In 2001, Tim Hunt (now Sir Tim Hunt) won the Nobel Prize for Medicine or Physiology along with Paul Nurse (now Sir Paul Nurse) and Leland Hartwell for the discovery of how certain proteins (kinases) regulate cell division. But, like James D. Watson, Hunt has now come into disrepute by making statements that demean minorities: in Watson’s case it was blacks; in Hunt’s it was women scientists.
As The New York Times reports, Hunt’s comments, uttered at the World Conference of Science Journalism in Seoul, involved denigrating women’s supposed overemotionality, and the effects they have on making men (including Hunt) fall in love with them, which, says Hunt, causes big problems in the lab. He called, in fact, for “sex-segregated labs” to prevent this problem, as if labs were some kind of Catholic school.
Hunt’s remarks first received public attention via the following tw**t by Connie St. Louis, head of the science journalism program at City University London:
Of course the expected tsunami of criticism ensued, for these remarks are unconscionable, and were instantly added to Hunt’s biography on Wikipedia, where they’ll remain forever. Hunt subsequently issued a clarification, but didn’t really apologize for what he said; he simply explained his statement and said he was sorry if he had caused any offense. That, of course, shows no contrition at all for denigrating women scientists. But he also resigned his position at University College London (Hunt is 72).
The issues remain: women are perceived as “Eves” in the lab, who distract men from doing science (Hunt’s desired segregation would of course prevent both sexes from benefitting from each others’ ideas and work); that there can be real problems of harassment of women and an imbalance in the power structure of science (more rarely, that can obtain for men in labs headed by women, and, at any rate, universities have rules outlining what constitutes harassment); and that women can be seen as “weaker” creatures whose sentiments must be coddled. Each of these just adds another drop in the heavy bucket on the heads of women scientists, making them think, “Seriously? Do we still have to put up with this crap?”
Some writers have called for Hunt’s FRS (Fellow of the Royal Society) membership to be revoked (the Royal Society has distanced itself from Hunt’s remarks), and even for his knighthood to be nullified. I don’t agree, for there are all kinds of jerks who are “Sirs” and FRSs, and ultimately it’s scientific accomplishment, not impeccable character, that brings these honors.
Still, I’m very proud of the way women scientists have acted to mock and dispel these notions. First there is this tw**t from Kate Devlin, researcher at Goldsmith’s University London:
And from Sophie Scott, a professor of neuroscience at University College London:
A lot of comments, some by men, are collected at #distractinglysexy on Twi**er, and they’re hilarious. Here are a few of my favorites:
This also dispels the Hitchensian myth that women aren’t funny.
I could read those clever rejoinders all day! You go, wiminz in scienz!
Dr. Coyne,
I think I love you for this post. 🙂
There’s a reason he doesn’t post his photo at the top of the website!
OMG those replies are hysterically funny (see what I did there by using the word “hysterical”?)
I remember once being chastised by a manager who didn’t like it when I cut my hair shorter. I told him I wasn’t hired to look pretty for him.
Careful, don’t get too hysterical or a doctor with a vibrator may be called to deal with your wandering uterus.
“I wasn’t hired to look pretty for him”
First reaction (to the manager’s even commenting — Holy Hoppin’ Hank, is the dude a complete moron?
And they: Well played Diana!
then, not they. Yikes! 🙂
But the “they” can be referring to us Readers.
Well played indeed.
Tim Hunt and James Watson are from the pre-boomer generation – they really did train in an environment where minority and women scientists were an oddity.
Max Planck’s dictum that science makes progress funeral by funeral still holds.
So it is with all human endeavors.
“science makes progress funeral by funeral still holds”
THAT is good!
Secularism (in most of the world at least) also makes progress funeral by funeral.
@frank “…science makes progress funeral by funeral”
Thomas Kuhn’s famous book in six words.
While it is true in this (extended) case, it isn’t actually as true as Planck thought, alas. Cf. Hull’s _Science as Process_, which actually *tested* the idea.
Hilarious responses to such bone-headed remarks. Time to get over yourself, Mr. Hunt.
I love the lab signs. Those science-type women have senses of humour that should be lethal to male chauvinism.
I’m not sure which I’m more annoyed by – Dr. Hunt’s stupid, antiquated statements or the inevitable internet overreaction.
Well, the important thing is that you’ve found a way to feel superior to both. -xkcd
No, I’m not feeling superior to anyone. Just annoyed.
Well, the important thing is that you’ve found a way to feel annoyed to both. ~xkcd
Ha!
/@
Rimshot!
The xckd satire is excellent. But it’s not universally applicable. Just because you invoke it doesn’t make you right. It may well be valid to criticise both sides of an argument. In this case I believe that the person you’re attacking with the satire has a bit of a point.
Agreed.
And… wait for it…. disagree. Gleefullyl disagree.
At least this “overreaction” (which wasn’t) did’t involve anyone threatening to kill or rape Hunt.
/@
*didn’t
I don’t have the time or energy to read all the responses. I just hope that by the time I finish this post, SIR Tim has lost all official positions/affiliations – and is trying to sell The Big Issue in Mayfair.
Jeannine
aka pghwelshgirl
I DO NOT HAVE THE WORDS TO ARTICULATE HOW PISSED OFF THIS MAKES ME.
Ah yes, here it is. The first mention of rape.
I figured it would come from Myers first.
I’ve never been disappointed in a WEiT comment section until today. People fuck up and say stupid things. That’s all that has happened here.
All things must pass, I guess. I wish you all well in your search for purity.
Ah yes, I see your point: this is the first mention of rape, in contrast to when rape is mentioned first, as when a women has the temerity to criticize a man. That was your point, right? I mean the best way to respond to a woman expressing an opinion you don’t like is with rape threats, isn’t it?
No, certainly not my point.
Do you think that these responses to Hunt’s obnoxious remarks are /as/ disproportionate as responses to pro-women remarks by the likes of Mary Beard and Caroline Criado-Perez?
/@
Care to elaborate on why you found Ant’s comment off the mark?
It’s probably not Ant so much as the tone of some of the other comments on this article that bother me.
It’s just the sanctimony – it’s at a level I normally only hear from the religious. We all make mistakes from time to time. I mean, I get it, what he (Dr. Hunt) said was stupid, but I don’t think he’s a horrible, evil person. This stupid statement evidently doesn’t define him.
And I just don’t want to jump into the mighty internet hate machine.
I agree. The level of sanctimony from Hunt’s defenders is nauseating.
The sister-in-law of an ex-girlfriend once made a racist comment in my presence. When I talked to the girlfriend about it, she said that her sister-in-law sometimes says “stupid” things. My concern was her saying racist things; it would be stupid to say racist things when you aren’t racist. BTW, the family totally wasn’t racist because the father had a black chauffeur and a brother had a black nanny who was like “one of the family” (except that she was addressed by her first name, and she addressed the parents by their last name…).
Jeff, do you think your views in this matter might be different if you were a woman? Have you ever tried to imagine how your life would be different if you were female? I mean really, really tried to imagine it, not just given it a perfunctory thought for a few moments.
Who’s defending Hunt? And who do you think you are to ask such a thing?
That anecdote sure proves your point.
Applause!
Brilliant snarky responses. Ridicule is the best remedy for that kind of stupidity.
Yes, but how much? This stuff just makes me sad all around.
How much? An overwhelming amount of it. That way the message has a better chance of getting through.
I think it’s gotten through to people though, right? I think the response shows that this is obvious.
How much? Not enough yet!
I would have thought it overwhelmingly embarrassing to express such nonsense in public these days. Apparently not.
Well, it goes without saying, that Hunt’s statement is embarrassing and ridiculous. And I think the response shows that this is manifest.
But FFS people (and I don’t mean the people here), he’s an old dude, with old values, who made a mistake. What, is the internet going to hound the guy into an early grave now? Is that what it will take to make people happy?
FFS, he’s only 72. That’s not much older than I am. No way is that an excuse.
Yes, you are right.
I guess what I find inhuman in all this is the extent to which the internet amplifies it, and how people seem to cheer it on.
I think the message has been sent, and hopefully received.
How people cheer it on?
Consider, perhaps, that the attitude he expressed has been responsible for limiting the professional careers of countless women scientists.
I can’t for the life of me understand why you think the “Internet” mockery of a Nobel laureate calling for sex-segregated laboratories has been excessive.
I think the responses, especially from the women scientists are near-perfect. To the point and very funny and even self-deprecating.
To a determinist like me, this is all goodness. The reactions are part of the environment of scientists, including future decision makers. May they learn well from this.
Sorry guys, I can’t respond directly for some reason.
I agree with you both for the most part. I just, personally, find it mean and the internet response out of proportion to the offense.
What would be proportionate, then, when Hunt has just insulted 3.7 billion people?
/@
I was going to write, “I love ya, man!” for your comment but I then worried people would think I was being emotional and falling in love. 😀
As long as you don’t start crying…
😢😥😰
Jeff, I agree with you.
That is a bold statement. Passing judgment on someone based on the proximity of age to yourself.
Other than the fact that trying to understand another persons position doesn’t equate to ‘excusing’, simply mapping one simple criteria, the similarity in ages, doesn’t exhaust the possibility that someone else’s developmental experiences may differ.
Think of who you’re insulting here with your casual ageism. Hint–a lot of us.
Are you now speaking for the “lot of us?”
No just Lot and his salt wife.
LOL! That was good.
She was a pillar of the community.
/@
I LOL’d so hard I had tears (woman tears).
I’ll take that as a condiment.
/@
I’ll relish that.
y’all are in a real pickle now.
Don’t worry; we can cut the mustard.
/@
Oy!
ROTFL!
Darn. That sounded way, way harsh. I apologize. I am very sorry, Diane.
No problem, doc!
Diane, I don’t have a ‘reply’ option on the thread, but if you see this, were you accusing me of ageism?
Nothing I said had anything to do with ageism.
You don’t know how old I am.
I was merely pointing out that saying I am the same age as x therefore x has no excuse, is a nonsense argument.
Sorry, Michael. I overreacted.
Thanks Diane.
If it goes without saying then why did Hunt say what he said ?
And Hunt is no victim here, all he has to do is to take full ownership of what he said and clearly and unambiguously retract and apologize for what he said.
It goes without saying for me.
Totally agree that a real apology is in order.
If his apology isn’t going to be sincere, then he shouldn’t apologize. Hunt has done the world a great service: reminded us that virulent sexism isn’t a thing of the past (sorry, Thanny. Actually, I’m not – that was sarcasm).
“He’s an old dude, with old values.” I don’t buy that excuse.
An American scientist in his 70s would have grown up in a country where racism was taken for granted. If a 72-year-old American scientist endorsed bringing back segregation, would anyone say “Well, consider his age. You can’t expect him to know any better?”
This is the 21st century, and some people still have their heads in the 19th.
Why did Hunt say what he did, look around, everybody is happy to tell you.
The probability that any are correct is probably zero, but when has that stopped anyone?
The flood of Twitter comments cannot be controlled. The flood of commentariat comments to the Twitter comments cannot be controlled. These are very very noisy times
The fact that we want equal opportunities for women doesn’t invalidate Hunt’s personal experiences.
There are women in my workplace. I fell in love with one, and she fell in love with me. Was it a distraction that impacted our productivity? You better believe it. I doubt we’d be better off with segregated workplaces, but I don’t think Hunt should be crucified for having his opinion. But the SJWs are the ones in power now. They win another one.
Crucified? Hyperbole much? Free speech is a two way street. He has the right to express his opinions, and others have the right to mercilessly mock him for them. Everybody wins!
The issue is he just painted all female scientists with a big wide brush and said they were stereotypically too emotional for the lab. I think we should ridicule him for his way off the mark stereotype. Women have enough trouble working in STEM fields as it is.
He is free to have and express his opinion and we are all free to reject and mock it.
Right on, Diana.
It would be a different story had he not given a notpology.
So are women in the science field different than other fields? I’ve worked in supervisory positions for 35 years and it’s only ever been women, and fairly regularly that cry when reprimanded. I don’t think it’s a weakness thing but a “men generally respond sympathetically when the waterworks are turned on” thing.
People don’t make me cry at work usually but if they do, you can bet I will make them cry.
I am not sure what you are attempting to convey. That there are differences between women and men isn’t in contention and isn’t relevant to the issue of equal access, opportunity and rights legally, professionally and socially.
