TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

  • Subreddits

      Popular

    • /r/askTRP
    • /r/TheRedPill
    • /r/MarriedRedPill
    • /r/MensRights
    • /r/MGTOW
    • /r/PurplePillDebate
    • /r/WhereAreAllTheGoodMen
    • 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/LeftWingMaleAdvocates
      • /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/seduction
      • /r/ThankTRP
      • /r/TheRedPillStories
      • /r/trpGAME
      • /r/TRPOffTopic
      • /r/TrueBlackPillMGTOW
      • /r/WhereAllTheGoodMenAre
  • Blogs

      Popular

    • Dalrock
    • Heartiste
    • Illimitable Men
    • Return of Kings
    • Rian Stone
    • The Rational Male
    • Woujo
    • Other

      • Artful Prudence
      • A Voice for Men
      • Alpha Game
      • Black Label Logic
      • Caleb Jones
      • Captain Capitalism
      • Corporate Machiavelli
      • Days of Game
      • Deep Strength
      • Dicipres
      • Donal Graeme
      • Female Misogynist
      • Free Northerner
      • Gaming My Wife
      • Good Looking Loser
      • Hawaiian Libertarian
      • In Mala Fide
      • KillToParty
      • Kill Your Inner Loser
      • Krauser PUA
      • LaidNYC
      • Married Man Sex Life
      • NO MA'AM
      • Omega Virgin Revolt
      • Pook's Mill
      • Random Xpat Rantings
      • Red Pill Theory
      • Red Pill Wifery
      • RedPillDad
      • RedPillDoctor
      • 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 Power Moves
      • The Private Man
      • The Red Pill Room
      • The Red Quest
      • The Rules Revisited
      • The Spearhead
      • Troy Francis
      • Wintery Knight
      • Young Man Red Pill
  • Books
  • Dictionary
  • @TRParchive
  • Please help TheRedArchive stay alive

Nobel Prize-winning scientist says he was forced to resign

DGAgainstDV

June 15, 2015
463 upvotes
/r/MensRights
http://news.yahoo.com/nobel-prize-winning-scientist-says-forced-resign-125443022.html
Download the post

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

PDF TXT EPUB
Share
Share Tweet Reddit Email
Post Information
Title Nobel Prize-winning scientist says he was forced to resign
Author

DGAgainstDV

Upvotes 463
Comments 139
Date June 15, 2015 2:41 AM UTC
(11 years ago)
Subreddit Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/39vc8i/nobel_prizewinning_scientist_says_he_was_forced/
Archive Link https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/nobel-prize-winning-scientist-says-he-was-forced.977602
https://theredarchive.com/post/977602
Top posts by DGAgainstDV

Professor says she felt raped by white male student's paper touting men's rights

2726 upvotes
April 27, 2017
/r/MensRights

Judge sides with student punished by university after it exonerated him of rape claims

1835 upvotes
January 11, 2017
/r/MensRights

Expelled male student sues college for faulty rape trial

1697 upvotes
June 20, 2015
/r/MensRights

There is no gender pay gap, people get what they're worth

1603 upvotes
September 27, 2016
/r/MensRights

Tory MP opposes domestic violence legislation because it 'relates only to female victims'

1267 upvotes
February 2, 2017
/r/MensRights

Student Banned from Areas of Campus for Resembling Classmate's Rapist

916 upvotes
February 18, 2015
/r/MensRights

College apologizes for putting wrong man's name and photo on rapist leaflet

893 upvotes
January 16, 2017
/r/MensRights

Petition: Don't Make Male Rape Victims Pay Child Support to Their Rapists

880 upvotes
July 12, 2014
/r/MensRights

Comments

[–][deleted] 302 points303 points304 points 11 years ago (87 children) | Copy Link

A nobel prize winner is stripped of every position he has for an innocuous comment, while a diversity officer who tweets kill all white men and steadfastly promotes racism and sexism remains in her position. God damn the patriarchy.

[–]jvardrake 22 points23 points24 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

And on top of this, they still pretend like something like "The Patriarchy" exists. Huh? If the world really was this giant boys club, and everyone truly was biased against females, how in the hell would something like this - what has happened to Hunt - happen? Seriously. If things really were like they pretend they are, and society's default position was to be anti-women, wouldn't anything this Hunt guy said have basically been seen a non-issue? I.E., if he was just saying what feminists are telling us everyone already believes, why would he have caught any flak at all?

This is basically the thing that pisses me off the most about feminism. To anyone not a feminist, it is so patently obvious that, if the world is biased towards anyone, it is women that it is biased towards. The world instantly, and consistently, jumps to the defense of not men, but of women. The system is setup to protect and assist them. And, despite the fact that this should be obvious to everyone, they are still allowed to play the role of the perpetual victim, AND it works!

It just feels like that classic phrase, "Don't piss on my leg, and tell me it's raining"!

[–]DaVincitheReptile 61 points62 points63 points 11 years ago (37 children) | Copy Link

The instinct to protect all women runs so deep that even basic liberties like freedom of speech (or, more accurately, freedom not to be held 100% accountable to every little thing you've ever said in your life) lose out.

[–]specterofthepast 10 points11 points12 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

This is something I thought about. The way we protect women from consequences is traditionalism of a sorts, what feminists would call "The Patriarchy". However who is the herald of "The Patriarchy" in both of these instances? Feminists. Feminists are the enforcers of "The Patriarchy".

[–]Jovianmoons 3 points4 points5 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Then this instinct must be quelled.

[+]ThatDamnWoman -47 points-46 points-45 points 11 years ago (34 children) | Copy Link

Freedom of speech applies to the relationship between citizen and state, not citizen and other citizen.

While I personally think that it's sad the he resigned, his statement not only offended women in science but also men in science as they are portrayed as unprofessional and unable to control their impulses around female coworkers.

That Hunt was "forced to" resign is a new development to this story...

[–]Bobbsen 43 points44 points45 points 11 years ago (20 children) | Copy Link

You're doing like he said some inherently discriminating thing.

He's made a JOKE. He literally said "What I don't like about girls in science? You either fall in love with them, they fall in love with you and cry when you critize them."

And you're telling me this is worse than some of the bullshit high-positioned feminists spew?

