Tim Hunt was chastised by his hosts at the Korean meeting of the World Conference of Science Journalists, and he replied with a slightly better apology.
The federation asked for an apology. And got one almost immediately. Hunt wrote that he regretted his “stupid and ill-judged remarks.” He added: “I am mortified to have upset my hosts, which was the very last thing I intended. I also fully accept that the sentiments as interpreted have no place in modern science and deeply apologize to all those good friends who fear I have undermined their efforts to put these stereotypes behind us.”
He’s not quite there yet. Those qualifiers are an ugly blot: “as interpreted”. Meaning, “I didn’t really say what you think I said,” which is part of his evasive strategy — his excuse has flip-flopped between he really meant it, and he was just joking.
Hunt is not very interesting anymore. What you ought to read, though, is Deborah Blum’s comments on the issue.
I do have sympathy for anyone caught in the leading edge of a media storm. But if we are ever to effect change, sometimes we need the winds to howl, to blow us out of our comfort zones. Because the real point here isn’t about individuals, isn’t about Tim Hunt or me.
The real point is our failure, so far, to make science a truly inclusive profession. The real point is that that telling a roomful of female scientists that they aren’t really welcome in a male-run laboratory is the sound of a slamming door. The real point is that to pry that door open means change. And change is hard, uncomfortable, and necessary.
When we do make a noise, stand up for what’s right, have an open conversation about gender balance in science—even if that conversation is conducted as a virtual shouting match—we remind each other of the essential importance of equality. And we move, all of us, in a direction that matters.
I will repeat something I said before, and have never heard a satisfactory answer to…actually, no one has given me an answer, period.
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?
You are, apparently, unhappy that people commented on it on Twitter, or wrote blog posts about it, or wrote op-eds decrying it. You seem to be distressed that others are even talking about it negatively. Be specific: what do you propose that a person hearing a Nobelist announcing that women should be segregated from men in the lab should do?
Bonus points if you manage to find a rationalization for that, and you’re also on record deploring the habit of Muslims demanding segregated seating for men and women at public lectures.
If he said it as a joke, I’d probably think “inappropriate and in poor taste in this venue” and if I were a blogger I might blog to that effect. If he said it seriously I’d ask for his evidence that this proposal would lead to better science.
Has anyone done anything different than what you would do?
Okay, let me see if I can get in the mindset:
*Drinks gasoline*
*chugs rubbing alcohol*
*smashes head with ballpeen hammer*
Ok, so you whiners should just shut up because that man–yes, man! What have women done? Nothing–is a maker, providing jobs and expanding knowledge aND making life better for everyone, even SJWs….*urk*
(Falls down dead)
I propose that if the criticism of Hunt came from a single source, published only once, would prevent the “witch hunt” label being applied. Inquisition and lynchings and witch hunts always involved many people doing the attacking, so maybe that’s why they apply the label, many people were able to get published widely and instantly, that the next adjective was, of course, firestorm.
So, it sounds to me, if a single person said (politely), “Not funny Prof.” then the counterstorm would be much less. (in my dreams)
Don’t tell me how ineffective such a minority of backlash against Hunt would have been. That’s exactly why they want such a mild response to his sexist “jokes”.
You mean, like if someone just said, “Guy, don’t do that”?
Yeah, that’d work. We have so many examples of people responding positively to mild comments.
*lloks at picture*
PZ, you’Re a sly devil.
Are you telling us that heavens forbid enlightened educated western men could make similar proposals as conservative islamists?
I can understand people wanting to sweep this under the rug. My first response was quite similar, as I don’t really expect seniors like Hunt to be the voice of change and improvement. I simply dismissed it as outdated drivel, something that will die out in time.
But listening to the critics I cannot say that any individual response was unfair. One might argue that social media can blow anything out of proportions, but I see no sign of an organized “witch hunt”. He voiced some offensive attitudes (joke or not) in public, and people have a right to voice their disagreement.
I cannot find any good defense for his statements, nor can I find any good arguments for simply dismissing them. He was wrong, and we have an obligation to challenge such outdated views. I can feel sorry for the man, but I cannot defend him or his views. If he had started with this “apology” and then kept his mouth shut he might have had a chance of getting off the hook, but his first attempts to trivialize his statements only made matters worse.
Sorry Tim but you have nobody to blame but yourself.
I suspect that what some people are thinking is along the lines of, “Four billion people say something stupid every day, which on any given day might include me, and it’s unjust for one stupid remark to generate such a storm of vituperation.” There is a grain of truth to this but Hunt is a very prominent person who made the remark in a formal, public context, and it happens to be an excellent exemplar of a real problem in the culture of his field. Ergo, it demanded a response from people who want to change that culture. And yes, it also constituted a target of opportunity. So Hunt put himself in the way of the shitstorm, and no doubt it was very unpleasant for him and that makes some people cringe, but it’s for the greater good. That’s basically my response.
I don’t even buy the idea that it’s too huge, too massive a response for the comments made by a single man. I think the response has been porportional to the authority and influence of Tim Hunt, but more importantly, and as Deborah Blum points out, they are proportional to how big the problem is, which is far more massive than Tim Hunt’s comments alone. It’s the same as in the Matt Taylor’s shirt case. Anyone who thinks these are isolated things that don’t merit such a massive response, is either mindbogglingly shortsighted or terribly dishonest.
“Four billion people say something stupid every day, which on any given day might include me, and it’s unjust for one stupid remark to generate such a storm of vituperation.” There is a grain of truth to this
Replacing “something stupid” with “something that affirms sexist stereotypes”, can you spell out that grain of truth? I’m not seeing it.
The one difference I have noted is that Matt Taylor made a proper apology, and the whole ruckus settled down quickly.
Tim Hunt should have learned from that. This will continue until a real apology is forthcoming.
Sorry, lazy citation habits there, trying again:
@cervantes (#8)
Replacing “something stupid” with “something that affirms sexist stereotypes”, can you spell out that grain of truth? I’m not seeing it.
