Bat fellatio causes a scandal in academia(newscientist.com)
newscientist.com
Bat fellatio causes a scandal in academia
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn18916-bat-fellatio-causes-a-scandal-in-academia.html
12 comments
If someone's words make me "hurt and disgusted", does it mean I can have them "monitored and counseled" for two years and take away their tenure? Or do I have to be a woman to do that?
In Ireland you have to be a woman. Also in Ireland if two underage teens have sex, the male is convicted of statutory rape while the female is the victim.
Another one for Ireland is recent introduction of some new blasphemy laws.
The Irish government is also attempting to censor the net there, lucky for most Irish people they're mostly incompetent.
Another one for Ireland is recent introduction of some new blasphemy laws.
The Irish government is also attempting to censor the net there, lucky for most Irish people they're mostly incompetent.
China looks like a pretty good alternative then, you'd feel right at home ;)
edit: hey downmodder, if you missed the joke that's cool. Parent lives in China, emigrated from Ireland.
edit: hey downmodder, if you missed the joke that's cool. Parent lives in China, emigrated from Ireland.
When China starts becoming too free and westernized - there's always Australia
You can if it's an ongoing pattern of behaviour. From the initial complaint, it doesn't sound like this is a one-off.
Could you provide a link to the initial complaint, then, by any chance? Unless I'm completely missing it, it doesn't appear to be in the article. Unless what you mean by this not being "a one-off" is that he showed it to several other people over the course of the day who were not offended.
This is amazing. I think it may be situations like these that let some people dismiss actual sexual harassment. When you include completely innocent activities in sexual harassment, it damages the view of what sexual harassment really is (though he was cleared of any sexual harassment, he was still punished for it).
I have to imagine that this incident will harm the female colleague's reputation, which, if the story is accurate, it should.
You'd think medical scientists would be a bit more mature about sex.
I have to imagine that this incident will harm the female colleague's reputation, which, if the story is accurate, it should.
You'd think medical scientists would be a bit more mature about sex.
It doesn't seem like it was completely innocent.
He was cleared of the "sexual harassment" charge but the investigation also concluded that "showing the paper was a joke with a sexual innuendo" (at least how I read that article). Depending on the relationship of the people involved, and what the innuendo really amounted to, it's hard to say. That at least seems unnecessary.
Using bat reproduction papers to hit on co-workers? a) Weak; b) Yes, one of them needs to be more mature about sex.
He was cleared of the "sexual harassment" charge but the investigation also concluded that "showing the paper was a joke with a sexual innuendo" (at least how I read that article). Depending on the relationship of the people involved, and what the innuendo really amounted to, it's hard to say. That at least seems unnecessary.
Using bat reproduction papers to hit on co-workers? a) Weak; b) Yes, one of them needs to be more mature about sex.
Even supposing that it was sexual innuendo, that doesn't mean he was hitting on her. Straight men and women have conversations filled with sexual innuendo all the time.
They are co-workers. He should have showed some restraint. BUT academics are supposed to be famous for free and unfettered flow of ideas, so that gives him some slack.
Playing on the sexual innuendo of a paper on bat fellatio doesn't need to mean he was hitting on her. More likely it was a subtle form of sexual harassment.
I thought most of the time sexual harassment happened because the aggressor basically wants the victim to sexually submit (i.e. have sex). It might not lead to a more direct, "have sex with me if you want to get promoted," but I see little point in harassment for the sake of harassment.
>I thought most of the time sexual harassment happened because the aggressor basically wants the victim to sexually submit (i.e. have sex).
Sexual harassment is harassment - behaviour intended to intimidate, disturb, offend, threaten someone - that uses sexuality as a vector. It's extraordinarily naive to assume sexual harassment isn't taking place if the aggressor's goal is not to elicit submission to sex itself.
Sexual harassment is harassment - behaviour intended to intimidate, disturb, offend, threaten someone - that uses sexuality as a vector. It's extraordinarily naive to assume sexual harassment isn't taking place if the aggressor's goal is not to elicit submission to sex itself.
