“Let her speak please”
facebook.com
facebook.com
This is a painfully frustrating reminder that women get talked over by men. It's one thing to have one panelist talk over another, but to have the moderator, who is explicitly in charge of facilitating a panel discussion, be the one to drown out a panelist is just unacceptable. Yes, "not all men" do this, but the fact that this continues to happen in such visible and public settings, where presumably people are on "their best behavior", would suggest that it happens even more in more private situations. Research has shown that groups where speaking is more distributed are more successful at solving problems, and explicitly teams with more women are more successful: https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2015/01/the-sec...
I will take this story as another reminder to be aware of situations where I might be dominating a conversation, and I hope you will too.
slightly off topic, but with the rise of ubiquitous audio/video and the interview/discussion/panel format, it is infuriating how many hosts just blatantly speak over their guests, over and over and over. it's one of the biggest tells between a professional interviewer and a rank amateur. i can barely make it through my weekly playlist without cringing at half the dialogue.
i completely stopped listening to charlie rose because of this. it's absolutely atrocious. it's not helpful, and makes me anxious when i'm trying to unwind. some guests simply continue speaking, and the entire discussion devolves into little more than a god damn shouting match.
sexism or not, i hope this public assassination at least makes one loudmouth blowhard reconsider his default modus operandi. just let your guests speak! for fuck's sake, it's not that hard.
He also kisses up like mad to a few people (Tom Friedman? Yuck.) while stomping all over experts he doesn’t agree with, often because he doesn’t understand their point.
My favorite was when at some point maybe 15 years ago he was interviewing I think Bill Joy, and asked one of his long multi-sentence leading questions. To which the response was ... pause ... “well, duh.”
* * *
Thankfully Terry Gross single-handedly makes up for all the bad interviewers in the world.
I wish they'd give that position to Alec Baldwin. His work on "Here's the Thing" has proven him to be an adept interlocutor. While he also has a tendency to talk over his guests it's usually to help enlighten or at least to say something funny.
He may not be aware that he is a relative amateur here.
men get talked over as well
some people just talk over other people
nothing new
Men are 3x as likely to interrupt women. Women will interrupt women, but rarely men.
Informal study, but decent sample size.
/sarcasm
But "if men are 3x as likely to interrupt women" is literally an example of sexism... the likelihood of interrupting a woman over interrupting a man.
Sexism IS a biological tendency. There is no rational basis for it when scientists are contributing to something as esoteric as string theory. This story overwhelmingly demonstrates how absurd sexism can get.
In any case it is perfectly acceptable to shame someone when they are being rude and excluding someone one from contributing. Especially when that someone is an expert.
The reason why I think she did not take any affront is because she already understands the subject matter. She's motivated not only in understanding herself, but in determining and helping others to comprehend. She can't actually engage in a proper discussion until she realizes that her counterpart also understands the material. When things get complicated, you have to continually establish a common basis for discussion which requires fostering patience.
no. because men don't interrupt women 3x as likely but it's sexism to assume they do just because you believe it's true
not at all
sexism is behaviour
sexism is believing that women cannot do something because women are inferior by design, not thinking that they are generally weaker (biologically true) and it's probably best if it's the man who carries the heavier luggage
I'd put the emphasis on the outcome: women being able to express their opinions and contribute to the conversation / problem. Being interrupted (while speaking less in the first place) seems counterproductive to that end.
Is there a better solution? I'm being serious.
(At the very least, we don't need to accuse men of being sexist if is proven to be a biological tendency—we should call a spade a spade)
The equal outcome is men and women both being given equal and fair opportunities to express their viewpoints.
If this isn't the case because {reason}, then to me that's justification enough to attempt to redress the issue through modified behavior.
Maybe you think otherwise. Why would you say this incident is a "painfully frustrating reminder that women get talked over by men"? Surely you can't construe this incident to mean that when all panellists alike suffered the same treatment? What's your take?
EDIT: Found it at the bottom...
For anyone interested, the link is here.
http://www.worldsciencefestival.com/programs/big-universe-bi...
edit: The moment happens at roughly 1 hour 7 minutes in.
Also, in case someone does a Ctrl+F for "timestamp", there you go.
[1] http://www.worldsciencefestival.com/programs/big-universe-bi...
Honest question: Did you watch the rest of the video?
I did and completely disagree with your assessment.
There's an objective answer and opinions don't really count here.
Also, the panelist herself wrote that she thought it funny that the guy was asking and answering a question at the same time; she didn't feel she was targeted or silenced during the event.
This guy just likes to dominate conversations and lacks self/social awareness. I bet he's like that all the time. Does he do it more to the woman in the video? Yeah, you might have a good argument that he does. But I've met plenty of these people in management-level meetings and they do it to everybody; it's soooo annoying. Very hard to assert yourself without making things awkward. Impossible to assert yourself when it's a woman who's overriding everyone else.
The solution is usually to appoint a meeting moderator that everyone knows to be fair beforehand (obviously, this isn't always viable), but we found it shortened up our medical practice meetings quite a bit. The guy who likes to hear himself talk still goes overboard from time to time, but we have a third-party moderator who can cut him off without worrying about upsetting a supervisor.
In fact what YOU wrote is actually sexist, since it suggests that the corrective action would be to act differently toward her, but not the men. Perhaps you might merely argue that he should not behave that way to anyone simply because of the disproportionate impact. But even if that's the case, you are still saying that women are incapable of speaking up for themselves the way the men did to gain their voice back from the moderator. How is either of those scenarios not sexist on your part?
No, the effects of deliberate, targeted differences in socialization by gender aren't the fault of the people experiencing adverse impacts because of the intersection of those with social structures that respond better to people socialized in the manner which is targeted at the other gender.
> In fact what YOU wrote is actually sexist, since it suggests that the corrective action would be to act differently toward her, but not the men.
It's not sexist to recognize that the consequences of past sexism may require corrective action that is sensitive to the gender-differentiated effects of that past sexism.
I've heard this argument before - that women are deliberately socialized to be subordinate.
Personally, I believe in the strength & agency of women.
>It's not sexist to recognize that the consequences of past sexism may require corrective action that is sensitive to the gender-differentiated effects of that past sexism.
I don't understand how using a persons gender for gauging ability to cope with forceful men isn't sexist.
That's because it's a fairly well established fact.
> Personally, I believe in the strength & agency of women.
Yeah, so do I. That doesn't negate the effects of differential socialization; objective external circumstances have real impacts.
* For women to have strength & agency
* For external circumstances & socialization to have impacts on individuals
But what I don't understand is how you can maintain simultaneously that women are strong & have agency, but must receive corrective action sensitive to gender-differentiated effects.
Are the strong women you're thinking of incapable of overcoming societal pressures without gender sensitive treatment?
Apples and oranges, though.
Physical violence, threats, and calls to action must not be equated to expression. The urgency & rigor needed to address violence would be inappropriate applied to expression.
As an aside: it's not always possible to take action to defend yourself, but this does not necessarily mean that passive or defensive actions are all that you have.
> Are the strong women you're thinking of incapable of overcoming societal pressures without gender sensitive treatment?
Strength and agency are relative, and different in principle and in fact. All women (and men) are theoretically capable of asserting themselves even against an expressive bully (which is what I think you mean when you say " I believe in the strength & agency of women"; in practice many are not for a variety of circumstantial reasons--bad day, bad upbringing, cultural background, misinformation, fear, insecurity.
Whether men (especially conference organizers and panel moderators) should do something differently in light of received knowledge about sexist patterns of socialization, there's no contradiction with believing in the agency of women. Affirmative action might be problematic at the legislative level, but strongly indicated at the social level.
In other words, Jim Holt could be conscious of the fact that sexism against women in science is a real and ongoing problem, and make a point of being deferential to female speakers; at the very least, he could avoid actively preventing them from speaking more than he was preventing the men. The first would be a positive good; the latter a basic expectation. Neither is an infringement on Holt's expression, nor is a social backlash against Holt for failing to meet even the basic expectation of civility.
A society righting wrongs proactively will never run out of wrongs to right.
Yes! That's the entire point I am trying to make. You just said it in far less words.
"It's not sexist to recognize that the consequences of past sexism may require corrective action that is sensitive to the gender-differentiated effects of that past sexism."
True, but if the corrective action is treating women differently, then yeah, that's sexist. You can't say this guy is being sexist because he acted differently toward her and then say that we need to treat women differently than men to correct past sexism, but that different treatment is somehow not sexist.
And the commenter said - "women often have difficulty interrupting in the way that the men here did"
At minimum, that fits at least the stereotyping requirement of the definition.
I'll strengthen my position this way instead. Let's assume the definition is garbage and ignore it. Are stereotyping examples things that fall into the category of sexism? I think they absolutely are. And I think most people would agree.
"Women aren't as good as men at [whatever]" - sexist? Yep "Women often have difficulty interrupting in the way that the men here did" - sexist? Sure sounds like it to me.
I can't say whether either of your statements are substantially sexist because they only have real meaning once you get at what underlies each one. "Women aren't as good at men at critical thinking because they're genetically programmed for motherhood while men are programmed for leadership" seems very sexist because it's talking about essential traits of men and women. "Women aren't as good at interrupting as men are because they're socialized to be deferential while men are socialized to dominate" seems not sexist because it's describing an accident of history that could as easily be the other way.
Saying "women should just act like men" is actually pretty sexist.
No - the "correct" response is to avoid talking over everyone. Helps everyone, overall helps women (as a group) a little bit more.
> But even if that's the case, you are still saying that women are incapable of speaking up for themselves the way the men did to gain their voice back from the moderator.
Nope, I'm saying that there's a sort of cultural training against interrupting people, and women are more severely affected by that cultural training since it ties in with a lot of "be nice/the good girl" pressure that women get while men are pressured to be more competitive. What I'm specifically not saying is that this is something inherent in being female - it's a cultural issue, not a female one.
Or, in other words - it's easier for men to interrupt people because it's the norm for men to interrupt people and so they have practice at it. It's harder for women to interrupt people because it's not the norm for women to interrupt people and so they have less practice at it. Doing something you don't normally do is hard, even if you have the knowledge on how to, and it's especially hard when you know you're going against the norm to do it.
I'm sure most people go against the norm sometimes - but we should really be creating social environments in which people don't have to go against the norm to get the same result as their peers.
That is, I will pause while speaking, spooling my next thought out to the phonological loop, to review and filter it, before streaming it out through the voice apparatus, but then some jackass will use that break to assume conversational priority when I haven't yielded it yet. So when I resume speaking, they are already talking.
It is practically impossible for me to engage in a conversation with such a person constantly ruining it for me, so I usually just keep my thoughts to myself and regret even showing up for the party.
Even my spouse does this in a 1-on-1 conversation. And then I am the one accused of interrupting, as though it is acceptable to jump in between two sentences of a paragraph. It's like I need that stupid conch shell from Lord of the Flies in order to say everything that I want to say. And I get so irritated when people spew out a stream of content-free babble, for the sole purpose of maintaining priority, to the point where I forget what I have been wanting to say for the last 5 minutes.
It might be a sexist thing, but I think it's more likely that the people with the least latency between brain and larynx--and therefore the fewest speech filters--are the ones that never learned that conversational priority isn't just about refraining from talking while sound is still coming out of someone else's mouth. And, of course, there are also the people who simply decide they are the most important person in a conversation and act like they're the lead actor giving a monologue, and everyone else is the chorus.
So please, have a care as to whether a silence in the conversation is a pause or a yield. You may be interrupting someone giving due consideration to what they will say next.
I find myself interrupting my children a lot more than I like (and while it often feels like it's because they're interrupting me as well, I'm certain that's usually not true). Having a stuffed animal or similar "conch" talisman might help us actually listen, because each of us could point out who has the conch.
Furthermore, I have never seen any american interviewer not interrupting their subjects.
This is my bias, so I never see sexism nor racism in this context. I only see idiots who think more of themselves than they should.
In this particular case and in regards to sexism, however, the voice that should be listened to most, in my opinion, is the voice of the subject. If we don't consider her voice the most important voice we put her in the subaltern and that is the worst position you can have. The subaltern being women in the context of patriarchal history.
The person who said 'Let her speak please.', should also be heard, regardless of her motives. The interviewers should shut up and let their subjects speak at all times, so we need more of this social courage.
I would find it very odd to save a string of questions until the end.
It's much more fun to engage in the conversation actively.
I'm not saying control the conversation. Good conversationalists listen more than they speak.
But having fun in a conversation is engaging in it. Not replying paragraph after paragraph, in my opinion.
In the context of interviewer<-->interviewee, though, I think it is generally more interesting to listen to the interviewee than the interviewer. It seems to me that the whole premise of the interviewer<-->interviewee is for the interviewer to get the interviewee to talk.
An interviewer’s job is to let the interviewee speak to the audience, even though the audience doesn’t get to directly ask questions.
In general nobody cares what the interviewer thinks, and we don’t want to hear them blab about themselves.
(This makes many “podcasts” unlistenable.)
If you want to get the most out of those conversations, you need to meet the other person halfway: be more assertive about your time to speak, while also letting them know that they’re trampling you and need to back off a bit. If you don’t tell them they’ll just think you’re a shy person with nothing to say.
Other cultural differences cause similar problems. If someone I don’t know is mad at me and just silently stews with a vaguely grumpy neutral expression on their face, I’m not going to have any idea they’re mad, because in my culture we just come out and tell people what we’re thinking. By contrast I know people who are deeply humiliated by (what seems to me like) light criticism, because it is huge faux pas and therefore never happened in their culture. Similarly, I know people who simply don’t understand the concept of teasing, at all, and others who are almost cruelly biting in their teasing: when those two collide it’s not pretty.
Or if I’m listening while someone tells one thing to one person, and something contradictory to someone else, I will consider them to be dishonest/untrustworthy and start discounting everything they say. But in some cultures, it’s normal and expected to say what you think the listener wants to hear, and listeners just have to learn to read between the lines and interpret subtle distinctions in presentation style.
Etc.
Good conversationalists will match each other's way of speaking and come to some common ground. It usually happens really quickly.
So you'll know when someone is done, or you'll be able to interject ideas into what they're saying.
It isn't rude, in my opinion, to interrupt someone in this way.
"So, I saw the craziest thing the other day when I was driving by the coffee shop..." "The one on main?" "Yes, that one!"
Etc...
It's called a conversation. It'd be really weird to save your questions until the end in a setting like that.
That said, let people speak. Listening is more important than talking.
I mean, yeah there's no denying that there exist pushy jerks who are jerks to everyone but guess what? those kinds are more likely to be even greater jerks with women. So either this guy was a regular jerk talking over her because she was a woman or being that special kind of jerk who normally talks over some men but talks over most women. Why is there an difference of opinion about this?
Does anyone really think there is a breed of jerks who talk over some/most men but will never do that/will do less of that to a woman?
What makes you think there aren't women who also like to claim the center of attention, regardless of other men OR women around them?
I don't understand this need to idolize one sex over the other, when the issue is that some people (like this moderator) are just more tone deaf or inconsiderate than others.
Equality between sexes implies treating everyone as a human rather than assuming that this moderator is a stand-in for men in general.
So are you claiming that those sort of jerks are not going to be extra nasty to women that will tolerate it? That they are going to be equally nasty to people of both sexes? If that's what you're claiming, I'll humbly disagree but won't engage any further.
> What makes you think there aren't women who also like to claim the center of attention, regardless of other men OR women around them?
I never claimed that there aren't such women. Indeed there exist women who behave worse with other women than they do with men. But then what's your point? Women being sexist doesn't make it okay for men to continue to be so now, does it?
That is also my observation. We are just vastly more sensitive to aggressive/jerk behavior against women ("protect the women"), and this is highly emotionally charged for most people.
For a rough intro into the phenomenon, check out the youtube videos comparing bystander reactions to the exact same behavior in a woman -> man vs. a man -> woman setting.
That's actually a desirable quality. It means that you are not emotionally attached to your theories (you shouldn't be, it's science not religion) and are willing to contradict them. Still, most people would think that a bad thing.
When measurements are taken, there is a clear pattern:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/womensmedia/2017/01/03/gal-inte...
https://hbr.org/2017/04/female-supreme-court-justices-are-in...
http://nytlive.nytimes.com/womenintheworld/2015/03/19/google...
(If you look in the articles, they quote studies with 20 participants. At university I would have been destroyed when making fundamental claims on a sample size of 20).
And yes my gut feeling tells me women get interrupted more often. And from this comment you may assume I'm guilty of this, though my bad social habits probably interrupt men as often.
[1] the magazine of business anecdotes.
Another one from 1989 with 186 participants: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/250069045_Interrupt...
The other one only say that "both men and women exhibiting higher levels of interruption behavior in male-dominated groups".
Citations is only as good as the ability it provide to verify a claim. Those do not do that as far as summery goes.
