Male privilege, rumors, harassment, and grad school

Ralph Luker at Cliopatria linked to this post from Crazy Ph.D: Sex, Collegiality, and the Academic Conference.  Reading it brought back memories of just how powerful my male privilege was in grad school.  Dr. Crazy writes about many things in her post, but especially about the complex and dangerous interplay between sexuality and power when one is a young, female graduate student.  She relates some real incidents from her past (in safe, oblique terms), and then muses:

The point here, though, is that I think as a woman and a feminist and an academic it's difficult to know what to do. Because the likelihood is that at some point or another one will be propositioned, or at the very least pursued in a way that is not professional. And any response can have potentially negative consequences, not only in relation to the person who propositions one but in relation to the ways that other people react. For example, I TA'd for a professor who is married to Famous Important Scholar in my field. She got her job at the university where I did my Ph.D. in no small part due to the fact that she is married to FIS. And, to top this off, she had been FIS's graduate student. Do you know how much I respect her - even though she has a great book and is not an idiot? NOT AT ALL. I feel like she is where she is because of who she's f*cking. And to me, that's not playing by the rules. I don't think she deserves the job she's got, and I think it's bullsh*t in this job market that somebody would get a job in that fashion.

And then:

...I fear that if I introduce myself to an Important Man that somehow I'm going to be read as trying to use the fact that I'm young, attractive, whatever to trick him into some sort of professional assistance. Or maybe I'm afraid that I do use my appearance/age in that way, and I think it's wrong?

Good questions.

UCLA has one of the largest -- if not the largest -- history graduate programs in the country.  My first year of grad school (1989), I was one of fifteen medievalists chasing the Ph.D.  We were almost all white, but evenly divided between men and women.  Since I also did a field in early modern Europe, I spent lots of time hanging out with "early modernists", who were disproportionately female.  Over the years, as we sat in seminars together and studied medieval paleography together and TA'd together, we became a fairly tight-knit bunch.  And I saw first-hand how many of my female colleagues in grad school struggled with the issues that Dr. Crazy outlined.

Like most grad students, I hero-worshipped the Famous Important Scholars in my field.  (I wrote about that here.)  Until I opted at the last minute to do a field in medieval philosophy with Marilyn Adams, all of my mentors were men.  It goes without saying that there was never any sexual tension with any of these FiSs!   These men often met privately with me -- with their office doors closed.  I was glad the doors were closed, as I did not want my fellow grad students hearing me confess my own fears and doubts about my intellectual abilities (something I shared with alarming regularity).  I also didn't want anyone to hear a certain (now retired) paleographer lament my ignorance of early monastic manuscript hand. 

But I never, ever, worried that I would be "hit on" by any of these men.  I worshipped them.  I followed them around.  I hung on their every word.  I read their books and articles assiduously.  And I knew that when they looked at me, they were looking at Hugo -- not at my breasts or my legs.  I was relieved when they shut the office door,  because that meant that I could have some one-on-one time with these men whom I so admired and for whose praise I was so hungry.

Would that my female colleagues had all had the same experience!   One young woman in my same year (I'll call her Stacy) formed a close relationship with a much older professor of mine (long since retired, I'll call him Professor Y.)   In the early 1990s, Stacy and I both served as his research assistants.  (He had lots of grant money, happily enough).   Professor Y was divorced.  Stacy did not have a boyfriend.  Stacy and I both worked closely with Professor Y.  As often happens, we didn't just do research with him.  We went to lunch with him.  We went to the car wash with him (heck, I TOOK his car to the car wash twice.)  And because we were working on different projects for Professor Y, Stacy and I rarely met with him simultaneously.

No one ever suggested that Professor Y and I were having an affair.  When other students saw Professor Y and me having coffee and a danish together on campus, no one -- to my knowledge -- questioned why he and I were spending time alone together.  The same was not true for Stacy.  The rumors started early, and were vicious.  Someone reported seeing them leave campus together in his car.  Others said they saw them walking together, leaning against each other, in the sculpture garden.   What I could do safely with Professor Y, Stacy couldn't -- not without becoming the subject of nasty innuendo.  When Stacy was given a coveted TAship the following year (so was I, for the record), many folks questioned whether she had legitimately earned it.  Stacy heard these rumors, and was hurt by them.  Personally, I think she had a huge intellectual crush on Y.  Then again, I suppose I did too.  I don't think they were sleeping together, but I suppose I'll never know.  What I do know is that the rumors were part of what contributed to Stacy dropping out of grad school after receiving her master's degree. 

