. In reality, he is just a private citizen (at least in my eyes) who expressed his opinion. No one bothered to get clarification of what he really meant. Instead, he quickly became a target for variety of feminists/freedom/democracy defenders/protectors. The fact that he apologized for his words means very little, he could have been advised by his institution (PR) to do so. This just proves that we are very quick to judge others and care little of the consequences of our (miss)judgements to a (may be innocent) person. "Opinions expressed are solely my own and do not express the views or opinions of my employer" ;-)He is NOT a private citizen expressing his opinion. he is the director of a a research lab using public money who made the comments in a very public place. Under those circumstances he should expect vocal criticism. He has the power to hire and fire scientists based on those personal biases and he does so with money that belongs to you and me. He has a right to his opinion but the concept of free speech does not carry with it the right to express your opinion free of criticism and as a society we have the right to pull his funding and give it to someone who isn't going to carry these types of biases into the lab with them. Its also important to remember that society's reaction to such public pronouncements is how we set standards for what is right and what is wrong. Had everyone been silent in the face of such stupid remarks it would have sent a message to others that these ideas are acceptable and perhaps even correct.
Yipes MacGyver, aren’t you being a little harsh?
Its also important to remember that society's reaction to such public pronouncements is how we set standards for what is right and what is wrong.You know, as I read that line the thought that jumped into my head was the insanity that is today's attack on a woman's right to dictate her own life, and yes that dang well included the children that SHE chooses to bring into this world. In other words, what are you talking about here?
Its also important to remember that society's reaction to such public pronouncements is how we set standards for what is right and what is wrong.You know, as I read that line the thought that jumped into my head was the insanity that is today's attack on a woman's right to dictate her own life, and yes that dang well included the children that SHE chooses to bring into this world. In other words, what are you talking about here? What I am saying is that when someone does something egregious and no one says anything it sends a message to others that its OK. The fact that Hunt was criticized aggressively tells the rest of the community that this sort of misogyny and prejudice against women will not be tolerated.
Yipes MacGyver, aren't you being a little harsh?In what way are my comments harsh?
Women may tend to cry when they become frustrated, but men throw their weight around and bloviate. Which is worse? No matter how you look at it emotional responses interfere with the work at hand and we all act stupidly under pressure. Men denigrate women’s emotional reactions and to justify (or deny) their own. Men have put women in an inferior position since the dawn of man. All human endeavors have been negatively affected by that tendency.
Women have been driven put of STEM fields because men have decided they are the only sex who can thrive in them. The driving out of females from “men’s work” begins in the cradle and infects all aspects of work. Timothy Hunt’s remarks are a perfect indication of how this happens.
Lois
. In reality, he is just a private citizen (at least in my eyes) who expressed his opinion. No one bothered to get clarification of what he really meant. Instead, he quickly became a target for variety of feminists/freedom/democracy defenders/protectors. The fact that he apologized for his words means very little, he could have been advised by his institution (PR) to do so. This just proves that we are very quick to judge others and care little of the consequences of our (miss)judgements to a (may be innocent) person. "Opinions expressed are solely my own and do not express the views or opinions of my employer" ;-)He is NOT a private citizen expressing his opinion. he is the director of a a research lab using public money who made the comments in a very public place. Under those circumstances he should expect vocal criticism. He has the power to hire and fire scientists based on those personal biases and he does so with money that belongs to you and me. He has a right to his opinion but the concept of free speech does not carry with it the right to express your opinion free of criticism and as a society we have the right to pull his funding and give it to someone who isn't going to carry these types of biases into the lab with them. Its also important to remember that society's reaction to such public pronouncements is how we set standards for what is right and what is wrong. Had everyone been silent in the face of such stupid remarks it would have sent a message to others that these ideas are acceptable and perhaps even correct. Perhaps you are right, however I still think it is an overreaction and poor guy, who now lost his job, simply suffers from cyber bullying.
But as the provost of UCL, Professor Michael Arthur, pointed out when he indicated last Friday that Professor Hunt would not be reinstated, it was impossible for an institution to tolerate someone to whom they had awarded an honorary post, even a 71-year-old Nobel prize winner, expressing views even in jest that so comprehensively undermined its own reputation as a leading supporter of female scientists. https://www.ucl.ac.uk/news/staff/staff-news/0615/26062015-provosts-view-women-in-science Where was Prof Michael Arthur before the incident happened? And it seems to me that Prof HUNT was kicked out not for his behavior (which should have been the responsibility of UCL management) but for "Expressing Views". I am afraid, for Prof HUNT this is the end of his life long career (stigma). This is how we set standards for what is right and what is wrong I am afraid. People are already afraid to publicly voice their opinion on homosexuality and same sex marriage. Not everyone agrees or accepts these things, but no one wants to cope with online abuse or cyber bullying. What do you think?
