"...in accordance with the Fascist policy of intellectual freedom and free expression of opinion by those who are qualified to hold it..." (From the announcement at the beginning of each of Ezra Pound's radio broadcasts from Rome during WWII.)
Philip Moriarty has been challenging me to consider alternative situations, in which it would be clearer that Tim Hunt's infamous 39 words would be inappropriate. In the comments to my earlier post he writes:
If I were to stand up in front of an audience of applicants for our physics courses -- and let's just say that they're mature students applying for our Foundation Year (so we can avoid any silly patronising counter-arguments about students not being adults) --- and start off with "My trouble with girls..." and say exactly what Hunt said (those precise 39 words) and follow it up with "But seriously...", would that be fine with you?
[...]
When it comes to being tolerant of different views, how about we replace "girls" with any other group -- "gays", "Irish", "Jews", "blacks" etc. --- and repeat Hunt's 'joke' word for word. And again, remember that I fully appreciate the idea that it was meant to be self-deprecating. We can dream up many scenarios/'gedankenexperiments' where I could well be making a similar 'joke' in a self-deprecating fashion, particularly when it comes to the Irish. (As you know, I'm Irish). It still doesn't make it witty or anything more than cringe-makingly naff.
The pre-emption of my "silly patronising counter-arguments" stems from a Twitter exchange about a scenario he suggested on his blog:
I’m undergraduate admissions tutor for the School of Physics and Astronomy at the University of Nottingham. A couple of weeks ago I stood up in front of hundreds of potential applicants and their parents for two days running at our open days and gave talks about the teaching and research we do in the School and the various aspects of the physics courses available at Nottingham.
Let’s say that I made the following “gag” at some point during my open day talk (or, indeed, opened up with it):
“Let me tell you about my trouble with girls in physics courses. 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. Perhaps we should make separate labs for boys and girls taking our courses?
Now, seriously, I’m impressed by the strides made by girls in our physics courses over the years I’ve been at Nottingham. Science needs women, and you should do science, despite all the obstacles, and despite monsters like me.”
Then, when asked by a student during the Q&A session at the end of my talk to clarify my comments, I say:
“I’m really sorry if I have caused any offence. I was only being honest.”
Would my Head of School be justified in calling me into his office, explaining why my comments weren’t entirely appropriate for that audience, and asking me to stand down from the Admissions Tutor aspect of my job?
I agree that there'd be something here for the Head of School to look into. What Philip thinks is "silly" is my intuition that, in the case of prospective students, the remarks become less appropriate (and a reprimand therefore more appropriate) because the audience is less "adult". I think the presence of the parents is what makes that example so clear. I thought that's why he put them there, actually.
In any case, there's an important thing to keep in mind when comparing it to the Hunt case. However we re-imagine the situation, we have to remember that Hunt spoke about his "trouble with girls in the lab" well-aware that he was talking at a luncheon to honour "women in science". That shared understanding of why he was speaking was part of his context. It contextualizes the specific irony of calling himself a chauvinist in a way that is entirely absent when talking to either coming undergraduates or graduate students.
To see what I mean, consider two examples where this relationship between the joke and the audience is maintained. Instead of making it a joke told about women in the lab to any audience, make it a joke about Tim's trouble with the audience itself. I'm going to try to construct a context in which it would be almost certainly innocent, and perhaps even witty, and one in which it would just as certainly fail, and indeed, would come off utterly vile unless it was exceptionally funny.
Suppose Hunt was speaking to an audience of children (something he apparently does often and well.) Suppose he said, "Let me tell you about my trouble with children in the lab..." Remember that he's talking directly to the children as an adult, even an "old man" (from their point of view). He's probably going to invoke some stereotypes about how, say, "curious" the children are and how much "mischief" they therefore cause, and he might play those off against some "ageist" stereotypes about himself and how children befuddle, even "distract" him. And he might end with the punchline that "maybe that's why we have altogether separate labs, one for children (in school) and one for adults." It would be natural to go on from here saying, "But seriously, we actually need you children in the lab because, however distracting and disruptive you are, it's that curiosity that drives the whole thing. So I really, really, really hope grumpy old monsters like me don't hold you back."
