I wrote the piece It’s official: men are too emotional for a career in science as satire, but the emotional (dare I say irrational) response of many men shows that there is a regrettable amount of truth to my claim.
As described in The Boston Globe:
A Nobel Prize-winning British scientist apologized Wednesday for saying the ‘trouble with girls’ working in laboratories is that it leads to romantic entanglements and harms science.
But Tim Hunt stood by his assertion that mixed-gender labs are ‘disruptive.’
Hunt, 72, made the comments at the World Conference of Science Journalists in South Korea, according to audience members.
Connie St Louis of London’s City University tweeted that Hunt said when women work alongside men in labs, “you fall in love with them, they fall in love with you, and when you criticize them, they cry.”
Hunt acknowledged the comments and resigned:
Hunt, a biochemist who was joint recipient of the 2001 Nobel for physiology or medicine, said he was just trying to be humorous. He told BBC radio on Wednesday that he was “really, really sorry I caused any offense.”
Then he added: “I did mean the part about having trouble with girls. … 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.”
[pullquote align=”right” color=”#ffdead”]Sure, Dr. Dawkins, an apology will be coming right after Hell opens a skating rink.[/pullquote]
But as is inevitable when anyone is held to account for blatant sexism against women in science, a backlash has ensued. Connie St. Louis, the journalist who broke the story, is having her reputation torn to shreds, and Dr. Emily Grossman, another science journalist as well as a science PhD, has been subjected to a campaign of vilification by Hunt’s supporters. Even scientists have gotten into the act. Dr. Richard Dawkins, who has had his own problems with accusations of sexism, has leapt to Hunt’s defense:
Without wishing to join a reverse witch-hunt to root out the individuals responsible, I can’t help hoping Sir Tim will receive an apology.
Sure, Dr. Dawkins, an apology from those who reported on Hunt’s comments will be coming right after Hell opens a skating rink.
Most of those defending Hunt are insisting that his statements were a joke. I have news for them all, from Richard Dawkins to the losers sending anonymous vitriol to Dr. Grossman:
It doesn’t matter if Hunt was joking!
And perhaps if men weren’t so emotional about maintaining science as an all male preserve, or so emotional in whining whenever sexists are held to account, they might realize it, too.
To understand why it doesn’t matter if it was a joke consider the following:
What if Hunt had said I did mean the part about having trouble with blacks. … I have had trouble with them in the lab and they’ve had trouble with me and it’s very disruptive to the science.
Or how about if he had said I did mean the part about having trouble with gays in the lab. … I have had trouble with them in the lab and they’ve had trouble with me and it’s very disruptive to the science.
Would anyone think that statements like that could be excused as “jokes.” I doubt it. Racism and homophobia can’t be excused as jokes and hopefully very few people would accuse black individuals or gay individuals of being “unable to take a joke” if they found it distinctly unfunny.
Earth to Hunt defenders: claiming it was a joke simply proves the point, it was an example of the egregious gender bias that many women in STEM face every day.
Women do not exist for your amusement. Women in STEM are not there to be subjects for your fantasies and delusions about your attractiveness. We aren’t interested in your flirting, your fixation with our chests, and we don’t appreciate your very unfunny jokes.
This is clearly going to come as earth shattering news to some male scientists, but women choose to work in science and technology for the same reasons that men do: to engage intellectually, to pursue a passion, and to make a living.
Reputation smearing and vilification of those like Connie St. Louis and Dr. Emily Grossman who call you out for your behavior are just an extension of your inappropriate behavior. The vicious Twitter and YouTube comments are ugly and sad.
What makes you commentors think we care about your opinion? What makes you think you come across as anything other than pathetic losers? Probably the same mindset that makes you think Tim Hunt’s comments should be excused as clever male banter.
What Tim Hunt did was inexcusable and trying to pretend that it was a joke doesn’t excuse it. It merely marks you as apologists for inappropriate behavior.
dr., are you taking new patients these days?
hahaha, oh, were you being serious?
Blivan, unless your comment is satire, you seem profoundly ignorant. Fortunately, help is here! Just keep reading this blog and you will learn things.
It’s actually a good thing to be angry at shitty people who do shitty things. It doesn’t make those people “angry people”, it makes them generally happy people who are rightly upset at bad things.
Is that the best you can do?
i’m not trying to do anything other than suggest you get help, miserable bitch
Uncalled for. Go back to your mom’s basement you MRA troll.
The author of this article is a hypocritical misandric dumbass, spreading out sexist bullshit in the name of radical feminism. The worst part is, that many others actually agree on the respectability of that discriminatory campaign. Todays society is really disgusting.
This headline is a desperate scream for attention, relevance and validation of a deep religious belief in and loyalty to a corrupt ideology.
She thinks she speaks for all Earth, that should tell every one of her fans and new readers everything they need to know about the size of this woman’s ego.
Social Justice dude protests Mel Brook’s The Producer, says it doesn’t matter Brooks was joking.
http://www.washingtonian.com/blogs/afterhours/theater/mel-brooks-the-producers-protest-maryland.php
Very impressed by the confident and vicious self-righteousness of those who are not just critical of Dr Hunt’s statement, but who will accept nothing less than the loss of his job and career.
Notice here that the author characterizes Dr Dawkins as one thing only – a “supporter” of Dr Hunt. Dr Dawkins explicitly and publicly said that what Dr Hunt said was deplorable.
Is this what a good feminist does these days – a search and destroy mission which spares no prisoners against any and all who say anything against the script? Congratulations, liberated women of science – now you are just as good as men at solving your problems with violence.
What job did he lose and what salary has he lost?
Sharon Stone was dumped from Christian Dior’s Chinese advertisements because of the remarks she made about an earthquake that killed 68,000 Chinese people. How much money did she lose for her comments?
What was Dr Hunt’s role at the universities that dumped him? How much money has he lost? What research will he now be unable to do?
Animal husbandry. Someone else disliking this term?
Tim Hunt isn’t as funny as he thinks.
Dawkins is a mean-spirited fellow. When my teen daughter was given a surprise award at a conference he was attending, he chewed her out afterwards for having gum in her mouth at the time. And she had traveled across the country just for the opportunity to meet him.
