RSS
From the NYT:
Women Respond to Nobel Laureate’s ‘Trouble With Girls’
By DAN BILEFSKY JUNE 11, 2015LONDON — A Nobel laureate has resigned as honorary professor at University College London after saying that female scientists should be segregated from male colleagues because women cry when criticized and are a romantic distraction in the laboratory.
The comments by Tim Hunt, 72, a biochemist who was awarded the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine in 2001 for groundbreaking work on cell division, added fuel to a global cultural debate about discrimination against women in science.
“Let me tell you about my trouble with girls,” Mr. Hunt said Monday at the World Conference of Science Journalists in South Korea. “Three things happen when they are in the lab: You fall in love with them, they fall in love with you, and when you criticize them they cry.” …
“It’s terribly important that you can criticize people’s ideas without criticizing them and if they burst into tears, it means that you tend to hold back from getting at the absolute truth,” he said. “Science is about nothing but getting at the truth, and anything that gets in the way of that diminishes, in my experience, the science.”
University College London said in a statement that Mr. Hunt, who was knighted in 2006, had resigned his post in the faculty of life sciences on Wednesday.
The Royal Society, where Mr. Hunt is a fellow, also sought to distance itself from the comments as some critics called for him to be removed from its rolls.
Good riddance, what could he possibly do fiddling around with some stupid cells that could possibly [make up] for these (checking my thesaurus) super, extra, doubly-no-tripoli bad thinking talks. I’m so mad.
Guess he’s never met Catherine Dulac.
Are any critics calling for him to be removed from the rolls of Nobel laureates?
A travesty for sure but, to be precise, ubiquitous reports of losing his job are BS. He only resigned from a honorary post – the one that does not require any job done and pays nothing. He probably won’t be Watsoned from his real job at London Research Institute (Cancer Research UK).
Oops, why did my comment disappear? Testing if it was due to checking of “Remember My Information”.
Just in case: Tim Hunt’s real job is in London Research Institute (Cancer Research UK). He inly resigned from a meaningless honorary post at UCL.
A lot of older scientists' jobs are administrative--they're not so smart anymore (though probably still smarter than you or I), but their wealth of experience in the field with running a lab and getting grants makes them good administrators. Once the guy's name is toxic, he's going to have a much harder time at that.
Of course, maybe he's reached the end of his life and is deciding to shoot off his mouth. What did Steve call it--Grumpy Old Man syndrome?
Just in case: Tim Hunt's real job is in London Research Institute (Cancer Research UK). He inly resigned from a meaningless honorary post at UCL.
OK, they go in just fine. Could we please get back the “success” notification that the comment is been held for moderation?
Just in case: Tim Hunt's real job is in London Research Institute (Cancer Research UK). He inly resigned from a meaningless honorary post at UCL.
OK, and the “edit comment” option is gone too! That’s too bad…
‘Mr. Hunt, who was knighted in 2006′
I like the fact the NYT’s London reporter doesn’t realize that this is a self-contradicting sentence.
benighted in 2015
If Isaac Newton had been a woman, she’d have said “Why did that apple have to land on MY head?”
And if she’d lived in 2015 she’d have gone on Twitter to denounce gravity as an oppressive social construct.
Almost 2500 years after Socrates' birth, we're giving up on the idea that you can argue without taking it personally.
http://www.bmartin.cc/pubs/85spp.html
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.462.7279&rep=rep1&type=pdf
http://jazzedaboutstuff.com/2015/03/04/math-and-the-patriarchy/
And a bazillion others.
... though realistically she probably would have married a professor and gone on to live an unremarkable life as the mother of a few bright children. ;)
Caitlyn Jenner should be appointed to take his position.
“The Royal Society … as some critics called for him to be removed from its rolls.” That would be interesting; would it really be the case that you would be welcome in the RS if you repeatedly lie – e.g. about Global Warming – but you’d be expelled for telling the truth as you see it about women in the lab?
We should probably airbrush him out of photos of the King of Sweden putting the medal around his neck.
This could have all been resolved with one sentence from Professor Hunt.
“As a transwoman I understand misogyny much better than any of you.”
And if she'd lived in 2015 she'd have gone on Twitter to denounce gravity as an oppressive social construct.
Yeah, it’s pretty much that in the name of being leftist, the world is regressing back to being as self-centered and anti-science as possible.
Almost 2500 years after Socrates’ birth, we’re giving up on the idea that you can argue without taking it personally.