Often inadvertently. It seems to be a feature of the human brain.
Anyone have more insight?
Anyone have more insight?
The important points for me are these:
* Judging just from the story, it does indeed sound like the showing of the article was a bit of a joke, to carry a shock value to the recipient.
* However, the punishment should fit the crime. In this case the university grossly went overboard into a possibly career wrecking punishment. Maybe a private meeting with the professor and a semi-public chastising in the form of a message from the dean would have been more logical.
* Which makes you think: Why do the universities behave in this manner (this incident is by no means unique). Answer is they want to send a "clear message that sexual (or other kinds of) harassment is not tolerated". Problem is, due to recent surge of political correctness, this has been a blanket term to mean anything that may offend your audience. You say Socrates was not black in your lecture? You've offended the Afrocentric crowd (see Mary Lefkowitz's experiences at http://www.wellesley.edu/CS/Mary/contents.html). You suggest men and women may have innate cognitive differences, you, of course, offend everyone (see Steven Pinker). I could go on but the margin is too small to hold the full list.
This is sad for two reasons: i) The lesser reason is that, well, increasing levels of PC is stifling for all society. ii) But the main worry point is that these things happened in academia, the bastion of free thinking. For one thing, I think the threshold of academics to handle PC-sensitive topics should be higher than the general public. That's why they're academics.
* Judging just from the story, it does indeed sound like the showing of the article was a bit of a joke, to carry a shock value to the recipient.
* However, the punishment should fit the crime. In this case the university grossly went overboard into a possibly career wrecking punishment. Maybe a private meeting with the professor and a semi-public chastising in the form of a message from the dean would have been more logical.
* Which makes you think: Why do the universities behave in this manner (this incident is by no means unique). Answer is they want to send a "clear message that sexual (or other kinds of) harassment is not tolerated". Problem is, due to recent surge of political correctness, this has been a blanket term to mean anything that may offend your audience. You say Socrates was not black in your lecture? You've offended the Afrocentric crowd (see Mary Lefkowitz's experiences at http://www.wellesley.edu/CS/Mary/contents.html). You suggest men and women may have innate cognitive differences, you, of course, offend everyone (see Steven Pinker). I could go on but the margin is too small to hold the full list.
This is sad for two reasons: i) The lesser reason is that, well, increasing levels of PC is stifling for all society. ii) But the main worry point is that these things happened in academia, the bastion of free thinking. For one thing, I think the threshold of academics to handle PC-sensitive topics should be higher than the general public. That's why they're academics.
You make a lot of good points, but I don't think academia has ever been THE bastion of free thinking. It has produced free thinkers, and at times it may have been at variance with the prevalent thought in society at large, but my reading of the history of academia all the way back to the late middle ages is that it very much enforces its own political correctness (which does change over time).
During the Slashdot discussion, someone pointed out this archive of correspondence for more detail: http://felidware.com/DylanEvans/
The woman in question makes allegations that it was ongoing much longer than this single bat-fellatio-paper incident, and that that was just the last straw. The investigators however appear to clear him of any wrongdoing with regard to anything prior to the bat-paper allegations ("Report 2"). His reply seems pretty earnest, but obviously it's hard to say much with just some letters back and forth as evidence.
The woman in question makes allegations that it was ongoing much longer than this single bat-fellatio-paper incident, and that that was just the last straw. The investigators however appear to clear him of any wrongdoing with regard to anything prior to the bat-paper allegations ("Report 2"). His reply seems pretty earnest, but obviously it's hard to say much with just some letters back and forth as evidence.
If he's been cleared of all the other allegations then they should be ignored. Otherwise all we have is "Innocent until accused of something".
Or "Innocent as long as it fits into the agenda of the people deciding your innocence." (e.g. finding him guilty of sexual harassment would look back for the University)
So why exactly is the accuser's identity protected, as opposed to Dr. Evans'?
