So after listening to Ira Flatow interview Lisa Randall on Science Friday last week, I was a little annoyed. I was only listening with half an ear, to be honest, the other 3/4 of my ear capability being held in reserve. After all, I do like listening to my friends and colleagues talk about our field on the radio and television, but you don’t really need to listen hard since I’ve heard everything there is to hear about how these concepts are explained…. I listen because I want to cheer them on when they do a good job; will them some suggested helpful words if they’re struggling -caught off guard, etc, which happens in radio (remind me to tell you a story about that)- and generally be supportive of their efforts to tell the general public what we do, how we do it and why we do it.
From what my 1/2 ear heard, it was pretty good. Lisa’s a nice new fresh voice to hear in the media, and she’s doing an excellent job.
Both ears came on fully at one point when I suddenly realized that Ira was….openly flirting with Lisa! And it got a bit blushy and giggly. Unbelievable. I don’t remember him flirting with Brian Greene. But, hey, I thought, in reasonable measure, why not? But then it went to another level!
At some point the phrase:
This is a woman with both brains and incredible beauty…
pops up and I’m in full listen mode. What??!! Then I hear:
Don’t you think – and I’m not trying to be chauvinist about this- you have a talent because of your looks to bring people into science who’d may be not pay any attention?
Waitaminute! Brian’s no slouch in the good looks department…. did Ira ask him that question when Brian was on the show? I don’t recall. Anyone?
Anyway, amusingly at this point, Lisa valiantly struggles to avoid acknowledging the good looks thing, but then (after a touch more than a few Planck times) she gives in and just goes with the flow. (She does actually go on to give good answers despite the major curveballs – good job Lisa!)
Another “gem” from Ira, by the way (I’m not making this up):
How do you make string theory as popular as string bikinis…?
(Lisa both chokes and laughs here…)
But that’s not what annoyed me, actually, you may be surprised to hear. Nope. Here it is: At some point -sort of a leadup to the flirt-fest above- he throws in something about Lisa being a “Jodie Foster Lookalike”. Lisa defends by saying that both her and a friend of hers get this a lot, and she surmises that it is simply because Jodie Foster played a scientist in a movie. She may well be right.
Why am I annoyed? Because (in order for me to get away from later accusations that this exchange made me come up with the idea) this exchange forces me to reveal my impression of many years -long predating Jodie Foster’s role in Contact- that we actually do have a Jodie Foster look-alike in the field (by which I mean if you part the hair differently on Foster, put on glasses, take away all the recent awful airbrushing in posters)… It’s not Lisa Randall (and there’s no slur intended), it is my string theory colleague and friend (I hope remaining so after this!) the phenomenal** Eva Silverstein.
-cvj
**Don’t take my word for it: The MacArthur and Sloan Foundations think so too.
October 6th, 2005 at 3:15 am
I am struggling to resist the temptation for several puns. But talking about scientists and actors reminds me of a lunch conversation we had in Cambridge where we casted physicists for the star wars movies. For example, we had Gary G. for Yoda. I could also imagine Clifford in a role…
October 6th, 2005 at 7:01 am
Come on, Clifford, is it a crime to be flirting with a woman? Do you really think that if he do so, he must also be flirting with the male physicists like Brian Greene to be politically correct? Maybe he thinks that it is not the same thing to be flirting with men and with women. I just can’t believe you’re serious.
The similarity between Jodie Foster and ES (or LR) is superficial. In this respect, I find the similarity between Brian Greene and Fox Mulder more accurate.
October 6th, 2005 at 7:07 am
Incidentally, this Ira is pretty good. (And of course, so is Lisa.) When I were doing a critique of the interview, it would look very different than yours. For example, Ira credits Hawking for inventing M-theory (and 11 dimensions) etc.
October 6th, 2005 at 7:55 am
Jesus Christ.
I gave Science Friday a few chances when it came out on podcast, before concluding it was pure crap. Clearly nothing has changed since then.
(And, for what its worth, this has nothing to do with the propriety, or otherwise, of host flirting with guest. It has to do with the fact that I’m a busy guy who’s not interested in spending two hours listening to a show that has five minutes worth of useful content while the rest is make-shift banter, repetitions of the name of the show and some phone number, and idiot questions from the audience.)
October 6th, 2005 at 8:53 am
Lubos, Maynard: You’re mistaken about what I was posting about. I was not reviewing the science on the show. There was nothing new there. I’m not going to go chasing after someone every time they miscredit who invented what on a chat show. It is just too tiresome to rant like that all the time. Thought it might be more fun to rant about the unusual aspects of the show. Walk the path less travelled now and again. And I happen to think that Science Friday is on average a pretty good show. I did a post on it a while back recommending it. That does not stop me poking fun at it when I want to.
Lubos Of course the resemblance is superficial! As someone who gets compared to one of the same small circle of black hollywood actors again and again, beleive me I know that! So best to turn it into a game instead. Now about Brian….do you mean Fox Mulder the fictional character or David Duchovny the real actor?
Also, try reading again -slowly and carefully- what I wrote about the flirting, and by reading again find out what I was and was not annoyed about, ok? Your knee jerked a bit too quickly, as usual.
(I hear you like those…)
In this case, Lisa held her own against the noise of his juvenile flirting (which would have been fine but then he went a bit far), so I did not find it as offensive as it could have been. I know your screwed up views on white males vs the rest of the world so I will not debate you further on why it could justifiably have been offensive to some.
Cheers,
-cvj
October 6th, 2005 at 9:56 am
Clifford: You look like that Denzel Washington, you know. Or was it Morgan Freeman? Maybe Halle Berry.
