Nobel Prize-Winning Scientist Criticizes Role of Women In Labs

An anonymous reader writes: Tim Hunt is an English biochemist most notable for winning the 2001 Nobel prize in physiology or medicine. Today he's become notable for something else entirely — at the World Conference of Science Journalists, Hunt suggested science labs should be segregated by gender. He said, "Let me tell you about my trouble with girls three things happen when they are in the lab You fall in love with them, they fall in love with you and when you criticize them, they cry." As you might expect, this set off a firestorm of criticism. Many asked Hunt to treat women in labs with the same respect he is afforded, and others held it up as an explicit example of the sexism that pervades the scientific community. Hunt later issued an apology, saying, "I'm very sorry that what I thought were light hearted ironic remarks were taken so seriously, and I'm very sorry if people took offence. I certainly did not mean to demean women, but rather be honest about my own shortcomings."

Comments

I knew it!

[DoofusOfDeath]

Today is Friday! Thanks, Dice!

Re:I knew it!

[ckatko]

I for one, support our new Dice overlords being hanged.

Re:I knew it!

[__aaclcg7560]

Need to roll a 20-sided dice for that one.

Re:I knew it!

[Moses48]

Can someone explain this comment to me?
Thanks

Re:I knew it!

[xxxJonBoyxxx]

>>>> Today is Friday! Thanks, Dice!
>> someone explain this comment to me

Web traffic generally falls on Friday, so the theory is that Dice waits to throw a troll-worthy article, often about perceived sexism/racism, up on SlashDot on a Friday morning to keep the advertisers happy.

Re:I knew it!

[Anonymous Coward]

(Posting anonymously so that I don't get demoted off-topic) Thank you for that I actually didn't know and I don't have mod points to rate you as informative.

Re:I knew it!

[serviscope_minor]

Plus, Friday afternoon at the office is a really good time for really getting stuck into a pointless flame war. That, or after returning home drunk.

I like the "flamefest Fridays". They're fun.

Re:I knew it!

[Anonymous Coward]

Careful, you may get a subpoena from the government for inciting violence against a Federal Judge.....

Re:I knew it!

[Anonymous Coward]

Dice has decided that Slashdot should join the "War on Sexism", and we've been getting more and more of these gender and identity politics stories. It's putting me off the site. Off the internet as a whole really.

I remember when geeks discussion sites were cool and interesting. Now they're saturated with clickbait, politics, culture wars, iOS interfaces and SJWs. The internet sucks now. They've turned it on us.

Re:I knew it!

[Anonymous Coward]

'they'... ...those damn 'feeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeemales' and their corporate shills!

Re:I knew it!

[Anonymous Coward]

You won't be missed. Don't let the door hit you on the way out!

Re:I knew it!

[operagost]

I'll make sure it's all 20s. CRITICAL HIT

Re:I knew it!

[Stargoat]

Huh. I thought Hot Topic owned us. What's Dice?

Re:I knew it!

[ITRambo]

Dice Holdings, Inc. is now renamed DHI. They own /.

Re:I knew it!

[Stargoat]

Do they? Seems like owning this place would be a bit of a gamble.

Re: I knew it!

[Anonymous Coward]

He's not really alone. Despite claiming to want to stop hate and prejudice, SJWs are some of the most hateful and prejudiced people on the internet. Look at the forums they populate and what happens when someone questions anything they say. Its like watching a pack of rabid wolves attack someone.

TLDR: Assholes aren't fun to be around, regardless of what they're assholes about.

Nobel prizes are for luddites.

[Anonymous Coward]

App appers win App Apps, not luddite prizes!

Apps!

FFS

[koan]

More identity politics and manufactured outrage, come on /, stop putting crap like this up.

Re:FFS

[Archangel Michael]

If you are offended by what he said, in the context of why he said it, it says more about ridiculous you are, than he is. Political Correctness is a disease, not the cure for what ails us.

Re:FFS

[serviscope_minor]

What you have said sounds profound but isn't at all.

Am I offended? Nope. I'm too jaded, thick skinned and argumentative to be that easily offended. Do I think it's an idiotic thing to say? Yep.

But if I was offended by idiotic things people say on the internet, I'd be in a permanent state of offendedness and that's not very fun.

Also just because politically correct[*] has turned into a disease, doesn't mean that people being idiots is not a disease.

[*] Politically correct started off as the name describes. Things you couldn't say without inviting political fallout, whether party politics or jockeying politics in some other organisation. Things like "women belong in the kitchen" etc. Of course, people being idiots, people mutated it into all sorts of stupid things.

Re:FFS

[ArmoredDragon]

Am I offended? Nope. I'm too jaded, thick skinned and argumentative to be that easily offended. Do I think it's an idiotic thing to say? Yep.

Why is it idiotic? It's just dark humor at the worst. Check this joke out that I heard from a black guy:

What do you call some old black men in a garden shed? Antique farm equipment.

He also tells me that only white people are offended by the N word.

Some people honestly just don't give a shit about race politics, even when they're the victim.

Re:FFS

[koan]

He also tells me that only white people are offended by the N word.

Then your "black friend" is stupid, the reason the word is offensive to everyone it's because that's what was said right before your neighbors hanged you, or right before they beat and whipped your mother in front of you.

It's the hate embodied in that word, and anyone that knows the history of it should be offended it gets used.

Re:FFS

[koan]

If you are offended by what he said, in the context of why he said it, it says more about ridiculous you are, than he is. Political Correctness is a disease, not the cure for what ails us.

Do you have a reading comprehension problem, or were you just in a hurry to express your "outrage".

Notice then, there is no question mark attached to my reply.

Re: FFS

[Anonymous Coward]

Pretty sure he was taking a piss. Go call 10 black men niggers and get back to us.

Re:FFS

[AmiMoJo]

For context, he was invited to talk at a convention on women in science and journalism. In South Korea, where many of the delegates wouldn't be speaking English as their first language. At best, it was a very poorly judged joke. It's actually pretty insulting to men as well, as if we can't be around women without falling in love with them.

Saying it is a joke after the fact isn't a get-out-of-jail-free card for saying something retarded like this. It's not political correctness, it's calling out obvious bullshit.

Re:FFS

[serviscope_minor]

Why is it idiotic? It's just dark humor at the worst.

So it being really bad dark humour (if it is) isn't idiotic? I'd say making ill advised jokes is idiotic.

Check this joke out that I heard

You may have noticed that when a group makes a joke about itself it is generally taken very differently from an outside group making a joke about the group. You may wish to consider why.

Re:FFS

[Archangel Michael]

So, you have no point other than asking a question that isn't a question. Got it.

FYI, I read the whole article, and what he said, in FULL context wasn't offensive at all. It was admission of his own weaknesses towards women and how that doesn't fit Science Labs.

To be honest, is to be commended. Yet, he is being bullied by people only reading the headline from someone "offended" at his admission. He didn't say anything about women NOT being in a science lab, only that science would be better off without the male/female interactions. And he might not be wrong.

I am not offended by people being offended at such. I simply shake my head at the outrage held by some, who ignore even more outrageous comments by people they tend to "like".

Re:FFS

[Archangel Michael]

If the word is so offensive, then why do all the Rap chanters use it in their lyrics? Either it is offensive, or it isn't, you can't have it both ways. If it is "hate" embodied in the word, then the last people to use it should be black people.

My contention is that black people using the word does embody "hate" but it is the worst kind, self hated. I personally think it is deeming to use that word, and skin color of those using it doesn't matter.

Re:FFS

[Archangel Michael]

Saying it is a joke after the fact isn't a get-out-of-jail-free card for saying something retarded like this.

It sure works for Politicians all the time. I didn't see any left wing people complaining about Gruber's comments about "American People are Stupid", which is actually more offensive .

Re:FFS

[Anonymous Coward]

It's actually pretty insulting to men as well, as if we can't be around women without falling in love with them.

Since when is the truth insulting? Not every man will fall in love with every woman. Not every man will fall in love with any woman. But when you put a number of men in daily proximity and contact with a number of women, some men are going to fall in love with some women and there are going to be issues. ("Fall in love with...", of course, actually covers a huge range of responses including "...wants to get into the pants of ...")

Re:FFS

[Anonymous Coward]

Political correctness as a term is an invention of bullies to complain whenever someone says that their conduct is inappropriate or hurtful. Well, that, and the occasional hackjob comedian who thinks it's still cool and edgy to complain about it. There was some things in academic gender studies related to this, but this was moreso replacing terms like "congressman" with "congressperson". I.e. not treating "man" as the default gender and adjusting language usage to match. Nothing near the horrible conspiracy to rub out detestable and offensive words from the English language that people make it out to be whenever they are called out for being assholes.

CAPTCHA: matured

Re: FFS

[Anonymous Coward]

"Rap chanters"? Oh dude, you really, really need to get out more. Go interact with some black folks maybe, it's not as scary as you may think.

Re:FFS

[Anonymous Coward]

We CAN have it both ways between 'offensive' and 'not offensive'. In fact, that's the default - it's very rare to find a single word that's universally detested or universally unoffensive. Usually it's in-between. For example, there's been attempts at reclaiming the word, which is why you hear it in rap lyrics sometimes. You still have racist assholes who use the word as it was originally intended, and 'ironic' racists that are 14 and heard this magic word from 4chan's politics board that makes people on the Internet angry. Meanwhile, there's also been a push to reclaim these kinds of words, which is why you sometimes hear it used in friendly conversation and song lyrics. Many of those people would still probably yell at random strangers using the exact same word. There's also people of the same race who absolutely detest the word and wish the people trying to reclaim it would stop trying something so damn futile. It's context sensitive.

tl;dr black people think differently from one another, context matters sometimes

Re:FFS

[Karmashock]

They can't help it. Its what people care about it. Its the gossip column of science and tech.

Look at the Poe trial in the Valley. It is a thing.

Academia and tech are being accused of hating women because "reasons"... and it isn't going to stop until either women hold literally every position in every high status position... or the accusation starts being taken as a joke which is responded to with derision.

There's no other way out of the identity politics decision tree.

If the accusation means anything to you, it will loop endlessly.

The only way out... is to stop the loop. You say "prove it"... no off color jokes as evidence... no correlative data... evidence of discrimination or GTFO.

Re:FFS

[lgw]

Then your "black friend" is stupid, the reason the word is offensive to everyone it's because that's what was said right before your neighbors hanged you, or right before they beat and whipped your mother in front of you.

It's the hate embodied in that word, and anyone that knows the history of it should be offended it gets used.

It's also the word everyone said all the time in much of the South, the verbal equivalent of "black person" today, in a culture where that was just the word people used, for generations.

But it's mostly SJWs who are outraged today. To give you an idea of the changing times, there's a current "scandal" (or at least wave of people being offended) in the rap community about white rappers using the N-word. But not because anyone was offended at the word - that's not even mentioned - but because it has become a term that shows you're part of the black community, and (some) black rappers are offended at the "cultural appropriation", to use the SJW term. In other words, they're offended that the white rappers are trying to be part of a community where some feel they don't belong.

Re:FFS

[Zak3056]

For example, there's been attempts at reclaiming the word, which is why you hear it in rap lyrics sometimes.
[...]
Meanwhile, there's also been a push to reclaim these kinds of words, which is why you sometimes hear it used in friendly conversation and song lyrics.

How the hell do you reclaim that particular word, and what kind of use would the reclaimed word be put to? My helicopter might go "wop wop wop," there might be a "chink in my armor," and when my wife throws a cup of ice water at me, I might end up with a "wet back" but I sure as hell cannot conceive of a non-insulting everyday use of "nigger." Also, your suggestion that, say, hip hop artists are using that particular word in an attempt to mainstream it (again, to what purpose?) is just absurd and smacks of grasping at any straw imaginable to justify your position that it's ok for some people to use it, but not okay for others.

The word in question belongs in the dustbin of history. People who get bent out of shape when they hear it should probably put pressure on their own communities, because other than a few backwoods idiots running around in sheets, the only thing keeping that word alive is popular culture which originates from the very people who should be most offended by its use.

Re:FFS

[shaitand]

It's also what they said before tending your wounds, telling you to get some shade, or providing a cool drink.

Today we always depict the word being used with a sneer and negative tone accompanied by a whip. That doesn't make it the reality of the time. For realistic picture imagine more the general indifference with which one says "waiter" which the periodic shift to positive or negative tone in positive or negative context.

Re:FFS

[Anonymous Coward]

For context, he was invited to talk at a convention on women in science and journalism

In other words, it's highly likely he did mean it as a joke and not just to cover his ass. You'd have to be very brave or very stupid to seriously mean offense when the target of that offense is the very group you're talking to.

Why won't you just LISTEN and BELIEVE?

In South Korea, where many of the delegates wouldn't be speaking English as their first language.

How prejudiced of you. Just because English isn't a person's first language doesn't mean they don't understand. It's a convention on women in science and journalism, not exactly a field for the linguistically impaired.

Then again, the one who made an issue and tweeted about this is Connie St Louis, who "directs the science journalism program at City University, London". So maybe some people might not have a firm grasp of English. And it's their lack of understanding that they blew this whole thing out of proportion.

Re: FFS

[Anonymous Coward]

This is racist too. You're implying that 10 black men have so little self control that upon hearing the word will do something to you.

Re:FFS

[shaitand]

"My contention is that black people using the word does embody "hate" but it is the worst kind, self hated."

I think it embodies hatred of those who aren't black. People alive today were neither the abused nor the abusers and the beef is not legitimate. I'd put them on equal footing with a range of attitudes ranging from the deep south in the 70's to the KKK.

Re: FFS

[oobayly]

That's a bit unfair - Hans only took over Nakatomi Plaza, I didn't remember him calling Americans stupid.

Re:FFS

[koan]

It's also what they said before tending your wounds, telling you to get some shade, or providing a cool drink.

You mean while blacks were slaves of course...

Re: FFS

[Anonymous Coward]

Like telling someone to fuck off after they've insulted you? Yeah, wow, what animals...

Re:FFS

[koan]

You mean Pao?

Her case was not a very good one for the neo-feminist to tie their wagon to.
I agree with you though, ultra high personal sensitivity is the disruptor of the day.

Here's a great read on the manufactured outrage and identity politics of the day.
http://www.vox.com/2015/6/3/87...

Re:FFS

[koan]

Either it is offensive, or it isn't, you can't have it both ways.

Since being offended is subjective you can have it both ways.

Re:FFS

[AmiMoJo]

If I say "I'm an idiot", it's not offensive to me. If someone calls me an idiot, I'll probably be upset. Context and the identity of the speaker matter.

When black people say nigger they are often using it to reclaim the word and neutralise it, or because it has become part of the culture in a non racist sense. It's usually not self hatred.

Re:FFS

[koan]

So, you have no point other than asking a question that isn't a question. Got it.

My point is you're stupid, you read what I wrote and got it wrong.
That and you quote "Agent K" from some 3rd rate scifi flick...

Re: FFS

[oobayly]

It's not very prejudiced - there's a huge difference between being fluent in a language and understanding the nuances & subtleties of humour. Most Germans I know have excellent English yet really struggle with my sense of humour (to be honest, so do a lot of people).

A lot of people will mentally translate what they hear into their native tongue which can cause you to miss things. For example the Scottish drink Irn Bru had a slogan "it's got girders in it" - which (according to my uncle who worked on the industry, drinks, not steel) completely confused Germans at an event.

Granted, that's a homophone, rather than the simple humour in this case.

Re:FFS

[koan]

I'm really outraged no one said anything about "/,".

Re:FFS

[PopeRatzo]

For context, he was invited to talk at a convention on women in science and journalism.

Then you would think he'd have sense enough not to refer to females in his lab as "girls". But to be fair, he might be one of those old guys who refers to the 50 year-old black cab driver as a "boy".

Re: FFS

[PopeRatzo]

Granted, that's a homophone

Don't bring sexual orientation into this discussion.

Re:FFS

[PopeRatzo]

only that science would be better off without the male/female interactions

Without male/female interactions, we'd soon run out of scientists.

Re:FFS

[ArmoredDragon]

Why is it idiotic? It's just dark humor at the worst.

So it being really bad dark humour (if it is) isn't idiotic? I'd say making ill advised jokes is idiotic.

Check this joke out that I heard

You may have noticed that when a group makes a joke about itself it is generally taken very differently from an outside group making a joke about the group. You may wish to consider why.

