Oh for fuck’s sake get over it woman!

Grr.

Waters and Byrne were careful to be precise and not exaggerate what happened to them, which is that they felt very uncomfortable when their conversations with one of the most powerful people in their profession turned sexual. They weren’t raped or groped, and they suffered no obvious career setbacks by failing to take Zivkovic up on what they perceived as the implicit request for sex. But they felt lousy and confused. Here’s what I found most distressing in Waters’ post: “At my most insecure moments, I still come back to this: Have I made it this far, not based on my work and worth, but on my value as a sexual object? When am I going to be found out?”

This is science bloggers please do recall. Those who one might expect to have a passing familiarity with the insights of evolution? You know, those fairly basic ideas about our and other species in which it is social status for males that gets to decide which bird gets bonked? Or, rather, that it is the social status of the male that decides whether a bird will bonk him?

That, possibly, only 40% of men that have ever lived have had children, while 80% of women who have had?

Now, I do understand that elderly men leering at younger women can be distressing for the second party. I seem to have that effect myself. But what the fuck has got into these “scientists” when they try to deny the very basics of the evolution of our (and many other) species?

Social status of men determines access to hot babes. For the reason that hot babes decide upon men on the grounds of social status of those men. Why is it the fucking scientists complaining about this?

30 thoughts on “Oh for fuck’s sake get over it woman!”

  1. Our evolutionary history is one of murder, rape, massacre, betrayal, torture, and all sorts of other nasty stuff.

    I guess that means – scientifically speaking – that people should just shut up and get over it whenever unpleasant stuff happens to them.

    To do otherwise is “to deny the very basics of the evolution of our (and many other) species”, apparently.

  2. The killer line for me in the article: “they felt lousy and confused”.

    And there we have it folks – come the revolution, the little lambs are not responsible for their situation and cannot have full discretion to take their own actions to improve the matter. In short they have no authenticity. Poor loves.
    I wonder if that is what the 1st wave feminists had in mind. I think not.

  3. I wonder if that is what the 1st wave feminists had in mind. I think not.

    Oh, it is. The Feminists have been ploughing precisely the same furrow for the past two centuries.

    As to Tim’s post, as Larry above indicates, Tim is following a naturalistic fallacy here. Because something is nature doesn’t mean it is good, ethical or moral.

    It’s also not really what the science says (if you are a follower of this sociobiological analysis). What the science is about is what women tend to find attractive rather than “who bonks who”. That is, that women are attracted to high status males, not that high status males en masse can expect to have exclusive access to females. This woman clearly wasn’t attracted to this alpha (if he is alpha) male, so it doesn’t really apply.

    The “urban whore” one is rather different and classic leftist over-sensitivity, since the “whore” is clearly metaphorical, as in “media whore”, but taken as literal to be labelled “sexist”.

    What these two incidents do tell us is something else rather interesting about human social science (which may or may not have genetic causes, which in effectitude is largely irrelevant). It is that women wield power by a process of what we may call “coercive networking”, or “intrasocietal influence networks”, or perhaps “power nagging” or “organised ruinous gossipmongering”. This allows them to wield enormous power over males, shaping male (and indeed female) behaviour and society to their benefit. Another useful term which is recently becoming popular in the anti-feminio-gramsco-nazi-manosphere is “hypoagency”. It defines the basic power strategy of the Feminists; they invade male networks and use organised social pressure to reshape them to their ends, while leaving the men to do the donkey work of actually running the male network. It is not dissimilar to that larva that bores inside and takes over a snail, eats its brain and makes it climb to a vulnerable spot and get eaten by a bird, thus enabling the next cycle of its (the worm’s) life.

    And the interesting thing is, that whole power nagging network is based on pussy power; it relies on particular females to withdraw their approval from their particular males, thus pressuring the said males to be compliant with the demands of the female group in order to retain access to nookie.

    And that’s the difference really. Male sexual pressure tends to be overt and direct. Female sexual pressure is diffuse and indirect. Thus males are coerced into acting, as a group, against other males and their gender in general, which gives us our abundant oversupply of chivalrous dupes, white knights and the capability of those under-represented-in-politics-and-power women to repeatedly get misandrist laws passed. This is a primary reason that women don’t want to bother rising to direct power positions. They can exert more influence by the power of organised nagging.

    Some pretty young science totty ought to write a blog post about that.

