I think it has been established as essentially dogma by this point that Dr. Isis believes herself to be totally hot. She sees nothing wrong with her healthy narcissism self-esteem. However, she finds it interesting that the topic of which bloggers Dr. Isis finds totally hot has come up a few times in the last week and appears to be a point of interest for some. I think some of these discussions offer an interesting perspective into how men and women deal with each other professionally, and how these dealings are perceived by others. I thought that this humble little blog might be a good place to continue this discussion, but first some background for those of you not stalking watching the blogosphere like Dr. Isis:
New blogger JLK over at Pieces of Me has been blogging up a storm and has caught the eye of a number of the bloggers with whom the domestic and laboratory goddess regularly interacts . The shenanigans began, however, when Professor in Training pointed out that JLK's white text on a dark background was difficult to read. And, to be honest, it was. I mean, Dr. Isis reads like 100 blogs a day and she values readability. Well, absolute wackaloon and good friend of the blog PhysioProf said what we all were thinking (but as only he could say it) when he left the following comments:
And yeah, the light on dark theme is a motherfucking nightmare!Why? It totally sucks shit. It is a physiological fact of human vision that light text on a dark background is much more difficult to read.
Readable is sexy, sweetheart!
I chuckled to myself at his antics and then moved with my day. Later in the afternoon, however, I received the following email:
Hey there Dr. I....
I hope you can enlighten me a bit about something...My 'problem' must have something to do with this supposed 'bad boy' behavior that has such an appeal, I am told, to the fairer sex..
So what makes someone like JLK cave in / accede to the whining / 'demands' of guys like PhysioProf..?? I know you have cyber-interacted with him a lot, I would assume. And no, I am not cyber-jealous...I just do not get the whole cyber-offensive, cursing, vulgarity shtick. Kinda reminds me of all the tales of women falling for the 'bad boys'. To be honest, I was always one of the nice guys that was ignored because I did not act like an arsehole. I have always tried to be civilized and respectful, to everyone, online as well.
Yeah, it is quite possible, perhaps even likely, that it is a cyber-persona. It is still all rather offensive to me. I have always found people that could not express themselves in a semi-civilized manner to be hardly worth the time trying to interact with. Yeah, I know we are all just 'playing' here online but . . ..
Maybe I did not hang around enough with the jocks in the locker room in HS...Anyway, it has bugged me from the first comment from him I saw somewhere; on scienceblogs I am sure. Hey, I know you do not know me, and I do not know either of you. H3ll, you could be wife/husband for all I know. But that might make it easier to explain him.
Not the greatest of my online or real-world problems. Just something that has been kicking around in my head and I have never been able to figure it out. And that latest exchange with JLK just brought it forward again. Thanks in advance for any insight you might have for a confused minion... and I better click 'send' before I chicken out with this...
Before we continue, let's be very clear about two things. First, I do not know (nor do I really care to know) the identity of PhysioProf. As such, I am certainly not his spouse. Dr. Isis picks another man's underpants up off the bathroom floor and PhysioProf, as we all know, doesn't wear them.
Figure 1: One reader's rendition of the women of the blogosphere swooning for PhysioProf.
I found this email interesting and tucked it away in my inbox. I have thought a few times about addressing some of the points in this reader's email, but kept finding myself distracted by hot shoes or baking. But then yesterday, I wrote a post about the Journal of Applied Physiology's Point-Counterpoint series and made mention of the fact that I agreed with some statements made by PhysioProf in a response to an even earlier post I had lovingly crafted. PhysioProf's statement was made in direct oppostion to some complete wackaloonery comment left by frequently commenter and friend of the blog, S. Rivlin. I suppose ole Sol was irked that I did not specifically address his comment, which sparked PhysioProf's rant, because he left the following comment on the post:
I am somewhat disappointed that you completely ignored in your post the "point" and its originator, while complimenting the counterpoint and kissing the ass of its originator. I still feel that for some reason you tend to discriminate against certain commenters on your blog, though I may be wrong.
Figure 2: And here is where the testosterone in the blogosphere got a little thick for Dr. Isis.