The grain of truth is that lots of people say stupid things. I’m not saying there’s a grain of truth in what Hunt said. Can you read?
Senior male scientist makes sexist remarks and defenders spring up, obscure feminist blogger says ‘don’t do that” and the blogosphere erupts in rage against her.
No folks, we are not there yet, in fact, we don’t even seem to have started the voyage.
@7 Erlend Meyer,
Well said.
I add that with such a reaction to Dr. Hunt maybe, just maybe, some other prominent persons will take care to not be so loose with their tongues. There is little hope for the mind behind that tongue but at least the atmosphere would be clearer. The real benefit may be on the young turks coming into prominence seeing that such views are poison in this society and are to be left behind for the sake of their careers if not for the sake of their science. These types of episodes will also, hopefully, permeate the classroom changing the acculturation to be more open and enlightened. Still, there seems to be a long road ahead with more Dr. Hunts still to be suffered.
@Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls (#11)
I’m not sure “a real apology” would discontinue the negative publicity focused on Tim Hunt’s remarks. I certainly don’t think it should. A real apology is acknowledging “It was careless and thoughtless to play baseball in your front yard, and our fault that your window was broken.” The natural response: “Apology accepted. Now, who’s going to pay for the broken window? How will you ensure it doesn’t happen again.” Not “Apology accepted, here’s your ball back, have a nice day.”
@11 Nerd
Oh, for sure, my point was only about how i’m not buying the “this is a tiny thing that doesn’t merit such a massive response” bullshit whining.
cervantes @13
I’d like to cite this as an example of what I’d like to see less of under the upcoming rules change. This was in response to a request for clarification about what that ‘grain of truth’ was, which was not clarified. In the original post, there was merely a segue into supporting the idea that we shouldn’t let it slide. Nothing mentioning what that ‘grain of truth’ was ever explicitly stated, and whatever implication there was remained lodged in your cranium. It was not fair or charitable to assume that the miscommunication was solely due to the one questioning the statement.
I note that he is sorry for upsetting his hosts but not the women he insulted.
Joke?
Let me ask a semi-rhetorical question. Is it funny that women faced discrimination and opposition to going into science, particularly in the era when Hunt began his career? Is it amusing and delightful that his progress was made slightly easier at the start because smart women were prevented from competing with him?
His “joking” is nowhere near funny to me. The aggravating part to me is how self-centered he sounds (like maybe we should go back to how it was in the 60s) and how little he appears to have taken in and acknowledged what it’s like to be a woman in science.
@smhll #20: Right, if it was a joke, I’d like to hear him explain just what was supposed to make it funny.
I’d also like him to explain why his initial response to criticism was “no but I actually meant it.” It’s only afterward that he decided it was all a joke and why don’t the mean feminists have a sense of humor? It’s the typical sexist tactic, succinctly described by Sally Strange: “Schrodinger’s douchebag: A guy who says offensive things & decides whether he was joking based upon the reaction of people around him”.
He then pulled the usual conservative PR tactic of talking about how put-out he is and saying some of his best moms and wives are women. At least he’s followed that up with some more concrete apologizing, and apparently he’s resigned additional positions.
Sadly, while the message of Tim Hunt should be “think twice before saying something bigoted” (or at least “maybe don’t workshop your hacky sexist ‘jokes’ in public”), certain douchebags will (and already have) take up Tim Hunt as the latest martyr to the SJW hordes, which means they must shout their bigotry all the louder for one of their voices has been silenced!
At least he’s given us one gift: Next time a bigot claims that the outrage against him constitutes a witch hunt, we can say “no, no, it’s a Tim Hunt.”
telling MY view of the whole shebang [unintentional pun] is that Hunt’s “joke” was making fun of himself, that he had these terrible attitudes towards the women in his lab and was making fun of it.
When he saw the outraged responses by people who didn’t “get it”, he made a feeble notpology of saying what he thought was an apology, if the listener inferred the apology. EG. “sorry if you were offended” is to be inferred as “if you were offended, I’m sorry I offended you” with the IF part not really being conditional, just indicating he’s not assuming ‘you’ was offended.
The notpology exacerbated the outrage against him (deservedly), to which defenders of Hunt personally (with no awareness of the offense) brandish the outrage with as vehement an adjective as they can think of, such as ‘witch hunt’, ‘inquisition’, ‘lynch mob’, etc.
that’s my summary. If you are offended by it, yada yada :-)
I’m sorry if that summary was superfluous and presumptuous of you being uninformed, I’m sorry if you think so. ;-)
[just playacting at Hunt’s version]
Krog Marc @ 21
Riddle me this Krog Marc. How many times does it have to happen? How rampant do these jokes have to be? How much contempt do women have to endure before not letting it go becomes a reasonable response? At what point do we expect the Tim Hunts of the world to let go of their sexist ideas? Why is it always the marginalized who have to let things go so that the dominant groups can do and say whateverthefuck they want with no repercussions?
Krog Marc @ 23
Yep. Because when cis-het white dudes do something, patterns and trends just aren’t even a thing. It’s just one individual incident unrelated to any other. Move along, everyone! Nothing to see here!
@Krog Marc #21:
Right. When a prominent Nobel laureate gets up on a podium and says you don’t belong in the lab because your gender makes you weak, it’s up to you, person who is not a Nobel laureate, to politely explain why those comments are hurtful. Of course the Nobel laureate is just a relic from another time, who can’t possibly be expected to understand how society has changed over the past fifty years. I mean, it’s not like he’s a Nobel laureate or anything.
But yes, politeness is necessary when correcting bigotry, not when espousing it. Gotcha.
At least one influential person follows his ideas, being that Tim Hunt is an influential person. Given that his defenders include guys like Richard Dawkins and Brian Cox, it seems that several influential people either follow his ideas or think they’re just keen to be expressed at big public press events.