Where was Prof Michael Arthur before the incident happened? And it seems to me that Prof HUNT was kicked out not for his behavior (which should have been the responsibility of UCL management) but for “Expressing Views". I am afraid, for Prof HUNT this is the end of his life long career (stigma). This is how we set standards for what is right and what is wrong I am afraid. People are already afraid to publicly voice their opinion on homosexuality and same sex marriage. Not everyone agrees or accepts these things, but no one wants to cope with online abuse or cyber bullying. What do you think?Unfortunately for Prof. hunt his insensitive and misogynostic remarks landed him in hot water and after the firestorm of negative publicity he fell on his sword for the University. Arthur had no choice but to accept his resignation, otherwise the public would have viewed it tacit as acceptance and that could mean a loss of grant money and further media harassment. Mid (or anyone of us for that matter) can say what he wants here and we can chew him up for it but he isn't in any position of authority that would cause embarrassment to his employer which may force him to offer a contrite apology or resignation. As to cyber bullying, I think it's abhorrent, but made much easier by the social media. It gives raving punks an outlet for their childish rage, but now it's a fact of life for those of us who use cyber space to voice our opinions and concerns and many sites have no moderators. Bottom line, when you're in a position of authority or a respected scientist, watch your mouth. This doesn't apply to independently wealthy bombastic politicians who have an elevated sense of their own importance, or does it? Ask NBC. Cap't Jack
Where was Prof Michael Arthur before the incident happened? And it seems to me that Prof HUNT was kicked out not for his behavior (which should have been the responsibility of UCL management) but for "Expressing Views". I am afraid, for Prof HUNT this is the end of his life long career (stigma). This is how we set standards for what is right and what is wrong I am afraid. People are already afraid to publicly voice their opinion on homosexuality and same sex marriage. Not everyone agrees or accepts these things, but no one wants to cope with online abuse or cyber bullying. What do you think?I don't think this has anything to do with cyber bullying. I think its played out partially in cyber space but it was an exchange of ideas. Hunt expressed his and the rest society expressed theirs. He is an adult. If he didn;t want to be criticized than he shouldn;t have expressed himself so publicly. Compare a similar situation from a few years back. James Watson is perhaps one of the most famous and highly decorated Nobel prize winners ever. Several years back he expressed his opinions that blacks were genetically inferior and he faced a similar backlash and lost his honorary position but no one called it cyber bullying or a restricition of his freedom of speech. We all have a right to speak our minds but we have to accept the responsibility and consequences if others don;t agree with us
good observation
Women may tend to cry when they become frustrated, but men throw their weight around and bloviate.Not to mention the occasional fist through the wall. But that's being tough and manly.
good observationYes, indeed!Women may tend to cry when they become frustrated, but men throw their weight around and bloviate.Not to mention the occasional fist through the wall. But that's being tough and manly.
Where was Prof Michael Arthur before the incident happened? And it seems to me that Prof HUNT was kicked out not for his behavior (which should have been the responsibility of UCL management) but for "Expressing Views". I am afraid, for Prof HUNT this is the end of his life long career (stigma). This is how we set standards for what is right and what is wrong I am afraid. People are already afraid to publicly voice their opinion on homosexuality and same sex marriage. Not everyone agrees or accepts these things, but no one wants to cope with online abuse or cyber bullying. What do you think?Hunt's comments were quite tame, but he is old and maybe he just doesn't realize how over-sensitive young people are today. That's what it comes down to - oversensitivity. Unfortunately, STEM types like Hunt are not known for their spine so we can't expect them to do much besides break down like he did. Its chipping away at scientific endeavor.
I’m curious, when I read his quote, it sounded like a tongue in cheek joke more than anything.
Maybe stupid considering who he said it to and the way they ran with it…
But, I have yet to hear anyone mention if he as a track record Misogynistic behavior.
