Logically, these derivatives of words should lead to what you would imagine as a good image, an indelible impression and the irreplaceable influence of the lecturer, but unfortunately, Mr. President. For Darius Indrišionis, who expressed his thoughts in the article “In search of academic sexists”, these words lead to “good old” memories of the lecturer’s jokes belittling female academics. The woman smirked = agreed with the primitive proof of disrespect and dignity that had been dropped for her from above. And everyone, believe me, sweethearts and sweethearts, everyone was fine then. Happy we all smoked, we didn’t think about it, we forgot about that moment when we left the auditorium / faculty, but we remembered before falling asleep (probably no less funny and then, isn’t it?). And later, we may have even thought (we men) how great life it is to be a man – although (possibly) we will not succeed in life, but I am a man, and no one will remember my dignity, and if it is remembered, then I will only make fun of it (but will not remember it).

Great, believe your nostalgia as a fact, sigh romantically, but don’t forget that you live in a volatile, changing reality from which we expect progress. The sonorous word is “progress”, because it does not necessarily mean only progress in the fields of technological inventions, exploration of nature, or even bringing other planets closer to man, but also in the fundamental areas of human being.

What does it mean? When diving into the topical issues of life science, such a simple thing as respect for the person dealing with them does not disappear anywhere, and there is no justifiable reason why, arriving at the conference, a person should come out of it with the memory that his work was actually evaluated with disgusting humiliation when things that are not directly related to the topic of the conference were discussed.

And I must surprise you, Mr President. “I did,” those people are usually and are women who, although they have every right to expect to be treated as equals, both as conference attendees and members of the academy, for some reason they constantly have to justify this with something bigger and hard to discernible that almost never needs to be done by men. Unfortunately, it happens that all the work goes to nothing, because the woman of the honorable, accomplished gentleman from above was “reminded by a completely innocent joke”, that there is less room for you in this world than me, you do not deserve to go your own way, I have predicted your fate in the obsolete of my nostalgia, you need to justify your presence here, I will not say what, but I myself easily justify it, that (fortunately for someone else) the situation is what it is. But be blessed, masterpieces of science!

Sexism in live

How scary it is sometimes to admit that there can be and is something bad when it doesn’t directly touch us, but for some reason, without even thinking about the evil itself, when something terrible (bad) has happened, it’s easy for some to put themselves on a pedestal and get used to trying to hammer their opinion as a fact when nothing is learned about it: “You know, I haven’t been there, but I know how it’s supposed to be.” Dear. Darius (sr. st.) knows better than all the women who attended the conference. But then what am I, Lauryn (Sr. St.), who wasn’t at the event either, and seemingly not directly touched by the academician’s speech, doing here? The answer is that I am angry that evil can be justified so despicably, as Mr Barroso is doing in this case. Indrishionis, who, in my opinion, not only seeks to justify the sexist utterances made at the conference, and perhaps also… i won’t finish the sentence.

Dear. It’s amazing to Darius that not everyone’s memory works as accurately as his own, as he remembers that wonderfully subtle sexism once expressed by his tutor (I dare I guess that Mr. Darius could even say more precise/specific things about that “joke”). I agree, contexts, unspoken and purposeful, are important, but how can one make fun of a person who has come to the conference on scientific matters and received a rag across his face, who dared not to put up with that painful fact? The ridicule is Mr President. Darius’s article uses untargeted quotes (“young scientists”, “doctoral students” – from this it seems that such things are fictitious), hanging on to the words of the article in order to delay and yes, I agree, vague facts, and finally , no logic supports the derivation of these words of the academician to… a sense of humor. Here because that nostalgia-lecturer joked the same way? Not to mention that Mr President, I have to say that Mr President, I will not be able to do so Darius perceives that “sense of humor” as “much broader than that of the statistical taxpayer” – congratulations, Mr President. I did, you were able to downplay more people as well. For everyone today, primitive disrespects have been stumbling upon little by little.

The author’s attempt to claim that sexism does not flourish everywhere is sexism as such. Sexism has levels, sexism is subtle and open, sexism is not always obvious, in the fight against sexism you need to talk about all its possible forms, sexism is a form of someone else’s life / life, about sexism can not be silent, sexism is and we do not need it.

The scariest part of the article is the vataboutism that has begun – Mr President. It seems to Darius that the dignity of a larger group of people has also been trampled on here, so the author of the article keeps trying to distance the evil from the women who have experienced it, and at the end of the article, trying to cover up the context of the war in Ukraine, I would never mention it before in the article. You don’t have to be a very educated person to understand that the academician who gave the sexist speech didn’t even have the idea of homosexual people or poor men – this saying was only for women.

I dare to guess that such hatred of an academician does not appear out of nowhere, it must be thought about, talked about and probably even heard from the environment (the author himself agrees with this, arguing that perhaps this comes from “the relationships that have developed over the years with fellow academics and doctoral students”). There is no need for contextual space to humiliate hatred, disrespect, dignity, such things are banal and arise from a person naturally when it seems normal to him. And it’s normal when you recklessly believe it.

For someone we dare to call an academician, there’s no reason not to have a peculiar logic of teaching thoughts, but if that logic is what the author of the article is trying to justify it… thank you, no. So is it too much expected of such a person that he will think and understand what he is talking about? Are too high standards for respect, which is not any new concept? Can we justify everything if that is what we really want? I would say questions for thought, but no, these issues are to rethink their values. For the author of the article, the values are to speak from above, subtly humiliate others, to be silent when evil touches you, to grit your teeth and to apply. We do need peace, but do we need reconciliation with evil? Now it’s definitely a question for thought.

And, of course, it is obvious that it is easy for the author of the article to justify everything, because from the paragraph about his own conversations with close friends comes the idea that the author is also able to say something “fatter”. So if you have already begun to talk, say everything, do not hide anything, transfer that previously belittled lexicon of the imaginary “statistical taxpayers” to this article as well. Perhaps then it will be easier for you to weigh those humiliating words, because you will understand that there is no separate level for you between private conversations and teaching thoughts in public – anything goes, as they say, it is only important to have justification for this.

I agree that there is no need to beautify reality, to make it what it is not, but at the same time it means that there is no reason to give women an idea (i.e., an academician’s openly expressed sexism), which is not reality either. How banal it is to say this, but as we see it is necessary – women could, can and will be able to achieve a lot on their own, without following any of the “trends” that have taken hold over the years, which are certainly everywhere, including scientific conferences. Just because those “trends” continue, it doesn’t mean their correctness or perfection, unless we pretend that everyone who follows them is happy. But let’s remember the painful experiences of motherhood for a woman who doesn’t feel “in her own coat” in doing so, the limitations that the concept of family puts on, in which there is no respect I have between both sides, and many other troubles… Support is needed by man, but it is not the foundation of all human existence.

The author’s attempt to claim that sexism does not flourish everywhere is sexism as such. Sexism has levels, sexism is subtle and open, sexism is not always obvious, in the fight against sexism you need to talk about all its possible forms, sexism is a form of someone else’s life / life, about sexism can not be silent, sexism is and we do not need it.

We like to say that change begins with small things and / or with us, but as those changes gradually begin, there are those who want to silence everything – this title is going to you today, Mr. President. I did. You definitely need to look at things more soberly and broadly, but you can deny everything when all this is confirmed as untrue. But today there is at least one truth – sexism, unfortunately, will live another day.

So I wish you to see the end of sexism.