One of the few traditional Conservatives to have served on the Tory front bench under Cameron, Paterson was Secretary of State for Northern Ireland before being promoted to the more high profile role of Secretary of State for Defra.

Candidate of the day

Owen Paterson

One day to go and Sir John Major has weighed in. “Labour divides to rule. To win votes they will turn rich against poor; north against south; worker against boss." We hope we don't wake up with them on Friday.

Hero of the day

Sir John Major

Another awful Labour woman. The fact Ed Miliband’s carved his pledges in stone doesn't mean he might not break them, campaign chief Lucy Powell has said.

Villain of the day

Lucy Powell

.

THE REAL CONSERVATIVE MANIFESTO

Back marriage. Restore grammar schools. Leave the EU.

Kathy Gyngell: UCL is a disgrace. Ousted professor Tim Hunt is more sinned against than sinning

How totally and thoroughly ridiculous – and deeply unpleasant - the world has become. Every day we come a step nearer to George Orwell’s 1984 ‘Big Brother’ dystopia. Freedom of thought as well as speech, those most fundamental of human rights, are in retreat as democracy becomes the lapdog of the ideologists and their orthodoxies.

What’s brought this on from me? you may ask.

Well, one of our foremost scientists and Nobel prize winners Sir Tim Hunt (physiology of medicine 2001) has not only had to issue a grovelling apology but has had to resign his honorary professorship for a thought crime.  He made a joke about women – worse, scientific women.

‘Let me tell you about my trouble with girls,’  this scientific innocent abroad  said to lunchtime gathering of a women’s convention on science and journalism in South Korea. ‘Three things happen when girls are in the lab — you fall in love with them, they fall in love with you, and when you criticise them, they cry.’

It was rather delightful. Not to the thought control police.  His remarks (and I bet he was trying his damndest to be entertaining, poor chap) got him more than his audience’s attention.

“Immediately, like vultures over the desert, the harpies began circling. Professor Dorothy Bishop of Oxford University, called for Hunt to be barred from ‘any committee that makes decisions about fellowships, appointments, promotions, policy, etc…….Twitter started up its infernal whine. Pressure groups issued statements. The BBC interviewed several women, all of whom had had their sense of humour surgically removed.  By teatime, Nobel Prize or no Nobel Prize, the Prof was out on his ear.”

That was Sarah Vine’s neat summation of the reaction in her Daily Mail column yesterday.

And three guesses as to where, the next day, he was made to make his groveling apology.  Yes, you’ve got it first time -  BBC Radio 4's Today programme.

“I am really sorry that I said what I said." It was "a very stupid thing to do in the presence of all those journalists".

Where do we live? North Korea?  How humiliating for him and how wrong that he should have to submit to this public shaming. I wished he’d called us - at The Conservative Woman - for a briefing and an escort. We’d have told him to tell them to “bring it on”!

He should, of course, have demanded what, exactly, was untrue about his remarks (based as they were on his experience as well as scientific observation) that women do have a tendency to cry and men do have a tendency to fall in love with them or find them distracting and this can, in the confines of a science lab - or any workplace for that matter -  be disruptive.

Second, he should have dared the circling harpies to kill off his distinguished career and tarnish his name with such trivia. He should have shouted out at the raging storm, like King Lear, a man more sinned against than sinning.

Third, he might have expressed his deep sadness at the way he's been traduced by this alma mater, University College London, and the shameful statement put out by it which read:

"UCL can confirm that Sir Tim Hunt FRS has resigned from his position as honorary professor with the UCL faculty of life sciences following comments he made about women in science at the World Conference of Science Journalists on 9 June. UCL was the first university in England to admit women students on equal terms to men, and the university believes that this outcome is compatible with our commitment to gender equality."

Finally, he could have speculated about the reaction of UCL’s founding father Jeremy Bentham to his supposed new religious heresy.  Would the great utilitarian have approved of the freedom of thought and expression fundamental to his college’s ethos being undermined in this way – or of the precedent set by such thought management?

Would not Bentham have found this ‘commitment to gender equality’ as bad as the narrow religious orthodoxies of his century; and to be a cruel travesty of the college ‘s founding radical mission to admit women on equal terms with men?

It would have taken a lot of guts and more study of modern culture for an academic like Sir Tim. What he did say at the end revealed his own profound honesty and we applaud him for telling the BBC he "did mean" the remarks he made.

We are sad though that he felt he had to say he was  "really, really sorry for causing any offence". It was awful, he said with genuine concern. No it was not. The response to him was awful.

Kathy Gyngell

  • Tim

    Well he is male, can’t have them teaching at a university, send in the replacement ultra leftist feminazi.

    • Dysgrontled

      Have a look at the stats for women in science. It is not dominated by feminists. Sociology, you might have a point.

      • Albert Zbingswiki

        Sociology. LOL. I still dream of hiring a massive advertising hoarding in a few university towns and putting up a poster that says “Sociology is not a proper subject” or similar.

        • literate3

          Nearly 50 years ago I was told the joke about sociology degrees and toilet paper – by a Sociology student

          • Jen The Blue

            The irony is that since photography, journalism, tourism, media studies and the like expanded the university population so much that we cannot afford to fund real subjects, that sociology has almost got academic credibility……compared to the dross anyway.

      • Tim

        No wonder there hasn’t been any major advancements recently AAAAAOOOOOOOOOOO!

  • krishnan gurning-leftie

    imagine if every time a woman made a remark in the work place about men reading instructions they had to resign

  • Bogbrush

    Well two of the three comments were eminently equal; he said men fall in love with women just as he said it worked the other way. So no possible discriminatory offence there, unless the gay / lesbian lobby was outraged that he didn’t recognise the risk of romantic affairs in single-sex teams…….
    Then he said women have a tendency to cry, which is true to a small extent.
    So…. nothing then. Still, I do blame him for caving in so easily.

    • literate3

      No it is not necessary to behave like Jeremy Clarkson (and even he doesn’t hit girls). Incidentally I make better tea than my wife.
      Girls crying, but men not, when they are criticised is part of social conditioning – the feminists should logically be criticising the failure of men to cry when criticised. I wish they would – get them the contempt they deserve.

      • Phil

        Men not crying as much as girls because of social conditioning is largely a myth.

        Testosterone inhibits crying and prolactin in women encourages crying. Wherever you go in the world and whatever the culture, women always cry a lot more than men. Of course it is probably true to say that the fact that men cry less than women naturally has made it socially beneficial for men to suppress tears completely if possible.

        Women cry about 4 times as often as men, so getting upset about that scientific reality isn’t worth the tears. Personally I wish I could cry, because it releases bottled up emotions which is healthier than continuing to suppress them, but so far I still find it difficult.

        • literate3

          Bullshit
          Social conditioning has existed for thousands of years. Greek matrons would say “Come back with your shield or on it”
          Testosterone in male children declines to negligible levels six months after birth and remains neglighible until the approach of puberty.
          So “boys don’t cry” is not a result of testosterone inhibiting crying. As recently as the early 1950s I was told that (I forget why, but it must have really hurt because I have a high pain threshold).
          It is not purely social conditioning: there is also a minor genetic factor. Prior to the invention of weapons using gunpowder, physical courage among males promoted survival (leaving on one side the berserkers who did not feel or utterly ignored pain) because those who ran away were easily killed by pursuers while over 90% of those who stood their ground (shield-wall or whatever) survived.

          • Phil

            Haven’t you noticed that boys stop crying almost exactly the time they enter puberty? I have two sons so I have observed it myself. Happy to cry just like girls until they hit puberty then “boom” gone. We didn’t raise them not to cry – they just stopped.

          • literate3

            NO
            Puberty is not at the age of three or four
            Boys stopped crying before they went to school n my era
            Your family is just weird

          • Phil

            Hmmm, was watching a kids football match just the other day and a kid about 11 got the ball full in the face. Balled his eyes out. Don’t see grown men doing that.

            Maybe in your era the social conditioning did indeed teach young kids to suppress their tears earlier. I dunno. I’m only talking about kids in general, of this generation, and what science has to say about it. Don’t shoot the messenger.

