Thursday, April 2, 2009

I wasn't planning on writing about the sexist comments made toward Sheril Kirshenbaum on the Bad Astronomy Blog since other people have written some very good commentary on this shit. But after reading and commenting in the post on CPP's blog (which is filled with awesome commenters, trolls, and clueless fools), I decided that I had some things to say that are probably a bit teal deer for a comment. I'll probably be repeating some things mention in the posts linked above.


Point #1: This whole issue to me isn't simply about people commenting on/judging Sheril based on her appearance. Because while that is admittedly a shitty thing to do, I think there is a deeper issue with the with the comments. The problem I see is that too often the metric for judging women is attractiveness ( defined: How much men should want to stick their penis in a particular woman).

This kind of judgement is often made based on what a woman looks like (it was in this case), but it's not exclusive to appearances. Commenting on how sexy a woman is based one her intelligence, interests, hobbies, or a particular personality trait is not as widespread, but it happens and it's still unacceptable.

I've mention before some of my interests. Most of the people who share these interests tend to be male and this means that if I want to talk about them the community I'll be joining will be made up of 90% men. And such was the case on one forum where I post. Of course, I post under a pseudonym and it happens to be a masculine sounding pseudonym. This made a lot of people assume that I a man and I was treated as decently as anyone there can expect to be treated.

After a month or so of posting for whatever reason, I can't remember, it came out that I was a woman. The response that followed was interesting. There was the expected reaction; some people insisted that I must fit their stereotype of a woman and therefore I would infect their precious community with feminine shit. There was also a response I did not expect. I did not expect to receive come-ons that ranged from the almost innocent to the obscene. These were from people who had no clue what I looked like and only knew that I have an interest in certain shows.

This doesn't happen as often in real life, as it's much easier to sexualize based on appearance, but it indicates that the problem with how many men treat women as sexual objects extends passed just finding them physically attractive. And this is what I find offensive about the comments. It's that a women was treated as if her first, if not only, role is to sexually please a man. This kind of treatment denies us the ability to be fully human. This is even more troubling in the context of the history of women's oppression. For thousands of years women have been treated as if their only possible role was to breed and be mothers.

Point #2: Some comments were made indicating that we where just overreacting to an innocent complement. I hope the above convinced you that the comments, while possibly made innocently, are not at all innocent. But lets assume that those comments are harmless. Lets assume that we are living in a historical vacuum. Even in that case I think that the people defending them should apologize and shut the fuck up.

Why? Well, that involves trying to understand what a goddamn compliment is. A compliment isn't simply saying the X is a good trait of Y person. When I compliment one of my aims is to make the person being complimented feel good. I think that's the more important part of compliments and that's why I try not to offend people with inappropriate praise.

Now, if you read all the follow-up to the comments, you'd have realized that quiet a lot of women found the comments offensive, including Sheril. So your compliment failed. All you did was offend the person you wanted to compliment and therefore you should apologize and STFU.

Point#3: "When is it appropriate to comment on a woman's attractiveness?" you ask.

I would say the best guidline is to think, "Would she want to know or care whether I want to bone her or not?" It's really as simple as that. Well, unless you think that every woman is here as as your personal cockwarmer. But then you're an irredeemable misogynistic waste of air.

29 comments:

ERV said...

Well even actual compliments on someones appearance are odd and O/T on science blogs. I mean, Ive always thought Sherils hair was gorgeous... but I never thought of going to her blog and randomly saying on some global warming post 'OMFG your hair is so pretty!!!'

I was just planning on sitting behind her at a blogging conference and secretly braiding it...

LOL!

YouKnowWho said...

Lost marbles,

Good post, eg;

"The problem I see is that too often the metric for judging women is attractiveness"


however, I object to you continually referring to me as a troll (if indeed I am the poster you are referring to).
you might check the wikipedia definition.

And I never said that something that I do believe was (relatively) innocent was necessarily "harmless" - in fact it was pretty uncool. Those guys were a couple of jerks who run a web site about beer. A couple of snide remarks from these jokers should not and will not derail an established scientist's career.

while I've been having fun, and hopefully adding my share to the entertainment value of the blog'o'sphere, I am a regular reader and was genuinely expressing my opinion. All the personal details I have mentioned are true.

whatever you may think of them my questions are real - why was it not offensive for arlenna to publish those sexually suggestive student evals? and for others here to cheer her on? It makes me uncomfortable when everyone then gangs up on another blogger for something milder (for example, the picture of sheril was posted before the comments, but phizzedrizzle published that scientists's photo intentionally!