Now, to pick a group off Philip's list, imagine Hunt being invited to speak at an NIH Black Scientists Association luncheon. It's almost impossible to imagine a "my trouble" joke here that could conceivably be in good taste, and that is of course Philip's point. But I stress the almost. Suppose Neil deGrasse Tyson had spoken immediately before him. And suppose we gave Louie C.K. and Chris Rock a week, working together, to come up with a toast that started with "You know, it's surprising that a white supremacist like me should be invited to speak here today. Let me tell you about my trouble..."** The difficulty setting, if you will, on this one is really high. In fact, there's a good reason I'm not even trying to imagine a punchline here. It's above my pay grade, as they say. And above Tim Hunt's, I'm sure. But, like I say, it's not* completely inconceivable that Louie or Rock could come up with a stereotype-dismantling joke that conforms to the terms of Philip's challenge.
I think the appropriateness of Hunt's infamous 39 words lies somewhere between the entirely innocuous bantering with children and the dangerously incendiary BSA situation. I thought the joke was worth trying and, if it fell flat, that should not have made the news.
Pay grade is actually an interesting notion here. After all, Tim Hunt is not a professional comedian but a professional scientist, and in the BSA example we need serious professional help. (Philip's challenge, i.e., the "set up", doesn't call so much for constructing a joke here as dismantling a bomb.) In his comments, Philip adduces as evidence of his own sense of humour that he finds Rowan Atkinson funny in Black Adder. That's a pretty high bar, if you ask me, for a luncheon toast. But there's something telling about this comparison. The occasion to denounce Tim Hunt's joke as "stupid" and "unfunny" seems to be that he stepped out of his professionally assigned role of speaker of scientific truths about cell division. He was not duly qualified to make a joke, certainly not one involving women. It's interesting that the "free expression of opinion by those who are qualified to hold it" is an actual Fascist policy.
What we might call the Seoul Incident, which sounds like a Robert Ludlum novel about a precipitating event that puts the world on the brink of global fascism, suggests that science journalists fancy themselves enforcers of a similar policy. As Connie St Louis put it, Hunt was not to think he would "get away with it". In a recent interview, Hunt suggested that, to avoid all this trouble (!), he could have just offered some "anodyne" remarks about the ERC's policy on gender equality. I think a lot of people do exactly that, in part for fear of being "Hunted". Let's call it the Anodyne Alternative, which also sounds like a Robert Ludlum novel. A thriller, to be sure. Unlike the luncheons that conform to the policy.
_____
*OOPS. Missed this word in the original posting.
**Update (02/12/15 at 16:15): I intentionally left off a cognate of "black people" here in order to give our two experts some freedom about how to make the shift that would be analogous to the one from "women" to "girls". Hunt's use of the latter has been interpreted by some as a slur, though I think it's plausible that he just means to invoke "boys and girls". It's important to me to point out that I've chosen this scenario, not just because the joke would almost certainly appear racist, but because, in the context of a BSA luncheon, that context would be the only saving grace, the only element that could make the joke work. Without that (i.e., imagine the context to be an AAAS luncheon), the problem is not difficult but, I would think, impossible to solve.
32 comments:
Hi, Thomas.
Thanks for writing this post. As I've explained via direct messages to you, the point here is not that I expect Hunt to be anodyne. It's rather a cop-out for Hunt to suggest that his comments were problematic because they weren't bland enough.
It's possible to be challenging, entertaining, and engaging without resorting to a terribly unfunny joke based around tired old stereotypes, even if that 'joke' was meant to be self-deprecating. And it's not entirely clear from a number of Hunt's comments to which you've referred me that all of his 'joke' was indeed meant to be self-deprecating. The statement about not criticising girls because they cry is very difficult to justify in terms of a self-deprecating piece of humour. As I've said before, it's cringeworthy and naff -- like the rest of the 'joke'. (I'll note again that at one point Hunt said that he "Stood up and went mad" -- he clearly was not entirely satisfied with the content or delivery of the joke).
" It contextualizes the specific irony of calling himself a chauvinist in a way that is entirely absent when talking to either coming undergraduates or graduate students."
No. I disagree entirely. TLet's leave aside the fact that you are again being very patronising toward students. Let's say that I was speaking at a meeting with a specific focus on the 20:80 F:M gender balance both in A-level and undergraduate physics. The 'joke' would still be misplaced there (a) because it's just such a god-awful, teeth-grindingly joke based on lazy stereotypes (yes, even if meant in a self-deprecating manner), and (b) this -- https://www.timeshighereducation.com/opinion/the-trouble-with-jokes-about-girls
" It's interesting that the "free expression of opinion by those who are qualified to hold it" is an actual Fascist policy."