October 6th, 2005 at 10:00 am
Actually, I’ll take Halle Berry. Wow, it would be interesting to look that fine, whatever gender (at least for a while)! That choice would also go nicely with my bra remark on another thread.
-cvj
October 6th, 2005 at 10:29 am
I will agree that Clifford is a handsome man, but it would be better if he looked like Halle Berry.
October 6th, 2005 at 10:33 am
I will second that.
October 6th, 2005 at 10:58 am
Well, if we can get this much from a radio show, I guess it’s a good thing they haven’t invented television yet……..
October 6th, 2005 at 11:01 am
Several years ago I attended a performance by Geri Allen at the Discover Jazz Festival. She was introduced by a local radio music host/DJ who couldn’t resist the urge to gush about her looks. I recall cringing at the time, knowing what a serious, gifted, and respected musician she has been since the late 80s.
October 6th, 2005 at 11:35 am
I don’t listen to Science Friday very often although I am sorry to have missed Dr. Randall. In my view, Mr. Flatow is a vastly overrated host and interviewer; too often the program is about him as the quotes above demonstrate. He is the quintessenial interruptor, always thinking that he is more interesting than the science or scientist, a poor listener and seems always unprepared. She should have given him a swift kick whether from distance or up close. I’ll take “Quirks and Quarks” ( ). Mr. McDonald asks much better questions that both broaden and deepen the conversation to the benefit of the listener (here is the profound difference between SF and Q&Q: intelligent conversation with great give and take), has a great sense of when to use humor and seems to understand his role: public understanding.
October 6th, 2005 at 11:40 am
LuboÅ¡ — At the risk of being labeled “politically correct,” I think that you’re missing the point: flattering as it is to be told you’re beautiful (I’m speculating here — I’m an ordinary-looking woman myself), for a woman in a male-dominated profession, whose job has nothing to do with her looks, it can also be pretty galling. It’s a way of cutting a woman down to size — she may be brilliant and accomplished in her field, but what really matters is how she looks. Not having heard the interview, I don’t know if that’s what Ira had in mind (in fact, I rather doubt that it was), but it doesn’t really matter what he intended. It just illustrates that no matter what a woman is actually there to talk about, her looks are fair game for comment. And that, I’m afraid, I find offensive.
October 6th, 2005 at 11:56 am
ed. I gave the link to the audio stream. Some of what you say about ira flatow, but it is good to have a spectrum of interviewers. I think of him as more akin to one of the chat show hosts on late night tv…you know that it is a bit about them, and not entirely about their guests.
janet: YES! (and more….. it is done all women, ordinary-looking or not, which arguably makes it an even worse practice).
-cvj
October 6th, 2005 at 12:08 pm
Funny, I don’t think Randall looks that much like Foster (mostly on account of the nose), but they do have something else in common: well known stalkers.
October 6th, 2005 at 12:14 pm
maybe Robert can resist the temptation but I can’t.
Since the host obviously had his eyes focused on his guest does that mean its was a bad case of “Flatow-lens”?
(ok I know that was terrible but sometimes I just can’t help myself)
e.
October 6th, 2005 at 1:23 pm
If Hollywood is to make a movies of our 5 intreprid bloggers, let’s say with a plotline that the save the world of some eveeeel Harvard physicists, then who would you cast as Sean, Mark, Clifford, Jo-Anne and Risa?
October 6th, 2005 at 1:25 pm
As the above horribly botched up post will attest : never eat and post.
October 6th, 2005 at 1:34 pm
Clifford,
You realize, of course, that this blog and your previous one are strongly correlated. Much as we might want it to be otherwise, our culture is not race or gender blind in arenas where those two attributes should be irrelevant.
October 6th, 2005 at 1:36 pm
Macho — Yeah, the two are so intertwined that I just posted something intended for this thread in the other thread.
October 6th, 2005 at 2:16 pm
Janet’s posts from the other thread:
-cvj
October 6th, 2005 at 2:32 pm
macho: I am not seeking race or gender blindness! God no! What a boring world that would be. For example, a little flirting is ok…consenting adults, etc. Flirting to the point of being threatening and/or making someone feel uncomfortable or under some sort of pressure is not ok. Lisa was perfectly able to rally and keep her composure in the face of the “my, Dr Randall, you’re incredibly beautiful” bull, or the string theory/string bikini plain dorko remark, but others might not have. That would not have been their fault, it would have been Ira Flatow’s. Furthermore, undermining someone by focusing on their gender before their acheivements (I’m not saying this is what Ira Flatow was doing) is not ok. This is not that hard to figure out, so I won’t go over well worn material. Similarly for race. What if an interviewer suddenly out of the blue asked me whether my “extraordinary athletic prowess” (which it would be assumed that I have by virtue of the standard stereotypes – and which I do not have!!) will help me bring more people into science? I don’t know how I’d give a straight answer to that on the spur of the moment knowing that there are millions of people listening to me live. This woudl be inappropriate, but it does not mean that I want people to forget my race…..See my comments in the original body of the (clearly not unrelated) other post. Last sentence in penultimate paragraph, for example.
Cheers,
-cvj
October 6th, 2005 at 3:27 pm
I don’t know about the others but it was long ago forecast here at SLAC that JoA’s part would be played by Julia Roberts…
October 6th, 2005 at 3:48 pm
I think Sean should be played by comedian Bill Burr.
October 6th, 2005 at 3:52 pm
I, commentor 24, am a different tom than the one of comment 23, by the way. I only make the distinction because I disagree with the Julia Roberts choice (no offense, my like-named brother!).
