Publications
Partners
I WAS in the bank yesterday, sitting on a bench which was the queue for Enquiries, when an old geezer came in. (I say ‘old geezer’ – I’m sure he was no older than my husband, but you know how some people just act like old geezers?)
He had some interchange with the ‘Service Champion’ who was directing people according to their needs, and she indicated he should join our queue.
“Right, then, budge up, girls!” he said breezily to the four women on the bench – three black women and me – none of whom was under 35. “That’s the way, girls!”
“Kindly do not refer to grown women as girls!” I snapped, unable to help myself. He looked at me skeef (askance) and turned away.
I felt a bit silly for being aggressive – after all, the other women had smiled as they shifted – but as I chatted to them, I discovered that they, too, had found him offensive.
Their smiles, plainly, simply indicated a politeness, a fear of confrontation which I understand – I seldom confront people publicly either, it’s the way I was raised.
But this time, the debacle around Sir Tim Hunt and the “Let me tell you about my trouble with girls” remarks triggered my response.
READ: Science and sexism
A lot of people railed about the feminist ‘witch hunt’ which had seen this distinguished scientist ‘hounded out of his job’ (he resigned, on being asked to do so, from his honorary, and as far as I can tell, unpaid, position). He was just joking, they said, and people at the Korean lunch were smiling. Hmmm.
The Korean Federation of Women’s Science and Technology Associations which held the lunch seemed offended, smiles or no (their reaction has barely been noted anywhere).
They wrote: “In a subsequent BBC interview, Sir Tim Hunt elaborated on his statement, saying that 'I did mean [it]' and 'I meant to be honest.' […] On behalf of Korean female scientists, and all Koreans, we wish to express our great disappointment that these remarks were made at the event hosted by KOFWST.
"This unfortunate incident must not be portrayed as a private story told as a joke. We cannot accept sexist remarks that threaten to reverse the gains made towards equality for women scientists, and women in the wider society.” (Hunt has since offered the organisation a much more sweeping apology.)
The latest wrinkle in this sorry tale is an attempt, by the Daily Mail and one or two others, to shoot the messenger by smearing Connie St Louis. She’s the distinguished academic who, along with equally distinguished Pulitzer Prize winner Deborah Blum and Dr Ivan Oransky, co-founder of Retraction Watch, put their heads together in disbelief to record what Hunt had said (as good science journos are inclined to do, given that it’s their job). St Louis then sent the Tweet that set the storm in motion.
If St Louis’ university is to be believed, it appears that the Daily Mail’s claims about her are… let’s call them errors? Not too surprising given that, as Bad Astronomy blogger Phil Plait writes, “Not to put too fine a point on it, the Daily Mail is to journalism what ipecac is to digestion.” (His article is excellent.)
Play the ball, not the person
I find it sad that, virtually every time someone calls out a public figure for saying or doing something that is discriminatory against some group or other, their defenders don’t play the ball (arguing for or against the issue in question, the statement made) – they immediately play the person.
How many people are brave enough to stand up for principles if you need a hairy mammoth’s hide to survive the fallout?
Back at the bank, I discovered from my fellow queuers that the first interchange between the Service Champion and the Old Geezer had been:
“May I help you, sir?”
“Certainly, my dear. I need a little light gardening done. No? Maybe some laundry or dishwashing, then?”
I’m sure he’s been told innumerable times that he’s a real card, a funny man. But that is not funny.
And for the same reason as Hunt’s comments – which I accept may have been intended as jokes – are not actually funny: “…joking reinforces existing prejudice. If you joke about women and get away with it, those who are hostile to women will see this as social sanction for their views and behaviour.
"The joke tellers don’t themselves have to be actively misogynist to end up encouraging others to be.” (Hilda Bastian, scientist.)
Replace women and misogynist with blacks and racist or gays and homophobic – see what I mean? You are modelling acceptance of such views to those around you. That’s why the Korean women scientists and others took those remarks so seriously.
I cannot imagine how the Service Champion felt (a black woman, need I say). But I think the women next to me were secretly glad to hear me snap.
But I have some questions: how would the bank have responded if informed about these offensive remarks? Would it risk losing a customer? Would any business?
And what would the Service Champion’s lot have been had she upbraided the Old Geezer about what he said and how it made her feel? Would she have suffered harm for raising a red flag about someone else’s bad behaviour?
That seems to be the fate of all whistle-blowers – even if their actions are in the interests of a better world.
*Mandi Smallhorne is a versatile journalist and editor. Views expressed are her own. Follow her on twitter.
