Yesterday Chris and Sheril of The Intersection announced their move to Discover. You can find their new home here. Sheril is one of a group of badass female science chicks that I absolutely adore. Her writing is brilliant and she is easily on the list of Top Five Bloggers I Would Like to Drink Wine and Talk Science With. I find her opinions on science in education and policy to be fascinating.
Her greeting at Discover has been, well...ugh. Beacon of women's rights and esteemed commenter Electro writes:
Having not read any of their material, I am supremely unqualified to comment on any of their writings.
But, as a living breathing male of the species, I look forward to any article with Sherils picture attached.
Advocate of women's rights John Paradox adds:
Okay, does anyone else think that Sheril resembles Danica McKellar (formerly of The Wonder Years, occasional correspondent on BRINK)?
mmmmmmmm........... wo-man
I left a comment expressing my "displeasure." It didn't make it out of moderation. Apparently so did PhysioProf and he has left some thoughts on the matter here. These events have left me generally reflective and there is something I'd like to add to the discussion...
Statements that are profane versus statements that are obscene.
There's been some talk at ScienceBlogs over the last few days about maintaining civility in the discourse. Personally, I happen to think that most attempts at "maintaining civility" are actually uncarefully crafted guises aimed at steering an argument in favor one party. As I mentioned on John Wilkin's blog, calling someone out for being uncivil is a strawman designed to minimize the importance of the other argument. It's the type of language that has been used to keep "uppity" groups from voicing their oppression.
I'm disappointed that Phil Plait of Bad Astronomy, where the comments about Sheril were placed, chose to allow these openly mysogynistic comments through but censored some of the voices of those who stood up against them (In Phil's defense, he did let through one comment from a relative unknown,and probably waspy, "David J. Kroll"). The message that this sends is that misogyny, crafted without the use of profanity, is completely acceptable. If you ask me, that certainly warrants a "fuck" or two.
But I think this might actually point to a larger problem over at Discover. A recent article in the Columbia Journalism Review discusses the demise of print and pay-for-content science journalism (I have more on that later) and Discover CEO Henry Donahue adds that he "has never been sold on the "ghettoization" of science news...," speaking specifically about the perception that blog and online science content is mediocre. Discover shall, indeed, aim to be non-ghetto.
ghetto
-noun, plural -tos, -toes.
There's been some talk at ScienceBlogs over the last few days about maintaining civility in the discourse. Personally, I happen to think that most attempts at "maintaining civility" are actually uncarefully crafted guises aimed at steering an argument in favor one party. As I mentioned on John Wilkin's blog, calling someone out for being uncivil is a strawman designed to minimize the importance of the other argument. It's the type of language that has been used to keep "uppity" groups from voicing their oppression.
I'm disappointed that Phil Plait of Bad Astronomy, where the comments about Sheril were placed, chose to allow these openly mysogynistic comments through but censored some of the voices of those who stood up against them (In Phil's defense, he did let through one comment from a relative unknown,and probably waspy, "David J. Kroll"). The message that this sends is that misogyny, crafted without the use of profanity, is completely acceptable. If you ask me, that certainly warrants a "fuck" or two.
But I think this might actually point to a larger problem over at Discover. A recent article in the Columbia Journalism Review discusses the demise of print and pay-for-content science journalism (I have more on that later) and Discover CEO Henry Donahue adds that he "has never been sold on the "ghettoization" of science news...," speaking specifically about the perception that blog and online science content is mediocre. Discover shall, indeed, aim to be non-ghetto.
ghetto
-noun, plural -tos, -toes.
- a section of a city, esp. a thickly populated slum area, inhabited predominantly by members of an ethnic or other minority group, often as a result of social or economic restrictions, pressures, or hardships.
- (formerly, in most European countries) a section of a city in which all Jews were required to live.
- a section predominantly inhabited by Jews.
- any mode of living, working, etc., that results from stereotyping or biased treatment
Figure 1: Henry Donahue, President of Discover Media LLC. Henry is anti-the ghettoization of science news, but also perhaps pro-holding your wallet when someone darker gets in the elevator with you?
Each new utterance of the word "ghetto" I hear makes the hair on the back of my neck stand up because it implies an elitism aimed at maintaining the white male patriarchal status quo. I hear it used around MRU (much to my chagrin) to describe things that appear old, economically depressed, or that display a character of overtly ethnic behavior in contrast to the white, milquetoast standard. Use of the word in the following sentence: "why is she acting so 'ghetto'?" could easily be transposed with "why is she acting so 'colored?'" This is, after all, the implied meaning. Perhaps Henry Donahue is trying to keep Discover from sounding "too ghetto" (ie, too "colored").
Figure 2: First page Google image results from a search for the word "ghetto." Thanks for protecting science from this, Discover.
Donahue's use of the word seems to imply that he's shooting for higher standards for Discover, to establish the online publication as a beacon of excellence, but also implies that this excellence is white and male. Is this the type of civil science we want to read? I think that it's been acts of civil disobedience, acts that have broken from the status quo, throughout history that have advanced society the farthest.
Donahue's group may not be profane, but I find the recent activities over at Bad Astronomy coupled with Donahue's own statements to be obscene. The new realm of online science media has tremendous potential to reach those who have not been previously included in the conversation. It has the potential to empower those who have not been previously invited to participate in science and inspire them to capitalize on creativity that could lead to the next revolutionary breakthrough. Some in academia complain about the lack of creative talent in graduate school. Those of us who are current players in the new Web 2.0 have the opportunity to reach an audience untapped by traditional science media and inspire that untapped creative talent to pursue a career in science.
If, of course, we choose to take advantage of it. Or, perhaps that would just be too ghetto.
Each new utterance of the word "ghetto" I hear makes the hair on the back of my neck stand up because it implies an elitism aimed at maintaining the white male patriarchal status quo. I hear it used around MRU (much to my chagrin) to describe things that appear old, economically depressed, or that display a character of overtly ethnic behavior in contrast to the white, milquetoast standard. Use of the word in the following sentence: "why is she acting so 'ghetto'?" could easily be transposed with "why is she acting so 'colored?'" This is, after all, the implied meaning. Perhaps Henry Donahue is trying to keep Discover from sounding "too ghetto" (ie, too "colored").
Donahue's use of the word seems to imply that he's shooting for higher standards for Discover, to establish the online publication as a beacon of excellence, but also implies that this excellence is white and male. Is this the type of civil science we want to read? I think that it's been acts of civil disobedience, acts that have broken from the status quo, throughout history that have advanced society the farthest.
Donahue's group may not be profane, but I find the recent activities over at Bad Astronomy coupled with Donahue's own statements to be obscene. The new realm of online science media has tremendous potential to reach those who have not been previously included in the conversation. It has the potential to empower those who have not been previously invited to participate in science and inspire them to capitalize on creativity that could lead to the next revolutionary breakthrough. Some in academia complain about the lack of creative talent in graduate school. Those of us who are current players in the new Web 2.0 have the opportunity to reach an audience untapped by traditional science media and inspire that untapped creative talent to pursue a career in science.
If, of course, we choose to take advantage of it. Or, perhaps that would just be too ghetto.
Education & Careers
Life Science
Comments
i also commented on phil's blog -- sans naughty words -- and have not made it out of moderation, either. so language is not what offends phil, it's either having a different opinion from phils' regular commenters, or being female, or .. dare i say it? being a female with an idea that differs form his regular commenters -- an uppity bitch!
so .. just sign me;
uppity bitch
Posted by: "GrrlScientist" | March 24, 2009 4:15 PM
I love you Grrl and us uppity bitches gotta stick together1
Posted by: Isis the Scientist | March 24, 2009 4:16 PM
Isis,
I am totally with you, CPP, DM and others on the unacceptability of certain comments in the above-mentioned blog. However, I find your equating ghettoization of women in science with the Warsaw Ghetto and ghettoization of Jews by including a picture of Jews before their execution by the Nazies, strange and callus, to say the least. Even if your excuse is that this is what you found on Google, you could delete this particular picture as it cheapens the Holocaust and its victims.
BTW, I did add my two cents to the thread on Phil Plait's blog.
Posted by: S. Rivlin | March 24, 2009 4:16 PM
Phil Plait did post recently excoriating the sexism of those posts. This may be because of the type-lashing that he has received via Bora, DM, CPP and elsewhere. He claims that he felt that David Kroll did a good job and felt that would take care of it. Many bloggers, including yourself, have left it up to commenters to take care of things, at least for awhile, so I would be inclined to extend him the benefit of the doubt.
Maybe most, but not all(some is probably more accurate). I'm not at all offended by profanity myself(and may be entertained by it on occasion) but I understand that some people are. Profanity itself could be framed as exclusionary since it discourages some people from viewing/participating in discussion.
Um... what the fuck is this supposed to mean?
Posted by: MattK | March 24, 2009 4:20 PM
"ghettoization" usually refers to walling off something to let it wither and die, very different from the newer adjective "ghetto".
So, when a women's studies dept is moved off campus to the former practice locker room, one might say that the U is attempting to "ghettoize" the dept.
This is a very different meaning from a dean saying "that dept has become so ghetto"
Posted by: PalMD | March 24, 2009 4:21 PM
Sol, go back and read the post. I do not refer solely to women, but discuss the use of the word "ghettoizaton" by the CEO of Discover with respect to discrimination again ethnic and religious minorities -- a word that has a real, discriminatory, and painful meaning. This meaning is highlighted by the images that are returned when you search for the word.
It's a horrible word, a word implies discrimination and violence against an "out group," but a word that Henry Donahue used to describe the practices of his company. It's not I who is cheapening the meaning of the word. Your reaction reenforces the fact that this is a word with a very particular meaning that I think has been used by this man with a very particular intent.
For the other commenters, let's be clear. It's is not the fact that Phil did not specifically respond to the misogyny, but the fact that his blog censored some while not censoring others, that is the issue at hand.
Posted by: Isis the Scientist | March 24, 2009 4:25 PM
Hey, maybe he just doesn't like Jews writing science!
Donahue was using it as a synonym for plebeian (which would still be classist, but can at least be endowed with a faint hint of irony). At least for places, students are using it as a synonym for dilapidated. At a minimum, I think it's fair to view use of the word ghetto to be a sign of an extremely insufficient vocabulary.
It is, of course, also a reflection of some very nasty racist undertones that are excessively prevalent in our society.
That said, I'm not sure I'd call it obscene. It seems to me that most attempts to restrict the "obscene" are uncarefully crafted guises aimed at restricting what people can and cannot say based on a relatively arbitrary sense of what they personally find distasteful.
Posted by: becca | March 24, 2009 4:40 PM
I suspect that profane comments were blocked by an automated filter, not by any specific action on Phil's part, though it's not easy to determine at this time.
Posted by: Anthony | March 24, 2009 4:45 PM
"Crude" and "inappropriate" (and in consequence "rude", and thus "uncivil"), yes. Miss Manners would not approve of them. However, I don't think the remarks measure up under either "profane" or "obscene". OTOH, I have external gonads and convex genitalia, so I may not be as sensitized from years of abrasive personalities.
Posted by: abb3w | March 24, 2009 4:54 PM
Ping
I too left a (non-profane) type-lashing comment at Phil's blog and it has yet to be released from moderation. How do Bora, DM, Nat, et al. get out so quickly? I was pleased to see that Phil did in fact step up...I was hesitant to extend the "benefit of the doubt" excuse since comments were making it through moderation in the interim (implying that he'd read them?).
Posted by: ambivalent academic | March 24, 2009 4:56 PM
I guess he turned on moderation now for all comments and will decide later what to do with all of them.