          • literate3

            Sorry if I gave any offence in my knee-jerk response. Given the virtual absence of testosterone in primary schoolchildren of both sexes – and my tendency to distrust any claims about the social effects of testosterone since I found out that the *only* scientific experiment in that field discovered that *sub-normal* levels of testosterone were associated with higher levels of violence in direct contradiction of the propaganda by certain self-styled feminists – I find it difficult to believe that testosterone can be a reason for boys and tomboys not to cry.
            Has “crybaby” disappeared from the vocabulary?
            I think my generation might have cut the kid a bit of slack if he was hit in the face by a football, rather than criticised because he’s made a mistake in the lab – not so “girly” OTOH that has called me to dredge up a memory of being hit in the face by an unusually heavy wet leather football (in those days our footballs absorbed water from the pitch) which *did* hurt: it didn’t stop me heading the next ball that I could get in the way of.

        • Jen The Blue

          I think you have a point. But I also think that rampant feminists, like other left wing professional victims would allow scientific fact to get in the way of their goals.

      • Bogbrush

        Where did you get the idea it’s social conditioning? You’re wrong.

        And where did this “hit girls” thing come from?

        • literate3

          (i) Generations of “Boys don’t cry”. Where did you grow up? I grew up in Britain.
          (ii) Major media fuss: Jeremy Clarkson lost his temper and hit a guy – if he had ever hit a girl “hamster” would have floored him and the media would never have stopped talking about it.

          • Bogbrush

            Oh I see, so you’re reversing cause and effect? Perhaps you want to consider that these values persist because they have their roots in reality.

            You mean the media ignored the incident? And if he hit a woman that would be even worse, it’s true.

          • literate3

            Don’t talk soft.
            You must be blind if you think that the media ignored Clarkson hitting a man and you must be stupid/duplicitious if you are suggesting that the media could/might have hidden him hitting a girl.
            “Oh I see, so you’re reversing cause and effect?” That is complete and utter nonsense. How can anyone with more than two brain cells think that mothers saying “boys don’t cry” is a *result* rather than a cause of differential gender berhaviour in adults?

          • Bogbrush

            What ARE you on about? It’s obvious the media went mental over it, and just as obvious they’d (rightly) have gone even bigger if he’d hit a woman. So what?

            Looks like you have a difficulty with logic. It’s perfectly, easily, reasonable to conclude that mothers tell sons that boys don’t cry because on the whole the men they grow into don’t. It’s kind of just like people reporting what they see.
            It’s way more weird to imagine that since time immemorial males have been conditioned not to cry by an imagined social construct. Sort of two brain cell material really.

          • literate3

            I am talking about reality, unlike you

  • Dysgrontled

    I’m sorry, this is the type of kneejerk contrarianism that led a BBC journalist to show up at the kosher supermarket in Paris and start slagging off Israel.

    This behaviour and these views are utterly catastrophic in science. They have destroyed and limited countless careers, and for nothing. At least Tim Hunt has said them out loud, but so much of preferment in science jobs is done behind locked doors. Do you honestly believe that these things do not influence funding decisions (“well, she is the best, but she’s quite pretty, so perhaps she’ll have a baby, so it’s not the best use of our money”)? In some cases these views are given the short shrift they deserve, but too often they limit people’s lives in totally unnecessary and irrelevant ways.

    Listen, I count myself very much as a conservative (and, as it happens, Conservative), and I can’t see any way in which it helps us to continue defending the indefensible.

    • Bogbrush

      How do you feel about his “criticism” that men have a tendency to fall in love with women? Is he being intolerably offensive to men?
      You do know he fell in love with the woman he was working with, who left her husband and has been with him for 20 years, so there’s quite a bit of the confessional in his comments?

      • Dysgrontled

        Well, that’s both true and irrelevant. Science conferences are famously s**g-fests, but it doesn’t seem to harm the actual science in the least.

        • Bogbrush

          Who does anything at conferences?
          Anyway, that misses the point. What he said about falling in love at work reflected equally on men and women (and given his personal history, was probably more of a mea culpa than otherwise), so what exactly was the discriminatory point you’re trying to make?

          • Dysgrontled

            The point is clear from my initial comment and is supported by the text of what he said. OAO.

          • Little Black Censored

            Listen, shut up.

          • Bogbrush

            You claim you’re right so you’re right? Great science. Are you being distracted?

          • Caractacus

            No it isn’t. What he said was a personal observation and entirely accurate to many peoples experiences. What you said was a load of bull.

          • Mez

            The implication that the knee jerk reaction to the potential for the odd one or two who fall in love at work while actually working together, (not the norm in most workplaces), has the potential to ruin the lives of the very many who don’t fall in love with somebody, just because they’re confronted with another member of the opposite sex during the working day. We’re not all attracted to the same people for the same reasons.

          • Bogbrush

            Eh?

        • Phil

          Well here’s some science for you. If you have ten men and ten women in a group, statistically one couple will form out of that group within three years. So, if you were to change work groups once ever 5 years, about 50% of working men and women will have extra-marital affairs with someone they work with during their working lives.

          I myself, regrettably, had an extra-marital affair with someone I worked with and when it became common-knowledge I discovered a lot of my colleagues had done much the same.

          Put men and women in the same work environment and it will lead to broken marriages, because there are a lot of people just waiting to prey on those whose marriages might just be going through a bad patch. I’ve seen it time and time again. In my experience it is usually young women that that don’t find that the men their age are every grown up and fancy pairing off with an older guy that has already been house-trained by somebody else.

    • Phil

      How about “let’s promote her, she’s a stunner”. Because that’s what is more likely to happen in the workplace.

      I have seen countless women with no ability being promoted to positions they can’t handle because they are at least slightly more attractive than average. I would say that 50% of the HR managers I have met were women in a extra-marital relationship with the next manager up the ladder.

      • Mez

        With another woman presumably, since most HR managers and their hierarchy are women.

        • Phil

          Lets face it it cuts all ways.

          Most people that are promoted tend to be tall men with narcissistic personality disorder. They in their turn tend to promote “yes” men and “yes” women and girls that look hot.

          I never got a look in. I’m not tall, don’t have NPD, I’m not hot, and as you may have noticed I’m rather argumentative – I’m not a “yes-man”.

          But I’m not bitter. If you want to make the workplace promotion scene “fairer” you will need to take out the tall men with NPD first. Good luck with that, since they rule the world and they’re the only ones that are sufficiently motivated to do the actual running of the world – the rest of us are just talking about it.

          Start your own business if it bothers you too much, that would be my advice. Stop trying to crawl up the spine of somebody else’s.

    • Jen The Blue

      It wasn’t indefensible because it was a joke.

  • Albert Zbingswiki

    And, bouyed up with the euphoria of having destroyed his career, the Left is now metaphorically dancing around the campfire by taking the piss on twitter with a ‘distractingly sexy’ hashtag.

    • Dysgrontled

      The Left are doing this; so are conservative women who have the temerity to try and make a career for themselves. Which is sort of important, given that recent evidence from the US suggests that conservative Christian women are the most under-represented group in Universities (much more so than ethnic minorities). Anyway, I have made my point and won’t spam this thread any more; good day all.

      • Jen The Blue

        “”given that recent evidence from the US suggests that conservative
        Christian women are the most under-represented group in Universities
        (much more so than ethnic minorities).””

        The left just thinks in quotas doesn’t it? Could it be because more Conservative Christian women CHOOSE a tradition lifestyle of marriage and bring up THEIR OWN children rather than palming them off on the state or the child minder?

        • Dysgrontled

          Fine. You make a good point. Have it your way. Now don’t complain ever again that Universities don’t represent your views. You can’t have it both ways.

          • Jen The Blue

            I don’t universities should have “views” at all.

          • Dysgrontled

            Congratulations for tripping me up on grammar. I agree if your point applies to considered academic opinion, I disagree if it applies to basic workplace respect. In any case, I meant views reflected within Universities.

          • Jen The Blue

            I was in no way trying to trip you on grammar. I hadn’t even considered it.

            I meant that universities should do genuine research…..not influenced by opinion. I realise that is a fantasy today, but it was true when I first went to university in 1984. The nationalisation of the universities destroyed their independence.

          • Dysgrontled

            How can you do research without an opinion? I guess if you are a computer … I know for certain that researchers in 1984 had strong opinions about what they were doing. What are you talking about?

  • Trojan

    UCL bows to the BBC. Not long ago our universities were considering gender segregated seating in lectures.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/womens-life/10510284/Gender-apartheid-segregation-is-real-in-UK-universities.-So-why-arent-more-people-fighting-it.html

    • Little Black Censored

      It’s not gender, it’s sex. We should not accept their private terminology.