October 6th, 2005 at 4:32 pm
Janet: Thanks for your comments, that’s exactly it! No one should label you PC, because it’s truly about respect. If a person is about to open their mouth to say something to a woman, particularly in a public forum, they should think first, “Would I say this to a man?” and if the answer is NO, then that is usually a good clue you shouldn’t say it to her either.
October 6th, 2005 at 5:51 pm
Tom of comment #24 & 25: I realize I don’t quite have Julia Robert’s handsome smile….but that seems like a pretty quick disagreement on your part with Tom #23!
October 6th, 2005 at 6:44 pm
Tom #23 is my alter ego and I must insist on Julia Roberts…does tom 24/25 have a better suggestion?
October 6th, 2005 at 6:45 pm
I completely agree with the comments of both Janet and Amy. Part of what’s so infuriating about the exchange described above is the fact that it happened in a public forum. It’s setting a standard–and not only for how one treats a professional woman. There’s also an implicit message that says this is an acceptable way to understand the role of female scientists. A “talent for bringing people into the field.” UGH. Is Lisa a scientist or an advertisement for science?
October 6th, 2005 at 8:46 pm
And, of course, the thing has it’s stupidity multiplied by a factor of ten, because, even if she was a advertisement for science, it’s a damn radio show! Of course, this fact just magnifies all the points made above. The audience cannot even agree with flatow’s assessment of her appearance–it seves only to show that he is more concerned with talking about her looks than her science.
October 6th, 2005 at 9:05 pm
Sean, Mark. Thanks. You’re both such handsome dudes yourself, I can’t think of any women actors worthy of replacing your good looks! Ok. That’s probably enough.
Eugene: Given the endorsement of Mark and Sean of Adam’s original idea, and my own feelings about it, could I have Halle Berry play me in the movie? Come to think of it I see no reason why not. We’re the same age and everything.
-cvj
October 6th, 2005 at 9:08 pm
It may help those who wonder why this is a problem to review the life of Hedy Lamarr.
October 6th, 2005 at 9:25 pm
Clifford : Halle Berry it is. I’ll call the casting director.
I concur with Tom of #23 : Julia Roberts will be great casting for JoA.
I disagree with Tom of #24 : I think Damien Lewis would make a better Sean.
I think Colin Farrell will make a great Mark.
But I can’t get the idea of a young Molly Ringwald as Risa out of my head, somebody help me out here.
I don’t know about the parts for the eveeel Harvard Physicists though….
October 6th, 2005 at 9:51 pm
The comment about the string bikini was way out of line and extremely juvenile, particularly within its context. I can’t imagine anyone on On Point making a comment like that. Life is difficult enough without having to constantly fight stereotypes.
October 6th, 2005 at 10:08 pm
I thought string theory was as popular as string bikinis?
October 6th, 2005 at 11:25 pm
Sleaze remarks. What he really meant with “string theory/string bikinis” is “what would you look like in a string bikini”? Least that’s what comes across or that’s perhaps what is going through his subconcious. Maybe one can read way too much into these things though and she did’nt think much of it but it was unecessary and out of order really. As mentioned you would never ever hear, “and what an attractive man you are Dr Greene especially in that chic New York leather, not a typical nerdy scientist at all” even if the interviewer was gay.
Nor would a female interviewer ever make such a remark about an attractive male scientist. Also, no-one would ever say that to an attractive female politician or lawyer either during an interview. There still seems to be this expectation amongst most people that scientists are meant to be unattractive people. In my experience the opposite is true (including myself:))
October 7th, 2005 at 4:24 am
“Nor would a female interviewer ever make such a remark about an attractive male scientist.”
Actually, this did happen in the yearly Dutch National Science Quiz. However, the female presenter of the show (who is actually a comedy writer and actress) was flirting in such an over-the-top, theatrical way that it was hilarious rather than anything else. Of course, it’s funny also because she is not expected to say “wow, you’re very attractive, and a professor at that!” to some shy scientist. No female interviewer would ever make such a remark…
October 7th, 2005 at 4:39 am
[...] ELSEWHERE RSS2 elsewhere archive 2005.10.07 Science Friday giggles [cosmicvariance.com] Is cloned food destined for our tables? [breitbart.com] Birth mother vs. egg donor decision upheld [breitbart.com] 2005.10.06 Do we have the Cultural Capital necessary for winning Nobel Prizes? [thescian.com] Europe willing to pay to get science on air [informationweek.com] Human Genome Science hits the wall [corante.com] Commerce Department tells National Weather Service media contacts must be pre-approved [rawnews.com] Cracking down on government scientists [chriscmooney.com] I’m not sure what this means [cosmicvariance.com] Clone-generated milk, meat may be approved [washingtonpost.com] Seeing creation and evolution in Grand Canyon [nytimes.com] Controversial cardinal pays tribute to Darwin [msn.com] 2005.10.05 White House creates science crisis [thenewstribune.com] Women in Biology Internet launch pages [usc.edu] Ig Nobels to honour strange science [physorg.com] Nanoethics heats up [foresight.org] About the 2005 Ig™ Nobel Prize ceremony, and related event [improb.com] Stem-cell research a ‘political wedge’ [philly.com] Ireland counts the cost of MIT Media Lab fiasco [theregister.co.uk] Interim FDA chief unlikely to keep post [washingtonpost.com] Ministers set for climate talks [bbc.co.uk] 2005.10.04 Citizen scientists [boston.com] [...]
October 7th, 2005 at 8:28 am
[Continuing late night comments from above...] The bottom line for me is that the interviewer approached his distinguished guest with comments having the net effect of encapsulating her within a fetish image, thus diminishing both her status and the status of the subject that she appeared to discuss. Whether he had a crush on her or felt threatened by her superiority, it was very unprofessional conduct.
