Notable Absences
My lab is having some architects come in to "shadow" us this week, to get input on the new lab building that is going to be built in Allston. (It's own long story, but not mine to tell.) A roster was made of who the architects will be hanging out with every hour over the course of two days. On the roster are people's names and positions (technician, PhD student, post-doc, instructor).
Obviously, since I am a mere PhD student, I have no honorific (as I am not yet "Dr." and there's not a need to call me "Ms." as I have an unambiguous first name.) All but two of the people with PhDs, and the one with an MD, are labeled as Dr. So-and-so, e.g. Dr. Michael X*, Dr. Carlos Y*, and Dr. Kumar Z*.
The exceptions? Post-docs Sharon* and Jennifer*, who are not addressed by any title at all. Who are the only female post-docs on the list.
I'm not the only one that noticed this, and it's weird, because the guy who made the list is someone I would never in a million years have accused of sexism.
Update: Guy who sent out the list writes, "How do you like that? I did not notice the omission when we got the first schedule from the architects…" He says he didn't really look at it before he sent it out, so it was the architects' fault. (Labmate would most likely not put anyone's title on the list, for reasons I explain in the comments section.)
To Recap: Architects came to the lab. Someone in the architecture firm made a list of lab members. On this list, only the male PhDs were listed as "Dr." and the female PhDs had no titles. (Non-PhDs also had no titles.) Labmate who sent out the list didn't look carefully at it and didn't notice (he says). What's up with the architects putting "Dr." in front of the males' names but not the females'?
Thoughts?
(*Not their real names.)
Obviously, since I am a mere PhD student, I have no honorific (as I am not yet "Dr." and there's not a need to call me "Ms." as I have an unambiguous first name.) All but two of the people with PhDs, and the one with an MD, are labeled as Dr. So-and-so, e.g. Dr. Michael X*, Dr. Carlos Y*, and Dr. Kumar Z*.
The exceptions? Post-docs Sharon* and Jennifer*, who are not addressed by any title at all. Who are the only female post-docs on the list.
I'm not the only one that noticed this, and it's weird, because the guy who made the list is someone I would never in a million years have accused of sexism.
Update: Guy who sent out the list writes, "How do you like that? I did not notice the omission when we got the first schedule from the architects…" He says he didn't really look at it before he sent it out, so it was the architects' fault. (Labmate would most likely not put anyone's title on the list, for reasons I explain in the comments section.)
To Recap: Architects came to the lab. Someone in the architecture firm made a list of lab members. On this list, only the male PhDs were listed as "Dr." and the female PhDs had no titles. (Non-PhDs also had no titles.) Labmate who sent out the list didn't look carefully at it and didn't notice (he says). What's up with the architects putting "Dr." in front of the males' names but not the females'?
Thoughts?
(*Not their real names.)
posted by Joolya at
6:57 PM
34 Comments:
This sounds like a classic class of thoughtlessness, but if this person doesn't think of Jennifer and Sharon as Dr. X then he's not giving them the respect they've earned/deserve.
If he sees that the list has several Dr. Males on it and STILL uses the women's first names, is it that far fetched that in a group meeting he could out of hand dismiss an idea from them because "the men are talking"?
I'm a bloke (male, for those non-aussies) who has told at times that I've done things that female colleagues didn't like so I've had to swallow my pride and except it. Just because I'm comfortable with something doesn't mean everyone should be.
Accepting that you have done something wrong is often very difficult and I'm sure that if you mentioned this to the guy who came up with the list he would fall all over himself to defend himself. However, cluelessness can be hurtful even with good intentions.
You know the Avenue Q song, "Everyone's a little bit racist?" This sounds like a case of "Everyone's a little bit sexist." It's not that the guy who did this is evil misogynist guy, just that we live in a world where people make these kinds of mistakes. Someone should just point it out to him, kindly, he should apologize, end of story.
For my part, I dream of the day where I say to my advisor, "Why am I always the one you ask to order the thai food for the meeting?" Why do you never ask any of your other (all male) advisees?
hm, maybe next time you're asked to order thai food, say you're really busy but you're sure that fred or chaz or leonardo would be more than competent at it ...
see update, also. labmate not overtly sexist, but missed the omissions. however, dr. carlos did notice it, as did all the females.
Well, it might be that your labmate just handed on the list and didn't read it, in which case we can blame the architects for sexism. Either way, from everything you and sundry other women have told me, this is usual. As for blatant sexism, you should be thankful we aren't in the financial sector. (Academics tending towards latent sexism.) My sister is a financial lawyer, and you should hear the shit she has had to face. One corporate fatarse recently told her that he didn't hire women because they got pregnant and didn't represent value for money. Urgh.
