56 replies to this topic

[arunma]

Heheh, here's some shit that's guaranteed to stir the pot with my fellow liberals.
 
OK, so I'm part of this Facebook group that only lets astronomers in (it's not as cool as you might think).  Someone posted a link to this:
 
http://tenureshewrot...-male-academic/
 
It's called "Don't be that dude: Handy tips for the male academic."  Basically it's a list of things male academics should do to make the male-dominated academic world more friendly for women.  I want to say at the outset that most of the things here seem perfectly reasonable.  Stuff like not disproportionately asking women to get coffee, letting women open doors for men, etc. are all fine with me.  I'm especially fond of insisting that female (and male) astronomers be called "doctor" or "professor."  For me this has nothing to do with gender equality; I think that PhD scientists' eschewing of the doctor title has led to us being taken less seriously.  Hell, if I were Secretary of Energy, I'd require that all federal grants to physics projects come with the requirement that everyone in the receiving research group refer to fellow PhDs as doctor while at work...but alas, I digress.
 
There are a few things in here that I think are a.) obvious bullshit, b.) ignore obvious anatomical differences between men and women, and c.) attempt to dictate my personal life.  Allow me to explain.
 
Bullshit: "Don’t talk over your female colleagues. There is a lot of social conditioning that goes into how men and women communicate differently. You may not realize that you’re doing it, but if you find yourself interrupting women, or speaking over them, stop."
 
This is basically saying that I need to treat my female colleagues differently than my male colleagues.  I talk over my male colleagues all the time.  They talk over me.  That's how it goes, for better or worse.  Maybe it's a problem, but it's not a gender-related problem.  I'm sure if Chief Justice John Roberts were here, he'd say that the best way to stop discriminating against women is to stop discriminating against women.  If I and my male colleagues talk over each other to get our points across, why would I treat my female colleagues any differently?  This suggests that the female colleague is somehow not up to the task of workplace communication, and surely that's not what any feminist would say, right?
 
Failure to distinguish penis from vagina: Don’t refuse to go through doors opened by women, insist on carrying their field equipment, or otherwise reinforce stereotypes that women need special treatment because of our gender. Offer help, and drop it if help is declined.

 

Most of this I'm OK with, but the underlined part is stupid, in my opinion.  Fact: on average men are physically stronger than women (http://www.ask.com/q...y-strong-as-men).  In certain fields of astronomy we often need to go out to experiments in remote areas, carry heavy equipment, climb on platforms in the middle of a hot day (lots of telescopes are in deserts), and otherwise do things that require a lot of physical stamina.  I've worked with girls who are up to the task, as well as girls who aren't.  Needless to say, more girls than guys have insufficient physical stamina.  It's not because girls are worse than guys.  It's because they just aren't physically as strong.  I'm all for women carrying field equipment; personally I dont' think anyone should get a free pass on account of race, sex, etc.  But asking a 110 lb girl to carry a 15 lb oscilloscope up a 20 foot platform just to prove she's equal to a guy is an exercise in futility.  Yeah, there are girls who can bench press a motorcycle and guys who are wimps.  But on average, men and women simply aren't equal when it comes to physical stamina, and attempts at gender equality can't ignore facts.  Surely no one is against facts, right?

 

Dictating my personal life: "Take an equal share in housework and childcare duties at home. Women (including academics) are often disproportionately burdened with domestic duties relative to their male academic spouses. Figure out if your household is an equal one."

Somebody tell me if I'm wrong, but how is this not a statement to the effect that someone is trying to dictate my private life to me in name of feminism? Astronomy is cool and all, but at the end of the day it's a job. I go to work, I get paid to do stuff, and then I leave. What I do outside of work isn't my department chair's business or the university's business. What if I deliberately went out and married a girl who doesn't share feminist ideals (note that this isn't a hypothetical: my girlfriend fully intends to stay home all day, and has no aspirations to wear the pants in the relationship). I'm fully supportive of legal equality for women, but the above sounds like an attempt to get employers to command how consenting adults conduct their private lives. If I and a girl actively choose to engage in a relationship where one of us goes out and makes money while the other does effectively all of the housework and childcare, I have to ask where my boss or departments gets off thinking they're even entitled to an opinion on this. This statement is of course listed under "tips" for male academics, implying that they're optional. But in an environment where people try to get their personal opinions codified into university policy, I am legitimately worried that a day may come when the Dean of Liberal Arts busts into my house and asks me if I'm making my wife do all the laundry.

 

In the same category there's also this: "Pay attention to who you invite to informal work-related gatherings. If you’re often going out with members of your lab or department for drinks, make an effort to include women. You may be shutting your colleagues out from research opportunities or the sharing of ideas that happen in informal settings."

 

The operative word here is "informal."  Who I hang out with when I'm out of work is purely my own business, and my department doesn't get to call me a male chauvanist on that basis.  Is it unkind to specifically ostracize someone because they have boobs?  Yeah, as well as stupid because boobs are awesome.  But my problem here is that it's made incumbent on a guy to be social.  This isn't so much a problem with women as it is with introverts.  You can't be socially shy, and then blame people when you're excluded from social events.  I don't recall ever avoiding someone because they're female.  Like I said, I actively want to look at a pair of boobs, so I obviously don't have an aversion to women in social settings.  But you can't blame people for not actively seeking out the company of introverts, and if the introvert in question happens to be female, then I think it's wrong to cry sexism here.  On the contrary, I think it's incumbent on women in academia to not make a big deal out of their gender in social settings, and simply blend in with the rest of us.

 

So all that to say, I'm definitely not against women in astronomy.  Hell, I wish I could go to work and see nothing but hot girls doing physics.  But these are some problems I see in the academic feminist movement that I don't think are doing anyone any favors.  Bottom line: I'm for equal treatment, not special treatment.

 

Heh, that's sure to invite some funny/angry responses.

[Hana-Nezumi]

Bullshit: "Dont talk over your female colleagues. There is a lot of social conditioning that goes into how men and women communicate differently. You may not realize that youre doing it, but if you find yourself interrupting women, or speaking over them, stop."
 
This is basically saying that I need to treat my female colleagues differently than my male colleagues.  I talk over my male colleagues all the time.  They talk over me.  That's how it goes, for better or worse.  Maybe it's a problem, but it's not a gender-related problem.  I'm sure if Chief Justice John Roberts were here, he'd say that the best way to stop discriminating against women is to stop discriminating against women.  If I and my male colleagues talk over each other to get our points across, why would I treat my female colleagues any differently?  This suggests that the female colleague is somehow not up to the task of workplace communication, and surely that's not what any feminist would say, right?

She seems to have observed that SOME men do it, so it's one of the things she's cautioning against. That doesn't mean that she's accusing men of being guilty of it as a whole. Her point is that it's not nice to talk over someone whether they are a man or a woman and you shouldn't do it to anyone, but you should take notice if you find yourself doing it more to women and stop it.
 

Failure to distinguish penis from vagina: Dont refuse to go through doors opened by women, insist on carrying their field equipment, or otherwise reinforce stereotypes that women need special treatment because of our gender. Offer help, and drop it if help is declined.
 
Most of this I'm OK with, but the underlined part is stupid, in my opinion.  Fact: on average men are physically stronger than women (http://www.ask.com/q...y-strong-as-men).  In certain fields of astronomy we often need to go out to experiments in remote areas, carry heavy equipment, climb on platforms in the middle of a hot day (lots of telescopes are in deserts), and otherwise do things that require a lot of physical stamina.  I've worked with girls who are up to the task, as well as girls who aren't.  Needless to say, more girls than guys have insufficient physical stamina.  It's not because girls are worse than guys.  It's because they just aren't physically as strong.  I'm all for women carrying field equipment; personally I dont' think anyone should get a free pass on account of race, sex, etc.  But asking a 110 lb girl to carry a 15 lb oscilloscope up a 20 foot platform just to prove she's equal to a guy is an exercise in futility.  Yeah, there are girls who can bench press a motorcycle and guys who are wimps.  But on average, men and women simply aren't equal when it comes to physical stamina, and attempts at gender equality can't ignore facts.  Surely no one is against facts, right?

Did you miss the part where she said "Offer help, and drop it if help is declined"? She's not against helping out in that way, it's being persistent about it when you've already been told no that is a problem.
 

Dictating my personal life: "Take an equal share in housework and childcare duties at home. Women (including academics) are often disproportionately burdened with domestic duties relative to their male academic spouses. Figure out if your household is an equal one."

