Feminism - Distractingly Sexy Edition

[Arkhangel]

I don't think it serves to further feminism either; quite the opposite, I think it will be used to fuel a "political correctness gone mad", "hysterical women" discourse which does us no favours.

This guy is brilliant and likely slightly autistic.

The fact that people had crucify the poor guy I think to me just shows it hit a nerve.

Like if someone at my shop came in and said, "God damn it always stinks whenever you are in the room." I would just laugh it off because I know it's not true.

If I went berserk it would just show I was insecure and thought/knew they were right.

A beautifully timed case in point.

[Lyanna Stark]

He's also been forced to stand down from the European Research Council, for example, and it would be pretty naive to think that this hasn't sullied his professional reputation. Clearly what he said was wrong, clearly he needed to make a full and public apology (and his initial half-arsed non-apology was unacceptable), clearly he deserves a level of public disapprobation, but the reaction we've seen is disproportionate in my opinion. I don't think it serves to further feminism either; quite the opposite, I think it will be used to fuel a "political correctness gone mad", "hysterical women" discourse which does us no favours.

Imho, it doesn't matter if feminists try and seem like "not hysterical" or try to avoid "political correctness gone mad" since the people who think those things don't care about feminism anyway. Feminism doesn't have a PR or marketing issue, there are just shitloads of people who still don't think it's ok for women to be angry and pissed off (not feminine). As for "not doing us any favours", which people do you think will be convinced to become feminists if we let people like Tim Hunt stay on? How will it advocate for feminism?

[A wilding]

This guy is brilliant and likely slightly autistic.

The fact that people had crucify the poor guy I think to me just shows it hit a nerve.

Like if someone at my shop came in and said, "God damn it always stinks whenever you are in the room." I would just laugh it off because I know it's not true.

If I went berserk it would just show I was insecure and thought/knew they were right.

Sounds like this needs a separate thread.

But of course he "hit a nerve". He trotted out to a conference full of female scientists, most of whom will have experienced sexism in their careers, all of the unthinking prejudices of old white men that underlie that sexism.

But he might have got away with that, if he had stuck to the line that it was just a joke that horribly misfired. Instead he said in a subsequent interview, after he had had time to think, that he was sorry if he had upset anyone (a classic sexist gambit), but that he stood by his remarks because they were true! Which to my mind makes it perfectly acceptable for organisations to decide that they don't want him to be a senior advisor for them any more.

[Littlefingers In The Air]

I recall watching an episode of Cosmos: A Space Time Odyssey where Marie Tharp was showing her findings, regarding the ocean floor and continental drift, to Bruce Heezen. Heezen responded that it was "just girl talk". Whether that's a true depiction of what happened or not, and I suspect that it is, sexism by know it all men towards women in science has been there as long as we can imagine.

[Lyanna Stark]

EDIT: board breakage

And why on earth would women in science be insecure, eh? Perhaps because of so many old dudes telling them they are frail and incompetent over and over? Even if they don't believe it themselves, shit like this would definitely be reinforcing the idea that other people thought these things were true, which is gonna knock anyone's confidence in succeeding in their career. I had a physics teacher in school who was insistent that girls couldn't do science; don't try and tell me that hearing that shit from an authority figure is going to have zero impact on people's sense of insecurity.

Can we leave this macho posturing ("well I wouldn't care!") out of the conversation? Thx.

I completely agree. Had something similar happen to me and it's pure and utter bollocks that this does not affect you, doesn't matter and should not be condemned and called out.

Sounds like this needs a separate thread.

But of course he "hit a nerve". He trotted out to a conference full of female scientists, most of whom will have experienced sexism in their careers, all of the unthinking prejudices of old white men that underlie that sexism.

But he might have got away with that, if he had stuck to the line that it was just a joke that horribly misfired. Instead he said in a subsequent interview, after he had had time to think, that he was sorry if he had upset anyone (a classic sexist gambit), but that he stood by his remarks because they were true! Which to my mind makes it perfectly acceptable for organisations to decide that they don't want him to be a senior advisor for them any more.

