexual assault. Much like with the anti-science micro-aggressions within feminism (and I think that terminology fits remarkably well) the puritanical anti-aggressions which lead to consensual BDSM becoming sexual assault and lead to images of "pinup" style women being self-evidently wrong are worth looking at.

[Sethala]

I...I'd love some clarification on this. Are you saying that women are genetically less capable of entering STEM fields?

I'm asking for clarification because I'm almost 100% certain you're not saying that, since thinking that is true would be exactly what everyone is arguing is the problem.

Not necessarily, though it wouldn't surprise me if the average brain chemistry of women is different in a way that does make them less capable of entering STEM fields.

Note that this is talking about women on average, not any specific woman.  In the same vein, I could say that women in average are genetically less capable of working a job that requires a lot of heavy lifting, since women on average don't have the muscle density required to lift heavy loads, but to use that logic to suggest that any one individual woman isn't capable of working that job without looking at her actual strength is absurd.

But, my point earlier wasn't that I think women are less capable of entering such fields, rather that they're less interested in working such fields, and that lack of interest could easily be because of genetic differences.

[Oniya]

There was a video linked earlier (and I've linked it somewhere else in PROC, so I'm not going to link it again).  In fourth grade (about 10 years old), 66% of girls say that math and/or science is their favorite subject.  Somehow, only 18% of engineering majors are female.  The interest is obviously there in the early years. 

[Silk]

There was a video linked earlier (and I've linked it somewhere else in PROC, so I'm not going to link it again).  In fourth grade (about 10 years old), 66% of girls say that math and/or science is their favorite subject.  Somehow, only 18% of engineering majors are female.  The interest is obviously there in the early years.

So to elaborate on that chain of thought. Either creating a longtitudinal study to follow a collection of students to see what their favorite subjects is, or a study which checks students of every year from fourth grade to college would help shine light on where the interest in science and maths comes in. However there is a few things to consider as well. Such as puberty development, internal peer pressure, hell could be something as simple as stage in puberty compared to boys. (since it's around the period that girls are significantly more able at school due to earlier development.

[Oniya]

So to elaborate on that chain of thought. Either creating a longtitudinal study to follow a collection of students to see what their favorite subjects is, or a study which checks students of every year from fourth grade to college would help shine light on where the interest in science and maths comes in. However there is a few things to consider as well. Such as puberty development, internal peer pressure, hell could be something as simple as stage in puberty compared to boys. (since it's around the period that girls are significantly more able at school due to earlier development.

And external peer pressure.  (Things like teen magazines, Facebook memes, even Cosmo covers and the like.)

[Steampunkette]

http://eldan.co.uk/2013/12/bad-neuroscience-and-gender-reading-this-will-change-your-brain/

So here's the thing.

Everyone LOVES to talk about Men and Women "On Average" and assume it's not sexist to categorically label like that.

On Average there are more men than women with a higher IQ. Coincidentally, on Average, there are more men than women with a lower IQ.



Thanks to the way our IQ charts work and the way the tests are designed, this is essentially bound to happen where one group of people scores closer to average based on their social and academic background while another group scores more wildly based on theirs. Does it mean that men, on the whole, are both smarter -and- less intelligent than women?

No. On the whole it averages out and the outliers are outliers due to their social and academic upbringing rather than any form of biological superiority or inferiority.

In the end, however, what you're looking at with people who go into a specific field are not outliers and averages they're individuals. They're a unique combination of brain chemistry, cultural background, academic provisions, and social reinforcement that leads to an interest in the Sciences and Maths.

This is why in multiple threads I've done my best to explain that binaristic gender is a shitty way to try and categorize people. You will find more differences between the brain chemistry of two randomly selected men than you will find between "Men" and "Women" on Average.

And, you know, if the STEM Fields accounted for a large percentage of the human population (somewhere between 40% and 80%) then I might actually support trying to look at Gendered Averages to get an idea of who might or might not be best for the field or why different fields have more or less men in them compared to women...

But right now there are about 5 million people in the OECD countries that are considered STEM Scientists and Researchers. You're looking at a pool of people so small that they represent less than 1/10th of a percent of the population of the countries they represent. Adding in computer engineers and the like won't increase that too statistically significantly.

Gendered Averages are very nearly useless to begin with. In this case they are completely useless. I feel like there's a fallacy, there, but I don't recognize it by name. Appeal to Lottery?

[Silk]

And external peer pressure.  (Things like teen magazines, Facebook memes, even Cosmo covers and the like.)