Somebody tell me if I'm wrong, but how is this not a statement to the effect that someone is trying to dictate my private life to me in name of feminism? Astronomy is cool and all, but at the end of the day it's a job. I go to work, I get paid to do stuff, and then I leave. What I do outside of work isn't my department chair's business or the university's business. What if I deliberately went out and married a girl who doesn't share feminist ideals (note that this isn't a hypothetical: my girlfriend fully intends to stay home all day, and has no aspirations to wear the pants in the relationship). I'm fully supportive of legal equality for women, but the above sounds like an attempt to get employers to command how consenting adults conduct their private lives. If I and a girl actively choose to engage in a relationship where one of us goes out and makes money while the other does effectively all of the housework and childcare, I have to ask where my boss or departments gets off thinking they're even entitled to an opinion on this. This statement is of course listed under "tips" for male academics, implying that they're optional. But in an environment where people try to get their personal opinions codified into university policy, I am legitimately worried that a day may come when the Dean of Liberal Arts busts into my house and asks me if I'm making my wife do all the laundry.

What in the world? How did you take from the article that she wants to have your boss police your private life to enforce feminism??? All I took it to mean is that if both the man and the woman are both working, then housework should be shared equally. In that situation, is that not the fair and equal thing to do? It may be your private life, but this is a specifically an article on how not to be sexist, so giving some advice about how to treat women in your private life isn't out of order. My only problem with this part of the article is that it seems to assume that taking on homemaking as your sole job is not something people do anymore, but if that was taken into account, the author would probably say that in that case, it would be different. I'm a homemaker myself and I definitely wasn't offended.

 

In the same category there's also this: "Pay attention to who you invite to informal work-related gatherings. If youre often going out with members of your lab or department for drinks, make an effort to include women. You may be shutting your colleagues out from research opportunities or the sharing of ideas that happen in informal settings."
 
The operative word here is "informal."  Who I hang out with when I'm out of work is purely my own business, and my department doesn't get to call me a male chauvanist on that basis.  Is it unkind to specifically ostracize someone because they have boobs?  Yeah, as well as stupid because boobs are awesome.  But my problem here is that it's made incumbent on a guy to be social.  This isn't so much a problem with women as it is with introverts.  You can't be socially shy, and then blame people when you're excluded from social events.  I don't recall ever avoiding someone because they're female.  Like I said, I actively want to look at a pair of boobs, so I obviously don't have an aversion to women in social settings.  But you can't blame people for not actively seeking out the company of introverts, and if the introvert in question happens to be female, then I think it's wrong to cry sexism here.  On the contrary, I think it's incumbent on women in academia to not make a big deal out of their gender in social settings, and simply blend in with the rest of us.

I don't understand why you are taking the article so personally. It's just saying that SOME men will exclude women from their gatherings with co-workers specifically because they are women, and that's a sexist thing to do, so if you want to avoid being sexist you should try to be more inclusive. It could have been worded a little better though.

[Jasi]

Hana covered it all—you are taking this too personally. You're also acting like it's law that someone is forcing on you for somehow when you say "I go to work, I get paid to do stuff, and then I leave. What I do outside of work isn't my department chair's business or the university's business." This whole article isn't your department chair or university's business, right? This is just a blog post telling guys how to be mindful of how they treat women. Acting like this is censorship or overreach by an employer is a red herring. This is a blog post giving people suggestions for how to improve their behavior, not an amendment to your contract with the university.

 

I'll speak a bit more to the interrupting thing specifically. As you probably know I'm also a PhD student, arunma. I now am studying in NYC where it seems to be the culture to interrupt people regularly. It still pisses me off when people—and it's nearly always guys—interrupt me in the context of a scholarly discussion. 

 

Iin a way, it's not so different from the issue of offering to carry a woman's equipment for her. Like how men are naturally stronger, a lot of men naturally have louder voices, and even if they don't, it's much easier for them to speak loudly on purpose without getting shrill and irritating. In order for me to talk over a lot of my male colleagues, my voice needs to be pitched much higher, which I am very self-conscious about doing because it sounds irritating and has negative connotations.

 

Not to mention, interrupting people is just rude, regardless of gender.

 

Your perspective may be "oh well I interrupt everyone", but from my perspective it's more like "I am constantly being interrupted by people that are too loud for me to be able to talk over", and this happens to me so regularly in class that it's not even funny. A bunch of dudes arguing over what the definition of the word is, and I am trying to say "hey guys I have the actual definition pulled up here on the dictionary" and no one can hear me because they are in a shouting match and I don't want to participate in a shouting match. You are saying that I should join the shouting match so that you don't have to be more polite?

 

A kind of running theme in this post is this: instead of thinking about why your actions are defensible from your perspective, think how it might feel dismissive from a woman's perspective. So yeah, I'm okay with a blog post recommending that men stop interrupting women.

 

Also I am not sure if it's even worth getting into the fact that it's highly ironic and potentially problematic that your defense for not being sexist is couched in terms like "I like looking at boobs and hot women" throughout your post. I realize you're probably just trying to be lighthearted but especially given the context—that is, that you're presumably discussing your colleagues—yours is some seriously questionable language.

 

Okay and also this: "On the contrary, I think it's incumbent on women in academia to not make a big deal out of their gender in social settings, and simply blend in with the rest of us." I think this is another problematic thought of yours. Telling people not to make a big deal out of their differences and just blend in is okay to an extent but you need to be careful about this. Sometimes the gender differences are relevant depending on the topic at hand—what if the conversation is about professional attire, classroom personality, publishing, or a million other topics in which gender plays a role? Why should I have to ignore it in order to hang out with the guys? Why be so combative about this? Why not take steps to just get along with others? 

 

edited since I had some additional thoughts and needed more line breaks

Edited by Jasi, 30 September 2013 - 04:49 PM.

[Mark]

first:

If I and my male colleagues talk over each other to get our points across, why would I treat my female colleagues any differently?  This suggests that the female colleague is somehow not up to the task of workplace communication, and surely that's not what any feminist would say, right?

It still pisses me off when people—and it's nearly always guys—interrupt me in the context of a scholarly discussion. 

 

In a way, it's not so different from the issue of offering to carry a woman's equipment for her. Like how men are naturally stronger, a lot of men naturally have louder voices, and even if they don't, it's much easier for them to speak loudly on purpose without getting shrill and irritating.

...

Not to mention, interrupting people is just rude, regardless of gender.

I agree that interrupting people is generally rude.

but "shouting matches" can be amazingly fun.

and they can be perfectly egalitarian too: the louder, sharper and more dynamic what you say, the more your heard and the greater the ego boost.

 

The 'shouting matches' aren't always productive or frequent, but for when they occur - would you really want the rules of the game to be artificially changed? - just because your a woman?

 

just like I realise that I dont perform particularly well at basketball because I don't have the genetics to make me tall enough; Yet I am very far from sure that the rules of the game should change to accommodate my particular genetics (as an identifying member of the (arguably discriminated against) genetically-non-tallish-people group).

 

personally I dont like shouting matches very much, I dont think that they are particularly civil, and I dont posses quite enough rapid wit to enjoy them, but I am quite happy to let others play. So if I am in a civil discussion and someone tries to make it a 'shouting match' (irritating...) I adopt certain strategies to shut the derailing dick/bitch up OR i accept the turn of conversation and realize it is no longer about the truth and play along OR I leave.

 

second:

Take an equal share in housework and childcare duties at home. Women (including academics) are often disproportionately burdened with domestic duties relative to their male academic spouses. Figure out if your household is an equal one

All I took it to mean is that if both the man and the woman are both working, then housework should be shared equally.

 

I hate to be contrary, but if in a given household (where there are two working spouses) if the woman actually does more of the housework, i dont believe that there is anything nessisarily wrong with that.

It could be the case that the bloke is a bludger (who would let the house fall down for the extra hour of TV), or it could be the case that the woman is 'neat freak' (of the ritualistic OCD germaphobe variety)

but regardless: If the woman feels significantly 'burdened' with the housework then she has (almost certainly) perfectly fair tools available to her such as negotiation. And if at the end of the day she is unhappy with the relationship arrangement then she can choose to do what the fem-sistas of old taught her - and leave.

 

If at the end of the day it is true that women do more housework generally, I dont currently see this as indicative of a problem.

 

(ps. I was reading someone the other day commenting about how some of these 'women-do-more-housework' results were actually biased because they were bassed apon the reporting of housework activities that "occured on a typical day" )

 

Summary:

I'm for equal treatment, not special treatment.

yup.

[Oberon Storm]

I generally agree with arunma here.

There are good things like using a women's professional title. They worked hard far it and deserve it just like anyone else.

Not complimenting women on how they look or not making inapprpriately sexual comments. I admit I am guilty of this. My only defense is that the women I act like this around are all very good friends of mine and they play back. I am aware that other women in the office that see this may be offended. I personally do not care. I do not see it as any of their business. At the same time I have to recognize there is no productive purpose to complementing my female coworkers on their looks.

There are sme other things that are kind of... Whatever... Not doing them doesn't make you sexist, but doing them just kind of makes sense. Like the part about adopting teaching tools that promote gender equality. I don't have a clue what that really means. I'm not a teacher. Sounds good though. Also making sure women are included in panel discussions and commitees. If they're qualified then why the hell not?

