
For Female Astronomers, Sexual Harassment Is a Constant Nightmare - louhike
https://broadly.vice.com/en_us/article/youre-targeted-sexually-how-female-astronomers-are-being-hounded-out-of-work
======
danso
Though the submitted article does link to the BuzzFeed articles, it's curious
that BuzzFeed isn't mentioned by name in the same way that the NYT and WaPo
are...even though in the WaPo case, the WaPo was simply playing catch-up to
BuzzFeed's exclusive investigations, particularly in the cases of Drs. Marcy
and Ott, which are indepth enough to be interesting longform reading on their
own:

\- [http://www.buzzfeed.com/azeenghorayshi/famous-astronomer-
all...](http://www.buzzfeed.com/azeenghorayshi/famous-astronomer-allegedly-
sexually-harassed-students)

\- [http://www.buzzfeed.com/azeenghorayshi/ott-harassment-
invest...](http://www.buzzfeed.com/azeenghorayshi/ott-harassment-
investigation)

~~~
dang
If there's another URL which is a more substantive original source on the same
story, we can swap it out. I'm hesitant to do that without having time to read
the articles carefully but am fine with taking suggestions.

------
grahamburger
There is an interesting side effect to these issues that I think doesn't get
discussed very often. I try to be as aware as possible of these issues in the
hope that I can make sure that I'm not part of the problem. As such I make a
concerted effort to give anyone that works for me equal opportunities for
advancement, and when in doubt I try to err on the side of the person who's in
a marginalized class. I also try to make a habit of publicly recognizing good
work that I see from any one in the company, and again I make an extra effort
to recognize the work done by those in marginalized classes.

I'm also very choosy in general about who I make friends with, or who I
interact with on anything other than a professional level. As a rule, I don't
interact socially with women in the workplace. The primary reason is that it's
more important to me to not be labelled a sexual predator / harasser than it
is to have female friends. (I am married, but I acted basically the same at
work when I was single.) There are just too many ambiguities in what is
considered sexual harassment for me to feel comfortable putting my reputation
on that line.

For example, it's not at all uncommon for me to comment to a male co-worker
who comes in to work dressed up more than usual 'looking sharp, man!' or
something along those lines. Would that be sexual harassment if I said that to
a woman? Probably not on the face of it, but what if she has just (unbeknownst
to me) endured harassment from another co-worker about her looks - then I
could see my comment adding to the fire. Or what if I without thinking said
something that implied that her dress would make her a more valuable employee
or help her get that promotion or whatever. So, I just avoid it altogether. I
recognize that my position may keep me from being part of the problem but also
prevents me from being a part of the solution because I won't be aware of
problems or able to offer meaningful support. I'm not sure what else to do.

~~~
labster
If you ignore all women socially at work, you're going to end up
discriminating against women. People have a strong tendency to select for what
they already know. If you have a hiring choice between a theoretically equal
woman and an equal man, you'll probably want to select the man because you'd
feel safe to interact with him socially. You won't because it's Wrong, but
what about all of the little decisions you don't think about so hard? Even if
you were outside of management, you'd still be marginalizing the women on your
team by your actions -- making an in group and an out group.

It's possible to run so far from sexual harassment you run into sexual
discrimination. I don't know if there is an answer to this other than "be a
nice person". Not trying to pick on parent in particular, just trying to
illustrate how thorny the issues are.

~~~
bittercynic
I think it is pretty safe for a man to socialize with men and women at work,
but you have to recognize signals that a person doesn't want to talk to you
and find a gracious way to deal with that.

If an adult is unable to recognize those basic signals, what training options
are available to get up-to-speed?

~~~
grahamburger
I think that every person that I regularly interact with socially I have both
offended and been offended by in some way. I suspect that that's just part of
normal human interaction. But it seems like any offense from a man to a woman
can be considered sexual harassment, which I would say makes those
interactions dangerous.

Also note that I wouldn't blame women for this issue. It's really the fault of
(mostly) men who are aggressively and shamelessly harassing women and putting
everyone on edge.

~~~
GFK_of_xmaspast
> But it seems like any offense from a man to a woman can be considered sexual
> harassment

Have you considered that this is not in fact the case.

------
goodcanadian
I must admit that I was genuinely surprised by this. I have worked in
Astronomy (as a technologist) for over a decade, and I have never witnessed
this sort of behaviour. Of course, I am male. There are, however, plenty of
assholes in the world including in academia, and I have noticed that
universities tend not to want to rock the boat, so I suppose that it is not
entirely surprising that these things are occurring.

My wife is an academic (biology). Thankfully, so far as I know, she has never
had to deal with sexual harassment. She did have an experience of dealing with
an extreme bully during her PhD (who threatened her career and the like; pro-
tip: individual assholes generally don't have the power to destroy your
career). The university was not at all supportive, but her PhD advisor was, so
things generally worked out in the end, but it was a lot of stress along the
way. Besides that, she has suffered the occasional subtle discrimination for
being a woman or a mother, generally from older males in the field, but all in
all, I don't think she would say that harassment is rife. I think she would
pin the problems on individual assholes rather than a systemic problem in
science. You do need to look out for yourself, however, as the institutions
generally won't, and I do find that a bit sad.

