Religion and Ethics Forum
General Category => General Discussion => Topic started by: Nearly Sane on June 10, 2015, 09:27:33 PM
-
I struggle to see how this is an apology
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p02tc22c
-
Some people are weird. What's up with a bit of love in the laboratory, or any other place of work?
-
Yep - it is cringeworthy as an apology, and is just as patronising as was his original remark. Just goes to show that being a professional and lauded scientist isn't enough to stop him being a fuckwit in other respects.
-
It is very easy to slag PR people, but this is the kind of thing that they are employed to deal with!
-
He has resigned.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-33090022
-
Sir Tim Hunt FRS, Nobel Laureate.
I have some (very slightly) mixed feelings about this affair.
About 90% of me thinks that he was a silly, misguided, stupid prat. He made his comments at a meeting in South Korea. He had no idea of the local culture, but went on to make the sort of comments that he might in the pub with colleagues after a symposium in his own university department. He has ensured that a glittering academic career will be remembered not for its achievements but for the way it has ended.
On the other hand, there is about 10% of me is looking anxiously at another victory for the stultifying embrace of political correctness.
-
What an idiot! >:(
-
So long as 'falling in love' with his female colleagues and 'making them cry' is the result of nothing more than inappropriate romantic and sexual feelings resulting in over-emotion and not sexual harassment then I think he's guilty of nothing more than being a sentimental, fossilised old prat. I certainly don't think he should have had to fall on his sword over it, nor do I think a distinguished career should be ended or defined by it.
-
So the idea that 'girls in labs' are bad for science is fine?
-
So the idea that 'girls in labs' are bad for science is fine?
Let's not get too upset about this. Remember Daley Thompson in 1984?
http://www.theguardian.com/sport/1984/aug/11/athensolympics2004.olympicgames
He would be in all kinds of kak if came out with these comments today, from completely different people.
-
So long as 'falling in love' with his female colleagues and 'making them cry' is the result of nothing more than inappropriate romantic and sexual feelings resulting in over-emotion and not sexual harassment then I think he's guilty of nothing more than being a sentimental, fossilised old prat. I certainly don't think he should have had to fall on his sword over it, nor do I think a distinguished career should be ended or defined by it.
My thoughts exactly!
-
The problem I have with the 'he made the remarks without thinking' approach is that the apology just isn't one. It is what he thinks. As to the end of his career, I would suggest that it was mainly in a scientific sense it already was. When it comes to his memory, let's be honest, none of us in here were big aficionados of his fame before this.
-
So the idea that 'girls in labs' are bad for science is fine?
Let's not get too upset about this. Remember Daley Thompson in 1984?
http://www.theguardian.com/sport/1984/aug/11/athensolympics2004.olympicgames
He would be in all kinds of kak if came out with these comments today, from completely different people.
Sorry, i am not sure of the relevance. There was a time when people argued that women shouldn't get into education and times change. That people thought that doesn't mean that it is acceptable for someone representing a university now.
-
The problem I have with the 'he made the remarks without thinking' approach is that the apology just isn't one. It is what he thinks. As to the end of his career, I would suggest that it was mainly in a scientific sense it already was. When it comes to his memory, let's be honest, none of us in here were big aficionados of his fame before this.
he thought he was being funny. My eldest followed this on social media and there just seemed to be a bemused collective shrug, a 'whatever', and everyone went back to their mixed gender schools, colleges and workplaces.
-
The problem I have with the 'he made the remarks without thinking' approach is that the apology just isn't one. It is what he thinks. As to the end of his career, I would suggest that it was mainly in a scientific sense it already was. When it comes to his memory, let's be honest, none of us in here were big aficionados of his fame before this.
he thought he was being funny. My eldest followed this on social media and there just seemed to be a bemused collective shrug, a 'whatever', and everyone went back to their mixed gender schools, colleges and workplaces.
The key issue is that science as a profession has a real gender problem, with tiny proportions of women at the top levels. There are loads of initiatives aimed at promoting science to women, including girls at school to try to improve the proportion of women studying science and entering the profession. Unfortunately this story undermines a lot of the good work, not just because of the comments, but also because Tim himself conforms to the classic stereotyping of scientists - white, male, brilliant but a bit barmy etc etc.
-
Not among my daughter's peer group. Maybe with older students, I don't know.
-
Our eldest studied science at uni, she was just as good as the guys. Likewise at school she was in the woodwork class and top of the class!
-
I would have thought the 72 year old Nobel Prize winner would be more useful to the university than the people objecting to his comments? I doubt his comments suddenly meant that any girls thinking about pursuing science suddenly changed their minds.
He made a comment on his personal experiences to explain why he supported single-sex labs to 100 people at a science conference in Korea. I think it's a shame for the university that he resigned - he probably decided he had better things to do than deal with the social media fall-out.
Looking at the comments themselves - it's true a lot of girls do cry when criticised. My experience is that I have not seen a man cry at work even though I have seen many men be given a really hard time - if I had been in their shoes I would have cried. I have seen girls cry at work. The only time I remember crying I did it in private, in the toilets. I also remember crying once at about 2am at home out of sheer frustration after spending hours trying to get a macro I was writing for a spreadsheet to work. I then stopped crying after a couple of minutes and figured it out. I have no idea why I cried - I don't choose to cry and would prefer if I didn't - I don't expect a particular reaction from others because of tears - they are more of a hindrance - I can't see properly :)
Anyway, my daughter, who is really good at Chemistry, is in a single-sex school. I am all for keeping boys out of her lab and out of her school.
-
I have seen women cry at work and men. The frequency never seems to mean anything for the work. I have never worked in a segregated environment. I wouldn't support it and I would suspect given gender stereotypes, that a women only lab would find it comparatively harder to get funding.
I know he is an old fossil but using girls when he means women is a reinforcement of the stereotypes.
-
So the idea that 'girls in labs' are bad for science is fine?
Let's not get too upset about this. Remember Daley Thompson in 1984?
http://www.theguardian.com/sport/1984/aug/11/athensolympics2004.olympicgames
He would be in all kinds of kak if came out with these comments today, from completely different people.
Sorry, i am not sure of the relevance. There was a time when people argued that women shouldn't get into education and times change. That people thought that doesn't mean that it is acceptable for someone representing a university now.
As I see it in 1984 Daley was generally considered to be "an ordinary working class bloke" who made risque comments. Today there would be all sorts of outrage, although probably not from Princess Anne. There are those today who consider Sir Tim to be "a quaint old fossil" who made some corny jokes, and don;t see what the fuss is about.
-
I agree about the funding issue - the more networking you do the more likelihood of getting funding so restricting access to male colleagues would reduce your chances of meeting useful contacts. That doesn't apply in a school situation, where the benefits of male input probably don't outweigh the cost of rowdy boys. If the boys were all geeks I would welcome them.
Women at work often refer to themselves as girls.
Tim Hunt made himself sound very unintelligent and unscientific if he was serious. But he claims the comments were a joke. His comments were very stupid, given he was lecturing about why it is important to fund creative science at a World Conference of Science Journalists and would come under the category of irrelevant and TMI.
I think he could have still made himself useful to UCL in other ways, but losing his position as honorary professor in the life sciences faculty does not prevent him from continuing doing whatever he is good at - working with women is clearly something he is bad at if he keeps falling in love with them. I doubt his wife will be pleased to hear that.
-
The problem with the idea that it was a joke is the apology, where he states he meant it as fact.
The issue with 'girls' is that, yes, indeed many women can use it of themselves, and it can be ok for a man to do it in context but here it isn't that context and it reinforces a stereotype of infantilizing women.
-
From the link to his apology, I am hearing him say he meant the part that he had had trouble working with women because of falling in love with them? He didn't say all scientists would have the same problem as him - maybe he is just exceptionally romantic (horny?) that he can't interact with women even in a professional environment without getting emotionally entangled.
His wife is a scientist, whom he supervised, and apparently she was married to someone else when they got together while he was doing the research that led to his Nobel prize, so I hope he was referring to her. He said in his apology that he was being honest about his personal experiences.
-
He says that he meant to be honest and doesn't appear to retract any of it. I agree that he makes it more about him, but he clearly implies that this is not a mere problem with him.
I wonder if any men he worked with fell in love with him?
-
Ah yes ... what about gay scientists ... would he have had Turing booted out?
-
Depends on how you define love. I would not call it love if someone has feelings for someone they are not actually in a relationship with.
I also don't know that I would call it love if I like someone who I know will never be interested in me back because I am the 'wrong' gender. I thought he was talking about emotional entanglements that distract people from their lab work, not mild infatuation?
-
Not among my daughter's peer group. Maybe with older students, I don't know.
There is a very well established issue with women in STEM subjects (science, technology, engineering and maths). This starts right from school options level with less women taking the subjects at A-level (particularly the physical sciences and maths) and continues throughout the profession from undergraduate through to the most senior levels - with each level going up the seniority scale being more male dominated than the previous ones.
And a lot is still about the perception of science and engineering as 'boys' subjects. There have been improvements in recent years but still a very, very long way to go and sadly all the publicity over Tim's comments won't help. And remember he isn't just some old school scientist, but a Nobel prize winner, a member of the Royal Society and also on the European Research Council's panel than is responsible for awarding some of the most prestigious major grants that support career development of exceptionally talented scientists.