Where I start to disagree is probably the same point arunma does. I get that talking over and interrupting people while they are talking is rude no matter the gender of the original speaker. The blog post doesn't seem to say that. It seems to be about over talking women specifically. That no matter how you might speak to other men don't do this to women because it is inherently sexist. I would disagree with this because I do not see how a certain behavior you exhibit toward both genders equally can be in any way construed as sexist towards one of the two.

Going out of my way to make sure women are not the only one planning parties or playing gopher? I don't want to do it. Anybody else can have that pleasure. I don't care who does. Is that really sexist? Also if she is the one volunteering? If she feels the situation is sexist then she shouldn't volunteer.

If she isn't volunteering, but she is always getting more or less assigned the duty then that changes things a bit.

Informal work related gatherings? What is that? Going out for drinks is not what I would call work related. I don't know how anything work related can be completely informal. There has to be some level of decorum in a work related gathering. Going out for drinks is just the guys being guys. I see no need to go out of my way to make sure women are included. This is really a case where if a woman feels left out she probably needs to do more to be part of the group. Be friendly and find common interests with who she is working with. Even then, just like ladies sometimes don't want the guys around...

The dynamics of my relationships at home has little to no bearing to work. You can't say one situation at home makes a guy "that dude". You don't know the full story. Until you do... Well its still none of your business.

One thing arunma said that I disagree with was the notion that women are a weaker side of the species. He is technically correct that on average men are stronger, but this is a statistical reality. Not a biological one. Of coure I don't if that was what arunma was really saying.

The blog post was about being "that dude". This is a really wishy washy way of calling guys sexist, and it should be undertandable why someone would get defensive. I have tried not to take a defensive tone, but I know I probably didn't quite get the job done. Why shouldn't we be defensive? No one likes to be accused of something they do not feel they are guilty of. The post even lists being able to apologize when getting called out on these behaviors. Apologize for what? For being sexist? I guess I see that as kind of admitting a sexist behavior. So... Uhhh... No...

Edited by Chief Fire Storm, 01 October 2013 - 09:55 AM.

[Jasi]

Okay, you guys all need to realize something. The whole reason feminism is a thing is because it's not just isolated incidents that are bothersome. It's the fact that it happens all the time every day from the male persuasion as a whole. Each time one person does something like this, it contributes to the overall atmosphere that women need help from guys to do things, that women can be talked over and ignored and their opinions generally pushed to the side. And the fact that women have been historically discriminated against in all of these ways and many more.
 
Multiple times, as I lock up my bike when I get to work to teach my classes, men have come up to me asking if I need help or directions or something like that. I understand that each one of them probably thinks they're just being friendly and helpful, but what's communicated to me by the fact that multiple men do it on a semi-regular basis is "You look like you can't handle these things on your own and men feel the need to help you." Similarly, every single day, literally, that I leave my apartment looking nice (and by "nice", I don't mean "sexy"—just put together), I get catcalled by strangers. Maybe one guy on his own thinks he's just brightening someone's day by telling them they're beautiful. But the composite of all of these strangers' actions put together is just tiresome.
 
Now, I realize that these kinds of actions are much more clearly sexist than some of the things that are being questioned here. But my point is that it's not the actions of a single person that is the main focus, but the atmosphere that is perpetuated by letting people continue to act this way. By saying "well it's okay for me to do it because blah blah blah", you are saying that it's okay to continue to contribute to that atmosphere under certain circumstances.
 
So again, I'd like to reiterate: The point is not for you to find ways to figure out how it could be excusable, e.g., "Well I'm just rude to everyone regardless of gender." Instead, consider it from a woman's perspective: "All these guys interrupt me all the time."
 
It is concerning to me that all of you are more concerned about how to excuse thoughtless and rude behavior than you are about admitting that it could possibly be contributing to an atmosphere of sexism, whether that is your intention or not.

 

The 'shouting matches' aren't always productive or frequent, but for when they occur - would you really want the rules of the game to be artificially changed? - just because your a woman?
 
just like I realise that I dont perform particularly well at basketball because I don't have the genetics to make me tall enough; Yet I am very far from sure that the rules of the game should change to accommodate my particular genetics (as an identifying member of the (arguably discriminated against) genetically-non-tallish-people group).
 
personally I dont like shouting matches very much, I dont think that they are particularly civil, and I dont posses quite enough rapid wit to enjoy them, but I am quite happy to let others play. So if I am in a civil discussion and someone tries to make it a 'shouting match' (irritating...) I adopt certain strategies to shut the derailing dick/bitch up OR i accept the turn of conversation and realize it is no longer about the truth and play along OR I leave.

 

Yes, I do think people should not have shouting matches in academic discourse because not only is it unfair to women but it's also just wrong in general. The fact that women have a harder time playing by those rules is part of it. It is well documented that assertive behavior from women is perceived as bitchy, bossy, and controlling whereas from men it's seen as being a strong leader and a go-getter. The problem is that it can be hard to put a stop to it without making it worse and seeming "bitchy"—like I said, in order for me to keep up with this, I have to get very shrill, which is "bitchy". Or, I have to outright tell someone to stop interrupting me and let me talk, which again is "bitchy". Or, if I "leave" the conversation as you suggest, that's letting rude people ultimately win control in the dialogue, which puts us right back where we began. How about instead of being bitches, we just be respectful? Just because it's couched in feminist terms, now being courteous is something you ought to fight against? It's more important to explain why it's okay to be rude and disrespectful of others just so that you don't have to admit that it's part of a culture of sexism? Seriously, this really perplexes me why you all are adamantly defending this behavior.

 

Basketball is an improper analogy, because basketball is not integral to my success as an academic. Being able to express my opinions in scholarly discourse is.
 
 

Informal work related gatherings? What is that? Going out for drinks is not what I would call work related. I don't know how anything work related can be completely informal. There has to be some level of decorum in a work related gathering. Going out for drinks is just the guys being guys.

CFS, in academia, there are tons of informal work-related gatherings because a good chunk of your friends are also your colleagues. Something is work-related when you are hanging out as a group of people that you know through work. There, you typically talk about...work. So it is work-related even if it's not some kind of official function. Here are some examples:

1. My department goes out for drinks after class every Wednesday as a chance to socialize as a bunch of colleagues outside of class. Topics for conversation are typically work-related.
2. At conferences, people regularly grab food and/or drinks with people before, during, or after talks, where we discuss the talks we just heard.
3. People invite colleagues other to go see performances of music (keep in mind that I am part of a department of music).
4. A group of colleagues has a fantasy baseball league. Oftentimes we also make a March Madness pool. Here the topic is not work of course, but it's a way of bonding with colleagues, so it is still work-related.

Of course there is a limit here—if someone is insufferable, annoying, always causes a scene, etc., obviously you don't invite them regardless of gender—but what the article is talking about is a societal tendency to assume that women don't want to go grab a beer, be in the fantasy baseball league, watch the football game, talk about the mathy paper that someone presented. etc. I think this is less of a problem for our generation as women are more socially drinking beer and talking about sports these days. But you (and others) seemed confused about how this could even possibly be a thing, so there are some examples.

Edited by Jasi, 01 October 2013 - 11:24 AM.

[Egann]

I'll be honest. I almost never use professional titles because I DON'T KNOW THEM. Knowing the proper address requires at least modest acquaintance. I don't call any one Miss or Mrs just like I don't call anyone Mister. I use Sir and Ma'am to address most everyone I'm not on close terms with and don't know the proper address. Southern etiquette to the rescue.

 

And usually if I'm close enough to know the address, I use first names, anyway. Not to demean the accomplishment (although everybody has doctorates these days) but the period where it's proper to address anyone with their degree is actually rather short. You pretty much have to be deliberately distant.

 

The one exception is when introducing someone to a crowd, but that's a rather rare exception.

 

 

 

I can kinda understand the deal with not talking over female colleagues, but I don't entirely agree. My sister--who went to an all women high school and college--said that the chemistry fundamentally changed when she went co-ed and girl students simply shut up and yielded to men.

 

I'm not entirely sure I buy that. In my experience from college classrooms, about one guy in seven speaks out and one girl in ten. So yes, silence disproportionately affects women, but the fundamental problem isn't interruptions but people not talking in the first place.

 

 

 

As to doing an equal share of the housework....screw you. This is 2012. Housework gets done by whoever is available and able to do it. I see dozens of women who outright refuse to do laundry because it's sexist, even though that's just as unfair on their male partners (if not more: it's practically sexism revenge).

 

Parenthetically, I rarely see a woman pushing a lawn-mower. Not unless they've got a hobby garden, anyway. Disproportionately burdened my ass.

[Jasi]

I'll be honest. I almost never use professional titles because I DON'T KNOW THEM. Knowing the proper address requires at least modest acquaintance. I don't call any one Miss or Mrs just like I don't call anyone Mister. I use Sir and Ma'am to address most everyone I'm not on close terms with and don't know the proper address. Southern etiquette to the rescue.