You know, just watch an episode of a modern sitcom and you'll see these jokes every 30 seconds, just with reversed genders.

It's a joke and perfectly shows modern society. If someone just dares to say something that hurts a girl's feelings, he'll get crucified. Even a FUCKING NOBEL PRIZE WINNER isn't secure anymore.

I think I might just move to Asia or something when done studying, seriously fuck this world.

[+]ThatDamnWoman -28 points-27 points-26 points 11 years ago (18 children) | Copy Link

1) What part of my above statement was inherently discriminating?

2) Please elaborate on how this was a joke. In his resignation statement he even stands by it - without claiming it was a joke. On a philosophical note: is it a joke when the audience isn't laughing?

3) I have not, nor will I ever, compare the statements of Prof. Hunt to the statements of other - much less these "bullshit high-positioned feminists" you're referring to. There's no better or worse here.

4) Sitcoms are fiction. I don't need a reflection of modern society, I live and work in one.

5) Feelings were not hurt. An entire gender within a specific professional field was belittled.

6) A Nobel Prize in medicine doesn't exempt you from negative reactions.

7) Asia is part of this world.

[–]Bobbsen 12 points13 points14 points 11 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

There's no better or worse here

Are you actually serious with this statement? You're comparing this very harmless jokingly said statement (yes, it's a joke still, even if some people aren't laughing. There are plenty of "normal" jokes way worse that society accepts and writes off after) to statements like "the problem with society are all white men" bring said all the time by femists?

Sitcoms are a reflection of society. They're fiction based on what society generally deems humorous. In a way, they point out society's flaws. And this is a commonly reoccuring szene. Hell, some even build entirely on the "stupid male character being ridiculed".

There were a lot of hurt feelings. Else this wouldn't have been hyped up as much.

Yes, Asia is part of this world, but an utterly different culture.

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

szene

German detected.

[+]ThatDamnWoman -10 points-9 points-8 points 11 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

You were the one that brought up comparisons. You were the one that mentioned "bullshit high-positioned feminists". What initially started as a clarification on how freedom of speech works (that it's a vertical right, where the state can't limit an individual's right to expression) turned into a personal attack on me by you.

You have not elaborated your statements. You have not answered my questions. You have not in any shape or form provided anything even remotely resembling facts related to this story (the story of Prof. Hunt resigning from the University of Cambridge) to back up your claims.

You say I discriminate. I ask you how. You don't answer.

You bring up "bullshit high-positioning feminists" without providing an example (I know there are bitches out there, I would like you to provide an example since you brought it up. Back up your stuff, man. You're a student, you know the importance of this).

You say Prof. Hunt's statement was a joke - provide a link, some evidence, something to back up this claim.

As for fiction: stupid male character being ridiculed is as common as stupid female character being ridiculed. I don't see how this applies here.

And out of curiosity I would like to know how Asia would be any different for you.

So far all you have done is attack me for knowing my stuff; that freedom of speech is a vertical right. That is all.

[–]KalChoedan 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Ahem. He didn't say you were discriminating, and he hasn't responded to your comments on that topic because they were therefore non-sequitur. Replace the word "doing" in his first sentence with "acting" and you may get a better sense of what he intended to say - English is clearly not his first language and the inadvertent word swap was fairly clear. He was saying, "you are behaving as if the comments made by Hunt were mortally insulting", not "you yourself are behaving in an insulting manner."

[–]ThatDamnWoman -5 points-4 points-3 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Ah, I see. That clears that one up. I'm eagerly awaiting the clarification of the rest.

Maybe it's because English isn't my first language either, but I fail to see how a clarification on how freedom of speech works can result in personal attacks and down-votes. As a human rights lawyer I find this very worrying.

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

First, how you think I'd attacked you personally really boggles my mind. I disagreed with your statement.

How can you see his statement not as a joke? Like I said before, people joke about race etc all the time. Black people calling themselves "nigger" to each other even in modern day is probably the most prominent example. Turks/Arabs in Germany label themselves as "Kanacken" (a pretty bad insult normally for foreigners) or making some "slit eye" jokes towards Asian. It happens all the time, in every corner of society. And no one gives a shit because it's not serious.

This does not need any evidence, as all it takes is a bit of experience with people to understand it. But of course, the moment a arguably wealthy old white guy makes a snarky comment on the poor women, the world does everything in their power to protect the fragile souls. Feelings being hurt.

If you want examples of feminists doing way more harm with a huge following/power google the names Ellen Pao and Anita Sarkeesian.

[–]Riktenkay 3 points4 points5 points 11 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

Please elaborate on how this was a joke.

How is it not a joke? Have we really reached a point where silly, comments like this actually get taken seriously? Because that's a world I really don't want to live in.

I don't see how anyone can look at that comment and think he was making a serious remark.

[–]ThatDamnWoman -3 points-2 points-1 points 11 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

But he didn't intend for it to be a joke. He meant it seriously, and it was therefore taken seriously. He stands by it, though it has been polished to a "romance in the work place is inappropriate", which is gender-neutral, diplomatically worded and objectively correct.

I don't see how anyone can look at that comment and think he was making a serious remark.

Context. He's a prominent member of the scientific community so his words (no matter how ridiculous they might sound to the general population) carry some weight. He said it at a "Women in Science"-conference. And the general "feminism is the new black" in current society.

[–]jgzman 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

He meant it seriously, and it was therefore taken seriously. He stands by it, though it has been polished to a "romance in the work place is inappropriate", which is gender-neutral, diplomatically worded and objectively correct.

So, you don't object to his ideas. You just want him to be gender-neutral and diplomatic.

[–]ThatDamnWoman -1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

I have not stated my personal opinion on his statement. I have only stated that (the laws regarding) freedom of speech regulates the relationship between state and citizen. This is not to be taken as my opinion on the story, just some legal insight on the legal concept of freedom of speech.

As for the huge amount of hate, flame and gaslighting I've received here... phew! This is my first internet fight and it's exhausting. I can't keep up with all the responses because apparently there's a timer on how frequently you can post here.

So when you say

So, you don't object to his ideas. You just want him to be gender-neutral and diplomatic [?]