Because of poor-but-good-intentioned and outright malicious reasoning about gender in laws. The idea is that women would be too ashamed to press charges because of social stigma however being accused of a crime carries no social stigma at all -- see the Duke Lax case for an example of how the accused are treated fairly.
Ah. It doesn't actually say 'bad fellatio.'
I swing far more Republican than I do women's studies, but does anyone here seriously expect me to believe there is a perfectly innocent, professional explanation for a clinical psychologist to give a paper on bat fellatio to a colleague?
There is almost certainly a researcher somewhere who does comparative anatomical measurements of land and sea mammals. If you bring the visual aids for the study to your friendly neighborhood chemist on the excuse that it is science and she's a scientist so "Haha", I have zero sympathy.
There is almost certainly a researcher somewhere who does comparative anatomical measurements of land and sea mammals. If you bring the visual aids for the study to your friendly neighborhood chemist on the excuse that it is science and she's a scientist so "Haha", I have zero sympathy.
does anyone here seriously expect me to believe there is a perfectly innocent, professional explanation for a clinical psychologist to give a paper on bat fellatio to a colleague?
Yes. The article refers to "an ongoing discussion on human uniqueness"; I've personally been part of discussions where people have made (entirely incorrect) assertions along the lines of "animals don't engage in reproductively ineffective sexual activity".
I have no difficulty at all in accepting that a paper about bat fellatio was required in order to contradict a belief that fellatio is a human-only behaviour.
Yes. The article refers to "an ongoing discussion on human uniqueness"; I've personally been part of discussions where people have made (entirely incorrect) assertions along the lines of "animals don't engage in reproductively ineffective sexual activity".
I have no difficulty at all in accepting that a paper about bat fellatio was required in order to contradict a belief that fellatio is a human-only behaviour.
"As part of what he says was an ongoing discussion on human uniqueness..."
Context is everything. Even if what he says is true, what's acceptable as a one-off joke takes an entirely different meaning when it's just the latest in a series of affronts. If you haven't read it already, the other side of the story paints a pretty different picture to the article: http://felidware.com/DylanEvans/c1.jpg http://felidware.com/DylanEvans/c2.jpg
Sounds to me like the guy is socially inept, and unable to tell when he's making her uncomfortable.
Context is everything. Even if what he says is true, what's acceptable as a one-off joke takes an entirely different meaning when it's just the latest in a series of affronts. If you haven't read it already, the other side of the story paints a pretty different picture to the article: http://felidware.com/DylanEvans/c1.jpg http://felidware.com/DylanEvans/c2.jpg
Sounds to me like the guy is socially inept, and unable to tell when he's making her uncomfortable.
None of the other events she describes have an obvious sexual undertone, even if we accept the paper did. She appears to be describing a friendly person who enjoys talking to his colleagues about things he's interested in when he gets in to work. Let's look at her complaints:
1. He asked her to comment on a scientific paper involving sexual behavior in animals.
2. He told her about a book he was reading on Casanova — specifically that he admired Casanova's adaptability to different situations and skill at gambling (Note: This is the emphasis she herself gives; I'm not downplaying any sexual component)
3. He said he would like to do a course on "sinful" behavior such as gambling, in which he might dress like the devil on some occasion
4. He asked her out to dinner, saying she could bring her husband and he would bring his girlfriend. He showed up without his girlfriend, but did bring another companion in her place. At the end of the night he gave her a hug and kissed her cheek "in the presence of [her] husband"
5. He likes to come into her office in the morning and chat, often about technical fields outside of his degree
6. He initially complimented her along the lines of "You look good in that outfit," she told him she didn't appreciate that sort of talk, and since then he has been more distant and kept his conversation with her strictly to scholarly matters
The picture she paints of him is very much that of a friendly guy who likes to talk to his peers about the things he's thinking about. Particularly the incident where she was scandalized that he hugged her and gave her a kiss on the cheek in front of her husband combined with how upset she was that he'd thought about dressing as the devil makes me think this is a culture clash between somebody extremely conservative and somebody much less so.
