Making science safe for women.....

[Sriram]

Hi everyone,

When I saw the heading on CNN, I wondered how science could be dangerous for women... or for anyone for that matter. I thought maybe it was something to do with nuclear reactors or some such.

No...its about sexual harassment in science and academic  circles. I guess scientists, professors and others are no different from executives, engineers, doctors and all others when it comes to sexual matters. And maybe because of the fairly rigid hierarchy present in such circles...it becomes more difficult for juniors to deal with it.

But to actually start a 'movement'  (Astronomy Allies) to address the situation.....and to walk people home after parties?!!!  Its that bad?!

http://us.cnn.com/2015/11/04/living/geoff-marcy-astronomy-harassment-feat/index.html

****************

It's a lesson most female astronomers learn at some point in their careers when they face unwanted sexual behavior from professors, advisers or anyone who holds their future in their hands.

Put your head down and don't say anything. Focus on the science.

Katey Alatalo heard it as a graduate student at University of California, Berkeley, where colleagues warned of certain professors and senior scientists you did not want to be alone with "behind closed doors."

Heather Flewelling was warned that reporting sexual harassment by a superior could work against her. After all, "these are the same people you might need a recommendation from" one day.

But when someone started stalking Flewelling at a conference, she found it impossible to ignore.

"I was terrified, and I reported it because I didn't feel safe at the conference," she said. "If I didn't get it fixed, I wouldn't go to another conference."

An investigation by the University of California, Berkeley, found that renowned astronomy professor Geoff Marcy repeatedly violated campus sexual harassment policies, based on complaints from four women between 2001 and 2010.

The investigation focused on four complainants who accused Marcy of repeatedly engaging in inappropriate physical behavior with students, including unwanted massages, kisses and groping.

For the co-founders of Astronomy Allies, these are all signs the scientific community might be ready to finally acknowledge a sexual harassment problem and do something about it.

"We're trying to turn this moment into a movement to improve the situation for junior scientists," Alatalo said. "We're too junior in the field to punish anybody, but we can tell people how to empower victims."

The group made its debut at the 2015 American Astronomical Society conference, its members wearing red buttons to make their presence known. Participants who feel they are being bothered by others could reach allies via text, email or phone to request subtle interventions. They also offered walks home from unofficial parties, giving participants a safe out from potentially uncomfortable situations.

******************

Maybe all the research on black holes is getting to them!

Cheers.

Sriram 

[Nearly Sane]

No indication in the report that this is more of a problem in a science based work arena. It's obviously easier to form a support group with the people you work with to deal with any workplace harassment.

[Harrowby Hall]

Although I detest the notion of sexual harrassment - particularly where it is practised by people with hierarchical authority, I do think that this incident appears to be - if not invented - then certainly cultured by the media.

...its about sexual harassment in science and academic  circles. I guess scientists, professors and others are no different from executives, engineers, doctors and all others when it comes to sexual matters. And maybe because of the fairly rigid hierarchy present in such circles...it becomes more difficult for juniors to deal with it.

I think that this says all that needs to be said here. Science is no "more dangerous for women" than any other activity. An incident, perhaps relating to the behaviour of a single individual, has been spun out of all significance. It is a problem in that particular situation but has no generality.

[Udayana]

How do we know it has "no generality" though?

Note that the article is not claiming that harassment is more rife in the sciences than other fields, but this group is just offering support to help deal with it if it happens.

[Harrowby Hall]

How do we know it has "no generality" though?

Note that the article is not claiming that harassment is more rife in the sciences than other fields, but this group is just offering support to help deal with it if it happens.

Why else would Sriram have posted it if he did not perceive a possible problem in the sciences? He does enjoy being provocative.

[Nearly Sane]

How do we know it has "no generality" though?

Note that the article is not claiming that harassment is more rife in the sciences than other fields, but this group is just offering support to help deal with it if it happens.

Why else would Sriram have posted it if he did not perceive a possible problem in the sciences? He does enjoy being provocative.

And people enjoy being provoked. Is it really that important why Sriram posted it if it offers possibility of interest and discussion?

[Outrider]

How do we know it has "no generality" though?

Note that the article is not claiming that harassment is more rife in the sciences than other fields, but this group is just offering support to help deal with it if it happens.

Why else would Sriram have posted it if he did not perceive a possible problem in the sciences? He does enjoy being provocative.

Because it's in the news media at the moment, and is on a topic whereby it's likely to be of interest to at least some of the people on the boards?

I suspect the reason it's being raised in science is because there's been quite a lot of talk recently, in government circles and the media, about the lack of women in the scientific professions - whether that makes it necessarily any worse an example of sexism, whether that makes sexism more common (or, perhaps worse, focussed onto fewer recipients) or not I don't know, but the demographic draws the attention and where there's attention there's media.

Whilst I'm not into the 'man's rights' movement in the slightest, I do find it slightly ironic that people are - rightly - ready to talk about the under-representation of women in the sciences and in, say, Formula 1 (in the wake of Suzie Wolff's announced retirement yesterday), but no-one mentions the lack of women in Refuse Collection...