H.L. Mencken — ‘Misogynist: A man who hates women as much as women hate one another.’
And if she'd lived in 2015 she'd have gone on Twitter to denounce gravity as an oppressive social construct.
Thomas Fuller may think he’s kidding. However:
http://www.bmartin.cc/pubs/85spp.html
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.462.7279&rep=rep1&type=pdf
http://jazzedaboutstuff.com/2015/03/04/math-and-the-patriarchy/
And a bazillion others.
I’m forest gump and your titles are bumper stickers so go be rich. But always recall Chesterton about the fair sex, for men speak of woman bc women speak of women.
And if she'd lived in 2015 she'd have gone on Twitter to denounce gravity as an oppressive social construct.
I like it!
… though realistically she probably would have married a professor and gone on to live an unremarkable life as the mother of a few bright children.
Just in case: Tim Hunt's real job is in London Research Institute (Cancer Research UK). He inly resigned from a meaningless honorary post at UCL.
Wonder if he’ll keep it?
A lot of older scientists’ jobs are administrative–they’re not so smart anymore (though probably still smarter than you or I), but their wealth of experience in the field with running a lab and getting grants makes them good administrators. Once the guy’s name is toxic, he’s going to have a much harder time at that.
Of course, maybe he’s reached the end of his life and is deciding to shoot off his mouth. What did Steve call it–Grumpy Old Man syndrome?
‘Cause woman are more mentalistic than man.
I like the fact the NYT's London reporter doesn't realize that this is a self-contradicting sentence.
“knighted in 2006″
benighted in 2015
Truth cannot be tolerated in a feminist dictatorship….
This would have been simple for Professor Hunt to defuse.
“I am a transwoman, and therefore I know more about misogyny than any of you. Check your cisgendered privilege, and stop killing trans women.”
Oops, Steve, I didn’t see my previous comment had gone through. I ended up posting more or less the same thing. Did we lose the ability to preview?
Is there something about receiving a Nobel Prize in the science fields that causes a person to disregard or perhaps not understand Newspeak?
If he had publicly declared that 1+1=3, people would chalk it up to dementia or exhaustion and move on. Hundreds of people would not be making fun of him on Twitter. We react when we hear truths that we don’t want to hear.
There are Scientific studies that show that men’s mental ability is decreased in coed situations, but women’s is not.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/why-interacting-with-woman-leave-man-cognitively-impaired/
This helps explain why creative groups of men, one way or another, try to exclude women. And why women think it’s a good idea to have coed research and business groups.
Segregated by gender education is also a good idea, not only for blacks as has been suggested in New York City
Okay, if this had been a woman who said she hated having men in the lab would have the same reaction? This guy admitted that he doesn’t want to work with half the human race. Why is that somehow noble Truth Telling?
And Hunt did not say "he doesn't want to work with" women. He pointed out that having women and men working in the same environment leads to outcomes that would not happen in a same-sex environment. He also pointed out that women have a greater tendency than men to personalize things, or, at least, a greater tendency to act out that pesonalization rather than hiding it. I wouldn't have thought that was an unusual opinion among men or women, although Hunt was certainly very unwise to say it publicly.
2. She would almost certainly have used language about how she was victimized by having men in the lab. Either sexual harassment, or not having ones ideas taken seriously, or some other grievance. She would have been applauded for her bravery and "noble Truth Telling". There would likely be a book advance in her account as we speak.
OT but here’s a great story :
A Prominent NAACP Activist Has Been Faking Black Ethnicity, Her Parents Say
http://time.com/3918660/rachel-dolezal-civil-rights-activist-spokane-naacp/
Her dung-pile hairdo is priceless.
Is a female member also called a “fellow”
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/why-interacting-with-woman-leave-man-cognitively-impaired/
This helps explain why creative groups of men, one way or another, try to exclude women. And why women think it's a good idea to have coed research and business groups.
Segregated by gender education is also a good idea, not only for blacks as has been suggested in New York City
So-called progressive women want everything to be coed because they only feel alive and truly human when they sense the men-folk around them checking out their sweet behinds.
The human race could probably be to Mars by now if not for all the time spent on booty checks.
Somehow I can’t picture Margaret Thatcher crying in her lab, when she was inventing tastee-freeze, or whatever it was.
Why shouldn’t they take it personally? It was meant personally.
Look, I think the guy was just telling some home truths about what happens when you get a bunch of cis-hets in a small place, but his comment about how only women take things personally was degrading and unfair. So do guys.
