“There is no kind of harassment that a man may not inflict on a woman with impunity in civilized societies.” -Denis Diderot
Last week, news broke that UC Berkeley astronomer Geoff Marcy -- perhaps the most famous single person in the field of exoplanet discoveries and study -- was found guilty by a University panel of sexually harassing at least four students over a period of 2001-2010, with allegations and further accusations extending far beyond that. I wish I could tell you it's a one-off, a rarity, or a thing that will end with the dismissal of Geoff Marcy from his position.
Image credit: screenshot from https://www.dropbox.com/s/unmvz1ftevwmjmx/berkeley.txt.
But it's none of those things. It's a symptom -- a single person's record -- of a system that does nothing to stop this kind of behavior under most circumstances.
There's a lot to process in all of this, and a lot that I'm sure you feel when you first hear about it. But when you think about it, I want you to think about who the real victims are, and I want you to think about what sort of justice would be fair to them. Because if we do nothing, this...
Image credit: Ayodhya Ouditt/NPR, via UNC Charlotte at http://advance.uncc.edu/news/2012-07-13/how-stereotypes-can-drive-women….
...is the least of our concerns. Go read the story of how Geoff Marcy happened.
- Log in to post comments
More like this
Considering where the alleged misconduct took place, UC Berkeley, I would be very curious to hear the actual facts of what 'sexually harassing' is defined as at Berkeley. I have read reports that this illustrious institution made it mandatory for male students to attend mandatory educational instruction to prevent them from raping women accidentally...purely on grounds they were male. I have my doubts this is in any way useful. To hear some talk, merely being a man or even just saying someone looks nice can now be considered grounds for 'sexual harassment'. If any actual law has been broken, legal options through the law should be taken.
Ethan,
That said,
You are an utter hypocrite.
Considering your own incredibly dismal record of keeping abusive language on your site comments under control (i.e. Wow, Wow, Wow, and more Wow) you have some interesting nerve talking down to others about their toleration of bad behavior. I often use your site to point out to people how NOT to moderate badly behaving commenters. Pull the log sized beam out of your eye and get your own damn house in order before you pontificate social justice mantras.
Dear Geoff Marcy,
Thank you. We don't know what we'd do without you. Let's be honest here; human beings are terrible employees. They are expensive, unreliable, take forever to train, file lawsuits against employers, need costly cubicles or offices, and don't work full days or full weeks. Computers do everything better and for much less money.
Having people like you running around makes it much easier to lay off staff. It isn't a cost cutting move. No, no, no. It is for the purpose of creating a safe working environment for all. A rack full of servers doesn't sexually harass young women, or so we were told by our insurance carrier when they lowered our rates upon our completing the latest corporate "reorganization".
Thank you for providing cover because we are not our brother's keeper. We have a business to run and shareholders to please. As far as the recent college grads who cry about having no job prospects after racking up so much college debt, we simply can't trust anyone who makes such poor decisions with money. We'll stick with our servers to run our business. Please enjoy all the leisure time our hard work has afforded you.
Sincerely,
Corporate America about 20 years from now.
"Considering your own incredibly dismal record of keeping abusive language on your site comments under control (i.e. Wow, Wow, Wow, and more Wow)"
Boo hoo. because I don't give unearned credit to credulous morons who spout ridiculous crap on a science site, I'm the only one who does this.
Nobody else.
At all.
Every.
Just doesn't happen.
Because you're a moron and will only notice what you want to be true.
Ethan, I'll point it out again, the last cartoon there indicates how it is women who are sexist pigs.
The bloke is thinking about science when in discussion with a scientific colleague.
The woman is thinking the bloke is laughing at her for being a woman, with the only evidence to support this being his gender.
It's difficult to understand what points cft and denier might have, if they have one other than "he's a guy, this isn't fair." Not surprising from denier.
This does leave a bad mark on his legacy - but the point is it is a self-inflicted bad mark. If a person in his position isn't smart enough to understand these points
and (probably more importantly)
then bad things are likely to happen. Sorry Prof. Marcy, you did incredibly stupid things, multiple times, didn't stop when warned (for a variety of reasons), and now you've paid a big price. Neither you nor your defenders get to whine about it and be taken seriously.
"Fortunately, the person doing the harassing doesn’t get to define what harassing behavior is in this world."
So I can decide that you are harassing me and that's it?
The problem is one person's blunt is another person's crude, and if we're going to base crimes on what THINKS what someone else is THINKING, then we're at thoughtcrime.
If I harass you and you feel I'm trying to come on to you, you can rebuff the attempt. If I continue after that, then it's harassment. Same the other way round.
The problem here is that there is now absolutely no reason for men to even attempt to go dating or find a partner who is female. Because if his attentions are unwanted, he's a creep. If she's drunk and he's drunk, he's the rapist. If she feels abused, she is abused.
So dating, especially in pubs where most social activity is taken for this sort of thing, is a minefield where what is suspected of the man is what he is guilty of. And to question that is to victim blame.
And how about the other side of the equation? Post-contact pair bonding? It used to be both parties had something to bring to the table and feel like partners in the association. The woman was bringing a womb. The man was bringing in sustenance so that the womb could operate. The woman brought comfort, the man brought safety. The woman worked in the home, the man worked on the home. Both parties saw they were wanted and could show their abilities to make a useful partner.
Nowadays, if a man earns more than a woman, it is proof that sexism is making a wage disparity. So he can't show he's a good provider to compensate for no ability to gestate progeny. So a good job, worked hard for, is no longer a feature, it's a proof of his gender's condemnation and collective ongoing guilt.
There's (thankfully) much less crime and violence, little of it requiring civilian action. So as a protector, the man has nothing to bring to the party.
And when it comes to the care and attention of the child both took part in, the man is a third-class citizen. Only in cases of massively unsuitable mothers will the father get custody.
So why should a man try to catch a woman's eye when doing so will result, in the case of failure, condemnation and demonisation, and in the case of success, a complete and utter lack of apparent utility other than a temporary sperm donor?
"Ethan,
That said,
You are an utter hypocrite.
Considering your own incredibly dismal record of keeping abusive language on your site comments under control (i.e. Wow, Wow, Wow, and more Wow) you have some interesting nerve talking down to others about their toleration of bad behavior. I often use your site to point out to people how NOT to moderate badly behaving commenters. Pull the log sized beam out of your eye and get your own damn house in order before you pontificate social justice mantras."