-
The use of words seems to imply that it is falling in love with someone and not together so that while not precluding actual emotional entanglement does nit seem to make it necessary to the point.
-
Depends on how you define love. I would not call it love if someone has feelings for someone they are not actually in a relationship with.
I'm afraid love doesn't work to rules, and it doesn't need a relationship before it takes you over. In fact it has the power to break down a relationship and start a new one of its own.
-
Hunt is married to a woman scientist - also at UCL. I think his emphasis was on single sex labs or education, rather than discouraging women from careers in science. All this shows in the end is that a person can be brilliant in one field but rubbish at everything else.
-
Ok - so if we forget about defining love. Having feelings for someone else and having emotional entanglements is distracting - so Tim Hunt was right about that. He spoke about his own experience with women - which could include the emotional entanglement that led to him getting together with his wife, a scientist whom he supervised in a lab, who was married to someone else at the time.
In the interests of free speech I think he should be allowed to speak about his personal experiences in the lab on the radio. I think he should be allowed to make jokes about his love life at a conference without losing his job for it, as it's pretty obvious his forte is science not humour.
I think women who claim to be serious about creative science should be more focused on the science rather than the poor jokes made by scientists talking about their messy love lives. That some women are so distracted by the poor jokes, they are willing to succumb to group think and jump on the social media bandwagon and demand he loses his job makes me question their ability to be creative or think outside the box.
I don't agree, by the way, with Tim Hunt's thinking on the subject of separate labs at work because emotional entanglements are so distracting. But a lot of work places do have rules about dating colleagues so it clearly does cause some issues.
-
If your job were to have as part of it encouraging people to participate in science and you expressed yourself in such away repeatedly that your employer thought was failing to do that, surely there is a question about suitability?
-
Yes, it is a factor. I would have handled it differently though rather than asking him to resign.
I think it would have been more productive to have a conversation about it and give him some training e.g. explain that at conferences he needs to focus on the bigger picture of encouraging talent, regardless of gender, rather than focusing on his emotional incontinence.
But maybe UCL were looking for a reason to let him go and he wasn't actually much use to the life sciences department.
Or maybe they all got together and decided that pretending to fall on his sword by resigning from UCL was the least disruptive option to pacify the social media furore for him and the scientific community, because he didn't do much at UCL anyway. Who knows.
-
I agree with all of that, and other than thanks for the discussion have nothing to add.
-
Oh, anytime - thanks for the discussion too.
-
Hunt is married to a woman scientist - also at UCL. I think his emphasis was on single sex labs or education, rather than discouraging women from careers in science.
I agree, and indeed others have suggested he is supportive of improving the number of women in science. But this is the law of unintended consequences. His comments have helped to cement a view of science and scientists which is not helpful in encouraging women to consider a career in science.
-
The #distractinglysexy is funny
-
Great sign, no crying or falling in love in this lab.
-
Our eldest studied science at uni, she was just as good as the guys. Likewise at school she was in the woodwork class and top of the class!
Is she still in a science based career? If not, you might want to consider why not (and I'm assuming it's not because she wasn't any good at it).
-
Our eldest studied science at uni, she was just as good as the guys. Likewise at school she was in the woodwork class and top of the class!
Is she still in a science based career? If not, you might want to consider why not (and I'm assuming it's not because she wasn't any good at it).
You can't assume any such thing! You know nothing of her or her abilities; and you cannot base what you say on:
"she was just as good as the guys," which is just a mother's opinion, and she's not going to rubbish her own daughter.
I'm tired of the double standards atheists on here have. Every comment from theists is challenged, and evidence demanded. Yet atheists make casual comments like yours, without any way of substantiating them. Hypocrites!
-
THE undisguised glee with which University College London broadcast the resignation of Nobel laureate Sir Tim Hunt as an honorary professor was a callous insult to a great man of science.
No thanks or praise for his work, no regret, just a priggish piece of jargon - ‘this outcome is compatible with our commitment to gender equality’.
True, Sir Tim’s light-hearted remarks about the difficulties male scientists have working with women were poorly judged, but they were free of malice and from someone born into a generation before political correctness became a religion.
UCL was alma mater to three notorious terrorists, including underwear bomber Umar Abdulmutallab, who ran its Islamic society. How lamentable that these fanatics and their radical friends were nurtured and indulged, but an elderly scientist is hounded out for nothing more than a clumsy attempt at a joke.
-
I haven't heard anyone I regard as a feminist agree that he should have been sacked. In fact my daughter and I are both 'silly feminists' and we don't think he should have been sacked.
I agree with Gabriella who commented elsewhere that maybe his employers wanted a reason to get rid. Or maybe they are just right-on arseholes who like showing off sixth-form style. Whatever, I see little in the way of 'silly feminism' involved.
But how about science? Could Professor Hunt show his workings on women in the workplace objectively? If not then maybe his employers had a point after all.
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jun/10/tim-hunt-science-prejudice-against-women
-
http://leftfootforward.org/2015/06/daily-mails-femail-mag-warns-of-a-march-of-feminist-bullies/
Wanting equality, to be accepted as work colleagues first and women second, is bullying.
Women do an exceptionally good job of hating other women sometimes.
-
THE undisguised glee with which University College London broadcast the resignation of Nobel laureate Sir Tim Hunt as an honorary professor was a callous insult to a great man of science.
No thanks or praise for his work, no regret, just a priggish piece of jargon - ‘this outcome is compatible with our commitment to gender equality’.
True, Sir Tim’s light-hearted remarks about the difficulties male scientists have working with women were poorly judged, but they were free of malice and from someone born into a generation before political correctness became a religion.
UCL was alma mater to three notorious terrorists, including underwear bomber Umar Abdulmutallab, who ran its Islamic society. How lamentable that these fanatics and their radical friends were nurtured and indulged, but an elderly scientist is hounded out for nothing more than a clumsy attempt at a joke.
The task is clear. People should be on the lookout for female sexism and make sure that commensurate penalties are enforced.
-
https://mobile.twitter.com/search?src=typd&q=tim%20hunt
-
THE undisguised glee with which University College London broadcast the resignation of Nobel laureate Sir Tim Hunt as an honorary professor was a callous insult to a great man of science.
No thanks or praise for his work, no regret, just a priggish piece of jargon - ‘this outcome is compatible with our commitment to gender equality’.
True, Sir Tim’s light-hearted remarks about the difficulties male scientists have working with women were poorly judged, but they were free of malice and from someone born into a generation before political correctness became a religion.
UCL was alma mater to three notorious terrorists, including underwear bomber Umar Abdulmutallab, who ran its Islamic society. How lamentable that these fanatics and their radical friends were nurtured and indulged, but an elderly scientist is hounded out for nothing more than a clumsy attempt at a joke.
The task is clear. People should be on the lookout for female sexism and make sure that commensurate penalties are enforced.
When decent, talented males are put off careers in STEM because of prejudice against their gender then I'll join you.
-
Incidentally, I'm tired of anyone speaking up for gender equality or pointing out the prejudice women still have to deal with being labelled 'silly'. It speaks volumes about those who would still keep women in their place.
Ditto 'bullying feminists'.
-
Here is an article about a silly feminist.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/11633305/University-union-officer-who-wrote-kill-all-white-men-tweet-will-remain-in-post.html
The issue here is not women only meetings in small rooms, which I suspect most of the girls would not want to attend let alone most of the boys, it is the damage done to the image of "Diversity" at large. If like Bahar you think that "Diversity" is about encouraging discrimination and stirring up conflict , then you will be pleased at the outcome. If like me you believe that "Diversity" is actually about encouraging mutual understanding & tolerance then your job has just been made very much harder.
-
Given there is already a thread on this, should it be merged? Preferably without the irrelevant stuff on terrorists.
-
Did some of my sex wake up this morning and think 'mmm it's been a while since we have shown just how stupid and illogical we can be to women, let's really go for it!'?
-
THE undisguised glee with which University College London broadcast the resignation of Nobel laureate Sir Tim Hunt as an honorary professor was a callous insult to a great man of science.
No thanks or praise for his work, no regret, just a priggish piece of jargon - ‘this outcome is compatible with our commitment to gender equality’.
True, Sir Tim’s light-hearted remarks about the difficulties male scientists have working with women were poorly judged, but they were free of malice and from someone born into a generation before political correctness became a religion.
UCL was alma mater to three notorious terrorists, including underwear bomber Umar Abdulmutallab, who ran its Islamic society. How lamentable that these fanatics and their radical friends were nurtured and indulged, but an elderly scientist is hounded out for nothing more than a clumsy attempt at a joke.
The task is clear. People should be on the lookout for female sexism and make sure that commensurate penalties are enforced.
When decent, talented males are put off careers in STEM because of prejudice against their gender then I'll join you.
I was deliberately passed over for a full time job with a trade union in 1987 because the meeting that was supposed to rubber stamp my appointment demanded that a woman be given the job instead. I had been an elected lay official for eight years, the successful candidate had been a lay official for four months.
-
Are you so stonkingly stupid that you don't perceive that women have been constantly discriminated against or are you just making a special effort for Witless Fuckery Day?
-
Are you so stonkingly stupid that you don't perceive that women have been constantly discriminated against or are you just making a special effort for Witless Fuckery Day?
If you want to beat yourself up over your Y chromosome go ahead.
-
Our eldest studied science at uni, she was just as good as the guys. Likewise at school she was in the woodwork class and top of the class!
