According to a friendly man who reached out to me on Twitter yesterday I am one of the “pointless humourless bitches” that comedian Jerry Seinfeld recently referred to in his ESPN radio interview. The guy is obviously being very generous: I am quite certain Jerry has no idea who I am and, believe it or not, I’m almost a full decade away from having been a “college” student.
Nevertheless, I do fall into the general group to whom he of the sneaker-and-jean-fame referred: those willing to call out politically-incorrect jokes.
“I don’t play colleges, but I hear a lot of people tell me, ‘Don’t go near colleges. They’re so PC.’ They just want to use these words: ‘That’s racist;’ ‘That’s sexist;’ ‘That’s prejudice,'” Seinfeld said. “They don’t know what the hell they’re talking about.”
At the risk of sounding humourless, what if they do know what the hell they’re talking about? What if sexism and racism aren’t just ‘words’ these students want to use for the fun of it? What if their discontent stems from their recognition that sexism and racism aren’t abstract concepts from a time gone by, but a stubborn and ugly reality? What if they’re unwilling to see the funny side of racism or sexism because neither is particularly funny?
There is no way of writing any of that without seeming dour and righteous. But the thing is I’m neither dour nor righteous. And neither, I would venture, are the vast majority of college students who are inclined to challenge the humour in racism and sexism.
No one chooses to call out sexism or racism because it’s fun. It’s hardly a path to popularity; a scan through the social media feed of any man or woman who speaks out about these things will confirm as much.
So why does anyone bother calling it out? I suspect they do because, like me, they’re clinging to the hope that prejudice and discrimination on the basis of a person’s gender or race – will one day become an antiquated cultural relic. And they believe that calling it out might accelerate the time that process will take. They call it out because the alternative is to quietly accept it…and hope the problem will resolve itself? They call it out hoping, maybe, others will notice the pattern.
MAYBE IF WE POINT IT OUT TIME AND TIME AGAIN THE NAYSAYERS WILL FINALLY ACCEPT SEXISM AND RACISM ARE NOT THE CONFECTED CONSTRUCT OF HUMOURLESS DOUR RIGHTEOUS FOOLS WHO ARE OBSESSED WITH OUTRAGE, BUT INSTEAD LEGITIMATE PROBLEMS. I live in hope.
Let’s consider Sir Tim Hunt, the Nobel-prize winning scientist who made a very public and undeniably sexist comment this week at a conference in Seoul.
Why make a point of his idea that gender-segregated labs would work well because girls make trouble? Why not just let the man say what he wants? Why does it matter if one man believes women do cause trouble?
The reason it matters is much bigger than the individual himself, but it is relevant that this is not just any individual. This is a recognised leader, a recipient of the prestigious Nobel-prize, a fellow of the Royal Society, and a Knight. These positions mean his words carry with them more weight than others. Leaders are responsible for setting the tone.
The fact the University College of London accepted Tim Hunt’s resignation due to his remarks and made this statement recognises that.
UCL can confirm that Sir Tim Hunt FRS has today resigned from his position as Honorary Professor with the UCL Faculty of Life Sciences, following comments he made about women in science at the World Conference of Science Journalists on 9 June.
UCL was the first university in England to admit women students on equal terms to men, and the university believes that this outcome is compatible with our commitment to gender equality.
It is heartening to see decisive leadership like this. It might well have been tempting for his various employers to accept his explanation that the comments were “light-hearted” but what message would that have sent to female scientists?
The message that plenty of women, in plenty of fields, hear, see and read as they navigate their working lives. That an organisation’s commitment to gender equality exists outside the bounds of senior leaders.
We get this message when sexual harassment allegations come to light and the victim – rather than the perpetrator is held to account. We see it when sexism is bandied about in workplaces and dismissed as a “joke”.
Most women don’t want to talk about sexism or sexual harassment in their places of work. Truly. They want to get on with working and hope that their efforts and performance will be rewarded. They don’t want to believe they’re inherently disadvantaged. No one does.
But women are inherently disadvantaged in many workplaces and professions. Science has a well-evidenced problem attracting and retaining women: women comprise roughly 30% of the science profession in Australia. In biology, over half of all Bachelor of Science and PhD graduates are women, yet there are fewer than one in 10 women at the senior levels of our universities and research institutes.
There are many reasons why these sorts of gaps persist. A respected leader explaining why women are trouble makes it evident that sexism is one of them.
How many female scientists have left the profession because they felt unwelcome? How much of the Imposter Syndrome women are known suffer, is in their own head? How much is it contributed to by the dynamic that they are in fact less welcome than their male peers? If the prevailing attitude is that women cause trouble and need to work on their own, is it any wonder they question their place?
I imagine some female scientists would have felt relief upon hearing Hunt’s comments. “I didn’t imagine it! I was unwelcome! It wasn’t simply in my head!” I imagined them saying to themselves.
Until the day those internal conversations are rendered baseless, jokes about sexism are going to cut a little close to the bone. The same applies with racism. Until women and people of colour are treated equitably are the really the ideal target for humour? I’d argue not but maybe I have no idea what the hell I’m talking about.