While were at it, let's add one more, the growth in popularity in comparison to the amount of time it takes to qualify. It takes around 9-11 years of further study to attain a PH.D grade qualification. Sso were looking at girls who were interested in the field back in 2003 and back. The climate towards computing, gaming, and science in general was MASSIVE back then. These sorts of thing were still widely the nerds recourse. Something that girls would go out of their way to avoid (At least that was the state of affairs back then in my area). I don't know what the statistics are in relation to the amount of girls in further study for these sorts of courses. But it does seem like early days to expect the current interest in science and what it has to offer. To have matured for a period that is scarcely older than the last generation of consoles (xbox was  released in 2001, PS2 was 2000) is a little bit of a stretch.

[Sethala]

http://eldan.co.uk/2013/12/bad-neuroscience-and-gender-reading-this-will-change-your-brain/

So here's the thing.

Everyone LOVES to talk about Men and Women "On Average" and assume it's not sexist to categorically label like that.

On Average there are more men than women with a higher IQ. Coincidentally, on Average, there are more men than women with a lower IQ.



Thanks to the way our IQ charts work and the way the tests are designed, this is essentially bound to happen where one group of people scores closer to average based on their social and academic background while another group scores more wildly based on theirs. Does it mean that men, on the whole, are both smarter -and- less intelligent than women?

No. On the whole it averages out and the outliers are outliers due to their social and academic upbringing rather than any form of biological superiority or inferiority.

In the end, however, what you're looking at with people who go into a specific field are not outliers and averages they're individuals. They're a unique combination of brain chemistry, cultural background, academic provisions, and social reinforcement that leads to an interest in the Sciences and Maths.

This is why in multiple threads I've done my best to explain that binaristic gender is a shitty way to try and categorize people. You will find more differences between the brain chemistry of two randomly selected men than you will find between "Men" and "Women" on Average.

And, you know, if the STEM Fields accounted for a large percentage of the human population (somewhere between 40% and 80%) then I might actually support trying to look at Gendered Averages to get an idea of who might or might not be best for the field or why different fields have more or less men in them compared to women...

But right now there are about 5 million people in the OECD countries that are considered STEM Scientists and Researchers. You're looking at a pool of people so small that they represent less than 1/10th of a percent of the population of the countries they represent. Adding in computer engineers and the like won't increase that too statistically significantly.

Gendered Averages are very nearly useless to begin with. In this case they are completely useless. I feel like there's a fallacy, there, but I don't recognize it by name. Appeal to Lottery?

I want to point out that, for the most part, I agree completely with what you're saying.

The only reason I bring up average brain chemistry is because, if it is true that men are more likely to want a career in STEM fields (and I'm not saying that this is the case, mind you, only that it's a possible explanation - an untested hypothesis, if you will), it would stand to reason that the ratio of men to women actually in those fields would likewise be unequal.  It wouldn't say that any individual woman is worth less than any individual man on the team, only that the number of women on the team would be less than the number of men.

There was a video linked earlier (and I've linked it somewhere else in PROC, so I'm not going to link it again).  In fourth grade (about 10 years old), 66% of girls say that math and/or science is their favorite subject.  Somehow, only 18% of engineering majors are female.  The interest is obviously there in the early years. 

Ah, I apologize, I did also see that in here but I forgot about it when I made my earlier post.  Still, off the top of my head, I can think of two possible refutations to that.  First, that age is before puberty, and that's definitely something that screws around with people's brain chemistry in very messy ways.  Second, the complexity of math used in any sort of engineering or science major is several orders of magnitude more complicated than math done by 4th graders, which means several people that think it's an interesting topic could easily be turned off when they see what it's really like.  Granted, those factors affect both boys and girls, so there's definitely more to be figured out as to why the interest seems to wane. 

Alternatively, when were the fourth graders asked about math?  Keep in mind that the women going into engineering fields were fourth graders over a decade ago, and the difference may be something as simple as the fourth grade of the 80s and 90s being very different from the fourth grade of this side of the century...

[Steampunkette]

Sethala: Averages are pointless because when you look at scientists you're looking at a range closer to one extreme of dozens of different traits. Averages don't mean squat, there.

What matters is Socialization and Opportunity.

In the Western World we actively socially condition women to AVOID STEM fields. We do our best to make STEM fields "Unsexy" while simultaneously demanding that -every- woman BE SEXY. Meanwhile we condition men in a similar manner, complete with the selective reinforcements of family obligations (Of which the woman must provide) and the like. You'd be amazed how many women come home for the Holidays from college only to hear one or two family members ask when they're going to stop wasting their time and settle down to raise a family.

This is a cultural issue, not a biological one.

As for your untested hypothesis: It's an unprovable one. The only way to test it while completely controlling for socialization is so ridiculously unethical it's inconceivable. The closest thing to testing that hypothesis would be to minimize or get rid of the social factors (Which, coincidentally, is one of Feminism's goals) and then see how things play out over the course of six or seven generations.

[Sethala]

Sethala: Averages are pointless because when you look at scientists you're looking at a range closer to one extreme of dozens of different traits. Averages don't mean squat, there.