The good side of this is that I learned about the woman programmer who helped save the Apollo 11 mission. Very smart lady!
Also, please link to something about the Apollo 11 woman. I'd love to read that!
Sounds like the Nobel Laureate is anti-love. He pays the price.
You can’t have your cake and eat it, too.
If you comment before any comments are listed, then you do not get the Edit option.
[…] is on a roll today. In […]
Almost 2500 years after Socrates' birth, we're giving up on the idea that you can argue without taking it personally.
The West is regressing != the World is regressing
Women in the prison guard staff doesn’t seem to work either:
“Female prison worker supplied tools to New York escapees: CNN”
https://news.yahoo.com/female-prison-worker-supplied-tools-york-escapees-cnn-130058868.html
The purpose of honorary posts like that are so the college can claim a Nobel laureate as being on their faculty. It’s a favor he did for them, not the other way round. So if they want to drop a freebie Nobel laureate from their roster, he’s not going to object.
A lot of older scientists' jobs are administrative--they're not so smart anymore (though probably still smarter than you or I), but their wealth of experience in the field with running a lab and getting grants makes them good administrators. Once the guy's name is toxic, he's going to have a much harder time at that.
Of course, maybe he's reached the end of his life and is deciding to shoot off his mouth. What did Steve call it--Grumpy Old Man syndrome?
It’s like how in the Soviet Union old women would be the only ones going to church— and that continued for 60 years. You don’t care about dumb criticism by that point, and you’ve nothing to lose.
There is nothing I can add to this that would make it more sad or more hilariously wrong.
The Onion now will have to shift full-time to “redneck hillbilly inbred” jokes since it can now no longer successfully parody the left.
To pick a random from the front page
http://www.clickhole.com/article/7-effective-tips-getting-better-sleep-2567
an exceptional woman
I can’t find any quotes from him where he actually says men and women should be segregated.
This sounds like humor than anything else.
Evidently no one can take a joke anymore.
Look, I think the guy was just telling some home truths about what happens when you get a bunch of cis-hets in a small place, but his comment about how only women take things personally was degrading and unfair. So do guys.
The good side of this is that I learned about the woman programmer who helped save the Apollo 11 mission. Very smart lady!
Exactly. He meant it as an insult. Also, it is true that one of the sexiest things people can do is work on a fascinating project, and unless we decide only ugly and unpleasant people can do creative work, then this is going to happen. Deal with it as grown-ups, including understanding that when one person doesn’t feel the same level of attraction, stop. (Being friends is actually pretty awesome. I recommend it. For one thing, that increase the number of available people to share books and movies.)
Also, please link to something about the Apollo 11 woman. I’d love to read that!
Unfortunately, what many women consider to be friendship is little more than them cultivating sexual attraction in men they have no interest in, so that they can harvest ego strokes. That's why any man worth his salt knows the number one rule: never take advice about women from women.
http://www.bmartin.cc/pubs/85spp.html
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.462.7279&rep=rep1&type=pdf
http://jazzedaboutstuff.com/2015/03/04/math-and-the-patriarchy/
And a bazillion others.
Thanks for those links (or not — I polluted my brain with some of that narcissistic drivel). I hadn’t realized just how deep the rot has gone. It’s beyond irony. In fact, irony is dead, as the Spokane case is now so richly illustrating.
take it easy on them steve, they are just looking for MRS’s.
Almost 2500 years after Socrates' birth, we're giving up on the idea that you can argue without taking it personally.
A golden oldie, but always worth re-airing.
Yes. They could air brush him out of that photo like they did with this one.
“So-called progressive women want everything to be coed because they only feel alive and truly human when they sense the men-folk around them checking out their sweet behinds.”
The human race could probably be to Mars by now if not for all the time spent on booty checks.
Also, please link to something about the Apollo 11 woman. I'd love to read that!
“Being friends is actually pretty awesome.”
Unfortunately, what many women consider to be friendship is little more than them cultivating sexual attraction in men they have no interest in, so that they can harvest ego strokes. That’s why any man worth his salt knows the number one rule: never take advice about women from women.
A lot of older scientists' jobs are administrative--they're not so smart anymore (though probably still smarter than you or I), but their wealth of experience in the field with running a lab and getting grants makes them good administrators. Once the guy's name is toxic, he's going to have a much harder time at that.
Of course, maybe he's reached the end of his life and is deciding to shoot off his mouth. What did Steve call it--Grumpy Old Man syndrome?