Posted by: Coturnix | March 24, 2009 5:01 PM
Hmmm... I see a revival of the gang war between Scientist writers and science Writers. More gang-banging and cap-popping to follow, I'm sure.
A gold medallion to the Brother or Sista that scalps Donahue's faux-hawk and parades it over at Scienceblogs.
Posted by: DSKS | March 24, 2009 5:08 PM
Dearest Isis, I hope you don't give up on Bad Astronomy because of this. Phil is a good guy and an ally. He has now posted a comment in that thread chastising the offenders and clarifying his position.
Phil has a different philosophy about "civility in the discourse" than you do, but I think there is room for reasonable people to disagree on this (although I tend to agree more with your take than with his). He has lots of very intelligent and important things to say about the role of science in society, so please don't delete him from your blogroll just because some of his commenters are sexist jackasses.
Posted by: Asphericity | March 24, 2009 5:34 PM
As seems to happen occasionally. I'm with Mr. Rivlin. I do not like the the picture of jews shown before their execution of the holocaust, don't find it at all illustrative of the ghettoization concept you're trying to illustrate, and don't think that the fact that it comes up on a google search (as picture #23, for me) to be a particularly good reason for its inclusion.
Ghettoization might be the precursor to extermination (as was the plan of the Nazis) but it is not the current usage (which harks closer to the pre-nazi ghettoization of jews, their isolation and restriction, but not their extermination). I would have been less disturbed by a more accurate inclusion -- a picture of the original Ghetto, in Venice.
Posted by: neurolover | March 24, 2009 6:48 PM
That's one of the more common uses, certainly.
Posted by: D. C. Sessions | March 24, 2009 7:00 PM
PalMD has hit the obvious intended use of the word "ghettoization" right on the head. Your interpretation is extraordinarily strained.
Posted by: Gebstadter | March 24, 2009 7:00 PM
From the American Heritage Dictionary:
1. To set apart in or as if in a ghetto; isolate.
2. To make into or similar to a ghetto
Return to the definition provided by Isis.
I return to the original point. How can you moderate enface comments which contain the word "fuck," that are determined to be inflammatory purely on the basis of the profanity, despite the fact that the content speaks against mysogyny but the word "ghettoization" is deemed acceptable. I would argue that word is potentially much more obscene.
Posted by: Isis the Scientist | March 24, 2009 7:11 PM
Yeesh, talk about disappointment; I don't think there's a sentence there that isn't either dead wrong, offensive, or just plain stupid. Hopefully you now understand that it is not 'Phil Plait' who is allowing and disallowing comments but his blog software (does Dr. Isis not use software to keep spam out?). Regardless, you overlook a couple extremely basic things: 1) bloggers are under no obligation to allow any comments at all and are entirely free to be picky about what gets posted, and most importantly, 2) bloggers are not responsible for what idiots post. I don't think I've ever seen another blogger criticizing another based on what their commenters said, as if he has any responsibility for that; does it mean anything that his welcome post is entirely devoid of anything remotely misogynistic? I ain't buying your, "the fact that his blog censored some while not censoring others, that is the issue at hand" dodge. Surely you've left comments on other miscellaneous blogs and they didn't get posted; did it merit a blog posting?
You didn't respond to MattK's question either concerning, 'probably waspy'. You sure one-upped that world-renowned Electro by tossing in a little casual racism with your misandry; Dr Isis is nothing if not classy!
And just to top it off, you whip out the hoary, "The message that this sends", used so often by bloggers when the evidence for their point is so lame. You don't trust your readers to determine for themselves what message it sends? Why bother to mention it at all, unless maybe you're off your rocker here and deep-down suspect that no, people won't see your utterly contrived message at all. I mean come on, you've really never heard of anyone filtering profanity via software from their blogs? You think it wrong to allow offensive comments to remain and not disappear them down the memory hole? Blog comments are not 'professional' and are far more akin to graffiti on a bathroom wall than any formal communication. Speaking of graffiti, it's ironic that you're bitching about not being able to swear freely in your complaint about someone making a lewd comment about a woman's looks; both are kinda like what you'd see on a (men's) bathroom wall.
Lastly, Plait's taking over for James Randi, nuff said. He deserves the fucking benefit of the doubt, not that he needs it in this case.
Okay, vent off. Seriously, do you think the very first comment saying Sheril looks 'fetching' is truly that offensive?
Posted by: Spartan | March 24, 2009 7:23 PM
...
While we are all just scribbling after each other on the bathroom wall...
@ Spartan, who asked...
"Seriously, do you think the very first comment saying Sheril looks 'fetching' is truly that offensive?"
Yes.
...tom...
.
Posted by: ...tom... | March 24, 2009 7:34 PM
Ironically the area around my university (which is almost exclusively populated by students) was widely referred to as the ghetto.
Posted by: antipodean | March 24, 2009 7:44 PM
double Yes.
Posted by: jc | March 24, 2009 7:45 PM
Spartan: Seriously, do you think the very first comment saying Sheril looks 'fetching' is truly that offensive?
Where have you been in this discussion? If I have lost you, please refer back to David Kroll's original comment and then move on to PhysioProf's blog.
Posted by: stickypaws | March 24, 2009 7:46 PM
Yes I read Kroll's comment and PP's typical rant. I guess I have a higher threshold for the word 'offensive' than some, and reserve it for far clearer and well, 'offensive' situations. 'Mmmmmmmmm.... woman' is definitely headed in the offensive direction, without question. I would say that saying she's fetching is at best inappropriate, and even that's tough since 'fetching' sounds so quaint and old-fashioned.
I can't help but think that many here take something like, 'she's fetching', and read 'she's fetching, and who cares about her intellectual accomplishments and intelligent writing that don't mean nothing she shuurr is pretty and that's all that matters with women, ain't that right, Cletus?'.
Posted by: Spartan | March 24, 2009 8:02 PM
Spartan, these comments do not occur in a vacuum. There is a long and tired tradition of reminding women that they don't really belong in "serious" endeavors, such as science, by pointing out her femaleness. It would be odd if a handsome man's picture were immediately greeted with comments on his looks. But it is completely cliche that a woman's picture is greeted with comments on her looks---good, bad or ordinary.
Kicking off Sheril's first day in the new digs by going straight to that place is just bad. Socially unacceptable.
Posted by: yolio | March 24, 2009 8:33 PM
Just for the record, I think Henry Donahue is fetching. Though his hair and clothing look too pressed/expensive- they should definitely be rumpled more.
Still, he's too much of a dumbshit to be attractive.
Posted by: becca | March 24, 2009 8:46 PM
Re: Spartan #23
Then perhaps you've never been the subject of immediate objectification based solely on your chromosomal inheritance? Inappropriate is offensive in the workplace environment and it's something you would never say to a person face-to-face (at least not anymore). It states that her intellectual and professional achievements that she is bringing to this environment count for less than the fact that she is a woman and aesthetically interesting.
It comes right back to an earlier discussion. Apparently it's ok to critique a woman in a professional context with sexual put downs (even "she's ugly") thus it's ok to praise a woman in a professional context with sexualized "compliments".
In an environment that is focused on the appearance as the profession (say, modeling) that may be more acceptable, but then it would apply equally to men. In an environment where it's the INTELLECTUAL achievement that matters it's entirely inappropriate and I would add that it would not happen to a male.
Oh, and yolio said it even better.
Posted by: Sarah | March 24, 2009 8:48 PM
yolio I agree, there is also a long tradition of just pointing out female and male attractiveness period. I agree that it is out of place and is inappropriate, but misogynist and offensive?
Sarah, I understand what you're saying, but I don't agree that 'she's fetching' states anything like the idea that her achievements count for less compared to her looks. It just means some dork found her attractive; the rest is 100% conjecture.
Posted by: Spartan | March 24, 2009 9:30 PM
So, I've thought about this, and I've decided that I am uncomfortable with the equation of ghetto=colored or ethnic. I grew up ghetto, believe it or not, and I often use the adjective to mean things like cheaply made, bad, and non-functional or trashy, ignorant and low class. There is a strong implications of cost, poverty or education being a factor. I could be wrong about this, but I always thought that the adjective ghetto was pioneered by hip hop culture and appropriated by white culture in the usual way.
Non-ghetto representations of color are oddly under-represented in the public eye, this is one of the things that makes Michelle Obama so beloved, she presents a thoroughly non-ghetto image of blackness. But just because some people seem to be confused, doesn't mean that ghetto=colored.
As for the Donahue quote, it makes zero sense to me to talk about science blogging as being ghettoized. To me, he just comes off ignorant, like he doesn't know how to use the language properly.
Posted by: yolio | March 24, 2009 9:31 PM
I don't see why the "waspy" comment was needed. Kroll seems to be standing up against the sexual commenting, so I fail to see why one would care about what his ethnocultural background is.
As for moderating based on language, if you moderate you have to use a/some criterion/a, and while I'm not offended by moderate profanity, some people are. I do think that one can generally make oneself understood without resorting to using the work fuck, but whatever floats your metaphorical boat.
Posted by: Epinephrine | March 24, 2009 10:42 PM
Just have to pop up and say that some guys don't think much of it either.
I don't think I'll bother comment over there, but a few loose thoughts. It is nice to see photos of "actual scientists" (or students)—the photos themselves, not comments about them—blow away the silly "female scientists must all be butt-ugly and wear centimetre thick bifocals" type of stereotype that some Hollywood movies promote(d). You'd like to think that people are over that by now, but maybe not it seems...? To be fair to Hollywood, these days they seem to have swung too far the other way, with way too many "bimbo" scientists—of both sexes—than Normal Human Beings. Norhubes :-) (Don't ask, I get weird ideas some days.) Or is that a good thing and I shouldn't be complaining?
I sometimes think it'd be interesting to have these thoughtless twits post how old they are and their "hobbies" next to their comments. It might be revealing.
Posted by: Heraclides | March 24, 2009 10:58 PM
Yeah, you're all right. It is absolutely inappropriate for me to call some complete stranger waspy based purely on his appearance, while evaluating the quality of his comment. I can only hope he will accept my sincerest apologies for my poking fun at a totally random commenter.
And yet, use of the word "fuck" is what is determined to be profane over at the other joint.
Posted by: Isis the Scientist | March 24, 2009 11:03 PM
Right with you except that "ghetto" is, as yolio says, a real handy adjective sometimes. I use it for my experiments: "Hey, we didn't have the cool thing that would make these experiments easy so I pulled together this ghetto setup and it totally rocks!" That is, in my scientist's playbook it translates as "on the cheap; involving items pulled from unused drawers; using items for a purpose other than their intended." And it's a brag word, because it means I can make my science work without needing fancy shit.
Anyhow, other than that caveat I'm with you every step.
Posted by: Dr. Jekyll & Mrs. Hyde | March 24, 2009 11:58 PM
Isis said "Yeah, you're all right. It is absolutely inappropriate for me to call some complete stranger" waspy based purely on his appearance,"
Um, I have a feeling there is a broken link? Is it to this:
http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?page_id=231 ... or to some other blog (I thought he was a scienceblogs guy, but the picture did not match: http://scienceblogs.com/terrasig/2009/03/science_blogger_panel_in_duke.php ... same general location, same research specialty... but very different face and hair).
Anyway, I still despise Discover magazine after their horrible mercury scare article about four years ago. They may have improved a bit (after son of Penthouse bought it from Disney --- ack!), but it is still a bunch of flash over content (and it doesn't help that they had a favorable article on Celia Farber, an AIDS denialist, possibly because she was a former flame of Guccione, jr). Once in a while I will glance at it in the library, put it back and then go and grab the Smtihsonian, Scientific American, National Geographic, Fine Gardening and Martha Stewart's Living. Hey, I have to do my domestic diva bit too!
