Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Female scientists mock Nobel laureate with photos

washingtonpost.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 30 posts

Re: Female scientists mock Nobel laureate with photos

#11

Post by dragonwriter »

Nadya wrote: post #9
rewqfdsa wrote: post #3

How exactly is this effort supposed to demonstrate that Hunt is wrong?

It's the opposite. They're proving him right. Most of the offense seems to be taken on his first statement: "Men fall in love with women." Twitter 3rd-wave Feminists twisted that into "too sexy for the men". You don't see any men going on Twitter complaining he called them irresistible and distractingly sexy (things he never actually said anyway). Where's all the offence taken that "Women fall in love with men" from…

> Most of the offense seems to be taken on his first statement: "Men fall in love with women."

I think you are confusing the which element of the whole sexist set of statements is the main inspiration of the mockery directed at the whole set with which is the main focus of offense.

Though, to be fair, both the "you fall in love with them" and the "they fall in love with you" statements are worthy of offense when both are offered as part of the explanation of his "trouble with girls...when they are in the lab". (Both presume that the "natural state" of a lab is to be full of men, so any complications that arise from a mixed-sex environment are a "problem with girls".)

Of course, unless his "problem" is pedophilia, compounding that by referring to women as "girls" when discussing the "problem" he has with them in the lab compounds this further.

Re: Female scientists mock Nobel laureate with photos

#12

Post by dragonwriter »

Nadya wrote: post #10
dragonwriter wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Nowhere did he say they were "distractingly sexy". He said men fall in love with women. That happens. He also said women fall in love with men. Also, men fall in love with men, and women fall in love with women. > It's very ironic they are crying on Twitter Uh, "mocking" is very different from "crying".

>men fall in love with men, and women fall in love with women. He didn't say that. >Uh, "mocking" is very different from "crying". With the above correction you've shown your political standing. Of course you see it as mockery. Most people are going to see it as them crying about his "sexism" over something he didn't actually say (that they were distractingly sexy). If people were mocking him - more men would be mock…

> If people were mocking him - more men would be mocking him for the second statement that they are "irresistible" to women

The offensive part that is being mocked was not the description that women fall in love with men or vice versa.

The offensive part was that both of those were described by Hunt as parts of his "problem with girls...when they are in the lab".

That is, Hunt says:

1. Women fall in love with men (implicitly, to the detriment of the function of the lab) => problem with women

2. Men fall in love with women (implicitly, to the detriment of the function of the lab) => problem with women

Re: Female scientists mock Nobel laureate with photos

#13

Post by Nadya »

dragonwriter wrote: post #11
Nadya wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's the opposite. They're proving him right. Most of the offense seems to be taken on his first statement: "Men fall in love with women." Twitter 3rd-wave Feminists twisted that into "too sexy for the men". You don't see any men going on Twitter complaining he called them irresistible and distractingly sexy (things he never actually said anyway). Where's all the offence taken that "Women fall in love with men" from…

> Most of the offense seems to be taken on his first statement: "Men fall in love with women." I think you are confusing the which element of the whole sexist set of statements is the main inspiration of the mockery directed at the whole set with which is the main focus of offense . Though, to be fair, both the "you fall in love with them" and the "they fall in love with you" statements are worthy of offense when bot…

Fully grown women also refer to their female coworkers largely as "girls". Guys do not refer to men as "boys". They don't use "men "either. They use "guys".

Girls seem to dislike the feminine linguistic equivalent to "guys", which is "gals" seeing as they infrequently use it themselves to refer to themselves. However, they refer to themselves as girls quite frequently. I've been told several times in my life to stop using "gals" when referring to a female group because they disliked the word.

Guys have "guys night out", they don't call it "mens night out". Girls have "girls night out". They don't call it "gals night out". For all intents and purposes - "girl" does not always refer to a young female; context is important.

In Japanese おばあさん can refer to "aunt" or "middle-aged woman" and the context it is used in is important. Your aunt could really be a 6 year old girl. Why are you calling her a middle-aged woman? You aren't. You're calling her aunt.

Similarly, for English, "girls" has become the equivalent of both "guys" and "boys" and depends on context in which it is used.

Feel free to suggest an alternative to "gals" - but I'd consult with "the girls" first. They seem to have settled on "girls" themselves, but what do I know?

Re: Female scientists mock Nobel laureate with photos

#15

Post by Lawtonfogle »

dragonwriter wrote: post #7
Nadya wrote: post #4

>“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.” Nowhere did he say they were "distractingly sexy". He said men fall in love with women. That happens. He also said women fall in love with men. That also happens. If it didn't, the human population would be declining and not increasing. His only sexist statement is that they…

> Nowhere did he say they were "distractingly sexy". He said men fall in love with women. That happens. He also said women fall in love with men. Also, men fall in love with men, and women fall in love with women. > It's very ironic they are crying on Twitter Uh, "mocking" is very different from "crying".

>Also, men fall in love with men, and women fall in love with women.

At a significantly lower rate. If relationships (and the desires for relationships, the fallouts from breakups, etc.) cause a significant impact in some work environment, it will be heterosexual relationships that are of greatest concern due to the percentage of total relationships they make up.

For example, where I went to college, coed dorm rooms were not allowed because most coed dorm rooms had historically been couples and relationships breakups became really messy. There was no such rule preventing homosexual couples from having a dorm room because the number of incidents was much smaller and the challenge to keep them apart was greater.

