The trouble with women in Science is sexist men

At St Mary’s Calne we do a huge amount to promote the study of Science among our girls and we are very proud that so many of our girls go on to pursue careers in a wide range of scientific fields, including many fields where they are underrepresented. How utterly disheartening and repellent that on the very day that we are holding our annual conference, Science Matters, renowned scientist and Nobel Prize winner Tim Hunt has told a group of high-ranking scientists and science journalists that the trouble with “girls” working in Science is that “three things happen when they are in the lab … You fall in love with them, they fall in love with you and when you criticise them, they cry.”   He suggested that ‘distracting’ women should be banned from laboratories and that female colleagues should work in women-only environments.

I am still reeling with incredulity at the absolutely despicable misogyny of these comments. There is so much to deconstruct here. First it is very clear that he sees girls and women, as some male scientists always have, as unwanted usurpers in the lab. Men are the norm in Science. How they behave and what they do is right and women are the deviation. Their very presence is depicted as a disruption to the peace of mind of the male scientist. Everything was perfectly fine until women came into the field of Science with their sexuality and emotion. His comments also reveal that in his world view, women and girls are not seen as individuals for their talents and abilities and for the unique contribution they make.  Second, his sexist portrayal of women contains a typical trope that astute students of the history of sexism and gender inequality will recognise: girls and women are either sex objects (they distract men; you -the male scientist, the norm – fall in love with them) or they are emotional (if you – the male scientist in charge- criticise them, they cry). Much better to put women into a female ghetto where they can get on with their female Science, crying no doubt whilst they carry out their experiments. At the very least they would not be troubling the male scientists who do not need this sort of distraction in Tim Hunt’s view.

With the Royal Society immediately distancing itself from this crude stereotype, Tim Hunt had no choice but to apologise. However, you may have noticed that it was not really an apology. After saying he was sorry, he added that he was only speaking the truth, only trying to be honest.

He really needs to examine the attitudes underpinning his so-called honesty. It is indeed troubling that his own ability to think objectively and rationally is so limited. I am afraid his thinking is deeply marred by ugly sexist prejudices. As a scientist you would expect him to be a bit more rational, more objective. His analysis might go something like this: some girls might cry when criticised but then some men might be rude and abrupt when they should offer more constructive criticism, and come to think of it boys might also cry when criticised. Some men and women might fall in love after meeting in a lab. Or some men might find women attractive and find that this distracts them. Do men sexually harass women in the workplace? Yes of course they do. This is not a woman’s problem but a question of professional standards of behaviour on the men’s part. That is why we now have laws against sexual harassment.

He also added by way of apology that he was only being light-hearted and ironic. It is just as unacceptable to use light-heartedness and irony as an excuse for sexism as it is for racism. To my mind there is nothing light-hearted about sexism. Sadly for too long it has been acceptable to  hold these sorts of views and it is high time that men such as Tim Hunt were officially challenged. Why should he not be stripped of his Nobel Prize for holding such deeply offensive sexist views against the ideals embodied by the prize? I would argue that if he were racist, this surely would happen.

For centuries women have made the most enormous sacrifices to pursue careers in Science; they have had to put up with everything from being overlooked, to the vicious undermining of their careers to total exclusion. Think of Rosalind Franklin, Lisa Meitner and Jocelyn Bell. It is about time we challenged the status quo in the world of Science.

Chauvinists such as Tim Hunt should move over and give way to the next exciting generation of talented women, such as the generation of girls who will emerge from St Mary’s Calne, who will hopefully have the opportunity to work alongside more enlightened male colleagues.