Elderly Tourettes Syndrome
Look, I think the guy was just telling some home truths about what happens when you get a bunch of cis-hets in a small place, but his comment about how only women take things personally was degrading and unfair. So do guys.
The good side of this is that I learned about the woman programmer who helped save the Apollo 11 mission. Very smart lady!
But he didn’t say that, and of course he wouldn’t say that because it’s obviously untrue. What he implied–that women on average are more sensitive and emotionally fragile than men–seems obvious to the point of being banal.
Caitlyn already fell in love with herself!
Karen, a bunch of women in a lab is called a hair salon.
There were quite a few women in the labs of medical research in the 50s (I happen to be studying up on a certain subject, and this came up.) Dr. Bernice Eddy, a bacteriologist at NIH, blew the whistle at the 11th hour on the cancer-contaminated (SP-40 cancer causing monkey virus) polio vaccine. She realized the contamination and made it public. For her pains, her career was ruined by angry NIH doctors, discouraging further whistle blowing in that area. Dr. Eddy ate her lunch outside on the steps of NIH with a couple of women doctors, among them Dr. Sarah Stewart, whose research proved that viruses could cause some cancers. Her research led to the discovery of DNA recombination, which is a major tool in medical research today. Then there was their friend, Dr. Mary Sherman, a fairly famous bone specialist and erstwhile cancer researcher, who, realizing the epidemic that would probably be unleashed by the infected polio vaccine (the AMA refused to destroy it all), tried, with her boss, Dr. Alton Ochsner, to find a vaccine. She died a ghastly death the night before she was to give testimony to the Warren Commission when it visited New Orleans, July 21, 1964. Long story. Then there was Mary Sherman's acolyte, Judyth Vary Baker, who was researching cancer starting at age 14 (taking very personally that her grandmother died of it, and her grandfather was dying). Judyth managed to give cancer to mice in a few days using various techniques. This caught the attention of Dr. Alton Ochsner, major cancer researcher at Ochsner Clinic in N.O. Another long story. "Dr. Mary's Monkey: how the unsolved murder of a doctor, a secret laboratory in New Orleans and cancer-causing monkey viruses are linked to Lee Harvey Oswald, the JFK assassination and emerging global epidemics." by Ed Haslam. 2014. I remember reading an interview about this in an old Playboy magazine from 1967 that a relative had. Some of the interviews really were good. They had stuff the mainstream press wouldn't cover.
Anyway, there were/are lots of women together in labs who are not working on hair, unless they are extrapolating DNA from it..
In fact, medical research, as opposed to say, physics, or mathematics, attracts women, and there are quite a number who have excelled, though I don't know about winning Nobels. Nobels are not the ultimate sign anyway--they can be very political.
Also, please link to something about the Apollo 11 woman. I'd love to read that!
The fact that you take it as an insult sort of proves Hunt’s point. I think he was telling what he believes to be the truth, but I suspect it was said and meant in a lighthearted manner. Taking offense at lighthearted commentary is both very modern and very feminine.
While Prada Yada Yada is right that men sometimes take impersonal criticism personally, in my observation : (1) women are more likely to personalize observations about their performance, confusing objective comments with judgments about them as people – good or bad ; and (2) they are far (far, far) more likely to show that their feelings have been hurt. A man whose feeling are hurt will usually try to hide it with bluster or (more common in academic settings) a weak attempt at humor. Women more often simply act hurt and, yes, often cry.
Does this really not match your own life experience?
As opposed to women who express a preference for all-female colleges? Are they condemned as sexists?
And Hunt did not say “he doesn’t want to work with” women. He pointed out that having women and men working in the same environment leads to outcomes that would not happen in a same-sex environment. He also pointed out that women have a greater tendency than men to personalize things, or, at least, a greater tendency to act out that pesonalization rather than hiding it. I wouldn’t have thought that was an unusual opinion among men or women, although Hunt was certainly very unwise to say it publicly.
Unfortunately, what many women consider to be friendship is little more than them cultivating sexual attraction in men they have no interest in, so that they can harvest ego strokes. That's why any man worth his salt knows the number one rule: never take advice about women from women.
“That’s why any man worth his salt knows the number one rule: never take advice about women from women.”
Guys, listen to your mother, grandmother, aunts, and sisters about women.
Heartiste agrees :
https://heartiste.wordpress.com/2015/06/12/to-whom-should-men-turn-for-advice-about-women/
Also, please link to something about the Apollo 11 woman. I'd love to read that!