Posted by: HCN | March 25, 2009 1:07 AM
I recently came across your blog and have been reading along. I thought I would leave my first comment. I don't know what to say except that I have enjoyed reading. Nice blog. I will keep visiting this blog very often.
Sarah
http://adoptpet.info
Posted by: Sarah | March 25, 2009 2:43 AM
I wonder if I could put 'fetching' in a biosketch...
Posted by: monicajo@gmail.com | March 25, 2009 3:52 AM
For heaven's sake, it was a couple of random commenters. Who cares what they think? You're going to tar Phil, and the whole of Discovery, over that?
The only time I've seen comments go into the moderation queue on Phil's blog is when they include URLs, and all comments with URLs do so. I don't know if it also screens for "bad words", but anyway, normal comments aren't moderated at all; so that's how they "go through quickly".
Good grief.
Posted by: Nemo | March 25, 2009 4:50 AM
About "ghetto" - science reporting being put into an out-of-the-way neighborhood where we don't have to think about it or look at it. That's the nature of a ghetto: immigrant, non-mainstream, or undesirables put away in their "own" neighborhood. I don't think it's meant in the manner you seem to interpret: acting "Ghetto" is a different expression, and not really derived from white male vernacular.
Keeping science from being shunted off to where it's not seen or heard is not elitist, or a kind of white, male or patriarchal attitude. If anything, it's the opposite: struggling against what other people would define for you as your place.
I'm not sure if the terms have become mixed, or if you understand that becoming "ghettoized" is not a desirable state precisely because you are allowing somebody else to define your boundaries. It is not a reflection of the Elvis Presley ballads sung in so heartfelt a manner by a man in more sequins than Liberace describing the ghetto.
It is apparently reversed in some minds: the separation imposed on a minority group and the resulting alienation and lack of opportunity switch places, as the results of being shunted off become instead the perceived reason for being shunted off.
Frankly, it seems that this is akin to the gentleman fired from his job for including the word "pedagogue" in a report and later being called a child molester with the word pointed out as the reason for their conclusion.
Posted by: Pat | March 25, 2009 5:07 AM
In defence of phil - first of all, his blog, his rules.
Secondly, he gets all sorts of daft, stupid or offensive comments and still leaves them up for discussion. So it's consistent to leave misogynist comments up, just like antivaccinationist tirades.
Last, but not least, rebecca Watson of skepchick calendar fame also does a skepdude one. One of these featured a certain Phil Plait :)
I'm glad to see that Phil is taking this blatant misogyny more seriously now though.
Posted by: Perceval | March 25, 2009 6:02 AM
UGH. Here it is again. This condescending assumption that one will have total control over the definition of his or her socioeconomic (or racial) identity if he or she simply wills it to be so. Yeah, I'm an Ayn Rand fan, too. Nevertheless, reality isn't that simple.
And people need to stop motherfucking asking Isis if she motherfucking "understands" things, as if she's a dumb little child or something. You sound like motherfucking Dave and Sol Rivlin. You aren't being "gentle". You aren't being "rational". You aren't being "honest". You're being a prick. If you really wanted to "introduce" an idea to Isis, you would cut out the snooty preamble. You'd say, "I think that . . .", not "I'm not sure if you understand . . ." UGH. UGH. UGH.
In high school, my best friend and my best friend's crush and I liked to use "low-budget" in place of "ghetto". But it had nothing to do with political correctness/desire not to offend others. We simply thought it was funnier for some reason. "Awwwww. That's all low-budget . . ."
Posted by: Juniper Shoemaker | March 25, 2009 6:19 AM
Most adults realize that you don't use 'waspy' period, just like a host of other racist and sexist epithets. I don't give a shit, I'm not sensitive to it or 'fuck' or 'mmmmm...woman', but it's just strange then to see the hysterics about some idiotic, uncouth, obviously juvenile comments and label it 'mysogyny', when you just forge right ahead and use the racist, sexist term 'waspy'. 'Waspy' is more offensive to some than 'she's fetching' or 'mmmm....woman', but it's directed at the evil white patriarchal illuminati so it's just dandy. A little consistency please.
Posted by: Spartan | March 25, 2009 9:00 AM
Posted by: Danimal | March 25, 2009 9:08 AM
So then it's ok to leave mysogynistic omments in place for the week lads and lasses to read but the word "fuck" in defense of a woman's autonomy? That's hot bullshit of I've ever seen it. Personally, I would much rather have Little Isis say, "Fucking shit, Mom. They shouldn't treat her that way" then ever think "mmmm...woman" is acceptable.
Posted by: Isis the Scientist | March 25, 2009 9:13 AM
I think Phil leaves anything in place that meets his acceptable use policy. I have not read it recently and could not easily find it. Two that I remember are profanity and personal attacks. Do you want him to censor? Personally, if I had a teenage daughter, I would not find it unexceptionable if she said "mmm...that boy is hot!" but would if she said "fuck you Dad." I expect teenagers to behave like teenagers doing all the stupid things that they do (that does not mean that I will be happy about it). Hopefully when my son is a teenager he will know better. Most of his friends are girls and they are much more prone to making sexist statements and most more prone to comment on another's appearance. Why do you think boy bands are so popular?
Posted by: Danimal | March 25, 2009 9:41 AM
Oh dear Isis, Thank you for your kind words and support! You know I absolutely adore you! I've finally responded as well, so come visit!
Posted by: Sheril R. Kirshenbaum | March 25, 2009 10:45 AM
"Keeping science from being shunted off to where it's not seen or heard is not elitist, or a kind of white, male or patriarchal attitude."
See, if that's what he meant by the comment, why is he running discover? Doesn't a magazine people are only going to read if they're already interested shunt off science to where it's not seen or heard? I mean, I could see if the editor of the NYT science section said that (if they were arguing that it was useful to have the science in a traditional newspaper where people weren't necessarily looking for science), or even someone running a TV station (people flipping channels might stumble onto science, after all). But if you use that definition, I would think Discover is more "ghettoized" than the blogosphere this way (scienceblogs end up linked in both directions from news sites and other communities).
"Personally, I would much rather have Little Isis say, "Fucking shit, Mom. They shouldn't treat her that way" then ever think "mmmm...woman" is acceptable." +eleventy.
"Why do you think boy bands are so popular?" Because teenage girls haven't discovered Chris of The Intersection? mmm...that boy is hot!
/silly
Posted by: becca | March 25, 2009 10:49 AM
All this "ZOMFG you said WASP!! You RACIST!!11!ELEVENTY!111!!" or "ZOMFG you called someone WHITE!11! You RACIST!11!!!ELEVENTY!1!!!11" is disingenuous and meant to distract from genuine racial oppression. WASPs and white people in general are not racially oppressed, and so calling someone "white" or WASP is not an exertion of oppressive power by the racially privileged over the less privileged.
Posted by: Comrade PhysioProf | March 25, 2009 11:39 AM
CPP- Yes, but I'd guess that in Ireland the Anglo Saxon Protestant part could sound ugly coming from a Catholic. I think it was unnecessary and not taking the moral high ground.
Posted by: becca | March 25, 2009 11:43 AM
Becca "Because teenage girls haven't discovered Chris of The Intersection? mmm...that boy is hot!"
Agreed, in a non-gay, not-that-there-is-anything-wrong-with-that, kind of way.
Posted by: Danimal | March 25, 2009 11:52 AM
No it isn't. Who are you to say what is "meant" by a comment? Accusing others of being disingenuous is a nice knee jerk reaction, a way of disregarding views that you don't like by deciding for yourself what was a person's intent. Just because you think that it isn't offensive doesn't mean that it isn't to some people.
That said, I don't care that much. I just thought it was unecessary, but didn't realise it was perhaps a friendly comment to someone known to Dr. Isis.
Racism isn't only about privilege. Racism can be expressed by any group against any group, and none of it is acceptable. We shouldn't judge each other on such superficialities, and I was merely surprised that Dr. Isis made a comment like that.
Posted by: Epinephrine | March 25, 2009 1:02 PM
Oh CPP, perhaps you also are just a tad 'slow on the uptake'. The point is that it is hypocritical to be so hyper-sensitive about idiots (it's the goddamn internet!) making comments about someone's looks and then turn around and use the term 'wasp', unless you are so clueless to think that that term is never used in a derogatory way.
So was 'mmmm....wo-man' also an exertion of oppressive power by the gender-privileged over the less in your mind? It seemed clear that it was an utterly irrelevant stupid comment, but the way 'misogyny' has been thrown around it makes me wonder if people are either misusing that word or if they have more information on the people who left those comments than I do.
On the non-critical and sincere side, thumbs up on posting the update from Plait on your own blogpost; your profane honesty and integrity are growing on me.
Posted by: Spartan | March 25, 2009 1:03 PM
I, despite Juniper Shoemaker's silly response, fully agree with Pat's (#37) interpretation of the ghettoization comment by Henry Donahue. The tendecy to see in certain statements that contain words minorities are sensitized to something that has never been there, is prevalent among such minorities. I should know because as a member of a minority group, I have that tendency. Surely, in my own city's newpaper, science was ghettoized and then completely eliminated.
Becca's interpretation (#45) is also crooked, since Discover is probably one science megazine that has managed to get out of the ghetto.
Posted by: S. Rivlin | March 25, 2009 1:13 PM
Looking over the discussion, thought I'd highlight a couple of points where people are missing each other...
1)re: 'ghettoizeation'
The FULL quote from the article (from which Isis cherry picks the 'offensive' part)...
---
"Moreover, Donahue adds, he has never been sold on the 'ghettoization' of science news, and a robust Web presence has helped pull Discover out of the science-magazine niche."
---
It's clear from the context that Donahue means
'ghettoization' = niche
Not some weird colloquial "to become more ghetto", as Isis appears to think. He was not 'Speaking specifically about the perception that blog and online science content is mediocre' he was speaking specifically about how web content has made Discover more mainstream, and thinks that science content shouldn't be "walled off" (or ghettoized) from the public.
Now if Isis's critique is more Po-Mo and ANY use of the word 'ghetto' is loaded (regardless of whether the denotation of what Donahue said is, well, kosher), then it's a vaild point. But I'd say it's much weaker than "Donahue fears darker skinned folks in elevators". Further, once you start deconstructing what comes out of people's mouths for hidden biases with total disregard for denotation, you're on shaky ground-- being Jewish, the first connotation of ghetto for me is the WWII/European one, not the American urban one.
2) re: Profanity, obscenity and Sexism
I think Isis is almost spot on. But she failed to address what some who disagree with her point out- That the automated software to remove 'obscene language' is a different bar than manually inspecting each post for any obscene content.
To make the point explicit-
I think what Isis is getting at is that by using an automated filter, a blogger implies that posts that make it through the filter are less obscene than ones that do. As she pointed out earlier, this biases the discussion towards perhaps less angry comments, but that has little to do with moral obscenity of the content. The automated filter is part of the problem.
To which one can respond
"My house, my rules", which isn't really a response.
or
"It's just an automated filter, it does what it does and it's easier than going through each post. Any "missed detection" of obscene material does not imply approval.
Which is a more reasonable response, but doesn't address the issue of biasing the conversation.
--jt
Posted by: jt | March 25, 2009 2:10 PM
Isis, I didn't realize that the waspy thing was an in joke (but still...).
Spartan - your lack of sensitivity to this issue seems to result from a failure of imagination on your part. While I agree that the comments don't necessarily point to misogynistic intent, they are certainly more than just rude or inappropriate. It should be easy to see how these comments in this context retracts the respect that would normally be accorded to a professional and instead serves to disempower her. It is tough to figure how anyone who is not either a misogynist or very dense could not see this. Maybe the original commenters just haven't been exposed to these ideas or haven't thought about them and their statements are just misguided attempts at cuteness - I don't know - but what is you're excuse?