Have you ever seen the movie "The Dark Knight"? Most people who saw it loved the character of the Joker. He actually does make most people laugh. Essentially what you're saying is that they're all idiots, and you're also not only wrong, but yourself a prude for actually thinking so. It was a brilliantly written character in a brilliantly written movie, and only a very non-idiot can make very demented actions seem funny.

Anyways go ahead and reply with another prudish SJW rant.

Re:FFS

[TsuruchiBrian]

I agree that the word nigger has a "non racist use", but the idea that this particular use can only be used by black people is racist.

A white person may want to say nigger to help reclaim the word as something that can be said in a non-racist way, but if that person is not allowed to do this because of the color of his/her skin, that is racist.

I'm not saying you can't get pissed at a white person for saying nigger. It's a free country. All I am saying is that if the *only* reason you have (e.g. not socioeconomic class, culture, or style of dress, or you know the person is racist, etc) for deciding whether saying a word is acceptable or not is based on the skin color of the person saying it, the that's racism.

Re: FFS

[Anonymous Coward]

Now you know as well as I do that the implication was that he'd get the hell beat out of him.

Re:FFS

[TsuruchiBrian]

An individual man can be around an individual women without falling in love with them. I don't think "men" can be around "women" without falling in love with them. For that matter I don't think people can be around other people without occasionally falling in love with them.

I think this should be more offensive to the LGBT community than to women, as it assumes a heterosexual worldview.

I guess he did also suggest women can't be criticized without crying.

Re:FFS

[Karmashock]

As to poe vs pao, thanks for the correction.

yeah but they did it to themselves... didn't they? I mean a lot of this stuff comes out of feminist academia.

Sit there making gasoline and then accidentally burn their house down with it.

Look, if people want me to care, then you have to show you care about other people besides yourself. If you're one of those people that only recognizes something as an issue when it burns your house down... and you totally ignored that it burned everyone else's house down ages before it got to you, then you know what... I don't care about that person. I especially don't care when that person sitting there making gasoline made the fuel that hurt a lot of other people. I care about the issue. But I'm not wasting sympathy and empathy on people that had neither for anyone else.

This is one of the ways you can tell something has gone toxic... when they start turning on their own. The fire needs to be fed. And if they can't feed enough heretics into it, then they'll just grab anyone. The fire can't go out. It will feed.

Re: FFS

[Anonymous Coward]

Yep, that's exactly it. It's not you projecting in the least. Grow up.

Re:FFS

[Anonymous Coward]

In other words, they're offended that the white rappers are trying to be part of a community where some feel they don't belong.

That sounds suspiciously like discrimination.

Re:FFS

[tylikcat]

"Then your "black friend" is stupid..."

Or, to state the obvious, he's not your friend.

Re:FFS

[Anonymous Coward]

He also tells me that only white people are offended by the N word.

Oh good. Will you prove the veracity of this claim by walking through an inner-city slum shouting "Here, nigger-nigger-nigger!" at the top of your lungs?

Your alleged "black friend" is probably trying to get you killed. Given the profoundly retarded mindset your post seems to come from, I can see why he would do that, and I support his efforts.

Re:FFS

[ShanghaiBill]

If the word is so offensive, then why do all the Rap chanters use it in their lyrics?

Because they are intentionally trying to be offensive.

Either it is offensive, or it isn't, you can't have it both ways.

Yes you can. A word, or phrase, can be offensive in some contexts, and not in others. It can be offensive to some people, and not to others.

Re: FFS

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not very prejudiced - there's a huge difference between being fluent in a language and understanding the nuances & subtleties of humour

Fluency isn't the variable. The variable is English not being the first language. And just because a language isn't your first language doesn't mean you can't have enough understanding of it to understand those nuances and subtleties.

And as said, this was a convention on women in journalism and science. Not exactly a place for dumb people.

It might be wishful thinking on my part, but I would think that scientifically minded people are to be a bit more opened minded. When something could either be interpreted as offensive, or not offensive, how about we be open minded and choose the latter first?

Re:FFS

[operagost]

Then your "black friend" is stupid, the reason the word is offensive to everyone it's because that's what was said right before your neighbors hanged you, or right before they beat and whipped your mother in front of you.

Oh. I guess if that never happened to you, then it shouldn't bother you.

Re:FFS

[shaitand]

And long after. It was a generic term for a "black person" with the same neutral connotation that "black person" carries today. Later it shifted to "colored" or "spade." Changing the label changes nothing, the negative connotation wasn't the word. Any of those terms used as a slur found actually being black negative and whatever the word was for that would be a slur passing their lips while not being such when spoken by someone who felt otherwise.

For the sexist male, "woman" can be a slur. Saying woman is offensive because of that and saying you must now say "female" would only make "female" a slur to those people.

Re:FFS

[shaitand]

Apologies for the mangling.

*the negative connotation wasn't in the word. Any of those using the terms as a slur actually found being black negative

Re:FFS

[Archangel Michael]

Words are words, neither bad nor good. Intentions are good or bad, not the words. But that doesn't help those that can't tell intentions by their use or who only see things in monochrome (Irony here if you look for it).

Re:FFS

[serviscope_minor]

Have you ever seen the movie "The Dark Knight"?

Holy non sequiteur, Batman!

He actually does make most people laugh.

Well, I guess the dark humour was well done, not badly done then. And therefore not ill advised. And gee, I wonder if a summer blockbuster has different social conventions to a conference. Nah that can't be it.

SJW

Aaah, well this explains the root of your problem: you're a complete and utter idiot.

Re:FFS

[Archangel Michael]

If you can have it both ways, then why are certain people offended at its use, while simultaneously using it themselves? I think that is a tad hypocritical.

Re:FFS

[Archangel Michael]

My wife calls me an idiot all the time. It is and isn't offensive based on the context. It isn't the person using the word, it is the context.

Case in point, Dog the Bounty Hunter used the word, and I believe he is not racist, and got castigated for it. He used it because it is the culture he deals with uses it ... a lot. But none of that matters to the monochrome viewpoints of certain groups.

Re:FFS

[Archangel Michael]

Irony, in a nutshell

Re:FFS

[Archangel Michael]

Words have shifting connotations all the time. Retard(ed) used to be an acceptable word (Meaning slowed down) It is still used in that context, for Fire Protection and describing engine performance. But someone got offended when it was ascribed to people and the meaning shifted over time.

The term "special" has taken its place, and over time, using the word "special" has started to shift over time, to the point where calling someone "special" can be offensive.

The problem isn't the words themselves, it is always the intentions behind them. Why people can't apply that view to other words is just "special"

Re:FFS

[koan]

Why do you keep redirecting the conversation?

Re:FFS

[Archangel Michael]

I'm stupid because you can't make an intelligent point. Got it. Hope calling people names makes you feel good, because quite frankly, I don't give a shit what you think of me.

Re:FFS

[Archangel Michael]

I see a porn movie plot somewhere in here :-D

Re: FFS

[Anonymous Coward]

Because he's an idiot incapable of holding a conversation in good faith. It's really best to ignore him.

Re:FFS

[noshellswill]

Oh boooo ... oh whoooo.... ya useless pussy-whipped faggot. Bantu bangerBroz and baby-momaz have long corrupted  our white N. American paradise so that N-XXX-slam  is justly a technical term of derision.

Send 'em back to Tongaland ( simultaneously driving narco.MEX wettbakkks into the sea ) and all will be well. Sort of -- then we start picking-off drooling lib.com whiners and globalist biz-Nazis.

Re:FFS

[AmiMoJo]

A white person may want to say nigger to help reclaim the word as something that can be said in a non-racist way, but if that person is not allowed to do this because of the color of his/her skin, that is racist.

Agreed. Eminiem uses that word, for example. In context, in the culture he is from, it's acceptable. It's all about context.

Re:FFS

[mark-t]

If you are offended by what he said, in the context of why he said it, it says more about ridiculous you are, than he is. Political Correctness is a disease, not the cure for what ails us.

I'm offended by what he said, in the context of why he said it, because even though he explicitly states that it is only in his own experience...

, "Let me tell you about my trouble with girls three things happen when they are in the lab You fall in love with them, they fall in love with you and when you criticize them, they cry."

... he presents such anecdotal evidence as if it were a generalization of reality.

And this is somebody that the world sees as a scientist?

Our planet is doomed.

Re: FFS

[Anonymous Coward]

Granted, that's a homophone

Don't bring sexual orientation into this discussion.

That's homosexual. We both know that of course. A better joke is "What's a gay phone have to do with it?" or, for the advanced crowd "What's an iPhone got to do with it?"

Re: FFS

[Anonymous Coward]

I missed when we started judging scientists by political correctness of their comments

Re:FFS

[Anonymous Coward]

You're a retarded nigger.

Re:FFS

[Dutch Gun]

I'd rather reclaim "niggardly", as too many ignorant people believe it has racist overtones. If you use the word in your job, you're actually in danger of being reprimanded or even fired. As a result, I predict the word will probably die out due to fear / self-preservation.

Re:FFS

[publiclurker]

It's only offensive if you see yourself as part of the obviously stupid side of America

Re:FFS

[Anonymous Coward]

> But if I was offended by idiotic things people say on the internet, I'd be in a permanent state of offendedness and that's not very fun.

This accurately describes the behavior of a sizeable group of people online...

Re: FFS

[mark-t]

My offense is not at the political incorrectness of his statements, it is at his gross abuse of his position as a recognized scientist to make what he appears to present as objective claims about reality, specifically that what are by his own admission his own personal experiences should somehow be a taken as a reflection of a universal scientific truth. It's called anecdotal evidence, and is not anything even remotely resembling a basis for making scientifically valid conclusions.

Re:FFS

[Shadow of Eternity]

You mean like "ironic misandry"?

Re:FFS

[ArmoredDragon]

I wonder if a summer blockbuster has different social conventions to a conference. Nah that can't be it.

So jokes that might offend somebody are only allowed to come in the form of a summer blockbuster? Hollywood would be proud.

Re:FFS

[Anonymous Coward]

Have you ever seen the movie "The Dark Knight"? Most people who saw it loved the character of the Joker. He actually does make most people laugh. Essentially what you're saying is that they're all idiots, and you're also not only wrong, but yourself a prude for actually thinking so. It was a brilliantly written character in a brilliantly written movie, and only a very non-idiot can make very demented actions seem funny.

Anyways go ahead and reply with another prudish SJW rant.

I think you lost the plot here quite a bit, sonny

Re:FFS

[AmiMoJo]

He has since clarified his position: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-3...

In short he thinks men and women working together is a problem. Not sexist by itself, but the fact that he followed that up by suggesting that women will end up crying when you criticise them suggests that it is probably derived from some sexist notion that women are unable to work with men without using the feminine wiles like it's a 1960s Star Trek episode.

Re:FFS

[serviscope_minor]

So jokes that might offend somebody are only allowed to come in the form of a summer blockbuster?

That would be really stupid. Good job I didn't say that.

Re:FFS

[cyn1c77]

If you are offended by what he said, in the context of why he said it, it says more about ridiculous you are, than he is. Political Correctness is a disease, not the cure for what ails us.

Political correctness is definitely a disease, but so sexism.

As a young(er) male researcher, I am offended by what he said. There are way to many old sexist assholes in science, who need to be pushed out. (This particular individual also needs to learn how to trim his nose hair... my god!) What is amusing is that he is actually married to a fellow scientist.

As an aside, I've made two people cry in my career due to giving overly critical feedback, and both were middle-aged men.

Re:FFS

[thegarbz]

The word in question belongs in the dustbin of history

While it may be offensive (at present), no word should ever be completely discarded in the "dustbin of history". By the way how big is your dustbin? The derogatory use of the word "nigger" has been in general use for only about half a century. That's quite tame for a word that is several hundred years old and based on a latin word for the colour black spelt "niger". I'm willing to bet the use of the world will dramatically change before you or I pass on and I fully expect my children to one day assign quite different meaning to it.

I hope you have a gay afternoon.

Re:FFS

[dcw3]

Really? It must have been before my time, and I'm in my late 50s.

Re:FFS

[DarenN]

And this is somebody that the world sees as a scientist?

Yeah, I mean, being awarded the Nobel Prize in Medicine, being made a Fellow of the Royal Society and the National Academy of Sciences, as well as being awarded a Royal Medal and knighted for his contributions to the field of medicine doesn't make you a scientist at all. So some (poorly judged) comments meant to poke fun at himself (you DID know that he married a female colleage from his lab, right? She divorced her husband to marry him) should totally negate all that.

Re:FFS

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not that hard a concept to grasp. You are changing the meaning of the word by robbing it of it's power to offend. If you change "nigger", or "faggot", or "gook", or what have you, into a casual greeting or display of affection, then if ceases to be offensive. People aren't calling you names, they are greeting you.

"So what? People use the term offensively when they mean to offend."

This is true, but only because some people believe words should be off limits.

Re:FFS

[Archangel Michael]

I have never seen a man cry at work*. Ever. I have seen women cry at work. Several times. Is that observation sexist? And am I alone in my experiences?

* short of getting kicked in the nuts.

Re:FFS

[russotto]

I've seen a man cry at work exactly once. He was the CEO and founder, and he'd just been unable to get sufficient funding and had to lay off half the company. I've seen three women cry at work due to work stuff, so still pretty unusual.

Re:FFS

[Zak3056]

It's not that hard a concept to grasp. You are changing the meaning of the word by robbing it of it's power to offend. If you change "nigger", or "faggot", or "gook", or what have you, into a casual greeting or display of affection, then if ceases to be offensive. People aren't calling you names, they are greeting you.

Except that as long as a white dude who says, "what's up my niggahz!" is seen as an insensitive, racist asshole, you're actually NOT doing the above. If you want to dilute the word to where it has no power, I think that's great, and wish all involved the best of success. If you want to ensure you can still use that word as a weapon against someone of the wrong color who says it, then I begin to wonder about your motives, and who the real racist is.

Re: FFS

[Anonymous Coward]

And "culture" according to you. So, this is culturism. I would argue that race is no longer the big divider, but rather, culture is the divide now. You have rich cultures. You have poor cultures. You have gang cultures. You have nerd cultures. Etc.... We are living in a world irreparably fractured by culture.

Re:FFS

[david_thornley]

The middle-aged women I hang out with tend to refer to themselves as "girls" informally, and the use of "girl" to refer to a woman not actually old was very common during part of my lifetime.

Re:FFS

[mark-t]

You're the second person who's responded to my comment without actually reading what I said. I'm honestly not sure why, because I tried to be very explicit about the point I was making.

Allow me to reiterate:

I'm offended by what he said, in the context of why he said it, because even though he explicitly states that it is only in his own experience... he presents such anecdotal evidence as if it were a generalization of reality.

In other words, the political correctness or incorrectness of his statement is wholly irrellevant. What the real problem is that somebody that is supposedly a recognized scientist is trying to pass off anecdotal evidence as if it were a reflection of a universal truth. He draws what is actually an invalid conclusion because his sample data set is biased, and any scientist worthy to be called such would realize that.

It's perfectly fine to say that something your experiences have been a certain way... what is invalid is to assume that your own experiences are necessarily going to be true for everyone else, particularly when there's no shortage of people who are prepared to say that such experiences are not shared by everyone.

The things that he claims about happening in a lab with mixed genders only even have the smallest chance of happening if the people who were working in the lab are utterly incapable of conducting themselves maturely and professionally, and such behavior, while possibly not uncommon, should be viewed as the exception among professionals in any real-world industry, and not the rule.

Re:FFS

[PopeRatzo]

The middle-aged women I hang out with tend to refer to themselves as "girls" informally, and the use of "girl" to refer to a woman not actually old was very common during part of my lifetime.

Do you understand the difference between "women I hang out with" and "women I work with"? Why something you do when you're chatting up a middle-aged bar maid with a gold tooth and prison tattoos might not be acceptable when you're in the lab with a woman who also worked her ass off to get that PhD and now just wants to accomplish something without being hit on by a 72 year-old bag of snacks? Can we stipulate the difference between "hanging out" and being in a professional environment among peers?

And I'll bet you're old enough to understand that the way someone refers to themselves when in the company of peers is not always the way they would want someone else to refer to them.

vis a vis, https://youtu.be/MSrTnWDTdwI

Re:FFS

[whitesea]

If you can have it both ways, then why are certain people offended at its use, while simultaneously using it themselves? I think that is a tad hypocritical.

That's easy.

If you say, "I am an idiot!", it's self-criticism and not offensive.