In the early modern field, there was a very famous specialist in Italian renaissance history.  He had quite a reputation as a lecher.  At one time, one of our graduate advisers regularly warned incoming female early modernists against working with him, despite his stellar publishing record.  I spent a quarter as his research assistant, and found him an unpleasant, exasperatingly unclear taskmaster.  Any thoughts I had of doing a minor field in Renaissance history vanished after 10 weeks working for him.  But the worst I had to endure was his perpetual tardiness and his abrupt personality.   I knew two women in the early modern program who claimed that he had propositioned them.  There were rumors that other women had had affairs with him.  No one formally complained, even though by the early 1990s, everyone knew about sexual harassment procedures.

I talked to one of the women who had been propositioned by this Renaissance man.  She told me that she was afraid that if she filed a sexual harassment complaint, all of her other male professors would shun her.  "They'll be so afraid I'll charge them, they won't work with me", she said.   In the intimate world of grad student-professor relationships, a reputation as someone who files charges would be the kiss of death for her career.  I wish I could I have assured her that things would be otherwise, but I suspect she was right.

There's no question that my maleness smoothed my graduate school career.  My male mentors would have had little trouble seeing me as younger (perhaps slightly more neurotic) versions of themselves.   I could go out to lunch with them and meet behind closed doors with them, safe in the knowledge that the attention I would receive was purely intellectual and professional in nature.  I was free not only from unwanted sexualization, I was free from the gossip of my colleagues.   That kind of freedom gave me a confidence that carried me through the long years of grad school all the way up to completing my Ph.D. 

Comments

[Amanda]

Wow, thanks for reminding me again why I'm glad I didn't go to grad school. What is it about academics and sex? Is it just that everyone was really nerdy when we were younger and so now we feel we have something to prove?

[Hugo]

Amanda, I suspect that "nerdiness" is a part of it. But I also think the intense pressure of grad school, especially in doctoral programs, leads to both a heightened solidarity and an intense intimacy with one's mates, and it's easy enough to sexualize those feelings.

[Aegis]

Hmmm, I can definitely see how this kind of stuff might happen. I think this is one of the only reports of "male privilege" I've heard that I consider credible.

[stanton]

Aegis, I am sure it is all too real. There are other forces at work that favor women, of course. Things will never be totally balanced, even though we aspire to just that. And with women earning more degrees at all levels than men, it seems that this male advantage is not ultimately holding back women students as a whole.

[Hugo]

Hurrah, Aegis! We found common ground!

[mythago]

Wow, thanks for reminding me again why I'm glad I didn't go to grad school.

Ditto.

Is it just me, or is anyone else wondering why CrazyPhD disses the professor, and not Famous Important Scholar? Wouldn't one NOT AT ALL respect a guy who sleeps with his grad student, marries her and then gets her a job?

[cmc]

This post touches on one thing that irritates me immensely in the political/legal world of the small state where I live. Whenever a woman is appointed to a prominent judgeship or executive position, rumors invariably fly that she was sleeping with the governor. It is as though people simply cannot fathom the notion of a woman (especially if she is attractive) attaining a powerful position on her own merit.

[La Lubu]

I never went to grad school, but I can tell you there's a very similar dynamic in apprenticeship programs in the trades. Apprenticeship classes tend to be tight-knit groups of folks---except for the women. Usually, there's only one woman in a class (if that) and the guys are friendly but from a distance. Why? Because if they appear like real friends, then the inevitable rumors of so-and-so is sleeping with such-and-such will crop up.

I've never worked with a man one-on-one that I haven't been said to have been sleeping with. It's maddening and demoralizing. And I've been very angry about it. I went to a wake last night of a brother I worked with; I worked very closely with his son, who was one of my mentors (lucky for me, his wife had absolutely no problem with our working relationship---and yes, that presents its own problem. I had one foreman walk me around a jobsite as an apprentice, asking guys if it was ok if I worked with them, because he didn't want to make anyone's wife mad).

It was a fine line to walk as an apprentice, and it was not easy to find mentors. In the apprentice/journeyman relationship, it is crucial to have that rapport---you are basically learning one-on-one. I had no models to follow; of the two women who went before me, one dropped out as I came in, and the other got married to a brother (who used to be her foreman in the small shop they worked in). So.

