Feministički kutak

[scallop]

Dozvolite mi da izjavim da je Huntova opaska:
"Let me tell you about my trouble with girls. 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."
apsolutno tačna.

Ako je čovek društvena životinja, a jeste, onda je savršeno prirodno da taj društveni život, a najveći deo se provodi na radnom mestu, sa tendencijom da se još više produži, obuhvata i seksualno ponašanje. Onaj isti Jarred Diamond je u jednoj od svojih knjiga imao odeljak o ponašanju na radnom mestu. Napisao je da su žene prilično spretne u prikrivanju estrusa, ali ne apsolutno. Koliko god nas civilizacija izdvojila iz senzibiliteta feromona, oni su tu i još postoje muškići koji to osete. Zašto se onda reaguje na jednu iskrenu izjavu, ako decenijama najbrojnije veze među polovima proističu iz poznanstva na radnom mestu? Nije to samo laboratorija, da ne nabrajam. Ja sam svoju suprugu upoznao u firmi gde sam radio, moja kćerka svog supruga na Univerzitetu gde su bili na doktorskim studijama. I moji roditelji su bili šnajderi.

Kad Hunt pomene ženske laboratorije, on govori o apsurdnosti.

[Meho Krljic]

Ako stavimo nidžrk reakcije na stranu, mislim da su one "pametne" reakcije na Hantovu izjavu došle iz perskeptive koja smatra da je polna segregacija načelno veće zlo jer kulturološki udaljava žene i muškarce (i neretko za posledicu ima lošiji socijalni položaj žena) od smanjenog učinka laboratorija zato što postoje seksualne tenzije među radnicima.

[angel011]

Kakav bi trebalo da bude sastav laboratorija u kojima bi radio gej, ili radila lezbejka, pa da se izbegnu seksualne tenzije?

[Meho Krljic]

Nećemo valjda takve ljude da puštamo blizu skupe opreme 

[scallop]

Ne znam šta je "nidžrk" reakcija. Na lupetanje radi lupetanja ne vredi odgovarati.

[Karl Rosman]

Sve je to odavno objasnio jedan Ceh. Veterinar.


! No longer available

[Dybuk]

Ne znam šta je "nidžrk" reakcija

knee-jerk
adjective
adjective: kneejerk
1.
(of a response) automatic and unthinking.
"a knee-jerk reaction"

[lilit]

Sve je to odavno objasnio jedan Ceh. Veterinar.


! No longer available

aj lav ju.

[Meho Krljic]

Kod nas je available. Možda u Austriji namerno blokiraju mudrosti slovenskih veterinara?

[lilit]

aman i ovde je available.

od adema, pa usput i sve do tima hanta - no major changes (explanation za smajli odozgo )
a tek kad vidim sklonost da svoje slabosti provlačimo kroz univerzalnu prizmu...
sreća pa mi mozak ne fercera na više od 140 karaktera kad je komentarisanje palamuda u pitanju, te ovde stajem.

[Karl Rosman]

od adema, pa usput i sve do tima hanta - no major changes

Dobra je nasa Lilit. Samo sto je zensko...


Dodje da mi da te izgrdim sto moje postove cinis manje konfuznim!!! Kako sad da naucim ljude da igraju salsu? 

[Meho Krljic]

Dobra je nasa Lilit. Samo sto je zensko...

Medicina to danas rešava, a i socijalna stigma je umanj... Čekajte, jesam li ovo već nekom pričao ovde?

[lilit]

otrežnjujuće je kad naletiš na ovakav "i just wanted to be honest!"_momenat pošto te izvuče iz sigurne mikrosredine gde se uljuljkuješ kako toga eto više nema.
onda pogledaš širom otvorenih očiju, setiš se šniclera i prihvatiš da postoje i mišljenja da sasvim ok da mužjak dovlači lovinu kući dok ženka brine o potomstvu i stoji pored šporeta. jer ako nije tamo, postoji mogućnost da upropasti neke bitne stvari koje ionako ne može da razume a smeta i onima koji bi da misle al ne mogu zbog feromona.
jbt.

naravno, ko želi, samo napred.
definitivno me upropastio SF u ranom detinjstvu.

[Meho Krljic]

Lako je tebi da pričaš a ne kažeš nam koliko si muškaraca navela da se zaljube u tebe dok ste po rukama premetali male, bele, laboratorijske miševe. I kako je to uticalo na performanse laboratorije!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Stipan]

Kakav bi trebalo da bude sastav laboratorija u kojima bi radio gej, ili radila lezbejka, pa da se izbegnu seksualne tenzije?

Ajde ne budite dosadni! Dajte malo više podataka o lezbejkama u laboratorijama! Zamisli samo koliko je tamo raznih zanimljivih spravica i kako se sve one mogu upotrebiti!

[Meho Krljic]

Za to im je dovoljna i kuhinja, ne moraju da idu na fakultet.