Danimal: "I would not find it unexceptionable if she said "mmm...that boy is hot!"" But the context is different (both proximate and historical).
Posted by: MattK | March 25, 2009 2:31 PM
jt: "The automated filter is part of the problem."
Are you serious? I don't just mean jt here. I sort of assumed that everyone just misunderstood the obvious and didn't realize that an automatic filter was involved. Apparently I misunderestimated you guys. All you have to is read the sidebar and not say "fuck". None of you actually have Tourett's of the keyboard. Use your grown-up words.
Phil's reasoning behind this seems perfectly legitimate to me. Not every corner of the web can be a hip imitation left-wing student newspaper targeted at the post-grad crowd where the only consideration is the unencumbered self-expression of those with letters after their name but who haven't outgrown the swearing-is-cool phase that most of us left after grade 6.
Posted by: MattK | March 25, 2009 2:47 PM
"Discover is probably one science megazine that has managed to get out of the ghetto." Wait, are you saying significant numbers of people actually read Discover? Stats please!
Still, if Donahue was using the word to indicate that he isn't fond of the dead-tree only format and he thinks the web is a good thing (which is what it sounds like from what jt said), I don't know that I could remotely argue with the point.
"Now if Isis's critique is more Po-Mo and ANY use of the word 'ghetto' is loaded (regardless of whether the denotation of what Donahue said is, well, kosher), then it's a vaild point."
Just for the record, this is the best use of the word kosher I've seen in a long time.
Also, I think the word ghetto is a bit loaded, but not for exactly the reason Isis does.
The first connotation for me is probably somewhat context dependent, but in cases with additional clues (like this one) probably more WWII Europe than urban America. The word IRKS me when used to describe actual places in urban America that aren't really walled-off (even culturally) but are just impoverished (even though it's a perfectly non-obscene way to use the word, it's just irritating to compare any poor neighborhood to the WWII type ghetto).
It's a slippery word.
Posted by: becca | March 25, 2009 2:57 PM
jt, my intent was not to "cherry pick" words and the interpretation of the word as being used to simply mean "walling off" is probably overly-simplistic. Think historically and presently about who was/is "walled off" and you'll see that the word has a much deeper subtext that is far more offensive than the word "fuck." It's a painful word for a lot of cultures and I hold that it is much more obscence to equate science with the systematic discrimation and violence against any of these groups. Again, much more painful than the word "fuck" but perhaps unappreciated by the user.
It's a slippery word indeed. Much more slippery than the word "fuck." At least with that word you know where you stand.
And I still hold that the automated filter argument is ridiculous. Phil has said that they use an automated filter to keep profanity out of the comments because the site is read by children. If that is the concern, then the comments as a whole should be edited that way and Phil should have deleted the misogynistic comments too. Don't they have the potential to harm the young readers he/Discover are so concerned about.
Can now one else see how absolutely ridiculous it is to censor a word without considering context but to leave hateful things on display?
Posted by: Isis the Scientist | March 25, 2009 3:03 PM
Isis, in comment #42, you said: "So then it's ok to leave mysogynistic omments in place for the week lads and lasses to read but the word "fuck" in defense of a woman's autonomy? That's hot bullshit of I've ever seen it."
I strongly disagree with you here. You're conflating two very different things. I don't allow the use of "profanity" so that the site doesn't get auto-filtered by nanny programs. I swear a blue streak in real life, FWIW. But I don't when I'm in someone else's place unless I know they don't mind. So it's an issue of distribution plus respect for others' sensibilities.
And I *do* allow the dumb comments to stay posted for a very good reason: cautionary tales. The sexist attitudes we all deplore exist whether we see them or not. By leaving those comments up, people can see what the problem is. I could easily delete all the comments in that thread, but who learns from that?
Note, coincidentally, that I wrote about this topic just a few hours ago about a creationist who posted a ridiculous comment on my blog. I left it up (and smacked it down) so that others can see just what we're dealing with.
Posted by: Phil Plait, aka The Bad Astronomer | March 25, 2009 3:04 PM
What does this mean, Phil? Respect for others' sensibilities?
Posted by: Isis the Scientist | March 25, 2009 3:07 PM
To be clear: I don't think children need to be protected from "bad" words, and I don't recall ever saying that. What I *have* said is that I want to avoid the stupid nanny filters that schools have in place to "protect" children.
Posted by: Phil Plait, aka The Bad Astronomer | March 25, 2009 3:07 PM
Phil@57 "I could easily delete all the comments in that thread, but who learns from that?"
The boys learn it's a-okay to be misogynists.
Posted by: jc | March 25, 2009 3:15 PM
@MattK
I agree with you that Phil's reasoning is legitimate. And part of me agrees with the "Phil's playground, he doesn't want it muddied with foul language" sentiment.
However, think about the effect of such a filter -- does forbidding the hypothetical 6th grader from reading bad words yet allowing that same 6th grader to read people treating women offensively accomplish the goal of making the blog comments less obscene? Or does it imply that some sorts of offensiveness are okay and others not?
I guess a cogent argument in your favor is that
1) Both foul language and maltreatment of women are offensive
2) There exists an automated filter to (somewhat) mitigate the former
3) Doing so provides no explicit endorsement of the latter
But, as regards the biasing/implicit endorsement, I'm not sure 3) holds.
--jt
Posted by: jt | March 25, 2009 3:15 PM
Isis, by "sensibilities" I just mean the way other people feel about their environment. Some folks don't mind swearing, others do. It's no sweat off my back not to swear if someone doesn't like it; it's not a critical issue to me. Now, if someone says they don't like to hear opposing viewpoints at all, that *is* a critical issue. Sensibilities be damned!
And jc (in comment 60), *no they do not*. The point is those commenters had their asses handed to them by quite a few people, and everyone gets to see it. So you are *exactly* wrong: people learn it's not OK be misogynists.
Posted by: Phil Plait, aka The Bad Astronomer | March 25, 2009 3:21 PM
"Much more slippery than the word "fuck." At least with that word you know where you stand."
Stand? Not necessarily! ;)
Posted by: S. Rivlin | March 25, 2009 3:26 PM
The thing is that I totally get Phil's position on filtering profanity so as to avoid nanny filters in educational and other settings. I mean, I share Isis' point that it is disgusting that we are so much more concerned with a word than we are with misogyny and other bigotries. Nevertheless, a choice to ruthlessly censor "fuck" from a blog to avoid nanny filters isn't really the fault of the blogger, rather the fault of our nanny society. And I was totally willing to accept this excuse yesterday.
The thing is, I had posted a comment that never showed up. I didn't recall using profanity but I was thinking that perhaps I had.
Today I notice that Plait has published some comments that were apparently caught in his filter yesterday including
CPP:
which I can see would trip nanny filters. Point taken. But then there was this one from me:
...hmmm. I'm not seeing where my comment would get caught in any reasonable nanny filter- can anyone help me out here?
Posted by: DrugMonkey | March 25, 2009 3:33 PM
Phil, this wasn't someone offer a different critical opinion that can can questioned scientifically. This was catcalling. That offends my sensibilities the same as it would if someone has used racially derogatory language. This isn't about differing viewpoints, it's about harassment.
You've determined that it's alright to honor one group's wishes in terms of their "sensibilities," but not another's. I find that intriguing. Perhaps because the comments were no directed towards any group you identify with?
Posted by: Isis the Scientist | March 25, 2009 3:34 PM
Was that something funny out of Sol? Well, fuck me.
Posted by: Isis the Scientist | March 25, 2009 3:36 PM
MattK, your comment concerning the automated filter is spot on.
Oh, I've got plenty of imagination; as a matter of fact I think that the vast majority of all possible statements will be offensive to somebody. It doesn't mean that the offense is legitimate. I don't think all the comments in this case are that 'rude', such as the 'fetching' one, but definitely inappropriate and out of place. I'm glad you admit that it doesn't necessarily point (I'd say all you need to determine that is ESP) to a misogynist intent, so what word would you like to use for it? I think it's a huge stretch based on these comments to assume that they hate or have contempt for women, or that they are diminishing her intellectual achievements; they could be a hell of a lot less coy about it if they're trying to be misogynist.
It's not too difficult to see how it *could* be interpreted that way, to what I would call the over-sensitive. I've seen lots of analogies to 'what if someone was to make these comments at a scientific conference', which is just a red herring; 'this context' is a blog on the internet that allows anyone who can type to make non-profane comments. Yet despite this context, these mostly anonymous comments from people with handles like 'Electro' are able to 'disempower' and 'retract respect' from her? Seriously? You're adding a hell of a lot to 'she's fetching' and 'mmmm..woman' that the original commenters did not provide. If you think it's so disempowering, then give me a detailed example of what power Sheril or any woman has lost from the comments these clowns made.
Do you personally care so much about what other people think (to my knowledge, none of these comments came from anyone who knows or interacts with Sheril) that you feel 'disempowered' if they say something to you that is not welcome? Or do you do what most adults do, identify them as the idiots they are and move on.
Posted by: Spartan | March 25, 2009 3:44 PM
Isis, I don't know how to make this any clearer. By keeping those comments up, it allows others to see who we're fighting here. The commenters get smacked down, and people can see it. People can learn.
If I delete them, no lesson is learned, no one sees what to do in these situations. And these situations *will* continue.
Your second paragraph is a non sequitur. I am not deleting curse words to honor anyone's sensibilities. Read comment #59, please.
And as to your last line... *what*? Your entire premise for this is way off. Again, I don't know how to make this clearer. Please read what I've written here more carefully. I have left those comments up specifically so people can see why they are wrong and offensive.
Posted by: Phil Plait, aka The Bad Astronomer | March 25, 2009 3:46 PM
No lesson is learned? If I am sitting in a meeting with a bunch of scientists and one of them says, "hey Isis, you're science is nice but it's even nicer because you've got nice tits" then I would hope the meeting moderator wouldn't just let the comment fly so that we all "learn a lesson." Because, really, the only one who learns any lesson is the object of the misogyny. And the lesson is, "these people really suck."
So, Phil, this round and round grows tiresome because I've now read further up to see that you've unmoderated PhysioProf's profanity-laden defense. Have you now decided certain sensibilities are no longer worth protecting?
The one thing I like about the group of bloggers I run with (both pre- and post-ScienceBlogs) is that I always know where they stand and, as you can see, when there is hot misogyny or racial discrimination thrown about, they very vocally challenge it. They're sometimes foul-mouthed, but it's pretty well known that these types of statements are not welcome on these blogs. I hope you'll consider a similar preemptive attitude.
Posted by: Isis the Scientist | March 25, 2009 4:02 PM
Oh, Spartan! You make me so hot! Right now! Come over here and do naughty things to me!! Oooh, baby! I love big manly men who come home with their shields or on it! Can I have your babies? Please!
-----------------------------------------------------
Doesn't that make you the least bit uncomfortable? Or does it flatter you? Or, are you saying that since people are assholes, you should expect asshole-ry and not expect better behavior? I'm thinking that 'since it's the goddamn Internet' and people are all assholes which makes being ruled by your base instincts expected if not acceptable...and of course, women are all emotional about this BS and thus illogical, and then of course wouldn't make good scientists because they can't be objective.
'Cause that's really where you're heading.
Posted by: Courtney | March 25, 2009 4:05 PM
I have a neighbor, who runs an in home daycare. I frequently see her yelling at what appear to me to be 3 year olds, with profanity laced language. While I do not use the word "ghetto" to describe her, I have frequently used the term "trailer trash". In all senses the words are used to mean the the person has no cooth. I feel sorry for the kids that may get kicked out of school for using similar language when they enter kindergarden.