I learned different techniques for different people; I felt like when I got my journeyman's card, I should've gotten a PhD. in psychology to go along with it! The best, most effective trick I had---the one I still recommend? Get "older". You can't increase your actual age, of course, but listen to the stories of the old timers, and become a minor historian of your Local. Talk freely about "when you were a kid". Get real "old school" on 'em. This was an effective strategy for me (I look young, so verbal "aging" techniques helped me gain that critical respect); I recommend that to young male apprentices that are having a hard time being taken seriously, too.

Jeez. The stories I could tell would make your head swim. No matter what you've seen, it's worse in construction. Yet, paradoxically, it's also better, because being in a union you're less vulnerable. And it's a more close-knit, more cooperative dynamic. And it's ok to express anger. And there are wider boundaries on what is considered "feminine". I've always felt that it is/was far easier for me to negotiate my way through this world (which can be hostile, although it has a far greater reputation for hostility than is deserved) than it would have been had I chosen either the office world or academia.

[ProfF]

This is throughout academe. Interestingly, the same rapport that La Lubu mentions is vital for academic success (though some of us have clawed our way without it, our careers definitely have fallen behind).

In the sciences, there are few women at the higher ranks, and as in other fields, vicious competition for that starting faculty position (which inscience generally requires at least a 4-yr postdoc stint before you start, which means that you are probably well over 30). Women in particular drop out at this level. People say, "oh, when younger men come up, things will be friendlier".

No way. Male postdocs complain that women "have an edge" getting jobs. (not true, based on every search committee I have sat on; they often have a token woman on the list, but that's it). Male postdocs (and others) assume that when Dr Bigshot talks about the latest hot result from his lab and mentions a woman did it, that she only was given that project because she sleeps with him.

At science conferences, they are a little more discrete, but it is not uncommon to see senior men lurking around pretty women grad students who are flattered at the attention. I suspect though that more conference sex occurs between equivalent ranks (students with other students or postdocs)

Over and over again, I have seen women drop out or leave academe as a way of dealing with sexual harrasssment. File a complaint against Dr Powerful in an international profession? You may be vindicated in the courts, but he and all his friends can and will make sure that your career is over. In one of my positions when I was a junior professor I had a senior colleague make the most inappropriate comments about my sexuality and my body. I told the head of human resources and another very senior administrator. Nothing happened. Later of course I realized that Dr Powerful had a history of thisand much worse, espeically with young women who worked for him, but because of his fame and grant $$$ the institution protected him--and all the women left.

This is why I laugh at the complaints that academe is full of liberals. Funny how illiberal some of these dinosaurs can really be when it comes to controlling power.

There is hope, however. Some institutions pay attention. I know of one case where a hot job candidate who behaved inappropriately with the secretaries during his interview was removed from the short list when they complained to the senior prof running the search.

Prof F

[stanton]

ProfF: I appreciate your insight as an "insider". I had read somewhere that women in tenure track positions are more likely to achieve tenure than males (I don't recall the source - perhaps you can correct or confirm this). What you have said here indicates that this may not be the entire picture - that many female postdocs are discouraged by the process, and never get that far. This is certainly a subject worthy of analysis. Do you know if there have been any in-depth studies of gender-related issues in post-graduate studies and tenure track success?

One other question: Was your experience primarily in the sciences? Do you believe that this experience was typical of other departments and other institutions?

[Mr. Bad]

ProfF and Stanton,

While ProfF's story is interesting, we have to remember that anecdotes are not proof or even strong evidence of a trend.

I also work in academia, at a major research university (one of the top 200 according to The Economist), and I'm here to tell you, from undergrad admissions right on through doctoral programs, post-docs, faculty searches, promotions and tenure, women most definitely have the edge over men. And the same is true for staff and administration. At my university, the rule is if there are two candidates who are similar (not necessarily equally-qualified, just similar), the woman is hired. From my decades-long experience, men have a considerably more difficult time negotiating an academic career path than women do. In fact, all the stops are pulled out to make the women's advancement easy, seamless and ongoing. No expense is spared for women. And it is also true that men have to walk on eggshells at my university, lest they be accused of any and everything from harassment to simply being in the "Old Boy's Club." However, not only are the "New Girl's Clubs" tolerated, they're encouraged.

For every story like CrazyPh.D's and ProfF's, there are as many stories from men who are blatantly and shamelessly discriminated against at all levels of academia. It is most definitely a two-way street vis-a-vis power and discrimination.

