8 ms·

Female scientists mock Nobel laureate with photos

12 points by SalGnt 11y ago

ntumlin 11y ago
I hope this isn't taken the wrong way, but I'm glad he's not taking it all back and saying he didn't mean it. Not that I support his position, but I do appreciate him not pretending that a bunch of people making fun of him on twitter suddenly changed his mind he's spent 72 years making up.
- dragonwriter 11y ago
  > I do appreciate him not pretending that a bunch of people making fun of him on twitter suddenly changed his mind he's spent 72 years making up. Well, I guess I appreciate him not pretending to have reconsidered after the public response, OTOH, I don't know why one would appreciate someone not actually reconsidering such a position. I fail to understand how, as often seems to be the case with issues like this, people respond with an attitude of "well, sure, he's got a horrible position, but at least he stubbornly refuses to reconsider it even when large numbers of people point out how horrible it is".
  - JoeAltmaier 11y ago
    He's British?
rewqfdsa 11y ago
How exactly is this effort supposed to demonstrate that Hunt is wrong?
- dragonwriter 11y ago
  You are confusing mockery with argument. This is not intended to demonstrate that Hunt is wrong; the audience at which it is directed doesn't need that demonstrated.
- Nadya 11y ago
  It's the opposite. They're proving him right. Most of the offense seems to be taken on his first statement: "Men fall in love with women." Twitter 3rd-wave Feminists twisted that into "too sexy for the men". You don't see any men going on Twitter complaining he called them irresistible and distractingly sexy (things he never actually said anyway). Where's all the offence taken that "Women fall in love with men" from the men? Them crying on Twitter about something he never said (and he said about both genders, not just females) kind of proves his 3rd point: they cry.
  - dragonwriter 11y ago
    > Most of the offense seems to be taken on his first statement: "Men fall in love with women." I think you are confusing the which element of the whole sexist set of statements is the main inspiration of the mockery directed at the whole set with which is the main focus of offense. Though, to be fair, both the "you fall in love with them" and the "they fall in love with you" statements are worthy of offense when both are offered as part of the explanation of his "trouble with girls...when they are in the lab". (Both presume that the "natural state" of a lab is to be full of men, so any complications that arise from a mixed-sex environment are a "problem with girls".) Of course, unless his "problem" is pedophilia, compounding that by referring to women as "girls" when discussing the "problem" he has with them in the lab compounds this further.
    - Nadya 11y ago
      Fully grown women also refer to their female coworkers largely as "girls". Guys do not refer to men as "boys". They don't use "men "either. They use "guys". Girls seem to dislike the feminine linguistic equivalent to "guys", which is "gals" seeing as they infrequently use it themselves to refer to themselves. However, they refer to themselves as girls quite frequently. I've been told several times in my life to stop using "gals" when referring to a female group because they disliked the word. Guys have "guys night out", they don't call it "mens night out". Girls have "girls night out". They don't call it "gals night out". For all intents and purposes - "girl" does not always refer to a young female; context is important. In Japanese おばあさん can refer to "aunt" or "middle-aged woman" and the context it is used in is important. Your aunt could really be a 6 year old girl. Why are you calling her a middle-aged woman? You aren't. You're calling her aunt. Similarly, for English, "girls" has become the equivalent of both "guys" and "boys" and depends on context in which it is used. Feel free to suggest an alternative to "gals" - but I'd consult with "the girls" first. They seem to have settled on "girls" themselves, but what do I know?
Nadya 11y ago
>“Three things happen when they are in the lab. … You fall in love with them, they fall in love with you and when you criticize them, they cry.” Nowhere did he say they were "distractingly sexy". He said men fall in love with women. That happens. He also said women fall in love with men. That also happens. If it didn't, the human population would be declining and not increasing. His only sexist statement is that they cry (with the caveat that you criticized them). It's very ironic they are crying on Twitter - no less about something he never actually said.
- dragonwriter 11y ago
  > Nowhere did he say they were "distractingly sexy". He said men fall in love with women. That happens. He also said women fall in love with men. Also, men fall in love with men, and women fall in love with women. > It's very ironic they are crying on Twitter Uh, "mocking" is very different from "crying".
  - Nadya 11y ago
    >men fall in love with men, and women fall in love with women. He didn't say that. >Uh, "mocking" is very different from "crying". With the above correction you've shown your political standing. Of course you see it as mockery. Most people are going to see it as them crying about his "sexism" over something he didn't actually say (that they were distractingly sexy). If people were mocking him - more men would be mocking him for the second statement that they are "irresistible" to women and their bravado gets them all the ladies and they are having troubles working because of all the sex they are getting. But they aren't crying on Twitter because he said that women fall in love with them.
    - dragonwriter 11y ago
      > If people were mocking him - more men would be mocking him for the second statement that they are "irresistible" to women The offensive part that is being mocked was not the description that women fall in love with men or vice versa. The offensive part was that both of those were described by Hunt as parts of his "problem with girls...when they are in the lab". That is, Hunt says: 1. Women fall in love with men (implicitly, to the detriment of the function of the lab) => problem with women 2. Men fall in love with women (implicitly, to the detriment of the function of the lab) => problem with women
Canada 11y ago
I'm tired of this stupid culture war. I'm tired of the attention seeking and the moralizing. It's an endless, pointless distraction.
- snowwrestler 11y ago
  It's not a pointless distraction to women who want to pursue a career in scientific research, but will be limited to excluded just because they are women.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
Toast_ 11y ago
What an incredibly petty thing to do.
jack-r-abbit 11y ago
FTA: Hunt reportedly said: "Let me tell you about my trouble with girls. Three things happen when they are in the lab: You fall in love with them, they fall in love with you, and when you criticize them they cry." Has anyone stopped to consider that he may have been talking about trouble he has actually experienced? He does say "my trouble..." not "the trouble...". Later, he went on to clarify that he has fallen in love with someone and someone has fallen in love with him. If those actually happened and they were trouble for him, then his statement is accurate. He didn't comment any more on the crying part but it doesn't sound implausible that he, at one point, criticized a woman and she cried.
- dragonwriter 11y ago
  > Has anyone stopped to consider that he may have been talking about trouble he has actually experienced? If one assumes (and I don't think that his subsequent clarifications are consistent with this interpretation) that his intent was to merely relate personal experience without generalizing further from it, then the whole affair provides a valuable lesson about why one should be precise in one's use of language and avoid using the second person ("you"), especially in a context where it might be readily be viewed as intended in its generic sense (in which it is equivalent in definition, though less formal in tone, to "one"), when one intends the first person ("I"). OTOH, I don't think it works. > Later, he went on to clarify that he has fallen in love with someone and someone has fallen in love with him. "People" (plural) in both cases, but what he did not say when he did so as part of his mixed apology/defense of the statement was that anything indicating that he did not intend to generalize beyond his personal experience. > He didn't comment any more on the crying part He did, in fact, in the same apology/defense. [0] [0] http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-33077107 http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-33077107
  - jack-r-abbit 11y ago
    See? I guess I wasn't clear enough. I meant to say: He didn't clarify if making a woman cry was a generalization or something that had actually happened to him (like the falling in love part). But yes, he did speak to it further in the context of "you need to be able to criticize people without them crying." An equally valuable lesson is if something can be taken different ways, make sure you are taking it the same way the other person meant it. He didn't say it was or was not a generalization. He didn't say it was or was not only personal experience. Everyone just made their own assumptions.