  4. Ah, but they have since evolved into Homo Progressivus: “left-wing man” (sorry, “person”). The men no longer have such urges, the womyn are ’empowered’ by their careers, and anyone who behaves otherwise is some sort of evolutionary throwback to the 1970s, or a right-winger, or something. You didn’t think evolution had stopped, did you?

    It does make you wonder how they reproduce, though, if the men are not allowed to ask for it.

  5. NiV,

    That’s what women say they want – some leftie, graun reading, sensitive type. But to echo Ian B, that’s about manipulation. That if you’re a white knight who helps women, you might have a chance, so be a white knight.

    Reality is different. Footballers get a lot more clunge than anyone who’s read Sylvia Plath.

  6. Why is it the fucking scientists complaining about this?

    Because as civilised human beings, we’re supposed to grow out of our animal urges.

  7. “Now, I do understand that elderly men leering at younger women can be distressing for the second party.”

    Well, maybe…

    Brings to mind that Jasper Carrott truck-driving sketch about getting stick for not letching out of the cab when driving past a fit bird though!

  8. So Much For Subtlety

    Just a second, the poor guy did nothing wrong whatsoever. No the idiot who called a Black woman an urban wh0re which is utterly uncalled for, but read the other bint’s comments:

    I saw him at various events and he began flirting a little. It didn’t ring any alarm bells; he is flirtatious by nature. But sometimes talk would veer into more uncomfortable territory, but only vaguely uncomfortable, which made it hard to call out. He would talk about how he gets to hang out with so many smart, beautiful women for his job (as if we should be flattered), make offhand comments about his own sex life, and occasionally tell me that he loved me. Once, while the two of us were outside Ninth Ward in New York City at a science tweetup, he bought a flower for his wife, who was inside. The seller gave him an extra for free, which he gave to me, joking that I was his “concubine.” I didn’t even know how to respond, awkwardly laughing it off, but fled the scene without goodbyes soon after. “I just want to call him out when he makes any kind of offhand comment,” I wrote to my best friend later. “But what I could lose by doing so is too great, so it’s really just degrading.”

    He flirts. He comments on how many beautiful and smart women he hangs out with – implying the author is both. He talks about his sex life. He gave her a rose.

    For f*ck’s sake, none of this is a crime. Actually most of it is rather sweet. She labels him, at best, a sex pest and a sexual harasser in return. He is an Eastern European for crying out loud. Where is the tolerance for cultural difference now?

    And why does she put up with it? Career reasons. She is a whore in that she engages in sexualised behaviour she does not like in exchange for a monetary reward. If she didn’t like it, she should have said so. I am sure he would have stopped.

    People should remember Hannah Waters’ name. And make sure they never ever offer her a job.

  9. If my comment yesterday didn’t make it clear, I think this a uncharacteristically ill-judged and unpleasant post from Tim. And then the comments take it to a whole new level of squalor.

    Fellers, it’s amazingly simple.

    If you’re in a position of professional authority over someone else, you should not exploit that power for your own sexual advantage. Yes, your genes may encourage you to do so (so to speak). Well you can tell that to the HR department on your way out, because resisting that pull is very likely part of your job. And even if it isn’t, it’s part of being a decent human being rather than an uncivilized brute.

    Extraordinary it needs spelling out really.

  10. Well yes, Larry, my little shrinking violet. People should be careful not to abuse their authority.

    But women have always liked to be complimented on their beauty, especially if they are not. The guy in this case seems guilty of gallantry. Since when is that a crime?

    Anyhoo, the solution, adopted by countless women already. Hire the local bouncer to wait for you in reception. Give him a peck on the lips and leave arm in arm. Compliments mysteriously dry up.

  11. That’s the real problem with all this “Everyday Sexism” stuff. If you look at the submissions it’s a weird melange of people over-reacting to clumsy jokes, women being insulted in a genuinely nasty way and then outright illegal instances of physical harassment.

    But then, that’s half the point as far as its curators are concerned. “Rape Culture” and its ignorant adherents, have much to answer for.

  12. Have none of the feminists worked in an environment where the man is in the minority? Have they not seen the sexism and sexual innuendo that goes on such places. Women can be extremely cruel too. Maybe we need to enforce 50/50 sex rules not just in the boardroom but on the factory floor.

  13. Larry: “…it’s part of being a decent human being rather than an uncivilized brute.”

    And Larry wins the Hyperbole Award for 2013c FFS! A bit of flirting and a flower?