This X2. Well said.
Here;s an idea.
How about we stop telling women that STEM is full of weird neckbeards who think all women are dumb and stupid and should just stay at home and make sammiches, and they'll stop EXPECTING to find that STEM is full of weird neckbeards who want them to stay at home, so they won't be quitting science.
Pointing out that this behavior can happen does not equal telling women STEM is full of it.
@1
From UCB's 2015 policy: "Sexual Harassment is defined as unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other verbal, nonverbal, or physical conduct of a sexual nature. ...To determine whether the reported conduct constitutes sexual harassment, consideration shall be given to the record of the conduct as a whole and to the totality of the circumstances, including the context in which the conduct occurred."
That seems pretty reasonable. But frankly, IMO focusing on what specific acts he may or may not have done is missing the point - which is that many women complained about his behavior over the course of several years and yet he didn't stop doing it. Look, even if you're a hugger and you think its perfectly innocuous behavior, you stop doing it once the other person has asked you not to. You respect their request. It doesn't appear he respected requests to stop. Whether the first professor-student hug is harassment is debatable (Ethan seems to opine yes when its initiated by the professor; I'm inclined to give it a pass). What is not debatable is whether all the hugs given after his students asked him to stop were. They are. Pretty obviously, IMO.
This is nothing more than the slippery slope fallacy. Prof. Marcy did not get accused of sexual harassment for walking into a bar and offering to buy a young lady student a drink, or coming up to her and saying "hi." If you can find an actual example of UCB's code being applied in such a case, cite it here and I'll agree with you that their anti-harassment policy is out of control and gone awry. But the mere possibility that such workplace/school place rules could be applied wrongly in the future is not a strong argument against them.
Wow. Just...wow. Dude, I don't think your pub flirtation being misinterpreted as harassing is your main problem. I'd worry more about the women you approach correctly interpreting your signaling.
@#7 x3
Well, these universities bring this on themselves with the no gun zone policy.
If those girls were packing and got harassed, I imagine they put a snub nosed 38 in that profs face and said back TFO, It would be the end of it.
Right, because the appropriate response to sexual harassment is to threaten homicide. RM's plan for making the world a safer and fairer place: quick, everyone engage in more frequent and lethal threats of violence! What could possibly go wrong?
Eric, don't ever expect anything rm says to be meaningful or reality based. He's not capable of the first and doesn't care about the second.
eric/dean, why do you think they called the Colt 45 SAA the "peacemaker"?
For reasons completely irrelevant to this issue. Do try to think, as alien as that is to your typical day.
I think they call it that because its a great advertising slogan that sells more guns.
@eric #13
It is from another era, but still a fun quote.
Yeah, all this from the same misanthropic people who ripped apart Matt Taylor for wearing a risque shirt that was a gift from a dear friend... Forget about the fact that our society posts Kim K's ass on every media platform ever and bombards us with nudish H&M/Vistoria's Secret Ads. But a socially misunderstood guy who isn't -six-pack-ab hot, but has a heart of gold, makes one mistake and BOOM! Game over, he's getting smeared...
Allegations are just that, here-say. How many times did you blame a sibling or the dog for a mess you made when you were a kid? I find it just as likely that Geoff Marcy was also the target of sexual attention (which is usually what I consider sexual harrassment to be, when it is directed at men, since it is usually tolerable, because most of us welcome it, or maybe, because we're just more tolerant, who knows...). Of these four cases, how many of the victims had high GPS's in STEM classes? You want to find an example to make and burn at the stake for the injustices done to women? But what about the reverse, because last time I checked, HUMANITY is shitty, not just men...
By all means, if Geoff Marcy indeed sexually assaulted these "victims" then yes, punish him to the appropriate extent of the school's policies and the justice system. But if there is not a shred of proof, yet there is evidence to support the theory that these "victims" may have just been "consenting until inconvenient", then this needs to stop right here, right now... If I took 10 women that I know personally, I know for a fact that 2 or 3 would admit that they have used or would use sex to get what they want in personal life, that number triples if we are talking about sex within an actual relationship. But typically I'll say about 20% would admit to it. So, out of the thousands of girls Geoff Marcy had tought over that decade, do you think 4 of them may have tried to use sex? I mean, this is like one in two thousand girls... And you are talking about a nerdy, brilliant, probably socially seperated man... And these are sexually smart girls, who know exactly what to say and how to say it... "Oh professor, you're so smart, I wish you could show me how to do that." Next, she discretely tells a friend how she fooled around with the professor and her friend say "ew, you slut!", after which she breaks down crying about how "he took advantage of me!" to save face... I find it harder to believe a timid scientist sexually did anything wrong, when compaired to a hip-hop junkie who watched keepin up with the k's every week.
Now I am in no way "victim shaming", what I am doing is calling to the forefront a base human emotional instinct, the instinct that avoids embarrassment and shame. I have lied a million times to avoid embarrassment; dudebro: "ain't nothin but thot", me: "yeah, I love thoughts", dudebro: "a thot=that bitch over there", me: "uh, oh, yeah totally love thot...". That's a minor example, imagine what kind of recovery I'd need to make if I got drunk and had sex with a trap? I'd lie my ass off. Any girl would do the same if a cituation arose that threatened their reputation... So come off the high horse, quit "Cosbying" the shit out of men if you can't prove shit... And women, I hat to say it, but you don't wait a month to go to the doctor if you get shot; just as you shouldn't wait a decade to report rape or sexual abuse/harrassment, people need to start helping themselves. The longer you wait the less willing I am to believe that what you are saying is true. It would be as if I lost my wallet, and then a year later I see a guy with a stack of $100 bills and tell the cop next to me that he stole my wallet... Ultimately it will get discovered that it wasn't true, or that I did not put in a report, so it would be dismissed; but not before Mr. $100 stack has had his reputation ruined and lost his spot at wherever he was when I accused him... If you want justice, prove your case dammit.
"Look, even if you’re a hugger and you think its perfectly innocuous behavior, you stop doing it once the other person has asked you not to. "
Indeed. It is *essential* that people are honest with each other about it. And accept that the bounds others find are not going to be the same as yours.
