text:
Monday, October 11, 2010
Peer Sexism
I have always found this young man to be extremely nice, friendly, respectful, funny, and interesting. He works hard, cares a lot about his research, and is curious about research topics beyond his own specific field. In short, I like him personally and have been very impressed with his work.
Recently, however, I found out that this young man systematically offends, alienates, and/or harasses the female postdocs in his research group and in associated research groups. One by one, these women have complained to my colleague as each one has encountered the postdoc. This was not some organized effort to complain; in fact, some of these women are at different institutions, working on different projects, and have never met each other. This postdoc seems to have a perfect record of offensive behavior towards his peers who are female.
This shocked me. My assumption, which was clearly flawed, was that I would be able to detect such traits in a person, even if they were respectful to me because I am older and a professor. I assumed that anyone who was so dysfunctional in their professional relationships with women would not distinguish based on age and position but would have a more systematic problem with women.
It's possible that I could be oblivious to some clues, but I have thought a lot about this, and have spent some time with this young man after learning about his disturbing behavior. I see absolutely no sign that he is being insincere in his respect for me. All my other colleagues involved in the research project that tangentially relates to this postdoc's research are male, and I see no difference in how he interacts with them vs. me. When it comes to interacting with his peers, however, he clearly has a major problem, although I have never seen him in action, perhaps owing to the all-male (but me) nature of the research group subset in which I interact with him (and because, according to my colleague, he reserves his most offensive behavior for times when senior professors are not around).
His supervisor has thus far dealt with the problem by keeping this postdoc away from projects involving other women scientists. Fortunately and unfortunately, this has not been difficult to arrange.
I told my colleague, however, that I hoped that this is only a short-term solution. His postdoc has to learn how to behave in a professional way towards women of all ages and academic job classifications. My colleague agrees, but is not sure how to accomplish this. My colleague also thinks the problem will be somewhat resolved by the fact that the postdoc's girlfriend, who was living in another country, is now living with him. I personally find it disturbing if this is viewed as a solution to the problem.
A complicating factor is that the half dozen people thus far most involved in this situation and in these discussions come from almost as many different countries, and although we all work together well (with the glaring exception of the problem described here), most of us have limited understanding of how to deal with such problems in the context of each other's different institutions and cultures.
For example, at my institution, I could send this postdoc to a sort of 'sensitivity training' workshop, and my department chair could make the continuation of his position contingent on his not harassing women. This young man has a major problem that he is clearly not solving on his own, so he needs his supervisor (mentor) or institution to step in if at all possible. If there is no structure to do that, however, (as seems to be the case here) then the adviser has to figure something out, although most of us are not well equipped to deal with this type of situation.
Another colleague who is also part of this extended research group thinks that the postdoc's selective sexism makes the situation more insidious than if he were pan-sexist. There is an insidious aspect to it because the selective nature of the postdoc's problem made it difficult to detect, and might lead some people to underestimate or dismiss the problem.
Nevertheless, I remain optimistic that the problem can be solved if it is dealt with aggressively but constructively. I do not believe that this young man is a hard-core sexist who will never change, but his supervisor and all of us who care about the situation have to make it clear that to the postdoc his future career as an academic depends on his changing his behavior towards women.
Question: Can peer sexists be reformed? That is, without knowing more details of the people or the situation, do you share my optimism or do you think that sexists, even of the selective sort, have a deep problem that probably can't be fixed?
55 comments:
FSP... Why do you hate men?
This is a clear cut case of a person who is rude. Before writing this hateful post (which you are very good at), did you also try to find more about his behavior towards other male members in the research group?
Please get a life of your own, and stop spewing so much venom against the male members of the research community. - 10/11/2010 12:19:00 AM
- Hypothetical Engineer said...
I suppose it depends on why he is exhibiting that behavior. If he has some type of deep contempt for women, or women that are succeeding in his field, then he is probably a lost cause. If he just has the wrong opinion of women (either think they are less smart than he is, less hard working, whatever), then perhaps just the process of seeing that you are successful, hard working, smart etc as a sort of new mental prototype could have a strong beneficial effect on him.
It would be interesting to see if he could be stuck as a subordinate to a female peer of his in some way(working on a project witha female lead that is at the same level as him) and whether he is able to hold his behavior in check or not.
Also to play devil's advocate, is there any possibility he is just as abrasive to males on projects with him but they choose not to complain? He may just be an all around jerk. - 10/11/2010 02:51:00 AM
I am a woman in a Computer Science industry position. I (surprisingly) have encountered minimal sexism that I have detected at this point in my career, but from what I have encountered I think that it is difficult to change the people. Usually sexism comes from their upbringing or the environment in which they were raised, just like racism does. And yes, it is possible with time to lessen the issue, but it does take time.
- lauren said...
I would guess this young man is at least 25. Even if he had the misfortune to be raised in a deeply misogynist home, he can't have gone through university without at least once hearing something about the phenomenon of sexual harassment.
Particularly if this guy knows enough to put on a credible "respectful young man" act in front of you and other people whom he sees as important to his career advancement, it's clear he knows what he's doing.
He just thinks it's okay blow off steam by messing around with female peers. And why wouldn't he think that? Has it damaged his career at all, despite numerous complaints (and therefore far more numerous incidents)? Not in the slightest. - 10/11/2010 03:27:00 AM
Wouldn't you worry that the guy, rather than improve his opinions of women scientists, would improve his ability to harass them without being detected by anyone of importance? After all, a class on how to behave towards women could also be seen as a class where you learn how to avoid being caught because you are taught which things will get you in trouble.
I have no idea what these classes typically entail; I hope that they have considered that aspect as well. But being a woman post doc, I egoistically think "get him out, get him out..." - 10/11/2010 04:20:00 AM
I vote 'maybe'.
The selectivity in this postdocs targets certainly indicates someone who knows how to play the game. But the fact that he clearly is capable of reigning it in means (to me) if someone brings the hammer down hard enough, he's capable of recognizing that it's no acceptable in his professional life. (or personal life, but his boss can't force him to change that).
What worries me more is that this behavior has been going on for some time with apparently no consequences. Habits are hard to break. If his boss isn't consistently bringing the postdoc up short about his behavior, there won't be much incentive for him to change. - 10/11/2010 06:29:00 AM
- Female Science Professor said...
This postdoc gets along very well with men in his research group. He is friendly and helpful and is a good member of the research team; this has also been my impression of him.
This postdoc also did well working with a female MS student. His supervisor essentially made him the adviser of this student, not knowing at the time about the postdoc's behavior towards female postdocs.
As far as anyone can tell, his problems are with women who are his peers. He is extremely competitive with these women. If no such competition exists (e.g., with female professors and students), there doesn't seem to be a problem.
I don't mean to minimize the problem; being competitive in some ways is fine, but his supervisor and others definitely need to be very clear about what is unacceptable and what the consequences are for harassment. If this is done, I think there is good reason to believe that this man can and will change his behavior. - 10/11/2010 06:42:00 AM
- RSB said...
I have been in a similar situation -- a peer was hostile and weird toward me (and other women in the lab) but perfectly respectful to a female prof we worked with in collaboration with main PI. This particular person, IMO, had heaps of personal problems and issues, was in therapy, and needed a whole bunch more. I do think that a group intervention would have worked with this person. Everyone is different though.
- lauren said...
"...but his supervisor and others definitely need to be very clear about what is unacceptable."
Oh, he's been getting a clear message about what's acceptable. Years of harassment and complaints, and his supervisors just make excuses for him? That's a pretty unmistakable message.
I feel a little iffy about the "how can we *help* him" approach. It feels a bit too much like the "boys-will-be-boys" coddling that a lot of men take advantage of. He's not a kid. He's had his chance, and he's blown it. What about his past and future peers, who haven't done anything wrong? - 10/11/2010 07:24:00 AM
I think there might be hope for this guy.
He needs to be told the behavior is not acceptable. Deal with him like he's a 3 year old: "it's OK to feel XYZ about women who are your peers, it's not OK to do ABC. If you do A or B or C again, these are the consequences". The consequences can be both 'natural' (no one will want to collaborate with you, you'll get a bad reputation) or 'imposed' (I'm firing you). - 10/11/2010 07:48:00 AM
yeah i dunno about all this helping-him-out stuff. If what he was doing was legitimate harassment, then your colleague should fire him.
If it was below the firing line then he should be on probation and if I were you I wouldn't do anything to help him until his behavior changes.
The best way to resocialize him is to ostracize him until his behavior becomes acceptable (actually I just made that up, but maybe its true?). - 10/11/2010 08:47:00 AM
I would like to know more about how he harasses females. Harasses is such a broad word. Can you give specific examples. These would be useful to male and female readers to know what could be regarded as harassment (arguments aside). Presumably the male reader doesn't want to do something that some women find offensive and a female reader (like myself) is alway looking for examples so I can compare my experience with it and make a determination on how much to react.