Indeed. Can I just highlight this part?

[Arkhangel]

It won't, I'm not claiming that. Honestly, I just feel a bit sorry for the man because it seems as though he's become a scapegoat for a much more deeply rooted and systemic problem. Getting rid of Tim Hunt won't end sexism in science, and will fuel anti-feminist bullshit rhetoric. If pushing it beyond a full and public apology is not going to do any good, and I don't think it will, then why put a person through the wringer?

[protar]

I think the college was fully justified in firing him (I know he supposedly resigned, but that's how it always is). The main argument against his firing is that he's a talented scientist and his resignation takes away from the scientific community. But:

a.) It's not like he's banned from ever doing science again.

b.) He's 72. He's already contributed plenty I'm sure.

c.) In any job, worker productivity should have nothing to do with firing someone for poor conduct.

d.) Forget about how he's contributing to science for a second - how is he obstructing it? He's outright admitted that he can't work with female colleagues because he keeps "falling in love with them" (And yes he claims they keep falling in love with him, because the 72 year old man is totally the laboratory hunk.). He's clearly creating a poor work place and letting his sexism get in the way of work.

[Lyanna Stark]

It won't, I'm not claiming that. Honestly, I just feel a bit sorry for the man because it seems as though he's become a scapegoat for a much more deeply rooted and systemic problem. Getting rid of Tim Hunt won't end sexism in science, and will fuel anti-feminist bullshit rhetoric. If pushing it beyond a full and public apology is not going to do any good, and I don't think it will, then why put a person through the wringer?

Because there will be one less dude telling women they are not fit to work in science? One step at a time.

Further, it also brings attention to the issue and lots of women, MinDonner and myself included, recognise what it feels like to be the target of sexism by someone in a position of authority within a scholarly setting.

[Hayyoth]

Sounds like this needs a separate thread.

But of course he "hit a nerve". He trotted out to a conference full of female scientists, most of whom will have experienced sexism in their careers, all of the unthinking prejudices of old white men that underlie that sexism.

But he might have got away with that, if he had stuck to the line that it was just a joke that horribly misfired. Instead he said in a subsequent interview, after he had had time to think, that he was sorry if he had upset anyone (a classic sexist gambit), but that he stood by his remarks because they were true! Which to my mind makes it perfectly acceptable for organisations to decide that they don't want him to be a senior advisor for them any more.

What does him being a dick, or otherwise, have to do with him being a great research scientist? For example if I'm having my brain operated on and I have a choice between the really nice Dr. McEmpathy with the great bedside manner but whose hand shakes or the horrible anti social asshole whose hand doesn't shake, I know which one I'd chose. In other words why the fuck has this guy lost his job for being a jerk? He's a brilliant research scientist not a politician or community organizer. Some times I despair at the times we live in.

[MinDonner]

You act like this was some feminist conspiracy to get rid of Hunt, because he is the Sexist Boogeyman. And that is really not borne out by what happened. Yes, there was an outcry (and why wouldn't there have been?), and his non-pology was pathetic, and on the back of these events, some institutions decided to cut their ties with the guy. I don't recall the Feminist Militia demanding that he must be fired or else the terrible tweets would continue. What do you think our well-co-ordinated strategy should have been instead? And, um, how would you enforce that?

[Lyanna Stark]

What does him being a dick, or otherwise, have to do with him being a great research scientist? For example if I'm having my brain operated on and I have a choice between the really nice Dr. McEmpathy with the great bedside manner but whose hand shakes or the horrible anti social asshole whose hand doesn't shake, I know which one I'd chose. In other words why the fuck has this guy lost his job for being a jerk? He's a brilliant research scientist not a politician or community organizer. Some times I despair at the times we live in.

He was not "being a jerk", he was engaging in sexism and then claiming it was a truth that he cannot work with female colleagues because he keeps falling in love with them and they cry at work.