The second study directly addresses this discussion: "The odds of a male attempting to interrupt another male (.078) are less than one-half the odds of a male attempting to interrupt a female (.163). Females attempt to interrupt male and female speakers at essentially identical levels (odds of .146 and .141 respectively). In other words, men discriminate in their interruption attempts, interrupting women much more often than men. Women, on the other hand, do not discriminate; they attempt to interrupt men and women equally. Group composition does not appear to influence interruption attempts."
That changes the tone of the issue. A 0.0195 difference from the norm is tiny on the negative discrimination of men interrupting women if we compare it to the norm difference of 0.0655 as positive discrimination for men interrupting men. As a social issue of 13.6% negative discrimination vs 45.7% positive discrimination, its a good time to ask what we want to fix. Is it the negative 13.6%, which mean we want men to interrupt women at the same rate as women interrupt women, or do we want men to treat other men worse by interrupting men as much as women do?
It also raises questions about moderators. Should we favor male moderators over female ones because they will in average interrupt 20% less (.241 vs .287) for a panel of 50% women and 50% men? The original post had a panel of 80% men and 50% men, which given the above numbers would have a male moderator interrupt a panelist at the rate of 0.095 while a female moderator would have interrupted a panelist with the rate of 0.145. A female moderator would be 52% worse than a male moderator in this specific case.
Ironically, the guy's "fuzzy memories" are more accurate than your "research-based" opinions.
I'll buy that. If this disproportionately affects women then I'll buy that too. I don't buy that men interrupt women specifically out of some sort of bias. My experience has been that the more passionate conversationalists among us will interrupt anyone who will let them.
a nice way of saying workplace bullies.
But hey, I mostly rein it in :)
That being said, it seems to me that the broader implication of your position is that when men and women participate in group dialogue the meta-game of the dialogue often leans in favor of the male speakers. I'd need to do more research to prove this but in general, if this was your position, I'd be inclined to agree with it based on my own anecdotal experiences. However, this still doesn't establish the hostile intention or implicit sexism that, from my reading of your posts, is presented in your claims.
You were right in your initial assertion: people talk over people. The people desperately trying to prove that "men talk over women" using statistical analysis are all missing the point.
The first thing to do, before looking for sex differences, is to try and identify the reasons why people interrupt, because there are many of them and sometimes there are conflicting or related motives.
Gathering anecdotal evidence would be a starting point for articulating hypotheses. What are the conditions of the discussion? What is at stake? What is the expertise of the participants? What are the personality factors? What is the general conversational ability of each participant? How long is the attention span of each participant? What is the apparent purpose of each individual interruption?
There are so many factors you could look for before looking at sex differences. And would the sex differences persist when those factors were controlled for?
So even if you can prove there is a pattern, it doesn't invalidate his statement that "it's generally sexless"
I would postulate that academia and journalism are still pretty sexist compared to the 'tens of businesses' you observed.
Potentially in support of your perspective: I see the overspeaking roles inverted in the context of reality TV shows, though that could potentially be seen as a counter-action to normal social roles which develops as structure of society is removed... which would imply the sexist paradigm is the prevalent one.
Two industries I have not had the pleasure of engaging with. My coaching experience has been around healthcare, insurance, banking, transportation, energy, construction, software, audit, and a few other random things.
Having read the piece, it is by a woman who spoke up and said "Let her speak, please" and that's fine. But I have mixed feelings about the title of this piece and how it looks before you read it, because white knighting is a big problem for women. Men coming to the rescue of some damsel in distress and championing her often just deepens the problem. It often simply reinforces the idea that the only role women are allowed to play is that of victim and any justice that happens will be credited to some heroic guy. It often gets done in a way that in no way empowers her. It is frequently just some guy coming in, playing hero and getting pats on the back and when he goes off stage, her situation remains just as crappy and disempowered as before.
I am a woman and I personally don't have any problem with giving the guys push back and that gets me perceived as incredibly confrontational and fighty. At one time, my account on HN was rate limited. My feeling on that is that simply standing up for myself as a woman who often gets a lot of pushback merely for being a demographic outlier was being punished. That winds up a no win situation for women. If you don't stand up for yourself, you get walked on. If you do, you can be actively punished for it.
To be fair, the current mod team on HN has been great. I am sure they often find me cringe-worthy, but they have made me feel much more like I can report people who are really engaging in bad behavior towards me that is beyond the pale and much more like I can stand my ground without fear that doing so is highly likely to get me banned, no matter how reasonable I am about it.
Hacker News has generally been great about putting up with my outrageous agenda* to open my mouth here and engage in conversation on equal footing with the guys. I am well aware that is a shocking expectation and is simply Not Done in so many spaces, both online and off. I want to thank everyone here for being so good about that.
* http://micheleincalifornia.blogspot.com/2016/11/my-agenda-fo...
Or women, in general, just don't want the bother.
> giving the guys push back
Excellent. Too many women don't, in my experience. In my personal experience, I find women not standing up for themselves in the situation at hand, and then complaining about it for ages after.
> highly likely to get me banned, no matter how reasonable I am about it.
That seems unlikely. If you are getting banned, maybe you're not being reasonable about it?
> If you do, you can be actively punished for it.
This is not a women-only issue. Men get "punished" just as much for unpopular opinions. Just like they get talked over if they let themselves be talked over. etc.
That complaining about it is pushing back. And you whine about it right now.
The "not standing up for themselves" is in the actual situation, against the actual person they need to stand up against.
The "complaining afterward" is after the situation has passed, and complaining to a completely different person not involved in the original interaction.
That is the exact opposite of "standing up for yourself", and it is also not "pushing back", because in order for it to be a push "back", it has to be a push against the original force, not against some random other person.
If I got berated by my boss, which I just let happen, and then reacted by, a while later, berating you, a completely uninvolved third party, would you consider that "standing up for myself" and "pushing back"?
It exactly means standing up, well, for yourself, and not relying on or waiting for others.
Stand up thing worked great in this story. I trust you that your relative could suceed in standing up instead of being treated as crazy bad women. A lot of it is residuum from old times when gender roles were different and some of both genders keep going old way.
Her existence does not excuse dudes who attempt to dominate women more them men. I did won those fights in the past, but the older I am the less I care about whether it was intentional or subconscious. It affects me all the same.
That is why stories like this are good to hear about - it is good role model for women lime your relative - to see that she can stop the dude, not to consider his interest and win.
Maybe you could show her the story to make her inspired for that.
It fundamentally includes "in the face of adversity". And that means that you do it well knowing that there can and likely will be negative consequences. If you only do it under a guarantee of no repercussions, then you're not standing up...for anything, really.
If women have to learn to stand up for themselves as you imply they should, they need to find a way to hurt people who treat them the way they don't like.
This stereotype doesn't come from nowhere.
I found a video of this talk: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Er7qPv8jsZo
This "push to Hubeny's field of expertise" seems to start at 1:02:00, "let her speak" is at 1:05:35.
The OP's account is overdramatized and sometimes plain wrong, like the suggestion that Holt didn't let Hubeny speak at all for these three minutes (she had two long blocks) or that there was a dead silence after the OP spoke up (there wasn't). And that's a part of the problem: feminism is routinely being represented by individuals whose subjective perception of events seems to diverge from what others see. FWIW.
Yeah, that must be why blacks got lynched in the Deep South. They just couldn't be bothered to stand up for themselves when the KKK came for them.
/s
This comparison is ridiculous beyond the pale. Show me evidence of women getting lynched for speaking up.
I already said above that I was rate limited. I believe this was essentially because when I first joined, I would get dog piled simply for being a woman opening her mouth here. You ignore that and accuse me of misbehaving as the reason I was concerned that I might wind up banned, no matter how hard I tried to behave. Thankfully, I no longer worry about that like I once did.
Leaders, make an effort to listen and clear the air for others to speak up. Don't beat them up if they don't articulate brilliantly right away -- it takes practice. You'll be surprised at the rate of improvement.
For individuals, I use this trick when people cut me off AND it's unjustified: saying "hang on, let me finish" and then driving my point aggressively. It has mostly worked though I am male.
You can be upset about it and say that people were unfair, or you can make yourself a better person by learning from others mistakes.
The world would be a better place if people put less energy into being upset, and more energy into mutual empathy between sexes.
Anyway I want to share something, made this throwaway account specifically for this. I'm the only female at my company, and a developer to boot. I'm assertive in general, I make sure I'm heard. In fact, I try to be hyper-aware of how much I'm talking in a meeting setting, just to be respectful of others. I also feel that I am virtually unaware of my gender at work. I've been lucky in that respect -- trust me, sexism in the world and sexism in STEM is real, and it's not always easy being a female -- but I'm in agreeance with the author that intent matters, and generally that assumed sexist intent can get a bit dramatic. Whether my personality affects my perception, I can't say.
I work with a lot of very introverted and quiet males -- and a small handful of overpowering, extraverted males. I've found myself doing this exact thing quite often. Weekly even. "Let's let him finish his point", "I'm interested in hearing more from {quiet_guy}", "{quiet_guy}, is {contribution_of_loud_guy} what you meant by that?", et cetera.
I would like to believe that if the panel person was a male, it would have elicited the same building irritation from the audience. Although, I'm less sure that someone would have spoken up. I think someone would have needed to feel personally antagonized in order to speak up, which is exactly what happened here.
Bit of a ramble, sorry. My bottom line is that we should all be looking out for those who speak up less, if we sense that those people are being out-talked. My feeling is that people in that category might be more female than not... but I'm also saying that it doesn't matter either way.
Obviously sexism of outcome can be just as important to combat as sexism of intent, so of course I have to break the habit talking over people with my loud and opinionated speech.
You are showing good leadership to your mild-mannered coworkers and also the ones who are better ad speaking than listening, both the women and the men.
This makes me think of a complain I saw years ago from a woman about how she was treated on a mailing list. Apparently someone got aggressive with her and one of the things she complained about is that no one stepped in to defend her.
My response to that was along the lines of "they probably expected you to defend yourself".
Your comment reminded me of that, and even then I thought the same thing. Many women are used to getting defended, but men generally aren't and have learned to defend themselves.
So I think you're right that it would've been less likely for someone to defend the panelist if said panelist had been male and for much the same reason. You would expect the male to defend themselves.
...
> Please understand that I’m not trying to say that sexism in science is a myth. It is real and we should all aspire to diminish it. But I am trying to say that it need not pose as much of an impediment as you might fear and that you might be in more control over its influence yourself than you might think. Just as you put up with long lines to see a great show, or with sore feet or mosquitos to have a great hike etc., the annoyance of otherwise abominable behavior diminishes in the larger perspective of doing something you really enjoy.
https://web.facebook.com/marilee.talkington/posts/1015505138...
I don't have a sexist bone in my body and I've caught myself doing this. The only way we improve as a society is to continuously monitor and correct each other because this stuff is laid so deep in our cultural consciousness that catching ourselves every time by ourselves is not reasonable to expect.
The only way to improve society is to recognize when things are really done with ill intent and when they're the result of:
geeking out + bad social skillsWe can't ever know for certain if it was sexism. I'm not saying take the guy out and shoot him. I'm not even saying do the thing we normally do and try and humiliate him in a public space. I'm saying: This is evidence of the accepted cultural norms in a society that I don't think anyone would disagree was largely designed by and is largely ruled over by men, and there are consequences to that.
I strongly disagree. We need to fix issues no matter if they had been done because of ignorance or because of ill intent.
The measures and consequences should be different, but naming and fixing the issue should be independent from that.
"Bad social skills" is a common excuse, but in the end, it's just another word for ignorance. Learning a few social rules is like learning design patterns, and learning not to be sexist or racist is like learning about anti-patterns. It is not harder than coding! If anything, learning social basics is easier than programming.
But if you don't care, you won't learn it. Which you may choose to, but then, it's ignorance, not inability.
You should especially take care of that if you have any major position in a larger group, not matter if it is a company department, an open-source project or a user-group.
If nobody cares visibly about social behaviour, that group is either doomed and won't achieve anything in the long run. Or it reduces a very low number of active participants - usually just one.
More general, regarding subjectivity: Although the individual members of a group or society have different subjective standards, they can still find some common ground on what behaviour they accept or don't accept. You'll find such emerging consent not just in informal rules about social behaviour, but also in formal rules which we call "laws".
I was just talking about making cultural progress. All I said is that informal rules are established (almost by definition) by reacting to those who break them. Doing so reduces the chances that these are broken again, which is just another way of saying that these informal rules are established. And if a good climate within a group is important to you (in a leading position it usually is), then you need to be part of establishing those. Otherwise you risk that your group becomes a hostile place.
The strategy I described does work, and is generally recommended, so I'm not sure what you are arguing against.
I've seen it working in various groups. If shitty behaviour is criticized as such, people become more aware and more careful. As long as the criticism itself is in an appropriate place and reflects the group's values, this is a very healthy thing to do. If the criticized person refuses to adjust their behaviour, they usually leave the group on their own, which is also healthy. In the worst case there's to way but to throw them out, but that is surprisingly seldom. Either way, these people either have to find a group that is okay with their behaviour (good luck!), or they need to change their behaviour in order to engage in groups.
"It may be uncomfortable, but it's the only way to make cultural progress."
And you've really only explained what tacit rules are and how they're enforced, but we knew that already so bully, I guess? The guy talked over her because he was excited and therefore not thinking about the consequences.
Chairing a panel of professionals isn't about you getting to talk to them, it's about showcasing their positions for the audience. "Aw, he just got excited" is not an excuse in this context.
* He was geeking out. True.
* There was no ill intent. True.
* He wasn't sexist. False.
He could geek out all he wanted, but speaking for her multiple times over her trying to get a foot in was very sexist, regardless of intent. I hold the door for guys all the time, but if you're only doing it for "feeble girls" it is telling. This was the case in this panel. She's there because she knows her shit, let her explain it.
> The only way to improve society is to recognize when things are really done with ill intent and when they're the result of: > geeking out + bad social skills
No, the only way to improve society (equality wise) is to recognize when you're treating someone differently (condescendingly) only when they're one gender, however well meaning YOU think it is.
Do you think it's annoying if your parent treats you like you're 10 when you're 35, even when you know they love you and they don't mean it? It's exactly like that, but it's a large portion of the population.
What specifically makes you think he rambled because she was a woman?
Sure, me too, and they're generally consistent in that between genders. This guy isn't. And people like him are very common too.
> What specifically makes you think he rambled because she was a woman?
By watching the entire video and comparing him to his conduct with the other panelists interviewed. She also wasn't the only non-native speaker, so it's not that either.
What seems to be the case is that men are more likely to interrupt back, so on a population level this does tend to squeeze a higher percentage of women out - but it doesn't squeeze out the women who're happy to interrupt you back, and it does also squeeze out the quieter men, whose existence and contributions I've also become more aware of as a result.
So the mistake may not have been gendered on his part, and I'd suggest you think hard about whether you're engaging in benevolent sexism by believing only women can be quieter and more in danger of interrupted.
(note that given your other comment down-thread, it may be he's more likely to interrupt women - but it also may be that men are more likely to interrupt him back - if your watching of the video strongly suggests the former then fair enough, but my point here is "all quieter people gain from us learning to talk over people less" and I think that's worth remembering)
> So the mistake may not have been gendered on his part, and I'd suggest you think hard about whether you're engaging in benevolent sexism by believing only women can be quieter and more in danger of interrupted.
Aren't these contradictory if you're first saying that women are less likely to interrupt back and then saying it might be in my head?
Either way, your overall point is sound, but she TRIED to interrupt him several time, whereas none of the other panelists had to even try. I'm always questioning myself, but I don't think I'm projecting that interpretation.
I do however agree that obviously quieter people will have less airtime than more extrovert people, regardless of gender.
I think the question is: Do we believe that this is inherent in gender (nature), nurtured in our culture (women's upbringing), or enforced by sexism after the fact (imposed by men as a result of culture/nurture)?
If your hinted statistics are true, then one statement above must be true, unless I excluded an option.
I don't, however, think it's contradictory to say that "women are less likely to interrupt back" does not automatically mean that the person interrupting them is therefore sexist, even though the results of the behaviour end up impacting a higher percentage of women than men - they may simply be oblivious to the consequences, even if from the sounds of it in this case that wasn't it.
In my opinion, ignoring hurtful behavior because we believe the intent wasn't meant to be hurtful will only encourage these behaviors in the long run. We also do a disservice to the perpetrator, if they are truly well meaning or absent of meaning then we're robbing them of an opportunity to improve.
OTOH, maybe you should man the fuck up and move on with your life. I know that seems blunt and assholeish, but that's sort of the point.
I've been offended plenty of times and talked myself down because I knew ultimately it was my emotions misinterpreting the intent.
There is nothing that says just offense can't be mistaken.
edit: watch someone call the phrase 'man the fuck up' sexist.
