Nobel laureate forced out of studies after making joke about women

[Secondhand Revenant]

Seems like there's a fundamental difference in values here. Everyone acknowledges that it's fine (perhaps even fun) to talk like this in the company of friends, but whereas some would actively discourage that kind of behavior in public forums, I think that it's a damn shame that we can't appreciate such mild and clearly hyperbolic ribbing as this. It suggests a severe lack of sense of humor.

What gives you the impression we'd all find it fine with friends? Unless it was sarcasm I'd think significantly less of someone for saying that kind of shit and thinking there was some kind of truth in it. It kind of matters why it's supposed to be funny. If it's supposed to be funny because you think the sexist ideas are true well...

Of course it's sarcasm. Do you really think the the problem this guy claims to have is applicable to all girls, as he says?

It's supposed to be funny (I'd say it's more cheeky than funny) because the sexist idea may have a whiff of truth in it and this is being mocked.

I'll accept that not everyone cares for this type of behavior with friends, but I don't accept that any of this needs to be taken seriously.

You're assuming a lot about it, I think. I think the intention behind a joke like that can go multiple ways. It could be mocking the very idea of it, or it could be that he thinks it's a funny and true thing people don't know about the situation. I don't think it was mocking due to what he said after.

 

[DementedSheep]

Tells joke about girls crying when criticized.

Is forced to resign because girls won't stop crying about what he said.

Am I the only one seeing that angle?

Ignoring the fact that it wasn't a joke in the first place this is exactly how bigots always use "comedy". You blatantly insult a whole bunch of people, then when some get rightfully pissed off as anyone would be you turn around and claim that this reaction totality proves your "joke" that you supposedly didn't mean is correct.
You are ignoring that a lot of the people complaining are guys and a lot girls are arguing against him losing his job and do you really think if a girl stood up in one of the male nurse appreciation conferences and "joked" that guys think with their dick and should only look after adult male patients that would receive no complaints?

Edit:I don't know why I even bother. The people who eat this shit up are the people who looking for an excuse anyway. I would have more respect if people actually owned the shit they say.

 

[Paradoxrifts]

I guess it would've been implied given his advanced age and the way he said, "Let me tell you about my trouble with girls.."

You are aware that he was still working at the time right? He didn't stop being a scientist in the 60s.

And I think people are kinda being cunts for the way they're judging a elderly gentleman for being honest about how things were really like in their workplace back in their heyday.

Well it's easy to call them cunts when you act as though he was just blissfully reminiscing about all the overemotional women who worked in his labs during the 60s because apparently he's had zero contact with girls in labs since the 60s to have trouble with.

Of course he was blissfully reminiscing, he married one of those women after all. If I was still happily married to the same woman I met in university some fifty odd years later, I'd blissfully reminisce about how it happened too.

 

[DementedSheep]

It could be mocking the very idea of it, or it could be that he thinks it's a funny and true thing people don't know about the situation

Or it could be a self-ironic attempt at admitting something awkward.

Do you really think if a girl stood up in one of the male nurse appreciation conferences and "joked" that guys think with their dick and should only look after adult male patients that would receive no complaints?

Not form me, because it's true :3

It also can be one of the reasons why where I live, you'll only find male nurses in mental institutions, where brute force is often necessary for the job. The rest of field is absolutely dominated by females (as well as my own field, BTW). I've had a lot of experience with hospitals and yet to see at least one male nurse in non-mental clinic or hospital.

DEM GENDER-ROLES!

I can assure you that my brother and some of my mates have had no trouble with wanting to sexually assault female patients or children. I have also meet several male nurses who aren't in mental health and one of the lecturers is male and specialises in paediatrics. He has somehow managed to resit feeling up a kid or his colleagues for 30 odd years.

 

[Addendum_Forthcoming]

Please. "Totalitarian Socialist" will do.

Lovely ... I prefer 'fascist'... because, well it's easier and cuts through the garbage.

As per Marx, the civil liberties are formed according to property rights. Which exactly means if we seek the maximum civil liberties then the property rights should be established in the way that will ensure civil liberties.

You know, I defended Stalin's collectivization in purely terms of hindsight. As in, that land that he kicked people off and the factories he built, allowed him to win the war largely single handed in Europe. But purely in terms of a moral good, with no great T-Rex about to eat us, no.

