A question for Richard Dawkins


drawingaline

In a letter to the Times, Richard Dawkins protests.

Along with many others, I didn’t like Sir Tim Hunt’s joke, but ‘disproportionate’ would be a huge underestimate of the baying witch-hunt that it unleashed among our academic thought police: nothing less than a feeding frenzy of mob-rule self-righteousness.

Fortunately, I’ve also already written my reply. It’s a simple question.

If you’re one of those people who called this a “witch hunt”, an “Inquisition”, a “lynching” — what would you have people do differently when an esteemed senior scientist gets up to a lectern and says something sexist, or racist, or simply idiotic?

I’m also curious, and have an additional question. How should we reply when someone says something stupid in public about evolution? If a government official were to spout creationist nonsense, for instance, would a full-throated roar of disapproval from the electorate be appropriate, or would that fall into the category of “feeding frenzy of mob-rule self-righteousness”? Would you propose that after one thought-leader says “tut, tut”, the rest of us should withdraw to a decorous silence?

Sometimes, these lines are hard to draw, and where we draw them says a lot about the biases of the delineator.

Comments

  1. Matrim says

    Richard Dawkins being tone deaf and defending the sexist status quo? Shock of all shocks. I’m glad I didn’t put my monocle in the morning, because it would now be popped.

    I was waiting for this ever since I first heard about Hunt.

  2. congaboy says

    I don’t mean to sound like a total fan boy, but PZ you really nailed this–what is the appropriate response to bad ideas, policies, etc? If we rail against creationist ideas in politics and science, then we should do the same for other destructive and archaic ideas and policies. Bigotry towards gender, ethnicity, sexual identities, etc are as destructive and harmful to society, if not more so, than bad religious ideas. Despite his good intentions, Dawkins can’t seem to escape his privilege and upbringing and it continues to undermine any good he actually does.

  3. says

    Has Dawkins weighed in anywhere about why Tim Hunt deserves kid gloves and mild censure, but Muslims who want gender-segregated audiences or workplaces deserve the full weight of his opprobrium? I’m sure someone would have at least brought this up to him on Twitter, and I’m genuinely curious as to his reply, but I have neither the patience nor the intestinal fortitude to trawl through his Twitter feed and find out.

  4. Nick Gotts says

    Well I for one support Richard Dawkins in his thoroughly reasonable and proportionate response to the scandalous witch-hunt Sir Tim Hunt has been subjected to – indeed, if anything, he understates the case. After all, those accused of witchcraft were only tortured until they confessed and implicated others, then executed. Tim Hunt has lost an honarary academic post!!!

  5. Thomathy, Such A 'Mo says

    So, he can write a book that for all intents an purposes started a veritable ‘anti-god’ and ‘anti-religion’ publishing frenzy. He can speak loudly and continuously about the evils of religion and the inanity of god-belief. He can castigate churches and politicians and other public personalities for their wrongful beliefs regarding evolution and never let up in this pursuit.

    When another man says something, something that man himself has said he meant seriously, that is clearly anti-feminist if not downright misogynist, and a chorus of others (women! mostly) comment on that, even with appropriate outrage, when he didn’t even ‘like’ what that man said, it’s more than disproportionate, it’s a ‘baying witch-hunt’ and the people so engaged are ‘feeding frenzy of mob-rule self-righteousness.’?

    I wonder if Richard Dawkins could explain to me how it feels to inhabit a mind that works so much like a creationists?

  6. Pen says

    I suspect Dawkins is actually complaining because Hunt experienced institutional consequences as a result of public outcry. I would disagree with that, in that I think the consequences are entirely right and necessary, in fact, the main point of the exercise. Now they’re taken care of, I would have Hunt personally harried as little as possible if I had any power at all over the situation. To me, it’s like taking an old guy’s driving license: I don’t take any pleasure in doing it, but if he’s a danger on the roads, end of story.

    With elected officials we’re in a different situation. We can roar our disapproval all we want, but the fact remains that they were put there by other members of our electoral group, who very often knew just what they were doing. The institution of democracy requires that they do something pretty extreme to be ousted before the next election. In the meantime the reasons we have to put up with their presence while saying what we think are built into the system. Our only real recourse is to change the electorate’s view for next time.

  7. says

    baying witch-hunt

    Since I know Dawkins is a big thinky communicator, he chose those particular words carefully. Which says something about how he thinks.

  8. says

    I suspect Dawkins is actually complaining because Hunt experienced institutional consequences as a result of public outcry.

    Since he appears to be a more or less selfish navel-gazing sort, I suspect Dawkins is thinking “… the same kind of baying pack that’s hounding me for ‘Dear Muslima’…. If they don’t appreciate his cleverness and they don’t appreciate mine, what is the world coming to!?”

  9. says

    I seem to recall a book written by Dawkins called “The God Delusion” comparing creationists to Holocaust deniers and I also seem to recall him finding these people to be ridiculous. (Granted, it has been a long time since I read it, so I would certainly doubt my memory.) So I would like to ask Dawkins questions about how we go about determining what makes one idea open to ridicule and what makes another victim of “academic thought police”? (I will also note that I had this question back a few months ago when he was promoting some hashtag on Twitter about NotReadyForUniversity or whatnot.)

  10. says

    Remembering several of the “witch-hunts” of the last year or two, I am compelled to conclude that a “witch-hunt” is when a bunch of women don’t show acquiescence to a man in a position of power.

  11. Seven of Mine: Shrieking Feminist Harpy says

    Along with many others, I didn’t like Sir Tim Hunt’s joke, but ‘disproportionate’ would be a huge underestimate of the baying witch-hunt that it unleashed among our academic thought police: nothing less than a feeding frenzy of mob-rule self-righteousness.

    Dawkins is a clown. Anyone capable of using the phrase “baying witch-hunt that it unleashed among our academic thought police: nothing less than a feeding frenzy of mob-rule self-righteousness” a mere 7 words after calling just about anything “disproportionate” needs to just shut the fuck up.

  12. Kopper says

    I found the best and most effective response to Hunt’s misstep was mockery, like the twitter activity by female scientists showing themselves doing their work, or the door signs in labs with snarky legends like “caution, gender mixed lab”. Exactly the same we do with creationist nonsense.

  13. says

    Leo Buzalsky

    So I would like to ask Dawkins questions about how we go about determining what makes one idea open to ridicule and what makes another victim of “academic thought police”?

    I would by now dare to think that it might be whether you actually agree with the idea or not.

    Andrés Diplotti @14
    You win an internet

    Seven of Mine

    Dawkins is a clown. Anyone capable of using the phrase “baying witch-hunt that it unleashed among our academic thought police: nothing less than a feeding frenzy of mob-rule self-righteousness” a mere 7 words after calling just about anything “disproportionate” needs to just shut the fuck up.

    IOKIYRD
    It’s OK if you are Richard Dawkins

  14. canonicalkoi says

    You know, I understand the use of hyperbole, really. Still, when I read things such as this from Dr. Dawkins I want to ask him, “You’re honestly comparing the dragging off of a person in chains, their torture and eventual execution by particularly painful means with someone or even a vast number of someones saying, “You said stupid shit. Stop saying stupid shit.”? Honestly?”. For a guy who likes to complain about others “blowing things out of proportion”, Dawkins sure spends a lot of time, er, blowing things out of proportion.

  15. says

    Along with many others, I didn’t like Sir Tim Hunt’s joke, but ‘disproportionate’ would be a huge underestimate of the baying witch-hunt that it unleashed among our academic thought police: nothing less than a feeding frenzy of mob-rule self-righteousness.

    So, the usual amount of crap, and buried within, the half sentence about Hunt: I didn’t like Sir Tim Hunt’s joke. Nifty how he managed to get that elite classism in there, reminding all the peons that they shouldn’t be baying for blood have a say about it all.

  16. Jackie the social justice WIZZARD!!! says

    Men who claim to be hunted as witches and white people who claim to be chased by lynch mobs are a painful spectacle to see.

  17. Jackie the social justice WIZZARD!!! says

    You know what bays right? When criticizing feminists one would do well to avoid referencing dogs since we are so often called b*tches.
    I don’t think he chose the term on purpose. I do think he accidentally let slip exactly what he meant.

  18. A. R says

    Honestly? I saw Sir Tim Hunt’s incident in the same light that I have seen Dawkins’ various droppings: the product of an incredibly privileged person from another era who is entirely ossified in their privilege-blindness. Really, there isn’t that much of a difference there.

  19. Al Dente says

    Even before Dear Muslima Dawkins has shown his disregard for women and their concerns. Dawkins has determined how a group that he doesn’t belong to should react to insults.