That being said, I'm not sure why you are getting downvoted but I've also found myself doing this accidentally and I've learned to moderate myself.
I don't think it is necessarily related to sexism directly, but I am used to talking to people (generally other men) who similarly assertive (not to say any of us are majorly assertive, just we're all at a similar level) and we understand each others speaking style and butt in (somewhat) at the appropriate spot to make a point.
When talking to someone who doesn't converse quite the same way (regardless of gender) it can be a problem. I've talked to people who won't just butt in when you are hogging the conversation and if you want to not have a 1 way conversation (ie, you are not an ass) you have to allow more space for the other person - its a basic courtesy and part of learning to have good conversations. My girlfriend has been helpful in self-identifying this situation because if I'm overly excited (coffee often being involved) she'll straight up tell me rather than putting up with it and I'll realize I was kind of rolling over her unintentionally.
I have no idea if this guy is sexist or not, it may be a subtle deep rooted kind or it may be he's a terrible conversationalist/host but despite the fact that this situation probably occurs more frequently from men to women but its definitely not limited to that.
I meant it more as an analogy than anything else. I've seen the "but what about X" argument being used a lot lately where X and Y are the same issue that affect different groups and both are deserving of attention but one is more (maybe much more) prevalent than the other. As a means to derail a discussion of Y someone says "but what about X?" so a discussion becomes so broad and general as to be totally meaningless.
In this situation, rather than being able to focus on an issue that many women face, you end up in a discussion about all of humanity and genders and personalities that will likely never address any issue at all. I have room in my head to be concerned with issues that affect different people and talking about them in the context of one group does not imply other groups do not matter but some people act as it does.
> I meant it more as an analogy than anything else.
I understand, and my post was a digression, but I felt it important because I was shocked when I learned the severity of the problem.
Jim Holt has now been branded from "Facebook" to "Teen Vogue" of being a de facto sexist as a result of Talkington's opinion.
Talkington is an actor, director and women's rights activist which are notable pursuits.[…]
We shouldn't try to root out all sexism, because that is the same as rooting out sexuality itself. Instead we should focus on rooting out harmful sexism. But then maybe I have that opinion because I'm a man and by definition sexist, so whatever.
I've often heard complaints, by women, that this inequality is sexist, patronizing and, essentially (though usually the complaint comes from people who wouldn't use the term) a micro-aggression sending the message that women are regarded as less capable of taking care of themselves.
Now, these complaints usually aren't the complainants' biggest complaint about sexist behavior, but you may be confusing the fact that their are far bigger problems that drown out these complaints with these not actually being problems for women.
> We shouldn't try to root out all sexism, because that is the same as rooting out sexuality itself.
Sexism is not necessary for sexuality, even if it is deeply incorporated in some social norms surrounding sexuality.
You don't need a sexist intent to behave sexist. Being ignorant to this issue doesn't make it much better. And calling the person from the audience "heckling" just because she made him aware of this issue is a very clear sign of ignorance.
At least he changed his behaviour nevertheless, although I'd attribute this more to the reaction of the rest of the audience.
But that cuts both ways, and it's possible to be unfair in the other direction. If someone comes to me and says "I think what you did was sexist," it would be fair and polite of me to assume they meant "unconsciously sexist." If I want to ask for reassurance about that, sure that's fine, but not fair for me to put words in their mouth like "HOW DARE YOU CALL ME A CONSCIOUS SEXIST?!" when I know that both meanings exist.
So yeah, sorry for the long reply, but here's why your comment made me think of it: Saying "that wasn't sexist; so-and-so is actually less assertive" kind of assumes that we're talking about conscious sexism. If we're talking about unconscious sexism instead (the charitable assumption here), that difference-in-perceived-assertiveness might be precisely the problem that we're worried about. This is kind of a nitpicky distinction, except that accusing someone of accusing you of conscious sexism, can be kinda sorta flirting with bad faith?
The idea that less assertive implies female is sexist.
The person you're responding to could have simply meant the other participants refused to let the moderator walk over them like that, which has nothing to do with sex and everything to do with behavior.
I think that's precisely what they meant. There are a lot of dimensions here:
- The other participants might've behaved differently than Prof. Hubeny, in a way that got them treated differently.
- The moderator might've had different expectations about how different people on the panel would behave, or how they might want him to behave, prior to anyone's actual behavior.
- Any difference in expectations might or might not have anything to do with sex.
- Someone posted Prof. Hubeny's response elsewhere in this thread, and it sounds like her experience was pretty different from the audience's experience. Which is fine; one event can mean different things to different people.
So there's room for lots of different true, sincere points to be made out of a single story.
Veronika Hubeny: I applaud your heroism in standing up for what you believe in! I know well the shaky feeling and subsequent exhilarated and heartwarmed contentment in the knowledge of having done the right thing, and I think that doing so has become more crucial than ever. Your behavior was inspiring and I’m glad that many of those inspired shared their gratitude with you.
I guess that, being the subject of the incident, it might be worthwhile to offer my perspective, which to my surprise is rather more atypical than I had hitherto realized, but which I hope might perhaps provide some encouragement to all those who feel put off by the present situation — especially to those who feel drawn to science yet dissuaded from following their hearts’ calling. (For posterity I also feel compelled to correct a point about the physics — as a physicist I can’t help myself wink emoticon;-) — but since I realize that that was entirely beside the point of the post, I’ll only do so at the very end…)
You may be amazed to hear it, but during this panel session I genuinely did not feel affronted or discriminated by the moderator’s behavior. It seemed more amusing to see him try posing a question in a way that at the same time tried answering it. It’s true that this made the question a bit of a moving target for me (and therefore harder to address coherently), but I don’t a-priori assume that the incident was rooted in sexism. Maybe I’m too naive, but I simply gave him the benefit of doubt that he was so excited by the newly-learned idea of the duality that he couldn’t resist, and that the same might have occurred had the panelist been a male instead of me. So it didn’t bother me.
In fact, even though in my entire academic career I was in an environment where women were in striking minority (and as a student often the only woman in the class), I never felt discriminated against or thwarted in my calling. The feeling was rather one of camaraderie: the challenges to unravel the deepest mysteries of the universe, the thrill in understanding another tiny bit of this grand puzzle, and the sheer wonder at how beautifully the physics hangs together, put us all in the same boat, so to speak. In retrospect I think I was fortunate in being amongst like-minded physicists who were not only great but gracious and earnest in their love of science. But when I eventually did start coming across others who were not of the same caliber, they somehow seemed insignificant.
I had early on decided that I like physics so much that I’d be quite willing to give up quite a bit of other comforts for it, but perhaps having made that decision and bracing oneself, then made the actual “discomforts” not only more bearable, but genuinely less discomforting. I think the subjective severity of a lot of these issues can be greatly influenced by one’s mindset, one’s psychology. If you allow yourself to enjoy the beautiful things that really matter, if you don’t let social or peer pressure dissuade you from pursuing a field which appeals to you, then no pettiness or childishness or boorishness that you encounter can harm you so much.
Please understand that I’m not trying to say that sexism in science is a myth. It is real and we should all aspire to diminish it. But I am trying to say that it need not pose as much of an impediment as you might fear and that you might be in more control over its influence yourself than you might think. Just as you put up with long lines to see a great show, or with sore feet or mosquitos to have a great hike etc., the annoyance of otherwise abominable behavior diminishes in the larger perspective of doing something you really enjoy.
OK, so now to the physics (sorry): First, what you refer to as the “two theories of string theory that seem to contradict one another” are actually two ‘dual’ descriptions of the same physics, which while curiously different in rather amazing ways, are completely consistent with each other (one using the language of string theory, the other of a field theory). Second, I cannot take credit for inventing this holographic (so-called AdS/CFT) correspondence — I have worked on understanding how it works at a deeper level, but the AdS/CFT was originated by Juan Maldacena in 1997.
Once again, let me stress my appreciation, Marilee, of how you bravely stood up for your principles and values! Well done!
This has been my experience working alongside women in software engineering - the ones who pay attention to how they might be treated differently leave.
It's also one of the hardest things about being black in tech - you must ignore many possible slights and assume that nobody is purposefully racist. You must construct alternative narratives to explain things that you see day in and day out, otherwise it's easy to get swallowed by doubt and lose your ability to contribute effectively. I call it assuming positive intent. It's how you survive.
If that's the cause of her attitude, the point about survivorship bias is still valid... but the reasons for survival are different. The luck of having a good work environment (unusual, some would say) caused the good experience and allowed her to stay in the field with a good attitude.
Edit: I'm not claiming it was definitely the way I say in this particular case, versus the way you said. I'm just saying both possibilities should be considered. Also we should acknowledge that sexism does exist, apart from perceptions of sexism, which admittedly can sometimes be wrong.
and if you wear glasses that block out sexism, don't be surprised if nothing looks like sexism.
The only way I see is to have an objective definition, which can be objectively applied no matter which glasses I wear. What would that definition of sexism be?
It would be much healthier culturally if we take into full consideration the meaning and intent of the accused, as well as the feelings of the apparent victim. Which I feel like the OP's comment highlights.
For ex, the moderator could have been oblivious to the fact she hadn't spoken much, as the only woman there, and when he asked the question he may indeed have been so excited that he spoke for her. The kind of people who get moderator jobs at big events like this are the extrovert types. The ones who talk before listening... so I don't think that is entirely unrealistic here.
An extrovert too busy looking for a chance to talk himself, instead of being sensitive to the amount others have spoken? This just as likely as him believing he could do a better job at explaining the subject, merely because she was a woman.
So if we look at the objective facts: that a lone woman on a panel wasn't allowed to speak, even when her expert subject was brought up, would seem like the moderator was sexist. But digging into the context it's possible there was far more to it and this is often lost in the shades of grey when you only view it from a single perspective.
Nonetheless, I do agree there are pitfalls and dangers in attempting to always distill nuance and shades of gray into stark, problematized blacks and whites. Sexism, like racism, definitely exists—it is woven into the cultural fabric and narratives that compose American society and consciousness. However, we are long past the overt institutionalization of these isms, which leaves recognizing it a regrettable slog through subtler shades of gray that leave opportunities for vehement disagreement. Sometimes I think everyone would be happier if they lived several decades ago, when these isms were black and white, and found themselves standing in solidarity on their own bridges of Selma.
As an example in physics of a situation where multiple observers have to be reconciled, imagine a spaceship zipping along at some fraction of c, observed by two observers, both of whom are moving some fraction of c relative to each other. Their observations of the length of the spaceship don't match up naively, but special relativity tells us how to reconcile their measurements: This allows us to consider their measurements as describing the same underlying phenomenon.
In this situation, one of the observers, A, can infer what B sees because B's measurements should only depend on properties of B that A can observe. So A can construct B's measurements by observing B, without B having to do anything. This is a very easy epistemological situation to deal with.
In a complex social situation, A can't take independent measurements and get the big picture. B needs to tell A about how they perceive the situation. Furthermore, B can't reasonably tell A everything all at once: Imagine if we had to spill all of our guts every time we wanted to reach a common understanding. Nothing would get done! So, reaching common social understanding needs to be a process, a dialogue between people.
Understanding phenomena like sexism involves communicating and interacting with each other in order to understand how we communicate and interact with each other. It's a much more complicated epistemological situation than observing an external object, like a spaceship. That's why I think you won't be able to get a satisfactory definition that you would consider objective, especially one that fits in a hacker news comment.
There isn't "subjective for some" - there is just differing, and mutually exclusive opinion - a situation in which one party must be wrong.
Why not state directly what you believe to be the case?
Just say "that isn't the case, and you only believe otherwise because you are not a victim", them defend that claim.
> I was not aware..
Not the case, just more sarcasm from you. Those who argue unproductively are silenced in some ways, btw, in the form of mod restrictions and bans. Most of us are able to communicate more effectively and agreeably without sarcasm, and care to do so - why waste peoples time otherwise?
> In domains of importance, like law, is is notably absent.
That's not particularly relevant...
> Most of us are able to communicate more effectively and agreeably without sarcasm
The poster who I was responding to was certainly not being agreeable by smugly suggesting that sexism is a "purely subjective" phenomenon. Victims would not find it "agreeable" to have to defend against absurity such as this.
> Those who argue unproductively are silenced in some ways,
In this case, if any mod looked at this thread, the first thing they'd see is: "zzzeek made a comment that people felt was inflammatory, it got -4 downmod". And the conclusion any reasonable mod would draw from that is, "the system worked! the end." If it ended there, I'd be fine with that as well - I posted something too strong for folks, it got downmodded, oh well. I have about 4000 karma to spend so this is certainly anomalous behavior for this poster, no further action to take.
However, for some reason you have the need to jump on top of this comment and continue to lecture and "correct" me on something, and quite frankly it's a bit disturbing. I don't actually need your guidance on why my comment got -4 points. If there is something about my comment that is so disturbing that it warrants prolonged argument and discussion, maybe it shouldn't have been downvoted, but as it was, continuing to browbeat on the poster is definitely a much greater productivity drain than a simple one line, inflammatory comment (in response to another that not everyone thought was so inflammatory) that was downvoted within seconds.
Has anyone claimed this? You are beating a strawman.
> if someone suggests that sexism is essentially in someones mind in a real life conversation, sarcasm would certainly be appropriate in response to a statement so thoughtless.
I disagree, it's your opinion that a comment is without merit, and you are constructively responding to it rather than engaging - this is not mere "sarcasm", it's sarcasm employed as a punishment for comments you dislike.
HN does discourage these kinds responses, whether implemented using sarcasm or otherwise, for being argumentative and unconstructive:
> if someone suggests that sexism is essentially in someones mind
If this is obviously incorrect, it should be easy to state why, rather than resorting to insults. The rules state "Be civil", there is no stated exception "unless you are replying to a post that is itself civil, or otherwise offends you". The rule "reply to the argument instead of calling names" is in the same spirit.
> continue to lecture and "correct" me on something
Your original post was not civil, something that is in the guidelines (and of which sarcasm is a form).
Why do I continue to "lecture" you? Because this reply continues to be uncivil, down-votes or no - plus you are apparently unrepentant (or at least unapologetic), and your thoughts on the matter imply you will continue to do so.
> I don't actually need your guidance on why my comment got -4 points
I don't know how many point it did, or will, have; nor take it into account. I don't believe it was grayed at the time I responded.
> That's not particularly relevant...
full context:
>> Sarcasm is an effective and appropriate communication tool
> In domains of importance, like law, is is notably absent
meaning, it means on what you are trying to achieve - if you are trying to effectively and unambiguously communicate, it is not effective.
> Has anyone claimed this? You are beating a strawman.
you did:
> Your original post was not civil, something that is in the guidelines (and of which sarcasm is a form).
> Why do I continue to "lecture" you? Because this reply continues to be uncivil, down-votes or no - plus you are apparently unrepentant (or at least unapologetic), and your thoughts on the matter imply you will continue to do so.
so you are trying to harass me into "repentance"? is this something you think is appropriate on hacker news ?
There is a framing issue here, and mental "highlighting" seems to be an entirely different kind of bias (wrt the actual mental mechanism) than "ignorance".
You're right about how one's desire to see something a specific way has a huge influence on what they actually think. However, that tends to be counter-productive both ways.
You might choose to ignore the problems because you have to succeed despite them. That's generally how immigrant Chinese people look at the bigotry directed towards them. As a side effect, the Chinese community has issues talking about what that bigotry actually is.
Alternately, you might choose to try to root out the subtle effects that make up the bulk of bigotry, like the feminist movement. So there's a lot of academic language around defining the nature of misogyny, but you get accused of seeing bigotry where there is none because it's heavily contextual.
We want to latch on to egregious moments as catalysts of change, but the real problem is the low level background noise where you have situation after situation where it's unclear how to interpret a specific event. Case in point, I've seen female friends dealing with situations where their mentor probably just hit on them, but it's deniable enough that you can't necessarily call it out. Depending on which glasses you're wearing, you can choose to see it however you want, but the problem is that every female colleague or friend I've talked to can recall instances of ambiguous unwelcome advances mixed into their professional interactions. There's a problem, and it's not just a matter of which glasses they're wearing.
It doesn't matter if people perceive extra sexism or block much of the sexism. It matters which strategy leads to less sexism in objective reality, not in perception.
Have you been living under a rock? There are more than enough examples.
Here's just a few examples documenting the sexism in science:
http://www.nature.com/news/gender-imbalance-in-science-journ... https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/speaking-of-science/wp/2...
This is like basic thinking skills 101 here.
Let's simplify.
Let's say you perceive two rocks, one real and one fake.
Just because the fake rock is not real, does not mean the real rock is not real.
You're right, perception shapes reality. But apart from perception shaping reality, there is also an underlying reality beyond perception. A real rock is real.
In the story from TFA, I don't know if the sexism was real or perceived.