PS. Squin, English people say "bloke" too. Is it an Aussie word though? I always thought it was cockney. Since "Neighbours," lots of Aussieisms have been imported, like "avo", "mate", "barbie" etc.
What!?! Oy.
It was indeed the fault of the stupid architects. (No offense to nice architects who read this.) The lab manager who sent it to us didn't even look at it closely.
I like Boomy's "everyone's a little bit sexist" theory. It's interesting, too, because science people rarely, if ever, use "Dr." - it's just implied. People are mostly on a first-name-basis (or last-name-basis) around here.
I'm all for blaming architects for sexism. Excepting my favorite architect, of course, the field is a hotbed of neo-fascist penis waving.
This thing with women's names is really common in historical writing. Like, a writer might refer to John Adams in this way, "Adams was a strong leader, but had uncommonly smelly feet." BUT, when a writer talks about Abigail Adams, often the first name only is used. "Abigail's loving relationship with her husband was widely known, and she was famously tolerant of his smelly feet." Academic writing would never allow for calling John Adams simply "John," as it is unprofessional, overly familiar, a bit disrespectful, and generally not serious enough for a dry historical tome. But when it's a woman who is the subject, suddenly it's all about imparting feeling, being realistic, creating a relationship, etc.
This happens even in cool people's work, even in feminist scholars' work, because, well, this is the world we live in. I think it's good to point it out to the offender, fix it if possible, and move on to the next thing.
That's a really good point, Boomy. I will never do that again. In early American studies, Anne Hutchinson looms large (a heretic who was banished from Mass) and people always call her "Mrs. Hutchinson" and sometimes "Anne". Rarely, "Hutchinson". I was doing some stuff on the Mathers, who have the bizarre names "Increase" and "Cotton". It was fun being allowed to use their first names with impunity. Otherwise it would have been confusing.
The simple tactic is to bring in an MD. Any PhD who uses the honorific in the presence of a real doctor is an ass. After all, you've already imported the first name on that select list...
"8^>)
Are they wearing safety glasses? Where is a safe clean place to keep yours?
Open drawers should not snag on open lab coats. Get me an adjustable height ergonomic butt support by the bench. Provide a small soundproof proximately located room into which I may enter, close the door, and scream at full volume without disturbing the next person in line.
(Nerf bats are not harmless after ten hours of Pyrex-encased grief)
Haha! "Real" doctors! Plumbers...
I suspected it was probably the fault of the school. For at least a while, the ID cards for male postdocs read "Dr." while the ID cards for female postdocs had Ms. or Mrs (or no title). A female friend who complained to the ID card office was told it wasn't possible to make a change.
I would prefer being called by name rather than "Dr.".
But even if the mistake was made by your colleague, rather than architecht, I wouldn't read much into it. If I was singled out by my first name, rather than "Dr.", I wouldn't be too upset.
There's sexism in the lab, but why waste your energy on subtleties like these, when there are more important issues - job opportunities, credit for papers, presentations, getting important projects, etc.
I have heard all kind of complaints, some pretty minor - for example that a male TA doesn't share his "glances" equally between male and female students while teaching a seminar. I am sure it's a concern to some, but if these are the biggest problems of sex inequality, we must be in pretty good shape overall.
So instead of worrying about things like renaming "Chariman" into "Chairperson", I would rather see departments implement some real changes, like tenure "stop clock" and childcare availability. We tend to worry about the (minor, IMPO) symptoms, rather than underlying problems.
I'm totally with you, anonymous, and agree that this can get out of hand, but just remember that what you think is a "real change" might be frivolous to someone else. It's a slippery slope, and there is not a finite amount of things one can work to change. If I don't have kids, and I decide I'm not ever going to, then why would I want to squander limited energies worrying about increasing childcare availability or implementing tenure "stop clock" or any of a dozen work/family balance issues? Who gets to decide that issues of respect for one's colleagues (such as using the right titles) does not constitute a "real" issue, but issues of childcare does?
There is a lot of hypocricy in these matters, and the people who paint themselves as the nicest ones are actually those who are discriminating various members in this way.
I would never have the slightest idea to deny the professional respect to someone who is already in some position because she's female - not because I care about political correctness (which I care - but in the way of thinking how to destroy this pernicious paradigm) but because I simply believe that women who are in science at the same level are simply at the same level in their work, knowledge, and abilities. And sometimes they're above the guys. That's possible because by having less women in physics, the selection is more restrictive for females than it is for males.