Cheers,

you know who

Comrade PhysioProf said...

a bit teal deer

What the fuck is a teal deer?

LostMarbles said...

What the fuck is a teal deer?

Is it time for a remedial lesson in internet slang?

It's an internet meme thingy. The phrase "too long; didn't read" is usually abbreviated to "tl;dr" which when said out loud sounds like "teal deer".

LostMarbles said...

however, I object to you continually referring to me as a troll

I didn't thing you were a troll while reading most of the thread. You just seemed painfully socially awkward. However, when you started bouncing around from post to post declaring how you "vanquished" CPP from his own blog (?) any content you might have had was overshadowed by what seemed to me an attempt to derail conversations. This wasn't help by you posting things aimed at making people feel uncomfortable.

As for your questions. I can't say anything about the Chemical BiLOLgy as I haven't read it and can't seem to find it. As for PhizzleDizzle's post, I honestly think you are reading a phrase while missing the context in which it is written. It's not meant as a "look at Corrinne Yu. She's hot, lets all drool".

LostMarbles said...

Well even actual compliments on someones appearance are odd and O/T on science blogs.

Definitely.

Now, I'm going to go sit in a corner looking all blissful and happy and sparkly because one of my blogging idols commented.

YouKnowWho said...

"by what seemed to me an attempt to derail conversations."

oh give me a break! I was trying to keep the conversation on topic, and everyone else was saying "fuck you you troll etc"

I thought the vanquishing stuff was pretty funny at thee time, and true, in a way: CPP obviously had nothing left to say.

"As for your questions. I can't say anything about the Chemical BiLOLgy as I haven't read it and can't seem to find it."

oh don't be coy I posted the whole comment thread several times. it's from december 2008 titled Course evaluations are awesome.

"It's not meant as a "look at Corrinne Yu. She's hot, lets all drool"."

well what is it meant as then? And she did post the photo to point out the hotness. Do you really think that's an apropriate thing to do? And why so important?

Michael Hawkins said...

The comments did not indicate that the user only appreciate Kirshenbaum for her looks. He clearly stated that he was unfamiliar with her science. To me, that shows that his first thought was to post something about abilities. He then indicated that he finds her attractive. No, that does not mean that her only worth is as a "cockwarmer". It means, purely and simply and plainly as day, he likes the structure of her face.

Beside all that, Kirshenbaum clearly takes care of her looks. Her hair was done in a "cutesy" way, she's wearing make-up, and I believe there is even lip gloss present. How is complimenting someone on her natural looks + her personal care for her looks any different from a person complimenting someone on her natural intelligence + her personal care for her education? Of course, one takes far more effort and consideration and thus deserves far more focus, but the principle is largely the same here.

YouKnowWho said...

"Beside all that, Kirshenbaum clearly takes care of her looks."

As I pointed out on another blog, the photo used doesn't help the situation - some may think his is "sexist" but it's actually just professionalism to not emphasize one's youthfulness and smile from ear to ear, and have the long hair hanging loosely, if one wants to look professional. Pulling back the camera and wearing professional clothes and toning down the smile a bit and the reaction might have been different. LM I am still waiting for your defense of Arlenna and PhizzleDizzle's posts...

Have a nice weekend everyone!

Learn Hexadecimal said...

Sweet fucking hell.

Beside all that, Kirshenbaum clearly takes care of her looks. Her hair was done in a "cutesy" way, she's wearing make-up, and I believe there is even lip gloss present.

That sound you just heard was the sound of me hitting myself repeatedly in the forehead with the palm of my hand.

Your judgment of her hair as "cutesy" (eugh) is completely irrelevant here. So is your belief in the presence of lip gloss.

There is a strong cultural imperative for women, even - perhaps especially - professional women, to appear in public wearing makeup and with their hair styled in some way (fucked if I know the details).

This does not make it okay to comment on their looks, in the same way that it is not okay for me to look at a photo of your (possibly hypothetical; I have no reference) clean-shaven face and tell you that you have a lovely smooth chin and I would like to rub my penis against it. Even if both facts are true, and even if you are putting obvious effort into maintaining your appearance, the comment is still wildly fucking inappropriate.

