Slashdot Mirror
The Sexual Misconduct Case That Has Rocked Anthropology (sciencemag.org)
sciencehabit writes: An investigative report in Science describes allegations of sexual misconduct against noted paleoanthropologist Brian Richmond, as well as the field's response. The story highlights a major shift in how academic communities deal with sexual misconduct, going beyond delineating rules on paper to striving to change the culture of the field at the institutional level. This shift – "a long time coming," according to many researchers – was spurred in part by recent high-profile cases in astronomy and biology. Now, as Balter notes, "paleoanthropology is responding to its own complex case." The first public allegation against Richmond, the curator of human origins at the American Museum of Natural History in New York City, inspired a cascade of other allegations about him. This in turn motivated several senior paleoanthropologists, including one of Richmond's key mentors, Bernard Wood, to explore the allegations with peers. "As I talked to more and more current and former students at [George Washington University]," Wood said, "I became more concerned and alarmed about what I heard." In light of their findings, Wood and others in the field of anthropology are now tackling sexual misconduct head-on. The article details additional institutional efforts to stop sexual misconduct in science while trying to balance the rights of victims and accused, and provides the latest update on investigations into Richmond.
This is one of the most vague summaries I ever read here... #wtf
Go away!
Its gotten to the point where you can't even give some a friendly smack on the buttocks with a rubber dildo anymore without them taking it the wrong way.
Why does the area of academic research matter? Including it in the headline implies there's some causation when there is very likely none at all. Should be more like "academic research/educator sexual misconduct etc etc". Giving his profession, gender, nationality, all possibly (if remotely) relevant; if he was an electrician would we care if he was freelance or worked for a national company? If he was a doctor would it matter if he was a neurosurgeon or an obstetrician?. If there is some causation, maybe explain a little? If not, irrelevant at best, inflammatory at worst.
RTFA. It means: "kissing her and groping under her skirt" while the woman wakes up from blacking out. It means "Dr. Richmond smiled and grabbed P1[’s] breast,”. It means "put his arm around me, and plunged his hand down the back of my skirt all the way to my thighs, and forcefully grabbed my posterior,". And all of this happened while Richmond was an instructor in the program and had a position of authority over the women involved.
Do women flood into the medical industry because of the overwhelming respect and lack of inappropriate male behavior in those industries? What about all the women in marketing - did all of the sexists vanish? Women don't need the insult of being treated as an economically protected class because you think they're too stupid to choose the right careers - they're happier in their career choices than men.
Sexual misconduct is a TERRIBLE crime, and we must confront it vigorously wherever it appears.
Unless you're running for President as a Democrat. Then it's OK and Gloria Steinem will endorse you anyways.
Perhaps it is a matter of degree? Consider:
People who dedicate themselves to the science and technology fields tend to be somewhat lacking in social graces, prone to "blunt instrument" conversational skills. Contrast that with other fields, especially in management, where "people skills" tend to be some of the most valuable assets to acquiring positions of authority.
I would imagine that the inappropriate socialite boss is more likely to be skilled at "not crossing the line", gauging their victims tolerance for their unwanted advances and backing off before things escalate to the point that might drive them away or invite repercussions. Contrast that with a geek attempting the same thing - for the same level of inappropriate intent, most will be far less graceful about pursuing their goal, which is likely to make things more unpleasant for the victim. Up to and including the issuing of ultimatums where a more skilled predator might bide their time or seek less recalcitrant prey. I know which predator *I* would prefer to have to tolerate every day.
And then of course there's positive feedback aspect which doesn't create the problem, but does intensify it: sci/tech are currently abnormally male-dominated fields, which means there's likely a higher ratio of predators per woman. That would tend to make the fields less appealing for women even if predators were no more numerous or unpleasant among geeks than in the general population.
--- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
The waistband, usually.
If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
Why can't she say she was drunk, going to his apartment seemed like a good idea and they became intimate until she had second thoughts?
The story has too many holes in its timeline for this not to be a plausible explanation. You can create worse scenarios from the same facts, but it seems questionable that Richmond carried her passed out to through the streets of Florence to his hotel. She most likely agreed to it and was self-ambulatory even if she was intoxicated.
The sexual contact was probably ill desired, but it sounds like it stopped when she wanted to stop and again, we have no good explanation what put her on the bed in that situation to believe in unless you're subscribed to the idea he brought her home in a passed out state and put her on her bed.
The worst you could say that Richmond was opportunistic and a cad.
My belief is you can't call buyer's remorse sexual assault and you don't get a pass for getting intoxicated and making bad decisions that result in unwanted circumstances. It doesn't justify forcible assault, but it doesn't condemn sexual advances when you've willingly gotten into bed with them or agreeing to have sex for that matter.
Too many women are making bad decisions and having cognitive dissonance about it afterward and then seeking absolution through blame because they can't live with their mistakes.
It's important to be clear on the difference between anthropologists and paleoanthropologists. Anthropologists get real live humans to anthropologise on. Paleoanthropologists do the same thing, but they avoid grains, legumes and sugar.
I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
If you gave the whole quote, it would mean something else:
They were standing around a bonfire, they were drinking, she was drinking a lot, he made a pass at her, she responded favorably, he continued, she declined, and he left her alone.
This is normal sexual behavior in modern western cultures.
These are fucking anthropologists. They're supposed to understand mating rituals.
From TFA:
If you're the kind of person who will be psychologically traumatized by having your professor acknowledge your sexual attractiveness, I would think that you would be better off wearing something more professional than a halter top and miniskirt to the lab at night. Maybe you should learn something from those fruit flies.
If this is a problem, then you should have a dress code for female employees.
Actually, I used to work at the American Foundation for [deleted], and we had a temp employee come in wearing a halter top and a bare midriff. She made quite an impression, some of it favorable (on her boss) and some of it unfavorable (on the other women in the office). Somebody talked to her about it, and she covered it up, to some disappointment by the men in the office.
If anybody claims that women never dress in revealing clothes to be sexually attractive, they're denying reality.