We’ll leave aside all the research into sexism in academia (and the lived experience of women scientists) that shows these ideas are, in fact, being practiced, and practiced widely.
That happened. When it did, Hunt said he “did mean the part about having trouble with girls” and “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.”
So he meant what he said, he was just being honest, and he’s apparently never had to attend a seminar on sexual harassment in the workplace.
Was he fired from anything that wasn’t honorary? I heard he’d resigned. I mean, a more callous person would say that if he can’t handle his emotions then maybe he shouldn’t be in a mixed-gender laboratory, but I’m sure there’s no one like that in academia.
How many weeks ago was it that an academic reviewer told female scientists that they should get a male coauthor if they wanted to be taken seriously?
Science is supposed to be about progress, right? About constantly innovating, re-evaluating and updating old ideas, building on what’s come before, right? So which way do you want to have it: Hunt is so old that he shouldn’t be expected to change (in which case, what could he possibly be contributing besides his status as a Nobel laureate), or Hunt still has important contributions to make to academia (in which case why shouldn’t he be expected to follow the same guidelines on interactions that any other professional person does)?
Krog Marc @ 21
What do you mean by “makking such a huge fuss out of it”? What is your definition of “huge fuss” and can you give any examples?
It wasn’t a “joke” no matter how much Hunt insists it is.
No. And he is plenty influental.
He was not forced to retire. He resigned from a non-paying position.
Well, thank you for giving women (and men) permission to respond to blatant, disgusting sexism. Too bad no one was asking for your permission.
@Krog Marc
“Point it out without making such a huge fuss out of it.”
Ah, so tone policing then, gotcha. People can protest but only if they do it quietly and respectfully. That usually works.
“What makes it a witch hunt is that Hunt was forced to retire for a single idiotic comment.”
um… he hasn’t been forced to retire. He resigned from an honorary professorship (a position for which he did no work and received no money) and from a Royal Society Awards Committee. He still has all the jobs he was actually being paid for.
I “love” this btw:
“You’re wasting time responding to sexist comments, but I’m totally using my time wisely by telling you to stop wasting time!” – Tom Foss.
I am mostly a lurker here and even *I* know that Tom Foss is a professional contrarian.
@Krog Marc:
Except that there have been a number of studies that show, as recently as the lag time for doing research allows, that sexist attitudes and behaviors are still operating in academia and still keeping women out of labs.
Moreover, he’s only 72. As a nobelist, he’s had a lot of prestige attached to labs. He’s trained folk who then have gone on to positions with hiring/firing authority. You think that he never expressed those attitudes to the men he trained? You think that the men he trained didn’t want to emulate him b/c, hey, famous! Success!??? You think that none of the men he trained are still under 65 years old?
What message would they get if Hunt’s attitudes were met with indifference?
KrogMarc:
This has been brought up in previous discussions about Hunt, but I’ll indulge again for a moment. I have no sympathy for the “old person” line of defense. I’m 57 years old, and while that isn’t serious old, it’s old enough that I have a very clear understanding of past attitudes and values, many of which have been discarded. Older people aren’t little repositories of outdated information – we are people who are living and learning every single day, just like everyone else. Personally, I think it’s reprehensible to depend on age to get away with saying terrible shit and to treat people badly.
As for what he said not being supported by anyone, oh, I am afraid that is very wrong. Right now, there’s an ongoing backlash against feminism, there are governments working very hard at removing the autonomy of women, there are those who insist that we’re all in post-feminist societies, and the same old misogyny is rearing up into the new sexism these days. Sexism is alive and well, and we are still swimming in it.
smhll
That was beautifully stated, thanks.
Krog Marc @21:
“Don’t make a huge fuss out of it”?
I don’t think that’s what happened. I think a lot of people read or heard of what Hunt said and criticized him for it. *That’s* all. He said something sexist and then doubled down on it by saying he meant what he said. For people who deal with everyday sexism, whether it’s microaggressions or more significant workplace sexism or sexual harassment, this is something serious. For people looking to expand women’s participation in STEM fields something like this is yet one more thing added to a long list of things that is a source of ongoing frustration.
The situation with Hunt is both an isolated example and part of ongoing problems of sexism. Yes, Hunt said something sexist. When you isolate it like that-through a particular lens- it can look like it was just something mildly annoying. A one-time occurrence. But when you pull back and look at how women are treated in STEM fields…when you look at how women are treated in the workplace…when you look at how women are treated in society…when you look at how girls are discouraged from a young age from participating in activities that might encourage them to pursue a career in STEM fields when they get older–it becomes noticeable that this “one-off” isn’t so isolated any longer. It’s interconnected. And that’s a major source of frustration for people. I think you’re viewing this through too narrow a lens and treating this as if it’s not a significant problem.
It reminds me of the people who think that there isn’t a problem with police brutality in USAmerica. Many of them look at isolated examples and say “oh this is just one cop” or “this is just one example”. They’re thinking too narrowly. When you pull back and look at the bigger picture, you can see that each of these one-offs fits into a bigger picture that paints a pattern of systemic abuse of USAmerican citizens-disproportionately People of Color-at the hands of law enforcement officers.
In trying to understand the frustrations felt by many people, it’s necessary to look at the full context, and you cannot treat specific examples as if they’re isolated.
Also, asking people to ignore his “gaffe” isn’t reasonable because as I said, this is not a one-off. If this were the first time that someone said something sexist…well the word sexist probably wouldn’t exist. We’d have to invent a term to describe his attitude. But we have a term to describe his behavior and that’s because it’s been a problem in societies across the globe for millenia. And the problem exists across a spectrum of sexist and misogynistic attitudes and actions, from sexist comments made by leading scientists to street harassment of women and girls to workplace sexual harassment to intimate partner violence to sexual assault and rape. Yes, the attitude that Hunt displayed is not the same thing as rape. I wouldn’t even begin to assert that. But his sexism does exist on a continuum (albeit on the other end of the continuum) of actions that are sexist and/or misogynistic. In addressing the problems of sexism and misogyny in society, all the issues-big and small-need to be addressed.