... my statement is still not an expression of personal opinion. It's a reference to the objective development of this story. I have not said that I "agree" or "disagree" on anything. I - as a lawyer specialized in European human rights - have merely stated how freedom of speech - as a human right - applies since people keep invoking it. That is all.

The fact that people aren't satisfied with how freedom of speech works and is applied, and take it out on me by flaming and down voting is beyond me. The fact that people politicize with useless notions such as "citizens are the state" and "it shouldn't be like that" doesn't make the actual applicability of freedom of speech as a legal concept less true. It's not necessarily my personal opinion (not that anyone even bothered with that. They saw something they didn't agree with - it must be a subjective opinion, not an objective truth!) and it's definitely not like I invented the damn thing. I'm just stating how it objectively works. I saw some other posters state the same as I did without receiving even a fraction of the hate.

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

... my statement is still not an expression of personal opinion. It's a reference to the objective development of this story.

A very relevant point. I shouldn't ascribe motives to people.

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

There is always some exceptions being made right? Play it up if its a man and play it down if it is a woman. Because its already decided that men are bad and women are good. Admit it. Women get away with murder.

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

I'm not remotely convinced he meant it seriously

[–]lunatictumor 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Feelings don't matter in science. Just results.

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

Feels > Reals.

[–]nrjk 5 points6 points7 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

So he offended both genders. Great.Equality, not sexism. Everyone move on, no need to freak out

[+][deleted] 11 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]ThatDamnWoman 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

You need to bring your understanding of what free speech means away from the division of powers laid down hundreds of years ago (...)

But I'm wearing my lawyer glasses... and I'm keeping them on for your example:

If you said that Jesus wasn't real, and got burned at the stake, that's not freedom of speech. Even tho it has nothing to do with the government.

If I got burned at the stake, I have to assume that there has been some sort of trial = government interference. Obviously there are some limitations of free speech as you stated: directly harming to someone, it being racism, hate speech, blasphemy and the likes. Whether "Jesus wasn't real" qualifies as a blasphemic statement which is not protected by freedom of speech... I'm not touching that with a ten-foot pole.

(...) and adapt the idea to people being ruined for innocuous remarks.

As stated someplace else in this thread/post, I personally think it's a shame that Prof. Hunt resigned. An even bigger shame, should it show that he was forced to resign. That has no place in a modern society.

[+][deleted] 11 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]ThatDamnWoman 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

You're welcome, but I'm not expressing a personal opinion, I'm merely stating that (the laws regarding) freedom of speech regulate the relationship between state and citizen - which (oddly enough) is the only thing that's being contested. I'm not presenting my side of an argument - I'm just contributing with som legal insight on the applicability of freedom of speech since people are invoking it.

Wait, people are banned for this?

[+][deleted] 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

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

Yeah, the "joke". It's funny (well, not ha-ha-funny) because I never mentioned Prof. Hunt's comment to begin with. I just posted the stuff on the applicability of the legal concept that is freedom of speech.

I'm not sure I really participated in the debate on whether his comments were a joke or not - I guess I can see both pros and cons, but the pros are tainted by the absurd and hateful over-reactions ("calm the shit down, ladies"), whereas I'm biased on the cons being a woman in academia myself (I have been on the receiving end of sexism but that doesn't mean that every comment is sexist).

Hmm. r/MensRights has been called a hate-sub? I've lurked for a while and failed to see the hate. I even saw some posts on fear that this sub would be shut down. I hope not. As a human rights lawyer, men's rights have a special place in my heart, as it's not addressed as often as it should be. I had some "feminist" professors at university and sometimes all I could do was roll my eyes. Some people... some people just see ghosts.

[–]Youareabadperson6[🍰] 2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Freedom of Speech is an ideal that we uphold outside of it's legal confines as codified law because it's a good idea for society and makes us all better people. We don't uphold Freedom of Speech because some dusty ass document says we have to, we uphold Freedom of Speech because it's a good idea and supports the free exchange of ideas.

I'm getting really god damned tired of people who claim. "LOL, Freedom of Speech is only applied to the government." Like it's just ok to Jackboot all over other people as long as you don't work for the government.

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Freedom of speech does not just relate to governments and the citizenry. Geez they don't teach civics anymore do they.

[–]kinyutaka 21 points22 points23 points 11 years ago (21 children) | Copy Link

The double standard does exist in this case, where that "diversity officer" (the whole position is a joke to begin with) should have been told to pound feet as well, but...

I agree that this person's comment was highly inappropriate.

He said that women in science cause problems because you might fall in love with them, and then you get stuck not being able to criticize their work. It isn't "as bad as blaming a rape victim", as the article suggested, but it was a horrible thing to say to women trying to get into STEM fields.

[–][deleted] 25 points26 points27 points 11 years ago* (12 children) | Copy Link

From what I understand, he was ironically referencing his own relationship, because he and his wife met and fell in love in one of his labs. I think he expected those assembled to realize he was poking fun at something he was guilty of himself, so it was self-deprecating humour.

[–]Grubnar 5 points6 points7 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

because he and his wife met and fell in love in one of his labs.

Oh my God. If that is right, then what has happened to him is even worse!

[+]kinyutaka -14 points-13 points-12 points 11 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

Maybe, but it comes off really bad.

[–][deleted] 23 points24 points25 points 11 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

Bad enough to cost him his career? Not a chance.

[–]kinyutaka -4 points-3 points-2 points 11 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

I think an apology is in order, and maybe being told not to do public speaking for a short time to blow over, but no, not a resignation.

It isn't like he said that women need to sit down and shut up, or that women should be shot on sight.

We have a responsibility to show women the same respect we want to receive from them.

[–][deleted] 12 points13 points14 points 11 years ago* (3 children) | Copy Link

We have a responsibility to show women the same respect we want to receive from them.

Respect goes both directions, and it's clear that if a stray comment that's arguably been taken out of context can cost him his entire career, despite decades of work and several female colleagues and past subordinates weighing in on his support of women in science, then he's really not getting any. Certainly not enough that he's given the benefit of the doubt.

As long as a junior equity officer without any real experience in the field can tweet about killing men and not lose her position, but a Nobel prize winner with 55 years of experience in a field and proven work with both genders in his labs is tossed ... we've got a respect gap all right. When being female does more to keep you working when you make a stupid comment than decades of experience and international awards do, even in the face of a much more severe comment, we've got a problem.