What has left me so fascinated by these interactions is the fact that many of the same mores and rules of engagement that exist in my real life seem to also exist in the blogosphere. You see, I have written before that I believe this crazy community has the capacity to equalize our interactions in the sense that we judge each other based on the style of our writing (and trust me, people judge Dr. Isis) and not necessarily our physical appearances or academic posturing. Blogging pseudonymously potentially offers an additional dimension of equality. But, I am thinking that this equality may be a figment of my imagination and that many of the same gender-based antics that exist in my professional life also exist here.
In my real life I have had experiences where, if I happened to agree with a male coworker once too often or we had coffee one too many times, it was rumored that there must be some type of attraction between us (as it was suggested that JLK must have for PhysioProf in order to have been convinced to change her blog layout or as it was suggested that I must have in order to mention the "counterpoint" but not the "point"). Or worse, that some type of illicit behavior was being engaged in secretly in the 3rd floor bathroom over lunch when that floor is fairly empty (shhhhh). Certainly, two professional people of the opposite sex cannot share similar beliefs on topics or enjoy interacting unless they also want to fuck. And, clearly, if one person of a particular sex favors the opinions of one over another, she must be discriminating. I mean really, isn't that patently obvious to everyone but Dr. Isis?
I realize that I post this at the risk of offending one of my absolute favorite readers, but these recent goings on get at an issue that Dr. Isis finds tremendously frightening -- the idea that us silly women are slaves to our estrogen and might drop our panties for the first male colleague who acts with authority or aggressively.
Figure 3: Or perhaps women simply lack the self-control required to not jump the bone of aggressive male colleagues?
These ideas suggest that women lack the ability to interact with male colleagues independently of our vaginas and, therefore, must always be in position to be dominated by them. I will not argue that two professional people of the opposite sex can't be attracted to each other, but I will argue that two people of the opposite sex need not be attracted to each other in order to agree professionally.
There are a number of male bloggers in Dr. Isis's blog harem. Each one of them has a personality that resonates with the domestic and laboratory goddess in some way and they are all brilliant writers. PhysioProf happens to be the most aggressive of the bunch, but I think he has important things to say and, so often, says them as bluntly as we need to hear them. Academia is a tough and unforgiving place and sometimes, if you want to succeed, you just need someone to tell you to get it done. I find DrugMonkey's insights into the NIH process and tips on grantsmanship to be extremely helpful and his attention to detail is amazing. Abel Pharmboy is one of my new favorite ScienceBloggers and I am touched (in a completely non-sexual way) by his apparent passion for science and his family. And D.B. Echo's Sunday Stained Glass project is brilliant. He is an remarkable photographer. But I need not want to be intimate with any of them in order to enjoy their written stylings or even to favor them over other bloggers, right?
I mean, right?
I'll leave it to you to discuss, my little lambs.
Education & Careers
Comments
I sort of get the email author's point. PhysioProf has commented on my last series of posts and we have recently engaged in a couple of different discussions on some other people's blogs as well.
As always, he uses his typical vulgarity and I sometimes feel that he's being a bit of a bully.
However, he makes good points amidst all the expletives..and so I have found myself in some cases agreeing with him in spite of the fact that his comments could be read as trying to bully me into his point of view. Truth is, I make it a point to TRY not to cave to bullies. But if they are on the right track, the fact that they are bullies is irrelevant -- that would be a stupid reason to take the other side just to spite them, but it's not easy.
I think it's easier in a pseudonymous environment to de-personalize it and separate the good advice from the bad language. In real life, if someone had made such a good point as his with the same delivery I most likely would have responded by telling him exactly how screw himself -- good advice be damned!
But here, I am not in danger of him personally attacking me. He can agree with AA as much as he wants and it won't bother me bc AA is not my real name. SO I can pick out the gems in the midst of all the four-letter words and thanks him for his good advice and move on.
Or I can disagree and he can curse all he wants. It's not at me so who cares?
Posted by: ambivalent academic | November 23, 2008 4:53 PM
I'm not sure if I've been put in a position of needing to defend myself, or if the issue here is the broader one of people assuming that females are attracted to aggressive men by our nature. I'm going to use my own defense to address both of these issues.