October 7th, 2005 at 12:39 pm
I don’t get why people are so excited to find a scientist that looks like a movie star, when there are so many scientists who actually are movie stars. For example Tom Cruise has been a scientist for decades, and his new fiance Katie Holmes is in the process of becoming a scientist.
October 7th, 2005 at 2:44 pm
Alright…. All we need is time reversal here….
Clarence Williams III (from his Mod Squad days) as Clifford.
Check it out. Its scary…..
October 7th, 2005 at 3:38 pm
Impressive hair. Too high-maintenance though. Does he have to have his Mod Squad hair?
-cvj
October 7th, 2005 at 3:50 pm
I think Edward Norton should play all of you.
October 7th, 2005 at 5:59 pm
or eddie murphy
October 11th, 2005 at 11:40 pm
Coming a bit late to the discussion, but I would definately be played by Uma Thurman, and not Molly Ringwold (to whom I have no resemblance).
But on the substance of this post — how depressing, and yet, how unsurprising. The problem, for those of you to whom this is not obvious, is not that there’s anything wrong with flirting generically, or even with comparing scientists of whatever gender with movie stars. The problem lies in how routinely women scientists are hit on or sexualized when they are being evaluated as or related to as scientists.
Ira didn’t meet Lisa Randall in a bar, where it might have been perfectly acceptable to comment on her looks. Lisa came on the show to discuss science, and to have the interviewer bring up string bikinis trivializes her ability to contribute to an intellegent conversation about string theory.
And the fact that Lisa held her own against it makes it no less offensive, sorry Clifford. I hold my own against this kind of thing on pretty regular basis. One just has to. But it’s still just one more thing that I have to deal with that my male colleages don’t. It’s a regular reminder that I am not being evaluated only on the basis of my science. The problem is amplified, of course, by the fact that sexuality does not have intelligence-neutral connotations for women in our society.
October 11th, 2005 at 11:47 pm
Risa: “And the fact that Lisa held her own against it makes it no less offensive, sorry Clifford.”
No need to say sorry. You’re simply correct on this, and I’m wrong. I should not have tried to let Ira off the hook. (But do see my comments, particularly number 22, which I think resonates well with yours.)
Cheers,
-cvj
October 31st, 2005 at 11:29 pm
[...] Let’s get this right out of the way: yes, Cosmic Variance did make its first appearance in the New York Times. We get a passing mention in Dennis Overbye’s article about Lisa Randall, for Clifford’s justified annoyance at Ira Flatow’s remarks on Science Friday about Lisa’s appearance rather than her science. [...]
November 1st, 2005 at 6:11 pm
I think you’re overlooking a key point here, Clifford: that Lisa Randall is SMOKING hot. Ira Flatow’s comments and actions are completely defensible when understood in that context. I imagine that I myself would try a bit of the old Sepicio charm given a proper opportunity (which can always be arranged, by the way).
November 1st, 2005 at 6:57 pm
Hi Clint, thanks for the comment….. It is irrelevant whether she is “smoking hot” or not. Look, I deal with smoking hot people every day here in this city of the Fabulously Beautiful. I’ve got to deal with them appropriately in the situation at hand, as Risa (and others) said above. Looking just here at work, the USC campus is full of smoking hot people, both male and female, students and faculty. I can’t deal with them on that basis…this is not a giant party, this is not a bar. We are here because of work and study. So that is what we should do. Randall was invited on to the show to talk about her book and her work (I’m guessing). If Ira can’t deal with interviewing reputedly smoking hot people properly, he should present another show which is more about that. Or change the format of the current show and tell the interviewee in advance what the parameters are.
As I said above, imagine how much worse it could have been. What if Lisa had melted down from sheer embarrassment from being caught off guard by the whole line of questioning? (Risa correctly points out that the fact that she did not does not excuse the interviewer, but imagine it anyway. I can also add that whether she was bothered by it or not is also irrelevant. She might not even have noticed hat was going on…..makes no difference.)
Further, imagine what it would be like to be a young woman or girl, trying to make their way in a male-dominated field like physics, listening to the interview…. Does that give you any hope for being taken seriously even when you’re tenured at a major university?
That’s my take on it….
Read some of the comments above for more insight that I gave in my original post.
Cheers!
-cvj
November 1st, 2005 at 10:39 pm
i thought the interview of Lisa Randall with Ira Flatow was fine. some guys are just affected by how beautiful women look and, yeah, for the guys that can be a handicap. if that’s a problem, have a machine do the interviewing. won’t get any flirting there.
there’s already a danger in science’s portrait as the exclusive realm of the hyper-rational androgenous being. it’s pretty bad when maths are considered more libidinous.
November 1st, 2005 at 10:44 pm
i thought Ira Flatow’s interview with Lisa Randall was fine. some guys are just affected by how some women look, and it’s a handicap for the guys. we’re made that way. get a machine to do the interview and then there won’t be any danger of flirting.
science already has too much of a reputation of being the exclusive realm of hyper-rational androgenous beings. when even mathematics is more libidinous, as it is these days, there’s a real problem.
November 1st, 2005 at 10:51 pm
Sorry Clifford, I had intended the post as parody. I actually thought Flatow’s interview was absurdly sexist. Darn my subtelty.
November 1st, 2005 at 11:21 pm
Clint… you got me! I’ve been out England for too long…
-cvj
November 1st, 2005 at 11:23 pm
sorry for the duplicate post. it’s what happens if you use Opera to post rather than, say, IE.
i’ve followed up more on my comment at my blog, specifically at
http://www.algebraist.com/tkblog/index.htm#1096000156
November 1st, 2005 at 11:31 pm
I’ve read it and I think you’re plain wrong. w-r-o-n-g. We can consider doing the flirting and the dumb remarks about string theory and string bikinis and the like when there are more women in the field. When the memory of them not being taken seriously by their colleagues except in the realm of their sexuality is not quite so recent a memory.