YouKnowWho said...

") clean-shaven face and tell you that you have a lovely smooth chin and I would like to rub my penis against it. "

ewww

sicko, you are the only one here who is using this kind of language.

And we are on the blog of a young female student! Get lost, please.

LM,

I reread the other thread and my commnent to biophemera was admittedly harsh. But she did post a cute photo on her blog that I had remembered, because i lked her blog, and she DID jump in and join the "fun" on the thread started just to mock me. Considering she is a well known blogger it seemed to lend legitimacy to the attack against me and I was justifiably angered. In retrospect I should have just said that and not mocked her back.

Learn Hexadecimal said...

And we are on the blog of a young female student! Get lost, please.

Marbles can answer that one herself. If she wants me gone, I'll go.

But she did post a cute photo on her blog that I had remembered

...oh boy.

No. You don't get to use people's posted photos as ammunition in the Creep War. The fact that you were making the comment based on perceived reality makes it worse, not better.

I'm glad you called me a sicko, because it means my comment did its goddamn fucking job. The shudder of revulsion you felt when you read that? Yeah, that's the same feeling everyone else in this conversation gets when they hear you calling your opponents little hotties or see some fuckface drool "mmmmm wo-man" all over a professional scientist.

YouKnowWho said...

Please leave hexi, you have no sense of perspective, no sense at all, AND you are not funny at all. Besides, I already apologized for my overeaction to biophemera's rudeness and cruelty.

And yes I am leaving too. You are all officially on record as having NO defense for the comments of phizzle and arlenna. I am not surprised.

LostMarbles said...

Please leave hexi, you have no sense of perspective, no sense at all, AND you are not funny at all. Besides, I already apologized for my overeaction to biophemera's rudeness and cruelty.

And yes I am leaving too. You are all officially on record as having NO defense for the comments of phizzle and arlenna. I am not surprised.


This is exactly why I called you a troll. This is not normal social behaviour. You, as a first time commenter, are not supposed to tell my other commenters (who happen to be close personal friends) to leave. The huffy pseudo-flouncing* and declarations of how you won and how nobody explained anything to you don't help either.

I'm sorry if you feel that I didn't have a timely reply, but Friday evenings and Saturdays are a particularly busy time of the week for me.

I'll get onto finding and reading the Chemical BiLOLogy post and give a reply then. As for PhizzleDizzle's post, I read it as meaning that Corrine Yu is an attractive woman working in a male dominated field who despite all of that is still a leader in that field. The emphasis on her being "hott" is there because in a lot of male dominated fields women are expected to act like men and deemphasize their feminine qualities lest they be accused of using their feminine wiles to get to the top.

*You'll probably still leave a few comments, so I can't call it real flouncing.

LostMarbles said...

It means, purely and simply and plainly as day, he likes the structure of her face.

Is there a reason why they felt it's okay to tell her this? As Abbie stated it's odd and off-topic to tell a science blogger that they're pretty or comment on their looks. It's also hard not to interpret this as a highly sexist comment in the context of women being treated as a sex-class historically. In that context comments on a science blog to a woman these people have just been introduced to about how much a her appearance pleases men is seen as saying that she is eye-candy. and that comment that went "mmmm...wo-man", I don't see how you can defend that.

LostMarbles said...

Hex (god it's weird not using your name), thank for holding down the fort while I was busy. I love you to bits and you are awesome.

YouKnowWho said...

"It means, purely and simply and plainly as day, he likes the structure of her face. "

I just want it made crystal clear that I do not agree with this. As I have stated several times I DO agree the comments were inappropriate. However I think the matter was a minor incident and was handled well at the time by other participants. People can post anonymously, and occasional comments like this will be made. This will never change. They were made by insignificant people who were much lower in status than SK. The ensuing witch hunt was bizarre and wildly inappropriate.

Women need to take their power and not play victims in situations like this.

"The fact that you were making the comment based on perceived reality makes it worse, not better."

I mentioned her photo only to explain why her appearance popped into my head during that brief period of anger after she joined the fray on that comment thread.

"You are all officially on record as having NO defense for the comments of phizzle and arlenna."