Responses like “this isn’t really a big deal, why are people reacting to this stupid joke/comment” ignore the experiences of women and girls all across the planet; experiences that demonstrate how pervasive and problematic sexism is. It does them no good to sweep this problem under the rug by declaring this a “not a big deal”. It’s also offensive to do so, bc the message you’re sending them is “this shit that angers/annoys you-it’s not a big deal. Stop feeling the way you do and get over it.” You’re dictating to other how they should feel and react. You’re denying these people the right to their own emotions. And that in itself is sexist.
Krog Marc
I think people have explained long and far that “stupid joke” is not an excuse for saying hurtful things that reinforce stereotypes. Also, Hunt himself says it wasn’t a joke.
First, ignoring sexism has not changed anything for the better ever. Second, nobody believes that anybody is going to create gender segregated labs in the UK any time soon. But it adds to a hostile climate for women in science. It tells them “you’re not welcome here”. If a prominent scientist says something like that and everybody keeps quiet it tells women that this is ok.
Whihc is exactly what happened.
It happened that very night, as reported by Deborah Blum. It happened afterwards. He doubled down and said that while he was sorry he said it, he still means it.
I’m sure there were some that crossed the line, but most were good fun lighthearted. Did you look at the #distractingly sexy hashtage?
This is not true. First, a witch hunt is something that still happens today to women who are thought to be different. They are often tortured and brutally murdered. Second, it was not his initial comment but his reaction to it.
This is simply not true, as pointed out above.
This is unnecessary hyperbole.
1. Age is not an excuse.
2. It is not true that his position is not supported by anyone. Look at the Mayor of London.
3. I cannot travel to him and have a face to face chat.
But society isn’t an unconnected assembly of individuals. Hunt’s ideas are the result of society and they form society in turn.
@Marilove, #30:
That wasn’t Tom Foss. That was Krog Marc in #21.
Moreover, Tom Foss is not a professional contrarian. He’s been contributing usefully, helpfully.
I think you’re thinking of Tom Weiss. His comments, such as this one seem much more of the tone you decry.
I don’t expect you to know all the commenters nyms and personalities or anything, but your initial attribution of Krog Marc’s ideas to Tom Foss was something that could have been prevented fairly easily. That would probably have prevented you from calling someone a professional contrarian who was actually in here helping.
So if I’m understanding correctly: Hunt can make insulting remarks about women over a megaphone for all the world to hear but any objections should be whispered to him, in private. Got it. Nope, no double standard to see here!
Tom Weiss, thank you! I was in the middle of something else and obviously I can’t read. I’m having a special day!
Thanks for the clarification.
Tom Weiss is still 100% wrong and seems to think that it’s totally okay for men to make sexist non-jokes because they happen to be older than some other people.
“Tom FOSS is still 100% wrong”… I’m on a roll today.
Krog Marc
actually Hunt still holds power over people`s careers at an university in Japan
Haha. Krog Marc. I”m copy and pasting all wrong today (Sorry, I have an interview today and I’m half distracted. Apologies. That was my blunder.)
But Krog Marc is still wrong and seems to think what Hunt said was no big deal and quite frankly, Krog Marc’s words are harmful bullshit. He wasn’t being helpful! He was incorrectly stating what had happened, to begin with. HUNT WAS NOT FIRED. And he seems to think there is a witch hunt against Hunt, and that Hunt’s sexist bullshit is no big deal.
It’s a huge deal.
And Krog Marc is wrong.
Yep. And apparently when Krog Marc states essentially this, Krog Marc is being “helpful”.
Apparently silencing those of us against blatant sexism is now “helpful”. Apparently holding up sexist behavior is “helpful”. Apparently lying about Hunt being fired (he wasn’t) is now “helpful”.
Yes.
I remain shocked at how little empathy many people have for women, and how woefully unaware they seem be about the continued challenges faced by women in the workplace generally, and in the sciences and technology professions particularly.
How about this — imagine that Dr. Hunt had made the following “joke”:
“You can’t really have blacks in the lab. I mean, the grease from their fried chicken gets all over the instruments, their hot jungle sex-vibes disrupt the cool, logical air of the lab, and they use Ebonics rather than proper scientific language, so there’s no way to improve their performance by critiquing them.”
Pretty fucking offensive, isn’t it? And what Dr. Hunt said about women carries the SAME DEGREE OF OFFENSE. (Pardon the shouting.) At least to my mind. Hunt deserves every bit of the shellacking he’s getting.
Erlend @ #7
As a senior, I expect other seniors to be as with it and as much a voice for change and improvement as anyone else, as long as they are healthy and coherent. If anything, older people…particularly those in positions like Hunt’s…have a responsibility to take a leading role in social change. They are exactly in the right position to support and encourage diversity in their professions for the very reason that they are respected elders in their arena. You don’t get a free pass to be a fogey because you’re old anymore. That’s some outdated drivel itself.
And from my vantage point, I hear plenty of non-seniors spouting outdated drivel…religious, chauvinistic, historical, whatever.
I am 58 years old, and I don’t accept age as an excuse for anything.
I have no problem with what happened at all. There is no way in jell that anyone or any organization is going to force a change in the reaction of the public or any group or organization not with a uncontrolled internet where anyone can say anything any time.
Was he really forced to retire from all of his work? Go off in ignominy for no reason?
No one forced him to say what he said, he said what he said of his own free will and he did not like the result? It looks like he made the choice to crap on the rug in full view of everyone and a fair number of people let out boos and anyone is surprised at that or thinks it should be different is just amazing .
uncle frogy
I’m 60 years old and the only thing for which I use age as an excuse is the condition of my feet, ankles, knees, hips, back and shoulders.
I am still capable of learning and changing my mind.
Krog Marc @49:
He wasn’t *forced* to resign from any positionS. He chose to resign from an honorary position.
