Besudes... What? Do you think personal circumstances should give you special privilege to be a liar and an attack dog? No.... Not in my book. You are equal no matter your supposed personal situation. I won't insult you by treating you with soft gloves just because you make fake claims about yourself in an attempt to garner sympathy.

"Let us all take note of the standard that Krellin demands"

Nah, only notes worth taking are, i appear to be better off having muted Krellin. His 'contributions' must have lost something as i've been of two minds about this for some time. But he managed to do something to help me decide :)

Please don't break my illusion by talking back to him ;)

Let's get back to the main topic in this thread, and leave the personal attacks elsewhere, too.

It might be quicker and easier to set up a single thread for krellin and jamiet to slug it out in, in perpetuity, freeing up all these innocent threads about genuine topics for discussion...

@ ora;

http://metro.co.uk/2015/04/26/are-you-beach-body-ready-body-shaming-advert-attracts-barrage-of-criticism-5168258/

http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2015/05/we-have-distinguish-between-outrage-and-justified-rage-marginalised

"‘We now run Britain’s largest protein facility, selling our products in over 50 countries to more than 300,000 customers. Most of them are women. How could we possibly be sexist?"

And 'the difference is about power' - but at least we're still talking about social norms and how we go about changing them.

Or at least, how people without power/privilege can change them.
Great articles, now what was your question??

Wow, is tha meant to be a rhetorical question? "We create unattainable ideals to sell an unneccesary product (which doesn't work most of the time, and we know it because that is part of the business plan) to women, how can we be sexist?"

Thank good for Richard Dawkins
http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/jun/19/tim-hunt-the-victim-of-self-righteous-feeding-frenzy-says-richard-dawkins

I heasitate to say God, in case he falls off his private uni chair, but you know what I mean......................

Some science on women and men crying:

Tears effectively convey that one is sincere, and anxious to deal with a problem. Although it is often assumed that boys are less likely to weep (and thus to keep their emotions within themselves) because of social condition. research found that adult women have serum prolactin levels almost sixty percent above the average male [27] . This difference may help to explain why women as a whole cry more frequently [27] found out that women cry four times more often.

http://omicsonline.org/scientific-reports/srep476.php

@fulhamish - is this a reason to joke about the crying of women? To make a jokr at the expense of those who have been marginalised and excluded from science (to the detriment of both women and science?)

no joke just a reflection on the comments for which this man is being hung out to dry. Do you argue with the science on women crying more than men? Do you argue with the fact that this man met and fell in love with his second wife in the lab? Do you argue with the fact that he is human and that we all, on occasion, say silly things?

@fulhamish: Do you argue with the premise that Tim Hunt's joke was based on humiliating women as a category of human?

^

@ Jeff, no.... your are taking it far too seriously and reading to much into it. Ever told an Irish joke, a Jewish joke, a joke abbout your mother in law??? Come on be truthful now.

I have given what I consider the background to the joke/remark (delete as you please) above (message at 12.19). Might you have a go at answering those three questions.

@fulhamish: Ok. Here goes.

Re: Science of women crying more than men. Interesting, but irrelevant.
Re: Meeting and falling in love. This part of his "joke" is least offensive, if at all.
Re: Saying silly things. I say silly things all the time. I make jokes people don't get all the time. THIS IS WHY I AM NOT IN PUBLIC RELATIONS.

So one for you:
Do you argue with the premise that UCL had every right to terminate its employer/employee relation with Tim Hunt?

Jeff, with respect, you missed the first papragraph of my post at 3.35.

On your question, legally yes, but morally (justice if you prefer) then no. and I gather that many at UCL are increasingly becoming upset about it

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/londoners-diary/londoners-diary-will-tim-hunts-nemesis-at-ucl-now-stand-up-10320940.html

Sorry Jeff you have lost me again, exactly who 'was in public relations?'

@fulhamish: Time stamps aren't as helpful since we're in different time zones.

Whether or not I've told off-color jokes in private is irrelevant. Whether or not Tim Hunt tells off-color jokes in private is irrelevant.

Tim Hunt did at the worst possible time and worst possible venue. He was forced out for a egregiously poor judgment and potentially bringing disrepute on his employer.

Tim Hunt was (effectively) in public relations for UCL. Certainly presenting on behalf of his organization is "people-facing."

I'll also mention that I do have sympathy for Tim Hunt as a person. I don't think he is some woman-hater. But he is *not* the right person for that job.