Having dealt with this issue myself, I think that there may be hope, at least in terms of behavior (if not attitude). In the situations I was involved in (in graduate school), there was a subset of men who were respectful towards women who were superior to them (I suspect because those women had some leverage or power over their careers) but seemed to view us women who were their peers as "fair game". Most of the harassment was sexual (inappropriate comments, etc.), but also involved more general disrespect. There was a pattern of this behavior toward multiple women- and it was definitely viewed as a :boys will be boys" thing, even though I can tell you that it made many of us seriously uncomfortable and unhappy. Essentially, they did not view us women as real, serious colleagues and scientists. If you asked them, they would deny this vehemently (and I think they would honestly be flabbergasted by the accusation), but this is how they treated us, and actions certainly do speak louder then words. Now that these same men have jobs as academics, and many of the women with whom they interacted previously are also academics, their behavior towards us (I am still in contact with many of these same women) is respectful- because I think they are aware that their careers may depend on collaborations, letters of recommendation, etc. from us. Essentially, they view us as colleagues now, because we have some power, and treat us accordingly.
So, have their general attitudes towards women changed? I doubt it. BUT their behavior toward their female peers has changed, largely, I believe, because they view us as having some power relative to them (as we all do relative to our colleagues). How do they treat female subordinates, who are not in the same position (e.g., students)? I don't know. I suspect that if they think there will be repercussions for their behavior, they will keep it in check. I hope. Again, I believe this is a behavioral change, based on necessity, not an attitude change. Call me cynical. :)
Anyway, I think that there should be some sort of professionalization training that specifically addresses how to treat colleagues, female or male, in a respectful manner. Some people think this is ridiculous and unnecessary in this day and age, but I can tell you as a young female scientist that it is not. I like to think that people (in this case, men) are often completely unaware of their own attitudes and how their behavior makes others feel, and once this is brought to their attention, will do some self-examination and change. I hope. Anyway, we may as well try. - 10/11/2010 10:19:00 AM
I also vote 'maybe'.
As Lauren said, this postdoc knows how to play the game. His sexism toward his peers sounds like a very calculated way to poison the well for his competitors.
But if he's so calculating, a reminder about how the peer review system works may rein in his bad behavior. Tell him his women colleagues will referee his manuscripts, his grant applications, and his national facility use applications. Even though reviewers are supposed to act impartially, he'd be incredibly naive not to expect retribution. - 10/11/2010 10:23:00 AM
I am reminded of children. When boys are attracted to girls on the playground they push or tease them. Maybe he just has a crush on some of these peers.
- Julep said...
The first Anonymous, while annoying, does have one point. It is possible that this man behaves similarly toward other male postdocs with whom he is in competition but that they are just less likely to report such behavior.
Regardless, continuing to make excuses or accommodations for this behavior is just making the problem worse. It's like promoting a failing student to the next grade. Given the number of complaints, a university ombudsman, postdoc office leadership, HR, etc. need to be involved to develop a plan to deal with this individual. I'd suggest sensitivity training and long-term follow-up in the way of monitoring. - 10/11/2010 10:56:00 AM
Is this postdoc in/from a foreign country? You alluded to something like this in your post. If so, and if the culture he comes from is just more sexist (sorry to be blunt but I'm thinking along the lines of being from Eastern Europe vs being from Scandinavia) he may not be aware of how serious his harassment is. He may think that he is just being harmlessly competitive and not realize how hard it is to be on the receiving end of his treatment.
This may be giving him too much benefit of the doubt. But I would have hope in this case that if he is called out in a scary enough way by one or more people he respects, he may shape up. In other words, he may not be as calculating as some other commenters have suggested. If he is though, I agree it may just drive the problem deeper underground by making him more careful about how he does his harassment. - 10/11/2010 11:05:00 AM
Wow, Anonymous 12:19:00 AM, I don't think FSP said anything about hating men in her post. In fact, I believe she likes and respects many men enough to work with them and be married to and have a child with one in particular. Why do some people assume that noticing sexism means you hate men?
Onto my comment:
"My colleague also thinks the problem will be somewhat resolved by the fact that the postdoc's girlfriend, who was living in another country, is now living with him. I personally find it disturbing if this is viewed as a solution to the problem."
I'm very disturbed by this. I can understand saying that he is unhappy and taking it out on others, but why would he only take it out on women? How does having his girlfriend back in town make him stop being sexist towards his peers? - 10/11/2010 11:12:00 AM
"How does having his girlfriend back in town make him stop being sexist towards his peers?"
Maybe the idea is that having a woman his age around whom he respects and knows is intelligent and capable (I hope??) will remind him that other women his age (the peers he harasses) are also intelligent and capable?
And Anon#1
Please learn to read. FSP specifically said that he was respectful towards everyone other than women in his own peer group. This includes men in his peer group. - 10/11/2010 12:30:00 PM
So, it's interesting that in addition to treating female superiors respectfully he was also well-behaved with the female grad student under his supervision. Maybe he's really, really calculating, and knows that there are more rules concerning treatment of subordinates than there are concerning treatment of peers. Or, maybe he just has a very specific hang-up about female peers but not female superiors or subordinates.
Does anybody know how he behaved in grad school? Was he decent to female postdocs and undergrads but a jerk to female grad students?
If this is something that started as a postdoc, maybe he has some sort of hang-up that developed recently, or he's under some other sort of stress. There's probably hope. If this is a pattern, well, I don't know what to say for him.
Also, I don't like the notion of simply writing him off permanently, nor do I think that people looking for explanations are making excuses. He is a trainee, universities exist to train trainees, professors in particular are supposed to train trainees, and if there is some way to get to him and train him in appropriate professional conduct, then that's what his mentors should do. If he's truly irredeemable, then yes, write him off. But if there's a way to train him, then he should be trained. FSP seems to be searching for a way to help him rather than just write him off, and I think she's making the right call there.
Finally, to the first commenter: If you're going to burn that much straw, please purchase carbon offsets. - 10/11/2010 12:32:00 PM
As a new postdoc, I had a male peer who had alienated a senior grad student in the lab with fairly sexist disrespect (not harassment). He treated me the same way, until he found out I had several very high profile papers (i.e., I was a very good scientist). His attitude completely changed to one of respect or even a bit obsequious. It seemed to be a case of assuming inferiority until proved otherwise by accomplishment.
- Minos said...
The original post was a little too vague to get a good sense of what to make of the sexist behavior. Are we talking about general locker-room language and behavior (which one typically reins in, even when among men, around both superiors and subordinates, but not peers), more directed personal behavior (touching, propositioning, commenting on a co-workers' body), being disparaging of womens' abilities in general, the abilities of the women with whom he is working in particular, or a non-sexually focused habit of putting down those he works with that seems to focus more often on his female colleagues? It seems to be the answer to the questions, "what is to be done?" and "will it work?" depend greatly on the nature of the behavior.
This is one of the problems with the way that we as a scientific culture simply refer to such a wide array of behaviors as "unacceptable", "sexist", or "harassment". It confuses a whole array of motivations, habits, thought processes, and degrees. Of course, adding nuance always seems to lead toward declaring a lot of behavior we don't like as being "not too bad..." and therefore somewhat condoning or tolerating it (which is why we eschew that road often), but if our goal is to change rather than to deter (both goals having merit), then subtlety is important. - 10/11/2010 01:13:00 PM
I think some guys find it hard to compete with women, that they don't know how to express their insecurity about women they feel threatened by professionally without resorting to sexually denigrating comments. In my experience it's something that can be dealt with within a peer group - but often others don't speak up, which I don't understand.
I once gave one of my peers a bollocking, in front of his wife and several other students & postdocs, for making an extremely sexist remark about a female fellow student whom he clearly just felt threatened by. I think the telling off by one of his own peers, publicly, was pretty effective.
A comment about it by someone very senior could be effective, but it can also just make the guy feel even more insecure and threatened. - 10/11/2010 01:18:00 PM
FSP: Why the great lengths to cure this person? Why not warn him, ask for change, and if he cannot immediately change, then let his position run its course (or shorten it) and move to the next/better qualified person -- a male who behaves properly or a woman? Is he THAT good?
I think his postdoc advisor needs to be made aware that he is leaving himself liable for a lawsuit, and then he needs to share that info with the postdoc and what it might mean for the postdoc's future. Would you write a good letter for someone whose behavior got you sued? It's all about incentives. There are laws against creating a hostile work environment. Being aware of multiple complaints from independent sources on harassment in the workplace and failing to do anything about it, including removing the harasser, or penalizing the whistle-blowers (are women kept from potentially good projects the postdoc is involved with? that's punitive for them), these are good grounds for a lawsuit with the advisor as the subject of the suit. He is permitting a hostile work environment - he's liable. This info may do a lot to clarify things in the lab.
- Ms.PhD said...
BRAVO, FSP! You're finally getting it!
This peer-sexism or selective sexism is EXACTLY the type that has plagued me most in my career.
And having female professors who *denied* that the guys in question could possibly be a problem, only worsened my situation!
I'm very impressed that, when overwhelmed with independent testimonies (holy crap, how many women have complained about this guy??), you did the logical analysis and realized that *you* are the exception, not us.
For example, I've worked with men who harassed and disrespected me, but not my taller, older, foreign labmate, even though we were both women.
I've worked with men who were respectful of non-threatening subordinates (e.g. women without PhDs) but extremely aggressive towards me. It's like they only have three settings: condescending (toward younger/underqualified women), ass-kissing (toward senior, potentially useful women), and aggressive (toward female peers).
