It's a joke. Had there not been a witch-hunt perpetrated by the new wave of feminism in Academia we wouldn't be having this conversation. Innocent! Let him walk. Let him go back to his work.
Nobel laureate forced out of studies after making joke about women
- Thread starter The Lunatic
- Start date
.thaluikhain said:
They fired him from his work because of a perceived sexist comment. He's a Nobel laureate - a scientist with decades worth of knowledge - and they boot him because somebody's feelings got hurt.
They took him out because they do not want to endorse his views on women. The same would be done if he had made racist comments as well. If someone had made the same statement about Blacks or Jews it would be just as toxic. Not wanting to endorse toxic views is not something invented by " feminism", it has been the way of the world since the beginning. These institutions work with all races, genders and sexes and do not wish to exclude them by allowing those respected and endorsed by their organizations to publicly express bigotry against the members of their organization. Blaming feminism for women receiving equal respect and treatment that is given to others in the field is a scapegoat.TheIronRuler said:
The good work you do in life does not suddenly excuse the bad. His accomplishments, while great, do not entitle him to say and do as he pleases without consequence.
Why does everyone say this?thaluikhain said:
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-33077107 goes on to show a quote from him as this-
"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."
he then went on to say this-
On his remarks about women crying, he said: "It's terribly important that you can criticize people's ideas without criticizing them and if they burst into tears, it means that you tend to hold back from getting at the absolute truth.
"Science is about nothing but getting at the truth and anything that gets in the way of that diminishes, in my experience, the science."
So he explained the first part of his joke by saying it related to his own personal experiences and then he explained the part of his joke that included women crying by saying he meant it to show that communication is important.
One of the people who worked with him also said that Tim Hunt has made numerous efforts to encourage both men and women to enter the STEM field as well. Although he's obviously going to be a biased source, if what he says is true it's not really consistent to say that Hunt actually believes women don't belong in the lab or that they're too emotional to handle the work as people seem to believe his statement means. http://time.com/3923316/tim-hunt-women-in-science/
I don't see anywhere where he supports the idea that woman don't belong in the lab, or that they're too emotional, if anything his only discrimination is against workplace relationships because he's commenting on their impact on performance when all he has to go off is his anecdotal evidence. The only thing I can kind of see is when he said "I did mean the part about having trouble with girls," but then just going off that is ignoring the immediate clarification he offered and even going so far as to believe him a dishonest about his previous statement even though they appear to be made in the very same interview. Things can have meaning beyond face value, that's the whole idea behind figurative language like irony and his use of it. Him saying he meant what he said doesn't counteract his use of irony or make his claim that he was being ironic false, it just means that what he 'meant' was the intent behind his use of irony, which mainly seemed to be focused on workplace relationships.I guess you could just say he got his story mixed up that quickly but it honestly seems like people just want to find reasons to dislike him instead of giving him the benefit of the doubt. Personally I'd rather assume his statements don't necessarily conflict because I haven't been given a reason to believe they do, especially when he has a vouch of character from co-workers.
I've seen several posts that say Tim Hunt says women shouldn't be in the lab or things similar to that, if anyone has any other information that will contradict whatever I've wrote out then please sent it to me, i'd be interested to read up on it. Even though I quoted someone in particular, this is more of a general question aimed at the entire thread, I just don't understand where people are seeing his remark as sexist. It honestly looks like it's more focused on relationships than women.
And he quickly found out he was right.
In all seriousness, my opinion is the same as the scientist who wore that shirt last year: it was unprofessional, but the lynch mob against him is unwarranted.
I never said that he can't be criticized, or that he shouldn't get punished. I just think him getting fired is a bit excessive.Dynast Brass said:
So his point is supposedly proven because women cried at his comments, but this somehow doesn't apply to all the men crying about how unfair this is. The funny thing is he probably would have gotten away with it if he wasn't to fucking stupid to give a proper apology. He dug his own grave yet the tears keep flowing. Such injustice is too much for the righteous hearts of men.
Yeah, it figures doesn't it, that it's only crying if it's women who complained. And then I kind of doubt that everyone who had a say in his firing were women. It's very telling about people really when they try and say "Hah it confirms the (sexist/racist/whatever) stereotype!"manic_depressive13 said:
"No, there's no thought police, people just aren't allowed to express backwards opinions anymore."Dynast Brass said:
...uh... Do I really need to point out the problem with that?
Well what in the world makes you believe they can't? They miss being able to without consequence. And social consequences aren't thought police. It's called people not liking you.Jack Action said:
I find comparing it to a kangaroo court a bit over-the-top in and of itself.BloatedGuppy said:
And if this were about some random guy, I might give a shit. But considering this is a guy with actual impact on policy stating something that he claimed was "honest" that would actually impact policy, evidently not for the first time, as part of an endemic issue that is likely only sheltered because of his position in the first place?
Screw it. I'm going to dance a victory dance. Maybe I won't have to read about a stupid, sexist thing some scientist said every week while people tell me the real reason there's a dearth of women in STEM is that they just don't like it. But probably not, because despite the claims of a kangaroo court and a lynch mob, most of these guys still seem to be employed. And, often enough, in positions of authority.
The problem is, examples tend to fall off sharply after a few major examples of awful people. This is nowhere near what I would imagine a "kangaroo court" to be. I also wouldn't expect such a vehement defense in the court of public opinion or the press were that the case.
I don't know, there was that woman recently who basically told female scientists to use their tits to their advantage. I don't think she was fired. Then again, she was encouraging women to let men stare at their cleavage, so maybe that's okay?Phasmal said:
There is, of course, the other difference.
I doubt it would count as a "joke" anymore.