 

And usually if I'm close enough to know the address, I use first names, anyway. Not to demean the accomplishment (although everybody has doctorates these days) but the period where it's proper to address anyone with their degree is actually rather short. You pretty much have to be deliberately distant.

 

The one exception is when introducing someone to a crowd, but that's a rather rare exception.

 

This post is directed at academics. If you are in academia, you do know people's titles. You are not the intended audience here Egann. Not to say that your opinion is unwelcome or anything, just irrelevant in this point.

[Hana-Nezumi]

Jasi said everything I wanted to say.

[Fëanen]

As to doing an equal share of the housework....screw you. This is 2012. Housework gets done by whoever is available and able to do it. I see dozens of women who outright refuse to do laundry because it's sexist, even though that's just as unfair on their male partners (if not more: it's practically sexism revenge).

 

Parenthetically, I rarely see a woman pushing a lawn-mower. Not unless they've got a hobby garden, anyway. Disproportionately burdened my ass.

Hm...well, anecdotal evidence is only worth so much, after all. I remember doing a report on this exact topic for my gender psychology class, and the literature clearly indicated that housework is still done more by women, and laundry is actually one of the least equitable areas of distribution. The correlation tends to be weakest with higher-earning couples with similar work hours, but even then women tend to end up with less free time due to housework and childcare. Based on this data I would suspect that in situations where you've got two aceademics or such married to each other there would be an above average degree of equality in division of labor.

 

Interestingly, both your lawnmowing point and the part about carrying field equipment does hinge on the upper-body strength issue, which is physiological. But the safest bet when it comes to dividing this sort of labor is to take things case-by-case based on the abilities of the individual rather than making assumptions, which I think is the point the authors of this article.

[Oberon Storm]

So again, I'd like to reiterate: The point is not for you to find ways to figure out how it could be excusable, e.g., "Well I'm just rude to everyone regardless of gender." Instead, consider it from a woman's perspective: "All these guys interrupt me all the time."
 
It is concerning to me that all of you are more concerned about how to excuse thoughtless and rude behavior than you are about admitting that it could possibly be contributing to an atmosphere of sexism, whether that is your intention or not.

I agree with you on a lot of this. Talking over others or interrupting them constantly is very rude. It shows you are not really open to new ideas and are not willing to listen. Those catcalls are not only rude they make guys look really dumb. I can only imagine how incredibly uncomfortable it might make you. I just wouldn't right away call it sexist.

I don't really know WHAT to label the catcalls. Even when a woman IS dressed in a sexy manner it looks and sounds really dumb when guys do this. Do women ever really feel falttered by this or do they just briefly think of how sad and desperate the guy is before moving on?

The blog post mentioned benevolent sexism. I guess I just don't buy it. It sounds more like over sensitivity to me. I think of sexism as more of an overall set of behaviors that is couple with a certain attitude towards women. Not necessarily a hostile attitude, but kind of looking down on women. Or women doing it to men. Absent the attitude, in a good number cases anyway, I think it is unfair to label anyone a sexist.

That isn't to say that awareness isn't a good thing, but it is a two way street isn't it? Maybe men should try to keep in mind the way they may be making their female coworkers feel. But, like in the case of guys asking you if you need help, shouldn't maybe some women lighten up and see it as just the helpful offer it really is?

I'll go to a bit of an extreme here. I have been thinking of your worry of coming off as abitch when you fight back in those shouting matches. I ask who cares if you sound shrill or get accused of bitchiness? I say own it. Be a bitch and show them what's what. This last bit isn't really a 100% serious argument and it might just be my own opinion that no one else really shares.

Informal work related gatherings? What is that? Going out for drinks is not what I would call work related. I don't know how anything work related can be completely informal. There has to be some level of decorum in a work related gathering. Going out for drinks is just the guys being guys.

CFS, in academia, there are tons of informal work-related gatherings because a good chunk of your friends are also your colleagues. Something is work-related when you are hanging out as a group of people that you know through work. There, you typically talk about...work. So it is work-related even if it's not some kind of official function. Here are some examples:

• 
  
• My department goes out for drinks after class every Wednesday as a chance to socialize as a bunch of colleagues outside of class. Topics for conversation are typically work-related.
• At conferences, people regularly grab food and/or drinks with people before, during, or after talks, where we discuss the talks we just heard.
• People invite colleagues other to go see performances of music (keep in mind that I am part of a department of music).
• A group of colleagues has a fantasy baseball league. Oftentimes we also make a March Madness pool. Here the topic is not work of course, but it's a way of bonding with colleagues, so it is still work-related.

Of course there is a limit here—if someone is insufferable, annoying, always causes a scene, etc., obviously you don't invite them regardless of gender—but what the article is talking about is a societal tendency to assume that women don't want to go grab a beer, be in the fantasy baseball league, watch the football game, talk about the mathy paper that someone presented. etc. I think this is less of a problem for our generation as women are more socially drinking beer and talking about sports these days. But you (and others) seemed confused about how this could even possibly be a thing, so there are some examples.

This isn't just acadamia. This is true for every other profession out there. I disagree that talking shop automatically makes the event work related. It's probably the most common thread between each person in the group so it's only natural that shop would be the main focus of conversation. Going for drinks or fantasy football leagues are all very much not work. In my opinion anyway. Though I do know some work places have company organized fantasy leagues. That I would say is work related.

I don't want you to think I am seeing this as all black and white though. Those conferences are work related. Your'e representing your company or school. The breaks in between panels and such are kind of a gray area it hink because you are not really representing anything for those few moments, but you kind of are. Whatever... I hope I made sense there.

[Mark]

Basketball is an improper analogy, because basketball is not integral to my success as an academic. Being able to express my opinions in scholarly discourse is. 

 

there are games, and games in which it can reasonably be said that women are naturally disadvantaged,

I see "scholarly discourse" might be considered to be one of them.

and if so then it not wrong, and it is not unfair.

 

it may not be a very nice game to play, but you either play or you dont.

games like earning a successful career in basketball.

 

I am not saying that scholarly discourse should involve people talking over each other. but in so far as people are free to express their desire to raise their voice in a discussion they care about (I see no reason why men are predisposed to do this any more then women) then so too do 'shouting matches' occur, and I see it as a fair game (with natural rules) in which women might be disadvantaged.

if you wish to play another nicer game, with rules you which can be reasonably enforced, I daresay you would be most welcome to propose it.

 

 

 

 

One thing arunma said that I disagree with was the notion that women are a weaker side of the species. He is technically correct that on average men are stronger, but this is a statistical reality. Not a biological one. Of coure I don't if that was what arunma was really saying

 

I dont know of ANY reason why strength should not be considered an area of potential biological difference.

 

 

Parenthetically, I rarely see a woman pushing a lawn-mower. Not unless they've got a hobby garden, anyway. Disproportionately burdened my ass.

 

lol

 

 

Multiple times, as I lock up my bike when I get to work to teach my classes, men have come up to me asking if I need help or directions or something like that. I understand that each one of them probably thinks they're just being friendly and helpful, but what's communicated to me by the fact that multiple men do it on a semi-regular basis is "You look like you can't handle these things on your own and men feel the need to help you." Similarly, every single day, literally, that I leave my apartment looking nice (and by "nice", I don't mean "sexy"—just put together), I get catcalled by strangers. Maybe one guy on his own thinks he's just brightening someone's day by telling them they're beautiful. But the composite of all of these strangers' actions put together is just tiresome. 

Contrast:

now being courteous is something you ought to fight against?

 

If I were part of a culture in which random women would pro-actively cook and offer me scons if they sensed I was hungry under the assumption that because I was a man I probably couldn't cook (which I daresay is statistically justified btw. ) I seriously don't think I would complain.

 

open doors, and help the woman with luggage etc. be courteous and proactive about helping. are virtues mums tend to pass down to sons, and a slice of women seem to think is a good thing too. how is a guy supposed to know otherwise?

furthermore it seems that shows of generous character are things which traditionally women have chosen for in mates - and some even call those actions 'chivalrous' - should a guy change his behavioral showing of his generosity just because he isnt trying to impress someone?

as a result, society smiles on guys who try to help girls out.

do you want to change that?

 

If this does make a climate of sexism, I believe that there is a fair case that it goes the other way in this case.

 

 

 

 

 It is well documented that assertive behavior from women is perceived as bitchy, bossy, and controlling whereas from men it's seen as being a strong leader and a go-getter.

...

Seriously, this really perplexes me why you all are adamantly defending this behavior.

So again, I'd like to reiterate: The point is not for you to find ways to figure out how it could be excusable, e.g., "Well I'm just rude to everyone regardless of gender." Instead, consider it from a woman's perspective: "All these guys interrupt me all the time."
 