To counter your anectdote with another, I have created and managed teams of people to perform projects of various sizes since the early ’90s. I have never experienced woman crying to be an out of the ordinary problem, ever. I can’t imagine it being any more problematic than the various behaviors men exhibit under similar circumstances.
With regards to manipulation (crying to elicit sympathy), woman have got nothing on men in that department.
I’ve seen men getting red in the face in meetings and I’ve asked them if they want to take a moment to control their emotions. Yes, these were men in conflict with me because they didn’t want to work with a woman.
Both sexes react emotionally. Men are more likely to get angry, women to cry. Each one is an emotional response, but the emotions of the traditionally “other sex” is condemned, not that of the men.
“Both sexes react emotionally. Men are more likely to get angry, women to cry. Each one is an emotional response, but the emotions of the traditionally “other sex” is condemned, not that of the men.”
I don’t think it’s about condemning the “other sex” it’s about the reaction that results. Most people I know will dismiss out of hand, or react negatively to an angry response, but be sympathetic to tears. In that sense crying is more problematic. Additionally you’re perceived as an @ss if you “make” a woman cry, or unsympathetically dismiss it. If a man responds angrily you can dismiss it, throw him out of your office, or even fire him, and people won’t blame you for having responded that way. In other words anger is much easier to manage than tears.
For men, anyway. 😉
Depends on the anger. Even though it would be awkward, I’d prefer to handle the equivalent amount of tears to the violence of someone about to hit me (I’ve experienced this in the work place).
Women I know will hide their tears. They don’t want to show anyone that they got the best of them. I’ve comforted many a female friend this way (and I’m not very good at it).
That all sounds very familiar.
Someone threatened to hit you at work? I should think that would have major repercussions, no?
infiniteimprobabilit’s response sort of hit on the one the point I was going to make. If someone tries, or threatens to hit you they can be written up, fired, or the police may be called in.
What do you do when someone cries? Write them up? Fire them? Crying isn’t even seen as a negative. In fact it’s something that’s suggested men do more often
I didn’t even go into this aspect of it before. I brought a woman into my office once to constructively criticize, and she burst into tears. When she left my office everyone was asking her what I did. I know this was the case because not long later I was called to the VP’s office so he could ask me what I did.
Crying isn’t a threat to anyone. Hitting someone is. That is why we classify hitting someone as assault and we tend not to arrest people for crying. Hell, you might as well arrest people for laughing then.
I will admit that I don’t do well with emotions. I like to keep mine under control and I don’t like being around emotional people but crying as an uncontrollable reaction to something terrible, shouldn’t be seen as a character flaw. And no, I don’t always feel the need to comfort someone crying. Sometimes it has absolutely no impact on me because I know they are simply feeling their feelings.
BTW in the workplace it isn’t always a good idea to report someone. That person who lost on control and was close to hitting me, while I sat quietly (imagine, a woman like me controlling her emotions) received no complaints. I let my manager know and I suspect our director had words with him but I know that if I went through official channels to get justice, I would be ostracized as a bad person who got someone fired. He later appologized and we worked closely on projects but I never trusted him again.
Perhaps it wasn’t even about you, though. I once worked with floor nurse who seemed to hate me for no apparent reason. It reached a point where I was concerned about patient care.
I asked the nursing supervisor to arrange a meeting between herself, the floor nurse, and me, and asked her to essentially be there as witness.
Turned out, the floor nurse didn’t even realize that she was taking out on me the fear, frustration, and anger she felt against her estranged husband, as he was leaving her for another woman and doing it in the Philippines, where the societal ramifications could have a major effect her far beyond what we see in the states.
There was a lot of crying. I was able to understand, offer comfort in the form of a supportive hug, and know that the nursing supervisor was on the same page with us, both, to add her support as well.
That floor nurse was wonderful, afterward.
They do that in countries like Pakistan and Saudia Arabia if you laugh at the wrong things.
Indeed. And we don’t want to be like them.
Yes? Only the women, you say?
I was a production manager at a newspaper for 10 years. I had 6 direct reports, and a larger crew of more than 100, overwhelmingly men. They cried, and not just when they were “reprimanded”.
Jesus, I wish the trope that only women cry and real men don’t would die already.
I asked if women were different in the science field. Maybe what I should have asked was if professional women were different.
The people I’ve supervised for 35+ years are Walmart quality. Women regularly cry, and men want to punch me, or quit. or both.
I think the outrage over his comments comes from those who live in the professional bubble. Those who don’t realize that the people in low class reality shows behave like the majority of the population actually does.
You won’t find many of them commenting on WEIT, and you won’t find them knowing or caring what Sir Tim Hunt had to say.
Not sure what your point is, but if I worked in a place with a lot of crying and fantasies of violence I might consider another line of work. Hunt made inappropriate, sexist comments that clearly denigrate female talent, and is now dealing with the consequences of those stupid remarks. Looks like a reasonable outcome from my perspective.
“Not sure what your point is”
I guess my point is I agree that the story here is Hunt inserting his metatarsals into his buccal orifice, rather than expelling feces from said orifice.
His proposed solution is ridiculous, and counterproductive, but the rest of what he had to say is primarily drawing fire not because he’s wrong, but because they are politically incorrect things to say in a climate where women are underrepresented in Stem fields and it’s at least perceived to be because men don’t want them there.
He’s not just stating his experience. He’s saying what he dislikes about having women working in a lab. He goes on to make a ridiculous suggestion, segregation, as a solution.
He did not say anything close to: In my experience, sometimes men and women react to events differently. Here’s a way I propose that will treat everyone fairly and reduce tension between people.
+1
I don’t have management experience but have observed and discussed the women crying phenomena. I spoke about with my ex, she was very annoyed when a situation got to the point where she would struggle not to cry, most certainly did not want to cry, but did.
She was also as tough a person as anyone else.
I have seen it at my work where a woman will tear up when a man wouldn’t. A man may be having other reactions though, but not crying.
It is not any kind of a weakness or necessarily manipulation but a feature and I think both sexes respond to crying with some extra sympathy or consideration.
“It is not any kind of a weakness or necessarily manipulation but a feature and I think both sexes respond to crying with some extra sympathy or consideration.”
We can certainly have a discussion about what the cause is, but people seem to be implying, or outright stating that women being more likely to cry is not a thing. I’m sorry but find that claim absurd. It’s contrary to everything I have observed in 30+ years of management, and 50+ of life.
That being said I would never suggest women shouldn’t be hired on that basis. It’s a fact that needs to be ignored, in the same way we should ignore the fact women tend to get pregnant, and take maternity leave more often than men
I’m not arguing against that. I suspect it was evolutionarily advantageous to be able to evoke sympathy from the bigger, stronger sex when the latter was angry. (Or even when he was not.)
I’m saying that few (men) see men’s anger as a problem on a par with women’s tears. Which it may not be for men* but it sure is for women.
*(just as tears aren’t for women)
Yes, I was agreeing with you.
From Wikipedia:
” Founded in 1826 as London University, UCL was the first university institution established in London and the first in England to be entirely secular, to admit students regardless of their religion, and to admit women on equal terms with men.”
Presumably the men had to cry as well.
It’s all a very good example of an old man who maintained an attitude that was pretty much normal 50 years ago. If he kept up on his science/medical issues to the same extent he might just now be learning about DNA.
//
Freedom of speech should also mean freedom to occasionally make a silly ass of oneself without being branded a monster for an entire lifetime, hounded to leave one’s job and stripped of all professional awards and honours, as is being suggested in certain quarters over Sir Tim’s comments.
I can just imagine the lesson of the requirement for self-censorship taking hold in all academia, as academics read of Sir Tim’s fall from grace.
As for sexual chemistry in the workplace – well we all know that it exists, but we SHOULD NEVER acknowledge such a reality.
He hasn’t been taken to task for putting forward some controversial thesis, but for perpetuating lazy stereotypes about women, and suggesting that they’re nothing but an irritating distraction in the lab. I can’t see how calling him out on this is any sort of threat to academic freedom.
Do you think that losing his position as a professor at UCL is proportionate to his making these stupid remarks nightglare?
Think about it. If he had criticised MEN as being “ill tempered and difficult to work with if criticised” would he have similarly lost this position?
Isn’t it a bit rich that so many think it is absolutely essential that we must rush to the defense of women with swinging penalties for the “offenders” as they are fragile, when someone accuses them of being fragile? Who exactly is insulting the capabilities of women might I ask?
You seem not to have noticed. The ridicule that is being heaped on him is coming from women for the most part.
What’s rich is the idea that Hunt is being somehow persecuted by the snark and ridicule being directed his way.
For people like Howie, when you fight against injustice for some historically marginalized group (be it women, gays, blacks, etc.) you are actually being patronizing and paternalistic. I guess only women can stand up to sexism, blacks to racism, and gays to homophobia. This is good because women, blacks and gays have the same amount of power in society as men and whites and straights. This sucks for me because as a straight, white male, I have nothing to do! I guess I’ll just have to go play golf or something.
He had an honorary position, not a real job. I’m not sure whether he was forced to quit or quit of his own volition. I don’t think that they should have asked him to resign, if that’s what happened. His being mocked and raked over the coals is punishment enough.
Agreed.
I don’t know if you followed developments over the last day, but Hunt has now been pushed out from not just his largely ceremonial position at UCL (it’s been confirmed that his ‘resignation’ was in fact a ‘resign or we’ll fire you’ situation), but the European Research Council and the Royal Society. I agree that his being raked over the coals of public opinion should in fact have been enough, but I think the institutional sanctions he’s received have been wholly disproportionate, and a disturbing signal that at least some high-profile scientific institutions are being run by their PR departments and having their agendas far too dictated by social media.
This Science Media Centre post gets it right
http://www.sciencemediacentre.org/call-off-the-hunt/
That’s going way too far!
I think the coal-raking was sufficient.
“Hunt has now been pushed out from not just his largely ceremonial position at UCL…but the European Research Council and the Royal Society.”
Again, way too far. The replies of the women in the tweets Jerry posted hit just the right note, IMO. The more replies, the better.
But someone on Twitter needs to start an #enough is enough” topic, decrying those banishments.
I agree with you Diane.
I don’t think anyone’s employment or professional positions should be allowed to be decided by campaigns on Twitter, whatever their alleged crime. It should be decided in this case by the facts of what he said and did, taken in context.
IF (as the posts by Stan Giesbrecht and Adrian Burd below would seem to indicate) Sir Tim’s comments about emotional entanglements reflect personal experience (and I’m sure that happens quite often); but his suggestion of segregated labs was purely satirical and jocular, then he is really only guilty of not realising how these comments can be picked on by people who weren’t there.
The tweets Jerry posted were still entirely apt, IMO.
Perhaps these lauded institutions are sending their own, albeit nonverbal, message. Actions speak louder than words. Their actions seem to convey: We will not tolerate sexism in science, in education, nor in our professionals who, intended or not, represent us by being amongst our ranks.
That is a good message to send.
Sir Hunt will not starve or suffer homelessness over unfairly targeted loss of job or status. Women have. I am one.
A lot of people have suffered unfairness.
That doesn’t justify more unfairness.
Taking a persons livelihood and substance of their life from them is extremely serious.
Whether they will starve or other wise.
For a trying a bit of irony.
The thing is, as I watch this, is that people who don’t get self deprecating irony really don’t get it. And any further trying to explain the irony only sounds like a failed apology.
If you can’t squeeze it is not your personal narrative it is not a real thing.
As I keep going on about, literalism and the loss of context and irony is one of the great problems growing in the illiberal left.
But, I suppose if you can’t see it. you can’t.
Which was why tolerance was invented.
You know that the vehemence of the backlash against Hunt’s remarks are not due only to the remarks themselves but also due to the fact that he will not take full responsibility for what he said.
He is not a passive actor in all this, he can take actions that will ameliorate the impact of this on his reputation if he so chooses.
And as for sexual chemistry in the work space, there are any number of stimuli that can affect our behavior but I’m pretty sure that if I were to walk by a coworkers desk who was eating a delicious meal I could resist the impulse to snatch it out of her hands. Likewise with other impulses, as adult human beings we are expected to be able to control them and not let them control us.
Yes, echoes of “we can’t allow women to dress like that because we can’t control ourselves.” Whatever happened to personal responsibility?
