Zuska blasted some moron at SciAm for referring to our own Shelley Batts as "attractive" during his summary of Shelley's recent run in with the lawyers at Wiley over the reproduction of a research figure:
Excuse me? "Seems to be attractive"? WTF???
I mean, what the f*ck does that have to do with anything in the story? Why the gratuitous mention of Shelley's appearance?
Oh, I know why. Because she's a WOMAN. And women, at all times, you must remember that you are women first and foremost. Your appearance is ever and always an issue, and no matter what the hell you are ever doing - be it analyzing a gel, delivering a talk, or taking on a publishing giant in the blogosphere - how you look will be an important factor in whatever story there is to tell about you.
Zuska left similar comments at the SciAm blog in response, and their resident sexist has replied:
Honestly, with the strong responses to that, frankly, off-hand and silly comment, I would take it out. But, that would be pretty weak. I wrote it. I didn't mean it to be condescending. I read Batts regularly--since I cover the neuroscience beat at sciam.com--and I find her insights helpful and I sometimes get ideas for stories from them. So, knives down everyone. Or not. I'll take the criticism I deserve for my uninspired attempt to pair an alliterative term with "avian-friendly." My bad.
"My bad"? "Pretty weak"? Is this Maxim or SciAm? Don't try to blame it on your lack of poetry skillz; you obviously thought it was okay to say what you did or you wouldn't have published it.
My question is, why is he cringing now, after the fact? Shouldn't something have gone off in his brain while he was typing the post? I know what its like to be at a loss for introductory material, but come on; he should know, as a professional writer, that relevance is his foremost priority, and his aside was completely inane and irrelevant.
I'm sure this will be brushed off as just a small infraction, which is unfortunate; this says something about his perception of people. He sees Shelley as a woman foremost and predominantly, and it influences his presentation and interpretation of the issue. This guy deserves a slap on the wrist. Perhaps SciAm needs to be a bit more choosy about who they permit to opine on their blog.
- Log in to post comments
So, because it's a SciAm blog, it must be held to the same journalistic standards as the mag itself? Don't we take down out guard a bit when we write blog posts, or must we start following Strunk and White and MLA, ALA, etc. guides at all times?
I agree that it was a stupid comment, but again, it's a blog.
I guess I'd give the guy a break.
The fact is that he's immersed -- as are we all -- in a culture that makes this sort of thing acceptable. And while, yeah, we're all supposed to fight it, we all make mistakes, and too many of us are blind to it for too long until it finally gets slammed in our face.
I'd give him a chance to clean up his act, rather than asking that he fall upon his sword for this blunder.
-Rob
My question is, why is he cringing now, after the fact? Shouldn't something have gone off in his brain while he was typing the post?
When he was typing the post, he was envisioning an audience that would be soaking in the same assumptions he was -- that it's always fair game to comment on a woman's appearance. Why he's cringing now is that he got called out for his assumptions.
Having made a mistake, it seems like the sensible thing for him to do would be to own up to it and learn from it. But probably he'll just save the comments for a less public discussion where he knows he won't get called out.
Not that I'm at all cynical about this kind of thing.
I'm not sure what journalistic standards, formatting and style guides have to do with respect.
I'm not asking for ritual suicide, but I sure as hell don't think he should get off with such a half assed apology.
Commenters 1 & 3: Nobody's asking him to fall on his sword. Nobody's refusing to "give him a chance to clean up his act". He's still got the blog so he's pretty much got lots of chances to clean up his act. And I'd suggest he stay far away from his "sword" when he's writing about scientists for whom he feels some sexual attraction.
... Calling out people when they fuck up is how they learn they've fucked up, so this criticism is a useful exercise. Like anything done in public it can be a little embarrassing but surely no more embarrassing than having him actually reveal that he has the shortcomings of sexism and poor judgment. Hopefully he's ultimately grown-up enough to figure out, once the embarrassment dies down, that he fucked up because he was sexist, and that's something he needs to fix in himself.