Ok?
Cheers,
-cvj
November 2nd, 2005 at 12:11 am
ok. we just disagree then. ciao.
November 3rd, 2005 at 1:25 am
“i thought the interview of Lisa Randall with Ira Flatow was fine. some guys are just affected by how beautiful women look and, yeah, for the guys that can be a handicap.”
Ugh. I’ve heard this line of reasoning used to support a lot of things. We’re grownups. There are hot people out there. We need to get over it.
I have a new proposed standard: before saying these types of things, imagine how you would feel if a gay man said the exact same thing to you, and didn’t back down, even though there is an obvious disinterest on your part.
February 13th, 2006 at 10:30 pm
Just for the record here:
1. the quote about Jody Foster was from her publicist; I was merely echoing it, though I agree that she does look like Jody Foster.
2. Dr. Randall didn’t seem to mind it very much, when I spoke with her in person.
3. Sometimes a cigar…is just a cigar.
4. Isn’t it great that this interview has generated so much discussion about science broadcasting?
5. Someone must like the show; we’re now approaching 5 million podcast downloads and 6 million visits to our web site in just 6 months.
6. I helped design the show and title of Quirks and Quarks, before most of you were born…;-)
February 13th, 2006 at 10:33 pm
Ira… I love the show, and constantly tell people to listen in…. you and your team do an excellent job overall.
Thanks for keeing some very good science coverage on the radio.
Cheers,
-cvj
February 14th, 2006 at 12:03 am
Ira,
I am sorry, but as a female scientist I think that your remarks during the interview and in this comment section are out of line. The string bikini interlude is worthy of an apology. The cigar mention was completely out of place.
You clearly have no idea how difficult it is for a female scientist to be taken seriously by her peers. Your comments undermine this and are not helpful in anyway, what-so-ever. This is a serious issue and you have no right to be so glib.
February 14th, 2006 at 12:46 am
Yes….. while I have a great deal of respect for the show and the overall high quality science coverage of great value, I was (as you can gather from my post) completely bowled over by those remarks…. hence my comments in e.g. #49 and #55 above….see also other people’s remarks about why it does not matter so much what Lisa thought…. think about the listeners….
Cheers,
-cvj
February 14th, 2006 at 1:12 am
Also, Ira, for the record, how do you know what Lisa thought? Has it ocurred to you that maybe, perhaps, when Lisa was thrown into this uncomfortable situation that she behaved like a pro? Meaning, perhaps she intentionally made light of it, tossed your comments aside, simply in order not to make a scene in front of the public?
February 14th, 2006 at 10:11 am
If anyone should know how difficult it is for women scientists out there, it is me. I’ve been interviewing them for 35 years and I try to bring as many of them on to the program as I can. They get lost in the testosterone jungle. And yes, there are so relatively few of them that when one finds the next, perhaps, female Carl Sagan, one is tempted to go a bit overboard.
Yes, perhaps, I went a bit over the top on this one, but I used to gush with Carl Sagan or Steve Allenn (yes, he too, talked about science).
Too bad there was no internet around a few years ago when one of my producers created the “Stud Muffins of Science” calendar – twelve 8×10 glossy photos, one for each month of the year, of male scientists in various, barely clothed poses. Sold at bookstores everywhere. I dare you to tell me you would have said “hey, you chauvanist..where are the girlie pictures!”
As for Dr. Randall ( I”ll bet JoAnne, you would have called a man by his last name and title) I met her a few weeks later and we both had a good laugh about it. Believe me, she says what’s on her mind.
February 14th, 2006 at 3:00 pm
Really? Wow! You know better than JoAnne, a female scientist, what the issues she has come across are?
I am flabbergasted by such outrageous and flagrant arrogance.
Poor little helpless lady scientists – thank goodness they have Ira Flatow to take them by the hand and lead them through the testosterone jungle and into the light of public scrutiny. And of course, they should be so thankful to you for this favour that you have the right to say whatever you please to them, even if your comments are inappropriate and irrelevant.
Why? This seems totally unfounded. Perhaps JoAnne is a personal friend of Lisa Randall? Or perhaps she is the habit of addressing colleagues by their first names (since she has every right to feel that she can converse with them on their level)? Look around the archives and no doubt you can find numerous incidences of JoAnne (and the rest of the contributers and commentators here) refering to individuals by their given names.
And as for
my reaction would have been more along the lines of “Yeugh. How is this appropriate?” and if someone asked “Where are the women?” (NB “women” not “girls” – they are grown-ups too and should be treated with the same respect as their male counterparts, not down-graded to the same status as children, which is the (probably unconscious) implication of the language you used) most female scientists would probably have rolled their eyes and said “There are so few of us that we are barely visible, and it would be misleading to suggest by the inclusion of women in a significant proportion that this was a true reflection of the demographics of my field.” Added to which, women are objectified and sexualised by this society to an extent which is so far in excess of that suffered by men that including women in your producer’s ridiculous calendar would hardly have been a cause for celebration amongst women who wish to be respected and valued for their intellectual capabilities and achievements rather than their physical attributes.
February 15th, 2006 at 1:19 pm
Is “Yeugh” pronounced like “few?” Or is the “gh” more like “sleigh?” Or “though?”
February 15th, 2006 at 1:42 pm
Or, how about “gh” as in “rough?”