There's a female engineer on my team. She started at roughly the same time as a male engineer. Similar levels of experience in the past. Both are quite good. But she's better, especially in several specialties. They sit near each other - and you have to walk past her to get to him. I see people day in and day out walk right past her to ask him about the things that she is a subject matter expert on, that he is not. People that don't have a real background with either of them, where it is widely know that she specializes in this specific thing. It's constant. I'm the most tenured engineer on the team, so people come to me frequently for things - I know it's because of my tenure. But she knows more than I do in these areas, so I refer people to her on the more in depth things. And a good portion of them then walk right past her, and instead ask the male engineer. She also constantly gets dinged by people for giving short and to the point answers - something that he and I do not have a problem with, despite having the same general style of answering questions.
Should she chalk this up to something else? Assume that all of these repeat occurrences are due to some other root cause? Her technical chops are not in question by anyone that actually works with the tech involved - she's undisputedly talented there and has been vital in cracking several major problems. Yet this keeps happening.
Should she ignore it? Should the rest of the team? Or should it be acknowledged and talked about, so people that are (almost certainly) doing this unconsciously can reflect on it and try to modify their behavior to be less biased?
And this is just one of many examples I've witnessed over the past decade+. Sexism colored glasses for women are a basic necessity if you have any interest in trying to get what you deserve.
Assuming positive intent is generally a good way to live, and it makes life significantly less stressful.
I'm not really too thrilled at Talkington's outburst - it kind of makes the offense about her, not Hubeny, who if she wanted to could have asked Holt to shut up - but the sentiment was warranted if you watch more of the video for context.
Just reading the FB post, I was taken aback a little, to be perfectly honest I rolled my eyes at "why is this sexism still happening" because from the description it didn't strike me as necessarily sexist. But now after having seen what a friendly and generous person Hubeny is, and even more importantly what interesting things she had to say, I'm kind of proud that it made Talkington angry and finally speak up. Hubeny may not need "white knighting", but the impetus comes from a good place IMHO.
What of it if it makes the offense about Taffington? I also get mad when someone else mistreats another person in my eyes; if the victim in my eyes isn't a victim in their own comes secondary. That is probably arrogant, or even ironic because it can be disrespectful, but I feel it's usually easier to clear the air after overreacting or misreading a situation, than to muster the courage to stand up for someone after you already got used to not doing it. You have to do it when you see it, maybe after double checking, but you can't linger too long. Certainly not in a situation like that, where mustering the courage takes a lot either way. Hubeny is fine, but for Taffington this was and maybe is nerve wrecking. So kudos where kudos are due :)
Thanks for the context! That post was really missing video.
Maybe I was raised in a different generation, but disrupting a staged event from the audience unless it's done to prevent clear and present danger is considered rude, and two rude behaviors (Holt's being the first) do not make etiquette, even if comes from a place of warranted indignation. That's what post-commentary media is for. It's not a workable system to praise everyone who gives into their angry instincts in the moment without regard to decorum. That's called childishness.
I'm sure someone will read that as an apology for Holt. Far from it. It's about finding a time and a place to voice one's objections, not losing control and exploiting the attention of a quiet crowd, and then self-styling one's self as a crusader who "created an opening" because one gets a few pats on the back for it, and far from showing any remorse about her timing, saying "please let me not be afraid to do this again ...and again ...and again Because it was scary." Do we really want a one-woman Westboro Baptist Church of anti-sexism disrupting every event that she has decided is "scary"?
Childishness in this instance is deciding that politeness trumps doing the right thing.
Politeness tends to reinforce existing subconscious norms, which in practice often includes women not "getting a seat at the table" despite being at the table. If you're a disadvantaged demographic in that setting, politeness is your ally only to the extent that the majority will enforce things for you. But the problem is that if you're a woman/minority, there's a class of issues where social enforcement happens far too infrequently. You can't trust the system to actually look out for you.
As the demographic who has to play from behind, politeness as a mechanism is insufficient to look after your own interests.
Hubeny is a part of a fortunate group of people who follow a certain pattern: some degree of "brick walls be damned" determination, some degree of willful self-exceptionalism, and a lot of luck. It's a powerful combination and she has earned her success, but that combination of traits to succeed despite tilted odds is very far from the norm, and it's the norm that needs to shift. I can guarantee you that among Hubeny's peers - other women at the tops of their fields - they view politeness as a fickle ally at best because they are consistently working at its edges out of necessity.
If civility is really such a barrier to equality (or whoever perceives it so), why not take this to its logical conclusion as Femen has? Or if it can be conceded that a more nuanced approach is better, why assume the worst of the offender with direct social attack, if you're willing to admit already that the behavior might be subconscious and indirect?
So if she came across less sympathetically on camera or didn't speak interestingly enough for you it would be OK to treat her with sexism?
...https://scholars.opb.msu.edu/en/publications/does-stereotype...
The most interesting result is that lowered performance in adverse conditions seems to stem from the induced cognitive load of wanting to avoid confirming negative stereotypes...
So internally roleplaying a WASP male really does work.
Because I think that usually, they are innocent. But that means I also probably miss out on (and don't have to stress out about) some sexism that occurs. And that helps me 1) not burn out like you mentioned, and 2) not be disliked by work by bringing it up and making a (potentially completely valid) fuss. So it probably helps me, oddly.
I can't say that how I evaluate these kinds of things is correct, or even good, but I do think it's probably helped my career more than it's hurt.
I've had many occasions where someone has said something that caught me a little and offended me and I ultimately just decided they didn't mean it that way (even if they did). I do this because I know I'm not the smoothest individual out there and I have no doubt I've said some things that may have causes someone else doubt or offense when it was just me saying things in a bad manner.
When you enter the work force there's a certain amount of bullshit you have to put up with. I once had the CEO of a company roll his eyes at me in the middle of a meeting and say roughly "you IT people are all the same" in front of everyone there.
Sometimes it's just a part of being it the work force and you have to deal with bullshit in your day to day. It doesn't mean it's sexist, racist, or whathaveyou, it just means you're dealing with people who are oblivious or assholes.
True. But there is also a "virality bias" that made us see this story in the first place. If it didn't fit a trending narrative so well we would never have heard of it.
Meanwhile millions of unreported interactions happened the same day. We can't know what big picture they add up to.
To me the lesson is that basing your world view on viral internet stories is one of the worst ways to understand the world.
This is what will end discrimination based on superficial differences: I think our mental reality is so much more interesting than our physical differences. Am I a man or a woman? Mostly I'm human. It may seem stupidly obvious to say that, but I feel it bears repeating.
I like this and also like how it's phrased.
Yes, sexism, racism and other forms of bigotry are real; the way they'll truly be beat is if more and more ostracized people think like this and push through the slights, ultimately normalizing their being among the people that, formerly, ostracized them.
Outrage on behalf of others will only take us so far, although the good intention is surely commendable.
I'm amazed at some of the comments here who seem to say "If you just ignore it, it will get better." I highlighted the ifs above because NOT everyone has the strength to overcome what they perceive as discrimination. Sure we can debate as much as we like whether the different treatment was due to discrimination or not, but let's stick to the real fact here: the treatment is perceived to be different.
When this happens sometimes, we can shrug it off - it's not exactly productive nor courteous to express outrage all the time. And absolutely, it may just be in our imagination, or someone is having a bad day! But when that different treatment happens often enough, no matter how subtle it seems, it can cause pain and affect the person's behaviour and performance.
Not everyone is delusional. Not everyone wants to get the limelight. So if someone is claiming that he/she is being discriminated, listen.
e.g. Mam, you tell me if I got this correctly. This is how I think it works...
I think it is actually a position of submission in a discussion, the person who is doing the talking is accepting the higher authority of person doing the listening to find errors in your understanding of the subject.
You explain to see if you got it correctly in front of a teacher.
The audiences would have been better served by hearing from the expert directly, so the moderator clearly failed at moderating. There is a chance that he may not have been sexist, but more student like and in the flow of events forgot the place, audience and his role in the conversation.
I didn't see the video so just exploring possibilities.
The audience may have come to thank the person who yelled "LET HER SPEAK PLEASE" for two reasons...
1. They thought moderator was sexist and one doing yelling was a liberator.
2. They wanted to hear the expert. Moderator was doing a poor job at moderating. This was not classroom. The people were there to hear the experts, they probably paid to attend the event. So, "HER" in this case is referencing the expert, not a woman. e.g. a version of "LET THE PROFESSOR SPEAK PLEASE".
The point isn't for us to sit here and decide whether or not the moderator's behavior was justified. The point is simply to listen and try to understand another point of view.
What if you knew she was guiding his PhD thesis? That he was her student. What if he had conversations with her before this topic trying to understand her theory?
What the person on the stage was feeling does matter.
Ms. Talkington is entitled to her interpretation of the event. But, to say that interpretation is correct, by itself, in all circumstances, is not accurate.
> The point is simply to listen and try to understand another point of view.
Just simply listen? why? why am I being denied to have an interpretation and opinion and be able to voice it?
Ms. Talkington did and I fully support her in her ability to have an interpretation and speak about about it and act upon it.
I claim the same and will not let it be infringed upon.
I apologize, I wasn't trying to imply that you have less right to speak than anyone else, though I see now how I worded it clumsily. My point in bringing up listening isn't to try to shut you or anyone else down from sharing their experiences. I am suggesting that seeking to fully understand OP's position, starting from the assumption that OP is a rational individual giving a true and faithful account of her reasonable reaction to a sequence of events would be a worthwhile endeavor.
I read the article on Facebook. I read the commentary by the lady scientist on stage.
I took them at their word about the reaction that they were having.
A reaction of one participant is not the whole story.
My comments were an exercise in probabilities where the outwards symptoms would have been same as seen by the participants of the events.
Hence I said there is a chance that the moderator was not being sexist.
BTW, in what other situations would you grant someone making the claim to be true and faithful recount of events without any further inquiry; especially when you are labeling a living human being as "sexist" for rest of his life, with all the consequences of that in 21st century this day and age.
If you're going to play devil's advocate, at least use the evidence...
(EDIT: The article itself uses the word "sexist", so it might indeed have been a call-out. However, that doesn't affect my point that we should not tolerate shitty behaviour, no matter which label is attached to it.)
The moderator's behvaiour itself was inappropriate, no matter which gender the other person had, and no matter whether the other person is offended or cool with it.
Why? Because others might not be cool with that, and rightly so! If we publicly tolerate inappropriate behaviour, we are making it even harder for those who are not cool with it.
That's why we (the audience, the society) should not tolerate shitty behaviour, and speak out publicly against it. Not just to fix this individual case, where the affected person may or may not need our help, but to establish a culture where this shitty behaviour will occur less often in the first place.
The "call out" is the Facebook post and the subsequent social media firestorm that follows it.
It is arrogance to assume that we know the mind of another well enough to call this sexism.
But also note that the moderator called the person from the audience "heckling" just because she made him aware of his inappropriate behaviour. If not sexism, this is at least a clear sign of ignorance.
> interrupt (a public speaker) with derisive or aggressive comments or abuse.
When a member yells out something from the audience to someone on stage: That's a heckle. They forced a break in the 4th wall. (yes, the audience member was right, but so was the moderator in that small instance)
Why do you feel that calling the person who interjected a "heckler" is a bad thing?
Second, attaching such an attribute at all to that person was inappropriate, given she pointed out an obvious misbehaviour of the moderator.
An appropriate reaction would have been: "Oh, I didn't notice. Thanks for pointing this out!"
> Second, attaching such an attribute at all to that person was inappropriate, given she pointed out an obvious misbehaviour of the moderator.
That is an assumption based on your emotional connection to the word. No one believes that the moderator's behavior was "bad" (different attributions have been made)
> An appropriate reaction would have been: "Oh, I didn't notice. Thanks for pointing this out!"
I would strongly disagree with that. It's impressive that he recognized the heckle, and didn't respond negatively. From what I saw he acknowledged the event and made the correction. For someone to do that on stage is VERY impressive. That takes a lot of experience and a lot of skill. (Many performers respond very negative to a heckle).
The heckle broke the 4th wall, it was processed by the moderator, acknowledged (mentally and then verbally) without anger (which requires processing and understanding), the suggestion (I'm being generous in that) was taken, and the moderator returned back to the 4th wall with the context prior.
That's a freaking amazing job.
Err meant to say: No one believes that the heckler's behavior was "bad" (different attributions have been made)
To gauge for myself, I clicked the video linked above in the comments that went straight to the segment under scrutiny. My immediate response (without reading the comments here or anywhere else) was not that the moderator was sexist, but rather that he seemed extremely energetic and really into the topic that happened to be her area of expertise and got carried away with himself and started rambling about string theory. From the video I actually get the impression he has a great deal of respect for her and is genuinely extremely interested in the topic and just ran off course.
Revisiting it after the comments here, I think that's still very true, but I think what was mentioned by another about this being his extroversion filling the gap her introversion left is probably even more accurate. Watching some more of the video, she seems more introverted and slightly less comfortable speaking than the other panel members. I also think that in the general case the other panel members made their responses a bit more concise. I think all of this was a factor in how he responded to her.
Maybe that makes him a poor moderator. But I don't think he's necessarily sexist.
I mean a moderator for a panel consisting of four men and one woman, in this day and age, shouldn't one of their mental bullet points going on stage be "make damn sure she gets about the same airtime as everyone else"?
In many cases I do feel sorry for the person who's 'called out', but in this case: he failed spectacularly at his task, and when you do you can't expect to fully control the narrative of why that happened...
I agree that call out culture sometimes doesn't leave room for nuance and sometimes unnecessarily shoves people into defensive spaces - i.e. telling people they 'are sexist' vs telling them a behavior they are exhibiting is 'a little sexist'.
In this situation the impact wasn't "The speaker is being offended, I must speak up", the situation was "Im here to hear what the expert has to say on the subject that they are an expert in, and the moderator is doing all the talking" Which would be irritating regardless of the genders involved. But this behavior fit with a very common pattern of men speaking over/for women.
If this makes you uncomfortable, embrace that discomfort. It's the first step to understanding this.
This is the pinnacle of stupidity and hubris. We should be happy with our social progress and move onto other real problems.
As for "intent", how can one be accidentally racist if racism is defined in useful terms? One can conceivably accidentally participate in a racial disparity, for example, by being an English-speaking business owner providing a useful service, I might only advertise my services in English such that mainly English speakers benefit. Because the racial distributions vary across these language groups, Asians and Hispanics would benefit less, and a race gap might widen. This obviously isn't racism in the original sender of the wires, but people tend to use it in this sense, often it seems to use this ambiguity to make harsh accusations about individual motives while affording the accuser the ability to say "No, I didn't mean it _that_ way! Why are X people so sensitive/guilty/etc?"
The other plausible explanation is that "intent" is meant to refer to a decision by the conscious brain, and prejudice is a deeply subconscious activity. This is generally what I subscribe to, but I could never imagine making wanton and very damaging accusations about the happenings and motives in others when they can't even reliably tap into them. Even when we have existence of a disparity, our society seems quick to attribute it to discrimination, but this is rarely the case to any significant degree (for example, all of the data on the wage gap suggests that discrimination is responsible for a small fraction of the gap at very most).
You can never hide behind "the victim said it was ok". You need to examine the behavior. Consider the environment in which it took place. Consider the statement the behavior makes to those observing it. Maybe even consider why the perpetrator was behaving that way, but don't give that too much weight.
The important part is that public behavior does not exist in isolation, by definition. Public behavior shapes the world in which it takes place, and the perception of it is shaped by the world in which it exists.
Let me jump to a hypothetical case, totally unrelated to what was presented here:
Let's imagine a couple who in private mutually enjoy the male partner dominating the female partner, including verbal and physical abuse. There is nothing wrong with this. "It's not a problem, she enjoys it" is a perfectly true statement.
Now move that couple's behavior into the public realm. "It's not a problem, she enjoys it" is no longer true. She can completely enjoy it, even feel empowered by it, and the situation still presents a problem. The abuse must now be considered in a wider context. If no one challenges it, it is tacitly accepted behavior. That acceptance influences other people - a man sees that there are no consequences for abusing women and thinks the behavior is a bit more acceptable; a woman sees the same and thinks her only option in that situation is to put up with it.
To move the subject back to the original post, then:
It really doesn't matter whether the victim believed she was being attacked. What matters are the conclusions observers would draw from the interaction. Up until the OP spoke out, an observer would see evidence that it's acceptable for a male speaker to talk over the female speaker he's supposedly asking a question of. The OP speaking out (and the room's reaction to it) provided a very strong contrary signal - it's not acceptable.
In context, does this one incident mean a whole lot either way? No. But our reactions to it do. If you read about this and say "hey, that was a good thing, I should do the same if I notice a situation like that" then you are helping to fight sexism in a real way. Every single time someone says "Let her speak, please" it is creating a tiny shift away from sexism. On the other hand, if your reaction was "this was a non-issue, just ask the woman on the panel", you're not doing a thing to help the culture shift away from sexism.