Better rule- when someone doesn’t feel the same, walk right the heck away. It’s better for all concerned, playing at “friendship” is a massive waste of time.
"Female prison worker supplied tools to New York escapees: CNN"
https://news.yahoo.com/female-prison-worker-supplied-tools-york-escapees-cnn-130058868.html
She wasn’t a guard. Please fix.
He made a mistake. He noticed.
Actually in my experience men who get criticized rant, scream or get drunk, sometimes all three. There is also the “shit rolls downhill” principle, in which mid-level guy gets scolded and screams at anyone below him. Crying isn’t actually worse than angry ranting.
She's so mean!!! And RUUUDE!
Steve,
You write in
http://isteve.blogspot.com/2013/09/how-tv-models-discussions-of-what-to.html
“Many people, however, feel that the arena [of TV talk shows] is not the
place for debate, it’s for affirming consensus values, and that the people
in the arena deserve deference (because their hair is so nice, or
whatever).”
Your reference to debate versus affirmation of consensus
values is very similar to the insight in the “Waterloo”
link below. I think you will find it well worth reading.
http://arts.uwaterloo.ca/~kwesthue/regiftedxmas12.html
(which is a bit too long-windedly written)
is one of those essays that prey on your mind for days and
days after you read it, because it sets forth a new way of looking
at everything else you read that is of a polemical nature.
It notes that there are two “modes of discourse”.
In mode 1, argumentation is impersonal, setting
argument against argument, rather than person
against person. In this mode of discourse,
those who are wrong are to be refuted with
arguments and evidence (like in the name of the
Russian newspaper Аргументы и факты; see
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumenty_i_Fakty ).
In mode 2, arguments are taken personally,
as a clash not of ideas but of persons or ideologies.
In this mode of discourse, those who are wrong
are to be denounced and ostracized.
Mode 1, which became prominent in the Enlightenment,
is called the “modern” or “masculine” mode of discourse.
Mode 2, which is found in academic office politics,
is called “postmodern” (actually, premodern) or “feminine”.
It tends to be favored by women and cocoa-sipping pajama boys.
But neither pair of nomenclature is entirely satisfactory.
Here is an example of mode 1, in which each
party cites evidence and arguments, and refrains from
personal attacks. The topic of the debate is whether
exposure to lead causes criminality (a similar debate of
years past was on whether abortion reduced crime
by thinning out the pre-criminal demographic):
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/338317/more-lead-and-crime-really-how-make-decisions-jim-manzi#more
– Mark Spahn (West Seneca, NY)
Oh no, Karen just said she’d never work with a man and that every man goes on a drunken rampage whenever criticized and no woman would ever react negatively to criticism!
She’s so mean!!! And RUUUDE!
That is the worst imaginable advice for any man. Steve has singlehandedly disqualifed my assessment of his intellect, with that sentence.
Heartiste agrees :
https://heartiste.wordpress.com/2015/06/12/to-whom-should-men-turn-for-advice-about-women/
You mother and grandmother are more likely to have your interests at heart than any other women and will be able to give you better advice that any other women and most men.
I think Steve’s advice is superior to Heartiste, frankly.
As far as women goes it depends on what you want. If you want a bimbo then you have to look and play the part, that includes being somewhat macho, and also being extremely attractive.
On the other hand what you should be looking for is someone you can relate well with, and who you have some things in common with (activities, food, music, film, TV, that sort of thing.) If a woman is interested in you (sexually) then she will be accommodating to you and then it’s up to the guy to figure it out. Looks, in a woman, don’t really have that much to do with sexual satisfaction.
However, it should be added that most of the time women are looking for a man who is responsible, working, with money, who likes kids, and is dependable, reliable, and even keeled. Because at the back of most women’s minds is looking for a future provider. What women do not like is a man who is unsure of himself and is too eager to please. Women want a man to be who he is. It’s up to them to decide if they want to follow.
Young women will sleep with “bad boys” because they’re cute, handsome, and sexy. If a young man is none of those things, don’t even bother trying to be “friends” with the cutie who is interested in hunks. A lot of times “being friends” just means maintaining an acquaintance with a woman who has indicated she doesn’t want to sleep with you.
The true bottom line is: Women choose men, not the other way around. So you have to be aware of how you present yourself at all times.
And if she'd lived in 2015 she'd have gone on Twitter to denounce gravity as an oppressive social construct.