That's really rather unfair, Thomas, particularly given the DM exchange we've had. (And somewhat beneath you to draw the "fascist" card). As I've told you I am not at all in favour of the nonsensical idea of "safe spaces" in universities and think that, for example, those students at Brunel who turned their backs on the exceptionally thick and inflammatory Katie Hopkins -- a sort of bargain-basement Mensch; or maybe Mensch is a bargain-basement Hopkins, it's difficult to tell sometimes -- really scored an own goal. They should have openly debated with Mensch -- ooops, sorry, Hopkins -- and demolished her prejudiced views.
No-one is telling Hunt what he can and cannot say. But words and stupid 'jokes' have consequences (need I mention McDonnell's similarly cringeworthy "red book" stunt again?). As I also said to you via DM -- although this is not directed at you -- is that what I find really quite amusing in all of this is that those who scream "freedom of speech" are too often the very same people who throw their toys out of the pram and complain about being attacked when challenged on their views. The cartoons here sum it up well: http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2012/12/gabbys-cartoon_12.html
Best wishes,
Philip
Thanks for your thoughts, Philip. I'll take up the extent to which Hunt's critics are telling him what he can and cannot say by demanding (or just approving) of the consequences that saying something has. I suppose, in a sense, a fascist gang of thugs isn't telling dissidents they can't speak freely, only that if they choose to say something there may be consequences. Often, in a fascist environment, it's not even by official decree that you're silenced. The thugs are sort of free to rove and impose general terror as they see fit (without strong institutions to restrain them). They can, occasionally, be given a target, of course. But the violence is mainly quite arbitrary.
Anyway, I know the "fascist" card is a bit hyperbolic. But I love that epigraph. I think it almost has a sense of humour. A fascist sense of humour. LOL!
I think you are missing the point of the "anodyne" thing. The point isn't that his critics wanted something more bland, only that if they prevail then it will be too risky to say anything but something bland, i.e., a pre-approved statement of official policy. Hunt said that, in hindsight, he should probably not have run the risk implicit in trying to say something interesting, funny, challenging, or whatever. (I think he was just trying to be mildly entertaining, actually.) In short, he should not have spoken his mind.
" In short, he should not have spoken his mind."
This is where we go round in yet another circle, Thomas. It's either, as Mensch et al would have it, a self-deprecating joke that was flagging up sexist attitudes in a "knowing" way or it's Hunt speaking his mind about women in science. It can't be both simultaneously. "Speaking his mind" and "self-deprecating" are very strange bed-fellows...
So, was Hunt "speaking his mind" about the dangers of criticising women scientists in case they cry, or was it a self-deprecating joke? There's a major lack of self-consistency in a position that tries to suggest he was doing both simultaneously.
@Philip Moriarty
You said:
"So, was Hunt "speaking his mind" about the dangers of criticising women scientists in case they cry, or was it a self-deprecating joke? There's a major lack of self-consistency in a position that tries to suggest he was doing both simultaneously."
This is a true. Who has said this in defence of Hunt?
It would be nice when you provide examples like this in future that you at least provide some examples of real people using them. I.e. in this case, maybe show us examples from just one person arguing both that Tim Hunt should be allowed to warn us in all seriousness of the dangers of criticising women in the lab and the same person saying he does this in a self deprecating way. I would like to see who does that and perhaps get an idea of how typical that is. There may exist people like that but I expect that they are not typical.
Meanwhile I think most defenders understand Hunt *wasn't* generalising about the way women react when criticised, and also realise he *wasn't* warning anyone that there were dangers of criticisng women in the lab. His reductio ad absurdum was the point where he made that explicit: I.e. How weird would that be - after only hearing *his* potted experience "my problem" to be expected to accept the idea 'Perhaps we should make separate labs for boys and girls'?
I.e. just because we hear his short summary of his woes we should upturn the world to suit his "chauvinist" stereotype.
Perhaps the only inappropriate thing Hunt did was solipsisticly think that his position as an elderly heterosexual male scientist, with over 40 years working in labs, would be recognised by his audience, so that his silly reduction of that life to that short allegory would seen as clearly silly and perhaps funny.
You're being very literal, Philip. Maybe instead of "spoken his mind" I should have said "spoken off the top of his head". I just mean that his mistake seems to have been to say what occurred to him in the moment. (I meant something to contrast with stating the ERC's official position on gender equality.) Maybe he shouldn't have "worn his heart on his sleeve" or something like that. He should have been more guarded, more worried about how his words might play on social media. That's the message that the WCSJ/WFSJ is sending to people who are thinking about accepting an invitation from them to speak at one of their events.
Hi, Thomas.
