TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

  • Subreddits

      Popular

    • /r/askTRP
    • /r/TheRedPill
    • /r/MarriedRedPill
    • /r/MensRights
    • /r/MGTOW
    • /r/PurplePillDebate
    • /r/WhereAreAllTheGoodMen
    • /r/seduction
    • /r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates
    • Other

      • /r/AllPillDebate
      • /r/AlreadyRed
      • /r/altTRP
      • /r/AntiFeminists
      • /r/askFDS
      • /r/askMRP
      • /r/askRPC
      • /r/becomeaman
      • /r/BlackPillScience
      • /r/Chadfish
      • /r/Divorce_Men
      • /r/EverydayMisandry
      • /r/ExRedPill
      • /r/FemaleDatingStrategy
      • /r/FeminismStopsWhen
      • /r/GEOTRP
      • /r/MalePsychology
      • /r/Male_Studies
      • /r/MenSupportMen
      • /r/MGTOW2
      • /r/MuslimRedPill
      • /r/newTRP
      • /r/PussyPass
      • /r/PussyPassDenied
      • /r/RedPillBooks
      • /r/RedPillParenting
      • /r/RedPillWives
      • /r/RedPillWomen
      • /r/RedPillWorkplace
      • /r/RPChristians
      • /r/ThankTRP
      • /r/TheRedPillStories
      • /r/trpGAME
      • /r/TRPOffTopic
      • /r/TrueBlackPillMGTOW
      • /r/WhereAllTheGoodMenAre
  • Blogs

      Popular

    • A Voice for Men
    • Dalrock
    • Good Looking Loser
    • Heartiste
    • Married Man Sex Life
    • Return of Kings
    • The Power Moves
    • The Rational Male
    • The Spearhead
    • Other

      • Alpha Game
      • Archwinger
      • Artful Prudence
      • Black Label Logic
      • Caleb Jones
      • Captain Capitalism
      • Corporate Machiavelli
      • Days of Game
      • Deep Strength
      • Dicipres
      • Donal Graeme
      • Female Misogynist
      • Free Northerner
      • Gaming My Wife
      • Hawaiian Libertarian
      • Illimitable Men
      • In Mala Fide
      • Justice for Men and Boys
      • Kill Your Inner Loser
      • KillToParty
      • Krauser PUA
      • LaidNYC
      • Mensactivism
      • NO MA'AM
      • Omega Virgin Revolt
      • Pook's Mill
      • Random Xpat Rantings
      • Red Pill Theory
      • Red Pill Wifery
      • RedPillDad
      • RedPillDoctor
      • Rian Stone
      • RooshV
      • Seasons of Tumult and Discord
      • Sigma Frame
      • The Feminine Woman
      • The Futurist
      • The Masculine Principle
      • The Modern Man
      • The New Modern Man
      • The Obsidian Files
      • The Private Man
      • The Red Pill Room
      • The Red Quest
      • The Rules Revisited
      • Troy Francis
      • Wintery Knight
      • Woujo
      • Young Man Red Pill
  • Books
  • Dictionary
  • @TRParchive
  • Support

Dimbleby resigns from UCL in protest at 'disgraceful' treatment of Sir Tim Hunt

TotalLoser2

June 30, 2015
413 upvotes
/r/MensRights
http://www.theguardian.com/education/2015/jun/30/jonathan-dimbleby-resigns-ucl-sir-tim-hunt
Archived from /r/MensRights

r/MensRights is a community advocating for the social and legal equality of men and boys since 2008.

TheRedArchive is an archive of Red Pill subreddits and blogs. This page is our copy of the original post.

/r/MensRights archive

Download the post

Want to save the post for offline use on your device? Choose one of the download options below:

PDF TXT EPUB
Support the archive

Everything here was supposed to disappear. Banned subreddits, deleted communities, cancelled blogs — much of what is archived here survives nowhere else.

It stays free — no paywall, no account — for the next man who comes looking, the way it was free for you.

I pay for the servers, the storage and the bandwidth myself. If you want this record still standing in ten years, become one of the people who keeps it online.