~~~
scott_s
Based on your description, it sounds like your wife _has_ experienced a decent
amount of harassment. (I include that extreme bullying in it.) When a number
of individual assholes are allowed to continue being assholes, and you need to
have a "look out for yourself attitude", that _is_ a systemic problem.

I'm genuinely curious what your wife's take is - she may see it a little
differently from you.

~~~
goodcanadian
I said she hadn't experienced sexual harassment. You are correct that the
bullying constituted harassment. I was not trying to say that it doesn't
exist; I was just trying to offer my thoughts on the article. The title says,
"For Female Astronomers, Sexual Harassment Is a Constant Nightmare." I have
worked in Astronomy my entire career, but I have not seen it at all (perhaps,
because I am male). My wife works in a different STEM field, and while she has
experienced harassment, possibly due to her gender, it was not sexual
harassment. For the record, I believe the stories in the article, and I am
very saddened by them.

~~~
scott_s
My point is that the harassment your wife has experienced may in fact _be_
sexual harassment. Sexual harassment is not limited to harassment of a sexual
nature. If the harassment was because she is a woman, that falls under sexual
harassment as well:
[https://www.eeoc.gov/laws/types/sexual_harassment.cfm](https://www.eeoc.gov/laws/types/sexual_harassment.cfm)

~~~
yorwba
Although the site you linked is titled "Sexual Harassment", it appears to me
to be talking about harassment in general

> Harassment can include “sexual harassment” or unwelcome sexual advances,
> requests for sexual favors, and other verbal or physical harassment of a
> sexual nature.

Even if I am misreading this, I would rather call it "sexist harassment" to
make clear that is not itself of a sexual nature.

~~~
scott_s
The very next paragraph:

"Harassment does not have to be of a sexual nature, however, and can include
offensive remarks about a person’s sex. For example, it is illegal to harass a
woman by making offensive comments about women in general."

This is what the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission considers
"sexual harassment". You may not like these definitions, but this is the
government's definition of "sexual harassment".

~~~
oldmanjay
You can define anything to be anything when you're in the outrage porn
business, but unrealistic descriptions meant to stoke emotion don't help to
solve actual problems, they just make for more outrage porn.

~~~
scott_s
You're implying that the US government is in the "outrage porn business".

~~~
qb45
Not the gov but you.

The paragraph you quoted says "harassment doesn't have to be of sexual nature"
and you are using it to support the claim that "sexual harassment doesn't have
to be of sexual nature".

~~~
scott_s
And that paragraph is under the title "Sexual Harassment". It is clear to me
that when they say "harassment", they mean "sexual harassment". Otherwise, the
sentence would not be under that title. You're free to disagree, but your
disagreement has no bearing on the laws we operate under. (Assuming you are in
the US.)

~~~
qb45
The exact paragraph you quoted from section on "sexual harassment" is copy-
pasted from section on "sex-based discrimination". And it's not law, but some
guidance/advice/faq/whatever.

You are overinterpreting this thing.

~~~
scott_s
I think I am interpreting this thing in a straight-forward manner. This is the
part of the government responsible for ensuring equal employment opportunities
telling the public that it does not limit "sexual harassment" to harassment of
a sexual nature.

------
I_HALF_CATS
I investigated Vice for over six months for a book. Their media is so bad I
regularly call it a liar's cult.

It should be stated that Vice has no fact-checking process. They also rarely
issue corrections. Read everything from them with caution.

Here is an article where I fact-checked two documentaries with links to other
fact checks.

[https://notvice.com/fact-checking-vice-a-
fiction-2d482100116...](https://notvice.com/fact-checking-vice-a-
fiction-2d4821001163)

~~~
snowwrestler
Ok, but for this story Vice is mostly recycling facts and stories reported
elsewhere. It's a fact that Geoff Marcy was disciplined for harassing women.
It's a fact that Christian Ott was disciplined for harassing women. It's a
fact that women scientists are speaking on the record about these things.

So I don't see how your comment is relevant to the article we're discussing.

~~~
I_HALF_CATS
Did the article really describe a 'constant nightmare' or was the article more
an example of anectdata.

I would argue that demonizing STEM fields with sensational language does more
harm than good.

~~~
snowwrestler
I don't think Vice has a monopoly on clickbait headlines.

~~~
I_HALF_CATS
I'm not quite sure what you're advocating. The reporting isn't original and
the headline is click-bait.