I've also worked with men who were married to other female profs and seemingly respectful of them, but still not respectful of other female faculty or their own female postdocs.
Selective sexism is indeed the most insidious form, and I agree with the posters who said some form of punishment must be enacted, or these offenders are going to continue behaving as if there are no consequences (because there are none).
The idea that having a girlfriend in town might solve the problem is exactly the sort of reasoning that keeps these people in the system for their entire careers, harassing whole generations of women who end up dropping out of science. Quit pussyfooting around. Seems to me you either have to confront the postdoc yourself (how can you live with yourself? Really? Can you sleep at night?), or you have to give the advisor an ultimatum.
Good job posting about this problem! Now go fix it. - 10/11/2010 02:20:00 PM
I agree with the commenter that perhaps those sexist comments stemmed from his insecurities towards his female peers. Though it hurts, being a receiver myself though by people up above, once it's been confronted it usually subsides a little. Though a little bit of therapy to the sexist person is warranted.
I've had an ugly thought.
In my particular business the women are very much in demand as the departments and research groups are still heavily loaded with men. The result is that the women get interviews sooner than the men.
My casual observation is that poor or unqualified scientists don't get interviews (or rarely--one case comes to mind), but that most of my female colleagues of similar accomplishment been invited to interviews and I have not. A few of these women (the really outstanding ones in my judgment) have been hired for tenure track jobs, while I languish with nothing but a very nice postdoc at a good school and the respect of my colleagues.
It is possible that this guy feels bitter about his situation and blames it on a real or perceived advantage given to his female colleagues.
Or he could just be a jerk of one flavor or another. People who present really convincing false faces sometimes are.
//starting a new job search for next year with high hopes and the slightest hint of desperation... - 10/11/2010 04:03:00 PM
- Kea said...
the postdoc's job should be given to a deserving unemployed female postdoc. This does not surprise me. I think these guys can respect your authority without really seeing you as a woman. A guy explained it to me once: we are unusual, because women are not usually so capable. In other words, only the freak women should be encouraged, and ordinary women should be put in their case.
Can peer sexists be reformed? Can any sexists be reformed? Can anyone be reformed?
Perhaps on my better days, I treat all of my colleagues and students with respect. But can I gracefully navigate the university parking office? Can I be a good parent after the fifth straight hour of my three-year-old's chatter about nothing? Can I keep my cool when the administrators are evil and my colleagues are lighting torches for a mob? Perhaps some folks only need to be reformed from minor faults. But nearly everything wrong with me is deep-seated and hard to change.
Where does that leave us on the quick and decisive action that is obviously needed in the case of the idiot postdoc? Well, that's harder. But on the bare question of whether there's hope for him, I have to say yes --- after all, I think there's hope for me. - 10/11/2010 05:18:00 PM
It's kind of funny (but not really) when people leave rude and patronizing comments like "Go fix this", "Go do such-and-such", "Get over it" or whatever, and possibly even kind of ironic coming from certain commenters.
- Madscientistgirl said...
Yeah, so I've been on the receiving end of this sort of selective sexism in a couple different scenarios.
As a graduate student, two of the post docs in my group openly said that women didn't belong in physics when the professors (including one woman) were not around. One of them maliciously targeted me, using his position in our collaboration as a working group convener to apply noticeably higher standards to my work than what was applied to others and deliberately not notifying me of his vetos of my work in a timely manner (once leaving me to franticly work on preparing results for a conference for two weeks after he'd told others this work would not be shown no matter what.) He ridiculed me in social situations and tried to incite other group members to do the same. He spent much of our time working together trying to incite me to do something unprofessional in response to his actions. He never did this in front of the profs. I never bit - I just told my (incredibly supportive) advisor what was going on. He also regularly gossiped about his (female) boss behind her back and spread rumors about her - but to her face he was an angel. I think it may have hurt his career, but not seriously. I don't think he really changed. He now has a permanent position at a national lab - heaven knows they need more sexist SOBs there. All the old ones are retiring.
The other post doc was mostly just highly uncomfortable working with women. When another grad student and I were working on a project he was supervising, he let the other (male) grad student have complete control over his tasks. He micromanaged me, once complaining (seriously) that I had taken a whole five minutes to respond to an email. He even duplicated my work behind my back - he did not trust anything I did. I don't think it was ever a conscious decision - he just was inherently uncomfortable ever working with women. He somewhat improved after an incident where he was espousing the opinion that women should stay at home and cook and clean for their husbands and a (female) colleague asked him if that was what he wanted for his daughters. Obviously he does not want his daughters to become domestic slaves. He's still uncomfortable working with women but he's not actively destructive to women working with him.
Now that I'm a post doc, I've also had some trouble working with one of our graduate students. We were on a long work trip and he simply would not listen to me. He repeatedly showed up to shift late (~2 hrs) and apparently even told one of the professors that I had acted inappropriately by telling them (the profs) he was showing up really late. He espouses equality for women, but on a practical level, he doesn't actually listen to me or view me as knowledgeable. I think the jury is still out on this one - but I'm not holding my breath.
I have had peers challenge me or try to discredit me so many times I don't even keep a mental note of it now.
I would watch your back if I were you. Just because you don't see it doesn't mean it doesn't happen. Like the other posters, I'm curious exactly what he did, but if multiple female colleagues went out of their way to independent complained to his boss, it must be pretty pronounced and pretty bad. - 10/11/2010 08:04:00 PM
Excellent post, albeit about a troubling situation. I was in a position where peer sexism ran rampant. 4 out of 6 female PhD's (including me) quit or switched groups within a year, and another one nearly did. However, the male boss/coworkers in question were not obviously sexist in any way, and the less senior women did not have any problems.
I think it needs to be actively combatted by FSP and the postdoc's advisor, because it is wrong and for the sake of this person's future female coworkers - 10/11/2010 08:40:00 PM
- GMP said...
As Anon at 8:08 said I would watch your back if I were you.
This. The guy sounds like a very smooth operator. He's nice to you because you are senior and useful.
I know a number of people who are impeccably pleasant, friendly and civil, it is impossible to detect a hint on insincerity... You may even say they are your friends, but it is only because you are deemed as useful. A female colleague of mine shared how she used to be great friends with another slightly junior but now stratospherically successful female colleague, but the junior one -- an absolute master in respectfulness, friendliness and overall political correctness -- no longer finds any time to hang out with the senior one. My cynical opinion is that they were never friends, it's just that the senior woman's advice, support, and time were useful/necessary for a while but no longer are.
So the postdoc is totally sexist, certainly to the core, as well as a jerk all around. But even more so he is very smooth and focused on his bottom line, which is career, hence nice to you.
All you can do is watch out for yourself and try to protects others as much as you can. - 10/11/2010 08:58:00 PM
This guy sounds enormously average to me. The logic of patriarchy is based on comparison, men are inherently important and we know this because we compare them to various inherently unimportant people, such as girls. Under this system, a female peer who has just as many claims to accomplishment is very threatening. If a girl can do everything that he can do, then he is no better than a girl! Few things are worse.
Superiors and underlings are not threatening in the same way. However, part of the reason FSPs high status is acceptable is because she is so rare, she is a token. That is allowable because having a few exceptional women proves how modern and not-sexist the field is. But I bet that this guy looks down upon fields where there are a lot of women in the professor ranks and consider his low female field superior.
His outward sexism is likely to get better with time, just because post-docs are particularly insecure about their status and thus most likely to act out like he does. But the basic patriarchical logic that he lives by is unlikely to go away. - 10/12/2010 02:31:00 PM
His outward sexism is likely to get better with time, just because post-docs are particularly insecure about their status and thus most likely to act out like he does. But the basic patriarchical logic that he lives by is unlikely to go away.
Amen to that. I have seen many postdocs and senior graduate students (close to the job search time) acting out their frustrations on their peers, particularly those that are less likely to fight back. Usually these people mellow out with time, or when they do find a job.
None of this justifies any of their actions though. - 10/12/2010 06:34:00 PM
- Tim said...
FSP you are acting like a moron. Please try to remain a scientist also in your gossipy blog life. Don't judge people by what you hear about them, no matter whom you hear it from. Judge from your own flawed experience, and admit that it's flawed, that is what comes closest to objectivity. Please arrive at the conclusion that it is not possible to judge this person, by lack of experience.
Yeah, don't believe anything you hear or see or experience yourself. Don't write about your life because that is gossip (because you are female). Don't write from your own point of view because that is flawed. Don't write anything that upsets Tim. Then go fix all the problems in academia in your own country and others because you have a responsibility to do this for all the younger women, but don't write about it because it might upset Tim.
- Tim said...
Hey, Im just saying: if you are a scientist, then believe what you can prove. Don't go along with what people say... that would be more like religion. As the great Carl Sagan said: extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Moreover, please don't make everything about sex. It's not all about sex, and to be honest, i don't give a rat's ass whether you or anyone is female or male.
- Kea said...
Tim ... ROFLOL ... guffaw ... have you told a few other feminist scientists to stop being annoying? ROFLOL. Because there are quite a few of them! You've got your work cut out for you.
That postdoc needs to be fired.
Sorry, there are too many starving scientists out there in this job market, in every field and sub-field. He can't behave like a decent human being, he can hit the road. Cut your losses and next time, vow to do more background-checking and phone calls on applicants.