      • Trojan

        Agree. Point accepted

      • Albert Zbingswiki

        Ah, yes, but that’s appeasement of our peaceful, enriching overlords, and so is to be encouraged. It is not in any way sexist, it’s just respect of other cultures, so no one will complain about it.
        *rolls eyes*
        We’re doomed. Sit quietly in your home, and await your appointment for beh-eading, which will take place in your local park. Multiculturalism ackbar.

      • Jen The Blue

        Yes, as I understand it “gender” is an attribute of language. The Germans have three, masculine, feminine and neuter.

        I have often wondered whether the rampant feminist insistence on calling actresses “actors” [except perversely at the Oscars….I wonder why?] has been adopted in Germany where all nouns have gender?

        • oblivia

          The Oscars is an American thing. Americans are deeply conservative, as you might have noticed. Some of their newspapers still use line drawings and their spelling is basically Puritan (older than ours). You’re not allowed to change things over there.

          But what do you have against calling Emma Thompson an actor? Do you cringe every time you refer to a woman “doctor”? Do you wish there was a better word? Doctress?

          • Jen The Blue

            My point was that those feminist actresses who for some reason that I have yet to understand, wish to be called actors, suddenly lose this desire where an award is concerned. You cannot have two “best actor” awards though can you?

            What have I against it? Simply it provides less information. So why use it? Why is actress less in the tiny minds of feminists than actor? I agree, bring back doctress. I hate the way the C of E uses the incorrect phrase “women priests”. They are Priestesses like it or not.

  • foo

    Says much more about the leadership of UCL than anything else, not prepared to stand up for a Nobel prize winning staff member over a throw away comment…. incredible !
    Personally I would have relished the opportunity to make the BBC and most of their audience wonder why the f*** they were chasing this non story in the first place.

    [Slightly off topic] can’t wait for GCHQ/web host email/web history databases to get hacked ( or shared, which it will of course, name me a database that hasn’t) . Aided by the PC brigade, that would give someone the ability to end anyone’s career , politicians particularly , or be blackmailed.[Slightly off topic/]

    There needs to be a collective name for these people who make themselves feel better by pointing at others all the time, I’m sure it is part of the human condition that we all have in us I guess , just that some seem to have become irrational addicts. Raising their own self esteem perhaps by convincing themselves that they have done something useful and that there are others who are ‘worse’ than them ? Avoiding addressing ones own deficiencies by highlighting everyone else’s ? who knows ?

    And the BBC….. what can I say. I still tune in to ‘Today’ but as often as not I find myself switching channels these days. If I want badly researched ratings driven news I will buy a tabloid.

  • Back in the 1950’s the LSE Rugby Club borrowed Bentham for a while. Perhaps they should have kept him

    • Politically__Incorrect

      If I remember correctly, Bentham’s body is preserved in a glass case in the foyer of UCL for all to see. Presumably, even the dead are “equal” at UCL

  • Jeff Evans

    Where the professor failed is in forgetting that feminazis have no sense of humour.

    Enjoy your retirement, Professor. You’re well off out of it.

  • Politically__Incorrect

    It’s been a bad week for joined-up thinking. The professor should not have apologised at all. Why not? Well, firstly he has said nothing wrong, so why not kick this absurd British habit of apologising for things that we have not done. Secondly, the feminazis, particularly the puritanical professional offence-takers, are not interested in your apologies and they will never forgive you, however, sincere you are. They want your blood, or at least your career, reputation, and dignity. Forgiveness is not in their vocabulary

    Finally, to all the other men out there who are going to end up in the position of the professor; Refuse all offers of an interview with the BBC. The BBC is now the public whipping post for anybody who does not bow to the equality idol. You come away with a sore @rse and nothing else. So why bother? Instead, please write an article for TCW about the people who judge and condemn you, and what a bunch of puritanical tossers they are. You’ll get plenty of support here.

    • Jen The Blue

      One of the great paradoxes of the left…..the bang on about fairness and tolerance but they are the least fair and certainly the least tolerant members of society.

  • Scusemequeen

    I recently took a one month course. One of my fellow students (female) continually made cross remarks about “typical man this typical male behaviour etc.) I eventually asked her to desist from such sexist remarks pointing out that the reverse would not be tolerated. She replied that she was a member of an oppressed minori’y (yeah ) and I was a member of the patriarchy, therefore by definition she could not say anything sexist

    • Politically__Incorrect

      Yes, that illustrates the feminist mentality well. My wife has heard similar comments from a feminist colleague. If they ever discovered the truth, that they are not persecuted, they would lose the will to live. That’s unless they could find some other phantom grievance to feed on.

    • Jen The Blue

      There are more women than men.

      • Mez

        it varies by age group

      • Scusemequeen

        I think she was using the word “minority” in a figurative sense only. To mean ‘ I hate you’

  • Caractacus

    Recall the Nasa Scientist who was reduced to tears and an apology on TV because he had committed the heinous crime of – wearing a hawaiian shirt with a picture of a scantily clad woman on it.

    This is beyond a joke.

    • Politically__Incorrect

      That was another sickening episode, though I can’t help thinking: why apologise? Did he really think he had done something so terrible that it required a weeping apology live on TV? Come on men. If we are stop this dreadful, phony, feminist movement from literally destroying our lives then should stand up to it. Respect for women doesn’t mean letting ourselves be pushed around by them.

  • blue2beak

    When I was a union rep at an insurance company management wanted to discipline a male call centre employee for leaving his desk in a huff and going to sit outside on the wall for a few minutes to calm his temper.
    I told the company it was common knowledge that women call centre staff often had to be coaxed out of the toilets when they got upset and went there for a good cry.
    That was the end of the matter.

    • Groan

      Yes its interesting isn’t it that the societal good, to express emotions as a means to better health, doesn’t extend to males. Firstly it seems we find male emotions disturbing due to some idea that they are deeper and less transient and secondly that they are frequently about anger temper etc. and so shouldn’t exist. I think your incident is very true and common, sadly few men will get such perceptive help.

  • Lagopus scotica

    Speaking as a female scientist who spent a happy 4 years in an industrial lab working alongside men and women (and have now run my own science-based company for over 10 years), Sir Tim spoke the truth. He seems to have been misinterpreted – he wasn’t saying women shouldn’t be scientists, just that the sexes working together can lead to emotional involvement, like many other workplaces, and that in his opinion, for scientists this can be detrimental to their work. As any spectator of office affairs knows, they usually have some negative effects on the participant’s productivity, but this effect may be worse for jobs requiring serious thought, such as advanced scientific research. Has anyone considered that men-only and women-only labs, meeting only at coffee breaks and lunch to share ideas, might actually produce better work and be less stressful for all concerned? Why are people not interested in testing his hypothesis?

    • Politically__Incorrect

      You make a good point. One female boss I worked for added a clause to the employee contract forbidding “sexual” relations between employees. She wasn’t clear whether she meant activities in the workplace, but we knew it came about because of one particular romeo who was going around breaking hearts and causing female staff to leave (sometime plus baby).

      I agree that segregation has it’s merits. I believe it is good to have it in schools. It should always be the case on hospital wards. I suspect many women also prefer the idea of partly-segregated environments.

    • Phil

      This was his point of course, and had he been allowed to make it then it would have been a point most of us relate to. I wondered at the time how many stay-at-home housewives were thinking “I’d quite like my hubby to be separated from the young women at work”.

      Naturally, the feminazis were not interested in what he actually said. Parts of the speech were taken out of context and used to create a strawman (or straw-woman) whereby the implication was that Sir Tim Hunt disliked the idea of women being involved with science at all. This was then used to vilify the man world-wide, until this Nobel-prize winning cancer researcher was hounded out of his job. Lovely. Still, he was only a man so it is perfectly OK. I just hope the experience doesn’t drive him to suicide.

      • NilsBoray

        He hasn’t been hounded out of his job. His work with UCL is in a honorary capacity – it’s not his main line of work. He’s also stood down from a committee within the Royal Society who have criticised his comments in much stronger terms.

        • Phil

          He was hounded out of his position. Now be careful Nils because if you say anything out of place you might be next. Imagine how you might feel if something you said might be taken out of context and then used as fuel for a global hate campaign directed towards you?

          Are you going to stand up and fight and be part of the solution, or are you so blind you can only be part of the problem?

          • NilsBoray

            Oh is that a threat Phil ?