Is she still in a science based career? If not, you might want to consider why not (and I'm assuming it's not because she wasn't any good at it).
She was a teacher, but after eight years decided to become an Anglican Priest. However, she has kept up her teaching qualification. At her previous parish as Chair of Governors of the church school she would help out with science lessons on a regular basis. She does a lot of work with young people, church based and as a Guider. Simple science experiments etc seem to feature in the things she does with them.
-
THE undisguised glee with which University College London broadcast the resignation of Nobel laureate Sir Tim Hunt as an honorary professor was a callous insult to a great man of science.
No thanks or praise for his work, no regret, just a priggish piece of jargon - ‘this outcome is compatible with our commitment to gender equality’.
True, Sir Tim’s light-hearted remarks about the difficulties male scientists have working with women were poorly judged, but they were free of malice and from someone born into a generation before political correctness became a religion.
UCL was alma mater to three notorious terrorists, including underwear bomber Umar Abdulmutallab, who ran its Islamic society. How lamentable that these fanatics and their radical friends were nurtured and indulged, but an elderly scientist is hounded out for nothing more than a clumsy attempt at a joke.
The task is clear. People should be on the lookout for female sexism and make sure that commensurate penalties are enforced.
When decent, talented males are put off careers in STEM because of prejudice against their gender then I'll join you.
I was deliberately passed over for a full time job with a trade union in 1987 because the meeting that was supposed to rubber stamp my appointment demanded that a woman be given the job instead. I had been an elected lay official for eight years, the successful candidate had been a lay official for four months.
Sounds like you felt entitled - why was there a meeting merely to 'rubber stamp' you. Surely that meeting should be there to determine who gets the position. And a job should never be based automatically on time served. Perhaps the other candidate, although less experiences as a lay official had other experience that you lacked - perhaps she was more credible at interview etc etc.
But perhaps you should show some empathy - your level of frustration at seemingly being passed over because of gender despite (as you claim) being demonstrably the best candidate is the sort of thing women have been faced with for decades.
Turn your ire on discrimination, where ever it may be not on women because of one incident.
-
Are you so stonkingly stupid that you don't perceive that women have been constantly discriminated against or are you just making a special effort for Witless Fuckery Day?
If you want to beat yourself up over your Y chromosome go ahead.
I have no problem being male, since I don't think it needs me to be a massive fucking dickhead and ignore the fact that women have been discriminated against. Obviously other choices are available with the Y Chromosome (and are being taken today by a number of our members)
-
This has to be one of the dumbest OPs ever on this forum, reproducing a DM editorial with a comment about silly feminists. Maybe Keith should try thinking instead?
-
THE undisguised glee with which University College London broadcast the resignation of Nobel laureate Sir Tim Hunt as an honorary professor was a callous insult to a great man of science.
No thanks or praise for his work, no regret, just a priggish piece of jargon - ‘this outcome is compatible with our commitment to gender equality’.
True, Sir Tim’s light-hearted remarks about the difficulties male scientists have working with women were poorly judged, but they were free of malice and from someone born into a generation before political correctness became a religion.
UCL was alma mater to three notorious terrorists, including underwear bomber Umar Abdulmutallab, who ran its Islamic society. How lamentable that these fanatics and their radical friends were nurtured and indulged, but an elderly scientist is hounded out for nothing more than a clumsy attempt at a joke.
Attitudes don't have to be malicious to be damaging.
In fact there is a move in a number of universities to move beyond the issues of conscious and overt bias - which has largely been eradicated through changes in attitudes, training and processes, towards addressing unconscious bias.
I bet there a many on this board who do not consider themselves sexist or racist (indeed would be horrified at the suggestion, yet have embedded unconscious bias which associated certain jobs, roles, characteristics with people of a particular gender or race.
There are some on-line tests for unconscious bias which I'll try to dig out. Try them and you may well be horrified.
-
Just looking at the DM editorial on feminist bullies, and right next to it is their sidebar of shame, sample story, 'Braless X wears tape on cleavage to avoid spilling out of her very low-cut dress'.
So femininists are silly, eh? Just get your tits out girls, never mind your pretty heads about working in a lab!
-
THE undisguised glee with which University College London broadcast the resignation of Nobel laureate Sir Tim Hunt as an honorary professor was a callous insult to a great man of science.
No thanks or praise for his work, no regret, just a priggish piece of jargon - ‘this outcome is compatible with our commitment to gender equality’.
True, Sir Tim’s light-hearted remarks about the difficulties male scientists have working with women were poorly judged, but they were free of malice and from someone born into a generation before political correctness became a religion.
UCL was alma mater to three notorious terrorists, including underwear bomber Umar Abdulmutallab, who ran its Islamic society. How lamentable that these fanatics and their radical friends were nurtured and indulged, but an elderly scientist is hounded out for nothing more than a clumsy attempt at a joke.
The task is clear. People should be on the lookout for female sexism and make sure that commensurate penalties are enforced.
When decent, talented males are put off careers in STEM because of prejudice against their gender then I'll join you.
I was deliberately passed over for a full time job with a trade union in 1987 because the meeting that was supposed to rubber stamp my appointment demanded that a woman be given the job instead. I had been an elected lay official for eight years, the successful candidate had been a lay official for four months.
Sounds like you felt entitled - why was there a meeting merely to 'rubber stamp' you. Surely that meeting should be there to determine who gets the position. And a job should never be based automatically on time served. Perhaps the other candidate, although less experiences as a lay official had other experience that you lacked - perhaps she was more credible at interview etc etc.
But perhaps you should show some empathy - your level of frustration at seemingly being passed over because of gender despite (as you claim) being demonstrably the best candidate is the sort of thing women have been faced with for decades.
Turn your ire on discrimination, where ever it may be not on women because of one incident.
That reads like an argument for positive discrimination.
-
To me, it reads like an argument to get your head out of your arse
-
Our eldest studied science at uni, she was just as good as the guys. Likewise at school she was in the woodwork class and top of the class!
Is she still in a science based career? If not, you might want to consider why not (and I'm assuming it's not because she wasn't any good at it).
You can't assume any such thing! You know nothing of her or her abilities; and you cannot base what you say on:
"she was just as good as the guys," which is just a mother's opinion, and she's not going to rubbish her own daughter.
I'm tired of the double standards atheists on here have. Every comment from theists is challenged, and evidence demanded. Yet atheists make casual comments like yours, without any way of substantiating them. Hypocrites!
And then Bash fell to the floor, frothing at the mouth
-
THE undisguised glee with which University College London broadcast the resignation of Nobel laureate Sir Tim Hunt as an honorary professor was a callous insult to a great man of science.
No thanks or praise for his work, no regret, just a priggish piece of jargon - ‘this outcome is compatible with our commitment to gender equality’.
True, Sir Tim’s light-hearted remarks about the difficulties male scientists have working with women were poorly judged, but they were free of malice and from someone born into a generation before political correctness became a religion.
UCL was alma mater to three notorious terrorists, including underwear bomber Umar Abdulmutallab, who ran its Islamic society. How lamentable that these fanatics and their radical friends were nurtured and indulged, but an elderly scientist is hounded out for nothing more than a clumsy attempt at a joke.
The task is clear. People should be on the lookout for female sexism and make sure that commensurate penalties are enforced.
When decent, talented males are put off careers in STEM because of prejudice against their gender then I'll join you.
I was deliberately passed over for a full time job with a trade union in 1987 because the meeting that was supposed to rubber stamp my appointment demanded that a woman be given the job instead. I had been an elected lay official for eight years, the successful candidate had been a lay official for four months.
Sounds like you felt entitled - why was there a meeting merely to 'rubber stamp' you. Surely that meeting should be there to determine who gets the position. And a job should never be based automatically on time served. Perhaps the other candidate, although less experiences as a lay official had other experience that you lacked - perhaps she was more credible at interview etc etc.
But perhaps you should show some empathy - your level of frustration at seemingly being passed over because of gender despite (as you claim) being demonstrably the best candidate is the sort of thing women have been faced with for decades.
Turn your ire on discrimination, where ever it may be not on women because of one incident.
That reads like an argument for positive discrimination.
On the contrary.
If you actually bothered to read what I said I implied that the best person should get the job. Not a default based on time served, merely rubber stamped with an assumption that the job 'was yours'.
And that the recruitment process should be sophisticated to allow a range of relevant experience to be evidenced within the process, because making the process too mechanistic can install indirect bias. An obvious one being 'length' of experience, rather than quality of experience. Processes that place undue emphasis on length of experience (candidate must have 10 years experience as a junior widget maker) can bias in a number of ways, including of course against those that take career breaks or change careers. And actually are often very poor recruitment practice because a person with 11 years as a junior widget maker might not be as good as a junior widget maker compared to someone else with 2 years experience. And even if they were that doesn't mean they would necessarily be any good as a senior widget maker because that role requires different skills.
-
As well as his comments about crying and falling in love, some journos are reporting that Tim Hunt did call for single sex labs, or basically that women should be banned from many labs. That strikes me as more serious than the other stuff, and it's possible that UCL really object to that, since it might put women off from working there. That's not a jokey thing at all.
-
Other than the title the OP doesn't show that is a direct lift from the DM apart from the bolding - surely a link or quotes would be appropriate?
-
Our eldest studied science at uni, she was just as good as the guys. Likewise at school she was in the woodwork class and top of the class!