Moreover, as Anon @ 8:40 pointed out, his behavior will likely cause enough turnover that it will be disruptive to productivity--who would your colleague rather lose, one jerk or all his female postdocs plus be whispered about as "oh, he's OK but That Guy in his lab is a total jerk--really, try to get in anywhere else"? There's an opportunity cost above and beyond the immediate costs, where suddenly your colleague is the guy whining to Professional Society Publication that he has no good applicants these days, not enough Countrymen are studying Sub-sub-sub-Field, etc.
I don't really care if postdoc is sexist because he has personal problems, because it's a Monday or because his mommy didn't love him enough. Getting along with your colleagues in a professional manner is something he should have learned in high school, whilst working as a fry cook/grocery bagger/waiter. If he hasn't learned it yet, welcome to the School of Hard Knocks. - 10/13/2010 07:00:00 PM
There is certainly evidence for both sides of this argument. As my short answer I think it can be masked. Which is obviously not ideal but can help discourage the behavior in other male students. It seems that this behavior is deeply rooted in the individual and, without some dramatic awakening, will always be present to some degree.
I actually know of a few graduate students who are this postdoc in making. Last fall, I was harassed by 2 graduate students in my department, simply because they wanted to coordinate the seminar I had been working on for the past year. I had tried to coordinate meetings with them so we could all work together, they simply refused and would disagree on any change I might suggest. I went on to call me selfish and some not so pleasant words. Unfortunately, I was so disturbed by these emails, I deleted them, before I went to my graduate chair, who did nothing to stop this. I finally gave up the seminar. And then at the end of the year when it came time for awards, the same graduate chair praised the 2 students for reviving the seminar. Thankfully, I was not the only one annoyed by his email and other faculty brought up the fact that I had worked on the seminar as well.
And now due to this and several other reasons, I am considering switching institutions. - 10/14/2010 05:20:00 PM
Haven't had time to read the other comments, but I thought I'd add that this behavior describes to a T that of a grad student whose lab I shared. After several years we figured out it was some version of borderline personality disorder. This student started out pretty respectful of everyone and started developing enemies, one by one, who were almost inevitably female. He finally turned against his female chair, but not before alienating almost all the other female grad students and postdocs in the department. Fortunately, his attacks against these people were so ridiculous that if you happened to be fortunate enough to see (or be on the receiving end) of one of his contemptuous tirades, you'd realize something deeply pathological was at hand. He's still doing science somewhere and probably burning bridges. I never figured out how to deal with him, but I've learned that it's important to ask for references should I ever be in a position to hire someone.
On nth thought, I'd like to echo the other commenters who've said this is grounds for a lawsuit, carries enormous opportunity cost, and shouldn't be tolerated at all. Training is for technical and professional skills like networking. If this guy manages to alienate and offend consistently all the women he's working with, that's really not something to be casually "worked on." That's something deeply unprofessional. Sexism constitutes a "hostile environment," which as a country, we've decided we have a right to work without. It's not okay to let this behavior persist in any way.
- Female Science Professor said...
The particular situation I described is not at a North American university, although it is clear from the comments that such things can happen anywhere. For the case I described, there may well be some university structure or policy to deal with such situations, but as far as I can tell, individual professors can run their own research groups however they want. Fortunately the head of the research group in question is a very good person who cares about all of his researchers.
If he has some type of deep contempt for women, or women that are succeeding in his field, then he is probably a lost cause. If he just has the wrong opinion of women (either think they are less smart than he is, less hard working, whatever), then perhaps just the process of seeing that you are successful, hard working, smart etc as a sort of new mental prototype could have a strong beneficial effect on him.
I'm failing to see the difference between "deep contempt for women" and "wrong opinion of women [because he thinks they're dumber than he is]".
Oh, wait. That's because there isn't a difference.
FSP, if this kid makes the distinction between women he can harass and women he can't, he's not stupid.
He needs to be informed with as blunt an instrument as possible that every woman is a colleague, not a potential appliance for his use. - 10/16/2010 12:53:00 PM
Considering that the guy has "a perfect record of offensive behavior towards his peers who are female", seems to me the obvious thing that should happen in this situation is he should be fired.
FSP, I don't understand why you and your colleague are so interested in wanting to "help" this guy with his "problem". Is he so much better than the any other postdoc that could be hired to replace him? Or are you and your colleague sad at the thought of him no longer being around to suck up to you, considering how skillful he apparently is at this?
If I found out that a student or postdoc in my group had been behaving like this I would fire him without hesitation. If it was a collaborator's student/postdoc I would urge my collaborator to fire him, and wouldn't have any more interaction with that group as long as the guy was still there. - 10/17/2010 01:31:00 AM
The issue seems to be addressed in a skewed, uni-directional female-centric manner. Of course, there might be some lone incidents, but to generalize this into sexist issue seems quite illogical. The postdoc in this story needs to be fired from the details provided. However, do we know how the women folks (peers) behavior to that guy. I have witnessed many incidents as a new postdoc, where the women peers (established) in the lab are extremely rude. For eg. A general question asked in a polite manner such as 'How long will you be using the instrument?' will get a rude reply 'Check the calendar (sign up sheet)'. My point is that women are not always innocent, well-behaved, respectful beings.
I have to second the "opportunity costs" caution... hearing this story, and hearing how reluctant the higher-ups are to ditch this guy asap, makes me really not want to work for FSP or her friend. And it would make me warn off any of my friends from working in that lab. By sheltering a sexist jerk you guys come across as supporting that sexism.
I would want to be valued in my lab more than his female peers are being valued right now. How many hurt female postdocs have to be weighed against one hurtful male postdoc? Need a couple more women to suffer (or leave, or not apply) before the scale tips over to "not worth keeping him"? - 10/19/2010 02:19:00 AM
Whether or not the male postdoc intended sexism or not, the truth is that his behavior is highly distressing to other individuals. If he has been repeatedly asked nicely to change his behavior and doesn't, then he should be fired. Why does one person get to negatively affect the lives of others, repeatedly, without recourse? What about what those others (his "victims") are going through, doesn't that count for anything??
- PhyPhoFu said...
I find it so sad that there seems to still be a lot of sexism around in science! I'm a female graduate student in a very much male-dominated field, and so far I have always been treated respectfully.
The whole concept of sexism, especially in science, seems ridiculous to me. There have been many studies that show that females are just as mentally capable as males, so how can people who call themselves scientists behave this way? It is logically inconsistent! - 10/27/2010 04:17:00 PM
I have to agree that men are good at hiding their sexism until they become stressed.
Short answer: yes IF it is addressed my management in a supported & structured way. I am a female postdoc (science) & am in an identical situation. I made complaints to my manager twice over a year & only when I threatened resignation, did he sit up and listen. Even then, the situation was minimised and dismissed. I was asked if - because he was from another culture (Zimbabwe) - I had in some way offended him into behaving in such a manner.
I think situations like this are rampant in academia where management rarely seem to implement any hardline approach to respond to the situation. I don't believe they're equipped to deal with it. Having worked in industry, I can say the situation would be dealt with far more quickly. - 1/02/2011 03:07:00 PM
- Quark Chowder said...
Perhaps the post doc views the female post docs as competition and belittling them is his way of getting some sort of "edge" over them?


text:
Yeeeah. They're looking a bit more like cockroaches.
Amanda L., those cockroaches look a lot more like cockroaches than any other cockroaches I have ever seen.
Related Wreckage: Wedding Day Advice
When professional cakes go horribly, hilariously wrong.
Who would want bugs on their cake? That is disgusting.
ummm.... those don't look like cockroaches to ME.... well maybe the first part of the word... plus hairy... eeek
La cucaracha, la cucaracha...
That's what you get for ordering a wedding cake from an erotic bakery.
And let's call a spade a spade here. Those aren't crawfish.
They look like they belong on a groom's cake, if you know what I mean.
Why would anyone have crawfish on their wedding cake? Even if they didn't look like cockroaches.
They look a bit phallic to me - phallic-stabbed-with-a-fork-looking. Why did your usually guttery mind not pick up on this?
hahaha right...cockroaches...yep, that's what I see, too!
I, too, thought they looked a bit phallic. I saw it and immediately thought "OMG there's PEN1$ES on that cake!!" LOL!
I'm all for originality, but this is just gross. Plus half the legs aren't even attached. And as some have mentioned, they don't exactly look like cockroaches either...
Going to find some brain bleach now...
I, too, thought they looked a bit phallic. Upon first glance, I thought "GROOMS CAKE!!!"
oh boy... another Epcot already and the post has only been up for 12 minutes!
roballen... why do you think Jen called them COCKroaches?
Gross gross gross buggy friend!
Really?? With comments like these: "those cockroaches look a lot more like cockroaches than any other cockroaches I have ever seen" some doubt that you picked up on the visual???
I appreciate your subtle clues, Jen!
Agreed with all the post-ers who said phallic.
Geez. They are centipenises, with their multiple appendages. Yikes.
I looks like they used the cookie cutter featured a few weeks' back. If I were the bride, I'd reconsider.
Yikes! 'cock' roaches indeed!
they also look like Obscene Cockroaches, if you know what I mean...