I consider yc news a place for elevated discussion not for elevating BS.

------
sqldba
It sounds terrible. And yet working in he unrelated field of IT I haven't seen
it.

I have seen a bunch of assholes in high positions though and have to put up
with their idiotic demands and abuse.

So when I read these articles I wonder if it's the same people and how they
translate treating male workers like garbage into treating female workers like
garbage. It's not misogyny; it's welcome to the workforce and dealing with
people above you who are neither competent not deserving of their positions
and their power trips and borderline psychopathy.

What do you think? Or are there really nice bosses who are just complete
assholes to women with zero crossover?

~~~
QuotedForTruth
Yes. People exist who may seem like really great bosses and nice people but
are also aggressive and entitled with their female coworkers. It is important
not to think of sexual harassment as only the skeevy creep who purposely takes
advantage of women he has power over (although these people definitely exist
too). Women have a right to work without being sexualized at all. Many times
it is well meaning, otherwise good people who over step professional
boundaries. They don't make an advance expecting to make the woman feel
uncomfortable, but that doesn't make it ok either!

~~~
ElComradio
Yet something like 30% of office workers have had office romances. Are you
going to tell all of those people they should not have flirted?

~~~
vkou
Depending on the circumstances, asking someone out for a coffee is one thing.
Asking them five times is almost certainly harassment.

~~~
semi-extrinsic
> Asking them five times is almost certainly harassment.

Yet this behavior is romanticised is popular culture, and has been from the
dawn of time up to and including the present: Oddyseus and Helen of Troy,
Shakespeare's "The taming of the shrew", tons of Fred Astaire movies, as well
as modern movies like "Ghost", "Life is beautiful", "Chasing Amy", TV shows
like "Sex and the city"... I could go on. Lucikly I don't need to, since
TVtropes has a site dedicated to this character (the "dogged nice guy"). And
note that many of these are targeted at, and very popular with, women (who are
usually at the receiving end of the initially-unwarranted attention).
Apparently this behaviour can walk a thin line between illegal and very very
romantic.

~~~
drunken-serval
Thank you for not linking to TV Tropes. I've lost a great many hours to that
site. :)

~~~
semi-extrinsic
Yes, it was a deliberate non-link ;)

(Oblig. [http://xkcd.com/609](http://xkcd.com/609) )

------
DarkContinent
In the present day and age, where PhD supervisors are given massive amounts of
power over their graduate students, such incidents are all too commonplace.

Put more institutional safeguards on the process of awarding doctoral degrees
to protect both sides of the inequality.

~~~
manyxcxi
I wonder, and this me genuinely wondering without an assumed answer, if some
of the issues we're seeing with gender inequality in 'traditionally male
dominated' lines of study and work might be due to the type of people drawn to
those fields.

I'm not going all men's rights or saying anything is acceptable but if you
took a (painfully?) stereotypical set of physicists, technologists, etc. they
would probably be male, on the autism spectrum/socially awkward in general,
and likely have spent the majority of their time around the same types of
people (smart, socially awkward men/boys). Could part of it be from social
cues they may not have learned along the way since they likely spent a good
portion of their time out of the 'normal' stream of socialization?

Another thought, and anecdotally, I played multiple sports in high school and
aspired to play college football. When I walked into a CS or advanced physics
class in high school and college I was the something is not like the rest;
sauntering in at 6'4", in a cutoff t-shirt and sweats having just come from
practice or lifting weights. There were multiple times where when I screwed up
I was called a dumb jock, or something like that. If I was instead a woman,
might they have just called me a dumb girl? Now they are being misogynistic
for sure, but couldn't you attribute it to the fact that they pick out the
difference between you and them and attack on that? Isn't that what most
groups do in a "you don't belong, you're not our kind" kind of mentality? I
shook most of it off pretty casually because I could look into myself and a)
be sure I was just as good, if not better than the majority of 'them', and b)
I knew I could physically destroy them and it made 17-22 year old me smile
inside.

As a Type A, incredibly outgoing and social individual, I've been reminded
many times of how annoying I get to a lot of the people who studied with me
and work with me because they are very typically not. Growing up with one foot
in nerd life and another in jock life (taking the non-pejorative easy to
describe route with nerd and jock) it was very clear the group social
difference between both sides of my friends. I, frankly, had a much easier
time fitting in with the sports oriented/popular crowd and felt almost,
hesitant, maybe, in larger groups in my CS/Physics studies. It was a weird,
unnerving feeling for someone who spent most of his life dropping into social
situations and just rolling with it. It was almost as if I was communicating
at a _just_ different enough baud rate that we could work together, but it was
taxing for a long time.

I could imagine if I was a woman who maybe couldn't draw on their physical
dominance to provide a sense of safety, how much more stressful those years
would have been.