I feel like you didn’t even read my comment, bc you’re still dismissing the impact of sexism on people who are not you. You appear to be ignoring that the spectrum of sexism of misogyny that exists has a very real impact on women and girls around the globe. Why *shouldn’t* people try to change attitudes and perceptions about women and girls? Why should people just “deal with it”? The goal many people have is for women and girls to be treated equally in all spheres. In working towards that goal, it is necessary to explain to people why the things they say are sexist and/or misogynistic. And it’s also necessary to call people out when they say harmful things. How else is the world to become a better place? You have reiterated that this isn’t a big deal-but again, you don’t appear to be looking at the bigger picture and seeing how this “minor thing” fits into a larger pattern of systemic sexism that affects women and girls globally.
I find myself wondering what other stuff you casually dismiss bc you think it is minor. And I wonder if you’re aware of how privileged you are to be able to do so.
I love the call to ‘explain to him politely where he was wrong’, because hey, stop yelling so loud, ladeez, you’re ruining the science.
And seriously, it is for these ‘witch hunts’ and ‘lynchings’ that I’ve learned to love twitter – that is how you gauge the actual reaction of a rather larger part of the population. Used to be someone writes an article about [topic], it appears in the newspaper – a lot of people read it, have reactions, one or two write a letter (more, if it’s a seriously aggravating topic), and that’s that. Nowadays, an article goes up (or a speech is said), and you can actually see people’s reactions immediately, a lot of them (not just those who bother writing in) which would be previously invisible, esp. to those doing the writing (or talking).
I think it’s a great medium for exactly what it does, provide insight into the reactions of thousands of people whose reactions otherwise would slide right under the radar.
Tim Hunt said some silly things, and he discovered what people actually think about them, instead of getting mild media treatment and a few comments and/or letters. Go, Public!
(No, this doesn’t imply that twitter is always right, but it’s certainly a great social thermometer, even when people are wrong on twitter.)
I note that he is sorry for upsetting his hosts but not the women he insulted.
This^^
Krog Marc
I fail to make the connection from this to “just ignoring it” as a result. The idea that Nobel laureates’ voicec carry more authority and meaning is something that is shared by the general public. That’s why they can pull their weight, for the better or the worse. Their words have more effect on culture than those of your general nobody on Twitter. That’s why their words matter. It also means that yes, they are held to a high standard, as they should be.
rq @51:
Great insight. Perhaps that’s one reasons some people (like Krog Marc) think criticism is extreme or unwarranted. Maybe they’re accustomed to not so many voices speaking up. Fortunately, these days, people can speak up and they can do so immediately after something occurs that annoys and/or pisses them off. The calls for “staying silent” or “not being so critical” are a callback to an era where marginalized people lacked a voice. Where they could, they were speaking in whispers and today, they get a megaphone too.
I absolutely do not have a problem with that, and I applaud it. Platforms shouldn’t just belong to the privileged.
Then there is no need to defend or excuse the sexist comments. Red herring.
Yes, telling half the population they don’t belong in laboratories is a MAJOR problem. And deserves a MAJOR response. Which is what happened. Sounds good to me.In Hunt’s case was it really necessary to force him to resign from his posts? What did it accomplish?It showed that institutional integrity and goal required them to separate themselves from a person with problems with women in the laboratory. A perfectly fine, well-honed response showing half the population that they are welcome, and their concerns are taken seriously by this university. As any institution should do.
Only by someone intending to maintain the present inhospitable attitudes toward women in science. From those who want to see the old chauvinistic attitudes die a natural death they deserve, the response with time, accurate, and appropriate.
So, do you believe women are your equal in every way, and should have their concerns articulated and acted upon, or do you believe they should just shut up and take the sexist abuse in silence?
Gack, borked the blockquote in my second paragraph in #55. This should have been blockquoted:
*preview is not working at work*
Krog Marc @ 57
And hey, if you don’t have access to a blog or forum, TFB!
Krog Marc
Well, all a response really needs was ‘What a horribly sexist thing to say!’ and that gets a lot of people’s reactions across. No wit, nuance, complexity or elaboration required. (And yes, I’m talking about reactions, not deep-thought thinky-pieces or conversations, reactions that previously have been unheard or silenced.)
Tony
Yes, I think that’s it exactly, the depth of reaction hasn’t been previously understood, and now that it is more public (or publicly shared), people are surprised – like how men find out about ‘women’s networks’ at cons, that explain who to stay away from. I mean, you never heard about it before, it wasn’t a thing, right? I think twitter has opened up something very, very similar: “It wasn’t ever an issue before, why are you being so loud about it?”, omitting the fact that just so many more people have publicly-available voices now.
Krog Marc
Like I said, twitter can be wrong. And no one’s calling for unconditional acceptance of every single majority opinion. But if you have several thousand people (mostly women?) saying ‘Hey, that’s sexist!’, maybe you should listen up instead of dismissing it. (Perhaps evaluating if the cry is coming from the oppressed or the oppressor (to use a shorthand) might help – because a majority of religious people saying NO ATHEISTS is definitely a different power differential than a great many women’s voice saying THAT’S SEXIST.)
Krog Marc @ 58
So are many, many women and men objecting to sexist “jokes” incorrect?
And? They have that right. And those to whom they’re speaking have the right to use their own judgment regarding whether to act on those demands.
Krog Marc
I see no evidence your voice is the correct voice, and much evidence in your own words that you are an incorrect voice. Like your Red Herring statement I quoted.
This is apparently a question for Dawkins.
Krog Marc @58:
This to me, reads as an insinuation that the feelings of people who are offended at sexism are wrong. Why are you doing this? Why are you dismissing the viewpoints of people who are not you? It reads like you think your perspective is better than theirs.
You know what, screw this. I can’t be polite on this any longer. I find myself getting pissed off at the stuff you’re saying, and I’m trying to help create that welcoming environment to people, so I’m out of this conversation.
I suspected as much, but leaned over backwards to be charitable.
