On Becoming a Domestic and Laboratory Goddess

Gah. What a creep. And I have no solutions, other than fantasizing about throwing salt in the eyes of every ogling supervisor or professor.

I wish that professors in general considered that kind of behavior unprofessional, and would comment on it in personnel reviews (at a minimum), and that it would count against professors looking for tenure or pay raises. Maybe someday...

Posted by: Kim Hannula | June 4, 2009 4:46 PM

puke on his shoes. he'll never look at you the same way again.

Posted by: jc | June 4, 2009 5:01 PM

Back in the dark ages when I was in grad school, the chairman of the department and a world famous archaeologist who was very tall reached out and pulled the front of my shirt out from my body and looked inside at my boobs. It was while standing in a hallway with a number of people where we were all talking. I asked him if they were both still in there and he replied "Yup," then we all went along as before with the conversation. I still don't know what I did to cause his behavior, and since he's dead now, I guess I'll never know, but he never, ever even hinted at anything sexual while I was around after that.
I guess that the point is those guys have always been there and my best advice is make them know that you know what they are doing. Your awareness and lack of fear is a great obstacle to their enjoyment.

Posted by: Lilo | June 4, 2009 5:31 PM

When I was at Experimental Biology a few months ago, a senior colleague I had only met a couple of times leaned over to me while we were out one evening, buried his face in my hair, and told me he had wondered what I smelled like....I have another much more senior colleague from a previous MRU who likes to put his arm around me when we are out professionally. I remember vividly (and with a skeevy, creepy feeling) the times we've traveled to professional conferences together and gone out with colleagues afterwards. By the end of each night, no matter how far from him I distanced myself, he had migrated over to where I was to slip his hairy, gelatinous arm around my waist and place his sweaty palm firmly on my hip. The message he was sending, that I was owned by him and that he was marking me as his, couldn't have been sent anymore loudly if he had lifted his leg and peed on me.

This is why pepper spray was invented. Seriously.

Back in the dark ages when I was in grad school, the chairman of the department and a world famous archaeologist who was very tall reached out and pulled the front of my shirt out from my body and looked inside at my boobs. It was while standing in a hallway with a number of people where we were all talking. I asked him if they were both still in there and he replied "Yup," then we all went along as before with the conversation.

Again, pepper spray.

Staring has just enough plausible deniability that you'll have a hard time justifying pepper spray during the inevitable questioning, but when hands go where they aren't supposed to be, pepper spray all the way.

Posted by: Alex | June 4, 2009 6:09 PM

Honestly, this is kind of scary. I'm starting graduate school in the fall and this isn't the first warning I got that this kind of behavior happens in the world of graduate school. My adviser is female, but the other two professors on my graduate committee are male and I'd hazard a guess many many of my professors will be as well. The degree I'm getting isn't offered at very many schools so running away won't be an option, but I'm not sure I could stand to get an education that way. I definitely tend to be one of those "hit them if they touch me" kind of girls, however a) I'm tiny and not very imposing b) violence breeds violence c) that will still jeopardize my education. Professors have authority, students don't. I may want to pick up one of those shirts just as a precaution.

Posted by: Avery | June 4, 2009 6:25 PM

I have been in a situation similar to this. Luckily the guy was doing this unconsciously (he was an older colleague, from a different culture, and totally awkward around the women).

We kind of let it 'slip' amongst his friends that he had a nickname. Of course, after a while, they really wanted to know. So we said his nickname was 'boob-starer'. In about a week, it worked it's way back to him, and it stopped.

I don't know that this would work with the professor. I once called my old advisor out on staring at a particular product rep's ass, but we were comfortable with each other like that.

I think that if this student is feeling uncomfortable, she should say something. It will help both of them in the long run.

Posted by: Geeka | June 4, 2009 7:03 PM

That's what it all comes down to when women are treated this way -- creating a power dichotomy in which the male player attempts to reinforce the notion that the woman is submissive to him.

There is no excuse for the behavior, but that is a bit too cynical for me Dr. Isis. Why does a man staring at a women's breasts have to mean anything more than that he is sexually attracted to her and too stupid to hide his lust?

Posted by: Luke | June 4, 2009 7:06 PM

I hate how many times I have personally asked myself if I was being paranoid or over-dramatic and worried if I was going to hurt someone's career because of some silly concern of mine.

That's why I was silent.

Posted by: Juniper Shoemaker | June 4, 2009 7:13 PM

Oops, one more thought that didn't transmit. I meant to say that by calling him on it in the next lab, clearly I don't mean to have an out-and-out discussion with him. Just a simple one or two sentences to get the point across.

Posted by: Callinectes | June 4, 2009 7:23 PM

When I was in grad school, we had a fellow who besides practicing bad science was also a practitioner of sexual harassment. In psychology that is explicitly unethical and cause for action both with licensing boards and professional organizations.

This jerk touched almost exclusively younger, petite women (i.e., the ones least likely to be in a position to fight back)and always someone lower in rank (students, interns, staff), many times in full view of peers and superiors who should have nailed him to the wall on the spot. They did not. He had an affair with a student while I was in the program and stalked another at our internship site. On one occasion the stalkee thought he was going to try to rape her, but she was able to extricate herself from the situation.

The women in the department were like you, dear Dr. Isis, very concerned about those of us who were coming along behind them, and when they got a wind up about this they stormed down en masse, Goddess bless 'em, to the dean's office to raise a little hell.

Unfortunately, the Dean, best-known for asking a student what birth control method she used, was a harasser himself, and so that is as far as the professorial complaining went.

A complaint to the licensing board or to the APA would have required the students' input, and of course nobody wanted to risk this jerk's ire.

I said something about it at our internship, and was roundly criticized for it. I figured since I was through with classes and not under his supervision at the site, either, that I could speak up for these girls, but I was wrong. My supervisor, to whom I first went, pretended concern, but looking back I realize he had to have known this was going on, so. . . Another made a big fuss about what a pain in this ass it was to her to have to read the ethics Code and the hospital personnel manual and figure out what she should do (!). In the end, nothing ever came of it.

Still, not all Deans are jerks. I would suggest that the letter-writer's friend seek support and counsel from a woman who has some political pull in the department. That person can help her go up the chain of command about Dr. Breast Man.

Our women faculty were awesome, but, unfortunately, politically powerless. But we weren't a research institution: Perhaps the letter-writer's pull in some good grant money and would have more clout.

Good luck, kiddo, whoever you are. I hope you guys can nail his ass.

Posted by: Dr. Righteous | June 4, 2009 7:45 PM

I want to second the comments of "ambivalent academic".

1. Let's have some feed back into the environment. It won't take much - much less than a punch in the nose - and it gives the victim of the offense some power in the situation.

2. Does anyone assume that the malefactor is intentionally seeking to offend?

3. As a particularly short person, I frequently find that my blank stares in thought mode are aimed at my companion's chest. If they are female then I have to start self consciously managing things - once I notice. It is not normal to stare into someone eyes for long periods of time.

4. While I might have argued differently as a younger person, as I've aged I come to suspect that more things are instinctual. I would not be surprised to find that a fMRI shows some kind of automatic identification of breasts in the visual cortex. Now there's a project!

5. I also wonder if women's visual behavior is just less noticed. My wife frequently identifies the bust characteristics of women we meet, such as at a party, in ways that I don't notice or, at least, recall. Do women engage in conversations differently than men do?

Posted by: No Real Right To Post Here | June 4, 2009 8:27 PM

The shock of the men on your site is interesting. When I go for drinks with other female assistant profs at conferences we regularly share stories like these, but my male colleagues express shock that such things still happen and refuse to believe they're still common.

Unfortunately, staring is deniable enough that all she'll get is grief for complaining.

We dealt with a sketchy professor in grad school by making fun of his sketchiness in the end of year skit party (a male student played him and did a very funny exaggerated version of the behavior and none of the students in the skit were his). The T-shirt might actually work and is sufficiently non-threatening to be relatively "safe."

Posted by: profess | June 4, 2009 8:49 PM

Creepy. I refused to wear anything lighter than a sweatshirt to school from middle school until about age 16 because I freaked out over having boobs and the prospect of people noticing. It was a not the most brilliant plan, but it gave me some space and I've now perfected a "don't touch" vibe which usually works.

Good luck to the original letter writer.

Posted by: Valkyrie | June 4, 2009 9:19 PM

The comments about punching and pepper-spray are well-meaning, but demonstrate a real lack of understanding. A woman who defended herself in that way would be charged with assault. It happens, even when a woman is defending herself from an obvious physical assault, let alone ogling or groping.

Folks, if there were a "just-----him in the ----"-type solution that worked, we wouldn't still have this problem. And gentlemen, trust us--we do still have this problem. Badly.

