[HN Gopher] Breaking the silence around academic bullying
___________________________________________________________________
Breaking the silence around academic bullying
Author : larve
Score : 38 points
Date : 2022-09-03 15:34 UTC (7 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (febs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (febs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com)
| dang wrote:
| I s/harassment/bullying/'d the title above, in the hope of making
| the article's scope clearer.
|
| The word 'harassment' tends to snap to the grid of culture war
| categories, which led to some offtopic flamewars. Hopefully we
| can avoid those in Take 2 of this thread.
| jwond wrote:
| MontyCarloHall wrote:
| The article then immediately goes on to say
|
| >Note that bullying appears to be related to power
| differentials more than to gender, meaning that the reason why
| perpetrators are overwhelmingly male is because men
| disproportionally occupy powerful academic positions.
| Obviously, women in powerful positions can be bullies, too
| [[29, 30]].
| dang wrote:
| Your comment here broke the site guidelines, including these:
|
| - " _Eschew flamebait. Avoid unrelated controversies and
| generic tangents._ " (you went on a quintessential generic
| flamewar tangent)
|
| - " _Please don 't pick the most provocative thing in an
| article or post to complain about in the thread. Find something
| interesting to respond to instead._" (you did exactly the thing
| that we added this rule to discourage)
|
| Can you please review
| https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and stick to
| the rules? They're designed to avoid the tedious, repetitive
| flamewars this kind of thing leads to.
|
| p.s. I'm not saying that such phrases aren't provocative--they
| _are_ provocative. That 's why we (HN commenters) have to be
| the ones to interrupt the predictable provocation process, if
| we're going to have the interesting, curious, diffy*
| conversations that this site is supposed to be for.
|
| *
| https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&so...
| jwond wrote:
| > "Please don't pick the most provocative thing in an article
| or post to complain about in the thread. Find something
| interesting to respond to instead."
|
| If we aren't allowed to discuss a certain part of the article
| it seems unfair to me that it is not against the rules to
| post the article in the first place.
| tptacek wrote:
| The guideline implicitly asks you to read the submitted
| story and understand it well enough to make an educated
| guess as to what the thrust of the story is, or what
| interesting phenomenon motivated it. Then, when you comment
| on the story, you're asked both to weigh whether you're
| adding more heat than light, and, most especially, whether
| the heat you're adding is connected with the core of the
| story.
|
| Here, the story is not at all about race; it's about the
| underreported and under-studied phenomenon of early-career
| academic researchers who are effectively captive to abusive
| PIs and professors. Lots of people on HN are, or have in
| the past been academic researchers; many of them have
| horror stories. The notion that this abuse might be taken
| more seriously is a very big deal.
|
| Instead, for a good long time on this story, we had a
| thread that was commanded by a the most boring possible
| political argument one can have on HN: the debate over
| woke-ism. We have the "most provocative thing" rule
| precisely so we don't lose the ability to talk about
| important things just because an article happens to veer
| into some third rail or other of whatever cultural drama is
| happening right now on HN.
|
| It's not just woke-ism; when this guideline was first being
| discussed, the signal example of it was a thread where
| Amazon had just introduced Route53, and the thread was
| commandeered by HN's 482459th debate about Snowden. We have
| the guideline because this pattern recurs regularly.
|
| It's also an especially nasty abuse of HN to make an
| inflammatory political argument in an off-topic thread on a
| story, because people who take HN seriously will want to
| avoid taking the bait and giving oxygen to the political
| tangent. That is: it's a way of not only introducing a
| provocative tangent to a story, but of ensuring that only
| the least reasonable conversations about that tangent can
| occur.
|
| It's essentially message board arson.
|
| (This thread is dead and collapsed now, so I guess we're
| freer to talk about it).
| dang wrote:
| pp.s: it looks like your account has been using HN primarily,
| if not exclusively, for political and ideological battle. We
| ban accounts that cross that line (for more explanation, see
| https://hn.algolia.com/?sort=byDate&dateRange=all&type=comme.
| ..), regardless of which ideology they favor. Accounts that
| are using HN primarily for this sort of argument are not only
| not using HN as intended, they're contributing to destroying
| it--I'm not saying intentionally, but we still have to ban
| such accounts because the flames burn just as fatally either
| way.