Is she still in a science based career? If not, you might want to consider why not (and I'm assuming it's not because she wasn't any good at it).
You can't assume any such thing! You know nothing of her or her abilities; and you cannot base what you say on:
"she was just as good as the guys," which is just a mother's opinion, and she's not going to rubbish her own daughter.
I'm tired of the double standards atheists on here have. Every comment from theists is challenged, and evidence demanded. Yet atheists make casual comments like yours, without any way of substantiating them. Hypocrites!
Calm down dear, it's only an anecdote.
Single anecdotal evidence doesn't tell us anything really about the big picture, although it may align if we understand the big picture.
So Floo's daughter might have gone on to a glittering career in science, ended up as a Nobel prize winner etc, but that still wouldn't tell us whether or not there is a problem with women entering and then progressing in careers in the science profession. In order to know that you need to look at proper data, not just anecdote. So to determine the proportion of women studying science at a level, and then at university. And the proportion of women at the various levels of seniority in the scientific career path. And what this shows in that at each more senior level you tend to get a smaller and smaller proportion of women. The reasons are complex but the trend is clear.
And although Floo's anecdote isn't full evidence it does align rather well. A girl who did science at levels and was successful and committed enough to study science at university, but then chose to move out of a direct career as a professional scientist, but into teaching instead, and from their out of science altogether.
-
As well as his comments about crying and falling in love, some journos are reporting that Tim Hunt did call for single sex labs, or basically that women should be banned from many labs. That strikes me as more serious than the other stuff, and it's possible that UCL really object to that, since it might put women off from working there. That's not a jokey thing at all.
Essentially that was his position surely, and repeated when he made the 'apology' by saying that he meant what he said.
-
As well as his comments about crying and falling in love, some journos are reporting that Tim Hunt did call for single sex labs, or basically that women should be banned from many labs. That strikes me as more serious than the other stuff, and it's possible that UCL really object to that, since it might put women off from working there. That's not a jokey thing at all.
Essentially that was his position surely, and repeated when he made the 'apology' by saying that he meant what he said.
I hadn't really taken in that he was actually calling for single sex labs. This seems different from jokey stuff about crying and falling in love, as it would mean that women would in effect be banned from many labs, where men are a majority, probably quite a lot of labs. And I think most science profs are men, so presumably their labs would be entirely male? Gordon Bennett, this is atrocious, and I can see why UCL pulled the plug. They have a high reputation in some scientific areas, and they need this like a hole in the head.
-
Yes, I know one scientist who went into teaching and another who went into childminding, although she's back in the lab now her kids are older. Which probably bears out the problems around childcare for women in any profession.
-
This guy is actually calling for women to be banned from many labs, if they have a majority of men. What? I didn't realize this, and I can see why UCL dropped him like a hot spud. That is actually quite nasty, and not a joke. (Sorry, repeated from the other thread, I don't know why we are having two on the same topic).
-
The irony is that it's probably Tim Hunt who has problems here. It sounds as if he finds the presence of women difficult, for whatever reason, so wants to ban them. And probably people who talk about silly feminists also have problems with women. You can get treatment for it!
-
Re-reading it he says he is in favour of single sex labs. That is beyond awful.
But of course what he has actually told the world is that he's behaved like a randy old goat who couldn't keep his mind out of his trousers in the workplace. Obviously the people to blame for that are all the women he's worked with. It's like the belief in certain faiths that a female nun needs to shave her head lest the men around her get lustful thoughts.
-
Re-reading it he says he is in favour of single sex labs. That is beyond awful.
But of course what he has actually told the world is that he's behaved like a randy old goat who couldn't keep his mind out of his trousers in the workplace. Obviously the people to blame for that are all the women he's worked with. It's like the belief in certain faiths that a female nun needs to shave her head lest the men around her get lustful thoughts.
Yes, it's a classic projection - he's the one with the problems here.
Some great tweets - that slut Marie Curie, showing her ankles, when all the men just wanted to do science.
-
THE undisguised glee with which University College London broadcast the resignation of Nobel laureate Sir Tim Hunt as an honorary professor was a callous insult to a great man of science.
No thanks or praise for his work, no regret, just a priggish piece of jargon - ‘this outcome is compatible with our commitment to gender equality’.
True, Sir Tim’s light-hearted remarks about the difficulties male scientists have working with women were poorly judged, but they were free of malice and from someone born into a generation before political correctness became a religion.
UCL was alma mater to three notorious terrorists, including underwear bomber Umar Abdulmutallab, who ran its Islamic society. How lamentable that these fanatics and their radical friends were nurtured and indulged, but an elderly scientist is hounded out for nothing more than a clumsy attempt at a joke.
The task is clear. People should be on the lookout for female sexism and make sure that commensurate penalties are enforced.
When decent, talented males are put off careers in STEM because of prejudice against their gender then I'll join you.
I was deliberately passed over for a full time job with a trade union in 1987 because the meeting that was supposed to rubber stamp my appointment demanded that a woman be given the job instead. I had been an elected lay official for eight years, the successful candidate had been a lay official for four months.
Sounds like you felt entitled - why was there a meeting merely to 'rubber stamp' you. Surely that meeting should be there to determine who gets the position. And a job should never be based automatically on time served. Perhaps the other candidate, although less experiences as a lay official had other experience that you lacked - perhaps she was more credible at interview etc etc.
But perhaps you should show some empathy - your level of frustration at seemingly being passed over because of gender despite (as you claim) being demonstrably the best candidate is the sort of thing women have been faced with for decades.
Turn your ire on discrimination, where ever it may be not on women because of one incident.
That reads like an argument for positive discrimination.
On the contrary.
If you actually bothered to read what I said I implied that the best person should get the job. Not a default based on time served, merely rubber stamped with an assumption that the job 'was yours'.
And that the recruitment process should be sophisticated to allow a range of relevant experience to be evidenced within the process, because making the process too mechanistic can install indirect bias. An obvious one being 'length' of experience, rather than quality of experience. Processes that place undue emphasis on length of experience (candidate must have 10 years experience as a junior widget maker) can bias in a number of ways, including of course against those that take career breaks or change careers. And actually are often very poor recruitment practice because a person with 11 years as a junior widget maker might not be as good as a junior widget maker compared to someone else with 2 years experience. And even if they were that doesn't mean they would necessarily be any good as a senior widget maker because that role requires different skills.
FTR this was a full time regional post, there was no interview, the regional officer was elected by the regional committee comprised of fifteen branches. Since this post would involve a relocation (unless the successful applicant lived in London), it was usual for the Chair & Secretary to make some enquiries beforehand as to whom was being nominated. The Chairman informed me that I had received nominations from the majority of branches, and the only other nominee was somebody unknown to most, who had been in the job only a short time. That is why I could reasonably expect the committee meeting to rubberstamp my application, I had not reckoned on delegates breaking their mandate following a last minuite interjection at what was supposed to be a formality.
-
Wow, you can see how much feminism is needed, with crap like this flying around, and 'silly feminists' threads on this forum, never mind the Daily Mail 'actress shows her boobs accidentally, and we just happened to photograph it' spiel. Gordon Bennett, it's like being taken back to the 50s.
-
Just looking at the DM editorial on feminist bullies, and right next to it is their sidebar of shame, sample story, 'Braless X wears tape on cleavage to avoid spilling out of her very low-cut dress'.
So femininists are silly, eh? Just get your tits out girls, never mind your pretty heads about working in a lab!
So you think that somebody whom is employed as a Diversity Officer who writes things such as "White Trash" and "Kill All White Men" in her official capacity is not silly?
-
Re-reading it he says he is in favour of single sex labs. That is beyond awful.
But of course what he has actually told the world is that he's behaved like a randy old goat who couldn't keep his mind out of his trousers in the workplace. Obviously the people to blame for that are all the women he's worked with. It's like the belief in certain faiths that a female nun needs to shave her head lest the men around her get lustful thoughts.
Yes, it's a classic projection - he's the one with the problems here.
Some great tweets - that slut Marie Curie, showing her ankles, when all the men just wanted to do science.
'Oh Pierre! Yes yes yes! No no no!'
-
The irony is that it's probably Tim Hunt who has problems here. It sounds as if he finds the presence of women difficult, for whatever reason, so wants to ban them. And probably people who talk about silly feminists also have problems with women. You can get treatment for it!
Yes, why blame women for the fact (in Hunt's case) he can't keep his mind on his work when they are around? Obviously the solution would be to ban himself from being a distracting presence?
-
Just looking at the DM editorial on feminist bullies, and right next to it is their sidebar of shame, sample story, 'Braless X wears tape on cleavage to avoid spilling out of her very low-cut dress'.
So femininists are silly, eh? Just get your tits out girls, never mind your pretty heads about working in a lab!
So you think that somebody whom is employed as a Diversity Officer who writes things such as "White Trash" and "Kill All White Men" in her official capacity is not silly?
Witless Fuckery Day continues
-
Just looking at the DM editorial on feminist bullies, and right next to it is their sidebar of shame, sample story, 'Braless X wears tape on cleavage to avoid spilling out of her very low-cut dress'.
So femininists are silly, eh? Just get your tits out girls, never mind your pretty heads about working in a lab!
So you think that somebody whom is employed as a Diversity Officer who writes things such as "White Trash" and "Kill All White Men" in her official capacity is not silly?
WTF has this to do with women working in a lab?