12 points by SalGnt 11y ago

I hope this isn't taken the wrong way, but I'm glad he's not taking it all back and saying he didn't mean it. Not that I support his position, but I do appreciate him not pretending that a bunch of people making fun of him on twitter suddenly changed his mind he's spent 72 years making up.

dragonwriter 11y ago
> I do appreciate him not pretending that a bunch of people making fun of him on twitter suddenly changed his mind he's spent 72 years making up. Well, I guess I appreciate him not pretending to have reconsidered after the public response, OTOH, I don't know why one would appreciate someone not actually reconsidering such a position. I fail to understand how, as often seems to be the case with issues like this, people respond with an attitude of "well, sure, he's got a horrible position, but at least he stubbornly refuses to reconsider it even when large numbers of people point out how horrible it is".
- JoeAltmaier 11y ago
  He's British?

rewqfdsa 11y ago

How exactly is this effort supposed to demonstrate that Hunt is wrong?

dragonwriter 11y ago
You are confusing mockery with argument. This is not intended to demonstrate that Hunt is wrong; the audience at which it is directed doesn't need that demonstrated.
Nadya 11y ago
It's the opposite. They're proving him right. Most of the offense seems to be taken on his first statement: "Men fall in love with women." Twitter 3rd-wave Feminists twisted that into "too sexy for the men". You don't see any men going on Twitter complaining he called them irresistible and distractingly sexy (things he never actually said anyway). Where's all the offence taken that "Women fall in love with men" from the men? Them crying on Twitter about something he never said (and he said about both genders, not just females) kind of proves his 3rd point: they cry.
- dragonwriter 11y ago
  > Most of the offense seems to be taken on his first statement: "Men fall in love with women." I think you are confusing the which element of the whole sexist set of statements is the main inspiration of the mockery directed at the whole set with which is the main focus of offense. Though, to be fair, both the "you fall in love with them" and the "they fall in love with you" statements are worthy of offense when both are offered as part of the explanation of his "trouble with girls...when they are in the lab". (Both presume that the "natural state" of a lab is to be full of men, so any complications that arise from a mixed-sex environment are a "problem with girls".) Of course, unless his "problem" is pedophilia, compounding that by referring to women as "girls" when discussing the "problem" he has with them in the lab compounds this further.
  - Nadya 11y ago
    Fully grown women also refer to their female coworkers largely as "girls". Guys do not refer to men as "boys". They don't use "men "either. They use "guys". Girls seem to dislike the feminine linguistic equivalent to "guys", which is "gals" seeing as they infrequently use it themselves to refer to themselves. However, they refer to themselves as girls quite frequently. I've been told several times in my life to stop using "gals" when referring to a female group because they disliked the word. Guys have "guys night out", they don't call it "mens night out". Girls have "girls night out". They don't call it "gals night out". For all intents and purposes - "girl" does not always refer to a young female; context is important. In Japanese おばあさん can refer to "aunt" or "middle-aged woman" and the context it is used in is important. Your aunt could really be a 6 year old girl. Why are you calling her a middle-aged woman? You aren't. You're calling her aunt. Similarly, for English, "girls" has become the equivalent of both "guys" and "boys" and depends on context in which it is used. Feel free to suggest an alternative to "gals" - but I'd consult with "the girls" first. They seem to have settled on "girls" themselves, but what do I know?