O.

[Udayana]

hmm .. because plenty of women work in refuse collection? ... our own bin collection truck is driven by a woman actually, who reverses it up our cul-de-sac faultlessly, where many (all male) delivery truck drivers mess up all the verges by driving over them.

(no double-entendres intended there )

[Rhiannon]

If the sexist crap I've been in the end of from the refuse collectors who deal with my rubbish is anything to go by any woman who worked alongside them would need to be made of extremely tough stuff.

[Owlswing]

The main point that I take from the content of Sririam's post, a point not specific to science, or any other area of emplyment for that matter, is the fact that, for males and females, and it does happen to males, when the aggressor is in a position above that of his/her target it is relatively easy to convince the victim to remain silent, "Shut up/keep quiet or you will never work in this area of experise again, I'll see to that!"

Too often there is an almost incestuous "you watch my back and I'll watch yours" as, if a complaint IS made and shown to be true, all to often there seems to be a reaction of "And how many others are doing the same thing?".

At the extreme end of this kind of situation is the Jimmy Saville case and the can of worms that it opened.       

[Sriram]

Although I detest the notion of sexual harrassment - particularly where it is practised by people with hierarchical authority, I do think that this incident appears to be - if not invented - then certainly cultured by the media.

...its about sexual harassment in science and academic  circles. I guess scientists, professors and others are no different from executives, engineers, doctors and all others when it comes to sexual matters. And maybe because of the fairly rigid hierarchy present in such circles...it becomes more difficult for juniors to deal with it.

I think that this says all that needs to be said here. Science is no "more dangerous for women" than any other activity. An incident, perhaps relating to the behaviour of a single individual, has been spun out of all significance. It is a problem in that particular situation but has no generality.

HH,

You just like to sit in your little corner of the world and imagine that its all idyllic and perfect.....don't you?!    All those horrible...horrible...things happen only in far away places like India.....so you like to imagine.   

Wake up HH....and smell the coffee!   All places and people around the world are the same and have a similar share of horrible & terrible people....and noble and honourable people also.

Of course the OP is about a general situation. People don't form support groups like 'Astronomy Allies' just to handle one person. It is obviously a fairly widespread behaviour pattern.

[Harrowby Hall]

Grow up.

[Outrider]

Wake up HH....and smell the coffee!   All places and people around the world are the same and have a similar share of horrible & terrible people....and noble and honourable people also.

Yes, and no. People are people, and there will always be a spectrum of attitudes in any population. However, some cultures have developed political and social mechanisms and traditions to at least partially neutralise those, some cultures may be trying to do that, and others are still revelling in their primitive barbarism.

The 'Western World', typically, is further along this path than the developing world - it's far from perfect, and there's a wide range of quality of life within it, but it's a better system than the devleoping world and the third world. Not just - not even always - richer, but socially more equitable, upright and decent.

People count in the Western World - all people - in a way that they don't in the rest of the world. That's something we have to keep fighting for, because there are pressures in the Western World to revert to a more primitive, inequitable place.

O.

[Udayana]

Unfortunately Outrider, that is an entirely subjective view, seen through the eyes of a "Westerner". Most of the seeming "progress" in the West has been at the expense of other populations around the world.
 

[Owlswing]

Unfortunately Outrider, that is an entirely subjective view, seen through the eyes of a "Westerner". Most of the seeming "progress" in the West has been at the expense of other populations around the world.

What has always amazed me about some of the "other populations around the world" is how their rulers, hereditary or elected seem to be able to afford the most modern weaponry for their huge armies, armies frequantly used to oppress their own subjects, flash cars, usually Rolls and Cadilacs, airlines flying the most modern and largest aircraft available yet still trawl the world's richer nations with the begging bowl to feed their populations.

The Western, or British, equivalent are those living on benefits, fit and able to work, smoking, drinking, TV (the largest available) in every room, council provided accomodaton etc and they still demand more.

Where is the "expense" to the "other populations around the world"

[Outrider]

Unfortunately Outrider, that is an entirely subjective view, seen through the eyes of a "Westerner". Most of the seeming "progress" in the West has been at the expense of other populations around the world.

No, I disagree. The wealth of the Western nations has come at the expense of other cultures, almost certainly, but the rights of individuals within those cultures is not at anyone else's expense (it actually puts something of a financial and legal burden on the West), and the wealth doesn't guarantee the rights (as we see in places like Saudi Arabia).

O.

[Sriram]

Outrider,

This is probably the subject for another thread....

I generally agree that developed countries have through their money and infrastructure ....put into place legal and police systems  that help to control many intrusions on personal rights. This is good.  But this is itself its weakness. Excessive dependence on legal and enforcement institutions can be dysfunctional and may not work in the long run.

Also, there is a tendency to think that... more liberty is more civilized.....more traditional is more uncivilized.  This need not be true. A balance is very important.

Social institutions and controls are probably more important in not only controlling social behaviour but also in balancing social good with personal aspirations. 