That reminds me of when I was a high school student and wanted to be a meteorologist. I got a chance to meet the meteorologist at our local TV station. When I told him I wanted to do what he did for a living he said to me, “Are you sure? It’s a lot of math.” I was so disappointed. I had really looked up to him. I just wanted to yell at him, “Yes, I know it’s a lot of math! I like math! I have an A in calculus, douchebag!”
You have to wonder if Dawkins isn’t a bit sensitive about his own so-called achievements. For example, the notion of “memes” has been criticized as not even particularly good at being a metaphor.
I was told, as a student at the U of Wisconsin – Madison, that I would not be considered for admission to the medical school, even with a 4.0 point average, because “no one in my family was a physician.” That was apparently code for “we’ll consider the application of a woman only in order not to disappoint a man in your family.”
To a teenaged admirer, nice. I used to admire Dawkins. I have gone from admiration to disappointment to outright disgust.
This is how you treat a teenage admirer interested in science:
http://www.businessinsider.com/young-neil-degrasse-tyson-met-carl-sagan-2014-3
I’m sorry your daughter had that experience. It’s terrible when one’s heroes turn out to be unmitigated assholes and it’s especially hard for teens. Tell her she’s an infinitely better person than Dawkins could ever hope to be.
Chewing gum in a formal environment in my opinion is vulgar. It is certainly an opinion that most British would have. Instant fail on interview.
I suspect that Dawkins’ views on gum may lie outside the norm, even in the UK:
“Sharing a lift with Richard Dawkins”
http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/david-allen-green/2011/07/richard-dawkins-chewing-gum
Too bad Dawkins policy on “grin and bear it” doesn’t apply when it comes to children.
Are you the David Atherton who was tried for sexual assault, false imprisonment etc of a woman?
…..because those things are rather more “vulgar” than chewing gum in my personal opinion.
I don’t think he’s the same one. I think he’s the last male HR practitioner standing by day and the libertarian pro-smoking activist by night.
You may well be right!
…or he might be the creator of Great Highland Bagpipes. As my daughter said (very loudly) when pointing out a bagpipe player at age 3: “Look, Mumma, a Jock with his agony bag!”.
You have done your research.
No I am a different Dave Atherton. I am 54 that DA would be 58 now. Also he were found not guilty. The woman had invented the allegations to extract money from him. It was reported:
“The incident at the centre of the charges was captured and recorded by a state-of-the-art CCTV camera system Mr Atherton had installed at the house. But he said in court that the woman’s claims were a “complete pretence” and a “sham” designed to get money from him.
He also detailed how his accuser had approached him for cash after she made the allegations.
The jury took an hour to clear Mr Atherton of all the charges.”
http://tobaccotactics.org/index.php/Dave_Atherton
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/5279890/Millionaire-businessman-David-Atherton-vows-to-take-legal-action-after-being-cleared.html
Raises more questions than it answers, though, don’t you think? Who has state of the art cctv at their house, recording what’s going on inside? People wanting to make their own private porn collection without the knowledge of their co-star(s) would be my first thought. And then maybe put it up online either for money or bragging rights?
Not sure his story is quite the ode to victimhood it might first appear to be. Are we extremely sure she just wasn’t trying to collect payment for services rendered or images obtained without consent?
And then he wanted the woman involved named. Lovely guy.
You do not understand British society. He lives up north in Bolton and it is rough neighbourhood. Burglary is 3 times more prevalent in Britain than the USA, probably because we can’t own guns.
The way that people in the UK protect themselves if rich, is install CCTV cameras as a deterrent to someone invading your property.
Many burglars are put off by CCTV.
Lived in the UK for years, thanks though. Hardly an invasion if the woman has been invited in, is it? And there he is, discreetly filming for his own protection. I have a nice bridge I’d like to sell you if you really believe your scenario.
Ladies I am very flattered at your attentions. I have “enjoyed” your hypocritical sexism, abuse, and ad hominems, while desperately searching around for an argument.
What motivates me is a sense of injustice. The demonisation of men especially white has cast a huge shadow on due process of the law. Lena Durham has been caught out lying about being raped, as has Emma Sulkowicz, Crystal Gail Mangum against the Lacrosse team, not forgetting Rolling Stone Magazines abortion of a rape accusation.
To me feminism is so bigoted, so intolerant and unforgiving we are compromising the due process of law. The political orthodoxy imposed by political correctness has made many innocent people victims.
In balance I have lived and worked in NY for 2 years and I found American men often clueless in how to converse with women. It was “Me Tarzan, you Jane, I want sex” approach. I tend to listen and ask questions, talking the least.
If you want me to tell it how it is, from these discussions I have learnt nothing which makes me understand feminism more. If anything the opposite.
If we are to have a fair and just world, in the same way that Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe turned the tables, oppressed and expelled whites like the worst obscenities of apartheid in South Africa, feminism needs to take a deep breath and look at itself objectively.
When you have lost the high moral ground, which women had for decades, if not centuries you ladies will be the losers.
We now live in a world where 78% of suicides are men, 90% of murder victims are men, 55% of college Freshman are women and from the age of 18 – 33 women now earn more than men.
You have equality, you have won, don’t rub our noses in it
.
Dave the giveaway to your general attitude is the ‘more sad than angry’ tone-which is how parents talk to children they need to correct, not how one adult communicates with another of equal status.
Perhaps if you spend less effort trying to understand feminism and take an interest in people your quest for understanding will go better.
You give these women power by acknowledging that they got Prof Hunt sacked. If you seriously think he was badly treated work-wise, go and rage at the universities involved-they spent no effort whatsoever to keep him when they easily could have if they wanted to. If this situation is a win for anything it is for the free market in employment-he annoyed his employer in public, they sacked him. Happens every day.
And just in case you care, ‘ladies’ is demeaning and arguably pejorative. If you actually want to communicate respectfully with adult women, don’t use it.