@roballen - I thought she did, by calling them cockroaches. ;)
I agree another poster....those don't look like cockROACHES to me either....Quite phallic!! LOL!!
reminds me of the space shuttle cake. with legs.
cockroaches, indeed.
those are no crawfish-
that cake is naughty!!!
my thoughts exactly, they don't look cockroaches, just a weird looking part of a male's anatomy.
Let me get this straight. This is a WEDDING cake? Ummm, yeah. Okay then.
I agree with the rest...the first thing I saw was a phallic symbol.
They don't look like cockroaches, but do look like a weird part of the male's anatomy.....
I'm with the others that see something else in those "crawfish." Just glad that I'm not the only one who thinks that.
Glad to see that everyone else was thinking what I was thinking!
C'mon, those hairy wotsits aren't cockroaches or crayfish - eeeyuk!!!!
I think they look kind of like diseased, or maybe bloody, male genitalia. Yikes.
I'm glad you clarified that for me, because I was totally weirded out by the hair growth. ;)
I love how punny you are. We quote you late into the night, Jen.
That is just NASTY on SO many levels!
Before you ever think that Jen missed something that you see, read her post again, and remind yourself how clever and observant and funny she is. Do that always.
Wow... that cake really puts the (Anatomical reference) into (Anatomical reference)roach.
They look like COCKroaches, indeed. Bet they're just having a BALL on that cake.
EWWWWW EWWW no thanks, I don't want any!
those are not COCKroaches lmao who the heck wants that on their wedding cake?
Umm..yeah, I agree with a previous poster. Those cockroaches look like something a bit more private..
Amy B
I'm wondering how the groom felt to have to cut INTO this cake...thinkin' it may have spoiled the wedding night.
heehee. You said, "cockroaches"
Wow, my condolences to whoever has to go through the comments today. Epcot meter approaching red?
Love the puns, Jen, even though it looks like many didn't get the hint ;-)
Love Anna's Beavis and Butthead reference. :) That's what I heard when I read it.....
I also wonder if they are made of cardboard.... and why are they RED??!? GROSS!!!
(oh ya, they're supposed to be crawfish... riiiggghhttt...)
Cockroaches weren't my first thought.... I was thinking more along the lines of genitalia with legs. Grooooosssssss.............
Um, eew.
Wow! That's just amazing... and not in a good way.
Oh my.
I would guess that this cake originated in the South. Louisiana maybe?....
And Roballen, you totally missed the joke.....
I too appreciate the subtleties Jen and often can't wait to read all the comments. I hope they make you laugh and don't make you bang your head on the wall. Repeatedly.
And, come on Lily, "centipenises"??? Hilarious!
I've never noticed how much crawfish resemble bloody diseased male genitalia. After eating that cake I bet they had a ball of a wedding night.
I get the cockroach reference, but I don't get what the wedding couple was *really* going for. Was it really crawfish? I've never heard of that.
It's kind of weird how some of their little legs aren't attached to the bodies. Whatever the hell they are, they're nasty. What flavor is the cake? Roadkill? Garbage? Fish? Gross!
Yes, that does look like penises being attacked by apostrophes (or sperm). So many puns,...
We can all agree those don't look like bugs....but my question is, who would even WANT bugs (crawfish...potato,potahto) on their wedding cake in the first place? If I was a decorator I might not be able to resist having some fun with that......
Did... Did Sigmund Freud make this cake?
AAAaaAAAAaaaAAAAaaa THE PENI$ HAS SPROUTED LEGS, THE PENI$ HAS SPROUTED LEGS, EVERYONE RUN FOR YOUR LIVES!!!!!!!!
In what subsection of the species are the cockroaches ribbed? Wowzas.
WF: Censurso
Jen must use clever punning censurso the PG-13 rating stays in effect.
yuck that looks more like the first part of 'cockroarches'..except yucky and hairy!!!!
I'm glad Epcot-gate happened before this post, otherwise this post would be the standard by which all future "but I didn't get it!" comments would be measured. And I'm sorry, but cockroach-gate just doesn't have quite the same ring to it as Epcot-gate. ;)
Seriously though, if that were my wedding cake, I'd think I would be encouraged to leave the reception with my new husband, take him to the nearest clinic, and run some blood tests to check for, er, "abnormalities." You know, just to sure the universe wasn't sending me some sort of sign.
It is rare that I laugh at the comments more than the post. Only I'm always laughing WITH you, Jen, not at you.
Whatever they are they sure are standing proudly!
I can't. I just...I can't. *giggles*
COCKroaches?!? Sheesh, and I thought the only thing I had to worry about down there was crabs!
WV: thoutur. "I thoutur saw a putty tat!" (Looks at photo.) "I didn't; I didn't; I didn't saw a putty tat!"
I'm just gonna go ahead and be crass and say it: those cockroaches look like COCKroaches. You know you were thinkin' it.
Another clueless commenter blatently restating what the post already says! I'm meta, yo!
Well, I had something to say about what they look like and what they don't look like, and it ain't cockroaches. But, it seems it's all been said. lol
Erin G.
Heh. Reminds me of an auction (which I didnt win) for knitted Cthulhu, um, pull-on sweater for the same roach. (something to keep the dark one warm until he's ready to rise)
WV: forica -- ain't touching that one
Yeah, I'm not seeing cockroaches, or crawfish...
It's funny how many people aren't picking up on the COCKroach joke... They should have more faith in your dirty mind X)
Wedding cake??? More like a "Can't wait for the STD to clear up!!" cake. EEEEEEKKKKKK!!!!
You've gotta wonder why someone would want crawfish on their wedding cake to begin with...
I'm seeing something besides cockroaches.
wv: coxcery
'nuff said.
Tickle condoms? Just asking.....
You post some of these just for the comments, don't you?
Oh the power...
um, those don't look like cockroaches to me. they look like something a little more, er, phallic.....good luck to the bride?
My those are some awfully red and striped COCKroaches. Seriouslyl, who'd want anything crawling on their wedding cake like that?
errr... cockroaches was not what came to mind...
Um, those are definitely not cockroaches;somebody has a sick sense of humor!!!
I thought thermometers.
*rocks back and forth in corner*
I'm alone, I'm alone...
I am just grateful I'm not the only one whose mind slid right into the gutter upon seeing this cake.
Pass the brain bleach, plz. Hope there's some left...
they look a little too phallus-like to me.....
I wasn't going to post until I saw my wv: eatorea: what you get when you see disgusting cakes
I didn't see the phallic symbols until the commenters pointed them out and even Jenn's witty comments didn't help me...must drink more coffee...but now I sure see them! Not appropriate for a wedding cake, at all! Ewwwww......
Crayons crayons crayons crayons
We won't die; we won't die even if you chop off our heads!
Jen, if this is what you were referencing, I love you more than I ever imagined I could.
emphasis on the COCK
The legs aren't even attached!
Now, I know that in Louisiana crawfish are sometimes called 'mudbugs' (and I think crawfish are distantly related to lobsters) but this is going a bit too far.
Okay, WAY too far.
P. S.: *looks again* Oh, dear. OH dear.
"No, kids, you don't want any cake. It's...uh...poisoned! RUN! RUN FOR YOUR LITTLE LIVES!"
*whew* There.
Can you imagine being at that reception? Everyone trying ignore the 800lb uh...crawfish in the room? I'd probably bust a capillary holding back laughter.
Until the bride and groom come together to ceremonially cut the cake and feed each other cockroa-
I'd die laughing right then and there.
chaus mmm... chocolate penis...
Well, if this was a groom's cake, and I hope to god it was, at least he was considerate enough to have those COCKroaches ribbed for her pleasure ;)
and also ewwwwwwwwww....
My mind was in the gutter as well!! COCKroaches? sorry, that's just wrong!
Exterminate! Exterminate! Exterminate!
Sorry, bugs on cakes make me go into Dalek (Dr. Who) mode.
How clever, they're made of chocolate, so they are stiff and stand by themselves! It's an appetite killer to have a piece of cake covered in white frosting squiggles though. "cock"roaches indeed.
Cockroaches. Actually that's EXACTLY what they are. *snicker*
well, at least cake doesn't give you stds, though this one may need some pesticides
The fact that they look like cockroaches is only half the problem. The question still remains: Lobsters? On a wedding cake??
Cockroaches? Crawfish? They look more like Epcot to me.
Given this baker's arthropod identification skills, I'm not accepting any invitations to her/his house for crawfish etouffee.
Jen how do you stand it?? It's driving me nuts just reading all the commenters who didn't get your funny COCKroach reference, or who got it but didn't realize you wrote the pun on purpose. Aaaaaahhhh!
And for the record this is the grossest wedding cake I've ever seen in my entire life.
Without reading the description, I called them penis bugs. >.>;;
I was thinking the shape of those "cockroaches" looked like something else entirely.
That front one is even missing a leg on the left side. eeeeeewwwwwww.....
I came in to post what a lot of others posted! Glad I am not the only one who did NOT think 'cockroaches' when I saw that cake! lolol....
hahahaha. thumbs up for epic innuendo. =)
Jane said: Before you ever think that Jen missed something that you see, read her post again, and remind yourself how clever and observant and funny she is. Do that always.