And remember that these bounds changed over time.
"RM’s plan for making the world a safer and fairer place: quick, everyone engage in more frequent and lethal threats of violence! What could possibly go wrong?"
Even "Better", all those other people with guns thinking themselves "A good man with a gun" will see someone commit murder and draw their weapon and shoot those with guns out.
And the domino effect will continue.
Of course, it must be remembered that according to Raggie, this life is just a dress rehearsal. His death cult really rather prefers everyone dies (as long as it isn't suicide).
"This is nothing more than the slippery slope fallacy. "
Nope. This is nothing more than the false fallacy fallacy. Moreover, it doesn't ever consider the toxic atmosphere created by this fear. Both for the innocent men as well as the blameless women.
"Pointing out that this behavior can happen does not equal telling women STEM is full of it."
Yes it is.
Just like paedophiles are everywere, because we know they exist everywhere, because we don't know they aren't paedophiles, but we're told they are everywhere.
Show me that. Point me to a case where the UCB harassment code was used against someone who did the things you mentioned - went to a bar to look for a date.
Until you can show me a case, yes claiming that their harassment code has a suppressive effect on people dating in pubs/bars is a slippery slope argument. You have no such case; the rules are not being applied to the scenario you bring up. You're just daydreaming up an extreme possible future abuse of it and saying the rules are bad because of your daydream.
Wow @19 nailed it. In school and work, be respectful of personal boundaries when you are in a more-powerful position. The modern social contract is for the dominant to give some relief to the subordinate for their mental health.
In other cases, it's a free world. Make fun of Mohammed; call a religion a death cult; insult each other online without end. No sarcasm here; without the freedom to verbally express our opinions we easily slip into barbarism like the Middle East is facing.
Get a thick skin, control your emotions. You are responsible for your response to hearing or reading "ugly" words. Limits (social or legal) on speech should be very few and strongly justifiable (e.g. "Fire!" in a theater).
So he resigned now... Hey look on the bright side, there's open position for Astronomy professor.
300,000 killed in Syria and eleven million refugees. And now we are supposed to get incensed because a professor reportedly ? Is not that a bit self-obsessed, and actually, came to think of it, sexist? touched the neck of a student who was in his car. Damsel in distress because she was back-massaged once in a car? Reportedly?
If you want a non sexist society, you have to have to stop screaming to high heavens alleging first contact, years later.
Patrice, if anyone here had mentioned that this was more important than a humanitarian crisis, you might have a point. If this were a blog that was about the Middle East mess the previous and present administrations have contributed to but took a day to cover this, you would have a point.
Neither of those things is true. Fill in the rest.
" “This is nothing more than the slippery slope fallacy. ”
Nope. This is nothing more than the false fallacy fallacy.
Show me that. "
Well, since it isn't a slippery slope fallacy, and such is not an a priori indication of fallacious reasoning here, it really IS proof that yours was a false fallacy fallacy.
It's called deductive logic.
"Point me to a case where the UCB harassment code was used against someone who did the things you mentioned "
Since this is a fiction made up inside your own head, eric, why should I prove a case of your creation???
@19:
Written and verbal complaints against him from 2004 through 2015. That's a loooooong "one mistake." His skin must really be chafing from that long single touch. Its a wonder he was able to get any work done with one hand planted on a girl for 11 years running. And one mistake + at least four girls...he must be Vishnu!
Its not at the allegation stage. UC conducted their investigation and ruled that he violated the policy. So we are in the "by all means" stage of your comment. Does that change your opinion, or are you now going to decide that an investigation, ,consideration of evidence and testimony, and ruling isn't enough, we need more to be sure?
Well, the important thing is that you are in no way victim shaming.
The scenario of a man being guilty of whatever he's suspected of doing while dating in pubs is a fiction? I agree. That's precisely why your argument is slippery slope.
#Astronomerlivesmatter
Methinks some possibly weird Neckbeard Professors find this hits a little too close to home to speak dispassionately about it.. Hitting on the same girl (or guy) repeatedly is not harassment. It's pathetic, but not harassment. Using your ability to fire someone to extract sexual favors is reprehensible. Pretending that you don't know what sexual harassment "is" puts you in a minority of ONE, because everyone else on the planet knows it when they see it. In the end, all that should matter in Science or anywhere else, is smarts. Not breast size or beard length or any other absurdly immaterial measurement (race, gender, religion, orientation). The cure for cancer or a TOE might be being thought up right now by a black communist Muslim gay woman. Let all the power rest in the ideas.
It is amazing that thus man's career is more important to people than what he's done.
And: #teabpartuersaremorons
Was going to be #teabaggersaremorons.
"The scenario of a man being guilty of whatever he’s suspected of doing while dating in pubs is a fiction?"
Since that isn't the scenario you demanded I show evidence of, what is indicated by your whooshing of goalposts from one end of the stadium to the other, eric?
It indicates you know you're talking bollocks.
(a sexual slur that, since it demonises a man's equipment is not seen or noted as a sexist statement, unlike calling someone a cunt, which indicates who is better than who in our society)
"It is amazing that thus man’s career is more important to people than what he’s done. "
Teabagger thinks that because he's a government stipend worker, his crime is indicative of everyone in government being corrupt and criminal.
A standard NEVER to be used in the corporate world.
Because. Well, because. He don't got no more than that.
Its exactly the scenario I demanded evidence of. You brought up this scenario #6. I asked you to show a case of it in #11. I asked you again to show a case of it in #24. Its all right there.
But okay, I'll give you another shot. Let's take the scenario "dating, especially in pubs where most social activity is taken for this sort of thing, is a minefield where what is suspected of the man is what he is guilty of. And to question that is to victim blame" off the table as something you never said. What other scenario do you think poses an overreach problem for the UCB harassment code? What abuse of the code do you think is a realistic worry? Here is your chance to reset the goalposts where you want them, and we can argue from there.
"Its exactly the scenario I demanded evidence of. "
No it isn't, eric. THIS is what you brought up in #11:
Meanwhile, THIS is the one you demanded in #32:
It's right there in black and white, eric. Quite how you think that making believe that you didn't change goalposts faster than a denier at a dinner date quite escapes me.
