He’s well past “retirement”. Why should a Nobel prize winner, or any other outstanding senior scientist, ever retire? As long as they are productive, the benefit they bring humanity far outweigh any questions of age or petty chauvinism.
scientists have contributed far more to the modern world than chauvinism hunters ever have.
“That’s the problem with having black scientists ; they’re always using the Bunsen burners to cook their crack and your equipment ends up being sold on the street corners by their cousins .”
Actually, there are quite a few posters on this site who would be nodding their head to that, so let’s try:
“That’s the problem with all these Jews in the lab; you have to count the petty cash every time they leave and your equipment always ends up in their uncle’s pawn shop.”
C’mon it’s a joke- some people have no sense of humor.
[quote=“urodacus”]He’s well past “retirement”. Why should a Nobel prize winner, or any other outstanding senior scientist, ever retire? As long as they are productive, the benefit they bring humanity far outweigh any questions of age or petty chauvinism.
scientists have contributed far more to the modern world than chauvinism hunters ever have.[/quote]
He’s not productive; he was a figurehead who was trundled around to raise money and reflect prestige on his employers.
[quote=“urodacus”]He’s well past “retirement”. Why should a Nobel prize winner, or any other outstanding senior scientist, ever retire? As long as they are productive, the benefit they bring humanity far outweigh any questions of age or petty chauvinism.
scientists have contributed far more to the modern world than chauvinism hunters ever have.[/quote]
I suspect you would not say this about an economist even one with a Nobel.
No. You deal with a changing world like the rest of us. No special pleading.
You can argue he shouldn’t have lost his position, and I agree, but he got what he deserved otherwise. If you represent an institution then be fucking careful what you say. Just like the rest of us.
This bullshit elitism is very revealling. Tim Hunt was not one of the chosen race and special rules don’t apply to him.
Heard this same crap when it was Woody Allen abusing his step daughter. Oh he has contributed so much the world. Let’s not judge him for he is special.
Well, frankly, that’s disgusting behaviour. They must have known he wasn’t much of a public speaker and should have at least vetted his speech beforehand (I wonder if they actually did?). Throwing some socially-inadequate scientist to the wolves just because you fear for your reputation is cowardly. They might have done better to stand up and say: dafuck is wrong with you people? He’s a bit Aspies, OK? He’s done a lot of good for science and we think his comment was dumb, but we’ve had a word and it’s not going to happen again. Now leave him be. Don’t you lot have homes to go to?
As for your colleagues, I find that disgusting too. Any organisation needs to protect its reputation. But there’s a clear line between employees who are deliberately sabotaging your business with untruthful or exaggerated posts, and legitimate debate. The latter should be an incentive for the company to take a look at itself and see if there’s anything can be changed. It might even be a PR opportunity if handled well.
It used to be a free country. If someone said something offensive, you’d tell them it was offensive. If it was really offensive, they’d get told to STFU so loudly they’d soon change their tune. You can’t just kick people out for making one-off dumb remarks. Well, politicians, maybe; they ought to know better. But it really is getting completely out of hand. Yes, people should exercise a bit of judgement when speaking in public. But everyone’s walking on eggshells; you can’t say anything of substance without offending somebody.
As with the Saville reference, this is absolutely not the same thing. Not even in the same league. The guy made some silly remarks. He may have made discriminatory judgements in his hiring-and-firing policies; now that would be a talking point. But we don’t know, because the journalists apparently didn’t see fit to do a bit of background investigation. Why bother when you can sell column-inches on a soundbite?
I agree it’s not the same thing. However the tendency to excuse high profile people from their sins, great and small, comes from the same place. I respect that you at least acknowledge what he said was stupid. Some won’t go even that far which is obviously why sexism still ignites a shitstorm.
[quote=“finley”]
It used to be a free country. If someone said something offensive, you’d tell them it was offensive. If it was really offensive, they’d get told to STFU so loudly they’d soon change their tune. You can’t just kick people out for making one-off dumb remarks. Well, politicians, maybe; they ought to know better. But it really is getting completely out of hand. Yes, people should exercise a bit of judgement when speaking in public. But everyone’s walking on eggshells; you can’t say anything of substance without offending somebody.[/quote]
Maybe but I’d still rather be alive today. I really don’t think there was a time before now a woman or minority for example could tell someone to stfu without serious risk.
