About the SA Blog Network

Context and Variation

Context and Variation

Human behavior, evolutionary medicine… and ladybusiness.
Context and Variation Home

What Does it Mean to Do the Right Thing? Time to #OccupyNPG

The views expressed are those of the author and are not necessarily those of Scientific American.

Email   PrintPrint

Some of the anthropologists you would have found at the 2005 Yale strike.

Some of the anthropologists you would have found at the 2005 Yale strike.

I have spent a lot of time in my life being employed or educated by an organization that I find problematic in some way. At Harvard, my main gripe involved the way in which the dissolution of Radcliffe College and the women’s spaces there occurred with little engagement with undergraduates: two deans met with me and two other women who were on the board of the Radcliffe Union of Students. That’s it. In response, we created a tent Women’s Center outside of the Science Center and a list of demands of what we would want out of a real Women’s Center; years later when they finally did form a real Women’s Center they did so in the basement of Canaday, which happens to be only a hundred feet or so from our temporary structure. (I say this without taking any actual credit, as I doubt our action had much of an effect.)

At Yale, my issues centered around the condescending attitude that characterized labor relations with both graduate students and the largely African-American population surrounding the gentrified center of New Haven. I committed and was arrested for civil disobedience two times in my six years there. I also went on strike twice. The graduate students do have a union, but it is still unrecognized by Yale.

At the University of Illinois where I now work, I cancelled my 750-student class during a GEO strike, despite a phone call to my home to dissuade me from such a decision. I walked the picket lines instead, and as it happens an agreement was reached when my class would have been taught, and we celebrated on the steps of Foellinger Auditorium, where I taught my class. (Again, I doubt my own decision made a difference, but you wouldn’t have known it from the tears streaming down my face as grad students sang and danced because they got the raises and benefits they needed to support themselves and their family.)

My actions had impact for me and many other people: I radicalized many female friends in college, many more colleagues in grad school, and know I served as an example for other faculty when I decided not to cross picket lines here at Illinois. These were moving, important experiences in my development as a scholar and activist. But in each of these cases, my actions as an individual had little impact in a way the institution would understand. If anything, these actions were derided by those in power, except, and this is important, when our numbers were great. If there were thousands of us picketing, that had meaning. If 700 of us got arrested, that had meaning (this happened long enough ago that I can’t find any of the longer pieces on it online). And I will return to this later in this post.

This time, my anger is with Nature Publishing Group (NPG), who owns Scientific American. My experience at Scientific American suggests that most folks here understand social media and blogs, and are respectful, thoughtful and kind. These are people who want to make the world a better place through science and science communication. And so I do my best to forgive the fact that some improvements to our network (*cough* commenting) have been under-resourced.

But NPG is a totally different lot. We’ve seen how their blog network stalled, how archaic and ridiculous their commenting policy is. We’ve seen who they employ. To be honest, I don’t read Nature unless someone pushes something to me. Instead, I enjoy my SciAm bubble and network of bright, fun thinkers.

I can’t do that now, because Henry Gee has seen fit to publish a rather limp attempt at humor that relies on fundamental stereotypes about male and female interests, desire and behavior. You can read the intelligent commentary by countless others: Anne Jefferson, who first brought this post to my attention, Emily Willingham, Christie Wilcox, Janet Stemwedel, Dr. Isis, Alex Wild, Drugmonkey, and I am probably missing several others. The only reason this article even turned up on anyone’s radar is because Nature just published two pieces of correspondence against the piece, by Ylaine Gerardin & Tami Lieberman, and Pieter van Dokkum.

I will not add to that commentary here, because frankly they said it better than I could. Instead, I want to talk about what the right thing to do is, and how to have impact, because I am struggling with answers to this myself.