I'm in the former camp myself. I've been on a work call where a male participant jumped in and started talking over the top of a female participant. I'm ashamed it took me almost a whole minute to work up the nerve to tell him we should let her continue talking. Next time I'll be faster about it. And Marilee's story definitely makes me feel better about doing so in the future.
Don't call this "problematic". It's explicitly shifting cultural norms in the correct direction, a little bit at a time. Stand up for what's right and do the same next time you notice a public situation which would serve to normalize sexism. Trust me, I know how uncomfortable it is. But I also know it's worth it.
The story tells how the audience applauded to the "let her speak" comment, and how afterwards a large number of people came to thank her for the comment. So in this case it was a large number of people who perceived there being sexism.
You mean [these informed witnesses][1]?
To be clear, my "uninformed judgment" is consistent with eye-witnesses, the jury, and even Eric Holder's justice department! The case is entirely unambiguous. All of the material evidence and many witnesses corroborated the officer's story. Many other witnesses admitted making false testimonies, and those who didn't admit have conflicting testimonies. There is no reasonable alternate conclusion. Even BLM have distanced themselves.
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_of_Michael_Brown#Witn...
Those people only got partial information from whatever media broadcasts they happened to follow. But the link at hand, the audience literally saw with their own eyes what happened in the panel discussion. They have complete information (unless they dozed off for a while).
If she was to attack her colleagues, it would spell certain doom for her career. Her opinions and proofs would be dismissed and denigrated. And the specter of "Will I be accused of sexism if I pan this paper?" will rear its ugly head anywhere she would turn.
Think of this as an analogy to badmouthing your previous employer in an interview. You just don't do it. Except, now exchange interview for world-wide public debate/discussion. Nobody in the world, in that field, would consider her.
You're dismissing her comments out-of-hand as not entirely honest and assuming you know her true feelings.
Maybe now that she's been given the opportunity to speak, we should listen to and consider her thoughts.
*does HN indicate when a comment has been edited?
s/world-wise/world-wide/
_________________________
And that's correct. I put no state-of-mind or otherwise speak for her. I'm acknowledging the complexity of highlighting a potential problem amongst your peers in a very public manner. Especially in Academia, where your peers approve, collaborate, and act as a peer, attacking them publicly could have disastrous consequences.
It is "safer", and provides face to be accepting of such actions, be they intentional or unintentional.
(Yes, I work in Academia. This sort of thing happens pretty regularly, from what Ive seen. What's that saying... The nail that sticks out gets the hammer?)
There's an important difference caused by this: what you must avoid doing is badmouthing old employers to new employers. It's about what you, and you alone, say to the employer. The new employer isn't sitting around listening for what other people have to say; they're only interested in what you have to say. So your only options are "tell them yourself" or "don't tell them and they'll never know."
But in the public sphere, there's a third option: ask a well-respected-in-the-same-sphere friend or colleague to carry the torch for you, making a big deal of what happened to you while you yourself remain silent. Other people in the public sphere are "listening" to claims made by any-and-all prominent members of the sphere, and so will hear what some random member says on your behalf. Which makes that pretty much the best option 100% of the time; you get the gains from speaking up, with none of the risks.
As a side-note: consider the fact that you can pay people to speak up for you in this way. Consider the implication that "the protection of your social position through third-party calling-out" is a good that can be purchased by the wealthy, and which is less available to the poor. And consider what this implies, in an anthropic-argument sense, for those who rise to the top of social hierarchies.
So who is sexist in this scenario?
Turns out its the feminist in the audience assuming that a woman needs someone to cause a public disturbance because she could not help herself be heard.
Why is it every time some social justice event gains public attention, it turns out to not be sexism/racist/etc. at all.
...is clearly figuratively as the commenter mentioned.
Maybe it's no one.
A simple test is to ask yourself if you believe it'd have been sexist for a man to have done the same thing. I think we'd all just assume it was someone interested in what the woman on the panel had to say. It's not automatically 'sexist', or even feminist, for a woman to speak up for another woman.
Whether or not Prof. Hubeny was herself offended, is, of course, a very important interpersonal matter, but it has absolutely nothing to do with the question of whether or not the moderator's behavior was sexist. I certainly hope (and assume) that his behavior wasn't misogynistic, but most sexist behaviors aren't, and they have no ill intent behind them. In some ways, that is precisely what sexism is: social behaviors that are ingrained in us so much that we don't notice when do them, that help perpetuate an imbalance of power.
I'm the father of two college-age daughters and seeing the world through their eyes is disturbing to me. I wish the world understood this better.
But it's the exact opposite. Being offended has nothing to do with sexism. Sexism is an objective situation of an unequal distribution of power. Sexism would exist even if everyone in the world thought it was great, and no one was ever offended in the slightest.
> but isn't the ability to recontextualize any bad behavior as sexist just because of the participants involved a huge source of power in of itself?
I don't know what "bad" behavior is. I do know what sexist behavior is: behavior the creates or perpetuates an unequal distribution of power. There is no "recontextualization" involved; sexism would exist or not regardless of how it's contextualized; like gravity. The only ethical question is whether you believe that this imbalance of power needs to be rectified.
But do people who fight sexism have power? Sure, they have some, but clearly, the imbalance of power between men and women is so large, that there is still no question about which side has more power.
According to the U.S. Census Bureau, as of 2006 only 3.6% of alimony recipients were men. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alimony#History
Mothers are granted custody in ~80% of cases and are the recipients of 94% of child support dollars paid: https://dalrock.wordpress.com/2011/08/15/latest-u-s-custody-...
Men make up 93% of the current prison population: https://www.bop.gov/about/statistics/statistics_inmate_gende...
Men are assumed to be sexist by default: https://amberskyeforbes.files.wordpress.com/2013/09/1240542_...
Men have no reproductive rights. If a woman decides to cede responsibility for her child, she can abort it or give it up for adoption. If a man decides to cede responsibility for a child, he is labeled a "deadbeat" and on the hook for child support payments anyways.
Only men are required to register for the United States Selective Service.
According to a 2012 CDC study, more men than women suffer from domestic violence and psychological aggression: http://www.saveservices.org/2012/02/cdc-study-more-men-than-...
But when the very first domestic violence shelter for men opened in the US it was panned as a misuse of nonprofit money: http://www.xojane.com/issues/domestic-violence-shelters-for-...
More than double the available scholarships for women than for men: https://www.scholarships.com/financial-aid/college-scholarsh... https://www.scholarships.com/financial-aid/college-scholarsh...
So yeah, there's a pretty clear imbalance of power.
Also, men are sexist, as are women. Being sexist is not being bad; it's being a human born in a sexist society. Just as it takes effort to learn about germs and how to fight infection, it takes effort to learn to see sexism and fight it.
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_(social_and_political)
No, he mentioned things that happen to men[1]. That is not sexism any more than a rich man's illness is called "poverty". He may be sick; he may be miserable; he may be worse-off than just being poor -- but his condition is still not called poverty.
> Saying that "life is unfair" when one group suffers, while rushing to the defense of the other group is hypocrisy and clearly a double standard.
But sexism isn't about suffering; it isn't about taking offense; it isn't about unhappiness or general unfairness. It's an imbalance of power. I'm not rushing to anyone's defense, just explaining what sexism is. Sexism is not the only bad thing in the world, nor is it the worst, but it is what it is.
What is interesting to me is why is it when we discuss such an important issue, others find it necessary to point out that there are other problems, too. We know there are. But now we're talking about sexism.
[1]: Some of them are because men have more power.
I disagree. If someone responds to an imagined accusation, it is important to explain to him that no one has accused him of what he believes he's been accused, because once people understand that, they become less defensive and angry.
> male victims of domestic violence don't get help
That's certainly very bad and requires addressing, but it isn't a problem on the same scale at all. The fact that women outnumber men significantly as victims of domestic violence clearly demonstrates that the problem as a whole harms women much more.
> or that only men can be compelled to die or get mutilated in war
If you think that on the whole men lost more power than women in wars, then you need to review your history. Although, it is true that in some cases male absence did lead to an increase in power to women back home, but the scale still tips very strongly in men's favor. It is also true that women today have more power than 100 years ago, but we're still far from achieving equality, and the gains were precisely due to constant political struggle against sexism.
> we would presumably be close to agreeing that these are good examples of power imbalances.
If we both start with ten toys, I take five of yours and you take one of mine, we cannot say that the one you took from me is an example of an imbalance of power in your favor.
There can certainly be conflicts where a man is more harmed than a woman, but sexism is a global quality of the system, not necessarily a property of each and every interaction.
This just underscores the need for fighting sexism in all its forms! And it is also a good idea to not get stuck in the mindset that sex discrimination is something that only impacts women negatively -- this is far from the truth.
To brand someone as sexist is very damaging to their reputation. That women in general suffer from a power imbalance is no excuse for attacking a persons reputation with no strong evidence.
It isn't speculation, and why he acted the way he did is completely irrelevant. Sexism is a quality of a (social) situation where women's power is diminished compared to men. It doesn't have to be nefarious or intentional.
> To brand someone as sexist is very damaging to their reputation.
No, it isn't. We're all sexist. To brand someone as misogynistic may be damaging.
> That women in general suffer from a power imbalance is no excuse for attacking a persons reputation with no strong evidence.
No one here was attacked. The moderator did something sexist, as we all sometimes do. It happens. The only way to fight sexism is to point it out. I understand that the moderator must have been embarrassed by being called out, but we should all learn to be less sensitive about such things.
Or the other way around. Not super relevant for this discussion, but I feel it's important in the understanding of sexism to keep in mind that the discrimination can swing both ways. (In fact, sexism where men are discriminated against often _also_ end up hurting women, which is a phenomenon that holds for many issues related to sexism -- it's in the interest of both genders to get rid of this problem).
It could (and may even happen in small systems), but in reality, women are the ones with significantly less power. But it's also important to remember that not every discrimination is sexism. For example, sexual discrimination designed to correct an already existing imbalance of power is the opposite of sexism (regardless of whether or not you find it just).
There's a strange mindset at work here. Everyone perfectly well knows sexism is a real thing that happens in billions of incidents all over the world every single day. Yet somehow the possibility that somewhere, sometime, an accusation of sexism might have been misjudged to some degree, gets some people revved up.
As an introvert myself, I support a workplace that is encouraging and respectful of women because that is a workplace respectful of introverts as well.
[1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/wp/2016/10/25/...
> a workplace that is encouraging and respectful of women [...] is a workplace respectful of introverts as well.
And this is a good point as well.
> "Oh my god. what you said was the most important thing that was said all day. Thank you. Thank you."
> most important thing that was said
> most important
How big headed is this person that she thinks her input was more important than that of the person she's claiming to uplift.
However, in reality, I don't think her words empowered the expert speaker at all but simply served as a check on the moderator's exuberance.
Those who actually benefitted were the audience---and we the public who get to see the video afterward. The moderator was handling the situation poorly and needed to allow the expert to speak which is what the audience paid for, and everyone is more interested in hearing.
I think the best panels are where the experts talk amongst themselves, and moderators only serve to derail heated arguments that are consuming the allotted time.
I hate what this PC culture has become. You have to watch yourself so carefully or you will get publicly shamed like this. And if someone over reacts there is no consequence. Its a race to the bottom.
I thought it was pleasant, but soon after we were done with lunch, I got a text from a female friend of mine who was also there: "Prof. So-and-so is a sexist bastard, I am so mad."
I was taken aback, because I'd been sitting right next to both of them, and...what had happened that I'd noticed nothing?
Turns out the professor had ignored my friend the whole time, even though he'd spoken to everyone else there.
Does this make him sexist? He's very liberal, and I'm sure he'd take the side of the women in this thread. Maybe he just didn't remember my friend. There was another woman there he spoke to, at least some. There are a lot of "maybe"s.
But after talking to my friend, what she concluded is, she gets treated differently than the men around her all the time. Any one instance is usually something she can brush off as due to something other than sexism. But taken as a whole, the evidence of being her disproves the null hypothesis that the reason she's being treated differently isn't because of her gender.
And so I think that when you're responding to a particular instance, like this, or like my friend at lunch -- and particularly if you're a man responding to such an instance -- you should try to take a step back. It is perhaps plausible in a particular instance that what happened had nothing to do with anyone's gender. We can imagine all kinds of explanations. And it's likely that whatever happened was not the result of active malice and hatred of women or a particular woman. But that doesn't mean that sexism doesn't exist, or that this is not a datum pointing strongly in the direction of, women are treated differently than men.
So when TFA says, "the sexism is beyond blatant", understand that this is coming from her perspective, which is more valid than that of someone like me who doesn't experience discrimination on the basis of my gender (or anything else, for that matter) on a daily basis. And clearly many people in the audience shared her perspective.
If you don't share her perspective, that's OK. But I think you'd do the women in the world a big favor if you'd just...let it go. "I see it differently." OK. nbd. There's no need to be "infuriated". You will never know what it's like to be another person, so it's expected that you're going to see things differently. WAI, let's move on.
Or, if you don't want to move on, maybe spend some time considering what it might be like to be her.
I think I've probably done this myself many times, and I imagine others do it a lot too.
It is ridiculously not what it seems. I read the comments here, and the FB post and after watching it in full context you get such a different perspective.
And it is just as the lady on the panelist has said in her comment.
The moderator is trying to simplify things for the audience.
After introducing her he tries to create an analogy as to how to think about it and says:
"I'm giving a very garbled caricature of it, you're the expect, why don't you tell us."
Why would he use self-deprecating language if he was being sexist? He is openly saying that she could explain it better.
He talks over her a few times, but he is in know way talking down to her, rather just trying to place everything in his overarching analogy which is the role of the moderator. To maintain a common thread running through the discussion.
Then he reframes it again, and concedes: "I'm putting this in a provacative way. Please explain it to us properly."
Again, he is even acknowledging when he feels he is being provocative.
After the interruption:
"That always happens to me...do I talk too much?"
Which seems like he knows that he gets overly excited sometimes and talks to much.
Seriously people!
Besides, Jim Holt appeared to bring her into the conversation beforehand in other parts of the video. All other male scientist jump into the conversation on their own. Jim Holt brings her into conversation 2 times proactively.
What an age we are living in...
The video of the event is here: http://www.worldsciencefestival.com/programs/big-universe-bi...
edit: Youtube version, at the 1:02 mark where people apparently were getting irritated: https://youtu.be/Er7qPv8jsZo?t=1h1m55s
He spends 0:40 asking her the first question. He continues talking when she tries to speak once.
She talks for 0:30
He redirects her from her answer and tries to clarify what he wants to know for 0:55
She talks for 1:00 answering this question
He begins clarifying/providing an example of what she is saying for 0:20, continuing to talk when she tries to speak once. It is during this interruption that "let her speak please" is shouted (1:05:40).
It's clear that he was quite excited about the ideas and some of the ways he wanted to explain them and examples he wanted to give. It's not clear that there was no subconscious bias on his part in the way he went about it.
>She talks for 0:30
>He redirects her from her answer and tries to clarify what he wants to know for 0:55
>She talks for 1:00 answering this question
> He begins clarifying/providing an example of what she is saying for 0:20, continuing to talk when she tries to speak once. It is during this interruption that "let her speak please" is shouted (1:05:40).
This makes it sound like he only interrupts her twice, while my count is up to eight at this point. He's already interrupted her mid-speach three times, and she's trying to get back air time five times after 1:03:25 when he's interrupted her.
And it's the same after 1:05:25 when he interrupts her yet again.
> It's clear that he was quite excited about the ideas and some of the ways he wanted to explain them and examples he wanted to give. It's not clear that there was no subconscious bias on his part in the way he went about it.
I honestly don't think it's nefarious, but what I do think is fairly blatant is that it's a case of speaking for the woman, which is text book sexism. If I can read more between the lines than perhaps is there, I think he believes he's doing her a favor. While clearly wrong, I think this is a/the main component of sexism. Which could also explain people (men) not seeing it as a problem because it's habitual and not stemming from ill-will.
If you count him as "interrupting" merely because he's doing the wrong thing in the context, then interruption-count is no longer the objective measure that it was introduced as. (More generally, it seems difficult to use interruption-count in a context like this where the two interlocutors are not intended to be in a symmetrical relationship to each other.)
You can see the contrast in behavior to all other panelists in the first hour. If he and any of the male panelists end up talking at the same time he always concedes immediately.
Devil's advocate... a third party yelling "let her speak" is also speaking for the woman. Dr. Hubeny would not be where she is today if she lacked the ability to interject her own thoughts.
Nerds do this a lot. It's annoying AF. I've had conversations about topics like zopfli or 'HTTPS in the 90s' where I was sure I was right (and I was) but the other person was so confident and loud I genuinely wondered if I was missing something.
Agreed but we can be less specific here...human males do this a lot.
https://www.facebook.com/marilee.talkington/posts/1015505138...