If I say, "Yes, you are an idiot", then you will probably be offended.

Hence, using words offensive to the group you belong to or criticizing a group you belong to is different that using the same words regarding a group you are not a member of.

Re: FFS

[shaitand]

Agreed. Your ability to agree with an unpopular contrary view in light of a reasoned and rational argument is a rare thing. Props to you sir.

Godwin this fucker ...

[Anonymous Coward]

OK, you assholes who want to complain about SJWs ... fuck the hell off, let's just Godwin this fucker now and you children can go back to playing with yourselves. Or each other. Or whatever the fuck it is you assholes do.

Re: Godwin this fucker ...

[Anonymous Coward]

Anita, plz.

Re:Godwin this fucker ...

[Anonymous Coward]

You know why this guy is a Nobel winner and you're not? He provided a hypothesis (that you're a cryin bitch) and then you went and provided him with a supporting data point. In other words you're a cryin bitch that validates his statement. Stereotypes exist for a reason.

One of James D's pals, no doubt

[Anonymous Coward]

The good news is if he runs into tough times, a Russian businessman will buy his Nobel at an auction and then give it back to him.

Re:One of James D's pals, no doubt

[Anonymous Coward]

The good news is if he runs into tough times, a Russian businessman will buy his Nobel at an auction and then give it back to him.

Or you show it to Putin and he take it and offer to make a replica Nobel to give back to you (not that he would *actually* give anything back to you)...
Gotta keep up with the Obamas you know, and Putin is short one Nobel medal...

OLD

[oldmac31310]

This is an old, old, old story. Consign to dustbin. Does anybody remember anything on /.? Apparently not.

Re:OLD

[Anonymous Coward]

This is an old, old, old story. Consign to dustbin. Does anybody remember anything on /.? Apparently not.

Link?

Trollbait

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, since he said he was trying to be light-hearted and he apologized, so, instead of the starting the flamewar they asked for, let's flame /. for obvious trolling.

Someone said something that they didn't think about, then, when confronted, apologized for being not well thought out NOT NEWS.

Re:Trollbait

[AmiMoJo]

Just because it was a joke doesn't mean it's okay. There are lots of jokes about, say, black people or Jews that people find offensive and aren't suitable for retelling at a conference about issues facing black people or Jews. They are offensive because they work to set those people back, by re-enforcing stereotypes and laughing at them.

Maybe the media has overreacted, but as this Slashdot debate shows there is still a clear need to talk about it because a lot of people seem to think it is okay, and a lot of people disagree, and there is conflict that needs to be resolved.

Re:Trollbait

[Anonymous Coward]

Shutup. When you criticize women, they tend to cry. This is a well know fact to every men. Science has a lot of criticizing around, it's just how science work. Add the two together and realise how a foll you are.

Women need to man the fuck up.

Re:Trollbait

[Anonymous Coward]

It was merely his mistake for thinking people shared his sense of humor. He's in his 70s, and it's no longer acceptable to publicly joke about things that could be considered offensive, even if you're a comedian by trade. It is no longer considered a joke in poor taste, warranting maybe uncomfortable silence, like it was back in his formative years when his sense of humor was being shaped. It now warrants a disproportionate public outcry, and a hunt to pick the joke's bones for anything that can be used to shame and/or dishonor the person who told it.

Re:Trollbait

[lgw]

If you can't find Blazing Saddles funny, it's you who is broken.

Recognizing that there are differences between men and women is not sexism; lack of equality of opportunity is. Pretending we're all the same is moral cowardice at best; equal opportunity to succeed differences and all is a laudable goal; enforced equal outcomes is simply evil.

They are offensive because they work to set those people back

Ah, the soft racism of lowered expectations. "X people can't overcome life's normal obstacles, so we all need to treat them special, since, you know, they need our help".

Re:Trollbait

[Anonymous Coward]

Look, if it upsets you that much, post your address and I'll be glad to mail you a hanky. A nice pink one to go with your politics.

Re:Trollbait

[AmiMoJo]

Blazing Saddles is hilarious. I don't see what that has to do with this though, or what thinking that men and women are the same does. Obviously I don't think that, as I have stated many times, so why bring it up? Are you saying he was right?

Also, I wasn't talking about lowering expectations. I was talking about hostility towards people or not hiring them because of stupid fears like these.

Re:Trollbait

[Anonymous Coward]

So... you're a woman?

Re:Trollbait

[PopeRatzo]

There are lots of jokes about, say, black people or Jews that people find offensive and aren't suitable for retelling at a conference about issues facing black people or Jews.

So, two MRAs walk into a bar. One of the MRAs shouts to the bartender, "Hey, Joe. Set 'em up for me and my pal here." Then he turns to his slightly dim partner and boasts, "This is a great bar. For every two drinks you buy, the house gives you one. And the pinball machines in the back are free!" "That's not so great, "responds the slightly dim second MRA, "There's a bar across town That'll match you drink for drink, and you can get laid in the back for free." "Where is this place?" the first MRA exclaims. "Oh, I don't know," the dim MRA replies, "but my wife goes there all the time."

Re:Trollbait

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh so revealing counter-post... basically it just shows you don't understand humor.

BTW, do you favor a system where if you go to a standup show you are given a questionnaire... if you tick off the kinds of humor you are not OK with, the bouncer will look at it to check if you are allowed in.

Re:Trollbait

[PopeRatzo]

If you can't find Blazing Saddles funny, it's you who is broken.

Unless you're the guy who likes to repeat all the jokes from Blazing Saddles during an address at a professional fucking conference.

You don't tell a racist joke in a professional setting any more than you'd crap on the floor in church. Although maybe crapping on the floor is not such a good example, since a professional racist has been known to do exactly that.

http://theconcourse.deadspin.c...

Re:Trollbait

[weilawei]

You seem awfully fixated on stereotypes which aren't actually important in any meaningful way. History review?

Baby books, new baby announcements and cards, gift lists and newspaper articles from the early 1900s indicate that pink was just as likely to be associated with
boy babies as with girl babies. For example, the June 1918 issue of the Infant's Department, a trade magazine for baby clothes manufacturers, said: "There has been a great diversity of opinion on this subject, but the generally accepted rule is pink for the boy and blue for the girl. The reason is that pink being a more decided and stronger color, is more suitable for the boy; while blue, which is more delicate and dainty is prettier for the girl."

Aaaand, from NPR:

Before Gatsby, a 1918 trade catalog for children's clothing recommended blue for girls. The reasoning at the time was that it's a "much more delicate and dainty tone," Finamore says. Pink was recommended for boys "because it's a stronger and more passionate color, and because it's actually derived from red."

To our 21st century ears, all this men in pink stuff may sound a bit blushy. "It's so deeply entrenched in us and our culture," says Finamore. "We think of pink as such a girlish color, but it's really a post-World War II phenomenon."

Re:Trollbait

[Anonymous Coward]

Nothing that you have said, or denied, has anything to do with your post or its reply. How you get modded up by spurring racism and sexism, calling them problems, and denying the whole thing later with acts akin to willed ignorance of your own language is a wonder.

Re:Trollbait

[lgw]

Sure, but he said nothing sexist. Had he been seriously proposing "separate but equal" labwork, sure, that's sexist, but he didn't do that. Had he been suggesting that women don't belong in science, sure, that's sexist, but he didn't do that.

It's fashionable (especially among millennials) to use words like "racism" and "sexism" a lot these days, but so many people saying them have no idea what those words mean. They would in all seriousness condemn Blazing Saddles as racist (and, come to think of it, sexist as well), because it "repeated stereotypes" and other such nonsense. Those words have become so overused they're nearly meaningless now, and only in that nearly-meaningless sense could you consider what he said "sexist".

Re:Trollbait

[PopeRatzo]

Sure, but he said nothing sexist.

Well, suggesting that "science" would be better off without those pesky women around is kind of sexist, in an overtly sexist sort of way.

Let's look at his statement:

"Let me tell you about my trouble with girls three things happen when they are in the lab You fall in love with them, they fall in love with you and when you criticize them, they cry."

If he had started the statement with, "Let me tell you about my trouble with Jews." Or, since he used the slightly degrading diminutive, "girls" to refer to adult women scientists, it's actually more like "Let me tell you about my trouble with the hebes."

Yeah, buddy. That there is what you call a sexist statement.

Re: Trollbait

[Anonymous Coward]

Why is girl offending while guy is not?

Re:Trollbait

[lgw]

suggesting that "science" would be better off without those pesky women around is kind of sexist

Oh? I never saw that quote. I rather suspect you're making that up, as SJWs so often do, but I certainly agree that would be a sexist thing to say.

Yeah, buddy. That there is what you call a sexist statement.

No, that there is what hypersensitive millennials who wouldn't know real descrimination if it bit them call "a sexist statement".

Re:Trollbait

[trout007]

I don't know. If someone reached into their pants to get their speech and said "Excuse me while I whip this out" I'd laugh pretty hard. Even more if it was a lady.

Re:Trollbait

[PopeRatzo]

Oh? I never saw that quote.

OK, we can do this again. Here is the quote:

"Let me tell you about my trouble with girls three things happen when they are in the lab You fall in love with them, they fall in love with you and when you criticize them, they cry."

Let me as you a question. This is a scientist, who claims that every single woman who has ever worked in the lab has either become an object of his love, has fallen in love with him, or has cried when they were criticized. Does that pass the smell test with you? How do you feel about a scientist who commits three logical fallacies in the course of a two-sentence statement to a professional organization?

Remember, this is a scientist, who one would assume is at least familiar with logical fallacies.

Re:Trollbait

[russotto]

"Let me tell you about my trouble with girls: three things happen when they are in the lab. You fall in love with them, they fall in love with you and when you criticize them, they cry."

Let me as you a question. This is a scientist, who claims that every single woman who has ever worked in the lab has either become an object of his love, has fallen in love with him, or has cried when they were criticized.

Reading comprehension fail.

Re:Trollbait

[lgw]

You're far better at taking offense than at reading comprehension. That sounds like a recipe for an unhappy life (unless you enjoy being offended, of course, which I suspect may be the case).

Re: Trollbait

[Anonymous Coward]

'girl' refers to, specifically, an immature woman - a female *child.*

'guy' is, specifically, a mature man - a male *adult*.

If your boss continually referred to you as a "nice boy," wouldn't you find that - at the very least - a little fucking weird?

Re:Trollbait

[Anonymous Coward]

Or maybe girls should stop crying at work.

If you've never seen this first hand, you've never worked with a woman.

Re:Trollbait

[PopeRatzo]

""Let me tell you about my trouble with girls three things happen when they are in the lab...

Not "three things can possibly happen" or "three things sometimes happen". No, it's "three things happen".

Tell my how you comprehend that statement. What is this highly-trained scientist actually saying? Maybe your superior reading comprehension allows you to read between the lines.

Re:Trollbait

[Shadow of Eternity]

And yet somehow there's none of this outrage over people who aren't joking when they say things like "die cis scum" or "kill all men" or "end father's day" or...

If you actually gave a single half-assed shit about the values you claim to have you'd be practically frothing at the mouth over scum like Bahar Mustafa far, far more than you do over stuff like this.

Re:Trollbait

[AmiMoJo]

You know the "end father's day" thing was manufactured by 4chan for lulz, right?

http://www.buzzfeed.com/ryanha...

Re:Trollbait

[Shadow of Eternity]

And feminists supported it wholeheartedly because they thought it was a good idea for real. You realise that your attempt at making an excuse actually makes you look worse right? It doesn't matter that the idea started out as 4chan trolling, it matters that feminists actually thought it was a good idea.

And frankly citing buzzfeed for anything is just a reminder that you honestly support a website whose top staff genuinely believes men are inferior beings.

Re:Trollbait

[Anonymous Coward]

Women need to man the fuck up.

Brilliant.

Re:Trollbait

[brantondaveperson]

That was 1918 - which to those who are counting - is almost a hundred years ago. Thus it's irrelevant to any discussion of the current sociological significance of particular colours.

And in any case, "pink politics" is supposed to mean semi-communist, isn't it? Or was that only in the 50's?

Re:Trollbait

[brantondaveperson]

Ok fine. But so what? What's the problem with crying at work exactly? It's not unheard of for guys either you know.

Or is it more that with girls it's weakness, and with men it's a sign of extra-ordinary pain and suffering? I've seen girls cry at work, but they were going through fairly serious emotional situations outside of work, and they're not robots, so what exactly is wrong with that?

Perhaps you're the one with the problem, if a display of emotion bothers you so.

Re:Trollbait

[Your.Master]

"MY issue is more important than YOUR issue".

Also, you're claiming that Bahar Mustafa wasn't joking when she said "kill all white men"? When she responded to media by saying they were, and I quote:

  “in-jokes and ways that many people in the queer feminist community express ourselves” sent from her “personal account”.

It is *at worst* the same as what this guy is doing.

"Die cis scum" -- you can't *possibly* take that seriously. http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/....

And End Father's Day? You know that was a 4chan hoax, right? Started from an account very subtly named "Straw Feminist"? http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/...

There's no way you can possibly believe that people aren't joking when they say "die cis scum". There's no way. The only thing there that is remotely believable as something that is actually supported in real life is "end father's day", since father's day is ultimately as meaningless as mother's day. But it was a hoax.

Re:Trollbait

[Your.Master]

You realise that your attempt at making an excuse actually makes you look worse right?

Bullshit.

It doesn't matter that the idea started out as 4chan trolling, it matters that feminists actually thought it was a good idea.

Bullshit. Total bullshit.

And frankly citing buzzfeed for anything is just a reminder that you honestly support a website whose top staff genuinely believes men are inferior beings.

Bulllllllllllshit. Citation needed. Also Association Fallacy.

Re:Trollbait

[Anonymous Coward]

There's no way you can possibly believe that people aren't joking when they say "die cis scum". There's no way.

Oh yes there's a way, the same way how people take offense to what this Noble guy said. I think GP is just self-demonstrating how stupid the people who are taking offense is.

There are women in the 3rd world who still can't go to school, forced to cover up from head to toe, and are threatened with violence and death if they don't obey. But no, "MY issue is more important than YOUR issue", some geezer of a scientist with little political power and has no direct affect on my personal life (other than indirectly BENEFITING me through the fruits of his research improving society) said something and it hurts my FEELINGS.

Re:Trollbait

[azcoyote]

Great info, thanks. I should point out, however, that your first source indicates that researchers are divided on exactly when the strict association of colors and genders became established in the USA. Some argue mid-20th c., others argue 19th c.

I think the evidence is at least clear enough to suggest that there is no intrinsic, biological basis to the gendered color norms, but I think it would be too much if someone were to claim that these norms are merely incidental and meaningless. What this shows is that at times humans feels the need to differentiate between things and to conform to norms that are perceived as pre-existent and absolute, and hence we tend toward absolutizing things such as colors in order to establish the very norms that some part of us wants to follow. Hence, for example, how can a man prove that he is masculine and powerful unless he supports some standard of masculinity according to which he can compete with other people? The basic principle, therefore, is competition. Just as one of the researchers argues that post-WW2 consumerism drove the color associations in order to market baby items better, it is competition with one another that establishes the norms of competition, because these norms serve to make people comparable with one another in order to mediate and drive competition. This is true for women as well as men; the character of women's fashion is driven much more by competition than by any natural, biological tendencies or concerns for personal comfort, etc.

Re:Trollbait

[dcw3]

"who claims that every single woman"

No, he didn't make that claim. It's a generalization. A stereotype. And, as with most stereotypes, there's a bit of truth to them, but nobody believes they apply 100%. Why is this not obvious to you???

Re:Trollbait

[PopeRatzo]

No, he didn't make that claim. It's a generalization. A stereotype. And, as with most stereotypes, there's a bit of truth to them, but nobody believes they apply 100%.

Alright, we can look at the quote again:

"Let me tell you about my trouble with girls three things happen when they are in the lab You fall in love with them, they fall in love with you and when you criticize them, they cry."

If, as you say, it's a generalization, a stereotype, then why are you comfortable with a highly-trained scientist making such generalizations, such stereotypes, in a speech to a professional conference?

Such sweeping generalizations are fallacious, as you admit. This Professor Hunt beclowned himself and showed himself to have very poor impulse control and was unprofessional on a large stage of peers. And if he didn't really mean what he said, then why has he gone on the record now as saying, "Yes, I meant that"? Here's his quote to the BBC when asked about it.