Krog Marc is the slymepitter who was banned here under the name “kirbmarc”. Fucking sleazy assholes — they will not be permitted back here, and their comments will be deleted.
Why is there tension here? Because we are constantly being invaded by dishonest people who cannot argue in good faith.
Fuck. That explains much. I even thought it might be possible too, given the initials.
Shorter Krog Marc: it doesn’t affect me directly in any significant way so i don’t understand why any of you would care about this.
It’s ok if you don’t particularly care that a Nobel Prize made such terrible comments, or that he is has been in a position of power over others, while holding such views, although it seriously puts into question your ability to emphathize. However, if you are going to chastise others for feeling like this is not a trivial thing or for speaking up about something that impacts their lives in a way much more significant than it does yours, you should at least have a solid argument for it. And you don’t…your “argument” is just apathy…
Others have already commented on it, but just to make sure the point is clear, he wasn’t forced to resign, he chose to resign. Yes, there was pressure for him to do so, but that’s not the same as being forced. Characterising it as “being forced” gives the false impression that he is innocent and has been unjustly critisized, the people critisizing him being at fault, when in reality, it has been well deserved and the pressure he has received that has led to him resigning is exactly what you should expect to happen for someone in his position making the comments he made.
What you are calling for is literally no response…no pressure, no actual consequences for making such terrible comments. That’s not reasonable.
Perhaps sometimes in the future, we can make racist or sexist or ablist jokes… stereotypes are funny. If everybody sees them as that, and everybody can laught about it as that… they can be good jokes.
But right now, for so many people, these aren’t jokes. These are situations that are real to them – situations that lead to them suffering. These jokes are not funny… because they are true – true and horrid for those ridiculed, and to often true and horrbible in those who “joke”.
I’d love to think that someone as intelligent as a nobel laureate would recognize that… but obviously I would be wrong.
I want my million dollars.
Cause when you deleted the comments, that was who I thought it probably was.
Getting close to 60 (ZOMFG!) here. When I was in my 20s my feminists inspirations were 20 or 30 years older than me. So no, as PZ said and I agree, “…I don’t accept age as an excuse for anything.”
PZ @ 66:
It sure as hell makes things difficult. I’m still proud of how people conducted themselves in replying though, there’s good stuff here for others who stop by to read.
backupbob
I’d like to hear more about the ‘internet outrage machine’, because it sounds like you don’t approve of outrage (or of outrage in a specific case, maybe), and I’d also like to hear more about this pressure to those associated with the person involved to denounce and dissociate.
I’d like to hear more about this disproportionate harm caused to the personal life and/or career of people making ill-advised public comments.
Unfortunately, I cannot watch the video at my current location, so something in text format would be better, please.
I’m still waiting to see how Tim Hunt’s career has been trashed, and not just mildly impacted. And if truly trashed, by anybody but himself. After all, he did make the questionable statements, and two nopologies cleared nothing up.
Insofar as Hunt lost a job, he lost an opportunity to promote science, and he did so because he made a stupid statement that insulted the actual audience to which he was speaking.
It would have been equally dumb and offensive had he made it to a male-only or mixed audience, but he was clueless as well as bigoted. I say this from the wisdom of my vast age (closer to Hunt than to PZ) which I mention mostly because it’s so ridiculous to mention. However, it justifies my saying: I well remember feminism being discussed back in the 1960s, it was in all the papers and everything, not long after MLK’s Nobel and shortly before (and after) Stonewall. You couldn’t miss it. But you could, of course, ignore all of them.
Regarding the whole “it was a joke” thing:
Even if he was joking, we’re sick to the teeth of these jokes. I spend a lot of time on Twitch TV and, every time someone makes it known they’re female, the chat fills up with “Wuuuuut?! There are no grills on the internet!” Everyone understands that they don’t actually believe this is true. They may even think they’re showing a sort of camaraderie because they imagine it (wrongly) to be self-evidently ludicrous. But jesus fuck, we’re sick of hearing it. It’s never actually been anywhere near true and, to the extent that it seems true, these idiotic jokes are a large part of why. Women on Twitch often avoid saying anything at all that could give away their gender because, the minute you do, to a large extent, you’re not part of that community anymore. You’re the resident “grill”. You’re the butt of the sexist joke. You’re the target of inappropriately sexual comments. You already felt like you weren’t really part of the community because you felt like you often couldn’t share personal experiences because it would give away your gender, but once it’s out, there’s no going back.
TL;DR, I don’t actually care if it was a joke. I don’t care if Tim Hunt’s mistake was actually that he assumed these attitudes to be self-evidently absurd and that he thought he was laughing with his audience as opposed to at them. It doesn’t matter.
PZ’s OP made a good analogy. We expect Saudis who come to the west from the land of Burquas to learn to deal with seeing women mix with men while wearing sleeveless clothes, or short pants. Seeing women exposed is not supposed to make men think of sexual assault, and generally that works. We expect rightly that the man from the limited background will educate himself and learn to work with the policy of social openness that the more modernized society has developed.
If Tim Hunt or a slymepit person goes to a beach in Europe, and sees women topless, we expect them to remain dignified and not freak out. We don’t expect them to demand burqas for everyone, or segregated beaches. The same with research labs.
Tim Hunt and the slyme types have been doing the equivalent of demanding Saudi standards at all beaches.
After putting it this way, it seems to me that they just like to argue; they don’t really care about being consistent.
Salient to the discussion, which I haven’t seen mentioned earlier, is this updated statement from the UCL over Hunt’s resignation:
Source: http://www.ucl.ac.uk/news/news-articles/0615/100615-tim-hunt
I deduce that the slymepitter feels that Tim Hunt was not given sufficient time and space to explain himself. No?