Very humble woman.
...
> Please understand that I’m not trying to say that sexism in science is a myth. It is real and we should all aspire to diminish it. But I am trying to say that it need not pose as much of an impediment as you might fear and that you might be in more control over its influence yourself than you might think. Just as you put up with long lines to see a great show, or with sore feet or mosquitos to have a great hike etc., the annoyance of otherwise abominable behavior diminishes in the larger perspective of doing something you really enjoy.
ETA: From the Observer article: http://observer.com/2017/06/sexism-science-facebook-mansplai...
“I applaud your heroism in standing up for what you believe in!” she wrote. “I know well the shaky feeling and subsequent exhilarated contentment in the knowledge of having done the right thing, and I think that doing so has become more crucial than ever. Your behavior was inspiring, and I’m glad that many of those inspired shared their gratitude with you.”
Hubeny also offered advice to help women deal with sexism at work, no matter their field.
“If you allow yourself to enjoy the beautiful things that really matter, if you don’t let social or peer pressure dissuade you from pursuing a field which appeals to you, then no pettiness or childishness or boorishness that you encounter can harm you so much,” she wrote.
Veronika Hubeny: I applaud your heroism in standing up for what you believe in! I know well the shaky feeling and subsequent exhilarated and heartwarmed contentment in the knowledge of having done the right thing, and I think that doing so has become more crucial than ever. Your behavior was inspiring and I’m glad that many of those inspired shared their gratitude with you.
I guess that, being the subject of the incident, it might be worthwhile to offer my perspective, which to my surprise is rather more atypical than I had hitherto realized, but which I hope might perhaps provide some encouragement to all those who feel put off by the present situation — especially to those who feel drawn to science yet dissuaded from following their hearts’ calling. (For posterity I also feel compelled to correct a point about the physics — as a physicist I can’t help myself wink emoticon;-) — but since I realize that that was entirely beside the point of the post, I’ll only do so at the very end…)
You may be amazed to hear it, but during this panel session I genuinely did not feel affronted or discriminated by the moderator’s behavior. It seemed more amusing to see him try posing a question in a way that at the same time tried answering it. It’s true that this made the question a bit of a moving target for me (and therefore harder to address coherently), but I don’t a-priori assume that the incident was rooted in sexism. Maybe I’m too naive, but I simply gave him the benefit of doubt that he was so excited by the newly-learned idea of the duality that he couldn’t resist, and that the same might have occurred had the panelist been a male instead of me. So it didn’t bother me.
In fact, even though in my entire academic career I was in an environment where women were in striking minority (and as a student often the only woman in the class), I never felt discriminated against or thwarted in my calling. The feeling was rather one of camaraderie: the challenges to unravel the deepest mysteries of the universe, the thrill in understanding another tiny bit of this grand puzzle, and the sheer wonder at how beautifully the physics hangs together, put us all in the same boat, so to speak. In retrospect I think I was fortunate in being amongst like-minded physicists who were not only great but gracious and earnest in their love of science. But when I eventually did start coming across others who were not of the same caliber, they somehow seemed insignificant.
I had early on decided that I like physics so much that I’d be quite willing to give up quite a bit of other comforts for it, but perhaps having made that decision and bracing oneself, then made the actual “discomforts” not only more bearable, but genuinely less discomforting. I think the subjective severity of a lot of these issues can be greatly influenced by one’s mindset, one’s psychology. If you allow yourself to enjoy the beautiful things that really matter, if you don’t let social or peer pressure dissuade you from pursuing a field which appeals to you, then no pettiness or childishness or boorishness that you encounter can harm you so much.
Please understand that I’m not trying to say that sexism in science is a myth. It is real and we should all aspire to diminish it. But I am trying to say that it need not pose as much of an impediment as you might fear and that you might be in more control over its influence yourself than you might think. Just as you put up with long lines to see a great show, or with sore feet or mosquitos to have a great hike etc., the annoyance of otherwise abominable behavior diminishes in the larger perspective of doing something you really enjoy.
OK, so now to the physics (sorry): First, what you refer to as the “two theories of string theory that seem to contradict one another” are actually two ‘dual’ descriptions of the same physics, which while curiously different in rather amazing ways, are completely consistent with each other (one using the language of string theory, the other of a field theory). Second, I cannot take credit for inventing this holographic (so-called AdS/CFT) correspondence — I have worked on understanding how it works at a deeper level, but the AdS/CFT was originated by Juan Maldacena in 1997.
Once again, let me stress my appreciation, Marilee, of how you bravely stood up for your principles and values! Well done!
This just goes to prove my stance whenever the whole women in STEM fields debate is brought up. You have two kinds of women, those who are out there doing science, building things and being badasses (The likes of Veronika and Julia Evans, ones I consider as role-models) and then you have women that have questionable technical skills who keep whining about sexism and lack of women in tech. Veronica wasn't concerned with the perceived sexism and was interested in physics, Marilee, a specimen of the second category, gave herself a pat on the shoulder for standing up to Veronica.
I noted this as a pattern - if you complain about sexism then you put shadow over your technical skills. You have to choose between being seen as capable and between pointing out unfairness if you think it happens.
Also, Veronika Hubeny said that there is sexism in science. She did not had negative feelings about this panel. It is possible to watch the video and come to different interpretation as she did. Just like it is possible to see the video of someone accused of sexism and conclude it was not sexism. The latter is quite common occurence on these forums.
Citation needed. If you read her comment carefully she acknowledges there is sexism in science but says that it should not put off people from pursuing what they love. And in this case she said she just gave the host the benefit of the doubt, since his attitude could be interpreted in multiple ways.
> Marilee, a specimen of the second category, gave herself a pat on the shoulder for standing up to Veronica.
That's an asshole thing to say, and your comment makes it look like it's a full-blown trait, not a one-time accident. Out of a whole theater who noticed the incident, she was the only one who had the balls to stand up. You may disagree that it was sexism (can't be proven either way, you can't know the host's state of mind at that time), but you can't in good conscience disagree that it wasn't right, and it's a good thing someone said something.
And yes, the way you phrased your comment clearly implies that there are two categories of people, the doers and the whiners; it reeks of assholery. There are people who do a lot and "whine" a lot; just because you're good at something doesn't mean you should bury your head in the sand when you see something wrong.
First off, sexist environments do exist. So that alone should invalidate how you think of this as either competence versus whining. Also, there are varying degrees of sexism, including places where it is not present at all. How can we know this? Zipf's law. Or by just doing a thought experiment, which I'll leave out here (just think about the simplest possible workplace).
On the issue of technical skills, everyone is incompetent at something. Even if you are highly technically skilled in your chosen field, these days almost every field has overlap, including new and emerging areas of overlap, with other fields including new fields. There are also new techniques being developed all the time. Everyone is learning on the job, and that's as it should be. Does that mean it's OK to whine about non-existent sexism? No, but does it mean that sexism does not exist? Also no. And if it does, it should be called out, regardless of whether someone is a Nobel laureate or a student.
Going to the extreme, if you're not at all skilled in any field but are just learning, that doesn't mean that speaking up about sexism is just whining about imagined problems in every case.
I have no doubt that some of what you're talking about is going on. But my point is it just doesn't begin to explain the whole picture.
She sounds like a very nice and humble lady in addition to an excellent physicist.
I guess that, being the subject of the incident, it might be worthwhile to offer my perspective, which to my surprise is rather more atypical than I had hitherto realized, but which I hope might perhaps provide some encouragement to all those who feel put off by the present situation — especially to those who feel drawn to science yet dissuaded from following their hearts’ calling. (For posterity I also feel compelled to correct a point about the physics — as a physicist I can’t help myself ;-) — but since I realize that that was entirely beside the point of the post, I’ll only do so at the very end…)
You may be amazed to hear it, but during this panel session I genuinely did not feel affronted or discriminated by the moderator’s behavior. It seemed more amusing to see him try posing a question in a way that at the same time tried answering it. It’s true that this made the question a bit of a moving target for me (and therefore harder to address coherently), but I don’t a-priori assume that the incident was rooted in sexism. Maybe I’m too naive, but I simply gave him the benefit of doubt that he was so excited by the newly-learned idea of the duality that he couldn’t resist, and that the same might have occurred had the panelist been a male instead of me. So it didn’t bother me.
In fact, even though in my entire academic career I was in an environment where women were in striking minority (and as a student often the only woman in the class), I never felt discriminated against or thwarted in my calling. The feeling was rather one of camaraderie: the challenges to unravel the deepest mysteries of the universe, the thrill in understanding another tiny bit of this grand puzzle, and the sheer wonder at how beautifully the physics hangs together, put us all in the same boat, so to speak. In retrospect I think I was fortunate in being amongst like-minded physicists who were not only great but gracious and earnest in their love of science. But when I eventually did start coming across others who were not of the same caliber, they somehow seemed insignificant.
I had early on decided that I like physics so much that I’d be quite willing to give up quite a bit of other comforts for it, but perhaps having made that decision and bracing oneself, then made the actual “discomforts” not only more bearable, but genuinely less discomforting. I think the subjective severity of a lot of these issues can be greatly influenced by one’s mindset, one’s psychology. If you allow yourself to enjoy the beautiful things that really matter, if you don’t let social or peer pressure dissuade you from pursuing a field which appeals to you, then no pettiness or childishness or boorishness that you encounter can harm you so much.
Please understand that I’m not trying to say that sexism in science is a myth. It is real and we should all aspire to diminish it. But I am trying to say that it need not pose as much of an impediment as you might fear and that you might be in more control over its influence yourself than you might think. Just as you put up with long lines to see a great show, or with sore feet or mosquitos to have a great hike etc., the annoyance of otherwise abominable behavior diminishes in the larger perspective of doing something you really enjoy.
OK, so now to the physics (sorry): First, what you refer to as the “two theories of string theory that seem to contradict one another” are actually two ‘dual’ descriptions of the same physics, which while curiously different in rather amazing ways, are completely consistent with each other (one using the language of string theory, the other of a field theory). Second, I cannot take credit for inventing this holographic (so-called AdS/CFT) correspondence — I have worked on understanding how it works at a deeper level, but the AdS/CFT was originated by Juan Maldacena in 1997.
Once again, let me stress my appreciation, Marilee, of how you bravely stood up for your principles and values! Well done!
>I'm still upset by the incredible sexism that has been demonstrated this afternoon
Now I feel bad for missing out on labeling every instance of a man being rude to me as sexism! /s
I find it a bit strange to label the speaker as a sexist just because he didn't let someone speak. Maybe he is just a dick? Maybe she was rude to him back stage? Maybe he was having a bad day? Maybe the chemistry between them was off? You have no idea what is going on beyond him not letting someone speak.
I even find it offensive to label his behaviour as sexist. What, I now can't be rude to a woman without being called a sexist? People should stick to the facts, not fill in the underlying reasoning. Well... unless you want to spark heated debates of course, in which case it is a solid strategy.
If a man asserts himself he's seen as confident and assertive, and other positive labels
If a woman asserts herself she's seen as aggressive, shrill,
> What, I now can't be rude to a woman without being called a sexist?
If your rudeness is more likely to happen to women then maybe it's a result of sexism.
I find _this_ sexist. I know cases where the opposite is true as well as where the interruptor does not care about the gender of the other person.
> If your rudeness is more likely to happen to women then maybe it's a result of sexism.
If A=A then A=A, therefore we can conclude that A=A. How wise.
I am not saying sexism doesn't exist, I am just saying that the author of this article is very liberal with her accusations based on a single observation of the moderator. Moreover, ironically, it is very sexist of her and I find this unfair to the moderator and men in general.
It's not for me to determine what offends other people.
To have successful interactions, relationships, I try very hard to meet other people where they're at, listen more than talk, adapt.
Sometimes it doesn't work. Most of the time it does.
---
In this case, the moderator's job is to make the panel shine, just like Johnny Carson. But he didn't. And if our collective guess why is wrong, he could still up his game.
To be honest, it wasn't any different from any panel I've witnessed, there's always people speaking over each other, let alone in vague subjects such as cosmology and string theory.
Just a classic case of confirmation bias if you ask me; "Scientists are sexist" "Oh he interrupted her!" "Yup sexism is confirmed"
If your moderator is getting as much talk time as your panelist, you have a bad moderator.
In this case, calling the host "sexist" might even be a little unfair, as he his behavior might be closer to an actual social norm that contains some less extreme aspects of sexism. Instead, we might describe the event as a minor example of structural sexism in today's culture/society, without needing to label the host as a "sexist".
Most importantly, we should realize that descriptions of events like this are very complex, subtle, immensely context dependent, time sensitive, and difficult. It is a moment in time, caught between decades of cultural shift and new ways of looking at things. It's not surprising people have different takes, and that you can't really call any specific interpretation perfectly correct. We are pushing up against current limits in our ability to understand and discuss certain visceral, important parts of the human experience.
I don't think that trying to box things like this into one extreme or the other is helpful.
So if a person is speaking over you and rambling on, perhaps a man is more likely to speak up or butt in at the first opportunity. The quote in the top comment sort of hints at this. That she didn't feel as annoyed by his talking and so didn't speak up. I haven't watched the whole thing, but other comments mention he does this over male panelists as well.
Its just one data point, but it correlates
IF being more assertive is proven to be a naturally masculine trait, then shouldn't discriminating against men for a natural behavior be seen as sexism as well?
The question is ill-defined, those terms, sexism and natural ..., don't have to be mutually exclusive. Thew comparison doesn't even make much sense, see also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_nature
Your implication is paradox, because it paints with a pretty broad brush and out of line. You suggest that discriminating against naturally gender specific behavior is sexism. I don't think that's the case, although it's a loosely defined, broad term. At least sexism is a stereotype, too, yes.
Paradoxically, women who are discriminating against men would be assertive. Therefore you would be in turn discriminating against this presumably unnatural tendency (unless women aren't vocal about this). That's ironic because as far as I know sexism fundamentally is against ascribing any character attributes based on gender, analog to racism. (I might be confused here, because it's not usually my debate. Popular sexism is rather against discrimination in face of obvious gender based properties, like pregnancy.)
On the other hand, casual sexism is just the exercise of sexism, whether it be natural or not, in settings where it doesn't belong. In general, professionalism requires an extend of discretion and privacy and is certainly not black and white at that, but rather subjective. And that's what emancipation is about, incidentally, to be treated as a subject, individually, and not objective as a stereotype.
It can explain average population outcomes like men on average haggling for better wages as you said.
It can also explain outlier outcome, for example the most disagreeable people are mostly men. This makes men more likely to end up in prison. Which doesn't mean that the average men is much more likely to end up in prison than the average woman. But the type of person who is more likely to end up in prison happen to be mostly men.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agreeableness [2] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3149680/
If this has been your experience, I'd encourage you to consider why that might be the case.
Here's one possibility: Perhaps in our culture, assertive women are treated worse than assertive men.
You can see this dynamic in the dating world where non-assertive men are the losers of the game.
That's a descriptive, not necessarily a normative, statement. What's more interesting to me is why women and men act differently. Do you believe the differences could be the result of child rearing, social climate and norms etc?
The issue I see is that a lot of these issues are just about being in "a minority group". But a lot of complaints are levelled against the "male gender". This is sexist. Everything else is not.
Sexism has to be when people are treated differently solely because of their sex. In the tech world and corporate world, there is often a large imbalance between male and female, so that the treatment of a minority group appears sexist, because females are usually the minority.
The best test is to reverse the groupings and apply the same test.
When you think about it like this, it becomes less about "men" being somehow inherently bad which is a gross generalisation, and more about "humans are terrible people sometimes". But the issue with the latter statement is its not easy where to throw the blame.
Did the host just fuck up or was it sexism? Maybe the host really loves her work and is read-up on it and got carried away? There are lots of possibilities. I'm not disagreeing with OP, I like that they chipped in. Everyone has the right to push around on their local environment to change it. I'm just wary of people viewing the world as a gender battle because it might turn it into more of a gender battle than it actually was.
That said, he was insensitive at the point in question where he should have let her speak. You could sort of tell he was trying to organise and grasp the ideas in his own mind, probably in an effort to stay on top of things. A clumsy moderator moment more than ingrained sexism.
Let's not forget, she had the right to speak up and say "can I answer the question"... We all have the responsibility and option to guide things back on track if something isn't running smoothly. Don't just sit there waiting for balance to restore, or for the audience to come to rescue, do something about it.
It's not machine code on stage. It's humans. While there's obvious guidelines, there's also normal breathing space for polite interruption as people remember things to add, seek clarification, or in this case answer the question they feel they didn't get the chance to.
Women who do this are very often shamed and called "pushy" or "aggressive" for doing so, even though a man doing it would garner no such complaint. The cultural position of "take charge and get what you want" being appropriate doesn't apply for women. The advice you're giving, frankly, is part of the problem.