~~~
GFK_of_xmaspast
> I'm not going all men's rights or saying anything is acceptable but if you
> took a (painfully?) stereotypical set of physicists, technologists, etc.
> they would probably be male, on the autism spectrum/socially awkward in
> general, and likely have spent the majority of their time around the same
> types of people (smart, socially awkward men/boys). Could part of it be from
> social cues they may not have learned along the way since they likely spent
> a good portion of their time out of the 'normal' stream of socialization

If this were some sort of low-budget situation comedy, maybe, but we're
talking about the real world here. Go read about, for example, Geoff Marcy:

"""“He would stroke my arm or my neck while going over information, standing
very close,” Borland told BuzzFeed News. He would also play with her hair or
brush up against her with his legs, she said, “often resulting in his crotch
touching me.”

Because Marcy was a vocal supporter of women in science, “it was contradictory
in my head that he could have bad intentions,” Borland said. “But at the same
time, it just felt so uncomfortable that after a few times I had to tell him
to stop.” """

(note I haven't read the buzzfeed article as I've been following this story on
astronomy blogs such as [http://womeninastronomy.blogspot.com/2016/04/sexual-
harassme...](http://womeninastronomy.blogspot.com/2016/04/sexual-harassment-
changing-system-i.html))

~~~
manyxcxi
I want to be clear that I'm not brushing off the incidences or saying they're
in any way acceptable. It's more of a thought exercise asking why these guys
think the behavior is acceptable. Why are they doing it in the first place?
Are some of them just predatory, knowing it's not acceptable and think they
can get away with it? There are certainly plenty of examples in all fields
where people in a power position think they can simply get away with it due to
the resources available to them.

I've worked with, and hired, plenty of women and it's never crossed my mind to
behave that way, not ever. Is it because I've not ever felt that I had the
power to make the problem go away, ignoring what I know is right and wrong? Is
it because I went through 'normal' socialization channels growing up? Is it
because I do not feel socially awkward in different environments that would
allow me to court a woman in a more acceptable fashion? Is it because those
'normal' socialization channels helped me figure out (even through trial and
error growing up) what an acceptable fashion even is? Are 'normal' people just
wired up to innately feel how an action such as touch could make the other
feel in a given context? One of the hallmarks of autism spectrum is an
inability to read social cues for example, so if people in these fields have a
pre-disposition to be on the spectrum, is it possible this plays a factor?

Hearing the victims' descriptions of what they had to deal with genuinely
makes my skin crawl, and that's why I floated the questions/ideas in the first
place. I can't put my head into a place where I could see why these guys would
do it, and I'm wondering if the general wiring of the types of people that
gravitate to and achieve in these fields might pre-dispose them to socially
abnormal behaviors like this. Are the incidences of this type of behavior
greater than in other fields, say teaching, that have historically been more
equal or female lead? If so, is it because the intent is generally predatory
(in that the offender generally knows it's wrong and doesn't care), or is it
that they don't get how wrong it is?

Again, going back to an anecdote of being in both social circles... One of my
best friends from my CS studies at university was a delight one on one, or in
the small circle of our group of CS friends. But whenever he could gather
himself to come to a party that was filled with pretty much no one like
himself he had no freaking clue how to behave. A lot of female friends said he
creeped them out- stared too much, said weird stuff, etc. No physical
violations by any account I can recall. I asked him about it one day and his
response was pretty much what I expected: he had no freaking clue how to
connect to these people, women in general scared the shit out of him, and he
shared no real social point of reference with my other friends that would
allow them to connect.

It's personal experience like that that makes me wonder if some of it is
attributable to wiring/social disconnects, not just pure predation. Again,
their actions whether with bad intent or out of ignorance are no more
acceptable and do not magically inflict less trauma to these women. I'm just
wondering aloud if there exists some common thread that might explain why this
might happen more in some fields than others.

------
mooseburger
These harassment cases are so mysterious to me. What kind of men think this
sort of behavior is ok? I mean, I would like to help somehow, but I don't know
anyone like that.

~~~
kitd
> What kind of men think this sort of behavior is ok?

The kind who think that the real world is just an extension of the school
playground.

~~~
JoeAltmaier
Interesting point. And why isn't it? Why is the 'real world' run according to
some narrow set of safe-and-happy rules that insecure people make up? Just
being 'devil's advocate' here. Sales people know, you get what you negotiate,
not what you deserve. Anything else is a fantasy. Extend that to every facet
of the working world, and you have the 'school playground' all over again.

~~~
kitd
One would hope that when you have left the school playground and entered the
"real world", you have developed enough sense of empathy and social skills to
understand the long-term benefit of treating people with respect, ie how you
would want to be treated yourself. We do spend much time and effort drilling
this into infants after all.