What matters is Socialization and Opportunity.

In the Western World we actively socially condition women to AVOID STEM fields. We do our best to make STEM fields "Unsexy" while simultaneously demanding that -every- woman BE SEXY. Meanwhile we condition men in a similar manner, complete with the selective reinforcements of family obligations (Of which the woman must provide) and the like. You'd be amazed how many women come home for the Holidays from college only to hear one or two family members ask when they're going to stop wasting their time and settle down to raise a family.

I am not denying that your last paragraph is true.  At all.  However, if on average, 20% of the male population is biologically hardwired to understand and enjoy STEM fields, while only 5% of the female population is hardwired for it, how would that not account for a 4-to-1 ratio of male to female scientists?  What makes you think that we should have an equal number of male and female scientists if there are more men than women in the population that are suitable for it?

This is a cultural issue, not a biological one.

As for your untested hypothesis: It's an unprovable one. The only way to test it while completely controlling for socialization is so ridiculously unethical it's inconceivable. The closest thing to testing that hypothesis would be to minimize or get rid of the social factors (Which, coincidentally, is one of Feminism's goals) and then see how things play out over the course of six or seven generations.

As we learn more about how the human brain works, it should be possible to analyze brain chemistry and find out if there really is something that makes the average woman less suitable for science fields - we do already know that male and female brain chemistry is different due to differing hormones, after all.  I'm not saying we have this technology today, but there's certainly more ways to figure this out than waiting until we live in a utopia of equality.

[Valthazar]

In the Western World we actively socially condition women to AVOID STEM fields. We do our best to make STEM fields "Unsexy" while simultaneously demanding that -every- woman BE SEXY. Meanwhile we condition men in a similar manner, complete with the selective reinforcements of family obligations (Of which the woman must provide) and the like.

I think it is a sweeping generalization to suggest that women are choosing careers based on the perceived "sexiness" of the career in society.  Isn't it rather condescending to women to make the assertion (let alone the assertion that women are "forced" to be sexy)?  No one is forcing a woman to do anything.  I would like to believe that adult women (just like men) possess the strength of character to choose careers because they enjoy them.

[Scribbles]

All this hoo-ha over a shirt...

[Slywyn]

All this hoo-ha over a shirt...

As many people have explained over the course of the thread, it's not really about the shirt.

[Scribbles]

Is it possible to change the title then, to reflect the actual topic?

[Slywyn]

Is it possible to change the title then, to reflect the actual topic?

The topic revolves around the shirt and what it means, but isn't about the shirt itself.

Consider the shirt to be symbolic, if that helps.

[Scribbles]

Haha, not really, it still sounds as if this is being blown out of proportion. I tried skimming through the first posts but couldn't catch anything that might sway me and I'm guessing the meat of the argument is somewhere in the middle of this thread. I'm not sure if it's worth digging for, so I'll just take your word for it that this is about more than a shirt.

[Sethala]

Haha, not really, it still sounds as if this is being blown out of proportion. I tried skimming through the first posts but couldn't catch anything that might sway me and I'm guessing the meat of the argument is somewhere in the middle of this thread. I'm not sure if it's worth digging for, so I'll just take your word for it that this is about more than a shirt.

The main reason why the shirt is "an issue" for some people is they think it shows an atmosphere of "we think women are more useful being sexy than they are at doing actual work".  I don't agree that someone being able to wear a shirt like this is any indication of a problem, personally, though I will admit I added some hyperbole in that summary.  Though there are troubling issues with women not getting proper credit for scientific awards, as well as a test someone here mentioned involving giving different people the same resume only one had a male name and the other female, and the female resume had a notably worse reception, that I do agree are a problem.

[Kythia]

Presumably you agree (Sethala) that a workplace where informal aloha shirts are allowed is different to one where everyone must be in a suit?  That one would expect a difference workplace culture between the two places?  I don't overly want to put words in your mouth, but that seems pretty uncontroversial.

If you do, then the basic premise that "suitable clothes for work are both an expression of the environment and serve to shape the environment" doesn't seem overly controversial either?

I'm just trying to work out where our opinions diverge.

[Sethala]

Presumably you agree (Sethala) that a workplace where informal aloha shirts are allowed is different to one where everyone must be in a suit?  That one would expect a difference workplace culture between the two places?  I don't overly want to put words in your mouth, but that seems pretty uncontroversial.

If you do, then the basic premise that "suitable clothes for work are both an expression of the environment and serve to shape the environment" doesn't seem overly controversial either?

I'm just trying to work out where our opinions diverge.

.

Phone posting, apologies for terse writing here.