[lilit]

Lako je tebi da pričaš a ne kažeš nam koliko si muškaraca navela da se zaljube u tebe dok ste po rukama premetali male, bele, laboratorijske miševe. I kako je to uticalo na performanse laboratorije!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

life is tough. samo su ideje bitne. hence, zaljubljivanje je za neradnike, a muškarci ionako na kraju završe ovde:

[Stipan]

Za to im je dovoljna i kuhinja, ne moraju da idu na fakultet.

Ajde, molim te, ne nipodaštavaj prednosti savremenih laborantskih pomagala i ne bacaj sve te divne žene natrag u mračni srednji vek!

[Meho Krljic]

Eh, divne. Znam gomilu lezbijki i distribucija divote među njima je ista kao i među heteroseksualnim ženama & muškarcima. Malo ih vi, kolega, preromantično doživljavate.

life is tough. samo su ideje bitne.

Dobro, ima nešto i u egzekuciji.

hence, zaljubljivanje je za neradnike,

Vaistinu!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

a muškarci ionako na kraju završe ovde:

Hoćete da kažete da je na slici....

actually, šta je to na slici?

[lilit]

suvi led u sudoperi, topla voda, ruka i rukavica.
scena 1.

[Meho Krljic]

Dobro je da ne idem po tim laboratorijama...

[Stipan]

Eh, divne. Znam gomilu lezbijki i distribucija divote među njima je ista kao i među heteroseksualnim ženama & muškarcima. Malo ih vi, kolega, preromantično doživljavate.

A šta sad pa fali romantici?

[Meho Krljic]

Ništa kad je začin, sve kad je glavno jelo.

[Albedo 0]

naučnik reko da ga drma pubertet, i svi ga napali...

[lilit]

Dobro je da ne idem po tim laboratorijama...

srećniče. uticaj gejminga zna da bude poguban.

[Meho Krljic]

Feminizam kao moda:

Female scientists post 'distractingly sexy' photos 

Female scientists have been sharing "distractingly sexy" photos of themselves after a feminist website encouraged them to respond to comments by a Nobel laureate.
Nobel Prize winner Tim Hunt was roundly criticised when he detailed his thoughts about the "trouble with girls" at a conference of science journalists. "Three things happen when they are in the lab," he said, "you fall in love with them, they fall in love with you, and when you criticise them they cry."
He said his comments were meant to be "light-hearted, ironic comment", but whatever the intention, it went over like a heavy metallic dirigible in a field with some widely acknowledged gender issues. Hunt has now resigned from his position at University College London.
On Thursday the hashtag #DistractinglySexy began taking off, with more than 10,000 tweets in a matter of hours. The trend was prompted by a shout-out by the feminist online magazine Vagenda which urged female scientists to share pictures of themselves at work. WARNING: the photos below are not graphic in the slightest.

Kliknuti na naslov da se vide i te seksi slike.

[Dybuk]

Hahahahaha!

[Father Jape]

http://alicedreger.com/Hunt

[Meho Krljic]

Pa, da, žena lepo podeća da je razgovaranje u apsolutnim kategorijama štetno za plodnu diskusiju i svakako da mu nema mesta u naučnim krugovima...

See, in my world, the fear of offending someone is reason enough to forget about academic freedom.

Takođe, korisno podsećanje da u današnjoj kulturi autrejdža koji se geometrijskom progresijom onda širi socijalnim mrežema i ne zaustavlja se dok ne polete glave, možda ipak treba staviti neke stvari u kontekst i ne posezati uvek za nuklearnom opcijom... 

I još više takođe, ovo je dragoceno:

You know what? It's easy to want to protect the people you agree with.

[lilit]

ovo je najdragocenije a valjda bi trebalo da se podrazumeva:
"What if Hunt's remarks, rather than being purely glib sexist stupidity, actually did represent an ideology he held? What if he genuinely believed that females are bad for science?
Would we then worry a little more about academic freedom—about his right to hold an unpopular view and still be a member of the academic community?"

insistiranje na jednoumlju u nauci sahranjuje tu istu nauku, kao i slepo povinovanje prethodno formiranom mišljenju koje pretenduje da postane opšte.
al kod tima hanta ideologije (protiv koje bi se trebalo boriti) prosto nema i to je ono što je tužno, te ćemo zanemariti lik i držaćemo se dela.
toliko.

[Dybuk]

Nek stoji ovo ovde 

http://youtu.be/2EnWzbQ-qok

[Meho Krljic]

Dejli mejl ne samo što se potrudio da odbrani Tima Hanta nego i da pošteno provuče po blatu ženu koja ga je putem tvitera "razotkrila". Čitaoci neka samo izvlače svoje zaključke (kako kažu i u tekstu ovog britanskog ur-Informera/ Kurira/Aloa)

A very flawed accuser: Investigation into the academic who hounded a Nobel Prize winning scientist out of his job reveals troubling questions about her testimony

