Random thoughts in no real order:
1) It’s interesting that some of the most vocal people who consider themselves “left-wing” spend most of their time attacking other people who are also “left-wing” (I use quotes because I don’t think they’re anything of the sort). It’s not just petty but amazingly stupid, like a soldier shooting at his allies because he doesn’t like their accents when the enemy are advancing. One gets the strong impression that such people don’t actually want to change the status quo at all – they just enjoy the sense of superiority that comes from accusing other people of being “problematic”.
Absolutely. It really helps if you regard it as a kind of secular religion of a particularly zealous outlook. The point isn't to effect change so much as establish your own bonafides as a true believer. And what better way to do that than to pounce on any transgression with the fiercest denunciations imaginable? It's why the most pious and self-righteous matron in a church congregation reserves her implacable judgement for a rival matron of the church who wears too much makeup on Sundays, or who lets her children get a little out hand on occasion. Gotta burnish that halo by proving your own superior sense of propriety.
2) It’s disturbing how quickly proportionality is abandoned when “issues of diversity” are involved (to use M Wagner’s comparison, “blasphemy” would be the old equivalent). Had Tim Hunt stolen a car, it would be expected that he would be punished as the law requires, and he might or might not keep his job. And that would be that. Here, because his crime is a crime against diversity, almost any form of retribution is justified. While nobody has called for his death, I wouldn’t be surprised if there was just a general shrugging if he jumped off a cliff because of all this. I’m reminded of those right-wing tabloids that think that anyone is fair game for ridicule once they’ve had a sex change.
Wrongspeak is a far worse crime than simply stealing someone's property. It has to be stamped out as a lesson to others, else apostasy spread like a plague.
3) However, on the internet, it’s easy to join in to a mass movement in a small way, especially, as here, if it has an absurd, comedy angle. It’s like repeating a joke in bad taste, with added righteousness. The snowball builds very quickly, and with many small actions. Perhaps this is linked to the angry righteousness of the young, who use social media a lot.
There's a reason why the most enthusiastic agents of Mao's Cultural Revolution were the young. Their zeal, energy, and absolute faith in absolutes are indispensable if you want to truly cleanse a society of old ideas.
It is ironic that a generation so concerned about bullying at school should prove such enthusiastic bullyers of public figures. I suppose many don't think it's possible to bully a middle-aged white male. Father figure resentment and all that.
I don't completely understand the issue with the woman who "self-identifies as black" when we're so positive (as we should be) about people born with male bits who "self-identify as women".
What we're seeing is a cleavage between the 'we are whatever who choose to be' ideal, and identity politics. Since those two ideals tend to both fall under the umbrella of the modern left, but are fundamentally incompatible with one another, it will be interesting to see how they're reconciled. We could very well see the incompatibility studiously ignored, the way the doctrine that 'the West is bad the developing world is good' manages to endure alongside the reality that non-Western cultures like the Islamic Middle East are far more hostile to liberal values like gender equity and sexual liberalism than the West is.
As for the Twitter storm: if you don't want a Twitter storm, think about what you say if you are a famous public figure.
Was he really famous before this firestorm? I'd hazard that 98 per cent of the people who have heard of Tim Hunt today had no idea who he was a week ago.
But yes, it's clear that we're in an age where it's foolish for anyone with any kind of authority to utter anything but the most anodyne and empty platitudes in public interviews (or in private correspondence that has any chance of being made public). Given the modern world's appetite for public shaming and vilification, there's nothing whatsoever to gain and everything to lose by expressing an opinion that differs in any way from the orthodox line on a host of hot-button issues.
A lot of men do have trouble with girls. Stephen Hawking has been quoted as saying something similar. At the same time he has a diverse team.
There's a clear double-standard around our attitudes about segregation by gender. We don't doubt that women sometimes need to be around only other women in order to feel comfortable and confident, but woe to any man who suggests there are times when he's more comfortable being around only other men. I'm not suggesting for a minute that labs be segregated. However, let's not presume dark motives when a man suggests he's less comfortable in mixed company than in a male-only environment. Some men do feel anxious, self-conscious, and inadequate around women, the same way some women do around men.