In y2015, s t I l l: Why are four hormones biologically fluctuating throughout any day’s worth of hours considered the ABnormal? Why is one hormone, whatever its level, considered during any particular hour The Norm? Why is not crying considered The Norm, The Standard? Why is crying (always) considered The Other? Why is crying considered “turning on the waterworks” so that inside any interpersonal relationship there is a specific getting a leg up in said transaction? Why is hierarchy as is carried out in most workplace situations including laboratories The Norm? Why isn’t lateral mutuality in laboratories’ researching of results and outcomes — as well as in communities’ engagements and activities, not to mention, within persons’ individual families … … The Norm? By now.
Journalist St John stated the World’s g e n e r a l responses to (the stoppage of) sexism succinctly, “UNacceptably slow. Enough. It is enough.”
Blue
Totally agree with the normal vs. other framing.
http://www.whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2012/09/22/new-study-shows-gender-bias-against-female-students
http://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/opinion/editorials/2015/06/16/distractinglysexy-hunt-science-sexist/28841615/?hootPostID=294d6cc0296bf416f5831cece6b93253
Blue
Wow. Even in the graph copied into PCC’s post, the “strong grey” color is used for males and the “soft gray” for females. Equality might have resulted in a pattern of, say, black and white squares for one and black and white diagonal stripes for the other.
A firewall blocks the other article. One can pass through by answering a poll question or spend money. I choose not to, though I do want to read it.
OK, privileged white hetero cis male here, but I’m not sure I’d read too much into the “strong” grey for males and “soft” grey for females – it’s likely the official colour palette that dictates that dark grey is used first, light grey second.
!*Except*! that it follows the convention that male is the first category! That’s the societally ingrained bias.
/@
I was gonna say… 😀
Those responses are terrific and very funny. Well done all!
What a tool to say crap like that even if he thinks it! What we tell our son is: It’s mostly OK to think what you want to, just be very careful about what comes out of your mouth!
That really is very sad. Probably true, but very sad.
Are we really living in a virtual ‘1984’ police state, where ‘walls have ears’, ‘Big Brother is watching you’ and we all have to watch what we say lest the wrong person hears it and the Thought Police come for us?
It really does start to look like it.
There is starting to be a backlash, though. Someplace recently–Wired?–there was an article about it. Began with the example of the woman who made an offhand joke about Ebola while boarding a plane and found out she was fired when she arrived at her destination.
I certainly hope so. A backlash I mean.
It’s just totally wrong that anyone should be penalised on the basis of gossip, hearsay, and opinion (which is basically what Twitter et al is). This is why juries are told to ignore anything they hear outside the courtroom, for example.
When one man voicing such archaic opinions gets such a reaction, it’s demonstrated beyond any doubt that there are no obstacles to women in science anymore.
Too bad there will be no shortage of people claiming the exact opposite, citing this aberration as evidence.
As for Hitchens and women being funny, he had a point (as many women have said in response). It’s a matter of prevalence. The odds of a random woman being funny are much lower than a random man. This is really not a controversial opinion among sociological researchers. Men are better able to make people laugh, while women laugh more often. Coupled with the fact that a huge number of women place “makes me laugh” at the top of their list of positives about their romantic partner, it’s obvious to many that there has been sexual selection making men funnier.
The mistake almost everyone makes when criticizing that Hitchens article is assuming he claimed that no women are funny or that women can’t be funny. He explicitly said otherwise, though did add that funny professional female comedians tended to be more mannish (his word). It’s hard to argue against that latter point, either, as most of the funniest female comedians that come to mind are less feminine, and often openly lesbian.
Apply your thinking to the issue of the use of force against blacks by the police and let us know what you come up with.
There’s no comparison between race relations and sex relations. Two completely separate social mechanisms in play.
Besides, I didn’t say anything that isn’t supported by all current research in the area of purported sex discrimination in the sciences. Yet somehow I’m saying something unreasonable?
Show me I’m wrong. Or, continue to emit non sequiturs that are meant to insinuate that I’m some kind of villain, and join the ranks of Social Justice Warriors (followers of SocJus) who know no tactic other than attempted shaming for any opinion deemed hostile to Goodthink.
If you think anything I’ve said is remotely sexist or racist, you don’t know what those terms mean.
My father comes from Yorkshire therefore I am half Yorkshirish.
I am appalled, aghast, dismayed and triggered by Mr Hitchens.
I can not believe he could possibly say such terrible things. I used to like him but now, nothing he says means anything to me.
I want, and need, a retraction.
What on earth has the use of force by police against blacks got to do with that reasonable comment on Hitchens proposition?
What about the force used by police against non black people?
I guess you haven’t seen the accumulating library of videos of police officers dealing with white men with guns and/or blatant mental illness. Tune in.
I have seen some such things. what are you getting at?
Did you understand my position?
Is this satire?
Guess not. Gladly counted as one of those “no shortage of people.” Though I would not use this “aberration.” Not when there are myriad other examples easily accessible.
For some people, the more examples you cite for something, the less likely it is to be true. See: Morton’s demon.
If there are myriad other examples, no doubt you can cite three more off the top of your head.
Because if you can’t name it off the top of your head, it doesn’t really exist! Taking lessons from the creationists, are we?
Oh, and I can give you two of the three examples you demand…FROM THIS THREAD ALONE. Your level of intellectual dishonesty is disgusting.
Thank you for making it clear how much weight I should put on your opinions in the future.
@Thanny It’s dangerous to speak the truth. Let’s see what happens now:
In USA there more blacks in prison in relation to their population density than there are whites in prison.
Yes, which is due to two facts:
1) Blacks commit more crimes.
2) Compared to whites, blacks are more likely to be arrested, and when arrested, more likely to be charged, and when charged, more likely to be convicted, and when convicted, receive longer sentences.
The reasons for #1, of course, can be boiled down to lower economic status, without removing much of any relevant information.
And the fact of #2 can be repeated without alteration by replacing “whites” with “women” and “blacks” with “men”. Well, almost. As it turns out, the original statement isn’t quite accurate. It only really applies to black men. Black women are given preferential treatment compared to white men (by those metrics). White women are the most privileged of all in the legal system.
And racism. If you are only *looking* for perpetrators among the black population, you will find them. If cops a black kid 10yrs old, they see him 4.5 yrs *older.* And a bigger threat.
Whatevs. I’m friggin’ hilarious.
+1!
“Men are better able to make people laugh, while women laugh more often.”
Because it’s the polite thing to do when someone’s trying to be funny but they’re not.
excellent point, D!
Reminds me of the study that was drawing all sorts of conclusions from the fact that in school pictures, girls/women were more apt to be smiling than men. They forgot to take into consideration that only the women were being told (over and over), “come on, sweetheart, give me a smile.”
OMG, I hated those greasy school photographers, even in college, who would use that line. Probably why usually smiling me looks disgusted in most school pix.
Mastering the disgusted smile is an art.
😀
Not that it makes it any more palatable for you as subject, but I guess those same phtotographers got heartily tired of trying to coax smiles out of yet another bunch of unwilling schoolkids…
A bit like air hostesses having to say “Thankyou for flying with us” to 500 passengers in a row and try to appear genuine. Actually that’s probably worse…
Especially when ultra-orthodox Jewish men are flying…
Yes the sympathy laugh. We also tend to laugh to lighten the moment. I’ve learned not to do this – it’s something I learned from observing men.
Boys learn, early on, that jokes and laughter can be coping mechanisms when targeted by bullies they can’t otherwise defeat. Some are actively taught this lesson, particularly in sports teams, while women have been enjoying team sports from childhood only in the last 20 years or so,and that number still isn’t sufficiently significant.
I saw the difference in indoctrinated/aculturated coping techniques among orthopaedic surgery residents, starting around the year 2000. Female residents who not only had athletic backgrounds but had specifically team sport backgrounds had certain communication skills which worked better with their male colleagues than women who didn’t.
For the males, it doesn’t matter, so much, if not everyone enjoyed team sports. There are enough to spread the result, rather like “herd immunity.”
Very pertinent observation, doc, and your first-hand observations are cheering.
Poor bloke. He didn’t realise self-parody isn’t acceptable anymore.
I doubt if what he said was his real opinion. I think it was tongue in cheek – satirising an attitude from his past
Is there a video clip of his making those remarks?
Has anyone asked if he was serious?
It is hard to know what is acceptable.
There should be a book. A SJW bible for the correct attitude and the correct way of speaking.
Until then assume everyone will assume you are some kind of evil scum and be very very careful.
Even more effective would be if people would realize that any statement made in public nowadays, and in particular any statement made at a public event where the audience attends for the specific purpose of hearing bespoke statement, has an instantaneous global reach, and thus requires a more forethought than it would have in previous eras.
I don’t want to go all ad hominem, but those nose hairs!
Distracting aren’t they.
A woman would never be allowed in the lab with nose hair like that….
Oh, thanks, I can’t unsee that now.
/@
Humor is the most effective weapon against stupidity.
Religions of the world, take note.
Sounds like evolution has slipped by Sir Scrunt.
I wonder if, in his career, Tim Hunt was involved in any hiring decisions (or promotions, or publications, etc.). Are his views simply his views, or did they have consequences for the careers of others?
As a respected scientist, his views tend to have more influence over younger people than a less famous scientist’s might.
Hence the importance of the reaction: They complete the lesson for the young.
This, as well, is my query.
Because of the consequences of sexism at my age then of 41, only a couple of decades ago, onto my career (veterinary practitioner and veterinary microbiology professor as a DVM, PhD) and onto, thusly, only my economics alone (.not. to mention onto any other of my life’s aspects including mothering), has been astounding.
Because of sexism, I am now and have been since then when I was two weeks away from domicile – eviction, a university departmental secretary. I never willingly or purposefully tried to advance again because i) of my free speech opinions would get me fired and ii) I needed a paycheck at every month’s end in order to pay child support for three children I could not even talk to, let alone, touch — all because of sexism. As a woman with the thinkings that I happen to have (godlessness among several of these), I needed the job – protection from a state employees’ union contract, that is.
I find as re these career – consequences that mockery and ridicule do not, and will never, suffice. I find the consequences of sexism destroying. AND if the genders in my, and I happen to know of scores of other such similar cases, were flipped and reversed ? HOW SWIFT would any man undergoing these saaaame pogroms to their entire careers rise up and revolt? How funny? How mocking? How ridiculously hilarious would they find such holocausts onto themselves?
So, along with that query re consequences, this next one: where, because of the injustices which sexism has wrought, where is the outrage? Where is it? Ms Eve Ensler states that she is so done with the passivity of ‘good’ men: http://www.twitter.com/humanrtsv/status/547159299898613761. I am, too.
Blue
+11111111111
from one whose life and careers were equally, though differently, affected over the same biases.
Yep.
I wonder what HER Majesty thinks of Sir Tim’s comments? Good thing he didn’t make any stupid statements about women as sovereigns. I hear the Tower of London still has 1st generation air conditioning in some of its historic guest rooms.
The first Queen Elizabeth was, apparently, #distractinglysexy …
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/multimedia/archive/00372/7420238_richardson-_372790c.jpg
/@
I am astonished and rather embarrassed by Hunt’s views. But some of the comments (elsewhere, not here) seem to suggest that they are just a reflection of lab practice in the past. My own lab experience (sadly, only about 1968-75) included some great collaboration with chemists of both genders, and although the lab humour would certainly be regarded as non-PC by today’s standards, I genuinely cannot think of any occasion when our women co-workers were regarded in the way Hunt suggests.
And yes, I suppose I should apologise in retrospect for the non-PC jokes.
Sir Tim is married to someone who is a significant scientist in her own right, Prof. Mary Collins of University College London Division of Infection and Immunity. I can just imagine her saying “Timmy, have you never learned to engage your brain before putting your mouth in gear?”
The attitudes of people like Sir Tim Hunt literally destroy the careers and lives of women, including me, and I’m not even from the STEM fields.
You might cry too if the reason you lost a job you loved and were widely acknowledged as being extremely good at was that the alternative was a man who was widely recognized for his incompetence but who had a wife and children to support losing his.
Every job I had where I worked with mostly men, I was subjected to verbal and physical sexual abuse. Most women my age and older have been. We were expected to put up with it and we did – that’s just what workplaces were like for women. And for those of you who think your greater intelligence makes you different, that’s bulls**t. Men like that were at every level.
In fact, being intelligent sometimes makes it worse. Women here will know that look in the boss man’s eye when he suddenly realizes you’re more intelligent than he is, and he hates you for it.
Sir Tim shouldn’t lose any accolades he received for his professional contributions. He does need to be called out for his opinions – they do real damage, especially when they come from someone so influential.