Those who don't, ie who find it ok to use/abuse others (or can't stop
themselves) for personal profit/pleasure, I would term social freeloaders.

It's sad that this seems to extend to middle age in some people. And that
grown-up institutions need processes to deal with problems that should have
been sorted out in kindergarten.

~~~
JoeAltmaier
...and _that_ , I would say, is the _real_ world. We have to deal with it.
Short of rounding up and executing all the sociopaths that never learned
empathy.

------
pc86
Can someone explain to me what "nearly over a decade" is supposed to mean?

~~~
tantalor
Nearly a decade, e.g., "9 years".

~~~
slazaro
Then "over" makes no sense, right?

------
LoSboccacc
this:

> Universities, Mia notes, have protocols for dealing with complaints of
> sexual harassment

seems part of the problem. sexual harassment should be a 'go straight to
police' offence, not a hr reprimand.

if the problem is as widespread as it's made in the article, it cannot correct
from within.

~~~
woodman
This is the sort of thinking that leads to people calling 911 for disputes
relating to McNuggets. Calling in armed mediators is not likely to improve
your situation.

~~~
wfo
It's the sort of thinking that gets abusive people who commit crimes public
criminal records (or at least records of a series of accusations) instead of
slaps on the wrist which forever remain private so they can continue their
abuse.

The other alternative, calling in University-owned mediators who have no
incentive to help you and every incentive to "just make it go away" will
almost certainly not improve your situation -- as described in detail in the
article.

~~~
woodman
> ...people who commit crimes...

While sexual harassment is terrible, it isn't a crime. There are a lot of
terrible things that aren't crimes. A push to criminalize it would have the
opposite effect of what the proponents desire: the definition would be
severely narrowed and companies would likely have a lot less exposure to
litigation.

~~~
wfo
Actually, fortunately you are incorrect here. While certain kinds of sexual
harassment are not criminal, groping is certainly a crime.

I'm pretty sure threatening to destroy someone's career to force sex is a
crime. If you succeed, it's rape which is quite a serious crime.

Even if you just file a report, it's important to establish a pattern of abuse
for when the person inevitably crosses the line and goes to court. This is far
more serious than chicken nuggets; the fact that people are willing to liken
it to something like that is very troubling and indicative of how deep the
problem runs: many people don't even see it as a problem.

~~~
woodman
Describing an assault as sexual harassment is ridiculous. That is like
describing a murder as impolite driving... that resulted in the flattening of
a person who you happened to want dead.

We are talking about different things here, and conflating them isn't going to
help anybody.

~~~
wfo
It's okay for words to have wide and general meaning. Assault can mean
flicking someone with your middle finger. It can mean saying something
threatening. Sexual assault is a kind of assault. Barfights and brutally
beating someone all count.

Similarly with sexual harassment. It doesn't mean exactly what you have in
your head at this particular moment and nothing else no matter what anyone
else says. Look it up if you care to and you'll find its definition is quite
broad, especially the way it's used in general conversation. Nobody is
suggesting locking people up in jail for saying bad words -- it's an absurd
strawman, though it's quite an effective way to derail the conversation and
avoid having a real discussion.

The article is about the climate of abuse and sexual harassment of women in
astrophysics departments. Groping, specific comments, threats, general
comments. Everything from flirtation to repeated unwanted advances to actual
assault. That is what we are discussing, so when someone says women should go
to the police to report the crimes described in the article you need to assume
they are talking about the crimes described in the article.

~~~
woodman
> Look it up if you care to and you'll find its definition is quite broad...

I'd think that my awareness of the broad definition would be made clear by my
repeated warnings that criminalization would narrow it.

> Nobody is suggesting locking people up in jail for saying bad words...

Well the poster that I initially replied to was pretty explicit about getting
the police involved, as have a few other people here. So I'm not sure if your
point is that I should be more charitable and assume that when someone says
"sexual harassment" they don't mean sexual harassment, or if your point is
that police should get involved but somehow leave the whole threat of violence
thing at the door.

> That is what we are discussing, so when...

That isn't what I was discussing, and you replied to me, so you must be
referring to yourself with the royal "we". I'll be more charitable and assume
that people don't mean what they say, but I'd appreciate it if you'd extend me
the same generosity and assume that I've chosen my words carefully.

------
artpepper
This is why any talk about women being "naturally" less gifted at hard
science, or naturally drawn to other fields, is B.S. You'd have to get to a
level playing field first, before you could even evaluate that type of claim.
(Neil deGrasse Tyson has made this same point.)

------
evanb
There's a long-standing overrepresentation of women in solar astronomy. Why?
It was previously thought unthinkably inappropriate that women should spend
the nite in the observatory alone with men. So, to do astronomy many were
pushed towards daytime astronomy, which pretty much restricts you to study the
sun. Even today solar astronomy is largely dominated by women, demonstrating
that historical biases propagate into the modern day.