Let’s take the scenario “dating, especially in pubs where most social activity is taken for this sort of thing, is a minefield where what is suspected of the man is what he is guilty of. And to question that is to victim blame” off the table as something you never said.
Why? I DID say it.
What it ISN'T is the fiction you made up in #11.
"Pretending that you don’t know what sexual harassment “is” puts you in a minority of ONE, because everyone else on the planet knows it when they see it"
So you'll be able to explain it, right? And nobody else will disagree or think it different (well, we will accept 90% of respondents, "there's always one", as they say) either expanded or shortened.
So, what IS sexual harassment?
And then we'll have a look at how some questionnaires and news stories have put it to see if you're right.
After all, anyone knows what it is when they see it, so everyone must have the same description of it.
I'm with Wow on the previous post. Sexual harassment shares the same continuum with asking for a date and any other male/female interaction. The extremes are well defined (in a given society at a given time), but the borders are not.
We've largely decided that the individual female gets to decide where the line is, and that the decision can be made even years later. To declare someone a criminal due to your personal opinion and have it stick is power. I don't think people (including female people) can be trusted with that power.
To be clear, I'm talking of principles and not specifically about Geoff Marcy's case.
Indeed.
It's entirely possible, even likely, that Geoff knew he could coerce and did so knowingly and with forethought.
Or he could have thought that he was just super hot, since nobody ever said no to him.
Watch Trump talk about his (or someone else's) looks. He REALLY *REALLY* believes that he's a super-hot stud, because he looks at the women he bangs and the women who want to get with him, who are all gorgeous, so he thinks that he must be even more sexually irresistible. And that Shredded Wheat stuck to his head looks brilliant.
Or he may have thought it nothing more than flirting. Which is a big thing for students.
Look at the recent news from an Oxford Uni woman who admits to rape because she didn't get consent in each individual case, and in at least one of those, the partner was super drunk and did not give cognitive consent.
a) I don't think it was rape.
b) It's good that she is looking in to why she can't maintain her own professed standards of sexual interaction.
c) I think she needs to rethink those standards as being untenable (hence (a)).
This bullflop yet again? UCB conducted a formal investigation. The victims didn't get to decide whether he was guilty of violating the rules, the University did that. As much as the University can mirror the formal judicial process, Marcy got his 'day in court' and was 'found guilty by a jury of his peers.' Not by the accusers, by an independent group of evaluators assessors. This idea that the accusers alone or primarily got to decide whether he was guilty of harassment is just pure, unadulterated horsecrap. Nor was it decades later; student advocates were confronting the administration and Marcy about his behavior as far back as 2004. The decade delay was related to the filing of formal charges and in how long UCB took to act on the complaints, but it doesn't represent the delay between when the acts occurred and when victims complained about them to the administration.
One of the more frustrating things about all this is that all this information is right there in the articles. I don't have any secret access to what went on; I'm just reading the regular media articles for content. So either Carl, Danny, CFT at all just don't bother to read the articles before they leap to the defense of Marcy, or they do and the proceed to make statements that don't at all represent what actually happened.
Well then, I'm sure you'll have no problem agreeing with me that based on the actual facts of how the case was handled, UCB's deciding that Geoff Marcy harassed students is not an instance of the accusers, as you put it, "declare[ing] someone a criminal due to your personal opinion and have it stick is power."
"This bullflop yet again?"
Not entirely BS.
See Julian Assange for a high profile case of retracting after the fact (in this case because he was banging someone else at the same time).
"UCB conducted a formal investigation."
Yet again you're whooshing those goalposts over to the "UCB must have done this or it didn't happen" side of the pitch. Where does Carl say this is a specific case for UCB?
Please also note this: To be clear, I’m talking of principles and not specifically about Geoff Marcy’s case.
Which you COMPLETELY IGNORED.
Probably to prove to yourself that you are a "good person" because you're "really against rape".
Well, whoop. Everyone thinks that of themselves (apart from a few maniacs). You don't prove your niceness by being against something without listening.
You mean by quoting it and responding to it, I completely ignored it?
Assange did not cooperate with authorities. He never got his day in court because he chose to flee the country rather than have that day in court. But the government of Sweden was going to send him through the standard judicial process, they hadn't pre-convicted him based on the accuser's personal preferences. So I'm not sure exactly how his case supports your point. No, Sweden did not allow the accusers to set the bar. Assange fled the standard judicial process rather than go through it. So, once again, you guys have brought up an example that in no way supports this malarkey that the accusing women alone or primarily decides the guilt of the accused.
"You mean by quoting it and responding to it, I completely ignored it?"
YES.
As in your whine included the otherwise incongruent phrase: “UCB conducted a formal investigation.”
If you WEREN'T COMPLETELY IGNORING IT, you wouldn't have bullshitted on about what UCB did or did not do.
Really, eric, this is the sort of "debate" tactic we get from teabaggie. Are you *proud* of your incapacity?
"Assange did not cooperate with authorities."
Yes he did. He turned up to be questioned, was told that there were no charges to answer. And a few weeks later, asked to leave, was given permission and left. When a new prosecutor decided to open the case as a rape case, BOTH WOMEN DECLINED TO PARTICIPATE.
Assange said he would consent to interview if they wish, but that he wasn't going to go to Sweden to do it, since he left entirely legally, and he has NO OBLIGATION at all to answer questions.
" He never got his day in court because he chose to flee the country rather than have that day in court."
See above.
Plus he's *STILL* NOT wanted in court.
And don't give that BS about how Swedish law requires an interview first. IT DOES NOT.
"Assange fled the standard judicial process rather than go through it. "
And by "fled" you mean "Asked for, and got, permission to leave from the court system".
Thank you Ethan.
You are one of the good guys so please don't pay attention to the army of clueless guys who are leaving ridiculous comments here. There are lots of decent guys at STEM who are sick and tired of people like Marcy who evade justice just because they have a big name.
Uh, how do you work out "clueless guys"? And are you merely ASSUMING that those you wish to disparage are guys, because it's what you expect males to do and say, therefore are sexist?
Come, on, evidence. It's what's done in science.
Come, on, evidence. It’s what’s done in science.
Just like how creationists who refuse to see the evidence are overwhelmingly religious, just like how people who refuse to see the link between gun violence and guns are overwhelmingly conservative, people who refuse to condemn sexual predation or people who continue to create excuses or people who try to distract the conversation into the discussion of "socially awkward guys" are almost exclusively men.