Replace "women" with "African American" or "jew" and perhaps you can see that this is not about "being a jerk" this is about systemic oppression.

EDIT: May I also remind all participants this is a thread to discuss feminist topics. If you come in here not "believing" in feminism or not interested in the least about discussing feminist issues, then please start your own thread for that. Repeated trolling will be reported.

[Deedles]

I'm not a scientist but if I were I would be metaphorically crucifying Sir Tim for being so utterly unprofessional. I think the institutions were entirely correct for withdrawing their wish to be associated with someone so foolish. If he were an insurance exec I would be making the case he should be sacked. The statement, and follow up showed a lack of awareness of what a professional should project.

If he'd said it in an entirely private sphere I'd lose respect for him on a personal level. By doing it in a public arena, it needed to be dealt with by the professional organisation he is associated with.

[Lyanna Stark]

Regarding women and anger, and our rights to be both angry and heard, which is a constant problem.

The Australian panel I linked in the starting post had that type of discussions as well somewhere in the middle, and one prevailing theme was that women are either silenced, not believed or when we speak up, we get threatened or told to be nicer, less hysterical or more neutral as being contrary is bad for business.

[Arkhangel]

Because there will be one less dude telling women they are not fit to work in science? One step at a time.

Further, it also brings attention to the issue and lots of women, MinDonner and myself included, recognise what it feels like to be the target of sexism by someone in a position of authority within a scholarly setting.

Yes, me included, and it sucks. As I've said repeatedly, what he said was wrong, outcry is warranted and he needs to make a full and public apology - however, I don't think this particular instance was egregious enough to warrant dismissing someone over.

You act like this was some feminist conspiracy to get rid of Hunt, because he is the Sexist Boogeyman. And that is really not borne out by what happened. Yes, there was an outcry (and why wouldn't there have been?), and his non-pology was pathetic, and on the back of these events, some institutions decided to cut their ties with the guy. I don't recall the Feminist Militia demanding that he must be fired or else the terrible tweets would continue. What do you think our well-co-ordinated strategy should have been instead? And, um, how would you enforce that?

Er... I'm not really sure where to start with that. I would hope that if there had been a feminist conspiracy I would have seen it in our regular Feminist Militia newsletter, because frankly it seems like a waste of effort to go after a mildly sexist biochemist when people like Richard Dawkins are still hanging around.

[A wilding]

What does him being a dick, or otherwise, have to do with him being a great research scientist? For example if I'm having my brain operated on and I have a choice between the really nice Dr. McEmpathy with the great bedside manner but whose hand shakes or the horrible anti social asshole whose hand doesn't shake, I know which one I'd chose.

However, he is no longer a research scientist as such. He is now in a honorary / advisory / management role where his prehistoric opinions are entirely relevant.

[karaddin]

It's cute when anti progressives try to appropriate social justice language and show they have no clue what they are talking about, like trying to claim there was any ageism going on there.

If a person is brilliant at a field of study, but their behaviour deters thousands of others who would vary from good to potentially as brilliant, it doesn't matter how good they are - they are hurting the field as a whole. The reason you can't see this is you don't believe it's possible that women could contribute anything of note to the field, so obviously there's no harm in deterring them.

[Elder Sister]

ES thanks, but I did have to stop at the 'rulers slapped against childrens bare legs'.

Your thoughts on the article sound cool, although I am not sure if its easy to define a correct modest attitude.

I think the point she was making is that many women's experience with organized religion, particularly evangelicals, is a demoralizing one.

You brought up his age, twice. But nice backtrack.

Well to me the overwhelming qualification for holding a job down in the STEM fields is to be good at science, tech, engineering and math. You can be the most politically correct, white knighting, feminist dude in the lab but if you can't do the job then you're useless. Unfortunately I think way too many people in the culture view being a scientist in a top research lab the same way as a professor teaching liberal artsl. You see the same being applied to the military with equally disastrous results.