On Monday, June 8, a British academic called Connie St Louis uploaded a sensational document to her Twitter feed. Beginning with the question 'Why are the British so embarrassing abroad?', it offered an account of bizarre remarks that a Nobel Prize-winning biologist by the name of Sir Tim Hunt had made earlier that day at a conference in Seoul, the capital of South Korea.
His audience was comprised of roughly 100 science journalists, most of them female, who were being treated to a free lunch by a local trade body representing Women's Science & Technology Associations.
According to St Louis, who was in the crowd, their meal was 'utterly ruined' by the 'sexist speaker'. She claimed that Sir Tim, having been asked to deliver a toast, embarked on a surreal rant in which he boasted of being a 'male chauvinist'.
'Let me tell you about my trouble with girls,' it purportedly went. '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.'
According to St Louis, Sir Tim then took the odd step of claiming that 'single-sex' science laboratories were preferable to ones in which men and women work together.
'Really, does this Nobel laureate think we are still in Victorian times?' she asked.
So began an extraordinary course of events that saw her tweet shared more than 600 times, kick-starting a viral scandal which resulted in the 72-year-old academic, famed for his pioneering work on cell division, being vilified across social media.
Sir Tim, screamed critics, was the epitome of an unreconstructed misogynist; an 'out-of-touch a***hole' to quote one of many hostile tweets, who should have no place in modern academia and whose comments laid bare the institutional sexism that allegedly pervades the world of science.
Within hours, Sir Tim was being hauled across the coals in newspapers and TV bulletins across the world. Unable to defend himself, since he was travelling back to the UK, the bespectacled professor's only response was delivered via a voicemail message to Radio 4's Today programme recorded in haste via mobile telephone in Seoul airport.

n it, he admitted making the fateful remark attributed to him by St Louis, and issued a forthright apologies for the 'very stupid' comment, saying he was 'really, really sorry' to have 'caused offence'.That wasn't enough to stem the criticism, however. Instead, by the time he touched down at Heathrow, his career and reputation, built up over 50 years, lay in tatters.
The days that followed saw him unceremoniously hounded out of honorary positions at University College London (UCL), the Royal Society and the European Research Council (ERC).
Under siege at his Hertfordshire home, he sank into despair.
'Tim sat on the sofa and started crying. Then I started crying,' his wife, Professor Mary Collins (herself a prominent scientist) later recalled. 'We just held on to each other.'
It was, in the eyes of many observers, a classic modern scandal: short, hysterical and fuelled by unswerving political correctness.
Yet, within days, a vigorous backlash had begun.Troubled by Sir Tim's fate, a collection of eminent scientists, including eight other Nobel Prize winners (and several senior female academics) chose to speak out publicly in support of him.
Many professed outrage that, in the echo-chamber of social media, a single careless remark, just 37 words long, could apparently derail the career of a pioneering scientist. Several added that they believed his fateful toast had been delivered off-the-cuff and taken out of context. Though the comments about women scientists were certainly misjudged, Sir Tim's supporters claimed they were intended as an ironic joke (albeit one which misfired). He'd intended to satirise, rather than endorse, sexism, they argued.
Among the most vociferous was Sir Andre Geim, the University of Manchester professor who developed graphene (the world's thinnest material, said to be able to revolutionise almost every part of everyday life).
He claimed that Sir Tim was being 'crucified' by ideological fanatics.
Professor Dame Valerie Beral, director of Oxford University's Cancer Epidemiology Unit, described him as a 'very kind and very eccentric unworldly sort of man' whose words had been misinterpreted.
'I just think those comments were self-deprecatory. He will have said it as a complete joke,' she said.
All of them called for UCL, the Royal Society and the ERC to re‑instate him. The institutions, however, refused to play ball.
Then, early this week, the simmering dispute took a further, seismic twist.
It came courtesy of The Times newspaper, which revealed the contents of a leaked report into Sir Tim's fall from grace compiled by an EU official who had accompanied him to the Seoul conference.
This individual, who has not been named, sat with him at the lunch and provided a transcript of what Sir Tim 'really said'.
Crucially, it presented a very different take to the one which had been so energetically circulated by Connie St Louis.
The report began by confirming that Sir Tim had joked about falling in love with women in laboratories and 'making them cry'.
However, it said he'd prefaced those comments with an ironic introduction, joking that they would illustrate what a 'chauvinist monster' he was.
The report then revealed the existence of an entire second half of the controversial toast.
In it, Sir Tim was said to have told his audience that his remark about 'making them cry' was, indeed, an ironic joke.
He purportedly said, 'now seriously . . .' before going on to speak enthusiastically about the 'important role' women scientists play. He ended by joking that his largely female audience should pursue their trade, 'despite monsters like me'.
The report's author added: 'I didn't notice any uncomfortable silence or any awkwardness in the room as reported on social and then mainstream media,' going on to describe the speech as 'warm and funny'.
All of which, for quite understandable reasons, sparked further angry debate. Supporters of Sir Tim felt he had been vindicated. Among them was Professor Richard Dawkins, the evolutionary biologist, who said the leaked memo's contents showed Sir Tim to be 'the reverse of a chauvinist monster'.
He added that the 'lynch mob' who had contributed to Sir Tim's downfall should consider their own positions and that his colleague 'should be swiftly restored to the honoured place he deserves'.
However, Sir Tim's critics remained unmoved and disputed the EU report's contents. Importantly, given how the scandal had originally emerged, they were led by Connie St Louis.
She stood by her remarks and told the Mail that she explicitly denied that the scientist's toast ever contained the words 'now seriously'.
As a result, this explosive controversy now rests on a single, straightforward question: which of these two, first-hand versions of events is true? Either the anonymous EU official is telling the truth, in which case Sir Tim is a hapless victim, guilty of nothing more than telling a misjudged joke. Or Connie St Louis, the architect of the witch-hunt against him, is in the right. In that case, many will continue to argue that he got what he deserved.
So, who are we to believe?
The EU report appears to dovetail with Sir Tim's own version of events. Meanwhile, Connie St Louis's account is shared by two fellow witnesses: Deborah Blum, an academic from Wisconsin, and Ivan Oransky, co-founder of a science website called Retraction Watch. Although, following the leaked report, Blum and Oransky told The Times that they could not recall enough to confirm or deny the additional quotes from Sir Tim.