It is concerning to me that all of you are more concerned about how to excuse thoughtless and rude behavior than you are about admitting that it could possibly be contributing to an atmosphere of sexism, whether that is your intention or not.

 

Well, I am a bloke. And I feel quite comfortable about being one, and I do think that there needs to be an opposing voice.

feminism and its ideas and attitudes, are celebrated, taught, and held by so many. and by enlarge I agree.

but I am a bloke. and there are some things which I dont like.

 

I make a point of being a little bit of an anti-feminist. because I like being the devils advocate, I like being the underdog, and because I am.

and sometimes I am right:

Consider that there is a real sense in which many games of soccor that I played in school is blatantly sexist. (where the girls score is worth twice the guys)

    how is an nonathletic guy supposed to feel, when he has to participate in a such a class game?

 

I think that there needs to be a male voice too. I do empathize but that dosnt mean I should agree.

 

there is a part of me that is tired of hearing complaining about inequality and injustice.

perhaps it is because I am a white male, i might not see it as often as it is there.

what I do see however is constant calls from feminism - sometimes justified, sometimes questionable, and sometimes blatantly silly.

but for whatever glorified soapbox there exists for women to whine about their lot, I hardly see nearly as much for the men - a group of people which I belong to.

 

 

 

 

consider that "It is well documented that assertive behavior from women is perceived as bitchy, bossy, and controlling whereas from men it's seen as being a strong leader and a go-getter."

I suspect that this behavior should entirely and naturally dissapear as soon as it becomes the case that women no longer strongly select for social power and general success in guys.

sometimes i get the feeling that simply saying 'it is life - deal with it', and 'you cant have your cake and eat it too'. are perfect responses.

 

there is only so much padding that can go round.

[Masamune]

 

I think that there needs to be a male voice too. I do empathize but that dosnt mean I should agree.

 

there is a part of me that is tired of hearing complaining about inequality and injustice.

perhaps it is because I am a white male, i might not see it as often as it is there.

what I do see however is constant calls from feminism - sometimes justified, sometimes questionable, and sometimes blatantly silly.

but for whatever glorified soapbox there exists for women to whine about their lot, I hardly see nearly as much for the men - a group of people which I belong to.

 

Seriously, that voice is heard a lot. And I see it so, so much more than feminist voice. For every feminist who is trying to promote equality, there's ten guys who are getting extremely offended and claiming they're not like that. And then there's one in those ten that threaten the feminist about 'putting her in her place'. There's really no 'underdog' for anti-feminism that you're claiming. The internet (and good lord Tumblr) exaggerates how prevalent this opinion is. But when you consider that the internet is populated heavily by teens and twenties, it's no wonder that it has an extremely heavily liberal lean. So maybe on the internet, being a white guy may make you feel like some kind of villain. I used to feel that a lot.

 

But out in the real world, it's not like that at all. There's no underdog for us to belong to. The male voice is extremely loud and clear and needs little defending.

[Jasi]

The blog post mentioned benevolent sexism. I guess I just don't buy it. It sounds more like over sensitivity to me. I think of sexism as more of an overall set of behaviors that is couple with a certain attitude towards women. Not necessarily a hostile attitude, but kind of looking down on women. Or women doing it to men. Absent the attitude, in a good number cases anyway, I think it is unfair to label anyone a sexist.

That isn't to say that awareness isn't a good thing, but it is a two way street isn't it? Maybe men should try to keep in mind the way they may be making their female coworkers feel. But, like in the case of guys asking you if you need help, shouldn't maybe some women lighten up and see it as just the helpful offer it really is?

Yes, and as I said in my post already, I realize that each individual man does not necessarily have sexist intentions. For them maybe they are just doing this just once. For this reason, I'm not going to snap at a guy if he offers to help me carry my things; I'll just politely say "no thank you." (And repeat it over and over when they continue insisting that they are willing to help.) But if someone is inviting the discussion on the topic of sexism and feminism, I have to say that is an example of sexism being pervasive in our culture. Yet again I restate, it's about the big picture from the woman's perspective, not about each individual instance from the man's perspective.
 

I'll go to a bit of an extreme here. I have been thinking of your worry of coming off as abitch when you fight back in those shouting matches. I ask who cares if you sound shrill or get accused of bitchiness? I say own it. Be a bitch and show them what's what. This last bit isn't really a 100% serious argument and it might just be my own opinion that no one else really shares.

 
Well, I care, because I am not a bitch. I shouldn't have to be a bitch just to have my voice heard if others don't have to be bitches to make their voices heard. I shouldn't have to "own" a negative personality trait in order to be treated equally. I prefer to come off as a person who is extroveerted, likes to participate, and is opinionated, but also kind and respectful, and I don't think that's too much to ask nor do I think it's contradictory.
 

This isn't just acadamia. This is true for every other profession out there. I disagree that talking shop automatically makes the event work related. It's probably the most common thread between each person in the group so it's only natural that shop would be the main focus of conversation. Going for drinks or fantasy football leagues are all very much not work. In my opinion anyway. Though I do know some work places have company organized fantasy leagues. That I would say is work related.

I don't want you to think I am seeing this as all black and white though. Those conferences are work related. Your'e representing your company or school. The breaks in between panels and such are kind of a gray area it hink because you are not really representing anything for those few moments, but you kind of are. Whatever... I hope I made sense there.

Maybe what I didn't make clear is that in academia, networking and connections matter a lot, and conversation and ideas matters a lot. Academia is very much bound up in conversation as our jobs are to talk about stuff (either literally or in print) rather than to produce a product. It's not just shop talk, it really is part of your job, and if you don't do it, you will be less successful, guaranteed.

 

Also, at least in my field, it's a very small world. The people you're drinking with, grabbing lunch with, in a fantasy baseball league with, will at some point be chairing your session at a conference, on your hiring committee for the next job you're up for, editing the journal you submitted to,  talking about you to other colleagues, so on.

 

So they are not just your colleagues, but also people who at some point may hold some kind of power over you, that you want to have on your side. If you never get the opportunity to do network with these people because no one thinks you'll want to hang out and they don't bother inviting you...yikes. 

 

This part, I think, is a little bit different from your typical office job. If you don't like the people you work with at Company X, you can easily quit and get a job with Company Y and hardly have to deal with Company X again (and if you do, you're surprised and it's a story to tell). It's really not that way in academia, or at least certainly not in music theory.
 

 

Basketball is an improper analogy, because basketball is not integral to my success as an academic. Being able to express my opinions in scholarly discourse is.

 
there are games, and games in which it can reasonably be said that women are naturally disadvantaged,
I see "scholarly discourse" might be considered to be one of them.
and if so then it not wrong, and it is not unfair.
 
it may not be a very nice game to play, but you either play or you dont.
games like earning a successful career in basketball.
 
I am not saying that scholarly discourse should involve people talking over each other. but in so far as people are free to express their desire to raise their voice in a discussion they care about (I see no reason why men are predisposed to do this any more then women) then so too do 'shouting matches' occur, and I see it as a fair game (with natural rules) in which women might be disadvantaged.
if you wish to play another nicer game, with rules you which can be reasonably enforced, I daresay you would be most welcome to propose it.

 

Let me take a step back. Let's say we take gender out of it. Let's say the statement, instead of involving gender, just says "Be more respectful in discourse and don't interrupt anybody." Would your response still be "No, that's not a reasonable request, deal with it"? Would you really say that people who are not willing to be disrespectful should just leave academia? That their opinions are not valuable enough to modify rude people's behavior in order to let the opinions of more respectful people be heard, and that this is not wrong or unfair? Because that is bizarre to me and I really don't have anything more to say about it other than "why in the world would you hold that opinion".

 

Now to take the step back forward and put gender back into the equation, yes, it is proven that men interrupt more than women and generally dominate conversations more. I googled it and found at a meta analysis of studies about gender and interruption, and the meta analysis showed that throughout twenty-something studies on this topic, most of them showed that men are more likely to interrupt people in a conversation than women. So that is the reason why one might say this is a gendered issue.

 

 

If I were part of a culture in which random women would pro-actively cook and offer me scons if they sensed I was hungry under the assumption that because I was a man I probably couldn't cook (which I daresay is statistically justified btw. ) I seriously don't think I would complain.

 

 

...you have got to be kidding. That is still a position where women are acting in servitude toward men. Of course that would not be something to complain about. Women are bringing you free goodies. 

 

If you were part of a culture where women interrupted you constantly, dismissed your opinions, were ignoring your talents in favor of saying things like "Like I said, I actively want to look at cocks, so I obviously don't have an aversion to men in social settings. Hell, I wish I could go to work and see nothing but hot boys doing physics," were paid more than you, and were more likely to be selected for jobs, promotions, publications, conferences, and so on, might you complain then? That's a better comparison, and that's what we're talking about here. 