Thanks for clarifying that. In this case it's really not a question of being too literal or too pedantic. There's a *huge* difference between "speaking his mind" and "speaking off the top of his head". The latter is very, very different from the former in many contexts. One could one's mind in a very considered, careful way -- that is not at all what is meant by "speaking off the top of his head".
Thanks again for the important clarification.
Philip
@TLITB
"It would be nice when you provide examples like this in future that you at least provide some examples of real people using them. I.e. in this case, maybe show us examples from just one person arguing both that Tim Hunt should be allowed to warn us in all seriousness of the dangers of criticising women in the lab and the same person saying he does this in a self deprecating way"
What a remarkable comment. Have you been reading any of the discussion Thomas and I have been having? Did you read any of Thomas' post above or his previous posts?
"...in this case, maybe show us examples from just one person arguing both that Tim Hunt should be allowed to warn us in all seriousness of the dangers of criticising women in the lab and the same person saying he does this in a self deprecating way..."
This is exactly what Thomas did in his post (and previous posts); the example you request is right up there in his most recent post. Thomas has said that Hunt was being self-deprecating. He has also previously said that Hunt was being candid and, in the post above, that Hunt was "speaking his mind".
Thomas has since clarified what he meant by "speaking his mind". But "speaking his mind" and "speaking off the top of his head" are two very different things (as I explain in another comment in this thread). "Speaking his mind" is not someone being self-deprecating; rather, they're putting across heartfelt opinions. If Thomas doesn't choose his words with care there's not a great deal I can do about that.
This is not the first time you've made a completely baseless comment -- it's tiresome having to respond (both here and at my blog).
As regards your other comments, check out the lengthy comments threads under the Hunt-related posts at my blog. I've dealt with your points numerous times before. But then if you won't take the time to carefully read even Thomas' posts then you're hardly going to parse the arguments in mine.
As you know, I really dislike having to exchange comments with those who lack the basic courtesy and intellectual courage to put their name to their words. So apologies for the rather brusque tone.
@Philip Moriarty
When you say
>> was Hunt "speaking his mind" about the dangers of criticising women scientists in case they cry
These are *your* words implying that either you think Tim Hunt has made this generalisation, or that someone else has supported the idea Tim Hunt made this generalisation.
Let's be really specific: Tim Hunt never said anything like 'let me warn you about the [general] dangers of criticising women scientists'. Even relying on the core 37 words of Connie St Louis quotes you can't derive a justification for anything like this claim.
Neither has Thomas said anything like "Tim Hunt has spoken his mind about how when you [*you* as in generalising] criticise women they cry".
So where have you got this from? Your dichotomy was false.
This is nothing to do with anyone "speaking their mind" or "being candid" you are only fooling yourself if you think it is. This is about your apparent determination to see Tim Hunt as denigrating women and to claim that he used words to generalise a denigrating view of women.
This determination of yours is clear evidence of a prejudicial belief you hold. Fair enough, but you must realise that when you talk to people who don't hold your particular prejudice then when you use words that imply an a priori view of Tim Hunt as a denigrater women, as if it is an accepted fact, you will find that people will respond and tell you they don't agree with them. It seems you find this fact 'remarkable'.
Now that *is* remarkable. And little strange.
Sorry.
Tim Hunt's jokey words were an exceedingly brief assay into linguistic territory that is essentially tentative, suggestive, ambivalent and contradictory. The territory of irony. When it comes to human speech of this darting intuitive kind, there can be no universal agreement as to what was meant by what was said. Tim Hunt's supporters are just as confident that they are right, competent and clear-sighted as his critics. In reality, all is rather cloudy uncertainty. Given that uncertain reality, shouldn't we rely above all on what Thomas has elsewhere referred to as 'goodwill'; shouldn't Tim Hunt, at the very least, be given the benefit of the doubt? The current regime of ultra-sensitivity to 'offense' can all too easily morph into the fascist way of thinking that Thomas highlights at the start of his post.
Hi Bones, I agree completely. What Hunt deserved is not support of whatever opinion we think he expressed but the benefit of the doubt. My argument is generally that Hunt could well have been saying something entirely supportive of women in science, and something only slightly revealing about his attitudes about romance in the lab. His (live) audience could easily take from it whatever they wanted, and remain completely unharmed by the rest. They could even let it contribute to their overall impression of the man. What he did not deserve was to be called out as a misogynist (or even a casual sexist) before a global public, nor to lose valuable positions and honours. Connie St Louis led the charge, but UCL (especially) failed in their immediate responsibility to protect him from such capricious misinterpretations.