Finally, speaking of inappropriate hair interactions: if I hear one more "natural redhead" comment or question (always sexual in nature, as I'm sure you can imagine), I may in fact find myself charged with assault.

Posted by: SKM | June 4, 2009 9:48 PM

Katherine,
Here's where I get off. 1) I was sexually harrassed by a male professor. I reported him. Nothing happened. I got your infamous backlash. Turns out I wasn't the first. I was just the first to report him. He harrassed FOUR other women. Then he got fired. 2) My PhD advisor was caught oggling student tits by a female professor. She reported him. She got your infamous backlash. I left the lab. 3) I was sexually assaulted during an internship at a BBQ party. I got away and cops never found him.

All these guys were NiceGuys(TM). Never would have thought in a million years. That's how they hide. If they were obvious, it wouldn't be a surprise.

I am not a victim. I am not silent.

Posted by: jc | June 4, 2009 10:18 PM

Sometimes when this happens to me, I will crouch down so that I am once again at eye level with the person. This is usually enough to get the point across, and usually the ogler is totally embarrassed, too.

Posted by: Jane | June 4, 2009 11:05 PM

Here's why there is a problem:

Why does a man staring at a women's breasts have to mean anything more than that he is sexually attracted to her and too stupid to hide his lust?

...it's entirely possible that he's not staring on purpose...

Guys: staring at a woman's chest is unprofessional, and should not be tolerated from supervisors and professors. You can learn professional behavior. You do it all the time, when it's important. So accept that it's important, and if you have a problem with it, keep trying until you get better, just like you practice giving a professional talk or writing a grant proposal or teaching a class or writing up your research for publication.

It doesn't matter who or what you're attracted to; your job as a professor is to teach and do research and mentor. It is not to treat your students and mentees as if they are centerfolds. If you don't get that, you should do something else with your life.

Women get all sorts of criticism for being unprofessorial. Well, guys: this sort of behavior is unprofessorial. Or it should be.

And it should be the job of deans, department chairs, and senior faculty members to ensure that this sort of behavior is not tolerated. So if you're in that category: listen to Isis. Listen to the women who wrote her letters. Listen to the many women who have had these experiences. Because they are not something that happens to "those women" or is done by "those monsters." It is horrifyingly common, and too many women scientists have some kind of story they can tell.

Posted by: Kim Hannula | June 4, 2009 11:11 PM

Building on what Luke (comment #15) said: "Why does a man staring at a women's breasts have to mean anything more than that he is sexually attracted to her and too stupid to hide his lust?"

Prof Breast Man is being a jerk, and a university-policy-violating one at that. But most males (professors included), at least occasionally, check out the bodies of the women in their workplaces. If a woman is wearing a bulky sweatshirt, then the attention might be more focused on the moments when she's leaning across her bench and it briefly hugs her figure. Learning how to do this without women noticing is one of the post-puberty skills men were supposed to acquire; apparently they can be learned by some older men (comment #13). No one should be made to feel uncomfortable by glances, actions or words, especially in a workplace, but we won't be able to stop people from objectifying their coworkers very discretely. For example, we can't stop audience members at a conference from staring at a presenter's ass instead of the presenter's slides.

Posted by: anonymous | June 4, 2009 11:27 PM

I highly recommend tees or sweats from "save the tatas" with funds going to breast cancer research. With that phrase across your boobs, he will get the idea if he is truly clueless. If it continues after that, then the "yes they are still here" tee is in order.
Even with DD cups I haven't had this problem. Someone once told me that I scared the shit out of most of them. I don't know what I radiate, but it does seem to work!
Of course now that 50 looks closer than 40, having random guys gawk at my boobs doesn't seem so bad. And those in power don't even try...

Posted by: Pascale | June 4, 2009 11:29 PM

This is absurd. This is like those who build houses 'way out in the country next to an airport then complain about the noise. The lowest part of hell is reserved for those who came up with the idea: "Hey! we can get all the cheap labor for our plantations just by importing it from Africa!" The next lowest part belongs to those who came up with the idea: "Hey! we can cut our administration costs by combining the men's schools and the women's schools all into one, happy, one - school - fits - all."

The men and women, students and professors in your little tale of woe are just square pegs being pounded into round holes. You decide which gender is the peg and which is the hole...who gets pounded and who just has to take it.

Posted by: cottus | June 5, 2009 12:25 AM

1. It is possible the is just looking down because he's shy and doesn't like making eye contact.
2. But it is also very possible he is looking there on purpose.
3. Or staring lustfully without realizing it.
4. In any case, awake professional should know better and BE better. It's totally unnecessary.
5. Count me as one of the shocked men who is disturbed to hear some of the stories reported here. It would never even occur to me to act like that, and I spent many years in science labs with attractive female colleagues. My sympathy goes out to women who have to put up with this awfulness. It is really disheartening to hear how actively disgusting men can be.
6. Maybe the woman could get a tee shirt that says "sexual harassment" across the chest area?
7. I really like Jane #32'S comment about crouching down to meet his gaze, but that's probably not even harsh enough.
8. I can really imagine James Watson acting like this.

Posted by: cm | June 5, 2009 1:49 AM

Confession: I was that guy in college, although a student, not a professor. I think it mostly came out of social awkwardness and repression -- I came from a religious background and somehow gained the idea along the lines that respecting women meant avoiding making any approaches at all beyond friendship, and that if a woman wanted me, she'd signal her interest in her own time. I think I tended to treat breasts as forbidden fruit and gained kind of a reputation as a creep in the process, an issue I've never really been able to shake. (I have to say I must have gotten better at it at some point, since no one these days seems to think I'm creepy, but make of that what you will.)

I mean, when you get down to it, it's out-of-control display of sexual attraction. But I really think awkwardness and isolation plays into it more than intentional sexual overtures. It's something like a nervous tic, albeit more potentially destructive socially. I'd probably put it in the same category, motivationwise, as closeted gay/bi men who tap their feet in men's rooms -- an attempt to get something surreptitiously that can't be obtained in a healthy, consensual, open manner.

And to all the women who I've ever freaked out by cleavage-staring, I deeply apologize. I've been working on it over the years.

Posted by: Brian X | June 5, 2009 2:33 AM

As an undergrad I knew a fellow student who would return whatever stare someone was giving her. If a guy was staring at her breasts, she would stare at his chest. If a guy was staring at her crotch, she would stare at his crotch. She would usually follow it up by glaring at the guy. I don't know if she ever did it to a prof though.

Posted by: Muhr | June 5, 2009 3:53 AM

Isis: When I was at Experimental Biology a few months ago, a senior colleague I had only met a couple of times leaned over to me while we were out one evening, buried his face in my hair, and told me he had wondered what I smelled like.

By the end of each night, no matter how far from him I distanced myself, he had migrated over to where I was to slip his hairy, gelatinous arm around my waist and place his sweaty palm firmly on my hip.

Lilo (7): Back in the dark ages when I was in grad school, the chairman of the department and a world famous archaeologist who was very tall reached out and pulled the front of my shirt out from my body and looked inside at my boobs.

Seriously? I'm shocked.

Posted by: Change | June 5, 2009 3:54 AM

I had this problem before breast reduction surgery. The tshirt helps. She should wear it every day over her other attire as her "lab coat."

Posted by: Jen | June 5, 2009 4:24 AM

"other shrill and meaningless canned response"

"Relax."

"so spare us all the strawmen and the moral posturing"

etc.

I think it's great to ask honest questions about controversial topics. Using this kind of excruciatingly condescending, dismissive language to strongly intimate that complaints of sexism are generally insincere, however, will not predispose many here to constructively engage with you. You've already decided that any woman here who comes down on a particular side of this issue hasn't genuinely suffered a wrong attributable to sexism. You've already negatively judged her decision to express her anger. Nothing anyone says will change your mind.

I'm inclined to think that had you really wished to discuss this, you would have cut this stuff out of your comment.

Posted by: Juniper Shoemaker | June 5, 2009 5:00 AM

That's what it all comes down to when women are treated this way -- creating a power dichotomy in which the male player attempts to reinforce the notion that the woman is submissive to him.
Luckily something like that hasn't happened to me in a professional environment. The worst was a drunk italian exchange grad student who kissed me a bit too often on the cheek, so I just pushed him gently away from me and told him that's enough, which worked. After all, my colleagues and me made him drunk and he left a week later anyway. I didn't understand what my other italian colleague told him, but it didn't sound friendly. :)
Off the job, I tend to defend myself quite clearly. Someone I don't know or hardly know touches me without asking first will be told to keep his fingers to himself in an unfriendly manner. Does it again? Gets insulted a lot. Does it again? Gets slapped. That works quite well, I rarely have to get insulting and only once had to slap someone.
I think if someone I know tried to behave the way Isis described, I would try to make it humiliating for him. If he sniffs my hair, sniff his armpit, telling him I hope my hair smells better than his. Someone putting his arm around me? Put my elbow on his shoulder, lean on it, showing dominance. Someone makes a sexist joke, tell him a joke about men that makes him cringe. The important thing is that they lose, that their peers laugh at them.