            It wasn’t taken out of context was it though ? He’s a Nobel Prize winner representing a major international university at a major conference. Of course people will hang on his every word – that’s why he’s there.

            He hasn’t lost his job either. Neither has there been a global hate campaign.

            As a bit of a veteran on twitter I’ve had a fair bit of vilification on there – I’ve handled it fairly well for the most part. Golden rules : Don’t drink & tweet; Don’t say anything you couldn’t say in the staffroom with your manager there; and resist the temptation to tell anyone to F*** off, however much you want to.

            I’ve very occasionally slipped up on the last two.

            You can always switch your computer off if it gets to be a problem.

          • Phil

            Ah, problems with perspective again Nils.

            Firstly, I’m not threatening you at all. How can I? I don’t even know who you are. Are you famous? Ah wait, you must be the Nils Boray that is a head teacher and writes for LabourList. Relax, you are quite safe.

            The threat comes to freedom of speech because a twitter storm of epic proportions can be used to to discourage anybody anywhere from saying anything. It’s a threat to all of us. Thought-crime made real. Ah, but of course some people like the idea of freedom of speech being made a thought-crime at every opportunity. Can I put you down as “not being a big fan of free speech”? Must be a Labour thing…..

            No global hate campaign? Read this and re-consider:

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

            Are you so well known that your misjudged tweets caused a storm so severe it actually ended up national news and ended up with your personal reputation torn to shreds, so that nothing you did before actually counted for much? I doubt it.

            Anyway, as it seems you are a died-in-the-wool Labour activist I presume having an open mind is not one of your fortés and you are here mostly to spread left-wing propaganda. There’s little point in me wasting words on trying to convert you to another way of thinking is there?

          • NilsBoray

            How can you threaten me ? Well I’m always slightly suspect of any sentence aimed at me that contains the words “Now be careful … you might be next” – but I’ll take your word for it that you’re not. Although the fact that you then go down the “we know where you live” path does make me wonder. I’ve written a couple of articles for Labourlist – I think it was in 2008/9 – shortly before I joined the Labour party at the back end of 2009. I’ve not been a Headteacher for quite some time, although I’ll be a Vice Principal in a few weeks. I’ve written a few things for other websites – Progress being the main one – but still not many. I’ve had several book reviews published in academic journals on special education.

            The only reason that a twitter storm is of ‘epic’ proportions is because lots of people say things all at the same time – it’s called freedom of speech, If Tim Hunt has freedom of speech (and he does) then so do all the people who use twitter. That you seem to fear this as a threat perhaps indicates that through the strength of our common endeavours we achieve more than we do alone. Actually though I don’t really think it does – twitter storms tend to end up in teacups fairly quickly, it’s not as powerful as some think. A bit of a bubble really. As is much of the internet. What is clearly the case though nowadays is that you can’t say anything in public – or even semi-public and expect it to remain hidden. Tim Hunt has come a cropper because of his lack of acumen in dealing with this. The fact that he’s been despatched so quickly from the UCL position and the Royal Society committee I think are largely because they’re honorary rather than substantive posts – he’s representing them rather than being paid properly by them. It’s a mean old scene – but he should know that. Saying that he never had a chance to explain either is way off beam – he had an open slot on Radio 4 – he made a total pig’s ear of it.

            Am I so well known … etc ? No. I’ve made the odd blunder now and again. Most people that have “storms” tend to be raving right wing nutters of the EDL/BNP persuasion – pathetic and easily ignored. The odd one or two tweets seem to have snuck into mainstream news. Quite surprising really.

            Whenever people make a mess of their careers, it inevitably overshadows what went before – but most of them bounce back. I have – although I’ve not suffered anything to dramatic. I think Tim Hunt will do too. I’d imagine if he wanted to right a book on feminism co-authored with his wife it might well become a best seller.

            I’m not so much a died-in-the-wool Labour activist as a dyed-in-the-wool Labour activist – although activist is stretching it quite a bit these days, I barely even get to meetings. I stood down from CLP and branch committees in 2013 after taking up a politically restricted post, which also prevented me from standing for election (which I did for a local council seat unsuccessfully the year before). I’ve never really got back in the swing of it. I’ve very big on having an open mind, and try not to make presumptions. I don’t spread propaganda – but I do challenge what I consider to be untruths, or opinions I disagree with. There’s every point in trying to convert me – who knows it may even change your own way of thinking. Be lucky !

          • NilsBoray

            Couple of grammatical/spelling errors in that last comment. Apols.

          • Phil

            “Now be careful … you might be next”

            Try this for size. It might remind you of the importance of standing up for freedom:

            “First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—
            Because I was not a Socialist.

            Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—
            Because I was not a Trade Unionist.

            Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
            Because I was not a Jew.

            Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.”

            You might want to question how it was that a speech of minor importance in a far off land became mentioned on ITV, BBC and Sky News as well as all the major newspapers? Free speech of ordinary men and women is being curtailed all over the Western world. Why is that Nils? What are they afraid of?

          • NilsBoray

            That is just bizarre. The passage you have just quoted is all about speaking up and combatting discrimination. – It supports the position of those who have criticised Tim Hunt – and not the other way round. What it says very loud and very clear, is if you hear or see someone being criticised unfairly – Speak up ! – He criticised women scientists unfairly – and was called out on it – it’s called free speech of ordinary men and women. I would suspect that it was on all the major newspapers and TV channels was because it was witnessed by an audience mainly of journalist – which he knew – seems blindingly obvious to me.

    • Bogbrush

      Way too objective and logical. You sound like a scientist and a person with perspective.

      • Jen The Blue

        Yes……..too logical for a woman I would say!! 🙂

  • Scusemequeen

    Part 2. My exchange with my feminist course mate took place on the same day the Goldsmiths diversity officer had limited a meeting to BME women and I seem to recall non cis ( not sure exactly what this is – anyone know ?) Anyway, I responded a propos “And I suppose by the same token a black person cannot say or do anything racist, as the Goldsmiths Union rep argued?” Our feminist friend’s response was also revealing – namely, goes red on face and shouts “I’m not having this f•••••g conversation!!!”

    • Phil

      From which we can derive “Feminist” = “woman with unusually extreme sensitivity to testosterone”

      • Mez

        Extreme sensitivity to unfairness which is aimed directly at gender.

        • Jen The Blue

          I note the use of the word “extreme”. So you accept the wimmin are unnecessarily touchy about it?

          • Phil

            Some women. Some noisy unelected self-appointed spokes-people for women.

            It really is time they were torn down a peg or ten.

  • LoveMeIamALiberal

    Prof Hunt’s joke seems a bit crass, but not worth sacking him for. Contrast with Bahar Mustafa who kept her university officer post after using the hastag #killallwhitemen – apparently that was a joke, and not one that gets you sacked – or Diane Abbott on several occasions. And it’s the double standard that is outrageous: it is acceptable to be racist and sexist as long as your target is white or male.

    • NilsBoray

      He wasn’t sacked. He resigned from an honorary un-remunerated position

  • Phil

    Well done Kathy. I knew TCW wouldn’t let us down on this one.

    As you correctly pointed out, the behaviour of radfems is increasingly Orwellian, and there is a reason for this. Orwell and Huxley had already infiltrated the Fabians and knew what techniques they were planning to use to step-by-step brainwash the people into gradually becoming more communist. “Thought-crime” was one of the techniques that Orwell anticipated would be used by the Fabians and suppressing freedom of speech by twitter-rage a thousand orders of magnitude greater than the original offence (if indeed there ever was one) is its latest incarnation. Typically these “thought-crime” techniques are used to clamp down on anybody making any comments perceived to harm the interests of women, ethnic minorities or religious minorities seen from a left-wing perspective.

    The world is infected with Fabian thought-control techniques which seem to have long since slipped from control of the Fabians just as Orwell believed it would.

    • NilsBoray

      Are we on about the same Fabians ? You don’t need to infiltrate them. Just join up – it’s fascinating. It’s certainly not restricted to any particular political point of view.

    • Feminist_Future

      Why are you mansplaining again? Your white male sense of entitlement is so obvious it hurts. You’re assuming you’re superior just because of your gender – hence your condescending, patronizing tone. Do us all a favour and check your privilege before you post here again.

      • Jen The Blue

        Where do I find my privilege and what faults in it am I looking for?

        • Feminist_Future

          Here’s a list to help you and other males on here to check your privilege.