Hi Philip, Not to interject myself too much into your dispute with TLITB, but I really am puzzled by your somewhat pedantic literalism. As I have also explained before (though, unlike you, I really don't mind explaining things several times in different ways) it's entirely possible to be "candid" about your love life and self-deprecating about your power or talent or honours or even understanding of women. Indeed, it's possible to be entirely candid and self-deprecating even about a single thing, like your love life. One can be heartfelt, heartily, even heartbreakingly self-deprecating, can't one?
Likewise, I really don't think the distinction between "he shouldn't have spoken his mind" and "he shouldn't have spoken off the top of his head" is as great, even in most contexts, as you think. Certainly in the context of an improvised toast like this, they are virtually equivalent. You've said that "context is everything", but you sometimes seem to forget things we're pretty sure we know about the context. And, like Old Bones says, where we don't know enough about the context to be sure about the content, Hunt deserves the benefit of the doubt.
If he and Mary Collins hadn't themselves called his remarks "stupid", I wouldn't even assume that any longer. But I'm certainly not going conclude anything about Hunt's sincere, candid, or honest opinion of female scientist from the remarks he made in Seoul. There's just too much I'm in doubt about. And no adequate basis on which to settle it.
Thomas,
As I've explained via Twitter, it's very far from "pedantic literalism" to point out that what you wanted to say was not what you wrote. You're a writing coach, right? You know the value of clearly expressing yourself. It's not as if you dropped an apostrophe or wrote "they're" as "their" or similar. You wrote something which did not accurately express what you wanted to say. And instead of having the intellectual honesty to admit to that deficiency in your writing, you blame the reader for not being able to guess what it was you had in mind.
"Speaking his mind" and "speaking off the top of his head" are very, very different phrases. You can argue the toss about this as much as you like but it is exceptionally sloppy writing to confuse the two.
Philip
I think you may be almost alone in that opinion, Philip. Or, like I said on Twitter, you may be indicating an approach to language that perhaps uniquely defines those who were outraged by what they were told Tim Hunt said in Seoul. It makes sense that someone who can find no non-offensive sense in Hunt's remarks would also equate what most of us would consider ordinary acts of interpretation with "guessing" or "mind reading". As if words have some sort of entirely unproblematic literal meaning that can't be cleared up in further conversation. It's the sort of language competence that is implicit in finding "Made you say it!" jokes funny. Most of the universe of discourse must be an utter puzzle to you.
Also, if "pedantry" only covers nitpicking over spelling errors for you, well, maybe that's got something to do with working in the natural sciences, where I guess all terminological disputes are always substantive?
Thomas
As I said on Twitter, I find it fascinating that what I see as a glaring misuse of an idiom, you reject as being pedantry that only I would pick up on!
As I also mused over at Twitter, is it possible that this is due to the subtlety of English idioms. Is your first language English?
Here are the idioms explained:
"Speak one's mind" -- http://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/speak+one%27s+mind
"Speak off the top of one's head" -- http://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/off+the+top+of+head
Those are drastically different idioms. "Speak one's mind" implies stating heartfelt/deeply held views. "Speaking off the top of one's head" is very different -- not just subtly different. It implies a very rushed, ill-considered set of statements (which is not at all the case for the "speak one's mind" idiom).
As I also said over at Twitter, you as the writer have to take responsibility for putting across your views in as clear and unambiguous a fashion as possible. It is no use expecting the reader to read your mind and come to the judgement *you* feel is most appropriate!
The parallels with teaching here are strong. (As you know, I'm a lecturer). If I explain something and a student doesn't "get" it, is that solely the student's fault? Or should I share in the blame? Or, indeed, take all of the blame?
@TTLIB (or whatever combination of random letters it is that you've chosen for your pseudonym)
#1 of 2
--------
When you say >> was Hunt "speaking his mind" about the dangers of criticising women scientists in case they cry
These are *your* words implying that either you think Tim Hunt has made this generalisation, or that someone else has supported the idea Tim Hunt made this generalisation.
No. Absolutely not. Those are Thomas' words. He used the term "speaking his mind". Not me. Thomas.
*Pleeeeease* take the time to read what Thomas and I have written. It will save us all so much time!! Moreover, Thomas writes rather engagingly and his posts are fun to read so please do him the courtesy of actually reading what he has written. Ta!
Let's be really specific: Tim Hunt never said anything like 'let me warn you about the [general] dangers of criticising women scientists'. Even relying on the core 37 words of Connie St Louis quotes you can't derive a justification for anything like this claim.