 

Well, I am a bloke. And I feel quite comfortable about being one, and I do think that there needs to be an opposing voice.
feminism and its ideas and attitudes, are celebrated, taught, and held by so many. and by enlarge I agree.
but I am a bloke. and there are some things which I dont like.
 
I make a point of being a little bit of an anti-feminist. because I like being the devils advocate, I like being the underdog, and because I am.
and sometimes I am right:
Consider that there is a real sense in which many games of soccor that I played in school is blatantly sexist. (where the girls score is worth twice the guys)
    how is an nonathletic guy supposed to feel, when he has to participate in a such a class game?
 
I think that there needs to be a male voice too. I do empathize but that dosnt mean I should agree.
 
there is a part of me that is tired of hearing complaining about inequality and injustice.
perhaps it is because I am a white male, i might not see it as often as it is there.
what I do see however is constant calls from feminism - sometimes justified, sometimes questionable, and sometimes blatantly silly.
but for whatever glorified soapbox there exists for women to whine about their lot, I hardly see nearly as much for the men - a group of people which I belong to.

Masamune kind of already touched on this, but I do not know what world you are living in if you think that feminism has overtaken misogyny in our society. 

 

Also, fyi, feminism is not "men are awful, give everything to women". Feminism is for equality and that includes equality for men. Feminism would say that it is indeed sexist to have a girls team vs. a boys team in a soccer game and to count the girls' points double. Instead it would be better to have an even mix of girls and boys on each soccer team. Feminism says that men and women should have equal chance to get custody of a child in a custody battle, that men are also potential victims of rape and should be considered as such, and that you shouldn't tell guys to "man up" or otherwise stop having emotions because men can have emotions too. Feminism is about equality, not special treatment. But it is also about opening people's eyes to the fact of how pervasive sexism is in our society to the point where people outright deny its existence. Which is absurd.

 

 

edit: and I just want to add, so you all realize, that I am far from the World Champion of Feminism. I honestly can't be bothered to care about a lot of it because I don't have the time or energy. I am just so shocked by what some of you are saying that I need to address it. So don't think of me over here like this or something. I am just a normal woman.

Edited by Jasi, 02 October 2013 - 11:16 AM.

[deep]

Mark, I have a special place for people just like you. You'll like it there.

[arunma]

Haha, I've done it! I've revived Contro! Sure, it took a crazyass, batshit topic, but I've succeeded (and yes, I do believe everything I wrote).

OK, I waited on purpose for a bunch of people to respond before saying anything myself. Obviously it would be impractical to respond in full to 14 posts though, so if anyone made a point and they think I didn't address, just point it out to me again.
 

Did you miss the part where she said "Offer help, and drop it if help is declined"? She's not against helping out in that way, it's being persistent about it when you've already been told no that is a problem.

I didn't miss it at all. But here's a question: what if I'm in charge of one dude and one chick out at some remote site, and we have to split in half to do some task? Mind you, where I go there's rattlesnakes, bears, and other nasty shit (yeah, the chance of running into one is minute, but when you're in charge you tend not to take chances). What if I either consistently go with the girl or make the other guy go with the girl, because said girl is 110 lbs and shouldn't be carrying heavy oscilloscopes up 15 foot ladders? Possibly she'll start to feel "chaperoned," and decline help. Alas, I'm in charge of these two and have to make the best decision, but I'm being asked not to be sexist when my discriminating variable is a genuine difference between men and women (i.e. men tend to be physically tougher). You see the difficult position I'm in.

I should note that this example is only half hypothetical. I've been in charge of one guy and one girl on multiple occasions. The girl has never accused me of being sexist. Hell, one of the girls I worked with even joked about how she'd be carried off by a bear if left alone.
 

What in the world? How did you take from the article that she wants to have your boss police your private life to enforce feminism??? All I took it to mean is that if both the man and the woman are both working, then housework should be shared equally. In that situation, is that not the fair and equal thing to do? It may be your private life, but this is a specifically an article on how not to be sexist, so giving some advice about how to treat women in your private life isn't out of order.

Well, I disagree here on the scope of the article; as far as I can tell it's about how not to be sexist in the academic workplace. Furthermore, these are sentiments that a lot of people might want to codify into department policies, which is why I'm speaking against it. To answer your question how how I take it that she wants to dictate my private life, I'll say something, but please take what I mean and not what I say: I have a right to be sexist in my private life. If I want to live with some girl, have her do all of the housework, and ask me for permission before voicing an opinion in public, then as long as we both consent to this relationship it's our right to keep living like this. This, after all, is what we talk about when we say that we have "freedom" in America. If I and some girl want to live with a seventeenth century definition of gender roles, then as long as it's not affecting anyone else we should be allowed to do so, and my workplace shouldn't be allowed to dictate my personal life on pain of termination. I don't want to ever run into a situation where professors or postdocs have their wives/girlfriends surveyed to make sure they're practicing gender equality at home.

Note that I'd never want to live with a girl who didn't express her opinions and such. For me this is a sort of an "I disagree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it" situation. I fully support the right of male chauvinists to live with women who like being oppressed, and it's not the physics department's job to police that.
 

I don't understand why you are taking the article so personally. It's just saying that SOME men will exclude women from their gatherings with co-workers specifically because they are women, and that's a sexist thing to do, so if you want to avoid being sexist you should try to be more inclusive. It could have been worded a little better though.

Well, the wording is REALLY important though. I have a friend in the chemistry department who behaved "inappropriately" (not to a girl, just in general) while he was hanging out with other chemistry students informally. Apparently someone with a like mind to this blogger chick wrote the behavior code for the chemistry department, and he actually got his pay docked for this. I didn't even know they could do that! It's not that I'm taking it personally. I just recognize there's a real danger in having universities enforce their ethics in peoples' personal lives.
 

I'll speak a bit more to the interrupting thing specifically. As you probably know I'm also a PhD student, arunma. I now am studying in NYC where it seems to be the culture to interrupt people regularly. It still pisses me off when people—and it's nearly always guys—interrupt me in the context of a scholarly discussion.

Iin a way, it's not so different from the issue of offering to carry a woman's equipment for her. Like how men are naturally stronger, a lot of men naturally have louder voices, and even if they don't, it's much easier for them to speak loudly on purpose without getting shrill and irritating. In order for me to talk over a lot of my male colleagues, my voice needs to be pitched much higher, which I am very self-conscious about doing because it sounds irritating and has negative connotations.

Not to mention, interrupting people is just rude, regardless of gender.

 
Yup Jasi, I knew that you, like me, are currently Piled Higher and Deeper.

So regarding this, it gets back to my "equal treatment, not special treatment" ethic. I'm not sure how strong of an analogy there is between speaking voices and physical strength. I know lots of women who are as loud as men, some who are louder. Is there a statistical trend one way or another? I honestly don't know. If there is, then the solution here would be to compensate for the disparity; maybe give the girls microphones at group meetings (we'll have to work this out so that it's not awkward). Now I agree that interrupting people is rude, and I wish people didn't do this. But if we're going to say that you shouldn't interrupt people, let's not bring sex into it at all. Otherwise you run into a situation where everyone in a research group is used to interrupting each other, the new girl comes in, accuses a dude of being sexist, and then that dude is afraid to even interact with her. This has never happened to me, but if some grad student handbook actually said "don't interrupt a woman when she's talking," I know I'd avoid even talking when a woman is around.  And I'm sure that no one wants that.
 

One thing arunma said that I disagree with was the notion that women are a weaker side of the species. He is technically correct that on average men are stronger, but this is a statistical reality. Not a biological one. Of coure I don't if that was what arunma was really saying.

 
To clarify, I don't know if biology pressures women to be weaker from a muscular standpoint.  We both agree there's a statistical correlation.  If we have any physiology people here, they can talk about biological differences.  Nonetheless, statistics is, I think, enough for us to make discriminations when strength is relevant.  I would agree though that if there's no biologically necessitated difference, then in principle we shouldn't discriminate.
 

CFS, in academia, there are tons of informal work-related gatherings because a good chunk of your friends are also your colleagues. Something is work-related when you are hanging out as a group of people that you know through work. There, you typically talk about...work. So it is work-related even if it's not some kind of official function.

Yeah, it's absolutely true that the informal stuff isn't entirely optional.  Most people I know who weren't at least somewhat social ended up failing out.  And yet, the fact is that it remains informal, which by definition means the boss isn't mandating it.  If my job description said, "go get beers with your co-workers and discuss data analysis," then I would do that and wouldn't discriminate against anyone based on whether or not I like hanging out with them.  But it's not in my job description.  So again, not to get too grandiose but this is a matter of freedom.  My boss doesn't have the right to tell me how I spend my free time.  If I hate all women because they have boobs and don't want to be near them anymore than I have to, as long as it doesn't affect what I do with work I should be free to make bar night a sausage fest.

 

The fact that my hypothetical mentions hating boobs should give you an indication of whether or not I actually hate women.

