Yeah, sexism is still endemic in both society and academia. I’m glad you posted this because the only way it’s ever going to be rectified is if this kind of oblivious sexism is slapped down every time it rears its head.

As a special point: if you’re reading this and you yourself are prone to making “non-PC” jokes or comments, please don’t do it. You might not be putting any weight behind your words, but you still unintentionally enable an atmosphere in which bigotry is acceptable. You wouldn’t (I hope) make similarly “casual” racist jokes, and being sexist is no different.

Eric Habegger,

your impression is your impression. You might find people who communicate to you that they share your impression, but that doesn’t mean that your impression exists outside yourself somehow. Your impression is created by you (your thoughts, feelings, ideas) in reaction to something you experience. Your impression isn’t imposed on you by some outside force.

After all, this video ‘is’ just a play of light on a computer screen, that we then interpret as ‘people’ and ‘men’ and ‘woman’ and ‘lab’ etc. What is interpreted by our neurologies as a narrative whole is really not the case in reality — it had to be scripted, there had to be editing done, and each of those involved were probably actors and actresses, so they weren’t really feeling what we think they are feeling.

The fun part is with us, because we interpret…we have to, that is how we are in the world. And we have our own experiences and memories that further interpret.

We all have unconscious programs/game rules that we all follow.

The reaction to this video is the same thing (though, obviously, not of the same scale) as with the people who rioted in Afghanistan over Terry Jones burning of a book — unconscious programs/game rules and worldviews, all interpretations, causing people to act as they acted.

This is the challenge that we all face, especially as our world gets more and more connected

(I think that these video-makers should do it again, but this time, say, with a woman singing about another woman, or men singing about another man…with the same lyrics. Then notice how people react — different game rules will come into play — the ‘sexism’ one probably will be less stronger)

I see where you’re coming from, and it makes me wonder why the original Flight of the Conchords video isn’t just as “icky” to you. After all, the woman in that song is just trying to enjoy the party, and may not appreciate the awkward come-on from a guy who seems only interested in her relative physical attractiveness. And she presumably has more to offer the world than just her looks as a “part-time model.”

So is the lab setting all that different, or does it just make it hit closer to home to people who are also scientists? Or maybe it’s because women experience more of these sorts of problems in a science setting than they do in the world at large?

cfftble: *chuckle* I try not to be solemn

‘Human emotions’ and ‘reader response’ are important. Everything follows laws, or habits, or behaviours. Nothing ‘just happens’ (no ’causeless causes’, that is a leftover from supernatural theism), but everything happens in relationship to something else.

Look. Say you have a car accident. You get hurt. You don’t get to ignore that the accident happened, BUT you do have control over how one interprets the event. They always have a choice.

And how we interpret events are also guided by laws/habits/behaviours/game rules. One of these game rules is to not pay attention to these game rules. Our neurologies are constructed in certain ways, we are influenced by our experiences, what we have learned, by our biologies, our age, our culture, etc etc.

So, like the Muslims who murdered those UN people in Afghanistan, it behooves everyone to learn their own game rules. So:

1) They can stop being intimidated by their own worldview, which doesn’t exist independently of them (but that we have been taught does).

2) We can try on other interpretations and see what happens.

3) There will be less anxiety in this world, and as we can see from things like the War on (some) Terror, anxiety can kill.

Noticing that things follow rules does not make them less real or less important.

So, learning how one’s game rules work and such will lead to people having more fun with their interpretations Consciously doing it instead of unconsciously.

Is it possible that clowns might find your comments offensive?
The stereotype of the “scary clown” is one I’m sure every professional clown has had to deal with, complete with screaming kids. Reinforcing the image with an article about “clown murders” will only hurt them further. You should think about the feelings of others before thoughtlessly alluding to them in that way…

No, seriously – did the above paragraph give you an ‘ick’ feeling about the post, even for a moment? I have the same icky feeling about seeing any other case of society trying to legislate what other people are allowed to think.