Agree with first paragraph.  But an office that allows aloha shirts doesn't necessarily encourage wearing them.  Especially if only one person wears them.  If entire team wore similar shirts, had pinup girls on every wall, named probe after a famous porn star, etc, I might agree there's a problem.  Overall, I just have issues taking the leap from what you said to "therefore, the working environment as a whole is unwelcoming to women".

Will say more when I have a proper keyboard.

[Kythia]

.

Phone posting, apologies for terse writing here.

Agree with first paragraph.  But an office that allows aloha shirts doesn't necessarily encourage wearing them.  Especially if only one person wears them.  If entire team wore similar shirts, had pinup girls on every wall, named probe after a famous porn star, etc, I might agree there's a problem.  Overall, I just have issues taking the leap from what you said to "therefore, the working environment as a whole is unwelcoming to women".

Will say more when I have a proper keyboard.

Well, slow down there cowboy.  I didn't say "therefore the working environment as a whole is unwelcoming to women" so, yanno, not wanting to make that leap isn't a bad thing.

I take it you disagree with the second though?  That the clothes that are deemed suitable for work are an expression of the work environment and create a feedback loop which reinforces the environment?  As I say, just trying to work out where our difference is.

[Sethala]

Well, slow down there cowboy.  I didn't say "therefore the working environment as a whole is unwelcoming to women" so, yanno, not wanting to make that leap isn't a bad thing.

I take it you disagree with the second though?  That the clothes that are deemed suitable for work are an expression of the work environment and create a feedback loop which reinforces the environment?  As I say, just trying to work out where our difference is.

Apologies, I thought that was the conclusion you were going to.  Anyway, I don't necessarily disagree with the second, though I will add that it's not always the case.  For the sake of discussion, assume I agree with what yiu said.  Did you have a further conclusion to those statements?

(Still phone posting, btw)

[Kythia]

So you agree the shirt is sexist and you agree that clothing choices are a good reflection of thr nature of an organisation. Honestly,  even just the first would seem to be enough to make complaints about it valid, but adding in the second it sèems obvious that its symptomatic of a wider problem. Given everything you have said, I don't see hpw you don't see a problem? Sexist shirt bad, sexist shirt unchallenged in work environment worse.

[Sethala]

So you agree the shirt is sexist...

I don't believe I ever agreed to that, actually.  Not in the context you're taking it in, at least.

and you agree that clothing choices are a good reflection of thr nature of an organisation.

Also don't necessarily agree to that, I only ceded that point to see where you were going with this argument.  I agree that clothing choices can be a reflection of something's nature, not that they are a reflection.

I'll give a personal example.  Myself and a group of friends get together on a regular basis to play Magic, as well as a few other board and card games.  For those who aren't aware, Magic is a game played with something like trading cards, and because of their collectible nature, some cards can be very valuable, so rather frequently players will use sleeves on the cards, or lay out a playmat to set the cards on so they don't pick up table gunk (often using both).  Obviously, these sleeves and playmats can come with a variety of art, and I've got a small collection of different playmats and sleeves.  Most of them depict female characters, often in an anime art style, sometimes rather scantily clad.  Usually, these go without any real notice or mention, though sometimes my friends joke about it and call me out for it.  To say that our game environment tolerates and accepts these often "sexy" peripherals would be correct.  To say that my use of them indicates that everyone encourages using them, however, would be a stretch.

[Kythia]

I don't believe I ever agreed to that, actually.  Not in the context you're taking it in, at least.

I got it from your inclusion of the shirts on:

If entire team wore similar shirts, had pinup girls on every wall, named probe after a famous porn star, etc, I might agree there's a problem. 

a list of sexist activities.  If you don't see a problem with the shirt, why include it on that list?  I'm confused as to your posiion.

To say that our game environment tolerates and accepts these often "sexy" peripherals would be correct. 

Yes, your team tolerates and accepts this.  That's...that's kinda my point.  As per above it appears you think the shirt is sexist.  Per this argument the team "tolerates and accepts".  Therefore: problem.

To say that my use of them indicates that everyone encourages using them, however, would be a stretch.

This is the second time you've talked in terms of "encouraging" ("But an office that allows aloha shirts doesn't necessarily encourage wearing them. ") - I'm not sure why.  It's not something I - or anyone else - is claiming.  It's not clear what you're arguing against here, not me certainly.

[Kythia]

Thinking about it:

are you getting "encourages" from me talking about how clothing helps set the environment?  I guess I can see that.  But if you are, then you're wrong.  Do you think your sexy anime sleeves make it more or less likely that someone else in your group will use them?  They're clearly not objectionable to your group (accepts and tolerates) so thinking that someone who hadn't seen them before would say "Hey, Sethala, where did you get them from?  I like them" and get something similar is kinda not really a stretch.  Accepted and tolerated behaviour must necessarily encourage similar behaviour if that's what you meant by "encourage"