[arunma]

Seriously, that voice is heard a lot. And I see it so, so much more than feminist voice. For every feminist who is trying to promote equality, there's ten guys who are getting extremely offended and claiming they're not like that. And then there's one in those ten that threaten the feminist about 'putting her in her place'. There's really no 'underdog' for anti-feminism that you're claiming. The internet (and good lord Tumblr) exaggerates how prevalent this opinion is. But when you consider that the internet is populated heavily by teens and twenties, it's no wonder that it has an extremely heavily liberal lean. So maybe on the internet, being a white guy may make you feel like some kind of villain. I used to feel that a lot.

 

But out in the real world, it's not like that at all. There's no underdog for us to belong to. The male voice is extremely loud and clear and needs little defending.

 

 

Yeah, being a white guy does seem to carry with it some sort of guilt complex.  But let me open this discussion up a bit: what if you're the brown guy (i.e. me)?

 

This discussion reminds me a lot about the same attitude that comes into play with discussions of racial inequality.  In both cases, someone is playing the victim card.  The ethic is, "this group has historically oppressed my group, therefore this group needs a collective attitude readjustment."  There are two problems I have with this.  First, discrimination is done by people, not groups.  I think we all agree that catcalls, unequal pay for equal work, telling a girl to go back in the kitchen, etc. is not OK.  But whereas I'm for simply treating people equally, others are for assymetric treatment of men and women, e.g. telling men not to talk over women, telling them to invite women for beers, and stuff.  If you think that a guy isn't being nice to girls, then go ahead and talk to that guy.  But please don't talk to guys as a group.

 

Second, I am highly uncomfortable with the idea of trying to control people's thoughts.  This is effectively the same as legislating morality, the only difference is that in this case the morality isn't coming from some religious book.  The thing we must all accept is that if someone wants to hate women, that's his right.  There are no thought crimes.  The only thing universities should be allowed to do is control people's behavior at work.  If I'm a professor and I'm rejecting qualified female grad students for less qualified men, preferentially interrupting female faculty during meetings, or looking down my female postdocs' tops (OK...maybe that last one isn't so hypothetical), then go ahead and discipline me.  All I ask is that you not come to my house and make sure my wife/girlfriend isn't doing an unfair amount of cooking, or interrogate my friends to see if I invite girls to the bar, on the off chance that any percieved discrimination against women in my personal life will translate over to the office.  In short: if you're my boss then don't tell me what opinions to have.

[SteveT]

 But whereas I'm for simply treating people equally, others are for assymetric treatment of men and women, e.g. telling men not to talk over women, telling them to invite women for beers, and stuff.

 

I feel like this thread would have been a lot shorter if they left the feminism out of it and just wrote about the importance of being civil to coworkers.

 

-Don't arbitrarily expect a coworker to bring you coffee

-Don't race coworkers to the door so you can hold it for them

-Address your coworker by title and last name

-Don’t talk over your colleagues. Different people communicate differently. You may not realize that you’re doing it, but if you find yourself interrupting coworkers, or speaking over them, stop.

-Don’t refuse to go through doors opened by a coworker, insist on carrying their field equipment, etc. Offer help, and drop it if help is declined.

-Pay attention to who you invite to informal work-related gatherings. If you’re often going out with members of your lab or department for drinks, make an effort to include everyone. You may be shutting your colleagues out from research opportunities or the sharing of ideas that happen in informal settings.

 

Take the gender out of it, and let me know if your hackles are still up.

 

Yeah, being a white guy does seem to carry with it some sort of guilt complex.  But let me open this discussion up a bit: what if you're the brown guy (i.e. me)?

 

Then you've got it twice as bad because now the stereotype is that you don't even have the guilt complex about sexism.

Edited by SteveT, 02 October 2013 - 10:12 PM.

[Hana-Nezumi]

Did you miss the part where she said "Offer help, and drop it if help is declined"? She's not against helping out in that way, it's being persistent about it when you've already been told no that is a problem.

I didn't miss it at all. But here's a question: what if I'm in charge of one dude and one chick out at some remote site, and we have to split in half to do some task? Mind you, where I go there's rattlesnakes, bears, and other nasty shit (yeah, the chance of running into one is minute, but when you're in charge you tend not to take chances). What if I either consistently go with the girl or make the other guy go with the girl, because said girl is 110 lbs and shouldn't be carrying heavy oscilloscopes up 15 foot ladders? Possibly she'll start to feel "chaperoned," and decline help. Alas, I'm in charge of these two and have to make the best decision, but I'm being asked not to be sexist when my discriminating variable is a genuine difference between men and women (i.e. men tend to be physically tougher). You see the difficult position I'm in.

I should note that this example is only half hypothetical. I've been in charge of one guy and one girl on multiple occasions. The girl has never accused me of being sexist. Hell, one of the girls I worked with even joked about how she'd be carried off by a bear if left alone.

If one is insistent on not letting a woman carry large equipment, etc. just because she's a woman, then it's sexist. If it's because she's 110 lb, AND one would do the same to a 110 lb man, then it's not sexist. But the problem specifically is the PERSISTENCE of it that is a problem, because if she says she can handle it on her own, but one doesn't let her, then one is deciding for her what her own capabilities are. If one would be as persistent if a small 110 lb man said he could handle it on HIS own, then it's not sexist. But even then, it's still disrespectful the person because one would be trusting one's prejudice over the person's own individual awareness of their body and strength.
 

What in the world? How did you take from the article that she wants to have your boss police your private life to enforce feminism??? All I took it to mean is that if both the man and the woman are both working, then housework should be shared equally. In that situation, is that not the fair and equal thing to do? It may be your private life, but this is a specifically an article on how not to be sexist, so giving some advice about how to treat women in your private life isn't out of order.

Well, I disagree here on the scope of the article; as far as I can tell it's about how not to be sexist in the academic workplace. Furthermore, these are sentiments that a lot of people might want to codify into department policies, which is why I'm speaking against it. To answer your question how how I take it that she wants to dictate my private life, I'll say something, but please take what I mean and not what I say: I have a right to be sexist in my private life. If I want to live with some girl, have her do all of the housework, and ask me for permission before voicing an opinion in public, then as long as we both consent to this relationship it's our right to keep living like this. This, after all, is what we talk about when we say that we have "freedom" in America. If I and some girl want to live with a seventeenth century definition of gender roles, then as long as it's not affecting anyone else we should be allowed to do so, and my workplace shouldn't be allowed to dictate my personal life on pain of termination. I don't want to ever run into a situation where professors or postdocs have their wives/girlfriends surveyed to make sure they're practicing gender equality at home.

Note that I'd never want to live with a girl who didn't express her opinions and such. For me this is a sort of an "I disagree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it" situation. I fully support the right of male chauvinists to live with women who like being oppressed, and it's not the physics department's job to police that.

I also believe that one should be ALLOWED to do that. But I don't think that one SHOULD. And I think the freedom to tell people they shouldn't live like that is also important. And this mere suggestion in a blog post is a VERY far cry from the institutionalized invasion of privacy you suggest it is trying to push for.
 

I don't understand why you are taking the article so personally. It's just saying that SOME men will exclude women from their gatherings with co-workers specifically because they are women, and that's a sexist thing to do, so if you want to avoid being sexist you should try to be more inclusive. It could have been worded a little better though.

Well, the wording is REALLY important though. I have a friend in the chemistry department who behaved "inappropriately" (not to a girl, just in general) while he was hanging out with other chemistry students informally. Apparently someone with a like mind to this blogger chick wrote the behavior code for the chemistry department, and he actually got his pay docked for this. I didn't even know they could do that! It's not that I'm taking it personally. I just recognize there's a real danger in having universities enforce their ethics in peoples' personal lives.

Again, I don't see the article or anyone here suggesting anything remotely close to that.
 

I'll speak a bit more to the interrupting thing specifically. As you probably know I'm also a PhD student, arunma. I now am studying in NYC where it seems to be the culture to interrupt people regularly. It still pisses me off when peopleand it's nearly always guysinterrupt me in the context of a scholarly discussion.

Iin a way, it's not so different from the issue of offering to carry a woman's equipment for her. Like how men are naturally stronger, a lot of men naturally have louder voices, and even if they don't, it's much easier for them to speak loudly on purpose without getting shrill and irritating. In order for me to talk over a lot of my male colleagues, my voice needs to be pitched much higher, which I am very self-conscious about doing because it sounds irritating and has negative connotations.

Not to mention, interrupting people is just rude, regardless of gender.

 
Yup Jasi, I knew that you, like me, are currently Piled Higher and Deeper.