The thing is, I don't think it was a deliberate slight. I just think it didn't register, either to the person who made the list or to the guy who sent it out (but he says he didn't really look at it).
The fact that it didn't register means that the list-maker, when looking at a male name made a point of including "Dr." but was not impelled to do that when he/she came to a female name.
I'm not taking it as an offense, exactly, anon, and of course there are more important issues in the workplace than forms of address. (Of course, practically no actual, male or female, scientist ever uses "Dr." except as a joke). However, the symptoms point to the problem. The problem being the underlying sexism. If we don't notice and acknowledge the symptoms, how will we diagnose or treat the problem?
I think you SHOULD care about things like child care even if you are not planning to have children, simply because statistically a lot of women will take these issues into consideration, and therefore having women-friendly (or as I like to call them people-friendly) policies in your department will help to reach critical mass of female faculty, which will result in higher female involvement at undergrad and grad level and the whole thing will snowball from there.
People use the same "little things lead to big changes" theory by saying that if we stop people from *thinking* about female scientists as somehow less capable (a notion reinforced in some language choices, such as chairman), that's the first step. I am not buying it.
I think we should change the meaning of the word rather than the word itself. Make more women take leadership positions, even if they carry "chairman" title. If anything, that should underscore that a woman can do what is traditionally a man's job. Otherwise it's getting silly. Putting "he or she" everywhere, and converting "mankind" to "humankind" ("personkind"?) is just a matter of dressing up concepts in a different set of clothing. It doesn't change underlying factors.
Also, off-topic here, but people put a lot of blame on professors and collaborators in attempts to explain low representation of women in some scientific disciplines, like physics or engineering. Some blame administration. I rarely see people blame mothers, sisters and girlfriends, which to me seem to provide by far the biggest part of "peer pressure" to stay away from sciences and get involved into something more appropriate for a lady. Or at least be a doctor (the real medical kind) or biologist, where taking care of living things seems more "maternal".
For whatever reason it's easier to rant about a sexist professor or co-worker, but I never heard anyone say: "My mom is so sexist - she wants me to find a nice boy and marry him and have children, instead of having a successful career". Seriously, I don't think there are a lot of mothers who will be happy to hear that their daughter decided to postpone marriage till 40ies and decided to give up having kids instead focusing on her career. So are mothers inherently sexist? I am not sure... But imagine a random person saying this: "You are a very bright girl, but I just don't think this career is for you. Let boys worry about this engineering thing, with staying up all night in the lab and working weekends. Why don't you marry some nice boy and concentrate on family and raising kids instead? I think you will be happier in the long run". Now, if this comes from a male professor or co-worker, this is just the most terrible, sexist, arrogant thing anybody can say to a female scientist. But if the person saying this is your mother (or sister or girlfriend), somehow it becomes acceptable on a whole new level. Think about it...
actually, to continue with your off topic, i think people blame mothers for MANY MANY problems that society can share in the blame for.
back to on topic... re: there are more important issues to think about--why does it have to be an all or nothing thing? either you have to focus on "important" things like child care at work or "frivolous" issues like language (which, imo, isn't frivolous at all)? why can't we be amending both?
i know that isn't what you were saying, jooyla, but that seems to be what anon was going with.
but i do agree that it is the thoughtlessness that is the most bothersome. if you aren't sure who are doctors and who are not, just forget it all together or give everyone the title.
"women-friendly (or as I like to call them people-friendly) policies"
Ew. I just threw up a little bit.
"rest of quote from anon. regarding "changing the meaning of the word" and everything..."
Yawn. Also. Barf.
"For whatever reason it's easier to rant about a sexist professor or co-worker, but I never heard anyone say: "My mom is so sexist - she wants me to find a nice boy and marry him and have children, instead of having a successful career.""
Really? Get out much? There's this thing called the internet, where people from all over the world and all different kinds of opinions get together and talk about stuff. There's also porn. Anyway, lots of these people have many things like that to say. Maybe you should try seeking out some message boards or chat rooms for feminists, particularly younger ones. Maybe the reason you don't hear anyone saying that around you is because of where/who you are?
Catswym:
"either you have to focus on "important" things like child care at work or "frivolous" issues like language (which, imo, isn't frivolous at all)? why can't we be amending both?"
I understand your frustration, but the fact is we do live in the real world and for many of us there really is just so much we can do. ~shrug~ And I, for one, don't think we should be made to feel bad about that. I'm perfectly happy advancing my career (in a male-dominated science field, btw), and letting the hippies get on with the rabble rousing ;)
Ethyl- I too am all abotu advancing my career (and drinking coffee) but I think making people aware of little Freudian slips like this is a useful way to open people's eyes to unconscious attitudes.
