The hopeless arrogance of Milo Yiannopoulos

There was a recent debate on British television between Milo Yiannopoulos and Emily Grossman on Sexism in Science. I have no idea why Yiannopoulos was even invited; he’s got no qualifications at all to be talking about this stuff. I guess he was the representative for sexism, while Grossman was there to represent science.

A very short summary:

Grossman: Hunt’s remarks were irresponsible in fields still afflicted with a serious gender imbalance, science is an environment in which we’re trying to dispel historical stereotypes that discourage women from entering, etc.

Yiannopoulos: Gender essentialism, biological determinism, men’s brains and women’s brains are different, there may be a scientific basis to why women don’t succeed as well in science. Blech, puke, argle-bargle.

Stop right there. The ‘debate’ should have come to a screeching stop the instant Yiannopoulos started babbling lies and nonsense, but I’m just amazed his eyeballs didn’t pop out of his face from all the irony pressure in his skull.

[Read more…]

That poor wee man!

It’s bad enough that Tim Hunt has a baying mob of witches howling for his blood, now they’re unlimbering the heavy artillery: they are using satire. Exactly like a witch would do.

Frankly, I don’t even know how I managed to become a scientist. I can only name a handful of important women in science, and they are all dinosaurs in Jurassic Park. I remember wanting to become a scientist when I was young, but I knew this must be a mistake; as a woman, I was better suited to a career in something more traditionally feminine, like becoming a prostitute or dying in childbirth. I likely only made it to my current position in a well-established lab by using reverse sexism, which is rampant in science.

[Read more…]

I thought they didn’t like hyperbole?

Tim Hunt's very bad day

Tim Hunt’s very bad day

Here we go again. Eight Nobel prize winners have come out to defend Tim Hunt.

They warned of a chilling effect on academics’ freedom to speak their minds after Sir Tim was forced to resign his honorary post at University College London amid pressure from social media users.

Sir Andre Geim, of the University of Manchester who shared the Nobel prize for physics in 2010 said that Sir Tim had been “crucified” by ideological fanatics , and castigated UCL for “ousting” him.

[Read more…]

A question for Richard Dawkins

drawingaline

In a letter to the Times, Richard Dawkins protests.

Along with many others, I didn’t like Sir Tim Hunt’s joke, but ‘disproportionate’ would be a huge underestimate of the baying witch-hunt that it unleashed among our academic thought police: nothing less than a feeding frenzy of mob-rule self-righteousness.

Fortunately, I’ve also already written my reply. It’s a simple question.

If you’re one of those people who called this a “witch hunt”, an “Inquisition”, a “lynching” — what would you have people do differently when an esteemed senior scientist gets up to a lectern and says something sexist, or racist, or simply idiotic?

I’m also curious, and have an additional question. How should we reply when someone says something stupid in public about evolution? If a government official were to spout creationist nonsense, for instance, would a full-throated roar of disapproval from the electorate be appropriate, or would that fall into the category of “feeding frenzy of mob-rule self-righteousness”? Would you propose that after one thought-leader says “tut, tut”, the rest of us should withdraw to a decorous silence?

Sometimes, these lines are hard to draw, and where we draw them says a lot about the biases of the delineator.

Gender Workshop: I used to be okay with a “witch hunt” or two

Gender Workshop, as ever, is brought to you by your friendly, neighborhood Crip Dyke.

There’s been much talk over the last few years about witch hunts. Targeting Dawkins. Targeting Shermer. Targeting Hunt. Targeting anyone who happens to sit near Adria Richards. And though I think it is far from a witch hunt to be criticized by a lot of people, even by a lot of people at once, because your comments or behaviors merited criticism, for a long time I merely rolled my eyes at the inevitable, defensive backlash: “Witch hunt!”

[Read more…]

That’s a slightly better apology

segregated

Tim Hunt was chastised by his hosts at the Korean meeting of the World Conference of Science Journalists, and he replied with a slightly better apology.

The federation asked for an apology. And got one almost immediately. Hunt wrote that he regretted his “stupid and ill-judged remarks.” He added: “I am mortified to have upset my hosts, which was the very last thing I intended. I also fully accept that the sentiments as interpreted have no place in modern science and deeply apologize to all those good friends who fear I have undermined their efforts to put these stereotypes behind us.”

[Read more…]

The Nobel is not a get-out-of-jail-free card

Nobel-Prize

Poor, poor pitiful Tim Hunt. He’s now complaining about his treatment as a victim of the “savage power of Twitter”.

I am finished, he says. I had hoped to do a lot more to help promote science in this country and in Europe, but I cannot see how that can happen. I have become toxic. I have been hung to dry by academic institutes who have not even bothered to ask me for my side of affairs.

He does not make a convincing argument. His wife takes his side; he’s a good cook and has a nice garden; he was just being totally jocular, ironic (which is an odd thing to claim when even in his apology he said he meant it). Oh, and of course, it was just part of his upbringing. He went to a single-sex school in the 1960s, because no one ever escapes the harm done to them in their childhood, unless it’s sexual abuse, in which case they should just grow up and get over it. It’s basically a cry that everyone is being so mean to him…which is a bit ironic, given that he’s relatively wealthy, has a nice home, has international prestige, and has a Nobel prize.

[Read more…]

I think someone confused “traumatizing” with “informative”

There’s a book from the 1970s that’s being called The Most Traumatizing Kids Book Ever. All of the pages are viewable online, and I read the whole thing — it’s short — and it’s just a straightforward description of sex and childbirth, with cute simple pictures.

OK, the smiling jazz-hands baby is a bit inaccurate, but that’s why it’s an un-traumatizing children’s book.

jazzhandsbaby

The real thing would have more screaming and blood and slime and bear more of a resemblance to the chest-burster scene in Alien. But otherwise, if I’d known about in the 80s and 90s when I had young kids, I’d have had it around the house for them to learn about sex, with no embarrassment at all.