You say "my intent was not to "cherry pick" words and the interpretation of the word as being used to simply mean "walling off" is probably overly-simplistic." But that is what you are doing without realizing the Phil's audience is much different then yours. Phil Plait, Chris Mooney, Sheril Kirshenbaum, etc. are more like Carl Sagan. They are advocates for science that have recognition in the mainstream media. While you bass the slightest sign of misogynists, you belong to a religion of misogynists (my family is Catholic, I consider myself Atheist). That makes it hard to take you seriously. As said, Phil's audience is different then yours. For all you know the commenter that you wish to smack down is just a hormonal pimply faced teenager who does not even know what the word misogynist means. His only thoughts may be boobies and if anything like me, at his age, gets an erection any time the wind blows.
@jc "The boys learn it's a-okay to be misogynists. " Sexism goes both ways.
Posted by: Danimal | March 25, 2009 4:12 PM
"The point is those commenters had their asses handed to them by quite a few people, and everyone gets to see it. So you are *exactly* wrong: people learn it's not OK be misogynists"
Phil, honey, sugar pie... If you think that is what happens, you need some basic lessons in social psychology.
What happens is:
1) "Yo! Dude! I got my comment up on that blog with the hot science-chick! Look, other people are saying how hot she is too!"
2) "Yo! Dude! Look at the cranky old farts! Ha! Ha! Ha!"
No learning actually takes place because there is no thoughtful interaction. When you're thinking with your gonads, it's difficult to trip higher brain function. As such, leaving them up there to "learn a lesson" is a futile endeavor.
Posted by: Courtney | March 25, 2009 4:17 PM
Not really, maybe a little because it's strange. One thing it absolutely does not do is 'disempower' or 'oppress' or 'retract respect from' me, nor do I consider it misandrist.
Everything you wrote after "...and of course" is exactly the strawman crap I'm talking about. It is ridiculous to take a statement like 'she's fetching', and argue that what it really means is all that bullshit about the inferiority of women; what, you have telepathy? You do realize that not just misogynist men find women attractive, and even comment on it in more appropriate circumstances? I never said their comments were acceptable; I said you need more than that to label them 'misogynist' and that anyone would is going to be upset or disempowered or whatever hyperbolic word you'd like to use by clearly juvenile and idiotic comments from people you don't know then you need to thicken that skin a bit.
Posted by: Spartan | March 25, 2009 4:24 PM
Posted by: Danimal | March 25, 2009 4:33 PM
a la Isis@69: so that we all "learn a lesson." Because, really, the only one who learns any lesson is the object of the misogyny. And the lesson is, "these people really suck."
+eleventy.
Women "learn" to be afraid to be pretty, to be smart, to speak up, to post their pictures, to comment, to do whateverthefuck. We are learning, alright. Funny that the learning isn't enhancing our brains.
Men "learn" they get attention if they are asshats. Attention is what they wanted.
So, Phil, have you figure out yet who exactly is doing the "learning" here?
Posted by: jc | March 25, 2009 4:35 PM
LMAO!
You said:
"then you need to thicken that skin a bit"
See, you're already calling me emotional.
Which takes us right back to my comment:
"women are all emotional about this BS"
You said:
"It is ridiculous"
You're saying I'm illogical to find some puerile comment offensive.
So this: "...and then of course wouldn't make good scientists because they can't be objective"
is just waiting in the wings to make itself clear. I'm sure the rest of your argument will keep digging yourself deeper in the pile.
Posted by: Courtney | March 25, 2009 4:40 PM
Ha, would that be the pile of bull where you are currently dwelling Courtney? Where strawmen and now quote-mining run rampant? Since you're having a little trouble reading, note that I said 'anyone' not 'women', and the 'you' in your quote-mine refers to that same 'anyone', not 'Courtney'.
Jesus, can't you even read a complete sentence? It's ridiculous to glom on your own misogynist meaning to something as open-ended as 'she's fetching'. Are you really so dense that you can't conceive that one entirely legitimate interpretation of 'she's fetching' is that the commenter finds Sheril attractive period? You really deludedly think that women "wouldn't make good scientists" is the obvious and only interpretation of 'she's fetching'?
Let's start with the basics then: do you think that if anyone ever gets offended by someone's statement that it is always the fault of the offender? Do you think all offense is legitimate period?
You're arguing against your own statements here, not mine. You should really troll around the internet more, as you'll find no end of comments by people whose opinions really matter to get personally offended by.
Posted by: Spartan | March 25, 2009 5:32 PM
Isis,
Your attacks on Phil are completely unwarranted. I've been reading his blog for a long time, and at no point has he written anything that is even remotely sexist. His comment policy has nothing to do with sexism, nor is it a statement about what Phil considers offensive or inoffensive. His comment policy is in place because his site would be automatically blocked at middle and high schools if the nanny filters picked up any "fucks" or "shits". That's not his fault, and you're wrong to blame him for it. And you're wrong to try to construe his moderation policy as if it somehow means he's okay with sexism.
Focus the blame on those who actually engaged in catcalling, not on Phil.
As for criticism of Phil based on the fact that he did not delete the sexist comments, I have to point out one of your own posts:
Why did you publicly post this despicable email, if not to make a point so people could learn a lesson?
I'm not criticizing you for posting the email. In fact, quite the opposite, I think you did exactly the right thing. By publicly mocking and ridiculing this sexist comment, you send a message. But then I wonder why you think Phil is supporting sexism if he doesn't delete the sexist comments from his site. Certainly there's some truth to Phil's claim that putting these comments out in the open, where they can be publicly criticized, teaches people a lesson.
Posted by: Wes | March 25, 2009 5:32 PM
Insult, insult, insult...then
"Since you're having a little trouble reading, note that I said 'anyone' not 'women',"
But women are anyone.
"and the 'you' in your quote-mine refers to that same 'anyone', not 'Courtney'.
I'm "anyone" too!
..rhetorical comment, accusation of illogicality, accusation of stupidiy, rhetorical comment...
"Let's start with the basics then"
Let's not, because you're changing the subject. I think you've just run out of legitimate arguments and are just now getting annoyed because someone anticipated your tired argument. Take a women's studies class. Better yet, read "I Blame The Patriarchy" and study the comments. Then come back and play with the grownups.
Posted by: Courtney | March 25, 2009 6:15 PM
To reiterate what Yolio said *these comments do not occur in a vacuum.* No, chances are the people who made these comments did not consciously think "this'll put that uppity female in her place!" That doesn't mean that the comments were not demeaning, and it does not mean the comments were not misogynist and it does not mean that they did not devalue her intellectual achievements. Sexism is ingrained in our culture such that people can act sexist without realizing they're doing it: http://finallyfeminism101.wordpress.com/2007/10/20/internalized-sexism/. I do not exempt myself from this. If/when I do something sexist, I hope someone will point it out to me. Then I can apologize and work to do better. Just like the "fetching" commenter did: http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2009/03/23/the-hive-overmind-grows-welcome-to-the-intersection/#comment-166928
By relegating words like "sexist" and "misogynist" to only the most vile offenses, we ignore the fact that those offenses do not happen in a vacuum. The comment that she was 'fetching' opened a door for comments like "mmmmm wo-man" to appear as though they were "only" pushing an envelope instead of out in left field. By relegating "sexist/misogynist" to the worst offenses, we make it less likely that the behavior that makes those more vile offenses seem more acceptable will go uncorrected and the things won't get fixed as fast as they could be.
Shakespear's Sister says it better. You want to learn, read the whole thing: http://shakespearessister.blogspot.com/2008/02/feminism-101-feminists-look-for-stuff.html Otherwise, here's the take-home message:
The flip side of "over-sensitive" is "aware" and the flip side of "thick-skinned" is "permissive."
Bonus reading: (hint: it speaks to your "anything can be read as offensive" idea) http://shakespearessister.blogspot.com/2008/04/feminism-101-sexism-is-matter-of.html
Posted by: Claire | March 25, 2009 6:25 PM
I have switched to using an anonymous identity when commenting on this blog because 'Isis' considers it perfectly fine to make derisive gender-based remarks about someone with a male name that she would implacably oppose if similar remarks were made about someone with a female name. Unfortunately 'Isis' has not learned that the innate human right to be treated respectfully applies rather thinly to people who do not treat others respectfully.
Posted by: anonymous pseudonym | March 25, 2009 6:44 PM
Posted by: Danimal | March 25, 2009 6:50 PM
When I first read the "ghetto" comment, I did think of the classic ghettos, Warsaw is the one that came to mind first. The reason that was my first impression was because as scientists and skeptics we are excluded by the larger society. For the last 8 years scientists have been marginalized and ostracized by those in power. It is not scientists that have ostracized themselves; it is non-scientists who have ostracized scientists. As someone with Asperger's, I appreciate what it is like to be ostracized and to not fit in socially. There are times when I feel like a ghetto of one.
Groups are ostracized to ghettos because the larger group doesn't want to associate with them, doesn't want what the ostracized group has to offer. Scientific publications don't offer what mainstream consumers of MSM want. That would be what network TV provides. Lots of fun and flirty T&A. If you can't provide fun and flirty T&A, then to MSM you are a wasteland, a desert, a ghetto that can't sell enough eyeballs, enough ads and enough ad clicks to justify the cost of bandwidth.
If Discover thinks they can mix science with fun and flirty T&A and come up with something that will satisfy both scientists and non-scientists, I think they are badly mistaken and have chosen the wrong business model. The business model of MSM once was to find a star, who could play the role of fun and flirty T&A, and then exploit the hell out of her. That business model won't work on fun and flirty T&A with a mind.
The misogynists who need their women to be fun and flirty T&A won't be satisfied if that fun and flirty T&A has a mind of her own. Fun and flirty T&A with a mind certainly won't be satisfied relating to misogynist asshats without one. If MSM can't succeed by exploiting fun and flirty T&A without a mind, they certainly won't be able to succeed by attempting the much more difficult task of exploiting fun and flirty T&A with a mind.
The idea of not exploiting anyone has such a high degree of difficulty that it won't even occur to them. I think that is the real fear of MSM, and also the science journals that are not OA (and misogynist asshats). When your business model (or life model) has in it the exploitation of a certain class of individuals, that business model (or life model) will fail when that class refuses to be exploited any more.
Posted by: daedalus2u | March 25, 2009 6:54 PM
You're right Courtney, and some of what I said was insulting, and I apologize; despite your snarkiness, you didn't technically insult me first, so I am sorry for my part in bringing the level down. Anyway:
Dodge, dodge, dodge... then
Hey, great, we agree on something! If you really want to go to this level of detail, let's. You quote-mined, "then you need to thicken that skin a bit" and implied what this meant is 'women are all emotional about this BS'. Now when I reread the first part of the sentence to you again before the nine words you snipped out to clarify that I'm talking about 'anyone', you say 'women are anyone'. So you agree I was referring to anyone, so how can you misconstrue that as me saying 'women are all emotional about this BS'? You apparently meant 'anyone can be emotional about this BS' by that comment then, right, which changes the meaning, oh, just a tad? Quote me anything where I said that *women* are inferior, over-emotional, too sensitive, or any of the truly misogynist statements you've attributed to me.
So let me ask again, nicely. Is a legitimate interpretation of 'she's fetching' that the commenter finds Sheril attractive period? Do you think that women "wouldn't make good scientists" is the obvious and only interpretation of 'she's fetching' in this context?