It's disappointing to think that female astronomer's fear of sexual harassment
is well-founded and persists to this day.

------
appleflaxen
It's amazing that sexual harassment (or any kind of harassment, really) can
survive the era of the cell phone recording? Allegations of misbehavior carry
far more weight, once there is a recording that can tickle people's sense of
voyeurism and outrage.

~~~
s_kilk
> It's amazing that sexual harassment (or any kind of harassment, really) can
> survive the era of the cell phone recording?

In some jurisdictions it's illegal to record someone without their knowledge
or permission, so the victim of the harassment can get nailed to the wall for
trying to gather evidence to support their case.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legality_of_recording_by_civil...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legality_of_recording_by_civilians)

~~~
cmdrfred
Do you have an example of when this occurred?

------
SCAQTony
"...At the time of the survey, Berkeley had two women to 17 men, while MIT had
three women to 11 men. At Harvard, there was only one woman compared to 12
men...."

The amount of working female astronomers at a given institution seemed
woefully small. One sexual harasser in the bunch could harass 100% of the
women. It's hard for me to believe that universities have a monopoly on a-hole
men. What seems more believable is that they don't lay down the law like the
rest of societal business institutions.

------
mathattack
This sounds as bad as investment banks. Why are schools so behind the times?
Accounting firms and Advertising agencies are cleaning up. Why are
universities staying with the banks?

Is tenure part of the problem? That it's so hard to fire people for bad
behavior?

Or is it that academic prestige is "Winner takes all" so schools choose to
protect those who give them their reputation?

------
koolba
What's the legal jurisdiction of the ISS? Is it split by country of origin of
the separate modules?

On a more comical note, I wonder if "worldwide copyright" applies after
escaping the worlds atmosphere...

~~~
randlet
I think you've confused astronomers and astronauts?

~~~
koolba
Oh duh ... My mistake for writing as I think rather than after!

~~~
erispoe
To answer your question though, maritime law largely applies in space.

------
bunnymancer
Yet people find it hard to understand why some people might be somewhat
offended by a shirt with scantily clad women during a press conference.

Things do not happen in a vacuum and pretending like nothing is wrong isn't
going to help anyone get anywhere.

~~~
sp332
The guy wore the shirt to a celebration after working with those co-workers
for 10 years. It wasn't intended to look "professional" and I'm pretty sure
none of those co-workers were offended. The reason the shirt was a bad idea is
that it was easily misinterpreted by people watching the press conference.

Edit: I didn't see it at the time, but this article exactly reflects my
perspective on the thing.
[http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/11/why-a-
sh...](http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/11/why-a-shirt-with-
scantily-clad-women-caused-an-internet-fight/382812/)

Edit2: I agree with bunnymancer's comment as far as it goes. But I don't think
the shirt is a very big problem. It would be almost insignificant if it
weren't interacting with the big problem we already have.

~~~
ainiriand
A shirt that depicts women as objects or objectized women is just plain wrong.
I do not care about the celebration.

~~~
corford
You do realise the shirt was given to him by a female colleague/friend right?

~~~
ceejayoz
So what?

If a black friend gives me a shirt with the N-word on it, that doesn't mean I
should wear it _at work_.

~~~
Chris2048
If you're white, and your black friend gives you a shirt with the N-word on
it, they aren't your friend.

~~~
ceejayoz
These guys are probably friends.

[http://realfunny.net/picture-3097-these-two-friends-
wearing-...](http://realfunny.net/picture-3097-these-two-friends-wearing-my-
nigga-and-my-redneck-shirts-better-not-get-separated-.html)

They probably don't wear the shirts to work.

------
rurban
I've only seen such behavior in 2nd or 3rd world countries, like in some
eastern block countries or the US, never in the developed world.

It's disgusting.

------
rokhayakebe
Ask Women: What counts as sexual harassment?

Is it "Let's go out this weekend?" or is it a comment about body parts below
the neck, or is it physical?

~~~
vkou
Why not ask a lawyer instead?

~~~
simunaga
A woman's or a man's lawyer?

~~~
vkou
Since when do lawyers segregate their practices by gender?

~~~
rokhayakebe
Google this "divorce lawyer for men," granted it is marketing ploy.

~~~
vkou
Fair enough. In this case though, both sides of the aisle will give you the
same legal advice.

------
powertower
I am curious of why is it everyone here is so eager for this to be true?

Several people so far have posted that they have never seen such a thing in
the field, and a number of people (outside those fields) responded that they
must be blind.

The last 9 out of 10 of these types of stories ended up being exaggerated to
such an extent that it became clear that they were all fabricated to get views
and to drive agenda.

------
Bud
Pretty obvious from looking at the points and age of this posting that some
people have flagged it.