|
| I'm not going to ban you for it right now but if you'd please
| review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and
| stick to using HN as intended in the future, we'd appreciate
| it. That means a lot of things, but most importantly it means
| using the site primarily out of curiosity. Curiosity and
| battle are disjoint motivations.
| larve wrote:
| Stating that white heterosexual men are at the intersection of
| privilege is quite different from "mandatorily demonizing white
| men in everything they publish." That is quite the chip on your
| shoulder, I think.
|
| I am a cisgender, straight, white male in tech (not in
| academia) and I don't think it's a big deal to acknowledge that
| I benefit from quite a few privileges as such. I don't get
| harassed sexually, noone bats an eye when I mention my partner,
| society doesn't expect me to bear children, I have a very
| decent income, I get a default level respect for my technical
| abilities just by virtue of showing up.
|
| I have many friends in leftist, queer, activist circles and
| don't feel demonized in the slightest. What I do, and I don't
| feel diminished at all by doing so, on the contrary, is learn
| and listen to how people not having all these characteristics
| have a wildly different life experience. If someone rails
| against white patriarchy or whatever, realize that that is very
| much a thing in many people's experience, and you might be
| blind to it by virtue of being a white man.
|
| The great thing about intersectionality is that even if you're
| a white man, that is not all you are. You can use an
| intersectional framework to address areas where you are indeed
| a minority, be it because of your financial background,
| physical or mental disabilities, physical or mental illnesses,
| etc... Being a white man, yet an immigrant in the US, is a
| different experience than being a citizen.
|
| I always find it puzzling that critics think that
| intersectional studies are about vilifying "all white men",
| when the premise is actually the opposite. A white man with
| mental illness from a working class background would not be
| part of the "very narrowly defined group that enjoys
| intersectional privilege". Nor does enjoying the intersectional
| privilege assume that you are a harasser, a bad person, just
| that other people probably encountered harassment more often
| than you.
| RichardCNormos wrote:
| throw_m239339 wrote:
| > Stating that white heterosexual men are at the intersection
| of privilege is quite different from "mandatorily demonizing
| white men in everything they publish." That is quite the chip
| on your shoulder, I think.
|
| It's very much a racist statement in my book. Of course,
| that's the core of the intersectional ideology, a racist
| ideology. The first and most important divider when it comes
| to classes is wealth. Identity politics as practiced by
| intersectionalists served the elite well.
|
| If one pushes that obnoxious and absurd intersectional logic
| to its paroxysm, then one can deem people from jewish origin
| "at the intersection of privilege". Sounds antisemitic?
| Indeed, because that whole ideology is indeed racist at its
| core, under pretense of "social justice".
| kodah wrote:
| > I always find it puzzling that critics think that
| intersectional studies are about vilifying "all white men",
| when the premise is actually the opposite. A white man with
| mental illness from a working class background would not be
| part of the "very narrowly defined group that enjoys
| intersectional privilege". Nor does enjoying the
| intersectional privilege assume that you are a harasser, a
| bad person, just that other people probably encountered
| harassment more often than you.
|
| I think where people get lost is rhetoric. You're getting
| lost because:
|
| > I am a cisgender, straight, white male in tech (not in
| academia) and I don't think it's a big deal to acknowledge
| that I benefit from quite a few privileges as such. I don't
| get harassed sexually, noone bats an eye when I mention my
| partner, society doesn't expect me to bear children, I have a
| very decent income, I get a default level respect for my
| technical abilities just by virtue of showing up.
|
| You believe this is uniform enough that it can be said
| definitively. They're getting lost because they see the
| subject continually brought up but then walked back with
| statements like:
|
| > Note that bullying appears to be related to power
| differentials more than to gender, meaning that the reason
| why perpetrators are overwhelmingly male is because men
| disproportionally occupy powerful academic positions.
| Obviously, women in powerful positions can be bullies, too
| [[29, 30]].
|
| All that tells me is that we don't really know how to talk
| about any of this correctly yet.
| larve wrote:
| It is uniform enough in the sense that I don't experience
| the discrimination people experience due to being non-
| white, or poor, or gay. Maybe I experience discrimination
| as a white man, so far I haven't been aware of it, and if I
| were able to decode it as such, that would be a valid
| intersectional study. I posit for example that were I to
| live in say, Japan, I would experience discrimination due
| to my race. That the article seems to address mostly
| western if not american academia is valid, imo. That it
| "demonizes" white men? Way less so.