The advice is great, why should a panelist take charge if he/she is being run-over by the moderator? The real issue is, like you said, that women are not 'supposed' to be pushy like a man.
No. It's your paranoid prophesy that is frankly the problem.
You're labelling women as victims before any crime has happened. Your confirmation bias has everything worked out ahead of time, including the derogatory remarks awaiting any woman who dares cross the line you've drawn in red paint.
Nobody would label the scientist on the panel as pushy or inappropriate for simply correcting a moderator's error. The moment would be forgotten seconds later instead of becoming the next awkward drama 'one woman vs world of men'.
Nobody's accusing anybody of any "crime." I don't understand why you're stepping up the rhetoric like this. It's not a war, it's not about punishing anyone, it's about correcting social misbehavior that was harmful - whether it was intended to be or not.
> You're labeling women as victims before any crime has happened. Your confirmation bias has everything worked out ahead of time, including the derogatory remarks awaiting any woman who dares cross the line you've drawn in red paint.
Knowing nothing about you (as you know nothing about me), I could easily make the same assertion you're making here: That the only reason you don't see sexism is because you are biased against seeing it. But it's no more likely that everyone in this thread arguing against this being sexism is doing so for biased reasons than it is that everyone arguing that it is sexism is doing so.
What is actually happening is that we have looked at the same situation and seen it two different ways. What's being requested here is some amount of empathy for and understanding of the viewpoint you don't agree with, not some kind of punishment or shaming. When someone says "let her talk," they're not saying "how dare you oppress her with your talking," they're saying "I want to hear from her about her, not from you about her."
I'm a guy; I understand how this could be seen as no big deal to other guys. But I also can see how people not in my situation wouldn't see it that way. I'm asking you to try to do the same, rather than just write off everybody who doesn't share your opinion as irrevocably and maliciously biased.
I am not symapthetic, and have no interest in extending a gesture of patronising charity for the sake of the greater cause - women's rights and equality. An important cause yes, but that isnt an automatic qualification to piggy back on anything that even might possibly be related to that topic.
The expression "mansplaining" is a trashy and sexist term, and when used falsely to condemn someone's likely innocent mistake is highly disrespectful. You want empathy and understanding of a viewpoint stemming from gender put-downs and unfounded accusations of sexism?
People need to hold in their sexism trigger finger for when it actually happens, not when some vague maybe and could-be circumstance provides an excuse to let out a wave of built up disapproval.
Whose judgment are we supposed to trust about "when sexism actually happens?"
Further, why is it so clear to you that this person is not being genuine in retelling her experience of what happened? Why is she "on a soapbox" for talking about things she observed and felt in the moment, whether you agreed with them or not? What has she done to indicate to you that she should not be treated credibly?
If you came forward with a claim of sexism, would you expect us to treat you with the same level of skepticism you're showing here?
> The expression "mansplaining" is a trashy and sexist term, and when used falsely to condemn someone's likely innocent mistake is highly disrespectful. You want empathy and understanding of a viewpoint stemming from gender put-downs and unfounded accusations of sexism?
"Falsely condemn," again, is language that's unnecessarily harsh and misleading, and "unfounded" is simply not true. Sexism (and most forms of bias) is not always explicit or intentional; in fact, many biases are implicit.[1] When you treat a person differently because of their gender (or race, religion, etc.) - whether you are doing it on purpose or not - you are exhibiting bias.
The purpose of calling out that bias is not just or mainly to shame the person. It's to shine a light on behavior that not only is tolerated or not seen as a problem, but that isn't even consciously considered by people whom it doesn't affect. We can argue over the degree to which the moderator was aware that what he was doing was inappropriate, and we can argue over whether the person who called him out delivered her message in the best possible way, but what happened was not acceptable, and the accusation is not unfounded.
You could start by listening to what Veronika Hubeny said in response to the claim:
"I genuinely did not feel affronted or discriminated by the moderator’s behavior...I don’t a-priori assume that the incident was rooted in sexism....I simply gave him the benefit of doubt that he was so excited by the newly-learned idea of the duality that he couldn’t resist, and that the same might have occurred had the panelist been a male instead of me."
Beyond that you could trust the evidence when indisputable, for example when someone uses the term "mansplaining"; or when someone makes a remark about female drivers; or when there's pay disparity for the same role, etc. Pretty obvious really.
The consequences of jumping the gun is that you discredit someone not deserving of that smear campaign. You seem completely insensitive to the moderator, and the potential harm this could bring his reputation. No doubt you believe he can weather the storm because he's a man. That logic is inferred from your earlier remark that women will be labelled "pushy and aggressive" and shamed if seen to be "taking charge" whereas a man would not because of your perception about his "cultural position". Your divisive expectations are working against you in this argument. You believe the hard exterior of a man's shell is worth a few false flags for the good of drawing attention to sexism. I do not believe that which is why I'm replying.
> "Falsely condemn," again, is language that's unnecessarily harsh and misleading,
Why? In her FB post, Talkington states: "The sexism is beyond blatant."
It sounds like you blatantly want this to be about sexism, because why... you want to find evidence of wrong-doing because you're convinced it's rampant and out of control? Calling out sexism is important, but it should never involve discrediting someone based on a hunch, or Facebook post, or whatever other perceived smoking gun motivates you to jump on the hype train.
Put yourself in the moderator's shoes, consider his more than likely innocence in this matter even on the implicit bias front, and good luck with the empathy and understanding. Bye.
Yeah that's not going to happen at a STEM conference with the diversity craziness and witch hunting.
Maybe when hanging out and drinking with people.
So the woman panelist failed in her responsibilities?
Nice try.
She didn't "fail". Please don't put dramatic words in my mouth.
When you accept an invitation to speak on a panel, there are certain expectations around participatory behaviour of all the members. At the rare times something runs off track, there's always an option to speak up and deal with it in the moment.
No harm done. Wait... yes there is. The moderator has been labelled a sexist asshole by a legion of social media button-clickers. He made a mistake, but people like you have taken that mistake and added a world of unrelated issues on top, insisting that's how it is when actually it's most likely a normal moderator error.
The moderator did a bad job, it seems that most accounts agree on that. If he's behaving badly to one member in particular - as the OP states - then it's particularly not her job to save him from looking foolish.
Edit: 'People like you'? Sheesh.
His behavior was bad in that moment, no dispute there, but as for generally bad behavior towards her I disagree.
And yes, "people like you" was my error, sorry. Would edit out if I could. "Button clickers" was insulting too. Sorry!
This probably marks me as an ignorant oppressor, but I do find this style of telling a story to be a bit confusing and off-putting though. Why all the references to "with my hands shaking" and "I'm feeling light headed" and so on?
I guess it's a personal story that she can tell however she likes, but this idea of having a violent physical reaction to a relatively straightforward conversational faux-pas seems to be the hallmark of a certain genre of story.
A weighty argument these days is one with an emotional punch. When was the last time that a presidential debate was about well reasoned points? Are the reposted John Oliver clips the ones that cite the best evidence?
People instinctively share their feelings about an issue because that's how they get to be heard and listened to.
The risk is that the case being made ends up being very convincing to the people who empathise and off-putting to people who don't. I think this thread demonstrates that.
It is an indication of something that you think explaining a woman's own theories to her in public a "relatively straightforward conversational faux-pas". You should ponder that.
On the other hand, the woman who spoke up seems to be an actress working at a theatre, so public speaking is probably not a problem for her.
My opinion, probably worth less than the time it takes to type it, is that the moderator was clearly being very clueless. Therefore I definitely would have wanted to holler "Let her speak please." I'd have been annoyed, and perhaps a little angry.
But sexism in this case is really a stretch. He didn't seem condescending, just excited, and clueless, with just a touch of jackass. As a man who gets talked over by everybody, all the time, I know that you have to be very assertive to get a word in when talking to these donkeys. I think it's much more likely that the woman simply didn't reach that assertiveness threshold.
Notice that "Let her speak please!" works perfectly well, without the leap to the conclusion of sexism that followed here.
If there was a second woman on the panel then we'd have greater clarity about making the assertion if he behaved the same way. Sadly there wasn't which means that we should be cautious about labelling it as out and out sexism.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Albert
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_F._R._Ellis
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Guth
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrei_Linde
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barry_Loewer
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Search?search=Veronika...
George F R Ellis: 30744
Andrei Linde: 56716
Veronika Hubeny: 4874
Barry Loewer: 3431
Alan Guth: >17,317(summed 2 pages in scholar, as he doesn't have a profile there)
David Albert: >5062(summed 3 pages in scholar, counting only papers related to quantum mechanics)
So there are 3 researchers there whose voice can potentially trump others by a margin, if citations are a good measure.
I've seen panels moderated by Neil Degrasse Tyson and Lawrence Krauss and those guys are terrible because they really love to hear themselves speak and will monopolize the discussion.
> Q: Bone to pick: your list excludes women.
> Jim Holt: It wasn’t meant to be that way! I was going to include a Harvard physicist who’s not only a woman but she’s extremely attractive.
WTF?
Maybe he thinks the general public believes that the scientific community tends to discriminate against _attractive_ women the most, and he's trying to address that?
I don't know, but it seems like there may be a bit of a disconnect between him and the rest of society.
This kind of behavior is extremely common in STEM, and happens to everyone. If you don't talk with confidence, purpose, and animation, you're going to get talked over by the alpha nerd of the group. Man, woman, or purple elephant. Problem? Yes. Sexism? No.
Do you have something to add to the discussion, or a question you wanted to ask of me that has some value? I'm not sure what you think your comment accomplishes here.
STEM, as an institution, has historically not provided a level playing field for everyone. So when stuff like this happens, it stops being an alpha nerd issue, and starts becoming a social issue.
Just because the moderator had interrupted some of the other speakers does not mean the OP is wrong in her assessment that Hubeny was egregiously talked-over. I guess if you think the sexism claim is unwarranted, you could help skeptics by linking to timestamps where Holt gives other panelists the same intensity of talk-over he allegedly gave Hubeny.
Edit: I'll play a little Devil's advocate to help the discussion.
At 39:25, the moderator is going on length about...something. His cadence wavers as if inviting anyone to jump in, but he keeps on going: https://youtu.be/Er7qPv8jsZo?t=39m26s
30 seconds later, he finally asks why inflation has such skepticism and points to a panelist. The panelist tells a kind of rambling joke and as he rambles through the punchline, the moderator steps in and moves on to the next question:
https://youtu.be/Er7qPv8jsZo?t=39m50s
Arguably, though, you could say the moderator did the right thing because the panelist made a kind of weak joke, and the moderator had to interject to go onto the next topic. He ends up explaining, in a way that I imagine is more accessible to the audience, the 2 fields of thought, before pointing to another panelist:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Er7qPv8jsZo&feature=youtu.be...
This panelist is given a decent chunk of time to talk, almost 2 minutes, to go over string theory, etc.
At 1:02:00, he pitches to Dr. Hubeny, and he gives her the same treatment in which he takes a good long time to set up the question and the scope that's understandable to the audience, while being a useful topic for her:
https://youtu.be/Er7qPv8jsZo?t=1h1m55s
At about 30 seconds in, as he's describing her position (presumably to the audience), she tries to clarify something , but he keeps talking. However, i think this is case of her misreading the moderator's pause as a cue. About 10 seconds later he finishes his train of thought and cedes the floor to her at around 1:03:00: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Er7qPv8jsZo&feature=youtu.be...
But about 20 seconds later, as she's trying to assert how both theories are correct, the moderator jumps in say "So tell us about those 2 theories".
https://youtu.be/Er7qPv8jsZo?t=1h3m21s
...which is fine, because maybe he sensed the speaker was going to go too deep into details about the equivalence of the 2 models, when the audience would benefit from her describing the models.
...However, this interruption goes on for almost a minute, as he apparently decides to do the work of describing the theories. He eventually stops talking and reverts back to his prior prompt of "tell us a little bit about the 2 theories"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Er7qPv8jsZo&feature=youtu.be...
Hubeny appears ready to speak, but the moderator then goes on for 10 more seconds in which he tries to explain to her what he wants her to explain...and this is where Hubeny "giggles". But she's given about a full minute to talk, which seems reasonable.
----
I don't present the above points as complete evidence, it's what I landed on after randomly scrubbing in the period before the 60 minute mark. I think it's not out-of-line to say that the moderator is aggressive/over-eager in talking too much, and it may not just be sexism. But when you have a panel of 5 men and 1 woman and the woman has had little to speak for 60 minutes in, that's a bad time to go on an extended interruption as he did, as it becomes very noticable.
That said, I don't want to say that the moderator is a total ass. He has 6 highly intelligent and possibly highly specialized people who don't have a unifying topic of debate, so it's incumbent upon him to not only define a scope that the audience can relate to, but aggressively move the discussion forward so that no one rambles too far into their rabbit hole.
14:30 - moderator assumes another panelist's position 'surely you're going to take issue...'
22:30 - moderator explains another panelist's research for him, for nearly 2 full minutes. Attempts to talk over panelist when panelist starts to speak, but notably the panelist consciously speaks louder and repetitively to cut off the moderator.
26:20 - moderator rambles while ignoring a panelist who raises hand wanting to speak (and then hands the conversation to the female panelist)
31:00 - moderator spends a full minute 'explaining' a panelist's philosophy completely incorrectly, before panelist says the summary is incorrect and corrects.
38:00 - moderator rambles about definitions of inflation, asks a cosmologist to explain, cosmologist explains, moderator isn't satisfied and explains more about different definitions of inflation, asks cosmologist to explain better than he did before.
The moderator is simply a dominant personality who wants to play a central role in the conversation rather than moderate it.
If that isn't talking over another panelist, I don't know what is...
I don't like it + assertive = macho, bro, jock, alpha, etc
I don't like it + meek = neckbeard, autistic, etc
1: Alpha nerds are jerks to everyone. (true)
2: A specific instance of an alpha nerd being a jerk to someone can be because they're being sexist. (likely, based on the account I read)
Fallacy of symmetry.
Show me a sequence like what happens from 1:03 to 1:06 (the shout out) to her for the men in attendance. This is also not a case of women not speaking up. She repeatedly tries to answer, tries to interject and get a word in. I didn't watch the entire video, but I failed to see any comparable sequences.
I think in general you're not wrong that there is more generally shitty behaviour than explicitly discriminating behaviour. The right way to go about this is to make a better atmosphere for everyone. We all benefit if the quiet person in the room gets heard, too, and if ideas are properly attributed. This is anyway something we should strive for, and it's great that it also improves the experience of people who were not socialized to inject themselves forcefully, or even socialized to not inject themselves forcefully. Because sexist ideas and behaviours persist in our society these people tend to be women more often, thus the shitty behaviour of alpha nerds hurts women more than men (even if they do them to everyone). That's also why I'm not a big fan of calling people out as sexist.
This moderator was particularly egregious though.
I thought about this argument a bit and I disagree on multiple grounds.
1.) These fields used to be refuge for actual nerds - shy introverted awkward people who could not really cut it elsewhere. What changed and why do we think it is ok that it changed?
2.) How come that loudmouth with half baked ideas who don't really know what he is talking is somehow nerd? Nerd used to be people who knew their shit. Alpha nerd is literally a dude who is pretender - fake who wants to be seen as nerd for social status points.
3.) If this is true, then these fields can not be possible meritocracies. Good ideas from shy and introverted people will be ignored and loudmouths with bad ideas are rewarded.
4.) The moderator quality should be judged on moderation quality. If the audience is so annoyed that they clap over the interruption, then the moderator failed miserably. Such moderators should either learn or be replaced by people who can do it better.
Panel members should not have to do anything special to not be talked over by moderator - it is literally his job to facilitate them talking.
Does anybody else outside Facebook space find it annoying?
(This is for others "hunting" like you and I did.)
But I would like to just point out what, I believe, it's a strong signaling that it was sexism: the whole audience reaction to when the woman shouted: "Let her speak please". There is a genuine, spontaneous and loud ovation. Contrast that with the fact that through the rest of the video, the moderator doesn't act the same way to other panelists; and it makes clear to me that the whole audience was considering the moderator's behavior inappropriate and motivated by her being a woman. So, for subjective assessments, there is some wisdom of the crowd worth considering (especially as this was not a 'feminist' crowd or even a female-biased crowd, on the contrary, I believe).
Now, to give the moderator some credit, after some awkward moment where he does not know how to keep it cool, he does take the hint and shut up.
EDIT: I would like to give some more credit to the moderator. At the video moment that lorenzhs pointed out below (https://youtu.be/Er7qPv8jsZo?t=1h1m55s), the moderator explicitly state that Veronika Hubeny was not given a chance to speak about her knowledge. This, I believe, is an indicator that the moderator is not a bad person and his sexism is not conscious or originated by strong believe that women are not as capable in the field as men. I still believe he is patronizing and is being sexist, but in a way that he can get the feedback and change his behavior, as he is not a sexist. He was being sexist, he is not one. My point is: he seems to be a nice person, not a villain, that is influenced by a sexist environment. And changing that environment should be our goal, not pointing fingers. As Marilee Talkington did, politely and publicly.