[Hugo]

That was not true, Mr. Bad, among the medievalists at UCLA. Then again, we didn't have a single woman with tenure teaching any of our history courses, and this was the early 1990s.

[Coco]

It is true...women get accused of having affairs with their professors when they are just having coffee together.__ I find it extremely irritating that as a woman, I can't have lunch with a professor. Yet, I can have lunch with a different male every day of the week in any typical work environment and nobody would notice a thing!....There is something about the student/professor relationship that makes society just a little paranoid!

[Mr. Bad]

Like I said Hugo, anecdotes are interesting, but not demonstrative of proof.

We do not have a single male professor in the entire school of nursing. Not just a department, but the *entire* school. And examination of social work, education, psychology, english, and (ahem) women's studies at our school shows similar trends. Is this evidence of discrimination? "Hostile environment?" Gender-based "power?" If this was engineering and we were talking about a dearth of women, then you feiminists would be claiming "yes." Ah, but since the sexes are reversed, there must be some other explanation.

[Hugo]

Well, there's no question we could do a much better job of recruiting men into nursing!

[djw]

Let me just add that inside academia, this story is all too common, and you'd have to be obtuse not to see it.

Stanton: regarding more likely to get tenure. From what I've seen the opposite is the case. I don't have the issue of PS onhand (and it's not online I don't think) but a study of this issue showed that while women were moving towards parity overall in the field of political science, they were not making progress in terms of their placement within the field--in other words, they less likely to be in tenure track and research jobs, and more likely to be in untenured, temporary, and teaching only jobs. It's a discipline-wide thing--I think there have been something like 2 women assistant profs who've ever been granted tenure at Harvard. (Many other tenured women, but they were senior hires--Harvard Government dept. simply doesn't give women the chance to rise through the ranks). Just one example.

Another thing I've seen from some of the older men in my dept. on search committees. It's simply true that academics tend to be brash, arrogant, and a bit full of themselves. When offering up views on job candidates, I can't recall seeing these traits ever used to criticize men (with one notable exception, and that guy was really, really weird). But they're regularly used to criticize female candidates. Pressure from the Deans may help women get on the interview list, but they don't help them overcome these sexist stereotypes and expectations from the faculty, expressed in the terms of "collegiality."

I've spent a little time in a few other fields, and I must say that while you may be a bit more likely to hear certain sexist terms or jokes in the other fields, academia is by far the most sexist overall. I know this doesn't fit with widespread stereotypes about academia, but those stereotypes aren't built on much other than a selected set of anecdotes about what some crazy feminist/leftist somewhere said or did.

[Mr. Bad]

djw wrote: "Pressure from the Deans may help women get on the interview list, but they don't help them overcome these sexist stereotypes and expectations from the faculty, expressed in the terms of "collegiality.""

Actually djw, my experience has been just the opposite: I've seen brash, arrogant, frankly bitchy women been given a pass time and time again (and in some cases even lauded for being "strong," etc.), yet a man who simply might have the "wrong" facial expression gets labeled as "hostile" or "lacking collegiality" and is put on the long slow road out of the door.

Academia is not some monolithic institution run by an "Old Boy's Network." In my experience, it's the "New Girl's Club" that's running the show, and it's no better off for it.

[Coco]

Hey, the 'New Girls Club'is not running any show! Women have tried to run the show, but to no avail. Men don't let them run the show. __Of course, it is entirely possible that they might be going about it the wrong way.

[djw]

Mr. Bad, I think we've battled to the draw of dueling anecdotes, where we eye each other suspiciously and suspect the other is misinterpreting their own experience, but we won't actaully say it directly. Still, I'm writing from a male dominated field and department, and you're presumably not if you're in nursing, so there's that.

[Mr. Bad]

djw, if you actually read my post carefully, I can't be in nursing. I made it quite clear that there are *no* - that means, zero, nada, zip - males at the nursing at my university, save for the custodians and maintenance men who do all the work that is too difficult, dangerous, dirty and just plain too "icky" for the women to handle. No Ma'am, I work in science, and while it is still at this point male-dominated, the diversity fascists are doing their very best to engineer our school down to mediocrity.

I'd be glad to abandon using anecdotes as "evidence," just as soon as feminists start doing so as well. Until that time I'll continue to counter their anecdotes with mine, if for no other reason than to highlight the fallacy of anecdotal "evidence."

