#46219

Post by Skep tickle » Wed Jun 24, 2015 9:47 pm

Myers wrote: There was a recent debate on British television between Milo Yiannopoulos and Emily Grossman on Sexism in Science. I have no idea why Yiannopoulos was even invited; heâ€™s got no qualifications at all to be talking about this stuff. I guess he was the representative for sexism, while Grossman was there to represent science.

part 1

continues in part 2

Engage scroll finger.Myersâ€™ post ( archive link ) â€œThe hopeless arrogance of Milo Yiannopoulosâ€, mentioned here yesterday, opens:[youtube]kBiS4qTsjCg[/youtube]I went all A+ on yâ€™all and transcribed the video. "MY" is Milo Yiannopoulos (the sexist) and "EG" is Emily Grossman (the scientist).(June 10, sky news) â€“Now a Nobel prize winner has been criticized for suggesting women scientists shouldnâ€™t work with men. Sir Tim Hunt said the problem with girls is that you fall in love with them and they cry when you criticize them. He admitted being a chauvinist pig, but does that excuse his comments? With us is Milo Yiannopoulos, columnist and broadcaster, as you can see, and also Dr Emily Grossman who is a maths and science teacher and tutor. Whoâ€™d like to start {extending hand toward EG} - doctor.I think the issue here is that his comments are irresponsible in an environment where there is such a strong gender imbalance still in the sciences. I work as a tutor and teacher and I am really passionate about encouraging young women, girls, at school to study science, to go into sciences, and thereâ€™s still an environment where a lot of young girls still feel that science isnâ€™t for them. Thereâ€™s a historical reason for that, back in the Renaissance time women were told that their brains were too soft to have a powerful skull, that exercising our brains would shrink our ovaries. Weâ€™re still coming back from that & weâ€™re in an environment where weâ€™re desperately trying to dispel these stereotypes, to dispel the image that science and maths is more for boys than it is for girls. And these types of comments, potentially harmless in terms of intent, are actually really reinforcing these stereotypes that weâ€™re trying to get away from in terms of encouraging girls to go into science as a career.We hear a lot from scientists, we hear a lot in particular the female scientists, but the fact is that there are some, there is some, reason to suppose that there is an advantage to being a man in certain subjects. Thereâ€™s reason to suppose that gender essentialism, biological determinism, whatever you want to call it â€“ the fact that there are male brains and female brains may indeed have some basis in science. Now this is thrown out of the window completely by feminists and female academics who just refuse to accept that thereâ€™s any reason whatsoever why there may be a gender imbalance. Two things on that. One, actually the science is very much still out on that. And two, if you look at equality in society, if you look for example at Bangladesh versus Norway, what you notice is the number of women in science and technology subjects actually goes down as societies get more equal, because women simply donâ€™t make the same choices that female academics and feminists would like them to. Women donâ€™t actually want to go into sciences, on the whole, and when they have every option available to them, they tend to choose not to.I donâ€™t think thatâ€™s the issue. I think itâ€™s about confidence. I think women suffer â€“ again, weâ€™re not talking about all women, weâ€™re talking about some women, weâ€™re talking about some men â€“ from lack of confidence and from something called imposter syndrome, where we attribute our successes to external factors, and we lack the confidence to actually believe that we are good enough to do it.Okay - sorry to interrupt - if youâ€™re going to get pushed off a career in science because of an offhand comment from a Nobel prize winner, how committed were you really in the first place to being a scientist? I mean, itâ€™s an extraordinary thing, isnâ€™t it.Thatâ€™s a ridiculous thing to say. Women, women learn in a very different way - again, not all women, but a majority of women learn in a way thatâ€™s supportive, thatâ€™s nurturing, thatâ€™s encouraging. I see that in the students that I teach, I see the girls that I teach go into mixed sex 6th forms and get totally put off because theyâ€™re in a sink-or-swim environment, theyâ€™re in a competitive environment, theyâ€™re too frightened to put up their hands and ask questionsâ€¦So we shouldnâ€™t have competitiveness in science? Competitiveness in science is