Strangely, given that there were more than 90 other journalists present at the fateful lunch in Seoul, no other detailed accounts of the toast have emerged.
St Louis did not make a shorthand transcript of it. And, again very strangely, no tape-recording appears to exist.
Perhaps, therefore, we should ask two other related questions: who exactly is Connie St Louis? And why, exactly, should we trust her word over that of a Nobel laureate?
A good place to start is the website of London's City University, where St Louis has, for more than a decade, been employed to run a postgraduate course in science journalism.
Here, on a page outlining her CV, she is described as follows:
'Connie St Louis . . . is an award-winning freelance broadcaster, journalist, writer and scientist.
'She presents and produces a range of programmes for BBC Radio 4 and BBC World Service . . . She writes for numerous outlets, including The Independent, Daily Mail, The Guardian, The Sunday Times, BBC On Air magazine and BBC Online.'
All very prestigious. Comforting, no doubt, for potential students considering whether to devote a year of their lives (and money) to completing an MA course under her stewardship. Except, that is for one small detail: almost all of these supposed 'facts' appear to be untrue.
For one thing, Connie St Louis does not 'present and produce' a range of programmes for Radio 4.
Her most recent work for the station, a documentary about pharmaceuticals called The Magic Bullet, was broadcast in October 2007.
For another, it's demonstrably false to say she 'writes' for The Independent, Daily Mail and The Sunday Times.
Digital archives for all three newspapers, which stretch back at least 20 years, contain no by-lined articles that she has written for any of these titles, either in their print or online editions. The Mail's accounts department has no record of ever paying her for a contribution.