I forgot to add I am also still waiting for an explanation of why some people can use my racial hue as a pejorative, all the while casting stones at others they've identified as racists (ironically, the same people they are insulting with their racist remarks).

YouKnowWho said...

"I mean, Ive always thought Sherils hair was gorgeous... but I never thought of going to her blog and randomly saying on some global warming post 'OMFG your hair is so pretty!!!'"

WTF? You are saying it on someone else's blog, just like the nimrods everyone's whining about did.

Comrade PhysioProf said...

You are all officially on record as having NO defense for the comments of phizzle and arlenna.

Officially on record!?!? AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!!!!

LOON ALERT LEVEL INFINITY!!11!!1!!

Learn Hexadecimal said...

I mentioned her photo only to explain why her appearance popped into my head during that brief period of anger after she joined the fray on that comment thread.

Nobody fucking cares why her appearance popped into your head. Lots of things pop into people's heads. Socially competent adults proceed to not mention the ones that turn out to be inappropriate in some way.

In the absence of bioephemera, who is technically the only person with an absolute authority to judge your apology, I feel comfortable in holding it up to my standards.

It reads as pure loathsome slime from start to finish.

One: You're making it to us, not her. Granted I have no way of knowing if you have apologized to her somewhere out of my sight, but given your history here I am not inclined to be charitable.

Two: You didn't actually use the words or sentiment "I'm sorry". You expressed indirect regret, but the ratio of remorse-like statements to pathetic excuses in that paragraph is 27:58 by word count - in other words, a hair's breadth under 1:2. Fucking fail.

Three: You give two reasons why you acted as you did. Setting aside the fact that offering excuses up front is a hallmark of a bad apology, they're also bad excuses.

The first one (the "cute" photo) is disgusting; the second one (your claim of a pile-on) is fucking paranoid. All bioephemera did was ask where to find the feminist blog church. In other words, crack a joke. It wasn't even a particularly barbed joke. So no, you weren't justifiably angered. I'll believe that you were angered, but the justification is all in your fucking head.

Four: You say you should not have "mocked her back", thus demonstrating an abject failure to comprehend just what it is we're all ripping into you for. I'll give you a hint, buddy. Mockery ain't it. Creepiness is.

So in summary: you dodged expressing actual regret, flooded your pseudopology with excuses, didn't understand what you should have been apologizing for, and managed to repeat the offense in the apology itself by mentioning your creepy-in-context memory of bioephemera's cute photo.

I already apologized for my overeaction to biophemera's rudeness and cruelty.

No. No you really didn't.

And if you just characterized bioephemera's comment in that other thread as "rudeness and cruelty", you are not living in the same reality as the rest of us.

Hex (god it's weird not using your name), thank for holding down the fort while I was busy. I love you to bits and you are awesome.

Anytime.

YouKnowWho said...

"you are awesome."

Sorry LM, your choice of friends leaves something to be desired. This Lexi person is very unpleasant. I tried to get along but...

Also the level of rudeness and offensiveness on the comments section is disturbingly high, especially since CPP's arrival. I thought we had escaped her carping. Soon duWayne will show up and start lashing out blindly in all directions.

I thought we were going to have an actual conversation. Lexi is going off on some weird obsession with this biophemera shit, making totally ridiculous assertions that I can't be bothered to address. As I've made clear, biophemera owes ME an apology. But since I already retaliated, we're even. Lexi is the only person still fretting about this.

It's all a smokescreen that prevents us from discussing the important issues like racism, sexism, classism, and the science blogs mob mentality.

Learn Hexadecimal said...

Lexi is going off on some weird obsession with this biophemera shit, making totally ridiculous assertions that I can't be bothered to address.

Correcting your false statements is a weird obsession now? It's sad that I'm not even surprised.

But okay, if you want to stop talking about bioephemera, I'm cool with that. Let's discuss some of your other false statements instead!

I tried to get along but...

DINGDINGDING! WE HAVE A WINNER! Go fuck yourself. If this is you trying to get along, no wonder you've got nothing better to do than spew vile falsehoods all over the Internet.

See, the above paragraph is an example of actual "rudeness and offensiveness", and something for which a person might legitimately feel compelled to apologize to you. I do not feel so compelled, because I'm an asshole and I don't give a shit. Offending and upsetting you was my express intention when I wrote those words, and all I will feel when you inevitably bitch and whine about how mean I am is the warm happy glow of a job well done.