  20. Dreaming of an Atheistic Newtopia says

    @15 Seven of mine.

    Your words. My thoughts.

    These words from RD were absolutely predictable. Even the actual choice of words, not just the sentiment.
    Also, i think he is baiting for some “witch-hunting”, “feeding frenzy” by the “thought police” of his own…and a part of me suspects he is doing it consciously…because in his mind, someone saying something, would prove his point. And we know how low the bar is, it would literally take the mildest of reactions for him to cry victimhood. In fact this probably already constitutes lynching.

  21. says

    Jackie @ 22:

    I don’t think he chose the term on purpose. I do think he accidentally let slip exactly what he meant.

    Given his age and traditional hunting in the UK, I’m inclined to be slightly charitable on that front, but agree that it reveals a good amount of bias.

  22. Seven of Mine: Shrieking Feminist Harpy says

    Dreaming of an Atheistic Newtopia @ 26

    Also, i think he is baiting for some “witch-hunting”, “feeding frenzy” by the “thought police” of his own…and a part of me suspects he is doing it consciously…because in his mind, someone saying something, would prove his point.

    I’m pretty certain he does do it on purpose. We’ve gone through this cycle far too many times for it not to be. He says something inflammatory then retreats back to his blog to tut-tut at people for reacting exactly how he knew they would. He’s a clown and a bully.

  23. Pierce R. Butler says

    …what would you have people do differently when an esteemed senior scientist gets up to a lectern and says something sexist, or racist, or simply idiotic?

    Applaud!

    &lt/Dawkins>

  24. Anna Elizabeth says

    And *this* asshole is a great example of why I don’t consider myself part of “Atheism”, “A+” or whatevers the term is this year.

  25. Al Dente says

    People have said rude things about Sir Tim Hunt PhD FRS FMedSci so Richard Dawkins DSc FRS FRSL has come to poor Sir Tim’s rescue, holding off the baying, witch-hunting thought police so Sir Tim can recover from the loss of an honorary position.

  26. says

    So according to Dawkins, pedophilia can be “mild,” but verbal criticism is a “baying witch-hunt that it unleashed among our academic thought police: nothing less than a feeding frenzy of mob-rule self-righteousness.” Ohhh…kay…

  27. says

    …oh, and being hit on by a stranger in an elevator in the wee hours of the morning is “zero bad,” but saying “guys, don’t do that” is a hysterical emasculating overreaction.

  28. anthrosciguy says

    Dawkins is not only making himself into a clown, he’s working on being a Donald Trump.

  29. Bernard Bumner says

    It is incredible that Dawkins considers the loss of prestige and influence afforded to an individual at the end of his career to be more important than the prestige and influence of institutions supporting people (particularly women) at the beginning of and during their active careers.

    It is also notable that the quality of Dawkins’ prose seems to be declining as he tends towards even more ridiculous levels of hyperbole in lieu of real arguments about symbolism, effect, and systematic discrimination (which are apparently beyond him, when religion is not concerned).

  30. Hoosier X says

    This “witchhunt” reminds me of the “lynching” that ended with the “victim” becoming a Supreme Court justice.

    (I suspect “Supreme Court justice” should be in quotes as well.)

  31. anteprepro says

    Gather ’round, gather ’round! Won’t you join me? Come along, boys and girls, for another episode of Fun Times on Richard Dawkins’ Twitter Page!

    Chapter One: A Tweeter Treatise on Witch Huntery, Tone For Thee but Not for Me, and Nobel Prize Granted Immunities, with guest star Gibbertarian Website Citation!

    King Lord Dawkins, Noble Holy and Pure Knight Emperor of Logic-hood, doth proclaim:

    “A moment to savour”? Really? Please, Guardian, could we just lighten up on the witch-hunts? #ReinstateTimHunt. http://reason.com/archives/2015/06/13/the-illiberal-persecution-of-tim-hunt

    And one his loyal subjects did say:

    fourjumpers ‏@fourjumpers Jun 14
    @kryphos Negative reaction is fine,corrective action if needed,ok.But sacking a Nobel prize winner for a joke? @VickyLauder @RichardDawkins

    And it was nonsense.

    Chapter Two: Crocodile Tears: His Cup Overfloweth

    And lo, poor Richard did bewail the horrible plight of his fellow elite aristocratic gentle-lecturer, and did tear the shirt off his chest, languishing as the cold rain fell down upon him and his fallen friend, and did cry out:

    My tweet about Tim Hunt was an attack on the Guardian’s cruel Schadenfreude: “A moment to savour.” SAVOURING a moment of human misery!

    And who came along, to rest a hand upon Sir Richard’s regal weeping shoulders, but the Magician of Metas, Sir Russell of Blackford, who did say, in hushed, sympathetic tone:

    Yes, there’s something repulsive about this kind of cruel gloating

    And they sat still, in silence, wondering how anyone could so sadistic as it to think it proper that a man lose an honorary position for a mere simple humorous quip. The vulgar, bloodthirsty heathens that rested beyond these ivory walls….

    Chapter Three: The Prequel.

    Just prior to this whole affair, before a single tear trickled down the collective white male face of Academia, Brave Sir Dawkins, the most majestic of the kings of all logic, the most consistent and unerring of men, a man akin to a stone forged of pure reason, did think aloud and say:

    I’m an athorist, azeusist, afairyist, aleprechaunist, ajohnfrumist. So of course that means I’m militant, strident, shrill, bigoted etc.

    For it is cruel and unusual for simple minds to believe that one is militant, that one is strident, that one is shrill, for the mere act of disbelief, for the merest mention of opposition. Indeed, Dawkins so believed in this righteous principle, that he did look upon his subjects, and heard a voice call out, and did lift this small person upon his shoulders, letting them shout out as if their voice as his own, as they said:

    @RichardDawkins Genital mutilation, child marriage, homophobia and bigotry = religious freedom. Opposing this = militancy & oppression.

    Opposing bigotry viewed as militancy and oppression? Such a foolish tendency, those lesser, illogical humans have! We in the tower of white would never make such a mistake! To do so would be to become nothing but the emotionally swayed, irrational fools that we so mock, and to be blind hypocrites on top of it all! Such an event would be truly preposterous!

  32. says

    The irony of Dawkin’s demise into incoherence is for me that he was the first one whose explanation of feminist “consciousness rising” made sense to me and was at the beginning of the way where I am now – in a place where I am mostly left with scratching my head trying to understand how someone obviously in possesion of high intelect can spout such stupidities.

  33. Pierce R. Butler says

    Apparently Dr. Dawkins has, perhaps without consciously realizing it, abandoned all hope of ever being known as “Sir Richard”.

  34. Dreaming of an Atheistic Newtopia says

    @34 fergl100

    Very disappointing to hear that…was it at least accompanied of any condemnation of Hunt’s fuck up?

  35. gallussapien says

    I have to say I can’t really find anything wrong with what Dawkins said. He didn’t like the joke, but he also didn’t think the man should be bullied into resigning for it. Isn’t there a more reasonable punishment for a bad joke?

    PZ: “I’m also curious, and have an additional question. How should we reply when someone says something stupid in public about evolution?”

    Make fun of them? Prove them wrong, using facts and data? Demanding their resignation and trying to get them fired is senseless. What does it prove? I mean for “gods” sake you are literally proposing the kind of censorship Kirk Cameron pretended existed back in 2005.

  36. latveriandiplomat says

    “Dear Muslima,

    “Sorry about the FGM thing, but right now I have to focus all my energies on defending a privileged white dude from legitimate criticism. As we both know, it is completely impossible for anyone to be concerned about more than a single issue at a time. I’m sure I’ll get round to you eventually. Thank you for your patience.

    “Richard

  37. Beatrice, an amateur cynic looking for a happy thought says

    gallussapien,

    witch-hunt thought police feeding frenzy mob-rule self-righteousness

    Even if we completely disregard the topic and Dawkins’ opinion, someone who uses all these in the same statement, let alone in the same sentence is doing it wrong. IT being writing, thinking, discussing, debating… no matter.

    Isn’t there a more reasonable punishment for a bad joke?

    For example?

    Also, publicly criticizing people is not censorship. If we are talking about self-censorship, yes – I would love if people would think twice before opening their mouth and spilling whatever idiocy crosses their mind.

  38. David Marjanović says

    I have to say I can’t really find anything wrong with what Dawkins said. He didn’t like the joke, but he also didn’t think the man should be bullied into resigning for it. Isn’t there a more reasonable punishment for a bad joke?

    Please read the previous posts on this topic.