I hope you join the ranks of other bitter MGTOWs (Men Going Their Own Way). It doesn’t seem beneficial for you to interact with women, ever. BTW, just because Sulkowicz’s rapist got interviewed by a magazine doesn’t mean she is lying, it means you are gullible.
“If we are to have a fair and just world, in the same way that Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe turned the tables, oppressed and expelled whites like the worst obscenities of apartheid in South Africa, feminism needs to take a deep breath and look at itself objectively.”
You could not have chosen a worse example. Whites in Zimbabwe are not, outside the imaginations of the likes of Dylann Roof, oppressed anything like the least obscenities of apartheid South Africa, let alone the worst.
Yes! This ^^^^^
Sorry, it just won’t do. Men have all the advantages. If fewer men are getting admitted to college it is because they are less competent. Boys are favored in the classroom as has been demonstrated by multiple studies. Men are favored in hiring. An unsuccessful white hetero man is unsuccessful for reasons other than prejudice. (I initially said “because they’re incompetent” but that’s not fair to a lot of individual men who have problems that keep them from succeeding–but there simply aren’t men in the world whose problem is that women are oppressing them. That is strictly your wish fulfilling imagination.)
I found American men often clueless in how to converse with women. It
was “Me Tarzan, you Jane, I want sex” approach. I tend to listen and ask
questions, talking the least.
Aww…have a cookie! Are you mad because they won’t sleep with you after you made that horrible sacrifice of TALKING and ASKING QUESTIONS? You poor dear.
Difficult one to answer without crass numbers. I was also a professional sportsman out there and shall I say I won more than I lost.
The ladies I liked most in NY were the ball breaking loud mouths, tremendous fun.
Yes, dear. Of course you did.
Dave’s not the long-lost brother of that ‘all my rights’ gun nut who was a self proclaimed expert in everything from krav maga to tea ceremony, is he?
He’s playing much the same tune, just saying?
Please don’t be flattered; I’m sure no one intends their “attention” as a compliment.
I have a question for the women’s rights/ feminism haters. Do you hate those rights when the woman is paying or helping to pay household expenses? Do you hate it enough to take her checks from her account out of the bills, give them back to her, and replace them with your own?
I hope you all notice that Dave is doing a lot of talking, but didn’t answer this question.
I definitely noticed.
nothing more fragile than masculinity
What sort of apology would Dr Dawkins like Prof Hunt to receive? “I’m sorry I reported the comments made by an eminent biochemist at a conference for science journalism?”. It sounds a bit like “I’m sorry for doing my job”.
Sorry ladies at my day job. Normal service will be resume in 4 hours to be pussy whipped again.
Ooh. Look. The male is busy doing Important Things at his job. Though, as noted before, not so busy that he can’t post on another site which is more of an echo chamber for boys.
In the words of Arnie not only I’ll be back, I am.
This would be more impressive if you hadn’t flounced in the next post. You’re back, but you don’t actually engage in argument, just whine and run.
Typical male. Can’t multi-task.
You know what they say about men with a small corpus callosum…
Cut and paste, what a sexist remark!
My penis has been compared to clitoris.
Cut and paste, but it was “just a joke” Dave! It’s my right to free speech!
Good we are agree. So you accept Tim Hunt was joking?
Actually, based on his comments in previous interviews, I don’t think he was joking. But the whole point of this article (and my *sarcastic* reply to you) is that it is irrelevant if he was joking or not. He still offended many and I still can’t understand why you are defending him. You obviously didn’t like it when we made jokes about you (calling it “abuse” above). Why should women who work in STEM feel any differently about Tim Hunt’s comments, joking or not?
Who cares? He spoke stupid, got caught doing it, his employer got offended and sacked him.
‘I was joking’ is not an excuse for offending someone. In this case, the person he really offended was his employer.
Get over it.
THE HORROR!!!11
Men are just built differently, PCD. It’s not their fault.
Cut and paste, what a sexist remark!
Come on, Dave…it was just a joke.
What a sexist remark.
Said the pot to the kettle.
Actually, more like “said the pot to the wineglass.” Men aren’t in any way oppressed (so jokes at men’s expense don’t harm them the way jokes at women’s expense do) and the remark was not accompanied by a “…therefore, men shouldn’t be allowed to do X”.
Good point.
It was just a joke!!!! (That makes it all OK, right?)
Like Tim Hunt?
This dude really doesn’t understand sarcasm. I think you need to make it more clear, and I think hashtags won’t do it – maybe signal sarcasm with flares, fireworks, a parade?
Do come back and cock-flog us some more, Dave.
I think Tim Hunt failed to take one critical point into account when he made these remarks: his age. Hunt has coasted his entire career on white privilege and male privilege and has never faced prejudice in his life. Now he’s old enough that age prejudice is getting him.That means that he can no longer get away with making these sorts of remarks and having everyone say, “aw…he was just joking, the poor guy, why are you picking on him?” like they did when he was younger. Now there are consequences to his acts. Consequences like losing his position. Perhaps he wasn’t providing much in the way of current, ongoing results and/or grant funds? A quick google scholar search shows a single paper from a “T Hunt” in 2015 and by the topic of the paper, the “T” in question is unlikely to be Tim. I think he wasn’t giving value any more and this was an excuse for getting rid of him–but that he only now realized that he was vulnerable to such things. He thought he was the great and powerful nobel laureate that no one could touch. He didn’t realize that he’d changed into being an old man who had to work to prove his value.
Incidentally, older men who do realize that they have to deal with prejudice and do so can be very productive. Like my 80something year old former boss who is still publishing and being cited. And not whining about how women are out to get him.
Make a joke at your own expense next time. If it’s funny, we might even laugh with you.
This is pretty fitting here:
http://cdn.themetapicture.com/pic/images/2014/09/03/funny-Sally-Strange-Twitter-Schrodinger.jpg
This wins the internet today. Or…back in August of 2014.
Oh yeah, not recent, just saw it again recently and then saw the title of this article c:
Your first choice skepticalob Find Here
Joking my left foot. Those weren’t his first comments to that effect, just the first he made in a context that couldn’t be ignored. Nevertheless, for the sake of arguement, let’s say he *was* joking. As a respected scientist, he sat on many Fellowship committees, with a huge amount of power to decide which of thousands of good research projects got precious grants. Once he made that ‘joke’, there’s no way any woman-led research group could trust that any decision on a grant application that he had had a hand in judging had been made purely on merit.