"I did mean the part about having trouble with girls. It is true that people - I have fallen in love with people in the lab and people in the lab have fallen in love with me and it's very disruptive to the science because it's terribly important that in a lab people are on a level playing field.

So, he's basically saying that women and men should be sequestered in the lab because he doesn't know how to act professionally. Yet somehow, science seems to have gotten done all over the world with women and men working together in labs for well over a century.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/....

Re:Trollbait

[russotto]

If, as you say, it's a generalization, a stereotype, then why are you comfortable with a highly-trained scientist making such generalizations, such stereotypes, in a speech to a professional conference?

Because most of us know the difference between informal after-dinner remarks relating personal experience in a not-entirely-serious way and the presentation of a formal paper.

Re:Trollbait

[Shadow of Eternity]

1. Bahar Mustafa is a blatant bigot who openly abuses her position to discriminate against people she dislikes while using identity politics as a shield. She's joking about as much as any other racist, sexist bigot is ever joking when they talk about how much they hate their chosen target.

2. Die Cis Scum is absolutely meant seriously and was started by a violent sociopath who repeatedly insisted they genuinely meant it as a threat of violence. Considering feminism's history of multiple shootings and near universal violent and/or criminal disruption of events feminists dislike (escalating up to credible bomb threats recently) the "its a joke" excuse is more of an insult than anything else.

3. Feminists publicly and earnestly supported endfathersday because they genuinely believed in it. How it was started has no bearing to the fact feminists genuinely supported it and thought it was a good idea. If anything you actually just made yourself look worse.

Re:Trollbait

[Shadow of Eternity]

citation given and it's not an association fallacy to point out someone whose entire shtick is attempting to claim the moral highground is backing people who are so bigoted it's no longer tripping over godwin's law to point out their beliefs are near identical to nazi ideology.

Re:Trollbait

[Anonymous Coward]

it's not an association fallacy

You have to understand, whether it's an association fallacy depends on which side you're on.

If you point to a single instance of bad feminist/woman behavior, it's "not all feminists/women are like that"

If you point to a single instance of an MRA, or GamerGater, or just a man behaving badly, it's rape culture, anybody who associates let alone defend them are tainted as well and become acceptable targets of ridicule.

Re:Trollbait

[Anonymous Coward]

He was talking about communism, idiot.

Re:Trollbait

[lgw]

That sentence means "these things tend to happen" in English as normal people speak it in conversation - "these things tend to happen to me", in context. He's 72, I'm sure all thee have in fact happened to him. (Women crying in the workplace when criticized certainly happens in other fields, co-workers working long hours becoming romantically entangled certainly happens in other fields - it's a recurring problem in the military). Just doesn't seem remotely controversial to me - those things of course happen from time to time. So what?

Re:Trollbait

[PopeRatzo]

That sentence means "these things tend to happen" in English as normal people speak

I admire your willingness to give herr doctor professor the benefit of the doubt, but one would think that a Nobel laureate would understand how to use precise language, especially when he's showing his ass to a conference of professionals. Maybe he's just getting a little dotty with age.

He's 72, I'm sure all thee have in fact happened to him.

If all of these things have happened to him, is it possible that Professor Hunt just isn't very professional? Or maybe his (now former) membership to the Royal Academy has made him feel that inappropriate behavior in the workplace is acceptable because he's just such a big swinging dick.

And by the way, I've seen grown men who have cried in the workplace and who have fallen in love with each other in the workplace. Is that a reason to keep men out of the workplace?

Just doesn't seem remotely controversial to me - those things of course happen from time to time. So what?

Exactly. So what, indeed. So scientists turn out to be human beings like the rest of us. So what? Do we really want to go down the road that fundamentalist Muslims and Jews have gone down and start segregating the sexes in the workplace? I will bet that you don't want to see that happen.

Because...so what? Does being human make us less good at science? Because we already know what happens when scientists become less human, and it's not pretty. And the solution that religious fundamentalists would suggest are every bit as bad in the long run.

Re:Trollbait

[PopeRatzo]

Because most of us know the difference between informal after-dinner remarks relating personal experience in a not-entirely-serious way and the presentation of a formal paper.

He wasn't making informal after-dinner remarks. He was speaking to a room full of high-ranking scientists and science journalists at a global conference.

http://time.com/3917390/scienc...

Re:Trollbait

[Anonymous Coward]

I admire your willingness to give herr doctor professor the benefit of the doubt, but one would think that a Nobel laureate would understand how to use precise language

Why would one think that? Nobel laureates don't get their Nobels or their ability to speak. At least not the one in the story. What if a Nobel laureate was mute, blind, and deaf?

especially when he's showing his ass to a conference of professionals.

It's precisely because he's showing in ass to a conference of professionals. One would think professionals are not so up tight they would freak out over a joke, even if it's one they didn't find funny. That they'd just let it slide.

But no, somebody flipped and made a big deal out of this and tweeted it to the world. That I would say is unprofessional behavior.

If all of these things have happened to him, is it possible that Professor Hunt just isn't very professional?

Not very likely, since there's no code in any profession I know of that that says you aren't a professional if you fell in love, had somebody fall in love with you, or if you made a somebody (not just a woman) cry.

Re:Trollbait

[david_thornley]

As a man, husband, and father, I'd get behind eliminating Father's Day. I don't like holidays that look like they were pushed through by the greeting card companies.

Re:Trollbait

[PopeRatzo]

Nobel laureates don't get their Nobels or their ability to speak.

They get their Nobels on their ability to think and apparently this knucklehead's thinking days are behind him if he believes that making this comment to a roomful of prestigious scientists and science journalists at a fucking professional conference is a good idea.

Anybody who has worked in academia (as I have) knows the type. Old fuckers who have had their ass kissed for so long that they think their every utterance is gold. They think their professional position now protects them from any criticism, and so if they want to feel up a co-worker, then by-god they will feel up a co-worker. It works for a while, until some department head or dean realizes that they haven't done anything new in a decade, so it's time to give the office space to someone who's not played out.

Then, it's only a matter of time until they're picked up for exposing themselves to school kids.

I never wanted to get like that, so I retired from academia on the day after my 50th birthday. Now I just expose myself to my wife and dog, and only the dog seems the least bit impressed.

Re:Trollbait

[lgw]

So what? Do we really want to go down the road that fundamentalist Muslims and Jews have gone down and start segregating the sexes in the workplace?

And of course he wasn't seriously suggesting that. But go on with your hate fest over nothing without me.

Re:Trollbait

[Anonymous Coward]

this knucklehead's thinking days are behind him if he believes that making this comment to a roomful of prestigious scientists and science journalists at a fucking professional conference is a good idea.

Again, what makes you think that? There's nothing about being a prestigious scientist or science journalist that demands you to be stuck up. If anything, being in such a position should make you more open minded and not freak out over a joke.

I say the people whose thinking days are behind them are people who are making a big deal out of this. One would think "prestigious scientists and science journalists" could understand the difference between a joke and genuine misogyny. And even if they didn't, they'd have enough class to handle it privately instead of dragging the Internet into this.

I mean come on, isn't that lady who tweeted it a prestigious professional herself? Why didn't she just confront the guy herself? Isn't that what conferences are for - for all these prestigious people to get to connect with one another? He was apparently answering a question, so why not, as part of the audience, throw her hand up and drill him on it? Being such a professional, I'm sure she could think some hard hitting questions. Might even humiliate and school him and speed up him changing his ways, if his thinking days are really behind him.

But nope, she went the same route 4/8channers or Zoe Quinn's ex-boyfriend did. Call in the Internet cavalry!

Re:Trollbait

[PopeRatzo]

If anything, being in such a position should make you more open minded and not freak out over a joke.

A "joke"?

Here's his statement, please explain the funny part to us:

"Let me tell you about my trouble with girls three things happen when they are in the lab You fall in love with them, they fall in love with you and when you criticize them, they cry."

Re:Trollbait

[haruchai]

"So scientists turn out to be human beings like the rest of us. So what?"

Human beings say things that are either inappropriate or misinterpreted all the time. So what?

Re:Trollbait

[haruchai]

In my 35 years in the workforce, I've NEVER heard or seen a man cry at the office. Didn't happen in high school either.
But for girls & women around me, for years it was at least a weekly thing.

Re:Trollbait

[PopeRatzo]

Human beings say things that are either inappropriate or misinterpreted all the time. So what?

And there are consequences.

So what?

Re:Trollbait

[haruchai]

Consequences to them being human like the rest of us?

Re:Trollbait

[PopeRatzo]

Consequences to them being human like the rest of us?

Consequences for acting out.

We're all human, but we don't all act out on every impulse. There are actually people who don't try to screw their co-workers. Who don't make asses of themselves at a professional conference in front of peers. Doesn't make them less human just because they happen to have developed some impulse control.

Re:Trollbait

[haruchai]

So someone who hasn't done something or even been accused of doing something should face serious consequences for saying something offhand outside the theater of work?

Actions have consequences and I agree with that but in the pussified world that we now live in, every oversensitive person gets to demand retribution for their offended feelings.
That's as bad as the segregrated workplace you despise.

Re:Trollbait

[PopeRatzo]

So someone who hasn't done something or even been accused of doing something should face serious consequences for saying something offhand outside the theater of work?

He wasn't outside the "theater of work". He was speaking at a conference of fellow scientists and science journalists.

in the pussified world that we now live in

When you say, "we" you should speak for yourself. I'm sorry that you perceive your environment as "pussified". Could it be because you're a big pussy, like most men's rights proponents?

Re:Trollbait

[haruchai]

I've seen quite a few people make fools of themselves on stage. Some of them hold public office, some are highly respected in their fields, some were just born stupid - and a few were female.

None of them have been forced to resign or even apologize.

Re:Trollbait

[PopeRatzo]

I've seen quite a few people make fools of themselves on stage. Some of them hold public office, some are highly respected in their fields, some were just born stupid - and a few were female.

None of them have been forced to resign or even apologize.

None? Would you care to bet whether or not I can produce cases of notable, often highly-respected people who have been forced to resign or apologize based upon making fools of themselves on stage?

Re:Trollbait

[haruchai]

Would you care to bet there are not an even greater number of counterexamples?

Re:Trollbait

[PopeRatzo]

Would you care to bet there are not an even greater number of counterexamples?

Here is what you've said,

None of them have been forced to resign or even apologize.

"None" as in "zero". What do counterexamples have to do with your statement?

Would you like to change your original statement from "none" to "not all" or maybe "some"? I'm OK with that. Everybody makes mistakes.

Re:Trollbait

[haruchai]

Re-read my entire statement carefully and you should quickly spot your own mistake.

And what if he's right?

[Anonymous Coward]

Since this DOES happen, what's the fix? Pretending that there's no shenanigans going doesn't make it any better.

Re:And what if he's right?

[Anonymous Coward]

You do the same as every single other company does - if they bring their baggage into the workplace, start with warnings. If it keeps up, let them go. There's nothing special about working in a lab, millions of people work in close proximity to the opposite sex every day, big fucking deal.

Re:And what if he's right?

[Anonymous Coward]

Surely the solution is to only have ugly women in labs. You won't fall in love with them, they'll be pretty thick-skinned about criticism after growing up ugly, and as for them falling in love with you, that might encourage them to go make the sandwiches.

Re:And what if he's right?

[Anonymous Coward]

He is right! We should all turn fag and grow our babies in test tubes. There, no more love in the lab. Just harmless masturbation. Problem solved.

Re:And what if he's right?

[serviscope_minor]

Since this DOES happen, what's the fix?

The fix is for people to deal with it, like grown-ups. Office romances happen across the entire working population. If people are idiots there's fallout. So far the world has survived, and nothing needs to be done to fix this.

Also, if you want to fix it, what do you do about gay people? segregate them out so you have one gay person in an all-straight office of the opposite gender? And just isolate those awkward bisexual people on their own?

Nothing needs to be done.

Re:And what if he's right?

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, office romances *shouldn't* happen. Most places I've worked at in the past 10 years have expressly forbidden them via presentations, policies, training materials, required moral training, etc. That means for a sufficiently brutal industry requiring long hours your employer is basically saying "we're revoking your right to seek happiness until the project is done".

"...oh, and the project is never done btw."

That said I don't find Tim's statements to be particularly offensive. I don't take the statement seriously myself and I think it's a ludicrous solution to a problem he should just solve himself. I really don't understand why the whole world is on crazy-balls-political-correctness-trip-out right now. I guess it's the downside of the internet that the PC-police is now basically the whole planet, and some of those people can be vicious whenever they smell one off-the-cuff remark.

Re:And what if he's right?

[schlachter]

Clearly he's the rock star scientist.

Your average geek story would go something like this...

"you fall in love with them"
"they reject you and things become awkward"
"you cry when they criticize you"

Re:And what if he's right?

[Anonymous Coward]

Not exactly. If there is love involved, maybe it's time to work on in _separate_ libs / offices, and see if it's really worth pursuing or not?
Stay oblivious and invite more trouble down the road.

Otherwise, I agree. People need to mature, but I'm not holding my breath.

Btw, if girls begin to cry, maybe males also are maltreated sometimes?

I dunno. Just your friendly neighbourhood aspie observing..

Re:And what if he's right?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, that is Islam's solution to the problem. Cover women up and segregate them.

Re:And what if he's right?

[countach74]

I'm inclined to disagree. But that may be because I met my now wife (and mother of my three children) at the office. There isn't anything inherently wrong about office romances like your post suggests. Rather, relationships that get in the way of work are problematic. I don't see any need to single out romantic relationships. Now, that said, employers are entitled to setup policies as they see fit: I just think such policies are generally repressive and don't address the heart of the issue. No pun intended.

Re:And what if he's right?

[Anonymous Coward]

I have never working anywhere that office romances were forbidden. Last place I worked, we had a number of married couples, office romances and even marriages of co-workers -- these were managers, directors and VPs. The only thing that was generally forbidden was supervisor/subordinate relationships. Those did happen (very rarely), but they were always quickly disclosed and the company was good about re-assigning people to accommodate those cases. The company had great worker morale and productivity, and helped maintain a good work/life balance.

Re:And what if he's right?

[danlip]

I think the problem is not so much the office romance but the office breakup. Yours worked out because it didn't result in a breakup.

Re:And what if he's right?

[meta-monkey]

Yes, and I would need my own lab because I sexually Identify as an Attack Helicopter. Ever since I was a boy I dreamed of soaring over the oilfields dropping hot sticky loads on disgusting foreigners. People say to me that a person being a helicopter is Impossible and I’m fucking retarded but I don’t care, I’m beautiful. I’m having a plastic surgeon install rotary blades, 30 mm cannons and AMG-114 Hellfire missiles on my body. From now on I want you guys to call me "Apache" and respect my right to kill from above and kill needlessly. If you can’t accept me you’re a heliphobe and need to check your vehicle privilege. Thank you for being so understanding.

Re:And what if he's right?

[American AC in Paris]

The fix is for people to deal with it, like grown-ups. Office romances happen across the entire working population. If people are idiots there's fallout. So far the world has survived, and nothing needs to be done to fix this.

Significant enough numbers of grown-ups are sufficiently unable to act like grownups that yeah, the rest of us really do need to fix it.

More importantly, this is not new. Interpersonal struggles and conflict are as old as humanity itself, and we've discovered, as a species, that we really do benefit from having rules, laws, guidelines, and social norms to help us navigate these choppy waters.

"Just deal with it like grownups" is a cop-out philosophy of managers not wanting to do their jobs and employees not wanting to grow beyond what they already are. "Just deal with it like grownups" means nothing more than "I don't like dealing with the strife and drama that is the human condition, therefore I'll pretend that MY employees/co-workers are somehow magically above all that."

Lastly, if you think that the world has survived without people having done anything to fix this, well, you haven't been paying any attention at all.

Re:And what if he's right?

[Anonymous Coward]

solitary confinement fixes it all nicely.

Re:And what if he's right?

[Anonymous Coward]

The fix is for people to deal with it, like grown-ups. Office romances happen across the entire working population. If people are idiots there's fallout.

Well, at least in US universities, getting romantically involved with one of your students is a sure way to get yourself fired. I know of a Nobel laureate who was discretely told to leave because his perfectly consensual affair with a student was discovered.

Re:And what if he's right?

[Anonymous Coward]

pleased to meet you I identify as a zsu-57-2

Re:And what if he's right?

[ArcadeMan]

There, no more love in the lab. Just harmless masturbation. Problem solved.