Her work for The Guardian appears to consist of two online articles: one published in 2013; the other, about the Sir Tim Hunt affair, went live (online) this week.
Curiously, that 1,000-word piece, in which St Louis recalled the scandal, was heavily edited after publication. Around 30 changes, some of them significant, were made to it. In an apparent contradiction of usual Guardian policy, the version now running online contains no disclaimer detailing this fact.
Elsewhere on the City University web page, readers are led to believe that St Louis has either become, or is soon to become, a published author.
'She is a recipient of the prestigious Joseph Rowntree Journalist Fellowship to write a book based on her acclaimed two-part Radio 4 documentary series, Raising Ham,' it reads.
But that is not the full story. In 2005, St Louis did, indeed, receive the liberal organisation's 'fellowship'. She was given £50,000, which was supposed to support her while she wrote the book in question.
However, no book was ever published. Or, indeed, written. An entire decade later, the project remains a work in progress.
Asked to explain these discrepancies — although details of the claims are carried, remember, on the internet page where she is supposed to present her credentials to students and fellow academics — St Louis said she had done interviews for the Daily Mail but conceded it was 'possible' that she had never written for the paper.
She said her by-lined articles in the Independent and Sunday Times may have been published more than two decades ago. Asked how she could, therefore, justify the claim on her CV that she 'writes' for the titles, she hung up.
In a subsequent email, St Louis appeared to backtrack and insist that she has written for all the newspapers cited on her CV, but said: 'I don't have time . . . to find all the articles on different old computers.'
She did not respond to a question asking what awards she had ever won for journalism, science, broadcasting or writing.
With regard to the £50,000 fellowship, she added: 'I didn't finish the Rowntree book I was writing because I had breast cancer and was extremely ill for a year.
'Then, after that, I had to work to look after my family. It doesn [sic] take away the fact that I won it [the £50,000] and still hope to finish the book does it?'
Readers can, of course, draw their own conclusions.
In common with most academics, St Louis also uses her online CV to cite articles she has previously published in prestigious academic journals. It claims that she has published three. However, even this is misleading. Two of the three cited journal articles are the same: a piece for the British Medical Journal entitled: 'Can Twitter predict disease outbreaks?'
Are such errors merely sloppy? Or were they designed to mislead? And what do they tell us about the attention to detail of a woman whose purported recollection of a short lunchtime toast has effectively ruined a Nobel laureate's career?
Again, readers must draw their own conclusions.
In an email, one of the prominent scientists who have publicly supported Sir Tim Hunt tells me: 'What you have discovered is very alarming. False claims about publications are taken very seriously by universities. Perhaps even more seriously than reports of dodgy, sexist speeches!'
Another, Dame Valerie Beral, who has worked with Sir Tim, added that if St Louis had made false claims on her CV, then her evidence about his speech ought to be discounted.
'I think the institutions who have forced Tim to resign now need to look at the claims that this person has made in the past, and work out whether they can trust what she says regarding this incident.
'If her previous claims turn out to be false, then I believe that Tim must be re-instated.'
City University, meanwhile, says it's investigating the web page in question.
This is not, however, the only medium in which St Louis appears to make false, or at least misleading, statements.
Earlier this year, she stood, successfully, in an election to become a board member of the World Federation of Science Journalists (WFSJ). As part of the election process, St Louis was required to present a detailed CV to voters.
This document, which stretches to six pages, is still on the WFSJ's website. It contains several deeply questionable statements.
In an early passage, she for example writes: 'I am a regular contributor to ABC News Worldview TV programme.' Yet ABC News Worldview has not aired for roughly five years. Factiva, an online search engine which carried transcripts of it, suggests that the last recorded contribution by Connie St Louis to the show was on May 31, 2006.
In another early passage, St Louis writes that she has a second career working for quangos.
'In November 2002, I was invited and subsequently appointed by the Minister responsible for media, sport and culture to be a board member of UK Sport (the former UK Sports Council) . . . My term of office ended last year but I continue to serve on the audit committee as an external member.'
UK Sport describes things differently. A spokesman says St Louis was appointed to the board in November 2002 but she left in 2005.
St Louis did not respond when asked by the Mail how she can, therefore, claim, in a CV published in 2015, to have been a board member of UK Sport until 'last year'.
Elsewhere in the six-page CV is a section devoted to 'Qualification and Training'. In it, St Louis trumpets the fact that she is 'a member of the Royal Institution'.
Again, very prestigious. Or so it seems, until a spokesman for the Royal Institution told me: 'Anyone can be a member. It's simply a service you pay for which entitles you to free tickets to visit us and gives you a discount in our cafe.
'It's like having membership of your local cinema or gym.'
Why would someone include such a thing on their CV?
'Actually, that's a bit of a problem,' the spokesman added. 'We have heard of a few people using membership on their CV to imply that they have some sort of professional recognition or qualification. But it means nothing of the sort. It's very, very odd to see this on a CV.'
St Louis did not respond when the Mail asked why she cited this membership as a 'qualification'.
Neither, as it happens, did she reply to a request to explain what academic qualifications she actually has.
The CV again is unclear. In a section outlining her education, she states: 'BSc (Hons) Upper Second Class degree in Applied Biology.' But it does not state where she gained it from, making it impossible to fact-check.
Doubtless, more facts will eventually emerge, perhaps once City University has finished investigating this matter.
In the meantime, those who have condemned the Nobel laureate Sir Tim Hunt may wish to re-examine some of her previous statements about the affair.
Take, by way of a final example, an interview with the BBC on June 10, in which St Louis recalled that toast in Seoul: 'He just ploughed on for five to seven minutes, actually,' she said. 'It was really shocking. It was culturally insensitive and it was very sexist.'
Strangely, the passage from Sir Tim's speech that St Louis has so far made public is exactly 37 words long. It would take, at most, 20 seconds to recount.
So did Sir Tim really 'plough on' for five to seven minutes? And, if so, what did he say?
Why did she selectively quote just one statement from his toast? And how did such a remark end the 50-year career of a Nobel laureate?
Once more, readers must draw their own conclusions.

Kome se gadi Dejli mejl, Independent veli nešto slično:



  Sir Tim Hunt's claims that remarks on girls in science were 'not sexist' are backed by leaked EU report

  A leaked European Commission report has supported Sir Tim Smith's claims that apparently sexist comments about the "trouble with girls in science" were meant as a joke.
   The Nobel Prize laureate resigned from prestigious posts at University College London, the Royal Society and European Research Council (ERC) amid outrage over his remarks earlier this month.
"Let me tell you about my trouble with girls," he said to the World Conference of Science Journalists in South Korea.
"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.
"Perhaps we should make separate labs for boys and girls?"