          If I am a man…

          1. My odds of being hired for a job, when competing against female applicants, are probably skewed in my favour. The more prestigious the job, the larger the odds are skewed.

          2. I can be confident that my co-workers won’t think I got my job because of my sex – even though that might be true.

          3. If I am never promoted, it’s not because of my sex.

          4. If I fail in my job or career, I can feel sure this won’t be seen as a black mark against my entire sex’s capabilities.

          5. I am far less likely to face sexual harassment at work than my female co-workers are.

          6. If I do the same task as a woman, and if the measurement is at all subjective, chances are people will think I did a better job.

          7. If I’m a teen or adult, and if I can stay out of prison, my odds of being raped are relatively low.

          8. On average, I am taught to fear walking alone after dark in average public spaces much less than my female counterparts are.

          9. If I choose not to have children, my masculinity will not be called into question.

          10. If I have children but do not provide primary care for them, my masculinity will
          not be called into question.

          11. If I have children and provide primary care for them, I’ll be praised for
          extraordinary parenting if I’m even marginally competent.

          12. If I have children and a career, no one will think I’m selfish for not staying at home.

          13. If I seek political office, my relationship with my children, or who I hire to take care of them, will probably not be scrutinized by the press.

          14. My elected representatives are mostly people of my own sex. The more prestigious and powerful the elected position, the more this is true.

          15. When I ask to see “the person in charge,” odds are I will face a person of my own sex. The higher-up in the organization the person is, the surer I can be.

          16. As a child, chances are I was encouraged to be more active and outgoing than my sisters.

          17. As a child, I could choose from an almost infinite variety of children’s media featuring positive, active, non-stereotyped heroes of my own sex. I never had to look for it; male protagonists were (and are) the default.

          18. As a child, chances are I got more teacher attention than girls who raised their hands just as often.

          19. If my day, week or year is going badly, I need not ask of each negative episode or situation whether or not it has sexist overtones.

          20. I can turn on the television or glance at the front page of the newspaper and see people of my own sex widely represented.

          21. I have the privilege of being unaware of my privilege.

          • Jen The Blue

            1. Probably? Says who? I am sure that’s what you believe, but in the public sector is heavily weighted the other way.

            2. Paranoia – nothing less. People think all kinds of irrational things. That’s life….same for all…get over it doesn’t make you a victim.

            3.Same for women.

            4. Back to paranoia. You are you, and you are responsible for you alone not you entire sex.

            5. Debatable. Probably was true some years ago. These days, in my experience, women are more likely to “get away” with sexual harassment than men. largely because men usually won’t make such a fuss.

            6.Bullshit. Warped opinion.

            7. So are yours. Although the “rape support” industry likes to pretend otherwise. Genuine rape is a terrible crime – whether on woman or man. But what passes for rape – women changing their minds half way through and even lying about afterwards……Check YOUR privilege here…..how many women who falsely cry “rape” are ever convicted and imprisoned?

            8.The danger to both sexes is over-stated. But women are taught that because they are physically weaker than men. Sorry women, but God doesn’t appear to be a rampant feminist.

            9. Back to paranoia. You need to see a shrink.

            10. If only that were true. But as a modern man, I don’t care which parent looks after the children so long as they don’t think others should pay for it.

            11. See above. It IS IMHO selfish for two parents to have careers at the expense of bringing up their children. Which one ….I don’t think anyone cares anymore. You are fighting a battle that ended 40 years ago. People have opinions…..I know the left hate that…how awkward….but it is not unreasonable to accept that women are better at bringing up children than men. Some people will think that….it doesn’t make you a victim. In fact, what other people think of you, doesn’t make you a victim.

            12. They might if your career is subordinate to your wife’s.

            13.Again…fighting long won battles again.

            14.So? Why do I need to be represented by someone of my own sex. The best PM in my lifetime was a woman. This is stupid and false idea, that representatives have to mimic the population.

            15.So what? Are so inadequate you can only deal with another woman?

            16. Maybe? So what?

            17. Is that so? Maybe historically. But why do you need to look up to only women? When I was younger and considering a career in politics, Margaret Thatcher was my role model, my heroine.

            18.B**llocks! I was ateacher until recently and that is just not so.

            19.Neither do you…that’s why you need to see that shrink. You are looking for excuses.

            20. I despair……there are never women in the news are there!

            21. You certainly are unaware of yours.

      • Phil

        If I have privilege it’s because I have an IQ of 137 and 50 years of experience behind me. If you can out-argue me then why not prove it? I don’t think you have the capacity, hence your tendency to resort to ad hominems.

        • NilsBoray

          I think she just proved it Phil

          • Phil

            Proved what? That I believe I’m superior because of my gender?

            1] If I have a patronising condescending tone it is because she has the IQ of a pebble and it is like communicating with a wayward teenager, not because of my gender. I appreciate that is a rather patronising and condescending ad hominem, but I might as well enjoy it and leave Feminist Future to reap what she has sown.

            2] I don’t consider myself “superior”. I have a superior intellect to Feminist Future, that is clear, but I don’t believe that makes me superior in the round. Feminist Future may have many fine qualities that I am unaware of. Conversely I am all too aware of my failings.

            3] If I have privilege perhaps she can explain to me why i’m living in a two bedroom rented flat with an 8 year old 2nd-hand car? I’m not feeling privileged.

            4] If I have entitlement then what I am entitled to hasn’t been delivered yet. See [3] for details.

            Now if either of you want to engage with the first paragraph rather than deny my right to discuss at all then please feel free to go right ahead.

    • Jen The Blue

      This is why I go out of my way to say things that will wind up the feminists whether I believe them or not. In the same way that Islam’s attempts to bully people into not drawing Mohammed should have resulted in millions of cartoons of Mohammed to make the point we will not surrender, I will continue to be far more sexist than I really am, just defend that right.

  • Mr_Twister

    Universities today seem to = anti knowledge!

  • NilsBoray

    I heard Hunt on Radio 4 Today – (Where else would it be ? It’s the flagship current affairs programme ) – He seemed to view the incident as entirely trivial and was sorry only for the fact that he’d made his comments in the presence of so many journalists. He does have freedom of speech, as does University College London, who no doubt exercised their right in advising in him that his comments as a de facto international ambassador of the University, were entirely at odds with the message which the University is trying to spread around the globe. A little perhaps like a Toyota salesman traveling to the UK and exercising his right to speak freely and say he prefers Hondas – of course he’s got the right – but he’s not going to keep his job for long.

    His professorship at UCL is an honorary one, unlike that of his wife Mary Collins, Professor of Immunology at the self-same UCL. Perhaps ex-Professor Hunt could let us know whether either of them cried at the criticism which he received.

    • Bogbrush

      Oh right, so the purpose of UCL isn’t to do science, it’s to promote particular gender opinions around the globe.

      Such messed up thinking it doesn’t even know it is,

      • NilsBoray

        As Kathy’s article quotes from the University – ” … UCL was the first university in England to admit women students on equal
        terms to men, and the university believes that this outcome is
        compatible with our commitment to gender equality.”

        I think they have quite a good feel for what their thinking is. It is of course perfectly possible for a University to promote gender equality and do science – and a whole load of other things, all at the same time. That’s one of the reasons they are called Universities.

        • Bogbrush

          Oh that’s great then, because what he said wasn’t an issue of gender equality. He said men fall in love with women and women fall in love with men. Can’t get much more equal than that!

          And adding that as a man he can’t cope with women crying? Is that criticising men or women? Depends on your predisposition to victim mentality I guess.

          • NilsBoray

            You don’t think it’s an issue of gender equality ? Well he introduced himself as a “male chauvinist” – his words not mine, which by definition is a man who believes that women are inferior to men. He then goes on to mention THE three things that women do in laboratories – two of which are nothing to do with science (and largely irrelevant to their role) and the third a sweeping generalisation that women can not cope with criticism. As a man who has employed many women over the years, I know this not to be the case in Education – it seems very unlikely that it is the case either in the field of Scientific Reasearch. It minimises the role played by women in Science – women such as for instance his own wife Professor Mary Collins – a distinguished scientist, or perhaps Marie Curie (who won not one but two Nobel Prizes); and my own cousin currently researching cancer at UCL’s medical school, and who has previously been nominated for a Nobel prize (I won’t embarass her by naming her). As for victim mentality – one avoids being a victim by challenging stereotypes, and calling people out on talking offensive rubbish. He has a right to free speech – but so do millions of others who tire of this lazy pigeon-holing.