Well, yes. Like when they are paying taxes. Or providing social benefits. Or meeting the diversity quota. You know, when the law itself states "No dear company, you MUST give your people these things, and if you give them shit instead - it's the world of pain for you!"
You're not going to claim that THOSE are wrong as well, are you?

I'm not going to claim they are wrong, precisely because you cut out the quote; "I don't owe you shit beyond contractual obligations." But that's not you. Not only that but arguably taxes can be mostly influenced by the democratic process (it isn't, but arguably).

Responsibilities of empowered? Tyrannical? Tell me more.

Because you're reducing someone's natural rights? That the enforced abrogation of another's rights to perform and to contribute to the economy should be dictated by self-election? For the same reason that if I want to start a business, then I should hold the principle decision making apparatus of that business? Not enslaved by another? Otherwise, what's the point? You know, the basics.

That's strawmanning! I can also say "the filthy workers, how dare they demand to be judged based on their ability, as opposed to their beliefs!" - and it will sound equally ridiculous.

How is it strawmanning? You are LITERALLY TELLING ME this is how you'd do things, and I'm telling you that you're treating the employer as if they are indentured to run a business not by their own decision making and self-election, but their labour and indurty is CO-OPTED FROM THEM.

Why, that might work. Depends on the policies and statements themselves. If they are indeed just and do not enforce any beliefs or moralities among the employees - than yes, that IS the freedom of labor.

Or I can employ people I know and trust, and who I like? What happens if one of my friends is recently unemployed? I give them a job not because of their qualifications, but solely because I like them. Which is arguably of greater positive social good than just pretending someone is deserving of a job that I might provide them.

...so that THEY tell their employees how they should work, what they should and should not say and basically teaching them how to live, like many international conglomerates already do. All for the sake of Profit, Praised Be It's Amount.

Because, shock horror, businesses should be able to hire who they want? Also, if I open a chain of various-focussed industries with a singular mission statement; "Granting greater employment and industry based education to trans people, for the sake of increasing their share of domestic capital, training and entrepeneurship. To help members of the trans community who struggle to attain higher economic station." Then I have every right to employ specifically who I want, and not simply provide any job to any qualified person, but rather provide training to potentially qualified persons, to do a job.

In other words... how about no?

If I am maintaining the total liabilities of the solvency of my company/ies at great financial risk, then yeah. Profit matters. Even in the case of my series of stores and spreading capital amidst the trans communities of the cities I open up these businesses for. I'd at least need to break even if I am to continue to help.

Not much. We indeed dictate to employers the morality that forbids dictating job-unrelated morality to the employees.

No, we don't. Company policies. If I'm running a business with a large women:men staff ratio, I'm not going to hire a notoriously sexist man to a position. Because I know that will only cause worse problems for the majority of my staff who shouldn't have to put up with such garbage at work. The social fabric, and the wellbeing of the people, come from being free to act as individuals who are not unnecessarily burdened by others. In other words, people having their natural rights. Key to basics of liberty, is respect for natural rights, not merely ownership.

Which is exactly why company policies should be enforced. So yes, someone sewing bullshit and harassing people in the workforce, is less deserving of their job, than someone who wishes to merely be free and work without unnecessary hindrance. That goes for employer AND employee. You rights at work is to be treated fairly, until your actions reduce the expected respect of another's natural rights. Give a little, get a little.

Most importantly - that will cease firings coming from job-unrelated issues, which will ensure the higher productivity of labor, which means that the employers will be allowed to keep most of their profits.

How? If I have someone who refuses to respect my business decisions and practices, and is openly bigoted towards me simply for being trans, why should I employ them? The argument being that I don't want to spend time with them, therefore decreasing tactical and strategic cohesion to run my enterprise, reduce the overall efficiency and stability of the venture. Therefore termination is required...

If that's what you're arguing, then I wholeheartedly agree. Image and capacity to work with my staff is paramount, and therefore I should tailor my hiring practices specifically to the necessities of running my businesses as per my company policies and mission statement. If I were to argue 'image matters', then you'd have no problems with me firing this guy, specifically, anyways. Because I can show you, just looking at this thread, how image matters.

Therefore ... as a strictly job-related decision, I choose not to hire this person.