1. He asked her to comment on a scientific paper involving sexual behavior in animals.
2. He told her about a book he was reading on Casanova — specifically that he admired Casanova's adaptability to different situations and skill at gambling (Note: This is the emphasis she herself gives; I'm not downplaying any sexual component)
3. He said he would like to do a course on "sinful" behavior such as gambling, in which he might dress like the devil on some occasion
4. He asked her out to dinner, saying she could bring her husband and he would bring his girlfriend. He showed up without his girlfriend, but did bring another companion in her place. At the end of the night he gave her a hug and kissed her cheek "in the presence of [her] husband"
5. He likes to come into her office in the morning and chat, often about technical fields outside of his degree
6. He initially complimented her along the lines of "You look good in that outfit," she told him she didn't appreciate that sort of talk, and since then he has been more distant and kept his conversation with her strictly to scholarly matters
The picture she paints of him is very much that of a friendly guy who likes to talk to his peers about the things he's thinking about. Particularly the incident where she was scandalized that he hugged her and gave her a kiss on the cheek in front of her husband combined with how upset she was that he'd thought about dressing as the devil makes me think this is a culture clash between somebody extremely conservative and somebody much less so.
And, it sounds like she has not done the proper thing and told him to knock it off, that it really bothers her, etc. She mentioned several times that she just dodged/avoided him, which is human nature but is exactly the wrong thing to do if you are at the point of writing a letter like this. It sounds like this came to this guy through the administration somewhat of the blue, whether he was clueless about his innuendos or not (my guess is not but who knows). Now he's going to do everything in his power and rally support to defend himself - not at all what the accuser wanted or most likely deserved.
I weep for a society where our fear of being accused of social harassment will outweigh our desire for social interaction, no matter how awkward or inept.
Didn't some guy win the ignoble prize a few years ago for documenting the occurrence of homosexual necrophilia in ducks?
You'd be surprised at all the things being researched.
You'd be surprised at all the things being researched.
That would be Dutch researcher Kees Moeliker.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2005/mar/08/highereducat...
http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2005/mar/08/highereducat...
Not if it's on tax-payers' money, I wouldn't.
I bet his parents are proud.
This seems like a good opportunity to recommend the book "Why is sex fun?" by Jared Diamond.http://www.amazon.com/Why-Sex-Fun-Evolution-Sexuality/dp/046...
(Or apparently "The Third Chimpanzee", some reviewers claim that is a superset of the book).
(Or apparently "The Third Chimpanzee", some reviewers claim that is a superset of the book).
I believe it, because I've been the "victim" of similar behavior.
I've had at least two people point me to information about animal homosexuality in an attempt to get me to change my opinion on certain gay rights topics. I'm pretty sure there was no innuendo.
(It was a pointless exercise, since my objections to the gay rights movement have nothing to do with traditionalist or naturalist arguments.)
I've had at least two people point me to information about animal homosexuality in an attempt to get me to change my opinion on certain gay rights topics. I'm pretty sure there was no innuendo.
(It was a pointless exercise, since my objections to the gay rights movement have nothing to do with traditionalist or naturalist arguments.)
Calling yourself a "victim" when your against gay rights?
That's like calling the white slave land owners "victims" when they were against the abolishment of slavery.
That's like calling the white slave land owners "victims" when they were against the abolishment of slavery.
I don't consider myself a victim. Please read up on the use of scare quotes.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scare_quotes
Also, I don't recall saying I was against gay rights. For the record, I favor giving gays the same set of rights that straight people should be given (as opposed to the set of rights straight people are actually given). But this is widely interpreted by lazy people as meaning I'm against gay rights.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scare_quotes
Also, I don't recall saying I was against gay rights. For the record, I favor giving gays the same set of rights that straight people should be given (as opposed to the set of rights straight people are actually given). But this is widely interpreted by lazy people as meaning I'm against gay rights.
Could you explain what you mean by that? I'm not exactly sure what you're trying to say.