I'm so very fed up of going round in circles on this one. I'll try for the umpteenth blasted time to express it in terms even you can grasp. (I'm also going to label it as a function so I don't have to repeat myself for the n^nth time later on).
function_rebuttal{}
{
1. I agree that Tim Hunt was attempting to make a joke.
2. I agree that Tim Hunt is not a misogynist. (And nowhere have I said he is).
3. *I* didn't suggest that the "When you criticise girls they cry" phrase wasn't a (truly atrocious and teeth-grindingly awful) attempt at misplaced humour. Thomas suggested this, using terms such as "candid" and "speaking his mind". (As I note in my previous comment to Thomas, choice of words and language -- and, yes, context -- is ever-so important).
4. When did I ever even begin to attempt to start to even vaguely suggest that Tim Hunt said anything like "'let me warn you about the [general] dangers of criticising women scientists'." Please point me to where I even vaguely suggested that.
}
This is what's great for you when writing under a pseudonym -- you can throw out whatever unsubstantiated nonsense you like and not have to take responsibility for your words (because no-one knows who you are). (I make a very similar point in a debate with PubPeer to be published in the Times Higher Education next week. I'll make sure to send you a link).
@TTLIB (or whatever combination of random letters it is that you've chosen for your pseudonym)
#2 of 2
--------
You also say...
This is nothing to do with anyone "speaking their mind" or "being candid" you are only fooling yourself if you think it is. This is about your apparent determination to see Tim Hunt as denigrating women and to claim that he used words to generalise a denigrating view of women.
*headdesk*
*faceplam*
Sorry for the 'drama' but it is so infuriating to have to deal with comments like that (which, for one thing, contrast so distinctly with Thomas' thoughtful and considered posts/comments. I may not agree with him but at least he does me the basic courtesy of reading what I've written and not attributing views to me I don't hold).
Again, I didn't introduce those terms to the debate. Thomas did.
his is about your apparent determination to see Tim Hunt as denigrating women and to claim that he used words to generalise a denigrating view of women.
function_rebuttal{}
And just to hammer that point home (again, for the n^(n+1)th time), my point is that yes, it was a joke. But it was a dumb, stupid, misjudged, appalling (to quote Colin Blakemore; yes that Colin Blakemore; he who resigned from the ABSW), and teeth-grindingly awful joke. Just like -- to repeat an example above (again) -- John McDonnell's "little red book" joke from a week ago was a dumb, stupid, misjudged, appalling, awful joke. And it had consequences: it damaged the reputation of the Labour party. Just as Hunt's joke had consequences: it damaged the reputation of the Royal Society (in particular, their entirely laudable efforts to address gender inequality; 2 out of 43 URFs awarded to women in 2014...)
@Philip Moriarty
>> So, was Hunt "speaking his mind" about the dangers of criticising women scientists in case they cry, or was it a self-deprecating joke? There's a major lack of
>> self-consistency in a position that tries to suggest he was doing both simultaneously."
I see now. In the above you mean to illustrate how you really think Thomas was offering you two different contradictory interpretations when he ended his first comment with:
"(I think he was just trying to be mildly entertaining, actually.) In short, he should not have spoken his mind."
Since that's the only place where Thomas used the idiom.
You really interpreted that as Thomas suggesting Hunt was speaking his mind about "the dangers of criticising women scientists in case they cry" *and* suggesting Hunt was making a self-deprecating joke.
Considering myself a defender of Tim Hunt I would think it pretty crap argument in his defence to say that he was speaking his mind that way, and I would like to think if I was on the other side of the debate I would ask myself whether that could ever be said by any defender.
But's that's me - I'm probably projecting my expectations. However I now realise you tried to ascertain the truth by paraphrasing Thomas's stance in a totally different context and adding heightened words like *danger* which clarified your position in a different way that left me wondering if you were only projecting your prejudice.
I'm sorry I misunderstood you.
Yes, I'd say looking up idioms in a dictionary to debate word choices that have already been clarified is pedantic.
I thought it would move the conversation forward (as I'm going to do in the rest of this comment) to allow that Hunt maybe wasn't, strictly speaking, "speaking his mind", but was being too frank or unguarded. Rereading my comment, however, I can see that my point was also that by humiliating Tim Hunt the way he was, the message that really was sent to future speakers (within earshot of science writers) is "Don't speak your mind!" It's too risky. Instead of speaking freely, or just musing out loud, make sure you're mouthing official dogmas that will offend no one. That's probably why that "idiom" came into my mind, which I then spoke off the top of my head with my heart on my sleeve, if you will.