[+]kinyutaka -6 points-5 points-4 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

But the answer is not to lose all respect for women in general.

Disrespect that bitch who said to kill men. But respect women in general the same way you wish to be respected.

Again, it is based on how you want to be treated, not by how you are actually treated. If everyone were to do that, we'd be in a happier place.

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points5 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Why are we so sensitive to comments about women? The best course of action is just to ignore the person making the comment. If we are going to cry about every inane comment then then we are just crying whenever we get criticism. It's just words, and men do not expect the same if someone said that we are tooaggressive in research or that we let love get in the way of research.

[–]kinyutaka -4 points-3 points-2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I'd be pretty angry at anyone who implies that men will be over-controlling to women in the workplace, just because they are men. (The closest equivalent to the guy's comment I could come up with.)

Hell, just the implication that a woman in the workplace will automatically lead to a romantic relationship is enough to creep some people out.

[–][deleted] -5 points-4 points-3 points 11 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

It comes off bad if u were a retard who didn't read the article and get the context .

[–]kinyutaka -5 points-4 points-3 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

I read the article, actually.

But the context is unimportant here. Such a joke is fine among close friends, who all know the details of what you mean.

But the very fact that you have to go looking for context makes it something he should have thought twice about.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

wat ....context is always important especially in situations like this , you dont have to go LOOKING for context , its there , that's how it should be taken by default. Anyone can sound like a asshole if you just look at one liners.

[–]kinyutaka -5 points-4 points-3 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Look.

In context, he was making a self-deprecating joke about how his wife works/worked with him in the lab.

But it is still saying that men and women working in labs together will become attached to each other, and then when the man has to criticize the woman, she cries to get out of it.

It's the kind of joke that would be appropriate at the Gentleman's Club, but not anywhere else.

The only thing that would have been more sexist is "If you're going to pick a female assistant, make sure she can suck a golf ball through a garden hose. She'll need something to do while you think."

[–]AFuddyDuddy 8 points9 points10 points 11 years ago* (7 children) | Copy Link

But women AREN'T pursuing STEM fields.

Okay, sure. More than in the past.... But overall, still not so much.

EDIT: This is not condoning what he said. It was a stupid thing to say, joke or not. What I'm saying is that by using that as another excuse as to why women aren't going into these fields is drivel. If you are interested in those fields of study, man or woman, I would think that these comments would drive you into it even further to prove those who say stupid shit like that wrong.

[+]kinyutaka -10 points-9 points-8 points 11 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

All the more reason you don't say shit like this. Come on, man.

[–]Cronyx 17 points18 points19 points 11 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

If women are seriously allowing someone's words to influence their career choice, they probably aren't mature enough for that career.

[+]kinyutaka -15 points-14 points-13 points 11 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

Maybe, but what does it say of your maturity if you make sexist jokes to the applicants?

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

I didn't see it as being sexist. It was reverse-criticism. It's like saying, "The thing that sucks about cats is, they're so cute when they lay on your papers, you can't even get upset that they interrupted your work. Dawwww!" He met his SO in the lab. That's what "sucks" about women in the lab. SJWs have the sense of humor of Ramsay Snow when the noun is men, but turn into robots when the noun is women.

[+]kinyutaka -11 points-10 points-9 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

The difference is that cats don't belong in the lab, unless they are the experiment.

If the best defense you can give is to equate female scientists with housecats, then you don't have much to stand on.

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

I wasn't equating anything. I also didn't say the cat was in the lab. I was imagining how they also like to lay on your keyboard at home when you're trying to work. The actual artifacts of the metaphor are irrelevant. I could construct a million noun verb variations on it and you'd still be missing the point, focusing on the aesthetics instead of the formula.

[–]mansplain 3 points4 points5 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Props for even responding at all!

[–]Cu_Gorm 10 points11 points12 points 11 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

Nb: Her position is elected by the student body. She's not directly employed by the university.

[–]Svri 6 points7 points8 points 11 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Uni subsidizes the union.

[–]Cu_Gorm 5 points6 points7 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Well, more accurately, the students do. It's ostensible a student lead movement to ensure representation and advocacy. In practice it's lead by the few people who bother to turn up and struggle to get enough people to vote to pass their ridiculously low quorums (often less than 10% participation). Bahar is typical of the trend, she was the only one to run for the job, she got all her friends to vote for her, and now she has a cushy paid office for a year subsidised by a bunch of people, most of whom probably don't know she exists.

Anyhow, my point was that the university doesn't have the power to fire her, nor was she hired by them, so they can't really be blamed for hypocracy if they support firing this guy.

[–]Svri 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Very well explained, thank you.

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

Np

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

#killallnobellaureates

[–]skintwo 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (17 children) | Copy Link

It wasn't innocuous. I do think the backlash in terms of his positions is too severe if this is the only thing he did. Maybe it's the final straw, on the other hand. There is a lot we don't know, and as a female PhD in the tech field I really was upset by these statements. Having a Nobel means nothing. Some very successful male scientists were complete assholes to women in science (your beloved Feynman, for example.)

There is of course no comparison to the other situation, which is batshit crazy.

If he thought this was cool to say in public, imagine what he might have been like in private. I have so much firsthand experience with male peers either being just straight jerks, all of them refusing to study with me in undergrad (challenging when you're the only chick in the class), and bosses exhibiting really inappropriate behavior. It's rediculous. And it's not ok. I have had super nice female peers who just could not take it and left to bio or chemistry. This is my personal experience. Do you have experience being a female in a hard tech field?

It's not innocuous. It's pervasive and accepted and sucks.

[–]KalChoedan 14 points15 points16 points 11 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

Quite a few of his female colleagues past and present have come forward to say they never experienced so much as a hint of sexism from this man in their time working with him. This was not some kind of "last straw", these were (arguably poorly chosen) comments intended to be taken as humour, which have been massively overreacted to by the professional victim crowd, destroying this man's career for no good reason.

[–]skintwo -3 points-2 points-1 points 11 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

Quite a few? I saw one quote from one person - not exactly a huge data set. And I think others have covered very well that this wasn't just a lame joke - he defended what he said again. There was a way to apologize the right way, and he didn't take it. Does that mean he should have his career destroyed? Of course not, and in my note I even said I thought the impact was too severe. But lose a few non-paid honorary positions where the POINT was to advocate for diversity in STEM? Sure.