This statement should really go on the home page.
Didn't Adam Sandler have a sketch about this subject?
It's a cock lobster!
Normally I'm willing to ignore the fact that a cake is ugly and eat it anyway. Erm, but not this one. Lost my appetite.
Well, they're either sadly abnormal penises - and, just in case they were modelled 'from life', the bride needs to rush her hubbie-to-be to the nearest clinic/hospital/emergency room for a thorough check-up - OR they're Klingon Kondoms....
Yeah...this one is a bit phallic. Creepy-crawly element is added, but it's phallic.
Really?! Why do so many people miss the purposeful innuendo?! A part of me is dying every time someone makes the joke that Jen already made in the post!
"That cake looks beautiful. Can we make it for my birthday?" ...unsolicited opinion from my almost-four year-old daughter just now. Eye of the beholder, I guess!
Are you sure those are cockroaches - I was thinking they kinda looked like, well, you know. Maybe the groom was a manager at Red Lobster. Maybe a lobster boat captain. Maybe a successful implantee.
wv - thear
Thear!s got to be some kind of logical explanation for that Wreckerator!s cocky attitude!
LOL, oh my god, you wrote cockroaches about 50 times in the post and people still don't get it. I guess next time you'll have to write "PENIS!" in blinking, red letters.
Anna Claire sez:
"...And for the record this is the grossest wedding cake I've ever seen in my entire life."
Ah, you haven't been reading this site for very long, have you, Anna Claire?
Welcome aboard!
I'm afraid you're going to have to rethink your delightful commentary and amazing puns in the future to avoid the kind of migraine I can only imagine would result from self-congratulatory, clueless would-be cleverness in the comments. So, for today's post, for example, instead of referring to "cockroaches" to make your point understood, you could post "HEY GUYZ THESE LOOK LIKE PENISES. WITH LEGZ. ROTFL."
Yeah, when I first saw that I thought it looked like a hairy peen. Mmmm, yummy.
Mira said: Jane said: Before you ever think that Jen missed something that you see, read her post again, and remind yourself how clever and observant and funny she is. Do that always.
This statement should really go on the home page.
I can't stand all of these non-joke-getters!
We put the (disgusting, bloody?) cock in cockroaches. That is epic cake fail if I ever saw it.
Take the first part of the word of cockroach, then add blood and hair. GROSS
I'm like, "She totally missed the fact that
those look like...ooohhhhh. I get it now!"
Great post, Jen...but I have to say you weren't very subtle...and yet people still arent' getting it!!? *sigh*
Oh, and good luck to John in your moderating duties today. :-)
Everyone knows crawfish have pointy little heads with long feelers not bulbously obscene heads. Must be cockroaches.
wv rerstry On their first anna-rerstry the couple will look back and say, "why did we think it was a good idea to put crawdaddies on the wedding cake!"
I'm so sad I didn't have hairy, red, clawed penises on my wedding cake. My marriage is doomed.
By the way, why's the wedding cake on the floor?
Maybe that's why it has bugs crawling on it ...
someone in the bakery failed to convince the bride to reconsider her choice or decorations... and then failed the execution. YIKES! Where is common sense when these things happen?
... Who would want crawfish on a wedding cake? No. Really. Who and why?
But yes.. COCKroach in certainly what I'm seeing here.
That had to be a 'cockblocker' of a cake!! I couldn't have any romantic thoughts after seeing that atrocity!!
I think it was supposed to be the cake for the stagette!
Well, from across the room, they could be ants...if that makes anyone feel better...
with emphasis on COCK?
take off the legs, people! Those aren't cockroaches
Kathleen @ 3:35 - YES. Now I have the B-52's in my head, warbling "cock lo-haaaw-obster!"
Also: These comments make me feel better about myself. Bless.
I hope you two went out for margaritas or something tonight. God knows you earned it today! :)
Ok, so I understand the meaning behind "epcot" but could someone point me in the direction of the post it refers to? I must have missed it.
Oh, and people really should scan the comments before posting their own. If you're trying to be clever, it's best to make sure someone hasn't already said your clever thing.
Today is the first time I ever thought of "cockroach" as a compound word. Part this, part that-- and the two parts together mean eternal love, no doubt about it. Turns out that a severed toe or a dead deer have nothing on this.
*wipes away tears*
I haven't read through all the comments (so please don't go Epcot on me;) but on first glance I'm thinking that is one HELL of a fertility symbol! All those cockroaches look more like penises with legs (or maybe I just need a cold shower LOL):-P
PS oddly enough my word verification is "cemen" ROFLMAO
I'm a little concerned these look a little more like radioactive male genetalia!!
Wow! I've read your blog start to finish more than once ... and I think this is the yuckiest cake of all. I mean, some of the other penis & poo cakes were pretty gross, but this one is the worst because there is the greatest discrepancy between how beautiful it should be and how obscene it is...
Jen, really. All you had to do was a wee bit of editing: COCKroaches. . . and your fans might simmer down. Are you sure it was a wedding cake and not an "engorgement" cake? Just askin
Put aside the *AHEM* bugs for a moment. I'm suddenly wondering where all those white squiggles are coming from. Hmmmmm.....
Cockroaches are you kidding me?? Those look like giant alien penises and the bride should just plain run for her very life lol. That or shoot the decorator either way ewww.
What's on the top? Hehe
Well, there's a way to prepare for the wedding night...
Ummm... Maybe it's the whole "mind four floors BELOW the gutter" issue, but the first thing I thought of when I saw those wasn't... Cockroaches...
Not so sure about 'cockroaches' they look a lot more like .... oh I think everyone has already noticed what they look like, maybe the bride is hoping they are a hint to the groom !!!! lol
Bwa ha ha ha HA!
They look a little more phallic than cockroaches. And hairy.
I think the bottom cockroach is...er...throbbing.
To all the folks who think that Jen missed the obvious on this one...
I've said it before and I'll probably say it again...
Jen is smarter than you. That's why she's so funny.
Out of curiosity, Jen, is it definite that the same bakery that did the rather nice if nothing extraordinary cake added the cockfish, I mean crawfish? Looks like those were added afterwards by a rather less professional hand... (unless the bride had a frenemy in attendance with a couple of clandestine tubes of red gel icing)
Don't you just love how many people *don't* read the other comments before they comment??
I agree - how do you not go crazy?? srsly?
and yes what Jane said: "Before you ever think that Jen missed something that you see, read her post again, and remind yourself how clever and observant and funny she is. Do that always." Definitely belongs on the home page - or even at the top of the "post a comment" page!
what were the wreckerators thinking??? Ruining those cakes with COCKroaches!!
Ok mind is in the sewage by now....
Anonymous - here's a link to the Epcot post: http://cakewrecks.blogspot.com/2009/04/happy-day-earth.html
Jen - is there any way you could rearrange the comments section, so that people have to scroll to the bottom before posting? (For example, see Pioneer Woman's site). That would mean that users would at least have to scroll past the comments...and maybe - just maybe - the occasional commenter would notice that everyone else has said the same thing they're thinking about saying?
That said, I suppose maybe comments from 'special snowflakes' are still comments, and good for the site - just not good for your sanity. :-)
Yeah those look more like COCK-roaches to me...
@Morriganscrow -
"Klingon Kondoms" was a definite bright spot in the long, swollen, arduous job of reading these comments. SHEESH PEOPLE.
Cockroaches or COCKroaches...it's really disgusting either way. Or even if they actually did look like crawfish......why??? Crawfish on your wedding cake?? I mean, I'm a little judgmental here since anything with more than 4 legs gives me the heebie jeebies, but still...
I feel sorry for you guys. Having to weed through all the comments from posters who think they're so smart and smug. "Um. Those don't look like cockroaches. They look like parts of the male anatomy. How could you miss that? I am so smart and observant, and you are not." People, Jen knows what she's doing. And for those that don't realize, "COCKroaches" is a play on words!
And that thing is Epcot Center. I don't know what this "Spaceship Earth" thing is that you're talking about. ;)
Just Ewwww!
I got it! I got it! They are crawfish crawling down the cake! I agree with everything said here, but I have been wondering how anyone could have thought they were crawfish as crawfish have big claws in the front. But now I get it! The claws are balls! (Is that too graphic for the comment section?)
"No, Jen, U R totally rong. How could U miss it? They look just like EPCOTroaches! :D LULZ <3."
I just don't understand how these people are literate enough to navigate the web and post comments, and even take the trouble to do the word verification, and yet...
Or they could be really ugly renditions of the hairy male anatomy. Either way, eewwwwww.
They look more phallic than insect to me...and that's even worse!
Thank god what a relief,I'm not the only one to see the phallic side of those!
If you're going to get crawfish on your wedding cake, you have to order the cake from a CAJUN baker. You cannot order them from a Norwegian who's never seen a mudbug before. What you end up with is penis-roaches crawling all over your cake!
Yeah, cockroaches. MmmHmmm, yeah. I see that.
I think you need to add a pop-up or two, on top of the word verification:
"Have you considered that Jen is smarter than you?"
Yes No
"Have you read the other comments?"
Yes No
"I'm sorry, the head you are using to compose your message is too large. To comment on Yahoo Answers, mash your keyboard randomly with your gigantic forehead."