No, I just find strawmen and quote-mining annoying. And what tired argument have you anticipated? You've totally invented several now. I have two tired arguments: one, I don't think you can clearly label these statements 'misogynist' ('sexist' yes, but that has a different definition), and two, although I can understand the annoyance, I was under the impression that the grownups you play with may have learned from high school that at some level, you shouldn't give a shit what other people think about you, especially those you don't respect. Since I think there is a significant gap between blogs and a 'professional environment', I come to expect and ignore as childish what people like these cavemen write; if one is going to let idiotic comments disempower them, then yes, I recommend not being so sensitive to it, since as you acknowledged, there are plenty of assholes on the internet. That seems kinda sensible and basic.
Posted by: Spartan | March 25, 2009 6:57 PM
While a man commenting on a woman's appearance trivializes any intellectual or otherwise constructive contribution she may be making at the time, a woman commenting on a man's behavior does not trivialize him. Oddly enough, it trivializes her: She's seen as too air-headed to appreciate his brains, she's just thinking he's cute. Some of you may be old enough--I'm not--to remember when pundits claimed women voted Jack Kennedy into office because they thought he was cute. Implication being, we are too air-headed to understand or vote the issues.
The emphasis on a woman's appearance is one reason I get stroke-high blood pressure watching the news, and have had to quite for the sake of my own health and survival. The women are showing cleavage (which probably has blusher applied), wearing bright (non-serious, in other words) colors and prints for godsakes, makeup applied with a palette knife, and they're pornographically anorexic. The emphasis on their looks totally trivializes all of them, from meteorologist to White House correspondent.
Next point: I'm a WASP (or was, I'm not P any more) and I don't take offense at all. It's not racial, it's acronymic for a demographic for heaven's sake. Y'all get over yourselves already.
Last point(s): (1) I would like to chime in with my support of Doc's use of "ghetto." She's perfectly in line with the dictionary definition. (2) She is not the one trivializing the word. (3) What's obscene about the Warsaw ghetto pic is not Isis' use of it. It's that it ever happened in the first place. Leave it up, doc.
Posted by: Virginia S. Wood, Psy.D. | March 25, 2009 9:21 PM
WASP != waspy
WASP = White Anglo-Saxon Protestant
waspy = old adjective used for wan, scrawny, absentminded people, usually introverts
At least, that's how I first read it. Maybe because I'm more of a TVA (translucent Viking agnostic) and so I didn't feel oppressed by a rare and endangered female scientist.
And RE: internet sexism, don't any of you womens know the TRUTH!? We mens sit home at night typing with our penises. We can't help it, they've got minds of their own!
Posted by: Toaster | March 25, 2009 9:57 PM
Spartan, I do not wish to dog-pile you, but I thought you made an interesting point which could use further discussion.
I think this is generally a sensible sentiment: people shouldn't interpret things in the worst way, but try to be less sensitive.
However, many of us on here are saying that these kinds of comments cause discomfort for many people. This isn't an issue of one person being overly sensitive, it's a matter of a large segment of the population finding something unpleasant. At that point, it makes more sense to think that the individuals aren't being overly sensitive, but to look deeper at the situation and realize that something more is going on, something on the psycho-social-anthropological sort of level. Do you see that?
I realize that we are unlikely to change individual posters' tendencies to post inappropriate comments on appearance over content, but by calling these behaviors out as inappropriate and unwelcome, perhaps we can change the overall climate of certain areas online, in the sciences, or even further.
Posted by: Sara | March 25, 2009 10:04 PM
Spartan, I propose to you an experiment, if you have the balls to do it. It's very simple: log into a chatroom using a female name, and sit there for half an hour. Not a sex or dating chatroom, either -- a hobby room, or a general-interest one, or a political one, or even a science-related one. And don't say anything, just sit there online and see what kind of pings you get. Then come back here and talk about it.
You got the guts?
Posted by: Lee | March 25, 2009 10:51 PM
Absolutely, and it's very sensible. I don't mind being 'dog-piled', but I think people are confusing my argument against the degree of offense with a defense of the stupid things they said, which I do not defend. Maybe I'm just more immune to it, but I see more unambiguously offensive comments on the website for my local newspaper than these examples; doesn't make them 'acceptable', but they don't disturb me at all, and I think it's futile for other people to get so upset about what assholes say, and I take it as par for the course on the internet. Don't confuse that with thinking I don't applaud the smackdowns and the efforts to create a better environment where that obnoxious crap isn't tolerated.
You quoted what I think goes too far: 'these comments in this context retracts the respect that would normally be accorded to a professional and instead serves to disempower her.', I think just reads too much into it. 'This context' is not even close to a group of just scientists or professionals or apparently even just non-knuckle-draggers, and in such a totally open medium like the internet someone's 'respect' shouldn't even be on the line and diminishable. The only power that some turd commenting under the name 'Electro' has over anyone is the power they give him.
Posted by: Spartan | March 25, 2009 11:06 PM
I didn't know that was dangerous; I wonder if one would ping me and say something horrible like, 'you're fetching'?.
I know full well what you're talking about, and yep, there sure are some nasty, even threatening, creeps on the internet. They even try to lure kids I hear. Sounds just like a 'professional' setting.
Posted by: Spartan | March 25, 2009 11:16 PM
jt, in comment #52:
Even when I saw it first, cut off and transplanted into an alien context, that was what I thought Donahue meant by ghettoization. The ghettoization of science news is its relegation to the inner pages of the newspaper, or to a small set of less popular magazines.
Dr. Isis appears to me to have used a goal-directed interpretation to manufacture an opportunity to take offense.
Posted by: David Canzi | March 26, 2009 1:31 AM
I didn't know that was dangerous; I wonder if one would ping me and say something horrible like, 'you're fetching'?.
Dude, how motherfucking stupid are you?? They say shit like this, which a prominent female blogger posted as a comment on my blog as a typical example of e-mails she receives.
Female bloggers receive shit like this all the fucking time. And telling Sheril, "you're fetching", says qualitatively the same thing and has the same effect, albeit perhaps not quantitatively. What it says is, "You exist solely for me to find, or not find, fuckable; otherwise, you should die".
This is not a philosophical or semantic inquiry. Now pull your fucking head out of your fucking ass, you stupid fucking asshole.
Posted by: Comrade PhysioProf | March 26, 2009 5:45 AM
Wow, CPP, you are definitely full of more shit than usual. And here I thought what was an improvement over your former pubescent use of profanity on every fucking comment you used to squeeze out of your sphincter on other blogs was an indication that maybe you had grown to adulthood. Apparently though your arguments haven't improved much since Orac and Hoofnagle handed you your head on your stupid 'surgeon bashing' you did a while back.
If you think 'you're fetching' is equivalent to, "You exist solely for me to find, or not find, fuckable; otherwise, you should die", there ain't much help for you, but maybe the arguments here are just too nuanced for you. In your apparently unmatched stupidity, you really think those two statements are equivalent. Let's try remedial English: 'you're fetching' means, "I find you attractive", and *that is fucking it*, moron. You don't think that you've imagined and added, oh, just a few sentiments to that to get to 'you exist for me to find fuckable or not'?
There should be a lot you can teach me about pulling my head out of my ass, but I ain't sure you've ever extracted yours, prick.
Posted by: Spartan | March 26, 2009 8:44 AM
No Spartan, PP is spot on here. If we're in the workplace and you say this to me the message you send is, "you exist as an object of my fuck fantasy" and that establishes the power dynamic between us and future interaction are tainted.
Posted by: Isis the Scientist | March 26, 2009 9:30 AM
Isis, let me start by retracting my comments about 'waspy' being racist; I've heard WASP used in a derogatory manner as much as I've heard it used neutrally, but based on the comments, I was mistaken and I apologize. Furthermore, despite my disagreements, this post is still very interesting, and you've brought up some excellent and thought-provoking points concerning 'ghetto' also.
Regarding your comment, we are not in the workplace, and no one has offered any evidence that mouth-breathers like Electro have any professional interaction with Sheril. Furthermore, unlike most non-retail workplaces, most blogs allow bums, the mentally ill, the socially inept, and the flat-out creeps and criminals to come right in and spew out whatever they like, so how much offense one is really going to take from blog comments I think should be adjusted accordingly. I hesitate to assume anything about your work environment, but I at least am in one where I could tell certain female friend co-workers that they look nice today, and no one in their right mind would assert that what I really said is that they're part of my fuck fantasy.
I think, and I'll admit I could be totally wrong, is that based on the fact we have ample evidence that there do exist men who say and think shit like what CPP posted, you are being on the safe side when something is said about a woman's appearance and, to me, assuming that that might be the kind of person who thinks that misogynist, sexist crap. I guess I disagree with you when you say, 'the message this sends is', as a totally reasonable 'message' of 'she's fetching' is 'I find her attractive (and I'm clueless and don't realize that it is not acceptable and creepy to express sentiments in every environment that may be acceptable at a singles bar)'. Maybe you're absolutely correct and that was the intent in this case, and like I said 'mmmm...woman' gives you more to go on, but I think we're making a big leap from the ambiguous 'she's fetching' to 'fuck fantasy'. Just because someone expresses something generic that misogynists also have, does not mean, in my book, that we should assume some nefarious purpose to these unclear statements; keep an eye on them yes, but I'd just like to see more evidence (this being ScienceBlogs and all) before we make that leap and add a bunch of ideas to what they said that were not clearly expressed. Both social scientists and racists discuss the fact that there are more black people in prison as a percentage of the population, but were I to overhear someone noting that, I would not based on that accuse them of being racist.
I'm obviously in the minority on this view, so the discussion has been enlightening for me.
Posted by: Spartan | March 26, 2009 10:17 AM
I completely disagree with Virginia S. Wood, Psy.D., regarding the appropriateness of the picture Isis pasted in her post of Jews standing by the Warwsaw Ghetto's wall prior to their execution. Ghettos for Jews and other ethnic groups existed long before the Warsaw ghetto. I would not object to any other picture of the Warsaw ghetto, and there are thousands of them, as long as execution of innocents is not part of it. The inclusion of this picture along with the others only trivialized the Holocaust, equalizing it with cheap dressing, dilapidated buildings and ethnic behavioral traits and gestures.
Now, Isis can excuse herself by claiming that she is not the one who chose the word "ghettoization" used in her post and that she simply googled thesr pictures when she search for the word "ghetto." However, I do not buy these kind of excuses when she is the one who demonstrates great sensitivity to the issue of words that can or cannot be used when talking to or about the female gender and their meanings.
Posted by: S. Rivlin | March 26, 2009 10:55 AM
Dude, you are very confused. The intent of some leering dumbfuck is of absolutely no relevance whatsoever in this context. The only thing that is relevant is the effect that such leering has on its object. Period.
Posted by: Comrade PhysioProf | March 26, 2009 10:57 AM
Dude, 'leering' is your word, and note that I'm discussing the 'fetching' comment, not the other cruder ones. A good question was asked here or on maybe on your blog; would you say these things to your mother, sister, or girlfriend. Call me nuts (or as you seem to prefer, confused or just stupid fucking asshole) but yes, I think saying, "let me be the first to say that you look fetching' to my mother, sister, girlfriend, a bride at her wedding, a prom date, etc, is totally acceptable and a compliment (leaving aside that I don't use the quaint word 'fetching' ever). Please, stop me right there if you think I'm wrong, but I think it's pretty clear that there is nothing remotely offensive about saying that ('mmmm...woman' is a different case). Saying anything about the attractiveness of strangers is creepy, but what I see as a possible sentiment expressed by that quote, 'I think you're attractive', is part and parcel of singles bar conversations and successful 'hook-ups', for example. Therefore, it seems clear to me that there is a plain meaning of the 'fetching' quote that is absolutely not unacceptable and has zero to do with masturbation or fuck fantasies. Period.
