For over 5 years Belle de Jour has been one of the most high-profile and successful anonymous bloggers. In her blog, Belle talked about her experiences as a high-class London call girl. A book followed, then a popular TV series.
Today, Belle revealed herself as Brooke Magnanti to The Times. And that's Dr. Brooke Magnanti. She's a scientist.
My first thought was: what a fantastic coup for the image of women in science. Despite what people think, women in science, and scientists in general, can like fashion, enjoy looking beautiful, have hopes, fears and money troubles. Take away the label of "scientist", and all that's left is... a woman.
This is an important message to send when we try to promote careers in science to girls: you don't have to be weird, or geeky, or a maths genius, or stop washing your hair, to be a scientist.
As a scientist, you can still be so glamorous that Billie Piper would want to play you on tv. (There was Billie, thinking she'd made break from her geeky Dr Who role, whereas in fact she was playing a developmental neurotoxicologist).
The image problem of science is not limited to women. Male scientists suffer from stereotyping just as much as female ones. Anyone else out there want to own up to their secret life as a quantum physicist?
My second reaction, however, was of dismay. Belle turned to prositution in the period between submitting her PhD thesis and taking her viva. Procedures for completing a PhD differ quite a bit between countries. In Britain, a "big book" style thesis is required, typically of around 200 pages or so, rather than a collection of research papers. Writing such a tome is a big job, and the research papers still have to be written as well in order to get a publication record.
The thesis is then sent to examiners, typically around 3 expert scientists from both inside and outside the candidate's own institute, who review the book in detail. The PhD exam takes the form of a viva, literally an "oral exam", between the committee and the cadidate, lasting a few hours. Finally, the examiners recommend that the candidate passes, immediately (rare), following minor (most common) or major changes (less common) to the thesis, or not at all (very rare).
This whole process can take many months, during which the student's employment status is often sketchy at best. With PhD funding in Britain typically shorter than elsewhere, although efforts are being made to bring it in line with the US and Europe, these final stages often spill over the end of the funded period. And with competition for academic jobs as fierce as it is, employers prefer to hire candidates whose PhD's are a certainty, rather than a pending proposition.
In this situation, it is not uncommon for PhD students to find themselves forced to take a job to avoid financial hardship, and end up sidetracked from science and unable to finish their PhDs.
This was precisely Belle's predicament, and faced with eviction from her home, she decided to become an escort to supplement her income. This would leave her enough time to write, work and prepare for her viva while earning enough money to support herself.
While Belle says she "didn't object to the concept" of getting paid for sex, and certainly deserves not to be judged for it, I'm sure whe would rather have avoided having to resort to it in the first place. This would not be an outrageous suggestion. Having just finished a PhD, she had just become one of the most highly-educated people in the country. Isn't education supposed to shield you from this kind of hardship?
Scientists are being told that their work is crucial for driving our knowledge-based economies, but are paid so little that they have to run up hefty debts, wait tables or turn tricks to make ends meet. Isn't it time young scientists received respect in a more tangible form, like jobs and money?
This is the only way we can ensure that the best scientists stay in science, and not just those for whose circumstances allowed them to continue.
A final note on the media coverage of this case. I sincerely hope for Belle and her loved ones that she receives a fairer treatment than several other bloggers (like Girl with a One Track Mind or Night Jack) who wrote under the veil of anonymity and were outed and subsequently hounded by the press.
While so far the coverage is mild and generally complimentary of Belle, and having decided to out herself has the advantage of holding the strings for now. I hope she hangs on to them.
http://layscience.net/trackback/782
This is a really honest post, Sarah, although I can't help thinking that over the next few days certain feminists will either (a) try to portray Brooke Magnanti as a helpless victim or (b) condemn her for falling prey to false consciousness for claiming in her Sunday Times interview that prostitution could be preferable to work as a computer programmer. It is highly probable that had she had the financial security in the form of a job she would not have turned to prostitution. I trust most people wish Brooke every success in her career as a forensic pathologist.
You're right, I suspect a lot will be said about this from all sides - and not all complimentary to her. The problem with cases like Belle's is that it will automatically be presented as being representative of an entire population of women while she herself is just one woman. But she made a difficult decision based on her circumstances and it worked out for her - she's not encouraging anyone, she's not passing judgment on what other people do etc.
I deliberately didn't say anything about the prostitution vs. Starbucks vs. computer programming, it's obviously a highly complex issue that I don't particularly want to wade into!
I wonder why she has outed herself now. It's a brave thing to do as it may effect how seriously she is taken as a scientist.
Some people will say that there were other jobs she could have taken and that's true, but how many of them would have paid enough? I worked as a cleaner at one point during my (non-science) PhD and earned nowhere near enough. I'd been put off academia by the time I finished so I got part-time work in another area while I was writing up that led to full-time work.
I'm not sure if things have changed or if non-science PhDs are different but I got an immediate pass (not showing off, just asking).
*I am a troll*
Well Sarah, congratulations! You got this little site a real-life troll, bad punctuation and everything. We're really coming along, no?
History only repeats itself if one doesn't listen the first time.