For the record, then …
* the man was given an opportunity to apologise almost immediately: the response was full of ifs and buts and also confirmed that he still meant every word, just maybe if you’re too sensitive then he said it in the wrong place
* he was interviewed on BBC Radio4 Today next morning and completely ballsed that one up too
* somebody – must have been a senior person – at UCL tried to set up a meeting with him to discuss his remarks and, for all we know, damage limitation: rather than attend such a meeting he resigned
* on Sunday he seems to have been given half the square footage in The Observer where both he and Professor Collins went into “poor me, it’s not fair, boo-boo” mode and splattered the nation’s breakfast tables with emotional drivel
* the post at the Royal Society was one concerned with outreach and making STEM accessible to the widest range of people, the one with European Research Council with overseeing the FAIR allocation of grant money: I am less certain of the precise mechanism in either case
* the man has lost no money, no research opportunities but maybe the odd free lunch
I know that most of this is known to those remaining above. Just wanted to see it all in one place!
NB: At 73 I’m older than Tim Hunt. My legs don’t work so well but my brain still does and I’m still learning. I would be mightily offended if someone said of me, “Don’t challenge her. She’s too old to understand.”
backupbob
Thanks for clarifying.
Though I would be wary of using the word ‘outrage’ so… easily, I suppose. It almost sounds like you’re dismissive, when you’re clearly not (just a note).
Still wondering about specific examples where the disproportionate response (in and of itself, rather than justified consequences for saying something unpleasant) resulted in the ruination of someone’s career. I’m mostly thinking of times when white men have said something rather thoughtlessly harmful (several come to mind), and while many were publicly (twitterly?) chastized, none have actually suffered. Do you know of any examples where someone’s career was actually harmed by disproportionate and unjustified response for saying something accidentally stupid (but not necessarily harmful)?
rq at 83, I literally just came upon this in my Facebook feed: titled “How long can the internet run on hate?”, it looks at the reddit subreddit fathate that was shut down, and the hate that went on there, and then goes on to, who I presume to be Adria Richards, with the following quote from a book:
Now according to me, that is revisionist history in the making, because in the first place, that wasn’t what the joke was about, it was something about dongles IIRC, and the guy who was fired got fired because it wasn’t the first complaint about his behaviour, IIRC again, but there it is, repeated as true that Twitter Lynch Mob 4 Grate Justice got “Hank” (who has a family to care for!) fired unjustly.
@ #56 Nerd
Do you know why? My preview quit working about two weeks ago, and I can’t figure out how to get it back.
Sorry, and then I completely forgot to insert the link. Here you go:
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/06/14/how-long-can-the-internet-run-on-hate.html
I wonder if any of the people who roll out the are prepared to state the point at which ceased. When was the magic date, which meant that no men born from then on would be allowed to make publically and unapologetically awful sexist ‘jokes’.
To the nearest year, maybe.
@marilove #38-41:
When Tom Weiss was around, even I kept doing double-takes in the thread.
Having read the OP and all the comments to @85, two thoughts occurred to me:
1. I’m 67. My body constantly reminds me that I’m not 23 any more but my mind is still working pretty well. Until a few years ago I indulged in the casual sexism, racism and other assorted bigotry that I grew up with. Then due to various influences, Pharyngula not the least, I recognized that I wasn’t anything like as nice as I thought I was. I’m trying to shed these various prejudices and biases and treat people as humans. So anyone who says that Hunt is too old to know better is talking out of their asses. If I can do it then Hunt can as well.
2. Hunt forgot one important thing about jokes. They’re supposed to be funny. His jokes failed to achieve this attribute. As as been noted before, “it was a joke” is what a bully says when they get caught.
1950.
It’s a nice round number, makes some kind of intuitive sense, and, most important, it’s the year after I was born. Now I have to think of a funny sexist joke. Hmmm, difficult that. It’s the funny part that’s hard. As the Actress said to the Bishop. Does that count? (I got it from 1930s Saint stories.)
4004 BC or there about.
Tomh#85
Preview works at home (iMac, latest Firefox), but not at work (Windoze XP, IE whatever IT approves of). And sometimes at home it goes out. Not a clue as to why.
As it happens, I had a conversation with my dad about this yesterday. He’s an English-born retired American university professor… and the one thing that seemed to bother him about the whole affair, the thing he would “have people do differently”, is the “firing” from the honorary professorship. (He noted that he too has an honorary professorship, with the implication that this makes him worry about what might happen to him were he to say something similarly “un-PC” at the wrong time, and how unfair that is (to tenured honorary professors everywhere, I guess). Not that it would affect his income in any way; I think he was more concerned about how it would affect his academic-social connections.)
And… although my head is screaming “omg the privilege”, I don’t know how to answer him in objective terms. I already pointed out that the “job” associated with the position was basically one of “representing the college” publicly, and that it was therefore more or less at the college’s whim… but that didn’t seem to make any difference. He remained appalled by the whole thing, although I don’t think he used the phrase “witch-hunt”.
I don’t know how to get past that…. but then, this is a common pattern in our political discussions in general — which makes me wonder if it’s a common pattern among denialists in general (he also has a moderate case of global warming denialism).
Woozle
Tenured Honorary Professorships? *snicker*
Honorary professorships are a symbiotic relationship, revokable by either party. The university gets to mention the connection in their publicity, and the person honored can mention it in their publications and publicity handouts.
Hunt’s statement made the University of London re-evaluate their relationship because UL prides itself on being ahead of the curve when it comes to supporting women faculty and students. Demanding the resignation meant that they weren’t sending mixed signals to half the population. But I bet you Dad doesn’t understand that, since he is probably used to casual institutional sexism which nobody speaks about.
The women scientists in South Korea don`t have it easy. The society is very patriarchal. Instead of supporting the Korean female scientists, he just blurted some cheap sexist stuff. Those women have to fight sexism every single day, didn`t he know that ????
@ #93 Nerd
“Not a clue as to why.”
Thanks, neither do I.
robro @92: You may have a point there. Is that when evolution started?
I am distressed at this news: Tim HUnt has resigned from University College London over his comments about women in science.