Just can’t do that.
It’s like having someone who ‘jokes’ about the inferiority of blacks and hispanics on the applications committee of a competitive school. It taints, irredeemably, any admissions decisions that school makes, even the ones that joker isn’t directly involved in.
And ‘I was joking’ is so pathetic. Either apologise (properly, with a reason ie ‘I was drunk’ not like a mealy mouthed coward) or defend the position.
The new ‘I was joking’ is ‘I was taken out of context’, which I assume means ‘I didn’t think anyone would care or disagree with me so I just said whatever came out of my shallow mind’.
Of course the response is “I was joking.” The problem couldn’t possibly be him; it’s just those humorless feminists who don’t get the joke. {sarcasm}
There’s a far more thorough article both on Tim Hunt and the context within which they exist. A bit long, but useful. http://www.dcscience.net/2015/06/15/are-women-still-at-a-disadvantage-in-science/ But, yes, he was making statements like that for a while. Just to make it worse, he went on national radio after the original statement to insist that he was just being honest.
‘I was just joking’ is the equivalent of the employee you catch raiding the till of your business insisting it’s the first time he’s done so.
Yeah, so was he joking or being honest? His two attempted defenses contradict each other.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/female-scientists-paid-5000-less-a-year-than-their-male-counterparts-report-finds-10351212.html
Some lovely comments on that article, basically saying “Women don’t deserve more money.”
I have cried once at work. When the Twin Towers fell and I wasn’t sure how close to them my pregnant college roommate worked, or if she took the subway that went under there. (She was fine, and her daughter’s a decent kid)
I cried when my Grandfather was dying the week after my best friend did very unexpectedly. My mom reached me at work to let me know it was airport/change flight time (and I might not make it) – already had tickets for a few days after.
I won’t apologize for that, and I wouldn’t expect anyone, of any gender, to do so either. If I’d have had an office, or any private space with a phone, I would have gone in there. We were working 8-12 people deep in the matchboxiest of pharmacies, though, so best I could do was the back.
I have cried at work twice. Once when I found out one of my students took his own life and once when I found out our dean of students died suddenly.
No, I just cry at work to get my way and not have to do any work.
“Women do not exist for your amusement”: and this, my friend, is the crux of the issue. Hunt and his supporters cannot tolerate the though of women having another purpose than their enjoyment.
Most excellent post, really nailing the issue.
I loved that line too.
Ladies, may I thank you for your time, alas I have a full day tomorrow as it is night in England,
Keep the comments up and I will reply tomorrow.
Keep well.
Again with the “ladies.” You’re not too bright, are you, Dave?
He’s disrespectful is all.
Holy shit.
“you are censorious, bullying, extremists who are used to your own echo chambers, rarely challenged”
Seventeen minutes later – “thank you for your time,” and “keep well.”
I loved that myself.
‘Rarely challenged’-depends what he meant. If he meant ‘rarely disagreed with’ then I think that’s factually wrong.
If he meant ‘rarely put to the test and found wanting’ I’d likely agree with him. If he’s an example of the finest MRA has to offer then intellectually we’re good.
However since they represent-or at least advocate in the same loose team as-the people with all the money and the power, it’s actually pretty disturbing.
I just hope he’s boring the former employers of Prof Hunt to the same extent as he’s ripping into those who are opining about the prof. After all, the employer chose to not back him. But that would involve attacking men, so I’m not holding my breath.
Oh we will be waiting anxiously. Really….
This comment reminded me of this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e8teRxOSNHs
OH MY GOD this is amazing 😀
Hmm…no response from Dave. He doesn’t seem to have returned “tomorrow” as promised. Men. No staying power.
Although if you click on his profile it is clear that he is continuing to comment on posts slandering the woman who broke the story. Clearly he needs an echo chamber and can’t stand commenting in the face of opposition.
From a general point of view, I am more than happy to get it on the neck for having the temerity to post what I thought were moderate arguments. I believe the right to be offended is as important as the right to be able to offend.
Nevertheless in this context, a Nobel prize winning Bio Chemist (cell division, and has helped to cure some forms of cancer) makes what has become a tactless remark, to invoke the full outage of feminists. .
The bile, vitriol and abuse of some of you posters who admit to being women have shown to me, exhibits the most appalling levels of bottom clenching hypocrisy. If I as a man had written that about a woman I would have my backside kicked from here to next week.
I have had an inkling, now confirmed, that 3rd Wave Feminism is about the subjugation of men and not a crusade for equality.
To me you have had my “prejudices” fully confirmed that you are censorious, bullying, extremists who are used to your own echo chambers, rarely challenged. When that does happen you have thin arguments and can only make rude, unfounded, personal remarks.
If you want to further the cause of women using these ideas and tactics, I can only see women scientists and other women suffering.
Lesson over, kids.
God has just issued his Eleventh Commandment.
Teh Man has spoken.
We’re now waiting for the flood. Anyone has a boat handy?
I’m waiting for my husband to build the boat. I’m just over here barefoot and pregnant.
But is the PC in the kitchen? 🙂
Delete your browser history (holding a reference to your non-profession), start cooking, and you won’t need it. You’ll be the Perfect Woman Without Sin. Even Paul would have loved you!
PC? That’s a bit outdated. I personally prefer using a tablet, it makes looking up new recipes easier and I don’t have to worry about cleaning out a keyboard. Takes up much less space too.
Edited to add: That was meant to be to dear Dave below. The only flaw with the tablet is making sure it selects what you want.
A Nobel winning biochemist is not backed by his employers after a speaking engagement at which he made a goose of himself. Much less emotive, isn’t it?
You should be ripping into the employers for being gutless, if that’s your actual thesis.
I’m sorry that I made you realize the definition of “free speech” and “ad hominem” isn’t whatever makes you happy.
What rude, unfounded personal remarks?
Didn’t see a one, didn’t make one.
