What Nobel winner Tim Hunt's sexist outburst actually says

[DaveDodo007]

The only important thing is whether his employers had the right to fire him, given his role as a science PR person.

They had that right, and exercised it. End of story.

I don't think that is the important thing.

The important thing is to attract young people to the Sciences.
It shouldn't matter whether they are boys or girls.

If anybody is put off studying a STEM field because they didn't like some words a scientist said then they are not fit to study STEM anyway.

[pErvinalia]

'Some of my best friends are women'...

[rainbow]

The only important thing is whether his employers had the right to fire him, given his role as a science PR person.

They had that right, and exercised it. End of story.

I don't think that is the important thing.

The important thing is to attract young people to the Sciences.
It shouldn't matter whether they are boys or girls.

If anybody is put off studying a STEM field because they didn't like some words a scientist said then they are not fit to study STEM anyway.

Mebbe. I must say that people are being much kinder at scientific conferences these days, which allows really poor work to get presented.

[Forty Two]

Well it's important because your initial outrage was predicated on the idea that he got fired for a joke. He didn't and I was mostly just pointing out that you held a wrong belief.

As to why the belief itself is important, well that's because discrimination in the workplace is both morally and legally wrong. A person who holds a PR position who is objectively bad at PR probably doesn't deserve that job. It doesn't seem at all dangerous for someone who is bad at their job to be fired from that job. In fact, that seems to be the sensible and expected outcome.

I wasn't outraged, i was opposed. And, it was a joke comment. It also doesn't matter to me whether it was a joke or not.

You sounded outraged. And it wasn't a joke, I proved that, remember?

You declared it, but proved is an overstatement.

My objection is not with his employer for firing him. My objection is with the torch and pitchfork crowd who jump on every perceived slight or un-PC statement to ruin people's lives. I think their reaction is over the top.

Sure, but I demonstrated that it wasn't a case of any perceived slight or a case of it being "un-PC". He was criticised for saying something objectively stupid and performing poorly at his job. The reaction was simply people discussing the issue on Twitter and saying he sounded like an idiot. How is that "over the top"? What would have happened in your ideal world - ban all people from criticising him?

Ban them, no. Speak out against their behavior, yes. They can be jerks if they like. That's their right.

Sorry, I thought "same kind of bullshit" and the reference to the time period notable for it's horrific misunderstanding of facts relating to gender was enough to indicate that your beliefs aren't true. Is that clarification enough or did you need a signed formal document?

You are seriously saying that men and women working together don't result in some men and some women falling in love with each other? Come on now... http://www.forbes.com/sites/susanadams/ ... ance-2013/ - up to 59% of the workforce has been involved in romance or dating with a work colleague.

And, women do cry more easily than men. http://nymag.com/scienceofus/2015/01/wh ... n-men.html and for twice as long -- http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstop ... finds.html

Haha I love that you're going to try to use pseudoscience to back up your sexism. Let's accept that men and women will sometimes date or fool around when they work together. So what?

It can cause problems in the workplace, for one thing. It's a problem management has to handle. That's why some workplace enact no fraternization rules, and discourage romantic relationships among coworkers. It also shows that what Hunt said is true -- people fall in love with each other in the workplace. He did not say only women do this -- he said women fall in love, and men fall in love. They do. Why does saying it cause an uproar?

Men also date men and women also date women. Having single sex labs isn't going to help if that's your concern. Plus we have codes of ethics and professionalism to curb it actually affecting work.

Of course it would help, because men don't date men and women don't date women in the same numbers as heterosexual relationships. It would be much smaller problem. We have to have codes of ethics and professionalism, because it's a problem.

It's a small point to make, i think, because in all workplaces this problem exists.

And let's assume that women do cry more than men, so what?

It makes what he said true.

How is that at all relevant to the idea that trained female scientists, experts in their field, will break down and cry at the merest mention of criticism?

I guess his "lived experience" is that they tend to cry if you criticize them, whereas men won't. That's my "lived experience" too, as I've seen women cry in the workplace over the last couple of decades, but I never saw a man cry in the workplace.

I think when you say it's had a "chilling effect", I think you mean that it's had a chilling effect on bigots. Because, as I mention, all it means to be "politically correct" is to be called out for being a bigot. So whilst bigots might have had a hard time since we've been discussed social issues more seriously, the rest of the world has absolutely been loving it as it's opened up free expression to levels never before experienced. No longer is it appropriate to dismiss black people or women on the assumption that they aren't smart enough to have opinions worth sharing! I know that idea is scary and foreign to bigots, but that's just the truth.

That isn't all it means, as the Hunt example shows. He's not a bigot in the least, nor was what he said bigoted.

Well sure, but that's just because you're a bigot who believes the same thing. Of course you wouldn't want to identify yourself as a bigot by calling him out on his bigotry. The rest of the world can see though.

I'm no bigot. The statistics show women cry more in the workplace, and that office romance happens. You've agreed. But, you call me a bigot, and apparently exempt yourself from that descriptor, even though you agreed to the truth of both of those points. Your only response was "so what?" Well, the import of those points is a different issue from their truth.