-
Just looking at the DM editorial on feminist bullies, and right next to it is their sidebar of shame, sample story, 'Braless X wears tape on cleavage to avoid spilling out of her very low-cut dress'.
So femininists are silly, eh? Just get your tits out girls, never mind your pretty heads about working in a lab!
So you think that somebody whom is employed as a Diversity Officer who writes things such as "White Trash" and "Kill All White Men" in her official capacity is not silly?
No, she would be an arse, just like someone who thinks women shouldn't work in his presence lest he fancies them is an arse.
Do you think all feminists think like that?
-
The irony is that it's probably Tim Hunt who has problems here. It sounds as if he finds the presence of women difficult, for whatever reason, so wants to ban them. And probably people who talk about silly feminists also have problems with women. You can get treatment for it!
Yes, why blame women for the fact (in Hunt's case) he can't keep his mind on his work when they are around? Obviously the solution would be to ban himself from being a distracting presence?
Well, at first, I thought it was stupid for him to resign, but when I realized what he is actually advocating, I can see how UCL would ban him, or in the jargon, 'senior scientists in the college objected'. I bet they did. (My alma mater actually).
-
THE undisguised glee with which University College London broadcast the resignation of Nobel laureate Sir Tim Hunt as an honorary professor was a callous insult to a great man of science.
No thanks or praise for his work, no regret, just a priggish piece of jargon - ‘this outcome is compatible with our commitment to gender equality’.
True, Sir Tim’s light-hearted remarks about the difficulties male scientists have working with women were poorly judged, but they were free of malice and from someone born into a generation before political correctness became a religion.
UCL was alma mater to three notorious terrorists, including underwear bomber Umar Abdulmutallab, who ran its Islamic society. How lamentable that these fanatics and their radical friends were nurtured and indulged, but an elderly scientist is hounded out for nothing more than a clumsy attempt at a joke.
The task is clear. People should be on the lookout for female sexism and make sure that commensurate penalties are enforced.
When decent, talented males are put off careers in STEM because of prejudice against their gender then I'll join you.
I was deliberately passed over for a full time job with a trade union in 1987 because the meeting that was supposed to rubber stamp my appointment demanded that a woman be given the job instead. I had been an elected lay official for eight years, the successful candidate had been a lay official for four months.
Sounds like you felt entitled - why was there a meeting merely to 'rubber stamp' you. Surely that meeting should be there to determine who gets the position. And a job should never be based automatically on time served. Perhaps the other candidate, although less experiences as a lay official had other experience that you lacked - perhaps she was more credible at interview etc etc.
But perhaps you should show some empathy - your level of frustration at seemingly being passed over because of gender despite (as you claim) being demonstrably the best candidate is the sort of thing women have been faced with for decades.
Turn your ire on discrimination, where ever it may be not on women because of one incident.
That reads like an argument for positive discrimination.
On the contrary.
If you actually bothered to read what I said I implied that the best person should get the job. Not a default based on time served, merely rubber stamped with an assumption that the job 'was yours'.
And that the recruitment process should be sophisticated to allow a range of relevant experience to be evidenced within the process, because making the process too mechanistic can install indirect bias. An obvious one being 'length' of experience, rather than quality of experience. Processes that place undue emphasis on length of experience (candidate must have 10 years experience as a junior widget maker) can bias in a number of ways, including of course against those that take career breaks or change careers. And actually are often very poor recruitment practice because a person with 11 years as a junior widget maker might not be as good as a junior widget maker compared to someone else with 2 years experience. And even if they were that doesn't mean they would necessarily be any good as a senior widget maker because that role requires different skills.
FTR this was a full time regional post, there was no interview, the regional officer was elected by the regional committee comprised of fifteen branches. Since this post would involve a relocation (unless the successful applicant lived in London), it was usual for the Chair & Secretary to make some enquiries beforehand as to whom was being nominated. The Chairman informed me that I had received nominations from the majority of branches, and the only other nominee was somebody unknown to most, who had been in the job only a short time. That is why I could reasonably expect the committee meeting to rubberstamp my application, I had not reckoned on delegates breaking their mandate following a last minuite interjection at what was supposed to be a formality.
Bit of a strange process, but none the less you have made it clear that the job of the committee was to elected by the committee with relevant candidates having received nominations from branches. There might have been a convention of rubber stamping on the basis of nominations, but that doesn't appear to be either required or sensible.
Presumably when the committee looked at the applicants and made their enquiries they became convinced that the other candidate was the better person for the job and used their authority as an electing committee to take that decision.
The presumption that you bring across - that because you had served a lot of time and was known to enough branches to get loads of nominations meant you should get the job worries me. A senior role is not a reward for long service, nor is it a popularity contest (unless directly elected), it is for the committee to decide the best person for the role taking account of a range of evidence and information.
Clearly you are sore about this, and this rankles even after nearly 30 years, but from what you have told us here I would have thought you'd been better reflecting on the reasons the committee chose not to select you, and your presumption that it was a foregone conclusion (which might have indeed been one of the reasons) rather than having a pop at others.
-
Incidentally, I think UCL was one of the first universities to open up its door to women, and also has a famous rationalist/skeptical history, Bentham and Mill being involved. So it would really cause wounds to have someone advocating single sex labs.
-
Just looking at the DM editorial on feminist bullies, and right next to it is their sidebar of shame, sample story, 'Braless X wears tape on cleavage to avoid spilling out of her very low-cut dress'.
So femininists are silly, eh? Just get your tits out girls, never mind your pretty heads about working in a lab!
So you think that somebody whom is employed as a Diversity Officer who writes things such as "White Trash" and "Kill All White Men" in her official capacity is not silly?
WTF has this to do with women working in a lab?
1) This thread is about "Silly Feminists".
2) In post #7 I gave a good example of somebody whom I consider to be a silly feminist. If that makes you so uncomfortable that you cannot answer it then so be it.
-
The irony is that it's probably Tim Hunt who has problems here. It sounds as if he finds the presence of women difficult, for whatever reason, so wants to ban them. And probably people who talk about silly feminists also have problems with women. You can get treatment for it!
Yes, why blame women for the fact (in Hunt's case) he can't keep his mind on his work when they are around? Obviously the solution would be to ban himself from being a distracting presence?
Well, at first, I thought it was stupid for him to resign, but when I realized what he is actually advocating, I can see how UCL would ban him, or in the jargon, 'senior scientists in the college objected'. I bet they did. (My alma mater actually).
So you're a terrorist then? I've heard it's harder to get into than silly feminism.
-
Just looking at the DM editorial on feminist bullies, and right next to it is their sidebar of shame, sample story, 'Braless X wears tape on cleavage to avoid spilling out of her very low-cut dress'.
So femininists are silly, eh? Just get your tits out girls, never mind your pretty heads about working in a lab!
So you think that somebody whom is employed as a Diversity Officer who writes things such as "White Trash" and "Kill All White Men" in her official capacity is not silly?
Witless Fuckery Day continues
So you think that posting such things is a good example to set? Boy you have got some issues.
-
Just looking at the DM editorial on feminist bullies, and right next to it is their sidebar of shame, sample story, 'Braless X wears tape on cleavage to avoid spilling out of her very low-cut dress'.
So femininists are silly, eh? Just get your tits out girls, never mind your pretty heads about working in a lab!
So you think that somebody whom is employed as a Diversity Officer who writes things such as "White Trash" and "Kill All White Men" in her official capacity is not silly?
WTF has this to do with women working in a lab?
1) This thread is about "Silly Feminists".
2) In post #7 I gave a good example of somebody whom I consider to be a silly feminist. If that makes you so uncomfortable that you cannot answer it then so be it.
But there are plenty of people I consider to be silly Christians, silly atheists, silly Aresenal fans...does that mean they are all silly?
-
The thread is not 'about silly feminists' at all, as anyone with even a waving relationship with English would understand.
And BTW when is this and the other thread on the same topic (Tim Hunt's Witless Fuckery trigger comments) going to get merged?
-
When there's a moderator around whose not on handheld probably.
-
Just looking at the DM editorial on feminist bullies, and right next to it is their sidebar of shame, sample story, 'Braless X wears tape on cleavage to avoid spilling out of her very low-cut dress'.
So femininists are silly, eh? Just get your tits out girls, never mind your pretty heads about working in a lab!
So you think that somebody whom is employed as a Diversity Officer who writes things such as "White Trash" and "Kill All White Men" in her official capacity is not silly?
Witless Fuckery Day continues
So you think that posting such things is a good example to set? Boy you have got some issues.
What are you on about? Have I said anything about setting an example? Who in the name of Screaming Jay Hawkins would I think I was setting an example to?
That you, ad_o. and Cim Hunt have issues with women needs to be called out.
-
Incidentally, I think UCL was one of the first universities to open up its door to women, and also has a famous rationalist/skeptical history, Bentham and Mill being involved. So it would really cause wounds to have someone advocating single sex labs.
That's right UCL has always prided itself as being at the forefront of liberal progress, so I imagine that didn't help Tim. It isn't clear whether he jumped or was pushed. But worth remembering this was an honorary position, not a bone fide job.
I don't think Hunt really meant to cause offence, but I do think he lacks self awareness of the likely effect of his comments. He is also achingly old-school and exudes his upbringing - public school, Cambridge and then classic old school academic research career. He is rather charming and gently humorous in a very endearing manner, but really does seem rather stuck in the 1970s.