I’ve worked with a lot of jerk men but I’ve also worked with some really great ones and thankfully, there have been more great than terrible ones. I suspect this is because although I’ve worked in tough corporate environments in a male dominated field, I also worked with younger men and those attitudes are on the way out. Of course, I’ve also worked with men my age and older (and do now as well) who are great guys.
Yeah – I don’t mean to denigrate men in general – the majority of men are great, and great to work with.
There are good and bad whatever the gender, age, intellect, or whatever category you put people in – it’s a lesson not to stereotype.
I was just trying to point out that attitudes like Sir Tim’s can do real damage if not countered.
I think mockery is a great way to do it. There was a time, and some of us can remember it, when mockery like that wasn’t possible because sexism was much more prevalent.
It’s also probably the main reason I didn’t end up in a science career.
As for falling in love at work, I can recommend it. 🙂
Agreed! I think these women took a classy approach to the whole business. I also didn’t mean to suggest you saw all men as bad. I just wanted to provide some counter experiences since I’ve bitches so much about my own bad experiences all over this thread.
Next thing you know people will start calling for unisex toilets in the workspace. (/heavy sarcasm mode off)
The trans community has this covered. 🙂
(An interesting topic for another time!)
sub
If ever a situation needed a Cunk report, this is it.
Most def! Somebody’s gotta tweet Philomena!!
😰
The #girlswithtoys stream – a response to another offhand remark that deprecated women in science – is also good.
/@
Yes it is – the stuff you’ve shared on Facebook is great. 🙂
☺️
With the hand gesture in her photo, Sammie Buzzard must be indicating how far Sir Tim has got his nose open.
For those who seem to not have read the NYT article, here’s the part of the article that gets me:
“Following the backlash, Mr. Hunt, who acknowledged a reputation as a chauvinist at the conference, issued what some on social media called a “nonapology apology.” He told BBC Radio that he was “really, really sorry” for causing any offense, even as he stood by some of what he had said.
He said the comments were meant to be ironic and lighthearted but had been “interpreted deadly seriously by my audience.”
“I did mean the part about having trouble with girls,” he told the BBC. “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.”
He elaborated on his comments that women are prone to cry when confronted with criticism.
“It’s terribly important that you can criticize people’s ideas without criticizing them and if they burst into tears, it means that you tend to hold back from getting at the absolute truth,” he said. “Science is about nothing but getting at the truth, and anything that gets in the way of that diminishes, in my experience, the science.” ”
WTF?!
“Science is about nothing but getting at the truth, and anything that gets in the way of that diminishes, in my experience, the science.” ??????!!!!!!
Mr. Hunt engaged in some rather negligent generalizing. As a scientist he should have availed himself of facts:
PMS does not affect all women and those whom it does affect it does not affect equally and does not have the same effect every time it presents itself.
So people in love can’t do science? Curie-ous.
/@
Have you seen what a Rabbi on Glenn Beck’s show had to say about this – It’s “God-given sadness” when you get emotional during your period: http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/hey-ladies-do-you-get-emotional-during-your-period-take-solace-knowing-its-just-god-given-sa
Who knew?!
I always thought PMS stood for Putting up with Men’s Shit🐸
Although from the menz side it could be seen as Putting up with More than the usual Shit.
Quite possibly:-)
I was wondering about a pithy description for all the shit I have had to put up with.
I guess it’s the devil’s sweat when you get hot flashes during menopause.
To summarize the entire situation correctly in the precise terms of Orwellian Newspeak Hunt is guilty of the crime of “oldthink” and not the currently acceptable “goodthink” – which necessarily has led to his becoming an “unperson”.
Isn’t it marvelous that the internet now allows us to ALL take an active part of this Minitrue world.
No, Hunt is guilty of making profoundly stupid sexist comments. Mocking comments like that is hardly Orwellian.
And yes, it is marvelous that the Internet allows you, too, to take part in the exchange.
It’s not exactly salutary mocking when an academic is actually forced to resign a university post,
We don’t know if he was forced to resign, to my knowledge. We only know he resigned. And, as has been pointed out elsewhere on this page, the “university post” was an honorary position, not a working job.
If he had been fired from a job I would agree with you. That does not appear to have been the case. And the point here is, I think, not that firing people for making stupid comments is legitimate but that mocking the comments is.
There are some parallels with an incident that happened in Toronto a month or so ago. There is a trend where males yell at female journalists reporting live on camera, “fuck her right in the pussy!” It’s not only a degrading thing to do, but it’s intimidating (and some men don’t get this part, but it can be really scary for a woman to be aggressed in this way).
A reporter finally decides to ask some men who had just yelled this obscene phrase into her mic why they do this. Here is the video of the incident. The guy in the sunglasses lost his job because of his on camera behaviour. He worked as an engineer at Hydro One and Hydro One fired him with cause because he was expected to behave in a way that doesn’t make the company look bad, and his identity as a Hydro One worker had been revealed on social media, which made Hydro One look bad.
Personally, I was okay with him losing his job. Who would want to work with someone like that? Maybe this will be just the input he needs to change his behaviour.
After the whole video came out, scads of female journalists came forward revealing how this happened to them all the time and how it made doing their work difficult.
sub
I didn’t know that was a thing. I’m glad the reporter called them out on it, she handled it like a professional (and an adult). They handled it like petulant children.
I have a pretty irreverent sense of humor, and find a lot of things funny, but this isn’t one of them. It’s crude, and threatening, and there’s nothing original about it. It makes me sad that the internet has so much promise, but there’s a giant sewer running through it.
A “trend”, really? What seems much more trending is public hounding for non pc stuff people say or do e.g. shirtstorm for the guy who landed the vehicle on the comet, resignation for the Harvard president who listed POSSIBLE reasons for the dearth of ladies in STEM, early retirement for the scientist who mentioned tests showing people from certain geographic origins not having the same intelligence, firing of employee as a result of donglegate…
The “scads” of female journalist must have scads of video/audio footage of this happening to them “all the time” since it happens “all the time” and they are journalist with recording gear at hand?
Yes the in fact do have evidence of these things happening. Some of them had to cut short live broadcasts because it got so bad. You can read more about it as an international phenomena right here on Wikipedia and many Canadian media outlets reported the experiences of many different women across the country.
I’m not quite sure what your point is – that I’m exaggerating, that the women are exaggerating or that it’s nothing that should bother us because there are more pressing things to be concerned about – I call this “but there are people starving in x” response as “there are people starving in x” is often the outcry seen in article comment sections about scientific accomplishments such as sending a probe to Mars or building the LHC. We can be concerned about many other issues while still condemning shouting threatening obscenities at women trying to do their jobs as reporters.
Yes. And women should “shake it off” as no harm was meant. Right…
I had a look at the links. There seemed to be 3 or 4 people yelling obscenities.
Poor, weak little men, having to gang up on that one woman to do their damage to her career.
What must the producers think? “I can’t send a woman reporter to that venue or else the reporting is destroyed by misogynists. Better send a man.” Enough of that going on, and the women lose their jobs, their careers, and their equal standing.
I applaud the producers who send women, anyway, and the women who swallow their fear and revulsion to face this and get the job done, anyway.
It would help, though, if the producers sent an extra individual to corral and block the poor, weak little misogynistic men out there.
Perhaps some strong, brave, fair-minded men should start stepping up out of the crowds, too. The reporters would, no doubt, appreciate such a show of respect. Indeed, it might even make the news.
I remember this incident well. Kudos for the reporter (and subsequently others in the industry) for saying NO to sexual harassment.
A hoax video followed by a number of copy cat incidents perpetrated by idiots. Deplorable yes, unacceptable yes, the perpetrators deserving of the most punitive consequences? Yes.
However, as regards the (Ophelia) Bensonian type public character assassinations of prominent scientists and public figures with a track record of otherwise great accomplishment, here’s what a victim of massive medieval industrial strength true mass misogyny of the Islamic kind, including but not limited to genital mutilation and arranged marriage had to say:
“I condemn whole-heartedly the trivial bullshit it is to go after a man who makes a scientific breakthrough and all that we as women — organized women — do is to fret about his shirt?”
Ayaan Hirsi Ali
Here she was referring to shirtstorm but it applies just as well to the latest typhoon in a teacup ginned up by the usual suspects.
I’m still not getting your point. Are you saying we should let offensive behaviour slide because they take away time from concentrating on the crimes of Islam?
The shirtstorm thing was different. Yes, the NASA scientist made a big faux pas when he thought he was doing something cool- showing off a special shirt created for him by a female artist friend. It was really all innocent to start with, and then he was hit broadside with the negative response. No one could have been more contrite and apologetic than he, when the whole thing was blown up. Poor guy.
I watched the video and I totally disagree that he should get fired. Yes he deserves criticism but others were making worse comments and did they lose their jobs? I would say being video’d and shown up on TV was enough and appropriate punishment.
He was not identifiable from the video as anything to do with Hydro One, he was not at work at the time. So I don’t think Hydro One have any justification to fire him. Any social backlash against Hydro One was caused deliberately by third parties looking to cause trouble for him. They should not have been allowed to succeed.
It’s a dangerous precedent. What say I have a stoush with a neighbour (quite unrelated to my job) and that neighbour with malice aforethought tracks down who my employer is and starts a campaign against me – and them – on Twitter. Should my employer be able to sack me for bringing them bad publicity? Or should I be able to similarly hound the neighbour and get him the sack? Suppose someone tracks down all my comments on WEIT and publicly identifies me by name and who I work for, should my employer then have cause for action against me? I would certainly hope not.
If someone had thought to charge him in court with offensive behaviour, fair enough. Starting an internet shitstorm trying to get the guy fired is exactly the same as any other sort of internet bullying IMO, and should never be allowed to succeed. It’s mob justice, a witch hunt, scapegoating, call it what you like.
Oh, and in response to smokedpaprika, yes the shirtstorm thing was different and if anything even more egregious. The poor guy there was innocent of any attempted offense to anybody, other than having different sartorial tastes from some people.
The shirt’s significance to its wearer could be many things. The significance of a man’s words, and his further explanations of those words, is far more specific.
I meant to type ESA, not NASA, scientist, of course.
What I’m asking for is a reaction that is in proportion.
Compare the frenzied setting their hair on fire hysterical response to Tim Hunt and the other occasions I mentioned in my previous post to the reaction to, say, the fact that in the UK no one has ever been convicted for FGM even though the practice has been illegal for 30 years
and according to recent estimates 137,000 women have been subjected to it.
So calling out sexism should be a casual thing since having an uncomfortable workplace isn’t a bug deal when compared to FGM? And of course, rolling your eyes when someone does call out sexist behaviour, is a good response.
This prank is done to many reporters, male and female. It has nothing to do with sexual harassment. It has to do with mocking reporters.
The original was a reporter who said that phrase (following a rambling preamble) when he was prepping for a segment, and didn’t know he was live on the air.
You’re turning a prank against reporters in general into something it’s not.
And the man who lost his job didn’t even say the phrase on camera. He didn’t say anything at all until the reporter solicited his opinion, and he indicated that he found it funny. So he was, in effect, fired from his job because his employer did not like his sense of humor.
Do you really find that acceptable?
There are indeed men this has happened to but not close to the frequency this happens to women. Hi would you like someone to come up to you while you were in a meeting in your workplace and yell in your face “fuck her right in the pussy” as everyone stared at you in the meeting. That person that did that is just joking right?
It’s probably ok to tell racists jokes at work too. It’s just joking after all.
Your take on the issue is in stark contrast to the reporter’s video, her interview on a show about it, afterward, and the interviews of other women reporters on said show, as well. Perhaps a little more research into the incident is warranted. Or, perhaps that won’t matter if one’s mind is made up.
Personally, I was shocked that it happened even once. It appears filmed evidence is available, if subpoenaed, from the many times it has happened. Should the reporters take those “jokesters” to court? Would that make the “jokesters” jobs any more secure?
I don’t always agree with you Howie but you’ve got a point there. Would other opinions expressed at this conference have generated such a reaction? (I can only imagine what PZ’s circus would be like and I ain’t going there).
I can’t help wondering, if he’d made similarly tactless remarks about Muslims and run into a similar Internet shitstorm, would the commentariat be joining in the condemnation or defending his right to his opinion and criticising the “offence culture” (see next thread).
(That said, I thought all the tweets from women scientists were genuinely witty and an excellent riposte to Sir Tim’s remarks).