...only now they will be unable to use their position to enforce the morality that they find fitting. Also, that way we can get a morally diverse interaction on the lower levels, where the great mass of people can be open to different ideas without the fear of losing their ability to feed themselves and their families.

I'm sorry, but most enterprise ventures opened aren't done so to feed another's family. I can't think of any business owner who has, barring charity/semi-charity organizations (such as me pondering that trans-friendly, trans-empowerment chain of venues). I do so because I want to run them. I want to participate in that exchange of goods and services in a specific industry. I also don't run them as public forums. I run them for the profit of myself and the benefit of the workers I employ, and the community for which I service a need or desire. This is a required action with a business.

I can guarantee you, a worker who won't be kind and courteous to the guests will be kicked out the door. I can guarantee you someone who can't work with my staff, or creates unnecessary hostilities, will be kicked out the door. I can guarantee you that if they don't bother to work as I instruct them to work, then they will be kicked out the door. I do not owe them anymore than I am contractually obligated to do so. They do not owe me anymore than they are contractually obligated to do so. Given that 'no harassment' is a pretty common clause in any contractual agreement.

Pretending like I OWE YOU a job is garbage. I do not owe anybody a paycheque. I willingly provide a paycheque for one's services. Not the other way around. Otherwise there is literally no value in me opening a business. Even a business where I seek only to break even, helping fellow trans people. I owe you, personally, nothing as a business owner or manager. You are not destined for a job. This is why we have contracts, and this is why contracts need not be permanent. Me opening a business does not create a fiscal debt greater than my total remaining liabilities if the business fails. Otherwise there is literally no point in running a business.

That business is my private property. If you start spouting derogatory garbage in my presence, I will tell you to; "shut up and work." It's not a forum bucko. I'm giving you money to do a job. You agreed to sign the contract stating your duties. I want nothing more. If you're a nice guy, we might have a platonic relationship outside business hours. If you're not a nice guy, then we won't. If you're not a nice guy and you seek to make my life, or my staff lives harder for your presence ... then you had better damn well come up with a good reason why I should continue to employ you.

The world's smallest fiddle that is played to the greatest amount of least empowered people, while it's the empowered by the capitals that should face the responsibilities.

Or we can stop pretending like employers are bound to their workers, as if the employees are serfs upon the land. Rather than pretending that someone is born DESTINED for one of my jobs, we might entertain the fact that such logic inherently defeats a free, empowered working class. And that self-election, and promotion of this natural right of self-election for all, helps to create opportunities beyond a perpetual servile class.

It's also the same smallest fiddle that got a Nobel laureate fired because a lot of dumb people got butthurt over his joke.

Right ... then he'll have no problems getting other work with other people, who obviously have no problems. Finally, you're starting to get it.

You'd be free to. As long as I'm qualified and they have free desks - they'd have no right to deny me my place.

Or I can tell you to fuck off, because I don't like you and I don't feel like I can work with you? I never used to hire people I didn't feel I 'clicked' with to begin with. I'm not a great judge of character, but I'm pretty decent. I could make a very good case for an employer just being able to mesh with their employees alone.

Why is this less important than on paper qualifications? What happens if I extended 'qualifications' to personality? Character? Flexibility of hours? Capacity under pressure? Competency in specific cuisine? Knowledge of beers, spirits, lacquers and wines? Charity?

... Or we can continue to pretend that on paper 'qualifications' are the be all and end all of any employer's requirements of their staff. We can also bury that the employee's requirements do not trump and employer's needs in their staff.

And I can call you something mean back. And that should be it. No need to destroy careers of each other because of them hurt feelsies.

Or I can just not employ you in the first place because I have someone I consider better...

First - because you're just being abusive back towards them. Only now you are empowered by your position and they are not. Which makes you a bigger bigot.

How am I a bigot? Is calling someone a dickhead make them a bigot? I just don't like who you are as a person. It doesn't matter if I have more money or not. What happens if I have less total money because I'm heavily in debt because it's a new business?

Does that mean I can insult any employee and it's 'better' because they're not down a mil? No guarantees I'll be successful. If I'm simply 'privileged' because I have a business. Then it just seems like you're calling workers 'unempowered via sloth' because they won't open their own. My business law studies friend back from the early days of uni.... Without a doubt makes more (debt free) than me, even when I was co-managing a bar. He doesn't employ anyone though.