Didn’t conservative men take it awfully personally when that college professor that had just been hired went on twitter to say college age white males are a problem population? What is the difference? People were petitioning Boston College to fire her, saying she wouldn’t treat their white kids fairly.
Hunt’s words were insulting and sexist and unscientific. The over-reaction is the problem, calling for people to lose their jobs before we even hash it all out. But he is in a position to disburse funds as part of his role so it is valid to investigate if he has distributed funds unfairly, rather than objectively.
Women object to insults men themselves would take offense at, and then are called “over sensitive” and accused taking it personally etc. Same old same old.
Look, I think the guy was just telling some home truths about what happens when you get a bunch of cis-hets in a small place, but his comment about how only women take things personally was degrading and unfair. So do guys.
The good side of this is that I learned about the woman programmer who helped save the Apollo 11 mission. Very smart lady!
,
Here she be:
http://boingboing.net/2015/05/07/photo-celebrates-unsung-nasa-s.html
@Peter,
Hm. And that’s why the prisons are overflowing with violent femmes. Because every day, women respond to slights, insults and disses with lack of emotional restraint. It’s everywhere. They also die of heart attacks in numbers way higher than men, due to their physical fragility and inability to regulate their emotions.
Look buddy, you are entitled to your opinions, but you’re not entitled to your own facts. On the whole, I think women do a much better job of regulating their emotions than men. I’d rather see some tears than the full on jerk psycho behavior I see from men on a daily basis.
Always said by leftists who wouldn't know a fact if it hit em' in the head. It means you're NOT entitled to your own opinion.
Yes, women take things personally and so do men. That is one thing that comes through loud and clear here.
There were quite a few women in the labs of medical research in the 50s (I happen to be studying up on a certain subject, and this came up.) Dr. Bernice Eddy, a bacteriologist at NIH, blew the whistle at the 11th hour on the cancer-contaminated (SP-40 cancer causing monkey virus) polio vaccine. She realized the contamination and made it public. For her pains, her career was ruined by angry NIH doctors, discouraging further whistle blowing in that area. Dr. Eddy ate her lunch outside on the steps of NIH with a couple of women doctors, among them Dr. Sarah Stewart, whose research proved that viruses could cause some cancers. Her research led to the discovery of DNA recombination, which is a major tool in medical research today. Then there was their friend, Dr. Mary Sherman, a fairly famous bone specialist and erstwhile cancer researcher, who, realizing the epidemic that would probably be unleashed by the infected polio vaccine (the AMA refused to destroy it all), tried, with her boss, Dr. Alton Ochsner, to find a vaccine. She died a ghastly death the night before she was to give testimony to the Warren Commission when it visited New Orleans, July 21, 1964. Long story. Then there was Mary Sherman’s acolyte, Judyth Vary Baker, who was researching cancer starting at age 14 (taking very personally that her grandmother died of it, and her grandfather was dying). Judyth managed to give cancer to mice in a few days using various techniques. This caught the attention of Dr. Alton Ochsner, major cancer researcher at Ochsner Clinic in N.O. Another long story. “Dr. Mary’s Monkey: how the unsolved murder of a doctor, a secret laboratory in New Orleans and cancer-causing monkey viruses are linked to Lee Harvey Oswald, the JFK assassination and emerging global epidemics.” by Ed Haslam. 2014. I remember reading an interview about this in an old Playboy magazine from 1967 that a relative had. Some of the interviews really were good. They had stuff the mainstream press wouldn’t cover.
Anyway, there were/are lots of women together in labs who are not working on hair, unless they are extrapolating DNA from it..
In fact, medical research, as opposed to say, physics, or mathematics, attracts women, and there are quite a number who have excelled, though I don’t know about winning Nobels. Nobels are not the ultimate sign anyway–they can be very political.