Men often find women attractive. Women don’t want men to find them attractive. (I guess?) We have a conflict of interest situation, a zero-sum game where what one wins the other loses. We already have the rule that the men are not allowed to do anything about it – which is fair enough. But we go further. We have a rule that the men are not even allowed to show it. They’re not allowed to say it to one another, even in private. It is a matter of shame, a grubby secret filthy perversion, even to think it. Forever hiding what they are from the world, such scum do not deserve to have any feelings of self-respect…

Or then again, in a world that tolerates all sexualities, perhaps we have room for men who not only like looking at women, but who don’t mind being seen doing it in public? If men kissing one another in public is tolerated, for all that it makes people of other sexualities feel ‘ick’, can we not celebrate the freedom of everybody to express their sexual identity without shame? Without having to hide it in dark corners, even though there are other people who feel icky about it?

It is possible to respect somebody’s intellect and their appearance, at the same time. It is possible to compliment somebody on both, or either, and for neither fact to detract from the other. We all have to put up with things from other people that we don’t like. But we’re tolerant of others, and get along anyway.

Julianne,

I think you did a bang-up job with your analysis I was just commenting above on the reasons it was taken down.

E Brandt: some do, some don’t. The old days of ‘what is real’ meaning ‘what the media reports’ are going going away…thanks to the internet, fringe people like you and I can now ‘be real’ in the media sense

Because of reactions like this, I will never figure out how to get a girlfriend. I’ve pretty much had to stick with the line from The 40-Year-Old Virgin: “I respect women so much that I leave them completely alone.”

I didn’t interpret the men’s actions in the video (such as waving a guitar around) as actually happening. Because if they did that stuff, she would have at least told them to stop interfering with her work and her presentation. Maybe it wasn’t that way in the original, in which case that would make this one “icky”. Watching it again, it does seem that some of the men’s action is real, but it also ends with the guy just doing lab work near her, which makes it seem like everything else is just in his head.

I don’t get #3′s interpretation at all. I think this parody was made because they think women with brains are more attractive, all else being equal.

Sen. Roberts was absolutely out of line.

A disclaimer: I liked this video and was disappointed when they took it down.

I don’t think it is sexist (there is no statement made on women’s worth in their jobs, definitely not explicitly and I’d argue not implicitly either). Indeed, your own comments seem to indicate you don’t really find the video itself sexist, more the fact that it feels uncomfortably close to a lot of bad situations women in professional positions still find themselves in. Since it’s a parody video the girl herself is obviously in on the joke. This isn’t a video some guys shot of themselves dancing around some random girl in their lab (I’d be with you all the way if it was). This is something they all (men and women) got together on to make. That to me makes a huge difference.

It’s a tough question of what we should diss and what we shouldn’t in this particular cultural transition. But this quite clearly does not have the intent some people are apparently finding in it, and the only way I can fault it is that the woman is the object of some guys’ affection, rather than some guy the object of some women’s affection. Or maybe it’s the suggestion of sex in the workplace? Perhaps that is wholly unappropiate, but I don’t think Julianne meant her post quite as puritanically.

If you do feel icky about it, it looks to me like it’s not the video that’s causing that, but the situations you yourself have found yourself in. I have to refuse feeling bad about liking this particular video. It’s just not making a statement, certainly not loudly enough for me to find something to agree or disagree with.

I found it amusing.

I also took it as a “how not to guide”.

#19: That shows where you’re from You really think there is a difference between the 2 wings (the ‘emocrats & the ‘publicans) of that 1 party in the USA? I guess when there are only 2 choices, there isn’t much room for nuance…

And you can keep trying to externalize your assessment of the video and find people that will agree with you, but you can’t get away from the fact that the assessment is created by you and belongs to you and no one else. In reaction to something outside of you, sure, but not existing independently of you. You have choices in your interpretations and we often pick the one that is most comfortable with us, that fits with our views. But the choice is always there.

