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.What I meant is that for you to describe a group of women as whiny is to imply a certain gender bias from the start, especially since you don't even know the content of who said what in response to Hunt's remarks. You are just assuming they are women and therefor they are whiny. There is no double standard here at all. I am applying exactly the same standard to you that I would apply to Hunt. Don't prejudge people based on who they are especially if that prejudgement is a disparaging one. In regards to your comment that Hunt was being self deprecating, that doesn't change the fact that he was admitting to these beliefs, and he holds a publicly funded position of power over people he clearly has a bias against. Would his comment have been acceptable and would you label his audience a bunch of oversensitive whiny people if instead he were addressing a group of black scientists and made the comment that "Three things happen when they are in the lab: They get Watermellon juice on everything, they use the lab equipment to cook crack, and when you criticise them they cry. Perhaps we should make separate labs for blacks and whites? Now, seriously, I’m impressed by the economic development of Africa. And black scientists played, without doubt an important role in it. Science needs blacks, and you should do science, despite all the obstacles, and despite monsters like me"
What I meant is that for you to describe a group of women as whiny is to imply a certain gender bias from the start, "I don't think I have a gender bias. I may have a 'sex" bias though. ; ) hahaha But, nope. My comment doesn't imply a bias. It was a figure of speech meant to represent perceived complaining by women. In my head, that sounds like whining. I've heard enough of it in my life, and although there are exceptions, usually it's a whine. (men whine too, btw) Bottom line: I think Hunt was treated badly, and I don't think his comments were anything to get riled over. http://thefederalist.com/2015/06/24/tim-hunt-sexist-online-wrong/
What Hunt’s remarks prove is that male chauvinist pigs show up everywhere and being brilliant in one area is no guarantee that a man can’t be an idiot when it comes to his emotional opinion of women. This is a phenomenon women have fought for millennia.
Lois
What Hunt's remarks prove is that male chauvinist pigs show up everywhere and being brilliant in one area is no guarantee that a man can't be an idiot when it comes to his emotional opinion of women. This is a phenomenon women have fought for millennia. LoisWhat your remark proves is that some women will toss out insulting names and characteristics (male chauvinist pigs & idiot) in regards to men they don't know, but somehow this is ok. That women having an ax to grind doesn't mean that they don't do the same thing of which they complain. This is a phenomenon men have fought for a millennia. AKA: don't be a damn hypocrite.
Sexism is rampant everywhere. Wherever there are man and women working together sexism will come into the picture sooner or later.Probably true, but why do many people insist men and women should work together?
It's a sign of a lack of confidence in one's own abilities.Usually the women.
We need to raise girls to stop deferring to men because they are males and to develop confidence in their own abilities.In some instances, women will inevitably defer to men because men are better at handling the particular situation. Even if the men are egalitarians and refuse to acknowledge the womans deferment, the women still want them to take control. (This probably happens a lot in science, since male scientists are often awkward nerds who are desperate for female approval.) In others situations the women would rather not have the men around at all, but women never want men to defer to them.
I blame religion, especially the Christian religion for indoctrinating both men and women with the idea that men are superior and women are inferior. It infects and destroys every area of our lives. LoisMen are intrinsically superior to women in some ways and inferior to them in other ways, and vice versa; it has nothing to do with religion, or how a person is raised. At your age you must know this, but haven't been able to accept it - except when the women come out looking better. But who's to say what those ways are? So far men have taken it upon themselves to insist that they know that women are inferior in myriad ways. The ONLY place women are inferior as a sex is in muscle strength, and greatest muscle strength is the muscle between men's ears. Lois
What Hunt's remarks prove is that male chauvinist pigs show up everywhere and being brilliant in one area is no guarantee that a man can't be an idiot when it comes to his emotional opinion of women. This is a phenomenon women have fought for millennia. LoisWhat your remark proves is that some women will toss out insulting names and characteristics (male chauvinist pigs & idiot) in regards to men they don't know, but somehow this is ok. That women having an ax to grind doesn't mean that they don't do the same thing of which they complain. This is a phenomenon men have fought for a millennia. AKA: don't be a damn hypocrite. I base my opinions on quotes by men. I didn't just toss out insulting characteristics, which is what men do when it comes to women.
So far men have taken it upon themselves to insist that they know that women are inferior in myriad ways. The ONLY place women are inferior as a sex is in muscle strength, and greatest muscle strength is the muscle between men's ears. LoisHmm, I think of the disparities between men and women as differences. But, if you wish to use terms such as, inferior/superior, at least understand what those differences are. It's not just strength. 1) Men have faster reaction time. Not just for physical tasks, but also mental computations. (math) http://www.colorado.edu/eeb/courses/1230jbasey/abstracts 2008/4.htm (If this link fails, Google "Reaction Time and Gender", it should be the top hit) 2) Men have faster reaction times, even among elite athletes. (which causes men to have more "false starts" then women) http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0026141 3) Men have greater O2 carrying capacity. (on average) Plus, a whole body range of other physiological differences: http://work.chron.com/physiological-differences-between-male-female-athletes-20627.html 4) Although women have made gains in speed, strength, and endurance with increased opportunities to train, they aren't going to be equal to men. (On average) http://www.runnersworld.com/are-women-catching-up-with-men 5) Recent studies suggest that male brains are better wired for focus, and female brains for multi-tasking. (Which could be the reason that senior science researchers like Hunt preferred to work with men) http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702304744304579248151866594232 (Supporting source links posted below each enumerated item)
What Hunt's remarks prove is that male chauvinist pigs show up everywhere and being brilliant in one area is no guarantee that a man can't be an idiot when it comes to his emotional opinion of women. This is a phenomenon women have fought for millennia. LoisWhat your remark proves is that some women will toss out insulting names and characteristics (male chauvinist pigs & idiot) in regards to men they don't know, but somehow this is ok. That women having an ax to grind doesn't mean that they don't do the same thing of which they complain. This is a phenomenon men have fought for a millennia. AKA: don't be a damn hypocrite. I base my opinions on quotes by men. I didn't just toss out insulting characteristics, which is what men do when it comes to women. What quotes indicate that men are pigs? Or, idiots? Also, it's hard to take you serious when you make such a broad blanket statement like this: "I didn't just toss out insulting characteristics, which is what men do when it comes to women." You did toss out insulting characteristics. You also wrote: "what men do when it comes to women". Some men, sometimes, yes. But, don't pull disingenuous nonsense statements out and expect to have them seen as valid. One doesn't create a more equal society by doing the very things they decry.