EDIT 2: After reading Hubeny's comment I'm more in doubt if it was sexism. Actually, I'm more inclined to believe it was not sexism. As I said, it is a subjective call, and her opinion matters most than others as she is the subject and used to being surrounded by men in her profession. Her comment is very kind and smart also in itself, worth reading.
No idea where you get that from, if not the wave of social media outrage. There's no evidence of sexism here at all.
The audience applauded because of the injustice taking place at that moment which the moderator was unaware of. He was being rude by not letting her speak at that point. Everyone saw and applauded when balance was restored.
Nothing to do with sexism, it was just a clumsy moderator moment that could have happened to anyone.
He could have handled it better by saying "let me talk for a moment about your theories, if I may, and then I'll hand over to you". That would have been acceptable, but he didn't do that, and she felt unable to speak. Audience was with her, and applauded.
At 27:05 he asks her a question and does not interrupt, so it's not like there are no examples of him being polite and treating her with the same respect as other members.
I don't see why people should be expected to all be equally sonorous, when clearly people are not equally interested in it.
they are literally shaking, and they are accurately describing their stress response.
Can you not be annoyed by something without starting to shake every time? Especially if you try to interpret rudeness as sexism...
> I am in full outrage. My body is actually beginning to shake.
Outrage to me means anger and not fear.
Most of the comments here appear to assume that prejudice is determined solely (or mainly) by the moderator's intentions-- hence the endless quests to somehow prove what is or isn't lurking in the moderator's soul.
That seems irrelevant in this case, but I haven't read the relevant sociological literature so that's all I can say.
Are there any sociologists here that can flesh this out (with citations)?
Edit: clarification
But basically you can never know someone's intention with 100% certainty. There is always the possibility that someone has different intentions than you think they are or that they say they have. Even if it is someone you know very well and trust there is the possibility that you are in some sort of Truman Show where everyone you know has been lying to you your whole life. Or, if we want to get into psychology, there is the possibility that a person could think their intentions are really one thing but subconsciously they might be something else.
So if we can't depend on knowing someone's intentions then we only have the act itself and its impact.
Of course, this opens up a deep rabbit hole in that we can't trust anyone's intentions, including the person that wrote this facebook post. Or mine for leaving this comment...
I'm really looking for a citation of something much more fundamental.
If I wanted to assess the security of Firefox, it would be inane to try to do so by assessing each bug individually. Instead, I could ask on HN, "What books should I read to begin learning how to assess the security of Firefox?" And even though I'd probably get a lot of responses trying to clarify what I mean by "security", I'd certainly get some solid reference materials that outline current approaches to assessing security that are based on the best research available.
Now suppose I want to assess sexism in the sciences in academia. It would be inane to try to do so by assessing each alleged case of sexism individually. What books should I read to assess sexism in academia? I'd like to hear about reference books (or articles) that outline current approaches to assessing sexism in academia that are based on the best research available.
You mean those who have redefined words to push certain agendas that have cost their entire field a great deal of credibility in the minds of many?
But it happens more often to women. Also, if the person being interrupted asserts themselves they're seen in a positive light if they're male but a negative light if they're female.
And in this case there's a video, and he interrupts her far more often than he interrupts the other male guests.
But I think it only works if we don't jump demonize or defend Holt and try to simply use him to score points for our side. Instead, if I empathize for all of the characters, there's something to be gained from each.
When I imagine myself in Holt's shoes (which, to be honest, is unfortunately a little too easy for me to do), it's a reminder to be more of a listener and less focused on filling silence or letting my own inner monologue take over. I'm overly sensitive to pauses in conversation and tend to rush to fill them. But some people are naturally quieter, more pensive, or have a different preferred cadence. It's important to cater to them. This is true regardless of their gender, but is particularly true for women where society has trained them to be the conceding person when two people — deliberately or accidentally — start talking at the same time.
Hubeny handled the whole thing with remarkable grace, both during and after. She didn't get irate on stage and tried to respond to Holt and go with the flow to keep things moving, even when she had every right to be frustrated. She certainly would have been justified in pushing back on him, but she demonstrated another important social skill, which is giving people some benefit of the doubt. Good engineers never forget about tolerances and safety factors and our social interactions need those too. We're humans. We make mistakes. When others around us handle those tactfully, it helps the whole machine run smoother.
It is, of course, totally unfair when women find themselves having to do a disproportionate amount of this social lubrication. But that's why it's useful for me (a man) to empathize with her in this interaction. It helps remind me to pick up that role more than I probably do now.
And, then, of course, Talkington's description is a perfect encapsulation of how frightening, but also important and rewarding it is to stand up for what you believe in. The applause she received afterwards shows that while most in the audience didn't have the courage she had, at least most of them did have their hearts in the right place. That's a sign of progress to me.
https://www.ted.com/talks/philip_zimbardo_on_the_psychology_...
I don't know how to write this without sounding like I in any way would defend sexism in any form, I mean maybe I should show I'm not sexist by piling on the male on stage and breaking out the pitch-fork or something.
I wish people could stop supporting these articles about serious issues that are so emotive build purely to play on/abuse human emotions? It just hurts every cause.
Veronika Hubeny on the other hand wrote a response very worthy of HN.
Anecdotally as a man any time I am in a group that has a majority of woman the men get talked over by the woman all the time. I grew up in a family that was a majority woman and the same thing happened all the time, I would say generally in social settings where one sex has the majority they tend to talk over the opposite sex and control the conversation. It is human nature. However we can and should be better then that but it is hard.
"Let her speak please", there are some many things wrong with this, starting with live tweeting this panel's discussion.
Just watch the video! There are so many more interesting and inspiring things to discuss. Listen to what they are saying. They are talking about the nature of reality and if it's possible for us to understand it.
Edit: I just got to the point where the audience member yelled out. What a disgusting display, who do they think they are, they should "check their privilege". This type of forum is not the place for aggressive behaviour like that. It's not good enough.
While the moderator had a bad habit of talking too much and answering his own questions to all panelists, he didn't talk over the other (male) panelists, he only seemed to do that to Veronika Hubeny.
b) In a perfect world, if the same thing was happening to a man, I would hope someone would speak up for him as well. Not only was the authors behavior an example of feminism in action, we could also say it was an act of human decency.
It also applies equally well to other introverts, it's just a good social rule in general. Let people finish their thoughts.
Most times people aren't doing it to be an asshole, they just are focused on a point or are extroverted and are unintentionally dominating the conversation.
There was the Alan Alda / Tina Feye talk about communicating that was quite good. If your waiting to say your thing instead of listening..
I do understand that it isn't nice or anything but that post blows it up to much which leads to disliking it.
I'm not sure if this phenomenon has been studied in adulthood, but I wouldn't be surprised if some remnant of it remains. Could this simply be an example of that phenomenon in action? Which isn't to say this isn't sexism, I wouldn't consider those two things mutually exclusive.
EDIT: to be clear, I'm not absolving the moderator of blame, or placing any fault on the woman. I'm simply linking this behavior to a broader social phenomenon that is fairly well studied. I personally think what he did was sexist, whether or not that was his intent.
Women are less aggressive and assertive by nature.
Testosterone and stupidity (much more prevalent in male population) does wonders when it comes to being aggressive, assertive and risk seeking.
There are social constructs but I would not deny biology. Effect of testosterone and estrogen on behavior has been studied extensively and it is quite clear from that why men and women behave the way they do.
Is women avoiding STEM a social construct? It most definitely is. Is women having lower salaries a social construct? In some cases yes, in some cases it is quite clear that they are not as risk taking as men, and are much more agreeable (they will not risk by asking a higher salary during a job interview).
http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2015/04/08/reddit-ceo-ellen...
A nice example of how biology created an inequality.
I have nothing to back this up, but my personal opinion is that the reason is our patriarchal society.
It permeates our shared culture to such an extent, that most people don't see it. Women and girls even participate in it, and use it to perpetuate it. It is everywhere. Literally everywhere. From the moment of birth to the moment of death, you are immersed in it. It's not really a wonder that children would pick it up quickly and act accordingly.
If you ever are able to glimpse it - you likely won't be able to unsee it. It becomes blindingly obvious.
You and others may or may not agree with me, so I'll just leave this here:
https://cdn-images-1.medium.com/max/800/1*yiv4glZWr2rzS2BMOo...
The moderator talks too much along the whole video. Not a sexist thing though.
A link on how to handle interrupts: http://www.marionspeaks.com/_blog/Marions_Communication_Tips...
If someone's implicit biases (or given the circumstances, like having ten or hundred men in the room versus one woman) cause them to act differently toward women than men, it's still sexism - intentional or not. I'd encourage the men in this thread to exercise a bit of empathy and imagine what it'd be like to be the only man in a room full of 100 women (eg. Miley Cyrus concert) - not particularly comfortable!
I'm often the only man in a room of 10-40 women, eg "Mums & Toddlers" groups and at work. There's usually a degree of overt sexism and exclusion; however acting differently toward me is human nature, we have two different sexes.
Sexism that's not negative discrimination seems like something we should just live with. Some intentional (or at least easily avoided) sexism falls in that class IMO.
It is almost like the moderators in HN have a clearly defined and very limited political range of ideological opinions they believe in and that they only allow anyone else to express - or even discuss about - their personal opinions if they mirror those of the moderators.
Either the community has control, or the moderators do and we should just remove voting altogether.
4 June at 17:40 ·
So, after thinking about this over night, I've decided to share something that happened at the WORLD SCIENCE FESTIVAL yesterday afternoon in NYC that changed me. Or rather made me step into who I am in a larger way.
As some on my feed have seen, I was live-feeding the beginning of the panel discussion on FB. That panel was made up of some of the greatest and most famous minds in the world in Inflationary Cosmology, String Theory, Cosmology and Physics based Philosophy. The panel was made up of 5 men and 1 woman. And the moderator was a science writer and journalist for The New Yorker.
In the first hour of the panel discussion you can see clearly, if watching the video, that Veronika Hubeny, the only woman on the panel is barely given any opportunity to speak. And the Moderator, Jim Holt even acknowledges this.
In the last 20-30 minutes of the 90 minute discussion Jim Holt finally pushes the conversation to Hubeny's field of expertise, string theory, and this is what ensued:
He asked her to describe her two theories of string theory that seem to contradict one another.
And THEN, without letting her answer, proceeded to answer for her and describe HER theories in detail without letting her speak for herself.
We could clearly see that she was trying to speak up. But he continued to talk over her and dominate the space for several minutes.
I should say that this panel was taking place in a large auditorium as it is an extremely high-profile and always sold-out event. And the panel discussion was being live-streamed across the world and they say that millions of people watch these videos after they are made public. (Which they already are).
So at this point, after seeing very clearly that she was not going to be given space to speak and in fact having her own theories described to the audience by the moderator, I am in full outrage. My body is actually beginning to shake. The sexism is beyond blatant. It is happening on stage and NO ONE, not a single other physicist or panelist is stepping in to say anything about it. And I can hear other audience members around me, both men and women becoming more and more agitated with what is happening. Jim Holt, even at one point, asks Veronica a question and she laughs because he has been answering his own questions about her work...and he makes fun of her for 'giggling'.
So at some point while he is Still talking about Her theories, I just can't handle it any longer.
With my hands shaking,
I finally say from my seat in the 2nd row of the audience, as clearly, directly and loudly as possible;
"Let. Her. Speak. Please!"
The moderator stops.
They all stop.
The auditorium drops into silence.
You could hear a pin drop.
And then the audience explodes with applause and screams.
Jim Holt eventually sat back, only after saying I was heckling him
And he let her speak.
And of course, she was brilliant.
-----------------------
So, the panel discussion ends.
My hands are still shaking. I'm still upset by the incredible sexism that has been demonstrated this afternoon. But I also realize that I just spoke up in an auditorium full of people that are listening to people that are considered gods in the international science world. I was just overwhelmed by it all
We get up to leave.
And then it happens.
Person after person come up to me. Both men and women.
The first woman, right behind me, reaches over and embraces me and says, "Oh my god. what you said was the most important thing that was said all day. Thank you. Thank you."
And then people start filing out of their aisles and wind their way over to me:
"Was that you? Thank you so much for speaking up. Thank you."
"Was that you? Oh god, what he was doing was horrific. Thank you. I wanted to do something but didn't know how"
"Was that you? I wish I had the courage to say something, thank you! Thank you so much"
"Was that you? You said what everyone here was thinking. Look I had even been writing in my notebook what you eventually said (shows me his notebook with 'let her speak' written over and over.) But you said it. You said it. Thank you."
"Was that you? Thank you! I felt so powerless to do anything."
And on.
So we were all thinking this.
----
So I walked out. And my friend who was sitting about 8 rows behind me, came up to me with a huge grin and said
"That was you, wasn't it? Of course it was. YES!!!!! I will be telling this story for years."
And the whole time, my hands are still shaking. And I'm felling light-headed. And I just want to scream out into the lobby "WHY IS THIS SEXISM STILL HAPPENING? WHY, does someone like me, with No status in that room, have to be so extraordinarily bold and speak up? And why was it so frightening to do so?"
And I'm thinking. "God, please god let this be an opening for those that were here today and the tens of thousands that watched the live-streaming of the panel yesterday and the hundreds of thousands that will watch the video this year- to speak up when we see this happening. And please let me not be afraid to do this again
...and again
...and again"
Because it was scary.
Please keep giving me courage.
> WHY, does someone like me, with No status in that room, have to be so extraordinarily bold and speak up? And why was it so frightening to do so?
Audience members do have some status, she actually exercised the precise limit of that status. Audience members aren't meant to have equal status, because that's just called a bunch of people in a studio / anarchy.
[Edit: Thanks to the mods for taking responsibility for allowing this discussion].
How could he?!
In case of someone getting confused by my handle, I was going to reply "Not on the first date though" in response to the sentence "Most people would prefer to hear something along the lines of 'I love you and want to marry you.'" in this comment https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14499533 earlier today, but then thought better after I had already made the account, but didn't bother to log out either. If you don't understand something, assume there's a super cool reason that's not for you to know.
We detached this comment from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14507266 and marked it off-topic.
Your use of this vapid phrase is itself a form of virtue signalling.
On the right, it might be: murder is bad, therefore I oppose abortion.
On the left: gay marriage is good, and opposition to it is homophobia, therefore Brandon Eich should be fired.
When the link between X and Y is too specious, it implies the speaker's primary goal is to show virtue by opposing X, rather than any real concern they have about Y.
I'm curious, for those that seem so absolutely certain that things are only exactly one thing, where does this confidence come from? I have yet to see any evidence that life is that simple.
We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14506656 and marked it off-topic.
Scarborough doesn't even appear to know he's doing it, and Brzezinski seems to be powerless to stop him.
https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/05/04/business/media/morning...
I was actually making a general comment. In fact, I'm actually pretty interested in what Mika has to say, and frankly it's very rare she gets a word in edgeways...
It appears I've offended others with my observation. That's a pity, because I actually really like Joe Scarborough, one of the few pro-Republican commentators on air who makes reasonable sense and is able to put forward conservative stances in ways I can grapple with. Just my 2c
Some of the fun examples: - men get talked over too! (doesn't mean this isn't sexist) - he's just an asshole (doesn't mean he's not a sexist asshole) - that woman is just looking for a social justice moment (how about the rest of the audience?)
If you don't want to be interrupted, keep talking. If the moderator is an ass, he's an ass.
If you expect to always be treated with respect by default, a) you're privileged and b) you're deluded. Those men probably learnt to assert themselves because if they didn't, they'd be invisible. The woman on the other hand learned that if she waits long enough, someone will stand up for her and everyone will applaud.
So the cycle continues, that those whose problems are automatically taken seriously by most are those who are the least self sufficient and the most coddled. Hacker culture and the internet doesn't apply this rule so much, most of all because physical attractiveness and charisma is usually out of the picture.
What's that line again, about how when you're used to privilege, equal treatment feels like oppression? Strange how nobody examines it in both directions.
The real question is was this behavior sexist in this context?
That's much easier to answer: yes. How we know:
A woman said she was seeing a discrimination pattern.
But what if she's wrong?
Then we'll overcorrect for sexism, realize it, and ideally find a point of moderation. Guess what...we're probably going to do that anyway because no system is perfect so the likelihood of moderately correcting sexism without over-/under-correcting is low.
All we need to do is let the women speak and give their perspective equal footing.
This can more easily be resolved without attempting to force objective judgments. I know that can be a hard idea for science-minded people to swallow. Unfortunately, science has become too objective and still lacks solid frameworks for dealing with the subjective experience, which sexism is so clearly intertwined with.