I happen to know whose cake this was. FYI they are supposed to be lobsters- the sentiment was a sweet one- that they mate for life. However, the picture here really doesn't represent what the cake looked like in actuality.
And I will agree that lobsters are still an odd sentiment on a wedding cake anyway.
Crawfish? No, Bugs...um no, phallic...yeah. I don't see any bugs but I do see....uh...yeah. Red, hairy, 'things' with arms...weird.
Wellll...you know the saying..."Once you go black, you never go back." And apparently, the "never going back" in this case means to the salon to be waxed. I've never seen so many shaft hairs in my life!
I vote they look like naughty male bits. . .
Not only do those "crayfish" look phallic, but they look bloody, like.. uh.. yeah. I'm gonna just keep it quiet.
Wwwwwwwow. That seems more like it belongs at the bachelorette party than the wedding.
At Anonymous or one of them.
'FYI they are supposed to be lobsters- the sentiment was a sweet one- that they mate for life.'
I looked it up- it seems male Lobsters are actually PLAYERS. Usually having a harem of girls that they regularly have one night stands with.
So er the cake is kinda fail in more ways than one.
ummmmmm....yeah ......ummmmmmmm.....i do not see crustaceans or hemiptera....i just see. well, um.
Can you say phalic symbol?
Anonymous sez:
"... FYI they are supposed to be lobsters- the sentiment was a sweet one- that they mate for life."
Er ... Did you notice there are FOUR of them on the cake (that's just the part we can see; I don't know if there are more on the back)? Was this a polygamous wedding?
"However, the picture here really doesn't represent what the cake looked like in actuality. ..."
Uh ... really? How was the real cake different from the picture?
I thought they looked like male genitals
I do love the black and white, but tweety is unrecognizable now--the yellow was the only clue. And the meerkats in color looked like they were playing in a toxic waste dump, complete with neon grass.
Well now Disney is going to come after you.
Well darn. I missed it but after reading everyone's comments maybe it's a good thing I didn't see this wreck.
Not to bug you, but your tweet saying you had replaced a cake photo with one of "Epcot" let me know which one you meant before I even got here to check. Oh balls! Maybe next time....
Oh, and people really should scan the comments before posting their own. If you're trying to be clever, it's best to make sure someone hasn't already said your clever thing.
Especially if Jen in the original post is the person who said such clever thing... I saw the cake yesterday, but didn't come to the comments until I saw the Epcot today. Good grief. If you don't get the humor why are you here?
PS. I think the pic looks more like Spaceship Earth than Epcot, don't you? No, just Epcot. OK.
Oh it's the Spaceship Earth vs. Epcot thing again! lol
The photo is of Spaceship Earth. It is the icon of Epcot (fyi other readers, it hasn't been known as EPCOT Center in years). When people look at pictures of Spaceship Earth, they immediately associate it with Epcot, which is its intention...much like when people see Cinderella Castle, they associate it with the Magic Kingdom. Or the Tree of Life with Animal Kingdom, the Sorcerer's Hat with Hollywood Studios (formerly MGM). Most guests will look at those icons and identify it with the park, not necessarily the name of the icon itself. When my husband and I vacation at WDW and we take a picture in front of Spaceship Earth, we'll say "this is us in Epcot" because people are WAY more familiar with that.
Anyway, just a bit of info on why Jen's Epcot captioning makes sense...from a former cast member. :)
And as an added thing...if I was a baker (which you do NOT want to see), I'd actually be proud to have one of my wrecks on here!! :) Of course, I'd probably be just as happy seeing a Disney picture replace my horrible skills as well since I'm such a Disney nut. lol
the picture is of a ride at epcot called Spaceship earth, just so anyone wondering can know. too bad we had to get rid of the pic of the lobster weenie things :)
The baker had you replace it. Serves her right for making a ladies crawfish wedding cake look like it had penises all over it.
Lots of posts and I scanned through them, but I was wondering why the pic was taken down. The baker/"artist" didn't want it up? No permission what? Why does it matter? I'm sad I missed the "cock"roaches although I have a really bad image in my head so maybe its for the best.
Hehehe. This entry is even funnier with the photo of Epcot for no apparent reason. (However, I'm glad... sort of... that I saw the original.)
Totally lame... if you make a cake that bad you shouldn't get to cry and make Jen take it down.
Ah, bummer--instead of tiny phalluses, I get big balls. That's what I get for showing up late.
Looks like some of the cakes are wedding cakes.
No! No!!! I ran a search for cockroach cake and now I'm gunna hurl for sure. I'm not squeamish but I never, ever want to see that page of images again. Those cakes make a real cockroach look like a gourmet appetizer.
"Anyway, just a bit of info on why Jen's Epcot captioning makes sense...from a former cast member. :)"
Oh good grief. <>
I feel cheated. I didn't get to see the picture :|
wv puraft: puraft your comments a little before posting :(
-- abadidea
Taking some issue, there, anonymous? Relax and enjoy life a bit. You'll be MUCH happier. :)
I can't blame the baker for wanting it removed! They looked more like sunburnt and grilled man kabobs then craw fish. ;)
*semi-sarcasm font*
I freaking LOVE Epcot!!
The baker's name isn't mentioned or anything, so it's ridiculous that they can just get their wreck taken off the site.
Pretty sure that's Spaceship Earth, Jen. Sorry.
(Yes, I get it.)
So, there isn't a link that would could use to see the picture? Not even at the baker's website?
Booo for those of us that missed it. :(
Must be a terrible day for them.
When will wreckerators learn... asking for removal creates more interest. Luckily for us, someone copied the photo :D (and linked it back to Cake Wrecks)
Just when I thought I'd missed my chance to see COCKroaches and would have to just settle for one big BALL (gee, I really resent it when real life gets in the way of my Cake Wreck entertainment), special thanks to Tan for posting a link to the original image so I could see what all the giggles had been about!
WV: "brachos" - yummy cheesy snacks served from a woman's undergarment (knock it 'till you've tried it, folks!)
I've seen the pic before, but it's a little disappointing that they took it down.
I know the baker wanted it down, but if you're making cakes like that one... well, it should only be expected that people will poke a little fun at it.
Barnes & Noble
Borders |
A Cake Wreck is any cake that is unintentionally sad, silly, creepy, inappropriate - you name it. A Wreck is not necessarily a poorly-made cake; it's simply one I find funny, for any of a number of reasons. Anyone who has ever smeared frosting on a baked good has made a Wreck at one time or another, so I'm not here to vilify decorators: Cake Wrecks is just about finding the funny in unexpected, sugar-filled places.
Now, don't you have a photo you want to send me? ;)
We don't have any copies of Cake Wrecks for sale here, autographed or otherwise. We decided the shipping and handling costs would be too high to make it worth your while. So instead, buy your copies locally or online and then order personalized bookplates: it's cheaper, easier, and I think even looks a bit nicer.
Payments must be made through Paypal, which accepts all major credit cards. Sorry, but that means no checks or MOs or barter-based chickens.
We ship everything first class USPS, and will do our best to have your package in the mail within 2 days of your order.
Copyright 2008-, Cake Wrecks. All Rights Reserved | Privacy Policy
Endorsement Disclosure:
Purchases made through Amazon affiliate links on this blog yield a small referral fee. Go here for more details.

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Hello guest! Welcome to J.S.Uberoi & Co.