. In reality, he is just a private citizen (at least in my eyes) who expressed his opinion. No one bothered to get clarification of what he really meant. Instead, he quickly became a target for variety of feminists/freedom/democracy defenders/protectors. The fact that he apologized for his words means very little, he could have been advised by his institution (PR) to do so. This just proves that we are very quick to judge others and care little of the consequences of our (miss)judgements to a (may be innocent) person. "Opinions expressed are solely my own and do not express the views or opinions of my employer" ;-)He is NOT a private citizen expressing his opinion. he is the director of a a research lab using public money who made the comments in a very public place. Under those circumstances he should expect vocal criticism. He has the power to hire and fire scientists based on those personal biases and he does so with money that belongs to you and me. He has a right to his opinion but the concept of free speech does not carry with it the right to express your opinion free of criticism and as a society we have the right to pull his funding and give it to someone who isn't going to carry these types of biases into the lab with them. Its also important to remember that society's reaction to such public pronouncements is how we set standards for what is right and what is wrong. Had everyone been silent in the face of such stupid remarks it would have sent a message to others that these ideas are acceptable and perhaps even correct. Perhaps you are right, however I still think it is an overreaction and poor guy, who now lost his job, simply suffers from cyber bullying.
But as the provost of UCL, Professor Michael Arthur, pointed out when he indicated last Friday that Professor Hunt would not be reinstated, it was impossible for an institution to tolerate someone to whom they had awarded an honorary post, even a 71-year-old Nobel prize winner, expressing views even in jest that so comprehensively undermined its own reputation as a leading supporter of female scientists. https://www.ucl.ac.uk/news/staff/staff-news/0615/26062015-provosts-view-women-in-science Where was Prof Michael Arthur before the incident happened? And it seems to me that Prof HUNT was kicked out not for his behavior (which should have been the responsibility of UCL management) but for "Expressing Views". I am afraid, for Prof HUNT this is the end of his life long career (stigma). This is how we set standards for what is right and what is wrong I am afraid. People are already afraid to publicly voice their opinion on homosexuality and same sex marriage. Not everyone agrees or accepts these things, but no one wants to cope with online abuse or cyber bullying. What do you think? I think he should have known better than to say what he said. He's been in academia long enough to have learned not to make a public fool of himself by denigrating anyone, especially, in this case, half the population. Lois
Truncated for this line:
it's always comical when a scientist tries to share his limited wisdom about women (because they're nerds) .Nothing comical, nor can one assume that a scientist has limited wisdom about women. In particular, not because you, or others think they're a "nerd". (FYI: Nerds & geeks are the new sexy. Not that new either. At least since the rise of the internet) As for Tim's assumed faux pas, it was words taken out of context, and appears he was attempting to joke. He went on to praise women in his speech.
Where was Prof Michael Arthur before the incident happened? And it seems to me that Prof HUNT was kicked out not for his behavior (which should have been the responsibility of UCL management) but for "Expressing Views". I am afraid, for Prof HUNT this is the end of his life long career (stigma). This is how we set standards for what is right and what is wrong I am afraid. People are already afraid to publicly voice their opinion on homosexuality and same sex marriage. Not everyone agrees or accepts these things, but no one wants to cope with online abuse or cyber bullying. What do you think?Hunt's comments were quite tame, but he is old and maybe he just doesn't realize how over-sensitive young people are today. That's what it comes down to - oversensitivity. Unfortunately, STEM types like Hunt are not known for their spine so we can't expect them to do much besides break down like he did. Its chipping away at scientific endeavor. It's "over-sensitivity" only if it's someone else's ox being gored. Lois
It's "over-sensitivity" only if it's someone else's ox being gored.I disagree Lois. The public oversensitivity displayed recently, is just that. It's the reason that's up for debate. (Reason for the oversensitivity) I posit that young women are being trained on campuses toward a state of paranoia regarding men. That they're being trained to take umbrage. So, we're seeing men like Matt Taylor raked over the coals for wearing a shirt, that *gasp* has sexy cartoon gun-touting babes on it. (The shirt was freaking awesome btw!...and special made for Taylor by close woman friend and cool rockabilly babe lol) So, his career and accomplishment were in the shadows, as well as the brilliant Rosetta comet landing mission, because a bunch of whiny people (women?) are aghast at seeing a geeky comic character shirt featuring females. The whole incident was shameful, and not because of what Matt Taylor did, but because of the hyperbolic nonsense of the "we take umbrage" crowd. (For reference here's the rockin' shirt-maker: https://twitter.com/ellypriZeMaN/status/532927131098300416 ) As for Tim Hunt, the man was trying to bring humor to a speech. The speech for was women in science in Korea, and if those listening had a sense of humor, they'd have been laughing at the absurdness of the situations that Hunt was describing. (Hence the humor) But, no, people had to get bent, and rage, and ruin a man's career.