Support the archive

Share
Share Tweet Reddit Email
Post Information
Title Dimbleby resigns from UCL in protest at 'disgraceful' treatment of Sir Tim Hunt
Author

TotalLoser2

Upvotes 413
Comments 34
Date June 30, 2015 11:36 AM UTC
(11 years ago)
Subreddit Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/3bmdia/dimbleby_resigns_from_ucl_in_protest_at/
Archive Link https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/dimbleby-resigns-from-ucl-in-protest-at.976434
https://theredarchive.com/post/976434
Top posts by TotalLoser2

Connie St Louis who accused Sir Tim Hunt keeps job despite her dubious career claims

179 upvotes
June 30, 2015
/r/MensRights

Sir Tim Hunt investigation reveals flaws about Connie St Louis' testimony #ConnieGate

160 upvotes
June 27, 2015
/r/MensRights

Sir Tim Hunt's claims that remarks on girls in science were not sexist are backed by leaked EU report

148 upvotes
June 24, 2015
/r/MensRights

The Tim Hunt Reporting Was False. Royal Society, Please Give Him Due Process - Louise Mensch

127 upvotes
July 8, 2015
/r/MensRights

Tim Hunt shows why old men should be banned from science | Dean Burnett

58 upvotes
July 1, 2015
/r/MensRights

The Sun - Louise Mensch - ‘Sexist’ Sir Tim WAS joking, photo shows Picture could prove top scientist was wrongly hounded out of his job

33 upvotes
June 29, 2015
/r/MensRights

The Witch-Hunt of Sir #TimHunt : The Changing Story (with images, tweets) · LouiseMensch

28 upvotes
June 28, 2015
/r/MensRights

The Royal Society’s ‘Diversity Committee’ Pre-Judged #TimHunt. Now UCL Should Give Him Due Process

18 upvotes
July 2, 2015
/r/MensRights

Comments

[–]walkonthebeach 78 points79 points80 points 11 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Wow! A man actually standing up to defend other men — and a high profile one at that. Perhaps these guys are starting to grasp what they are up against.

Well done Mr Dimbleby.

[–]SilencingNarrative 6 points7 points8 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

That was indeed a bold move. I think he undercut his own act, however, by saying this:

Dimbleby said: “The college has a long and honourable tradition of defending free speech, however objectionable it may be. Sir Tim made a very poor joke and it quite rightly backfired. He then apologised for that,” he told the Times.

Why was Sir Tim's joke poor? If you are going to resign, don't concede that Tim's joke was poor, unless you actually thought it was. We've already determined that the forces arguing for Tim's dismissal are not interested in apologies. So quit trying to negotiate.

[–]walkonthebeach 4 points5 points6 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Agreed. It wasn't even a "joke", just some silly opening remarks to kick-off an informal chat before lunch.

It just baffles me as to why he's just been judged on this — and not what was actually DOING, which was working hard to push women in science! Something he has been dedicated to for years.

Would the opposite be acceptable? For instance: if I said I loved black people; but in practice as was beating them up, would everyone just ignore what I DID and just accept what I SAID?

[–]SilencingNarrative 2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

This is starting to remind me of donglegate. Adria called in a nuclear strike and everyone is initially cowed and toeing the feminist line until 4chan calls in their own nuclear strike and gets adria fired, at which point the floodgates opened and tech women, en masse, started speaking up against adria.

This has the makings of a nuclear strike against ucl. It would be fantastic if more scientists resigned and it caught on. And,then the floodgates opened and scores of women scientists started speaking out about how Connies stunt infantilezes them and they support Sir Tim.

[–]Jesus_marley 28 points29 points30 points 11 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

“Our commitment to gender equality and our support for women in science was and is the ultimate concern.”

No need for truth or common sense. As long as the women are supported, then everyone else can pound sand. at least they are honest about their ridiculousness.

[–]GimmeSomeSugar 12 points13 points14 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

There has been no shortage of women vocally supporting Tim Hunt. The picture painted by his supporters is one of a man who has been a tremendous ally to women in science. He has "trained and mentored some outstanding female scientists".
If ever there was an example of feels > reals, this seems like it.

[–]CatManDontDo 8 points9 points10 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

I'm confused. The college wants to support women even if it makes a setback to science? Doesn't sound like their priorities are straight

[–]Gstreetshit 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Of course they are ok with setting back science. The entire idea of things like quotas are the antithesis of progression. Which is supported by "progressives". Weird right?

[+][deleted] 11 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]paladin_ranger 7 points8 points9 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Context doesn't matter to people who want good propaganda to rustle jimmies.

