Well I never

[drwex]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2015/06/02/help-my-adviser-wont-stop-looking-down-my-shirt/

I'd be interested in hearing from the female-identified scientists of my acquaintance (melebeth, coraline and others). What do you make of this?

It almost seems a comedy of errors to me. Ms. Huang's advice seems wrong, but so does Science magazine's response. No matter who or how good, every advice columnist is going to slip up now and then. I can think of cases where Miss Manners, Dear Abby and Dan Savage - all advice columnists I've read from time to time - made some pretty whopping errors and often apologized afterward.

But some errors aren't just errors - they're harmful. And when you're harming people (women) who are already in a disadvantaged situation (graduate and higher level work in the sciences) is that just an error to be apologized for? Or does it call for something more?

I honestly don't know what I think of such situations.

(Thanks to aelf for the original pointer.)

Comments

[aelf.livejournal.com]

The big elephant in the room that I didn't bring up and don't intend to discuss is that as a women it is incredibly fraught to bring up the possibility that someone is behaving in an inappropriate or sexist way, in a male dominated environment.

I mentioned, once, to my manager that something that was happening was unbalanced and it needed to be addressed. Rather than have a conversation about that thing, it quickly jumped to him being paranoid I was accusing him of sexist behavior and we got to have a conversation about him. Had I not been the sole woman in the (programming) group, and had my manager not been a "good guy" who was invested in being a "good guy," my name likely would have gone on the next list to be laid off because I'd become a potential liability (this is not imagined, I have seen this happen). My concern was never addressed. I do believe the unbalanced work situation was based on sexism. I also believe it will never be addressed because I work with "good guys" who are really concerned about being concerned about being "good guys" and will devote their entire energy to affirming that rather than addressing inequities.

Which is a long winded way of me saying that if my daughter told her parents that her adviser was staring down her shirt and asked for advice. My husband would say "tell him to knock it off" and I would start with "well, do you like where you're working/what you're doing?" Because in my husband's world, there's no retaliation for speaking up. In mine, there is.

[drwex]

Yep. Absence of retaliation/safety is a huge unacknowledged element of male privilege.

[eccentrific.livejournal.com]

Sadly, I think the original answer was the right one (in the sense that it's the only one that is likely to help the original poster; anything else jeopardizes her position). It's just not the one that people want to be the right one.

I mean, I understand where all the outrage is coming from... but it's not realistic to think that there is any possible way of dealing with inappropriate sexual advances from an academic advisor in today's world. Unless you're willing to lose your job to make a point.

[adrian-turtle.livejournal.com]

I agree with you that it can be necessary to advise a woman in a junior position "that's an inappropriate sexual advance, but you may not be able to stop it without risking retaliation. Is this something you can live with, or work around, or is it worth the risk of retaliation?"

I think it's really important to include the part about it being an inappropriate sexual advance. To say it's wrong, even if the target doesn't currently have enough power to protest. The original answer started by saying workplace flirting was to be expected, and feels a lot more like she's defending the professor's behavior as appropriate than like she means "it sucks, and you can't stop him."

Maybe it's a distinction that doesn't matter to other people...but I've found that validation helps me a lot. It seems especially important with no-contact harassment, where the "why are you making such a fuss, it's not like I'm hurting you" or "you're being unreasonable, nobody else complains about this" make it worse.

+1

[hammercock.livejournal.com]

Sad, but true about "good guys" being invested in being such to the point where you can't talk to them about sexist behavior without them feeling like their identity as good guys has been questioned and attacked. Same with white people in discussions of racism. Male and white fragility prevent real discussions of what they could do if they were actually as invested in acting as allies as they were in being perceived as allies. *sigh*

[catness.livejournal.com]

I know I'm late to the party, here, but this all day.

I had a candid conversation about sexism with my director a couple of months ago, and fortunately, we agreed to "remove sexism from the equation entirely and let's focus on the things that are Not That to try to make important changes" in how things are done in our group. Because the reality is, if you tell someone who doesn't know they're being sexist (especially those who engage in the "benign" types), you'll spend the next FOREVERS trying to make them feel better about their wounded pride and ego instead of getting any freaking work done.

[tshuma]

What you have written here is very much in line with my own experiences as a woman in software engineering.

[rmd.livejournal.com]

PZ Myers, unsurprisingly, had a very good response. I think it's linked from the Science apology.

[chienne-folle.livejournal.com]

My advice would depend on the personality and reputation of the adviser. When someone is the gatekeeper for a profession you want and can't achieve without their opening the gate, then you call them on bad behavior at your peril. There are a few people who'd be open to hearing "It makes me uncomfortable when you look down my shirt," but there are an awful lot more who would punish the student in some way. Unless she knows her adviser can hear criticism without punishing her for it, I'd simply advise the student to wear turtlenecks from now on.

Yes, it's unfair. Yes, it sucks. Welcome to the real world.

Nor is this only the result of sexism. When I was on my postdoc, my adviser was nicey-nice to me in public and deliberately emotionally abusive in private. When I tried to tell one of the senior staff what was happening, she told me to my face that I was a liar, because "Linda would never do that." The adviser, the person I reported her to, and I -- ALL of us were women -- but that didn't help me. Students come and go, but faculty and staff are there for decades. Few people want to rein in a misbehaving or even mentally ill faculty member if the only person they target is students. Most people would much rather look the other way and pretend it isn't happening.

[chhotii.livejournal.com]

OMFG

Dr. Huang's advice seems totally wacko and inappropriate. I don't know employment law in detail... but... that sounds like "hostile workplace environment" to me. But maybe science is in this crazy place where to stay in the field, you have to put up with whatever shit your PI pulls? That's totally sad.

Remind me again, what century are we living in?

[drwex]

I think it's the "Who's on first?" century.

I'm reminded of a famous quote from William Gibson: "The future is here; it's just not evenly distributed." He was referring to technology but I also think it's true of things like rights and social progress. Some parts of the world really are living in a more-equal, less-racist, less-sexist, equality-conscious future. But that future is far from evenly distributed.