There were quite a few women in the labs of medical research in the 50s (I happen to be studying up on a certain subject, and this came up.) Dr. Bernice Eddy, a bacteriologist at NIH, blew the whistle at the 11th hour on the cancer-contaminated (SP-40 cancer causing monkey virus) polio vaccine. She realized the contamination and made it public. For her pains, her career was ruined by angry NIH doctors, discouraging further whistle blowing in that area. Dr. Eddy ate her lunch outside on the steps of NIH with a couple of women doctors, among them Dr. Sarah Stewart, whose research proved that viruses could cause some cancers. Her research led to the discovery of DNA recombination, which is a major tool in medical research today. Then there was their friend, Dr. Mary Sherman, a fairly famous bone specialist and erstwhile cancer researcher, who, realizing the epidemic that would probably be unleashed by the infected polio vaccine (the AMA refused to destroy it all), tried, with her boss, Dr. Alton Ochsner, to find a vaccine. She died a ghastly death the night before she was to give testimony to the Warren Commission when it visited New Orleans, July 21, 1964. Long story. Then there was Mary Sherman's acolyte, Judyth Vary Baker, who was researching cancer starting at age 14 (taking very personally that her grandmother died of it, and her grandfather was dying). Judyth managed to give cancer to mice in a few days using various techniques. This caught the attention of Dr. Alton Ochsner, major cancer researcher at Ochsner Clinic in N.O. Another long story. "Dr. Mary's Monkey: how the unsolved murder of a doctor, a secret laboratory in New Orleans and cancer-causing monkey viruses are linked to Lee Harvey Oswald, the JFK assassination and emerging global epidemics." by Ed Haslam. 2014. I remember reading an interview about this in an old Playboy magazine from 1967 that a relative had. Some of the interviews really were good. They had stuff the mainstream press wouldn't cover.
Anyway, there were/are lots of women together in labs who are not working on hair, unless they are extrapolating DNA from it..
In fact, medical research, as opposed to say, physics, or mathematics, attracts women, and there are quite a number who have excelled, though I don't know about winning Nobels. Nobels are not the ultimate sign anyway--they can be very political.
It’s almost as if women like the life sciences more than the death sciences where you get to say awesome things like “I am become death, destroyer of worlds.”
The most amazing thing about her-- mentioned only in passing in biographies-- is she was one of the few women in the history of the English-speaking world to go to prison for dodging the draft. Maybe the only one.
I can see why a group composed all of men would be more achievement oriented--it figures. Why bother to over explain. But I do think women, if they are there on real merit, bring a certain something. As do men to predominantly female avocations.
Men certainly are more violent than women, and in some sense they probably are worse at regulating their emotions. But there’s a difference between throwing punches because somebody called you a bad word and breaking down in tears because a colleague criticized your performance. Don’t be obtuse. Do you think fistfights are a regular occurence in research labs?
I’m sure a lot of guys do that in their personal lives, but I’ve never seen it at work. That’s the difference.
That behavior still indicates men take criticism personally, and I'm not sure getting drunk or being mean to your loved ones is really an improvement on sobbing in the office washroom.
Heartiste agrees :
https://heartiste.wordpress.com/2015/06/12/to-whom-should-men-turn-for-advice-about-women/
Tommy, Heartiste is an idiot and so are you.
You mother and grandmother are more likely to have your interests at heart than any other women and will be able to give you better advice that any other women and most men.
Consider, for example, a single mother who hectors her son to be the opposite of the absent father, not realizing that the characteristics that contributed to papa's absence might be the very same that led to romance and pregnancy in the first place.
BTW, the biggest problem I see is that each successive generation is operating within a radically new dating environment, which earlier generations have never experienced and find hard to fully grasp.
As far as women goes it depends on what you want. If you want a bimbo then you have to look and play the part, that includes being somewhat macho, and also being extremely attractive.
On the other hand what you should be looking for is someone you can relate well with, and who you have some things in common with (activities, food, music, film, TV, that sort of thing.) If a woman is interested in you (sexually) then she will be accommodating to you and then it's up to the guy to figure it out. Looks, in a woman, don't really have that much to do with sexual satisfaction.
However, it should be added that most of the time women are looking for a man who is responsible, working, with money, who likes kids, and is dependable, reliable, and even keeled. Because at the back of most women's minds is looking for a future provider. What women do not like is a man who is unsure of himself and is too eager to please. Women want a man to be who he is. It's up to them to decide if they want to follow.
Young women will sleep with "bad boys" because they're cute, handsome, and sexy. If a young man is none of those things, don't even bother trying to be "friends" with the cutie who is interested in hunks. A lot of times "being friends" just means maintaining an acquaintance with a woman who has indicated she doesn't want to sleep with you.
The true bottom line is: Women choose men, not the other way around. So you have to be aware of how you present yourself at all times.
GAME is one of the instructions for men on how to pretend to be what they aren’t. What Caitlyn [Sp?] follows is another.
You mother and grandmother are more likely to have your interests at heart than any other women and will be able to give you better advice that any other women and most men.