I guess if watching the video induces flashbacks of workplace harassment, I can see the objection, but to me the thing was straight-up parody, and a pretty good one at that. The “School of Pharmacy” joke definitely got a spit-take, and the conical-tube-enhancement strategy was about as big an endorsement of male hypersexuality as “Dick in a Box”. If these guys were modeling their own behavior, then they clearly know how pathetic it can be. The pure cheesiness of the tune they’re spoofing also simply cannot be accidental irony. And can we not appreciate the sly reference to the lab’s male:female?

I guess some people deal with objectification and workplace sexism by condemning it outright, while others give it a sendup. Both approaches work for me, and, sorry, but I thought this video was damn funny, in the almost rueful kind of way I’m sure it was intended.

The video struck me as a parody of male douchebaggery rather than an expression of such, thus I found it amusing rather than distressing. (Like Low Math, I was reminded of “Dick in a Box”.)

However, the dismissive mansplaining by some of the commenters here who seem to feel they must denigrate the feelings of those who are offended by the video in order to defend it is completely contemptible. Is it really not possible to for you to just say, “I personally didn’t think the video was offensive but I can understand why others with different life experiences from myself might reasonably be bothered by it”? The original video creators didn’t seem to have much difficulty taking this approach, so what’s stopping you from doing the same?

When the internet is at its best, it is just like home, where every time I walk out the door I come into contact with another culture, another worldview, another fellow human being who is here sharing in the common human experience.

The ‘net is a good test of our compassion. And here we all are, witnessing the birth of a global civilization, where we all will have to learn how to live with one another, even when we don’t agree with each other, which will be often

A gift of exploration and transcendence for you all, “Alphaland” by Jonas Kyratzes, a man who makes, with his lovely wife, spiritual bits of art…totally SFW.

http://www.newgrounds.com/portal/view/569046

I am now seriously squicked by the sorts of people who are using the term “squicked”.

@Anne, Julianne, I hope you won’t take this as trying to explain away the feelings of those who were offended. I get why someone would be offended, I just don’t think it’s a good reason to shame its creators and/or make them take the video down.

The annoying thing about trying to discuss something like this is half the commenters seem not to have made it out of the fifties yet.

I’m a woman in physics, so I’ve been the only girl in the room plenty of times, but I didn’t find the video offensive at all. It seemed to me that it was quite self-deprecating – the guys were the ones who came off as sort of lame and pathetic. Maybe it’s because I don’t have the killer clown experience – sure there has occasionally been joking around and/or flirting from guys I know through work (which I’m glad of since I married one of those guys) but I’ve never had anyone treat me unprofessionally in a professional situation.

The FotC song was an inner dialogue that Jemaine had with himself regarding his luck at finding an attractive woman at a party with the added bonus that she was actually attainable. The fact that she was beautiful enough to be a model, but still in his league drove the narrative of the song. The video had the added benefit of being made by professional TV people who have the training to communicate the idea that Jemaine was outwardly awkward but inwardly a suave crooner, these being his private thoughts. Jemaine as a character is grandiose and delusional about his prowess with women, which is WHY he’s hilarious. The men who made the parody are not actors and though they had the very brave participation of their colleagues, they also were not actors, therefore no one had the ability to impart the social awkwardness of the original.
I am a woman and when I watched FotC I identifed with Brett and Jemaine and hardly even remember who the girl was (though I think she the American from Peep Show). However when I watch the parody, I identify immediately with the girl and the effect seems somehow sinister. I think this is because the men in the parody are making sexually aggressive moves on this girl. Their behavior turns this girl into prey, not a girlfriend. I know I am interpreting that differently than the video intended, but there are obvious lines that trigger a fear response in me. The line about the woman on the dance floor with Jemaine was a device to point out his competition, the line in the parody about the girl at the centrifuge, with seven other dudes implies that they are all viewing her as sexual and she is outnumbered. No matter what they intended, this triggers an automatic prey response in me and I now see every one of those men as a threat, no matter who they are. It’s a visceral reaction with very deep roots that is not intellectually negotiable. However, I really feel like these men chose their words because they rhymed and not because they menace women in their lab.
These men are young and they will eventually learn to approach women without spooking them. I don’t think they should be critisized for their video and I hope they keep watching good content and making their own stuff.