I really like the argument that this is damaging to guys in the lab as well, insinuating that they won't behave professionally. Can we ever get to the point where this is a NON ISSUE, please?! Electrons really don't care wether or not you have tits. I hate that my field constantly has these problems. There's just no justification for it other than those currently in powerful positions - oh, say, like Nobel prize winners - perpetuating it. Enough. And this work is hard enough without all the gender bullshit.

I would like to add that these gender issues are perpetuated by BOTH men and women. The point is that wherever it is uncovered, it really needs to be seriously addressed. Check out the John/Jennifer resume study. Everyone does it, and it's serious, and it's pervasive. It's not just one guy with one dumb joke, and that's why this is being taken so seriously.

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

[permanently deleted]

[–]skintwo -2 points-1 points0 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Are you kidding?! Thanks for making my point for me. I work and thrive in an almost all-male environment. Didn't realize I should react poorly to criticism, cry, and develop crushes on my cow-workers (ugh).

How about we treat people as individuals?? Just a thought.

[–][deleted] 5 points6 points7 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

  1. A Nobel Prize does mean something, it means an awful lot in fact.
  2. Women who worked alongside him have spoken up to support him.

[–]withoutatrace123 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I agree. I think his punishment was overly severe, but he was definitely out of line with his comment and should have apologized. You can't just say that women are sexy crybabies who distract male scientists, not even as a public joke.

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

It's accepted? Firing someone for saying it is a funny way of accepting it.

[–]AloysiusC 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

as a female PhD in the tech field

Must be nice being able to wave one's genitalia around like a credential.

I really was upset by these statements.

Why?

all of them refusing to study with me in undergrad

hardly surprising given the risks they take by even being in your presence. One more time, in case you haven't gotten it yet: a guy has lost all of his professional status entirely because of one remark. And what's really telling is that you don't actually engage in what he said or even attempt to refute it. You simply cry "offensive". Period. That suggests you may fear that there's some truth to what he said. That would also explain the upset. The whole thing is motivated by feelings, not facts. You're ironically reinforcing the very prejudice you're complaining about.

Do you have experience being a female in a hard tech field?

Do you have experience being a male in a hard tech field?

It's pervasive and accepted and sucks.

So is the presumption that women need to be handled with special care and men have to cater to that need at all times or else. It's also "pervasive and accepted and sucks" that women by default have value that men must earn with great effort and when they do earn it, they must share it with women simply because they feel they deserve "equal" share of it.

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

Oh, barf. Really? Jesus, read your own message there. The end.. that's just disgusting. How about, noone be an asshole, gender should not matter in science? Which is what I said. GENDER BLIND. How is that a problem???

HOW can you argue with that?

And he did not lose all his professional statuses. Let's stick with the facts, please. It wasn't just one comment, wasn't a joke, and in his "apology/explanation" he really seemed to be coming from a personal place where he was talking about his relationships that screwed up the atmosphere where he worked, because he could not but help fall in love with women in his lab. He then generalized that to all men and women. Did you even listen to that?

I think ANY SCIENTIST of ANY gender should be offended by his statements.

And I do think being a woman with two hard tech postgrad degrees makes me able to comment on this from a place of experience, at least. I'm not a douche making shit up who hasn't had any experience. And mentioning that my gender is pertinent to this discussion is, I hope, not waving it in someone's face. I save that for different types of activities thankyouverymuch.

MRA trolls do nothing to advance the issues of equal gender rights. You make it worse. Shame on you. These are real issues impacting real people trying to make the word a better place, wether it's being a woman getting a fair shake in STEM or a man trying to get the custody of his children. You're so angry. It's not helpful.

[–]AloysiusC -1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

The end.. that's just disgusting

Maybe, but that doesn't make it false.

GENDER BLIND. How is that a problem?

It isn't for me. You on the other hand...

I think ANY SCIENTIST of ANY gender should be offended by his statements.

Love it. Taking offense is now something to impose on others. It's not enough to be offended and demand retribution. EVERYONE has to be offended.

And I do think being a woman with two hard tech postgrad degrees makes me able to comment on this from a place of experience, at least.

as opposed to just having two hard tech postgrad degrees. If you say so.

And mentioning that my gender is pertinent to this discussion is, I hope, not waving it in someone's face.

The problem is, your gender is not pertinent. That's what it means to be gender blind.

You're so angry.

Lol. Ok. You're projecting btw.

being a woman getting a fair shake in STEM

I'm curious. What makes you think women should get a fair shake in STEM? I'm not saying they shouldn't. But it's a curious demand to make while crying for gender blindness - especially if you look at the thousands of years of history upon which the hard sciences were built and in which women had a negligible part at best. Without men it probably wouldn't even exist and many of the past scientists risked or even gave their lives. Now all of that doesn't matter if you're gender blind, but then it also doesn't matter that women are underrepresented.

Might I suggest you stick to being a scientist and stop worrying about your vagina. You'll be much more effective at making the world a better place.

[–]coolsanta 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago* (3 children) | Copy Link

Don't mention what he may have done - that does not count. Just because some men are guilty does not make all men guilty. You can't randomly pick men to pay for the sins of men in your past, because usually exactly the wrong ones get picked, maybe for some other reason, maybe they are creepy looking. In the mean time you still try to reform that good looking guy that mistreated you. Somehow this brings balance in your lives. It is f'd up and that is why woman should not be in charge. They are led in their decisions by the wrong things.

[–]skintwo 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Um, I'm just saying we don't know what else may or may not have happened. Press releases don't exactly give the whole story, positive or negative. My point is if someone is this blatant/unthinking about what they say publicly, it's likely there are other behaviors afoot. Of course that shouldn't dictate any actions/repercussions, other than maybe looking into the situation a bit more.

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

So how many feminists are being "looked into" right now? Maybe they have secret lesbian agendas?

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

"every position"?! Hardly. It's hard to listen to you if you're going to mis-state the facts.

[–][deleted] -3 points-2 points-1 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

The kill all men tweet was a satirical comment.

[–][deleted] 100 points101 points102 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

The sadly ironic part is that all of this proves his point.