| [deleted]
| kodah wrote:
| My point overall is that not everyone is on the plane of
| existence you're on. For a cis-gender heterosexual white
| man that has reaped all of the privileges of being so
| it's probably pretty easy to see your perceived privilege
| talked about so patently. If you're someone who hasn't
| uniformly enjoyed those privileges this language is
| probably triggering. I don't think that intersectionality
| is about demonizing white men, but I do think it
| struggles with phrasing that is eventually used by some
| people to communicate that message.
| larve wrote:
| I perceive some of my privilege, which is that I am not
| subject to non-white racism, etc... I have a few crosses
| to bear otherwise (autistic, bipolar, chronic illness,
| immigrant), and I can relate to being in the minority
| quite well too. This is actually why I find
| intersectionality a productive lens. I can be both
| privileged and discriminated against at the exact same
| time. I can be both respected for my technical skills by
| virtue of my looks, and in the same field be
| discriminated because I communicate differently. Being
| white doesn't shield me from all discrimination, but it
| shields me from some.
| kodah wrote:
| Intersectionality _is_ a productive lens to view
| societies problems through. My experience is largely the
| same as yours, though slightly different circumstances.
| The problem in a lot of online, and in real life,
| discussions is that the intersectional ideas people have
| been exposed to are through amateur activists who don 't
| have a view on intersectionality beyond themselves. This
| isn't really new in social paradigms, to my knowledge,
| people often recognize the struggle of others
| definitionally but fail to recognize it in the person
| standing in front of them. The experience of which is
| probably not pleasant.
|
| You asked why people get triggered over this, this is my
| hypothesis. Don't take that for me _not liking_
| intersectionality.
| larve wrote:
| appreciated, and indeed, people often have a hard time
| empathizing. One reason why I both enjoy twitter in order
| to connect with some communities, and the discourse never
| really feels fulfilling.
| [deleted]
| devwastaken wrote:
| Blue politics believes they own diversity, but lack the
| knowledge of different cultures and backgrounds to understand
| that western liberalism is not the default position of the
| world.
|
| The same as red politics it's designed to be a "you're X so
| your reasons and facts don't matter.".
|
| Unfortunately universities are filled with warm bodies and
| students that cannot survive in the private sector. Therefore
| they need tax funding to get paid to do research. Grants are
| based on what's politically popular, and so here we are.
|
| An easy way to resolve this will be to remove federal student
| loans. They're predatory and cause students to spend their
| lives in an echo chamber of psuedo science at tax payer
| expense.
| [deleted]
| tarakat wrote:
| That sounds rather Euro-centric. Non-majority-white countries
| are also heavily represented in academia - China, India (and
| most of Asia, really), and the Middle East pop to mind - whites
| don't enjoy "intersectional privilege" _there_.
|
| In fact, at most scientific conferences, Antarctica is usually
| the only continent not represented, so it's doubly unusual for
| academics to suddenly become so blinkered.
| tptacek wrote:
| Your complaint has virtually nothing to do with the article,
| which is about a widespread and serious problem in academia.
| It's not about wokeism; it's about labs in which PIs berate and
| grind down postdocs and employees. You won't find many academic
| STEM professionals that don't have horror stories, and there
| are whisper networks about which PIs to avoid.
|
| The topic of "whiteness" comes up in a small section of the
| article that discusses the fact that there has been far less
| reporting of the phenomenon than would be expected from how
| "open" this secret is. You can agree or disagree with whether
| whiteness or maleness has much to do with it, but you can't
| reasonably disagree with the broader point of that section of
| the article: academic STEM research is _way worse_ than you 'd
| expect looking at it as an outsider.
| DiggyJohnson wrote:
| If that section has little to do with the content of the
| article, why include it considering it's obviously
| inflammatory point?
| tptacek wrote:
| The guidelines on this site _specifically_ ask you not to
| write comments like this:
|
| _Please don 't pick the most provocative thing in an
| article or post to complain about in the thread. Find
| something interesting to respond to instead._
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
|
| This is a particularly egregious instance, because this
| article discusses a phenomenon that should be especially
| interesting to HN (overwhelmingly widespread abuse in
| academic science labs), and yet here we are bickering over
| whether the article used the word "whiteness" appropriately
| in one paragraph.
