Decline to blog for free, get called a whore.

[Sheldon Cooper]

http://isisthescientist.com/2013/10/11/tell-someone-no-get-called-a-whore-standingwithdnlee-batsignal/

Earlier today my friend DNLee shared an interaction with me that really disturbed me. It disturbed me, in part, because it happened to her and and she’s my friend and I love her. It also disturbed me in part because I think that its the sort of thing that happens to many women. But, most of us lack the bravery and clarity of DNLee, and so we keep quiet about it. We tuck these experiences away and call them part of the female or minority experience. We don’t share them.

As a result, the men around us are shocked when they learn the way that the women they know are treated. I asked DNLee for the opportunity to share the amazing response that she wrote with my readers. In turn, I am asking (with her permission) all of you that read my blog and have your own blogs (or Twitter) to help carry DNLee’s story to your readers. Take what she’s written and repost it on your own site (with attribution to her). I’m heartbroken to learn the way that she was treated, but I’m more heartbroken by how many people don’t realize what the women in their lives are experiencing. I hope you’ll help me.



It wasn’t just that he called me a whore – he juxtaposed it against my professional being: Are you urban scientist or an urban whore? Completely dismissing me as a scientist, a science communicator (whom he sought for my particular expertise), and someone who could offer something meaningful to his brand.What? Now, I’m so immoral and wrong to inquire about compensation? Plus, it was obvious me that I was supposed to be honored by the request..

After all, Dr. Important Person does it for free so what’s my problem? Listen, I ain’t him and he ain’t me. Folks have reasons – finances, time, energy, aligned missions, whatever – for doing or not doing things. Seriously, all anger aside…this rationalization of working for free and you’ll get exposure is wrong-headed. This is work. I am a professional. Professionals get paid. End of story. Even if I decide to do it pro bono (because I support your mission or I know you, whatevs) – it is still worth something. I’m simply choosing to waive that fee. But the fact is I told ol’ boy No; and he got all up in his feelings. So, go sit on a soft internet cushion, Ofek, ’cause you are obviously all butt-hurt over my rejection.

This is my official response:

What the hell is wrong with people? How do you go from polite business correspondence to "whore" when your offer is declined? What gives these assholes the right to do this? Don't answer that, I already know...

[zazen]

1. he won't be the blog editor for long

This will get publicized in the Chronicle of Higher Education, if it hasn't been already, and within a week he'll be replaced, assuming this isn't a European outfit.

There are so many systemic issues of labor, gender, racial, class, etc. justice in higher ed, but at the public level, at least in the U.S., violations of official (not implicit) norms are not tolerated.

He'll be the target of every women's studies department in the country, esp. the folks who do women in STEM.

I'm frankly shocked that someone would be that blatant. There are far more subtle ways to insult a person without handing the rope with which to hang you. Fool with an e.

[zazen]

18. and now it's on the Chronicle of Higher Ed's web site

[link:http://chronicle.com/blogs/ticker/scientific-american-deletes-a-blog-post-and-debate-erupts-over-race-and-gender/67737?cid=at&utm_source=at&utm_medium=en|

[IADEMO2004]

2. Link to Biology-online discussion page. Very active subject

http://www.biology-online.org/biology-forum/about34625.html

Shit storm

[seabeyond]

6. thank you for this link to the original place. i read all four pages. put the pressure on.

one choice. fire his ass

[irisblue]

3. pls cross post this to General Discussion

wow, just wow to that 'Blog Editor'. More DUers need to see this.

[Sheldon Cooper]

8. I find that gender discussions in GD are usually an exercise in futility, frequently consisting of

jaw-dropping stupidity and lost of face palming. So I'm not going to cross post this. However, please feel free to cut and paste and post it there if you'd like. It is worthy of more discussion and maybe you'll get better results.

[Squinch]

4. Once upon a time, a long long time ago, I worked for Scientific American. They did not use to be

like this. I am ashamed for them.

[seabeyond]

7. post 2 has a link into the company getting comments from people. an employee put up three messages

in that thread about addressing the issue. they are hoping to resolve by monday.