I think there's a sense in which Hunt was asked to speak about women in science and he chose to, yes, speak (a very small, informal piece of) his mind (he chose to be "honest", as he put it), instead of making an institutionally sanctioned statement. That turned out to be a mistake, not because his honest mind is full of offensive views about women (it's not), but because there people in the room who were disposed to enforce ideological speech/thought codes and, it seems, had an agenda that could be promoted by smearing the name of a Fellow of the Royal Society.
At any event that I might either organize or cover as a journalist (or, in this case, essentially both), I would do everything I could to avoid sending this message to future speakers. I would therefore let a poor joke fall flat (if that's what happened) and, in the face of outrage (if there really was outrage), initially defend the good intentions of the speaker, who may have misspoken or been misheard. After all, it would have been my decision to ask him to speak. That decision itself needs defending when the speaker offends the audience.
The behavior of conference organizers and science journalists (and, in the final instance, academic institutions) determines what kind of conversations scientists "feel free" to have at conferences. I think Connie St Louis' behaviour (which represents both that of an organizer and a journalist) is likely to make WCSJ a more guarded and anodyne event in the future. Speakers will (and rationally should) only accept invitations to speak, formally or informally, if they are certain their views are in line with the reigning orthodoxy.
"I'm sorry I misunderstood you."
Thank you, TLITB, that's big of you. In return, my apologies for the brusque and irritated tone of my responses to you above. (I really do wish you wouldn't write under a pseudonym, however...)
"I see now. In the above you mean to illustrate how you really think Thomas was offering you two different contradictory interpretations when he ended his first comment with:
"(I think he was just trying to be mildly entertaining, actually.) In short, he should not have spoken his mind.""
That's exactly it. "Spoken his mind" is a totally different idiom to "Spoke off the top of his head", as I explain to Thomas above.
Best wishes,
Philip
Thomas,
"Yes, I'd say looking up idioms in a dictionary to debate word choices that have already been clarified is pedantic."
Oh dear, Thomas. You didn't address my point at all.
Do you (dis)agree that those two idioms are entirely different in meaning?
It is not pedantry at all to show you the dictionary definitions. You clearly assumed that the idioms were interchangeable. This was incorrect. It is not pedantry to point out that the idiom used was entirely misplaced.
Do you agree that a writer has an obligation to express themselves clearly and unambiguously? Or do you still argue that the reader should be responsible for guessing what the writer wanted to say? If the latter, could you address my point about the parallels with teaching?
Thank you.
Philip
Thomas,
Rereading my comment, however, I can see that my point was also that by humiliating Tim Hunt the way he was, the message that really was sent to future speakers (within earshot of science writers) is "Don't speak your mind!"
Again, you use the "Don't speak your mind!" phrase. That simply does not sit well -- despite your earlier attempts at justification, and for all the reasons I've given -- with the idea that Hunt was telling a self-deprecating joke.
We are not going round the loop for what must be the tenth time. As I said a few days ago, Thomas, let's agree to disagree on this. You're not convincing me of your position and vice versa. (And the sometimes unclear language is not helping make our exchanges any less needlessly time-consuming).
Best wishes,
Philip
Apologies. "We are not going around the loop..." should have been "We are now going around the loop..."
We are going around the loop because you're stuck in it, Philip. I've explained (several times) how Hunt could have been speaking his mind about laboratory romance and been telling a self-deprecating joke (about his way about women) at the same time. To me, there's no contradiction. And this tension between two idioms is, in any case, not a point we need to revisit (loop back to) because I have, for the sake of argument, i.e., for the sake of moving the argument along (not around), granted that it would be sufficient for my point that he made the mistake of being unguarded and non-ideological.
"To me, there's no contradiction".
Therefore, of course, there's no contradiction. Right? :-)
Bye, Thomas.
The quote in context:
"I've explained (several times) [why] ... To me, there's no contradiction."
But you've got this tendency to bear down on simple sentences like, "I was only being honest" or "I'm terribly sorry." I guess you're emboldened by being able to understand their grammar and think that's where you've won the argument.
See you around, maybe. ;-)
>> So, was Hunt "speaking his mind" about the dangers of criticising women scientists in case they cry, or was it a self-deprecating joke? There's a major lack of
>> self-consistency in a position that tries to suggest he was doing both simultaneously."
Yes I accept I was wrong to project an interpretation of this as you asserting Tim Hunt stood up and "spoke his mind" about the general principle of criticising women scientist. I didn't have enough evidence to do that.