Now, if you you, CFT, or denier or the rest of the link claim to be women, I will take back what I said and change it to "clueless men and women". Until that day, it is "clueless men".
"link between gun violence and guns "
or the link between Guns saving lives
http://bearingarms.com/category/guns-saving-lives/
Hahaha, see Wow, I can safely conclude Ragtag Media is a conservative as he is immune to statistics and prefers anecdotes (ironically, 5 out of 10 stories featured on "guns saving lives" is about people shooting robbers, basically executing people for trying to steal small amounts of money).
But on the greater issue, there is no excuse for what people like Marcy have done and lots of people should be fired from Berkeley. More scientists should speak against Marcy, against the university of Berkeley, and the usual excuses do not fly this time.
Everytime something like this comes up, people like Wow, denier, so on claim that the victims should go to the authorities. They claim they care about victims but they cannot condemn the supposed perpetrator because evidence, due process and so on. Well, this time all those have been done, investigation has been done and Marcy has been found guilty and yet, these guys still come up with excuses. It is now clear just as creationists are immune to facts and reason, these guys are also immune to reason when it comes to guys sexually harassing women.
<blockquote<Come, on, evidence. It’s what’s done in science.
Just like how creationists
I notice you didn't have any evidence for it, just pretended that I'm like a creationist and therefore automatically wrong.
Sorry, this doesn't work in the rational community. This is SHOW and tell. Not just tell.
Only if ALL of us are women??? WHY?
And you're STILL merely claiming "Clueless" when the only evidence is that you are saying it. Which isn't evidence at all.
Come on, don't show women up as dumb bimbos with no brains at all. This doesn't show up women in a good light, especially when it comes to getting women in STEM, where rational thought, rather then emotional blackmail, is the route to consensus.
He's already said mutliple times he's a rightwinger and shown he's a RWNJ.
However, it's rather weird that you prefer to claim he's a conservative BECAUSE he prefers anecdotes, when you're here, fighting against beastly men based on anecdote and absolutely immune to statistics, preferring to ignore it if it doesn't accord to the anecdotally enforced preconceptions you had to begin with.
Does this mean YOU are a conservative?
And I notice you still managed to avoid any evidence of your claims of cluelessness.
You're being rather clueless here. I've dropped enough clues for you.
Yes there is. I gave two. I don't know that they apply, but I DO know that they exist.
It's rather easy to demonise a group you do not ever see yourself being part of. A different race, a different sex, a different (usually lower) social class, doesn't matter. If you don't think you will EVER be a part of that group, you can easily drop the empathy and dump all the bad crap in the world on those people.
Why? Are they overemploying people? Or do you just have no clue as to what is going on there, but assume they're all rapists?
Why?
Why?
@Wow:
Your reply is incoherent and I don't get what is your point (specially the last paragraph) but just to reiterate: overwhelmingly men come up with the type of excuses, distractions, and spins that you and a bunch of other people have been doing over and over throughout this thread. But if you or any one of these people claim to be a woman, then I will revise my statement of "clueless guys". In the absence of any such declaration, the title of "clueless guys" is overwhelmingly appropriate.
"But if you or any one of these people claim to be a woman"
Think of it this way:
Wowser IS a women who is not much to look at, never get's hit on and is only looked at for her "brains". However, Just like Jane Hathaway would do ANYTHING if Jethro would seduce her and finds zero harassment if he ever tried.
Jethro is only interested in the young office bimbo's NOT Ms. Hathaway..................Get it?
It’s rather easy to demonise a group you do not ever see yourself being part of.
I think we are getting to the crux of the matter. Do you feel yourself at the same group as Marcy? Relative to women, or feminists, or people like Ethan, do you consider Marcy to be a relative in-group? Does the fact that other people are condemning Marcy's behavior evoke feelings of sympathy towards Marcy? Do you feel Marcy's actions signal the fact that he to a bigger "group" that includes you and a large number of innocent men?
I am guessing the answer to some of the above questions is "Yes". But either way, I would like to know what is this "group" that Marcy belongs to.
"Your reply is incoherent "
IOW "I can't respond so I'll pretend it is your fault".
"overwhelmingly men come up with the type of excuses, distractions, and spins that you and a bunch of other people have been doing over and over throughout this thread"
And women overwhelmingly come up with the same accusation against men and spins that you and a bunch of other people have been doing over and over throughout this thread.
If doing so is wrong, then welcome to the club!
Here's a new thought for you: maybe the reasons are valid.
I KNOW that this doesn't demonise men and sanctify women as you wish, but the two sexes are both part of the same humanity. Meaning the same flaws and virtues and variation in the mix.
It won't change the fact that you assume everyone who isn't demonising men must be a clueless guy.
Which claims, either guy or clueless, you have presented NO EVIDENCE for whatsoever, just anecdote.
Statistically, half the people here will be women.
You're not a conservative male myscogynist like Raggie here, are you? Because according to your proofs, you MUST be.
""It’s rather easy to demonise a group you do not ever see yourself being part of."
I think we are getting to the crux of the matter. Do you feel yourself at the same group as Marcy? "
Human? Yes.
How about you?
"Does the fact that other people are condemning Marcy’s behavior evoke feelings of sympathy towards Marcy?"
No. Persecution makes me feel sympathy for anything I can anthropomorphise.
Seeing the RSPCA adverts for abused pets makes my sympathise with the dogs, despite never being a dog.
Empathy is a core human (well, mammalian) component. And you appear to have none.
And the ejection of every iota of our justice system is abhorrent to me.
"Wowser IS a women who is not much to look at,"
Which is a claim, like "clueless" that is made up out of thin air because Teabaggie here hates me, just like you hate anyone who doesn't agree with you, PA.
And something I just remembered. Despite being something EVERYONE knows when they see, StringDreamer still hasn't managed to explain what it is he sees when he knows it's harassment.
And women overwhelmingly come up with the same accusation against men
What accusations?
Here’s a new thought for you: maybe the reasons are valid.
Here is why your posts are incoherent. What reasons are they? Are we talking about Marcy's reasons? What the hell are they?
It won’t change the fact that you assume everyone who isn’t demonising men must be a clueless guy.