[seabeyond]

5. because as so many on du have lectured us, we OWN these fuckin words and they are gender neutral

dontcha know. and they say them on tv. and some women call themselves whores. and music call us ho's all the time. so that makes it ALL ok to call women ho. or whore. or bitch. or slut.

we OWN these words i tell you

ya. how does a perfectly respectable man so quickly reduce a woman to a whore. do you THINK it is cause we are all, in every part of our life, reducing women and girls to fuckin whores and just comes naturally any more in todays society.

[elehhhhna]

9. Expecting to get paid for your work is now a whore thing if you're a woman?

nice.

[chervilant]

17. The Sunday morning propaganda programs

are whores! Who knew?!

[chervilant]

10. According to judeo-xtian mythology,

the original woman was a whore, who used her gender to beguile "her man" (naive innocent that he was) into eating the fruit of the tree of knowledge (is this whence comes the anti-intellectualism creating a veritable deluge of functionally illiterate, easily propagandized adults?).

The sexism and misogyny evident on this forum has been difficult to ignore, but those with the "power" to do something about it seem to be copacetic about such posts. Sad, really...

[Sheldon Cooper]

14. Your last sentence really resonates with me.

I expect there to be some level of ignorance among the general membership, but when I first joined here and saw that the rampant sexism and misogyny was a-ok with the owners I was flabbergasted. They pride themselves on having the premiere liberal message board and yet cannot see what is in front of their own eyes. So I've learned to take what I want from this place and ignore the rest.

[chervilant]

15. Apparently, some DU women

feel that whore is an appropriate descriptive pejorative, and not sexist at all! I addressed that, and got added to someone's IL for "harassment of a fellow DUer."

[ismnotwasm]

11. I posted this on FB

She had a great response-- but what a horrid thing to say

[CrispyQ]

12. Her video response was worth the 3 minutes to watch!

Hopefully, Ofek will be fired. I read through the posts on Sea's link to their discussion board. The response is overwhelming, fire the guy. There is absolutely no excuse for what he wrote.

[seabeyond]

13. IADEMO2004 link. and ya. pretty simple. nt

[seabeyond]

16. an article responding to this online-org. interesting

This creates a crisis with three specific "audiences." The first audience is internal. Contributors to the network no longer have clear guidance on criteria or process for publication. The second is an "opinion elite" or audience of those who follow Scientific American closely and can impact its reputation within the scientific community. These peers view censorship as a last resort, and are not convinced of any imminent threat Dr. Lee's post posed to the blog network to merit its immediate removal. Finally, the public at large is an important audience.

In this regard, the coverage in Buzzfeed is particularly damaging, as it reaches an audience far larger and far more diverse than Scientific American online. This is the audience Scientific American needs to expand its readership and fulfill its mission, but for many of them this story is their introduction to your publication. They see this as an obvious mistake. The statement provided to Buzzfeed is passive, vague, and elusive. Further, it puts Scientific American on the wrong side of the discussions about racism and sexism, particularly in science and technology.

*

In the immediate future, you can expect more critical comments from more prominent sources, including organizations that advocate for women and people of color. You can expect more critical posts from within Scientific American, and possibly even attempts to re-publish Dr. Lee's post verbatim on the network that censored it. You can expect departures from the blog network. You can expect individuals to look much more closely into the relationship you have with Biology-online.org and the way in which the editors came to their decision to take down the post. You may see a downturn in the number and quality of submissions for your guest blog. Ultimately, you may see a decline in online traffic and ad revenue.

RECOMMENDATIONS

The editors at Scientific American online should republish Dr. Lee's Post and offer an unqualified apology. Dr. Lee's post does not likely violate any guidelines set out by her editor, and the quality of writing met appropriate standards. The statement of apology should also recognize the organization's failure to support Dr. Lee when she was treated disrespectfully by an ad network partner. The embarrassment of admitting you were wrong, even now, is far less damaging than the credibility lost by continuing to defend an indefensible position.

http://itsnotalecture.blogspot.com/2013/10/free-crisis-pr-advice-for-scientific.html