It doesn’t matter. Reality doesn’t apply to Dave, and when you try to make it apply to him, he runs for the hills.
I keep forgetting words mean what Dave says they mean.
Yeah, men are so terriby subjugated that they get a measly 27 cents per dollar more than women for comparable work. In some settings there are even deliberate efforts being made to remove men’s advantages in getting hired and getting raises. For example, some orchestras have the candidate for a position audition behind a curtain. How is a man’s natural manliness supposed to be apparent if he’s behind a curtain? He has to depend on his ability and we can’t have that: he might not get the job because (horror) a woman might outperform him! It’s just awful! And here poor Dave’s being censured by having women respond to him rather than simply fainting and crying, “oh, we were wrong! but now a MAN has corrected us!” While it’s true that Dr. Tuteur hasn’t actually taken down his comments or banned him, for a man to be talked back to is clearly censorship. The horror, the horror.
I remember reading years ago that orchestras that switched to blind auditions saw the number of new hires rise to 50% women practically overnight.
Having read the full discussion, my big problem with Hunt (aside from his obvious sexism) is that he’s shown a bias about who works in his lab that has nothing to do with science. He’s just handed every rejected female job applicant clear grounds on which to sue him.
He has now precluded himself from ever being able to sit on any kind of selection committee again. Every time he supports a man over a woman, the question in the back of everyone’s mind will be whether it’s qualifications or sexism at the root of his choice. Just as we would have the same reservations if he was openly racist or homophobic.
A question that remains is whether he’s hobbled his own lab through this bias. Has he overlooked a candidate who could have contributed to the Next Big Thing? Has his attitude poisoned the work environment for the people he works with? His views are antiquated for a reason. They don’t contribute to good results.
He is almost certainly racist and homophobic. I’ve never once met a sexist who wasn’t also homophobic except maybe some of the very extreme TERF type radical feminists and separatist gay men. And while racist feminists and sexist civil rights activists exist, a white man who is sexist is pretty much going to go all the way with his prejudices.
They’re not “women scientists”, Dave; they’re just scientists. And “admit” to being women? Since when is being female a crime?
This is a full transcript of what he said, please find the offence.
“It’s strange that such a chauvinist monster like me has been asked to speak to women scientists. Let me tell you about my trouble with girls. Three things happen when they are in the lab: you fall in love with them, they fall in love with you, and when you criticise them they cry. Perhaps we should make separate labs for boys and girls?
“Now seriously, I’m impressed by the economic development of Korea. And women scientists played, without doubt an important role in it. Science needs women and you should do science despite all the obstacles, and despite monsters like me.”
You’re not making the powerful point you think you are.
He may have been attempting irony-always a risk in a crowd, dare I say particularly in a literate and cross cultural crowd-and he failed. He’s not a professional speaker. Had he cast it a slightly different way, left out the references to himself, maybe he could have made whatever point it is he wanted to. As it was the intro is shallow, patronising and dare I say it, dull. Dull. Dull.
Great that you weren’t offended-I must say I just found it moronic, self absorbed and therefore pretty much entirely what I expect of men of a certain age who can see their previously great power waning. Perhaps one day there will be women in the same situation who will be just as pathetic. Self absorbed, anxious (entirely reasonably, they are a young dynamic crowd, his best work is far behind him) and not content to let others take the limelight.
At least you’re doing it right, now. Saying that Tim Hunt didn’t mean what he was credited as saying is a possible argument. As it happens, he did mean them, as he made clear:
“I did mean the part about having trouble with girls,” he said. “It is true that people — I have fallen in love with people in the lab and people in the lab have fallen in love with me and it’s very disruptive to the science because it’s terribly important that in a lab people are on a level playing field. I found that these emotional entanglements made life very difficult. I’m really, really sorry I caused any offense, that’s awful. I certainly didn’t mean that. I just meant to be honest, actually.”
On his remarks about women crying, he said: “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.”
But at least you’re no longer claiming that “free speech” is being violated in some nebulous way.
I find it odd that Prof H gets the problem-it is important to criticise ideas without criticising the person-but fails to take the next step, which is acknowledging that learning to do that is a skill supervisors should develop. In fact he dodges that completely by admitting it means he can’t do part of the job he’s paid for.
If he is an inept communicator, that affects his whole team-this one cries in front of him, the other one goes home and kicks the cat-just because he can’t see the consequences of his lack of skills in that area doesn’t mean they aren’t a problem.
The Korea Federation of Women’s Science and Technology Associations, who had invited him to speak, was sufficiently offended that they wrote to him demanding an apology.
You see, when you make a sexist “joke” to an audience of women scientists at a luncheon hosted by an association of women scientists, it doesn’t look like bad judgement, it looks like a calculated insult.
Academia never ceases to amaze me for its, precious, censorious, effete nature. It seems to me it is now a platform for extreme misandrists to bully and belittle men. Third wave Feminism is not about equality, but spiteful revenge.
With a nod to Magna Carta, the First Amendment and The 1668/9 Bill of Rights, what example are we giving to developing world on how we in the West treat free speech?
So he was entitled to say those remarks even if Hunt meant them. However to have a Salem type witch hunt for remarks that were meant to be humorous, ironic, self deprecating and then taken out of context is quite the most appalling act of Orwellian GroupThink.
The fact that Ms. St Louis’ CV (resume) appears to be wildly exaggerated and has a political agenda makes this a quite disgraceful event.
People can say whatever they want–free speech is not an issue here. But words have consequences. Other people are allowed to say they are offended and do not like the ideas expressed–that’s their exercise of free speech, too.
Of course they can dissent, but they are saying it to exact to payback or even revenge. In Hunt’s case he was sacked from at least 2 honorary positions and the echo chamber of feminists heaping opprobrium on him. .
In the UK we have been far more robust and Ms St Louis is in the spotlight on her CV.
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/damian-thompson/2015/06/connie-st-louis-the-woman-who-brought-down-sir-tim-hunt-faces-questions-over-her-cv-wheres-the-media-coverage/
So what? You can say something to get payback. That’s still free speech. Oh – I get it. It’s only free speech under your definitions of free speech, which state that it’s okay to insult an entire gender at an official work event, but it’s not okay to say something, however true, that might get a guy fired.