Nobody is demonising men here. I am pissed off that Marcy has been a serial sexual predator for so many years and I am pissed off that he has gotten away with it since the university has decided to protect him based on self-interest. I am merely annoyed that you and other men here refuse to acknowledge the bigger problem and instead decide to distract by bring up "socially awkward guys", "studs getting away with it", and various other quite typical responses.
If you think me or Ethan or anyone has demonised "men", then show the evidence. In fact, I applaud the great number of faculty member, who majority of them are men, who explicitly stated that Marcy cannot be a faculty member there. Only in your head we are demonising men and there is absolutely no evidence supporting your statement. Zero. absolutely nothing.
Statistically, half the people here will be women.
You’re not a conservative male myscogynist like Raggie here, are you? Because according to your proofs, you MUST be ...
Empathy is a core human (well, mammalian) component. And you appear to have none
Typical troll bait, all of such statements will be ignored.
You're "merely" what?
Merely making things up.
Teabaggie here says I'm a woman because he thinks that demeans me as a person.
You say I'm a guy because you think that demeans me.
Apart from wearing a dress (and probably not even that, women can wear "men's clothes" no problems), there's no difference between you two.
"Typical troll bait, all of such statements will be ignored."
Typical ad hom get-out. Sorry, ignorance is no defence against a valid accusation.
You have NO EVIDENCE of your claim, but your hatred of half of humanity for their "poor choice" of gender blinds you just like it does Teabaggie here.
""And women overwhelmingly come up with the same accusation against men"
What accusations? "
Or was that troll bait and all comments you made were ignored by you?
... your hatred of half of humanity for their “poor choice” of gender blinds you just like it does Teabaggie here.
Only in your head. Where is your evidence as you love to say? I'm sorry, I mean to say where is your EVIDENCE? There is no hatred for men, only those who are serial sexual predators and those who choose to protect them based on self-interest.
And regarding "excuses", if you have a good "excuse" for what Marcy did, then please share. But there is no such thing.
If you think multiple accusations against one guy from multiple sources from multiple different generations can be "explained" away, then you are allergic to reason and evidence.
Good on you for ignoring your stance of ignoring posts that you don't want to think about!
Bad on you for not bothering to think about them.
"Where is your evidence as you love to say?"
First of all, I asked first, and you STILL haven't supplied.
Second, you've demanded evidence, and it was supplied, despite point #1 STILL remaining unfulfilled, but you have completely elided this from your experience. Effort to answer your petulant demands will likely therefore be likewise elided from existence in further conversation, so the question arises: why should I bother?
Third, my evidence is that you are using "guys always do this" and "guys always do that". The actions taken are, in your assertion, malefic, and are always being done by guys, women aren't thought of being part of a group doing these "bad things".
It's called "inductive reasoning", and quite the thing in STEM. If women want to be able to get into STEM, they need fewer airheads who indicate this is a chronic lack in them and promote themselves as an "everywoman", since this will create some guilt by association, engendered by your assertions of unity with other women.
"And regarding “excuses”, if you have a good “excuse” for what Marcy did, then please share."
As I already told you, I've done so before. You didn't bother to look, because you "know", without evidence:
"But there is no such thing"
By which you mean no such thing YOU WILL ACCEPT.
But they are in post #44.
When you claim to have read the posts here, you REALLY need to stop demonstrating you haven't read a damn thing. Lies and a failure to investigate are another reason why women may find convincing people in STEM that women are just as capable as any other human being more difficult than it needs to be.
Hell, it may be that you really think it WAS sexual harassment, and that there is no excuse for sexual harassment.
However, we have the accusation of sexual harassment, not the proof of it.
We have the claim by some people that they felt harassed, and that is (liable) to be absolutely true.
However, mens rea is a core part of ANY justice system.
So the question becomes: is he a sexual predator, or was he oblivious to the perception? And for that we absolutely do NOT have proof, nor even mildly convincing evidence.
Here are some questions you need to answer rather than rely on anecdote and assumption and bigoted preconceptions.
Was he ever told this was unwelcome by the ones who felt harassed? If not, we have no evidence he is guilty of mens rea to the charge.
Was he told by others who he acted similarly to that his attentions were not warranted, and refrained from continuing? If so, we have evidence he is innocent of mens rea of the charge.
Should we presume innocence unless the accused is proven guilty, or do we throw out justice in the name of revenge?
And note that if trying, and failing, to score with the opposite sex is going to be criminal sexual harassment, we're back at what eric thought was nonexistent.
How do you pick up a date if failure means a criminal record, and there's no way to know beforehand whether it will work or not?
First of all, I asked first, and you STILL haven’t supplied.
So you want me to supply you with evidence that you are a guy?
Second, you’ve demanded evidence, and it was supplied,
You did no such thing. Your posts are incoherent, muddled, and many times it is not clear at all what the hell is that you are talking about. But one thing that you definitely did not do was to supply evidence that me, Ethan, or 90% of the Faculty of astronomy have "hatred of half of humanity for their “poor choice” of gender". Only in your fantasies.
Third, my evidence is that you are using “guys always do this” and “guys always do that”.
There's your problem. The words that you read morph in your head into crazy strawmen that you then try to tear down. I never said "guys *always* do this or that". And even if I did, it definitely does not imply that all or even most guys are like that. Saying that "overwhelming majority of YEC are religious" is not the same as saying "the overwhelming majority of religious people are YEC". Plz learn 2 logic.
But they are in post #44.
Again, only in your head they could count as good excuses for sexually harassing a large number of women, even after being confronted multiple times about it. Go ahead and re-read your own post and tell me if any of them are good excuses for type of behaviors Marcy has done.
a failure to investigate ...
Have you really investigated the claims against Marcy? Do you know what he has been accused of doing? Or have you just made up your facts in your head?
How do you pick up a date if failure means a criminal record,
Okay, so you have not read what Marcy has done and instead you have chosen to spend countless amount of virtual ink in your ridiculous efforts to stay clueless.
Unless of course you think the proper way to initiate a date with someone is to put your hand directly on their crotch.
More incidents of "sexual harassment" at UCB, incl a woman (who was FIRED!) & Vice Chancellor (resigned Apr/2015).
http://www.dailycal.org/tag/diane-leite/
Above link, via a (female) commenter on Marcy article:
======
“Berkeley has clearly said in their Faculty Code of Conduct policy that romantic/sexual interaction between community members who have (or could have) administrative/superivosry relationship with each other is unacceptable.”