Also, it reminds me of the line from Chris Rock: "For the first time in the history of the world, the white man has to watch what he says.".

And, now Chris Rock won't play college campuses because of this same crap... http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/12/0 ... 50308.html

I don't see how that's relevant, he's not talking about wanting to spread bigotry and not being allowed to. He did however stop using his "nigga" joke when a bunch of white people used it as an excuse to call black people niggers.[/quote]

I'm not the one who brought Chris Rock up. Not only does the white man have to watch what he says, but Chris Rock does too, because our modern college campus is too sensitive for his humor.

What do you mean he didn't hurt anyone? He's perpetuating myths that are actively holding back women in the field, and he's doing so from a position where he's supposed to educate the public on issues in science and give good PR to the university.

I mean that nobody was hurt. These aren't myths. Men and women do get romantically involved in labs, as any other workplace, and women do cry much more and for longer time periods, than men. That's not a myth.

Those myths do hurt people though, what are you talking about?

They aren't myths. You even admitted that they are true. Men and women DO get romantically involved in labs, and workplaces, and women do cry more than men. That's a reality, not a myth. And, the truth doesn't hurt anyone. Opinions don't hurt people. That's a misuse of the term "hurt." Well, maybe their feelings can be hurt, but, that's life in the big city.

Did you also defend Watson when he got in trouble for saying that the problem with Africans is that they are inherently stupid even though they can make good janitors?

Post what he really said, not your recasting of it. As for what he really said, I'd support proving him wrong, not driving him out of his position.

Don't worry, I have a good idea that you'll be as eager to defend the racist as you are to defend the sexist.

DaveDodo is literally saying that.

Well, I don't know what Dave Dodo said, but of course they should be and are "allowed" to criticize Hunt. The big problem is not mere criticism, but rather a mob driving him out of his job.

The problem is that you're also saying it. The only thing that has happened is that people on Twitter criticised him. You said it was an "overreaction", which means that you think the speech should be curbed (i.e. censorship).

That's not the only thing that happened.

And, no, calling something an "overreaction" is not equivalent to being in favor of censorship. If a person is making speech and says "Dogs don't go to heaven" and a dog lover gets up and starts "calling him a hateful bigot" and call for his firing because the guy things dogs don't go to heaven and says so, I would call that an overreaction. However, I wouldn't call for censorship of the dog lover. They can say what they want, and call for his firing all they want. I.e., they can overreact all they want and are free from censorship. They are not, however, free from other people's opinions that their reaction might be an overreaction.

Just to be clear, nobody petitioned his firing and nobody contacted his employer.

That's not true. Lots of people contacted his employer.

Can you link to the evidence there?

https://www.change.org/p/royal-society- ... 175e2b68b5

http://reason.com/archives/2015/06/13/t ... f-tim-hunt

So you're anti free speech and free expression?

No, of course not. I'm using mine to express my opinion as to whose right and whose wrong in this instance.

You are saying that, if it happened, there would be a problem with people protesting him holding the position he did after making those comments (i.e. curbing free expression).

No, their expression is free from censorship, but not from my or other people's criticism. It's like anything else. You can be pro Life or pro choice, but you aren't immune from criticism. You can call for anyone's firing, but not all calls for firing are good or worthy, and if you or I think a call for firing is not good or worthy we have a right to say so. That's what free speech is.

This notion you are espousing that somehow free speech means that we can't say that other people are overreacting or we are against free speech is really rather curious.

And those people are sexist idiots too. If they hold senior positions, especially as PR people, then they should be fired too. Luckily I don't think people made of straw hold any university positions.

According to many feminists, they can't be sexist, because they are in the disempowered group.

It's not a straw person. Ex. Prof. Mary Daly

It is a straw person, or at the very least a woeful misunderstanding of the science on bigotry. Feminists are a political group not an oppressed minority. I assume you were thinking of feminists only consisting of women. In that case, the scientific definition of sexism does say that women cannot be sexist towards men because they are the dominant group and women don't have the social power for it to constitute sexism.

That's not the scientific definition of sexism -- it's a "sociological" definition advanced by SOME people, and it's really rather silly. To say a black person can't be racist, or a woman can't be sexist is simply not true. They can. Under the law they certainly can -- for example, men can sue for sex discrimination and sexual harassment, by women, in the workplace. That's workplace sexism. Just because women sometimes say they are in an "underprivileged" group doesn't mean they can't be sexist. Of course they can.

But that doesn't mean women can't be sexist to other women, or black people racist towards other black people.

Or white people. Or men. If a woman hates men because they are men, she's a misandrist. If she thinks men are worse than women, she's a sexist. If she won't hire men, she's guilty of sex discrimination, and that's sexist as well.

They can repeat the bigotry and harmful social norms that attack their groups even when they are members of it.

Jesus christ, why don't bigots just pick up a science book every now and then?

LOL - I'll be happy to compare our education levels and science educations if you like.

A bunch of Nobel prize winners called it a lynch mob. http://www.bostonnewstime.com/regional/ ... s-job.html

Notice how most of them don't seem to know the specifics of what happened or present any evidence or reasoning to think a "lynch mob" happened?