Outrage over the comments sparked the #distractinglysexy trend celebrating female scientists on Twitter and institutions Sir Tim worked with swiftly distanced themselves from him.
Within days, the 72-year-old had resigned from as Honorary Professor with the UCL Faculty of Life Sciences, the Royal Society's Biological Sciences Awards Committee and ERC.Read more: Richard Dawkins backs Sir Tim Hunt
Female professors call for 'fingerpointing' to stop
Sir Tim Hunt says he has been 'hung out to dry'But a leaked EU report seen by The Times supports Sir Tim's claims that his remarks were an "idiotic joke" and not meant to be taken seriously.
A European Commission official who was at the lunch for women journalists and scientists offered a differing transcript from the account compiled by three reporters present.
The official included previously unreported comments that came directly after Sir Tim's controversial remarks, the Times reported.
He allegedly continued: "Now seriously, I'm impressed by the economic development of Korea.
"And women scientists played, without doubt an important role in it. Science needs women and you should do science despite all the obstacles, and despite monsters like me."

Sir Tim mentioned the second part of the comments in an interview prior to the leak, insisting that he had attempted to make the joke clear.
"The words 'now seriously' make it very clear that I was making a joke, albeit a very bad one, but they were not mentioned in the first reports and I was deluged with hate mail," he told The Observer.
The development comes amid calls for Sir Tim to be reinstated to his posts from scientists, former colleagues and supporters including Professor Richard Dawkins and Brian Cox.
He received the Nobel Price with two other researchers in 2001 for his work on the cell cycle, discovered the cyclin molecule and is credited for furthering the understanding of cancer.
A spokesperson for the European Commission told The Independent that the new leaked transcript forms part of a "mission report compiled by an official" and is not being treated as a verbatim transcript.
She would not comment on whether the authority would be considering reinstating Sir Tim to his post.

[mac]

Da li je moguće da sala puna ljudi ne može da prizove u kolektivno sećanje šta je rekao čovek koji se obraćao toj sali? Umesto toga potreban je agent tajne službe (moja interpretacija), koji je plaćen da prati i pamti...

[Meho Krljic]

Pa, to je kad je sala puna korejskih, jelte, naučnih radnika, a cela afera se odvija na tviteru, na engleskom, od strane američkih i britanskih naučnih radnika i drugih ljudi...

Mislim, sve ovo je još jedna poučna priča o tome kako tviter ima moć koju, reklo bi se, ne bi BAŠ trebalo da ima, poduplana time što osoba kojoj je tviter, hajde da kažemo, pokvario karijeru i reputaciju, čak i nije tvitovala svoju kontroverznu izjavu nego smo je dobili iz druge ruke i, ako je verovati ovim tekstovima, zapravo pogrešno ili zlonamerno interpretiranu.

Naravno da ne kažem da je to nužno tačno (na prethodnoj strani ima Hantova izjava za Gardijan u kojoj veli da je sve mislio u šali ali ne pominje drugi deo izjave), više kažem da je suludo kojom brzinom se danas ljudi utrkuju da budu šokirani i razbješnjeni nečim što su negde u prolazu čuli, videli i ritvitovali, kojom se brzinom zahteva da se presudi i izvrši, jelte, kazna. U čemu kvalitet presuđivanja i odmeravanja kazne očigledno nije unapređen... Jelte.

[mac]

Moja je teorija da ljudi koji pate zbog nedostatka značaja (možemo to uslovno nazvati kompleks niže vrednosti, gde ljudi sami po sebi imaju adekvatnu vrednost, ali u poređenju sa ostatkom sveta njihova vrednost je ništavna) to kompenzuju tako što love prilike u kojoj će biti od uticaja na druge, pa bilo kako da taj uticaj izgleda.

Fatalna greška takvih ljudi je što se uopšte porede sa ostatkom sveta.

[Albedo 0]

i ko sad treba da pojede govna koja je izasrao/la

eo mojih 5 centi: nije da ne saosjećam s diskriminisanim manjinama, bilo seksualnim bilo etničkim, polnim itd... al jbt - kradete naftu po Bliskom istoku, Gvantanamo još otvoren, Patriot akt nije uklonjen, jebete po Libiji i Ukrajini, prave vam patike i mobilne za tri dolara platu po azijskim vukojebinama, i sad ja da patim zbog žena u laboratoriji. Licimuri.

Tim Hanta za precednika

[Meho Krljic]

Dobro, zna se da postojanje jedne nesreće nije razlog da se neko pogođen drugom nesrećom pokrije ušima i ćuti jer onda niko ne bi trebo ništa da zucne protiv Vučića/ Obame/ Putina dok se ne iskoreni spina bifida. Ali poenta koja čini mi se treba da bude napravljena je ta da je čovek ovde izgubio konkretan posao/ položaj na kome je konkretno doprinosio nekakvom društvu  (iako je već i zreo za penziju)  i bio meta javne poruge na ime izjave koja je nanela tom društvu veoma apstraktnu štetu a za koju sad vele da zapravo i nije čitava izjava i korišćena je baš da ilustruje štetu koju takav stav može da ima. Džastin Sako je ur-primer za ovo ali ona je makar svoju sarkastičnu izjavu tvitovala. Ovaj čovek, štagod da je izjavio, izjavio je uživo, negde a onda mu je medij koji prenosi informacije u samo 140 slova po komadu sahranio karijeru.