Posted by: Anonymous | June 5, 2009 5:07 AM

But then, why women like to wear revealing dresses? If there were not a single man living in this world, then would any woman wear any revealing dress? I doubt........ All those women who shout for women's liberty - they always keep on saying that women wear such dresses for enjoying on their own. This is an utter bullshit reason! Women wear revealing dresses only to show their bodily beauty to men and if not a single man looks to a well-exposedly dressed pretty woman, then she surely feels frustrated and ultimately developes all doubts about the appeal of her own "bodily assets"!

Posted by: Haridas | June 5, 2009 6:13 AM

As an aside, I found that Bea Arthur image extremely disturbing at first because I thought her breasts were bleeding. Took me a minute to figure out that she had cheesecake pasties instead of bleeding nipples under bandages, lol.

Posted by: Adrienne | June 5, 2009 6:21 AM

@ Juniper Shoemaker:
"I'm inclined to think that had you really wished to discuss this, you would have cut this stuff out of your comment."

I wouldn't have phrased it as a question if I didn't want to discuss it. I did consider taking that part out after I wrote it, but I've read enough discussions on this blog to think it was necessary. Everything in the statements you quoted is a response to tactics I've seen used by posters here and on other blogs Dr. Isis links to. I kept them in because I thought I'd have to write them anyway as a response to someone doing exactly what I described.

The dismissiveness was directed at people who use accusations of sexism as a substitute for well-reasoned rebuttals, not at everyone who has something to say about it.

People do get shrill, and they do use canned responses to things they consider canned objections. It's very easy to compare parts of my previous post to the "it's her fault for wearing that" rationalization for rape, and I didn't want to to deal with that particular strawman or the moral posturing required to make it.

Nowhere did I say that sexism does not exist, or that all claims of sexism are overblown, or whatever other typically sexist things you could accuse me of. It's a fact of life that women have to deal with all kinds of crap, but it's also a fact that some of them will use that to find sexism where there isn't any. Both of those things happen.

Posted by: Anon | June 5, 2009 6:37 AM

I wouldn't have phrased it as a question if I didn't want to discuss it

Lots of trolls looking to upset people on blogs where they're minding their own business (i.e., undiplomatically discussing sexism on a blog owned by someone who permits undiplomatic discussion of sexism) ask questions. Given the kind of commenters drawn here over the last two weeks, it's getting harder for me to tell who wants to just have a no-holds-barred discussion and who just wants to be cruel.

It's a fact of life that women have to deal with all kinds of crap, but it's also a fact that some of them will use that to find sexism where there isn't any. Both of those things happen.

You opened with, "But here's the question you're going to shout me down for". You don't think that this suggests a subtext that reads, "Before I give you a chance to speak, I want you to know that you ALL are incapable of understanding that this is complicated, because MY inerrant judgment is that you are"? Or "Don't you DARE assume that you know who I am, because I KNOW who you are"? Or, even: "I'm just here to hate on you"? Doesn't a lot of this comprise the same attitude you're decrying when aimed toward men? Do you think of this as fighting fire with fire or something?

This is a hard discussion for me to level-headedly enter because I was one of those women who thought (and who probably still does think) deep-down that sexism (and racism, for that matter) was a non-issue and that women (and minorities) should just suck it up and shut up and outwork all their competitors* and shed nary a tear until I couldn't take my own mightily suppressed anger over my nasty personal experiences anymore.

At this point, in a discussion like this, it is really hard for me to get past what I perceive to be condescension and dismissal. It's really, really hard for me not to read both of your comments as chauvinist (whether or not you're male)-- are you saying you preemptively lashed out that hard because "we" all "needed" to be schooled by you and your (possibly) paternal perspective on "reality"? I gather from what I've read on Dr. Isis's blog that I'm not the only one who bristles when she feels like she's being maliciously patted on the head. Who wants to engage with someone who's already decided what your limitations are? You've just expressed your own disinterest in this very thing!

Then again, you did note your defensiveness coming in here. Moreover, your second comment is less vitriolic than the first. Maybe you really do want to discuss, not preach. Maybe I'm reading you wrong.

I'm wondering, given the distaste you've evinced for this blog and the sympathetic blogs it links to-- what compelled you to come here? That's an honest question, not a snarky one. There must be some series of interactions that not only resulted in this degree of defensiveness within yourself but also incited you to seek out discussions dominated by people whose views on sexism you find unpalatable. Depending on whether or not you genuinely sought out these forums with the idea that they might contain women who are angry but who aren't caricatures, that's not necessarily something I'd revile.

*There is a tiny part of me that wondered if your second comment betrays your having stereotyped me into being "incapable" of holding this position. However, there's not enough evidence for me to make this assumption, so I won't.

Posted by: Juniper Shoemaker | June 5, 2009 7:37 AM

The dismissiveness was directed at people who use accusations of sexism as a substitute for well-reasoned rebuttals, not at everyone who has something to say about it.

HAHAHAHAHAHAH! Lemme ask you a question, high-school debate-team rebuttal d00d. Where on earth do you get the cockamamie idea that you are entitled to a "rebuttal" every time you wander onto some blog and post some cockamamie horseshit.

The Internet does not exist solely to provide high-school debate-team rebuttal d00dz like you with opportunities to live out their Walter Mitty fantasies of rhetorical dominance.

Your stupid fucking "question" has been asked and answered a bajillion fucking times all over the fucking place. The topic of this post is Dealing with "Professor Breast Man", not "Dealing with Disingenuous Feminism 101 Questions from "High-School Debate-Team Rebuttal D00d".

Posted by: Comrade PhysioProf | June 5, 2009 8:24 AM

If you don't want him (or anyone, for that matter) staring at your breasts, they why wear shirts that would reveal your cleavage in the first place?

Posted by: Sandi | June 5, 2009 8:36 AM

I have learned enough around here to understand Juniper's reaction, but I also sympathize with the fact that Anon (in #51) never got an answer. I'm sort of curious to hear it too.

I keep trying to answer it myself by analogy -- How would we expect a heterosexual guy to react to advances in a gay bar? Or should someone be treated like a moron for making a stupid comment? But I really can't think of anything that works and seems to make the point.

I think in the end the best I can come up with is a restatement of things that have already been said. Maybe it'll mean more coming from another guy ;)

Regardless of how a woman dresses, it's unprofessional and insulting to treat her like a sexual object in the workplace (or maybe anywhere; perhaps a nightclub is a grey zone or something, I dunno). In any case, it's DEFINITELY not appropriate to harbor sexual thoughts about a student or any other person over whom one has any sort of professional 'power'. Indeed, that's pretty much the definition of sexual harassment.

Along those lines, a student could waltz in naked one day, and though that would be inappropriate, it would still not justify sexual harassment. If you have a problem with staring or naughty thoughts, train yourself otherwise. Just the same as you learned not to pick your nose around girls when you were little. It's not cool, no matter how compelling the need.

Posted by: Danny O'Reario | June 5, 2009 8:45 AM

Full disclosure: I am man, and I am in my 40's. I am also NOT a scientist, and can only boast of a lowly bachelor's degree. So I have never had to deal with the graduate school dynamic.

But, being a human male, I can speak from perspective. I have just come to accept that there are differences in men and women, and these differences sometimes clash. (Most) heterosexual men are wired to keep the radar on scan mode - we just keep looking. We literally can't help that that is our nature, though we usually think we are being subtle. On the other hand, we can suppress it for a time, with effort, but the radar never quite turns off, we just turn away for a while.

Likewise, I personally would be supremely embarrassed if it were pointed out to me that I was doing this with a female colleague, and apologize profusely. Despite my Y chromosome, I have great respect for the women who work with me, and I would hate to jeopardize that professional relationship with an incident like that.

Women however need to understand that anything that highlights femininity can blip the radar, although to swith the radar to targeting mode in that situation is in fact a more conscious act, it is POSSIBLE that he may not realize that he is in fact acting
in this way. He may think he is being subtle, but cannot help himself.

In other primates, we see females appearing and acting differently when they are in estrus. They display and present to males more; their bottoms are engorged. A recent (Ig Nobel-winning) study indicated that women emplyed as "exotic" dancers earned more tips when dancing during peak fertility periods than at other times.

So (undereducated, unscientific) opinion, women are wired to put out these signs, and men are wired for sensitivity to them.

Understanding that dynamic can help. As for how to respond to it, toning down the dress is an appropriate step. There is also a generational issue. What was considered mildly provocative when I was in college, is now the norm. From this perspective, the form-fitting scoop-neck tops, popular among the college girls, can cause a large blip on a 40-something's radar, especially if you are curvaceous.