| tarakat wrote:
| So if an article casually threw in some disparaging
| remarks about Blacks, Asians, or Jews (or, as was the
| case here, implied the entire problem the article was
| talking about was disproportionately their fault), they'd
| be expect to let the accusations stand unchallenged,
| because they should only address more interesting parts
| of the article?
| stonogo wrote:
| In what world is "these people disproportionately hold
| positions of power" disparaging? The degree of mental
| gymnastics must be exhausting.
| tarakat wrote:
| So "despite being only 2% of the US population, due to
| their unearned privilege, 4 out of 8 Ivy League
| presidents are Jewish [1], and they abuse the power that
| comes with their positions" _isn 't_ disparaging? Or is
| it only not disparaging when _white_ people are alleged
| to hold and abuse unearned privilege and power?
|
| [1] According to their wikipedia pages
| orwin wrote:
| If you continue by :" Note that all presidents abuse
| their power and the issue is more about the unearned
| powers presidents have than being Jewish or from the Ivy
| league" i would find it weird but Ok, wouldn't you?
|
| Taking a piece from a single paragraph, ignoring not only
| the context, but also the following sentence because it
| weakens your argument, how would you call that? Do you
| think it's fair? Do you just like storytelling so much
| you also lie to yourself?
| dang wrote:
| > _Do you just like storytelling so much you also lie to
| yourself?_
|
| Please don't cross into personal swipes, regardless of
| how another commenter is or you feel they are. That only
| makes everything worse. Your comment would be fine
| without that bit.
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
| tarakat wrote:
| DiggyJohnson wrote:
| I have a strong understanding of the guidelines of this
| site, and I do see how you might want to invoke them for
| this thread, but considering the subjective nature of
| this topic, I am comfortable that my comment remains
| acceptable. These sorts of statements absolutely impact
| my perception of the strengths and applicability of the
| (strongest possible) interpretation of the linked blog
| post.
|
| Also, I would say that you're comments in this subthread
| do not assume the strongest possible interpretation of
| the commenters point. You're coming across as actively
| hostile, frankly.
| tptacek wrote:
| See above.
| jwond wrote:
| > Your complaint has virtually nothing to do with the
| article, which is about a widespread and serious problem in
| academia.
|
| The article is about academic harassment. I would consider
| demonizing a specific demographic to be a form of harassment.
|
| If your PI or a colleague published an article demonizing a
| demographic you belonged to, would you be ok with that?
|
| If the article instead mentioned the 'unearned benefits'
| enjoyed by Asian people or Jewish people would that be worth
| complaining about?
| amluto wrote:
| To be clear: are you suggesting the article is demonizing a
| specific demographic?
|
| The article says:
|
| > Note that bullying appears to be related to power
| differentials more than to gender, meaning that the reason
| why perpetrators are overwhelmingly male is because men
| disproportionally occupy powerful academic positions.
|
| This seems to be about as demonizing of a demographic as
| saying "with great power comes great responsibility."
| Tenured professors may not have mutant superpowers, but
| they do have _tenured_ superpowers, and some of them abuse
| these superpowers. In my personal experience, there is no
| evidence to suggest that the perpetrators are especially
| correlated with any particular demographic other than being
| people _who are able to do the specific problematic things
| they do_. The perpetrators who abuse those they advise [0]
| are people _who advise other people_. There is no shortage
| of examples of cis, straight, white, able, male, etc people
| in academia harassing others who are every bit as cis,
| straight, etc as they are. There are, of course, _also_
| examples of males with power harassing females with less
| power and many other combinations.
|
| And there are many, many examples of people harassing other
| people in ways that were seen as normal and even expected
| in an earlier era. Some of the perpetrators here genuinely
| do not realize that they're doing anything wrong, and some
| of the victims may also not feel that they are being
| wronged. There are huge gray areas here! One thing that
| society could do a lot better is to realize that many of
| these perpetrators are not bad people, that they should not
| be vilified or canceled, but that they should learn to do
| better in the future.
|
| So, while I'm sure there is a whole host of problematic and
| maybe even "woke" literature that is over-the-top on
| demonizing a demographic, I don't think this article is it.
|
| [0] "Advise" here is a term of art. There are academic
| advisors and research advisors who have very specific
| powers over those they advise that, in general, are only
| vaguely related to the common meaning of giving advice.