These discussions do tend to saunter off into strange ideal-type, non-realistic scenarios, though, don't they.
Well, anonymous, not being called "Dr." is clearly not as bad as being stuck in a poorly-paid job with no health insurance or childcare, and having to try to look after your kids while being forced to wear silly uniforms at MacDonalds. But that's not really Joolya's point, is it? She was merely pointing out a little mistake that was rather illuminating. Not being a scientist or a woman, I have little knowledge of why there are few women at the top levels of science. Perhaps because endless hours and stress at the end of a PhD, postdoc or first professorship(around the time when a lot of women are starting to think about children) mean that science isn't easy if you want to have kids. Out of interest, would you be prepared to step up to the plate and look after the littluns while your wife got on with her career? This is the question all men should ask themselves before getting embroiled in debates such as these.
Having reread anonymous's previous comments, I realise I was a bit snarky and that he was suggesting things we would all agree on, so, "Sorry, anonymous." It's been a long day and the subway broke. Still though, isn't one solution that men start thinking about looking after kids too? And employers start giving both men and women the opportunity to share childcare, to minimise disruption to everyone's working life? Sorry, I must sound desperately socialist. I do apologise.
By "suggesting things", I meant childcare and more sensible tenure requirements. I'll shut up now.
we should not waste time and energy on meaningless stuff simply because it distracts us and other people from real problems. If a friend came to me complaining that he was called by first name or "Mr." instead of "Dr.", I would say "Ooookkk!!!", Roll my eyes and make some mental note to self to avoid this self-important dweeb in the future.
ethyl-whatever, I am not sure why my comment about child-care policy being "human-friendly" made you throw up. In my experience well-educated men are just as interested in well-being of their children (quality child-care, good schools, etc.) as women. Child-care at universities would therefore benefit not only female faculty and students, but also plenty of their male counterparts as well.
I am not sure what the rest of the "get out much?" comment was about either. Your rather confrontational style which frankly distracts people from having a reasonable discussion, and gives feminism an anti-male warrior flavor that turns people off and provides an easy way out for people wanting to turn a blind eye to some of these problems. Lowering the temperature a bit and arguing rationally may pay off in the long run.
My point about mothers is that in our attempts to find the "enemy" responsible for certain problems we often overlook the obvious. Note that it's not the mothers of feminists that feminists should be angry about - it's loving mothers of the women who decided to pursue some other careers that they should be angry about. But fighting at male-establishment is easier than blaming women who make a different career/life choice.
Look - it's just an idea to consider. If you don't like it, feel free to vomit some more, and get even angrier at your hatred of the world and people who try to figure this complicated social problem out. That will alienate a couple of more people who might still be interested in different ways of solving this problem - until they realize that your anger may have nothing to do with lack of child care or female hires, and more to do with your personal anger at ... your mother?
Not directed at Loyola, but I don't think she should get worked up about it. I wouldn't.
I would never introduce myself as a "Dr.", there's no "Dr." on my resume or my webpage, my address labels, my registration forms etc. If everyone in the lab was called "Dr." but I was called by my first name, I would be flattered, as it's more personal, and perhaps people liked me more.
Springy - your point is well-taken, but I wonder how many of us would even think twice about not being called a "Dr."? My point is - life is short, let's worry about things that matter to us most.
Oh, and I raised two beautiful children though my grad school years, and if I had to quit or postpone grad school to do it, I would do it in a moment.
However, your question is misplaced. We shouldn't argue that men should raise children while women work. This is not some sort of revengful game of sexes we are playing, where we want to punish men for all of their sins over the past centuries.
Instead, we should all work to create the world where both men and women can be happy both professionally and personally. This is why it boggles my mind why some (like Ethyl there) would imply that childcare is only women's issue. Yes, the life of female faculty of female student is tough. So it the life of male faculty or student, or their spouse. If a male professor or student has to work 80 hours weeks, how do you think HIS spouse or kids feel about it?
No matter how you look at it, a lot of issues here are really "human" issues. Anyone who thinks men are incapable of being sensitive and caring for their children or their familiies - my sincerely sympathies...
EthylBenzene - for some reason your posts really got under my skin.
Do you suppose if you tried to discuss some serious issues with one of your male coworkers or your boss and he responded with "Yawn. Also. Barf.", this would be constitute a constructive discussion?
