Help Me; I'm Dim: Please Explain Why This Is "Casual Sexism"
Per Cat Ferguson at Retraction Watch, Duke conservation biologist Stuart Pimm was the subject of an apology in the Elsevier journal Biological Conservation.
The apology was for the language in his review of Keeping the Wild: Against the Domestication of Earth, in the wake of an outcry over what he wrote.
Here's the apparently lady-horrifying bit from Pimm:
I confess to having had a teenage crush on Julie Christie, the actress in ''Doctor Zhivago'' and ''Darling.'' In the latter film, she has a scandalous affair with a married intellectual. When, at last, he finds that she's having other affairs too, he walks her to the subway, refusing to send her home in the usual taxi. When she asks why, he replies: ''I don't take whores in taxis.'' I teach this as a metaphor for academic discourse. Now, I spend my life in scientific debate: it's what makes science so effective. That some scientists desperately seek attention, however, does not make giving it to them desirable.
Here's the (paywalled) note released by the journal on November 20:
We would like to inform our readers that parts of the book review Keeping Wild: Against the Domestication of the Earth by Stuart Pimm, Volume 180, pages 151-152 are denigrating to women. We have taken action to prevent such use of inappropriate language from recurring, and emphasize that the language used in this book review in no way reflects the policy or practice of Biological Conservation or Elsevier.
Okay, the guy is working really hard to shoehorn an analogy that doesn't quite fit into his paper.
As somebody who has been guilty of going to ridiculous lengths to write a paragraph around a beloved joke -- to the detriment of the subject matter -- I think I see a compadre in self-indulgence.
My take -- and I think this seems rather obvious: He loves that line from "Darling," and Julie Christie, to boot, and was determined to stick both of his loves in a scientific paper.
But "casual sexism"? Why is this "casual sexism"?
Do we now define any mention by a man of sex that happens to include a woman as "sexism"?
I certainly would not call it "formal sexism" and definitely not "black-tie sexism" -- wait, is that casual racism?
The Former Banker at November 21, 2014 10:05 PM
I'm just loving all you commenters here tonight! Made me laugh, The Former Banker.
Amy Alkon at November 21, 2014 10:19 PM
Read this:
http://aas.org/posts/news/2014/11/aas-issues-statement-shirtgateshirtstorm
AAS Issues Statement on "Shirtgate"/"Shirtstorm"
which includes this:
"But in the meantime, unacceptable abuse has been directed toward the critics, from criticism of “over-active feminism” to personal insults and more dire threats."
And help me understand why the AAS, which is not Dr. Taylor's employer, and is not the ESA, which is Dr. Taylor's employer, is making any sort of comment on shirtgate at all.
Popehat suggests the shirt was not work appropriate, but says that was a matter for a quiet discussion between Taylor and his supervisors.
And then go back to that statement in which AAS suggests criticism of "over-active feminism" is in the spectrum of abuse.
Sheesh.
jerry at November 21, 2014 11:11 PM
Is he seen to be approving of the double standard for men and women's sex lives? That would be sexist, and casually mentioning it randomly in a book would make it casually sexist? I guess?
NicoleK at November 22, 2014 12:26 AM
Popehat suggests the shirt was not work appropriate, but says that was a matter for a quiet discussion between Taylor and his supervisors.
It was a falling-down on the job of a media person at his organization. You cannot expect people without media training to know what to wear on media. First of all, patterns are not the greatest on TV.
Also, people who are having an affair with one person (which they may excuse as "just one of those things") don't like to find out that they are being "cheated" on with many others.
Amy Alkon at November 22, 2014 5:17 AM
And then go back to that statement in which AAS suggests criticism of "over-active feminism" is in the spectrum of abuse.
I pointed this out during the (intense) debate on the Facebook astronomers page: that people can listen respectfully to complaints but that disagreement does not equal sexism or disrespect. It's a weapon in an arsenal, these kind of attempts to shut down discussion, but not one I have much patience for.
On the other side, I have a colleague who posted a rather tame criticism of the shirt on Twitter who had someone set up an account just so it could post hourly calling her a cunt. Ah, social media.
Regarding the subject of this post, I don't know that sexism is the right word to apply here but unprofessional certainly is. I really don't think a meditation on the nature of female sexuality and whores belongs in a biological journal, unless the subject at hand is the mating habits of stoats or somesuch.
Astra at November 22, 2014 5:45 AM
Dr. Taylor should have worn a miniskirt with stockings. Then, no one would have dared criticize an expression of trans-gender solidarity.
Andrew_M_Garland at November 22, 2014 6:45 AM
"You cannot expect people without media training to know what to wear on media. First of all, patterns are not the greatest on TV."
Virginia Postrel tweeted a photograph from JPL during Curiosity showing all the JPL employees wearing a blue polo team shirt. Now we know why.
"Dr. Taylor should have worn a miniskirt with stockings. Then, no one would have dared criticize an expression of trans-gender solidarity."
That would have worked too.
JPL almost had a disaster on its hands had people then been sensitive to the racist aspects of a mohawk. Luckily for mohawk boy the sensitive feminist police watching were either not aware, or a bit swoony.
For the rest of us, here is a short training film from General Electric on sexual harassment training.
http://vimeo.com/30042289
jerry at November 22, 2014 9:24 AM
I had a drill instructor. I've been harassed by a professional, and anything else is a pale imitation at best.
MarkD at November 23, 2014 3:02 AM
Leave a comment