In fact from your explicit reply I now know without ambiguity you definitely think Tim Hunt is not a misogynist and that you think Tim Hunt was attempting to make a joke.
However your paraphrase of Tim Hunt words still leaves me wondering: just which joke do you think Hunt was making?
It seems you must have your own clear representation of it in your mind and I would hope that you won't just cite third parties like Colin Blakemore's single word review "appalling", a man who is no more qualified to to know the exact nature of the joke than any of us since he based his review on only 37 words. Since Blakemore only said ...
"I remain appalled by the silliness of the 37 words of Hunt's "joke" and the way in which they have energized sexist extremists. "*
...and so was actually only talking about the effect of the *reporting* of the 37 words, and actually saying nothing to inform us about the "joke".
However you seem to have come to a definite picture of the joke that informs your expressive descriptions like "teeth-grindingly awful". Expressions like that seem to imply you have a vivid picture in your mind of what form the joke must have consisted. I don't have such a firm picture myself. Whenever I hear someone relate an incomplete story to me I find it almost impossible to become that emotionally involved - I might sympathise with the emotions of the story-teller but I would always find it easy to refrain from adopting a similar heightened level of emotional engagement especially from such a short report.
For instance, I haven't seen John McDonnell's "little red book" joke in anything like full. I have glimpsed snippets, and seen much mocking on twitter, but I honestly assure you I have not read detailed reports so I have no real opinion yet on how (in)appropriate it was. However I do realise that McDonnell's Labour leader, Corbyn, is much reviled across a wide political spectrum and I do think that there is a large chance a large part of the "reviews" of his joke may be excessively informed by that prior emotion.
However in McDonnell's case we have the benefit of full audio and visual depiction, so one day I may get round to seeing it for myself; I think only then will I be able allow myself the luxury of definitively saying *I* think it was "teeth-grindingly awful ", if indeed it was.
Arguably I don't think this is a failing on my part. I know that maybe illustrates my shocking lack of engagement with politics ;) But then I think it also illustrates how a level of prior engagement with a subject can sometimes short-circuit clear thinking.
So I still remain puzzled by your paraphrase here:
"...was Hunt "speaking his mind" about the dangers of criticising women scientists in case they cry"
while I now agree this is not you saying Tim Hunt was seriously asserting a generalisation about women, I still see that as a novel interpretation of what little we know, and since that novel construction is emerging only from you I still wonder what joke you think Hunt made.
For instance I argue your summary goes against any idea of a joke I would have, Hunt isn't reported as saying "in case" they cry, that goes against the reporting of his joke using hyperbolic implication of "They always cry when I do it!"
Do you not see that?
@TLITB
I'll let you have the last word because I've already explained my views on the joke multiple times elsewhere (see, for example, my lengthy exchanges with Debbie Kennett at my "Symptoms Of The Universe" blog). I simply have neither the time nor the inclination to repeat myself yet again. So I'll leave the last word to you.
All the best,
Philip
I'm very much in agreement with TLITB's approach. It's hard to get very emotionally involved in Hunt's remarks because we know so little about them, and the people who were there to hear it have mostly stopped talking. And it's hard to forget that the first wave of outrage wasn't to the tune of "it's bad even it it's a joke" but "he wasn't joking". We're still waiting for someone to provide a credible version of the joke that is also clearly offensive. As TLITB points out, it was most certainly not about the dangers of criticizing women lest they cry.
Yes, I do find Philip's notion of the affect of Tim Hunt's words, no matter how one interprets the latter, as hyperbolic. He has called them, for instance, 'buttock-clenchingly cringeworthy'. I do think that is the reaction of someone who, at some level, wants to take offense. We are talking, after all, of just a few rather opaque words. I believe this paucity of 'offensive' material is precisely why Connie St Louis had to embellish her account with further sexism embroideries.
(By the way, Philip, because I know that anonymity annoys you [I wouldn't want to do that!], I own up to the name Pat Sheehy.)
@Pat Sheehy
Thanks for posting under your own name. It's just so much more open, transparent and honest that way.
I thought the 'joke' was just cringeworthy, yes. Does that mean I was primed to take offence? You're entitled to that opinion. But remember that Mary Collins described the 'joke' as "unbelievably stupid", Hunt himself said "I stood up and went mad", and Colin Blakemore, when stepping down from the ABSW, said that Hunt's words were "appalling in their silliness". So I'm not alone in thinking that it was a truly terrible 'joke'.
Best wishes,
Philip
P.S. Annoy me as much as you like. I won't take offense. :-)
Post a Comment