When I read Womanspace, my first reaction was nausea. I felt completely sick to my stomach because I couldn’t believe that NPG would knowingly publish overt sexism. I felt completely alienated and abandoned by a journal that is supposed to publish science, not fiction that represents offensive cultural biases. Further, I am employed, however marginally or distantly, by NPG. What does this say about me and my blog? What does it mean that NPG employs someone like me who writes on feminism and science if they also publish that? Is my blog just a joke then, or a way to improve their appearance without actually changing who they are or how they think about science and scientists?

So then my next reaction was to consider the steps I needed to take to leave SciAm, since it meant being associated with NPG. I discussed it on our backforums and asked for advice. I talked a few friends about it. Would leaving have an impact? What would have an impact?

Leaving would diminish my impact, as my readership would probably not stay quite as high were I to return to my old blog. Yet, leaving would make a statement that I am not complicit with NPG and their actions. I’m not sure I know the correct choice.

Here is what I do know: leaving would allow me to feel better about myself and save face. It would allow me to walk away from the problem, back to my safe corner of the blogosphere where all my commenters were women and they were always kind and encouraging. I desperately want to do this because I am so tired of sexism and bothered by the uptick in sexist comments since moving to SciAm. There have been a lot of public attacks on women lately and calls to discuss those attacks. I haven’t contributed anything yet, first because the attacks I’ve received have been so mild compared to the death and rape threats experienced by others, and second because writing personally takes so much out of me. Being a leader, even an imperfect one alongside many other fantastic women and men, is exhausting. And every now and then even the bringer of Ladybusiness Justice needs to nap and cuddle while her daughter watches Sesame Street.

I didn’t get that nap yesterday, but I did go to bed early. And seven hours of sleep made it easier to think than five.

Maybe I would feel better if I left, at least at first. But my impact would not be the same. For now, I am not leaving, but instead am using this space to speak up against NPG policies when necessary, an #occupynpg movement, if you will. That means that, in essence, NPG is paying me to criticize them. And I can live with that, because this isn’t going to be the first time I do it. In fact, if you spot racism, sexism, heteronormativity, homophobia, or any other oppressive behavior happening at anything associated with NPG, I would like you to tell me, dear readers, so that I may write about it. If NPG doesn’t like it, they can shut down my blog or they can stop hiring and enabling sexists.

Remember when I mentioned that institutions listen when there are enough people shouting? In grad school when I spoke I reached one person at a time, across the table in a coffee shop, at the door of their home, beside them at the lab bench. Here, I can reach thousands, maybe more, and if you have a blog you can too. Write about why you find Womanspace, or anything else about NPG oppressive, and share it with a link in the comments.* Tell me about existing posts I’ve missed. Tweet about it with the hashtag #occupynpg. And share with me what you think it will take to produce a scientific community that holds itself more accountable around issues of inclusivity and scientific rigor (and yes, this might mean you disagree with my decision, and yes, I want you to be able to express that too).

*Comments that contain links often get held for moderation, so don’t double post; just give me a little time to approve it.

Kate Clancy About the Author: Dr. Kate Clancy is an Assistant Professor of Anthropology at the University of Illinois. She studies the evolutionary medicine of women’s reproductive physiology, and blogs about her field, the evolution of human behavior and issues for women in science. Find her comment policy here. Follow on Twitter @KateClancy.

The views expressed are those of the author and are not necessarily those of Scientific American.

Rights & Permissions

Comments 10 Comments

Add Comment
  1. 1. ImproperUsername 3:13 pm 11/17/2011

    My advice:
    Don’t leave. Stay and continue to inform and raise consciousness.

    I continue to fight the good fight myself, as a veteran of the Women’s Movement of the 70′s.

    I no longer buy pizza from a particular store that has TV ads that show women in stripper cop outfits, and I let the manager know why. I found that I like pizza from other places better anyhow.

    Whenever I am subjected to a cleavage shot on Google+, I explain to the person who posted it that I think it is sexist. Then I wish them well and block them.