[–]GimmeSomeSugar 30 points31 points32 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

It wouldn't surprise me if many women in science don't actually give a shit, and the pressure came from other sources.
As I understand it, his point wasn't even his point. He made a flippant, off the cuff comment that I am inferring he meant a little sarcastically in dismissal of the topic of women in science should be given any significant billing at an international conference.

“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 criticise them, they cry,” he told delegates.
“I stood up and went mad,” he admits. “I was very nervous and a bit confused but, yes, I made those remarks – which were inexcusable – but I made them in a totally jocular, ironic way. There was some polite applause and that was it, I thought. I thought everything was OK. No one accused me of being a sexist pig.”

I was little surprised to see The Guardian publishing a fairly sympathetic piece.

[–]goatsandbros 49 points50 points51 points 11 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

We knew it was probably going to happen, but it's still sad that it did.

He probably did wonderful work that bettered humanity (and given that he was working to further science education in Europe, could have lead to a great scientist being born), but now that's been stopped because jimmies were rustled.

At least he wasn't wearing a shirt with pin-up girls on it, while speaking what he did. One can only guess at what would have happened to him.

[–]geniice 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

We knew it was probably going to happen, but it's still sad that it did.

Meh. The UCL position was unpaid and the UCL has its own reputation to worry about.

He probably did wonderful work that bettered humanity (and given that he was working to further science education in Europe, could have lead to a great scientist being born), but now that's been stopped because jimmies were rustled.

His actual research work seems to be largely unaffected. What he's lost are the committee positions that in practice tend to take time away from serious research.

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points5 points 11 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

UCL has destroyed that reputation judging by comment sections across various media. (only the ultra-left support these terminations)

Nobody would want to risk their job being yanked from under them due to a joke flopping.

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

UCL has destroyed that reputation judging by comment sections across various media. (only the ultra-left support these terminations)

Er being at the radical end of liberalism is the UCL's reputation. First to allow any race or religion in. Either first or very close to first to allow women in on equal terms with men.

If you want a less political radical university the UK has plenty of other options.

Nobody would want to risk their job being yanked from under them due to a joke flopping.

Due to UK employment law that wouldn't be much of a risk.

[+]_sennac -10 points-9 points-8 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

None of the governments today in power are "ultra-left," so you can just stop that silliness right now. "Right-wing" folks relish identity politics like the "left."

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

None of the governments today in power are "ultra-left,"

Oh please. Half of democrats blindly and zealously attempt to implement any policy demanded by "rape culture feminists" Such as this one, which destroys due process against men only, and the "violence against women act" which allows restraining orders against men without their presence in court or the capacity to face their accuser, imposes sexist "primary aggressor" criteria which are so slanted male victims are more likely to be arrested than protected if they call police, and provides wide-open abuses which scream "take advantage of false vawa accusations to strip-mine your husband in a slam-dunk divorce!".

Then there were the numerous democrats who have gone on record baselessly vilifying police and defending race riots .

"Right-wing" folks relish identity politics like the "left."

You're right in that the right does engage in religion-baiting in the same vein as the left's race baiting. Any examples of race riots could be countered by examples of home-grown right-wing terrorism by religious nutbags. This is why I'm a moderate and not a republican after the severe misbehavior of the left. It doesn't change the fact the left funds the "womyns studies" departments which provide the sanitized hate speech which is then spewed from outlets like the BBC. The right's identity politics was robbed of this level of legitimacy long ago.

[–][deleted] 16 points17 points18 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

"We're all of us terrified," she said. "In this media age, when sound bites spread so quickly, an off-the-cuff remark after a lunch in some conference can suddenly result in the fatal destruction of your career."

She knows she isn't actually afraid of this. Men are, yeah. But the major users of social media are women. They're not going to spread something about how a woman said something offensive to men, because they don't give a shit.

I find it simple enough to stay on point though, and avoid jokes when I'm speaking in a public setting, as my job sometimes requires.

[–]Samurai007_ 9 points10 points11 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

A woman might still say something offensive to feminists, like denying she's a feminist herself, or saying she'd always dreamed of settling down and getting married, having a couple kids, and giving up the stress of working full time. Or she could simply say that she's a conservative, as conservative women aren't considered "real women" by feminists.

[–]Imnotmrabut 15 points16 points17 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

The Golden Lynch Mob at it again!

http://i.imgur.com/2zcD78t.jpg

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

Needs more apostrophe.

[–]coolsanta 22 points23 points24 points 11 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

There is a sickness in society and we all know what it is. It's called "White Knight Syndrome". Even though what this guy said was uncalled for, the overreactions are a way for other people to win brownie points at this guy's expense. Reactions are fine. Over reactions are not. Though I am sure the white knights will defend their position as it extends their time in the limelight. * sigh *. Men simply don't stick up for each other and instead of a private slap on the hand will openly stick a knife in each other's backs to win favour with the girls. The only winners are the ones that have learned to navigate the territory and abuse it in their favour. What a sad lot we are.... White knights won't realise their mistake until the horse reaches around and bites them on the butt.

[–]AugmentedFury 31 points32 points33 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

We're all strong womynnnn. But don't say anything we don't like or else it'll hurt our little fragile fweelings.

Ffs these people are pathetic.

[–]Ultramegasaurus 5 points6 points7 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

But there hasn't been a character assassination, it's just light-hearted mockery! /s

[–]MonkeyCB 16 points17 points18 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Still waiting on those contributions for all of mankind from feminists. Hell, at this point I'd settle for them turning a buck, and paying for their own existence.

[–]Godspiral 3 points4 points5 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

The biggest issue for why this is wrong is that the context is more "what issues come up in mixed gender labs" rather than "what draconian laws or university policies must be imposed in order for humanity to survive"

We should demand the resignation of everyone who becomes indignant when a fairly harmless truth is uttered.

If a female researcher suggested segragation because of all the rape and harrassment she has to endure when male colleagues are not caged, the university would be bending backwards to build better cages.

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

I thought it was a funny joke.

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

Well, this is really fucked up. He just made a joke. Even his female colleagues supported him, see below. This is just another stupid SJW witchhunt.