Seriously, dude. You’re shooting yourself in the foot with your sad, made-up definition of free speech. If you think the response outweighed the offense, just say that. But stop acting like women angrily saying things which cause a man to be fired somehow violates the First Amendment and the Magna Carta (hah!). It’s funny, but useless. It just makes you look – forgive me – hysterical.
If the intro is anything to go by the speech must have been snore inducing. Do we know for sure he wasn’t sacked for being dull as well as tin-eared?
Out here in big people world people get sacked all the time. Good people. Tim’s employer/s chose to not back him, though they could have if they’d wanted to. Shrug.
The right to free speech is not limited by the fact that you disapprove of what you imagine the motivation for that speech to be.
Spotlighting the journalist’s CV (which has absolutely nothing to do with the issue, as Hunt’s offensive statement is in no way in dispute) is, by the way, a superb example of abusing free speech “to exact payback or even revenge”.
The difference is that Hunt didn’t lose any income by losing his honorary positions (which he was unable to fill honourably). The journalist may not be so lucky.
“what example are we giving to developing world on how we in the West treat free speech?”
How about:
The government will not stop you from making a fool of yourself.
The government does not protect the privileged from the consequences of their own words.
The government does not require adherence to the opinions or commands of the privileged.
You can speak freely, and so can everyone else.
There is no class so oppressed they are not allowed to speak back.
So are you telling me these women scientists are such shrinking violets and defenceless in the face of an aging academic?
This is patronising to these women in the extreme. Are you implying that women are inferior when it comes to sticking up for themselves?
I’m saying that the vocal backlash from unrelated individuals and groups, and an absence of government endorsement or interference of either position shows an excellent positive example for the practice of free speech for the reasons stated above.
I have no idea how you got from my response to “shrinking violets”, women being defenseless, patronization, or women being inferior at anything. I also don’t see what Hunt’s age has to do with anything.
See, there you go again, Dave, letting your emotions get the better of you.
All that you would prefer to talk about is IRRELEVANT.
Tim Hunt made an offensive statement.
It doesn’t matter whether it was a joke.
Do you understand now?
This is a Tweet from one of the female scientific journalists.
“Natalia Demina@demna25 Jun 10
Everybody who heard T.Hunt’s speech yesterday understood that he was joking. For those who not: guys, where is u sense of humour? #wcsj2015”
Because someone thought it was a joke, no one else is allowed to find it to be offensive?
The KOFWST (the organisation that hosted him) certainly did not understand that he was joking. They wrote to him to complain and demand an apology.
She added:
Natalia Demina @demna25 Jun 27
@mbeisen I remember that me and those who sat with me (men and women) laughed and applauded. For us it was a joke!
So the real question is whether something said as a joke, or interpreted as a joke, or apologised for after as a joke, can ever be offensive?
Leaving aside the cowardly and pathetic ‘I was just joking’, the answer to the question is ‘yes, jokes can be offensive’.
It wasn’t a joke. In his apology he said he “did mean” it. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/speaking-of-science/wp/2015/06/10/the-non-apology-of-the-year-award-goes-to-nobel-scientist-who-thinks-women-just-cry-all-the-time/)
His defenders are insisting it was a joke and it was “taken out of context” to muddy the waters. He’s seriously come out and said he meant what he said.
From a purely comedic standpoint: worst.joke.ever.
I prefer that he’s honest that he couldn’t handle the potential stresses of lab romances and people crying. He blames it on women; I blame his emotional immaturity. Most people learn how to deal with balancing a work romance in HS or college. Tim Hunt never did nor did he ever realize that he was part if not all of the problem.
His employer could have spun this and kept him without too much trouble if they were inclined to.
They weren’t. Their haste to let him go was frankly indecent. Given how robust workplaces can be when defending their stars, their treatment of him showed very clearly how valued he was.
And yet no one in MRA is ripping in to the workplaces for being feeble-an argument that I suggest would be pretty easy to make.
“From a purely comedic standpoint: worst.joke.ever.”
I see a parallel:
http://www.alternet.org/culture/jerry-seinfeld-white-hetero-male-worth-820-million-thinks-world-too-pc
Tim Hunt:
“I did mean the part about having trouble with girls. It is true that people — I have fallen in love with people in the lab and people in the lab have fallen in love with me and it’s very disruptive to the science because it’s terribly important that in a lab people are on a level playing field. I found that these emotional entanglements made life very difficult. I’m really, really sorry I caused any offense, that’s awful. I certainly didn’t mean that. I just meant to be honest, actually. It’s terribly important that you can criticize people’s ideas without criticizing them and if they burst into tears.”
But. yeah, it’s a joke. I mean, he “did mean the part about having trouble with girls,” and he’s just being “honest” about having them “burst into tears,” but it’s a joke.
Yes, we get it, he put his horrible opinion in what he thought was a humorous way. That doesn’t mean it wasn’t his real opinion. He has literally said that it was.
Even if it was a joke, part of making a living as a public speaker is knowing your audience well enough to leave them wanting to hear more, not causing them to make a new hashtag to poke fun at your stupidity.
The farm motivational speaker who was dressed in western wear at a dairy conference and lead off with a story about how farming destroyed his nuclear family torpedoed his career as efficiently, although somewhat less publically.
I’m finding it so interesting that none of the MRA ire is directed to the employers. They could have hung on to the Prof if they’d wanted to. They chose not to.
But are they getting castigated in MRA world? Actually I don’t know, but if not, why not? Could it be because that would involve attacking powerful men?
It’s like the guy over at the other post railing against HR, which is full of young women who, according to his view, run and ruin everything. Now I’m quite happy taking my turn to subvert HR-nothing funner on a quiiet day at the salt mine-but who employs and directs HR? The owners of the business, who tend to be powerful men.
If the MRA are unhappy, they should follow the money. They just won’t like where the trail leads.
“The fact that Ms. St Louis’ CV (resume) appears to be wildly exaggerated and has a political agenda makes this a quite disgraceful event.”