It's all a smokescreen that prevents us from discussing the important issues like racism, sexism, classism, and the science blogs mob mentality.

You know what, I'm going to extend you the benefit of the doubt here and assume that your head is stuffed very firmly up your ass, as opposed to assuming you're a troll.

Pro tip: you're fucking paranoid. Nobody is putting up any goddamn smokescreens. And it would be exceptionally clever of me to avoid talking about sexism by bashing you for your creepy sexist comments. Oh. Wait.

Michael Hawkins said...

LostMarbles,

"Is there a reason why they felt it's okay to tell her this? As Abbie stated it's odd and off-topic to tell a science blogger that they're pretty or comment on their looks. It's also hard not to interpret this as a highly sexist comment in the context of women being treated as a sex-class historically. In that context comments on a science blog to a woman these people have just been introduced to about how much a her appearance pleases men is seen as saying that she is eye-candy. and that comment that went "mmmm...wo-man", I don't see how you can defend that."

Have you been around the Internet? I wouldn't call it "odd" that someone would comment on another person's look, science blogger or not.

I disagree that basically saying he finds Kirshenbaum attractive anyway debases her science, especially given the what else he said. It's so easy for everyone to try and ignore the context of his post because it's inconvenient to do otherwise. The poster said he is not familiar with her science. This is another way of saying his first concern is her work, followed by looks. His words do not debase Kirshenbaum's science blogging unless they are made in a more specific post (say, she writes about a new discovery of some sort and he comments about her looks). Even then, it would depend upon what the wording and intent was. It would certainly be inappropriate, but that does not equal sexism.

Learn Hexadecimal said...

The poster said he is not familiar with her science. This is another way of saying his first concern is her work, followed by looks.

No. It's not. It's a way of saying he's aware he should be commenting on her science, but can't or won't, so he has decided to comment on her looks instead. And that is not okay.

There are any number of acceptable responses to a new science blogger with whom a commenter is unfamiliar. Slimy remarks about the blogger's attractiveness are not among them.

His words do not debase Kirshenbaum's science blogging

They debase her person. How are you all right with that?

Even then, it would depend upon what the wording and intent was. It would certainly be inappropriate, but that does not equal sexism.

...or not.

If I accidentally cut your finger off while peeling potatoes, it doesn't matter that my intent wasn't to maim you. You're still missing a fucking finger.

Michael Hawkins said...

No. It's not. It's a way of saying he's aware he should be commenting on her science, but can't or won't, so he has decided to comment on her looks instead. And that is not okay.

This is largely what I just said. We can be specific, though. He can't comment on her science because he doesn't know who she is. It is not that he won't. You can't just group "can't or won't" together. One is the result of incidentally being unfamiliar with a scientist and the other can be interpreted a number of ways, many of which are likely to be sexist.

There are any number of acceptable responses to a new science blogger with whom a commenter is unfamiliar. Slimy remarks about the blogger's attractiveness are not among them.

I disagree that his remarks were "slimy". He didn't say "mm....woman" like the other user, nor was he graphic.

They debase her person. How are you all right with that?

This is a big piece of the problem with the trolling by PhysioProf and the mob over there. It isn't that anyone is okay with debasing a person. It's that some people do not view the comment as being debasing.

Take this post from PZ Myers (http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/04/welcome_ethan_siegel.php). He comments about the picture of another blogger. The context isn't sexual, but the principle is the same as what happened with Kirshenbaum. Someone noticed something exceptional about a picture and commented upon it. In PZ's case, the picture he commented upon was far more notable, but degree does not alter a principle.

No one would bother to say PZ has debased Ethan Siegel's science or person.

...or not.

Do you honestly believe the first commenter* was trying to show his prowess over Kirshenbaum? Do you think he was showing prejudice against successful women? Or do you think he is just a hetereosexual male that was giving his opinion?

If I accidentally cut your finger off while peeling potatoes, it doesn't matter that my intent wasn't to maim you. You're still missing a fucking finger.

Intent is hugely important. It forms the basis of many philosophies, as well as many laws (though inconsistently among some laws). If you cut off my finger and its accidental, no one is going to accuse you of assaulting me. I'll still have to deal with that lost finger, but I have no basis for placing blame on you.