[Albedo 0]

iskreno mislim da neko ko je pobio stotine hiljada muslimana na Bliskom istoku, koji im krade naftu, koji ih muči u Gvantanamu, stvarno nema šta da prigovori Putinu dok ne počisti u svom dvorištu

Nije Bagdad u Engleskoj, pobogu

stvarno bi mogla neka najprostija hijerarhija da se odredi, šta je to primarno, ljudski životi ili jedan vic

jer i neki tamo turisti u Tunisu su izgleda važniji od Iračana

samo da ne izmišljamo da su žene u laboratoriji i gladni u Africi jednaki, ne nisu, ove prve su u laboratoriji zato što su ovi drugi gladni

i neko treba više to da kaže, otvoreno, jasno

[Meho Krljic]

Al to je sasvim druga rasprava. 

A kad već zastranjujemo, evo intervjua od pre neki dan, koji je uradila Politika sa Elmom Elfić Zukorlić, drugom ženom Muamera Zukorlića. Boldovao sam interesantne delove 



Менаџерка с хиџабом

Новопазарска чаршија брујала је о њој када се пронела вест да се муфтија Муарем Зукорлић у Сарајеву оженио по други пут.
Муфтијин брак склопио је по исламским верским обредима тадашњи реис-ул-улема Исламске заједнице у Босни и Херцеговини Мустафа Церић. Седам година касније, 2012. године, када се муфтија Исламске заједнице у Србији кандидовао за председника републике, српски таблоиди питали су се хоће ли Србија добити две прве даме. Уз текст осванула је фотографија лепе, младе жене која седи поред муфтије Зурколића у непознатом угоститељском објекту. Данас, та лепа, млада жена, мајка троје деце и генерални менаџер Интернационалног универзитета у Новом Пазару, Елма Елфић Зукорлић, муфтијина друга жена, отворено за ,,Политику" каже да јој је требало времена и снаге да се навикне на коментаре средине и претресање њеног приватног живота у медијима.
– Међутим, када увидите да живимо у лицемерном свету где доминирају двоструки стандарди и када проанализирате животе управо тих лажних моралиста, схватите да сте ви само искрени и транспарентни, и напослетку, довољно храбри да живите свој живот – каже Елма Елфић Зурколић.
О Елми смо тада сазнали да потиче из познате новопазарске породице, као и да са децом живи у кући у центру Новог Пазара. Муфтијина прва жена, Умеја, коју је упознао за време студија у Јордану, живи одвојено са својом децом, такође у Новом Пазару. Ислам дозвољава верницима да имају више жена, под условом да претходног брачног друга материјално обезбеде и да од претходне супруге добију сагласност за нови брак. Разматрало се, међутим, у медијима, да ли је муфтија, оженивши богату новопазарску лепотицу прекршио верске прописе и да ли је за други брак имао сагласност прве супруге. Анализирало се не само по новинским ступцима, већ и у чаршијским причама, да ли је Зукорлић прекршио грађанске законе Републике Србије који забрањују полигамију. Један од матичара којег су новинари тада консултовали пресудио је да није, јер се венчао пред Богом, али не и пред државом. А шта је са оним неписаним, моралним законима?
– Ја сам верница и све своје одлуке преиспитујем кроз вертикалу која иде од мене према узвишеном Господару. Сходно томе, нисам имала никакву дилему. Наш брак се заснива на верско-шеријатским принципима и у том случају наравно да ни закон Републике Србије није прекршен. Има пуно личности на јавној сцени Србије, а и шире, о којима би требало расправљати да ли су прекршили тај исти закон. Али, медији су расправљали о муфтији, не и о њима – објашњава Елма Елфић Зукорлић.
Елма је по професији економиста. Завршила је Факултет за трговину и банкарство ,,Јанићије и Даница Карић", а мастер и докторске студије из области економских наука на Интернационалном универзитету у Новом Пазару. Од 2007. године предаје на овом универзитету, чији је председник њен супруг муфтија Зукорлић, а већ три године обавља дужност генералног менаџера ове високообразовне установе. У складу са својом вером, ова менаџерка носи хиџаб, мараму којом муслиманке покривају косу.
– Ја се са својим хиџабом осећам веома супериорном и доминантном. Хиџаб који носим није никакав израз женине потчињености или супериорности мушкарца над женом. Хиџаб је манифестација жениног духовног интегритета. Он је жени инспирација и гаранција духовног мира, спокоја и свеобухватног просперитета. Хиџаб је њен штит, посебно у данашњем свету у којем живимо. Статистика о злостављану жена је поражавајућа. У Канади на сваких шест минута буде силована једна жена, у Америци жена је претучена, у кући или ван ње на сваких 15 секунди, нажалост, примера има још много. Зато је хиџаб жени штит. А са друге стране представља и круну њеног индентитета – објашњава Елма Елфић Зукорлић.
Она додаје да Европа, иначе, нити жели нити има праву слику жене у исламу. Због тога је многима необично да жена са хиџабом буде менаџерка, али и да, са марамом или без ње, прихвати да буде – друга жена.
– У породици у којој сам рођена била сам третирана као принцеза. Љубав и подршка коју сам добијала од оца данас ме чине оваквом каква јесам. А могу рећи да такав статус имам данас и у браку. Јесте ли икад чули да се муслиманке организовано боре за своја права? Не. Зато што су жене у исламу задовољне, али Европа сматра да су заостале и потчињене јер се не уклапају у њихову перцепцију слободе. Док су се жене у Европи бориле за своја елементарна права, и тек их оствариле у другој половини 19. и почетком 20. века, жена у исламу је уживала у свим тим правима. Ислам је још пре 14 векова жени дао право на иметак, наследство, образовање, право да бира свог супруга, право на развод – напомиње Елма Елфић Зукорлић.
  Јелена Чалија   објављено: 28.06.2015.

