Sorry, honest question. Being from a different culture, I honestly fail to get this kind of outrage. For me it's just a description of humans being human...
What about men and women who aren't romantically attracted to (respectively) women and men? Are gay men relegated to the women's lab? But only one per batch, lest they fall in love with each other? (And bisexual people can only be trusted to do science on their own.)
In general don't we expect "professionalism" to include a level of managing your emotions? And this person is basically saying "I can't deal, therefore certain other people must be kept away so I don't get distracted". As well as tarring women in general as not being able to deal, which is unfair. I sure wouldn't want to work with this guy after hearing him say that.
Precisely. There's some sort of "if you have authority you must be better than me" feeling and "better than me" admits no flaws or human variety at all, apparently. Some folks want perfect Gods to follow and keep failing to make them from people made of meat.
Since feelings are only a biological impulse, and we humans frequently suppress our impulses in the form of self control, it's much easier to look for that oxytocin fix in a more appropriate arena.
The military has been doing this for ages, forbidding officers from fraternizing with enlisted. And plenty of civilians abusing positions of power have proven the wisdom of such a policy.
Huh?
Where there's a power imbalance, it's easier to ban a class of abuses than to figure out the small percentage of cases where both parties are genuinely afflicted by mutual biological imperatives.
How would you, an outside party, determine whether the superior was really [infatuated, in love, whatever], and not simply taking advantage of their situation? Or how would a judge determine that? Is it worth it to the company to work through that process every time it happens? What about the people who really were victimized, but the evidence is circumstantial and the court says otherwise? Isn't it easier to exclude the small pool of people that are subordinates and tell the supervisor to find romance anywhere else?
Hard to not assume malice when you accuse someone for implying something they explicitly said they don't want to imply.
Fundamentally, he is saying that since he has trouble keeping his emotions in check around women, the solution is to not allow women in the lab rather than developing his own managerial or social skills.
It's understandable why some would question the wisdom of having this person responsible for developing the skills of female scientists.
Should he have been fired? I don't know. Certainly not if tis joke was is only "offence", but I suspect there is a bit more history to the situation.
If he was into men, and he said he didn't want men in the lab because he might fall in love with them, you can sort of see how absurd it is, and how unpleasant it is to be the object of romantic fantasy when you're just trying to get on with your job.
Ok, why would that not be the case? Laws? PC? Age difference? Love/biology doesn't care about social rules, and this has been shown time and again in every possible situation you could think of.
> you can sort of see how absurd it is
Huh, no I can't. What makes it different when you reverse the situation?
The point is, any human can be a romantic partner to any other. Therefore, his argument should be that no pair of humans should work together ever for risk of romantic entanglements.
Except it doesn't work that way, because we're all really used to the idea that in the workplace, you treat your colleagues as colleagues, not as fantasy-future-partners.
This isn't PC. It's just basic common sense, that he's lost his grip on, because he sees women first as romantic partners or sex objects or whatever, and second as scientists.
Because of professionalism. The root of term used for “professions” like law, medicine, engineering etc. is that one professes to a code of ethics. That code should overrule base desires.
We generally wouldn’t accept a doctor who views and treats patients primarily as an income stream despite greed being a near-universal human drive and we shouldn’t expect a professor to view subordinates as potential romantic partners. Acknowledging the drive exists isn’t a reason to condone it.
So, exactly what Hunt said in his speech.
I’m saying that claim is more an implication of the person saying it and their (lack of) professional ethics than an indictment of the subordinates. It’s very similar in my mind to the recent arguments about gender in military units
Isn’t this the case with everything? I.e., if “everything is fine until it isn’t” it’s not really saying much of anything except he doesn’t think he can create a culture of professionalism within his lab. Does this “welp, we can’t do anything about our base desires” extend outside romantic relations? Would it be acceptable to claim “well, physical altercations are just going to happen because you know people will get mad at each other from time to time”?
I’m not hiding behind professionalism, I’m saying it’s reasonable to acknowledge those base desires while also expecting a higher standard of behavior.
Are you willing to punish people with jail time or worse for falling in love and adopting the behaviour that goes with it? This is the other extreme of your argument, and there are many places in the world where this is the social norm.
The PI can do everything he/she wants, love will happen and people will behave accordingly. The point is acknowledging that this is not a problem that arises at a single point in time allowing you to fire the offender, but that it happens along a continuum that will constantly decrease lab efficiency.
No, because one is a criminal offense and the other is a breach of ethics. From that standpoint, it was a bad analogy. But I would hold someone accountable for being unprofessional in the workplace. To be clear, I’m not saying to punish people for falling in love, I’m saying you can hold them accountable for letting it affect the workplace and creating an unprofessional environment.
>The PI can do everything he/she wants, love will happen and people will behave accordingly.
This is probably where we disagree. I think the PI holds some responsibility for setting the tone of the work culture. You may not be able to control people’s feelings but you can make it clear that certain actions are not going to be tolerated. That’s especially necessary in cases of fraternization. It’s the PI’s job to maintain the professional standards of the lab.
This is very clearly a case of the professor being unprofessional and exploitative of his position of power.
This is very clearly a professor acknowledging the problems that arise due to interindividual biology in work environments. Unlike PC supporters hiding the issue under the blanket of professionalism.
If someone is incapable of managing their feelings in a workplace then maybe they don't belong in one, and their colleagues should not be the ones who are punished for that.
I don't expect you to agree with me here.
Somehow, most people manage to figure out that this kind of behavior isn't appropriate, and hide the issue under the blanket of being-a-decent-human-being.
I don't understand how dealing with sexual or romantic feelings is any different.
--Katherine Hepburn, in The African Queen
A few of the good words to live by
What we should avoid is cramming people into functionary roles and instruct them they must act as would a machine. No longer can they be compelling or compelled but only impelled as would be a gear turning in the insurmountable forces of the engine that drives.
And, exactly how is this NOT overcoming human nature?
>> should avoid is cramming people into functionary roles and instruct them they must act as would a machine
What in that quote, or its context, ever suggested cramming people into functionary or mechanical roles?
You have got to suppress your naive survival instinct (or remain massively ignorant) to climb on top of a rocket with thousands of tons of explosive material...
He made a terribly misogynistic "joke" and paid the consequences for it.
You'd think someone with a Nobel prize wouldn't be so clueless
Do you think women in the lab, when criticized, are more likely, less likely, or equally likely to cry?
Is the scientist’s comment mean spirited, or sexist, or just an observation?
I think it’s important to consider what the intent behind these jokes are. The Wikipedia article calls out statements from 29 other scientists that note how women (and men) were advanced within his lab and outside his lab.
So if this person thinks that the women he’s worked with cry when criticized, so we not want him to say that? It seems more like the goal should be to not stigmatize crying as that seems pretty reasonable for all genders, rather than to stigmatize talking about crying.
It does not make everyone uncomfortable, obviously. I thought we were not supposed to resort to stereotypes.
Really solid defense!
That being said misogyny requires intent, right. It means someone who hates or dislikes women. So if you make a statement that every time you criticize a woman, she cries and don’t have ill intent toward women, then that isn’t a sign of misogyny.
I don’t think women are any more likely to cry than men, but if there’s research that shows it so, is that misogynistic?
If you say “women are shorter than men” is that misogynistic?
I think it largely depends on intent as if someone is trying to demean women or does hate women, that’s a big difference. Saying women are shorter than men as part of some overall argument on inferiority is clearly misogynistic.
I've heard the most ridiculously hateful and racist things prefaced by "I'm not a racist but..."
Clearly in these people's own minds they aren't racist/misogynist, but when you are pushing plainly racist or misogynistic views it doesn't matter.
The statements are misogynistic. If you think you can convince your boss your intent wasn't to be bigoted so your bigoted comments aren't actually bigoted then be my guess. I am confident you are unlikely to succeed.
The definition of misogyny literally includes intent, perhaps you’re thinking of something other than misogyny.
Here’s the definition from Wikipedia [0]… “ Misogyny (/mɪˈsɒdʒɪni/) is the hatred of, contempt for, or prejudice against women or girls. It enforces sexism by punishing those who reject an inferior status for women and rewarding those who accept it.”
You also didn’t answer my question of what negative information you wouldn’t interpret as misogynistic. Is it possible to report anything negative based on biological sex or gender that you don’t interpret as misogynistic?
How can these differences be studied and discussed to learn more and overcome harm caused toward women?