I'm talking about subtext. The implicit meaning in this article is that women in science were disrespected (in general and in this case). Whether a man was also disrespected is not relevant to that conversation.
The man in question is one of the ones vilified (accurately or not) in the linked article. So it's relevant for someone to talk about, in a comment on the article, whether or not that vilification is appropriate.
> The man in question is one of the ones vilified (accurately or not) in the linked article. So it's relevant for someone to talk about, in a comment on the article, whether or not that vilification is appropriate
Gosling is far from being vilified in the linked article. He's only mentioned three times, and one of those is "those who deserve the most credit for deciphering the DNA molecule are Wilkins, Franklin, and Gosling".