  39. says

    @gallussapien 49
    I’m a little confused, would you mind explaining you are using these?
    “bullied”
    “punishment”
    “demanding their resignation”
    “trying to get them fired”
    “censorship”

    Because I see a person in a position of power getting criticism for making extremely insulting statements that maintain a culture of sexual prejudice and discrimination in academia and the wider society. No one is censoring him. He is retired and even if he was not there are things people should be fired for. He resigned from a non-paid position of social, prestige which makes sense when you are an authority figure that does something like he did.

    Dawkins is a person getting criticism for similar things. Questioning him in this context is quite sensible. If he does not like how people reacted he needs to give us functional social tools that actually work to prevent these things from happening again.

  40. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    Demanding their resignation and trying to get them fired is senseless

    That was instituted by London University itself. They know how to handle cases of sexual harassment, which this was, joke or not, and they consider themselves a good example of how to treat women faculty and students, and take pride in that. Hunt betrayed their trust.

  41. Lady Mondegreen says

    Demanding their resignation and trying to get them fired is senseless.

    Nobody did that.

  42. Beatrice, an amateur cynic looking for a happy thought says

    gallusapien,

    Isn’t there a more reasonable punishment for a bad joke?

    It was a sexist joke. It wasn’t a shitty rabbit walks into a bar joke that fell flat. It was sexist and the author himself confirmed that it was the kind of joke that follows the phrase “In every joke there’s a half-truth” (I don’t know if English has an equivalent, but we really have that saying – U svakoj šali pola istine)
    Anyway, I wanted to clarify that because your use of “bad joke” minimizes what it was.

    It’s not the same if I say a sexist joke at home, if I say it in front of my colleagues or if I say it in front of our clients. The second situation is a greater faux pas on my part, the third even worse. The second can get me in some trouble, the third can get me in a shitload of trouble.
    It’s not the same if I say a sexist joke and if my boss says a sexist joke. We don’t hold the same authority, which also puts us in a different position in relation to the number of people who can hold as accountable.
    Can you see where I am going with this?

    This man has a big audience and holds great authority. It’s cheesy, but I think it fits: with great power comes great responsibility and I would add accountability.

  43. Thomathy, Such A 'Mo says

    It was a sexist joke.

    But, Beatrice, it was no joke. Or, is was not a joke until someone said something. Now, I think, we’re all supposed to believe that Tim Hunt was joking. He’s unclear and inconsistent on that point. I’m charitable, so I believe what he told everyone shortly after it happened: that he really meant it.

  44. Seven of Mine: Shrieking Feminist Harpy says

    gallusapien

    Make fun of them? Prove them wrong, using facts and data?

    This is what actually happened.

    Demanding their resignation and trying to get them fired is senseless.

    This is not.

    Leaving aside your factual inaccuracy, removing someone who spouts sexist drivel at a conference to honor women in science is a thing you ought to lose your job over if your job involves promoting science.

  45. ceesays says

    So a bunch of women posting pictures of themselves on twitter is “bullying?”

    that’s…y’all are weak.

  46. says

    gallussapien @49:

    I have to say I can’t really find anything wrong with what Dawkins said. He didn’t like the joke, but he also didn’t think the man should be bullied into resigning for it. Isn’t there a more reasonable punishment for a bad joke?
    PZ: “I’m also curious, and have an additional question. How should we reply when someone says something stupid in public about evolution?”
    Make fun of them? Prove them wrong, using facts and data? Demanding their resignation and trying to get them fired is senseless. What does it prove? I mean for “gods” sake you are literally proposing the kind of censorship Kirk Cameron pretended existed back in 2005.

    This comes across as you speaking from a position of ignorance. No one forced Hunt to do anything. He wasn’t bullied. He wasn’t punished. He chose to resign from an honorary position.
    He got a lot of criticism over sexist shit he said about women in the workplace. Why are people (you, Dawkins, Cox, and other Hunt defenders) getting into hyperbolic fits of rage over people criticizing him?

    Have you read what his critics had to say? Do you know the context in which Hunt made his comments? Are you aware of the difficulties women have faced in STEM fields, precisely because of the type of sexist views Hunt expressed?
    How informed are you on this subject?

    Also, given the definition of ‘censorship’:

    Censorship is the suppression of speech, public communication or other information which may be considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, politically incorrect or inconvenient as determined by governments, media outlets, authorities or other groups or institutions

    can you explain to me how PZ is calling for or supporting censorship? People have criticized what Hunt said (and I suspect this is the real problem people like Dawkins have with Hunt’s critics-they dared to open their mouth). No one told him he should be forbidden from saying sexist shit. No government entity tried to censor him. No one told him he could never, ever say sexist shit again. How is he being suppressed? In what ways have Hunts critics tried to suppress his speech?

  47. Nick Gotts says

    gallussapien@49

    He didn’t like the joke

    What joke? Hunt has said since his speech that he “meant it”.

    he also didn’t think the man should be bullied into resigning for it

    Calling criticism of a rich, highly-regarded, privileged person who makes insulting comments about women scientists “bullying” is simply dishonest. Besides which, Dawkins did not use the term “bullying”, but “the baying witch-hunt that it unleashed among our academic thought police: nothing less than a feeding frenzy of mob-rule self-righteousness”. You’re really unable to see how plain stupid that sort of absurd hyperbole is?

    you are literally proposing the kind of censorship Kirk Cameron pretended existed back in 2005.

    Do look up what “literally” and “censorship” mean before making a further fool of yourself. And as far as I know, no-one did try to get Hunt fired; as I’ve heard it, he resigned his honarary position rather than meet with representatives of UCL to discuss the matter.

  48. Seven of Mine: Shrieking Feminist Harpy says

    Leaving aside your factual inaccuracy, removing someone who spouts sexist drivel at a conference to honor women in science is a thing you ought to lose your job over if your job involves promoting science.

    This should read: Leaving aside your factual inaccuracy, spouting sexist drivel at a conference to honor women in science is a thing you ought to lose your job over if your job involves promoting science.

  49. deepak shetty says

    Would you propose that after one thought-leader says “tut, tut”,
    Only if that thought leader is also a member of the Global secular policy council institute association.

  50. robro says

    A. R.

    the product of an incredibly privileged person from another era who is entirely ossified in their privilege-blindness…

    I agree with everything you say here. Privilege almost always blinds us. I take exception to the “from another era” part. These guys aren’t from another era. Both of them are very much a product of our era. The reason you see so much bigotry around us all the time, and the self-rationalization that goes along with it, is because it is very much in our collective world views right now, everywhere you go.

  51. LicoriceAllsort says

    gallussapien @49,

    Isn’t there a more reasonable punishment for a bad joke?

    As others have pointed out, this was a “sexist” joke, not a “bad” one. Now imagine that Dr. Hunt had made a racist joke, one with the same level of stupid stereotype, and then called for racially segregated labs. Even though your list of consequences is not quite accurate—if it had been a racist joke, wouldn’t those consequences have been justified?

  52. Kevin Kehres says

    @ 66 robro

    I agree with you. We’re not discussing long-dead historical figures. They’re alive and well in the Kingdom of England. If they’re not of “this” era, then who is?

    Just because they’re “alive and old” does not excuse them for their incredible sexism and privilege-blindness. Hell, I’m old and I don’t think and talk like that. And still learning.

  53. says

    I kept running into him last weekend, and turning away. I half wish he’d sent this letter then instead of now, so that I could have politely told him what a crock of shit it is.

  54. Dreaming of an Atheistic Newtopia says

    Not a joke…as self-declared by the author of the commentaries.
    Also, not a bad joke…but a deeply and shockingly sexist commentary, made worse after the fact.
    No censoring, at all…not even remotely….
    No bullying…just people going “holy fucking shit” at the shockingly sexist commentary.
    No demands of resignation.
    And finally, what has this all proved? That hideously and outrageously sexist remarks have no place in academia, let alone at a conference celebrating the achievements of women, no matter who you are or how many prizes you have…And in case you are wondering, this is a 100% good thing, whereas ignoring (which translates as supporting) such things, like apparently you, RD and others would have liked, is a baaaaaad thing…

  55. CJO, egregious by any standard says

    I think his characterization of this as a witch hunt is quite telling. A witch hunt is when a community perceives a threat to the good order of things and turns on an innocent “other” in order to assuage the community’s anxieties and symbolically restore order by exorcizing the supposedly antisocial element at the expense of the dignity and life of the chosen “other”.

    So this means in the analogy, Dawkins, our leading thought-thinker, believes that:
    Hunt is essentially innocent of any wrongdoing that might justify public outcry
    Hunt has been arbitrarily “othered” by a community, not that a community has reacted to something he actually said
    The community’s anxieties (in the case, concern that the gatekeepers of STEM fields and the educational opportunities that lead to employment in them are too often actively hostile to women’s advancement) are delusional, like fear of witchcraft, not actually founded in material reality.

    Tells you all you need to know.

  56. Zmidponk says

    I’ve heard several people now, here and elsewhere, implying or outright stating that this is a ‘free speech’ issue.

    It isn’t.

    Tim Hunt is perfectly free to repeat his comments (there is no legal barrier to him doing so, and there is actual or threatened physical force being applied to prevent him from doing so, as far as I am aware). He is also perfectly free to affirm those comments. He is also free to withdraw the apology for those comments already offered. He is even free to make other comments that are even more idiotic and explicitly sexist. What he is NOT free to do is be excused from the consequences of making those comments. This means that, should his comments cause an absolute shitstorm of fury directed at him, then he has to deal with that, and doesn’t get some magical immunity from it because ‘free speech’. If they cause a university that has granted him an honorary position to reconsider whether he should have that position and ask for his resignation, then, again, he has to deal with that, and not through invoking the magical ‘free speech’ shield.

  57. graham says

    @ Beatrice57. “In every joke there’s a half-truth” (I don’t know if English has an equivalent).

    The English phrase would be “Many a true word spoken in jest.”

  58. says

    A witch hunt is when a community perceives a threat to the good order of things and turns on an innocent “other” in order to assuage the community’s anxieties and symbolically restore order by exorcizing the supposedly antisocial element at the expense of the dignity and life of the chosen “other”.

    You forgot to add: “…without threatening or inconveniencing the people or institutions in power, who may be the cause of the original perceived threat.”

    All of which kinda describes Dawkins’ freakout over Hunt’s treatment more than it describes Hunt’s treatment itself. So who’s the real “witch-hunter” here?

  59. CJO, egregious by any standard says

    Raging Bee:

    Indeed, an actual witch hunt may be a trumped-up distraction away from the malfeasance of the very instigators of the witch hunt. I guess it’s the community outrage angle that makes Dawkins’s “lone vulcan on a windswept peak, standing against SJW excesses” act not the same sort of thing, but of course now that you mention it, that’s an act, and the real intent is to incite his thought-followers to just the sort of “othering” and symbolic exorcism of those hysterical feminists that a witch hunt entails. Good point!

  60. nelliebly says

    Regarding the censorship issue, I am reminded of the words of the late, great Pterry “..no practical definition of freedom would be complete without the freedom to take the consequences. Indeed, it is the freedom upon which all the others are based.”

    Well, Hunt used his freedom of speech to make his asinine remark, and now he is taking the consequences. UCL have not censored him, they have simply declined to keep giving him a position associated with the university to speak from.

  61. screechymonkey says

    Well, I think Richard Dawkins and Tim Hunt have proven to us all why men make such lousy scientists: you criticize them, and they start crying about bullying and witchhunts.

  62. Donnie says

    gallussapien

    PZ: “I’m also curious, and have an additional question. How should we reply when someone says something stupid in public about evolution?”
    Make fun of them?

    Prove them wrong, using facts and data?

    First, You mean like the TwitterStorm(TM) that is #DistractinglySexy which seems to have Brave Sir Dawkins in a twitter? Seems like a lot of people were making fun of Sir Tim and the Brave Sir Dawkins did not like the mockery.
    Second, Sir Tim resigned from his honoury position while the TwitterStorm(TM) was mocking Sir Tim
    Third, PZ is now mocking Brave Sir Dawkins and asking “How you would respond?”. I recommend that you, personally, create a video about being a guest and making sexist jokes about your hosts, and end your video by saying, “And (my/ the) White Male, Scientists, don’t do that”. Let’s see how the reaction is to you.

  63. UnknownEric the Apostate says

    Richard Dawkins will never change for the better. He has o reason to. Everyone kisses his ass no matter what idiotic bullshit he spews. He could join A Voice For Men and atheist organizations would still treat him like a god. So why should he change? Until there’s pushback from people in positions of power, he has no reason to give a single shit.

  64. Hoosier X says

    Dear Mr. Dawkins:

    Speech rights don’t magically end when the men are done talking.

  65. psychomath says

    Christ, what an asshole!

    Also, Seven of Mine: Shrieking Feminist Harpy @15:

    Nailed it. Nothing more to say. You just nailed it.

  66. screechymonkey says

    UnknownEric @80,

    I think it’s even worse than that. I think Dawkins is actively enjoying this phase of his career. When taking on creationists got stale, he moved on to religion in general. And just as that’s ceasing to draw as much attention, he’s found this new niche where he can parade about as the Brave Truth-Teller who stands up for freeze peach against the feminist hordes. (Along with his related schtick of saying crappy things about Muslims and then claiming that everyone knows it’s true but The Liberals don’t dare admit it.)

    I don’t know the man personally, but I get the sense that he relishes the verbal combat. He would get incredibly bored just being a relatively uncontroversial “science communicator” like Neil deGrasse Tyson. He needs that feeling that he’s speaking the tough truths that others fear to tell.

  67. billforsternz says

    PZ asks

    If a government official were to spout creationist nonsense, for instance, would a full-throated roar of disapproval from the electorate be appropriate, or would that fall into the category of ‘feeding frenzy of mob-rule self-righteousness’? Would you propose that after one thought-leader says ‘tut, tut’, the rest of us should withdraw to a decorous silence?

    This doesn’t seem relevant to the current discussion to me. The government official in question is presumably deeply committed to his ignorant views. Presumably if he said he was speaking ironically (i.e. he didn’t actually mean it), apologised, and said that actually he believed in the fact of evolution there would be no need for ongoing censure.

    This reflects to me the crux of the issue. If Sir Tim Hunt has a track record of sexism in the workplace, then he deserves a full measure of criticism. If he simply “misspoke” then he doesn’t. Unfortunately it’s not really clear which it is, I’ve seen plenty of heat but not much light. Sir Tim didn’t help himself much as his subsequent apologies and clarifications have been at least partially muddled.

  68. littlebear says

    billforsternz:

    This reflects to me the crux of the issue. If Sir Tim Hunt has a track record of sexism in the workplace, then he deserves a full measure of criticism. If he simply “misspoke” then he doesn’t. Unfortunately it’s not really clear which it is, I’ve seen plenty of heat but not much light. Sir Tim didn’t help himself much as his subsequent apologies and clarifications have been at least partially muddled.

    Tim Hunt:

    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.

    How the hell do you accidentally say the above? If he misspoke, what did he mean to say?

    That you run into problems when you bring your toddler with you to the lab? (Because I don’t know about you, but I don’t know that many girls who are scientists)
    Or that he’s got such a short attention span and has trouble keeping it in his pants and can’t help but think about romance when working? In that case, he’s the one with the problem, not the “girls”.

    There is nothing wrong with all of us “girl” scientists reacting to what he said and responding with ‘That’s not okay’. Whether Sir Tim Hunt was joking or not, we have enough sexism to deal with on an every day basis that his comments were inappropriate and wrong and I’m glad that women aren’t afraid of mocking and ridiculing him.
    Now if you don’t mind, I’m going to go back to being #distractinglysexy and work on some code

  69. littlebear says

    That’s what I get for not previewing. Second attempt

    billforsternz:

    This reflects to me the crux of the issue. If Sir Tim Hunt has a track record of sexism in the workplace, then he deserves a full measure of criticism. If he simply “misspoke” then he doesn’t. Unfortunately it’s not really clear which it is, I’ve seen plenty of heat but not much light. Sir Tim didn’t help himself much as his subsequent apologies and clarifications have been at least partially muddled.

    Tim Hunt:

    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.

    How the hell do you accidentally say the above? If he misspoke, what did he mean to say?

    That you run into problems when you bring your toddler with you to the lab? (Because I don’t know about you, but I don’t know that many girls who are scientists)
    Or that he’s got such a short attention span and has trouble keeping it in his pants and can’t help but think about romance when working? In that case, he’s the one with the problem, not the “girls”.

    There is nothing wrong with all of us “girl” scientists reacting to what he said and responding with ‘That’s not okay’. Whether Sir Tim Hunt was joking or not, we have enough sexism to deal with on an every day basis that his comments were inappropriate and wrong and I’m glad that women aren’t afraid of mocking and ridiculing him.
    Now if you don’t mind, I’m going to go back to being #distractinglysexy and work on some code

  70. says

    billforsternz @84:

    This doesn’t seem relevant to the current discussion to me. The government official in question is presumably deeply committed to his ignorant views. Presumably if he said he was speaking ironically (i.e. he didn’t actually mean it), apologised, and said that actually he believed in the fact of evolution there would be no need for ongoing censure.

    I think you may have missed the point PZ was getting at. He’s posing the hypothetical to Dawkins to see how he (RD) would respond. Dawkins is a vocal critic of creationism, so if this hypothetical government person said something like this:

    “Class of 2015, you should not leave Stone Ridge High School thinking that you face challenges that are at all, in any important sense, unprecedented,” Scalia said during the speech. “Humanity has been around for at least some 5,000 years or so, and I doubt that the basic challenges as confronted are any worse now, or alas even much different, from what they ever were.”

    would Dawkins’ reaction be similar to the reaction many people had to Hunts’ sexist comments? Or would Dawkins’ reaction be different? If so, in what ways would it be different? This is what I think PZ is getting at.

    Personally, I don’t think Dawkins would react all that differently. I think he was excoriate the government official who made those statements. He might call for others to criticize that official. He doesn’t appear to accept the fact that he’s not the only one who can publicly criticize the words of others. The man is arrogant as all get out.

  71. carlie says

    screechymonkey at 83:

    I think it’s even worse than that. I think Dawkins is actively enjoying this phase of his career. When taking on creationists got stale, he moved on to religion in general. And just as that’s ceasing to draw as much attention, he’s found this new niche where he can parade about as the Brave Truth-Teller who stands up for freeze peach against the feminist hordes. (Along with his related schtick of saying crappy things about Muslims and then claiming that everyone knows it’s true but The Liberals don’t dare admit it.)
    I don’t know the man personally, but I get the sense that he relishes the verbal combat. He would get incredibly bored just being a relatively uncontroversial “science communicator” like Neil deGrasse Tyson. He needs that feeling that he’s speaking the tough truths that others fear to tell.

    I think you might really be on to something there. It matches with the way he keeps reacting, and makes a lot of sense.

  72. madscientist says

    The problem with leaving academics like that to do as they please is that it creates a very difficult and hostile environment for the women in the classes. I still see the occasional academic like that around the world and I have no sympathy for them; such behavior has been eradicated from many small university departments and they thrive because of it. Wave bye-bye to the nasty little dinosaurs but don’t mourn their loss. I’ve seen far too many excellent female scientists held back by idiots like Hunt and yes that includes *other* Nobel laureates; Hunt doesn’t have a monopoly on the sexist Nobel laureate thing.

  73. says

    billofsternz @84:

    If Sir Tim Hunt has a track record of sexism in the workplace, then he deserves a full measure of criticism.

    So in your opinion one has to have a track record of bigotry before one can be criticized.
    Ok, so when someone calls a co-worker a F*ggott, but there’s no track record, they shouldn’t be criticized?

    If an employee refers to a Latina as a W*tback while at work, but it’s the first time that person has used such a slur, then they shouldn’t be criticized?

    If an individual at work refers to someone as a T*anny for the first time, that person ought to not be criticized?

    Why is a track record necessary? Why do you think people shouldn’t be criticized for saying bigoted things? Or does this just apply to sexist comments? Or are you saying that each of the people in my examples deserves a small degree of criticism? Who are you to set such rules up for others? Moreover, you’re basically telling people to ignore the problem of sexism, bc you don’t think it’s that big a deal.

  74. billforsternz says

    littlebear @86

    How the hell do you accidentally say the above? If he misspoke, what did he mean to say?

    Sometimes people deliberately say things ironically. In which case they actually mean the opposite of their literal words. Other times people say stupid things they immediately regret and which don’t accurately reflect their character, their past behaviour or their normal views. In which case it’s fine to criticize, but it’s charitable to accept a sincere apology. Just to be clear, it’s not clear to me how much any of this applies to Tim Hunt. My real point was, none of this applies to a person who identifies as a creationist.

    Tony! The Queer Shoop @87

    I think you may have missed the point PZ was getting at. He’s posing the hypothetical to Dawkins to see how he (RD) would respond.

    Actually I did understand PZ’s point, and I agree entirely that Dawkins would likely excoriate Scalia. I think you missed my point; Scalia said something creationist, and is an unapologetic creationist, so deserves to be excoriated. Hunt said something sexist but may not be an unapologetic sexist.

  75. Badland says

    Richard Dawkins, Status Quo Warrior: forever fighting the good fight against those damn pesky SJWs

  76. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    Hunt said something sexist but may not be an unapologetic sexist.

    The lack of a true apology says otherwise. That is a form of evidence.

  77. says

    billforsternz @91:

    I think you missed my point; Scalia said something creationist, and is an unapologetic creationist, so deserves to be excoriated. Hunt said something sexist but may not be an unapologetic sexist.

    This comes across as you expecting others to adhere to your arbitrary standards of what is or is not permissible to criticize. Why does it matter if it’s “unapologetically sexist”? And what does that even mean for that matter? Why can it not be “Hunt said something sexist and people criticized him for it”?

    In my book, if someone says something sexist, people have the right to criticize that person. Just as if someone says something homophobic, transphobic, ableist, ageist, or racist. There’s no level of bigotry that is unacceptable to criticize. I wouldn’t tell someone they can’t criticize the words of others because I think they aren’t “that bad”. That’s dismissive of the concerns of others, and that’s how I’m interpreting your comments right now.

  78. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    Billforsternz @91
    A true apology would be like this:

    I’m sorry I said something sexist and stupid in a feeble attempt to make a joke. It was entirely out of line, and women have just as much place in the laboratory as men. I’m donating 20,000 (pounds or Euros, whichever is more) to a program promoting women in STEM careers.

    Until I see that apology, Hunt doesn’t believe women belong in the laboratory.

  79. billforsternz says

    Tony! The Queer Shoop @90

    Why do you think people shouldn’t be criticized for saying bigoted things?

    I don’t think that.

    Why is a track record necessary?

    It may not always be necessary but it can help clarify someone’s intent if it’s not clear. For example (in our discussion above) Scalia’s track record makes it clear that he really meant what he said about humans only being around for 5000 years. He wasn’t being obtuse, ironic, somehow trying to be humorous, or otherwise saying something he didn’t really believe.

    Or are you saying that each of the people in my examples deserves a small degree of criticism?

    No, but do I think someone who says such a thing once, immediately regrets it and then apologises deserves less criticism that someone who habitually says such things and is unapologetic. Don’t you agree? That is the only reason I introduced the idea of a track record. And please please please note that I am not saying that this maps neatly onto the Tim Hunt case. I am admitting lack of clarity on that.

    Who are you to set such rules up for others?

    I’m just sharing my opinion, I don’t pretend to be setting up rules for others.

    Moreover, you’re basically telling people to ignore the problem of sexism, bc you don’t think it’s that big a deal.

    I am not saying that and I don’t believe that.

  80. Rowan vet-tech says

    billforsternz:

    You might want to actually read up on what Hunt has said. This includes clarification shortly after that yes, he really meant that. Then even later it was a ‘joke’. Then there was a not-pology. Then a slightly better apology that still included the phrase “as interpreted” which pretty much tells me that he’s not at all sorry for what he said, only the criticism that he’s faced because he said it.

    If you would educate yourself on what the situation actually is, you will realise why what you are writing comes across as saying that bigots who spout one-time bigotry should not be called out on it.

  81. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    No, but do I think someone who says such a thing once, immediately regrets it and then apologises deserves less criticism that someone who habitually says such things and is unapologetic.

    That is not the case here. Non-sequitur. Irrelevant. There has been no true apology.

  82. carlie says

    No, but do I think someone who says such a thing once, immediately regrets it and then apologises deserves less criticism that someone who habitually says such things and is unapologetic.

    How much less? None? If they get none, then how will they learn not to do it again? How will they be better at being the ally they want to be, if they’re not corrected? And this wasn’t a side comment in a reception; it was the text of a talk at a lunch honoring women in science, when he knew there were journalists present. When the comment is broadcast to a lot of people, you’ll get a lot of response.

  83. stevelaudig says

    No one in this little dustup took a deep breath and thought about much before reacting creating “difficulties” all around. One mistake leads to another.
    1. Unthinking remark or stupid/hurtful/whatever remark, humor is tricky and amateurs attempting it can hurt themselves. leave humor to the pros. Comedians know how to take a punch.
    2. Stupid reaction by a howling mob the “metaphorical lynchers” if you will.
    3. Hypocritical reaction of “quit or be fired” by University College London, which takes money from Qatar [and I am assuming without doing the necessary research so this may just be a one off, other similar “oil democracies”]
    4. Stupid reaction by Hunt to stupid hypocritical reaction by UCL by resigning rather than standing one’s ground, admitting stupid remarks, apologizing, and saying “Now fire me after I have apologized”
    I don’t have a dog in this fight so my comments are not worth much and I’ll conclude by opining that this teapot tempest has given many the opportunity to behave badly and it looks like they all made unforced errors. Where have all the “measured response” adults gone? A question I ask myself more and more recently. cheers.

  84. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    2. Stupid reaction by a howling mob the “metaphorical lynchers” if you will.

    No lynchers, just women and other feminists using their free speech.

    Hypocritical reaction of “quit or be fired” by University College London,

    No, correct given the sexist statement at forum honoring women in science. The statement was sexual harassment, as it belittled women.

    by resigning rather than standing one’s ground, admitting stupid remarks, apologizing, and saying “Now fire me after I have apologized”

    Except there is no true apology, as I demonstrated in #95 what that would look like.
    Now, what is your real case? I don’t see one.

  85. Rowan vet-tech says

    stevelaudig:

    Please detail, exactly, what was the ‘stupid reaction(s)by a howling mob” and why they were stupid?

  86. billforsternz says

    Rowan vet-tech @100

    I have read these things you assume I haven’t read. You interpret them and pretend you know the mind of the man who made them. I interpret them and am left with doubts.

    I do know that I am happy to call out Scalia (see my back and forth with Tony) for being an idiot because he has a track record of being an idiot and he’s actually proud of it. I don’t think it’s equally well established that Hunt is a bigot and he definitely denies it. Hence my original (and really only) point; PZ’s challenge is comparing apples and oranges.

  87. HappyNat says

    “howling mob” = people, many of them women*faint* who said that a Hunt’s sexist statement was in fact sexist.

  88. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    I don’t think it’s equally well established that Hunt is a bigot and he definitely denies it. Hence my original (and really only) point; PZ’s challenge is comparing apples and oranges.

    There is no evidence that is the case.

  89. Rowan vet-tech says

    So, bill, that means you don’t think he was telling the truth when he initially said he was telling the truth? And you don’t think this means he’s rather unapologetically sexist? Especially as he has not, to date, *actually* apologised? Few people are going to come right out and say “Yup. I’m racist/sexist/whatever and am quite proud of the fact that I’m a bigot!” Instead, these people hide it, dance around it, deny it when it shines through. And that is exactly what Hunt has done.

    He has not apologised. He thinks women are too emotional and don’t belong in labs with men. Those are his true thoughts. He’s sexist as hell even if he’s normally good at hiding it.

  90. says

    Oh, hi. I’m a scientist-comedian, and I’m totally going to make jokes that aren’t funny in the first place, and claim they are ha-ha only serious.

    Then, I’ll totally say I meant them, but they were jokes. Because really. Lab chicks dig me. Right? Like a broad in a lab coat can resist a Nobel prize hanging on a gold chain in the dark furry briar-patch of my chest-hairs.

    I’m kidding! I’m totally kidding! It’s just too bad they’re so emotional they cry every time I break up with them. Totally ruins any kind of camaraderie, and it’s why I can’t list them as co-authors on my nobel-winning papers.

    Aaanyway, thanks very much for inviting me to your group-hug and let’s-get-together-to-cry meeting thing. Featured speaker, right? So let me speak the truth: I really like it when you lean over and your lab coats open up a little bit and I can see the tops of Mt. Biological Attraction. Am I right?

    I really look forward to many years of speaking and trying to get FEEEmales into STEM.

  91. billforsternz says

    Rowan I don’t know the man, to me it’s completely unclear what he really thinks. You have drawn conclusions, you could be absolutely correct.

  92. Rowan vet-tech says

    Yes, I have drawn conclusions based on his *actions*. And that action is to have not actually apologised for what he said, after initially clarifying that he really truly believes that women are problematic in the lab because we bloody *cry* when ‘criticized’.

    His statements, plus his actions, show long standing sexism. This is an eminently reasonable conclusion to reach because his words and actions are *evidence* of his ongoing sexism.

  93. weatherwax says

    I wonder how Richard Dawkins would respond if a young female researcher, speaking at an event celebrating Mr Hunt, or even Mr Dawkins, said she hated sharing a lab with old men, ’cause they always fall in love with her, and always pout when she won’t go out with them.

  94. chigau (違う) says

    stevelaudig #103
    Thank you.
    This thread really needed a troll.
    Bless your heart and have a nice day.

  95. chigau (違う) says

    weatherwax #113
    That is a very good ThoughtExperiment.
    (I expect you meant SIR Hunt and PROFESSOR Dawkins)

  96. Tethys says

    billforsternz

    Hunt said something sexist but may not be an unapologetic sexist.

    Considering the fact that Tim Hunt made multiple sexist statements, tried to pass it off as a joke, and has not apologized; I think it is accurate to characterize Tim Hunt as unapologetically sexist. Sexism is deeply ingrained in culture it’s true. Everyone has unconscious sexist biases and beliefs, such as treating women as if they are slightly less capable or have less worth as human beings. There is simply no excuse for nobel laureate Tim Hunt to pretend that in the year 2015, he is somehow unaware that calling grown women girls, and making comments about how distractingly sexy they are is sexism. His comments clearly demonstrate that he has a deeply sexist view of being comfortable with women as sex objects and wives, but can’t imagine women as equals and colleagues.

  97. says

    I wonder how Richard Dawkins would respond if a young female researcher, speaking at an event celebrating Mr Hunt, or even Mr Dawkins, said she hated sharing a lab with old men, ’cause they always fall in love with her, and always pout when she won’t go out with them.

    Dear Muslima II – The Return

  98. says

    weatherwax:

    I wonder how Richard Dawkins would respond if a young female researcher …

    I imagine he would respond with:

    Dear grantless researcher,

    Stop whining, you. Yes, yes, I know your research proposal would have gone much better had you solicited the patrimony of an aged white male authority and … yawn … don’t tell me yet again, you have been accosted time and again by aged white male authority, and you can’t enter a lab without a male relative, and your advisor is allowed to steal your work without attribution, and you’ll be relegated to the dustbin of history in spite of the scientific advances you made but were always the third or fourth name on the attribution list. But stop whining, will you. Think of the suffering your poor put-upon male peers have to put up with.

    Only this week I heard of one, he calls himself Honorary Professor with the UCL Faculty of Life Sciences, do you know what happened to him? He said something profoundly sexist, and people called him out on it, but even so …

    And you, dear grantless researcher, think you have bias to complain about! For goodness sake grow up, or at least grow a thicker skin.

    nigel

    Or maybe not. Maybe he’s totally more grown up than that.

  99. says

    Jafafa Hots:

    Dear Muslima II – The Return

    Damn you, Jafafa Hots! I spent years composing #118, and you stole my joke.

    Oh. I’m coming for you. You don’t know when. You don’t know where. But I’m coming for you.

    Although, it does seem kinda obvious, doesn’t it? It’s Dawkins, after all.

  100. chigau (違う) says

    Avo
    You and Jafafa Hots can have co-authorship.
    Who gets to be Senior to be decided by … single combat tiddlywinks.

  101. billforsternz says

    Rowan @ 112

    I totally agree with you that his actions are more important than his words. To me his actions, behaviour and character over the course of a decades long career are of telling significance. I am not aware of much information coming out one way or another. Maybe time will tell.

  102. says

    chigau (違う):

    Who gets to be Senior to be decided by … single combat tiddlywinks.

    Challenge accepted.

    Although Jafafa Hots has already lost. Everyone knows it’s Muslima II: Electric Boogaloo.

    I think Ed Brayton has my back on this.

  103. Lady Mondegreen says

    don’t know the man, to me it’s completely unclear what he really thinks. You have drawn conclusions, you could be absolutely correct.

    What he “really thinks” is irrelevant. It’s his actions that showed him to be unfit for a particular honorary, unpaid position or two. What he really thinks could be complex and contradictory. Maybe he really did intend his remarks as just jokes.

    Doesn’t matter.

    Understand: those women scientists listening to Hunt? The women who read about his remarks on Twitter and in the press? Each one of them has had a lifetime of listening to “jokes” like Hunt’s. They’ve responded with forced smiles or patient remonstrances or silence or angry comebacks. Years and years worth of forced smiles and explanation and tongue-biting and honest anger. And still the jokes get told.

    Feminism has been around for decades (if you ignore the “wave” delineations, well over a century,)* and still the jokes get told. The jokes that say, you’re an anomaly here. You’re here on suffrance.

    How long are we supposed to go on biting our tongues? How long is long enough?

    * I am not at all impressed by the “but he’s too old to know better!” defense.

  104. Rowan vet-tech says

    To me his actions, behaviour and character over the course of a decades long career are of telling significance.

    Though I doubt you intended this, what this reads as is “Because he was good at hiding the level of his sexism and/or because he kept it to socially acceptable levels in the past we should let him get away with saying that women are over emotional and unable to take criticism without bursting into tears, and that we women have this pesky tendency of falling in love in the lab and we’re distracting (to the men).

    Because apparently to you, him saying that, and him saying that he truly meant that…. doesn’t mean he actually thinks that way?

    I’m sorry, but you make no sense!

  105. billforsternz says

    Rowan vet-tech @ 127

    My position is that his comments and apologies have been muddled and unclear and that I don’t know for sure what he thinks. Your position seems to be to take the least charitable possible view of his comments – for example you ignore his claim to have been speaking ironically yet cling to his early qualification that he did actually mean part of what he said. You dismiss his subsequent apologies completely – presumably taking the line that the apologies have to be perfect or they are not apologies.

    Basically I think more weight should be given to a lifetime of professional social interaction than to muddled, contradictory comments that (mostly) came when he was clearly rattled as he found himself unexpectedly the centre of a global incident. I find it hard to see how that “makes no sense”, but clearly YMMV.

  106. Rowan vet-tech says

    So you give more weight to his attempts to downplay the sexism of his remarks, because he’s been rightly called out on it, as being truer to his actual intent? Oh! It’s not sexist, it’s ironic! It merely looks like the exact same thing.

    His subsequent apologies were nothing of the sort. The last one came the closest, but there was that weasel-y phrase “as interpreted”, which basically says that he’s sorry we’ve all misunderstood him and that he’s not sorry for what he said, but rather that he got called out because of his words.

    Apologies involve taking actual responsibility for what was said, and acknowledgement of what was wrong.

    Apology: “I’m sorry that I insulted you.”
    Notpology: “I’m sorry that you think I insulted you.”

    Hunt has issued the second, not the first.

  107. Beatrice, an amateur cynic looking for a happy thought says

    via B&W

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/educationnews/11688134/Nobel-prizewinners-defend-Sir-Tim-Hunt-amid-sexism-row.html

    Eight Nobel prizewinners have come to the defence of Sir Tim Hunt, the scientist at the centre of a sexism row following his comments on the “trouble with girls” in laboratories.

    They warned of a chilling effect on academics’ freedom to speak their minds after Sir Tim was forced to resign his honorary post at University College London amid pressure from social media users

  108. says

    @#130, Beatrice, an amateur cynic looking for a happy thought:

    Eight Nobel prizewinners have come to the defence of Sir Tim Hunt, the scientist at the centre of a sexism row following his comments on the “trouble with girls” in laboratories.
    They warned of a chilling effect on academics’ freedom to speak their minds after Sir Tim was forced to resign his honorary post at University College London amid pressure from social media users

    If Hunt’s comments are an example of what we would lose, then that’s probably a good thing. He accepted a position as speaker at a conference about a particular topic, and used the opportunity not only to insult the entire audience to their faces but to suggest that the purpose of the conference was a bad idea — and then he was apparently surprised when people were angry about it. He should be ashamed, and the fact that there are at least eight other nitwits with Nobel Prizes who back him up on this shows that winning the Nobel Prize has nothing whatsoever to do with logic or intelligence.

  109. Gen, Uppity Ingrate and Ilk says

    So a chilling effect on academics’ freedom to speak their minds is like totally very very bad, but ridiculing half of the population and creating a “chilling effect” in labs for women and minorities, eh, it’s just freedom of speech? I don’t think so. I think the days where “freedom of speech before everything” was the battle cry is drawing to a close as we realize that speech also have consequences.

  110. Al Dente says

    I’m sure there are times when Hunt and Dawkins were at scientific conferences where poorly considered ideas were presented and the presenters were criticized for their presentations. Criticism of ideas is a strong part of the scientific method. If Hunt or Dawkins said something that was utter bollocks at a scientific conference they would accept criticism from their peers.

    Hunt insulted women scientists but, since his insults were given in a supposedly social meeting rather than a scientific one, then criticizing the insults is unacceptable. Certainly Dawkins and certain other male scientists seem to think so.

  111. rietpluim says

    Eally, I’m getting sick and tired of his bullshit. Every time I try to read something written by Dawkins, my brain just shuts down. I have to force myself to reading his whines.

  112. stevenjohnson2 says

    I must agree vehemently that the use of “witch hunt” for the storms of public outrage that break out on electronic media. It’s perfectly obvious that they are analagous to the pillory instead, except that by and large the public is allowed to only threaten physical abuse. The target is not physically restrained to a post but merely fixed in public attention by others in the media.

    And, for what it’s worth, any comparisons to Orwell’s Hate Minute obviously fail. Orwell’s Hate Minutes were directly aimed at Leon Trotsky (aka “Emmanuel Goldstein.”) 1984 was an anticommunist polemic with no relevance to the free world it has done so much to create.

  113. Al Dente says

    Dawkins is an intelligent, educated man who thinks he’s smarter and more knowledgeable than he actually is. I trust Dawkins when he writes about biology. I know he’s unqualified and incompetent when he’s writing about social problems with the possible exception of atheism.

  114. Al Dente says

    stevenjohnson2 @137

    I must agree vehemently that the use of “witch hunt” for the storms of public outrage that break out on electronic media.

    I’m assuming you meant to use “in” rather than “that” as the fifth word of this statement. If not, please correct me.

    Hunt is not the subject of a witch hunt. He said something insulting to both his audience and to half of the world’s population. When asked to clarify his remarks he offered further insults and later tried to pass his remarks off as “jokes.” Hunt resigned an honorary position rather than discuss the insults with the people who had honored him. He is not taking criticism well yet somehow it’s everyone else’s fault that he’s being criticized. Somehow Hunt sees himself as the injured party in the dispute. and the rest of us are bullies hounding him mercilessly.

    If Hunt had offered a genuine apology for his remarks or, better yet, if he had never made the remarks in the first place, then this would be a minor occurrence. Hunt is one of the main drivers of this controversy due to his refusal to acknowledge that there are legitimate criticism of his remarks and his follow-on comments.

    In short, criticism is not a witch hunt.

  115. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    stevenjohnson2 @137

    What witch hunt? Witch hunt implies an effort of looking around for a scapegoat. There was no looking around. Hunt made a sexual harassing statement, as anybody who has had sexual harassment training knows. He dismissed half the population due to their sex. He made himself a target through his recent actions.
    People responding to such blatant sexism is not a witch hunt. Hunt’s refusal to offer a true apology (which if done quickly would have silenced the ruckus quickly) shows he wasn’t kidding, and is an unrepentant sexist.
    There is no rational defense of such behavior, unless one is simply trying to maintain the old-boy system of institutional sexism. Is that what you are trying to do stevenjohnson2? Please clarify.

  116. slithey tove (twas brillig (stevem)) says

    I’m willing to accept that Hunt’s original speech was supposed to be a self-mockery, to voice out-loud all the bad attitudes he is representative of. When it didn’t “go over” as intended, and the reaction was reprimanding him for those attitudes, he could have apologized for not being a better “standup” and making the self mockery more clear. Instead he apologized for the audience not understanding his self-mocking. Essentially doubling down on insulting women as being “girls who can’t understand stuff”.
    What’s even worse, is Dawkins (not unexpectedly) trying to defend Hunt by adopting the very same attitude Hunt was originally trying to mock.
    What’s actually worse is hearing that Brian Cox (of whom I have a mancrush) is defending Hunt. I haven’t seen it myself, so I continue to hope his apology is much more mild than Dawkin’s pitchfork at his imagined witchhunters.

  117. chris61 says

    So Dawkins responded to hyperbole with more hyperbole. I think it’s kind of funny – but then I also think the response to Hunt’s remarks were disproportionate. Firstly because no one other than the people present know what he actually said as there is apparently no transcript. The few reported remarks that have caused all the response came after other remarks that were reported to be supportive of women in science. Secondly because I think the charitable interpretation of the remarks that were quoted is that he was talking about himself, possibly in reference to his wife whom he met while he was mentoring her. Having witnessed several examples of romantic entanglements between lab heads and people working in their labs, it is disruptive of the science. The part I think he was joking about was the call for gender segregated labs.

  118. esmith4102 says

    A stupid statement in public about evolution distorts science itself! Dr. Hunt’s stupid statement about women in science needs to be censored, but to be alienated from science itself by any group displaying moral righteousness and outrage is in itself stupid!

  119. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    Dr. Hunt’s stupid statement about women in science needs to be censored,

    You can’t censor an already made public statements. Pick your words with greater care to reflect reality. What is stupid about moral indignation toward a statement that amounts to sexual harassment by dismissing half the population? A proper apology by Hunt would solve the problem. Take it up with him as to why he can’t do so.

  120. slithey tove (twas brillig (stevem)) says

    censored censured
    ??

    is an expression of strong disapproval or harsh criticism.

    Perhaps is what the commentor was trying to say and just spelled it phonetically, like how so many mix up “their”, “there”, “they’re”.
    maybe just a single letter typo

  121. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    Re censured.
    The word is usually used for an official body to give a mild reprimand to member of that organization. I see no censure from an organized scientific body against Hunt.
    Unorganized criticism from the world at large is stretching the original meaning, but appears to be consistent with some definitions.

  122. stevenjohnson2 says

    The intended first sentence of my post #137 is a sentence fragment, because of a typographical error, compounded by an amazing incompetence at proof reading. The sentence intended was “I must agree vehemently that the use of “witch hunt” for the storms of public outrage that break out on electronic media is wrong.” And “inquisition” and “lynch mob” are also wrong, for what my opinion is worth.

  123. says

    To all of you people twisting yourselves in knots to find charitable interpretations of Hunt’s and Dawkins’ remarks, and deploring the “witch hunt”: ANSWER THE DAMN QUESTION.

    What would you propose that people do differently? You’re all whining about the fact that people expressed their opinions freely about those remarks. I suspect you’re all a bunch of smug free-speech fetishists on other occasions, but you’re fine telling everyone else to shut up when they raise objections to the endemic sexism in our culture.

  124. Anna Elizabeth says

    @P Z Myers in #148 – Thank you, sincerely.

    My biggest issue with “Atheism” as a “movement” is the endless circle-jerk, all the “Freethinkers” so self-impressed, continuing their congratulatory circle-jerk about the awful stupidity of religious people and racists but lacking any insight or courage to face their own bias, their own privilege.

    That is why I don’t call myself “Atheist” or “Skeptic” in public, because I don’t wish to be a part of the group that listens to Dawkins, that mansplains how I’m doing it wrong, and that wont even face questions about their own attitudes and actions.

    I say now, the worst slut-shaming Homophobic, foul insult throwing Xtian is still better than the kind of “Skeptical Atheist” that hides in the circle-jerk. At least the bigot Xtian has the courage to swill abuse openly.

  125. Al Dente says

    Anna Elizabeth @150

    That is why I don’t call myself “Atheist” or “Skeptic” in public, because I don’t wish to be a part of the group that listens to Dawkins, that mansplains how I’m doing it wrong, and that wont even face questions about their own attitudes and actions.

    The biggest objection to Dawkins’ social media pronouncements is that he refuses to consider if criticisms are valid or not. His tweets about abortions of Downs Syndrome babies, pedophilia and severity levels of rape were met with strong critiques which he brushed off with sneers about emotionality and being misunderstood. There could be no other explanations for anyone not accepting his logic. There is no way for him to accept that someone might reasonably disagree with him on social issues, never mind the possibility that he might be wrong about anything.

  126. UnknownEric the Apostate says

    At least the bigot Xtian has the courage to swill abuse openly.

    So do the Dudebro Skeptics, though. Only difference is instead of “justifying” it with “Because God said so,” they claim to be right because “our ooooobbbbbbbviously supeeeeeeerior intellect said so.”

  127. Seven of Mine: Shrieking Feminist Harpy says

    esmith4102 @ 143

    alienated from science itself

    Oh for Bob’s sake. Now he’s not only been forced to resign, he’s been alienated FROM SCIENCE ITSELF!!! Arglbargl, etc.

  128. Seven of Mine: Shrieking Feminist Harpy says

    Seriously, if you can’t make the case that Hunt was mistreated without ludicrously overstating what actually happened, maybe you need to rethink your position.

  129. Jackie the social justice WIZZARD!!! says

    Anna Elizabeth @ 150,
    At least religious people have the excuse of adhering to attitudes and rules they believe save them from eternal damnation. At least they have the fear of shunning from their entire family and community to make their behavior somewhat understandable. Atheists and “skeptics” are bigots entirely by choice.

  130. Jackie the social justice WIZZARD!!! says

    I notice that the Dawkins and Hunt defenders do not think it is fair to judge a man by his words and actions, but should rather invent reasons to absolve him of any wrong doing while calling the oppressed class of people he’s contributing to the oppression of mobs, Baying dogs, Witch hunters and oppressors of privileged white men based on actions those people did not take and words they did not say.
    I could also spit nails at the appropriation of “chilly climate” to silence women who dare speak up to the rich white dudes.
    I’d like to know what we may judge people by if not their words and actions? Are we to read their minds? Do we believe in psychics now or just in the inherent sainthood of white men?

  131. Anna Elizabeth says

    @Jackie the, #155 &156
    (Hey, now that the new MLP is watched, I’m back)

    That’s exactly what I mean, Jackie – the religious types are reinforcing their religious views, but the Skeptical Atheists are doing the same with the ancient sexist dogmas *while* they are congratulating themselves for “freethinking”.

    And yes, we can’t judge anyone by anything but what they say and do. Intent is not magic, and actions and speech have consequences.

  132. throwaway, never proofreads, every post a gamble says

    Seven of Mine:

    Oh for Bob’s sake. Now he’s not only been forced to resign, he’s been alienated FROM SCIENCE ITSELF!!! Arglbargl, etc.

    It’s a strange charge, that. “Alienated from science itself”, if said repetitively, makes less sense the longer it’s repeated. Instead of just becoming nonsensical as other repeated words or phrases become, it behaves as a singularity of nonsense, and will, upon constant chanting in mantra fashion, suck your very soul into it’s all-consuming masslessness. And your world is never the same.

  133. Lofty says

    Dorky Dick:

    We Agree That God Is A Delusion But Nevermind We still Agree That An Old White Guy Should Always Be In Charge And Be Allowed To Say Whatever He Wants Whenever He Wants Without Criticism Of Any Sort By Rebecca Watson Or Any Other Stupid SJW.

  134. johnmarley says

    Sad. Ten years ago I had a great deal of respect for RD. I had only read some of his books. Then he discovered Twitter. If that’s the way he actually writes, then I now have a massive amount of respect for his editor.

  135. echidna says

    fergl100@34

    Brian Cox has defended Hunt as well. Pity, I have a bit of a man crush on him.

    slithey tove @141

    What’s actually worse is hearing that Brian Cox (of whom I have a mancrush) is defending Hunt. I haven’t seen it myself, so I continue to hope his apology is much more mild than Dawkin’s pitchfork at his imagined witchhunters.

    Yeah, this worried me too. My image of Brian Cox is of someone a little more enlightened than Tim Hunt and Richard Dawkins.
    The BBC quotes Brian Cox as saying:

    “Is it appropriate to hound someone out of their position at a university or indeed, is it appropriate for the university to react in the way that UCL in this case did and ask someone to resign or else threaten to sack them?” Prof Cox said.
    “We do have a problem about these mobs – you call them Twitter mobs, descending on people who use language ill-advisedly and cause great professional ruin. I don’t think that is the case although he felt that.
    “To have a Nobel prize winner and by all accounts a great scientist and a good person being hounded out of a position at UCL, after all those years of good work in science, I think that’s wrong and disproportionate.”

    I can see where that’s coming from, but of course it’s not what happened.

    However, on Twitter, he has corrected himself, pointing people to the LCU statement as evidence that Tim Hunt was not ousted from the position:

    Brian Cox ‏@ProfBrianCox Jun 16
    Regarding Tim Hunt, which I commented on, UCL have said the he resigned, and was not removed http://www.ucl.ac.uk/news/news-articles/0615/100615-tim-hunt … @jonbutterworth

    He also said his view is in line with this nature article: Sexism has no place in science

  136. slithey tove (twas brillig (stevem)) says

    re @161:
    Thank you for the followup re Brian Cox. I’m relieved to hear that his backlash at all the Hunt-kerfuffle was as mild as I expected and totally agrees with “Sexism has no place in science”.
    My mancrush has not been crushed ;-)

  137. Al Dente says

    Poor Sir Tim Hunt FRS, cast from riches and fame to scrounging from supermarket dumpsters and begging in the street. “Will do science for food.”

    </According to Richard Dawkins>

  138. Matthew Trevor says

    The thing I most despise about the “Twitter mobs” comment is it seems to indicate that some people want the amplification power of the internet to work for them but never to have it used against them. There’s a heavy implication of hierarchical thinking, that their wisdom flows down but no voice should ever come back up, even in Cox’s use of “Twitter mobs” when he himself actively uses it. The fact that there mass outcry on Twitter – a “mob” if you will – who actively decry every instance they perceive of such mobbing doesn’t ever seem to trigger a moment of self-reflection in themselves.

    That the MSM is currently collectively decrying internet shaming seems like the absolute height of hypocrisy, as if they’re wanting to reclaim that domain back for themselves.