Interesting … when I commented before I had watched the spoof video but not the original. To me the spoof seemed fun and self-deprecating and not at all icky, but the original gave me a very creepy feeling – the guy in the original seems really predatory to me. In the parody, the woman seems confident and in her element and in no danger at all. In the original, the woman seems to be alone at the party and maybe feeling a little less confident – she seems much more vulnerable to me. Yet others are having the opposite response, so you are probably right that it has more to do with our own history than anything else.

“…the line in the parody about the girl at the centrifuge, with seven other dudes implies that they are all viewing her as sexual and she is outnumbered. “
This shows why it’s impossible to “learn to approach women without spooking them”. You’re too easily spooked. The other guys were just waiting in line. So I can either spook you, or not approach you at all.

The original is so much sleazier, with the guy talking about feeling each other up (willing to risk getting slapped for it) and comparing her to a high-class prostitute.

Treat people as people and be willing to make mistakes.

Amen, Matthew. The reason so many guys have problems dealing with women is because they’re trying to “deal with women” rather than deal with fellow human beings. We’re not a different species from men, and we’re varied individuals with varied personalities just like men are. If a guy treats women as incomprehensible alien stereotypes, it really shouldn’t be much of a surprise to him when most chicks don’t want anything to do with him. And yet somehow it seems that there’s a large contingent of guys who are completely incapable of comprehending this.

@Anne C H. (#37)
“…about how women are too wussy and girly and irrelevant to belong in science…”

interesting. after reading the bending-over-backwards mansplanations in the comments (“i’m so hurt by you pointing out my sexism!”) i got the exact opposite impression. maybe there shouldn’t be so many guys in the sciences if their feelings get hurt so easily.

@a dude (#42)

I got nuthin’ to add, but you made me laugh.

Different dude, you have described your own post to a T. Congratz.

Thoughts.

1) Lab parodies of regular songs are always truly embarrassing.

2) I don’t think it’s at all offensive because it is so clearly in the spirit of Flight of the Conchords. I’m totally willing to follow the argument proposed by the post unlike half these punks who clearly dismiss it out of hand to beat some drum about why they hate feminism (even the scientifically inclined can be extra stupid about some things) and I rarely conclude that they’re the result of overreaction. However, in my opinion, the super cartoonish context of the song makes a difference and the lab setting is less a commentary on work dynamics in science than it is the result of the creators being a bunch of bored dorks who work in a chem lab.

I can understand how women might be reminded of unfortunate situations with socially retarded lab mates of the past, though, and I think that’s the crux of this post: just one lady saying “let me explain the perspective of someone who might find this video annoying.” You don’t need to agree with the conclusion but attempt some empathy ffs.

3) Matt Saunders is the worst type of nerd. Take that shit to some message board for tedious philosophy majors or other people who’ll fall for that, jesus christ.

4) “Because of reactions like this, I will never figure out how to get a girlfriend.” -> hahahaha.

5) “I don’t value people who get easily offended.” -> hahahahahahaha.

6) @34, I thought the joke about the centrifuge was that you have to wait foreverrrr to use high demand instruments. So true, right?

7) @45, it is super excellent to have you around to point to as an example when I need to write “let’s not pretend that women are the more uptight gender: look, dudes become completely humorless and pedantic in response to tiny offhand jokes too!”

I am so confused… that was an awesome video. Why is Much Music, or cable in general petitioned down if this is remotely a problem?

Like other students working in a science lab, it’s so nice to see these parodies mimic our social lives, or lack thereof, lol.

I don’t think the majority of the people with a problem with this video come from a science background. I’m more inclined to believe the Arts and Social Science majors like to make big issues out of anything to sound intelligent.