That’s all.

Have an Excellent Day.

-cvj

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.

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.

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)

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.

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?

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.

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.

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 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.

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

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.

(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.

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.

What do you think those potential scientists of the future are going to take away from that?

Cheers,

-cvj

Cheers,

-cvj

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

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.

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.

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

It’s like the pie fight ad controversy all over again.