I don't care how good I am at my job. If I use certain language or behave in a certain way, I will lose my job, and rightfully so. I find your argument about why those in science and the military being excused from the consequences of their behavior to be a bit disturbing. It's basically the same argument that is made for professional athletes and celebrities.

[Humble AK]

We are in a transitional period. Sexism, unfortunately, in science and in general cultural attitudes, has had such a gigantic presence for such a long time that in the process of changing cultural attitudes, it's not going to be smooth going. And of course, what exactly constitutes sexism can be a murky, subjective thing, and it is very hard to assume a stance with perfect parity.

This guy is in the public eye. Should he have reasonably anticipated this degree of furor about his comments? I imagine he knew he would get a reaction, but nowhere near this reaction. Still, his "apology" seemed to indicate this his principles, as he viewed them, were worth courting continued controversy, so that's on him. I wonder if he'll continue to hold strong?

Anyway, while I personally think that the response to his comments are little overboard - although I absolutely think there should be a response - I am pleased to see that sexismis less and less passing unchecked, and careless, demeaning remarks will be criticized.

It's a good trend to see.

[Kat]

[mod] The feminism threads have a history of being threads where posts that try to derail the topic into being all about the mens aren't welcome. It's stated in the OP. If you want to start a topic about the general qualities of what makes a good scientist or something else that is all about the mens, go ahead, but do it somewhere else in Gen Chat.[/mod]

ETA: If your post disappeared it's because you were either posting off-topic or just responding to something OT.

[Lany Freelove Cassandra]

Lyanna,

Paper books for the win!!

Lany,

Last weekend we were over at my Dad's giving our kids a chance to play in his pool. My Sister's boys were down too. Dad had bought new "pool noodles" two green, one blue, one pink. My daughter immediately rejected the pink noodle. My nephew chimed in saying, "Awesome, I love pink".

:)

That is pretty awesome. I hope the disassociating certain activities and even colors from gender continues.

Yay, I am so glad you liked the title! :D

That's really interesting and encouraging! I am already sort of worrying about having to have these sort of conversations with my son when he grows up. I just wonder if I can make him question things early on by reading stuff with him. He seems awfully interesting in letters, reading and books even though he's not yet three, but who the hell knows. I really think your approach is a good one though, even if it's hard to tackle.

(The dating rule seems so odd to me, as I remember kids as young as 11- 12 having boyfriends/girlfriends and the "play mate" stage sort of organically merged into more real relationships without parents really bothering much. But I live in a "loose" place. :P )

Indeed. There is a lot of double standards here. There's one thing to have a discussion on dress codes in various areas (work vs when you have time off, etc) and completely another one to claim girls/women should dress modestly or they had it coming.

Kids are interesting and get their own ideas, no matter how much you try to teach them (which can be a good thing, I guess :P)

@ the "dating" it is certainly a weird rule. her parents said "high school" which is in another year. they are 13 now. I allow my kids at this age to "day date" parents take you to an afternoon movie and maybe ice cream or something to eat afterwards and don't sit with you in either place. kind of loosely supervised (and since they can't drive, and we have little other than an ice cream place in town they can walk to, it's sort of necessary)

And really, other than hanging out like I described above, I doubt it would have amounted to anything more (at least wrt my son. There are some kids who experiment with sexual activities at that age, I guess)

This guy is brilliant and likely slightly autistic.

The fact that people had crucify the poor guy I think to me just shows it hit a nerve.

Like if someone at my shop came in and said, "God damn it always stinks whenever you are in the room." I would just laugh it off because I know it's not true.

If I went berserk it would just show I was insecure and thought/knew they were right.

It is easy to ignore something that has no effect on your career, but when it affects the careers of hundreds/thousands of people it should not be ignored.

When are men told they are not good enough, not smart enough for any scientific job (or really, any career field?) I am sensitive to this as I heard my whole life I couldn't do things because I was a girl. My father was the #1 person doing it. No one should ever tell someone they are not good enough because of their sex or race or other identifying feature.