February 15th, 2006 at 2:07 pm
Ira, I think it’s really disappointing how defensive and flippant you are being about this. We are all appreciative of your work on Science Friday, which has done a great deal to spread good science stories to a wide audience. But, in the opinion of a number of thoughtful people, in this particular case you made a mistake. Excessive comments about women scientists’ looks and sexuality, even if made humorously and in good faith, can be truly damaging in an environment in which it can be very difficult for women to be taken seriously. So you made a mistake that was pointed out by some folks who otherwise like your work — why not just admit it, or at least try to learn something from it? (I know I’ve made very similar mistakes, and been publicly called out for them.) At the least, if you completely disagree, why not respectfully engage with the substance of the argument?
It’s like the pie fight ad controversy all over again.
February 15th, 2006 at 2:15 pm
Dear Ira,
If this really is you (and frankly, I’m beginning to have my doubts, given your responses), I must say that you’re not doing yourself any favours here…. This is actually a serious discussion that several people (yes, young people, as you helpfully reminded us) are reading about here, and feel strongly about…many of the readers being women scientists already in the field, or making their first steps into that world. It seems to me to be poor judgement to respond to a serious, if somewhat heatedly expressed, set of concerns with a question or remark about the pronunciation of something they said. This might be seen as deliberate attempt to trivialize what they are saying…which is precisely the sort of tactic that women in science commonly have to deal with!
Overall, I’d like to say that if this discussion is to continue here, lets all agree to be respectful of each other. Let’s express our disagreement with Ira (or Mr/Dr Flatow, if he prefers) in a constructive way and in as a respectful way as possible (since we’re about science and the media here to some extent, and respect his overall body of work). He in turn should also express his concerns/explanations in a way that treats the readers and hosts as adults with valid concerns that should not be trivialized. Our relative ages, for example, are irrelevant to the substance of the discussion. Further, I think that someone how has lived as a woman in physics for 35 years is at least as well quaified to talk about the subject as a non-scientist who has interviewed women scientists for 35 years. But that’s (somewhat) irrelevant to the substance too. Etc. Etc.
Cheers,
-cvj
February 15th, 2006 at 4:26 pm
I have no idea whether Lisa herself was offended, but as this was not a personal conversation but a broadcasted interview, this is just beside the point. When I am in similar situatuions I almost always react as if it doesn’t phase me. Often I am unphased because it’s probably not a rare occurance for most women in male-dominated fields. But the cumulative effect on women scientists of being sexualized or noticed for their looks in their role as scientists is not negligible. It is just one of the many things that makes it harder to suceed as a woman scienctist — harder to be taken seriously for one’s work and harder to feel like one’s contributions and intelligence are valued. It’s bad enough that we have to learn to deal with this on a regular basis from many colleagues, it certainly doesn’t help to also be treated this way by the media. Or to be told by a male nonscientist that he “if anyone” knows what this is like.
February 15th, 2006 at 5:16 pm
I don’t understand Americans. How can one condemn Janet Jackson’s superbowl perfomance and then interview women scientists in this way?
February 15th, 2006 at 5:52 pm
[...] But the world needs popularizers, too. I salute the actress Danica McKellar (featured at the aforementioned conference) for being a counterexample to prevailing notions as to what kind of people love math. I do think it’s inappropriate to discuss a woman’s appearance in situations where it’s not relevant to her work—there’s been a recent flurry of discussion over at Cosmic Variance on Ira Flatow’s Science Friday interview with theoretical physicist Lisa Randall in which he commented on her attractiveness in a way that I doubt any male scientist would have had to listen to, even a Jude Law look-alike. But having been a teenage girl aspiring to become a math/science geek, seeing an actress who did math at a serious level or a scientist who’s not hiding her femininity is fantastic. (But let’s leave the remarks on appearance for the gossip columns, not the science stories.) [...]
February 15th, 2006 at 6:39 pm
My contributions to human knowledge are actually in Jungian psychology not physics but I remember once I was in a psychology forum where we were discussing philosophy of physics stuff and I provided a link to an interview with Brian Greene in a psychology journal (the same journal that has my papers). The editor was an aeronautical engineering undergraduate and had early in his career collaborated with David Bohm so physics was not new to him. The only conversation that my link started was a conversation among the women (the forum was about 50-50 split male-female) about how cute Brian Greene is. Needless to say I stayed out of the conversation cause I’d have felt really out of place. It’s obviously not horrible for a newsgroup or blog but for any science program with real guests that could be bad. It’s tough to be Saturday Night Live and Nova at the same time. Even Monday Night Football found out it can’t be Saturday Night Live.
February 16th, 2006 at 1:51 am
Wow, Ira, you sound like a typical sexist old fart who doesn’t even see what’s wrong with himself. If someone loaded my interview with a bunch of bullsh-t about bikinis and my looks, I wouldn’t have bothered humoring them like Lisa was apparently kind enough to do. Get over it. You give lip service to women in science while taking on a whole patronizing tone and approach that undermines us. And if that was actually you posting the comment about how interviewing for 35 years gives you a right to say you know, then I really think you should rot in hell. You get to say that when you get reborn as a female scientist. I hope next time you interview an African-American, that you tell them how smart you think they are for a black person. That reaction you would see? is the same one I have when I get told how pretty I am for a scientist. Funny how women are still fair game for getting openly insulted by having their nose rubbed in patronizing stereotypes, in a way that nobody would dare for other minorities.
But, for Ira, apparently, those who dare criticize are all young, lost, female, bad spellers who should shut up because your 5 million downloaders can’t be wrong.
Ira, you don’t know who I am, but you better hope I don’t happen to end up on your show sometime because I would skewer you if you dared to start that condescending crap with me.
February 16th, 2006 at 4:45 pm
So much for elevating the level of the conversation.