So regarding this, it gets back to my "equal treatment, not special treatment" ethic. I'm not sure how strong of an analogy there is between speaking voices and physical strength. I know lots of women who are as loud as men, some who are louder. Is there a statistical trend one way or another? I honestly don't know. If there is, then the solution here would be to compensate for the disparity; maybe give the girls microphones at group meetings (we'll have to work this out so that it's not awkward). Now I agree that interrupting people is rude, and I wish people didn't do this. But if we're going to say that you shouldn't interrupt people, let's not bring sex into it at all. Otherwise you run into a situation where everyone in a research group is used to interrupting each other, the new girl comes in, accuses a dude of being sexist, and then that dude is afraid to even interact with her. This has never happened to me, but if some grad student handbook actually said "don't interrupt a woman when she's talking," I know I'd avoid even talking when a woman is around.  And I'm sure that no one wants that.

The only reason sex is brought up is because some men DO talk over women in a very sexist and dismissive manner. If that's not you, then you're not the one being criticized here.

Edited by Hana-Nezumi, 03 October 2013 - 12:28 AM.

[Mark]

If I were part of a culture in which random women would pro-actively cook and offer me scons if they sensed I was hungry under the assumption that because I was a man I probably couldn't cook (which I daresay is statistically justified btw. ) I seriously don't think I would complain.

 

 

 
...you have got to be kidding. That is still a position where women are acting in servitude toward men. Of course that would not be something to complain about. Women are bringing you free goodies. 
 
If you were part of a culture where women interrupted you constantly, dismissed your opinions, were ignoring your talents in favor of saying things like "Like I said, I actively want to look at cocks, so I obviously don't have an aversion to men in social settings. Hell, I wish I could go to work and see nothing but hot boys doing physics," were paid more than you, and were more likely to be selected for jobs, promotions, publications, conferences, and so on, might you complain then? That's a better comparison, and that's what we're talking about here.

 
And in the same way, men give you 'free goodies' when/if they open doors and carry stuff for you. - why complain?
 
 
I actually agree, it isnt particularly nice to be seen as an object, or knowing that your likely to be inhibited to some degree.
It isnt fun to know that you are viewed to be physically weaker, or to be confronted with unwelcome calls or comments.
 
 
you have challenged me to empathize with women and their circumstances - fair enough.
I challenge you to develop a deeper understanding of why men behave the way they do.

EDIT: I am very serious here.

 

EDIT 2: tried to fix reformatting from editing ..... irritating....

 

EDIT 3: re-inserting lost peice:

 

 

 

 

Mark, on 02 Oct 2013 - 8:51 PM, said:

 

Jasi, on 02 Oct 2013 - 02:01 AM, said:

Basketball is an improper analogy, because basketball is not integral to my success as an academic. Being able to express my opinions in scholarly discourse is.

 
there are games, and games in which it can reasonably be said that women are naturally disadvantaged,
I see "scholarly discourse" might be considered to be one of them.
and if so then it not wrong, and it is not unfair.
 
it may not be a very nice game to play, but you either play or you dont.
games like earning a successful career in basketball.
 
I am not saying that scholarly discourse should involve people talking over each other. but in so far as people are free to express their desire to raise their voice in a discussion they care about (I see no reason why men are predisposed to do this any more then women) then so too do 'shouting matches' occur, and I see it as a fair game (with natural rules) in which women might be disadvantaged.
if you wish to play another nicer game, with rules you which can be reasonably enforced, I daresay you would be most welcome to propose it.

 

Let me take a step back. Let's say we take gender out of it. Let's say the statement, instead of involving gender, just says "Be more respectful in discourse and don't interrupt anybody." Would your response still be "No, that's not a reasonable request, deal with it"? Would you really say that people who are not willing to be disrespectful should just leave academia? That their opinions are not valuable enough to modify rude people's behavior in order to let the opinions of more respectful people be heard, and that this is not wrong or unfair? Because that is bizarre to me and I really don't have anything more to say about it other than "why in the world would you hold that opinion".

 

Now to take the step back forward and put gender back into the equation, yes, it is proven that men interrupt more than women and generally dominate conversations more. I googled it and found at a meta analysis of studies about gender and interruption, and the meta analysis showed that throughout twenty-something studies on this topic, most of them showed that men are more likely to interrupt people in a conversation than women. So that is the reason why one might say this is a gendered issue.

 

 

good point.

Edited by Mark, 03 October 2013 - 02:36 AM.

[Sir Deimos]

Except, Mark, your 'challenge' is basically sexist as all fuck. I am beside myself with wonderment.

[Mark]

Except, Mark, your 'challenge' is basically sexist as all fuck. I am beside myself with wonderment.

 

Lol

[Hana-Nezumi]

Mark, it's hard to find your point, but is what you're basically saying that you don't like being expected to be nice to women for the sake of chivalry? That's not oppression, that's just common decency that really should be done for any man or woman and nobody's FORCING you to.

[Kisseena]

 

Also, fyi, feminism is not "men are awful, give everything to women". Feminism is for equality and that includes equality for men. Feminism would say that it is indeed sexist to have a girls team vs. a boys team in a soccer game and to count the girls' points double. Instead it would be better to have an even mix of girls and boys on each soccer team. Feminism says that men and women should have equal chance to get custody of a child in a custody battle, that men are also potential victims of rape and should be considered as such, and that you shouldn't tell guys to "man up" or otherwise stop having emotions because men can have emotions too. Feminism is about equality, not special treatment. But it is also about opening people's eyes to the fact of how pervasive sexism is in our society to the point where people outright deny its existence. Which is absurd.

 

 

edit: and I just want to add, so you all realize, that I am far from the World Champion of Feminism. I honestly can't be bothered to care about a lot of it because I don't have the time or energy. I am just so shocked by what some of you are saying that I need to address it. So don't think of me over here like this or something. I am just a normal woman.

 

 

I'm just gonna say something here really fast. I haven't read everything in this thread, but I saw this, and this is pretty much what I think "feminism" is all about. I think it's just common sense, really. Everyone should be treated equally. No special treatment to any particular group.

 

In my major (elementary education), it's kind of backwards. Men are more discriminated against because if they want to be elementary school teachers, apparently they want to rape all the children. They cannot be in a room with a student alone if a student wants to eat lunch with the teacher, they generally can't have physical contact (hugging, touching the shoulder, etc.) And they ESPECIALLY can't have students on their laps. I think no one should ever have students on their laps, but if a woman did it, it's "Oh, how sweet" compared to "OH THAT'S DISGUSTING." That's completely not fair.

Just like if a woman wanted to be a cop or whatever, she would be considered "weak" or "not good enough" (Same goes for other professions that are usually male dominated)

Let women be firefighters and cops or whatever and let men be nurses and teachers without any judgement. Just let anyone be what they want to be without making dumb assumptions like that. Equal treatment.

 

The sad thing is, this isn't generally what I see feminism being about. I usually the the "MEN SUCK WOMEN RULE" side of it. Whiiiich is really tiring.

I'm tired of seeing the "Women/PoC need to get back and be on top! Take the white man down!" Why can't we just ignore all that stuff and just see each other as HUMANS and just be nice and civil to each other? 

 

But that makes too much sense for people to understand.

 

 

Also that comic made me laugh.

Edited by Kisseena, 03 October 2013 - 11:42 AM.

[Hana-Nezumi]

I also am tired of the feminists who are like that, and unfortunately they've changed the face of feminism so that most people who actually are feminists by the true definition don't want to identify as feminists because they don't want to be associated with the misandrists who are trying to hijack feminism and make it into something it's not.

Although I feel like 'feminism' is a bit of a misnomer in the first place because it doesn't seem to acknowledge the fact that sexism again men does exit as well. I guess it's better to just say "I support gender equality" because I don't know if it's possible to take feminism back from the radicals.

[Jasi]

arunma your entire argument here rests on the false premise that this blog post is some kind of law that's threatening your job security. Again, this is not the case. So everything you're saying like "I have a right to be misogynist" etc. is correct, but irrelevant. This isn't about what should be legal or illegal, it's about what is decent. Yes, you have a right to objectify women in the workplace and treat them differently than men. Sexism is not illegal. Neither is racism or homophobia. That doesn't and shouldn't stop anyone from telling you that it's not right.

[Fin]

there are games, and games in which it can reasonably be said that women are naturally disadvantaged,
I see "scholarly discourse" might be considered to be one of them.

haha did you seriously say that

Christ, dude.

Edited by Fin, 03 October 2013 - 12:44 PM.

[Jasi]

It does occur to me though, arunma, that if you did say in the workplace what you're willing to say on this forum, there is a good chance you would be fired for creating a hostile work environment. Hmm...

[Kisseena]

there are games, and games in which it can reasonably be said that women are naturally disadvantaged,
I see "scholarly discourse" might be considered to be one of them.

haha did you seriously say that

Christ, dude.

You made fin use capitalization and punctuation! This is srs business.

[SteveT]

haha did you seriously say that

Christ, dude. 

 

Based on what's been said, "Scholarly discourse" looks a lot like an episode of It's Always Sunny in Philedelphia.  And when has Sweet Dee ever won an argument?