First, I did not change my blog because CPP told me to. I had a couple of comments suggesting that I change it, I thought his comments were particularly funny. So I cited them as the reason for changing it in order to be humorous about it.
Second, the reason I frequently quote CPP and interact with him on my blog as well as others is because I also have an aggressive personality. I love swearing. I used to have an article up on my fridge about how the F-word is the shortest distance between two points. I think he's very intelligent, a lot of what he has to say has value, and I think he's funny. I get a kick out of the idea that somewhere in academia is a physiology professor with a closet potty mouth. I imagine being an undergrad in an anatomy class thinking my professor is incredibly boring while the whole time he's out there blogging about "motherfucking Jameson." I get a kick out of this concept of a secret online persona.
CPP, as far as I have seen, is not some sexist pig who's trolling the blogosphere looking for females to pump up his ego. Am I going to refuse to interact with him on the basis of the language he uses? That would be stupid, especially because I use the same language - just not with the same amount of sheer abandon that he does.
I find it utterly ridiculous to assume that I am "attracted" to CPP, considering that I don't know anything about him except what he chooses to post online. If the "nice" guys, like Tom for example, want to interact with me then post on my blog and refer back to things I say in comments on other blogs. I don't discriminate, I give my attention to the bloggers that give attention to me. It's that simple.
And to the guys that are somehow offended by the thought that female bloggers are attracted to aggressive men, it has nothing to do with aggression.
It's like they always say - women go for the ones who make them laugh.
It really is that simple.
Posted by: JLK | November 23, 2008 4:56 PM
No, no, no JLK. See, this is the point. You shouldn't defend yourself at all. I think I remarked that others had commenting about your blog's background but that PhysioProf was merely the wheel who squeeked the largest number of 4 letter words. The point of my post is that choosing to oil said wheel (and perhaps drop a few choice 4 letters words of ones own in the process) need to imply a sexual attraction.
Personally, I adore when nice guys like ...tom... come around the blog too. That's why he's on the blog roll. I think they balance the aggressive personality of the domestic and laboratory goddess.
Posted by: Isis the Scientist | November 23, 2008 5:35 PM
Isis,
I am a bit surprised that despite my repeated efforts to explain why I was disappointed when you did not mention my point in your post, you now took it on a completely different route. Eventually you missed my initial intention entirely.
First, I had approached your post from a scientific point of view. If you use an Introduction to a post where you about to discuss a point and counterpoint based on examples that appeared in comments to another post of yours, it is not too much to expect that both those point and counterpoint are cited in that Introduction. If you cite the counterpoint without the point your citation list is incomplete.
Second, you assume that based on my pseudonym I am a male and on that assumption you built your theory regarding how males interact with female bloggers. Be careful of such assumptions.
Posted by: S. Rivlin | November 23, 2008 5:35 PM
that white text on black is a nightmare and our wackanut friend points that our with regularity. A good thing, that.
Posted by: DrugMonkey | November 23, 2008 5:41 PM
Isis, you're being far too kind. And since I'm cranky today, I'll stick my neck out.
First off, "These ideas suggest that women lack the ability to interact with male colleagues independently of our vaginas and, therefore, must always be in position to be dominated by them. " Considering how dominated many men seem to be by their sexual urges, I've always thought that they were just projecting onto us. As for this ridiculous OMG U GUYS HANG OUT U MUST BE BANGIN crap I've also encountered, considering how beta-male some academics are, I've always chalked that up to being immature and bitter.
Speaking of beta-males, I see you've also has the 'nice guy' mythos shoved into your face by, of course, a 'nice guy'. Let me quote off Jezebel:
"Are y'all familiar with the common term from the feminist blogosphere, "Nice Guy(TM)?" The sort of guy who always says "Nice guys always finish last," and is mad that women don't want to sleep with him because he's not a rapist? And is always threatening to be one of the assholes he always sees getting girls? And in general hates women for not sleeping with him and thinks they're all bad people for not sleeping with him?" That person then goes on to call them 'emosogynists' which I find to be a perfect term.