So now that we have established that there is *not* anything inherently offensive in the words themselves, unlike the translations that you and Courtney have provided that are clearly offensive on their face, we have the admitted problem of context. However, you *do not know* what the intent originally was, which is critical for you determining whether he is leering or not; the most you can say, which is legitimate, is that you shouldn't say things like that in this context because someone could interpret that as leering. I need more evidence of 'leering', or the even worse 'fuck fantasy' stuff that requires telepathy, before I make that accusation in this specific case.
If you would have posted, 'some sexist fuck said Sheril exists solely for him to find, or not find, fuckable; otherwise, she should die"' and then looked at what was actually posted in this case, I'd think you were being ridiculous and adding far too much that just plain *was not said* to the original quote. But agreed, the fact that it could be interpreted that way and that the comment is entirely out of place and could be construed as 'catcalling' is enough to justify the smackdown he received. I just don't think it justifies translations that there just isn't much evidence for.
Posted by: Spartan | March 26, 2009 11:44 AM
"The intent of some leering dumbfuck is of absolutely no relevance whatsoever in this context. The only thing that is relevant is the effect that such leering has on its object. Period."
What? who's the leering dumbfuck has nothing to do with his/her effect on the object? This is a load of crap. When PhysioProfane pores his profanity on me it has absolutely no effect on me. If DM or Dr. Free Ride or Orac would pore such profanity on me, it would have a completely different effect.
Posted by: S. Rivlin | March 26, 2009 11:48 AM
Therefore, it seems clear to me that there is a plain meaning of the 'fetching' quote that is absolutely not unacceptable and has zero to do with masturbation or fuck fantasies.
Clueless, thy name is Spartan.
I cannot be plainer:
Any time one mentions a woman's attractiveness, one is sexualizing her, and it doesn't matter if it's one's mother, sister, or daughter.
One is sexualizing her because attractiveness is rated solely based on her appeal to the opposite sex (or the same sex, in case of homosexuality).
If one says that one is not sexualizing the female in question, that one is merely using a non-sexual standard of aesthetics, then one is viewing her as an object of art and not as a human being. That's why they call it objectification.
Either way, it is shallow and offensive.
Why bother, if it is on the Internet, and there are Not Nice People out there?
Because, not bothering increases the permissiveness of said behavior. For example, ask any crime historian about the increase in sex crimes after the wide availability of more extreme pornography on the Internet.
Why not get a thicker skin? Why should you have to? Why should you have to put up with strangers sexualizing you and objectifying you?
Perhaps you feel that being sexually attractive to many people is a desirable position. Women generally feel more vulnerable when their sexuality is used as their main attribute, or even rated high on the list of their attributes.
Being dismissed as mere vessels of sexuality happens *all the time* to women. My personal examples, all the bare truth:
1) the high school English teacher who told me that I should act more like a girl, and I'd get a better grade.
2) The guy who walked me home, spiked my soda, and raped me, leaving me out cold for the night with a bloody condom in the toilet.
3) The retiring tenured faculty chemistry teacher who would only answer questions from the males in the class.
4) The adjunct bacteriology professor who took away my volunteer computer project and gave it to a male protégé of his - and who, in 1997, taught that AIDS was caused by homosexuality and IV drug use.
5) The male law school professor who said that teaching females was a waste of time because they were going have babies.
6) The female supervisor who told me that she did not want me to look more attractive than she did, and actually wrote in my quarterly review that my wearing makeup was distracting to faculty members.
7) The male senior administrator who threatened to turn me over his knee and spank me, in front of my male supervisor.
8) The male administrator who fired me for complaining about #7 to a male colleague (and who later hired a male for my position, so that there would be no new sexual harassment charges).
And these are only the memorable ones. This doesn't count the innumerable catcalls I got in the hallways during high school, the leering propositions I would get on the back of the school bus, at an age when I didn't even understand the concepts, the social ostracism of girls who "developed early"...
This is just what happens to women, and if you ask, kindly and with sincere gentleness, I bet you'd be surprised at how many of your female family members, friends, and acquaintances have had similar experiences.
For women, it’s a signal that their outsides are worth more than their insides. Granted, in a society and/or situation where women succeed or fail based on their outsides, women can feel competitive and/or thick skinned about it – but I, at least, would rather not live in that society.
For one, I actually enjoy using my mind instead of my body to earn a living.
Posted by: Courtney | March 26, 2009 12:37 PM
Honestly curious about this, Courtney:
Is this only for physical attractiveness? If one meets one's wife over the internet, finds her intelligent, witty, well rad, and finds these things attractive (and then wish to meet her), is that sexualization? I agree that at some level, we are all sexual beings, but I'm curious whether you feel all attraction is sexual, and if so, is all sexual attraction bad?
Ok, but we're biological creatures - we are very prone to thinking about sex. It will be a part of our thoughts no matter what, though we can choose not to comment on (physical) attractiveness, and can ensure that we don't make decisions based on things like gender/sex or appearances - for example, having the names removed from resumes before looking at them.While commenting on attractiveness can certainly be rude, attraction will never disappear. Are you referring to displaying attraction, to judging people's value based on attraction, or to attraction itself as being "shallow and offensive"?
Posted by: Epinephrine | March 26, 2009 12:53 PM
whether you feel all attraction is sexual
No, I do believe that there is philia or even agape, but I do believe that the type of philia or agape commentary on one's attractiveness is objectification, and therefore Bad.
is all sexual attraction bad?
Absolutely not! What are those George Michael lyrics?
Sex is natural - sex is good
Not everybody does it
But everybody should
I can see, say, Twisty's point that by having sex with men we're buying into the patriarchy...but, ahem...I like sex. ;)
Are you referring to displaying attraction, to judging people's value based on attraction, or to attraction itself as being "shallow and offensive"?
Personally, I think "displaying attraction" outside of mutually agreed-upon venues is "shallow and offensive".
I was definitely trying to convey the second of your points, that "judging people's value based on attraction" is Bad. Yes, people do it. But people do lots of things that we, as a culture and species, are trying to move beyond.
attraction itself as being "shallow and offensive"
I'm not sure how "attraction itself" is shallow and offensive. It just is. That said, I don't think that we have to talk about it all the time. Did you see that House, M.D. episode with the patient with no mental filter?
Posted by: Courtney | March 26, 2009 1:44 PM
Courtney, I think you are looking at the world, especially the complex dynamics of social interaction and human sexuality, very narrowly and myopically.
No no no. Attractiveness is rated on her appeal to the person judging her attractiveness; it's an opinion and entirely a matter of taste. As far as commenting on our own family member's attractiveness, I think you are wrong that in that situation they should, for I know mine definitely wouldn't, take offense. It seems odd to even bring up sexualization (assuming you're not implying some kind of incestuous ideas) when I have no sexual feelings for my family members.
You seem so binary about this: if you compliment a woman on her appearance then you are dissing everything else about her. You do realize that in this reality it is possible to like a woman's sense of humor, intelligence, personality, AND find them attractive? Do you also realize that many couples are composed of two people, who among many other things, find each other attractive?
Uh, yes, me and the vast majority of single men and women. Do you disagree with that? Not you personally, but in general? Or do you just think it's wrong to desire it? Again, this sexual attractiveness *does not* have to come at the expense of more cerebral attractiveness.
Do you ever comment to you girlfriends that they look nice if they dress up for an occasion? How shallow of you, you sexualizing objectifier. Do you really think that the younger single women who are getting dressed up to go the bar aren't doing so specifically to look physically attractive? Or are they unwittingly part of this huge conspiracy to objectify women, and have to play the game that the misogynist men have established, and in your opinion absolutely should not be wearing any type of revealing or 'hot' clothing? What are you, Amish?
But absolutely sincerely, I am very sympathetic to your examples of men behaving terribly in your past, and it's offensive and disturbing. But it is not fair (as a matter of fact it's close to prejudicial) to judge men by the way you've been treated by the worst of us.
Posted by: Spartan | March 26, 2009 1:59 PM
I'll say for the record that I used the word "ghetto" in the way that most readers (and commenters here) interpreted it, as something set apart from the mainstream. In retrospect, "pigeonholed" might have been a better word.
Discover's mission is to convince people that science is integral to their everyday lives, as opposed to something that's relevant only to scientists. Adding Sheril, Chris, Phil, Carl, Sean and other smart, insightful bloggers reinforces that mission and helps us reach a significantly larger audience than we have in the magazine.
I would encourage Isis and commenters to come over to the site to judge for themselves, rather than drawing any conclusions from this comment thread and my goofy picture.
Posted by: Henry Donahue | March 26, 2009 2:46 PM
There are several issues here. We all know that misogyny exists and that many women have been terribly hurt by it and continue to be hurt by it. We know that many women have found themselves forced to adopt attitudes and behaviors they do not like in order to protect themselves and mitigate the harm that has been done to them, and to prevent future harm that is (unfortunately) likely and completely foreseeable in the absence of these protective measures (and is likely even in spite of them).
The question is how do non-misogynists modify their behavior to mitigate the harm that misogynists do to women?
I know that I am not a misogynist, and have never and will never knowingly do something to harm a woman. I understand that when a woman acts toward me as if I am a misogynist, her actions are not about me, they are her projection, which she has found necessary to adopt in order to mitigate the injury that individuals who are misogynists may cause her.
The "fault" is not with the woman who is forced to adopt a self-protective stance. The fault is with the misogynists who have forced women to adopt that stance.
I appreciate Spartan's stance that it sucks to be a non-misogynist male treated as a misogynist. Guess what, it is worse to be a woman and be degraded by a misogynist. You can't blame the victims for the reasonable actions they take to mitigate the injury done to them and to protect themselves from future injury. If you are unwilling to appreciate that reality, then you are a misogynist too.
There are so many misogynists on the internet and in society that a reasonable woman may adopt the default position that all males she does not know are misogynists. I think this is unfortunate, but it is not unreasonable. It is not the "fault" of a woman if she feels compelled to adopt this stance. It is the fault of the society that has compelled her to adopt this stance.
This problem still exists. Corporations had to be dragged kicking and screaming to end sexual harassment in the workplace, and it still hasn't stopped.
I agree with Spartan that "it is not fair (as a matter of fact it's close to prejudicial) to judge men by the way you've been treated by the worst of us." But who ever said life is fair. Life is only fair to the extent that humans make it so, and if you haven't made life fair to women such that they are never subjected to unwanted misogynist advances and attacks, then you have no right to bitch about what women do to try and bring some fairness into their own life by excluding males who might be misogynist.
Posted by: daedalus2u | March 26, 2009 2:59 PM
daedalus, very well put, and I agree with almost everything you wrote much better than I have.
Agreed, absolutely, but I also don't think that one of the reasonable actions is to (IMO of course) preemptively call someone misogynist when it is not at all clear they truly are one. I take those charges, and even worse 'racist', very seriously as even the suggestion of it, correct or not, can have such a negative impact on people, including endangering their lives. Do women who have been the victim of misogynists really have so few examples in their life of non-misogynist men to counter-balance it? I totally understand what you're saying, but if we take this train of logic a bit further than we are coming close to the explanations and justifications used by racists and bigots of all kinds; "There are so many black males in prison that a reasonable person may adopt the default position that all black males are criminals" is a stance that we rightly do not justify nor necessarily call 'reasonable'.
As far as life not being fair, that has been one of my points all along; if you truly accept that, and that idiots exist, then your 'power' and respect shouldn't be at risk when a specific anonymous crude idiot utters his idiocy.
Posted by: Spartan | March 26, 2009 3:30 PM
"But who ever said life is fair. Life is only fair to the extent that humans make it so, and if you haven't made life fair to women such that they are never subjected to unwanted misogynist advances and attacks, then you have no right to bitch about what women do to try and bring some fairness into their own life by excluding males who might be misogynist."