Anyway like I said the best way to look at this is that it’s the business and institutional world that is going overboard, not regular society.
I’m not convinced that historically women were exposed to ‘serious risk’ for telling someone to STFU. I’d say that’s a feminist myth.
Women were participating effectively in society long before feminism came along. Sure, they put up with a fair amount of crap and did plenty of shitty things, but so too did most men.
Pre-industrialization women brewed and sold much (most?) of the beer. This line of work presumably required some telling customers to STFU, but somehow women managed. I wonder how? I mean they didn’t have feminism. . .
As for ‘minorities’, well that would depend on the ‘minority’, time and place.
kiwi, this is a windup isn’t it. you’re having a laugh?
Batgirl’s a scientist like Batman, right?
What?
Isn’t it obvious women have never had it as bad as we white men in the age of Twitter?
I’m serious.
All women got the vote around the same time all men did. Men by and large have always tripped over each other to make sure women get what they want. Pretty much as soon as women decided they wanted the vote they got it.
The idea that women in wealthy western nations remain some kind of oppressed class is ridiculous.
The notion that something called ‘patriarchy’ is oppressing women is ridiculous.
The idea that males are by definition oppressors of females is ridiculous.
No, I’m not having a laugh.
Isn’t it obvious women have never had it as bad as we white men in the age of Twitter?[/quote]
What’s with the white male guilt? It’s kind of pathetic.
I mean why even mention whiteness in this context?
I’m serious.
All women got the vote around the same time all men did. Men by and large have always tripped over each other to make sure women get what they want. Pretty much as soon as women decided they wanted the vote they got it.
The idea that women in wealthy western nations remain some kind of oppressed class is ridiculous.
The notion that something called ‘patriarchy’ is oppressing women is ridiculous.
The idea that males are by definition oppressors of females is ridiculous.
No, I’m not having a laugh.[/quote]
you’re all over the map. separate out the points one at a time:
historically - I can’t believe I need to spell this out. For this item, I’m sure you’re just having a laugh, a bit of a windup, which is fine, whatever
present times - I agree with you. In developed, mostly democratic but not necessarily, mostly western but not necessarily countries women are not oppressed and i don’t agree with a lot of the talk about men being oppressors and so on
I understand what ‘historically’ means. I’m not having a laugh. I’m simply expressing a view that, while unpopular, I believe to be accurate. I also think it’s more important than ever to put these ideas out there - because of nonsense like the case of this scientist.
Historically most people lived crap lives. Yes, there were certain rights women didn’t have. There were also certain obligations women didn’t have, and most men also lacked rights. It seems a real stretch to argue that throughout history women as a class were oppressed by men as a class. I don’t buy it.
Today you have a situation where women have more rights and fewer obligations than men, along with a better social position on numerous measures. Arguably they look more like a privileged group than an oppressed ‘minority’.
And hey, maybe that’s all perfectly fair enough. Society needs to reproduce, and women are less disposable in that regard than men, so maybe they deserve something extra? That line of thinking becomes questionable given that human civilization’s biggest problem right now is probably too many humans, but you can’t expect the way society works to change overnight, and there’s nothing wrong with being a bit traditional.
women were excluded from institutions, education, science, politics and so on. just take a classic example of the brilliant Marie Curie who fought against chauvinism and sexism her whole life. And that was only the late 1800s, early 1900s, can you imagine for a second earlier times!
Isn’t it obvious women have never had it as bad as we white men in the age of Twitter?[/quote]
What’s with the white male guilt? It’s kind of pathetic.[/quote]
Don’t lean on me man cause you can’t afford the ticket back from suffragette city.
well, Marie Curie did quite well after all, being the first person to win two Nobel prizes. Pierre Curie was a victim of some pretty poor driving, though.
Most men were also excluded.
As for imagining earlier times, history is not always linear. Earlier times may have been better, or worse, or just different, depending on what aspects are being talked about.