It's also kind of hilarious that they'd choose the term "lynch mob" (which refers to a bunch of racists gathering together to attack black people) to describe a bigot being criticised for attacking women...

You may wish to research what "lynching" is and where it comes from. It's not exclusive to black people. The term lynch comes from a William Lynch who was an 18th century magistrate during the American Revolution. The word relates to the hanging of Tories, and the keeping of order during the American revolution. The word is commonly used not only in relation to lynchings of black people, but also white people.

And, you keep saying he "attacked" women. Attacked? Really? Come on now. Stop treating women as children.

[pErvinalia]

Pretty certain you're CES. Why not just come back as him? Believe it or not, some people actually missed you.

[Forty Two]

The only important thing is whether his employers had the right to fire him, given his role as a science PR person.

They had that right, and exercised it. End of story.

I don't think that is the important thing.

The important thing is to attract young people to the Sciences.
It shouldn't matter whether they are boys or girls.

If anybody is put off studying a STEM field because they didn't like some words a scientist said then they are not fit to study STEM anyway.

Even with all the incentives for women to join STEM fields -- groups pushing the notion -- all the efforts to invite women to come -- and with 60% of college students being women -- women still do not go to STEM fields. Could it be that women generally just don't want to do that kind of thing?

What surprises me is how many of the women who are relative public figures engaged in activism in favor of women in STEM fields and such are themselves not in STEM fields. Why don't they get STEM degrees themselves? They seem to focus on communications degrees and various "______ Studies" degrees. I would hope that the women leading the charge for women in STEM would start taking STEM courses -- I mean, get a degree in Chemistry or an engineering field.

[Forty Two]

The only important thing is whether his employers had the right to fire him, given his role as a science PR person.

They had that right, and exercised it. End of story.

I don't think that is the important thing.

The important thing is to attract young people to the Sciences.
It shouldn't matter whether they are boys or girls.

If anybody is put off studying a STEM field because they didn't like some words a scientist said then they are not fit to study STEM anyway.

Mebbe. I must say that people are being much kinder at scientific conferences these days, which allows really poor work to get presented.

When I was in school, part of the education was harsh criticism of work and presentations. I mean, professors would tell students that what they worked for weeks on was "shit" and "garbage." Not me personally, thankfully, but we would have drinking sessions over the harsh criticism from professors.

We'd go into presentations of projects geared up to be told that we've missed the point - gone off the rails - or produced something unusable. This was for design related courses in an engineering program, and even more abuse was heaped on students in architectural design courses (I took one as an elective).

Has this stuff been toned down over the years? I went to college in the 80s. I'm very old.

[Forty Two]

Pretty certain you're CES. Why not just come back as him? Believe it or not, some people actually missed you.

[Forty Two]

Sorry it's the Daily Mail but the (better) Times article is behind a paywall.

Revealed: 'Sexist' Nobel winner went on to praise women scientists in SAME SPEECH, continuing after criticised comments by saying 'Now seriously...'
The scientist was castigated after he said women in laboratories either fell in love with their male colleagues or cried when criticised
It now appears Sir Tim followed his jocular comments with the words 'Now seriously...' before heaping praise on women
He also jokingly described himself as a 'chauvinist monster'

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... nster.html

The instigators were lying to drum up a witch hunt, some people posting on this thread don't have the right to call themselves skeptics.

Edit: link anyway.

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/science/a ... 478368.ece

[DaveDodo007]

Hmmm, relevant.

[pErvinalia]

Pretty certain you're CES. Why not just come back as him? Believe it or not, some people actually missed you.

That's exactly the kind of thing he would have posted.

[DaveDodo007]

The only important thing is whether his employers had the right to fire him, given his role as a science PR person.

They had that right, and exercised it. End of story.

I don't think that is the important thing.

The important thing is to attract young people to the Sciences.
It shouldn't matter whether they are boys or girls.

If anybody is put off studying a STEM field because they didn't like some words a scientist said then they are not fit to study STEM anyway.

Even with all the incentives for women to join STEM fields -- groups pushing the notion -- all the efforts to invite women to come -- and with 60% of college students being women -- women still do not go to STEM fields. Could it be that women generally just don't want to do that kind of thing?

What surprises me is how many of the women who are relative public figures engaged in activism in favor of women in STEM fields and such are themselves not in STEM fields. Why don't they get STEM degrees themselves? They seem to focus on communications degrees and various "______ Studies" degrees. I would hope that the women leading the charge for women in STEM would start taking STEM courses -- I mean, get a degree in Chemistry or an engineering field.

That needs hard work and lots of study, best get a Liberal Arts degree and then wonder why you can't pay off your student loan.

[DaveDodo007]

Lol, Richard Dawkins get in on the act as well.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/peopl ... 41160.html

[pErvinalia]

There's always a tingle of anticipation before I read an outburst by Dawkins these days.

[pErvinalia]

What we want to see now is Peezus come out with an almighty rant and we can sit back and laugh as two increasingly unhinged old coots go after each other!