Sure, Physioprof acts like a dickhead sometime. Sometimes he's also engaging in hyperbolic parody. So called nicer guys also act like snivelling entitled irritants sometimes. It all evens out. At least we can call bullshit on Physioprof without having to hear some kind of whiny tirade from him. Meanwhile I am married to an actual Nice Guy who sacks up and knows that he's a decent man and treats people fairly, and he doesn't need validation to know where he stands and he doesn't need to generalize about 'women' since we make up 50% of the fucking population. I'm guessing that these so called 'fairer sex women who love bad boys' are the usual vapid underage Barbies that these guys have been chasing all their life who won't sleep with them, so they have to tar all of us women with the same brush.
I have yet to see an Actively Nice Guy bitch about women's preferences like that. It's usually Nice Guys By Default, which is where they are too chicken to be assholes so they cling to this BS critique on women to explain their own inadequacies. Seriously, sack up already. It's not 'nice' to send an email like that to Dr. Isis. It's passive-aggressive.
Posted by: meh | November 23, 2008 5:41 PM
whew... and i used to think that i overthought things!
i think some people find it easier to be very direct on the blogosphere as opposed to in person. is this aggressive, or is it just getting to the point? and how do we determine the difference? people who make direct challenges get more of a response than people who are softer about it. i don't make the rules, i just observe my surroundings. i've seen myself respond that way too.
(i've also been feeling a bit aggressive myself lately- shall we blame that on my estrogen/testosterone levels as well? or the fact that i'm kicking serious ass and feeling good about myself and my progress as a senior grad?)
the outside social network is the problem, not the individual interaction. my department is full of overcompetitive bitchy people who like to talk smack about their peers in hopes that it makes them look better. i learned to shake this crap off years ago or i would still be huddled under my desk somewhere right this very minute.
Posted by: leigh | November 23, 2008 5:42 PM
Closet!? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!
Posted by: Comrade PhysioProf | November 23, 2008 5:48 PM
I took my musings over to my own space - they got a bit long.
I just wish this wasn't so remniscient of High School and all that 'he fancies her but snogged her mate...' stuff we endured during puberty. I HATED school.
Posted by: JaneB | November 23, 2008 7:17 PM
Interesting post. As a female with mostly male friends who is carving a career in a male-dominated field and had a male grad-advisor and post doc mentor, I've been accused of having feelings for and/or sleeping with all of the aforementioned people at one time or another, despite having done nothing of the sort with ANY of them EVER.
I've asked myself "why?" several times. Why would my male friends' wives/girlfriends assume that I coveted their partner? Why would other students/postdocs assume that I was horizontal folk-dancing with my advisor/mentor? What would lead people to these ridiculous and totally unfounded conclusions?
I think it's primarily jealously. My male friends are my closest friends in the world and I have a great rapport with them. They don't give a flying fuck about petty gossip and just accept me for who I am. I think this is also true about my male advisors as I always worked hard, was honest and treated them with respect; in return, they always treated me with respect and each went out of their way to assist me in my career.
You can be friends, colleagues, mentees, mentors or advisors to/with someone of the opposite gender without a sexual relationship. JaneB's quite correct ... those who think that professional relationship = hot bunny sex is still living with a high school mentality.
Posted by: Professor in Training | November 23, 2008 8:22 PM
I believe *one* of the reasons that women are accused (whether openly or surreptitiously) of having sexual interest in male associates with whom they are socially close is to shame them into not being so close. Women are still expected to show modesty in their sexuality or they risk the dreaded label 'slut', which is the road to social isolation.
The reason why others want to make sure a woman is not too chummy with other males was stated by Professor in Training - Jealousy. The people whispering about a sexual or romantic relationship clearly feel that they are being excluded from some benefit that the male in question is getting - whether that be actual sexual contact or just favoritism.
Posted by: stickypaws | November 23, 2008 8:47 PM
{{{Sigh}}}
Posted by: Isis the Scientist | November 23, 2008 9:55 PM
They're just jealous you have an "in" with CPP. Own it!
Posted by: ladeeda | November 23, 2008 10:21 PM
...
sol: "Second, you assume that based on my pseudonym I am a male and on that assumption you built your theory regarding how males interact with female bloggers. Be careful of such assumptions."