(0712) 2630560
Toggle navigation
Direct Taxes
Company Law Matters
Management Accounting
Business Advisory
Project Finance & Consultancy
Knowledge Bank
GST Calculator
Tax Calculator
TDS Calculator
Calculate Net Profit
Calculate Net Worth
Effective Capital
Auto Loan Calculator
Home Loan Calculator
Get No. Of Instalment
RERA Calculator
Developers Calculator
Home Buyer Delay Interest
Home Buyer Refund
Income Tax
Service Tax
Central Sales Tax
Excise Matters
Company Law
Labour Laws
The LLP Act 2008
Accounting Standard (INDAS)
Delhi VAT
Maharastra VAT
Gujarat VAT
Telangana VAT
Tamil Nadu VAT
Compensation Cess
IBC Regulation
Rates of TDS
TDS Rates for N.R.I us 195
Rates of Income Tax
Depreciation Rates Companies Act
Depreciation Rates Income Tax Act
ROC Filing Fees (Cos Act, 2013)
ROC Fee Structure (Cos Act, 2013)
Cost Inflation Index
IFSC Codes
MICR Codes
Rates of NSC Interest
Gold and Silver Rates
Rates of Stamp Duty
LLP Fees
National Industries Classification
HSN Rate List
Deduction u/s 80TTA Vs 80TTB
Quick Links
Important Links
GST/VAT Links
Ease Of Doing Business
Direct Tax
Income Tax Act
Wealth Tax Act
Income Declaration Scheme 2016
Indirect Tax
Service Tax(Finance Act, 1994)
Central Sales Tax Act, 1956
The Central Excise Act, 1944
Customs Act, 1962
Entry Tax Act
Corporate Laws
Companies Act, 2013
Companies Act, 1956
SEBI Act, 1992
VAT Laws
Delhi Value Added Tax Act, 2004
MVAT Act, 2002
West Bengal VAT Act, 2003
Tamilnadu VAT ACT, 2006
Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003
Gujarat Value Added Tax Act, 2003
UP VAT Act, 2008
Rajasthan Value Added Tax Act, 2003
Punjab Value Added Tax Act
Haryana Value Added Tax Act
Telangana VAT Act 2005
Andhra Pradesh VAT Act, 2005
Bihar Value Added Tax Act, 2005
Other Statutes
ESI Act, 1948
PF Act, 1952
Profession Tax Act
The Indian Partnership Act, 1932
Societies Registration Act, 1860
Competition Act, 2002
Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934
MRTP Act, 1969
Equalisation Levy Act, 2016
Right To Information Act, 2005
Maharashtra RERA
Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016
Benami Property Act 1988
GST Laws
IGST Act , 2017
CGST Tax Act, 2017
UTGST Act, 2017
GST (Compensation to States) Act
Direct Tax Rules
Income Tax Rules
Wealth Tax Rules 1957
Income Declaration Scheme Rules 2016
Indirect Tax Rules
GST Valuation Rules , 2016
Service Tax Rules
CST (Delhi) Rules, 2005
CST (Maharashtra) Rules
Customs Valuation Rules
Cenvat Credit Rules, 2017
Entry Tax Rules
Corporate Laws Rules
Companies Rules, 2014
LLP Rules, 2009
LLP Winding up Rules, 2012
Cos Unpaid Dividend Rules, 1978
VAT Laws Rules
Delhi VAT Rules, 2005
Maharashtra VAT Rules, 2005
West Bengal VAT Rules, 2005
Tamilnadu VAT Rules, 2007
Karnataka VAT Rules, 2005
Gujarat VAT Rules, 2006
Uttar Pradesh VAT Rules, 2008
Rajasthan VAT Rules, 2006
Punjab VAT Rules
Haryana VAT Rules, 2003
Telangana VAT Rules 2005
Andhra Pradesh VAT Rules, 2005
Bihar Value Added Tax Rules, 2005
Other Statutes
Profession Tax Rules
NBFC Deposits Directions, 1998
NBFC & Misc NBC (Advt) Rules, 1977
NBFC Auditor Report Directions, 2008
Delhi Labour Welfare Fund Rules, 1997
Cost records and audit Rules, 2014
Baggage Rules, 2016
Equalisation Levy Rules, 2016
NCLT And NCLAT Rules
Insolvency & Bankruptcy Rules
Benami Property Rules, 2016
GST Rules
CGST Rules, 2017
IGST Rules 2017
Income Tax Forms
ROC Forms (Cos Act, 2013)
ROC Forms (Cos Act, 1956)
Income Declaration Forms
Wealth Tax Forms
Service Tax Forms
Companies Unpaid Dividend Forms
NBFCs Forms
LLP Winding up
FEMA Forms
LLP Forms
CGST Forms
GST Forms
Accounts and Records
Advance Ruling
Appeals and Revision
Assessment and Audit
Demands and Recovery
Input Tax Credit
Inspection, Search and Seizure
Offences and Penalties
Payment of Tax
Transitional Provisions
Value of Supply
Email Login
Time Sheet
Contact Us
National Industries of Classification
Section A : Agriculture, Hunting and Forestry
Division 01: Agriculture, Hunting and Related service activities
Division 02 : Forestry, Logging and Related service activities
Section B : Fishing
Division 05 : Fishing, Operation of fish hatcheries and fish farms; Service activities incidental to fishing
Section C : Mining and Quarrying
Division 10 : Mining of coal and lignite; Extraction of peat
Division 11 : Extraction of crude petroleum and Natural gas; Service activities incidental to oil and gas extraction excluding surveying
Division 12 : Mining of uranium and thorium ores
Division 13 : Mining of metal ores
Division 14 : Other mining and Quarrying
Section D : Manufacturing
Division 15 : Manufacture of food products and Beverages
Division 16 : Manufacture of tobacco products
Division 17 : Manufacture of textiles
Division 18 : Manufacture of wearing apparel; Dressing and dyeing of fur
Division 19 : Tanning and dressing of leather; Manufacture of luggage, Handbags saddlery, Harness and footwear
Division 20 : Manufacture of wood and of products of wood and cork, except Furniture; Manufacture of articles of straw and plating materials
Division 21: Manufacture of paper and Paper products
Division 22 : Publishing, Printing and Reproduction of recorded media
Division 23 : Manufacture of coke, Refined petroleum products and Nuclear Fuel
Division 24 : Manufacture of chemicals and Chemical products
Division 25 : Manufacture of Rubber and Plastic products
Division 26 : Manufacture of other non-metallic mineral products
Division 27: Manufacture of basic metals
Division 28 : Manufacture of fabricated metal products, Except machinery and Equipments
Division 29 : Manufacture of machinery and Equipment n.e.c.
Division 30 : Manufacture of office, Accounting and Computing machinery
Division 31 : Manufacture of electrical machinery and Apparatus n.e.c
Division 32 : Manufacture of radio, Television and Communication Equipment and apparatus
Division 33 : Manufacture of medical, Precision and Optical instruments, Watches and clocks
Division 34 : Manufacture of motor vehicles, Trailers and Semi-trailers
Division 35 : Manufacture of other transport equipment
Division 36 : Manufacture of Furniture; Manufacturing n.e.c.
Division 37 : Recycling
Section E : Electricity, Gas and Water supply
Division 40 : Electricity, Gas, Steam and Hot water supply
Division 41 : Collection, Purification and Distribution of water
Section F : Construction
Division 45 : Construction
Section G : Wholesale and retail trade; Repair of motor vehicles, Motorcycles and Personal and Household goods
Division 50 : Sale, Maintenance and Repair of motor vehicles and Motorcycles; Retail sale of automotive fuel
Division 51: Wholesale trade and commission trade, Except of motor Vehicles and Motorcycles
Division 52 : Retail trade, Except of motor vehicles and motorcycles; Repair of personal and Household goods
Section H : Hotels and Restaurants
Division 55 : Hotels and Restaurants
Section I : Transport, StoragE and Communications
Division 60 : Land transport; Transport via pipelines
Division 61 : Water transport
Division 62 : Air transport
Division 63 : Supporting and Auxilliary transport activities; Activities of travel agencies
Division 64 : Post and Telecommunications
Section J : Financial intermediation
Division 65 : Financial intermediation, Except insurance and Pension Funding
Division 66 : Insurance and Pension funding, Except compulsory social security
Division 67 : Activities auxiliary to financial intermediation
Section K : Real estate, Renting and Business activities
Division 70 : Real estate activities
Division 71 : Renting of machinery and equipment without operator and Of personal and household goods
Division 72 : Computer and Related activities
Division 73 : Research and Development
Division 74 : Other business activities
Section L : Public administration and Defence; Compulsory social security
Division 75 : Public administration and Defence; Compulsory social Security
Section M : Education
Division 80 : Education
Section N : Health and Social work
Division 85 : Health and Social work
Section O : Other community, Social and Personal service activities
Division 90 : Sewage and refuse disposal, Sanitation and similar activities
Division 91 : Activities of membership organisations n.e.c.
Division 92 : Recreational, Cultural and Sporting activities
Division 93 : Other service activities
Section P : Undifferentiated production activities of private households and activities of private households as employers
Division 95 : Activities of private households as employers of domestic staff
Division 96 : Undifferenciated goods-producing activities of private households for own use
Division 97 : Undifferenciated service-producing activities of private Households for own use
Section Q : Extra territorial organizations and bodies
Division 99 : Extra territorial organizations and bodies
Times Visited


text:
This product is a best gift for special occasions and holidays, such as Anniversary, Wedding, Birthday, Mother's Day, Father's Day, Graduation, Thanksgiving, Christmas & New Year's Day. Show your loved one how much you love them to the.
With this high quality canvas collection you can use to add color and life to any space, your family rooms will come alive with your favorite canvases. Canvas paintings, Canvas paintings, Decorative canvas, Canvas paintings, Wall paintings, Canvas art prints, Personalized canvas prints, Wall art prints will make perfect gifts for loved ones, your friends. Additionally we aim to uniquely design custom canvases to make your gift stand out and make more sense than ever.
How does the process work :
Choose the product type, size and color, etc.
Add to cart and complete the checkout process. Contact us via our email if you need more information on your order.
We Offer a 100% Happiness Guarantee!
? We guarantee to offer only the high-quality products ever with our hospitality, wholeheartedness and exceptional customer service. If you're not 100% satisfied with your purchase for any reasons, please contact us here or live chat and we will make it right. Your Satisfaction is our Top Priority.
Printed with UL Certified GREENGUARD GOLD Ink - reduces indoor air pollution and the risk of chemical exposure.
Water resistant matte finish - will not scratch, crack, fade or warp.
Anti-yellowing, will not oxidize.
Rubber bumpers protects wall surface and keeps print level.
Clean with a dry cloth when needed.
Design, Printed in the USA
Shipping & Delivery :
Orders are expected to arrive within 7 to 10 business days (from the date of completion of payment), in which 3 - 5 processing days (including design vs printing process) ).
Pro Tip: Buying 2 products or more at the same time will save you quite a lot on shipping fees.
Refund or exchange new product within 15 days after receiving the goods if due to product error and delivery.