            And seriously – Gender segregated laboratories ? – he’s not making a great deal of sense is he now ?

          • Bogbrush

            He minimises noting, he simply observes that men and women get up to things other than science, and that he can’t handle women crying. Yeah, he really slagged off Marie Curie there didn’t he?

            Actually one avoids victimhood by not being a victim, not by whining like a child over nothing. I suggest you try some time out of the cosseted World of education, it lends perspective,

          • NilsBoray

            We are talking about a University Professor here – it does have quite a lot to do with education.

            He’s not really there to talk about the things men and women get up to other than science – it is a conference about science journalism when all’s said and done. Given the opportunity to talk about the contribution that women make to science, he mentions them only in terms of their relationships with men, and their propensity to “whine like a child over nothing” (you see you’re doing it too). Given the shortage of female scientists around the world, it’s more than a little ill considered, even overlooking any offence he may have caused.

            If Education is so cossetted why are you so worked up about the way an educational establishment has treated an honorary professor ? You might want to spend some time in education – and you don’t know that I haven’t spent some outside – it’s not as cossetted as you might think

          • Bogbrush

            Yeah, we’re talking about an old mans joking remarks. Boy, what a stupid thing to get so excited about. Since I’m not the one hounding the old guy out of town I’m hardly in the getting worked up camp.

            It’s pathetic that people are so intolerant that they don’t understand that people can have different perspectives and ways of expressing themselves without ever trying to harm another. You and the sisterhood need to get some perspective and realise there’s a big real World outside education with real crap going on. Even worse than an old guys weak jokes and reflections on his own life.

          • NilsBoray

            We are indeed talking about an old man’s joking remarks. No one is hounding him out of town – it’s merely been pointed out to him that his thoughtless comments are at odds with the aims of the institutes that he is representing. He’s not just any old man – he’s a Nobel Prize winner representing a University consistently ranked among the top 5 in the world, at a major international conference – one at which he knows the majority of the audience are journalists. He seriously ought to know better.

            You do seem to be getting pretty worked up though. ‘Pathetic that people are so intolerant’ ; “You and the sisterhood need to get some perspective” etc. Why do want to resort to ridicule and minimisation of me and other people ? That is really what intolerance is.

            Who are the ‘sisterhood’ ? Women ? Feminists ? If you disagree with them, why don’t you discuss it ? Figure out if you have any common ground. Instead you present the implication that me as an educator, and ‘the sisterhood’ don’t realise that there’s a ‘big real World’ with ‘real crap’ going on. Inviting the obvious inference that ours is a small unreal world which has artificial crap going on. Well here’s the thing – it’s the same world – it’s the same size – and it’s the same crap – and my experience as an educator is just as valid as yours, or a supermarket worker, or a physicist, or even dare I say – A woman’s. You’re tendency to try to diminish the validity of those who argue a contrary point of view, and to diminish the value of their contribution because of their gender or occupation ( in my case an educator, in the case of ‘the sisterhood’ their female-ness ) – does, I feel, illustrate precisely the ways in which casual comments are used (perhaps unwittingly I grant you) to marginalise vast swathes of society.

          • Bogbrush

            Oh so now it’s a competition to diminish the opposing argument by characterising it as worked up? Oh dear.

            Education is a gentle life in which triviality will acquire more importance than it deserves. Here it is in action.

          • NilsBoray

            Well today I was bitten by a rather distressed autistic young man, which was neither trivial or gentle.

            Have you ever had to sit down with parents who ask you when their child will start walking and explain to them that he never will ?

            Have you ever had to tell a mother that her son died in the night ?

            You want to see some reality ? Get a job in a school.

          • Bogbrush

            Emotional stuff, but it doesn’t alter the point.

          • Phil

            The reaction was out of all proportion to the offence caused:-

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

            end of. If you don’t appreciate it YOU have a problem, not the rest of us.

            And get a different job because you clearly can’t cope with the one you are in. We are all adults here. We deal with death like everyone else has to. Death is not an unusual thing.

          • Phil

            Perhaps they should have executed him. After all, his remarks to a handful of Korean scientists really did deserve the foaming at the mouth global outrage that followed.

            In most other careers a simple apology to those that actually heard and expressed offence would have been enough, but not when someone decides to broadcast those remarks over the twittersphere so everyone has a thorough chance to get offended and then scream blue murder.

            Wise up to what’s happening. Twitter storms are being to suppress YOUR freedom of speech, not Sir Tim Hunt’s. He is only being used as a useful example of what can be achieved using twitter rages. You can either learn from it and fight against it, or learn from it and live in fear.

          • NilsBoray

            The people foaming at the mouth seem to be the regular readers of this website

          • Phil

            Well I certainly came across the original story because I have a keen interest in Korean science conferences, and nothing to do with the ITV website which carefully took two of Sir Hunt’s sentences out of context so they could present them as more controversial than they really were.

            Still, by all means resort to ad hominems mate, they only reflect badly on you and your inability to engage with the argument.

          • oblivia

            It was a speech to journalists. In Korea. The audience was international.

          • Mez

            What the prof seems to have been trying to make a point of, is that when women and men get up to things other than science it automatcally influences their productivity, which is negative rhetoric for every individual who works with the opposite sex, and makes a nonsense of employers who pay based on performance and productivity.

          • Bogbrush

            What the prof was actually saying was a little joke for his audience based on his own experience if falling in love with a colleague.

            This story could have been made for the Monty Python sketch “I didn’t expect the Spanish Inquisition”. Too many people seem to have no humour and show no generosity toward an old guy trying to break the ice for his little talk.

          • sonia

            You know Marie Curie shared lab space with her husband?

          • NilsBoray

            Of course I do.

          • Jen The Blue

            Ah, but did they share the lab before they married? Maybe they could have achieved so much more had they not kept putting the radium down for a quick snog?

          • Mez

            Or maybe they acheved so much because they did (have the odd snog) ? pointless

          • Jen The Blue

            No Mez, just a light hearted remark.

          • Jen The Blue

            Get a sense of proportion.

            “”As for victim mentality – one avoids being a victim by challenging stereotypes,”” That’s straight out of the PC manual for controlling opinion and destroying free speech.

          • Mez

            Challenging stereotypes destroys free speech, what seriously?

          • Jen The Blue

            Well yes if it is aggressive. But stereotypes exist because there is truth in them. Certainly, they do not apply to everyone in a group but they wouldn’t exist at all were they entirely wrong.

            One isn’t a victim if it is only one who thinks one is.

          • Mez

            Stereotypes exist ..as in your example of ‘rampant, feminist, lesbians”. Can’t think of anything more insulting, or less true

          • Jen The Blue

            Yes. One of my favourites. See my above post on why I refuse to kow tow to the cancer of political correctness and why I deliberately use such phrases (which go far beyond my actual beliefs) because it annoys and winds up the right people. ie. Those trying to force feminist bull down my neck.

          • NilsBoray

            It doesn’t wind people up. It makes you look silly.

          • Jen The Blue

            Is that so? I beg to differ, but in any case it makes the point.

            RFLs think I look silly? I cannot get my head round that!

          • NilsBoray

            What point does it make ? Hasn’t made a point to me. It’s made you look silly – to me. I no idea what an RFL is by the way.

          • Jen The Blue

            That’s exactly what you would expect. Your whole feminist

            position looks silly to me…..

            Rampant, Feminist, Lesbian by the way.

            But I will not give in to PC…never. At its worst it allowed the rape of 1400 children in one town alone. It has allowed Mosques to get away with spreading hate and supremacism for fear of the dreadful cry “racism”.

            Here, it was less bad, it only ruined the reputation of a decent man who meant no harm.

            So boll*cks to the PC brigade. F**k you!

            If my stance, just helps one person who feels intimidated into silence to stand up for their RIGHT to freedom of speech, it has been worth it.

            And the rampant, feminist, lesbian lobby can shove it up the invagination they never want to use!

          • NilsBoray

            So what point DOES it make ? You didn’t answer my question.

            Why do you think my whole feminist position looks silly ? Before you ask, the reason I think you look silly is because you’ve freely admitted that you say things that are more extreme than your actual beliefs, simply in order to annoy other people and to ‘wind them up’ – which seems a very odd way to discuss anything even if you do manage to wind them up – but as you don’t manage to do that, I think it makes you look silly. Others may disagree – and it’s a subjective judgement – but there it is. a ‘whole feminist’ position on the other hand – I don’t think ‘silly’ really does it justice whatever your feelings are – would you care to elaborate why you think this ?