While I agree that Mr. Flatow didn’t do himself any favors by essentially taunting responders to this thread, the level of response has in general been near-nuclear, no pun intended.
Let’s remember that “Science Friday” is a radio show. One that tries to be entertaining and reach a wider audience than just scientists. I expect Dr. Randall might have received much the same treatment from Jon Stewart or Jay Leno if she appeared on their talk shows. If she was offended, I expect she would have said so, at least off-air. If you are offended, write a letter to NPR. Or just stop listening.
Does that make the line of questioning appropriate? Well, I wouldn’t have gone there, but it’s not my show.
Is it fair? No. But you and I and this blog and Mr. Flatow’s radio show are all embedded in a larger society that does not play by the “rules” of physics, or academia, such as they are. Railing against the perceived injustice of that society may make you feel better but it’s not advancing the cause of science, or women in science, one iota.
February 16th, 2006 at 5:27 pm
gbob,
Thanks for the comments. THere are at least two fundamental flaws in your reasoning:
(1) The Tonight Show is not a science show. Jon Stewart’s show is not a science show. Science Friday is a science show.
(2) We are not talking about the “rules” of physics here, we are talking about the “rules” of professionalism in any field. By your “status quo” reasoning, we will make no progress in society whatsoever, with regards the equal status of all people, and their participation in society, perfoming any job they see fit to pursue. By your reasoning, it would be acceptable for Condolezza Rice to turn up on an interview program about politics, and be asked stuff about her looks, string bikinis, etc. This *might* be acceptable…..barely…. in the context of a comedy show, but not in a show that asked her on to talk about her professional activities. That’s the difference.
It is particularly acutely problematic to do this sort of thing in a physics context, where there is still a lot of pressure on women to separate being acknowledged for their sexuality (in a male-dominated field) from being acknowledged for their ability to do physics….. which brings me to….
(3) It *is* advancing the cause of science to discuss it. There are several people I know who are very glad to have a place where they can see this kind of discussion going on, and know that they are not alone, and it has helped them decide to stay in the field rather than moving out of science….so you are simply 100% dead wrong about that.
Cheers,
-cvj
February 16th, 2006 at 5:37 pm
And another thing, gbob: There *are* actually rules tht society has in place about making people feel uncomfortable in a professional setting, by reference to their sexuality. They a sexual harassment laws. Now I am not saying *by any means* that this consitutes such a situation, but it is just a matter of degree here. Those “perceived” injustices to which you refer are sometimes tested in real courts of law and those courts find with the “perceiver”. So the rules of society can apply here…we’re not talking about the rules of physics…..So you seem to be wrong about that too.
Cheers,
-cvj
February 16th, 2006 at 5:44 pm
….and has been said several times in this thread before, gbob, it does not matter what Lisa thought. There are thousands of young girls who are interested in science as a career, and they have to deal so much with being interacted with on the basis of their sexuality. They get silly juvenile remarks from boys in the playground, in the lab, etc….. They’re tired of that….when will it ever stop? They go home to listen to Science Friday and hear to their delight that a senior woman scientist is being interviewed about her work. Half way through the interview the interviewer (a senior, apparently responsible journalist who whould know better, since he’s apparently been doing this for 35 years…) is asking her about her looks, and making juvenile remarks about string bikinis, etc.
What do you think those potential scientists of the future are going to take away from that?
Cheers,
-cvj
February 16th, 2006 at 7:22 pm
Just wanted to say thanks to Cliff for his last few comments, as well as everyone who has posted in defence of taking women in science seriously.
Absolutely right.
Gbob, I and other women studying science and scientific disciplines have to put up with Flatow-esque bull all the time. By downplaying its effect, you are adding to it. Women who deal with this crap are constantly being partonised and dismissed by people like you, and ultimately, it’s the fact that you and others like you dismiss criticism of chauvinist attitudes that makes it so damn hard for women in science to be taken seriously.
–Q.
February 17th, 2006 at 4:59 pm
Well at least this is a civilized conversation.
My main point, which seems to have been ignored, is that most of the responses to Flatow were either personal attacks or such gross generalizations that they sound like bad outtakes from a post-feminist rant…and it is *those* posts which are neither advancing science nor women in science. I agree that an intelligent discussion of a complex issue like this might actually be enlightening. Which is usually what I come here for, only to be once again reminded that scientists can be just as petty and juvenile as the next guy. Or girl.
But since Clifford made an honest attempt to rebut the rest of my argument, I will submit that:
1. “Science Friday” is not a science show in the same way “Meet the Press” is a politics show. Mr. Flatow does not discuss the ins-and-outs of the Lagrangian of the Universe. It is a popular science show, which to my mind puts it a lot closer to a conventional talk show. Its certainly not a departmental colloquium, nor a job interview.
2. I agree that professionalism is part of the issue, but what is and isn’t professional is a very subjective judgment, and depends on context. Many posters have pointed out that whether you think these questions were appropriate would be different if it were a conversation in a bar. Clearly different people have very different expectations of the popular media.
3. Well yes this could be a useful conversation if people would refrain from name-calling. Let’s try that.
4. This was a public forum, not a workplace, so sexual harassment laws don’t apply. And since it was a public forum, Mr. Flatow has a right to say pretty much whatever he wants (though I suppose the FCC could fine him if he violates their definition of good taste). Whether he *should* say something or not is a different question. But should he be thinking at all times of which interest group he might be offending?
I am not downplaying the effect of chauvinism, in science or elsewhere, at all. It is real. What I don’t take seriously is people who equate some flippant comments on a radio show with Creeping Chauvinist Hegemony. Which, come to think of it, would be an excellent name for a band.