I know it sounds like I am an apologist for "Professor Breast Man," but that is not my intention. Think armchair anthropologist. The three salient points I am trying to make are these: 1) men and women wired differently than women, 2)there is a generational difference in styles of dress, 3) you can't change his behavior. You CAN however change YOUR behavior.

You could also wear something more conservative to meetings with PBM that you can easily shed afterward - like a cardigan or a vest. That way you can be appropriately cute around campus, and easily frump it up for PBM.

Posted by: TGAP Dad | June 5, 2009 9:01 AM

Sleep with him. Right as he shudders to an climax look at his forehead and say that it would be good if you could do Thanksgiving with your folks this year and his the next

Also remind him that if he gave you babies from his wiener you are going to need a longer car

Posted by: wazza | June 5, 2009 9:25 AM

ekcol wrote:
I think his actions are terrible, unprofessional, etc, but I still think it's more likely his thought process was "I like looking at breasts -> I am going to look at her breasts", than "I would like to create a power dichotomy -> The easiest way to do this is using her sexuality -> I am going to look at her breasts".

Totally agree with you on this.

I like the idea someone posted of the scientist asking innocently as possible, "Sorry, did I spill something on my shirt?" too.

Posted by: Adrienne | June 5, 2009 9:54 AM

One thought that occurs to me is that there may be a valid point about what people are wearing. Grad programs are just as much a professional work environment as any other company. However the standards for campus dress are all over the map, for men and women, much would not be considered appropriate for the private work place. And I'm including my male friends hawaiian shirt, shorts, and open-toed birkenstock sandles in that. If you're wearing the same outfit to the lab that you went out to the club with on Friday night then that is most certainly not professional attire.

Although screams would be heard across campuses, perhaps a reasonable dress standard should be put in place. I don't mean 70's IBM standard, but a reasonable modern standard that emphasises professionalism might benefit everyone in the long term.

/And gods, I can't believe I've gotten old enough to say this. The me from 15 years ago would be screaming in horror at what I just said.

//And, I don't mean to suggest that the person in question was wearing something inappropriate. The details here don't specify. However, a quick walk around most campuses particularly here in Colorado will show off an entire spectrum of attire.

Posted by: PhilB | June 5, 2009 10:32 AM

- I think the prof doesn't know he's doing it and would be appalled/embarrassed if he knew he was causing this problem for the student.
- I like the t-shirt idea. something like, "if you're talking to me, you shouldn't be reading this" on the front. and laserboy's lawsuit idea on the back.
- I LOVE the idea of having as many people (not just women?) as possible wear the shirt on the same day.

in solidarity.

Posted by: kelle | June 5, 2009 11:28 AM

"Whether Prof. BM "means it" or not is IRRELEVANT."

I agree that it is totally irrelevant to the acceptability of his staring. I'm not as sure it's as irrelevant to how it should be corrected.

And "dad" above.... "notice", maybe, "ogle", definitely not.

Sure, some people have been inappropriately socialized and/or need a refresher course now and again. Some people continuously. For the latter group, some punishment may be needed as a motivator, but for others, maybe not.

Posted by: BAllanJ | June 5, 2009 11:47 AM

ajo wrote:
This is very frustrating. I think that many of these commentors would like pictures of what this young woman was wearing so they could judge for themselves whether or not she was inviting her boss to look at her breasts. IT DOES NOT MATTER WHAT A WOMAN WEARS.

Eh, I have to disagree with this. This not a black-and-white issue. It doesn't always matter what a women wears, but it can. Women can and do dress sometimes to deliberately titillate and call attention to their bodily "assets". Check out Jennifer Lopez's gown for the 2000 Grammy Awards, for instance. You don't seriously believe that J. Lo dressed this way without realizing that it would draw attention to her body, do you?

But what's not clear in this case is that the female student was wearing anything of the sort. Certainly it sounds as though she had no intention of dressing in a provocative way, and I find it interesting that several commenters immediately assumed she was wearing tight and/or low cut clothing, even though all we know is that she had to give up on some "cute blouses" and some of her "favorite tops" in favor of clothes so baggy they hide her natural shape.

Posted by: Adrienne | June 5, 2009 12:15 PM

@Rev Matt #81 -

I have the same tendency (middle distance stare) and I know it weirds some people out. I don't however end staring towards other people's chests...perhaps it's subliminal. I've got my own pair and well, I'm just kind of used to the so I tend NOT to notice or let my eyes be drawn towards other womens' racks. Being aware that you do it and making a conscious effort to stare in the direction of something non-offensive should be all it takes. Me, I tend to stare at my own hands or feet, or the table top in front of me.

However, I want to be clear that even if this is the case for Dr. Boob Man, it's not an excuse. Staring at tits is unprofessional and inexcusable, whether you're aware of it or not, whether you're trying to be a jerk or you think that your "irrepressible" lust somehow entitles you to another person's body. Figure it out and change your behavior dude. Irrepressible urges my ass! Sockpuppet or not, I thought Danio rario's comment in the more recent post was dead on.

Posted by: ambivalent academic | June 5, 2009 12:35 PM

Yep, a lot of folks don't get it.

1) It's not about what we wear, boys -- see 77.

2) Whether or not individual men think it's about power or "just lust" doesn't matter either. No one was trying to drive me out of science when hordes of boys started hitting on me, hard, within a few weeks of starting college; no one is trying to drive me out of computing when every single guy in the linux users group asks me on a date; no one is even being malicious! but the cumulative effects on women are harmful. I can't be at the LUG meeting and talk about linux -- I can't be in my physics class and talk about physics -- it is clear that I am most valued for my availability, not my intellectual contributions. Thanks, really-I'm-not-sexist-you're-just-attractive guys. Think cumulative effects.

3) Ms. Mentor had a great reply to something like this in her book. How 'bout an anonymous note in the mailbox? "Sorry, Prof BM, but you should know that you stare at women's breasts and make the women attached to them uncomfortable! Please work on this or we'll be forced to excoriate you publicly -- thx, the ladies." If he's truly a nice guy, he'll be terribly embarrassed and work on changing his habits. If he's not truly a nice guy, he might be embarrassed anyway that someone's noticed. I don't know if I've got the tone of the note quite right... Ms. Mentor's was about crotch-staring, and she might have suggested a double-pronged approach: note from the ladies, and note from the gay guys ("Prof BM, we've been staring at your crotch a lot and want to know personally -- boxers or briefs? graying, or not?-- thx, the gay men of physics")

Posted by: kt | June 5, 2009 12:45 PM

As a male grad student...
Yes, this is unacceptable.
Yes, it is common.
Yes, it is sometimes unintentional, but that doesn't mean it's ok. If you don't call these guys out they will never learn.

My suggestion, let a few other trusted people know about the situation, as backup. Then, when he does it again, preferably with your backup around, look him in the eye and firmly tell him to stop. no smiling, no joking. Don't try to break the tension or awkwardness of the situation. stare him down, let the words soak in, and walk away.

If it's unintentional, he needs to be told, so that he will have no further excuse. Embarrassment is a wonderful teaching tool, and I guarantee any "nice guy" will be thoroughly humiliated by this, and rightly so. If he's a "nice guy", you're doing him a favor by nipping a potentially career ending habit in the bud.

If it's intentional, he needs to be warned that further ogling will bring the a ****-storm of professional and legal consequences. And be prepared to bring the ****storm if he doesn't take the hint. Having backup/witnesses will serve you well if it comes to that.

The problem is, there's really know way of knowing if it's intentional or not, except maybe by his reaction and subsequent behavior when you call him out.

Posted by: CC | June 5, 2009 12:48 PM

Ping!

Posted by: Dr. Free-Ride | June 5, 2009 12:56 PM

Anon: I understand your cynicism regarding the system. I'm reminded of my fiancee's of from a Cheyenne, WY company where a man was implicated in harassment and violence (slashing other employee's tires) but nothing was done until he physcially tried to rape someone at work. (Actually, in that company's defense, the HR manager for the site was also fired after that incident.)

It's a case-by-case basis really, some HR departments are better than others. Some corporate cultures are better than others. Academia has a culture all its own.

However, that same cynicism, justified or not, can prevent people from pursuing avenue's and building a case for internal action or even legal action if the organization does not take appropriate steps.

Posted by: PhilB | June 5, 2009 1:05 PM

Repost from the more recent thread -->

I am still struck by this weirdness:

"The Great and Powerful Dad" has no problem apologizing for his typos, but still hasn't said boo about the asshattery of his initial "I can't help it - my Y chromosome made me do it" bullshit.

TGAP --

Read the comments.