[–]riddleywlkr 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

Tim Hunt was asked to make a toast or comment on the subject of women in science. He considered his experiences and clearly two things stood out: 1) that men and women who work together sometimes form romantic attachments and that these attachments can become overwhelming, to the detriment of the work at hand. This is a man who met his wife in the lab, while she was married and subsequently she got a divorce and they then married. Clearly he (and she) has had difficult times with romance 'in the lab'. Clearly almost every major company or institution has policies and guidelines about workplace romance (because it can be so disruptive). How is this controversial? It is from a male point of view (from a hetero man's point of view, it is a 'trouble with girls', just as from a hetero woman's point of view, it is a 'trouble with boys').

That this was turned into 'disruptive' or more truly bizarre 'distractingly sexy', is just odd. All of the women interpreting his comment saying women are 'distractingly sexy' are inventing things out of whole cloth. He said nothing of the kind and this interpretation reeks of pre-conceptions and bias. It is actually an off the wall non-sequitur with the sole purpose of distorting and demonizing (just like the 'journalists' adding juicy tidbits - 1) 'he thanked the women for making lunch' -> which later was retracted because it was a 'mistranslation' [T.Hunt was evidently speaking Korean] and 2) 'there was deathly silence' and 3) he said "the trouble with" vs "my trouble with" [argued over by the accusers] -- these small embellishments for the sake of consistency are the hallmark of lies). If I were working in a lab where the women where tweeting to that hash-tag [#distractinglysexy], I would be walking on eggshells. Tim Hunt said nothing about sexiness or appearance and the women who took it that way are lawsuits waiting to happen.

2) "When you criticize them, they cry". The bulk of the ire and howling on the internets come from this line. The faux outrage and commentary that what he said is reprehensible.... (cough snort)... reprehensible. And yet, this is simply a wry observation from a scientist who has probably seen this reaction from women in his lab. Is there a basis for the notion that women cry at work. The upshot is that 41 percent of women and 9 percent of men admit to having cried at work. However, this is not the end of an estimation of how much more likely a person is to see a woman cry at work than a man. Women also cry more often and for longer. In fact, 'women shed tears on average between 30 and 64 times a year whereas men cry just six to 17 times during the same period'. This means that the ratio, women:men is on the order of (30+64)/(6+17), or about 4.1 fold. So, for the 41% of the women who admit to ever crying (at least once) at work, if they follow the typical women:men ratio, they have actually cried 4.1 times each. But we are not done yet. "Men tend to cry for between two and four minutes, but for women, sessions last around six minutes. And weeping turns into full-blown sobbing for women in 65 per cent of cases, compared to just six per cent for males". So, women also cry for 2x as long as men and a severe episode of crying (full-blown sobbing) is 65/6 ~= 10x.

So, if we look at Tim Hunts observation and put estimated probabilities on it (making a few iid assumptions).

Men surveyed admin - 9% (we'll call this 9 'units' of probability of observing a man crying at work)

Women surveyed - 41% admit to crying at work * 4.1 instances (per each instance of a man crying at all) * 2 (the duration of crying is doubled => 336 'crying units'

The 'relative risk' of seeing a woman crying at work as compare to seeing a man crying at work: 336/9 = 37x

But we still don't stop there, since the severity of crying is also of impact to the observer. 65% of the instances for women turn into full blown sobbing, compared with 6% for men.

Relative risk of seeing a full blown instance of sobbing, complete with snot: 9 * 0.06 => .549 sobbing units for men 336 * .65 => 218 sobbing units for women

The relative risk of seeing a woman in a full blown, snotty crying jag at work is: 218/.549 = 397

397:1 is the likelihood ratio of seeing a sobbing woman at work as compared to seeing a man

Do all the iid assumptions hold? or the assumptions about the surveyed admission of crying?

I don't know, but there is not really a good reason to doubt them as estimators.

And a last thing on crying, also from the German paper:
"The reasons for bawling differ too, the paper found. Women cry when they feel inadequate, when they are confronted by situations that are difficult to resolve or when they remember past events.

Men, meanwhile, tend to cry from empathy or when a relationship fails."

Criticism makes people feel inadequate, women tend to cry when they feel inadequate or the situation is difficult.

