and now you will understand why i was procrastinating...

[harborshore]

Because writing ficlets was a hell of a lot more interesting and less infuriating than trying to take my philosophy textbook seriously.


Choice quotes (the parenthesis are my comments):


In the last two decades, sexual harassment has become a significant ethical concern in science as more women have entered the scientific profession (yes, those darned womenfolk, they really complicate things)...Behaviors that have been viewed (have been viewed?) as sexual harassment include rape (WHICH IS A CRIME) and unwanted sexual advances (ALSO A CRIME), requests for dates, quid pro quo arrangements, dirty jokes, sexual teasing, and lewd looks (Webb 1995).

We lack consensus on this issue (REALLY?), in part because men and women have different perspectives on sexual harassment (...uh, okay). This issue has become a battleground for opposing viewpoints and attitudes on the relations between the sexes... Sexual harassment is also legal (his typo, not mine--isn't it an interesting typo though?) in the United States and other countries.

...Since false charges of sexual harassment can still ruin careers and reputations, due process and fairness should be observed while reporting or adjudicating harassment, and trivial (I would like to know what constitutes a trivial accusation of sexual harassment, Mister Resnik) or unwarranted accusations should be avoided. While scientists should avoid sexual harassment, it is important for scientists to feel comfortable in a laboratory setting (I don't even know what to say about that one). Research and teaching can be significantly hampered when scientists feel too uptight to make conversation or socialize with their colleagues or interact in a normal way. (!!!!)

And then he finishes the section by advocating tolerance. I told liketheroad I was mostly helplessly laughing, because seriously, this dude is hilarious.


Except that I'm supposed to cite him and take him seriously, which I am not all that comfortable doing. Surprisingly.

He also had some fabulous gems on affirmative action, or as he prefers to call it, "preferential treatment." The gist of that one was basically that if scientists use "irrelevant characteristics" like race or gender in hiring someone, that someone was more likely to be underqualified and therefore more likely to be a bad scientist. So the fact that white dudes are hired based on them being white dudes all the fucking time means that they are...excellent scientists, got it.

Comments

[harborshore.livejournal.com]

Well, obviously the only women or non-white scientists around came into it between 1978 and 1998, right? That means they practically don't count.