That was a reply to Howiekornstein, of course. One of these days employing my superior male intellect I’ll get this WordPress thing figured out…
If he had made similar comments about Muslims and, for example, advocated segregating labs, I would expect the commentariat to be equally vehement in condemnation.
The thing that I find particularly grating is that some of the most intense criticism of Hunt is arising from the very same quarters that also attacks Ayaan Hirsi Ali for her “insensitivities” and excuses far greater culturally based extremes in the subjugation of women.
Like the large number of us on WEIT who are always attacking Ali?
No GB, we here at WEIT are far better than any of that. My comment relates to the wider world of of the internet and within certain centers of academia – where the hounds of correctness-and-cultural-relativism are currently baying
Well sometimes we agree with the SJW and sometimes we don’t. Sometimes we agree with the right-wing conservatives (about Islam or Ali) and sometimes we don’t.
Just because people who we have disagreed with in the past, happen to share a view we agree with now doesn’t make that view wrong.
If only Congress felt the same way.
First, as for segregating labs, what good would that do, when people of the same sex can also fall in love and allow it to interfere with productivity at work?
Second, when someone in such a widely recognized leadership position makes such a statement, he is not only speaking for himself. He is testing the waters for other voices to begin a chorus of the same and worse.
It takes an overwhelming response to such statements as Hunts to notify others with his prejudices that their unfairness is not popular, not welcome, and not going to regain the ground it lost over several generations since suffrage and women’s lib.
In sad contrast, the issue of women’s rights to their own healthcare decisions, control of their own bodies, and access to both knowledge and medical/pharmaceutical resources for same has not received the overwhelming support it requires. The proof lies in law after law passed against abortion rights, as the most prominent example.
Hunt may have spoken for Hunt, but he spoke as SIR HUNT, inciting a potential following to take us back in time. Let any and all believe what they will, but let no man rally a cry to shut women down or out ever again.
Well said and I too thought about the same sex part re: segregated labs.
Good grief! This guy needs to be around moar women not less as he clearly hasn’t been exposed enough to them to see them as individual people instead of a mob of hormones.
Agreed. Maybe he also needs to learn about personal and professional boundaries too, and stop falling in love with his students (even if they fall in love with him)? It seems quite a number of people (men and women) have trouble dealing with ‘women’s feelings’.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_in_South_Korea
It’s also terribly unfortunate that he chose to say these things in a country that’s still fighting for women’s rights, despite their great gains.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-debate/sexism-in-science-often-stems-from-guy-blindness-not-malice/article24949866/
good column in today’s Globe and Mail (Toronto).
Fresh and excellent perspective in that article. Thank you for sharing it.
Dr. Coyne, I think that what is unconscionable is how you claim that Sir Tim Hunt was sincere in calling for sex-segregated labs. The truth is, he was trying to be light-hearted and ironic. He did not stand by that statement afterwards. His ill-fated attempts at humor were definitely NOT a call for gender segregation in science.
Anyone wanting to criticize Sir Tim should distinguish between what he said in seriousness and what he said in jest. This is especially important since there are many trolls on the internet deliberately conflating the two.
Afterwards on BBC radio he said:
“I did mean the part about having trouble with girls. I mean it is true that 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 in a lab it’s very important that the people are on a level playing field and I found that these emotional entanglements made life very difficult. I mean I’m really really sorry if I caused any offence , That’s awful, I certainly didn’t mean, I just meant to our be honest actually.”
So he may have been joking but he also meant at least part of what he said, at least in respect of his own experience.
That’s exactly my point. If having trouble with girls is a crime, then I am certainly guilty. If it’s falling in love and getting distracted, then a lot of people are in trouble. Maybe his real sin is a terrible sense of humor.
It’s not the falling in love & distraction part that’s the problem, it’s his proposed solution.
I’m not sure what you mean by proposed solution. The comment about about gender segregation was satire. The thing about satire is you say things that you don’t mean literally. Sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn’t. Sometimes satire is offensive and sometimes sanctions are appropriate. But what is wildly inappropriate is to claim that Sir Tim was proposing gender segregated labs.
Literalism is taking over. Irony is too hard.
I find the rush to condemn interesting, and a little alarming. According to Hunt, he was attempting a little self-deprecating humor. Were his remarks ill advised? Perhaps, given the furore they have created — though I’ve heard far worse from prominent stand-up comedians.
He was basically told to resign his honorary position before he had had even a chance to defend himself.
However, several prominent female scientists have come to his defense and lauded the support he has given to younger female scientists. One wonders if this would happen if he were such a sexist cad as some seem to think.
Given Dr. Coyne’s own recent revelations about problems with public speaking (things that many of us who speak to the public from time to time came to realize a long, long time ago), one has to just sit back, scratch ones head, and wonder.
The rush to judge is interesting.
It seems to be a competition as to who is going to be the best SJW of all.
I would have preferred Hunt to be given the option of a path to recovery: Counseling of any sort to help him see what he did and why/how it led to the responses he received, followed by chances to prove himself a true supporter of women in science. That would set a good precedent.
Otherwise, we’ve “thrown out the baby with the bath water.”
He has already proved himself to be a supporter of women in science.
It may seem hard to comprehend but one offhand comment may not accurately reflect the totality of work and attitude of a 72 year old.
If only it were merely “one offhand comment.”
Things have indeed gotten way out of hand:
http://www.theguardian.com/science/2015/jun/13/tim-hunt-hung-out-to-dry-interview-mary-collins
“Things have indeed gotten way out of hand”
Yes they have Diane – and I’m afraid that your own early comments on Hunt are typically symptomatic of what has lead to a real injustice in this matter. It was all such a rush to judgment – all based on preconceived stereotypes of issues and of personality types – all fitting into pre-established “mental boxes” with respect to those particular issues. Hunt was perceived in the worst possible light to match these preconceived stereotypes – a bigoted sexist dinosaur. Why wait for his explanation. Just rush to judge- to put him in that box – to act – and to punish. Who cares about looking for the detailed facts of the matter? It was attitudes like this that allowed UCL and the Royal Society to desperately dissociate themselves and their “precious reputations” from investigating the situation properly and reach a considered conclusion in the matter.
It’s all well and good that you say “things have gotten out of hand” but great damage has been done – to Hunt – to the reputations of the institutions that allowed this twitter-storm to rule their actions – and most of all in setting an example of how important it is to self-censor one’s every comment if we care about our future careers.
This whole sad incident so reminds me of Philip Roth’s book “The Human Stain”.
It’s all really quite tragic.
I would hasten to point out that Diane’s comments were, I think, more restrained than many, even on this site, and Diane was also ready to see the other side of the story.
I understand your criticism to be directed towards Sir Tim’s detractors in general, it would be unfortunate if it appeared to be aimed at Diane.
Thank you, infinite.
“Yes they have Diane – and I’m afraid that your own early comments on Hunt are typically symptomatic of what has lead to a real injustice in this matter.”
Howie, please–please–use control+F or whatever other method you prefer to look at all of my posts here (IIRC there are 18, most of which are very short).*
I’ve hardly mentioned Hunt at all; most of the conversation has been about how very much sexism women still experience in the workplace, a topic that not surprisingly arose from this incident. I’ve not argued for anything stronger than the sort of tweets Jerry has posted above, all of which I think are completely proper responses to the stupid remarks in question (Hunt himself is now calling them that).
You will also find 2 or 3 other posts in which I’ve also said that this has gone way too far.
At this point I think the worst players are the organizations–the European Research Council? the Royal Society, for chrissakes?–that so swiftly and heartlessly threw Hunt overboard, a reaction completely out of proportion to the issue.
And please try to note distinctions between traditional feminists and today’s idiotic SJW’s, very few if any of whom are on WEIT.
(PS: The past tense of lead is led.)
*And be sure to search for “Diane G.,” not Diana.
I did not mean to specifically single you out in criticism Diane. There are few, including myself, who come off all too well in any of this – re: their attempts to seek proportionality and justice in treatment and process for Hunt. In your own comments I felt that your demanding a greater and more complete apology for Hunt’s comments certainly inferred a greater level of wrongdoing by Hunt than actually existed. I also feel the discussion of sexism in the workplace was made in the context of a direct reflection of Hunt’s “improper views”, again assuming him to be a sexist individual. If you feel bad about my fairly mild, and in your view incorrect criticism, imagine how Hunt must feel with his lifetimes reputation in ruins and his having been thrown out by the institutions he most valued. As for myself -I made my first comments worrying that defending Hunt might be inferred by people I respect here at WEIT as making ME appear sexist or misogynistic – so I went out of my way to call Hunt “just stupid”. Now I feel very bad for doing that, it wasn’t necessary.
If lessons are learned it is that we must guard against rushing to judgment and “joining the mob” in this internet age, because the effects of rushing can be ever more unfair and inappropriate than they once were.
I need to clarify my point – in this internet age, if voices calling for fairness and restraint are not immediately raised in situations such as Hunt’s, institutions like the Royal Society or UCL will misinterpret public sentiment and in their own weakness will rush to an improper judgement.
The whole situation is indeed a sad state of affairs.
By all means, we should predicate our responses based on the fragility of “the Royal Society or UCL.”
I think you’re fingering the wrong culprit here.
You’re right Diane, but unfortunately this is what is involved in dealing with reality in a twitter based world. Even an outspoken Richard Dawkins seems to have finally become sensitized to this.
As a related aside on sensitivities of institutions… last week I attended a Royal Institute conference on Genetics. At the event I received a seminar review questionnaire to fill in that asked me to identify my particular race. Who needs to know this and why? What is the supposed issue involved here?
PS: I refused to answer
Could be the organizers want to understand proportions of different races who attend their conferences. Perhaps they want to determine if they need to diversify or they are simply curious to know the numbers.
Or perhaps there is what I myself would consider to be a more “sinister” purpose. Here in the UK government funding, or government grants, are often predicated on how well funds lead to supporting “the whole community” with objectives to broaden the reach of these activities to minorities (including racial minorities) and also the disadvantaged. Or institutional directors themselves may feel they have a moral responsibility to try to achieve similar goals. There have been elimination of some funded programmes in the UK because they were supportive of the “wrong” demographic mix -example: sponsored nature walks appealing and being taken up, as it turns out, by “the white retired middle class” in population rather than appealing to a wider racial and economic mix. So some such nature walk programmes are cut. Is this right to do? Perhaps it can be justified where funding is limited, but is it really right that no such particular nature walk programs take place? I myself could argue either side of this issue.
Now let us consider Science and Scientific communication. Should we hold events to scientifically educate and inform the public on the basis of what ethnic groups or genders the topic would appeal to? Loving science for the sake of science, I find this prospect absolutely appalling.
To get back somewhat on topic – does this opinion of mine allow someone who is strongly keen on promoting racial harmony and integration, to accuse me of being a bigot or a racist? Need I guard what I say on this topic, lest my opinion be so interpreted. Sadly, I think this is becoming the case these days. And I don’t like this sort of world at all.
You say you regret calling Hunt’s remarks, “stupid”. What, in your view, would be the best response to Hunt’s comments?
I know you weren’t asking me, but I think the best response would have been Hunt’s heartfelt apology.
Apologizing is a tricky thing. Sir Tim felt he was giving a heartfelt apology. One of his problems is that he did not anticipate how the critics would spin the story. So, he couldn’t really address those points. And like he said, nobody really wanted to hear his side of the story before rushing to judgment anyway.
No they don’t.
I’ll include myself in that assessment.
The nub of it is that Sir Hunt views women as a liability in his workplace, not an asset. His attitude is not helpful. That is the wrong that he feels to grasp.
If he really thought that women were a liability in the lab, he never would have said so at the meeting. He would have known that if he tried to say that, the backlash would be immense. If he was really making the case that women were, on balance, a liability in the lab, at the “Korean women lunch”, then he really deserves all the criticism he is getting for being so stupid. Maybe his attitude overall is unhelpful, I don’t know, but your claim that he sees women as being merely a liability in the workplace is nothing more than an unsubstantiated rush to judgment.
“A lot of truth is told in a joke.”
I just realized that when I post a comment, someone makes a vague reply, insinuating some disagreement, but not spelling out the extent of the disagreement. There certainly was a lot of truth in Sir Tim’s jokes; as he told the BBC, romantic attraction in the lab has distracted him from science and research. But it’s not clear how much “truth” you think there is in Sir Tim’s comments.