Oh you guys... *blush* ;-)
Tessera - reading between the lines it's pretty clear that she was more or less forced to reveal her identity as the Daily Mail knew who she was. She did the clever thing by talking to The Times first on her own terms rather than let the DM break the story in a much more salubrious way. That would have been far more damaging to her career and reputation.
She made decisions based on what she felt she needed to do at the time. I had several part-time jobs during my PhD and was lucky to have a lot of support from my family - and still I ended up with a lot of debt at the end of it.
and yes, I do think PhD procedures differ between different subjects... but it's a great achievement nonetheless ;-)
If you ever need to know about a dead Belgian Symbolist Nobel prize winning playwright, you know who to ask.
Although my PhD probably didn't contribute much to human progress or well-being, it did train me to think more analytically, to research, write academically, spot a dodgy argument etc. All of which have stood me in good stead - portable skills I now apply to skepticism.
It also taught me that I did not want to stay in that particular sector of academia.
Hmm ok,you cannot stand opposite thoughts and to hear truth.so you are very narrow minded.also you are very stupid that you are unable to get english is not my native language.i only can speak Turkish,German,Italian,Russian,English and a little French,so tell me how many languages you can speak except your native one? Not any of course.it is impossible to learn a foreighm language with that little brain,eh?
Well,i don't call you troll because trolls have far bigger brains tham you.neanderthal? Yes,this suit you much better or cavewoman maybe though i doubt it so that cavewomen have less or more intelligence eh?
You are so ignorant,so stupid,so moron that i have never thought such an idiot like you could run a succesfull blog.that's why only a few likeminded idiot comment here while in other blogs are having hundreds of comments.
I advise you to enlarge your tiny brain,read a lot,try being human,if you can:-)
I know you'll delete this but i also know that you'read this and swallow these.this is what you do best;-)
Bye ignorant moron.
Goodbye!
Martin is the editor of layscience.net.
Follow Me!
RSS | Twitter
This is an interesting post, although I do take issue with your first thought: "what a fantastic coup for the image of women in science".
You go on to say: "Despite what people think, women in science, and scientists in general, can like fashion, enjoy looking beautiful, have hopes, fears and money troubles... This is an important message to send when we try to promote careers in science to girls: you don't have to be weird, or geeky, or a maths genius, or stop washing your hair, to be a scientist."
I find this quite offensive. You seem to be saying that a good way to sell science to girls would be to emphasise that they can still 'look good' doing it. This reinforces the myth that appearance is what matters when it comes to girls and women. A certain kind of appearance, of course - mainstream beauty of the likes of Belle De Jour.
Saying to girls 'You can still look glamorous and be a scientist!' would not just be capitulating to the idea that a woman's appearance is what matters, but is alienating to all those girls who don't really care about mainstream beauty. Why introduce that element to a subject that has nothing to do with what you look like, and everything to do with your talent, brains and skill? Why is it important that women in science look 'glamorous'? Surely what they contribute to the genre in terms of their research and theories is what's important.
If girls really believe that to be a scientist you have to be 'weird' and not wash your hair (That is so offensive - just because a person doesn't fit the mainstream beauty ideal does not make them 'weird' and nor does it mean they don't wash!) then something really does need to be done about that, but emphasising the mainstream beauty of one particular PhD student is not the answer. Part of the answer would presumably be to encourage girls to be themselves and do what they were interested in regardless of how they personally wish to look - and to not be judged on their looks when they do.
I'm pretty sure that men do not need to be sold science in this way, so why should women?
Personally, I don't think that Belle's chosen way of financing her PhD is setting a good example to girls interested in science and nor should it be held up as such. Setting her up as the example of a 'normal' woman that girls can relate to is way off. Most women generally don't look like models, and if in financial straits due to studying, would usually temp or do bar work rather than sell sex. Men generally don't have to resort to such measures either. Not to mention the fact that most sex work is nowhere near as glamorous as Belle's experience. She is a rarity, in many ways.
My point is: the media hype over Belle's unmasking is not necessarily a positive thing for women in science. Women are already judged by our appearance all the time, and science should be one of those professions where it really doesn't matter. And the last thing we ought to be doing is pretending that prostitution is glamorous - it isn't, for the most part.
Amy - a couple of points.
First, no, I really did not mean what you're implying about appearance, and I'm totally on your side with that. I quite specifically didn't just want to talk about looks. "Weird", "geeky" or "maths genius" are to me not comments on a person's appearance. And by "enjoying looking beautiful" and "liking fashion" I meant taking an interest in these things, as did Belle, rather than conforming to any ideal.
But kids do think there is a science stereotype (see the link in the text for an example). Girls are put off by the perceived blokey-ness of science and we should send the message that this is not the case.
The fact that so much emphasis lies on appearance at all in our society, you're right, is terrible. But that's a different side to the argument.
The second part of my post was a criticism of the way science PhDs are funded. I don't make any judgment on what Belle in particular chose to do - I just think it's pretty bad that so many people get stuck in this gap between thesis submission and viva without an income, and have to get a job. Particulary given that this delay is down to the examiners' availability, not a reflection on the candidate's work.