| stonogo wrote:
| darth_avocado wrote:
| I read the pattern and what is being described, is not exclusive
| to academia. It is a typical workplace.
|
| A few lost jobs and horrible bosses later I can summarize the
| experience as follows:
|
| 1. Bullying is legal. Unless it's provable that it is based on
| one of the protected classes.
|
| 2. Because it is legal, companies side with the aggressor to deny
| everything and absolve themselves from liabilities.
|
| 3. Bystanders rarely help you. They may show solidarity, but will
| not step in on official channels.
|
| 4. Lawyers are expensive and it's very hard to pursue any claims.
|
| 5. Documentation is very hard because modern workforce is trained
| on how to not get sued (unless someone is really stupid)
|
| 6. Some laws like "two party consent" for recording that is meant
| to protect privacy, has the unintended consequences of enabling
| abuse.
|
| TLDR; harassment is legal and okay. Workers have limited
| protections.
| feet wrote:
| From what I'm aware, two party consent laws usually have
| exceptions for when a person feels like they are threatened or
| in danger in some way
| tptacek wrote:
| It may be significantly worse in research:
|
| 1. PIs are under incredible pressure themselves
|
| 2. PIs are as a rule not formally trained in management, nor
| have they tended to "apprentice" in middle-management positions
|
| 3. Research is heavily reputation-based, which creates huge
| power disparities between employers and employees: lab
| employees need references from their employers, who can
| withhold them for capricious reasons
|
| 4. All of these factors also applied to the PI themselves, when
| they were starting their career, so it's normed; PIs may see it
| as a form of "dues-paying"
|
| These dynamics are not in fact present in most ordinary market
| jobs. The jobs where the dynamics are at play --- say, as an
| assistant to a producer at a media company --- are notorious
| for it.
| analog31 wrote:
| Indeed, while I don't want to diminish the cost and
| disruption of walking out of a job, it's much less likely to
| have long repercussions in industry than academia. In all of
| the industry jobs that I've never held, nobody has ever asked
| me for a letter of recommendation, and I don't think any of
| my employers have even checked my references. Also, changing
| jobs in industry without the blessing of your current
| employer, even after a brief tenure, raises no eyebrows.
|
| The situation is even worse for grad students, who leave
| empty-handed if they walk out. I had a great advisor, but I
| also heard horror stories from friends.
| c7b wrote:
| I'd say for postdocs it's subtly different, if not
| necessarily better, than you suggest. With the kind of move
| we're talking about here, people will often (have to) move
| out of academia altogether. It's just too rare to find a
| position that you can transition into smoothly at short
| notice, and the young academic lifestyle doesn't allow for
| building up a lot of savings. The burnt bridges to your
| previous lab won't matter much in industry or government
| and your experience will typically be valued, but the price
| is that you are walking away from a career path that might
| have been your first choice.
| tptacek wrote:
| What really worries me is that everybody who ends up a PI
| has been through this harrowing process, so it
| perpetuates itself; just broken people breaking people. A
| dramatic way to put it, I guess, but I don't know what
| else you can say about a PI demanding someone come into a
| lab on the same day as their appendectomy.
| Andy_G11 wrote:
| Bullying is a form of torture: seeking to erode the
| psychological, social, financial and career wellbeing and
| development of the victims. Fortunately, there is a surefire,
| methodical way to handle it:
|
| People who feel that they are being bullied should do the
| following: a) Keep a record of the bullying behaviour. b) Talk to
| the perceived bully and ask them if 1) they are aware of their
| behaviour and 2) if they have considered how that might have made
| you, the victim, feel. c) Tell them that you find their behaviour
| hurtful and have suffered distress. d) Ask them to please desist
| in future. e) Tell them that you are making a record of having
| spoken to them and will raise this with HR if it happens again.
| f) When it happens again and again and again, 1) raise it with HR
| etc; 2) see if you can make a claim against the firm; 3) if it
| gets so bad that you cannot stay one month longer or you will
| jump off a bridge / knock out the offender, leave your job and
| see if someone else will employ you without your family and
| career being too badly impacted (NB: not recommended).
|
| Please note, this is the Right Way to handle bullying if you are
| going to moan about being bullied then please ensure you have
| followed steps a - f first.