Frankly, I am not sure what your point is, except that you are being rude and confrontational. Either I am a "hippie" for arguing for institution of hippie policies such as "stop tenure clock" or affordable child care for faculty and students... Or you are disgusted with my comment about moms and girlfriends and their influence on people...
Either way, this is not the way intelligent people argue. But whatever.
Loyola, don't make a big deal out of this. Focus on your work and don't obsess about titles, words and other meaningless stuff. Worry about actions of consequence, projects, papers, presentations, having fun and spending time with your family. Respect doesn't come with some two-letter "Dr." title, trust me. Don't be bitter or angry, it results in creases and frowns that do not look good on anyone! Even men.
:)
Btw, I spent a number of years as a grad student at one of the many Cambridge, MA research labs myself, just a few years ago. I miss that place.
I don't know who Loyola is - I assume it's a variant (splice variant?) of Joolya, which is kind of cool. I guess.
Anyway; I'm not obsessing about titles. I am just pointing out a weird and illuminating thing.
No one bothers about calling anyone Dr. who is actually in science or academis in general. Duh. That's not the point. The point is, that on this list people WERE being referred to as Dr. but the two female post-docs were not. Probably out of carelessness rather than malice, sure. But what does that carelessness mean? And since it was not perpetrated by mo co-worker but by the architects, what does that mean about who non-academics assume have honorifics versus not?
I stand by this comment, and note that it has nothing to do with childcare, which in my opinion ought to be subsidized by academic/research institutions as well as companies for the sake of men and women who work.
Anon,
Pah. I'm sorry you think your comments are so insightful. They're not. They're sappy and insipid. I'm not attempting to engage in an argument with you. I don't care what you have to say. I've heard it all before. It's barfy and boring.
I'm sick of people trying to convince me that the things I get mad about don't matter. That's what you're saying -- don't sweat it, it's no big deal. Well, it is a big deal, and advocating "people-friendly policies" (which, totally, barf) doesn't make you some sort of feminist hero.
Also, the comment about not getting out enough SHOULD have been obvious enough, but my point was that plenty, plenty of women all over the place are complaining about their mothers, sisters, and girlfriends. Maybe the reson you "never" hear those complaints is because of the company you keep. Anectdote does not equal data.
The traditional protocol, I believe, is that the "Dr." honorific should only be used in contexts in which it is relavant, or for MDs. So, only the MD and architects with Ph. D's that participated in the design should have been listed with the honorific. (I think this protocol a good one, with the exception that I wouldn't give the MD the honorific either.)
Having said that, whoever wrote up the list clearly was being sexist, granting inappropriate honorifics to the men but not the women.
Anonymous, I'm sure Joolya can get on with her lab work and her family life AND think about matters of culture at the same time. Particularly when plating cells, by all accounts. Don't be patronising.
Hildaur, I agree that no one should use honorifics. The reason doctors and architects do so is the same as lawyers displaying degree certificates: to show potential customers they are a professional. When paired with a high-tech clinic/office and a lab coat, it's amazing the cash you can pump from people's pockets and the respect you can get from laymen. Academics, who are supposed to be about finding truths, and are supposed to discuss ideas in a disinterested fashion should never use them. This doesn't happen, of course, but it's a shame that it does. The only reason academic doctorates have become obligatory is because of the professionalisation of the academy. Although he should be read with caution, Michel Foucault might give you some new insights into this.
Sorry, "does" should read "doesn't" in previous post. My English is falling apart!
Also, Boomy might give us some insights as this is her field - what do you think, Boomy?
Springy, I think people not in academis (eg architects) don't know the conventions within the academy about titles.
But that's not the point here. The point is the gender breakdown of title usage.
In case I was vague before, I agree with Joolya that the underlying sexism in leaving off the "Dr" honorific for female post-docs was troubling.
I run into a lot of that kind of underlying sexism, the kind that anonymous ironically doesn't see in himself. I'm tired of being told I shouldn't be mad about it, or that I shouldn't say anything about it, because it's "no big deal." When does it become a big deal, you know? Where is that line?
And why isn't it valid that I find that line crossed in the above example and in comments like those posted by anonymous? The answer, that lies not-so-far-behind comments like those by anonymous, is that I'm just a silly girl, all emotional, and should just calm down and worry about things that are really "important."
But I don't get to decide what's "important."
The language is important -- Where my wife did her postdoc she was the only postdoc who had to share an office (with a longhaired, bike-in-office storing, messy grad student) She was often asked who she worked for, and I'm certain in many cases she was not asked, but simply assumed to be a student.
All the small, unimportant, unintentional things seem to err in the same direction, and if you believe in all that calculus stuff, it can add up to something significant.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home