UCL had to act. They were decisive and sent a message. That was their prerogative.

I should say, as soon as he made those comments, he was *no longer* the right person for that job.

OK I like the distinctsion you draw. On judging whether someone is sexist (etc.) the context must be taken into account. in the student bar, the office canteen, or at home then it is not relevant to their employment status. If you stand up at a conference and tell the same joke then you are in line for the chop. I think that you are most likely legally correct in what you say.
However, morally you are most definately wrong IMO. In all of these matters it is one's intentions that count. I believe that in Islam they say something like '' intention is the foundation of every action''. I couldn't agree more.

And I feel I should go on and say that we more we find out about this man the more I sympathise with him. He is, what we describe in England as, a good egg. He made a silly mistake, give him a break.

AFAIC, it is an open and shut case that UCL had to sever its ties to Tim Hunt after his comments, even if he is a brilliant scientist and good egg.

I think there is a lot of discussion that could and should happen about the way this situation was handled.

Typically, if someone is being forced to leave an organization, there are three ways it goes. Each way is used based on what message the organization wants to send.
1) Give the person some time to get their affairs in order and then tell the world they are leaving to "spend more time with their family" which everyone knows is just a euphemism. Usually this is done when there are business reasons for a person to go or when there is just a shake-up in management and there is no fault placed on the person leaving.
2) Give them an ultimatum and force them to resign. This is what happened to Tim Hunt. UCL decided they had to deal with this immediately before they lost control of the situation. It was harsh, decisive damage control. They showed a modicum of respect for Tim Hunt by giving him the "option" to resign, even after he "accidentally" brought disrepute onto UCL with his comments.
3) Fire them immediately. This is the most harsh way to deal with people who have to go, but sometimes it must be done. By firing the offender, the organization sends a public message to the outside world that the person did something egregiously wrong and that behavior will not be tolerated. It is harsh but effective. UCL didn't go there, but they were prepared to do so. At least they gave Tim Hunt the option to choose the manner of his departure. Cold comfort to be sure.

Will comment more latter, but the rumour is a fourth way of doing it. Sack you by telling your wife you must go

@ Jeff , I am really not sure what the relevance of your last post is to the topic at hand. We both agree that in all probability UCL were on safe legal ground to sack him. However, bear in mind that he has never been employed by UCL so it is all a bit murky anyway. The mechanics of the sacking are therefore a bit of a red herring. Please note, however, my point on doing it through his wife.

Where we disagree is whether UCL was morally right to sack him. You have your view, I have mine and it seems unlikely that we will bridge the gap. However, watch this space as I feel that there may be some more developments emanating from UCL.

On a related note I recently started a thread on stephen Fry's ruined Honduran honeymoon. I admit that I did it with a little eye to this thread. I was interested to see what happens when, if you will, two PCs clashed. That is gay rights v. Developing world sensibilities. I should have realised that the thread would sink like a stone, attracting no comments at all. Might it be that PC conventions on occasion actually serve to stifle healthy debate?

Yes, because for PC folk it's really all about making themselves look good and/or holier-than-thou. Can't do that in your thread - they might get mud on their high heels.

"If you stand up at a conference and tell the same joke then you are in line for the chop. I think that you are most likely legally correct in what you say. "

No, you should be called out on inappropriate 'jokes' in all contexts. You shouldn't go around thinking it is ok to do in private 'because nobody gets hurt' you are still promoting racist/sexist/homophobic/whatever ideas.

The fact that Hunt hasn't been called out by his friends in private before doing something like this in public suggests he is surrounded by people who accept hos sexism. Unfortunately for him this has cost him his job.

"Yes, because for PC folk it's really all about making themselves look good and/or holier-than-thou." BULLSHIT, if you actually listen to activists, they say 'this behaviour hurts me' and surprisingly enough that is the reason they are out there campaigning for the Tim Hunts of the world to be fired.

The reason i didn't comment on the other thread is because i don't know what to say. It IS a hard question. Which is entirely unfair, it probably deserves more attention than this much simpler one.

''A university's diversity officer will remain in post, despite provoking a storm of protest by tweeting #killallwhitemen and labelling people "white trash".

Bahar Mustafa also banned white men from a university event on diversifying the curriculum at Goldsmiths University, London.

She then defended her position by stating that she could not be racist because she is an ethnic minority woman.''

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/11633305/University-union-officer-who-wrote-kill-all-white-men-tweet-will-remain-in-post.html