bad, we should segregate the sexes, really. Thatâ€™s what youâ€™re saying, isnâ€™t it? Much better if...Absolutely not. Competitiveness is very importantâ€¦In fact, if what Tim Hunt said was exactly true, what youâ€™re saying is that gender segregation would be a good thing, youâ€™re saying the mixed classes, the competitiveness is bad for women, so maybe heâ€™s right. Maybe we should separate labs out into female scientists and male scientists.Iâ€™m saying itâ€™s important for women to be able to compete in a male environment, but itâ€™s important to help those women, to support those women in terms of confidence and in terms of self-belief, because women are more naturally self-reflective. Again, not all women, a lot of men are like this too, self-reflectiveâ€¦Thatâ€™s sort of a weird sexist position to take, isnâ€™t it â€“ that women canâ€™t really take it, so we need to be extra specially careful â€˜round them, we need toâ€¦Is it different for gay men and lesbian women?Well itâ€™s brilliant being a gay man, you can get away with murder, you can do anything. I mean itâ€™s one respect in which identity politics is brilliant, you know, as a gay man or lesbian you can basically get away with murder. You can be bitchy, you can be sarcastic, you can be rude and abusive, you can do whatever the hell you like and nobody complains. Women, I think really, you know, until very recently â€“ until possibly the last half decade â€“ it was certainly true that women had all kinds of structural disadvantages in society. That simply isnâ€™t true any more. Itâ€™s not true, for example, when women go for jobs in science, technology, and mathematics, you know - a study came out I think 2 or 3 weeks ago in the US saying that women have a 2 to 1 advantage over men with the same qualifications because everyoneâ€™s so desperate to hire women.A study also came outâ€¦The reality that people experience, you know, going for jobs and in the working life is actually that women are sort of structurally advantaged, not disadvantaged. This happened very recently.A study came out also to show that out of 65 countries the UK has the highest discrepancy between confidence amongst boys and girls in terms of how good that they feel that they are. Girls are coming out of school and not going into those careers because they feel they arenâ€™t good enough, they feel theyâ€™re not welcome (??)â€¦But women are the majority in university.and actually those very skillsâ€¦May I ask a questionâ€¦those very qualities that yes, women do cry, some women do cry, I have cried when Iâ€™ve felt out of my comfort zone. when Iâ€™ve felt afraid, but actually that didnâ€™t make me any less good. I cried when I came out of all my exams at Cambridge, and I did better than the boys. And actually women cry because theyâ€™re sensitive â€“ again, not all women, some women, lots of men too â€“ because theyâ€™re sensitive, because theyâ€™re self-reflective, because theyâ€™re empathic, because theyâ€™re passionate, and theyâ€™re willing to take on criticismâ€¦So Tim Huntâ€™s right.â€¦ theyâ€™re willing to look at themselves. Excuse me?So Tim Huntâ€™s right.Heâ€™s right that women cry, but the implication that that makes us at a disadvantage, that that puts us as people who shouldnâ€™t be going intoâ€¦I donâ€™t think he made that implication, what he was saying is that he findsâ€¦Thatâ€™s not the point, itâ€™s irresponsible to make that kind of comment in an environment where we need to encourage girls to go into science.He never said women were less competent. What he said was, he finds it personally a distraction. Heâ€™s said that he finds it a distractionâ€¦Yeah, so then â€¦(?? Is that the issue, rather than that women...??)â€¦and heâ€™s a silly old man who doesnâ€™t understand the latest, you know, the latestâ€¦But he should know better than making that kind of comment.What is he, 73 years old?Heâ€™s a septuagenarian.Right, we canâ€™t expect him to be up on, you know, all that kind of stuffâ€¦Heâ€™s in a position of responsibility.â€¦and I think that what weâ€™re witnessing, really, is a comment that would be perfectly unobjectionable if it were over the dinner table, if it was for example your own granddad. But because heâ€™s inâ€¦It would have been objectionable if there were young girls present, who were studying maths and science at school and who thought actuallyâ€¦.(??) tweeted to say, â€œIs it, is he making these comments becauseâ€ (pointing to MY) to your point) â€œheâ€™s a septuagenarian and heâ€™s from a bygone era, sexism in the modern world has no placeâ€ but he is an old man, so do we have to forgive him?