This kind of BS is what WASPs could say about black men, what Jews could say about Christians, what many Americans do say about Muslims, what in essence the American government and others are saying daily to their own citizens as they are being search in airports around the world as potential terrorists.
Now, where fighting against terrorism is concerned, we all accept the inconvenience and the insulting insinuation that we are all, potentially, terrorists, if nothing else, then for the sake of safety. But, where mysoginy, racism and antiSemithism are concerned, their is no reason to conclude that all men are mysoginists, that all whites are racists, that all Christians are antiSemites and that all Muslims are terrorists. If we would be accepting these type of perceptions as guidelines for living in this world, we were all be living in our own ghettos.
Posted by: S. Rivlin | March 26, 2009 3:34 PM
Thanks Courtney - I appreciate your clarification, and I agree with most of your points. Is it always bad though (or, as you put it, Bad) to comment on attractiveness?
Obviously, it is always an objectification of sorts. Still, I don't mind my wife complimenting me on any aspect (physical or not), and she doesn't mind my compliments of her (whether physical, or about her parenting, cool-headedness, or how hot it is when she shows off her intellect demolishing fallacious argument in a forum online). Certainly I can't argue that these aren't to some extent objectifying remarks - even though they are welcomed by both parties.
Do you think these behaviours (both by me and by her) are harmful to women's causes? In one sense it encourages continued objectifying - but honestly, I *like* that she finds me attractive physically as well as in other ways, and she likes that I find her attractive. Maybe it's "buying into" the paradigm, but sexuality is human nature, and I have trouble believing that it's bad in this sense. I don't think of myself as a misogynist for appreciating her physical aspect (nor her as misandrist for her feelings).
Posted by: Epinephrine | March 26, 2009 3:47 PM
Henry,
Thank you for coming by and adding your contribution. I am happy to take you at your words as to how you meant the term when you used it. However, I hope that you (and those who commented about Sheril, see "fetching") can understand that although you do not see the offense of the word as a member of the "in group," there are groups that are hurt by the use of these words. These words have a much deeper, more violent, and much more painful social context than the use of the word "fuck." The meaning of the word "ghettoization" is much more painful to many people than the use of the word "fuck" and uses it casually can trivialize the suffering of these people.
I'll continue to read Sheril and Chris over at Discover.
Posted by: Isis the Scientist | March 26, 2009 4:22 PM
What the fuck does you and your wife complimenting each other have to do with some random dude proclaiming upon introduction of a woman he has never met in a public space that she is physically attractive? What is so fucking difficult about this shit to understand?
Posted by: Comrade PhysioProf | March 26, 2009 5:21 PM
CPP, I think you're misreading things. Epinephrine was replying to Courtney, I'm assuming her statement that 'I'm not sure how "attraction itself" is shallow and offensive. It just is.', thus the conversation about his wife.
I suggest you take the advice of your own blog's tag line and 'chill the fuck out'.
Posted by: Spartan | March 26, 2009 5:48 PM
How fucking difficult can it be guys? Two simple rules for keeping your caveman's brains from getting you into trouble.
1. Do not comment or imply anything about a woman's appearance unless she's a close family member (or your partner if you don't include that under family). If it is a family member it better be positive or you are getting laxatives in that next beer.
2. In a professional situation don't comment on any woman's appearance.
Posted by: antipodean | March 26, 2009 5:58 PM
Courtney:
A common misconception, but this is not true:
http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2007/11/giving_chuck_colson_a_lesson_i.php
.. or search for 'pornography crime' on wikipedia.
Posted by: Spartan | March 26, 2009 6:19 PM
"I would encourage Isis and commenters to come over to the site to judge for themselves, rather than drawing any conclusions from this comment thread and my goofy picture."
Don't worry. We'd never judge a blog by it's goofy picture.
Posted by: becca | March 26, 2009 6:25 PM
CPP:
You don't actually have to take that tone with me. I was discussing something with Courtney. I agree that the comments at the Discover site were out of line, but we've moved on to discuss a different matter.
Courtney had said, "I do believe that the type of philia or agape commentary on one's attractiveness is objectification, and therefore Bad." I was at first thinking that this seemed rather extreme, as surely there must be situations in which it *isnt* bad, but was curious as to whether that is how she feels about it. When one thinks about it objectively, even though two people might be comfortable exchanging compliments based on the physical attraction, this is still an objectification and sexualization. I was attempting to explore that issue with her.
Is this a slight at men in general? Or a comment on developmental neuroscience, that we all have caveman brains?
Well, nobody's questioning that these are sensible - I'm curious though about some other situations: Courtney offers this P.O.V., "I think "displaying attraction" outside of mutually agreed-upon venues is "shallow and offensive".
What situations are mutually agreed upon? Presumably there are social settings in which it is considered acceptable (work: no, at home with wife: yes), but it's an interesting question as to what situations involve implied mutual agreement.
Posted by: Epinephrine | March 26, 2009 6:25 PM
Spartan, Epiephrine,
It is about time that both of you realize that Comerade PhysioProfane is just bullying you around. That is what he does; he is a bully. Only when you'll agree with him he'll quit bullying you Then, he'll find another reason to do it or someone else to bully around.
Posted by: S. Rivlin | March 26, 2009 6:43 PM
Thanks S, but I'm all too aware of CPP's modus ass-erandi. 'Bully' is giving him far too much credit; he's a juvenile pipsqueak, who I'd guess behaves this way to compensate for short-comings..., well, I'll just say 'elsewhere'. It's a pity too, because I've also seen him act like an adult and write intelligent posts; on this one thread though, the substance to petty-name-calling ratio is pretty low, even for him.
Posted by: Spartan | March 26, 2009 6:58 PM
1. Do not comment or imply anything about a woman's appearance unless she's a close family member (or your partner if you don't include that under family).
Not to be too radically Neanderthal, but it's rather difficult to achieve partner, without breaking that rule. I mean generally, women like someone who's courting them to mention things like how absolutely fucking Helen of Troy fucking gorgeous they are. And honestly, I have no qualms about mentioning how attractive men and women might happen to be, in the context of a discussion about such things.
I'm certainly not approving of the popping out a comment about the Hawt of a women blogger (or male for that matter), that's complete and utter bullshit in that context. But are you honestly trying to say that it is just completely inappropriate to ever mention to any women that she's pretty? Unless of course she's family or the partner you somehow managed to snag without once mentioning she happens to be very attractive?
I'll take that under advisement.
Posted by: DuWayne | March 26, 2009 10:40 PM
Isis, Isis, Isis, the reason I think I will call bullshit is because you called Phil Plait (Bad Astronomy) a mysogynist, because he is not. I read him longer then I read you, but hardly comment there because the threads are to long. When I do comment it is because of what he said, not what any his commenters say. I know he is not a mysogynist. I have not met him, but would like to, just as a would like to meet Chris and Sheril.
Here is what I find easily offensive and it has nothing to do with looks or not. My family is Catholic, very much so, but I was an atheist at the 6th grade. I realized then that the Church is a bunch of pedophiles. I should know as I used to be an alter boy. Not that I ever was molested (but a popular priest did ask me to stroke his penis, I objected and the priest respected my wishes and molested my older brother instead.
Here is what I find more offensive then anything you try to convey. In the last year the Pope has un-excommunicated a holocaust denier bishop, has excommunicated the doctors that have aborted the twins of a 7 year old girl that was raped by her father and would have died if delivered, in his trip to Africa told men and women contraceptives (condoms) are not ok. What is your church trying to say? Spead AIDS have as many kids as possible (even if they cannot be fed)? WTF. You belong to this organization and do not speak out about it on you blog. But make a big deal out of what might be a pimply nose hormonal teenager finding some woman attractive. Give me a break.
I do not usually address religion, however, people that are religious scare me. In a previous post, I ask you directly if you are selective in you feminism. Basically do you advocate equal rights in your church, the military (you will fight on equal grounds as men and advocate for it, etc?) If any of your answers are no, I will call bullshit. You can't be taken seriously. You even expect you husband to give up his life in a Titanic situation.
So you belong to a patriarchal religion that sees women a breeders and mothers to stay at home to take care of the children. No sex except for procreation and yet blog about sex (7 days of sex). Hopefully you will confess to your priest a lot especially with your foul language. In your own religion you are a sinner.
Personality, I do not get you. You scream of Greg Lagen, but to scream at Phil is entirely wrong.
I visited your blog before you were part of ScienceBlogs and enjoyed it because it was humorous. I can't say the same anymore. If you are truly into equal rights for men and women you should show it. So far you have failed.
One final note. With your shoes, how to dress, etc., you seem to place a high important on appearance. I do not. Yet commenting of on appearance is not acceptable. I call bullshit. You place a high value on your appearance, with your shoes, fashion, etc. Those are not values to me. I can call a women attractive because she as brains, she makes me laugh, or she has a hot body (which may or not be the same as anyone's else description). I have a hot wife and consider myself lucky to have that.
In fairness to daedalus2u, yes I was drunk when I posted this. Tomorrow, is my regular day off (RDO).
Ok, have your minions at me. It should drive your traffic. Consider this helping your cause for women scientists.
Posted by: Danimal | March 26, 2009 11:52 PM
Wow, it's interesting when people comment drunk, isn't it?
Anyway, I do want to comment on the word "ghetto" - I have to agree with what PalMD originally said - it is frequently used in critical discourse to refer to the process of isolation/marginalization of some (usually minority) group. I've used it in that sense, and I'll continue to use it, since I've been doing so since I was an undergraduate and first started reading critical literature. In that context, ghettoization is bad *not* because it makes someone "ghetto," but quite the opposite: it's bad because the mainstream is systematically excluding someone out of distaste/disrespect/disregard. (The woman's studies department example is a good one to illustrate that.)
That doesn't mean we shouldn't have a bigger conversation about whether "ghetto" is appropriate to use in a mainstream media context, particularly referring to the interests of a relatively privileged professional group like scientists. It's being thrown around a lot, and people probably ought to think about its current usage and its provenance. (Grad school was bad, but it's not *that* bad!) The points you make about the ethnic and cultural connotations the word could have to a layperson are relevant and valid, and we should think carefully before we use the word. But since Discover's CEO is quite likely coming from the same place I am regarding that word, I find it torturous to read any racist or discriminatory sentiments into what he is saying.
PS. Sheril rocks.
Posted by: bioephemera | March 27, 2009 10:44 AM
"Wow, it's interesting when people comment drunk, isn't it?"
Ain't that the truth.
Posted by: Danimal | March 27, 2009 11:07 AM
How dare you, sir, use the offensive word "pigeonholed"! Do you not know how much suffering pigeons have experienced at the hands of the humans who made those holes? Pigeonholes were created for the enslavement of pigeon kind, who have been held subservient to their human captors for centuries and forced to do unspeakable things. Pigeons were tricked by humans into carrying messages into dangerous war zones, at great personal risk. They were selectively bred by humans for their physical attractiveness -- a form of objectification. They were even murdered and eaten! And all this happened to pigeons forced to live in pigeonholes. To blithely throw that term around without considering the systematic speciesism and horrible atrocities in its history is an act of unmitigated disregard for animal rights. But I suppose that's the typical behavior we've come to expect from a human like yourself.
(All kidding aside, "pigeonholed" would've been a poorly chosen since it implies a set of many holes for specific, narrowly defined categories, which doesn't fit what you were saying. You were correct to use "ghettoization".)
Posted by: A Pigeon | March 28, 2009 9:05 PM
@A Pigeon: Funny! Blogging sober again.
Posted by: Danimal | March 28, 2009 9:31 PM