Until they contaminate the samples in the test tubes.

Re:And what if he's right?

[operagost]

Hmm... I much prefer Conan the Barbarian's office rules.

- Crush your enemies
- See them driven before you
- Hear the lamentations of their women

Re:And what if he's right?

[stephanruby]

Since this DOES happen, what's the fix?

We fire the guy for speaking his mind. We replace him with a female scientist.

And we pretend that this very kind of problem doesn't happen in any of the female-dominated professions.

Re:And what if he's right?

[Anonymous Coward]

Chance the color of the lab coats. The white color conveys the sense of purity and nurture, and so enhances the womanly powers of the women in lab coats. Darker and more varied colors bring out the individuals instead of the angelic figures which lead to fantasies about doggy style on the lab table, latex gloves, prostate massages and church weddings.

Re:And what if he's right?

[tylikcat]

My experience is that most places once they are large enough to have to have real company policies have policies on office romances, and they tend to be not "Thou shalt not make a pass!" but more that you can't date within the same management structure. It's far more about power dynamics than office politics.

Re:And what if he's right?

[PopeRatzo]

Yes, and I would need my own lab because I sexually Identify as an Attack Helicopter.

I like to imitate an Apache Attack Helicopter with my penis. In fact, I'm doing it right now.

I'm not kidding.

Re:And what if he's right?

[Anonymous Coward]

You left off the "And wonder where all the new innovations went, and why the economy is going down the tubes. And the women wonder where all the good men went."

Re:And what if he's right?

[PopeRatzo]

Significant enough numbers of grown-ups are sufficiently unable to act like grownups that yeah, the rest of us really do need to fix it.

So, we need to set rules on human behavior based upon the limitations of the people who are unable to act like grownups?

You haven't thought this thing through, friend.

Why not just expect grownups to act like grownups and ask the ones who cannot to leave the lab?

Lastly, if you think that the world has survived without people having done anything to fix this, well, you [bible.com] haven't [archives.gov] been [ancient.eu] paying [luther.de] any [cornell.edu] attention [google.com] at [justice.gov.za] all [forbes.com].

If you look more closely at all those links, you will find that those efforts to "fix this" were based upon setting the expectations for behavior higher not lower as you would suggest.

We have already seen cultures decide to segregate men and women in the workplace. They are called "Fundamentalists" and they're a bunch of throwbacks causing nothing but trouble for the rest of us. In fact, those "fundamentalists" are exactly the kind of people who don't know how to act like grownups that you were talking about.

Re:And what if he's right?

[Anonymous Coward]

So, we need to set rules on human behavior based upon the limitations of the people who are unable to act like grownups?

You haven't thought this thing through, friend.

Why not just expect grownups to act like grownups and ask the ones who cannot to leave the lab?

Does this apply only to things you don't like, or can I tell you to just leave the city if I want to play sniper and you have a problem with it?

Why are your rules ok but his not? Why should they have to leave? Specifically, please, including what level of threat is the specific turning point between OK and NOT OK on the very continuous direct and immediate through diffuse and non-specific scale. For example:

I eat food. That reduces food available to you, trivially increasing your starvation risk.
I breathe air, that decreases the oxygen supply you can use.
Maybe I drive a car, a 3,000 pound weapon that can kill you if I have a bad day or get a funny text.
Perhaps I travel the globe, and might be exposed, knowingly or not, to infectious diseases.
Maybe I take cough syrup and operate heavy machinery.
Maybe I MIGHT one day go berserk and kill everyone on my foes list, or at least until the police stop me.
I don't like you opinion and want to stop it without a lot of typing. Maybe I write sniper fan fiction and want to "truthiness" it up while I'm at it...

Re:And what if he's right?

[Anonymous Coward]

Could you please explain your transformation as more of a car analogy? Thanks.

Re:And what if he's right?

[Anonymous Coward]

Haha, I've seen this quote on 4chin! Genius!

Re:And what if he's right?

[PopeRatzo]

Why are your rules ok but his not? Why should they have to leave?

Because not acting like a grownup is disruptive?

I eat food. That reduces food available to you, trivially increasing your starvation risk.
I breathe air, that decreases the oxygen supply you can use.
Maybe I drive a car, a 3,000 pound weapon that can kill you if I have a bad day or get a funny text.
Perhaps I travel the globe, and might be exposed, knowingly or not, to infectious diseases.
Maybe I take cough syrup and operate heavy machinery.
Maybe I MIGHT one day go berserk and kill everyone on my foes list, or at least until the police stop me.
I don't like you opinion and want to stop it without a lot of typing. Maybe I write sniper fan fiction and want to "truthiness" it up while I'm at it...

8chan Sociology 101

Re:And what if he's right?

[linuxrocks123]

Now, that said, employers are entitled to setup policies as they see fit: I just think such policies are generally repressive and don't address the heart of the issue.

Without intending to start a general Libertarianism-is-good-no-it's-bad argument, I'll just say that I think employers that think it's okay to try to control their employees' private lives in that way are despicable. It is none of your business what I do outside of work, and if you think it is, then fuck you.

I'm not saying regulations against a direct supervisor dating a subordinate, or stuff like that, are offensive. But there is a very clear line, and that line is at preventing clear, work-related conflicts of interest that would be caused by the relationship. And even in that case it's more respectful to have a policy like "report it so we can deal with the conflict of interest through reassignment, etc." rather than "don't do it".

Oh and segregating a workplace by gender is so stupidly ridiculous that it would honestly shock me if anyone not in the cultural orbit of backwaters like Saudi Arabia proposed it seriously. So I'm going to assume this guy wasn't serious, because he'd have to be such a shithead to seriously suggest that that it's more likely he was joking.

Re:And what if he's right?

[Anonymous Coward]

Wait until professors/people don't know what it is like to work in a lab/office without women and the comments about labs/offices with women in them will go away. Basically, this guy dated himself and how out of touch with the rest of society he is, with his humor.

Re:And what if he's right?

[geoskd]

"Just deal with it like grownups" is a cop-out philosophy of managers not wanting to do their jobs

No, its a simple matter of: The company is paying for your time right now. How you spend your own time, and with whom you spend it is your own affair, but on company time, it is not acceptable to be actively engaged in anything other than business. Acting like an adult means recognizing that your rights to become emotionally involved with any consenting adult caries with it the companies right to not suffer economic loss when you are incapable of keeping your private affairs private.

Re:And what if he's right?

[geoskd]

employers are entitled to setup policies as they see fit

No, No they are not. The company has no right to control (by any coercive action) an employees behaviour outside of the workplace and unrelated to the company. By that same token, the employee has the responsibility to perform work for the company during the period for which their time has been paid for by the company. That in no way permits the undertaking of non-company sanctioned actions which have no economic or negative economic value to the company. The company could, and would be right to, take legal action against the employee.

Re:And what if he's right?

[fahrbot-bot]

Okay. Have a nice weekend Apache.

Re:And what if he's right?

[Anonymous Coward]

Who cares? Life and humanity in general are not a linear function... get over it.

Re:And what if he's right?

[Anonymous Coward]

The thing about people dealing and being grownups is apparently highly counterintuitive. Viz, certain flavors of religion where women are expected to either cover up or go away, so men won't be burdened with certain... thoughts. That's all abrahamic religions, in their more extreme manifestations, such as wahhabism, chadism, etc.

Re:And what if he's right?

[Anonymous Coward]

Pics or it didn't happen.

Re:And what if he's right?

[Anonymous Coward]

Too bad you didn't win the decathlon and/or were part of a reality show cast. Then you'd have your post surgery photo by Annie Leibovitz on the cover of Vanity Fair.

Re:And what if he's right?

[Anonymous Coward]

To impress a chick, do the helicopter dick!

Re:And what if he's right?

[dcw3]

Yes it's true, but why is it that nearly every woman I've spoken with dislikes working with other women?

Re:And what if he's right?

[American AC in Paris]

"Just deal with it like grownups" is a cop-out philosophy of managers not wanting to do their jobs

No, its a simple matter of: The company is paying for your time right now. How you spend your own time, and with whom you spend it is your own affair, but on company time, it is not acceptable to be actively engaged in anything other than business. Acting like an adult means recognizing that your rights to become emotionally involved with any consenting adult caries with it the companies right to not suffer economic loss when you are incapable of keeping your private affairs private.

I have a friend who runs his own (quite successful) company here in Baltimore. I'm going to point you to a recent blog post of his regarding version 2.0 of the company handbook. It's a fast read, is well written, and provides a very concrete, real-world example of why I so strongly disagree with the "just be professional" sentiment.

Re:And what if he's right?

[Anonymous Coward]

Why are your rules ok but his not? Why should they have to leave?

Because not acting like a grownup is disruptive?

I eat food. That reduces food available to you, trivially increasing your starvation risk.
I breathe air, that decreases the oxygen supply you can use.
Maybe I drive a car, a 3,000 pound weapon that can kill you if I have a bad day or get a funny text.
Perhaps I travel the globe, and might be exposed, knowingly or not, to infectious diseases.
Maybe I take cough syrup and operate heavy machinery.
Maybe I MIGHT one day go berserk and kill everyone on my foes list, or at least until the police stop me.
I don't like you opinion and want to stop it without a lot of typing. Maybe I write sniper fan fiction and want to "truthiness" it up while I'm at it...

8chan Sociology 101

Significant enough numbers of grown-ups are sufficiently unable to act like grownups that yeah, the rest of us really do need to fix it.

So, we need to set rules on human behavior based upon the limitations of the people who are unable to act like grownups?

So the people who are against the boss hitting on a subordinate in the office should have to change careers, but you're the grown up. Nice ad hominem attack too. I guess if you have no rational basis for your belief system that's the best you can do.

Re:And what if he's right?

[PopeRatzo]

So the people who are against the boss hitting on a subordinate

Everyone is against the boss hitting on a subordinate. The whole point of this article is that we have a Nobel-winning scientist who claims he is unable to resist hitting on female scientists when they work in his lab.

The solution is not the segregate the genders, it's to educate people like this scientist Mike Hunt or whatever his name is so he understands to keep his dick in his pants when he's at the office, and just because he has poor impulse control does not make it the fault of his co-workers.

Fucking 8chan mentality is just too much.

Re:And what if he's right?

[russotto]

Everyone is against the boss hitting on a subordinate. The whole point of this article is that we have a Nobel-winning scientist who claims he is unable to resist hitting on female scientists when they work in his lab.

Isn't it fun to just make stuff up?

Re:And what if he's right?

[PopeRatzo]

Isn't it fun to just make stuff up?

OK, I guess we have to go over the Nobel-winning scientist's statement yet again.

"Let me tell you about my trouble with girls three things happen when they are in the lab You fall in love with them, they fall in love with you and when you criticize them, they cry."

Dude's got "trouble with girls" because "three things happen". Got that? These aren't things that are possible, these are things that happen so often that they cause old Mr Hunt "trouble". One is that he falls in love with them. Because the old horndog never got the memo that you don't shit where you work. The second is that these "girls" fall in love with him. Because of course they would. He's clearly irresistible. The third thing that "happens" is that he criticizes them and they fall into an hysterical heap of crying femininity, because that's what a woman who had to defend her thesis against a jury of peers would inevitably do, because you know how they are.

Have you ever had to defend a PhD thesis? Have you ever been on a defense committee? (I have done both) They aren't love fests where softballs are thrown around. They can get pretty confrontational, and in my decades I've seen exactly one person tear up, and it was a young man, from gratitude when he was told he was going to matriculate.

Once again, just for review:

"Let me tell you about my trouble with girls three things happen when they are in the lab You fall in love with them, they fall in love with you and when you criticize them, they cry."

Got that? "three things happen..."

Three things happen when MRAs come to Slashdot bigot clickbait storis. They inevitably prove the worst things that are said about them, they prove themselves to have the cognitive abilities of sea slugs, and their arguments and refutations always amount to no more than this:

Isn't it fun to just make stuff up?

Re:And what if he's right?

[russotto]

Dude's got "trouble with girls" because "three things happen". Got that? These aren't things that are possible, these are things that happen so often that they cause old Mr Hunt "trouble". One is that he falls in love with them. Because the old horndog never got the memo that you don't shit where you work.

The common advice of not dating where you work is more honored in the breach than the observance. That's just reality. Dr. Hunt, who likely met his wife in just such a situation, knows this very well.

The second is that these "girls" fall in love with him. Because of course they would. He's clearly irresistible.

I'm sure some found him so, in his younger days.

The third thing that "happens" is that he criticizes them and they fall into an hysterical heap of crying femininity

He actually just said they "cry". And that may well be his experience. Personally I've run into very few women at work who cried when criticized... but no men. He wasn't talking about Ph.D. defenses.

Re:And what if he's right?

[PopeRatzo]

Personally I've run into very few women at work who cried when criticized... but no men.

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.u...

Re:And what if he's right?

[russotto]

I'm not personally acquainted with Mr. Terry. Your link shows why men generally don't cry; they are treated with contempt for doing so.

Re:And what if he's right?

[haruchai]

I've been told by women I'm close to is that they're very competitive with each other and tend to bicker where men would usually crack jokes.

Re:And what if he's right?

[haruchai]

I guess we should have that sexist movie A League of Their Own deleted and Tom Hanks ostracized for saying "there's no crying in baseball".

Re:And what if he's right?

[PopeRatzo]

I guess we should have that sexist movie A League of Their Own deleted and Tom Hanks ostracized for saying "there's no crying in baseball".

https://sports.yahoo.com/blogs...

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12...

http://www.thegoodphight.com/2...

Re:And what if he's right?

[haruchai]

A pitcher with an elbow injury, a retiring player and a 12 year old who was probably afraid he was going to be humiliated by a girl?

Out of 100 years of America's sport, that's all you could find?

Re:And what if he's right?

[PopeRatzo]

A pitcher with an elbow injury, a retiring player and a 12 year old who was probably afraid he was going to be humiliated by a girl?

Out of 100 years of America's sport, that's all you could find?

https://www.psychologytoday.co...

http://guyspeed.com/famous-ath...

https://youtu.be/DvHpzyWc1kc

How about in prison facilities?

[Anonymous Coward]

Bad Boy Love.

sounds like office romance

[Anonymous Coward]

Lots of people fall in love, and break up, in the workplace, and the ensuing fallout can be nasty. I guess switching jobs in academia is tougher than in the private sector.

Re:sounds like office romance

[Anonymous Coward]

That whole thing about tenure vs fire at will tends to make a very minor difference.

Of course Milo has something to say about this

[Anonymous Coward]

Debate: Sexism In Science

He is the problem, but blame biology

[PenguinJeff]

This isn't sexist nor is it really relevant. He is obviously having hormonal issues himself. If he is falling in love and having women fall in love with him then it is obvious he needs to take it out of the lab and complete the hormonal imbalance by completing his social life. He needs to find a mate. When he is content with his mate his desire to fall in love in the lab should go away. And he should be able to stop any advances on him as well.

Re:He is the problem, but blame biology

[serviscope_minor]

When he is content with his mate his desire to fall in love in the lab should go away.

Not everyone is monogamous or monoamorus (is that the opposite ofpolyamorous?).

I'm not disagreeing with you that the problem is entirely his, just pointing out that your solution may not work.

Re:He is the problem, but blame biology

[PenguinJeff]

I thought about that. If it doesn't work he should isolate himself at work. But it is still obvious his mind desires mating.

Re:He is the problem, but blame biology

[Anonymous Coward]

Lemme guess, you just learned some 100% legit biotruths and want to share with the class? Just got your Bachelors in Evolutionary Psychology with a Minor in Mansplaining from Reddit Q. Fedora University?

Hialrious

[Murdoch5]

Those were light hearted remarks.

Re:Hialrious

[Anonymous Coward]

Those were light hearted remarks.

Yes, they were.

This is not evidence that the whole industry is slanted. It's one person who thought he was making a joke about himself. He didn't realize that it is in vogue for a group of people to seek out opportunities to be outraged on behalf of other people.

Yes, the remarks were insensitive, but this is not conclusive proof of a widespread issue in the industry. It's a non-news story, designed only to outrage those who love to feed off outrage and share the outrage with their virtual community.

Re:Hialrious

[SumDog]

And you know, if he left out the part about "they cry" this wouldn't be newsworthy. Also, if we just said the fall-in-love bits and padded the end with the Einstein quote about science not being able to explain why people fall in love; this would be placed in a totally different light.