He is also totally passionate about science and I can rather understand (but not agree necessarily) how he has that old school view that science has to be you life, nothing can distract from it in any way. When you hear him discuss his early work at Woods Hole where he used sea urchin eggs that were only available at a certain time of year you can feel his frustration at not being able to conduct the key experiments at other times of the year. Given the chance I have no doubt he'd have been working morning to night, seven days a week every week of the years given the chance. And with that personal motivation you kind of understand how he might see anything that distracts from the key goal - the science - as a big problem.
-
Moderator:
I'm just about to merge this thread with the Girls in Labs thread, after which this thread will disappear.
Locking this while I do the merge.
Update - threads merged.
-
Incidentally, I think UCL was one of the first universities to open up its door to women, and also has a famous rationalist/skeptical history, Bentham and Mill being involved. So it would really cause wounds to have someone advocating single sex labs.
That's right UCL has always prided itself as being at the forefront of liberal progress, so I imagine that didn't help Tim. It isn't clear whether he jumped or was pushed. But worth remembering this was an honorary position, not a bone fide job.
I don't think Hunt really meant to cause offence, but I do think he lacks self awareness of the likely effect of his comments. He is also achingly old-school and exudes his upbringing - public school, Cambridge and then classic old school academic research career. He is rather charming and gently humorous in a very endearing manner, but really does seem rather stuck in the 1970s.
He is also totally passionate about science and I can rather understand (but not agree necessarily) how he has that old school view that science has to be you life, nothing can distract from it in any way. When you hear him discuss his early work at Woods Hole where he used sea urchin eggs that were only available at a certain time of year you can feel his frustration at not being able to conduct the key experiments at other times of the year. Given the chance I have no doubt he'd have been working morning to night, seven days a week every week of the years given the chance. And with that personal motivation you kind of understand how he might see anything that distracts from the key goal - the science - as a big problem.
I genuinely think it's very sad, PD. I think he seems quite likeable and clearly didn't mean to cause offence. But other eminent scientists have the same devotion to their vocations without struggling to work alongside people they are attracted to.
Perhaps this is a demonstration of why single sex schools aren't a great idea.
-
I find his comments a reflection of his inability to deal with emotions or the general messiness of life.
If we look at life and death situations in the medical field, we don't have surgeons and doctors saying that they cannot work with a mixed sex team because of the risk that personal feelings will compromise the team's professionalism to a significant degree. People just take these issues in their stride.
IMO Tim Hunt seems to either have an over-inflated sense of the importance of science, or he made a stupid joke without thinking through the logical implications of his comments that people can't work together in science because they have strong emotions. Maybe he was trying to come across as a ladies man with a racy past or he was trying to portray himself as so devoted to science that he doesn't have time for emotions. Whatever he meant, it clearly got interpreted by some people to mean he wants to stand in the way of women in the field of science.
-
So you think that somebody whom is employed as a Diversity Officer who writes things such as "White Trash" and "Kill All White Men" in her official capacity is not silly?
I think her comments and actions (if reported correctly) are totally unacceptable.
But you also have to get your facts right - she is a student union official - not an employee of the relevant university. This is likely an elected post with a single year tenure. I gather there are moves afoot to remove her, also by the student body. The university cannot sack her, because she isn't their employee - it is basically up to the student union to sort this out.
Worth noting of course that there is a long tradition of radical politics and expression of extreme views within the student unions of some universities.
-
I struggle to see how this is an apology
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p02tc22c
Could have said removed the men from the labs...LOL
But to be fair having worked in the Labs, he is right about the people there, including the married having flings with each other. There were four women including myself working in our labs... Two of those women... (NOT MYSELF) were carrying on with three of the men in the labs. One of the men were married and one of the women married and carrying on with
two of the men.
Mind, the two carrying on with the one woman needed to be careful...she was a chemist. LOL
Well I have to say you have to watch what you say because it can be misconstrued.
Was a bit of a pain with the other two they used the ladies rest room alot. especially lunch hour... ;D
-
Did some of my sex wake up this morning and think 'mmm it's been a while since we have shown just how stupid and illogical we can be to women, let's really go for it!'?
Rubbish. Haven't you heard of the feminisation of society.
Future secular society will be matriarchal with chaps hanging out together in remote places hounded like dogs.
-
But just think, they'll be able to wank over pictures of methodological naturalism.
-
But just think, they'll be able to wank over pictures of methodological naturalism.
Eh?!???!!!!!?????????
-
Ronnie Barker foresaw all of this.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=GcMd1F1acSo
-
Did some of my sex wake up this morning and think 'mmm it's been a while since we have shown just how stupid and illogical we can be to women, let's really go for it!'?
Rubbish. Haven't you heard of the feminisation of society.
Future secular society will be matriarchal with chaps hanging out together in remote places hounded like dogs.
Multi-faceted conspiracy persecution complex - takes some doing.
Oh and by the way ... no it won't be.
-
As well as his comments about crying and falling in love, some journos are reporting that Tim Hunt did call for single sex labs, or basically that women should be banned from many labs. That strikes me as more serious than the other stuff, and it's possible that UCL really object to that, since it might put women off from working there. That's not a jokey thing at all.
Essentially that was his position surely, and repeated when he made the 'apology' by saying that he meant what he said.
Do you have evidence that the call for single sex labs was repeated? From your link what he said in his apology was:
"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 offence, that's awful. I certainly didn't mean that. I just meant to be honest, actually."
Looking really, really hard but can't see any repeat of his comment about single sex labs.
-
http://www.iflscience.com/editors-blog/scientists-mock-nobel-prize-winner-tim-hunt-distractinglysexy-twitter
-
Did some of my sex wake up this morning and think 'mmm it's been a while since we have shown just how stupid and illogical we can be to women, let's really go for it!'?
Rubbish. Haven't you heard of the feminisation of society.
Future secular society will be matriarchal with chaps hanging out together in remote places hounded like dogs.
Multi-faceted conspiracy persecution complex - takes some doing.
Oh and by the way ... no it won't be.
Infamy, Infamy, they've all got it infamy.
-
I was deliberately passed over for a full time job with a trade union in 1987 because the meeting that was supposed to rubber stamp my appointment demanded that a woman be given the job instead. I had been an elected lay official for eight years, the successful candidate had been a lay official for four months.
Remember how you felt about that at the time? Now imagine that there's a pretty good chance of that happening every time you apply for a job.
Then quit whining.
-
I'm ging to risk joining the NS' witless fucks here but hey ho...
I think this man's comments were stupid, thoughtless and irresponsible. But, I actually really resent the #distractinglysexy twitter response. That hashtag seems to me to relate more to the pervasive sexual objectification of women in soceity and not what Tim actually said.
he never said women are pretty and so are distracting. He talked about adult things like love. I've never worked in a lab but know from friends who have that it is an extremely intesne experience. Its a highly charged environment. That people get invovled with each other is no suprise. That getting invovled in that way would become a distration seems obviously true.
whilst I don't agree with his prmotion of single sex labs, and clearly his ill advised attempt at humour was damaging to the work to try and get more women into sceince, its not exactly fair either to imply he said things that he didn't.
Incidentally I heard a radio interview with one of his former women colleagues who was keen to defend him, reporting that she and many other women had had his suport throughout their careers. She went on to agree with his comments about women scientists being more emotionally vulnerable within the somewhat ruthless world of active research, arguing that it needed recognition to ensure a more effective approach to get women pursuing their careers with more vigor and getting into higher level positions.
Whether that is true I don't know, and clearly it isn't the only issue for women in science, but it seemed like a far more grown up response than posing as #distractinglysexy.
-
Have only just seen this thread, and have only read/listened to the first few posts and the original link.
If one is trying to be objective in all that you do, does the entry of subjectivity of any sort help one?
I'm not sure that the context of the symposium was the best/right place to say such things, but isn't there a place for discussing this kind of issue? After all, I'm sure that we've all had similar situations in our own lives when we have felt attracted to a work colleague with all the complications and, sometimes, problems that that can create.
-
No, Samuel, the witless fuckery is reserved for thoughtless posts. As noted when Gabriella suggested that it could have been handled with a diversity course and a clearer apology, I agree, but as she also noted perhaps there is more to this than we can see. As for the #distractinglysexy, it may not have been the best response but it was still funny and wasn't calling for any action. I find it odd that many people have already gone down the 'It was the humourless feminists wot done it' , if any that respond in a joking manner are then trivializing it.
At base the issue here for me is that despite some more 'emotional incontinence' from Tim Hunt and supporters in the press, given that it is a honorary position where the influence is about access to science and helping out on grant applications etc, he needs to be seen to be representing UCL in a non discriminatory way.every decision he would be involved with going forward would be open to being second guessed and challenged.
His scientific career is not, despite his protestations, ruined.
-
From my pov, the #distractinglysexy response actually took some of the heat out of the situation, but the best thing about it was my girls both got to see real life pictures of women engaged in rewarding work in labs. My younger one keeps winning science prizes and I think it brilliant for her to see the range of work carried out by young women, and in a far less patronising way than well-meaning 'girls in science' initiatives might be.
-
From my pov, the #distractinglysexy response actually took some of the heat out of the situation, but the best thing about it was my girls both got to see real life pictures of women engaged in rewarding work in labs. My younger one keeps winning science prizes and I think it brilliant for her to see the range of work carried out by young women, and in a far less patronising way than well-meaning 'girls in science' initiatives might be.