What is clear is that there will be sexual tension between women and men until the end of humanity. Men will say stupid things about women and women will say stupid things about men. There is a particular problem with powerful men making inappropriate comments and sometimes avoiding sanction because of their high social status. On the flip side sometimes there is a massive over reaction that is also problematic. To some extent, Sir Tim is paying for the sins of other powerful men who have gotten away with inappropriate comments. Kind of like Jesus, who paid for your sins and mine.
PS. Satire alert. One sentence should not be taken literally.
I find your comments on this thread exemplary.
I love you!
(One sentence should not be taken literally.)
Ha ha, there are definitely 2 different ways to interpret that. I am hoping it is the more intellectually flattering interpretation with the reduced chance of sexual tension.
There was no rushing to judgement. He made it worse for himself when he tried to explain further. I have a problem with this, what he said: ““Science is about nothing but getting at the truth, and anything that gets in the way of that diminishes, in my experience, the science.” ”
(Excerpt: “He elaborated on his comments that women are prone to cry when confronted with criticism.
“It’s terribly important that you can criticize people’s ideas without criticizing them and if they burst into tears, it means that you tend to hold back from getting at the absolute truth,” he said. “Science is about nothing but getting at the truth, and anything that gets in the way of that diminishes, in my experience, the science.” ”
He’s apologized, realized his mistake, been vouched for by his wife and others that he’s really not a sexist, so we ought to now forgive his faux pas. I’d like to see him continue his work in cancer research.
*fails to grasp* (groan)
Sir Tim Hunt has been forced to resign from his post at University College London.
‘I have been hung out to dry’
“I have been stripped of all the things I was doing in science”
“At no point did they ask me for an explanation for what I said or to put it in context”
He was then sacked from his post on the European Research Council’s science committee.
“I have become toxic.” “I am finished.”
Even after support from several senior female scientists.
He has supported, trained and mentored some outstanding female scientists.
For trying to be funny.
Crucifixion achieved, well done folks.
I know, I know, he should have known better.
Again, well done.
He made a poor joke to the wrong audience. He was stupid. Yet it turned into a self-righteous witch ‘Hunt’. Jon Ronson’s book “So you’ve been publicly shamed” seems to cover this.
It’s not hard to understand how this happened. Twitter said that Sir Tim wanted gender segregated labs. He sensed that Twitter was angry with him, but didn’t understand why. He said that he was very sorry that he had caused any offense, but repeated that he was just trying to be honest about his problems with girls. Little did he know that his apology played right into Twitter’s vile plot.
Good people try to think critically about claims they hear: Does it make any sense at all that someone would go to a lunch sponsored by female scientists and make the case, in all seriousness, that men and women should be prevented from working together in science? If you don’t suspect that this might be satire, you are not thinking critically. (Note: I am not trying to immunize offensive satire from criticism.)
The irony is that people on this site mock Young Earth Creationists for uncritically accepting the Bible as factually accurate; “It says so in Genesis? Then it must be true!!” : “It says so on Twitter? Then it must be true!!”
Thinking over your comment leads me to wonder: Perhaps old Sir Tim Hunt is losing it. Maybe he has dementia setting in and cannot understand why his truth, non-apologetically defended as a joke, in front of exactly that audience, caused the ruckus it has.
Reagan wasn’t the only one propped up while going down. It is a sad thing, but that could be what’s going on.
Also, first rule in giving a talk or making a speech: Consider your audience. Speak to your audience.
Because reasonable people struggle when it comes to understanding unreasonable people.
First ‘rule’ in giving a speech eh. Good to know.
No one ever tried a joke in making a speech?
Opening jokes come second, after first knowing the audience. It’s purely logical.
You’re blaming the victim. He didn’t defend the truth as a joke. He defended the call for sex segregated labs as a joke. The problem is people repeating as factual what they basically knew was satire. Unless you have some other evidence here, I think it is inappropriate to suggest dementia is the cause. Twitter wanted blood, and went for the kill.
Pardon MY medical background!
Are you using the ‘argument from authority’? Claiming to make a diagnosis of somebody you’ve never met, based on hearsay? I didn’t think doctors were supposed to do that, but then what do I know?
Suggesting Tim Hunt has dementia is really in very poor taste. Unless, of course, you were making a not very good joke?
Approximately 70% of correct medical diagnoses can be made from subjective/history alone, which explains telemedicine. Some 20% comes from added physical examination. Another 5% or so comes from adding standard labs/radiographs/MRIs, and the final 5% from non-standard labs/radiographs/MRIs, etc.
The concept of “differential diagnosis” means any constellation of signs, symptoms, and lab/etc. results could have a list of potential diagnoses to explain it. Therefore, the list is ranked with the most commonly recognized diagnoses on the top (i.e., “When you hear hoof beats, think ‘horses’, not ‘zebras.’) and the rest of the list, in descending probability, below.
I suggest dementia as a possible explanation of Sir Tim Hunt’s recent presentations, a potential diagnosis which should be on the list of differential diagnoses, and not so far from the top of said list.
In that case, and if you are serious, I would have expected a more charitable attitude from you towards Sir Tim’s gaffe.
But, of course, what you refuse to recognize is that it was charitable. You refuse to recognize anything which lets Sir Tim completely off the hook, no guilt, no remorse, no apology necessary, with full reinstatement to every bit of status his life held before this event. And — again, I must add “of course” — that is not in anyone’s power, much less yours for blindly insisting on it or mine for insisting I be the source of it.
A good reason for not being on Twitter.
The problem is not, being on Tw*tter oneself, the problem is that so many other people are. 😉
The real underlying issue to your comment and today’s politics may be cultural. A friend sent an article on this key difference between western and eastern cultures: The west sees things in stark dichotomy, while the east sees things in a wide range of tones.
The only good thing about this, if it can be considered such, is that Sir Tim Hunt can now blog about the experience and relate it, as an educational exploration, to what happens with women and minorities.
Indeed, that just might earn his return — if, by then, he still wants it.
It is a harsh, personally jading experience.
I am in this culture and do not think like that.
Neither did Christopher Hitchens. I imagine there are many others.
It is not cultural west or east, I can think of black white decisions and thought from the east. They can be as black and whit as anybody. Some of the philosophy like Tao or Buddhism that may suggest a more nuanced approach than some western thought but there is, if you look plenty of western philosophy that is not merely black and white.
\
There is no good thing about this. Sir Tim is a scientist and you relegate him to being a blogger with a sad story.
Really.
It is judgemental , holier than thou herd mentality, a behaviour combined with a dogma driven political correctness and, crucially, a trend to literalism that is the problem.
Things like that don’t happen to women and minorities. You are rationalising this behaviour and attitude.
I think it is a great failing of sceptical thought and manner.
I have spoken of it elsewhere, a refusal to consider context and idiot level literalism, always a problem is now sweeping the illiberal left and making a mockery of enlightenment values.
In a workplace where- apparently- everyone is routinely falling in love with everyone else, I wonder how much work is actually being done…
David Colquhoun weighs in:
/@
Very good.
So, someone else who doesn’t get jokes and irony.
I have seen, many times, personally, people getting all worked up over something they failed to understand properly, that was clearly a joke.
The guy said he was joking.
You repeat your same stance over and over. We get it. It sounds, however, as though you are the apologist for Sir Tim Hunt, as though he isn’t able to defend himself properly and as though he’s going to die penniless on the street from this, with no respect or status. I hope you are as defending and supportive of women whose lives have been and still are so ruined, before they even get the proper chance to show what they can do — or, because they have shown it, and it terrified their overlords.
And, for the record, I am not joking. You cannot begin to count the numbers of those affected, because society so quickly sweeps them aside. Sir Tim is visible to you, as those many women cannot be.
He said so, so of course he must have been …
/@
Exactly. It’s not like that excuse would occur to just anybody…
Do you suppose he was also unaware that joking about minorities or sexual orientation was improper? Or is it just women who are still safe to joke about?
(applauding)
Yesterday I thought there probably wasn’t anything new or enlightening to add to the Tim Hunt story. But I came across this post by journalist, Deborah Blum, on storify.com. Blum also presented a lecture at that conference in Korea, and had real-time, face-to-face discussions with Sir Tim about his comments/viewpoints.
N.B. I searched WEIT for “Blum” to make sure no one else had already included this in these comments. I didn’t get any hits.
Although she tweeted about it (and includes her tweets in the article), she was not the first to do so. It’s clear that Blum is disturbed by Sir Tim’s attitude, but her report is concise and thoughtful. She apologizes for her numbered tweets being out of order, but her thoughts can still be easily followed. (And PLEASE no snarky comments about women being arithmetically challenged compared with men.)
Two quotes that sum up her report clearly:
“He’s . . . responded by claiming that he’s been persecuted for remarks that he made in a light-hearted way. In other words, he’s been turning the “issue from the main point – the status of women in science – to a focus on sympathy for himself.”
“And I still think that instead of this “people are being mean to me” response, he would be so much better served by a stronger apology to the Korean women scientists who invited him and the rest of the community. And an acknowledgement that the words matter. They do. Statements like this are indicators of an engrained attitude that, yes, does make it harder for women to advance in the world of science.”
Here’s the link to the whole thing (it’s not long):
https://storify.com/deborahblum/tim-hunt-and-his-jokes-about-women-scientists
Jeannine
aka pghwelshgirl
From this report, it is clear Sir Tim’s misogynist remarks were not in any way an “opening joke” to grab the audience’s attention. It was more like a closing summary.
Something else had been galling me, but I wasn’t able to put it into words, before reading this: Sympathy for one individual, Sir Tim, must, according to his supporters here at least, outweigh sympathy for the innumerable women he’s affected, directly or indirectly, mildly or severely.
If Tw**ts matter, because words matter, then Sir Tim’s ill message, delivered in words, matter, and more, not less, than the words reflected back on him, because he, himself, set fire to the storm, causing the duly magnified reflection. (Reflected firestorm is the analogy I was aiming for, there.)
The problem is that we have no information about this. There is little point in having sympathy for hypothetically affected women. Real ones, yes.
On what basis do we conclude that they are “innumerable”? The charges here derive from some specific dumb remarks, not from a deep pile of evidence.
I am one of those who argued that the Twitter mockery was appropriate to some apparently stupid remarks. I’m still of that opinion. But I do think that we’ve crossed a common sense boundary when the response goes on to assert a broad history of misogynistic behavior that has had terrible affects on “innumerable” women. If there is evidence of that I haven’t seen it.
PATRIARCHY. UNPERSON.
NOT OF THE BODY.
LACK OF EVIDENCE IS CONSPIRACY.
EVIDENCE AGAINST NARRATIVE IS UNEVIDENCE.
CLEANSE. PURIFY. YOU WILL BE ABSORBED.
You likely won’t be impressed by anything other than large data. The women who are so treated find other sources of income, self-support, and are rarely if ever counted in any study.
Like an artist drawing negative space (feel free to look that up), you would do well to see where women are missing. For example, the American Board of Orthopaedic Surgeons’ list of board certified members.
My medical school was training doctors before the Civil War. It didn’t have equal numbers of women in its medical school classes until about ten years ago. Then, it bragged, as if that were a good thing. It should have apologized for taking so long.
You’re confusing the general with the specific. I have no doubt at all that your account of your medical school experience is accurate. And I am fully aware of the legacy and continued existence of sexism, racism, and other forms of bigotry. What I’m objecting to is the escalation that occurs when an event like Hunt’s comment/joke/whateverItWas is amplified into a pattern of crimes committed against hypothetical victims. The mockery that the comment/joke/whateverItWas was, IMO, appropriate… I’m a great fan of mockery of stupid ideas. But you’re asserting a greater crime and demanding a greater penalty. And there is no evidence that these other crimes were committed that I’m aware of. I’m not creating a bar too high to jump. But there needs to be a bar.
I see. You’ve read far too much into my comments. Try going through them, again. You might find they’re not exactly what you anticipated and, therefore, believed.
I don’t think so.
There’s the direct assertion of innumerable women being harmed, some directly and severely.
Keep reading…
Please, Doc. I’ve read all of your comments. And I’ve pointed out the parts I disagree with and why. Condescension isn’t really in order.
“Condescension” was what came out of your comments. If you think it “really isn’t in order”, you might want to consistently demonstrate that.
And so another conversation has reached its end.
“Sir Tim’s misogynist remarks were not in any way an opening joke”
False! Deborah Blum straight up acknowledges that the segregated lab comment was meant as irony. So in that way at least, it WAS a joke (even if in poor taste).