Here is a transcript of what Hunt said:
"It's strange that such a chauvinist monster like me has been asked to speak to women scientists. Let me tell you about my trouble with girls. Three things happen when they are in the lab: you fall in love with them, they fall in love with you, and when you criticise them they cry. Perhaps we should make separate labs for boys and girls? Now, seriously, I'm impressed by the economic development of Korea. And women scientists played, without doubt an important role in it. Science needs women, and you should do science, despite all the obstacles, and despite monsters like me"While he may have said it half in jest it was clearly a stupid thing to say to a room full of female scientists. While it was possibly a joke he was also admitting that this was actually the way he felt. Lois makes an excellent point. Whether or not you feel a reaction is justified or a case of oversensitivity really does depend on who you are. Its easy to claim the targets of a comment are being overly sensitive when the target is someone else and especially if you agree with the comments. When you make a statement such as "because a bunch of whiny people (women?)" you undermine any credibility you have in this argument. I am not sure his career needed to be destroyed but on the other hand someone with views like this should not be in a position to control the futures of women scientists in his lab.
Here is a transcript of what Hunt said:I've seen the transcript before. Nothing different in it this time. He's mocking himself, and trying to make jokes. His reference to himself is disparaging, and meant to be funny, as a way to show what the women scientist can overcome. Did his humor fail? Apparently, so. But, the reason was because (some) women decided to take umbrage, where none was intended. You wrote: "you undermine any credibility you have in this argument." I think the people were whiny, and they were probably women. How is that opinion reduce "any credibility"? The people who raised a ruckus over Tim Hunt's small speech are able to say disparaging things about him, and it's ok. But, I'm not able to call those people, "whiny"? Hmm, I sense a double standard. ; ) As for Lois's point, I disagree. The reaction isn't so much "who" you are, but what you've been taught."It's strange that such a chauvinist monster like me has been asked to speak to women scientists. Let me tell you about my trouble with girls. Three things happen when they are in the lab: you fall in love with them, they fall in love with you, and when you criticise them they cry. Perhaps we should make separate labs for boys and girls? Now, seriously, I'm impressed by the economic development of Korea. And women scientists played, without doubt an important role in it. Science needs women, and you should do science, despite all the obstacles, and despite monsters like me"While he may have said it half in jest it was clearly a stupid thing to say to a room full of female scientists. While it was possibly a joke he was also admitting that this was actually the way he felt. Lois makes an excellent point. Whether or not you feel a reaction is justified or a case of oversensitivity really does depend on who you are. Its easy to claim the targets of a comment are being overly sensitive when the target is someone else and especially if you agree with the comments. When you make a statement such as "because a bunch of whiny people (women?)" you undermine any credibility you have in this argument. I am not sure his career needed to be destroyed but on the other hand someone with views like this should not be in a position to control the futures of women scientists in his lab.
Here is a transcript of what Hunt said:I've seen the transcript before. Nothing different in it this time. He's mocking himself, and trying to make jokes. His reference to himself is disparaging, and meant to be funny, as a way to show what the women scientist can overcome. Did his humor fail? Apparently, so. But, the reason was because (some) women decided to take umbrage, where none was intended. You wrote: "you undermine any credibility you have in this argument." I think the people were whiny, and they were probably women. How is that opinion reduce "any credibility"? The people who raised a ruckus over Tim Hunt's small speech are able to say disparaging things about him, and it's ok. But, I'm not able to call those people, "whiny"? Hmm, I sense a double standard. ; ) As for Lois's point, I disagree. The reaction isn't so much "who" you are, but what you've been taught.Well put."It's strange that such a chauvinist monster like me has been asked to speak to women scientists. Let me tell you about my trouble with girls. Three things happen when they are in the lab: you fall in love with them, they fall in love with you, and when you criticise them they cry. Perhaps we should make separate labs for boys and girls? Now, seriously, I'm impressed by the economic development of Korea. And women scientists played, without doubt an important role in it. Science needs women, and you should do science, despite all the obstacles, and despite monsters like me"While he may have said it half in jest it was clearly a stupid thing to say to a room full of female scientists. While it was possibly a joke he was also admitting that this was actually the way he felt. Lois makes an excellent point. Whether or not you feel a reaction is justified or a case of oversensitivity really does depend on who you are. Its easy to claim the targets of a comment are being overly sensitive when the target is someone else and especially if you agree with the comments. When you make a statement such as "because a bunch of whiny people (women?)" you undermine any credibility you have in this argument. I am not sure his career needed to be destroyed but on the other hand someone with views like this should not be in a position to control the futures of women scientists in his lab.