            Contrary to what you clearly think, there’s not really any such thing as PC – it’s a concept dreamed up by people who seem unable to see things from any perspective other than their own.

            The irony of saying to me “F**k you!” and then saying that you’re trying to help people who feel intimidated into silence to stand up for their right to freedom of speech seems lost on you – I have that right, and I am not intimidating you – but you are clearly trying to intimidate me – would you say “F**k you” to my face ? Would you say it to a police man ? To a child ? To a customer in a shop you were serving in ?

            The Rampant Feminist Lesbian Lobby sounds like one cool bar by the way. What do you mean by rampant ? I can’t imagine many feminist lesbians will be worried about being called lesbian feminists. Rampant – I’m not so sure, maybe it’s a good thing. Who knows ?

            Just remember that not all lesbians are feminists, and not all feminists are lesbians. Or women for that matter. Me ? I’d quite like to be rampant.

          • Jen The Blue

            It makes the point we will not give in. We will not be bullied into worrying about the entirely false offence that the professional victims want us to. Those who want to close down opinion and language.

            Let me put it this way. All reasonable efforts that work towards genuine equality of value between men and women, I support.

            The whole “women’s wages are less than men’s” argument is utter horse sh*t. …..but it is the position of the RFL lobby.

            Not really such thing as PC? Dear God!!! Wake up! It is all in the Fabian plan to slowly take over society. Amazing how there is no such a thing as that which allowed mass rape of white teenagers by Muslims supremacists..

            Why the f**k do you think nobody said anything? Why did the police arrest the parents who were rescuing their 13 year old girls?

            I have no time for Nick Griffin, IMO he is a nasty racist who dislikes people because of their skin colour…….but he was arrested and tried for pointing out the above. Yes, the jury acquitted him, but the fact is the State put him on trial for telling the truth. You think there is no problem with PC….or it doesn’t exist?

            Tell that to the parents of the 1400 in Rotherham and the 1000s elsewhere.

            Who would I say “f*ck you to”? Those who wish to restrict debate by using PC. No, not to a customer. A policeman – I would like to think I would as the police are so corrupt, but I probably have more sense. To a child…..never. To you in person? It depends on how you debated. I would debate in good faith and not resort to abuse.

            I like your last two paragraphs!

          • NilsBoray

            I wouldn’t know Jen it’s not a manual I’ve ever read. Let me get my head around it – If I challenge stereotypes, then I’m being a victim, and controlling people’s opinions, and destroying free speech. So I guess I keep schtum, doff my cap to the learned professor, keep my opinion to myself, and allow him to exercise his right to freedom of speech ? The bit I’m having a problem with understanding is who that helps me exercise my own freedom of speech, how that avoids having my own opinion controlled, or how that prevents me from being a victim.

          • Jen The Blue

            No. You moan about it, express your opinion that he is a sexist berk. Then forget about it as a totally unimportant irrelevance.

            The whole point is not that people disagreed with him, but the out of proportion fuss that was made.

            Every time Harriet Harperson uses the word “quota” my blood pressure rises by 30 mm of Hg. But she has that right and I calm down and forget about her.

            Hounding people because of their harmless opinions is not acceptable. Disagreeing…..fine.

          • NilsBoray

            Well he’s obviously not a berk – he’s a Nobel Prize winner. But that is what people HAVE done – it’s not out of proportion – in fact it’s fairly mild – I barely noticed a ripple on Twitter. He has not been hounded – he’s been criticised and I agree with much of the criticism. His opinion is not harmless – he’s a major voice in his field.

            Harriet Harperson – Oh wow, I see what you did there. Sheesh that is so clever – never heard that one before – I mean she’s a feminist, right, and she’s got MAN in her name – and you’ve put … Oh that is so funny. Just wish I wasn’t a left winger then I’d have a sense of humour to appreciate it more. Not really sure what it has to do with Tim Hunt if I’m really honest. Is quota a word you don’t like or something or something to do with science journalism ? Did you mean “quanta” ? That’s quite a scientific word.

          • Jen The Blue

            I may not be a Nobel Prize winner…but I humbly accept that there are times in my life when I have been a berk.

            Harriet Harperson……it’s just what we call her…..I never suspected it
            would be new to you…….it is to wind up the rampant, feminist,
            lesbians.

            There are variations of course, Mrs. “Big Black C**k” Dromey …..but I went for the more polite option this time.

            What b**locks is the last paragraph about? Quanta? Why would I use that word in this conversation?

            I graduated in Mathematics, Pure and Mechanical, but I did 1/3 Physics in my 1st and 2nd years. Yes, I have studied both relativity and quantum mechanics but I cannot for the life of me work out what you are waffling on about.

          • NilsBoray

            “I cannot for the life of me work out what you are waffling on about.”

            No you can’t

          • Jen The Blue

            So how does that help the debate?

          • NilsBoray

            Pretty much the same way the same way that using the name “Mrs Big Black C**k Dromey” does I guess.

          • Feminist_Future

            Thank you for your posts on here, NilsBoray. I’ve found them really helpful 🙂

          • Mez

            ditto

          • oblivia

            That isn’t the definition of male chauvinism.

          • NilsBoray

            Oxford English Dictionary – Yes it is : Male prejudice against women; the belief that men are superior in terms of ability, intelligence, etc. http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/male-chauvinism

          • oblivia

            While not wishing to question your free online dictionary, Chauvin was defined by his unswerving support for Napoleon and France. A Chauvinist, to me, is therefore someone who shows loyalty (and bias, yes) TOWARDS something. A feminist is a female chauvinist, but that doesn’t necessarily mean she takes a negative position towards men. Ditto a male chauvinist. (I accept that most people simply use it as a synonym for “sexist”, but I don’t think the prof was using it in that sense.)

        • Politically__Incorrect

          They don’t seem to be promoting equality, just a kind of puritanical, ntolerant, political “correctness”

          • NilsBoray

            He’s a major scientists at a major international conference, who introduces himself as a male chauvinist and calls for segregated laboratories because women have relationships with men, and (allegedly) cry when criticised. He’s made British science look ridiculous on a world wide stage. What does that possibly have to do with “political correctness” ?

  • Feminist_Future

    Excellent news.

    I respect Hunt for his scientific achievements, but he should have known that attitudes like his are unacceptable in modern Britain. I hope he’s learned his lesson.

    And that UCL prove their commitment to gender equality by appointing a woman as his replacement.

    • Phil

      Ah, so you’re in favour of positive discrimination in favour of women? What’s the matter can’t they make it on their own? Most women I know don’t need you pushing them from behind. They can get where they want without your help, and would prefer to make it on their own merits. They don’t need special favours because you have demanded it. They want women like you to shut up, because you’re not helping, you’re hindering.

      • Feminist_Future

        I think it’s sad that you have to resort to ad hominem insults. Maybe it’s because you can’t refute any of my arguments.

        It is time for female quotas, to shatter the glass ceiling once and for all.

        Quotas have made the Scandinavian countries into the most equal on earth in terms of women’s pay and rights.

        It’s time to force all boardrooms to become at least 40% female, and more all-women shortlists for CEO positions until at least 50% of all FTSE 100 companies are headed by women.

        All-women shortlists are a short-term measure to ensure equality is reached more quickly in politics, the media and business.

        We need a quorum of women in top positions, in order to destroy the male-dominated macho, sexist culture that exists in the worlds of business, the media and politics. This would take centuries to achieve on its own, so all-women shortlists are necessary. Once the glass ceiling has been broken and the macho culture extinguished, the next generation of women will be able to break through on their own terms.

        • Phil

          The reason why Sweden has greater female equality is that in Sweden it isn’t considered socially acceptable for women to be stay-at-home mums or part-time stay-at-home mums. Consequently a lot of capable women don’t bother with work at all.

          Women are not necessarily driven to work or have careers, they have other goals they can achieve that gives their lives value and meaning. Us guys don’t have anything better to do. I’m sorry if we seem macho. That’s testosterone for you – gives you drive and ambition. Seems you want to force women into the boardroom that had no desire to be there in the first place. The women that have drive and ambition are just as macho as the men.

          Now if you have it in mind to force women into the world of work whether they like it or not, then please go right ahead. See how far that gets you. But I do wonder who elected you to represent all those capable women in the world of work that don’t seem to want to campaign for boardroom equality themselves?