    It sounds like the tagline to a Hugh Grant movie. It’s not exactly ‘Straw Dogs’, is it? It’s not even ‘Indecent Proposal’!

  14. There’s a big push coming from a wave of ‘gender’ (as opposed to ‘equity’) feminists associated with the fringes of the science blogging community, on skeptic (ie sceptic) sites such a freethoughblogs and skepchick. They’ve long campaigned on the assertion that conferences are unsafe for women, that women are in danger just about everywhere else, and that anyone quizzing them about their tales is a ‘rape enabler’.

    You’ll be amused to learn, Tim, that your chum Amanda Marcotte has reinvented herself as a ‘sketpic’ and is now making appearances at these conferences.

  15. There’s a big push from the Fems generally at the moment. They tend to work in waves, activists in general. They tend to have publicly quiescent periods where they’re working quietly to lay the groundwork, set up front groups etc, then do a big push to see how much “social change” they can ram through on multiple fronts.

    It’s debatable whether there is any other Feminism than “gender” feminism. Considering the basic fact that Feminism is a class-based bigotry movement, it is like talking about “equity” racism. It’s oxymoronic. There is really just “gender” feminism, with the same core issues for 150 years and counting, and various intensities of that.

    Unfortunately nothing much is going to change, and they’re going to carry on rampaging around bullying and hating, until the rest of us en masse find the confidence to tell them to put a sock in it.

  16. Larry, your comment comes with deeply misogynistic undertones that I find offensive.

    The wealthy, education, professional, privileged adult women in this story most definitely come with agency.

    To deny them even an ounce of that agency is to belittle their power.

    Her agency is so strong that she could even say “no thanks”. She is *that* powerful, and how dare you deny her that power.

  17. So Much For Subtlety

    Larry – “Fellers, it’s amazingly simple. If you’re in a position of professional authority over someone else, you should not exploit that power for your own sexual advantage.”

    Larry please don’t take this the wrong way but f*ck off. He was not in a position of professional authority over anyone. He was a successful blogger. No more. He did not employ them. He did not supervise them. He did not grade their papers. Why the f**k can’t he say that he works with many beautiful and smart women and buy one of them a rose?

    “And even if it isn’t, it’s part of being a decent human being rather than an uncivilized brute. Extraordinary it needs spelling out really.”

    How about reading the damn article before shooting off your mouth?

  18. I stopped reading at ‘Zivkovic … said it was not “behavior that I have engaged in before or since.”’ How I laughed; that’s what all the serial misbehavers say.

  19. Wow, what a lot of sophisticated arguments for me rebut. Let’s see…

    SMFS: Larry please don’t take this the wrong way but f*ck off.

    Yep, that’s about the level of debate I’d expect from you.

    He was not in a position of professional authority over anyone.

    Yes he was. One of the women in question writes for the blog network he edited. The other wanted to, and set up a meeting with him in the hope of doing so. But please don’t let being entirely wrong on the facts get in the way of your loudly trumpeted opinions, now, will you.

    Julia: And Larry wins the Hyperbole Award for 2013c

    Well thank you Julia. Sadly though, our host has already scooped that gong for his assertion that these “scientists”… try to deny the very basics of the evolution, a claim he appears to have extracted fully formed from his rear end.

    Gary: Larry, your comment comes with deeply misogynistic undertones that I find offensive… to deny them even an ounce of that agency is to belittle their power… how dare you deny her that power.

    Sorry but I’m afraid I can’t help you, Gary. I’m sure that all makes perfect sense in your head, but it reads like gibberish to me. I can’t see anywhere where I came close to denying anyone any power.

    So, Tim, are you happy with this blogpost? Do you stand by the opinions stated here?

  20. Larry, Leave Tim out of it. He is no more responsible for my comments than he is for yours i.e. none at all. That’s at the core of classical liberalism.

    Let me restate my ‘gibberish’ in more straight forward terms: do you believe that she had enough agency and power to tell a flirty suitor to piss off or not?

  21. So Much For Subtlety

    Larry – “Yep, that’s about the level of debate I’d expect from you.”

    I try to pitch it at the right level.

    “Yes he was. One of the women in question writes for the blog network he edited. The other wanted to, and set up a meeting with him in the hope of doing so. But please don’t let being entirely wrong on the facts get in the way of your loudly trumpeted opinions, now, will you.”