This is one of those “necessary but not sufficient” conditions. Plenty of people have loving relatives with little insight, who proffer well-meaning and ultimately destructive advice out of the goodness of their doting hearts.
Consider, for example, a single mother who hectors her son to be the opposite of the absent father, not realizing that the characteristics that contributed to papa’s absence might be the very same that led to romance and pregnancy in the first place.
BTW, the biggest problem I see is that each successive generation is operating within a radically new dating environment, which earlier generations have never experienced and find hard to fully grasp.
Following your sister’s et aliae advice is a good way to have a lot of female friends and no sex. They’ll tell you all about what they want in a man, but never once mention what it is that attracts them – because they don’t know. They’re not consciously aware of it. Essentially what they want is a daddy that they can’t break. Yet the advice they’ll give you is on how to be broken. Follow it closely enough and you may never get laid again.
Yes, women do the choosing. But they are hard wired to be attracted to alphas, not the beta groveling at their feet. Be a man who respects and values himself and the women will come to you.
Anyone who claims they have a deep understanding of women and their complexities is a snake oil salesman.
She's so mean!!! And RUUUDE!
I said nothing of the kind. I did say that men who get criticized shout and rant. The original post is that women take criticism more personally than men do, because women cry. My response is that men rant or get drunk, which means men take criticism personally every bit as much as women do, but men have a more destructive response to it.
“I’m sure a lot of guys do that in their personal lives, but I’ve never seen it at work. That’s the difference.”
That behavior still indicates men take criticism personally, and I’m not sure getting drunk or being mean to your loved ones is really an improvement on sobbing in the office washroom.
“Look buddy, you are entitled to your opinions, but you’re not entitled to your own facts.”
Always said by leftists who wouldn’t know a fact if it hit em’ in the head. It means you’re NOT entitled to your own opinion.
1. No there wouldn’t
2. She would almost certainly have used language about how she was victimized by having men in the lab. Either sexual harassment, or not having ones ideas taken seriously, or some other grievance. She would have been applauded for her bravery and “noble Truth Telling”. There would likely be a book advance in her account as we speak.
The Onion now will have to shift full-time to "redneck hillbilly inbred" jokes since it can now no longer successfully parody the left.
Have you seen the Onion’s satire of buzzfeed like sites, clickhole.com? It’s fantastic.
To pick a random from the front page
http://www.clickhole.com/article/7-effective-tips-getting-better-sleep-2567
He must be put away.
This is one of those cases of people acting annoying, but then, our entire culture is like this.
In the 50s and 60s, it was fashionable to be on the ennui wavelength.
Today, it’s like Annoui or Annui is the new thing.
It’s everywhere. I lasted through 30 min of Birdman because people were so annoying.
Silver Lining Playbook, the same thing. Annoying to the max.
The Last Five Years the same thing.
What If made me wanna puke it was so annoying.
Ruby Sparks too.
Scott Pilgrim vs the World. Annoying to the max.
And the list goes on and on and on.
Annui is the new thing, especially with millennials and their taking their cues from hiphoppers and homos who are the two most annoying jerks in the world… along with the many members of the Tribe.
Last year Google honored the crystallographer Dame Kathleen Lonsdale with a doodle.
The most amazing thing about her– mentioned only in passing in biographies– is she was one of the few women in the history of the English-speaking world to go to prison for dodging the draft. Maybe the only one.
well, women do relate to the concrete more, so to speak. I think. At least when it comes to making a real effort. Has to do with being so physically involved in the reproductive process, potentially anyway. Of course they’re fascinated with how human insides work and are nourished or un-nourished.
I can see why a group composed all of men would be more achievement oriented–it figures. Why bother to over explain. But I do think women, if they are there on real merit, bring a certain something. As do men to predominantly female avocations.
Yes, women do the choosing. But they are hard wired to be attracted to alphas, not the beta groveling at their feet. Be a man who respects and values himself and the women will come to you.
Well if Bruce Jenner is anything to go by, they are also attracted to hunky cross-dressers in pumps and evening gowns.
Anyone who claims they have a deep understanding of women and their complexities is a snake oil salesman.
“I can see why a group composed all of men would be more achievement oriented–it figures. Why bother to over explain. ”
Oh please do explain.
[…] scientist on lab girls. Related. Related: Nobel scientist says women take things personally, women take it personally. Related: Hung out to dry. Never apologize, never […]
[…] Returning to Sir Tim one last time, I particularly liked one of the headlines: Nobel Scientist Says Women Take Things Personally; Women Take It Personally […]