How does that accusation change anything about what Hunt said?
The inaccuracy of her reporting matches the inaccuracy of her CV.
Did she misquote him?
See, Dave, now THAT’S an ad hom attack! You attacked Ms. St. Louis as a person rather than her argument. Well done! You got it!
Dave, it never ceases to amaze me how some men are so emotional about this issue that they have trouble comprehending what they read.
Please calm down and let me explain it for you in simple terms that you can understand:
Tim Hunt made an offensive statement.
It doesn’t matter if it was a joke; it’s still offensive.
See? It’s very simple. It makes no difference what feminism is or is not about; it makes no difference whether Connie St. Louis has problems with her resume; it makes no difference what you think about it.
We have a word for what you would prefer to discuss. It’s a big word, but hopefully you are familiar with it: IRRELEVANT.
” However to have a Salem type witch hunt for remarks”
Hunt stated his opinion. Many others disagreed vigorously. OMG! That’s the same as accusing 20 people of doing the work of the Devil and executing them!
My goodness Dave, you are in such a tizzy that you can’t think straight at all.
Of course he was entitled to say the remarks, and he did. Nobody has arrested him. What he’s not entitled to is speaking gigs, honorary positions. And he’s not entitled to not be criticized by exactly as many people as want to criticize them. (It’s always funny how “freedom of speech” only seems to go one way in the opinion people like you. He gets to say what he wants. If women do the same, it’s a “witch hunt.”)
Free speech is about exchanges of ideas with no career consequences. It is not about getting people fired and publicly humiliated.
Feminism is the new McCarthyism.
You just made that definition up, Dave. Freedom of speech is about the rights of citizens to communicate freely w/o governmental interference. It has never been extended to commercial speakers making a fool out of themselves.
Free speech exists as long as they agree with you or your approval?
No. Free speech exists and may be exercised by all.
Free speech, however, doesn’t exempt the speaker from the consequences of stating a ill-advised opinion.
Tim Hunt will not be thrown in jail, deported or prevented from voting. Doing that would be a violation of free speech because the government would be punishing him for speaking.
Free speech does not apply to private individuals or organizations. If I go online and write about how my labmates are crybabies who I keep falling in love with, my job would have grounds for termination since I am speaking unprofessionally and in a negative manner that reflects poorly on the company. And, no, calling people lovelorn crybabies is not protected by the whistleblowers act. Hunt should have read his contract and used discretion.
Did you get fired, Dave, for running your mouth off? Are you a sad Hunt-clone?
“Did you get fired, Dave, for running your mouth off? Are you a sad Hunt-clone?”
I think you’re on to something there. Every time I’ve known a guy who was obsessed with how oversensitive, whiny
women were destroying everything, the guy was a legitimate piece of shit
who deserved the contempt that he had earned from women and the world.
Once upon a time, I worked with this crusty potato of a man. In the first conversation we ever had, he went off about how women are always making up sexual harassment claims to prey upon poor, beleaguered men who were just trying to be funny.
Later, this guy was massively demoted (unfortunately, not fired) for telling a 17-year-old coworker (who was one of his direct reports) that she probably had pink eye because “your boyfriend jizzed in your face”. He told another coworker that she was just like a tampon; a “stuck-up cunt”.
Just an example. There’s no reason to be so defensive about a man’s inalienable right to be an intolerable misogynist, unless you have a personal stake in it. No mentally balanced, healthy man I have ever known acts like that.
In my experience at least, which I concede is anecdotal.
Thousands have been fired for less. Also, when making speeches is part of your job, it is just plain incompetent to make ill-advised, insulting jokes at the expense of an audience you have been invited to address.
Of course he made the definition up. How the hell is he going to win an argument about free speech unless its definition is that Tim Hunt is free to say whatever he wants, but nobody else on earth is free to say, “Fire Tim Hunt.”
I love how he invoked the First Amendment in his original comment. It makes it even more delicious that his historical backing in no way agrees with his personal definition of “free speech.”
HAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!
Sure! That’s the definition of free speech! Because if it weren’t the definition of free speech, then you’d be talking complete crap, and that couldn’t possibly be happening.
No, Dave, no. You’re just making shit up, and it’s obvious. You sound like the thrice-married Donald Trump talking about how he is for “traditional marriage,” which he defines in the way that suits him.
We don’t have to play along with your made-up definitions, and we’re not going to. It’s been pretty funny to watch you flail, though.
What is the point of debating when you can descend into personal ad hominines. Cheap abuse wins again.
Where is the ad hom?
Ad hominems also mean whatever Dave wants them to mean.
I’m so foolish, I may have to go and cry and find someone to make uncomfortable by falling in love with them. Does it matter I’m not in science? Will that still work?
Aaaaand… Dave’s at it again. A single sentence that (he thinks) sounds cool might be all he’s capable of but he’s intent on repeating it.
Tim Hunt can go fuck himself. Or he can burst into tears as he’s doing since he encountered the unpleasant fact that free speech does not mean free of consequences. And it won’t. Ever. Even if Tim and Dave cry me a river.
1. It’s spelled “ad hominem.”
2. Telling someone they are making up a definition isn’t an ad hominem. Telling them they’re like Donald Trump also isn’t an ad hominem. An ad hominem is an attack that focuses on the person, and NOT their argument. Your argument is that free speech means that a person can say whatever they want without getting fired. It doesn’t mean that. My criticism is that you’re making up definitions, which you are.
3. Seriously, you need to stop making up definitions of known terms and then expecting the rest of the world to conform to them. “Ad hominines.” Ha!
4. But you are right about something. I did win.
Yes you are quite right on the spelling, it did not look right and it is 11.00 pm in London. My apologies.
Is your dictionary asleep?
I was being lazy, could have put it into Google.
You should get some sleep and not worry your pretty little head about this stuff.
Oh, and you should smile more.
I was just about to go on national TV to debate a matter. Hardly time to be cracking jokes.
Oh now I get it. Tim Hunt is free to say whatever he wants, and no one is free to disagree with him.
His employer didn’t back him-is that his fault for talking like a moron or the fault of those who called him out?
