Don’t Start None, Won’t Be None

[Final update: DNLee’s blog post has been reinstated at Scientific American. I’m therefore removing it from here; traffic should go to her.]

[Update: The original offender, “Ofek” at Biology Online, has now been fired, and the organization has apologized. Scientific American editor Mariette DiChristina has also offered a fuller explanation.]

Something that happens every day, to me and many other people who write things: you get asked to do something for free. There’s an idea that mere “writing” isn’t actually “work,” and besides which “exposure” should be more than enough recompense. (Can I eat exposure? Can I smoke it?)

You know, that’s okay. I’m constantly asking people to do things for less recompense than their time is worth; it’s worth a shot. For a young writer who is trying to build a career, exposure might actually be valuable. But most of the time the writer will politely say no and everyone will move on.

For example, just recently an editor named “Ofek” at asked DNLee to provide some free content for him. She responded with:

Thank you very much for your reply.
But I will have to decline your offer.
Have a great day.

Here’s what happens less often: the person asking for free content, rather than moving on, responds by saying

Because we don’t pay for blog entries?
Are you an urban scientist or an urban whore?

Where I grew up, when people politely turn down your request for free stuff, it’s impolite to call them a “whore.” It’s especially bad when you take into account the fact that we live in a world where women are being pushed away from science, one where how often your papers get cited correlates strongly with your gender, and so on.

DNLee was a bit taken aback, with good reason. So she took to her blog to respond. It was a colorful, fun, finely-crafted retort — and also very important, because this is the kind of stuff that shouldn’t happen in this day and age. Especially because the offender isn’t just some kid with a website; Biology Online is a purportedly respectable site, part of the Scientific American “Partners Network.” One would hope that SciAm would demand an apology from Ofek, or consider cutting their ties with the organization.

Sadly that’s not what happened. If you click on the link in the previous paragraph, you’ll get an error. That’s because Scientific American, where DNLee’s blog is hosted, decided it wasn’t appropriate and took it down.

It’s true that this particular post was not primarily concerned with conveying substantive scientific content. Like, you know, countless other posts on the SciAm network, or most other blogs. But it wasn’t about gossip or what someone had for lunch, either; interactions between actual human beings engaged in the communication of scientific results actually is a crucial part of the science/culture/community ecosystem. DNLee’s post was written in a jocular style, but it wasn’t only on-topic, it was extremely important. Taking it down was exactly the wrong decision.

I have enormous respect for Scientific American as an institution, so I’m going to hope that this is a temporary mistake, and after contemplating a bit they decide to do the right thing, restoring DNLee’s post and censuring the guy who called her a whore. But meanwhile, I’m joining others by copying the original post here. Ultimately it’s going to get way more publicity than it would have otherwise. Maybe someday people will learn how the internet works.

Here is DNLee. (Words cannot express how much I love the final picture.)


(This is where I used to mirror the original blog post, which has now been restored.)

This entry was posted in Humanity, Science and Society, Science and the Media, Women in Science, Words. Bookmark the permalink.

84 Responses to Don’t Start None, Won’t Be None

  1. Lord says:

    So that’s what line of work he is in.

  2. Pingback: Sean Carroll is in » Butterflies and Wheels

  3. Truck Captain Sirak says:

    There is no reason whatsoever for ANY public persona to call a woman a whore. Even a prostitute prefers other terminology, and for a public persona to stoop to such behavior is unconscionable and vile.
    Even though i have been a soldier and i fought for freedom of speech for all, there are repercussions for actions, and if someone should be so irresponsible as to vilify another, using sexist epithets, then said individual should be boycotted, and the organization that supports said individual should then also be affected in some manner.
    This is about responsibility for one’s actions. As a subscriber to Scientific American, it shocks me that they would so casually discard one blogger because another used strong and offensive language and the first took umbrage! As a subscriber, i will DEFINATELY send my thoughts about the abhorrent behavior of “Ofek” and the support i perceive them as giving! It appears that Scientific American either SUPPORTS the denigration of women, especially minority women, OR that Scientific American did not want to call attention to the especially repugnant behavior of their pet “Ofek”. Either way, their actions thus far SUPPORT sexist and prejudicial behavior.
    Scientific American needs to rethink its support and publicly apologize for the behavior of its blogger. It needs to censure said offender for his (Ofek’s) malicious behavior, otherwise it cannot be taken any other way than that it supports this kind of behavior.
    Shame on you, Scientific American.

  4. Shecky R says:

    “…Ultimately it’s going to get way more publicity than it would have otherwise. Maybe someday people will learn how the internet works.”

    THAT ought be a KEY take-home message for the powers-that-be at SciAm. Whatever their reasons behind their decisions, there are SO MANY ways this could’ve been handled better!
    I’m guessin’ someone at SciAm is getting a tongue-lashing (…or email-lashing) from BoraZ as I type this (but just my guess).

  5. This person doesn’t strike me as particularly civil herself. Indeed, she seems like someone with a rather large chip on her shoulder who is looking for perceived offenses to attack. I am familiar with this type, and in my experience they contribute little to the scientific discourse. I’m also familiar with Mr. Carroll’s ideological biases, but I hope he has enough objectivity to appreciate the problems that this ideology can create for the noble endeavor of science. This is all a rather sad reflection of the state of our civilization in 2013, I’m afraid.

  6. Mike Taylor says:

    Just to be clear, Brother Nihil: you’re blaming DNLee for this? Is that right?