"Athene Donald, a leading physicist who is master of Churchill College at Cambridge University, said Hunt always enthusiastically supported her work when she served for five years as Gender Equality Champion at the university. "I've spent a lot of time with him and I've never seen any sign of sexism," she told The Associated Press."

[–]garblegarble12 2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Even a Nobel prize winner can be kicked to the curb. All men need to walk on egg shells when talking in public under the new feminist world order.

[–]coolsanta 5 points6 points7 points 11 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

Make no mistake most feminists love power. They both loved and hated men for having it. Now they just hate us, and despise us for not having it. Don't believe for one second that they will be more responsible in the way they wield power. A few willing buttons got pushed and this is the result...

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

Don't who the quote belongs to but : "If you want to know who is in power, look at who you can't criticise"

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

I wonder if those who attacked him didn't bother to think he was referring to his personal experience (e.g. some lab assistants may do everything to get an upper hand...) than referring to females as a whole.

[+][deleted] 11 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

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

.

[–]you_get_CMV_delta 7 points8 points9 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

That is a legitimate point. I literally had not considered the matter that way.

[–]coolsanta 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Judging by your other posts which are very similar to this one you are spamming the forums. Thank you for noticing the point though - that was funny.

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

. <= legitimate point

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

Then they will just fill in the blanks by interpreting your "passive aggressiveness" as hostility, you will become unlikeable, and who knows, maybe an anonymous tip to HR will get you canned.

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

It's all the same shit, white men are leveled as sexists while women can say what they want. White people criticize people of color and they are racists while those of color can say anything. ANYONE criticize or make snide remarks about queers and they are labeled as homohaters.

[–]galt88 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Running full throttle toward Idiocracy. Good work, SJW's.

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

The vengeful responses to the innocuous musings of Dr. Hunt are nothing less than utterly unmitigated and hysterical garbage. To think that University College caved to the metastasizing demands from no-talent harpies gathered around the internet to carp over their phobic paranoia is another reason why a degree from this kind of institution isn't worth the paper on which it's printed.

[–]iamdanj 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

Sooo I see what you guys are all saying but what he said was not intended as a joke, and even in his resignation statement he said he still firmly believed that what he said was what he believes.

As a man who does hate what feminism has become, but who also works in a research lab what Hunt said was offensive to the whole scientific community. He basically implied that all scientists can't work together as human beings without any control of our sexual desires. Does this mean that as a gay man in science I should be in the womens' lab? Or should I get one to myself?

I usually agree with most of the things posted in this sub, but Tim Hunt's forced resignation can only be a good thing. Nobel Prize winners are like celebrities in science and they need to be held accountable for what they say, especially in the current age when it is becoming more and more difficult to recruit people of any gender into science.

The world needs scientists, but is anyone on the planet going to want to become a scientist when they think that the scientific community wants to start segregating people of different gender or sexuality? Why stop there - I should have my own lab that only gay asian males are allowed to step into.

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

I disagree with him too, but the reaction is far too strong. Why not rebut the opinion instead of destroying the man?

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

He basically implied that all scientists can't work together as human beings without any control of our sexual desires.

By saying, "my trouble with girls ..."? No, sir, you inferred something he never implied. Mindreading.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Fair point, but do you think he deserves to, and I quote, lose "his position with the European Research Council science committee, his role at the Royal Society, and his honorary post at University College London" for one infantile comment he made? In his posts in social media he clarified it better, saying that he thinks "love affairs in the lab are disruptive to science", I think that's what he meant, and that's a very logic point, he probably just phrased it wrong at the conference, does he really deserve to be so heavily punished by every little mistake he makes when he just phrases a decent comment in a wrong way in one of the many conferences he goes to?

[–]iamdanj -5 points-4 points-3 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

I do actually think it was right for him to lose those positions. If I was to go around making discriminatory comments at work or imply that we needed segregation I would be disciplined and I am only a PhD student.

Also, if anything, love affairs in the lab are the only way for us to find partners! We work such long hours that we barely have any free time outside of work, and when we do we are paid next to nothing so doing the kind of things to have to opportunity to meet people - especially when you live in a less populated area (e.g. any city outside of London in the UK).

I know many scientists who have found 'love in the lab' and it hasn't disrupted their career or their work at all so I think his comment, even if it was misconstrued, is belittling to all scientists and implies that we have no self control. If someone is criticised by their partner then yeah they would be upset - it doesn't matter where the people work or what gender they are.

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

Again, it was just one comment in one of the many conferences he goes to, nobody is perfect, and I don't think anybody should lose this much after only one strike. I mean, everybody has at least ONE opinion that is considered sexist by the general public, mine is that feminism is wrong because it stopped focusing on the issues of all women, like it should, and started focusing on the issues of just white, middle class women. If I said that in any type of conference, I would be destroyed, and I don't think that that's how it should be. Also, I never said if I agree or not with his comment, I just said that his point, when clarified better, made sense, and wasn't absurd at all, you may not agree with him, but you can at least see how someone would come to the conclusion that he did, right?

[–]coolsanta 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Give the guy his opinion without sacking him because he has one.

[–]iamdanj -2 points-1 points0 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Dismissing people for having unfair or discriminatory opinions is commonplace in many (if not most) workplaces. The girl who posted about "rude ass white people" got fired from Brookfield zoo so why should Hunt be treated differently? If anything, since he is more in the public eye than she and his opinions will be adopted by aspiring scientists, he should be punished more severely.

[–]RationalistFaith1 -3 points-2 points-1 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Grow a pair! It's a comment you idolizing spineless irrational fake scientist.

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

This is the kind of response I'd expect from, eg, a feminist defending the comments of Bahar Mustafa. As a man striving for equality you should be critical of everyones' words and be able to tell when what they say is not fair. This is the kind of extremist shit that drives me crazy about feminists.

[–]RationalistFaith1 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

"...this is the kind of extremist shit..."

Lol, says the person who wants someone stripped of his LIFE accomplishments for an off the cuff comment.

Projecting much ?!

[–][deleted] 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

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

Your comment was automatically removed because you linked to reddit without using the "no-participation" np. domain. Reddit links should be of the form "np.reddit.com" or "np.redd.it"

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[–]xu85 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

There was a good discussion on this issue on /r/ukpolitics the other day. I feel for the guy, especially when I understand the outrage was all coordinated by bored and insecure Twitter feminists.