Then consider this. As a woman, I also have sexual urges. I like (good) sex and I find men attractive. But I would never ever not ever feel that my sexual urges, my ovaries, or my matching pair of X chromosomes excuses me from being a decent person. That means that I don't go grabbing the ass of the nearest good-looking fella', nor do I stare at men's crotches when I'm speaking to them. Even if I think that they're totally hot. Even if I'm "in estrus". Even if he's wearing tight pants. Do you know why? It's his ass and his crotch and therefore it's not mine to do what I want with. That includes ogling. I can control myself. It's not that hard to do. So can you and any other human being sporting danglers out there.

D00d, do you get it now??

Oh, and:

Notice I am not mentioning any of the touching or sniffing here. ALL of that creeps me out...have I earned the removal of the "asshat" label now?

Um, no. And even if the answer were yes, what do you want, a fucking cookie?

Posted by: ambivalent academic | June 5, 2009 1:32 PM

I agree with Jane (#30something). Crane your neck down so that you are making eye contact with him. Every time he does this do that. Don't treat it like you know what he's looking it (he's your boss, you need to play nice). You can even add a verbal "are you listening to me?" or something if you are the one talking right then.

I agree with the others that they are "right there" and there's no clothing that will completely take them away. I suffer from a lot of casual looks, it doesn't bother me that much, but a direct staring at them would and I would just crane my neck down.

What I can't fathom is what Dr.Isis has had to put up with, or many of the others. Anytime a male colleague has touched me I immediately tense up and have sometimes said "hey don't do that again" or "why are touching me" or "hello, personal space, this isn't europe" or any number of things. I'm not saying people invite this kind of behavior, but too often I think women make the mistake of being too nice, and therefore it continues. I agree reporting to HR is 9/10 times very useless. Even confiding in an older female colleague usually will not help you. You need to get the message across for people to back off. Dr.Isis I can't imagine a guy following me around and touching me like that, I don't touch the guys at work so there's certainly no reason they think they can get away with it. If a creep was following me around like that I'd ask him politely to stop touching me. First few times a guy crosses my line I stay polite and we stay "friends" but I have had to completely cold shoulder guys, neutralize and limit all contact with them. If they are NOT a professional contact and I need not talk to them, I won't. I don't know why women who complain about this kind of thing don't do more of that. Yes you get known as a b@#$ and a troll and whatever maybe you can (like me) start dressing more frumpy in larger clothes and reduce your obviousness as a sexual object. I think sometimes women care too much about still being seen as attractive, and that certainly plays a role, but most times they just need to bring out the b@#$ and stand up for themselves.

Posted by: Jay | June 5, 2009 1:42 PM

Of course its a power/dominance thing; why else are so many straight men so freaked out about gays? One of my hangouts hired a gay bartender, (a working class bar, and it was a big deal) and the guys freaked out because he was admiring one guy's tie too much.

I'm a short (5 foot, rounding up) woman and I get patted on the head. all. the. time. Social, work setting, doesn't matter. You pet dogs and children on the head, not a grown women. Maybe I should start biting...

Posted by: ildi | June 5, 2009 2:32 PM

Just to echo @ambivalent academic, I am one of the absent-minded starers. I generally manage to pick a middle distance somewhere in the sky, and manage to accomplish this most of the time. But there have been a number of times I've noticed--far too late--that my gaze has been resting on my interlocutor's chest. If it's a guy, that's not a problem (unless the gaze is lower, which is rare). But particularly for women who are well endowed, and therefore sensitized to this, my eyes snap up to a clear judgment that I am leering. And I feel awful, but I'm too embarrassed to apologize.

This doesn't happen frequently, and I'm not saying that this makes up the majority of men's leers. I know it doesn't, and I've been exposed to lots of really disgusting talk among male faculty, mostly of a generation older than my own. But in my case, it isn't sexually motivated (not to say I don't "check out" women, I just like to think that I can do so subtly enough that it isn't noticed), and I absolutely hate that this has made those whom I talk to uncomfortable, particularly when they are my students.

This isn't intended to excuse my lack of manners--I should be able to think without staring anywhere! It also is not intended to blame the victim of such stares. But I do hope some possibility of excusing people as ill-mannered as I am exists, and the hope that we aren't deemed sexual predators when the intent is not present. I try to go out of my way to be sensitive to issues like this, and not to abuse the power differential between advisor and student, and make sure that women have the same opportunities in my (non-science) field as men. So, yes on the T-shirt, and if that doesn't work, a conversation, as uncomfortable as the latter will be for both of you. And yes, I am learning to look at the ceiling.

Grabbiness is another issue entirely, and I'd indicate clearly it's not acceptable to you--or your university's sexual harassment codes. Or I'd push him away hard enough to do damage, though I realize that may be a bit more dangerous. Frankly, the Merkel response (the physical representation of "ewwwww") clearly communicates to everyone that the contact is uninvited, and may be enough to curb it.

Posted by: Mike (not really) | June 5, 2009 2:54 PM

Damn. From all of the above, I can only say that academia is a hostile environment.

I also know of several real-life instances in industry where that kind of shit would have ended PDQ. The shirt-pulling is a crash and burn exercise anywhere I've worked in more than 15 years. Doing it, with witnesses, is a guaranteed walked-out-the-door exercise (and that's not speculative.) Most of the touch instances would be a "you only get one warning" from HR -- and they weren't kidding. The Company takes shit like that seriously because Corporate Counsel has read the riot act to the BOD on the Company's liability if they don't.

Chest gazing? Lecture time, and either straighten up or find a closet to work in where there aren't any women from one month to the next. Like, maybe, try working from home and calling in or doing your labwork at 0300, because one more complaint and we're pulling the "hostile work environment" handle attached to the rocket motor under your butt.

All of which leaves me glad that I work in an environment where there's no tenure and the Management actually listens to legal counsel.

Posted by: D. C. Sessions | June 5, 2009 4:41 PM

Lots of comments. I have to put my vote in for the direct approach. I would definitely say something snarky to the guy. He knows that what he is doing is borderline at best, it should not take too much to call him out on it, probably one annoyed and unambiguous comment will suffice. The one caveat, I would make a point of doing this in a one-on-one context. Public humiliation is always likely to create a backlash that causes more problems than it solves. There is almost zero circumstances where it is a smart idea for a grad student to publicly embarrass a professor. But you have to address these things. You just can't let people treat you this way, it establishes a dynamic that will harm you in the future.

Posted by: yolio | June 5, 2009 4:47 PM

And it should be the job of deans, department chairs, and senior faculty members to ensure that this sort of behavior is not tolerated.

Failing that, there's the law. And yes, I know about reprisal. And yes, I know that reprisal is also a legal crash-and-burn. And yes, I know that there are repercussions that the law can't touch.

There's a point, though, where you can only pile so many tools in the shop. At some point, people have to use them -- there's just no other way to change the situation. "Let Charlie do it" is a formula for maintaining the status quo ante.

Posted by: D. C. Sessions | June 5, 2009 5:00 PM

In any case, it's DEFINITELY not appropriate to harbor sexual thoughts about a student or any other person over whom one has any sort of professional 'power'. Indeed, that's pretty much the definition of sexual harassment.

Shall we take thoughts off the table, please?

Besides the fact that they're unverifiable, there's plenty of reason to believe that telling people that they're liable for "sinful thoughts" is counterproductive.

Behavior, on the other hand -- that is both verifiable and far more subject to control. Keeping a lid on behavior is also a pretty good step towards redirecting the thoughts (yeah, contrary to Greek/Christian doctrine, but right there with Jewish, Buddhist, and modern psychology.)

Unfortunately, there aren't an practical blinders that would selectively block vision. The Peeping Tom solution seems a bit of an overreaction -- at least for a first offense.

Posted by: D. C. Sessions | June 5, 2009 5:19 PM

Tariqata's got it. Everybody likes a hot body, but someone who actually cares about their fellow humans can restrict themselves to just a glance. Staring is *always* out, whether it's due to bad social interaction or genuine skeeviness.

As a guy, I try my best to stop shit like this when I notice other guys around me doing it. It makes *me* uncomfortable just seeing it, so I can barely imagine how it makes the women feel to be the object of it. It just sucks that such a visible segment of my gender does that sort of crap. >_

In a case of persistent staring like the OP talks about, I also recommend gentle embarrassment as a good way to get the dude to stop. With luck, encounters like this make him shape up and stop being such an ass. I also recommend checking around with other people and seeing if he does this to other women. If so, concerted effort is needed. Staring is the sort of thing that's probably hard to get any official response on, but a unified front from the people he does this to can shake him out of his conviction that his actions are okay, at least if he's at all a decent human being.

