5 ms·

I guess for me the thing that's really crappy about this quote is that it shows his underlying attitude - that women are basically always potential romantic par

I guess for me the thing that's really crappy about this quote is that it shows his underlying attitude - that women are basically always potential romantic partners. If he was into men, and he said he didn't want men in the lab because he might fall in love with them, you can sort of see how absurd it is, and how unpleasant it is to be the object of romantic fantasy when you're just trying to get on with your job.

rscho 5y ago
> women are basically always potential romantic partners Ok, why would that not be the case? Laws? PC? Age difference? Love/biology doesn't care about social rules, and this has been shown time and again in every possible situation you could think of. > you can sort of see how absurd it is Huh, no I can't. What makes it different when you reverse the situation?
- bumby 5y ago
  >Ok, why would that not be the case? Because of professionalism. The root of term used for “professions” like law, medicine, engineering etc. is that one professes to a code of ethics. That code should overrule base desires. We generally wouldn’t accept a doctor who views and treats patients primarily as an income stream despite greed being a near-universal human drive and we shouldn’t expect a professor to view subordinates as potential romantic partners. Acknowledging the drive exists isn’t a reason to condone it.
  - rscho 5y ago
    > Acknowledging the drive exists isn’t a reason to condone it. So, exactly what Hunt said in his speech.
    - bumby 5y ago
      Maybe you can help me understand the context better. From the GP post where he seems to advocate for separate male and female labs he seems to imply there isn’t enough professionalism present to have co-ed labs. I’m saying that claim is more an implication of the person saying it and their (lack of) professional ethics than an indictment of the subordinates. It’s very similar in my mind to the recent arguments about gender in military units
      - rscho 5y ago
        The context is that he in essence says that this problem has no good solution, but he thinks that the co-ed labs are the best alternative even with all the shortcomings that go with them. Everyone will be perfectly professional until someone falls in love and the PC solution crumbles to dust. And FWIW, I think he's right.
        QuinnWilton 5y ago
        Where do non-straight people fit into this "solution"?
        rscho 5y ago
        They don't. I fail to see how that's surprising given that straight people don't fit either.
        QuinnWilton 5y ago
        Plenty of us have absolutely no problem working in same-sex environments, and plenty of straight people have no issues working in coed environments. This is very clearly a case of the professor being unprofessional and exploitative of his position of power.
        rscho 5y ago
        Plenty and plenty, yes. Now, what's a solution that would work for everyone, males females and others alike? This is very clearly a professor acknowledging the problems that arise due to interindividual biology in work environments. Unlike PC supporters hiding the issue under the blanket of professionalism.
        __d 5y ago
        When you're, like 2 years old, and you want a toy in the sandpit, you grab it. And if some other kid has it, too bad for them, because you want it, and that's what's important. Somehow, most people manage to figure out that this kind of behavior isn't appropriate, and hide the issue under the blanket of being-a-decent-human-being. I don't understand how dealing with sexual or romantic feelings is any different.
- pasabagi 5y ago
  > Huh, no I can't. The point is, any human can be a romantic partner to any other. Therefore, his argument should be that no pair of humans should work together ever for risk of romantic entanglements. Except it doesn't work that way, because we're all really used to the idea that in the workplace, you treat your colleagues as colleagues, not as fantasy-future-partners. This isn't PC. It's just basic common sense, that he's lost his grip on, because he sees women first as romantic partners or sex objects or whatever, and second as scientists.

rscho 5y ago

> women are basically always potential romantic partners Ok, why would that not be the case? Laws? PC? Age difference? Love/biology doesn't care about social rules, and this has been shown time and again in every possible situation you could think of. > you can sort of see how absurd it is Huh, no I can't. What makes it different when you reverse the situation?

bumby 5y ago
>Ok, why would that not be the case? Because of professionalism. The root of term used for “professions” like law, medicine, engineering etc. is that one professes to a code of ethics. That code should overrule base desires. We generally wouldn’t accept a doctor who views and treats patients primarily as an income stream despite greed being a near-universal human drive and we shouldn’t expect a professor to view subordinates as potential romantic partners. Acknowledging the drive exists isn’t a reason to condone it.
- rscho 5y ago
  > Acknowledging the drive exists isn’t a reason to condone it. So, exactly what Hunt said in his speech.
  - bumby 5y ago
    Maybe you can help me understand the context better. From the GP post where he seems to advocate for separate male and female labs he seems to imply there isn’t enough professionalism present to have co-ed labs. I’m saying that claim is more an implication of the person saying it and their (lack of) professional ethics than an indictment of the subordinates. It’s very similar in my mind to the recent arguments about gender in military units
    - rscho 5y ago
      The context is that he in essence says that this problem has no good solution, but he thinks that the co-ed labs are the best alternative even with all the shortcomings that go with them. Everyone will be perfectly professional until someone falls in love and the PC solution crumbles to dust. And FWIW, I think he's right.
      - QuinnWilton 5y ago
        Where do non-straight people fit into this "solution"?
        rscho 5y ago
        They don't. I fail to see how that's surprising given that straight people don't fit either.
        QuinnWilton 5y ago
        Plenty of us have absolutely no problem working in same-sex environments, and plenty of straight people have no issues working in coed environments. This is very clearly a case of the professor being unprofessional and exploitative of his position of power.
        rscho 5y ago
        Plenty and plenty, yes. Now, what's a solution that would work for everyone, males females and others alike? This is very clearly a professor acknowledging the problems that arise due to interindividual biology in work environments. Unlike PC supporters hiding the issue under the blanket of professionalism.
        __d 5y ago
        When you're, like 2 years old, and you want a toy in the sandpit, you grab it. And if some other kid has it, too bad for them, because you want it, and that's what's important. Somehow, most people manage to figure out that this kind of behavior isn't appropriate, and hide the issue under the blanket of being-a-decent-human-being. I don't understand how dealing with sexual or romantic feelings is any different.
pasabagi 5y ago
> Huh, no I can't. The point is, any human can be a romantic partner to any other. Therefore, his argument should be that no pair of humans should work together ever for risk of romantic entanglements. Except it doesn't work that way, because we're all really used to the idea that in the workplace, you treat your colleagues as colleagues, not as fantasy-future-partners. This isn't PC. It's just basic common sense, that he's lost his grip on, because he sees women first as romantic partners or sex objects or whatever, and second as scientists.