Religious institutions, family values, marriage stability, responsibility for elders and children are as important as courts and police. The legal machinery cannot and should not handle everything.

I think it is a cycle where societies move from social/family controls on individual behaviour to more and more personal liberty....which in course of time becomes dysfunctional leading to more and more controls on personal liberty....and so on. 

Cheers.

Sriram

[Udayana]

...
What has always amazed me about some of the "other populations around the world" is how their rulers, hereditary or elected seem to be able to afford the most modern weaponry for their huge armies, armies frequantly used to oppress their own subjects, flash cars, usually Rolls and Cadilacs, airlines flying the most modern and largest aircraft available yet still trawl the world's richer nations with the begging bowl to feed their populations.
...

Probably each country needs a separate discussion, but the most immediate thing corrupt regimes seem to have in common is that they are helped into power and maintained there by foreign powers who have only their own interests in mind.

[Udayana]

Unfortunately Outrider, that is an entirely subjective view, seen through the eyes of a "Westerner". Most of the seeming "progress" in the West has been at the expense of other populations around the world.

No, I disagree. The wealth of the Western nations has come at the expense of other cultures, almost certainly, but the rights of individuals within those cultures is not at anyone else's expense (it actually puts something of a financial and legal burden on the West), and the wealth doesn't guarantee the rights (as we see in places like Saudi Arabia).

O.

Certainly wealth doesn't guarantee any rights, but many of the rights we take for granted didn't exist before the 1960's, built on the post war boom.

Eg. Looking at women's rights, they were really no different to the rest of the worlds, until the 60s. Although women had full suffrage in 1928 and the idea of female equality increased in the inter-war and WWII period, it was only with second-wave feminism that there were any actual changes in women's domestic status.

[Outrider]

Certainly wealth doesn't guarantee any rights, but many of the rights we take for granted didn't exist before the 1960's, built on the post war boom.

Eg. Looking at women's rights, they were really no different to the rest of the worlds, until the 60s. Although women had full suffrage in 1928 and the idea of female equality increased in the inter-war and WWII period, it was only with second-wave feminism that there were any actual changes in women's domestic status.

Apologies, Udayana, I hadn't meant to imply this was anything other than a very recent development in the grand scheme of things - I'd suggest that the Second World War was one of the prime motivators, breaking down the class barriers in many countries in the West. That examples gave hope to feminism, and feminism gave rise to the gay rights movements, religious minority equality and the like

I'd say the germs, though, were planted in the philosophies that fed into the French and American revolutions - those rights that are so lauded now are up-to-date interpretations of the principles of the likes of Hume.

O.

[Outrider]

I generally agree that developed countries have through their money and infrastructure ....put into place legal and police systems  that help to control many intrusions on personal rights. This is good.  But this is itself its weakness. Excessive dependence on legal and enforcement institutions can be dysfunctional and may not work in the long run.

How can you have an 'excessive dependence on legal and enforcement instutions'? You can only get a situation where you don't need them if everyone is corralled into a single mindset so there's no dispute at all - which seems unlikely with the human psyche being what it is - or you have a situation where people take disputes into their own hands.

Also, there is a tendency to think that... more liberty is more civilized.....more traditional is more uncivilized.  This need not be true. A balance is very important.

Tradition isn't inherently uncivilised, but tradition is a piss-poor reason to continue doing something that is otherwise uncivilised. More liberty is more civilised, giving people freedom and rights is more civilised than restricting their freedoms  and rights.

Social institutions and controls are probably more important in not only controlling social behaviour but also in balancing social good with personal aspirations.

What social good is there that isn't embodied in personal aspirations?

Religious institutions, family values, marriage stability, responsibility for elders and children are as important as courts and police. The legal machinery cannot and should not handle everything.

And the legal machinery doesn't handle everything. The legal machinery only handles those time when individual rights compete. Religious institutions have competing values and need to be mediated. Families have different values, within the families and between families. Marriage stability is fine, but different people have different understandings of what marriage is, what it should be allowed to be and why. All of these are perfectly fine influences on people, but people shouldn't feel that they are beholden to those influences.

I think it is a cycle where societies move from social/family controls on individual behaviour to more and more personal liberty....which in course of time becomes dysfunctional leading to more and more controls on personal liberty....and so on.

I see history as a gradual progression from more central control to less, from less personal liberty and autonomy to more. There have been instances where rights have moved backwards, meetings where less developed systems have over-run more developed, but the tendency has been to more representative government, more stable social justice systems and more individual rights and freedoms.

O.

[Udayana]

Jared Diamond, in the prologue to his (wonderful) book "The world until yesterday" describes an airport scene in New Guinea, and reflects on how such a place would have been impossible only a few decades ago.

The trust in laws and rules and assumptions about others motives, attitudes and behaviour allows a place where thousands of strangers can arrive from and depart for places scattered all over the world. Strangers of whom many do not share languages, traditions or religious beliefs.

This, where 75 years ago it was impossible, even for natives, to cross a few miles of land without being challenged as a dangerous stranger and probably suffering violence or death.