Feminist Philosophy

[Byrthnoth]

definitely, I rolled my eyes and just moved on without much thought into it... looking at it again it's definitely kind of counterproductive/hypocritical to his entire point.. lol

"how could you think otherwise?" is so.. something. I'm sure there's a word out there for what this is. It's like he's stating it as undeniable fact but it's just not. I can very easily "think otherwise" lol. Sounds like it's supposed to be a "first principle: basic, foundational proposition or assumption that cannot be deduced from any other proposition or assumption" but it's so.. not

maybe he's trying to win social status by saying that so matter-of-factly (I assume most people would agree) so that he can more reliably get the attention of readers on the rest of his points. I wouldn't be too upset with that since it's a legitimate strategy

I don't really disagree with the point, but he goes the entire article mocking appeals to emotion and then does an about face and relies on it to form what is apparently one of his key points. That part hurt to read.

[Tyrath]

He mocked appeals to emotion if its the ONLY thing to consider in a situation.

[archibaldcrane]

Nobel prize-winning scientist resigns from a British University after making a bunch of sexist statements at a conference in South Korea.

http://mashable.com/2015/06/11/scien...m-fb-main-link

Let me tell you about my trouble with girls," Hunt began. The scientist went on to say that three things happen when they're in the lab: You fall in love with them; they fall in love with you, and when you criticise them they cry. He also said he backed single-sex labs.

[Blubbartron]

Any links that contain more than a tiny half-sentence excerpt of what he said? I'm trying to be more vigilant about it as I got burned recently.

[archibaldcrane]

There's more of his defense of his comments here:

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/06/12...html?referrer=

[Blubbartron]

“I did mean the part about having trouble with girls,” he told the BBC. “I have fallen in love with people in the lab and people in the lab have fallen in love with me, and it’s very disruptive to the science because it’s terribly important that in a lab people are on a level playing field.”

“It’s terribly important that you can criticize people’s ideas without criticizing them and if they burst into tears, it means that you tend to hold back from getting at the absolute truth,” he said. “Science is about nothing but getting at the truth, and anything that gets in the way of that diminishes, in my experience, the science.”

I can agree with this guy in this respect. People who work together will form relationships. It happens every day. And yes, that is generally a bad thing, especially when in a field that requires aggressively criticizing the work of your colleagues. He's also not wrong that women, more than men, will take criticism as a personal attack. That doesn't mean absolutely all women do, but as a generalization it's true.

[archibaldcrane]

But having women in a lab is no more the issue than having men in the lab.

Simply put though, his open admission that he views women in the lab as being problematic means he's not fit to be running said lab.

[thetruepandagod]

Nobel prize-winning scientist resigns from a British University after making a bunch of sexist statements at a conference in South Korea.

http://mashable.com/2015/06/11/scien...m-fb-main-link

Sometimes you just really want to verbally and physically abuse your lab techs, and it's a lot harder if they cry when you do it. Male only labs pliz.

[Blubbartron]

I didn't see him say anything like "science is only for men", implying that all women should be kept out of science. He seemed to be for having single-sex labs, to avoid complications. Unless you're talking about the potential for homosexual relationships, which exists, but is not nearly as great a likelihood as heterosexual relationships. They simply aren't a majority.

[archibaldcrane]

I mean, if he said "it's important to be able to give criticism without getting a bunch of attitude back, and that's what happens when you have black people in the lab" he'd be crucified, just like he is here, and rightly so.

[thetruepandagod]

“I am in the office, but I can’t do my science work as I saw a photograph of Tim Hunt and now I’m in love, dammit.”

“Dear department: please note I will be unable to chair the 10am meeting this morning because I am too busy swooning and crying.”

These ladies are A-OK.

[zoobernut]

Would it have been so hard for him to make those statements more general I mean the advice applies no matter who you are. "Relationships amongst scientists in a lab hurt the lab." Doesn't single anyone out still gets the point across. "Being able to take criticism in a lab and use that to do a better job." Again same message without singling anyone out. Not so hard.

I am just paraphrasing I am sure there is an even better way to say what I said.

[Blubbartron]

I mean, if he said "it's important to be able to give criticism without getting a bunch of attitude back, and that's what happens when you have black people in the lab" he'd be crucified, just like he is here, and rightly so.

He should only be crucified if what he's saying isn't logically justified. There is no logical justification for saying such a thing about black people, but there is a logical justification for saying such a thing about women. Do you disagree that women, in general, tend to be more emotional than men?

[archibaldcrane]

Being overly emotional in the face of criticism affects both men and women. That is the issue, gender is irrelevant.

[archibaldcrane]

It's not logical to heap generalizations onto individuals because of stereotypes.

That's pretty much the definition of prejudice.

[archibaldcrane]

The tone-deafness of "I can't help falling in love with women in my lab, and that is their fault" is amazing.

[Blubbartron]

Being overly emotional in the face of criticism affects both men and women. That is the issue, gender is irrelevant.

It may affect both sexes, but that doesn't mean it affects both of them in equal measure. You did not answer the question.

It's not logical to heap generalizations onto individuals because of stereotypes.

That's pretty much the definition of prejudice.

It is not logical to assume a stereotype is true about a particular individual, but it is logical to make broad policy decisions after patterns emerge. A stereotype is nothing more than a pattern in human behavior. Is it unfair to the particular individuals for which the stereotype is not true? Sure. But it's not about being fair to each and every single person. That is impossible.

And you still didn't answer the question. Also, if you could try to have more than 2 sentences in a post, that'd be super. Spouting (almost) one-liners does not a conversation make.

Edit: I approve of the fact that you added a third post, actually a one-liner, while I was writing this post. You're fucking amazing, bro. Don't ever stop. The liberal version of Fox News.

[archibaldcrane]

Why can't you deal with behavior instead of identity in making policy?

[Blubbartron]

Why can't you deal with behavior instead of identity in making policy?

Because an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. (I can post solely in one-liners too)

[archibaldcrane]

We should keep men out of the labs because they are more likely to respond with physical aggression to criticism. I mean, don't you agree that men in general are more physically aggressive?

There are a billion examples here, and they are all equally ridiculous reasons to discriminate based on identity as the one he gave.