    The battle against sexism is long, hard, and continuing. Our work is not done. :)

    Link to this
  2. 2. Anne Jefferson 3:23 pm 11/17/2011

    A very good post, Kate. I thought about boycotting Nature, but they really wouldn’t care. Your approach has a better shot of being effective. Thanks for your support.

    Link to this
  3. 3. teaburns 3:26 pm 11/17/2011

    Kate, regardless of what you decide, I am grateful for the exposure you’ve brought to this issue, and truly admire the boldness it takes to be so principled in the face of journalistic power. My issue with many science bloggers (especially some of the more prominent ones) is their apolitical facades – aside from internal science blogging politics – for I know how political they can be in private. It’s rare indeed to see transparency and any form of non-scientific activism in these halls. My thanks.

    However, as a blogger for a fellow NPG satellite, I endeavour you to stay! Groupthink-y institutions, by their very nature, listen more to internal than external voices. It’s when the yelling is on both sides of the door that one has no where else to hide.

    Apropos: What’s more annoying than sexist fiction? Boring, poorly written sexist fiction.

    Link to this
  4. 4. Ian__ 4:57 pm 11/17/2011

    I’d never visited your blog before following up on this “Womanspace” article. But it only took a few paragraphs to convince me that you shouldn’t leave NPG, but that Henry Gee should. The man went trolling in what should be among the worlds most respectable academic forums. Has anybody called for him to step down as Editor? I would sign that petition.

    Link to this
  5. 5. kclancy 6:16 pm 11/17/2011

    Thanks all. You are very kind. And teaburns, I do see your point. It’s just hard when all my training and previous activism was about working from the outside (and they were usually right to do it that way).

    Link to this
  6. 6. jonathan50 5:44 am 11/18/2011

    Unless the people who design, manage and fill the shelves of supermarkets are exclusively women, then there’s something strange here. Are there really men in the upper echelons of the supermarket world who get together and say ‘Let’s put the knickers where only women will find them’? If that’s the case, then they clearly understand more about women and male scientists than these scientists themselves, which suggests we have better scientists working in supermarkets.

    I’m a man, and I found this article repellent. It’s insulting to women, but also to the many men (particularly single parents or carers) who can and have to negotiate such tasks without being able to come home and say ‘sorry dear, we got distracted talking about iMacs and Jethro Tull and we couldn’t find them’.

    Link to this
  7. 7. kclancy 6:26 am 11/18/2011

    Yes, exactly jonathan50. Reinforcing gender stereotypes, particularly in such an odd, not-actually-clever way, is hurtful to both women and men. And I agree; I know plenty of single men, single dads, men partnered with men, men who do more domestic work than their female partners, etc, and this is an insult to them all.

    Link to this
  8. 8. sharayurkiewicz 1:05 am 11/20/2011

    I don’t believe in leaving. When I was criticized for my views on Twitter a few days ago, my first impulse was to run away, ignore everyone, and harbor a grudge against them all. But I did end up talking to them, and though we still don’t agree, it was civil, and I think there’s something to be said for engagement. Dismissal of an entire group out of frustration seems easy, but I think it’s counterproductive in the long run, especially if you want to change things.

    I’m still young and optimistic enough to think that you can play the game, win, and change things from the inside through reasoned discourse. But who knows.

    Link to this
  9. 9. sharayurkiewicz 1:19 am 11/20/2011

    Also, thanks for what you did at Yale and Harvard to pave the way for my experiences there :)

    Link to this
  10. 10. JasonAntrosio 8:42 am 11/24/2011

    Thank you for writing this. It’s a powerful piece and points out (again) how much we need to change a misogyny and sexism that is all-too-routine in academia and online.

    Just wanted to add here a couple links that reference this post. I referenced this for “Anthropology’s Challenge: We can be better”:

    At the “parenthropology” blog, inspired by this and connected to fighting for local schools:

    Thanks again!

    Link to this

Add a Comment
You must sign in or register as a member to submit a comment.

More from Scientific American

Email this Article