I hope some admins are considering removing those flags. Users who flag a post
like this shouldn't really have flagging privs.

~~~
privong
> Users who flag a post like this shouldn't really have flagging privs.

I agree with you that the article is focused on an important topic (and I did
not flag it), but I don't think you can easily make that one-to-one link
between article flagging and poor judgment (or what ever negative trait would
justify revoking of flagging privileges). People may have flagged the article
because of some issue they had with the accuracy of the text (though it all
seemed accurate to me). Or maybe they flagged it because this topic has
received some attention previously on HN and the flaggers thought this article
didn't bring any new information to the discussion (plausible, since most of
the specific cases discussed were already in the news). There could be
multiple reasons for flagging this article, not all of which are
objectionable.

------
peterwwillis
> "Until recently, we have tiptoed cautiously around these discussions for the
> most part" [Mia]

Looking for feedback from women on this one: why would one tiptoe around this
issue, rather than shouting it from the rooftops? It seems so counter-
intuitive.

~~~
ksenzee
One reason: It's dangerous to shout it from the rooftops because a lot of
people will accuse you of lying. Being branded a false accuser can be fatal to
your career.

~~~
home_boi
As it should since being falsely accused would be even worse for your career

------
hobarrera
"These people are bullying you, and you're being polite back to them."

I think this pretty much summarizes something that should be transmitted to
all women in these sort of situations.

------
Cyph0n
I never knew BuzzFeed wrote exclusive longform (and interesting) content.
Thanks for mentioning it.

~~~
dang
We detached this subthread from
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11519919](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11519919)
and marked it off-topic.

Btw this comes up every time a substantive Buzzfeed article appears on HN.

~~~
Cyph0n
Damn, sorry for the trouble :(

------
graycat
I've been a prof: Academics is awash in non-objective _pushing and shoving_
that, yes, affects careers. In academics, even high end universities, a lot of
the nasty behavior of middle school is still alive and well. Added to that is
grown up politics, professional jealousy, professional competition with
sabotage, and, also, no doubt, sexual harassment as in the OP.

I can't speak first hand about sexual harassment because I'm a normal male and
never knowingly harassed a female. But, gee, right, there were some times: (1)
I was chair of the college computer committee, and she was in the
administration and invited me to her office to talk about computing. She
leaned back in her chair, put her feet up on her desk aimed at me so that I
could see under her skirt and said "My husband and I have an open marriage".
Well, my wife and I don't. (2) I was a consultant, say, an applied
statistician, in a computing center, and a new prof on campus in sociology
with some survey data came to see me about processing the data. She started
talking about finding things in her data and said that she was "looking for
sex". Then she kept saying she was "looking for sex". Gee, those women were
trying to harass me _sexually_? No, I didn't have any "nightmares"!

Similar things can go on in parts of business.

My mother used to say that a young woman should carry a six inch long, sharp
hat pin and be prepared to insert it into any man who got too _fresh_. We're
talking an old story. Maybe I should start a Web site to sell long, sharp hat
pins with some instructions on usage.

If we could get rid of all the sexual harassment, then we will discover that,
once have some good work, others afraid of losing out in competition will
start to fight back, with whispering campaigns, sabotage, gang behavior, etc.

I saw one female prof have a nice little tactic: She never said anything about
her research. So, she never gave anyone any hint about what she was doing.
Then, suddenly, in one 12 month period, she published five nice papers in one
of the best journals in the field. Presto. Bingo. In a baseball analogy, she
had hit a home run, or call it a grand slam, had rounded all the bases, and
was home free. Five papers in one of the best journals one year? Tough to
fight with that, i.e., whispering campaigns mostly won't work. BTW, I was the
faculty member who proposed hiring her -- her qualifications looked good to
me.

Is being a prof a nice job? Not very.

For one, it's super tough to get paid well enough to buy a nice house and do
well supporting a family. Even if get tenure, that doesn't mean that your
salary has to keep up with inflation. It can seem better just to be in
business, e.g., start and own a successful business, where actually make some
money and can accumulate it for some real financial security.

Second, really, to get very far in academics, have to pay close attention to
money anyway -- have to get grants. So, can begin to feel like are in business
anyway.

Third, in business, it's fairly easy to know how to _keep score_ \-- the units
are dollars. In academics, we're talking numbers of papers, numbers of invited
talks, numbers of journal editorships, number of dollars of grant money,
prestige, number of citations, etc. So, it's tough to count and/or compare.
For a successful business owner, the criteria are simpler to count and compare
-- e.g., a bank statement or, if you will, an account's report.

I have always felt protective of girls and women, and I hate to see them have
"nightmares" over anything. But, honey, and I say this out of 100% affection,
caring, and respect, out in the real world, there is lots of pushing and
shoving, and there still will be even without men trying to kiss you, knocking
on your hotel room door at 3 AM, sending you suggestive messages, etc.

Or to borrow from and paraphrase E. Fromm in _The Art of Loving_ , "For
humans, the fundamental problem in life is responding to the anxiety from our
realization that alone we are vulnerable to the hostile forces of nature and
society. The first recommended solution is love of spouse." Well, honey, and,
again, I mean this with full affection, caring, and respect, one of the
"hostile forces of society" is the nearly eternal force of men pursuing
friendship, affection, sex, domination, etc.

For such men, part of the solution is a ready supply of clear, loud statements
"No. Stop. Quit.". For more, there is that long, sharp hat pin. For more, be
in a public place and scream. For more, be with some girlfriends.

Indeed, one of Fromm's other recommended solutions is "membership in a group".
It's easy to remember the TV ads for the TV show _The Babysitters Club_ with
six or eight very pretty teenage girls walking on a sidewalk close together
with each girl trying harder than all the others to be in the center of the
group -- it was _herd_ formation, and the TV people believed that it was
credible. So, right, females tend "form herds", look like _herd animals_ , and
with good reason: They have more safety in a herd, as a member of a "group".
So, right, form groups via Twitter, Facebook, fora, one to one e-mail, face to
face, etc.

E.g., it was totally clear to a girl I knew of 12, and one of her girlfriends
of 11, each about 100 pounds, that they would feel much safer with me, 6' 3"
and 14, if they were together and in a public place instead of alone with me
in private. Since those girls of 11 and 12 knew about the safety of being in a
public place and not alone instead of in a private place and alone, I'm sure
the women of the OP can understand that. So, use that tactic.

But, still, honey, that's not nearly the only problem you will face _out in
the real world_. And, again, notice Fromm's first recommended solution --
"love of spouse". That is, have a good marriage with a good husband.

Honey, for a lot of the problems you face in _the outside world_ , sexual
harassment is one of the easiest to deal with because (A) it is relatively
easy to prove (e.g., smartphone and message recordings), (B) in its more
serious forms is very definitely seriously illegal, i.e., you can hire a
lawyer, and (C) there is the solution of that hat pin, or just your long,
sharp fingernails. But for whispering campaigns, jealousy, sabotage, gang up
behavior, etc., defense is more difficult.

Honey, definitely you should protect yourself, and you do have some strong
means. But out in _the real world_ some guy trying to get too close to you is
not your biggest problem and not what any nightmares, if there are to be any,
should be about. Honey, relax; you are overreacting to the wrong thing.