We need to run that through one of those 'gender analysis' thingies (that were all over scienceblogs recently ...and of course I can not find a link to one now...) and then we would know for sure.
...tom...
.
Posted by: ...tom... | November 23, 2008 10:47 PM
1. I am so fucking tired of that "I'm a nice guy, and women weren't nice to me, and I'm mad about that" shit that you hear over and over and over.
2. Isis, I cannot freaking believe that you actually thought the blogosphere was some kind of gender equitable nirvana space. I mean, for realz. Where have you been living? The same old bad gender dynamics followed us from meat space into the blogosphere. They may just play out in different ways sometimes.
3. Great post.
Posted by: Zuska | November 23, 2008 11:05 PM
Damn it, Zuska! Next you people are going to try to convince me that there is no Santa Claus or Jesus.
Posted by: Isis the Scientist | November 23, 2008 11:47 PM
Well, there is, of course, the complicating factor that Brillant, Aggressive, I-know-my-shit-and-I'm-damn-proud-of-it Scientists are Totally Freakin' HAWT.
But we all know that makes Dr. Isis way, way, hotter than CPP.
And yeah, this minion was playing way too much into an oh-too-familiar narrative about 'nice guys' vs. 'bad boys'. However, I tend to think that ~90% of the attention given to CPP is due to his distinctive attitude, and only ~10% to the actual points he offers (which are often correct, but seldom original). In that sense, CPP annoys me because there's too little substance there for real debate.
Posted by: becca | November 23, 2008 11:54 PM
I am tired, I've a had long long weekend with a boy that did not want to sleep. I am offering this information up so that everyone realizes that I have not read all the comments prior to posting mine, like I normally do.
I can not believe we are actually talking about this. Some people click, others don't. That is that. We're not teenagers, or in high school as JaneB said. Grow up people. Not everyone freaking likes PP, and not everyone like Isis. For that matter why the hell can't Isis like people that don't aren't like her? Maybe that attitude is the reason why so many of my 'white' friends don't have many non-white friends. Perhaps we can't talk / read / interact with those that aren't like us (whether look like us, act like us) ?
Posted by: ScientistMother | November 24, 2008 12:24 AM
I, of course, am for reals. (and totally hot)
Posted by: Tooth Fairy | November 24, 2008 12:48 AM
Translation: It annoys me when people pay attention to someone I think doesn't deserve it.
Posted by: Comrade PhysioProf | November 24, 2008 7:37 AM
"I am tired, I've a had long long weekend with a boy that did not want to sleep." I was about to be jealous - but wait, this was not a fun thing?
I see two separate issues here, one the use of vulgarity in argument, and two, what to do with sex when you work with the opposite.
On the first, I remember as a fresh young sophomore getting a ride home from college with some (gasp) art students who peppered their language with the f-bomb. I was scared shitless (raised good Catholic). My reaction, though, was to start adding vulgarities to my vocabulary, because I didn't want to be intimidated by mere language This is why I am in love with truth machine, pharyngula commenter.
My charismatic Catholic brother uses censure as a form of control; if you're winning the argument but say WTF or shit, all of a sudden he tries to take the moral high ground.
The sexiest bad boys are the ones who are science geeks, too! I work with a few (they're smart, they play in bands, they drink heavily, some are married, others would just break your heart), and yes, I'd love to fuck them, but no, I won't because that would upset the fragile work balance, and also because I consider myself civilized and thus make at least a feeble attempt to resist short-term gratification for long-term benefits. (Plus, my heart breaks easily.)
Doesn't mean everyone doesn't know who would fuck whom given half the chance. The trick is not to go off to conferences and get drunk with them...
Posted by: ildi | November 24, 2008 8:51 AM
Ildi, I think I am going to come work in your lab.
Posted by: Isis the Scientist | November 24, 2008 9:14 AM
Science geek? Check
Smart? Perhaps
Play in bands? Check
Drink heavily? Checkity-check
Married? Check
ildi, are you my wife???
Posted by: Abel Pharmboy | November 24, 2008 10:52 AM
Ah, face it, CPP... your just jealous that I'm all fluttering my eyelashes at Dr. Isis instead of you.
