Kat Banyard, awesome UK feminist

At only 29, she has pulled off what to me at her age had looked impossible, inspiring a fresh wave of feminists without getting into a cat fight with the post-feminists of the 90s, or pretending all the old arguments are boringly obsolete, or having to make herself sufficiently sexy to be media friendly.

For more, go here.

(Thanks, Mr Jender!)

How to prepare for the phone/skype interview

From Inside Higher Ed.

These look like good tips. I’m just giving the topics. There’s much more said about each one. No doubt there are many non-equivalent lists that are good, so let us know if you have anything to add.

1. Script, script, script. Did I mention you should script? Script. Scripting is the best preparation one can do for a job interview

2. Practice, practice, and practice. Again, practice. .

3. Prepare your space, and prepare yourself, for the interview. Find a place that you won’t be disturbed for at least an hour–this could be your office…

4. Speak at a relaxed pace and pause often.

5. Direct the interview as much as you can.

6. Get your assurance points in. Make sure that the search committee knows that you WILL have your dissertation finished..

Read more: http://www.insidehighered.com/blogs/gradhacker/preparing-phone-interview#ixzz2AXAsLuYL
Inside Higher Ed

“It Stands to Reason, Skeptics Can Be Sexist Too”

I spoke out about sexual harassment among atheists and scientists. Then came the rape threats.

Blogger and podcast co-host Rebecca Watson has a piece up at Slate about the sexist backlash she received in the skeptic community when she talked about feminism and her experiences as a woman.  Sadly, her story resembles others you’ve probably heard:  threats, accusations that she’s lying or exaggerating or can’t take a joke, more threats, etc.

Her piece is somewhat cathartic, especially with snappy observations like this:

What I said in my video, exactly, was, “Guys, don’t do that,” with a bit of a laugh and a shrug. What legions of angry atheists apparently heard was, “Guys, I won’t stop hating men until I get 2 million YouTube comments calling me a ‘cunt.’ ” The skeptics boldly rose to the imagined challenge.

Think twice about taking pregnancy leave!

It might just mean you risk a promotion review. According to the United Faculty of Miami Dade College,

Professor Marlene Morales, of the Miami Dade College School of Education, is being penalized for taking maternity leave. She has served the College for nine years. Her Academic Dean refused to forward her application for promotion to the rank of Associate Professor, Senior to the Promotions Committee, denying her the opportunity to have her case evaluated by her fellow professors. Professor Morales met all of the promotion requirements established by the contract. In spite of this, the Dean claimed Professor Morales was ineligible for due consideration by her peers, because she had taken a combination of maternity leave and unpaid professional development leave (to finish her doctorate).

There’s a petition in support of her, here.

How to distinguish assholes from sexist piggies: Contributions welcomed!

There’s a paradigm of a hostile climate based on gender

Sexual harassment is a primary definition by the EEOC of a hostile work environment. The most publicized cases of discrimination involve women who have been propositioned for sexual favors in the workplace. Women and men can experience this kind of favoritism that results in a tangible change of status or benefits by their employer. This abusive behavior can be displayed by any employee or independent contractor, not necessarily a supervisor, to be relevant in creating a hostile work environment. Third party filings for sexual harassment are acceptable in order to protect the complainant from retaliation.

Read more: EEOC Hostile Work Environment Definition | eHow.com http://www.ehow.com/about_5402802_eeoc-hostile-work-environment-definition.html#ixzz2AQ1J2apY

If you are considering complaining against gender based discrimination, there are a couple of problems you may encounter unless there’s been something like attempted sexual contact. One is the sheer ignorance you may encounter. Unbelievable as it may seem, people working with legal aspects of gender discrimination complaints for decades may think that if another woman is involved in actions against you, then that’s a reason for doubting it is gender discrimination.

More importantly, since there’s no law against people being assholes, how do you make the case that it’s gender discrimination, not plain assholery? Given, again, there was nothing sexual about the occasions.

One way is to point out a pattern of unequal treatment. So if the guys are being paid more for equal or lesser work, or they get support that you don’t, you can cite that. This means, as the site above says, you want to document things, such as the days when the profs invited the guys for a beer after a talk, but not the women.

I’m hoping that others who have dealt with this problem can step in with some good advice. And if you think you are heading from trouble, the simple advice on the site mentioned above is worth taking very seriously.

[I wrote this after reading one person’s reaction to the What’s it like site. She was moved to tears. It is awful to think that all the not-advertly-sexual behavior reported could be judged simple assholery. Life can be made intolerable, but that’s legally ok? Even though any academic woman would see the sexism very quickly?]

Your first time: addition

Lena Dunham compares…well, you’ll see. (Sorry about the beginning advert; just click on through.)




CNN says Republicans find the ad shocking! I guess anything sex negative is OK, but sex positive? Whoa!

The criticism in comment #5 is very important, I think. A different word or two could have made it much better, but I suppose there’s some political ad rule about keeping the message simple. Still…

With friends like these. . .

Prof. Tom Baldwin, the editor of Mind, was recently asked in a interview about the dearth of women publishing in top journals (including Mind). Prof. Baldwin replied that he didn’t think we should be worried, because:

I think there are plenty of younger women, who’ve entered the profession in the last ten years, who are just as punchy – if I can put it like that – as the young men… I think it’ll change.

That’s right ladies. The reason you haven’t been publishing in top journals is because of a virtue that you lack – “punchiness”! – not because of any entrenched power imbalances or gender-crap within the profession. But don’t worry, ladies! Older women may lack this virtue, the poor dears. But the younger ones have it. They have it just as much as the men do! So these gender issues should sort themselves right out.

Excellent. Glad we got that one figured out.

[facepalm]

*Update*: If you don’t want to bother listening to the interview, Jonathan Jenkins Ichikawa has provided a link to a transcript of the relevant portion of the interview in the comments. Thanks, Jonathan!