Nadya 11y ago

>“Three things happen when they are in the lab. … You fall in love with them, they fall in love with you and when you criticize them, they cry.” Nowhere did he say they were "distractingly sexy". He said men fall in love with women. That happens. He also said women fall in love with men. That also happens. If it didn't, the human population would be declining and not increasing. His only sexist statement is that they cry (with the caveat that you criticized them). It's very ironic they are crying on Twitter - no less about something he never actually said.

dragonwriter 11y ago
> Nowhere did he say they were "distractingly sexy". He said men fall in love with women. That happens. He also said women fall in love with men. Also, men fall in love with men, and women fall in love with women. > It's very ironic they are crying on Twitter Uh, "mocking" is very different from "crying".
- Nadya 11y ago
  >men fall in love with men, and women fall in love with women. He didn't say that. >Uh, "mocking" is very different from "crying". With the above correction you've shown your political standing. Of course you see it as mockery. Most people are going to see it as them crying about his "sexism" over something he didn't actually say (that they were distractingly sexy). If people were mocking him - more men would be mocking him for the second statement that they are "irresistible" to women and their bravado gets them all the ladies and they are having troubles working because of all the sex they are getting. But they aren't crying on Twitter because he said that women fall in love with them.
  - dragonwriter 11y ago
    > If people were mocking him - more men would be mocking him for the second statement that they are "irresistible" to women The offensive part that is being mocked was not the description that women fall in love with men or vice versa. The offensive part was that both of those were described by Hunt as parts of his "problem with girls...when they are in the lab". That is, Hunt says: 1. Women fall in love with men (implicitly, to the detriment of the function of the lab) => problem with women 2. Men fall in love with women (implicitly, to the detriment of the function of the lab) => problem with women

Canada 11y ago

I'm tired of this stupid culture war. I'm tired of the attention seeking and the moralizing. It's an endless, pointless distraction.

snowwrestler 11y ago
It's not a pointless distraction to women who want to pursue a career in scientific research, but will be limited to excluded just because they are women.

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

Toast_ 11y ago

What an incredibly petty thing to do.

jack-r-abbit 11y ago

FTA: Hunt reportedly said: "Let me tell you about my trouble with girls. Three things happen when they are in the lab: You fall in love with them, they fall in love with you, and when you criticize them they cry." Has anyone stopped to consider that he may have been talking about trouble he has actually experienced? He does say "my trouble..." not "the trouble...". Later, he went on to clarify that he has fallen in love with someone and someone has fallen in love with him. If those actually happened and they were trouble for him, then his statement is accurate. He didn't comment any more on the crying part but it doesn't sound implausible that he, at one point, criticized a woman and she cried.

dragonwriter 11y ago
> Has anyone stopped to consider that he may have been talking about trouble he has actually experienced? If one assumes (and I don't think that his subsequent clarifications are consistent with this interpretation) that his intent was to merely relate personal experience without generalizing further from it, then the whole affair provides a valuable lesson about why one should be precise in one's use of language and avoid using the second person ("you"), especially in a context where it might be readily be viewed as intended in its generic sense (in which it is equivalent in definition, though less formal in tone, to "one"), when one intends the first person ("I"). OTOH, I don't think it works. > Later, he went on to clarify that he has fallen in love with someone and someone has fallen in love with him. "People" (plural) in both cases, but what he did not say when he did so as part of his mixed apology/defense of the statement was that anything indicating that he did not intend to generalize beyond his personal experience. > He didn't comment any more on the crying part He did, in fact, in the same apology/defense. [0] [0] http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-33077107 http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-33077107
- jack-r-abbit 11y ago
  See? I guess I wasn't clear enough. I meant to say: He didn't clarify if making a woman cry was a generalization or something that had actually happened to him (like the falling in love part). But yes, he did speak to it further in the context of "you need to be able to criticize people without them crying." An equally valuable lesson is if something can be taken different ways, make sure you are taking it the same way the other person meant it. He didn't say it was or was not a generalization. He didn't say it was or was not only personal experience. Everyone just made their own assumptions.