Some things should be brought up in private.

[NOVA Lady]

Audrey,

I think you are on to something here entirely. Thats what I was trying to say. There MUST be a way to make known ALL of the potential hazords of the substance.

I have never worked in a lab, but I recall when taking lab classes in college the professor showed us a sheet of potential hazords/how to avoid them or protect yourself. I would think this would be a legal requirement in the workplace re: OSA guidelines.

[Cz. Burrito]

To the OP - does your work have the MSDS sheets readily available? Isn't that required by law? If so, WHY does any employer need to advise his employees on hazardous effects when that is the purpose of MSDS? (Or is my memory wrong and I'm reading more into their importance than I should be?)

Edited to correct verb tense.

Yes, we do.  As required by law, every lab contains a binder with the MSDS of the chemicals in that lab, plus we have a master file containing all MSDS for any chemical that has ever passed through our labs.  Entertainingly enough, I am the maintainer of our MSDS records, as well as the person responsible for keeping the safety equipment current.  I am the person who you would come to if you had any concerns about chemical safety.

[Cz. Burrito]

Audrey,

I think you are on to something here entirely. Thats what I was trying to say. There MUST be a way to make known ALL of the potential hazords of the substance.

I have never worked in a lab, but I recall when taking lab classes in college the professor showed us a sheet of potential hazords/how to avoid them or protect yourself. I would think this would be a legal requirement in the workplace re: OSA guidelines.

Perhaps I should have added in the original post the entertaining tidbit that I am the maintainer of our MSDS records. 

[Bramble]

But even though it would be in the MSDS you were in a meeting where as a group you were discussing which solvent to use.  The fact that this solvent can cause birth defects is relevant to the decision making process, as are all possible side effects.  Should the hazard not have been talked about at all?  What if there were more then one woman in the group?  What if the situation was reversed and it was something that affected men more then women, would you still think it shouldn't have been brought into the discussion?  I've been in many situations where I'm the only woman in a work group, and while it sucks to be singled out for being a woman, there are times when it is actually okay, and I think this is one of them.

[audrey1962]

The fact that this solvent can cause birth defects is relevant to the decision making process, as are all possible side effects.

I respectfully disagree. I do not know what line of work the OP is in, but IMO, scientific discovery shouldn't be limited to only working with substances that won't cause birth defects. The OP has chosen this line of work, it is HER responsibility to know what chemicals may or may not be hazardous to her health and her choice alone. I will stop here as I do not want to delve into subject matters that are not appropriate to this board.

To get back to the etiquette issue: The only etiquettely appropriate times to discuss a woman's reproduction is between her and her partner and her and her physician. For others to bring it up outside of these situations is rude, no matter how well meaning their intentions may be (the road to e-hell is paved with good intentions - it still doesn't make it right).

[audrey1962]

Perhaps I should have added in the original post the entertaining tidbit that I am the maintainer of our MSDS records. 

Unbelievable! Now I'm in a bit of shock. And you say you introduced the "concept" of safety glasses? I'd ask where you work but I'm afraid to find out. My husband is a FIRST Robotics mentor and they really emphasize the importance of safety glasses and maintaining a safe working envirnoment. I had no idea there were dinosaurs who didn't!

[LifeOnPluto]

I don't think the OP overreacted at all.

I don't think that discussing the potential consequences of a chemical (which may or may not include birth defects in unborn fetuses) is bad per se. BUT I totally disagree with singling out a person by name, like the OP's boss did.

Imagine if one of the men at the meeting was known for "enjoying several drinks at work Happy Hour every Friday". Imagine if the boss had said at the meeting, "The more I think about it, the more I feel Jack shouldn't be working with this chemical, as it may cause further damage to his liver". Chances are, there'd be an uproar over boss's bad etiquette.

To the OP - I'd keep my eyes open about this one. Bring it up with your boss in private if you want, and make sure the boss doesn't hold you back from any plum projects, etc by virtue of the fact you are a female.

