Slashdot Mirror
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."
Today is Friday! Thanks, Dice!
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.
This is an old, old, old story. Consign to dustbin. Does anybody remember anything on /.? Apparently not.
http://www.acetonestudio.com
Since this DOES happen, what's the fix? Pretending that there's no shenanigans going doesn't make it any better.
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.
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.
Those were light hearted remarks.
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.
Secession is the right of all sentient beings.
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.
If you have to pick one rule to stick to at work, it's don't date your coworker.
did you forget to take your meds?
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.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
"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?"
...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.
Bukowski said it. I believe it. That settles it.
Birds take to flight. The trees tremble as the furious hordes of SJW White Nights approaches.
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.
"If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
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.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
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.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
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.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
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?
I stole this Sig
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.
"The agriculture ministry is not in charge of Gundam" - Japanese ministry official.
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".
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".
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
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.
sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
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.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
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.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
"I'm sorry you were offended. I'm not sorry for what I said."?
Don't just stand there, get that other dog!
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 .
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
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 ...")
Earned his Noble stamp of approval!
Did you think that Nobel-anything would respect women?
https://www.youtube.com/c/BrendaEM
Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
What part of "shall not be infringed" is so hard to understand?
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.
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.
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".
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
"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.
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!
That's a bit unfair - Hans only took over Nakatomi Plaza, I didn't remember him calling Americans stupid.
Ex-Nobel prize winner. Sweden is calling him.
This is Slashdot. I can be both brilliant and stupid, while the whole fiasco is observed by thousands of Slashdotters!
Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
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...
"If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
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.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
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...
"If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
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.
"If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
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.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
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.
I'm really outraged no one said anything about "/,".
"If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
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".
You are welcome on my lawn.
Without male/female interactions, we'd soon run out of scientists.
You are welcome on my lawn.
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.
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.
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.
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.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
"Then your "black friend" is stupid..."
Or, to state the obvious, he's not your friend.
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...
You are welcome on my lawn.
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.
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."
Oh. I guess if that never happened to you, then it shouldn't bother you.
Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
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.
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
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.
You are welcome on my lawn.
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).
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
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.
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
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.
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
Irony, in a nutshell
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
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"
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
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".
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
Why do you keep redirecting the conversation?
"If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
Seems to go with the level of thinking about "women in the lab."
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.
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
I see a porn movie plot somewhere in here :-D
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
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.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
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...
And this is somebody that the world sees as a scientist?
Our planet is doomed.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
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?"
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:
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.
You are welcome on my lawn.
...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.
Never let a lack of data get in the way of a good rant.
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".
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
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.
I love Jesus, except for his foreign policy.
OK, we can do this again. Here is the quote:
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.
You are welcome on my lawn.
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.
Irony: Agile development has too much intertia to be abandoned now.
It's only offensive if you see yourself as part of the obviously stupid side of America
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.
And he called them girls! Man, that guy is just aching for a fight!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
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.
Reading comprehension fail.
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).
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
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.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
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.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
Now, I'm really curious - what does he think is different about the lab versus any other workplace?
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.
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.
You are welcome on my lawn.
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
You mean like "ironic misandry"?
A bullet may have your name on it but splash damage is addressed "To whom it may concern."
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.
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.
A bullet may have your name on it but splash damage is addressed "To whom it may concern."
I'm surprised the PC police haven't asked for his head on a platter yet - for being genuine.
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.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
You know the "end father's day" thing was manufactured by 4chan for lulz, right?
http://www.buzzfeed.com/ryanha...
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
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.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
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.
A bullet may have your name on it but splash damage is addressed "To whom it may concern."
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?
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.
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.
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.
"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.
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.
Really? It must have been before my time, and I'm in my late 50s.
Just another day in Paradise
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.
Incipiamus, fratres, servire Domino Deo, quia hucusque vix vel parum in nullo profecimus.
"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???
Just another day in Paradise
Alright, we can look at the quote again:
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.
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/....
You are welcome on my lawn.
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.
Rational thought is the only true freedom
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.
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.
A bullet may have your name on it but splash damage is addressed "To whom it may concern."
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.
A bullet may have your name on it but splash damage is addressed "To whom it may concern."
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.
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Table-ized A.I.
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?
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
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.
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.
What part of "shall not be infringed" is so hard to understand?
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.
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?
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.
You are welcome on my lawn.
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...
You are welcome on my lawn.
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.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
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.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
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:
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.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
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.
You are welcome on my lawn.
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
You are welcome on my lawn.
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.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
A "joke"?
Here's his statement, please explain the funny part to us:
You are welcome on my lawn.
"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?
Pain is merely failure leaving the body
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.
Pain is merely failure leaving the body
And there are consequences.
So what?
You are welcome on my lawn.
Consequences to them being human like the rest of us?
Pain is merely failure leaving the body
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.
You are welcome on my lawn.
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.
Pain is merely failure leaving the body
He wasn't outside the "theater of work". He was speaking at a conference of fellow scientists and science journalists.
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?
You are welcome on my lawn.
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.
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.
Pain is merely failure leaving the body
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?
You are welcome on my lawn.
Would you care to bet there are not an even greater number of counterexamples?
Pain is merely failure leaving the body
Here is what you've said,
"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.
You are welcome on my lawn.
Re-read my entire statement carefully and you should quickly spot your own mistake.
Pain is merely failure leaving the body
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.