Neuroscience State Fair for Women
Hi friends of women in science,
As I work my way through a big backlog of email, I find nuggets. One thing I had missed was a note from Susan Forsburg about a regrettable incident re the Neuroscience meetings. It was covered in Inside Higher Education (click here.) It reminded me of the cattle judging at the California State Fair.
A scientist called Dario Maestripieri from University of Chicago went home after the Neuroscience Meetings and posted his reflections about the meeting on his Facebook page. Was it about the quality of the science?
Not exactly. "My impression of the Conference of the Society for Neuroscience in New Orleans. There are thousands of people at the conference and an unusually high concentration of unattractive women. The super model types are completely absent. What is going on? Are unattractive women particularly attracted to neuroscience? Are beautiful women particularly uninterested in the brain? No offense to anyone.."
What do you think? Is this just a benighted person expressing his First Amendment Rights, someone we should ignore? Or does it leave you angry or wanting to take action? If the latter, what kind of action?
Cheers,
Laura
I fully endorse the following phrase on Amazon.com describing the supposed point of a book authored by Prof. Maestripieri: "Interestingly, some of the major aspects of human nature have profound commonalities with our ape ancestors..." Of course, Maestripieri’s area of study neither explains nor excuses bad behavior.
Most declaring others stupid are not exceptionally intellectually gifted them. Most declaring others lazy are not exceptionally hard working. Most declaring others unattractive are not exceptionally attractive. No surprise here.
I applaud the coverage of this behavior in this and other forums as it reduces the chances of this behavior being ‘overlooked’ if and when this individual applies for another job or promotion.
As a Ph.D. cognitive neuroscientist, with a chemistry and psychology double major undergraduate degree, the idea suggested in a comment above that having such a poor role model for a professor does not matter because this individual teaches psychology core courses is disappointing. Maestripieri’s comment minimizes the male and female human beings in those classes. His comment degrades his university, his city, and our society.
Objectifying women in any arena represents an added stress. Yes, both women and men are tough enough to carry-on in the midst of lunacy. But, who needs the distraction, the disgust?
What opportunities do female scientists miss not being full members of the scientific establishment that often brokers collaborations in social settings? How does this hurt the science?
Women neuroscientists shying away from social settings at scientific meetings due to the presence of a few “ass-grabbers” must change. And it’s the “ass-grabbers” that need to change! It is not okay. Women, Men, and Science all suffer when this type of verbal and physical behavior is not repeatedly and universally challenged.
The forces pushing women away from science surely have an additive effect. A little push-back is in order. This pathetic behavior will continue until either women outnumber men in neuroscience grant dollars or until more male neuroscientists start to push-back as well. Most male neuroscientists do not condone this behavior. It’s time we heard from more of them. This is not a ‘womens issue’; it’s a human one.
Hi Laura - love your posts.
I just feel disappointment in this fool. In regards to his "are beautiful women particularly uninterested in the brain?" -- it looks like at least one male neurobiologist is particularly uninterested in the brain, since at an event dedicated to them completely his stroke of insight is "there appear to be no babes close by!!" Anyway, I don't believe he should be formally punished for his comments. I love the first amendment just for this reason -- what he said is very revealing, and women (however we define their beauty) who are interested in the brain, should take note on how his thinks. It's valuable info: it shows how academia can be a "boy's club" thanks to some of science's Don Drapers slinking around like it's 1959 -- and I think it's good to know his thoughts, for students who want to work with him. But personally, based on these comments, I'd be more wary of being taught bad science. What's with your sample size, guy? And where's the replication!?
Hi Miriam, Marian, and Ilona,
It sounds like each of you finds this believable but not welcome, which tells its own tale. I assume it means you've run into men like this before. Would that it were not true! However, I found Miriam's information about his research field quite interesting and possibly enlightening about his interests in general. I'm not sure I agree that he should be considered harmless in his own setting, though.
cheers,
Laura
I think he can only conclude that, based on his sampling technique of female primates, that they may indeed be interested in the brain, just not *his* brain.
I remember some sports caster once writing that there seemed to be a shortage of hairbrushes among women at Stanford -- he hated crowd shots because the women students were so unattractive!
However, this was a professional, technical meeting. The guy needs to have someone talk to him about attitudes!
Punch the big jerk in the nose!
Seriously though, if you do a quick look at his courses and publications his exceptionally rude comments seem understandable. He specializes in primate sexual selection and evolutionary psychology, so the work he does largely revolves around sex differential social interactions and evolutionary trade-offs in highly social animals (primates).
He said something stupid and offensive in a public forum - that was bad form. Ok, he's a douchebag, but that doesn't mean that he will ruin anyone's lives or drive women from science. Plus, the only undergraduate core course he teaches is for psychology majors, so who cares? Graduate students are committed and can look after themselves. This offensive comment alone does not justify termination or revocation of tenure, although the university would do well to review his behavior and interactions with students and other faculty.
Also, someone should inform him that the reason he didn't see any "attractive women" at the conference is because they were avoiding him. It's not like he brought food or anything, so they clearly have no reason to pay attention to him.
Hi Laura
He could ruin the lives of a lot a females interested in science if allowed to run unchecked. I think he should be denied tenure if untenured, and if tenured, his tenure should be revoked, especially if he does things like this to women at University of Chicago.
Livi
