WestCoastRunner Posted June 11, 2015 Report Share Posted June 11, 2015 You obviously don't know the context behind what or why he made those comments. I think it's you that doesn't understand the context. Re-read it and try to defend his statements. I'd be curious to hear your defence of the statements. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Freddy Posted June 11, 2015 Report Share Posted June 11, 2015 And you make being incoherent look so effortless. It's not to hard to go over your head. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kimmy Posted June 12, 2015 Report Share Posted June 12, 2015 There's nothing I can find which says he actually made any suggestion of changes in the current staffing of labs. From what he has said since he made the comment as a sort of light-hearted and ironic comment. And the guy is a nobel laureate, which puts him about several thousand shades more useful to the universe than an arrogant scumbwad rapper. He doubled down on the remarks. He might have been trying to be amusing and jovial, but he reiterated his belief that you can't criticize women in the lab because they'll burst into tears, that women in the lab cause "emotional entanglements", and that as a result it "diminishes the science." And I can't imagine why you of all people would be defending a point of view like that, considering how much it sounds like our Muslim friends who insist that if women don't wear tents it'll disrupt men and cause them to act badly. As for why this should be a concern: As for Hunt's desire to not to have women in his lab, the now-former honorary professor may not be so different from other Nobel laureates. Although women are fairly close-to-equally represented with men among postdocs and graduate students in 2,000 top-tier biology labs in the United States, women are often shut out of the most prestigious labs headed by men, according to a 2014 study in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. In fact, male Nobel laureates had just one female postdoc for every three males in their labs, and two male graduate students for every one woman in their labs, the study found. By contrast, labs run by women at the top of their fields, who had won prestigious awards such as the Nobel Prize or the National Medal of Science, showed equal numbers of men and women, said study co-author Jason Sheltzer, a biology doctoral candidate at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. This trend can be problematic not only because of the current imbalance, but also for what it may mean for the future. For example, the most prestigious spots in a Nobel winner's lab are seen as feeder teams for other top jobs, Sheltzer said. Nobel winners, who sit on many influential committees, may also have an outside say in hiring and research-funding decisions, he speculated. It's a self-perpetuating cycle. -k Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bonam Posted June 12, 2015 Report Share Posted June 12, 2015 And I can't imagine why you of all people would be defending a point of view like that, considering how much it sounds like our Muslim friends who insist that if women don't wear tents it'll disrupt men and cause them to act badly. I don't think anyone is so much defending it, as just not getting quite as outraged by it as some others would like. The same people that defend Muslim's rights to have and exercise their wildly sexist beliefs are also the first people to condemn this guy. And that hypocrisy seems more relevant to criticize. A crusty old scientist having an outdated view? Ye ah, whatever. The entire progressive establishment completely ignoring this same view in a rapidly growing demographic? More worrying. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kimmy Posted June 12, 2015 Report Share Posted June 12, 2015 I don't know who these alleged progressive burqa enthusiasts you guys keep mentioning are. I never hear from them. I do know that a whole bunch of people in this thread got distracted by the question of whether women cry more than men or not, and got distracted from the real issue-- a Nobel prize winner, presumably a guy who has or had his own lab and his own grad students-- saying that the cause of science would be better off if women would go find their own labs and let the men get their work done. -k Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted June 12, 2015 Report Share Posted June 12, 2015 Why not ? Whatever happened to "Girl Power" ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kimmy Posted June 12, 2015 Report Share Posted June 12, 2015 Re-read post #53, bc. -k Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hal 9000 Posted June 12, 2015 Report Share Posted June 12, 2015 I don't know who these alleged progressive burqa enthusiasts you guys keep mentioning are. I never hear from them. I do know that a whole bunch of people in this thread got distracted by the question of whether women cry more than men or not, and got distracted from the real issue-- a Nobel prize winner, presumably a guy who has or had his own lab and his own grad students-- saying that the cause of science would be better off if women would go find their own labs and let the men get their work done. -k He was clearly making a comment on his own relationship with his wife - also a scientist and co-worker. It was actually a self-deprecating joke. He did state that science needs to have total impartiality and that's hard to do when relationships get in the way. That's all, it was no big deal! He's resigned anyway, so...another win for censorship. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bryan Posted June 12, 2015 Report Share Posted June 12, 2015 He doubled down on the remarks. He might have been trying to be amusing and jovial, but he reiterated his belief that you can't criticize women in the lab because they'll burst into tears, that women in the lab cause "emotional entanglements", and that as a result it "diminishes the science." He gave a good explanation of what he said and why he said it. He's speaking from personal experience. It might not be nice, and it certainly wasn't a smart idea to express the thoughts to a bunch of reporters, but he definitely is right about what he said. It IS an issue that really does happen, and it's stupid to pretend that it doesn't. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted June 12, 2015 Report Share Posted June 12, 2015 In other industries, this guy is a manager saying that women make crap employees. In ANY industry his ass would be out the door and on the street for these kinds of remarks about what are essentially his employees. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Black Dog Posted June 12, 2015 Report Share Posted June 12, 2015 He was clearly making a comment on his own relationship with his wife - also a scientist and co-worker. It was actually a self-deprecating joke. He did state that science needs to have total impartiality and that's hard to do when relationships get in the way. That's all, it was no big deal! He's resigned anyway, so...another win for censorship. I don't think you understand what censorship means. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted June 12, 2015 Report Share Posted June 12, 2015 I don't think you understand what censorship means.I don't think he understands what free speech means. Apparently he thinks it means speech that free from public criticism, as opposed to dissenting speech that's free from incarceration. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted June 12, 2015 Report Share Posted June 12, 2015 He doubled down on the remarks. He might have been trying to be amusing and jovial, but he reiterated his belief that you can't criticize women in the lab because they'll burst into tears, that women in the lab cause "emotional entanglements", and that as a result it "diminishes the science." So? He's an old guy. What do you expect? As for what he said, well, that women in a workplace cause 'emotional entanglements' is indisputable. Do all women cry when being criticized? No. I imagine he's had that experience, though. I know I have. Maybe I'm just looking at it as him making a somewhat truthful statement. Even if I don't have the same response to it as he does. And I can't imagine why you of all people would be defending a point of view like that, considering how much it sounds like our Muslim friends who insist that if women don't wear tents it'll disrupt men and cause them to act badly. I wasn't defending a point of view. I was pointing out that what he said was essentially just speaking the truth from his point of view. I like working with women, personally. I don't find the added emotions to be a problem. Do I think women shouldn't be in the lab? No. Do I think 'emotional entanglements' diminish science? From what I've seen every workplace is fraught with things which diminish productivity, chief among them being people not working together because of various likes, dislikes and rivalries. which, come to think of it, could be described as 'emotional entanglements'. I don't think romance is usually one of the greater problems - though I've seen it happen and it can be disastrous, especially when it involves the boss. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Guy Posted June 12, 2015 Report Share Posted June 12, 2015 There are accepted female traits and accepted male traits. The female is considered more sensitive, understanding, less prone to violence and more insightful. It is also accepted that females are more expected to show their emotions while males are expected to hide theirs. That is the way it always has been. These are perceptions for a large number of reasons. So what is the big deal? As to what traits are more an advantage at what occupation? I do not know. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted June 12, 2015 Report Share Posted June 12, 2015 So what is the big deal?The problem is when someone in a management position says female employees fall in love and cry a lot at work, so they don't make good employees. You don't see the problem with that? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted June 13, 2015 Report Share Posted June 13, 2015 (edited) Or the more important comment that they're a distraction to men, so co-ed labs can't get any work done. Kimmy is exactly right. It's the same kind of arguments put forward by people who murder women by throwing stones at them if they don't cover themselves head to toe in a sheet. Edited June 13, 2015 by cybercoma Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Canada_First Posted June 13, 2015 Report Share Posted June 13, 2015 The problem is when someone in a management position says female employees fall in love and cry a lot at work, so they don't make good employees. You don't see the problem with that? Is it true? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hal 9000 Posted June 13, 2015 Report Share Posted June 13, 2015 Or the more important comment that they're a distraction to men, so co-ed labs can't get any work done. Kimmy is exactly right. It's the same kind of arguments put forward by people who murder women by throwing stones at them if they don't cover themselves head to toe in a sheet. This dude has been in labs for what 70 years and it's his opinion that emotions in the lab compromises the science. But, you didn't catch any of that. Ever think of asking him to explain his thoughts? No, you don't care. The dynamics of a men only and co-ed crew is drastic. BTW - Do you have any idea how offensive it is to compare this incident to the stoning of women or black slavery - as Kimmey did. For heavens sakes, have some perspective. You women will cheer on sick fucks like sharon osbourne and the rest of "the Talk" or "the view" as they laugh uncontrollably about a guy getting his dick chopped off, but god forbid a nobel prize scientist states that women are too emotional in the lab. Where's osbourne's resignation? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kimmy Posted June 13, 2015 Report Share Posted June 13, 2015 BTW - Do you have any idea how offensive it is to compare this incident to the stoning of women or black slavery - as Kimmey did. For heavens sakes, have some perspective. I didn't compare it to black slavery, Einstein. I compared it to black segregation, because that's exactly what Sir Hunt was advocating: segregation. FFS. How dense do you have to be to miss something that obvious? -k Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hal 9000 Posted June 13, 2015 Report Share Posted June 13, 2015 I didn't compare it to black slavery, Einstein. I compared it to black segregation, because that's exactly what Sir Hunt was advocating: segregation. FFS. How dense do you have to be to miss something that obvious? -k My bad! I imagine that blacks would still be somewhat offended by the comparison. It does show a certain amount of ignorance on your part. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kimmy Posted June 13, 2015 Report Share Posted June 13, 2015 My bad! I imagine that blacks would still be somewhat offended by the comparison. It does show a certain amount of ignorance on your part. Comparing segregation to other segregation is ignorant? How so? Personally, I think it shows a certain amount of ignorance on Sir Hunt's part. -k Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hal 9000 Posted June 13, 2015 Report Share Posted June 13, 2015 Should I compare myself to the blacks in southern USA back in the sixties every time I pass a women only gym? No, it's shameful and ignorant to even suggest that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted June 13, 2015 Report Share Posted June 13, 2015 It is interesting that such comparisons reach outside of Canada, which has numerous examples of racial "segregation" at home if that be the game. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hal 9000 Posted June 13, 2015 Report Share Posted June 13, 2015 It is interesting that such comparisons reach outside of Canada, which has numerous examples of racial "segregation" at home if that be the game. it is weird, but then again you did set a certain standard with that whole "slavery" thingy. So.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted June 13, 2015 Report Share Posted June 13, 2015 (edited) it is weird, but then again you did set a certain standard with that whole "slavery" thingy. So.... OK...but there was that slavery thingy in Canada as well. It's just interesting that many Canadians know so much about what happened in other countries when making such comparisons. Edited June 13, 2015 by bush_cheney2004 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.