February 17th, 2006 at 6:32 pm
gbob,
My only remarks to make (given that I’ll just repeat myself again) are that it is sad if you really think that the phrase “interest group” actually applies here. That would be like saying that the USA eventually achieved equal voting rights because of pressure from an “interest group”. No… it is because it is the right thing to do. To your point (4), I did not say that they did apply. I was simply stating that the rules of conduct in a professional situation are nothing to do with physics, as you implied, but are to do with the larger society, and I simply reminded you of the existence of actual laws that codify that, as evidence.
Finally, you are clearly over-stating the “rant” aspect… if you or anyone actually *reads* this thread, as opposed to pre-deciding what it is about, you’ll actually see that the discussion is of good quality with exchanges of opinion and experience from many people who are qualified to talk on the subject, and furthermore it is known to be of value to those who are in a position to judge whether it has been of value to them. There was some anger in there too, but I think that was valuable too, and actually justified. It did not take any clarity away from the issue for most readers, I think.
So in short: Your opinion that the voices heard on this thread constitute a “post-feminist rant” of no value is, frankly, totally worthless, since this discussion (and others like it) have already been acknowledged, for your information, as having been of value. You do have a right to express that opinion, for all that it is worth, nonetheless.
Have an excellent weekend, and thanks for contributing. Come again.
Cheers,
-cvj
February 18th, 2006 at 3:47 am
Gbob:
So??? You’re saying that because it’s not a “science show” it’s ok to judge women according to how they look and not according to the work they do?
If you’re talking about someone’s work in science and you don’t know the someone, it’s not appropriate to comment on their looks instead of their work. Even in a bar. Anyone I don’t know who walks up to me in a bar and, in the context of my work in sicence, starts talking about bikinis is a jackass, and gets dismissed as such.
I don’t think many people did call it sexual harassment. I didn’t. But regardless of whether it is or isn’t sexual harassment, it sure as hell was inappropriate. And as Cliff pointed out, sexual harassment laws do apply outside the workplace.
–Q.
February 20th, 2006 at 10:23 am
This actually happened on an episode of Gilligan’s Island (“Ring around Gilligan”, note the resemblance of Ginger & L. Randall), where the “sexual harasser” (mad-scientist Dr. Boris Balinkoff) was slapped by Ginger (robot in science-experiment).
Dr. Balinkoff: Cute little robot, aren’t you? [ pinches Ginger ]
Ginger: takes her right-hand, winds-up, & delivers a roundhouse slapper
Dr. Balinkoff: winces, [ forgot what he said ]
Moral of the Story:
Hell Hath no Fury like a Woman’s Scorn
Woman are like Cats: they have Tails & Do Anything They Want
Ring Around Gilligan – A mad scientist (guest appearance by Vito Scotti) lands on the island, and makes the castaways work for him through the use of rings that, when placed on their fingers, cause them to fall under a hypnotic trance. What are his evil plans? To use the hypnotized castaways to rob Fort Knox!
[ Melissa Franklin/Harvard probably saw this episode, which explains:
"Melissa Franklin, first female professor of physics at Harvard and one of the discoverers of the top quark, quipped in a PBS interview that she "would rob banks" to fund her research." Is she a mad-scientist? ]
Dr. Balinkoff: You know who I am, Gilligan.
Gilligan: I know who you are, Gilligan.
Dr. Balinkoff: No, no, no, I am Dr. Boris Balinkoff.
Gilligan: The mad scientist.
Dr. Balinkoff: No. Scientist, yes, mad, no. (laughs crazily)
February 20th, 2006 at 4:00 pm
Well it is probably best to close on a quote from Gilligan’s Island since that probably adequately sums up the absurdity of the argument at this point.
CLifford, thanks for your hospitality, even if it boils down to “your opinion is worthless. Have a nice day!” Am curious however how you know the open hostility expressed in several of the posting was “justified.” And, for my worthless two cents, it *did* detract from the conversation. Apparently one gets smacked down for saying this. If this is the price of admission to the fabled “blogosphere” maybe I’ll go back to reading the Times.
quibbler seems to think I actually agree with Mr. Flatow or anyone else who makes inappropriate remarks. I don’t, but I was merely pointing out that you shouldn’t be shocked to find it in the mainstream media every day. Some people (not you) took this as an excuse to go off on riffs about how they have been, well, screwed by the establishment, scientific or otherwise. Of course you have a right to upbraid Mr. Flatow on his remarks. But using this as a springboard for a litany of other complaints is strecthing logic quite thin, and IMHO, actually detracting from what otherwise could have been an intelligent conversation about an important problem.
February 20th, 2006 at 4:05 pm
gbob, my point is simply that you’ve decided in a vacuum that the conversation was not worthwhile. Several others have found it worthwhile. So basing your opinion on a view you formed without access to any real data raises questions about its intrinsic worth. This would be true on the blogosphere, in direct conversation, or in the Times.
That’s all.
Have an Excellent Day.
-cvj
March 15th, 2006 at 6:31 pm
Was the radio station fined?
August 21st, 2006 at 1:29 am
[...] Supermodel going to Cambridge. In other UK news, supermodel Lily Cole excelled on her A-level exams, earning her a spot at Cambridge. Starting in 2007, Lily will be studying social and politcal sciences at King’s College… so, sorry Adam, I guess your paths won’t cross all that much. Anyway, since Lily won’t be studying physics, I feel like I have to mention a couple of older links: First, the always popular Britney Spears guide to Semiconductor Physics. Secondly, Clifford Johnson’s (formerly of Durham) Cosmic Variance post about Lisa Randall. Posted by fliptomato Filed in Uncategorized [...]