Re: Female scientists mock Nobel laureate with photos

#16

Post by Lawtonfogle »

dragonwriter wrote: post #12
Nadya wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>men fall in love with men, and women fall in love with women. He didn't say that. >Uh, "mocking" is very different from "crying". With the above correction you've shown your political standing. Of course you see it as mockery. Most people are going to see it as them crying about his "sexism" over something he didn't actually say (that they were distractingly sexy). If people were mocking him - more men would be mock…

> If people were mocking him - more men would be mocking him for the second statement that they are "irresistible" to women The offensive part that is being mocked was not the description that women fall in love with men or vice versa. The offensive part was that both of those were described by Hunt as parts of his "problem with girls...when they are in the lab". That is, Hunt says: 1. Women fall in love with men (im…

It would've been much better of him to express this as a problem with coed workplaces instead of making the issue the fault of either particular gender. The question is thus did he mean coed workplaces and just completely failed at expressing his intention or was his intention to be sexist.

Re: Female scientists mock Nobel laureate with photos

#18

Post by Lawtonfogle »

dragonwriter wrote: post #11
Nadya wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's the opposite. They're proving him right. Most of the offense seems to be taken on his first statement: "Men fall in love with women." Twitter 3rd-wave Feminists twisted that into "too sexy for the men". You don't see any men going on Twitter complaining he called them irresistible and distractingly sexy (things he never actually said anyway). Where's all the offence taken that "Women fall in love with men" from…

> Most of the offense seems to be taken on his first statement: "Men fall in love with women." I think you are confusing the which element of the whole sexist set of statements is the main inspiration of the mockery directed at the whole set with which is the main focus of offense . Though, to be fair, both the "you fall in love with them" and the "they fall in love with you" statements are worthy of offense when bot…

>compounding that by referring to women as "girls"

Linguistically boys and girls, men and women, and guys and gals are not true opposites. One of the nuances is that it is common for women to be referred to in certain settings as girls. This can be used as an insult, but the mere use of the word isn't an insult.

But, being that the same word can both be an insult and not, it makes it quite impossible to tell if this was meant as an insult, and thus any group is likely to assume it was/wasn't an insult based on what fits their view best.

It is similar to the use of male/female, where often it is the best term (especially when describing a grouping of both adult women and young girls), but other groups will still latch onto it as a sign of disrespect.

Compare:

"Females of HN, what do you..."

vs.

"Females students..."

The former is more insulting, as the intended target is really women. The latter includes both students who are adult women and students who are girls, and is thus appropriate, but may still be attacked.

What really got me was in recent news about allowing teens and even preteens to get access to birth control, they were often referred to as 'young women' both in the news and by many people I saw speaking about the articles. Those opposed to such access did not use the term though (granted, I did not do a scientific study to show that each side tended to use different terminology to refer to the same group, this is merely my personal experience).

When I break down the nuances of English like this, it reminds me of why the few times I've tried to use Spanish has left my Hispanic friends rolling with laughter.

Re: Female scientists mock Nobel laureate with photos

#19

Post by dragonwriter »

Nadya wrote: post #13
dragonwriter wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Most of the offense seems to be taken on his first statement: "Men fall in love with women." I think you are confusing the which element of the whole sexist set of statements is the main inspiration of the mockery directed at the whole set with which is the main focus of offense . Though, to be fair, both the "you fall in love with them" and the "they fall in love with you" statements are worthy of offense when bot…

Fully grown women also refer to their female coworkers largely as "girls". Guys do not refer to men as "boys". They don't use "men "either. They use "guys". Girls seem to dislike the feminine linguistic equivalent to "guys", which is "gals" seeing as they infrequently use it themselves to refer to themselves. However, they refer to themselves as girls quite frequently. I've been told several times in my life to stop…

> Fully grown women also refer to their female coworkers largely as "girls".

Sometimes, some of them do. Context matters, still, and one place where this is very rare -- for the same reason that it is very common for women to object when other people do this -- is in discussions of professional performance. And, in another sense in which context matters, what might be unoffensive -- or only mildly so -- on its own can be more offensive when it is compounding an already-sexist set of statements.

> Guys do not refer to men as "boys".

IME, sometimes they do. (It may not be particularly common in the dominant -- i.e., white middle-class -- subculture, but there certainly are subcultures in which, e.g., referring to an adult male's adult male associates as his "boys" is not uncommon. And it would still be compound the offense to use the same term for adult male members of that subculture when making an otherwise-racist set of statements.)

> Feel free to suggest an alternative to "gals"

In the context of the statement Hunt was making, the obvious choice that would not compound the already sexist nature of his remarks to refer to adult female humans would be "women".

Re: Female scientists mock Nobel laureate with photos

#20

Post by Nadya »

dragonwriter wrote: post #12
Nadya wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>men fall in love with men, and women fall in love with women. He didn't say that. >Uh, "mocking" is very different from "crying". With the above correction you've shown your political standing. Of course you see it as mockery. Most people are going to see it as them crying about his "sexism" over something he didn't actually say (that they were distractingly sexy). If people were mocking him - more men would be mock…

> If people were mocking him - more men would be mocking him for the second statement that they are "irresistible" to women The offensive part that is being mocked was not the description that women fall in love with men or vice versa. The offensive part was that both of those were described by Hunt as parts of his "problem with girls...when they are in the lab". That is, Hunt says: 1. Women fall in love with men (im…

>"problem with girls...when they are in the lab".

This can be read two ways depending how you parse it.

That is, Hunt says:

1. Women fall in love with men (implicitly, to the detriment of the function of the lab) => problem with coed labs

2. Men fall in love with women (implicitly, to the detriment of the function of the lab) => problem with coed labs

Post reply on HN