Given that he earnt more, by virtue does he need to open a business and put himself in debt before he is called 'empowered'?

Second - because qualification is REQUIRED for efficient labor. Everything else has nothing to do with the labor itself.

False.

Flexibility of hours, debts that require one to work for a specific target pay, distance to their occupation, temporary (or permanent) illness or injury, substance addiction, special needs (child care, etc) ... list goes on.

Jokes about women have nothing to do with the science.

And? Apparently someone thought him a fucking idiot. He thought himself a fucking idiot. His own friends said he sounded like a fucking idiot. Maybe a company thought it a good idea not to touch him with a ten foot pole, because he sounds like a fucking idiot? Maybe the company employed him simply because his science 'street cred' ... in which case, if they employed him for that and he seems more than able to tarnish it in a public relations event, maybe they thought he's not a very good public relations figure?

Nintendo's Reggie for example. I'm sure he's a REALLY clever guy at strategic operations of a company, but part of his marketability is his charisma. He's a charismatic individual, and it's hard to think of him as just a guy in a suit. It's easier to think of him as 'Reggie "My body is ready" Fils-Aimé' ... I'd let Reggie fuck me. Part of his charm. I'm sure he has negatives, any high tension exec persona will (or any person in general). Work is hard, and it impacts your character and personality. But Reggie seems to carry it well, in my eyes.

Whether or not that persona he carries from the stage at a press release is the same persona he carries into the boardroom, or into private life, I don't know. Keep in mind ... but pretending like image isn't important for a company is living in some fantasy environment of unicorn and rainbows.

Having rich parents have nothing to do with acting on stage (that is probably not the reference you first thought of - in the early years of the Soviet Union, a lot of people got discriminated on jobs due to being born to rich or noble families, which was especially commonplace among actors. Having not-proletarian parents was enough to be considered not fitting the state ideology and therefore, being a bigot). Not liking homosexuals and transgenders has nothing to do with mining coal. As well as being gay or transgender has nothing to do with any of those. But somehow denying people jobs because of their sexual orientation is wrong and in fact illegal, but everything else is "entrepreneur's freedom".

I'm sorry, did you just compare employment for LGBT folks in employment to 70 year old guy sticking their foot in their mouth? Where is the logic in that? YOu can call someone out for being downright unpleasant. You probably shouldn't lose your job to it ... but if you continue to run your mouth in a downright unpleasant way then your boss has every right to terminate your employment. It's not like you do not have any power over the words that come out of your mouth. If you suffer from Tourette's it's not your words. If you're an average sort of person (health wise) and you choose not to say something stupid, it's not your words. If you CHOOSE to say something stupid, you CHOSE to make them your words.

How exactly is being gay or trans equivalent to that? Run me through the metaphysics, because it seems like another person is about to put their foot in their mouth... last I checked being gay or trans did not directly correlate to saying stupid things about people.

All of these things have nothing to do with the job itself (unless it's an administrative position, where being intolerant directly hurts your ability to manage people). It however has everything to do with personal morals, feelings and beliefs. Which are to be respected, but never placed above the universal rights. You are basically saying that all of the entrepreneur's feelings are more important than the right for labor of any of his potential workers.

I'm not employing you for your 'morals' ... you can keep your morals at home. If you begin to start running your mouth on my private property, I can ask you to leave. You come to my party, you're downright unpleasant to my other guests. I ask you to leave. I'm running a business, you're downright unpleasant to my other staff or myself, so I ask you to leave. I'm not paying you to run your mouth, or make my job, or the jobs of my other staff, unpleasant.

Unless he's transphobic, of course. Because hating transsexuals is bigotry, unlike hating ANYONE ELSE. /straw

How is this ....? So you're saying that it's okay for a person to bring their 'morals' into a private workspace to inflict upon another staff member there? and that an employer is just expected to put up with it? Why? it's obvious the person is unfit for the work environment if they cannot help causing potential tension. Even if there are no trans people in the work environmet ... what happens if it's a family member of a person working there? Or a friend?