I would like to bring to your attention the recent case of Diane Leite, a UC Berkeley Administrative Manager, who had an affair with a subordinate. Not only did she have an affair with him, but she proomoted him from a Receiving Clerk to a Manager with a six-figure income. When another employee brought this to management’s attention, UC Berkeley fire Leite.
Yet several years later, she is back working at the Joint Bioenergy Institute, part of the Lawrence Berkeley National laboratory which UC manages.
I have no doubt after the bad publicity cools down, Mr Marcy will be back on UC payroll at LBNL [ Lawrence Berkeley National Lab ].
Diane Leite is no suing her UC Berkeley boss (a Vice Chancellor [ who resigned April/2015] ) for sexual harassment during her tenure on campus.
UC’s problem goes way beyond Geoff Marcy.
======
Another commenter brought up the case of the CORRUPT (lesbian) Chancellor at UC Santa Cruz (where Marcy got his PhD), who committed suicide..jumped to her death. She was corrupt, 30K budgeted for her on-campus house (originally budgeted at 7K), etc. Her lesbian lover (UCSC Materials Science prof) sued her estate.
The PROBLEM is the CORRUPT Academia
[ exploits Profs, who in turn exploits graduate-students ]
with its EXPLOITATIVE "culture". Both male AND female are involved with exploitation (sex, misconduct, etc). In a sense, Marcy is a victim, since his pattern of "sexual harassment" (going back to 90's at SFSU) was never addressed with "Negative Reinforcement" -- penalties, suspension, psychological treatment, etc.
Meanwhile, across town Stanford's GSB (Graduate School of Business) has its own high-profile SEX SCANDAL!! The Dean (Garth Sallower) RESIGNED:
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2015-10-07/a-sex-scandal-rocks-s…
Private tweets ("sexual nature") went public, which made the resignation necessary.
The Irony is STUNNING.
"If we continue to develop our technology[ Web/Internet incl Social Media ] without wisdom or prudence, our servant may prove to be our [ Academia ] executioner.
Academia is being brought down (Berkeley, Stanford, etc) by "citizen journalism". Private email of Berkeley Astronomy Dept Head (Dr Gibor Basri) went PUBLIC, which triggered other departmental letters (Ohio State, et al) going over Web.
Marcy was not only a victim of his own egregious behavior (the real blame is Academia, for not addressing it earlier)..but the "witch hunt" effect of viral media.
"There’s your problem."
Where? You quoted all of it.
"I never said “guys *always* do this or that”"
You assumed guys. You know. Induction. Try it one day on yourself. Give it a go.
"Again, only in your head they could count as good excuses for sexually harassing a large number of women"
Ah, I see. He's guilty of it, but you don't care IF he actually IS guilty.
If he thinks his advances are welcome, HE IS NOT SEXUALLY HARASSING THEM.
As far as he is aware.
Oh, and despite having quoted it, you still ignore the request pending on you.
"Have you really investigated the claims against Marcy?"
Have you?
"Okay, so you have not read what Marcy has done and instead you have chosen to spend countless amount of virtual ink in your ridiculous efforts to stay clueless. "
Okay, so you don't know what he's done either.
Or you'd have said what he's done, and shown the evidence of it.
And how you bring that conclusion from the piece you quote.
Ironic given your earlier whinge re: mangling words to fit your presumption despite any attempt to justify it.
Wow @49: if you're happy with the way Sweden handled Assange's case, then why did you bring it up? As best I can tell, you're worried that accusations of harassment will be treated as de facto conclusions of guilt. But you've just spent an entire post telling me how the government of Sweden didn't treat the accusations against him as de facto guilt. So, what was the point of bringing it up?
What relevant point was intended by your pub example? Do you think that UCB took the approach that what Marcy is suspected of is what he was guilty of? Do you think UCB did not question (the veracity of) the accusers' testimony?
I think I'm almost done; I'll respond to any response to have to this post but after that you get the last word. I'm perfectly happy with what I've said in @10, 11 and 45 and related posts. Others can read those posts, your responses to them, and decide for themselves who they think has the more reasonable position. I see no evidence that accusers in sexual harassment cases are given the power to render a guilty verdict, either in formal judicial systems or in less formal ones like UCB's investigative process. I've asked you repeatedly for an example of this ("what is suspected of the man is what he is guilty of"), and you have yet to give one.
Is it sexual harassment to shout "Show me Your Tits" at Mardi Gras?
Well hubbahubble.
Wow didn't you chastise me for my "hubba hubba" emotes in the past and yet Sarah Ballard (one of the alleged victims) twitter feed https://twitter.com/hubbahubble
So the one chicky Sarah Ballard has no issue with Jenny Slate talk of Dogs Balls and Penis and women Vaginas and in fact note the proud feelings of commenting that "She Took The Dogs Balls Away"
As posted on here twitter account 2nd video "Drunk History"
She has sexy tweet of a bikini top, and Selrna Gomez hooking Up
hmmmm
Remember The OJ Trial.. If The Glove Doesn't Fit YOU MUST ACQUIT!!!
@Wow:
The bussfeed article is linked from Ethan's piece. Go and read it. All of it. There is no point in engaging with you if you are willing to be stay ignorant.
If he thinks his advances are welcome, HE IS NOT SEXUALLY HARASSING THEM.
Bwhahaha. So your logic is "If you think you are not committing a crime, then you are obviously not committing a crime". Again, Plz learn 2 logic. If don't know you are breaking the law, you are responsible when you break the law. If you don't now shoving your hand up someone's leg and up their crotch can be sexual harassment and you do it anyways, then you are committing sexual harassment regardless of what goes on inside your skull.
As Ethan said, sexual harassment does not hinge on what the perpetrator thinks, it depends on their actions and the judgment depends on a third party who, not the victim not the perpetrator, exactly the same was as any crime.
If you get busted by the police for drunk driving, try giving them the excuse "I did not think I was drunk so obviously I'm not doing drunk driving".
And finally, you wonder why we laugh at clueless guys like you.
@wow:
As far as he is aware.