[Lunadiana75]

The OP did not over react!  And those brushing her off as "another hysterical over reacting woman" need to look closer at her posts. 

[Cz. Burrito]

Perhaps I should have added in the original post the entertaining tidbit that I am the maintainer of our MSDS records. 

Unbelievable! Now I'm in a bit of shock. And you say you introduced the "concept" of safety glasses? I'd ask where you work but I'm afraid to find out. My husband is a FIRST Robotics mentor and they really emphasize the importance of safety glasses and maintaining a safe working envirnoment. I had no idea there were dinosaurs who didn't!

And still, nobody who worked here before I was hired wears safety glasses.  I ordered some for the one person who was hired after me and he generally wears them.  My company is ridiculously slack on safety.  Fortunately I am in a position where I largely control my own personal safety.   

[Lisbeth]

Wow, I think you are totally overreacting....

I probably should, especially after what happened at a meeting this week.  The short version is that in another all-male-except-me group somebody made a comparison between tooth pain and childbirth and then looked at me and smirked before saying "you don't know about that yet."  That one is much more of a sexual harassment issue than an etiquette issue. 

On what planet is that sexual harassment? He didn't refer to you having HIS child, so it had nothing whatsoever to do with sex. @@ I would have just rolled my eyes and said "And you do?" Acknowledging that you are physically capable of giving birth does not equate to harassment, IMO.

On what planet is discussing someone's reproductive life professionally appropriate when they are not your patient?  Especially with a smirk on your face?  And since when is it relevant whether or not she is bearing his child? 

It is a totally out-of-line comment to make, harassment or not.  I would not dignify this remark by rolling my eyes or responding in any way other than a meeting with HR.

[enjoyetiquettehell]

Hello,

This is my take on the situation.  True I do not know your boss but I feel that he is just being educational.  I think it is good to know side effects of products even if it doesn't apply to you.  Both you and your coworkers will need to be careful when using the product around other women.

I do agree with you that  he should not have used your name but I don't think he did it on purpose.  He was  just trying to protect your or the company from liability. 

Take care
Emmi

[itiswhatitisn't]

He should have brought it up in private.  On the other hand, he cares.  I ran out of respirator masks that fit me and someone questioned why I refused to work on the experiment anymore.  Maybe because it was a teratogen and a carcinogen?!?!  And while I'm not pregnant I don't want cancer.  No consideration given whatsoever to my health.  At least your boss cares.

[Linley]

Maybe I'm just very sensitive about these kinds of issues, but I think the boss was way out of line. I would be furious if I was in OP's situation. I am in two male dominated fields (political and military history and international relations) and I hear the comments all the time about whether or not women can do IR properly and how I should just toddle off and write about marriage customs of the sixteenth century or some other female appropriate topic and leave the big, bad wars to men. We are all grown ups here, it is our right and our responsibility to choose what we do and to understand the risks and consequences of those decisions. I could see a private mention from the boss to the OP about the particular extra implications this chemical may have for her, but the way it was done was not acceptable. And it only perpetuates the idea that it is okay to comment on areas of the OP's life that are private or to belittle or talk down to her because of her gender. The fact that the boss is caring and concerned should not obfuscate the fact that it is patronizing to express concern about the OP because she is a poor, weak, little woman. This post really pushed my buttons.

[DottyG]

express concern about the OP because she is a poor, weak, little woman.

Yikes.  I missed that part in the OP.  I saw where she said that he said "'women of childbearing age shouldn't be exposed to [solvent]'" (which is, more than likely, very true) but, I'm not seeing his "poor, weak, little woman" comment.  Help me out here and point me to that phrase.

[ShadesOfGrey]

wow, this post has really elicited a plethora of responses. 

I think we all know know you dont have to say something directly to imply it, and I think many posters are even in agreement that the boss may not have meant any harm.  But, he was definitely inappropriate to mention it in the way that he did - any competent HR person will tell you that.  Whichever way you look at it, at least the OP has lots of options for what to do next...