The professor of the #distractinglysexy fame loses his job

[Admiral Yi]

As for the "shrieking" (which is a term you reserve for women and gays being upset, I should note), there is systemic sexism in the sciences. Numerous studies have shown this. Perhaps if it's brought up and fought against, it will stop, and women will be able to go into the sciences without going into a hostile work environment. I see no problem with that.

I've read a number of articles that took sexism in the sciences as a starting premise, then went on to discuss what could be done to ameliorate this, but none that proved the  existence of systematic bias against women.

[Valmy]

I've read a number of articles that took sexism in the sciences as a starting premise, then went on to discuss what could be done to ameliorate this, but none that proved the  existence of systematic bias against women.

It suggests that women went to Law and Medicine because there was less systematic sexism in those fields. Which is ridiculous. Scientists are not abnormally sexists and certainly not to the extent those careers used to be.

The evidence is simply that there are fewer women in science. The explanation is abuse and bias against women by science professionals. Science is not pure or has its hands clean so it cannot be proven that is not true but I have a hard time being convinced. There is/was sexism against women everywhere. I have my doubts that is sufficient to account for the fewer number of women.

But it is a hard thing to prove either way.

[Ideologue]

Frankly it is not even the fact people might get fired it is the very public and arbitrary manner they are pilloried that makes it horrifying.

that seems like a complaint about modern technology more than anything.

Yes perhaps modern technology is the end of privacy and beginning of a reign of terror, oppression, and paranoia. Are you ok with that?

[garbon]

Yeah he should have been made fun of for that, that is hilariously stupid, but fire him? So much for wanting gender to be a conversation. If you say something wrong in the conversation you will have your life ruined.

Agreed. It happens with many issues.

And seems entirely tangential to this particular case.

[Valmy]

And seems entirely tangential to this particular case.

Entirely? No. But more than I originally thought. After all it was delivered to me in hashtag form.

[garbon]

And seems entirely tangential to this particular case.

Entirely? No. But more than I originally thought. After all it was delivered to me in hashtag form.

Yes. As Meri noted, social media had little to do with this guy getting bounced, as well as little to do with whether his name would be associated with this on the net. Well unless you think journalists would not have run with this story...

[DGuller]

then your complaint is with the companies that fired him rather than those that complained about his actions.

No, my complaint is with the people that create conditions where the employers just want to rid themselves of the headache.  That makes them cowardly, but that doesn't make them the entities that created the headache.

do you think the companies that fired him didn't consider the punishment fitting?

They didn't consider anything other that the cost/benefit of defending the victim of mob justice.

re: your first comment, do you think it's a good idea to remove companies' ability to fire someone for statements he makes in public?

Sometimes I think it's a good idea to remove companies' ability to give in to coercion.  That often makes the coercion itself go away, when those that perpetrate it know that the legal situation of the target will not allow them to succeed.

[The Brain]

then your complaint is with the companies that fired him rather than those that complained about his actions.

No, my complaint is with the people that create conditions where the employers just want to rid themselves of the headache.  That makes them cowardly, but that doesn't make them the entities that created the headache.

do you think the companies that fired him didn't consider the punishment fitting?

They didn't consider anything other that the cost/benefit of defending the victim of mob justice.

re: your first comment, do you think it's a good idea to remove companies' ability to fire someone for statements he makes in public?

Sometimes I think it's a good idea to remove companies' ability to give in to coercion.  That often makes the coercion itself go away, when those that perpetrate it know that the legal situation of the target will not allow them to succeed.

Seems sound to me that a company makes decisions based on cost/benefit.

[derspiess]

Yes. As Meri noted, social media had little to do with this guy getting bounced, as well as little to do with whether his name would be associated with this on the net. Well unless you think journalists would not have run with this story...

So the fury over this was in newspapers and not in social media?

[derspiess]

You're missing the point. This isn't about how strong or otherwise women are or are not. This wasn't a bad joke, and he never said it was. (His wife called it that; he didn't.)

Incorrect. 

http://www.theguardian.com/science/2015/jun/13/tim-hunt-hung-out-to-dry-interview-mary-collins

"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."

This is about an institutional record of women being treated poorly in the workplace, so why go into that workplace? This is about creating a hostile work environment, and then saying, "You just have to be tough." Why do that to yourself when there are other options?

Sounds like you're creating a strawman.  I said women (or anyone) ought to be tough enough not to allow a stupid joke to deter them from making a career decision.  Seems really bizarre to me how much feminists tend to infantilize women.

As for the "shrieking" (which is a term you reserve for women and gays being upset, I should note),

Do I use the term that often?  I don't remember the last time I used it, but I think it definitely applies in this case.

there is systemic sexism in the sciences. Numerous studies have shown this. Perhaps if it's brought up and fought against, it will stop, and women will be able to go into the sciences without going into a hostile work environment. I see no problem with that.

As evidenced by what?  Disproportionate representation of males in science?  You're not gonna get 50/50 male/female representation in every study/profession.  There may be some sexism in science or there may be practically none, but my guess is that it's just not something that tends to interest most women.  Why try to force it?

[merithyn]

As for the "shrieking" (which is a term you reserve for women and gays being upset, I should note), there is systemic sexism in the sciences. Numerous studies have shown this. Perhaps if it's brought up and fought against, it will stop, and women will be able to go into the sciences without going into a hostile work environment. I see no problem with that.

I've read a number of articles that took sexism in the sciences as a starting premise, then went on to discuss what could be done to ameliorate this, but none that proved the  existence of systematic bias against women.

Systemic <> systematic

[Martinus]

So long as he's not in any way overseeing other scientists or dictating who gets what labs, resources, etc., I don't really care.

In what possible circumstances would somebody heading high profile reasearch not be making these sorts of decisions? But he did not have that authority in his former position.

If he worked in a lab, doing his own research, and didn't have the authority to say who got what resources or lab time, then I don't mind if he did what he did and kept his job. Was censored, of course, but kept his job. But his thinking is that women don't belong in Science. Under those circumstances, he can't be allowed to dictate how resources are allocated. He simply can't be trusted to do so fairly based on skill and research if he's willing to stand in front of a room full of women Scientists and tell them they shouldn't be in labs with men.

He lost his job because he was a talking head for the University, and he stood up in front of a room full of women Scientists and told them they shouldn't be in labs with men.

I'm baffled that this isn't cut and dried.

I think I'd rather have a brilliant scientist work in a position where he can put his genius to work even if it made some of his employees uncomfortable, than not. The purpose of a work place is not to make you feel good about yourself, to feel appreciated or comfortable - it is to achieve results. Only if, on balance, his behaviour would make him and his team less efficient because of his behaviour, he should be fired - but not if he can deliver what others cannot despite him being an asshole.

[Martinus]

So long as he's not in any way overseeing other scientists or dictating who gets what labs, resources, etc., I don't really care.

In what possible circumstances would somebody heading high profile reasearch not be making these sorts of decisions? But he did not have that authority in his former position.

If he worked in a lab, doing his own research, and didn't have the authority to say who got what resources or lab time, then I don't mind if he did what he did and kept his job. Was censored, of course, but kept his job. But his thinking is that women don't belong in Science. Under those circumstances, he can't be allowed to dictate how resources are allocated. He simply can't be trusted to do so fairly based on skill and research if he's willing to stand in front of a room full of women Scientists and tell them they shouldn't be in labs with men.

He lost his job because he was a talking head for the University, and he stood up in front of a room full of women Scientists and told them they shouldn't be in labs with men.

I'm baffled that this isn't cut and dried.

I disagree. There should be a cost and benefit analysis applied. If his intellect and talent outweighs the negative cost of him being in a position of authority and power, he should be in that position.

[DGuller]

then your complaint is with the companies that fired him rather than those that complained about his actions.

No, my complaint is with the people that create conditions where the employers just want to rid themselves of the headache.  That makes them cowardly, but that doesn't make them the entities that created the headache.

do you think the companies that fired him didn't consider the punishment fitting?

They didn't consider anything other that the cost/benefit of defending the victim of mob justice.

re: your first comment, do you think it's a good idea to remove companies' ability to fire someone for statements he makes in public?

Sometimes I think it's a good idea to remove companies' ability to give in to coercion.  That often makes the coercion itself go away, when those that perpetrate it know that the legal situation of the target will not allow them to succeed.

Seems sound to me that a company makes decisions based on cost/benefit.

Yes, but coercion is putting the thumb on the cost side of the scale.

[Berkut]

Yeah, I think I was wrong in my initial assessment. I was thinking this was kind of similar to the guy who got fired for a comment some female overheard him make to someone else during a conference, which she then tweeted, and which he never intended for her to hear in the first place. This is not the same thing at all.

This is not someone being hoist for comments he never intended to be public, it is for something he said in a speech TO the public. He can hardly complain or feel like it was not fair that people would have an opinion about comments he made in his role and to journalists. He had a chance to walk them back, and declined - which I guess kudos to him for sticking by his beliefs?

Meri is right, I was wrong.