For anything past staring, in most social situations I would absolutely recommend some degree of physical confrontation. That shit is *not* cool, and other guys who may be uncomfortable but too nervous to speak up will often take their cue from something like that and pressure the offensive dude themselves. Plus, once a dude sticks up against something like that once, it becomes more likely that they'll do the same later with less provocation, making the workplace more equal for future women as well, even if they feel pressured to remain silent themselves. A culture of speaking out benefits everyone.

Posted by: Xanthir, FCD | June 5, 2009 5:25 PM

TGAP/TMAH

Yeah, OK, you didn't mean it like that. But here's the thing I really take issue with: People just fucking luuuuuuurrrrvvvv to pull out the armchair anthropology/evolutionary psychology to "explain and understand" human behavior. While there may be some valid observations made about other primates, there is no evidence that it is valid to extrapolate sex-specific behavior from one species to the next.

Furthermore, the most popular theories that get circulated by the (poorly scientifically inclined) media, as well as arm chair theorists such as yourself, are those that lend support to our already culturally entrenched expectations about the "differences" between men and women and how their behavior is "driven by their biology". The most popular theories that are propagated are those that protect the shitty, sexist status quo. There is no empirical evidence to uphold this steaming pile of horseshit. It ain't science.

For an excellent primer on how these very popular theories about how the sexes are slaves to their biology came about, as well as a really impressive scientific takedown of the whole enterprise, I strongly recommend that you get yourself a copy of "The Woman that Never Evolved", by Sarah Blaffer Hrdy. The author is herself a famous and accomplished primatologist who has taken flack from d00ds and feminists alike for the entirety of her career, simply because she called "bullshit" on the "evolutionary" basis for gender-specific behavior. Seriously, read it. I suspect it will change your world, and your daughters will thank you for it.

Re: number 2. It's great that you have taken a personal interest in how bad sexual harassment can be - it would be better if it didn't take having daughters to do so. Lots of guys say this kind of thing and it really starts to irk me after a while. Why? Because if it took having daughters to make you see that any and all women don't deserve this kind of treatment, then our culture is still broken. I'm not saying that this is you, but the "I care because I don't want to see my wife/mother/daughter/female property defiled in such a way" gambit gets trotted out far too often for me to feel like guys don't want to see people (cuz women are people too) treated that way.

And finally:

"So can men suppress their radar scanners? Yes, with effort, which someone in PBM's position should take the trouble to exert."

I think you got my point about exerting a modicum of self-control, and yes it is more heinous when it comes from someone in a position of authority (because it's hard to fight back without repercussions), but really it should read:

"So can men suppress their radar scanners? Yes, with effort, which EVERYONE should take the trouble to exert."

Posted by: ambivalent academic | June 5, 2009 5:26 PM

DC - I have absolutely no problem with a little smackdown coming from a d00d in this circumstance.

I think in a lot of cases, it can get sort of tricky because the guy issuing smackdown can come off as some kind of white knight swooping in to save the damsel in distress. This is particularly true if the knight then demands a cookie for being all chivalrous and shit. That's pretty ridiculous and patronizing.

However, in this instance there is a tremendous power differential and great potential for either no action against the perp, or worse, retaliation on her head if the grad student does deal with it herself. Shitty and unfair, but true nonetheless. If I were that grad student, and some other guy pulled the creepy prof aside and told him to shape up, I'd be buying that guy a beer afterwards, cookies be damned. But of course, the beer should not be interpreted as an invitation to then grope me. Just sayin'.

Posted by: ambivalent academic | June 5, 2009 5:52 PM

If I were that grad student, and some other guy pulled the creepy prof aside and told him to shape up, I'd be buying that guy a beer afterwards, cookies be damned.

I'm ambivalent on the subject of "cookies." On the one hand, I'd be profoundly embarrassed (and no small amount miffed) at the offer of buying me a beer [1]. On the other hand, nothing beats reward as a behavioral modifier so being the results-oriented sort that I am I'm abstractly in favor of using them strategically.

Well, I don't pretend to be totally consistent.

But of course, the beer should not be interpreted as an invitation to then grope me.

You know, it really gripes me that this actually needed to be said.

[1] As Comrade PhysioProf's head explodes -- yes, at the personal level I agree that the deed itself is all the reward necessary.

Posted by: D. C. Sessions | June 5, 2009 6:07 PM

Emilie Autumn - "Thank God I'm Pretty"; Sometimes I think that should be the soundtrack to some of these posts.

Posted by: dreikin | June 5, 2009 7:21 PM

"I'm ambivalent on the subject of "cookies." On the one hand, I'd be profoundly embarrassed (and no small amount miffed) at the offer of buying me a beer [1]. On the other hand, nothing beats reward as a behavioral modifier so being the results-oriented sort that I am I'm abstractly in favor of using them strategically."

Thanks for sharing that. I hadn't considered that someone might be miffed at the offer of a beer (I'm not always consistent about "cookies" either I guess). You're right - the deed should be reward in and of itself. However, I was coming at it from the assumption that the guy who says something is probably someone I know and have a friendly or at least amicable professional relationship with, in which case an offer of beer is pretty consistent with my expression of gratitude, celebration, or just generally friendliness. If the guy were a stranger, I might just say "thanks for doing that". But in any case, it's good to have your perspective - I was approaching it purely from the "it would make ME feel better to able to express my appreciation" side of things.

And yes, it's sad that the last sentence needed to be said, but I have had the offer of a beer (totally innocuously amicable from my end) be mis-interpreted as an expression of romantic interest and desire. Blech. Why does even a beer have to be so freaking loaded?

Posted by: ambivalent academic | June 5, 2009 8:00 PM

Thanks for sharing that. I hadn't considered that someone might be miffed at the offer of a beer (I'm not always consistent about "cookies" either I guess).

Please don't misunderstand (not that I understand very well, so ...) -- I wouldn't be "miffed" at you, but I'd be uncomfortable. I'd probably take you up on the go-grab-a-beer, but insist on buying my own as no thanks needed.

You're right - the deed should be reward in and of itself.

And it is, once the behavior has been internalized. However, we're talking about behavior modification and internalization is a later stage -- thus, "cookies" (call "reward" what you will) are an important tool.

However, I was coming at it from the assumption that the guy who says something is probably someone I know and have a friendly or at least amicable professional relationship with, in which case an offer of beer is pretty consistent with my expression of gratitude, celebration, or just generally friendliness.

Sure -- ritual celebration of solidarity and all that works for me. It was the "gratitude" part that seemed wrong.

Don't discount the possibility that the guy in question is someone you hardly know who just has a short fuse for this kind of shit. In which case, I might suggest inviting him along with a group. Less chance for misunderstanding.

If the guy were a stranger, I might just say "thanks for doing that". But in any case, it's good to have your perspective - I was approaching it purely from the "it would make ME feel better to able to express my appreciation" side of things.

Hey, making you feel better is important too.

In the "don't overgeneralize from what I write" department, I'm uncomfortable being thanked for lots of things. It just seems wrong, for instance, when someone thanks me for splinting up an injury. Somewhere deep down inside I suspect that I internalized the male parental "if I were really doing my job, this wouldn't have happened in the first place." No reasoning with it.

Posted by: D. C. Sessions | June 5, 2009 8:59 PM

122: Grow a pair!
We have a pair. of ovaries!
GROW A BRAIN!

Posted by: jc | June 5, 2009 9:48 PM

For the young woman dealing with PBM, please, please do not wear a snarky shirt, make a snarky comment, or in any way address this in a way other than deadly serious. Many of us men, if required to interpret a snarky rebuke, will interpret it as flirting. I am not kidding here; we are just that oblivious. Do it yourself or use a proxy, but be serious and straight-forward, and don't couch it with a joke or subtlety, or you could unintentionally encourage him.

To the woman above in the thread above who talked about "cumulative effect," you nailed it. Bad behavior repeated and abused middle ground leaves little room for "compromise" or "understanding."

Posted by: benandcoopersdad | June 6, 2009 12:10 AM

RG: you are a moron. There is a huge difference between admiration, lust, and ogling. In most situations--and certainly work is one of those situations--two out of three of those is bad and the third option doesn't require the other two. The other reason that you are a moron is that just because you find something that has happened to you acceptable doesn't automatically imply that it is acceptable for anyone else. And, no, I suspect that non-anecdotal evidence would not support the proposition that most relationships start with socially unacceptable ogling.

I do wonder if this problem of ogling and groping more prominent in the US, Britain, Aus, and NZ, compared to say Germany, Norway, Sweden, etc. For instance, in Germany, sports changing rooms and showers are mostly communal. So by the time you reach adulthood in Germany, you have probably seen most of your female colleagues naked there or at the sauna or something like that. Furthermore, these situations are very public and inappropriate for sexual approaches. That said, I have no evidence for this, so I would love to see either evidence or anecdotes to support or refute the notion.