    Not at all. Which one do you think worked for him? I quoted Ms Waters who was not working for him at the time. But wanted to. Let me quote a description of Ms Byrne’s claim:

    On Monday, writer Monica Byrne accused Bora Zivkovic, editor of Scientific American’s blog network and a leader in the online science writing world, of sexual harassment. She claimed that over a coffee meeting arranged to discuss her interest in science journalism, Bora had talked extensively about sex, even detailing a near-affair he had with another younger writer.

    So she was not working for him at the time. No harm, no foul. Did he put forward an infamous proposal? No he did not. She was merely uncomfortable. Big freakin’ deal.

    And why did she put up with it?

    Monica wrote that she was made extremely uncomfortable but suffered in silence; after all, he was someone who could promote her work and make her a known writer. She decided to endure it for the benefit of his patronage.

    She wanted the fame and the money. She’s a whore.

    So who was it who was working for him? Notice no one actually slept with him. No one was forced to the casting couch. That we know of anyway. No one was forced to blow anyone in the Men’s room. Two silly little women just felt uncomfortable.

    So now he has been fired. Great. I would have thought that any fool could see the difference between being uncomfortable and lasting, unrecoverable, damage to someone’s life and career.

  22. The problem with people like Larry is that they dont get it, never have, never will.,

    That is why SMFS comment is so short and to the point Larry. People like you have made and make life worse for everybody in the real world and there is a point when we realise that the only thing you can, barely, grasp at is to be told to fuck off.

  23. People like you have made and make life worse for everybody in the real world

    Not for everybody, Monoi. Only for people who think that an acceptable response to being approached by a junior member of their profession hoping to be hired is… to attempt to fuck them.

    And good. I’m delighted if the world is a slightly worse place for scumbags like that.

  24. and whatever you do Larry, don’t answer the simple question – do you think the woman in question was competent enough to say “look my boyfriend would be upset about this” or whatever?.

    Because the truth is that if she isn’t that competent, she shouldn’t be in the company of adults, cos she isn’t one herself. And if she is that competent, then she had no need to play the vindictive victim role and ruin a career.

    So which is it?

  25. Gary, let me spell this out: I am criticizing the behaviour of Bora Zivkovic, which has generally been accepted – outside the charmers in this comments box – as being grossly unprofessional. Your question is entirely irrelevant to that matter.

    And while we’re at it:

    SMFS: I would have thought that any fool could see the difference between being uncomfortable and lasting, unrecoverable, damage to someone’s life and career.

    Yup. And it was Bora’s actions which caused his career to be derailed. He fucked up, all right.

  26. Larry you are avoiding the question because you know you have no good answer. Her competence (or his assumption regarding her competence) is central to the question of how appropriate his behaviour is.

    His behaviour is acceptable *only if* he could reasonably assume she was sufficiently strong, educated, etc to say “back off”. And that would have been the end of it.

    You are getting yourself backed into a corner here because you are implying that she wasn’t capable of that. In which case, his actions would then become inappropriate, unacceptable and even illegal. But then you need to believe she wasn’t fully competent, which is where you are unwittingly launching off into misogyny.

    You are just a little surprised to find a corner of the intertubes where we see women as strong, capable adults who can hold their own with other adults. And we engage with women on that basis.

    I think Zivkovic engaged on the basis that she could hold her own with another adult (i.e. him) and say no if she wanted to. I think that is a reasonable assumption. Wrong as it turned out, but reasonable.

  27. Gary, that’s all terribly clever. However.

    a) Both women apparently did say no to his advances. Therefore it’s crystal clear they did indeed have the agency and power you keep (bizarrely) accusing me of denying them.

    b) Despite your latest injunction, I and plenty of others (seemingly including Bora himself) hold that his behaviour was reprehensible all the same. I guess that’s going to have to remain a mystery to you, because I certainly don’t have the patience to explain it further, other than repeating yet again the central point: attempting to shag your junior colleagues, when they look to you for career advancement, is very poor form.

  28. Oh Larry you just nailed it there – All your friends agree with you. So I must be wrong. Killer argument man.

  29. p.s. If she *did* say no, you don’t know that from the linked article. I just checked. You either got that information somewhere else or you just made it up.

  30. Oh and one last thing – if you look behind the slate coverage of this and read the man’s apology itself, what he actually apologises for is “It was a difficult time for me personally and I made a mistake – I should not have shared my personal issues with her.”

    He is not apologising for flirting with her.

    http://blog.coturnix.org/2013/10/15/this-happenned/

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *