Tim Hunt’s sexist remarks are really just at the simmering stage…there is so much more to piss us all off.
Hunt is a member of the Royal Society. The Royal Society, as an organization, is not happy: they announced on Twitter that his “comments don’t reflect our views“, and linked to a page highlighting their efforts to improve diversity, which is nice. I’m glad that there are some people working hard to change the stuffy old organization.
“Old” is right — the Royal Society was founded in 1660, and is 355 years old. And in all those years, they’ve never had a woman president. How…odd? The current president is Paul Nurse, who is by all accounts a good guy, but curiously he was also co-recipient of the same Nobel prize Tim Hunt was awarded.
The are also oh-so British, and not in a good way. Here’s their opening statement on Hunt:
The Royal Society has acted to distance itself from reported comments by Sir Tim Hunt FRS about women in science made during an event at the World Conference of Science Journalists in Korea.
If this were a student paper, there’d be a bold red line drawn through “has acted to distance itself” with a scribbled remark, “WHAT did you do?” It’s bad writing, it’s ambiguous, it’s passive, it tells me that the Royal Society heard a rude remark at a party and has edged a few inches away while taking care not to spill their tea. I am unimpressed.
Hey, RS, you’ve got a fellow in your distinguished society who you’ve said maybe makes you a little uncomfortable and doesn’t, maybe, represent your values. Two things: maybe, if those really are your values, you should express your anger a little more vigorously (oh, what am I saying, you’re British), and maybe you should tell him he’s not a member of your clubhouse anymore. Removing a title from his name is a good way to really teach a Brit a lesson.
This is especially warranted in the light of Tim Hunt’s “apology”. It’s a classic.
I’m very sorry that what I thought were light hearted ironic remarks were taken so seriously, and I’m very sorry if people took offence. I certainly did not mean to demean women, but rather be honest about my own shortcomings.
I’m very sorry if people took offence
. Fuck me. Just a hint to anyone who ever needs to apologize for anything: that is the construction of the damned. You are not apologizing for what you did, you are telling everyone else they need to feel apologetic for being offended. It is unconvincing. It reflects a total absence of remorse, and a failure to learn anything.
Another hint: shut up. Don’t babble on making it clear that you really do hold those odious views, and you really are trying to place the blame elsewhere.
Speaking on BBC Radio 4’s Today programme on Wednesday, Hunt apologised for any offence, saying he meant the remarks to be humorous – but added he
did mean the part about having trouble with girls.He said:
It is true … I have fallen in love with people in the lab and people in the lab have fallen in love with me and it’s very disruptive to the science because it’s terribly important that in a lab people are on a level playing field.
I found that these emotional entanglements made life very difficult. I’m really, really sorry I caused any offence, that’s awful. I certainly didn’t mean that. I just meant to be honest, actually.
Oh, puke.
It’s been a rough month or so (like, millennium?) for women in science. If you doubt that there’s a deep pattern of discrimination and sexism, just read this collection of comments about recent events: the discovery that some people think women scientists need to recruit a male coauthor, that Ceci & Williams nonsense that denied there is any problem with sexism in academia, release of a “heroes of science” toy set of 30 famous scientists, including one woman (Marie Curie, of course), more all-male conference speaker rosters, the “boys with toys” debacle, Alice Huang’s advice to women to just accept ogling, and now the cherry on top, a Nobelist blithely suggesting that we ought to have all-male labs.
OK, women, what’s your secret? How do you keep from exploding with rage?
Oh, really, it’s all my fault, but since I’m the guy with the Nobel prize here you are paying the price. By-by, no girl cooties in my lab ’cause I’m highly unprofessional and can’T keep my dick under control when there’s a pretty lady around.
If it was meant to be humor, it was horribly bad humor.
And two men in a lab can’t “fall in love”? (It bothers me now that he is using that as a euphemism.) So let’s add homophobia to his list.
Any organization that is not distancing itself at a dead run, has some explaining to do, and I hope the spokesperson is better at apologizing than he is. (It’s going to be a spokesman, isn’t it?)
That was neither the time, nor the place, nor the way, to be honest about his own shortcomings. It wasn’t about him.
But now it is about him. He needs to be honest about his own shortcomings, now, and apologize like fuck for them.
Yeah, he was talking about his own shortcomings: he’s too sexy for that lab, he can’t get hold of his own feelings and he’s abusive towards his coworkers. Sure, that’s what he said.
I would still like to know what the hell girls are doing in his lab.
If having males and females in a lab together is a problem – easy peasy – ban the men!
Menyabal
Well, he probably won’T fall in love with another guy.
I don’t think that “other people” rank high in his list of priorities…
Penny
I never knew that men and women working in a lab was like keeping rabbits in a hutch.
From my experience, a doe and a neutered buck works best, maybe that’s the way to go…
And who would be our first choice to neuter??? :-)
“OK, women, what’s your secret? How do you keep from exploding with rage?”
We don’t. We rage, a lot. We have a lot to be angry over, after all.
I really wish people would grow a backbone and assert their condemnation like they actually fucking mean it. This kind of ultrapolite statements are so mild that they do nothing. Bigots brush this kind of thing off because as an adult this is like being told you are in trouble by a McDonalds’s manager that is half your age…no knees are being made to shake by a reaction like the Royal Society’s. You might as well shake your finger and go tut-tut.
It needs to be made crystal clear that this is simply unaceptable, period.
Penny
Well, I was speaking about rabbits. Mostly. I also think that men and women can work together in a lab as professionals. I think that men are beings capable of reason and understanding and who should therefore be accountable for their behaviour. I am therefore a misandrist.
Now, for people who actually don’t believe all those horrible things about men, they should simply make a decision: drop out of science or make sure their dick doesn’t get in the way.
So a standard not-pology from Hunt. So far, so par for the course when it comes to unrepentant sexist arseholes.
I would make one little observation about the OP PZ. You wrote;
and;
As a Brit myself, let me clarify this for those who may be less familiar with dear old Blighty – this is not some unavoidable aspect of being British. This is a conscious stratagem, employed by some British people in some kind of fix or feeling for whatever reason uncomfortable, of deliberately hiding behind stereotypical Britishness. I’ll give you some examples – in this case, we are seeing the stereotype that upper class British people are second only to the Canadians in formalised politeness being employed as means to avoid properly criticising bad behaviour that at least some members of the Royal Society probably have more than a sneaking sympathy for. It allows them to avoid standing close enough to Hunt to get smeared with the verbal excrement he is spouting, while simultaneously telegraphing to Hunt and others like him that they aren’t really against them, and that as such no meaningful action is going to be taken against Hunt or anyone other idiot who opines that women are such emotional nymphomaniacs that they shouldn’t be allowed to ply their temptress ways in mixed sex science labs.
Other variants commonly encountered include using the ‘no sex please; we’re British’ trope to avoid having to address any issue even tangentially linked to sexuality, and the ‘stiff upper lip’ stereotype to justify a lack of empathy for the experiences of others and general emotional immaturity.
To be fair, we are far from the only culture that habitualy trades on the stereotypes applied to it to try to get away with bad behaviour. Sometimes some French and Italian people use the common beliefs that they are passionate and hot blooded peoples to get away with objectifying women. Some Germans use their reputation for to-the-point brusqueness to justify shouting down and dismissing others withut engaging with their arguments. And of course the Americans have the so called ‘Lone Star State’, where being a reactionary bigot is sometimes held up as a badge of honour.
To sum up – this is not some excuseable, inescapable flaw of being British that leaves the RS lost in an inescapeable maze of milquitoast half measures and anaemic criticism of Hunt and his fellow travellers; this is a finely honed defense mechanism against having to take responsibility for toxic attitudes and the and behavious of their membership.
They know exactly what they are doing, and they know exactly what kind of message is being sent by the terminology they choose to use, and that which they choose to avoid.
Your/my boss’s lack of self-control is YOUR/HIS/HER problem. Don’t make it mine.
OP
To be fair Tim Hunt describes that as the natural reaction of women in his labs: except he missed the fact they were tears of rage…
That British strategem also has a nice analog in Minnesota Nice. Ultimately, it’s all an evasive maneuver.
Sounds like a great idea. I nominate Hunt’s lab as a testing ground for this new approach.
I like how he blames his own unprofessionalism on women, *ahem* girls, instead of getting his shit together and treating his labmates as colleagues, not a dating pool. Classy there. Real classy.
@Lesbian Catnip
Indeed, we’re then told that our anger is unreasonable and off-putting, and that we’d get better results if we were more polite to the people being sexist at us.
Re Beatrice, and ‘he’s too sexy for that lab…’
Thank you. I now have a certain ‘Right Said Fred’ thing from the 80s as an earworm… And the indelible image of an elderly British guy in a lab coat performing it.
I assume mostly because we’ve been taught that doing so is spitting into the wind – all it does is come back and give us even more negative repercussions. (“Keep a wide berth from her, she’s so angry all the time…”)
PZ @ 15;
Exactly – it is the same phenomenon, but rooted in a slightly different cultural context.
It seems you Minnesotans are more like we Brits than you realise. I’ll leave whether or not that amounts to a compliment up to your personal judgement…
Venting and liberal ingestion of chocolate?
The first female fellow of the Royal Society wasn’t elected until 1945 (though there were plenty of women who should have been elected in earlier decades). The percentage of women is still very low (systematic discrimination elsewhere contributes here) and what percentage of those want to be president and are senior enough (a fair number of presidents have Nobel prizes and knighthoods) to be considered. Diversity in other ways is still low. How many presidents of non-Christian background (most recent presidents are probably atheist/agnostic but almost all have nominally Christian background). How many of non-European ancestry (or even non-British) given the number of immigrants to Britain over the centuries? For that matter how many weren’t fellows of Trinity College, Cambridge (I suspect a disproportionate number of presidents have come from Trinity)?
yes, example here is proff, I was correct in the other thread about? Hunt, where I said his powers to figure out the cell biology did not help him with social skills. Not only is he not apologizing for misspeaking, He’s saying that he pities people who were offended at his self-effacement. To expand, he MIGHT have been self-effacing, responding to being criticized as a chauvinist (guilty myself of such attempts at self-effacement). But, as said, above, if your attempt failed and offended people in the audience; apologize for not doing it well enough, don’t be sorry that they were offended. simply. apologize for offending, apologizing that the audience was offended is blame shifting.
So, what I am saying: I can understand his “notpology” as attempting an actual apology. I can too have experienced situation where I try to playact at what I am being accused of, in an (eventually failed) attempt to be obviously not what I’m accused of, and have it backfire completely. From that, I’ve learned to apologize for my attempt, not apologize that they were offended, I apologize for offending. To expand further, the difference between “assertive” and “aggressive”. EG aggressive is when someone says something that hurts on, responding with “What you said, hurt me”, vs “assertive”:”I was hurt by that word (you said)”. So. To reflect that back to Hunt (rhymes with …) “I’m sorry that what I said was offensive” vs. “I’m sorry you were offended by what I said”. Maybe the same ‘feeling’, but very different socially, is what I’m trying to say.
I’m sorry if anyone was offended by my social lesson. /snark
We rage. Mostly, nobody listens.
Michael Atiyah was President if the RS, but then he was also Master of Trinity, so I guess that only confirms Erp’s argument.
carlie @ 20;
And then comes the charming victim blaming. Beyond the obvious and offensively stupid ‘time of the month’ jokes (that every sexist nitwit seems to think are hilariously original), if a woman shows any anger about anything and her life is not a path strewn with rose petals people wil say ‘what did she expect, being so hostile all the time?’ Of course, if she is highly successful, she will instead be resented as an angry ‘ball-breaker’ who hates all men, because a woman must never allowed to just get what she wants, ever, lest the universe implode or something.
Equally, if she is a straight woman and has any trouble with relationships the criticism will be along the lines of ‘what man would want to put up with her moods and confrontationalism? She’ll always be alone, and she’ll have no one to blame but herself’ (old spinster with too many cats references being optional), and if she is in a happy het relationship, the tack taken will either be that the ‘poor man’ is ‘hen-pecked’ and has to endure this hellish harpy, or the old misogynistic standby of ‘pussy whipped’ jokes will be used to attack both her and her male partner for failing to ‘acceptably’ perform their socially mandated gender roles. And if she objects to her relationship status being mentioned, or says that she is not interested in talking about it, the assumption will be made that she is not ‘getting what she needs’, and that this explains her anger with no further discussion of the actual reasons for her anger being needed.
Of course, should the woman in question happen to be lesbian or bisexual, then the standard response is to double down on the standard ‘angry lesbian’ tropes, and should she be a transwoman, then the bigots will get really ugly.
Every angle is covered – if a woman ever shows anger for any reason, society always as a label (hellion, shrew, battleaxe, or simply bitch – take your pick) ready to hand to dismiss her with.
As a man, I have never experienced anything like that, but I have had a taste of the pale reflection that is the policing of masculine expression, which as might be expected goes the other way, with unreasoning anger and confrontationalism being held up as ‘true masculine virtues of the manly man’. For guys, the attempts to silence usually comes through the medium of using women and relationships with women as weapons (oh look – women get treated awfully yet again. Who’d have thunk it?). Whenever the fact that I am a progressive and a feminist comes up, or simply when I don’t react in the aggressive fashion that is anticpated, there is usually someone who immediately asks some variant of ‘no girlfriend then?’ (because gay men don’t exist, dontchaknow. Well, except when the misogynists – who are also almost invariably homophobes – want to use homosexuality as some kind of cudgel against other men) and every effort is then made to turn the conversation to a discussion of how men like me will never get anywhere when it comes to relationships because we are too ‘weak’ and ‘passive’, because supposedly, whatever women say they want, what they really crave is a man to ‘take charge’ and make them ‘feel like a woman’ (whatever that means). The conversation then descends into ever more misgynistic unsolicited ‘relationship advice’, and when you object to such objectifying attitudes toward women this is held up as ‘evidence’ of how ‘poisoned’ you have been by feminism. The term ‘gender traitor’ or ‘mangina’ often pops up round about then as well.
It is times like that that I remind myself that, unpleasant as that is, it is as nothing against what women have to go through every day, and I reaffirm my determination not to just let ‘locker room talk’ slide on some fallacious ‘boys will be boys’ basis.
Wasn’t there some prominent atheist from Oxford who had a related problem? Perhaps it’s not just the individuals.
Well, you are talking about someone who goes by Sir Timothy on, no doubt, carefully selected occasions.
Speaking of 80s earworms, SCIENCE!
“I’m very sorry if people took offence.”
Assholes keep gravitating towards this phrase, like they just can’t resist going for it.
Two things: maybe, if those really are your values, you should express your anger a little more vigorously (oh, what am I saying, you’re British)
That’s right actually, they’re British and he’s British and you are failing to read the nuances or to understand that they communicate contemptuous dismissal (while respecting the idiots right to make an idiot of himself quite adequately). But I’ve hung around America for a bit, so I’m going to ask you bluntly to back the fuck off with thinking you control the English language and the way in which it will be used and see if you can’t develop a bit of cultural sophistication to go with your self-righeousness (oh, what am I saying, you’re American).
No offense, PZ, but two can play at that game and you’re as out of line and ignorant as the guy you’re writing about (Mr plleeeze help me, guurls don’t wanna talk like us doods).
Good to see Pen upset about the proper subject.
So… on the interpretation of that statement by the R. Soc., we have one Briton saying:
and another one who hasn’t explicitly declared themself British but unambiguously claims to understand the cultural background of the statement:
Which is it, then? Tacit agreement or contemptual dismissal?
I myself have no way of telling; I haven’t interacted with Britons enough to figure any of this out, and I’m probably too autistic to ever learn it in the first place.
I can’t help speculating, though: Is the British politeness system so intricate that at least half of all Britons (n = 2) don’t understand it? (Wouldn’t surprise me. Part of its very purpose seems to be to keep the classes apart.) Is it British culture to read between other people’s lines no matter if it actually says anything in there? (Would fit my experience, but again the n is very, very small.)
I’m genuinely curious and hoping for more input!
It’s possible to discuss more than one subject in one thread.
Oh PEN we’re sorry you were offended by PZ’s humble advice of how to write, so us ignorant backyard speaking Murican’s can more clearly understand the nuances they can convey to other Britishers. PZ is just advising them to be more
explicitdetailed, and not so dependent on speciallanguagespeak to get one’s message “out to the world”.I’m so sorry that your criticism of the OP comes off as pure arrogance.
throwaway #32
You understood that?
Could you translate it?
I brought up Paul Nurse on the other thread. Here are his thoughts on the disturbing fact that in 2014 only 2 of 43 University Research Fellowships were awarded to women:
The Royal Society is trying to improve diversity, and has some very positive schemes to achieve that.
In general, the lack of diversity at the top of the Royal Society is also a reflection of the lack of diversity at the top of British science.
The public face of these learned societies is always somewhat conservative, so I’m not surprised by their reaction. Equally, Fellowships are not easily withdrawn, and certainly not for what are viewed as personal flaws; it hardly needs to be noted that many old Fellows would fail to meet the personal standards that we would consider to be enlightened, modern, and progressive. A cull of the obnoxious – even the damagingly obnoxious/obnoxiously damaging – would seriously deplete their numbers. There is provision with their Statutes to expel individuals who are injurious to the character or interests of the Society, but I’m not sure that it is often exercised. (James Watson is still a Fellow.)
If you want something to worry about, and something that should embarass the RS, it is the fact that Tim Hunt was a member of the Royal Society Vision for science and mathematics education 5-19 project committee.
These aholes have always been around; so glad they’re finally getting called out.
Now he has a whole *other* set of personal shortcomings to contemplate–if he’s honest and ethical enough to do so, which I’m not counting on.
Sorry for the immediate follow-up, but here is the follow-up blog on the report that Paul Nurse requested.
Shame on us for not considering the massive institutional discrimination on all levels in science against the Brisish. BOTH SIDES!!!
Not wishing to engage in an unhelpful Brit-off with Pen, let us just say that my experience leads me to suspect that this is an evasion tactic used to deflect responsibility for dealing with Hunt’s atrocious attitudes away from the Royal Society, whereras Pen’s mileage clearly varies.
To address David Marjanović’s point @ 33, the British system of social etiquette is famously byzantine, and it is quite possible for almost identical turns of phrase to have radically different meanings in only subtly different contexts. There is also definitely some truth to the notion that Brits tend to read between the lines and parse what other people say rather than just taking everything at face value, so it is indeed quite possible than neither Pen or myself have read this statement entirely correctly, or that elements of both interpretations are at play – in some circles, this could be read as demeaning Hunt without openly going too far in criticising him, while in others it could be read as tacitly giving the nod that this issue is not going to be taken seriously. The very ambiguity of that might be the point, since it gives the Royal Society wriggle room if it needs it in future.
I still think my interpretation is right about this, but it is not the kind of thing that I can prove to any particularly rigorous degree.
David
Whatever the fuck you want. Which is exactly what Gregory said: You can have your cake and eat it.
Pen
Since the British insisted on inflicting their language on the world, they need to live with the world talking back. Especially when they’re trying to communicate with the world at large.
@Pen #31
I don’t read it that way. I read it as a very (corporate and) straightforward distancing and dismissal. It is not a strong statement of contempt hiding behind nuanced politeness.
The Royal Society is replete with people who would agree with Hunt, or at least side with him by claiming it is an issue of free expression, with which the proper response is to politely disagree as a point of personal preference.
That is a very, very silly thing to write.
ALSO – I screwed the link in my previous reply. Here is the follow-up blog on the report that Paul Nurse requested.
I read it as a very, very carefully constructed corporatespeak version of expected disapproval, one calculatingly written to be all things to all people. If you’re so inclined to believe, it can be a devastatingly understated pile of steaming contempt; if you’re inclined the other way, it’s the bare minimum they could put out and still claim to be respecting their own diversity goals. As others have noted, given the makeup of the Royal Society and its demographic similarity to a particular “I’m Too Vulcan” atheist Oxford don, I’m inclined to think it’s the bare minimum answer: they personally don’t disagree all that much, but in order to be respectable in modern society, they have to put out some kind of statement of disapproval. It’s a sop to their diversity goals, and no more, to me.
And let’s not forget the arrogance implicit in Hunt’s assumption that science is the only field in which workplace romances have ever emerged, and the only field where they are potentially disruptive. Hell, some of the biggest hits on network TV over the past 20 years have been all about romances in the OR or law firm or ME’s office or PR firms. When I worked at the most evil of the Wall St. firms (sadly I did for three years, and I’m not proud of it), where they expect 80-100hr. weeks out of their young associates, you haven’t much opportunity to meet other people (this was before Match.com, of course), and we were crawling all over each other, nearly everyone’s Significant Other being a co-worker. So can you imagine the head of the Federal Reserve or the American Bar Association wringing their hands and whining “oh dear, oh my, Eeek-A-Mouse, how will any banking or law get done with all those distracting girlies about!!”
It’s really quite simple, and most of the Blue States and European Union countries actually have laws pertaining to it: You Can’t Date A Subordinate. It’s de facto sexual harassment. If you want to go there, one of you must quit, or request a transfer to another department. Otherwise, if you want to boink the person in the next cubicle, and willing to deal with the ramifications once you break up, then boink away. Your industry will survive.
And @2, Menyambal, yeah, glad we didn’t have Alan Turing bothering the blokes back in Daddy’s lab.
@CatieCat #44,
To be fair, I would say that the leadership of the society is more progressive than its membership, and that is reflected in strong diversity goals, in the makeup of its staff, and the nature of its outreach work. I think that there are many who are uncomfortable by the white maleness of the list of Fellows, and who perhaps have some sense that their success is often partly built upon the efforts of unheralded minorities in the fields.
I do think that the RS only has limited capacity to lead, since its membership is drawn from the senior ranks of a very homogeneous field of endeavour. They are able to aspire to better, and they can affect the grass roots and the awards of merit, but they will always need to drag the only slowly evolving professions along to achieve anything.
I helped to present an exhibit a couple of years ago at their Summer Exhibition, and saw some of the good outreach work. (I also attended one of their soirées, to which Fellows and celebrities are invited, and those are certainly much more establishment affairs.)
Pen,
The statement by Royal Society was a short, lukewarm corporate-speak non-statement carefully crafted so it is actually meaningless and therefore harmless.
This as read by a non-American non-native speaker of the English language.
Part of effective communication is identifying your audience and tailoring your message to the audience. The RS knows this news, and their statement, will be read far outside of England, and even by a lot of non-native speakers. It is not up to us to each study in detail al nuances of the English culture before being able to understand the message.
The RS failed here, not us. Full stop.
Thanks, everyone!
I had actually hoped that the Royal Society would take a stronger stance, even marginally so, but their statement is identical to that of a corporate bureaucracy that wants all the advantages of being inclusive without actually having to change anything or lift a finger. Seriously disappointing.
(Just for the record: the sentence in question may be passive in spirit, but it’s not grammatically passive. Passive buries or omits the subject via a specific construction. This sentence instead obscures the action, using a metaphoric idiom that could mean doing almost anything, down to and including absolutely nothing.)
Carlie @20 and
I’m a really big lurker on here, but I just want to chime in and say I’m happy some of us are still angry, because honestly I’m just numb. Or resigned, maybe that’s the better word it, I don’t even know.
Artor @17
It’s unbelievable, isn’t it. I mean, if you can’t keep it in your pants then it isn’t your coworkers’ problem! But what I really take offense with is him saying women can’t take any criticism without crying, which is… what imaginary women does he work with? Where is this mystical lab filled with ladies crying?
I’m half inclined to the read-between-the-lines approach as in reports of diplomatic meetings. In the way that the parties had “a frank exchange of views” or one of the parties was “tired and emotional” being – when read aright – reports of a flaming row with furniture suffering damage in the first case and, in the second case, someone being unprofessionally as drunk as a skunk at an important meeting.
But you generally need to see the person reading the communique to be absolutely certain about the interpretation. If this particular statement was read with pursed lips and a wooden expression, I’d take it as being a fairly firm implied rebuke.
Pen, The statement by Royal Society was a short, lukewarm corporate-speak non-statement carefully crafted so it is actually meaningless and therefore harmless.
And this kind of short, lukewarm corporate-speak non-statement is common on both sides of the Pond. It’s not a matter of English tact vs. American hamfistedness; it’s a matter of an organization trying to protect itself from accountability. (And no, you don’t have to be a centuries-old ivy-walled prestigious institution within a system of titled nobility to dodge about like this — Our Brave Captains Of Industry can do it too, and do in fact do it every day.)
Let us think of progress in relative terms. Ten years ago the Royal Society would not have heard of this until 6 months later if at all.
Even if they did hear of it they would certainly not have distanced themselves immediately from what Hunt said. The through-gritted-teeth style of that distancing is perfectly easy to decipher and a notable step forward.
I would also say that I don’t think the Royal Society has the same obligation as an employer would have to condemn, even if they have a responsibility to oppose the opinions.
This would be an entirely insufficient response from an employer, where here it is merely a bland and weak response from an associated entity, which misses an opportunity to do better.
thanks for reminding me of Eek A Mouse
a little diversion to clean the pallet so to speak
https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=eek+a+mouse
uncle frogy
Raging Bee:
I read it more as an organisation a bit too steeped in old-school upper-class English society, where, the more important you are, the milder rebuke you need to make to effect the removal or solving of the problem, and, rightly or wrongly, they believe they are EXTREMELY important in British science, so the idea that they’re ‘distancing themselves’ from somebody should be enough to make sure that he is basically ostracised from the British scientific community. Of course, to anyone who isn’t an upper-class English snob, it simply looks like they’re being very reticent and lukewarm in their condemnation of Tim Hunt’s comments.
Having said that, I’m also not an upper-class English snob, so maybe I’ve got that wrong, and they simply are being very reticent and lukewarm in condemning Tim Hunt’s comments.
the other thing I’m wondering about is how many women Hunt has harassed, discriminated against, or otherwise obstructed in their careers. i wonder if we’re about to hear a bunch of stories…
I still rage. Quietly, on simmer most of the time. A constant boil with the lid on.
And that’s why I have a sledgehammer and everyone’s unneeded breakable stuff.
And I work in a fairly women-dominated lab, where we recently kicked a potential co-worker out who then complained about how it’s so difficult for men to be accepted into a women-dominated collective. Funny, the other two men in the lab seem to be doing alright.
Back in university days, in the summer, I worked at a very mixed lab, and surprisingly enough, a lot of science got done…
I think the Royal Society could have made a far better example of itself, efforts at diversity aside. They had a great opportunity to really put the words where they count, with respect to creating a more welcoming atmosphere, and, in my opinion, they failed.
I’m sorry if anyone is offended by my snark, to follow. But all this talk (“discussion”) of Britspeak requiring “hearing between the lines” etc. is sounding very MontyPythony to me. In my recall (totally correct recall donchano) they often mocked the way the “proper” British would insult another using very “polite” verbiage.
uhhhh
to follow my assertive vs aggressive advice, let me rephrase the above:
I’m sorry I’m about to be offensive, when I say, all this argument over “nuanced” British language that we totally misinterpreted; reminds me, If I Recall Correctly, several skits performed by the Monty Python troupe, where they mocked their peers by adopting convoluted verbiage to attempt insulting the opponent “politely”. And breaking their personae and laughing at their very performance. I apologize if I said that poorly.
I read it more as an organisation a bit too steeped in old-school upper-class English society, where, the more important you are, the milder rebuke you need to make to effect the removal or solving of the problem…
Yes, and there’s about the same kind and amount of classism in American society. The biggest difference is that we pretend to be all “egalitarian” and shit, while the Brits are at least honest about admitting they have class stratifications.
kmk05 @50
I suspect that Hunt doesn’t just criticize. I believe he makes life hell for the people in his lab, particularly the women. He makes it obvious that he doesn’t like women working for him and he likely does everything he can to make them cry or quit.
Seems like Hunt is engaging in classic “passive aggressive” behavior. The trappings may be British, as opposed to Minnesota Nice or Southern Hospitality, but the effect is much the same. I know one person who is amazingly good at turning on politeness as an offensive and defensive weapon.
hillaryrettig — “i wonder if we’re about to hear a bunch of stories…” Yes, or perhaps “worry” that what hasn’t been said is even worse than what has been said, which is horrible enough…like the Duggar story.
The comment about him falling in love with the women in his lab immediately made me suspect that he was all about the harassment (seen this too many times with much younger PI’s in fact) and he is presuming that the women fall in love with him because they don’t slap him I suppose.
Also the crying thing? Funnily enough, while I’m in a male-dominated part of biology research, our counterparts in the other part of the lab are 50%+ female and I can’t recall a single instance where I came across a woman crying. Not in the lab, or in front of her computer, or in the bathroom stalls. If he has seen a lot of it, it has something to do with his behavior. I figure he’s actually imagining it because “women huh”.
My rage comes and goes. You just can’t rage all the time, and you have to keep a lid on it even when your male PI is being a sexist ass because he controls your career, and it’s been made very clear he won’t get reprimanded for anything short of murder. So…
yeah, I suppose he thought he was being OBVIOUSLY ironic at the “chauvinist” accusation, by using the obvious stereotypes of women just being “girls” and being love addicts&targets, and at the slightest provocation, weeping into hankies. Pen just called PZ out, for not seeing the obvious, and PZ scolding the RS for not chiding Hunt more exuberantly; when it was obvious, to master Pen, that the RS scolded Hunt severely, when they said they “took actions to distance themselves from Hunt”.
*ahem*
once again, Pen; to reiterate: if Hunt was trying to be obvious, he “missed it by ‘that much’ (holding arms wide apart)”. The point PZ was trying to make flew way over your head, if you look through a telescope, you just might catch a glimpse of it.
It was many years ago (1987-88), and I was only a clueless undergrad at the time, but I did my final year undergrad research project in Tim Hunt’s lab for a few months. He treated me and a woman undergrad (a very good friend of mine) with great kindness. He was very supportive of me when my mother died during my time with him, and he helped my friend make contact with scientific publishers in London when she decided she wanted to go that route instead of doing a Ph.D. During my (admittedly brief) time in his lab, I never saw him behave unpleasantly or even raise his voice.
I say this not to defend his appallingly sexist comments at all, but to make the simple point that horribly sexist people do not necessarily have horns and fangs that you can spot a mile away. The fact that they can be reasonable and pleasant in some contexts can make their sexist behavior more insidious and more of a betrayal of trust and professional distance when it is revealed. It also makes it easier for them to get people to join their labs in the first place.
I’m not a scientist, and I explode in rage, often. I am often told I should moderate my tone, I should be nicer, and that I am alienating allies and friends.
I simply no longer care . If they don’t like my tone, they can go drown in a bucket. Being “nice” and “sweet” gets me nothing but more abuse.
And this “I’m sorry *IF* I did wrong”, is guaranteed to get an adverse verbal response from me.
@57
Yeah, I wondered that too.
As noted abovethread, “has acted to distance itself” is not in the passive voice. It’s vague and evasive, yes, but grammatically, it’s in the active.
Having men and women in the lab is so easy to fix though. Just require the men to wear hijabs.
True, but PZ didn’t say it’s in the passive voice. He said it’s passive. Subtle difference, but what he said can be interpreted as meaning something like “vague and evasive”, and not at all a commentary on the grammar being used.
That said, the Pullum article is a classic and well worth a read.
He’s
been firedresigned from his position as honorary prof.http://www.theguardian.com/education/2015/jun/11/nobel-laureate-sir-tim-hunt-resigns-trouble-with-girls-comments
The more things change…
@ David Marjanovic #33
Honestly? It could equally be either. We Brits love implied meanings. It’s perfectly possible to say exactly the same thing in a slightly different tone of voice and have it mean two precisely opposite things. The quoted statement could equally mean “We think this is a storm in a teacup, but unfortunately the weight of public opinion has forced us to take action against this individual”, or “We want this sleazy fucker as far away from our organization as the laws of physics will allow, and he literally can’t get there fast enough”. There’s no way to know without seeing someone say it, verbally; and of course the whole situation is further complicated by the fact that said official spokesman will be doing their damndest to remain impassive and not give the implied meaning away. It’s an infuriating cultural trait, at times; though it can also be fun. Watching an eloquent, upper-class Brit insult someone can be hilarious; they can remain unfailingly polite the whole way through, and yet manage to be utterly scathing. It’s a good trick.
Hunt has now resigned from an honorary professorship at University College London. since he’s shown no real sign of recognition that he did anything wrong, I’d guess he was told to resign or have it withdrawn. The UCL statement says:
One might have hoped for somthing more along the lines of “We’re not having our university associated with this misogynist shitbag.”, but at least they’ve felt the need to get rid of him.
At least UCL did the right thing, even if they too felt the need for polite understatement. Ugh.
He’s 72 – wouldn’t it be more appropriate to say that he retired instead of he resigned? Of course, then it highlights that he was at the end of his run instead of having his career cruelly cut short by those nasty feminists.
@ carlie #76. He had already retired from his Medical Research Council position in 2010 – the MRC has a mandatory retirement age of 67. The UCL gig was an honorary title. He still has an emeritus position at the new Crick Institute in London, but he is not running a lab.
Fuck that shit. The offending comment was spoken at the World Conference of Science Journalists in Seoul. Last I checked, that wasn’t in Britain. Ergo, all following communications must be given assuming an international forum. As such, they don’t get to hide behind “that’s how us British people talk”.
@LykeX #78:
You’re quoting the Royal Society’s response, not Hunt’s offending comment. Last I checked, the RS is indeed in Britain. Not that your logic holds anyway, since I strongly doubt that you can determine an internationally acceptable subset of the English language much larger than binary opposites from amongst all the current national and cultural Englishes.
And now that I’ve delurked, I’d have to change the n=2 (3, 4, 5, 6 or wherever we are now) to n+1 and say that Thumper #73 explains it best, IMHO. I know how I read the RS statement when I first saw it, and it wasn’t as being nice to Hunt.
I think HillaryRettig #57 raises an excellent point. Where we go from here is what will matter in the long run, and it’s an opportunity to improve.
Rich Woods
The comments were made on an international stage
The reactions were on an international stage
The reply was addressed to an international stage
So talking about regional nuances is bullshit. If the great majority of those who are being addressed don’t get you, the problem is you.
@Rich Woods
Hunt addressed people outside Britain. Like it or not, this is an international incident. When the Royal Society addresses this issue, they’re speaking to an international audience. People from outside Britain are going to pay attention to this and, presumably, the RS would want them to. It’s a public statement, after all.
Obviously there isn’t one universal standard of English. My point doesn’t require there to be. In fact, my point is all about the fact that there isn’t. Since there isn’t, when you’re addressing an international audience, it makes sense to at least try to avoid obscure or regional language or modes of communication.
The comment that I was addressing was defensing the statement on the basis that it was phrased in a particular English style. My point is that this is not really a defense at all. In fact, choosing such a style shows contempt for the presumed audience; the people who were offended by the original comment by Hunt. It communicates the fact that the Royal Society cares more about following proper British form than actually distancing themselves from Hunt.
If you care about being understood, you try to adjust your communication to your audience. Consequently, if you don’t adjust your communication to your audience, then we can conclude that you don’t really care about being understood.
I’m a) British, and b) fairly familiar with the Royal Society, and I don’t read it as anything other than a corporate response, but it does distance them from Hunt, just not in clear and strong term.
However, their latest release announcing his “resignation” from one of their committees is much clearer in condemning Hunt:
And I do think that he probably now understands that the comments were unacceptable, but possibly not why.
See, now that is what I wanted from the RS. Better, guys; much better. Still not perfect, some stronger language would have been nice, but much better.