Note that the reasons for women crying fit exactly what Tim Hunt mentioned. Note that he didn't say much about the impact of this crying, but the implication was that he found it difficult to deal with. Again, this is a male point of view [the sex that cries much less]. Honestly, I think that most males (and females) find it difficult to deal with a person who cries in response to evaluation. However, men are in a unique situation when it comes to women in the workplace who resort to tears, they are at risk from HR and group impressions and a whole host of awkward issues that clearly can't be talked about. Verboten topic.

Tim Hunt made a couple of observations that are clearly true in both his experience and in the world of facts. He is a scientist and is used to thinking this way. When he said, "I was just trying to be honest", he was, in fact, being honest about a factual situation. His observation that single sex labs would solve the problem is simply an admission that the problem is, in fact, not solvable and the only solution would be worse than the problem.

I think that the biggest, scariest aspect of this witch hunt is the silencing of observations when they don't fit a political narrative. Tim Hunt can't observe, out loud, the clear fact that women cry more than men and that it is disruptive in situations of supervision. Note that women and journalists can endlessly make generalizations about men and their 'lack of emotional intelligence' or about men 'not being in touch with their feelings' and there is not a peep of objection about the fact that this a judgement from a female point of view (women consider men's emotional variability to be low). But, if that very same idea is expressed from the male point of view ( the converse of the female point of view -- from the male point of view women's emotional variability is too high) there is outrage. These two points of view are exactly one concept, but when expressed from the female point of view, male suicide, depression, death from illness, etc. can be neatly blamed on men due to their emotional 'repression'. However, from a male point of view, saying that women's higher emotionality when criticized gets in the way of work, is a hanging offense.

And getting meta, this willingness to subvert facts for politics is exactly a criticism of women in stem. Noting observed differences in IQ distribution, with the invariant implication that there are more male geniuses than female will get you fired. The 'women's point of view' recognizing that there are more low IQ men than woman is perfectly fine to say out loud. Feminists, but maybe, plain 'women', are not objecting to putting politics before facts when it suits their agendas. There are a whole lot of plain facts that we are not supposed to notice or mention and they will persecute anyone who can't a priori be bullied into silence. This is an attitude not conducive to any kind of science and it is poisoning male-created environments that have been (not always, but mostly) bluntly respectful of observable truths.

Finally, note the insistence that the female point of view be dominant. In the home, men must parent like women in order to be 'correct'. Women's expertise in child rearing must not be questioned and in fact, any area of traditional dominance by women (caring, psychology, education of children, etc., etc.) requires that men conform to the ways and means that have been traditional for women. However, when women enter traditionally male dominant spaces, men must 'learn' from women's 'diverse' experience. In other words, in traditionally female spaces, women's methods are tried and tested and men must adopt female patterns. In traditionally male spaces, where men have honed a culture that fits the tasks for decades or centuries, pffft!, women's ideas must be adopted as well, even when those notions fit traditionally female and family spaces much more than traditionally adversarial or competitive spaces like commerce and science.

Men must push back. Gamergate was the right idea (as opposed to atheism+, etc., etc.). Men need to stop putting up with it. Don't even listen to the nonsense in situations like Tim Hunt's. The show trials have to stop.

[–]walkonthebeach 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I think that is a really fascinating and insightful analysis of the situation — especially the last half of what you have written.

You should really consider seeing if you can't some of the more respected newspapers or magazine etc. to accept an article of yours on the subject.

Amazing. Thank you. Very hard to get such a truthful view from the mainstream media.

[–]Wargame4life 45 points46 points47 points 11 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

i love how batshit feminist who believe in quota bullshit are still ignoring 90% of prisons are men.

if you believe gender is an entirely social construct (it isnt) 90% of prisons being male is a more significant inequality than women studying science.

yet the batshit feminists never pipe up, because they are biggoted idiots

[–]Men13 23 points24 points25 points 11 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

And how about feminism somehow "neglecting" to demand adding male-only scholarships and quotas for men at Universities since, you know, men are now outnumbered by women?

Yea, I love that too.

[–]ziekktx 8 points9 points10 points 11 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

I'd like to know what the numbers would be like if you removed new things like women's studies. If we went back to 1950 proportions of non-producing (like arts) and programs like engineering, mathematics, etc, how much of colleges now are just fluff. Subtract the fluffs and see where men stand today.

Not to say some arts aren't needed, I just don't know how to word it.