[ProfF]

Mr Bad, my experiences are in the experiemental sciences at Research I universities much further up the Economist scale than 200. I am not surprised if different disciplines and fields show differences, but I can only report on the sciences.

Anecdotes are fine, but I prefer data. Here are some links:
Does academic science discriminate against women? from the Federal Reserve, of all places.

Gender differences in careers of men and women from the National Research Council concludes that men retain an edge that cannot be explained by any objective measure of ability.

Literature review of studies on women in science in academe, from the NSF.

Unless you are convinced that the NSF, the NRC, and the Federal Reserve are all full of rampaging feminists and cooking the data.... (I love the way you sneer the term "feminist", by the way.)

There was also a study done where the same CV was ssent out with male and female names; the male named one got great reviews, the female named one "needed more development". I don't have the reference to hand but I can find it.

DJW, the numbers I have seen from individual institutions show that women do not achieve tenure at the same rate/timing as men. I can tell you that every seearch committee I have sat on in 15 years has used comments like "she doesn't have the right personality" for the women, and "he's a go-getter" for the men. In fact in one place I worked, they didn't hire any women in my dept at all for 6 years in the 90s--while hiring 12 men. (I moved to a friendlier university some time after that).

Women are more likely to cluster in non-tenure track positions. The constant struggle against the glass ceiling leads even tenured women to leave. Moreover, women approach 50% of the PhD pool in biological sciences, but considerably less in the faculty: even amongst assistant professors, it is rare to have more than 30% women and as I mentioned, some institutions are well below. In my own cohort of women classmates from my grad school days (highly competitive top ranked program, during the mid-80s), women made up nearly 50% of the class yet I know of only one other who made it to tenure.

A physicist friend told me that her department told her that women can't teach physics, because male students won't respect women. At least biochemistry is better than that.

Women are not without responsibility for this. A lot of them self-select out and don't even try to get the academic positions--so the applicant pool isn't 50%, but more like 30%. So some places are doing a reasonable job of proportional representation. You can't change the system unless you are in it, IMHO, but I can understand that many women don't want the grief of putting up with this crap.

There are numerous very good sites about women in science that provide links and further statistical support of these issues..

[djw]

ProfF, your data resonates a great deal with what I've seen before. Thanks for the confirmation.

Mr. Bad--sorry for my misreading. I should note that this complete "ban" on men in nursing doesn't extend to all institutions. There were several nursing Ph.D students in some of my graduate seminars, and they were primarily male (although why nursing PhD students are so interested in political theory seminars I never quite understood)

By the way, was the implication that moving away from male domination in your field means embracing mediocrity meant to suggest that women are necessarily mediocre engineers? If so, I wish you'd come out and say it directly and defend the position, rather than framing it as an attack on "diversity fascists." Have the courage of your convictions.

[Mr. Bad]

ProfF, while I can appreciate the anecdotes and references, none of this convinces me that discrimination against women is a stronger force in academia than discrimination against men is. And that's what we're really talking about, imbalances, specifically, power imbalances. The basic question is who has the power (men or women?), who uses it, and who is disadvantaged more because of the imbalances. My experience is that men are at least just as disadvantaged and discriminated against as women are; in fact, I think that women have it better becuase they tend to be aligned more with the liberal politics that seems to override most all decisions vis-a-vis hiring and promotion. I've seen the reports you cite and they present a lot of simple descriptive stats and (at best) bivariate analyses, but none that I've seen to date actually tries to control for confounding or other explanatory variables. Most of the time the 'researchers' go in with a conclusion and seek out the data they need to 'prove' it. At the extreme you have the ridiculous, shameful fraud like at MIT where rather than avoiding obvious, blatant conflicts of interest, they appointed the person making the claim (Nancy Hopkins) to be head-up the investigation. That would be like appointing Dick Cheney to head an investigation into Halliburton.

But back to the original issue, that of students, professors and power. And in this case there's no question about it - women are more protected against the abuses of professors than men are. If a woman has a complaint, it's taken seriously, the professor is investigated, and whether or not he's found to be responsible, there are serious consequences affecting his career. No such mechanisms are in place for men. Male and female professors can take advantage of, exploit, etc., male students and nobody takes them seriously let alone cares about helping him. I believe that this is because of the nature of the abuse that male students endure, which most often takes the form of exploitation re. the time they're required to spend in the lab doing research, "grunt work," teaching, service, credit/authorship on publications, etc. There is also the political biases on campus that can affect things like grades, evaluations, etc. Once again, male students are more exposed to the abuses of professors because female chauvanist adminstrators don't listen to their complaints or take them seriously.