More to the point, why, exactly, would it be impolite to tell the person to shut the fuck up and get back to work? Free speech does not govern itself into another's private property, or when people have no reasonable means to escape t. That's why we have anti-harassment clauses in contractual obligations. To avoid stupid shit like this.

What I was trying to say is - the current society does the same thing. Destroys people's livelihood simply for having a different morals.

As opposed to forcing people to encounter harassment that they cannot reasonably escape from? This is why freedom of speech only governs governmental penalizing, not workplace disagreements. Because there is no reasonable means to avoid such rhetoric.

It's not the one moral or another that makes harm - it's the moral that it's okay to harm people with different morals solely for having said morals. We judge this principle in our past - so should we judge it in our present.

Or, we can give employers the means to mediate. That is, control the work environment so that antagonism does not occur in the first place. Which is an employer's duty of care. It is ACTUALLY our duty to stop people running their mouths and causing undue stress towards others. Unless you would wish us to remove this policy, in which case a person running their mouth might also be on the receiving end of hostilities from other staff.

Yes. It's really-really wrong. That's not a thing that should happen. People who say stupid shit unrelated to their work should be ridiculed, but not get fired as long it does not damage their productivity.

No, they shouldn't be ridiculed. Because then they'll complain to me. When I shouldn't have to put up with anymore shit than simply running my business without manufactured impediment because SOMEONE couldn't stop running their mouth. Hostility breeds hostility, and if you don't put your foot down, there will be terminations anyways in the case of escalation or sabotage when it comes to evals.

So no, wrong. As the French might say; "Horseshit."

Yes. That's the freedom of speech.

No, it's not. In the US, the Bill of Rights protects only in the case of individuals from government action and penalizing. It does not extend to private property. It does not protect you from being unemployed because you choose to exude attitudes that restrict another's natural rights in the workplace. At best, in some states the shopping malls (not the stores themselves) can be places of practicing free speech in the US, but majoritively free speech does not extend into private property nor employment protection, and certainly not at the reduction of another's natural rights.

Patently false, and it's the same in Britain, Australia, and basically the West in general. I can ask you to leave. I can also terminate you for harassing one of my workers with your 'morals' ... because your 'morals' do not circumvent natural rights of another. If you start running your mouth to someone, and they tell you to shut up. You shut up. The workplace is not a public forum for yuo to air your personal grievances.

Yes it was. The idea of free speech was discussed even by Plato (you know, the classical Greek philosophy, the one that inspired the liberalism and the French Revolutions so much?), and that's only the written evidences, orals should be a lot older. And the government of Athens was indeed very different to that of our nations today.

Plato is older than having kings and queens? I mean, you should have said Lao Tzu at least (approx 100 years older), but monarchies have been around for longer. And in some of them, in the current day, you get stoned to death for 'heresy'. So, no. Wrong.

Emmm. That's not how it works. The laws about your door come from the principles of security of life.

No ...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Property_rights_(economics).

Private property, and the right to private access, is all covered under a nation's guidelines of what constitutes private ownership. The reason why one can kick you out of their home, is because they can afford to determine its access. Your rights to free expression do not enter someone's home. For the same reason, I can refuse access to JWs.

 

[Secondhand Revenant]

It could be mocking the very idea of it, or it could be that he thinks it's a funny and true thing people don't know about the situation

Or it could be a self-ironic attempt at admitting something awkward.

The point being about whether he believes it or not

 

[Lil devils x_v1legacy]

I suppose that any decent reasonable human being that isn't out there with an ax to grind would have also ignored the post of mine, as well as All the Common Sense in the World that both say "Being honest about your beliefs and feelings does not mean that your jokes and irony are supposed to be taken LITERALLY"?

So he was just being honest about his beliefs that women are too emotional and distracting and cry if you criticize them, but we're not supposed to take what he says seriously? "I honestly believe this... but I was just joking!" doesn't really work.

That said, I didn't ignore your post because I'm an indecent, unreasonable person, I did it because I didn't feel like dealing with you. I also was busy grinding my machete.

I'm sincerely sorry if a seventy-two year old man's recollections of how the sixties were like offends you. Would you like me to roll you up in bubble wrap before the world causes you anymore grief today?

That's where this is going now, he was only talking about how things were like in the sixties? Maybe i missed it in my not assuming everything bad he said was really a joke, haha, how could you ever believe a 70 year old man could be sexist, but did he say anything that should lead us to believe he was only talking about the sixties?