Re:Hialrious

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, the remarks were insensitive, but this is not conclusive proof of a widespread issue in the industry

The remarks are not proof of anything a all, they're a symptom of the more than obvious systemic sexism in Science and Academia. And I say this as a male scientist and academic.

Re:Hialrious

[captnjohnny1618]

I think you have a really good point: they were fairly lighthearted remarks and his apology sounds pretty genuine; without more details I don't think it's remotely acceptable to judge him as a person. We also do live in a culture of outrage currently and all social media makes it so much easier for folks to hop on the outrage bandwagon... which annoys the hell out of me.

That being said, while one instance is not proof of a widespread issue, the many many instances we hear reported on nearly a daily basis (or Fri-daily basis since this is Dice) should collectively lead us to recognize that there is definitely still work to be done. I'm a grad student and I share an office with a 27 year old guy, so someone at least fairly aware of things, who has made some terribly offensive, borderline hateful, comments about women in science. He's kind of a dick all around, so maybe it's a different issue.

I definitely support at least showing people like this Nobel-winning scientist that comments like that, while light-hearted to some, erode the foundations of support that should exist for everyone in every field, at least insofar as race, ethnicity, gender, etc. are concerned.

Re:Hialrious

[Anonymous Coward]

See, the scientific way to go about this would be to figure out the rate at which women cry in the work place against the rate in which men cry in the work place and determine if his statement has merit. ... what's that? Social Justice Warriors don't care about common sense, logic and in this case humor? Well, shit I guess we're all subject to their ability to not be offended then.

Beware the millenials,

[Anonymous Coward]

They confuse critical thought and science with buzzwords like bigot...

Married and having affairs

[jdavidb]

So I see from Wikipedia and other sources that he is married to professor Mary Collins, immunologist. I wonder how she feels about him falling in love with women in the workplace. I know my wife doesn't take too kindly to that.

Re:Married and having affairs

[LWATCDR]

Ever think that she might have been the women he fell in love with at the lab?

Re:Married and having affairs

[jdavidb]

Ever think that she might have been the women he fell in love with at the lab?

Yes, I wonder about that. The exact chronology there could be very illuminating.

Re:Married and having affairs

[jdavidb]

Bad subject line - I meant to put "Married and having affairs?" I'm trying to raise the question, not make an assertion; we just don't have enough information to know. And I doubt it'll be forthcoming!

Re:Married and having affairs

[avandesande]

Really? Who cares about this guy's personal life. He's a scientist.

Re:Married and having affairs

[Anonymous Coward]

She is probably immune to it.

Re:Married and having affairs

[Anonymous Coward]

Then his statement would be even weirder - he wishes labs were segregated, so that he wouldn't have met any female colleagues at work, and thus he probably wouldn't even be married to the woman who is his wife. I.e. he values the purity of a male-only lab more than his own marriage.

Re:Married and having affairs

[Anonymous Coward]

Back off man.

Re:Married and having affairs

[jdavidb]

Exactly! So maybe he shouldn't be bringing it up.

Re:Married and having affairs

[Culture20]

Let's see what happens when we take away his personal life.

Re:Married and having affairs

[Carewolf]

Then his statement would be even weirder - he wishes labs were segregated, so that he wouldn't have met any female colleagues at work, and thus he probably wouldn't even be married to the woman who is his wife. I.e. he values the purity of a male-only lab more than his own marriage.

That is because it is a joke. They always seem a bit weird if you try to take them serious.

Re:Married and having affairs

[Anonymous Coward]

No! If you put a '?' at the end of he title, the answer is No!

Re:Married and having affairs

[Anonymous Coward]

he was asked...

skip the gender

[Anonymous Coward]

this guy is seriously old school. all humans are capable of falling in love with all humans and all humans are capable of crying.
the answer is clearly to have labs where each person is fully isolated in a matrix-style pod.

Re:skip the gender

[bluefoxlucid]

Some of us are heteroromantic, biromantic, homoromantic, panromantic, demiromantic, or even aromantic.

Re:skip the gender

[Anonymous Coward]

Serious question here: What's the difference between biromantic and panromantic? (Or bisexual vs. pansexual?)

My teenage daughter has a friend who claims to be pansexual, and I honestly don't understand why she uses that word rather than bisexual. Can anyone enlighten me?

Re:skip the gender

[jeffb (2.718)]

Some of us are heteroromantic, biromantic, homoromantic, panromantic, demiromantic, or even aromantic.

We realize that different cultures have different hygiene practices, but really, can't you put on a bit of deodorant in the morning?

Oh, wait. Never mind.

Re:skip the gender

[Anonymous Coward]

What do you call somebody who falls in love with XXY chromosomes or with a transgendered person? If a man loves somebody who identifies as female, but who has a penis, is that man gay or straight?

Re:skip the gender

[Anonymous Coward]

This is /. - I suspect most are not aromatic.

Re:skip the gender

[ColdWetDog]

Well, if they were aromatic than a lot of this nonsense wouldn't happen.

Turn off the showers! Save California!

Re:skip the gender

[Anonymous Coward]

Gay. Do you have more stupid 'identity politic' inspired question?

Re:skip the gender

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, there's a difference between "falls in love with" and "is attracted to". One is person-specific; the other is not. A straight man might fall in love with a certain transgendered woman; I'm not sure that automatically makes him attracted to transgendered women in general. (I suppose the storyline of M. Butterfly might be a case in point here.)

Are you saying that a panromantic person actively seeks out relationships with men, women, transgendered of both sexes, and people with unusual X/Y combinations? Or that they just don't care who they get, just so long as it's a live, warm body?

And in the specific case of my daughter's friend, I doubt that she knows any transgendered people anyway.

This man is a fool

[js3]

If you have to pick one rule to stick to at work, it's don't date your coworker.

Re:This man is a fool

[bsolar]

You don't need to date your coworker to be in love with him/her, or for him/her to be in love with you.

Re:This man is a fool

[thechemic]

If I had heeded your advice, I would have missed out on countless blow jobs and spicy flings that lasted days, weeks and sometimes months.

Re:This man is a fool

[Coren22]

He responded to the question "what is the problem with women in science" with something he felt would be funny and people would laugh at. When he was informed others didn't find it funny, he apologized. What more do people want? When did it happen that science geeks were expected to have good social skills?

Re: This man is a fool

[AvitarX]

I'd say that dating is probably the easiest way to break that in love feeling.

Not that dating and relationships are bad (they're great), but there's a certain sensation of unfulfilled desire they quash.

Re:This man is a fool

[serviscope_minor]

It's unfortunate.

People say all sorts of stupid, ill judged things when one's brain isn't as fully connected as one might wish it to be. I know I have. I'm glad none of them have been broadcast to the world.

Re: This man is a fool

[zlives]

we could also grow up as a species and fulfill the desires without the needless stigma.

Re:This man is a fool

[Anonymous Coward]

He shouldn't have even felt the need to apologize for some people lacking a sense of humor.

Re: This man is a fool

[geoskd]

we could also grow up as a species and fulfill the desires without the needless stigma.

As long as men and women harbour different attitudes and behaviours concerning sex, there will be strife in that regard. There is wisdom in the old adage: "Women need a reason to have sex. Men need a location". As long as that serious disconnect exists, there will be a gender gap in everything.

Re: This man is a fool

[zlives]

then why the pretense of fighting the "gap" when it is at a subconscious level.

Re: This man is a fool

[AvitarX]

I suspect it's not all social though. I would guess there's significant overlap between the genders, but genetic influence aside from the social one. Primarily because in general females win with mate choice and men win with lots of baby mammas

Re:This man is a fool

[MoaDweeb]

Don't get your meat the same place you get your bread.

Then why say "you" instead of "I"?

[jeffb (2.718)]

"I was just being honest about my own shortcomings -- by talking about what 'you' do when there are women in the lab. 'You', of course, being a straight male, because duh, who else would I be bothering to talk to about science?"

Re:Then why say "you" instead of "I"?

[drinkypoo]

"I was just being honest about my own shortcomings -- by talking about what 'you' do when there are women in the lab. 'You', of course, being a straight male, because duh, who else would I be bothering to talk to about science?"

Well, what you have to realize is... see what I did there? It's totally normal.

Re:Then why say "you" instead of "I"?

[Anonymous Coward]

Since it seems that you're not very familiar with the English language, I offer you a helpful reference.

Re:Then why say "you" instead of "I"?

[Anonymous Coward]

"I was just being honest about my own shortcomings -- by talking about what 'you' do when there are women in the lab. 'You', of course, being a straight male, because duh, who else would I be bothering to talk to about science?"

You assumed straight male. Many other people fall in love with "girls" too.

And, the hell with any expectations...

[spads]

...of ~~carpet~~ respect. ~~People~~ have to be able to accept deserved criticism, though I think the tendency to expect sympathy might be instinctive in some cases.

Re:And, the hell with any expectations...

[Ravaldy]

Good managers know or learn how to deal with both genders. Men and women have different views of the world and it's important that is taken into consideration when dealing with staff. If you cry when taking feedback and the right approach was taken, it's time to have a big talk. If that doesn't work there's always the door.

Re:And, the hell with any expectations...

[spads]

Perhaps in business, good "managers" do. I don't know. I'm working in a boys' club at the moment. Perhaps it is a different standard in science, requiring something like "excellence" as opposed to simple productivity. Personally, I take more issue with slowing science than I do with capitalism. (Though the good lord knows there are some miserable folk leading science programs, to be sure!)

I agree

[Anonymous Coward]

I have no love of women in the workplace, either. I severely dislike having to walk on eggshells action and language-wise so just not to offend the women. I really do miss my early IT jobs when there were no women in the building. We said or did whatever without fear of offense or HR, who, at least in our building, was a man, and actually smoked on the loading dock with us or joined us for marathon gaming sessions on the company T3. Ah, the good old days...

These days? A company has to hire women, blacks, latinos, Indians, homosexuals, you name it. All in the name of the false narrative called "diversity". 99% of us were white guys and Asians. We all got along just fine, thank you. Mandated hiring is sick and inefficient and only helps PR. If I ever ran my own comany, I would hire only those who I knew would fit in with the culture, which is usually whites and asians.

Re:I agree

[Anonymous Coward]

Thank you for having the balls to post this, hypersensitive moderators notwithstanding. It's time someone finally said what everyone already knows: Diversity Sucks.

Re:I agree

[Anonymous Coward]

Troll? For having the balls to speak the truth? The OP has a right to his opinion. The same dweebs who voted this down are the same people who likely think that Bruce Jenner is really a woman. Fags...

Re:I agree

[Anonymous Coward]

Thank you for having the balls to post this, hypersensitive moderators notwithstanding. It's time someone finally said what everyone already knows: Diversity Sucks.

Hey now; diversity is awesome as long as it doesn't include diversity in competency.

crying women

[Anonymous Coward]

Meh, who cares if they cry, if the job is done. Picking who may work in a lab should never be decided by gender. If they are different, that's only good, science is advanced by plurality, segregated labs sound like a terrible idea.

Critized for sharing his observation

[Ravaldy]

He observed something that some of us have actually seen but not spoken about. Men and women are different. Who knew?

To suggest splitting them in a lab is ridiculous but that doesn't eliminate the fact that his observations/statements are reality in all work environments where both genders reside.

Should he really be stoned to death for speaking of this? Is it because he talked about women in the work place because I noticed him mentioning both genders? If he's not allowed to speak about gender differences then all hope is lost for the feminist case. After all don't they just want to be seen as another worker in the work place?

Re:Critized for sharing his observation

[quantaman]

He observed something that some of us have actually seen but not spoken about. Men and women are different. Who knew?

To suggest splitting them in a lab is ridiculous but that doesn't eliminate the fact that his observations/statements are reality in all work environments where both genders reside.

Should he really be stoned to death for speaking of this? Is it because he talked about women in the work place because I noticed him mentioning both genders? If he's not allowed to speak about gender differences then all hope is lost for the feminist case. After all don't they just want to be seen as another worker in the work place?

More to the point do the comments represent his views in a meaningful way or are they just the result of some random speculation he had during the talk and decided to blurt out?

If he's made this his thing then sure, talk about it, but in general my issue with articles like is is that people say some random thing, it goes viral, and suddenly that is how they're defined to the world.

How many things do you say in a day? How many of those things, if they went viral, would accurately represent your views?

Re:Critized for sharing his observation

[Anonymous Coward]

Hyperbole much?

No one said he should be stoned to death.

Saying that women should not even be allowed to work with men is not the same as "mentioning both genders" or "speaking about gender differences".

Re:Critized for sharing his observation

[Ravaldy]

I completely agree. There are some things if said in a public forum are just poor judgment where as others are the crow performing the well known knee jerk reaction.

With social media I find too much knee jerking. They only have a few pieces of the puzzle and all of a sudden they have a strong opinion about it. That's the bit that gets me. There's some of that on /. but at least those voices usually get silenced because there are many smart people that actually do their leg work on this site and mod them down when required.

I'm sure it will improve but it will always be hard to shut down the 17 year old self proclaimed computer guru that claims to have seen it all and want the world to know how he feel abut every topic.

The earth shakes.

[musmax]

Birds take to flight. The trees tremble as the furious hordes of SJW White Nights approaches.

Re: The earth shakes.

[Anonymous Coward]

There's really no faster way to out yourself as a huge retard than to use "SJW" in earnest.

Re: The earth shakes.

[Anonymous Coward]

And there's no quicker way to out yourself as a moron than white knighting for SJWs. Are you crying too?

Re: The earth shakes.

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm so sorry your intellectual betters think you red-pillers are a bunch of ineffectual, limp-wrists faggots. I'm sure there's an anime body pillow out there for you to cry into.

Re: The earth shakes.

[Pubstar]

I love it when ACs fight. On another note, someone who red-pills would most likely not be a limp-wristed faggot, as you put it. I also doubt they would be into Anime. It would be some alpha-douche-bro that would be red-pilling. The person you described are actually SJWs/White Knights. Get your slurs right AC.

Re: The earth shakes.

[Anonymous Coward]

Ideally, yes, but reality speaks otherwise. Red-pillers have absolutely no spine, no social skills, and blame everyone but themselves for their troubles. They're the pitch-perfect fit for the anime watching faggot stereotype.

Crying

[Anonymous Coward]

So how many of the women who are upset about this are crying over it?

The crying... it's true. I work at a leading software company in SV, and the women cry all the time.

They Just Proved His Point

[thechemic]

They just proved his point when they took truthful statements and CRIED about them. The articles convey that it was women that complained about his statements.

Re:They Just Proved His Point

[serviscope_minor]

They just proved his point when they took truthful statements and CRIED about them.

But you've just disproved his statement by crying about the people proving it's true. So it's not true so the crying people weren't proving his statement so you weren't disproving it! Which means it was truthful and so those people proved it. But that means you disproved it.

This statement is false.

Re:They Just Proved His Point

[Anonymous Coward]

No amount of spinmeistery pulled straight from thine hind end changes anything. The Doc said bitches cry and then all of a sudden there's a bunch of crying bitches. HIS POINT IS PROVEN.

Let this be a warning.

[hey!]

In a world where the Internet gives every crackpot a soapbox from which to preach to his fellow crackpots, it's not longer possible to distinguish ironic self-deprecation from a serious but deranged complaint about other people.

Re:Let this be a warning.

[Anonymous Coward]

See how you are?

Re:Let this be a warning.

[AmiMoJo]

He has now clarified that he wasn't joking about the falling in love bit: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-3...

Would it have helped if he qualified his statement

[Anonymous Coward]

What if, instead of making a blanket statement, he had use the appropriate qualifiers and said, "three things happen when [girls] are in the lab You are more likely to fall in love with them, they are more likely to fall in love with you and when you criticize them, they are more likely to cry, compared with their mail counterparts." This would have been accurate, but probably equally poorly received. That said... that's just part of life and he should probably man up and deal with it instead of trying to put the onus on others hahaa.

Hunt's Cat?

[hduff]

You can be both brilliant and stupid until you are observed.

Re:Hunt's Cat?

[Zero__Kelvin]

"You can be both brilliant and stupid until you are observed."

This is Slashdot. I can be both brilliant and stupid, while the whole fiasco is observed by thousands of Slashdotters!

Huh? Wasn't it clear that he was joking?

[blind biker]

What idiot can be so humour-impaired as to not realize that Hunt was just kidding? And it was a pretty tame, light-hearted joke at it.