Once again you proudly display your ignorance. As the buzzfeed article explains, Marcy was told about his actions but he did not care. So your defense that "he did not know" is complete nonsense. Your allergy to facts is getting more acute.
"Marcy was told about his actions but he did not care."
Who told him? His wife? The alleged Victim or a concerned friend who got busted before?
Bill Clinton had a LOT of warning signs and still PREYED on MONICA (OR DID HE) and the damn Clinton's are set to be back the FUCK IN THE WHITE HOUSE.
What's Wrong Here?
"Teabaggie here hates me,"
Hate is a bit strong, but I do admit I see you as Nurse Ratched here to innocent folks:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Onm5gjgL97Y
And then I am compelled after your actions to react:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EYDP3nBh_E4
One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest Is a Classic...
"Wow @49: if you’re happy with the way Sweden handled Assange’s case, then why did you bring it up? "
Because they aren't?
Are you COMPLETELY clueless? If so, how the hell did you get what you spouted earlier?
What I did was correct your incredibly biased and incorrect statements on the subject.
"But you’ve just spent an entire post telling me how the government of Sweden didn’t treat the accusations against him as de facto guilt. "
Yeah, you're being a twat now. No. I've been telling you that Assange DID NOT flee the country. You DO know that I said more stuff, right? Or are you being DELIBERATELY obnoxious and ignorant?
Tell you what, eric, you go off and find out what is happening and THEN come back, OK?
It's quite obvious you haven't a bloody clue what is going on there, despite your accusations made.
"The bussfeed article is linked from Ethan’s piece."
Yes. Good. You noticed. Well done. Have a bikkit.
Now, care to explain how they answer the queries I said you needed before claiming proof?
Care to explain how your accusations against a nebulous "many others" at UCB are supported by it?
Or did you think that you could go "SQUIRREL!" and hope nobody noticed you changed the subject?
Go look up the law, dear, you are OBVIOUSLY out of your depth here.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mens_rea
Because the problem is that if you say something, someone finds it "harassing", but NEVER says a damn thing, and the situation never corrects.
The continuing harassment is therefore self inflicted.
So, no, you're wrong here. Again. Oddly enough.
Here's a simple way to put it: was the woman feeling she was being harassed, or was he harassing her?
The second requires intent to harass on his part.
DO try to work it out.
"So your defense that “he did not know” is complete nonsense. Your allergy to facts is getting more acute"
So where do I claim he did not know?
Hmmm?
"As Ethan said, sexual harassment does not hinge on what the perpetrator thinks"
And that is complete and utter bollocks. It is entirely the same BS that led to witch hunts.
As long as someone "thinks" that she's a witch, she shall be burned at the stake.
So you really ARE a moron.
No.
Do you see how the "and" clause there indicates the clueless is needing proof? EVEN YOU ought to realise that there's more than just "guy" there. And I didn't even ask you to prove I am a guy. Or not. I asked how you know it's guys. Give the evidence you used.
But the primary one, was the "clueless".
How do you know that they're "clueless".
Because the fact of the matter is that you are thinking that anyone who disagrees with you on this MUST be clueless. That's bigotry and bias right there.
"it depends on their actions and the judgment depends on a third party who, not the victim not the perpetrator, exactly the same was as any crime."
See Mens Rea above.
IOW "WRONG!".
@Wow:
Now, care to explain how they answer the queries I said you needed before claiming proof?
Care to explain how your accusations against a nebulous “many others” at UCB are supported by it?
Or did you think that you could go “SQUIRREL!” and hope nobody noticed you changed the subject?
Absolute incoherent ramblings. I have no idea what are you talking about.
Go look up the law, dear, you are OBVIOUSLY out of your depth here.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mens_rea
Read what you link first.
Marcy has been accused of "sliding his hand up someone's leg and grabbing their crotch", "sliding his hand under someone's shirt", "groping people", "unwantedly kissing people" and so on. If you think "he did not know what he was doing" is not
an acceptable defense.
Once again, your refusal to condemn a man who by any reasonable definition of "sexual harassment" is guilty, reveals your allergy to facts and reason.
Here’s a simple way to put it: was the woman feeling she was being harassed, or was he harassing her?
The second requires intent to harass on his part.
It really delights me that people like you are no longer near the echelons of power
when it comes to creating sexual harassment policies because you are so wrong, so out-dated
and so primitive. Read the sexual harassment policies, here. let me link it for you: http://policy.ucop.edu/doc/4000385/SHSV
If only we could kick people like you even further down so that they cannot protect
sexual predators when their shitty behavior comes to light. I suppose we are making
progress in that aspect slowly.
But anyways, the following are from the policies of the university:
Whenever a faculty member is responsible for academic supervision of a student, a
personal relationship between them of a romantic or sexual nature, even if consensual,
is inappropriate.
Other unacceptable behaviors:
Entering into a romantic or sexual relationship with any student for whom a
faculty member has, or should reasonably expect to have in the future, academic
responsibility (instructional, evaluative, or supervisory).
Exercising academic responsibility (instructional, evaluative, or supervisory) for
any student with whom a faculty member has a romantic or sexual relationship.
Now back to sexual harassments:
Sexual Harassment is defined as unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual
favors, and other verbal, nonverbal, or physical conduct of a sexual nature. Sexual
harassment is conduct that explicitly or implicitly affects a person’s employment or
education or interferes with a person’s work or educational performance or creates an
environment such that a reasonable person would find the conduct intimidating, hostile,
or offensive.
Marcy checked all these boxes. Multiple times, over the course of many years.
The investigation also found him guilty, many women came forward and gave testimoties.
It is case closed. Your mental gymnastics and your refusals to accept facts and reason
only undermine whatever credibility you have.
The rest of your post is once again incoherent ramblings where you seem to be annoyed that I called you "clueless". Well, that charge is supported by the fact that you have
absolutely no clue about what you are talking about.
“Pointing out that this behavior can happen does not equal telling women STEM is full of it.”
And for proof that scaremongering in media to draw eyeballs can ensure this claim is absolutely wrong, see:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hCTaqcim8rI
After all, we are told ISIS are trying to convert the world, right (in fact they want to convert all the Muslim nations to their version of Islam, which ironically, has the same god as the christians are supposed to follow). ISIS are able to be anywhere.
Therefore they MUST be having a rally in Sweden...