I disagree with Hunt passionately, and he is completely wrong in his opinions about women in science and who knows what else…but he has the right to say it, just as we have the right to disagree vehemently and volubly with him. This does the University College London no good: it’s a declaration that their employees and associates must be inoffensive, mealy-mouthed mumblers who never challenge (even stupidly).
Maybe that’s what they want — someone diplomatic, who’ll woo donors and visitors with soft words — and I can understand that desire. It’s a sign, though, that University College London will not be staffed by anyone willing to assert controversy, and that’s too bad.
I know, his personal opinions were repellent. But what concerns me is that future leaders of the institution will also not be able to be forceful and loud and aggressive, as Hunt has always been, in favor of causes I care about. You have to be able to tolerate the tenure of assholes in order to have the possibility of heroes.
eightdamnyearsago
I personally think the world would be better off with both of them gone, so I’m fine with this.
Also, yes, he has the right to say, stupid, sexist, discriminating stuff.
He does not have to right to say that stuff without any consequences. If your job, honorary or not, is to promote science then you can’t pulicly talk about how 51% of the population are unfit to work in your lab.
If your institution’s goal is to promote science and address discrimination and barriers to women in science, you can’t have a spokesperson who works against your goals.
@ 66
Lest anyone thinks PZ exaggerates, that is at least the fourth time the same person has been banned — this year:
One*
Two
Three
Four
* slymepit[dot]com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?p=264563&sid=fe886b4802c40084cfe0a478d9a4cac1#p264563
eightdamned yearsago @ 99
What about the people harmed by the attitudes Hunt and others like him express? Are they not allowed to challenge? Do they have to be “inoffensive, mealy-mouthed mumblers” so that Tim Hunt can be spared the effort of considering the effect his words have?
Also: I love the implication that not treating half the human population of the world with contempt makes one a “mealy-mouthed mumbler”.
eightdamnyearsago, Hunt didn’t have tenure. It was an honorary position. Which means it was basically a PR position, with no pay. They wanted his status to enhance their university’s reputation.
Gen
And borkquote again…
Oh great. Now the Hunt defenders are holding up this article as proof that sexism in science is over.
http://edition.cnn.com/2015/04/13/opinions/williams-ceci-women-in-science/
Call me gullible, but I believe that a newspaper’s “research” is not equivalent to the research published by peer-reviewed academic social scientists.
WRONG. They must not deliberately insult half the population. That is called harassment. Employees do not have freeze peach, much less free speech. They represent the university, who dictates the terms of their employment.
About that article, I see now that I read it wrong. The article severely overstates its case, and is at times flat-out wrong in its conclusions, but the research they quote seems to say that at the hiring phase, people are more likely to actually be willing to hire a woman in STEM fields. Of course, that ignores everything that leads up to a candidate actually reaching the appropriate graduate level, and everything afterwards, where sexism and harassment at work lead to women leaving STEM fields.
Whenever someone compares public outrage to a witch hunt, they’d do well to remember that witches aren’t real.
Witch hunts didn’t target people who were just ate babies from time to time, or who only turned into cats and crows in private, or who only got to third base with Satan. They targeted actually innocent people.
If the target actually is, or has done, what the outrage claims, a witch hunt is not a good analogy.
Just sayin’.
Nerd of Redhead: I should clarify that by “tenured honorary professor” I meant “a retired tenured professor who also has an honorary position at another university” — not “someone who has an honorary professorship with tenure”, ‘cuz (as you said) there ain’t no such.
Gee, ya think? ;-) I’d go beyond “used to” and say “comfortable with”…
eightdamned yearsago #99
No, it isn’t. It’s may be a sign that University College London may be less likely to be staffed by casual sexists who say sexist things and then double down on it when asked to apologize.
“My research shows that the currently accepted stance on this scientific issue is wildly inaccurate, and here is my evidence…” can be controversial.
“Women/black people/gays are incapable of good science” isn’t “controversy”, it’s sexism/racism/homophobia.
If someone can’t tell the difference and is less likely to “loudly” speak on possibly controversial scientific issues, that’s their problem. Or, if someone can’t speak “loudly” on scientific issues without also making offhandedly sexist comments… also, that’s their problem.
eightdamned yearsago #99
This is really interesting. You make it so non-specific with “must be inoffensive, mealy-mouthed mumblers who never challenge (even stupidly)” or ” willing to assert controversy.” When you put all “challenges” and “controversy” on the same level, you make it lose all meaning. Not all “controversy” or “challenges” are equal, you have to examine them.
Just for funzies, I’m going to use part of your quote but be a little more specific, so you can see what you’re really saying.
More specific eightdamned yearsago #99
That is too bad. But seriously… is the belief that women can’t do science, or are actually just distractions to the men doing the real work really “controversial”? That’s the kind of persistent belief still existing today that actually needs to be challenged.
Gen @107:
You can throw this back at the Hunt defenders-
Harvard Business Review study maps STEM sexism, shows how it affects women of color.
This one too-
‘Go fix your makeup, we’re working’, female science students told by their lecturers, sexism report finds.
Thanks Tony!. Found some other studies as well for them to chew on.
When someone fucks up, I would ask first ask for a formal, clear, no-weasel apology, to be published publicly for all to see and to remain on the internet forever, and which also includes a clear commitment to improve oneself on the issue, before I move to fire or start taking away privileges. I would like to think – hope maybe – that most people are decent, and if you explain the issues to them that they’ll shape up.
For repeat offenders, then that’s where you fire or start taking away privileges. For particularly gross or vile offenders, I can see firing or taking away privileges on the first go.
For a first offender who seems genuinely apologetic and committed to improvement, I do want to generate a shitstorm, but firing seems extreme IMHO. (Yes I know it was just an honorary position. I’m talking about the big picture – about general practice – which I believe is the intent of the question.)
Then again, I’m white male straight, and so I don’t fully comprehend the shit that others have to put up with, and so maybe I’m wrong.