Thank you for actually responding to individual points. It puts you lightyears ahead of just about everyone else involved with this topic and related posts.

Michael Hawkins said...

I forgot to finish my asterisk.

*I am defending specific comments, not all.

Pat said...

(more or less) adult conversation over this issue! how many friggin blogs did I have to wade knee-deep through to get here. thanks for hosting marbles.

LostMarbles said...

Michael,

I think the major disagreement we have on this issue is that I view those comments in the context of patriarchy and the history of women being a sex-class, you don't. From where I stand on this, men pointing out the niceness of a woman's facial features are saying that they are attracted to them and thus perpetuating the historical view of women as sex objects for men.

Do I think the people making those comments did it with that intent? No, I think most likely the comments were meant innocently. I think that these comments where just a product of men raised within a system that tells them this kind of thing is okay. However, that doesn't mean the comments are innocent and I think they should be called out whenever they're made.

As for the difference in the comments. Yes, some of them are less rude or crudely stated than others, but I think overall they send the same message. You'll probably interpret that differently since you don't think the context of patriarchy is very, if at all, important.

Learn Hexadecimal said...

Thank you for actually responding to individual points. It puts you lightyears ahead of just about everyone else involved with this topic and related posts.

You're welcome. Hell, I'm astonished I didn't chase you away with the chin penis comment.

This is largely what I just said. We can be specific, though.

I'll give you that they were similar, but by all means let's be specific, because the distinction I drew was specific and intended for a specific purpose.

He can't comment on her science because he doesn't know who she is. It is not that he won't. You can't just group "can't or won't" together.

My intention in grouping "can't or won't" together was to omit consideration for his reasons, because his reasons don't matter. He did not comment on her science, which is fine. He chose to instead comment on her looks, which is not fine.

I disagree that his remarks were "slimy". He didn't say "mm....woman" like the other user, nor was he graphic.

A remark doesn't need to be graphic to be slime.

The comment we're discussing was the one that went something like "I know nothing about this blogger's science but as a healthy man I look forward to any post with her picture attached", right? I assert slime. Elegantly worded, oblique slime, but slime nevertheless.

I'm gonna draw an analogy now, so bear with me.

Imagine that you're Superman. You have unimaginable strength. Every time you touch something, you have to be careful not to break it.

Hold somebody's hand, give your girlfriend a kiss on the cheek, pick up that vase that's been in your family for generations and which you've never liked anyway... and if you don't control yourself, you break bones or heirloom china.

Socially speaking, male privilege (the "power" part of the "power + prejudice" equation) is that superstrength. Except that its effects are usually a lot subtler, and often invisible to the guys who go around breaking people's metaphorical faces.

The problem with the remark we're talking about, and the reason I describe it as slime, is that it's assumptive. It assumes that Slimy Commenter gets to make a public judgment about Ms. Kirshenbaum's sexual worth in lieu of her scientific worth.

Which contributes, in a very small way, to the power imbalance between men and women in science-- and is also informed by that imbalance, hence the "prejudice" part. Because you really can't tell me with a straight face that men in science are commonly objectified, sexualized, and told that they belong in a less intellectual field. It just doesn't happen.

Whereas women in science, and professional women in general, deal with that kind of bullshit every day. And no matter how innocently it was all meant, they're the ones who lose the fucking fingers-- or jobs or promotions or pay raises, as the case may be. Not to mention sense of personal fucking dignity.

Now, I consider myself a feminist, but I guaranfuckingtee you I have cocked up and done some sexist things in my time. Hell, taking over this comment page is probably sexist; I'm assuming Marbles needs my help schooling the mob on her own blog. I don't think I assume it because she's a woman, but how would I know? Pretend she's a guy for a minute to check? Brains don't work that way.

Since I slept for eight hours in the middle of writing this comment, I should probably refresh and see if Marbles has beaten me to the punch.

From where I stand on this, men pointing out the niceness of a woman's facial features are saying that they are attracted to them and thus perpetuating the historical view of women as sex objects for men.

Rock on, Marbles. You got to the point of my comment a fuck of a lot quicker and more clearly than I did. But I'm very attached to my five-hundred-word diatribe, so I'm gonna post this comment anyway.