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

Usually I'm on the men's rights side but c'mon. This guy got in front of a women's conference and somehow felt that was the right time to pointlessly vent his hostilities toward women. Why did he stop there... why not tell us the problem with black scientists, or islamic scientists? "The problem with Indian scientists is that they heat up their curry in the microwave and stink up the whole lab! And what's with them chinese scientists, most of them can barely speak english and you can't even tell what they're saying, all with the 'ching chong wing wong'." That's stuff is not funny, it's hostile, and ignorant as hell. This guy is a douche and by defending him you erode the sympathy a moderate person is inclined to have towards the men's rights movement.

[–]coolsanta 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago* (14 children) | Copy Link

What happened to freedom of speech? People should be free to voice an opinion without having to fear retribution. He did not speak for or against any of those societies he was a member of. He would stand a good chance in court, as the law would be obliged to protect his rights. It would be a win against the poisonous attitude against men that currently pervades society.

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

This is silly. He's FREE to say what he wants. Sometimes what you say has consequences, especially professionally. Sheesh. He didn't get arrested, he lost some honorary positions.

[–]harryballsagna 6 points7 points8 points 11 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

As much as I agree that this witch-hunt is unacceptable, this is not a free speech issue. Freedom of speech is not the right to say what you want without consequences; it's the constitutional right to not have your rights to speech trampled.

He was free to speak. The world is just nuts in how they treat his opinion.

Edit: at least three people have no idea what free speech actually is.

[–]ThatDamnWoman -9 points-8 points-7 points 11 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

Freedom of speech applies to the relationship between citizen and state, not citizen and other citizen. As long as the state hasn't sanctioned his statements, as long as the state hasn't forced him to resign, he wouldn't stand a chance in court.

[–]coolsanta 10 points11 points12 points 11 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

You made an incorrect assumption without checking the facts: "Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted in 1948, states that: Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers."

[–]ThatDamnWoman -2 points-1 points0 points 11 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

That is true, and seeing as we're in Europe, we're also dealing with art. 10 in the European Convention on Human Rights (and I'm just going to analogue through this one, as Europeans - such as myself - tend to focus on our own constitutions rather than the stuff from far-away UN).

Now, they are very similar both in wording and application and every single case on freedom of speech as a human right revolves around the state not limiting a person's freedom of speech, not sanctioning a person's opinion, and not censoring the same. The same goes for freedom of information.

Human rights in general are considered "vertical rights" as they apply to the relationship between citizen and state. This entails that the state has to ensure that the state doesn't impose on a person's rights. The state also has a positive obligation to ensure that a person can exercise their right - without interference from the state. Just the state. Another citizen/individual can tell you to STFU or otherwise react to your stuff, as is their right by the very same convention.

[–]coolsanta 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

I am pretty sure that if the state does not limit a person's freedom of speech they will have a hard time understanding why this guy got sacked. That does open up the case for unjust dismissal as there should be just cause. I notice you're getting the hang of the whole freedom of speech thing. Things seem to make a whole lot more sense if one can manage to change one's perspective.

[–]ThatDamnWoman 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

I notice you're getting the hang of the whole freedom of speech thing.

I'm a lawyer specialized in European human rights law (basically what brought to r/MensRights) - I'm not sure if I should take this statement as an insult or a compliment (I'll just take it at face value and save the both of us from a heap of trouble), as I pretty much said the same as my prior statement: vertical right, state --> citizen. So I'm not getting the hang of it, I have the hang of it, thanks for noticing, btw.

That does open up the case for unjust dismissal (...)

Agreed. If he was forced to resign. I've tried to keep up with the story from as many different sources as possible and I haven't found any solid evidence that he was forced to resign. And for the ECHR to even consider this hypothetical case, the national courts and appeals must be exhausted (which takes years) - and THAT's where the state enter the picture!

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

I like people that don't take themselves too seriously, ThatDamnWoman. That is why I don't like what is happening in the world nowadays with people getting litigated for just about everything and for every degree thereof. It gives a pretty sour taste to life having to constantly defend oneself against people that are really out to harm you. I believe excessive retribution/punishment is the hallmark of a bully. I would rather see such bullies locked up than the original wrongdoers. In this guy's case he was not intending any real harm. As a young child I had a dream that I was given the choice if I wanted to come down here. If that was what happened I think I made the wrong choice. I agree with PonderPond35: " "If you want to know who is in power, look at who you can't criticise"

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

I agree.

But just to be clear: I have not expressed my personal opinion on this story. I have simply stated that freedom of speech from a legal point of view regulates the relationship between citizen and state.

I'm from Denmark and H. C. Andersen wrote a fairy tale where the punch line is "one feather becoming five chickens" (the English equivalent is probably "making a mountain of a mole hill"). I don't remember what the fairy tale is called but it's about a chicken that loses a feather. As word spreads, the story changes from a chicken just dropping a feather (as what happens), to a chicken plucking herself naked to get the attention of the resident rooster, to five hens all plucking themselves naked to get the rooster's attention. While the fact was that it was just a chicken losing a feather, the output was radically exaggerated. I personally think that it's the same here. While I don't see the funny in Prof. Hunt's statement (humor is subjective so it's not my call anyway), a large part of the reactions were absurd and the fact that it resulted in his resignation has no place in a modern society.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

XKCD put it pretty well. You're focused on the wrong issue.

The right issue is why people are so eager to show him the door for saying one thing off the cuff, and it has a lot to do with who uses social media, how much they use it, and what kinds of ideas they're marinating in.

[–]ThatDamnWoman 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Agreed. I wouldn't say that people over-reacted but the accumulated reactions were pretty heavy. In my opinion astrophysicist Sarah Tuttle took it too far, whereas I found #distractinglysexy to be cute and witty. It also wasn't personally directed at Prof. Hunt.

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

I agree that Tuttle went too far. I think responding to a bad, offensive joke with a good one is a solid way to deal with it. Shaming is accomplished.

[–][deleted] 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

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

Your comment was automatically removed because you linked to reddit without using the "no-participation" np. domain. Reddit links should be of the form "np.reddit.com" or "np.redd.it"

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[–]NormanoSilurian -1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

PC = Tyranny

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