Is this a round-about way of saying that you're against 'gay marriage' because you feel that marriage/civil unions shouldn't be a legal/government matter (i.e. only handled by the religious organizations, etc)?
There's a compelling argument that government should get out of the marriage business altogether and give gay and straight couples "civil unions" alike.
If, as some people claim, marriage is a sacred institution, why is the state involved at all? Who would be OK with having to go to the courthouse to get a baptism license?
For people who object, choosing to attend a church that doesn't perform gay marriages will be no different from choosing a church that wouldn't perform anything else. Churches aren't regulated. (note: this is almost a "let the market decide" argument)
I do not, however, support the rights of fellating bats to have civil unions, because bats are creepy.
If, as some people claim, marriage is a sacred institution, why is the state involved at all? Who would be OK with having to go to the courthouse to get a baptism license?
For people who object, choosing to attend a church that doesn't perform gay marriages will be no different from choosing a church that wouldn't perform anything else. Churches aren't regulated. (note: this is almost a "let the market decide" argument)
I do not, however, support the rights of fellating bats to have civil unions, because bats are creepy.
[deleted]
There seems to be an avoidable tension between men and women working together, researching bat fellatio, communicating with your colleagues, and strict regulations about sexual harassment.
I went to UCC. While it's a fine university, with a lot of history and high aspirations, it's also quite small (approx 15000 students) with a small staff.
And in all these types of situations, if either has any political pull with the higher ups the whole thing can get blown out of proportion very quickly.
If Dylan Evans produced this paper with the sole purpose of harassing (of which he has been cleared) or offending the woman then they should go after him for wasting university time/money on pointless research.
If it is a legitimate paper and it was appropriate for him to show it to the woman, but she was offended by descriptions of bat fellatio then you've got to wonder what she's doing in the dept. of medicine? I'm sure there are far more offensive things out there and I would hate to have a researcher unwilling to look at those topics just because they're offensive to their sensibilities.
If it is a legitimate paper but it was not appropriate for him to show it to her (i.e. she expressed no interest in it and it's not part of her job) then you've got to question his motives. Was it just a "passing the dirty joke email around the office" type scenario, or was it "hey look at this interesting results I found" type scenario.
Regardless, he will now probably have to move universities as most institutions don't like their dirty laundry being aired in public (assuming it was he who made all of this public)
If Dylan Evans produced this paper with the sole purpose of harassing (of which he has been cleared) or offending the woman then they should go after him for wasting university time/money on pointless research.
If it is a legitimate paper and it was appropriate for him to show it to the woman, but she was offended by descriptions of bat fellatio then you've got to wonder what she's doing in the dept. of medicine? I'm sure there are far more offensive things out there and I would hate to have a researcher unwilling to look at those topics just because they're offensive to their sensibilities.
If it is a legitimate paper but it was not appropriate for him to show it to her (i.e. she expressed no interest in it and it's not part of her job) then you've got to question his motives. Was it just a "passing the dirty joke email around the office" type scenario, or was it "hey look at this interesting results I found" type scenario.
Regardless, he will now probably have to move universities as most institutions don't like their dirty laundry being aired in public (assuming it was he who made all of this public)
Evans is not among the coauthors of the paper.
Whenever someone gets in trouble for sexual harassment, I like to find a picture of the perp. The funny thing is that you almost never see someone noticeably more attractive than average getting caught committing sexual harassment. And if you do, you find out that he's a serial harasser, with dozens of unreported past cases.
SNL had some fun with this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gBVuAGFcGKY (moderately not safe for work, but no nudity).
It's interesting to have a law that says, not "X is bad behavior," but "X is behavior that you can only get away with if other people like it." It would be like having a law that banned porn of ugly people.
SNL had some fun with this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gBVuAGFcGKY (moderately not safe for work, but no nudity).
It's interesting to have a law that says, not "X is bad behavior," but "X is behavior that you can only get away with if other people like it." It would be like having a law that banned porn of ugly people.
[deleted]
Don't bother reading the article: only bats fellate each other, no hot bat-on-academic action exists.