[Albedo 0]

Al to je sasvim druga rasprava. 

znaš me!

[Meho Krljic]

Nisan još pogledao ali ne sumnjam da Džon Oliver ovo pretresa na interesantan način:


http://youtu.be/hmoAX9f6MOc

[Dybuk]

 

Boldovao sam interesantne delove

Pa, interesantni su i drugi delovi ovog intervjua Sve joj verujem
I kad implicira da hidzab, burka, itd stite zene od zlostavljanja...ko je kriv tim zenama sto nose mini suknje.
Burkini deluju extra udobno, baj d vej, mozda nabavim jedan, da me stiti od opasnih situacija na plazi i bude kruna integriteta. S druge strane, njihovi muskarci pored njih setkaju u sorcevima i kupacim gacama - oni ne moraju da brinu o integritetu.....

[Meho Krljic]

Da se razumemo, poenta je u tome da iz perspektive jedne kulture neke stvari izgledaju sasvim drugačije nego iz perspektive druge kulture. Nama je prekrivanje žena strano i neprijatno jer između ostalog smatramo da muškarci nisu toliki idioti da kad vide prizor koji ih nominalno seksualno uzbuđuje izgube kapacitet za racionalno razmišljanje. Ali delu muslimana ovo je savršeno racionalan element kulture koja kaže da po iskustvu zna da muškarci - deo populacije koji istorijski ima monopol na moć - ne tretiraju žene jednako zavisno od njihovog izgleda pa je uklanjanje izgleda iz jednačine progresivan korak. U tom ključu treba čitati to da su žene koje su prekrivene zaštićene, ne kao prostu ideju da kad ne pokažeš butku nećeš biti na ulici izložena dobacivanju.

Ima ona karikatura, kačio sam je ovde više puta:





I ona zaista rečito ukazuje na to kako iz dve perspektive dve potpuno različite slike daju isti zaključak. Da li su oba tačna ili oba pogrešna? Ako ne, koji je tačan, koji je pogrešan? Pitanja na koje bismo odgovore mogli da damo da imamo univerzalu ljudsku kulturu... 

Takođe, opet istorijski treba imati na umu da je islam imao zapravo značajno progresivniji tretman žena od onoga što su imale kulture u tom delu sveta pre Muhameda - i ovaj intervju pominje prava na imovinu, nasleđivanje razvod itd. koja jednostavno nisu figurisala među Arapima pre sedmog veka - ali naravno, islam nije imao svoju reformaciju koja bi označila modernije tendencije u njemu kao nekakav prepoznatljiv, distkinktan trend pa danas imamo čitav spektar tumačenja islama, od te neke opuštene struje koja ide u korak sa vremenom, pa do zastrašujućih zastranjenja koja rezultiraju tretiranjem osoba kao imovine itd. Fakat da u islamu vera i pravo nisu tehnički razdvojeni, kao i da ne postoji crkva kao nominalno od Boga dat autoritet za tumačenje svetih tekstova i razrešavanje dilema koje se pomaljaju kako civilizacija ide napred su u sedmom veku bile oslobađajue, progresivne karakteristike ove vere koje su u mnogome pomogle da Arapi od gomile zaraćenih plemena postanu ozbiljna državotvorna sila sa razvijenom kulturom, naukom, administracijom itd. ali u dvadesetprvom veku one su problematične na mnogo načina.

[Dybuk]

   

[džin tonik]

oci su opasne, hant varijanta:

[Dybuk]

To! Like!

[džin tonik]

lajk? hm, mozda je boja lose odabrana, a izvedba previse seksipilna... stvarno ne znam kako izbjeci sve moguce preferencije i poticaje na blud.

[Boban]

Gospode, da li si ti svoj nik dao D. na korišćenje?

[Dybuk]

  Nego, zosko, kad ces da vratis ime, nekako mi neugodno u drustvu Gospoda?

[mac]

Neka im par bombaša samoubica u burki razvali sistem, pa ćemo videti koliko su privrženi tom detalju islamske kulture i tradicije. A za sad značajan deo islamske zajednice još nije ni u fazi "neka nosi ko šta hoće", nego muž i otac propisuju ženi kako da se oblači.