As for my uni, I'm also at a research I institution, consistently in the U.S. News Top 10 U.S. research universities, so I believe that our workplaces are likely comparable on that score. And as for sneering at the term "feminist," I make no bones about my contempt for modern feminists. I was a feminist in the 1960s and remained so until the movement was highjacked by female chauvanists, misandrists, "women-firster" sexists and garden variety gender bigots. Thus, I now proudly identify as a men's rights activist (i.e., MRA), the people who are the *true* champions of equal rights for all people, regardless of sex or gender identity.

[Mr. Bad]

djw, there is no "ban" on men in nursing at my uni, just a complete lack of interest on the part of the adminstration to address *any* situations where men are at a disadvantage. This applies to all schools, colleges, academic units, programs, institutes, etc., but is most pronounced in the school of nursing; that's why I used that example. It's good to know that your institution is more progressive than mine is. I suspect that you're at a smaller school that has to compete more vigorously for students, thus, they can't afford to discriminate against men the way larger ones do.

As for the "male domination" of my department, that's an amusing characterization, however inaccurate. Sorry if this ruins your daydream, but we're not a bunch of Neanderthal men patting the girls' butts, staring at their boobs, etc. In other words, we aren't "dominating" anybody or anything. We simply, up until recently, have accepted the most qualified, brightest students, hired the most talented faculty and staff, etc. But now, the diversity fascists (they are "fascists" - look up the word in a dictionary) are forcing us to accept and hire mediocre students, faculty and staff so our department will be less "white" and "male." Thus, while you may not like the characterization of "mediocre," it accurately and fairly describes what our department is becoming due to diversity initiatives. Pity.

[ProfF]

Mr Bad writes:
And in this case there's no question about it - women are more protected against the abuses of professors than men are.

Hoohoho. HAHA. I'm sorry, I am laughing pretty hard on this one...coffee coming out of the nose kinda thing.

Oh....you were serious. I"m sorry.

Mr B, your mileage may vary, but that has not been my observation or experience.

I also find it amusing that you dismiss any studies that disagree with you. I presented links to non-partisan agencies. You have provided only anecdotes of your own, while dismissing anecdotes from anyone else, and no data to back it up.

FInally, do you really think MIT's president would have participated in self-abnegation if there wasn't reason to agree with HOpkins? Trust me, knowing that institution (and I do), it would have been far easier for him to dismiss her as another hysterical woman. And, had he done so, she would have left entirely. She said as much.

I agree with you that the PC police can be a problem, and I suspect this is a greater problem in some fields particularly the humanties, than others. The idea of affirmative action has been corrupted into bean counting. There is a culture of victimization and excuses and some environments exacerbate this. This is certainly the case in some areas.

But it sure as HELL ain't the case iin science. No quality university is going to hire a faculty member in science who can't pull in the grant dollars. Women are just as good at that as men, by the way--once they have the position. No graduate program is going to stack it with unqalified students. Training grant dollars go out the window if you don't have quality alumni to back them up. There are perfectly qualified women and minorities out there without "lowering the bar" to the point of mediocrity. But sometimes you have to look outside your zone of familiarity... and we are all better at seeing people who look like ourselves. I'm just puzzled why you think that there are no good minority or female candidates out there.

(I have toasted many of my male peers for years in terms of publications and grant $, and I"m not alone. Oddly enough though, all my promotions lagged behind them. Funny, that. Typical female faculty experience, since the old guys were more comfortable mentoring men, and were much less comfortable with young women. )

Finally, I know you are not representative of all men. I have many accomplished male colleagues who welcome diversity and realize talent comes in all sorts of packages. I have many male colleagues who don't really realize the problem (a la MIT) until it is pointed out to them--this often comes when their much doted upon daughters run into these issues. See Papa become a feminist then. And, I have a few male colleagues who are Jurassic harassers, or bile-filled and unhappy like you are, who appear to resent women for gaining access to the clubhouse and who consider all feminists "man haters". But Mr B, I'm not a man hater. I love men--many of them! ;-). I wouldn't want a man-free dept any more than I want a woman-free dept. In diversity and difference, Mr B, there really IS strength.

Enough of this. Given the MRA thing, I suspect you may be one of Hugo's regular trolls. We are not going to persuade each other. I suggest you take a tums.