Re:Huh? Wasn't it clear that he was joking?

[russotto]

What idiot can be so humour-impaired as to not realize that Hunt was just kidding?

Q: How many feminists does it take to change a light bulb?

A: THAT'S NOT FUNNY

The whole speech apparently was not recorded, so all we've seen is the cherry-picked remarks. Maybe he's really a misogynist of Marc Lepine's level. More likely, though, it was British humor.

Re:Huh? Wasn't it clear that he was joking?

[thegarbz]

More likely, though, it was British humor.

You're right. THAT'S NOT FUNNY!

Re:Huh? Wasn't it clear that he was joking?

[thesandtiger]

The problem here is that the joke is literally what people have said about why they won't hire women into all male teams.

The argument is frequently made that having a woman on the team would be a distraction/damage unit cohesion/reduce morale/require everyone to mind their p's and q's lest they invoke feminine tears/be pointless because they're only looking to meet a husband etc. etc. etc.

It's not very funny when one has likely heard that exact line of reasoning, said in earnest, as to why they aren't wanted on a team. He's likely not, at least consciously, misogynist, but he's certainly tone deaf.

Re:Huh? Wasn't it clear that he was joking?

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem here is that the joke is literally what people have said about why they won't hire women into all male teams.

How's that a problem? A very common and effective way to humor is just pointing to reality. Reality is full of absurdities that is funny just be pointing out at it.

Seinfield is all "what's the deal with [common thing people might fail to notice but is actually funny when you think about it]"

Guys like Jon Stewart just needs to point to politics.

Maybe the guy's delivery was bad (he's a scientist, not an orator), but the material is sound.

Re:Huh? Wasn't it clear that he was joking?

[tgv]

It's pathetic. And he's already resigned/been made to resign. As a friend of mine remarked: sadly it's better to shag all your female PhDs than to make a joke about it.

Re:Huh? Wasn't it clear that he was joking?

[chihowa]

It's not very funny when one has likely heard that exact line of reasoning, said in earnest, as to why they aren't wanted on a team.

Honestly, that's exactly the property that makes most jokes funny. Humor is our way of dealing with awkward, uncomfortable, and troubling details of our reality. A joke that has no basis in reality does not generally appeal to many people.

The one line printed in TFS isn't funny, but we're provided with no context so it may be the punchline to an actually funny joke.

Re:Huh? Wasn't it clear that he was joking?

[friesofdoom]

I think the outcry kinda proves his point, doesn't it?

Re:Huh? Wasn't it clear that he was joking?

[thesandtiger]

You're totally right.

The reason blacks shouldn't be allowed in labs is because they are childlike proto-humans, incapable of higher cognitive functioning. TEE HEE!

The reason Mexicans shouldn't be allowed in labs is because they sleep all day and then steal all the equipment before they head home for the night. TEE HEE!

The reason white males shouldn't be allowed in labs is because they will try to rape and/or subjugate anyone else, and then whine like crazy if anyone calls them on it. TEE HEE!

Yep, seriously totally hillarious. Thanks for setting me straight.

Re:Huh? Wasn't it clear that he was joking?

[chihowa]

So in addition to not understanding the human sense of humor, you're also incapable of reading and comprehending a simple post. Do you really not understand what I said, or are you just too offended and outraged to think straight? I hope you're happy with the trashing that you gave to those strawmen.

Re:Huh? Wasn't it clear that he was joking?

[thesandtiger]

I make a post explaining that because of the historical context, his "joke" wasn't funny.

You made a post explaining to me why his joke was funny.

I made a couple of "jokes" that were identical in form and historical context to his, pointing out the absurdity of your point.

You respond by saying I don't get humor and that I lack reading comprehension. It's pretty clear you didn't find my "jokes" funny, despite them being fundamentally the same in tone and historical context.

One of us isn't following along here, and it's very obviously you.

Re:Huh? Wasn't it clear that he was joking?

[chihowa]

You made a post explaining to me why his joke was funny.

So you do have a problem with reading comprehension.

Here's a tip for successfully debating with people: argue against what they are actually saying, not against whatever nonsense you assume someone idiotic enough to argue against you would say.

Nobel laureats are super specialists.

[140Mandak262Jamuna]

Specializing in science basically means more and more about less and less. The limiting case of a specialist is someone who knows everything about nothing. He is a great bio-chemist, no doubt. But thinking he is great in anything other than that narrow sub-speciality within sub-speciality of bio-chemistry, is illogical.

Re:Nobel laureats are super specialists.

[Anonymous Coward]

> a great bio-chemist,

No. He proved he knows nothing about science. He proved himself on of those Republicans, and their kind typically only has a second grade level of science understanding. They want scientists to die. That is the way of their kind. If he was a bio-chemist, as your lie claims, then he would want himself to die. That is how they do.

Re:Nobel laureats are super specialists.

[Anonymous Coward]

Whatever you're smoking, can I have some of it?

Re:Nobel laureats are super specialists.

[halivar]

No, please; put it down.

So is this the "new apologizing"?

[qeveren]

"I'm sorry you were offended. I'm not sorry for what I said."?

Re:So is this the "new apologizing"?

[ageoffri]

Yes it is. Just saw with a Tor editor who attacked the Sad Puppies campaign. After getting called out by Tom Doherty for her vicious lies, she basically said "sorry I got caught". Not that she is sorry for spreading FUD.

Re:So is this the "new apologizing"?

[schlachter]

"I'm sorry I'm not sorry enough for you!"

Re:So is this the "new apologizing"?

[Anonymous Coward]

"I'm sorry you were offended. I'm not sorry for what I said."?

America's new favorite past time is being offended and many times demanding apologies. What's wrong with standing by your opinion? I respect his opinion more if hes not going to waver because people are offended by what he says.

Re:So is this the "new apologizing"?

[neminem]

No, because it's not even remotely new. I inherited a stack of vintage Mad magazines going back to the earliest days of that magazine from my grandfather a while back, and I remember it poking fun at that sort of nonapology. That said, I'd be surprised if you couldn't find evidence of the same type of nonapology going back basically as far as language itself.

Re:So is this the "new apologizing"?

[Anonymous Coward]

"I'm sorry you were offended. I'm not sorry for what I said."?

Jesus Christ. Yeah, sure, if you want to read it that way.

How about this: "I'm sorry that the contextual clues that indicated I was joking were omitted from news sources or misinterpreted by those offended, and I'm sorry that some people took those comments seriously enough that they became offended. But since I was joking, and a reasonable, mature person would construe it as joking, then that is all that needs to be said on the matter."

We do not need to be sorry when people become up-in-arms over these things. Manufacturing outrage like this is a disservice to the persons who are fighting against genuine sexism. There are real problems to solve in the world, and this is NOT one of them.

Re:So is this the "new apologizing"?

[danlip]

What's wrong with standing by your opinion?

What's wrong with standing by that particular opinion is that it is idiotic. He should be back-pedaling hard. I'd sure like to see more people (especially politicians) standing by well thought-out opinions, but this doesn't qualify as one.

Re:So is this the "new apologizing"?

[Zero__Kelvin]

Why would he be sorry for what he said? He got it 100% right. He said nothig wrong, so he is not sorry about that, but some people got offended anyway, and he is sorry those people are morons (i.e. they got offended)

Re:So is this the "new apologizing"?

[Zero__Kelvin]

You are an idiotic douchebag. (I'm sorry if you find the truth offensive)

Re:So is this the "new apologizing"?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm rarely sorry for my actual comments. I frequently have to apologize for forgetting some people are huge babies.

Re:So is this the "new apologizing"?

[Anonymous Coward]

This has little to do with American sensibilities. Note that the stereotypical American is not at all a polite, friendly person that gets offended easily let alone expects an apology. For that sort of attitude you would have to head east.

Re: So is this the "new apologizing"?

[Anonymous Coward]

You were a surprise toilet-birth. (I'm sorry if you find the truth offensive)

Re:So is this the "new apologizing"?

[phantomfive]

At least it's honest.

Re:So is this the "new apologizing"?

[AmiMoJo]

It's been this way for years. Politicians started it with phrases like "I'm sorry if any offence was caused". Shifting the blame on to the people they were dicks to and implying that they are over-sensitive, while offering the politically mandated apology.

Re:So is this the "new apologizing"?

[thegarbz]

"I'm sorry you were offended. I'm not sorry for what I said."?

There's nothing new about it. He made a light hearted comment that other people took the wrong way. No one has a "right" not to be offended. He has nothing to apologise for and he has even offered a clarification so the mistake is not made by people reading his comment in the future.

Re:So is this the "new apologizing"?

[Anonymous Coward]

I have my own version: "I don't apologize to bullies, so fuck you."

It happens.

[Anonymous Coward]

Much ado about nothing.
He might be a Nobel prize-winning scientist, but he is still human.
It is natural and human to make mistakes, and he did apologize.

Nobel is an Misogynistic Organization

[BrendaEM]

Earned his Noble stamp of approval!
Did you think that Nobel-anything would respect women?

Re:Nobel is an Misogynistic Organization

[tgv]

Are you serious, or trolling?

Re:Nobel is an Misogynistic Organization

[Anonymous Coward]

I find this joke in poor taste. You'd better remove it before I start a campaign online labeling you a man-hater and a Nobel-defamer.

IT'S CALLED A JOKE!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

Geez, you fucking PC Nazis piss me off, learn to laugh GOD DAMMIT!

Just because you're a scientist....

[roc97007]

...doesn't mean you aren't a dick.

I'm Not Sorry: It's Not Sexism

[tomxor]

Acknowledging the consequences of gender is not sexist.

Too many stupid people confuse issues that are intrinsic to gender with sexism... The fact that humans have gender creates problems, some are specific to one gender and some apply to both: Women need bras... that's not sexist, that is being a woman.

In this case; Straight people of opposite genders have higher probability of being attracted to each other, this creates issues in the workplace - not exactly shocking is it.

Feminazis what us to be asexual or something, i say go fuck yourselves, and i'll fuck someone else. good day.

Re:I'm Not Sorry: It's Not Sexism

[danlip]

Acknowledging the consequences of gender is not sexist.

Yes, but calling for segregation is. So is stating that women are not capable of handling criticism (unless you've got some objective evidence). He said both of those things.

Re:I'm Not Sorry: It's Not Sexism

[Anonymous Coward]

He joked about both of those things. If you can't tell the difference, then perhaps you should find an unbiased article or ask the man yourself, before taking it as seriously as possible. True, he joked about it during a conference, but there's no need to jump to conclusions and overly demonize him for a simple public faux-pas. What's next? Will women not be allowed to slip up in public when they say something nasty about a man or tell a joke about men that some consider to be in poor taste?

There is a fine line between taking things too seriously, and giving them the appropriate response, and in an age where we prefer to get our news in biased sound-byte form without the necessary context, it's doubly important to not do this.

Re:I'm Not Sorry: It's Not Sexism

[JustNiz]

>> stating that women are not capable of handling criticism (unless you've got some objective evidence).

you're either
a) female
b) been single all your life
c) found and dated the one woman on the planet who can handle criticism calmly.

Re:I'm Not Sorry: It's Not Sexism

[Anonymous Coward]

So... feminists are sexist because they call for "safe spaces" for women (and trans people, and minorities)?

Re:I'm Not Sorry: It's Not Sexism

[Anonymous Coward]

you're either
a) female
b) been single all your life
c) found and dated the one woman on the planet who can handle criticism calmly.

This is why we can't have nice things.

Re:I'm Not Sorry: It's Not Sexism

[Theaetetus]

>> stating that women are not capable of handling criticism (unless you've got some objective evidence).

you're either
a) female
b) been single all your life
c) found and dated the one woman on the planet who can handle criticism calmly.

I think the existence of GamerGate shows that this is not anything unique to women.

Re:I'm Not Sorry: It's Not Sexism

[Anonymous Coward]

>> stating that women are not capable of handling criticism (unless you've got some objective evidence).

you're either

a) female

b) been single all your life

c) found and dated the one woman on the planet who can handle criticism calmly.

I think the existence of GamerGate shows that this is not anything unique to women.

Black people, Jews and Women are horrible.
You can drop the Jews and it's still true.
You can drop the and Wo too, still true.
Drop the Black, still just as true.
We can simplify:
People are horrible.

My initial sentence seems racist and misogynistic and anti-Semitic. By I'm really just misanthropic. You probably assumed I was a racist after reading two words. What does that say about you're willingness to believe the best in others? Maybe you're a misanthrope too.

Re:I'm Not Sorry: It's Not Sexism

[Anonymous Coward]

in my PhD program numerous women phd candidates were brought to tears during relatively tame criticisms, buy both make and female advisers. I never saw a guy cry. When girls cry it always was an extremely awkward moment and I felt afterword people walked on eggshells when trying to constructively discuss their work

Re:I'm Not Sorry: It's Not Sexism

[russotto]

Sure. Guys are socialized not to cry. A boy over a relatively young (somewhere in the single digits) age cries, and he's told to man up and stop crying, and/or he's hit, and/or he's derided as a "crybaby". A girl cries, and she's comforted and/or men rush to her defense. So of course girls cry; it works for them, as it doesn't work for men.

Re:I'm Not Sorry: It's Not Sexism

[Bacon Bits]

Yes, but calling for segregation is.

If you think that's an honest call for segregation, than I shudder to think what happens when you're at a stand-up comedy show. Then again, Jerry Seinfeld made that point recently.

So is stating that women are not capable of handling criticism (unless you've got some objective evidence).

How about the example where the Nobel prize winning scientist made a poor joke that they can't take criticism, and it blew up into a huge feminist issue with him being labelled a misogynist?

Re:I'm Not Sorry: It's Not Sexism

[Livius]

If they aren't also calling for "safe spaces" for vulnerable men etc., then, yes.

Re:I'm Not Sorry: It's Not Sexism

[tomxor]

Acknowledging the consequences of gender is not sexist.

Yes, but calling for segregation is.

Then bathrooms and changing rooms are all sexist.

Segregation of sex is sometimes just the practical and appropriate choice, especially in cases of defining characteristics and basic interaction of sexes... Is segregation appropriate and necessary in this situation? that depends on whether less extreme options exist. In certain institutions rules for this kind of interaction between sexes (which tends to introduce extreme bias) calls for strict disciplinary action.

Suggesting segregation of gender to prevent inappropriate relations in a workplace is not "sexist", it doesn't mean it's not an extreme option either though.

...So is stating that women are not capable of handling criticism (unless you've got some objective evidence). He said both of those things.

You're right, he does say that, and that is out of line when taken literally... Honestly though first time i read it i took it based on context; which is a two way relationship... you can interpret the second part of that statement and i interpreted it to mean that both sexes can't take criticism very well from someone whom they are intimately involved with in "the lab", which seems quite likely.

Re:I'm Not Sorry: It's Not Sexism

[Anonymous Coward]

He said both of those things.

That animal!
I call for his immediate dismissal.

Re:I'm Not Sorry: It's Not Sexism

[goose-incarnated]

So... feminists are sexist because they call for "safe spaces" for women (and trans people, and minorities)?

Genuinely curious - what's the difference between "safe spaces" and segregation?

Re:I'm Not Sorry: It's Not Sexism

[Anonymous Coward]

No, segregation is sex neutral. It affects the men just as much as the women. The remark about criticism can easily be understood as a breach of trust thing because, as he remarks before, they have fallen in love (and thus assumably create a very personal trust relation).

Re:I'm Not Sorry: It's Not Sexism

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, he should have said that there should be separate safe spaces for male scientists and female scientists. That's not segregation, you see. It's just spaces. Where people feel safe. From interaction with the other gender.

Re:I'm Not Sorry: It's Not Sexism

[Xest]

Except that's not what happened here. Okay, yes, that's the SJW story being peddled to you, but it's not even remotely what he said.

What he said was a joke about his inability to avoid falling in love, and others having fallen in love with him, coupled with subsequent crying when he criticises the work of those people. It was a commentary on the fact that when those people cry, he, no one else, he, is unable to continue criticising legitimately.

It was a joke about love in the workplace, and his inability to continue to objectively critique someone in the face of either them loving him, or him loving them and them crying if he does. This is a common type of British humour known as self-deprecation. If you don't get it that's fine, but don't pretend this guy is pretending it's a global widespread problem that needs some extreme solution.