Sort of tangentially, I counted the number of men/women shown in a news item on medical research on BBC Breakfast this morning, and there were about twice as many women shown as men. So, just get her watching the news!!
-
From my pov, the #distractinglysexy response actually took some of the heat out of the situation, but the best thing about it was my girls both got to see real life pictures of women engaged in rewarding work in labs. My younger one keeps winning science prizes and I think it brilliant for her to see the range of work carried out by young women, and in a far less patronising way than well-meaning 'girls in science' initiatives might be.
I dunno, I take your point about the sickly, overly-worthy, 'girls in science' type campagins but surely #distractinglysexy is only funny if there is a background assuption that women are only attractive when they are 'dressed up'? I think it kind of shoots itself in the foot by focusing, yet again, on female sexuality and away from scientific talent. The idea that female scientists are only attractive based on their looks is poisoness. A women who is bright, talented and hardworking is distractingly sexy, I'd say, whether she's wearing a lab coat, radiation suit or chest-high waders.
I would have laughed at a #toosadtoscience hastag (or something) with women showing how their crying was always getting in the way of their research. Still lampooning that morons silly comments but without the innuendo.
-
From my pov, the #distractinglysexy response actually took some of the heat out of the situation, but the best thing about it was my girls both got to see real life pictures of women engaged in rewarding work in labs. My younger one keeps winning science prizes and I think it brilliant for her to see the range of work carried out by young women, and in a far less patronising way than well-meaning 'girls in science' initiatives might be.
Sort of tangentially, I counted the number of men/women shown in a news item on medical research on BBC Breakfast this morning, and there were about twice as many women shown as men. So, just get her watching the news!!
There are some subjects, particularly those that are more biologically and medically oriented, where at undergraduate level and PhD level there will be more women than men.
But you still see the shift in proportions as seniority increases, so that Profs in those subjects still tend to be disproportionately male. So even if there are plenty of women at the earliest career stages that doesn't mean there isn't an issue that needs to be addressed.
-
From my pov, the #distractinglysexy response actually took some of the heat out of the situation, but the best thing about it was my girls both got to see real life pictures of women engaged in rewarding work in labs. My younger one keeps winning science prizes and I think it brilliant for her to see the range of work carried out by young women, and in a far less patronising way than well-meaning 'girls in science' initiatives might be.
I dunno, I take your point about the sickly, overly-worthy, 'girls in science' type campagins but surely #distractinglysexy is only funny if there is a background assuption that women are only attractive when they are 'dressed up'? I think it kind of shoots itself in the foot by focusing, yet again, on female sexuality and away from scientific talent. The idea that female scientists are only attractive based on their looks is poisoness. A women who is bright, talented and hardworking is distractingly sexy, I'd say, whether she's wearing a lab coat, radiation suit or chest-high waders.
I would have laughed at a #toosadtoscience hastag (or something) with women showing how their crying was always getting in the way of their research. Still lampooning that morons silly comments but without the innuendo.
Yes, well as someone who likes a cute mind more than anything else, I take your point. But the impression was given that labs are hotbeds of sex and emotional incontinence and the #distractinglysexy trend was a way of dispelling that in a visual way - which is what social media needs largely. I don't agree that it only works if we assume sexy= Mad Men because the campaign itself was attractive - funny, clever young women and men making it clear that they are on an equal footing whilst incidentally giving a glimpse into the range of work carried out in labs. I'd be more inclined to consider science for a career if I were in my teens having seen it.
-
Rhi, what is a 'cute mind'?
-
Focusing on Tim Hunt's actual comments - what he said was he fell in love with women in the lab and they fell in love with him, which interfered with work. There is emotional incontinence on both sides - if falling in love (which was what he was talking about, not casual sex) can be described as emotional incontinence.
The #distractinglysexy was funny but I never took it as being a response to Tim Hunt's actual comments. But it should be no surprise to Tim Hunt or anyone else that people interpret words the way they want and it takes on a life of its own. If I was Tim Hunt I would focus on my work, have a laugh at myself and let this blow over.
My experience is women tend to adopt a better work-life balance than men do. IME more men put their main energy into work (often at the expense of their health and personal relationships), they work longer hours, go the extra mile, take more business risks, travel without worrying about their safety to get the job done so it is not really surprising they reach higher levels in their careers.
It's funny - today one of our male members of staff in Sri Lanka, a new recruit, wanted to not work at a client's because he saw the father of his ex-girl friend visiting the client's office. He managed to avoid being spotted but he was scared that the girl's father was going to blow his top if he saw him. We told him that he had been hired to work at the client's office and we would support him if he got yelled at, which means the police would be called if the situation became threatening in any way, but basically he was told pull yourself together and man up. I can't help thinking we would have been forced to adopt a different response if our employee had been a girl who was scared of being yelled at. Maybe a female employee would have "manned up" and continued to go to the client's office or maybe she would have folded and chosen the safe route of working in our office rather than go to clients and that would have had implications for her career progression. That's the reality.
I think we should be realistic about what Tim Hunt was actually trying to say and discuss the implications of his actual comments to figure out how to help women who want to go further in their careers. The only criteria I would use is the employee's output. If they are around in the office to bounce ideas off about strategy, if they will log in at home and deal with work to close the deal or bring in the extra business or achieve the goal, then they should get the promotion.
-
Rhi, what is a 'cute mind'?
That's like asking 'what's a sexy bum?'
-
...
It's funny - today one of our male members of staff in Sri Lanka, a new recruit, wanted to not work at a client's because he saw the father of his ex-girl friend visiting the client's office. He managed to avoid being spotted but he was scared that the girl's father was going to blow his top if he saw him. We told him that he had been hired to work at the client's office and we would support him if he got yelled at, which means the police would be called if the situation became threatening in any way, but basically he was told pull yourself together and man up. I can't help thinking we would have been forced to adopt a different response if our employee had been a girl who was scared of being yelled at. Maybe a female employee would have "manned up" and continued to go to the client's office or maybe she would have folded and chosen the safe route of working in our office rather than go to clients and that would have had implications for her career progression. That's the reality.
...
So, in your employment practices, you discriminate on the grounds of sex?
(At least, in Sri Lanka.)
-
Rhi, what is a 'cute mind'?
That's like asking 'what's a sexy bum?'
Are you asking?
-
Rhi, what is a 'cute mind'?
That's like asking 'what's a sexy bum?'
Sorry I really don't understand what you mean?
-
Rhi, what is a 'cute mind'?
That's like asking 'what's a sexy bum?'
Sorry I really don't understand what you mean?
A 'cute mind' is entirely subjective - intelligence, outlook, ideas, conversation - I'd much rather a cute mind than a cute bum, but it's not easy to explain.
-
Rhi, what is a 'cute mind'?
That's like asking 'what's a sexy bum?'
Sorry I really don't understand what you mean?
A 'cute mind' is entirely subjective - intelligence, outlook, ideas, conversation - I'd much rather a cute mind than a cute bum, but it's not easy to explain.
I'll go along with the cute mind bit; and I'm not prepared to describe what a cute bum is to me! :-[
-
...
It's funny - today one of our male members of staff in Sri Lanka, a new recruit, wanted to not work at a client's because he saw the father of his ex-girl friend visiting the client's office. He managed to avoid being spotted but he was scared that the girl's father was going to blow his top if he saw him. We told him that he had been hired to work at the client's office and we would support him if he got yelled at, which means the police would be called if the situation became threatening in any way, but basically he was told pull yourself together and man up. I can't help thinking we would have been forced to adopt a different response if our employee had been a girl who was scared of being yelled at. Maybe a female employee would have "manned up" and continued to go to the client's office or maybe she would have folded and chosen the safe route of working in our office rather than go to clients and that would have had implications for her career progression. That's the reality.
...
So, in your employment practices, you discriminate on the grounds of sex?
(At least, in Sri Lanka.)
Not sure - possibly. If someone becomes an emotional mess, obviously just repeatedly telling them to just get on with it and do the job they were hired to do doesn't really work. Not sure if a lot of women in the work place have been conditioned possibly by culture to respond in a different way from men to being told to suck it up and get on with it. Clients tend to just want the job done as quickly, efficiently and accurately as possible in order to reduce their costs, manage their cash flow, and to meet their regulatory responsibilities so they don't get penalised by the Revenue or their creditors or investors.
I haven't actually come across the men who become an emotional mess, but they do have other issues. Nearly Sane said he had seen men cry at work - I never have. But it's definitely good to have a mix of men and women from various backgrounds on a board of directors as they usually bring different perspectives, which inhibits group think. My husband runs every investment decision by me, because I am more risk-averse in investment decisions and so I research the issue more whereas he relies on what he thinks he knows or what his business associates tell him about the investment.
Not sure how to help more women get to the top if they actually have a healthier approach to work and clock off and go home at a reasonable time. We will pay someone (male or female) more if they are willing to work at client premises when required - the extra client fees it brings into the business will be reflected in that employee's salary and they will be a more valuable employee with better career prospects. The reality is the more you can do for a business, the greater the responsibilities you will be given, the more valuable you will be as an employee, and the more you will get paid. Not sure if a woman who wants to go home to her family and actually have a life can still do as much for a business as a man who is focused more on his career than his family. If she can work smarter than the man then yes, she can get more done in the shorter time she is in the office. But deals are often made outside of the office, at social events in the evening so going home to your family in the evening isn't going to help.