~~~
GFK_of_xmaspast
This is what "being part of the problem" looks like.

~~~
graycat
For "being part of the problem", look at yourself. You are profoundly
confused, mixed up, misled. The women in the OP are suffering, from "constant
nightmares", and I gave them some powerful, difficult to obtain, wise, helpful
advice.

~~~
GFK_of_xmaspast
Advice like "say no" and "stay in groups" is neither difficult to obtain nor
helpful. (And: "carry a hat pin"? seriously? this is the 21st century here)

~~~
graycat
Your response makes no sense, is not a reasonable or rational response to what
I wrote.

E.g., "say no" and "stay in groups" is VERY helpful.

Of course that advice is not "difficult to obtain". Neither is advice to keep
breathing, but all the advice is helpful.

But much of my other advice and descriptions of the real world of work is very
helpful and difficult to obtain.

Given your response, maybe you need a remedial course in reading comprehension
-- try a US community college.

More likely, you are angry, at me, personally and for no good reason. So,
likely you are lost, confused, mixed up, and misled.

------
simunaga
While in general it can be true, it's not necessarily the case that everything
in the article is 100% true. We don't know all the details.

------
ar0
My first reaction: Oh boy, apparently far too many people take the dating
advice of phyiscs "god" Richard Feynman far too seriously and don't seem to be
able to accept if this doesn't produce the stellar results he predicts in his
book.

Also a good read on this: [http://mathematigal.com/home/2014/7/14/feynman-is-
not-my-her...](http://mathematigal.com/home/2014/7/14/feynman-is-not-my-hero)

------
nikolay
Maybe in America... where people (which includes scientists) don't really have
a social life. Anyway, if America becomes too hostile for scientists, I'll be
happy if Europe and Russia become more attractive to people who don't want
deal with bullshit and lawyers.

~~~
arcticfox
Most Americans don't really have a social life? News to me...

~~~
nikolay
We've brought over the years more than 30 developers from Eastern Europe some
8 years ago here in Southern California. Nobody wanted to stay for more than
3-6 months even though they got better pay here and no expenses to worry about
- company lunches and dinners, nice company cars, nice spacious company
houses, etc. On the contrary, when they go back to Western and Central Europe
to work for clients, they didn't want to leave!