He hasn't called for segregation or any such nonsense, it's the SJW's that have shown their true hypocritical colours by assuming that that's the actual solution to the problem in the joke he made. The solution could just as well be that he grow a pair, but for some reason only the SJW's seem to have jumped to some extreme conclusion about segregation, which says an awful fuck load more about them than it does about this guy.

Given that this guy is married to a female in a related scientific field to him, he could very well be talking about a very personal experience of meeting his wife in the lab. He clearly said "my trouble with girls" - it's clearly a reference to his own shortcomings rather than some extreme suggestion of a general problem needing segregation.

So give the guy a break, he's done nothing wrong, the only seeds that have been planted about segregation come from SJWs who as usual misinterpret things and then cry out some extreme suggestion that's come from nowhere other than their own fucked up minds.

Re:I'm Not Sorry: It's Not Sexism

[AmiMoJo]

He has since said that it wasn't a joke and that he stands by his comments, at least in part: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-3...

Re:I'm Not Sorry: It's Not Sexism

[Anonymous Coward]

stating that women are not capable of handling criticism (unless you've got some objective evidence) [is sexist]

It is ok to say, with or without evidence, that women "benefit more from encouragement." It's almost the same thing as the sexist remark, but it's ok to say it, and no one will demand evidence for fear of being called sexist for their skepticism.

It's not ok to say, with or without evidence, "when men receive criticism they can't handle they're cornered and have nowhere to turn because if anyone discovers their distress they lose statute, but women can wave a flag by crying and instantly turn whoever was criticizing them into the evil one." That's sexist because it implies that women cry, which many women do. Some women who choose to adopt a traditionally-male relationship toward crying might be made to feel bad by the remark, and making a woman feel bad is sexist and therefore almost as bad as making a woman actually cry even though she may not let you know that she feels bad in the case of sexism while the crying is obvious.

It's not ok to say, "women have an extensive toolbox for ending uncomfortable conversations that's not available to men, like crying, claiming to be uncomfortable, asking 'is it because I'm a woman?', and making belittling jokes about your supposed desire to court them. Mens' toolboxes for doing the same thing, like yelling or overconfidence, are being systematically raided." Everyone develops underhanded conversational strategies, but it's sexist to mention the ones used by women and a social good to disect the ones used by men.

The individual points people make might still be good, but the pattern here has nothing to do with being fair. I think part of the unfairness comes from womens' historical privilege (like the "start crying" option), and part comes from the power imbalance created by the reputational witch-hunts we see playing out in TFA.

Re:I'm Not Sorry: It's Not Sexism

[haruchai]

*slow clap*

Re:I'm Not Sorry: It's Not Sexism

[tomxor]

poor argument

Re:I'm Not Sorry: It's Not Sexism

[haruchai]

"slow clap" is not an argument.

Re:I'm Not Sorry: It's Not Sexism

[tomxor]

*slow clap* for people who have nothing interesting to add.

Re:I'm Not Sorry: It's Not Sexism

[Anonymous Coward]

But interesting enough to make the effort to reply to?

Honesty

[Hevel-Varik]

Very good. Get your prize, speak your mind.

It is isn't hatred of woman (misogyny) to hold that woman are different in important respects and are sometimes suited for different roles as general rule. Maybe that view is sexist (never heard the word defined, honestly) but then reality is sexist and we a need a another word to describe unjust unequal treatment on the basis of gender.

And even if you are of the 'gender is a social construct or personal preference point of view, though to be fair I've never met anyone who thought former, you'd still need a different word to describe unjust unequal treatment on the basis of gender from the very view that the genders are different in important respects and are sometimes suited for different roles as a general, if you wish to differentiate between wrong doing and thought crime.
 

Re:Honesty

[david_thornley]

With the exception of a very few jobs (surrogate mother, say), members of either sex can be competent at anything. Actually barring members of one sex from a field is (with a very few exceptions) sexism. If there's a sex disparity among members of a field, there's any number of possible reasons, many of which are sexist, and it's often worth investigating to try to sort them out.

Re:Honesty

[Hevel-Varik]

I agree with your first point and second part (though I don't use the word sexism but get what you mean). And with the first part of your third. And while I do believe it legitimate for Government to ban given forms of unjustified discrimination in given domains, such as employment, I do not believe the Government should be investigating or doing anything about about given fields being more or less socially welcoming to genders or race for that matter, though to be fair you didn't mention Government. I'm not a small Government advocate but I do strongly believe the Government stay out of Social engineering as such.

Ladies: the lab is no place for you

[JustNiz]

If a ladies are allowed in the lab, scientists will be continually distracted by having to help them with all their twisted ankles and fainting spells.

Hey, girls, you want my HONEST opinion...?

[Anonymous Coward]

See, this is what happens when a guy gives his honest opinion. So he shuts up, and the girls start whining about why he won't talk about his feelings! You cannot have it both ways, ladies!

Re: Hey, girls, you want my HONEST opinion...?

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't be a social retard and don't hit on your co-workers, it's not hard FFS.

Re:Hey, girls, you want my HONEST opinion...?

[Anonymous Coward]

The solution of course is for guys to honestly not have such badwrong opinions.

You mean

[MouseTheLuckyDog]

Ex-Nobel prize winner. Sweden is calling him.

Re:You mean

[Applehu Akbar]

Actually, Sweden is going to charge him with rape and file for extradition. To avoid this he will have to spend the rest of his dismal life hiding out in the nearest Ecuadorean Embassy.

Eighth Century Solution

[PopeRatzo]

I wonder if the esteemed scientist Tim Hunt would be OK with women in the lab if we forced them to cover their bodies and faces in dark clothes and made sure they never looked the male scientists in the eye?

Or we could just do like the Ultra-Orthodox and make sure women just don't have face-to-face contact with any men who are not family.

Re: Eighth Century Solution

[Anonymous Coward]

Last one didn't work out so well with the Duggars.

Re:Eighth Century Solution

[haruchai]

After the backlash he's faced, I'm quite sure he's willing to give that a try. But it would be simpler to just segregate them.

Re:Eighth Century Solution

[PopeRatzo]

But it would be simpler to just segregate them.

Simpler for whom?

Re:Eighth Century Solution

[haruchai]

For both (straight) men & the "girls".

Obligatory reference

[Anonymous Coward]

https://vimeo.com/70051022

Oh noes! Stop the presses and alert the Warriors

[nedlohs]

A 72 year old man made a sexist comment.

Perhaps his was the 1001 Nobel Prize?

[CAOgdin]

Seems to go with the level of thinking about "women in the lab."

You left out the part...

[Radical Moderate]

...where ladies need to stop falling in love with men and stop making men fall in love with them. Because when a man and a woman get together, it's always the lady's fault. How do I know? A Nobel scientist told me.

Re:You left out the part...

[Anonymous Coward]

Apparently you believe it's NEVER the woman's fault.

Projection.

or you could, you know

[publiclurker]

pull your self-important head out of your ass long enough to realize that you do not have the right to go on treating others like second class citizens and expect them to tolerate it. I know your mommie told you you were special, but most people realize that that is just a figure of speech at around the age of 8 or 9. You apparently were too busy congratulating yourself on your existence to read the memo.

Re:or you could, you know

[Karmashock]

First, who am I treating like a second class citizen and what have I done to do that?

As to my mommy telling me I'm special... Your mommy told me Quote: "YES, GOD YES... HARDER" ;-)

Lets not talk about our mothers, mkay shithead? You do not want to challenge me to a flame war. You cannot offend me. You'd as soon offend a stone. Where as you are clearly an emotional little fuckwit that I can manipulate rather easily. Look at how upset you are already? On top of that, I've much more experience being offensive than you do... I have years and years of practice. So you're not going to win. In the spirit of open and honest discourse, I suggest you refrain from presuming to be able to conduct a discussion on the basis of offense, insults, or really anything short of facts and reasonable arguments.

Furthermore, I like that you're calling me a special snowflake because I'm not letting other people be treated as special snowflakes. I am well aware I am not entitled to special rights. Guess what... Neither are you or the vast majority of people pretending they are victims when really they're just exploiting your credulity.

It isn't that they're victims. Its that they think you're stupid enough to give them your power.

And they're right.

Some Guys You Don't Let Out Of The Lab

[Toad-san]

And he called them girls! Man, that guy is just aching for a fight!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

Actually, what he is saying

[publiclurker]

is that he is just as sexist as this speaker is, but that means that the other guy is OK, because do say anything else would be admitting to his own problems.

He needs to grow up.

[Anonymous Coward]

I work with women. I have no problem with them. And I don't see why an adult male should have a problem.

He has a point

[davidwr]

People who, due to their own shortcomings (such as being heavily distracted by women who are behaving professionally, or inappropriately flirting with women on the job) can't work well with others might be better off in an isolated environment.

With "non-superstars" who could succeed in a variety of careers or for that matter multi-talented "superstars," this is easy: They just need to pick a job or career where they don't have to interact with people or groups that interfere with their productivity or provide an environment in which they will behave unprofessionally, and society doesn't lose much in the process.

With "single-talent superstars," and for that matter people of average talent in one area and practically zero hope of succeeding in any other career path, this becomes a problem:

If we tell a person who is extremely talented in a particular line of work (or of average talent in one line of work but totally untalented at anything else) "sorry, because you can't get along with [women/gays/whatever] there is no good way for you to do your job, pick a different job or a different career," then society loses out on the skills and talents that this person has to offer and/or he would likely wind up on the welfare rolls because he couldn't find a job he could succeed at.

Having said that, the right choice for society may very well to say "we'll accept the loss, go find yourself another job" because the social costs of endorsing "bad behavior" is just too much. But we, as a society, need to make this decision eyes-wide-open. If we just give superstars a free pass on social norms without thinking about it or if we give the person who "can't get any other type of job" a free pass for bad behavior in the workplace, or if we summarily tell them "get lost" without being aware of the costs to society, then it can lead to knee-jerk decisions with possibly undesired consequences.

In short: Some people ARE special, and when the mis-behave we as a society need to decide if it's in everyone's best interest to treat them as "special" or to treat them the same as everyone else. Whichever choice we make, there will be a social cost.

Re:He has a point

[haruchai]

Congrats on making, by far, the most reasoned & insightful post in this entire discussion.

Laboratory

[Livius]

Now, I'm really curious - what does he think is different about the lab versus any other workplace?

nobody gives a rats ass

[publiclurker]

if a self important douche bag like you is offended, son. What you are reading is a warning. Sometimes your betters will give these out to self-important nobodies like you as an indication that they are going to get themselves bitch-slapped back to where they belong if they do not at least try to do a better job of pretending to be a respectable human being. That way when you finally end up exactly where you belong, you can't try to claim innocence of that you didn't know or that somehow you are so special that you deserve yet another chance. Instead, you will be greeted with even more derision as you serve as an example to others.

Re:nobody gives a rats ass

[Karmashock]

Where did I say I was offended? Oh that's right... I didn't... I said I couldn't be offended.

Learn to read, fuckwit.

As to your threats... Oh yeah? Well if you do that, my dad will beat up your dad. what do you think about that? Twit.

The funniest thing about your childish, threat laden, incoherent ramble... is that it is quite obvious you're upset. And that's funny because you accused me of being offended first.

The amount of projection from morons is pretty consistent. Pretty much anything they accuse someone else of being is actually more applicable to themselves. I was accused of not reading something the other day by some moron that clearly hadn't read it himself. I quoted the relevant portion and he basically stopped talking because it was obvious he was busted.

Anywho, rage on, hater. Your hatred gives me wood.

Re:nobody gives a rats ass

[Anonymous Coward]

I quoted the relevant portion and he basically stopped talking because it was obvious he was busted.

More likely he gave up because you're completely exhausting to talk to.

and it isn't going to stop until either women hold literally every position in every high status position.

Because here you expose your misogyny.

On top of that, I've much more experience being offensive than you do...

And here your general lack of manners and self-importance.

At some point, you may grow up. I'm not holding my breath though.

Re:nobody gives a rats ass

[Karmashock]

Oh look, another stupid comment from an AC... how fucking original.

When someone runs away when their arguments are systematically disproven... you want to call that anything other than running away? Okay. Yawn.

As to misogyny... what about what I said showed a hatred of women in general?

This is one of those terms which has been so abused it doesn't mean anything any more.

Its like if you started referring to people that ate all their peas and carrots as genociding their peas and carrots. At a certain point, when you come upon actual genocide, you have to use a different word because you're completely burned out the impact of the original term.

Misogyny doesn't mean anything anymore. You've over used it and used it in totally fucking stupid contexts.

Rape is another one. I saw a feminist video the other day where a woman said she was "raped" when her mother called another girl a slut. Raped when her brother made fun of another girl. Raped when someone didn't give a woman a job.

None of these things are rape. And when you call them rape, it confuses people that have heard you do that and heard the original meaning as well. People stop and think "when you say rape, do you mean ACTUAL rape or bullshit rape?"

And that effectively hurts rape victims because you're basically doing a boy that cried wolf type thing.

And you just did that by calling me a misogynist. I'm not... and because you're too stupid to realize that mislabeling me as such is a mistake, you're probably too stupid to realize that you're giving cover for actual woman haters because no one takes the claim of misogyny seriously anymore. Its known to be frequently misused.

So which of us is the real woman hater? Me or you? You're objectively hurting woman more than I am because you're making it harder for them to get help when facing actual discrimination. I"m not doing that. That's YOU.

That might not be your intention. But your general stupidity is not really relevant here either. That is the effect of your actions.

A Primer For The Slashdot Geek

[westlake]

The opening session speakers at The World Council of Science Journalists were Tim Hunt, representing Nobel Science, and Deborah Blum, author of The Poisoner's Handbook , Pulitzer Prize Journalism.

The biennial WCSJ conference is top-tier ---- legitimately "news for nerds."

The contrast between Matt Taylor and his guns and lace lingerie tee and the background shots of the women working the Philae landing can't have been far from anyone's mind.

The Royal Society, where Hunt is a fellow, issued a short statement entitled ''Science needs women.'' In it, it states that ''in order to achieve everything that it can, science needs to make the best use of the research capabilities of the entire population,'' and that it wanted to distance itself from Hunt's remarks. University College London, where Hunt had an honorary faculty position, announced his resignation by stating that ''UCL was the first university in England to admit women students on equal terms to men, and the university believes that this outcome [the resignation] is compatible with our commitment to gender equality.'' The American Association for the Advancement of Science pulled Hunt from a planned webinar in which he was scheduled to offer advice on ''persevering in science.''

Nobel Prize winner resigns a position after sexist comments publicized

Wonder who's crying now

[Anonymous Coward]

*guitar solo*

Le Pen

[Anonymous Coward]

Marc Lepine and Hans Reiser have something in common.

(They did nothing w____)

PC Police

[freudigst]

I'm surprised the PC police haven't asked for his head on a platter yet - for being genuine.

Maybe he is treating women the same as men.

[Anonymous Coward]

It would possibly be "You get mad at them, they get mad at you and when they get mad, they hit you". It's treating men with the same stereotypic broad brush as women: they are their archetypes.

The problem will be solved

[Anonymous Coward]

in the near future, when the United Earth Government mandates all people's DNA to be modified, eliminating gender in the process. As a collateral benefit, all the stupid gender-specific restrictions mandated by the Abrahamic religions will automagically become obsolete. Humanity will be saved from the need to have not one, but two toilet rooms everywhere. And last, but not least, the wars of urinals and of the toilet seats will be ended for good.

Punished for telling the truth

[hamvil]

I'm in the same position of this guy. Let's forget for a moment the crap about falling in love. He is right that women in science tend to take criticism rather personally. For example, I had an adult women scientist in my lab and I basically could not criticize her work in the same way I was doing with her male colleagues because she would break in tears. I am very candid with my students and if their work is nonsense or stupid I tell them so, this does not mean they are stupid. I remember telling to this student that one slide in her presentation was utter nonsense and due to that her entire presentation was useless. She started crying in front of the group and then she started telling other people that I think she is useless.

Oblig.

[Tablizer]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

Competition

[Anonymous Coward]

"Let me tell you about my trouble with girls three things happen when they are in the lab: You fall in love with them, they fall in love with you and when you criticize them, they cry."

Knowing two female scientists (one postdoc and one junior prof; biology) I can confirm that it is pure truth.

Had to sit through not one evening of tears and mopping about the lab affairs.

The environment is highly competitive, and men and women compete differently.

Segregation works for sports, and unless science stop being about a competition for funds, it is worth a shot.

Women are useless

[Anonymous Coward]

Practically.