[–]Men13 9 points10 points11 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Although that could be an issue, in reality the actual number of women's studies students is very very small compared to all students. They are a part of "social studies and history" that is, on the whole, 50:50 male/female ratio (so it doesn't affect the total ratio of men/women in academia)

60% of academics are women. This means that women outnumber men in academia by 20% of the total number of students. That's HUGE.

If you look here you see that the fields in which women grossly outnumber men in bachelor degrees are:

  • health professions

  • public administration

  • education

  • psychology

  • Languages (both english and foreign languages)

  • journalism

  • art

  • biology

Now, you could call some of this fluff (art? journalism? public administration?) but notice that these fields are fields that give you a LOT of public "power". Journalists control public opinion, public administration controls local budget, art - well, art also controls public opinion (just look at what "mattress girl" does with her art education...)

So not "empty" fields.

More than that - look at psychology. Women vastly outnumber men in psychology related fields (75% women even in ph.d.), and "surprisingly", psychology is a field where men are severely lacking care.

Note that this is all bachelor degrees, so no "real" professions there yet (you can't be a nurse, or a doctor, with only a bachelor degree).

In Ph.D. the numbers are much more "equal", but even there women outnumber men.

You can see all the data (very... not conveniently) here:

https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d14/tables/dt14_318.30.asp

[–]ziekktx 2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

As a knee jerk, I want to say hard sciences vs not, but I don't want to be depressed. You're right that people like teachers wield immense sociological power. A few generations of omitting facts can drastically change a culture.

[–]Men13 4 points5 points6 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

A few generations of omitting facts

generations? Look at how fast the culture changed on women's abilities and gays in general. See how the rape discussion changed from "it's rape if she clearly ask him to stop but he didn't" to the current rape culture mentality. A decade of omitting facts is enough. Probably much less than that.

[–]AloysiusC 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Yeah that point isn't made often enough.

Though they'll just come back saying it's the patriarchy teaching men to be toxic etc. and if only we treated women better, this would all improve.

[–]Gstreetshit 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Turns out the gender disparity among electricians, pipe fitters, waste management, boilermakers, etc etc etc is just fine too.

However, we need quotas so that 50% of fortune 500 CEO positions are women.

I genuinely do not see how someone can be so full of hypocrisy and their head not explode. How can they harbor so much dissonance?

[+]7hunderpants 11 years ago* [recovered] (2 children) | Copy Link

Feminists have infiltrated academia which means that any speech , which they deem offensive is not tolerated. This is in opposition to the ideology of every UK university's for many many years. This of course does not apply to female members of university as we have seen.

[–]lasciate 2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

They've infiltrated academia administration. Actually infiltrating academia would take work, talent, intelligence, passion for something other than mental masturbation, recognition of an objective reality...

I guess I should clarify that I'm talking about STEM fields mostly, since fields like education and journalism are fairly feminist-friendly.

[–]Gstreetshit 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

It is modern leftism in general that has destroyed academia as we know it. Feminism is just one aspect of that.

[–]TwoFootTwo 11 points12 points13 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Very slowly, almost imperceptibly, the mainstream is starting to realise what a malevolent force neo-puritan internet activism is.

[–]Deefry 4 points5 points6 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Snapshot

[–]muramuramura2 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Fuck the Guardian. Thanks for this.

[–]Wargame4life 4 points5 points6 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

as allies for your cause go, they dont have much more respectable upper/middle class clout than dimbleby in the media world.

[–]Frobenioid 8 points9 points10 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

“Our commitment to gender equality and our support for women in science was and is the ultimate concern.”

Sigh

[–]KrisK_lvin 2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Good work, Dimbleby!

I'm telling you that takes some serious balls to do that when you're bread and butter comes from the BBC ...

[–]Electroverted 4 points5 points6 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

That's just another job opening for a lesser qualified feminist scientist. Make no mistake, the people who took Hunt's quote of context and ran with it will love this.

[–]Gstreetshit 2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

That's what I was thinking.

These two will be replaced by some D- women brought in on quotas.

[–]RedditorJemi 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I hope someone starts up a free speech university where they hire professors fired due to free speech issues, and do so automatically if the professor has won a nobel prize. They could make a fortune.

[–]deaddoe 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

The Guardian

I thought we're not supporting feminism outlets. Are we?

[–]TotalLoser2 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Wherever news comes

Browse all authors
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

© TheRedArchive 2026. All rights reserved.
created by /u/dream-hunter