Posted by: laserboy | June 6, 2009 4:22 AM

@ doustoi:

Women complain about being so powerless, and this article demonstrates why they are ... they act like it. Grow a pair!

You can't take a sledgehammer to every problem and expect good results. Part of the problem is the power structure--she can't just speak her mind without fearing some sort of repercussions. The fact that her gender contributes makes an already unfair situation worse.

@ Cara:

No woman looks for sexism. We don't HAVE to.

If I assume you meant "no appreciable number of women look for sexism," it really isn't any different. People are very prone to the causation-correlation fallacy, and female people can draw a correlation between their gender and absolutely anything that happens to them. Do you really think the majority of women give any thought to the logical nuances of the situation when they feel slighted? Most people don't, at least in my experience, so why should separating them by gender change that?

And is it such a stretch to say that women who have been exposed to sexism before are more likely to interpret the offensive situation with that in mind?

If you're claiming the gender card does not exist: would you say the same about the race card? About appeals to sympathy and guilt in general?

I find it hard to believe that most women are so virtuous and noble that they'll never take advantage of something that instantly gives them the moral high ground in any dispute. The existence of sexism, no matter how common, is not evidence or proof that clever people won't use it to their advantage.

Posted by: Anon | June 6, 2009 5:27 AM

...
Not that the conversation needs any additional . . .'stimulus' but...

Found this:

Science proves that bikinis turn men into boobs

...while randomly surfing.

Hey..!! It has 'science' in the title ...it must be true..!!

...tom...
.

Posted by: ...tom... | June 6, 2009 11:07 AM

Having daughters didn't really bring this to me, most of the credit for that goes to maturity and marriage.

See, this is what bothers me. SOOOO many men say this. Why does it take having a woman in your life to start caring about how all women are treated? Why can't that be a given, whether you're single hitched or whathaveyou?

The answer to my rhetorical question is that our culture has a tendency to socially condition people of privilege (in this case men) to see people of less privilege (in this case women) as subject to their needs/wants/desires. Property. Less than fully self-actualized iumans with their OWN autonomy. Most men don't believe this consciously but it is manifest in their "freedom" (yeah I'm talking to you wikiterra) to stare at other women. Listen guys, they're my tits and you don't have any more right to stare at them or tell me just how much or how little I should cover them (to make easier or more difficult for you to stare at them or not), than I have to tell you the same about your cock. Deal.

Yes, all men should suppress their radars. This is not the natural state of things, though.

I get your point about it taking effort. This is true. Changing ANY habitual behavior takes effort. But the Appeal to Nature Fallacy has got to stop. It's crap. People have been thwarting their primitive instincts since the dawn of civilization. In fact, I posit that this is the definition of civilization. I refer you back to the arguments that you can wait til you're in the bathroom to take a piss without any trouble. I acknowledge that changing an ingrained behavior like staring at tits if it's something you've been doing for most of your adult life is not going to be easy - it will require concerted effort to break a long-standing habit. But doing so is not any more or less "natural" than refraining from picking your nose in public. Spare me the "it's not natural" bullshit. Because that's what it is.

I'm glad you requested a copy of the Hrdy book. I hope you enjoy it. Gender issues are very interesting, but I think that you'll find that this isn't what the book is really about. It's about learning to see things as they are rather than through the colored lens of our own "reality".

Posted by: ambivalent academic | June 6, 2009 12:02 PM

It only gets dicey when someone chooses to reject such admiration.

You mean, when women aren't interested in being leered at? "Dicey", like men insulting or actually groping women AT WORK?

Talk about having it all bass-ackwards.

Look, finding a women who "played the gender card to get what she wanted" doesn't logically imply that she can't have experienced sexism at any point in her life.

In fact, it sort of PROVES IT. Being a collaborator because a woman's not yet tough enough to be an ally doesn't mean sexism is nonexistent.

Posted by: Cara | June 6, 2009 12:36 PM

But the Appeal to Nature Fallacy has got to stop. It's crap. People have been thwarting their primitive instincts since the dawn of civilization. In fact, I posit that this is the definition of civilization.

As the preacher put it, "Of course following the commandments isn't natural -- if it were natural, we wouldn't have to be told."

Which applies to all sorts of things that we, as a culture, have done in order to live as something other than wandering bands of hunter-gatherers. The social fiction that there are no workplace-significant differences between men and women is new, and we're still working on the details -- but it's not that much newer than the idea that it's wrong to kill someone because you're having trouble sleeping.

Which tragic story is a rather extreme example of what can happen when women suffer in silence and refuse to rock the boat.

Posted by: D. C. Sessions | June 6, 2009 12:42 PM

If I don't want people to stare at my coc# and ball$, I'll start wearing pants. Same concept.

I'm not exactly sure what you're saying, unless you're agreeing with me. I assume if you have said organs you do wear pants? Those are kind of expected sometimes? (I'm trying to figure out the alternatives, besides a kilt.) Or do you mean besides just going naked? Wearing pants doesn't help, because pants do show those off, if someone is looking for them...

Oh my god. It just hit me. Men are walking around in PANTS that show off their GENITALS, and they're doing it ALL THE TIME! Little hussies. Obviously women must not be able to manage to ever speak to a man without simply staring at their crotches all the time, since they're RIGHT THERE and all.

Posted by: Carlie | June 6, 2009 2:59 PM

Oooh, ooooh! I have two cents, and I would like to share them.

Anon: you asked "What exactly did this girl expect? She didn't just roll the dice one day and end up wearing an outfit that flatters her breasts--she chose to do it, once when she bought it and once every time she put it on."

The letter states, "Cute blouses have been replaced by baggy sweatshirts." When I picture a cute blouse, I do not think of a strapless bustier that allows the girls to be the prominent feature in an outfit. When girls/women get dressed, they do not choose outfits to specifically "flatter their breasts." They are often much more preoccupied with how it hides belly bulges or arm flab--even if they are skinny. A blouse is a perfectly respectable, professional article of clothing that usually covers up all skin in the chest area. Breasts tend to be convex from the body, and therefore locatable under modest clothing.

If a man is mistaking a cute outfit for a sexy invitation, HE IS MAKING A MISTAKE. If a man thinks women are dressing in professional attire to gain sexual attention, he is showing vast amounts of vanity. If you currently think this, please understand that our lives do not revolve around you or your gender. No really, they don't. I seriously doubt men care what colors are in style, or what cut blue jeans should be (straight? boot leg? tapered leg?), yet women do think about these things when they get dressed. My God, styles of SOCKS go in and out of style--did you even notice? If a man looks at an outfit and all he sees is boobs, he is missing a lot of the effort.

So when this girl wore that outfit, she expected to be complimented on her clothing, probably by her (girl)friend who wrote the letter, because the shirt has cute little bows on the edges of the sleeves that her friend would obviously appreciate. (Would a man?) She expected that her favorite blouse showed off her waist without making her shoulders look too wide, like a linebacker's. She expected that when she bent over or raised her arms in that outfit, no midriff was showing. She expected that her blue jeans just barely wrinkled at the top of her foot while she's wearing flats (the jeans are too short for heels), providing length that would protect from chilly, air-conditioned labs but not so long the back gets stepped on repeatedly and becomes torn and ragged. She expected the color of the shirt to set off the tones of her skin and hair. She expected the mascara she was wearing to make her eyes "pop."

This girl expected to be treated the way all but one man in her life has treated her thus far. She does not complain that while at the bus stop, shopping at Wal-mart, or sitting in class men oggled her. The professor is clearly an outlier in her experience, and "every time she put [the outfit] on" before meeting this professor, she was never treated this way. Ever. Why would she expect to be degraded when it has never happened before? When she has dozens, if not a hundred examples of men who treat her with more respect? When the thought "I hope someone notices my busty chest today," never crossed her mind?

The girl does not desire attention to her chest, and she does not choose outfits on this basis. Things that are attractive do not automatically point to the chest, and they are not returning results they were designed to. She wants her professor to look at her face, and she is justified in complaining because she did NOT knowingly cause the situation.

This is my answer to your honest question. You are missing the entire point(s) of an outfit. You are missing the intent of the wearer. You are missing the fact that there are more than two parts to the female body that women care about very, very much. You are missing the part where her genes may have given her a size chest larger than most, and she cannot hide this, even under a sweatshirt. You are missing the point of view of someone who is not you.

What clothes do you wear every day, Anon? Is there anything you dislike wearing? Do you wear clothes that set off your hard-earned muscles? Do you wear clothes that hide your beer belly? Do you wear an orange jumpsuit and look like an escaped criminal on the way to work? What if someone accused you of being sexually inappropriate because you were wearing what you do every day? What if you had to wear something you hated--a skirt? tight shorts? in order to (in addition to) avoid being objectified?