Free speech is whatever Dave says it is! Right now he means that you’re free to say what you want, but no one is free to say, “he should be fired for saying that.” Or maybe that you’re free to say what you want, but employers aren’t free to fire you, no matter what you say. Or maybe . . . I don’t know.
The definition of free speech is whatever is convenient for Dave Atherton’s argument right now.
Well that’s exhausting. If Dave’s argument was more cogent, thought out and lucid it would be easier to get a grip on his definition.
Unfortunately he seems a little emotional about it all-after all it would be very wrong to assume he just can’t think straight.
Cheap abuse wins again.
Dave, I take my wins where I find them. Like a man. Which is clearly outrageous, since I’m a woman.
Cheap abuse is telling a room full of female scientists they shouldn’t be allowed in a lab with men because you can’t control your emotions in the presence of women.
Now Cobalt that’s free speech in Dave’s world. I personally am delighted when Prof Hunt, Dave and their band of merry men share all their thoughts and feelings.
It gives me a really good handle on who to avoid.
It’s always fun when people who run into a debate screaming about free speech are forced to define what “free speech” actually is. It’s always some tortured definition that happens to back their specific argument at that one specific time. That’s why I always try to get them to define it. Otherwise, you’re right, it’s too exhausting to argue. They’ll just keep pretending that whatever they don’t like violates the right to free speech.
He’s just flounced, so back to woman’s work for me.
Freedom of speech means you are free to say something, and I am free to think you are an ass for saying it.
With your over the top comment and other ladies here who can barely rise above rudeness, perhaps Sir Tim Hunt and science may have a point.
“According to the German Society of Ophthalmology, which has collated different scientific studies on the phenomenon, women shed tears on average between 30 and 64 times a year whereas men cry just six to 17 times during the same period.”
Oh got it. So it’s over the top to disagree with your argument, point out the logical flaws and call you out on them.
Silly me.
Oh and just in case you care, we call them ‘women’ now. ‘Ladies’, while not quite as demeaning as ‘girls’, really isn’t the ticket.
Ummm, I’m not crying. I don’t know why men are defending him so. He is saying men can’t be professional around women.
Are we going to have the same arguments again on this blog?
Interesting. That is what I have said about. To the extent he is right that mixed labs are a problem, it is an indictment against men. Because my experience is that when problems have occurred, it is because of guys who behavedo like total creeps, going to the level of stalking.
Hunt thinks we should avoid mixed labs. I think we should get rid of the creeps.
Spot on.
Exactly. Men sell themselves short for the sake of…men’s rights?
Exactly this. Men should be more than the sum of their libido just like women should be more than their reproductive organs.
Male or female, we are all human beings and have the ability to master our biologic urges. It’s what’s allowed us to be the dominant species on the planet.
Never understood why MRAs insult other men by implying they can’t control themselves. Doesn’t give men a lot of credit. I certainly think they’re more advanced/smarter than that. Self mastery is an admirable trait.
Workplaces are full of people, and people have emotions, which may have either a positive or negative effect on the work being done. Romance and sex are the tip of an iceberg of emotions ranging from jealousy, rivalry, anger and hate to friendship, generosity and cameraderie. Professionalism (and just plain good citizenship) is about controlling those emotions that might disrupt or damage others, or the work that you are jointly undertaking, while still acknowledging that human beings have emotions and aren’t automatons.
How do those figures relate to how often female scientists cry at work when criticized compared to men? Any employee can go home and cry every night for any reason at all for all it matters to an employer.
I actually agree with some of what you have said. I don’t think an elder scientist with a distinguished career deserves to be excoriated for these particular remarks. But I do feel compelled to point out that you have complained about “rude, unfounded, personal remarks,” and then proceeded to throw out a few of your own. I also fail to see what the alleged rate of crying has to do with anything. I may cry six times a day or six times a year. So what?
The Prof wasn’t hounded out-his employer/s dropped him like a hot potato. ‘Hounded out’ suggested he was subjected to a longterm, relentless campaign-it was only days after the words were spoken he was gone, with no effort whatsoever from his employer to spin it, protect him or answer his critics. All of which a handful of semi-competent communications types could have got done before breakfast, leading to the unis involved patting themselves on the back for supporting free speech.
For whatever reason, they didn’t bother. Maybe the funding he was expected to bring in hadn’t come, perhaps they have some other issue brewing and they didn’t want a fight on two fronts, perhaps Prof Hunt’s a good guy who’s upset someone powerful who is now getting his own back, perhaps Prof Hunt is a difficult jerk no one wants to go out of their way to help.
Citation seriously needed. The “German Society of Ophthalmology” is not a citation. Specific journal, date, and pages.
Hmm…no response. Despite the fact that DaveAtherton has been on the thread several times. Almost as if he didn’t have an actual reference…
Projection much?
.
So because you feel inadequate you think you can make stuff up and pull random crap from your ass…
And?….
For such a Strong, Silent Man you’re sure doing a lot of whining. Whining Without Tears – a primer for Real Men.
That’s an interesting one. So if I say under my real name on social that the management of my group are a bunch of fools who have run the practice into the ground by putting numbers before patient care and employee satisfaction, I should have no career consequences? It’s just an idea that I’m exchanging. Or maybe it’s just a joke. I’m not sure. Whichever keeps me from getting fired, I guess.
I’ve been pulling this out a lot lately. https://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/free_speech.png
Yeah, he’s free to spew his hatred and others are free to shame him for it. Like he’s been said (STILL needs to be reminded huh?) freedom of speech doesn’t mean freedom from consequences. Especially from privileges cishet white male fucks like him.
“However to have a Salem type witch hunt”
.
You know who were killed during the Salem WITCH (hint! HINT!!!) hunt? Huh? WOMEN. You know who kill women? Rape women? Assault women? Nay,commit these things in general? MEN.
.
“There is no greater threat to women than men” -Louis C.K
To be fair, at least one man did die in the Salem witch hunt. Giles Corey. Plus his story is impressive and this is a good excuse to mention it.
An MRA in his situation would have simply accused every woman he could find to get out of it.
Ah, Diddums.