  7. BWTidwell says:

    The person requesting a free writer was out of line with his comment.
    There is no excuse and no place for that in business, science, or authority.

  8. No, I’m merely pointing out that the climate created in academia by the current ideology is conducive to this sort of thing. It’s clear that this post has an ideological purpose, and I’m just deconstructing and challenging that ideology ever so slightly. Spare me your innuendo and inquisitorial zeal, it’s all rather trite. Perhaps the best thing we can say about this absurdly ideologically distorted historical epoch is “this, too, shall pass.”

  9. Mike Taylor says:

    Nope, still not understanding your point. When you say academic climate is conducive to “this sort of thing”, what thing do you mean? Do you mean that it’s conducive to people calling scientists whores? Or do you mean that it’s conducive to scientists objecting? Or do you mean that it’s conducive to blog networks removing posts about this?

    No innuendo, no inquisition. Just perplexity about what you meant.

  10. Sun says:

    Nihil is a troll, don’t feed the trolls.

    Calling someone a whore because they politely refused to do you (an unknown off the streets) a favor, wow, that’s over the top. That’s like calling a woman who refuses to sleep with you a whore. Sour grapes much?

  11. Erica says:

    Umm, Brother Nihil, being flat-out construed as a ‘whore’ doesn’t leave much room for perception as anything other than an offense. I’m a pretty apathetic person when it comes to insults, and I tend to avoid confrontation whenever possible, but I’m pretty sure I would have bit back if someone had insinuated that I was a whore for refusing to provide free labor. A person’s time and energy are very precious. I can definitely understand why someone you don’t even know acting like they have a right to it and disrespecting your decisions would set a person off.

  12. Wolfy says:

    Brother Nihil seems to miss the point that it was simply and completely unacceptable on a professional level, to call someone a “whore” based on the premise that they ‘assumed’ that the sole reason for the declining of the offer to do free content creation for them, let alone the fact that the person he was addressing was a woman. You don’t call a woman a whore like that and not expect at least severe indignation (and face it, most males would be just as incensed at the usage towards them in the same situation), any more than you would call a woman the “c-word” and expect them to not become very angry towards you. “Academic climate” has zero to do with the situation, he’s just a pompous ass who obviously feels that this has something to do with “political correctness”, when in fact it is nothing of the sort, but rather just that of basic human decency.

  13. Scientist says:

    This is an outrageous story. I am less concerned about the fact SciAm removed the post (I can believe their motives were honest and objective), but the editor who had the exchange with DNLee does not have basic dignity to others.

    I was curious to see who stands behind, and checked who registered the domain. Apparently it is a company called “AAA Marketing World” based in Australia. The amusing thing that if you look up their page, you find:

    “We believe anybody should be able to blog for free.” they say there — maybe “We believe anybody should blog for (us for) free” is more appropriate.

    I just hope that this Ofek person does not represent everybody in his/her company.

  14. vitz says:

    this is a subject worthy of frontline. would be awesome if you could get them interested in doing a program on this cultural paradigm :)

  15. Jarrod says:

    If you are a woman you are damned if you do, damned if you don’t…

    Give a service away for free or sheer enjoyment you are a “Slut”
    Charge for a service and you are a “Whore”

    Meanwhile a man would be considered an altruistic philanthropist or savvy entreprenuer for the same actions.

  16. Emily says:

    Wow. I’m actually dumbfounded. I wonder in what society Ofek lives where the only people who work for money are whores (sex workers)? Surely he could have offered something by way of barter, like a basket of fish or a tin of tea, if “exposure” weren’t tempting enough. Maybe you should tell him that only whores benefit from exposure? 😉

  17. Vanessa says:


  18. Wendy Woods says:

    It is really not acceptable to call someone whom you don’t know (or even someone you do know), who politely asked some questions and politely declined your offer, a whore. It doesn’t matter why they declined, Mr Ofek should have thanked her for her time and that is that. I don’t understand what made him think that if someone declines an offer that its okay to be rude and slanderous. Maybe he should grow up or take the chip of his shoulder!

  19. Charvakan says:

    Thanks, Dr. Carroll. This is needs to be addressed by the Scientific American immediately. They should go beyond merely apologizing and discuss the whole assumption that writers shouldn’t ask to be paid if it’s online.

  20. Tara G says:

    I love you and miss you! Keep up the good fight!

  21. tlarue says:

    Danielle: I don’t know you, but I support you and your articulate, on-point replies. It was a cheap and disgusting attack made against you; give ’em hell.

  22. Pingback: Don’t Start None, Won’t Be None – a Proud Repost | Phil Alban

  23. Deb says:

    You rock! Love the attitude and the way you write.

  24. John says:

    “Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned.”

    I am starting to wonder if all the fury was only meant to come from the woman in this phrase. It seems like on these kinds of topics every post is liked and disliked a lot more. I figure everyone will either love this or hate this post, most likely the latter.

    They say that woman should be careful in what kind of men they meet on the internet. They never say anything about the women. I think it would be wise for men to be wary of what kind of women they meet on the net as well. From my experience doing a wide range of searches on multiple websites, it is almost impossible to find a legitimate girlfriend. The only women I could find either already have children, are a lesbian, or just want to strip for me to pay them money.

    I assume the person who made this rude post has had similar problems, but I don’t think that is any excuse to really go there in this type of situation. From my experience, it is safer to assume that she is a “good girl” even if there are “blurred lines”, no matter how well she “twerks”.