Regardless, he believes that women in the sixties were overemotional crybabies who should get their own labs so they'd stop distracting the men from their science, but now they're not? That's... better I guess?

I guess it would've been implied given his advanced age and the way he said, "Let me tell you about my trouble with girls.."

And I think people are kinda being cunts for the way they're judging a elderly gentleman for being honest about how things were really like in their workplace back in their heyday.

And he harshly judged the women he worked with over the years?This is only one side of the story, I would love the names of the women he is making these accusations of and to hear their side of the story. It very well could be his own sexism clouded his interpretation of events. " how things were from his perspective" does not mean they were actually that way.
Now granted given his age, this was an acceptable way to address and view women in his heyday, however, it is good that has passed.

 

[Lil devils x_v1legacy]

It could be mocking the very idea of it, or it could be that he thinks it's a funny and true thing people don't know about the situation

Or it could be a self-ironic attempt at admitting something awkward.

Do you really think if a girl stood up in one of the male nurse appreciation conferences and "joked" that guys think with their dick and should only look after adult male patients that would receive no complaints?

Not form me, because it's true :3

It also can be one of the reasons why where I live, you'll only find male nurses in mental institutions, where brute force is often necessary for the job. The rest of field is absolutely dominated by females (as well as my own field, BTW). I've had a lot of experience with hospitals and yet to see at least one male nurse in non-mental clinic or hospital.

DEM GENDER-ROLES!

I can assure you that my brother and some of my mates have had no trouble with wanting to sexually assault female patients or children. I have also meet several male nurses who aren't in mental health and one of the lecturers is male and specialises paediatrics. He has somehow managed to resit feeling up a kid or his colleagues for 30 odd years.

We have quite a few male nurses here. It is quite common in hospitals and clinics in the DFW metroplex in Texas.

 

[EvilRoy]

Or if it makes you feel better, pretend that Marxie isn't a sockpuppet on a Belorussian proxy

Awwwright, dear friend.

http://rghost.net/private/8tKxFQp5q/21cd277a3e6d325b5d5e1d255cc3bd5c.view
What is dis? Is dat a passport of a citizen of the Republic of Belarus? How could it be? Do they give passports to sockpuppets there? My God the world's going mad!

Dude, don't worry about it. I have never seen more transparent cries for attention in my entire life - he won't last much longer so better to just wait him out and not derail the thread.

 

[Nerva]

Or if it makes you feel better, pretend that Marxie isn't a sockpuppet on a Belorussian proxy

Awwwright, dear friend.

http://rghost.net/private/8tKxFQp5q/21cd277a3e6d325b5d5e1d255cc3bd5c.view
What is dis? Is dat a passport of a citizen of the Republic of Belarus? How could it be? Do they give passports to sockpuppets there? My God the world's going mad!

OK, I believe you're from Belorus, but please take that pic down and just use this quote from me for confirmation. It would not be hard to doxx you from that pic, and you don't deserve THAT.

 

[Nerva]

Or if it makes you feel better, pretend that Marxie isn't a sockpuppet on a Belorussian proxy

Awwwright, dear friend.

http://rghost.net/private/8tKxFQp5q/21cd277a3e6d325b5d5e1d255cc3bd5c.view
What is dis? Is dat a passport of a citizen of the Republic of Belarus? How could it be? Do they give passports to sockpuppets there? My God the world's going mad!

Dude, don't worry about it. I have never seen more transparent cries for attention in my entire life - he won't last much longer so better to just wait him out and not derail the thread.

I don't know about that, you might be surprised by my staying power. Still, you could be right, and only time will tell.

On the other hand, maybe it's not so much a cry for attention, as it is being pissed by what I saw on these forums? Most of the people on this planet with jobs who weren't raised by wolves would find a lot of the shit here pretty disgusting.

 

[Queen Michael]

So he says women are oversensitive, and as a result women force him to resign? I know not all women agreed with that, but the ones who do really ought to think this through.

EDIT: Oh, and I can't recall ever seeing any single time when this happened to somebody criticizing whites, straight people, or men. Because apparently, the fact that we admittedly do have more privileges than anybody means people can say anything about you and it's okay.