IME there are definitely increasing numbers of women who realise that being available to work and socialise when needed is a favourable impression to create if they want to get ahead at work.
Once you get to a certain level though, you also need to be capable of making good strategic decisions for the business and in our case, you need to be capable of meeting clients by yourself in Sri Lanka and closing deals in order to progress further.
-
It turns out that UCL apparently were right-on arseholes and the journalist who originally tweeted about the incident in Korea did not report the whole story.
Apparently Tim Hunt's comments were made during a toast, not during the actual conference, and he immediately followed his light-hearted comments by saying "now seriously" and then going on to praise women in science.
A European Commission official who was at the lunch for women journalists and scientists offered a differing transcript from the account compiled by three reporters present.
The official included previously unreported comments that came directly after Sir Tim’s controversial remarks, the Times reported.
He allegedly continued: “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.”
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/sir-tim-hunts-claims-that-remarks-on-girls-in-science-not-sexist-backed-by-leaked-eu-report-10341309.html
He says in the Guardian that during his career he has held many positions at labs and supported women scientists e.g. he fought for 7 years to have creche facilities available at a facility he worked in in Japan, and was successful, but was unsuccessful in his attempts to get a creche facility at the new Crick Institute in London, though he is continuing to push for it.
Apparently lots of young women scientists emailed their support for him and thanked him for helping them.
"Top female scientists who have expressed support include physicist Dame Athene Donald, biologist Professor Ottoline Leyser and physiologist Dame Nancy Rothwell. All decried his jocular remarks, but described in warm terms his past support for young scientists of both sexes."
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jun/20/sir-tim-hunt-gratitude-female-scientists-support-joke
-
Which still leaves the question of his 'apology', could he possibly have meant that he was serious about his remarks about women being needed in science?
-
Well, his apology was ""I'm really, really sorry I caused any offence, that's awful. I certainly didn't mean that. I just meant to be honest, actually."
And he was said he was honest about the part that he had had trouble with girls and fallen in love with someone in the lab and they had fallen in love with him - which was all the bit before he said "Now seriously" and praised women scientists.
So I understand that to mean he was apologising for his crass joke about girl in labs causing offence.
-
The problem with the apology is that it doesn't seem to address any of the remarks that are nub I.e. single sex labs and the crying and then goes with this 'I just meant to be honest' line which then reaffirms it. If what has been reported as to the conversation UCL had with him is true, they really were arseholes.
-
I understood his apology to mean the single-sex labs comment was a joke - so he was apologising that his joke caused offence, but he meant only the part where he said he had fallen in love with people in the lab and they had fallen in love with him. His apology mentioned nothing about reaffirming or meaning the part about single-sex labs.
If he says he was making a joke at a lunch toast, I would take that to mean he did not seriously think that there should be single sex labs, given the context of everything he has done for women scientists and his serious comments following the joke he made at the toast where he praised women scientists.
-
I think that is reading a lot into the apology and twisting the words to an extent. It doesn't say I didn't mean any of it. It just affirms one part of it and then says didn't mean to cause offence. Perhaps the thought the rest of it was so ludicrous that he didn't have to apologise for it, but there is nothing in the apology that makes that clear.
It's a strange world, you can win a Nobel prize and I doubt if more than a couple of people on here would know of you but you make an emotionally incontinent no I at a toast in Korea and suddenly your name is known and mud .
-
Obviously I disagree with you and don't think my view of his apology is twisting the words.
The words that were tweeted and he was castigated:
“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?”
His apology then said he meant the part that he fell in love with people in the lab and they fell in love with him. Seems very straight-forward to me to understand that to mean he did not mean the part about them crying when criticised and making separate labs for boys and girls. At least that's the way I've grown up using English.
I think certain female journalists with a particular agenda were putting a particular spin on his comments by omitting the part where he said "now seriously" and praising women scientists. And the female scientists who actually work in the labs exposed the female journalists' agenda when they emailed words of support to Tim Hunt and came out to publicly thank him for all the support he has shown female scientists during his career.
Glad to see the female journalist was exposed for lying by omission and trying to smear Tim Hunt, and that Tim Hunt got his good name back as far as the public are concerned.
-
I've no doubt that his original remarks were not meant to be taken seriously and he is indeed a well meaning good chap all round.
I heard his "apology" on the Today programme the morning after the "twitter storm" - I can't now remember the wording he used, but really all he managed was to dig an even bigger hole for himself. Even if the original reports of his comments were slanted by the feminist reporter, he is obviously unable to think straight or express himself sensibly on the issues involved.
Since then Dawkins et al have come out to support his freedom of expression and protesting against the "social media lynch mob" and UCL etc: but what the heck is twitter storm but a mass of individuals using their rights to express their responses to events or comments?
-
If somebody had said that the trouble with black people in labs, is that they eat watermelon and roll their eyes, but this is a joke, and I support black students, I wonder how the response would go.
-
You're probably right - he is not media savvy. But he has demonstrably been good for female scientists' careers - hence they came out in support of him. Presumably those female scientists found him a lot more helpful to their career than the female journalists who tried to smear him or the people on Twitter.
I support the person who has advanced the career of female scientists. I kind of ignored the media storm - Twitter isn't exactly a good place to go to for information, given the limitations on the amount of characters. It's just a self-publicity tool - and the female journalist achieved what she set out to do, publicise herself.
-
If somebody had said that the trouble with black people in labs, is that they eat watermelon and roll their eyes, but this is a joke, and I support black students, I wonder how the response would go.
He apologised for his offensive joke about his trouble with girls.
Do black people eat watermelon and roll their eyes in labs? Have you personally experienced that?
-
If somebody had said that the trouble with black people in labs, is that they eat watermelon and roll their eyes, but this is a joke, and I support black students, I wonder how the response would go.
He apologised for his offensive joke about his trouble with girls.
Do black people eat watermelon and roll their eyes in labs? Have you personally experienced that?
Well, my hypothetical person states that he has experienced watermelon and eye-rolling, and also apologizes for his jokes about black people. What now?
-
If somebody had said that the trouble with black people in labs, is that they eat watermelon and roll their eyes, but this is a joke, and I support black students, I wonder how the response would go.
He apologised for his offensive joke about his trouble with girls.
Do black people eat watermelon and roll their eyes in labs? Have you personally experienced that?
Well, my hypothetical person states that he has experienced watermelon and eye-rolling, and also apologizes for his jokes about black people. What now?
I don't see the 2 jokes as being the same. I guess the response would depend on how much people could relate to that joke as being an accurate description of black people's behaviour in labs. I think a lot of people in the workplace could relate to men and women falling in love at work and women crying when criticised at work and that being disruptive to the work, so they could get the un-PC joke.
Having never seen a black person eating watermelon at work or rolling their eyes, I can't relate to that joke. Also I am not sure why eating watermelon and rolling eyes is a problem in a lab - unless the person claims it was eaten when the black scientist is supposed to be working i.e. outside of normal lunch break times? And maybe the seeds contaminated the results. I think there needs to be an element of affectionate truth in a joke for it to be taken as a crass joke rather than just an expression of bigotry.
One of my best friends from school has a PhD in Chemistry - she is black - works in a research lab, but I don't think I have seen her eat watermelon and i am not sure what you mean by rolling eyes. She is good at sport - maybe the joke would have seemed more like Tim Hunt's crass joke if the person making the joke had brought the stereotype about black people being athletes rather than the watermelon angle.
-
Just to note 'grown up English' is a nice way of poisoning the well - and that is only a doffing of the hat to the tactic, Gabriella.
Maybe in the end there is some good in this, I know, it's a difficult sell but bear with me. Yes, it has been unpleasant for Tim Hunt but he is now well known, which, despite the Nobel Prize, he was not before. He could now use the fame or infamity to actively promote women in science. Indeed perhaps a media savvy university might want to give him an honorary position on the understanding of that.
In addition there has been lots of discussion about science and the whole #distractinglysexy thing was about women just doing the job.
There is a stereotype of a 'scientist' being a middle aged white bloke in a white coat, this can be used to break that down.
-
Sorry NS, not getting the comment about "grown up English" being a tactic - went straight over my head.
I said that is the way I have "grown up using English" as in that is the way I would understand language.
So when Tim Hunt said on the Today programme that the remarks were "intended as a light-hearted, ironic comment" but had been "interpreted deadly seriously by my audience".
And then went on to say "I did mean the part about...." I would understand that to mean that he did not mean his other light-hearted comments that preceded "Now seriously".
As to your second point, I agree and so apparently does Tim Hunt, according to the Guardian article I linked to earlier, which wrote:
However, he did acknowledge that his “idiotic joke” had touched a nerve. “My comments have brought to the surface the anger and frustration of a great many women in science whose careers have been blighted by chauvinism and discrimination,” he said. “If any good is to come from this miserable affair, it should be that the scientific community starts to acknowledge this anger, recognise the problem and move a lot faster to remove the remaining barriers.”
-
Taking up a point on another thread, I would just like to say thank you to Gabriella, as I really enjoy posting with you.
The 'grown up English' comment is just based around the idea that it immediately implies the other person is using non grown up language
-
Thanks to you too - it's fun and interesting to have discussions with someone who almost has the same view of religion as me even though you are an atheist and I am not.
-
We are Jock Tamson' s bairns