“Sympathy for one individual, Sir Tim, must, according to his supporters here at least, outweigh sympathy for the innumerable women he’s affected”
False! For some this is not about mathematically balancing the harms. It is about realizing that he was not advocating segregated labs, while some critics continue to dishonestly claim he was. However angry a critic is with Sir Tim, he or she should still oppose those who bear false witness against him.
You didn’t read the article, did you? He told that “joke” at the end, where it was a poignant confession of his true thoughts.
People who get frustrated with women from time to time (there are several billion of us) often make jokes like “let’s have segregated labs”. Some of the frustration he expressed was real, but the call for segregated labs was not.
Actually, it was. He said so, shortly afterward, to a science reporter — one of the other speakers at this event — and their conversation was witnessed and photographed. She reported on it. The link is around here, somewhere. I suggest you read it. It will help.
He did not say that his segregated lab comment was sincere. The twitter post by Deborah Blum that you refer to says that this particular comment was “meant to be ironic”.
Keep reading…
And are there any other large swaths of our population that you and your “several billions” happen to “get frustrated with… from time to time”, or is it just women?
No, that’s it. The only thing that frustrates me is women.
I get frustrated by people of all shapes and size, by dogs, by studies, by over-priced train tickets, etc. The list is a long one. Sometime the best remedy to frustration, for my own mental health, is satire or sarcasm.
Enough said.
Good thing women never get frustrated with men…
We would if we could just stop crying.
Oh, the irony! Sometimes people make specific comments that they very obviously don’t mean literally. Despite the emphatic denials of some critics here
Yes and in a related way, it seems some are blaming the people who complained about his behaviour because they see these people as directly responsible for any honours or positions he has lost. The ones calling out his remarks as mysoginistic are not to blame for the actions of others. They are simply responding the what Tim Hunter said.
This attitude is often what prevents people from speaking out against injustice.
I feel that. The backlash I’m getting, here, is no fun. That said, it’s worth it to stand up for the truth.
Exactly. And many are responding to (avowed) humor with their own humor. So far, so good.
Seems to me his various professional societies acted awfully precipitously and thoughtlessly.
I’d agree there. The Tw*tter sarcasm (at least the ones PCC has posted up there) is funny and well-merited whether Sir Tim was joking or not. The professional societies should not have been so quick to jump to conclusions. In fact, darn it, they should be prepared to risk a bit of unpopularity while they deliberated on what (if anything) was appropriate to do.
On that point, I do not disagree with you: The societies should have proven due process. Instead, their knee-jerk reflexive actions have undermined the trust others, not just Sir Tim, will have in them, going forward. After all, if they can behave so brashly to someone of Sir Tim’s stature, they can certainly do that, and perhaps worse, to anyone else.
I am one of those you speak of who say that Sir Tim did not get dumped for what he said. The comment that women are disproportionately emotion on receiving criticism is too obviously true to get punted for. The call for segregated labs is too obviously satirical to get punted for. The only reason he had the courage to make that particular suggest is because he thought people would see that it was satirical. The only reason he thought that people would see it as satire is because it WAS satire, and it was obvious that it was satire.
Believing that an example had to be made, Social Justice Warriors started claiming that Sir Tim was sincere in his call for segregated labs. Without this deception, Sir Tim would NOT have gotten turfed by UCL before he even arrived back in London.
And yet, Sir Tim, himself, broke down in tears before a news reporter, over the criticism he received. See comment with link to reporter’s article somewhere around here.
Well, clearly, it was not “obvious” that it was satire.
/@
Obviously!
So what is all this evidence you have that he actually meant the opposite of what he said.
And so you think that if someone disagrees with someone’s point that they should STFU because disagreeing might get the one you disagree with in trouble?
No, I don’t think that. If you disagree with someone’s point, in general, you should feel free to express this disagreement, even if it gets this person in trouble. Sometime that person deserves to be in trouble. In this case, his suggestion for segregated labs was satire and not serious. So people should not falsely claim that he was calling for segregated labs. It’s the dishonesty that is a problem for me.
Well, my point in the post you replied to was that people shouldn’t criticize those who expressed disdain for Hunter’s remarks for his later troubles as they are not directly responsible for that.
It is hard to see truth through closed eyes. Read the articles written by those who personally questioned him immediately after his panel, asking whether he truly meant what he said, specifically on this very point. He claimed the cover of failed humor only after he realized he was on the hot seat for his words. You will see the truth only when you allow yourself. To suggest that the rest of us are liars for refusing to accept your infallibility is just another condescension. We are not your inferiors.
“Allow” myself to see the “truth”? Like a religious experience? (“You need to ‘allow’ Jesus into your heart, and he will ‘open’ your eyes”, I’ve heard that one before.) No thanks! I guess you and I will disagree on this point.
How childish.
Taken at absolute face value (i.e. ignoring the fact that he was trying to be humorous), he said this:
1) Men fall in love with women they spend a lot of time with.
2) Women fall in love with men that they spend a lot of time with.
3) Women cry when criticized.
The third is an overgeneralization, even though it’s incontrovertible that they are more likely to do so than men. It is, at worst, sexist.
Nothing in there is remotely misogynistic. You need to learn what that word means.
No need, as you’re doing such a nice job of demonstrating it while denying it.
Yes, I hate and mistrust all women. Good catch. Especially since in my entire life, I’ve never made one statement or undertaken one action consistent with that appellation.
You’re in good company among the rest of the Social Justice Warrior class.
No SJW, here, just a patriotic American veteran, who happens also tends to be a civil rights activist, because that’s a not only patriotic American thing to do, but the most humane thing to be.
No one but an SJW would even consider labelling me a misogynist. Your actions belie your declarations.
Oh, don’t be so sure, Thanny. We just don’t enjoy engaging with trolls.
Thank you, Diane.
Do believe he wasn’t talking about *himself* falling in love with women, and women falling in love with *him,* and all in the *workplace.* Your re-writing the narrative and insisting he was “trying to be humorous,” is not an established fact…
“…he said this:
1) Men fall in love with women”
No, actually he said “girls.”
docatheist>> “Approximately 70% of correct medical diagnoses can be made from subjective/history alone, which explains telemedicine.”
Therefore docatheist your very negative previous remarks concerning Sir Tim’s behaviour were made in the face of your confident diagnosis of his mental impairment which you see as involving his own health issues. I hope you appreciate that attacking someone who is ill, disabled, old and known to be suffering a mentally handicap is one of the most despicable kinds of behaviours. It is my absolutely certain view that people such as yourself, who would disparage the disabled and the aged, should be stripped of all professional honours, and be it that you hold any university positions you should be made to retire forthwith. I am shocked and horrified by your actions.
To anyone reading the @howiekornstein’s comment, here, please refer to my comment to understand that his does not reflect mine in the least.
docatheist>>”Pardon MY medical background!”
It seems that quite a large number of prominent scientists have by now come out in defense of Sir Tim – Dawkins for example, and now Brian Cox – http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-33152345
Perhaps docatheist can make one of his famous instant medical diagnoses and explain exactly what particular mental condition may be causing them to exhibit such aberrant behaviour?
I do believe docatheist is a she (or am I mistaken?)
Verily, Merilee, you are 100% correct!
You let your own bias show, @howiekornstein. Your choice of gender pronoun applied to me is wrong.
*/ START SOCJUS COMUNIKA
UNIT HOWIEKORNSTEIN IS UNPERSON
UNIT HOWIEKORNSTEIN RPT TO THE PURIFICATION SHOWERS FOR ABSORPTION
END SOCJUS COMUNIKA /*
Just wait a second now docatheist, I was only following a protocol that you yourself would strongly endorse….i.e. on discovering a behaviour that I felt deserves strong disapproval, I naturally identified the perpetrator as being male (or at least I felt that it would be politically unwise of me to think that the person was female).
And will you, too, say next that you were just joking?
If prosecuted, the only thing I will admit to is using irony.
It’s not so hard to type his/her, and it does matter.
Just tell me the proper form then Diane, is it to be his/hers or hers/his? I wouldn’t want to get it wrong.
You can always go for singular “they”/“their”/“theirs” — it was good enough for Jane Austen!
/@
Nice point, Ant. 🙂
Are you mocking me, Howie?
Why is objecting to the crass stereotyping of women, humorous intent or not, the same as being a Social Justice Warrior? Have you not noted that neither doc nor I (nor anyone here, that I remember) have approved of the actions of his university, the ERC, or the Royal Society?
And now, as fairness would have it, and according to http://www.theguardian.com/science/2015/jun/13/tim-hunt-hung-out-to-dry-interview-mary-collins?CMP=share_btn_tw, it is Sir Tim’s turn to cry.
Must-read article as to how this whole thing went down… he did not mean it as a joke:
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/06/16/sexist-scientist-i-was-being-honest.html
That exellent article provides proper detail plus a well-grounded overview.
Interestingly, its conclusion seems to hint that Sir Tim would have gotten just as extreme a response from this truth-seeking, scientific and journalistic world audience, had he proclaimed some ridiculous (i.e., magical) explanation for cell division.
Being a medical person yourself docatheist,I wonder if you ever read “Games People Play” by the noted psychiatrist Dr. Eric Berne. One of the important psychological games he covers in the book is NIGYYSOB (Now I got you, you son-of-a-bitch). In NIGYYSOB you catch someone else doing something that evokes your strong disapproval. (It does not matter if this is either true or provable –that’s not essential for the Game itself) . This situation still however affords the opportunity to enjoy the incredible pleasures of attacking an individual with exceptional vigor and venom. The PAYOFF in the game is the great psychological pleasure derived from this performing this attack activity. You’ve GOT a SOB -what fun!
I’m quite sure (having taken a few psychology courses myself) that NIGYYSOB is exactly the game which historically is operative for those performing a religious stoning or in executing a “witch”. My question for you docatheist is that, in your professional view and based on your own personal experience, do you estimate the pleasure of enacting NIGYYSOB for a social-justice-warrior is greater, the same, or less than some person performing or witnessing a traditional stoning or burning?
And now, it’s time for you to read da roolz, particularly the one about going off topic.
That’s odd, I feel that the question is particularly ON topic.
Of course you do…
May the rool about interminable threads being taken to email should be invoked at this point …
/@
It’s a long thread for sure Ant.
On the other hand given that the topic hits upon so many significant questions (depending on one’s point of view):
1) Political correctness interfering with science and scientific careers?
2) Sexism in science?
3) Necessity to censor and shame “offending” scientists?
4) Freedom of speech in universities and scientific institutions?
… and this is still a running controversy yet to be resolved. I would think that given it’s Science that most concerns us here at WEIT we ought to let the discussion ride.
Of course it’s Jerry’s call
If we do see fit to close down this thread, perhaps the following comments from the Guardian need to be the closing remarks:
http://www.theguardian.com/science/2015/jun/16/reversing-the-bandwagon-that-ran-over-tim-hunt
I have posted comments a few time on WEIT before, but this is the first post where I have really gotten engaged. It’s been a slice.
If you’ll notice, Howie, the statements in the first letter there are exactly what those of us you think are on “the other side” have been saying. Just because Hunt’s original statements were boneheaded & offensive (he says so himself), we think the organizations that threw him overboard way over-reacted.
Well, this whole thing has been just like the Guardian headline describes it – a runaway bandwagon. A rush to judgement indeed. In the dynamics of what was happening was the professional crucifixion of one of outstanding scientists of the world, nothing less. It’s now been done. In this context it was hard to differentiate any nuanced voices on the side of those criticising Hunt. I certainly didn’t see it here (except from Jerry). It seemed to me that the comments “things have gone too far” occurred AFTER they had gone too far. It was not a warning at the outset from anyone who could easily see where it was all going.
I think this whole sad event is sort of like what once happened in a public lynching in “the old days”. Rational people got swept along in the emotion of the sense of a wrongdoing and the emotional outrage of the crowd and went along with events – and before they knew it, they realized in horror that they had just hanged somebody. I don’t think I exaggerate with this analogy.
As I have said, my own terrible disappointment is that world’s leading scientific institution and one of our great British universities did nothing to put some rational balance or process into place, but were almost first in “fitting the noose”.
It’s totally totally depressing.
“In this context it was hard to differentiate any nuanced voices on the side of those criticising Hunt. I certainly didn’t see it here (except from Jerry).”