Posted by: Becca | November 24, 2008 12:01 PM
The "bad boy" dominance is not specific to women. Men have, in my observation, just as much tendency to respond to the posturings of a would-be-alpha as women do [1].
This is pretty basic mammalian behavior. It gets a lot of people killed, and Dr. Isis has no doubt seen plenty of that as an emergency medic [2].
My lament is that we, as a society, are so hypocritical about the whole business. We say that we want people to treat each other with courtesy and respect, but we most reward those who toss that advice out the window. Then we complain to sympathetic audiences about the silverbacks and how they dump on us and how unfair and uncivilized it all is.
But it works. You get what you reward.
[1] Of course, some just can't pull it off. They're the ones everyone dumps on. Losers.
[2] Darwin at work. Young males are particularly expendable, of course, so it's all for the good of the tribe that they try to get themselves killed. Those that fail live to reproduce.
Posted by: D. C. Sessions | November 24, 2008 12:43 PM
Well, speak for yourself.
Speaking from the perspective of a committee chair, it gripes the shit out of me when we waste limited bandwidth on dicksizing instead of getting the job done. It gripes me even worse when the disksizing diversion gets rewarded.
On the other hand, watching people who supposedly have the intellectual equipment to evaluate social situations based on the established behavioral science rationalize their way out of facing the facts is just amusing. At least, as long as I don't have a serious stake in the game.
Posted by: D. C. Sessions | November 24, 2008 1:07 PM
This is a bit of a tangent, but I also occasionally feel a little restricted by the female-female interactions in the blogosphere. Similar to how Isis describes bias in male-female interactions that reflect the real-life constraints on those interactions, I think the female-female blog conversations also represent real life norms. We're all so damn polite to each other nearly all of the time (except um, maybe to Isis). I love, love, love how the women-in-science blogosphere is so supportive, but sometimes I wish we could call bullshit when it's needed.
But what do we expect? Our personalities and culture aren't going to morph into something new -- collectively -- just because we're communicating via blogs.
Posted by: ecogeofemme | November 24, 2008 9:18 PM
EGF, you should feel free to call bullshit over here as often as you like...
Posted by: Isis the Scientist | November 24, 2008 9:22 PM
Thanks. Although, I just read the comments at Ambivalent Academic and changed my tune!
Posted by: ecogeofemme | November 24, 2008 11:27 PM
YES!!! I am glad to know I'm not the only hated woman on the internet ;)
Posted by: Isis the Scientist | November 24, 2008 11:29 PM
Great article.
I'm a private investigator and I specialize in online infidelity investigations.
I can appreciate your insights.
I'd love it if you visit my blog at www.emailrevealer.com and give me some feedback.
I'm allways looking for new perspectives so I can better serve my clients.
Posted by: Cyberstalking investigator | November 26, 2008 1:45 PM
There's a reason why I don't dress very femininely: I get taken more seriously if I dress more androgynously. Many people are still pretty stupid of BOTH sexes, and I am not apt to trust people's intelligence immediately.
Nor do I see why many people prioritize their femininity or masculinity so much. I'd think what one does with their mind - the accomplishments they make in their field, their goals, their hopes, their dreams, their ABILITIES, unadulterated by the attempt at brainwashing that the absurd notions of femininity or masculinity make on their brains - are something they should prioritize more than their perception of their adherence to some contrived, absurd idea of a gender ideal. I consider gender in itself a completely absurd concept.
I think in general it would be beneficial to your issue and similar issues we scientists who possess vaginas are beset by if society in general did away with the concept of gender. Certainly, it'd reduce the occurrences of sexism by the idiots who can't wrap their head around someone with a vagina being serious; I give most of those of our fellow scientists who are our be-phallused colleagues the benefit of the doubt in thinking they probably can take us just as seriously whether we wear a leather miniskirt and fuck-me boots or whether we wear jeans and beat-up sneakers.
Posted by: Katharine | December 2, 2008 10:26 PM
this is so funny very interesting
Posted by: leonardo victor rodrigues da silveira | May 18, 2009 8:43 PM
The upside of comment spam is that it reminds of these hi-larious threads. Thanks for another chuckle spammer dude!
Posted by: Eyeballs | May 19, 2009 1:12 AM