|
| Or... 1) grow a really thick skin; 2) stock up on anti-ulcer,
| anti-insomnia meds; 3) practise meditation, breathing exercises
| and ninjitsu; 4) slowly figure out a five year plan to take down
| your nemesis in the firm (often your boss) - find out what their
| pain points are and use them, and build a group of allies. If
| possible obtain incriminating photo's of them and their boss's
| wife.; 5) if 5 years is insufficient, try gradually to secure a
| soft landing for yourself elsewhere (typically takes 3 to 9
| months).
| tptacek wrote:
| I'm not sure what any of this has to do with bullying in
| academic research labs, where no amount of "ninjitsu" is going
| to solve the problem that your abusive PI exerts enormous
| control over the trajectory of your career, which will depend
| in some significant way on the recommendation they're willing
| to provide for your next position.
| moralestapia wrote:
| It's even worse when there's some sort of immigration
| situation involved, as in, your PI can fire you anytime and
| then you go back to whatever hellhole you managed to get out
| through your work and dedication over years.
|
| The power imbalance between professors and students in that
| situation is abysmally huge. The things they do to students
| are unbelievable until you see them happening (e.g. ask for
| sexual favors, neglecting them, humiliating them, making them
| work on stuff they're not supposed to, ...).
|
| I went through a horrible experience myself, where my
| daughter got kidnapped by some staff from KAUST (they played
| the "you are in a remote country with no laws, we can do
| whatever we want to you"-card). It led me to leave academia
| for good; I'm actually doing much better now in the industry
| but it was a very traumatic experience and it saddens me to
| think about how many people are still being abused in this
| context by assholes like that.
|
| I am more than willing to work on something to put an end to
| this, if any of you in this thread are interested, shoot me
| an email (check profile), it's starting small but it's
| getting off the ground now :).
| Qem wrote:
| I think two changes would contribute a lot to fight
| harassment in academia:
|
| I - Ban letters of recommendation as admission/hiring
| criteria;
|
| II - If there's a strong disagreement between
| student/advisor, causing them part ways, by default should be
| assumed the student has the rights to carry the research on
| with another advisor.
| tptacek wrote:
| This is an article about bullying and abuse by professors and
| managers of academic labs. It's a huge problem, because early-
| career researchers depend heavily on approval and references from
| PIs, and there's a strong element of path-dependence in many
| academic career situations: you often can't easily just quit and
| join a different lab. You're captive to the abuse.
|
| As someone with two kids working in academic STEM research labs,
| I'm interested if people have any horror stories of their own to
| share about abusive PIs (just because I worry about my own kids
| and what they're going to face in their fields).
|
| I asked this on a Slack the other day, and I got stories like "my
| friend's PI called and demanded he come in to work, but my
| friend's appendix had just burst; the PI said 'I don't care about
| your appendix'". Or the lab where the researchers had brought in
| special furniture to create a private area to cry in after the PI
| had finished berating them. Or the abusive lab with an
| anomalously high number of suicides.
| nautilius wrote:
| Have them ask around about the PI first.
|
| I've had PIs threatening me as PostDoc to void my contract and
| have me deported for wanting to take some vacation accrued over
| several years, or (different gig) for wanting to go to a job
| interview. And that was me as a married 30ish white male. Can't
| imagine what it can be like for the 22 year young woman away
| from home for the first time.
| sombragris wrote:
| Honestly I'm put off by the authors' use of critical theory and
| intersectionality. But the fact that this harassment does exist
| and should be eradicated is unquestionable, and any effort to
| raise awareness and fight it should be commended.
| amluto wrote:
| This article barely seems to use critical theory (do you mean
| critical _race_ theory? the article is barely about race. the
| article falls solidly into Wikipedia's definition of "critical
| theory" simply on the basis of its overall topic.)
|
| For better or for worse, "intersectionality" here seems to mean
| primarily acknowledging that more than one independent variable
| exists that may affect privilege or ability to be easily
| harassed and that the effects of these different variables are
| nontrivial. I do think the article could have been slightly
| clearer by avoiding uses of the word "intersectional" and its
| derivatives, but the article actually seems pretty good at
| explaining what it means.
| tarakat wrote:
| [deleted]
| boredemployee wrote:
| I just got approved in a MSc program and I'm already getting
| upset with the group I joined, they think they'all sooo
| important. I have an industry job as well and if it gets worse
| I'll just tell 'em to fuckoff.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-09-03 23:01 UTC)