Posted by: k | June 7, 2009 12:46 AM

Wow. I can't say I read all the comments completely, but I want to thank FCGS and Isis for this wonderful discussion of something that isn't discussed enough.

I think the question of why some women dress provocatively at work is a valid one. Taken another way, I do resent it during hot weather that I have to consider, before I do anything professional for the day, whether I can wear something comfortable to work or if I need to wear something on top to cover up. I wish this were not taking up part of my day, but it does.

@the unintended starers: learn how to not do this. Be aware. You have no excuse no to.

re: whether it is always unintended or not, I would say not. My experience has been that it is almost always deliberately a power play. Maybe the attraction is unavoidable (I am probably not as hot at Dr.Isis, but still). However, the choice of what to say and do is still a choice. In my case whenever this has happened, it was obviously a calculated move designed to demonstrate domination. I have never been in a position to do anything substantive about the harassment I have received. Ombudsmen are useless in science, where the currency is always publications and recommendations from your colleagues and advisers.

Lately I think science needs some more organized national governing body, wherein we could address issues of unethical behavior of all kinds. As it stands now, if your chair/dean is also a useless harasser, you are not just screwed but also trapped. It's either science on their terms, or no science at all. And nowhere to go unless you have enough evidence to win in court- which is rarely the case.

Posted by: msphd | June 7, 2009 3:35 PM

I can't believe I even have to address this,

You don't. ;) It was the old straw woman being thrown in again.

but no, my friend does not dress [scantily] in the lab. Her attire does not differ appreciably from my own or from that of other female students in our class. The rest of us manage to have ogle-free interactions with male faculty. This is NOT her fault.

It wouldn't be "her fault" regardless of how she dressed.

If a woman is dressed inappropriately (which, oh, please, spare me, like it REALLY happens often, but whatever), her supervisor and HR can handle it. It's not a license to leer, regardless of how many men insist that it's a *signal* for *them* to do so.

Posted by: Cara | June 8, 2009 12:23 PM

Easy, DC. This statement sounds a helluva a lot like blaming the victim.

I know -- I've been sensitized to that particular sin of our species. But as mentioned elsewhere, I've got this thing about results and the world I want my granddaughters (as and when, as and when) to grow up in.

How are things ever to get better if the victims don't speak up? Every civil rights history goes through the same phase: the short-term deck is stacked against the victims' long-term interest. Speaking up is all too often personally expensive (if not fatal.) And yet, and yet ...

I won't fault anyone for minding her priorities. A career at stake, children to feed ... these are a damned high price to pay for some "sisters" she's never met, and having never been in the line of fire [1] I'm not going to criticize the choices [2] of people who are.

But I do read history. And Santayana was right. And silence is the enemy.

If I am not for myself, who will be?
If I am for myself alone, what am I?
If not now, when?

[1] On this or anything else of particular moment.
[2] Well, at least the rational ones. The irrational ones (e.g. leading up to two bodies lying on the dining-room floor) all I can do is feel for the people who made them.

Posted by: D. C. Sessions | June 8, 2009 3:02 PM

leigh:

D.C.: a body hitting the floor is not necessarily the result of an irrational decision, when your only choice is whether said body will be yours or your assailant's.

The reference was to a link I posted in #139. AA called me on it (with justice) -- and if you read the story there I think you'll agree that the decisions were (if not irrational) very, very poor judgment.

And, yes, I'm damned touchy on some subjects. "Why" is besides the point here.

Posted by: D. C. Sessions | June 8, 2009 5:11 PM

How are things ever to get better if the victims don't speak up?

It does little good to speak up when so many friends and colleagues of harassers go out of their way to excuse the perpetrator and/or blame the victim. And as Isis and many other commenters have pointed out, the harassment often goes down in public in front of others who are either oblivious or who chose to say nothing. It's not enough for just the victims to speak up. Everyone has to be on the same page that this kind of behavior will simply not be tolerated.

And if you want an extreme example of victim blaming, here's a case where a woman was raped at gunpoint, but the police not only didn't believe her, but arrested her for filing a false report. Why should victims speak up when there is the real risk of being called a liar or being blamed for the assault?

Posted by: Peggy | June 8, 2009 6:23 PM

In the milder ones, maybe. I don't think this case qualifies for a "just as much suffering" classification.

clearly i am failing to make my point. had she left, he might have committed the same act out of revenge. you never know what goes on behind closed doors, what he might have threatened her with if she ever mentioned leaving. what goes on in such a twisted mind.

child 'protective' services fail in more places than arizona. trust me.

Posted by: leigh | June 8, 2009 8:16 PM

This anecdote and Isis' stories leave me with the impression that this kind of stuff happens all the time and that most women just suck it up and say 'well, that's the way it is' and go on like no one should actually be in jail for sexual assault. Honestly, what kind of fucked up world do we live in where women tolerate this kind of crap?

It's a world where, if she makes a complaint, what will likely happen are no follow-up or consequences for the (valuable, money-bringing, paper-authoring) senior academic and the woman will be branded as unprofessional and a substandard researcher.

Posted by: former grad student. | June 9, 2009 9:37 AM

one of my favorite smack-downs of all time:

hot grad student and somewhat lecherous prof with a crush are at a conference, having dinner, just the two, of them either the night before or after the meeting.

prof: you're the most beautiful woman in the room. everyone here must think you're my date!

grad student: no, ****, they think i'm your daughter.

boo-yah!

Posted by: hoolia | June 10, 2009 2:28 PM

Katherine, you're an utter dipshit. Way to trot out Reverse Sexism. I didn't "clearly rage", the post is about an OGGLER, not an accidental glancer.
Feminism 101, start there. They give cookies.

Posted by: jc | June 10, 2009 11:47 PM

Katherine, head over to Zuska's takedown of PBM and read my comment.

Posted by: jc | June 11, 2009 11:22 PM

http://scienceblogs.com/thusspakezuska/2009/06/the_gender_knot_ch_1_discussio_1.php

Posted by: jc | June 14, 2009 10:12 PM

I'm not trolling. I was having an interesting read until you had a ridiculous moment at 26. I suppose if you don't care about the intentions of anyone you must have a pretty miserable life. I'm glad the other people on here felt like sharing their experiences and points of view, I certainly learned where a lot of people are coming from.

I never said that he should get away with it because he didn't mean to do it. Read comments 24 and 26 and get back to me. I'm still commenting on the fact that YOU think that the author of comment 24 is lying and must have been doing it deliberately to opress you or something.

Terribly sorry for not believing all men are evil scumbags, I happen to have had some very good relationships with a few of them.

I'm stopping from arguing anything other than my point because then you read other things into what I'm saying because I don't express myself well.

Posted by: Katherine | June 15, 2009 9:22 PM

My math professor frequently stares/glances at my breasts. And a few times he said "good girl" to me after I completed something or whatever (that kinda creeped me out). When I saw him this morning I said hello and he said hello back while looking at my face, then I caught his radar eyes immediatly move down towards my breasts as we crossed paths,it seemed like he got a very long look at them. Aside from all that, he's a very nice,funny,humourous, & very well repected professor who has been teaching at my college for years. Academicaly he's one of the best professors I've had. I have great respect for him. When I get dressed in the morning, it's not like I'm thinking, oh, maybe I should wear this outfit today so my not-so-hot 65 year old math professor will stare at my tits. No, If I find a cute outfit in my closet that I feel like wearing, I'll wear it, and not necessarily for anyone or any reason, just the fact that I think it's cute & I feel like wearing it. My outfits are generally cute and casual,sometimes just a loose tshirt and jeans..,(which for some reason still causes some stares.) There are some men who are innocent lookers, and then there are the not so innocent lookers/touchers,pigs,etc. Men are men, good or bad, they have radar eyes or whatever for womens breasts & other parts. I'm not implying that it should be acceptable, but I think alot of men just look at them sub-consiously not meaning any harm. If I get a few looks or stares from men because of my outfit, I usually just brush it off, I don't have time to be complaining. But there is a point where you draw the line..,touching,etc., is unacceptable. This is nothing compared to what I went through in grade school with numerous male teachers.,where making a complaint would have been very necessary.

Posted by: chill | June 22, 2009 8:43 PM

Great subject. I'm a serial ogler in public, but not at work. It's unprofessional and lowers my credibility. Busty women who wear low cut tops at work are very hard for me not to ogle (which I define as looking for more than a second or two), but I resist it. It would help if they would not show cleavage...I think a woman showing cleavage at work is unprofessional. There are about 10 or 20 percent of us who are serious breast men, and cleavage-showers distract us significantly from our work.

Posted by: LH | July 29, 2009 6:19 PM

Clearly the Isis doctor is a hidden mystrious wielder if incormation that is about the breasats of Isis in the brain not female mamalia.

Posted by: Aryana | November 22, 2009 11:11 PM