You must be reading a completely different comment thread than I am! Review the damned thing from the start, why don’t you? I see very, very few voices justifying any action beyond ridiculing the original comments (which, despite your claim, seem to be to be exactly what Jerry is saying as well), and the sentiment that things have gone too far starts as early as the 6th comment. I’ll bet this is the mildest discussion of this event you can find. Seriously, go back and read this whole comment section.
Well, let me go back to my analogy. There is a lynching taking place. A large mob is shouting “hang the bastard”. Another smaller group are “rational” observers and are shouting “he is a rotten person”. The poor fellow is lynched. The “rational” observers then say “things have gone too far”. But the poor bugger is now dead. Do the “rationalists” share the blame? I say they do. Seeing what was happening they should have been calling for a just and considered process – for stopping the lynching. So in my opinion they are not absolved of complicity by their retrospectively thinking it shouldn’t have been done.
By that very logic, you condemn yourself for the behaviors you have not stopped, behaviors against others all around you, despite their anonymity relative to Sir Tim’s status.
The only fault is in not TRYING to stop those behaviours – a lynching can, of course occur over one’s objections.
To expect the rest of us- who weren’t there, who didn’t know about it- to have stepped in and done, what, something is… unrealistic.
Rachel Dolezal’s (the white woman passing for black) was the subject of immediate and intense pressure, and she resigned. Now, six days later, facts, conversations, lawsuits, etc., are all coming out, which will probably change the final narrative.
Internet firestorms are based on emotions, opinions and *not* having all the facts (or resources to check the facts) at the time. Victim or hero, (or both) the internet wants it’s answer NOW.
Seriously, your analogy is to equate an actual lynching with someone who lost his job?
“Seriously, your analogy is to equate an actual lynching with someone who lost his job?”
Well, you would have to ask Sir Tim if he would have preferred to be murdered in the street or to have lost his reputation and several of his most valued positions in the scientific and academic community.
In my opinion it’s a tragedy. It brings to mind that line from Act 2 of Othello – “Reputation, reputation, reputation! Oh, I have lost my reputation! I have lost the immortal part of myself, and what remains is bestial.”
“Well, you would have to ask Sir Tim if he would have preferred to be murdered in the street or to have lost his reputation…”
I’m *guessing* most lynching victims would have chosen live over a lost reputation.
But feel free ask Sir Tim what his choice would have been, and get back to us.
Historically, an actual lynching started with public humiliation, both verbal and brutally physical, followed by further torture, followed by a torturous death.
withoutsanctuary.org/main.html
They lynchers, led by leaders of their communities, made a party out of it, took pictures of it, kept souvenir toes, ears, fingers, and other body parts, traded postcard photos like baseball cards, involved their children and pass the souvenirs down to their children’s children.
It is no comparison.
http://withoutsanctuary.org/main.html
When I read casual comparisons of anything to lynching, I get emotional and am unable to write effectively and informatively. (No, I don’t cry, I want to hit something.) So, thank you for this…
You are most welcome.
A little late in the day for Tim Hunt but questions are now being asked about the reliability of Connie St Louis. The article comes from the Daily Mail which is generally regarded as right-wing but the article quotes facts which can be checked.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3141158/A-flawed-accuser-Investigation-academic-hounded-Nobel-Prize-winning-scientist-job-reveals-troubling-questions-testimony.html
Any attempt to discredit any of the many witnesses, particularly at this late stage, is unfortunately ill advised.
First, there were many witnesses, including named ones.
Second, it raises what had become a burned out issue back up from the ashes, reminding the world of Sir Tim’s instigating words and the audience to which he chose to speak them.
Third, such attempts to discredit whistleblowers is a common form of retaliation. That makes Sir Tim look even worse, whether he is at the bottom of it or whether someone else did it on his behalf — even if Sir Tim wasn’t aware of this action being promoted or taken.
Hear, hear.
/@
You may have a point – too many people may have invested themselves in the original story to countenance any nuance or divergence from the accepted narrative.
But you failed to address the issue of whether or not the whistleblower reported truly or otherwise – yes it could be retaliation by supporters or it could point to someone driven by their own agenda, careless of the harm they cause. Rational people should want to know the facts, even if the outcome cannot be revisited.
Oh, and why should the woman who stirred this all up be immune from investigation? If she was grossly exaggerating – to put it plainly, lying – shouldn’t we all know about it?
Or are attacks on reputations only allowed to proceed in one direction?
cr
Well, she was not the only witness!
And, you know, that woman who told that racist joke? Well, it was only light-hearted banter, so there’s nothing to worry about, right?
And, you know, that other guy who told that transphobic joke? Well, it was only-light hearted banter, so that’s just fine, right?
…
/@
Exactly, Ant. Thank you.
No I don’t know that woman or the other guy. You’re just blowing smoke.
Apparently you’re not aware: There’s a recent book on the subject, highlighting a selection of cases similar to Sir Tim’s. In each, a few injudicious words cause an immediate maelstrom of backlash, proving the situation has gone viral. “Viral”: even those of us without TV or radio have heard about these many particular cases and that book on the subject. It’s amazing to think that you are completely unaware.
“It’s amazing to think that you are completely unaware.”
Or that I just couldn’t give a shit about trends on Twatter et al.
You say “gone viral”, I say “witch-hunt”. It’s a nasty development and I’d love to see it stamped out, though I don’t know how. The best I can see is that anyone who starts one should themselves be the target of one.
And don’t try to dignify this woman with the title of ‘whistle-blower’, a whistle-blower is someone who, often at great personal risk, exposes some hidden wrong or practice. Edward Snowden, for example. All this woman did was mouth off on Tw*tter about a few injudicious and probably misreported words at a meeting. Hero? – nah. Self-publicist, more likely.
The irony of Sir Tim Hunt’s inflammatory words are their contrast to this (quoted from here:www.theguardian.com/science/blog/2015/jun/12/the-unseen-women-scientists-behind-tim-hunts-nobel-prize): ” In his Nobel lecture, Hunt lauded the simple, but brilliant, experiments of [Joan] Ruderman and Katherine Swenson, who were the first to show that cyclins bring about cell division. He described their experiments as “electrifying”, saying the women produced a “spectacular result” that “made people sit up and take note”. Admittedly, there are shamefully few women in Hunt’s personal “cell cycle story”, but he clearly respects their scientific insights and has directly benefitted from their input, making it extremely hard to understand why he thinks working with women is a waste of his time.”
Where are the Nobel Prizes for those women?
And this subsequent paragraph: “Tim Hunt shared that prestigious stage in Stockholm with Sir Paul Nurse, and they both could not have claimed place on that platform without the tireless efforts of women colleagues. As a member of Nurse’s lab, Melanie Lee proved that his work in yeast was applicable to humans, a revelation that captured the attention of the medical community. Nurse described it as “a major step forward, all the more so because she persevered with a project that many argued was highly unlikely to succeed”. Writing in the journal Cell, Professor Kim Nasmyth, FRS, praised Lee’s contribution as a “tour de force” that had “an immediate and electrifying impact”.”
Wow, that sounds pretty pivotal to me.
So, to me, it is crystal clear that what he said what not his real opinion but an unskilled attempt at light-heartedness through parody. I am sure he thought that what he said was too outrageous to be taken at face value by an intelligent body of people.
And to me, it is clear that two men shared his Nobel Prize, while none — not one — of the women, whose scientific work was so excrutiatingly critical to that very reward, was given equal respect.
And Sir Tim supported that outcome by merely naming them in his acceptance speech, not insisting any of them share the Nobel.
“And Sir Tim supported that outcome by merely naming them in his acceptance speech, not insisting any of them share the Nobel.”
INSISTING who gets the prize with him -are you joking??? You really must hate Hunt to even think of concocting such an issue.
Do you have any idea whatsoever of how Nobel selections are made -how they are limited to the principal-published researchers of any breakthrough discovery. Do you even have any idea of how science is actually carried out- that there are a multitude of contributors leading to each and every scientific breakthrough and eventual Nobel award. If you are really so ignorant of these things I suggest you read “Life’s Greatest Secret” by Cobb on the history of the cracking of the genetic code – showing the multitude of scientists who contributed to the eventual published breakthrough DNA papers by Watson and Crick.
Is it not enough that you want to smear Hunt’s personal reputation, do you really need to discredit his scientific work as well?
Is that what you call an argument? Seriously?
WAIT JUST A MINUTE! ARE YOU SAYING THAT EQUALLY ACKNOWLEDGING THE WOMEN SCIENTISTS WOULD DISCREDIT SIR TIM’S WORK?
NOW, YOU’VE GONE TOO FAR.
Doc, I’d calm down a bit if I were you–or you might call down the wrath of PCC…(I do understand why you feel that strongly.)
Agreed. Re-read his closing point, though. How dare he?!
“Do you have any idea whatsoever of how Nobel selections are made -how they are limited to the principal-published researchers of any breakthrough discovery.”
Yes, and that’s the crux of the matter. It’s the principal investigators who get to decide whose names are on the publications. It’s widely known that there are scientists who basically exploit their grad students and then take major credit for their work. I can think of an emeritus entomologist at Cornell right off the bat. Note, I’m not accusing Hunt of this, just putting it out there that it happens. And the women doc is talking about sound like more than “just” graduate students, by which I mean, perhaps even more appropriate for co-credit honors.
All speculation, granted, but then, so is most of what you’re saying.
“It’s widely known that there are scientists who basically exploit their grad students “
Therefor Hunt must?
“I can think of an emeritus entomologist at Cornell right off the bat.”
What on earth does this prove regarding Hunt? Are you saying that ALL scientists cheat, or just male scientists?
“Note, I’m not accusing Hunt of this, just putting it out there that it happens.”
In other words you are just rumormongering
“And the women doc is talking about sound like more than “just” graduate students, by which I mean, perhaps even more appropriate for co-credit honors.”
Perhaps, perhaps, perhaps
”All speculation, granted”
Yet showing your true mindset Diane. You are trying to destroy a great scientist’s reputation by rumour and innuendo. I thought you said you were above this sort of thing? It’s really quite shocking.
Anyhow you have proven my case … you are participating in witchhunt and appear happy to do so.
Jesus howiekornstein, you’re clearly being deliberately obtuse here. You appear to be so into proving you are right that you are starting to adopt a position that I don’t think you really hold (at least judging from your initial comments).
My stance hasn’t changed at all regarding what has happened to Hunt and more seriously to science itself over this affair. If I have become more strident it is only because the situation has only gotten worse and worse, and people’s behaviours have become worse and worse. I witness people whose opinions I normally respect not only show indifference to actions that they themselves classify as an injustice, and instead they indulge in voicing further innuendo and rumormongering about Sir Tim.
I will let the words of Richard Dawkins close the argument for me:
http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/jun/19/tim-hunt-the-victim-of-self-righteous-feeding-frenzy-says-richard-dawkins
My pint is that reading your response to Diane, you wouldn’t know that. As I said, you were being deliberately obtuse. Diane, and I reckon most on this site, agree with you.
From that article, Brian Cox’s can be found: http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/jun/16/brian-cox-criticises-disproportionate-reaction-to-tim-hunts-comments
Excerpt: “Cox acknowledged that there were problems in getting young women to take up careers in science and engineering…”
E tu, Brian? Young women have no problem taking up science. The problem is with science booting them out.
Nice NYT op-ed: What It’s Like as a “Girl” in the Lab
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/18/opinion/what-its-like-as-a-girl-in-the-lab.html?action=click&contentCollection=U.S.&module=MostEmailed&version=Full®ion=Marginalia&src=me&pgtype=article
Reading that brought forth a flood of empathy.
Just be sure not to cry! 😉
😉
Amy Schumer
Tig Notaro
Tina Fey
Sarah Silverman
Gracie Allen
Judy Tenuta
Lily Tomlin
Phyllis Diller
Kate Micucci
Riki Lindhome
Elayne Boosler
Sarah Haskins
Elaine May
Jane Curtin
Lauren Lapkus
Margaret Cho
Rita Rudner
Gilda Radner
Kristen Schaal
Amy Sedaris
Anne Meara
Wanda Sykes
Rusty Warren
Need I go on?
Add Jessica Williams from The Daily Show.
To quote Roseanna Rossannadanna: “Never mind.”
And they all owe a debt to Phyllis Diller. 😉
Betty White, who’s still performing and still funny!
Ms Lucille as in A Ball
Ms Joan Rivers
and one of my very most favorites, Ms Carol Burnett, with thus: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dXUQjigUxcc
alongside Ms Dolly with six – year – old Louis and his Instrumental Friend here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RIOnXHXkfcU .
Blue