  • Feminist_Future

    As Harriet Harman once said, if Lehman Brothers were Lehman Sisters, the current economic crisis might have been averted.

    Women are more intelligent than men, as the latest GCSE and A-level results prove.

    We are more empathetic, better at understanding people, more conciliatory and less prone to act rashly. The same goes for the City and Wall Street as for politics.

    The greed and recklessness of the bankers, who are mainly men, is as one female CEO put it, “typical male behaviour. A penis competition.”

    We need more women in charge both in business and in politics.

    • Gargrave

      Ah, Fabian Delusions. You’re back, and spouting the same drivel as always.

      • Feminist_Future

        Admit it, you missed me.

        • Gargrave

          Oh yes. Like toothache.

      • Mr_Twister

        Or Fabulous_Conclusions as I like go call her 🙂

    • Sidney

      ‘Women are more intelligent than men’
      Comedy gold right there.

      • Feminist_Future

        Girls outperform boys at all levels of education. We have matched and overtaken men in only 50 years since the Feminist revolution. Women are at least as capable as men in all spheres of life.

        • Sidney

          Girls should outperform boys in schools, especially with the feminising of education that’s been happening for ages now to help improve girls results(and it’s working).
          As it’s still a man’s world(inventionscreations wise), a lot of men will always see their gender as ‘superior’ to women. The physical advantage men have over women and men’s love of sport and domination they have results wise against women, will further that theory.
          I do think women are as capable as men in a lot of areas though and are great partners to men in life.
          But definitely not more intelligent.

          • Jen The Blue

            Fair comment. Definitely not less intelligent either.

            But there are differences. It has been demonstrated time and again that men have better spacial awareness….on average. They are stronger – on average. They are more aggressive – on average.

          • Mez

            Since when has aggression had any value, women are also far better communicators than men – on average, and since it is an average, vague differences in spatial awareness are hardly a big deal either.

          • Phil

            Aggression is caused by testosterone, which also the underlying impetus for “drive” in general. Thus men tend to be more driven than women, but also more difficult to get along with in service orientated roles. “aggression”, “competitiveness” and “drive” are simply symptoms of the same underlying cause. There is no mystery to it. “Aggression” is simply a more negative way of describing the other two characteristics.

            Women that are ambitious tend to be more sensitive to testosterone than your average women, hence it is more difficult to find women with the drive to become management which is why we have fewer women in management.

            There used to be a time, before the 60s, when feminists revelled in facts. Now they ignore the facts much as male-chauvinists once did. I’m an engineer, I Iike to see things measured properly and mechanisms investigated. Men and women are much like machines and the mechanisms are somewhat different. Once you realise how the underlying mechanisms work then the differences behind them are entirely understandable and predictable.

          • Jen The Blue

            You see you cannot help yourself Mez. I was very careful about to say for example, men have better spacial awareness – on average. Because that is true. The difference is quite marginal in fact..there will be many women with better spacial awareness than men. But you, even though I would agree that women are probably better communicator s, had to say “far better”. Typical RF supremacist bull. Note I left the L off because I have no idea whether you are a lesbian or not.

        • Jen The Blue

          I have no doubt that women are as intelligent as men.

          However, if I wanted a big hole dug in my garden hand, I would rather employ some hairy arsed men than women.

          That said, I have seen a few lesbians who could give a 19th Century Irish Navvy a run for his money.

          • Mez

            If I wanted a big hole dug in my garden I’d rent a (mechanical) digger; same outcome

          • Jen The Blue

            That’s why I said “by hand”. Imagine there is buried ordnance or gas pipes or something and a mechanical digger would be dangerous! 🙂

          • Mr_Twister

            In half the time and with less effort…… with 1 man at the controls. …in a machine designed by men, to be used by men, doing what men have ALWAYS done….. built the world thats seen 6 BILLION extra Humans in 100 years!
            You could probably count the female jcb drivers in the country. .. quicker that Kate Days (fabian_solutions/feminist_future/etc) dumb ass comments in this thread alone!

          • Mez

            No with me at the controls…(duhhhh) they come in different sizes – (takes a woman to figure that out yeah?) , and obviously you wouldn’t dig a hole where your utility pipes are..
            http://www.hirestation.co.uk/tool-hire/Building%20Tools/Small%20Plant/110010/

          • Mez

            Women moving out of poorly paid jobs into building which pays 4x as much. Can she fix it ? – yes she can
            http://www.theguardian.com/world/2006/aug/14/gender.uk

          • Mr_Twister

            You would dig a hole to get hole to get NEAR utility pipes to work on said utility services…you’d finish off by hand WHEN CLOSE to them! But a man could read plans and operate the machinery with acuracy……and save all possible MANual labour….. leaving him more energy when he’s “required” by the lady of the house 😉 x

      • Mr_Twister

        You’re feeding the KATE DAY troll! I wouldn’t bother 😉

    • Bogbrush

      Sexist sow.

    • Politically__Incorrect

      It’s very hard to take you seriously

      • Mr_Twister

        Impossible, I’d say.

    • Bogbrush

      intelligence = exam results?

      Very female…….. 🙂

    • Jen The Blue

      “”Women are more intelligent than men, as the latest GCSE and A-level results prove.””

      But by the same “logic”, men were more intelligent than women until recently.

      The funniest thing is someone quoting the odious Harriet Harperson.

    • Mr_Twister
      • Feminist_Future

        Daily Mail.

        Enough said.

        • Mr_Twister

          More popular in the UK than Kate day or the Telegraph!

          • Feminist_Future

            1. I’m not Kate Day and have nothing to do with the Torygraph. My paper of choice is the Independent.

            2. The Mail’s popularity says more about the quality of the UK population than it says about the quality of that newspaper.

    • Phil

      Actually, scientific measurements have shown that men and women have almost exactly the same IQ, although women have a slight tendency to cluster more towards the average, i.e. if you want to find someone really stupid or a real genius – look for a man.

      If you are looking for information to support your misandrist world-view, try and avoid actual facts.

  • Mary Douglas

    I completely agree. The man made a JOKE, a joke!!!

    • Feminist_Future

      It wasn’t very funny if you’re a female scientist or engineer.

      • AKM

        Are you saying that women are too sensitive to be allowed out of the home and into the workplace because they might hear something that upsets their delicate female sensibilities? Because that’s what it sounds like.

        • jethro

          I think what she’s saying is, ‘It wasn’t very funny if you’ve no sense of humour.’

      • Jen The Blue

        Then don’t laugh.

      • Mr_Twister

        Hello Kate! And which are you? Scientist? Engineer? Nah you’re a Fugly Troll……put the kettle on Kunt!

      • Leftyliesrefuted

        It wasn’t very funny if you’re a feminist with absolutely no sense of humour, either.

        (Sorry, just realised that “feminist with absolutely no sense of humour” is tautologous.)

      • Phil

        Judging by the kind of misandrist stuff you usually write I should imagine he could have said that all women entering science should be instantly promoted to professor and you would still have described him as “patriarchal”.

    • jethro

      … yes, Rhetoricians used to call it the ‘captatio benevolentiae'[for the benefit of the Ladies who, of course, have no Latin, ‘capture of good-will’ – i.e.(You know that one, Ladies!) a light-hearted, disarming start, to get the audience on your side]!

      • NilsBoray

        ” … to get the audience on your side. ” Went down a storm di’n’t it ?

        • Phil

          The audience was Korean. Have you ever been to Korea? I doubt that it would have raised much of an eyebrow there given that Korean women tend to stay apart from men whenever possible. Entirely non-controversial in Korea I would say.

          Still, read this from his wife:-

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

          I think it puts it in the correct perspective. You seem to have trouble with perspective Nils, but that is your problem try not to make it ours.

          • Phil

            I apologise, the first paragraph of my response may not be accurate. I cannot discern from the media reports what the make-up of the audience was, since accounts are conflicting.

          • NilsBoray

            Never been to Korea. Seems like an international audience (made up of quite a few international journalists. No probs.

  • bernadette

    Yes you go get them Kathy, such fruitcakes! and also this may be the last tiny gap of light of our liberty being extinguished, we have no choice but to fight back.
    I never thought Id be on the side of a man ! thats how serious it is.

  • Phil R

    “The BBC interviewed several women, all of whom had had their sense of humour surgically removed”

    LOL

    Don’t we all know the type…..