It is hard and subjective to assess if the moderator behavior was just indiscriminately rude or sexism by mansplaining. That's why I don't expect the comments here to be as interesting and enlightening as for other common topics at HN.
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.
> I believe, it's a strong signaling that it was sexism
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 watched a bunch of the video. The guy is a poor moderator. Using this term creates a charged bias on the reader, who almost certainly hasn't seen the video: It labels the moderator's behaviour as purposefully sexist and paints a clear picture of something that is actually really, really hard to read.
On top of this, what if you're wrong? What if this is a genuine mistake (which it honestly appears to be -- watch his reaction to the audience member saying 'let her speak')? Put yourself in his shoes: You make a mistake that has nothing to do with gender and you're now painted by hordes of headline-readers as the ambassador to all things sexism. Are you okay with this?
There's actual, serious problems of sexism and gender bias in STEM. Cherry-picking situations where socially awkward people were disrespectful to someone else who happens to be a woman isn't just pointless, it's actively harmful to feminist causes.
Yes I'm ok with it. The whole point of "mansplaining" and similar terms is to draw attention to behaviors which otherwise would not be noticed by a lot of men.
Situations like this don't have to be purposeful, conscious, and malicious to problematic. In fact the reason sexism is so hard to fight is that it is usually unconscious habit. The power of default.
It's not an issue of cherry picking; this sort of thing happens all the time. It's only by calling dramatic attention to it that people can start to change. No one changes their habits easily. It takes motivation and a lot of reminding.
What you are doing here is turning something that is quite likely completely unrelated to gender, into a gender issue.
This is not useful. It doesn't "fight sexism", it makes the battle harder to fight because you end up fighting an enemy that doesn't exist. You're moving the goal posts.
And I am 100% for fighting "unconscious biases", but my point is this isn't even necessarily that.
Please read some of the comments here. Please read Veronika Hubeny's reply. None of the people who were actually involved in this think it has to do with sexism/gender. Great, a woman stood up for another woman, an awkward moderator was humbled, and we all learned and felt a little better at the end of the day. Now, by turning this into a sexism issue, trying to claim that the moderator was "mansplaining" without even bothering to figure out whether it is conscious or not, not only are you drawing a new dragon to fight against, but you're subjecting a moderator to potential bullying and harassment.
None of this is motivating. It's pretty dreadful in fact, and the idea that you might be subjecting an innocent to this sort of treatment is turning people off the cause -- in fact, it's far likelier to make them even more cautious and tread even more carefully when talking about it (which through continued self-censorship ends up turning the entire community into an echo chamber).
Please focus on the real dragons. Changing people's views and behaviour takes focus and patience. Look at the environmentalism and lgbt movements: They're fighting for issues that the majority of people aren't (directly) affected by, but they're winning because, the majority of the time, they use other people's compassion to fight real issues.
Here instead, you're taking something we've all been guilty of in our life (talking too long and over someone else) and turning the person into an enemy because it might have had something to do with gender. Do you realize how horrifying that is?
You miss the point: as you note, there's a sexist behaviour observed in some men. You have to choose a word to describe this behaviour. If you choose a word that suggests that a whole category has that certain behaviour, then you are being sexist.
Let me show that with a simple example.
Some women are always complaining and whining. You have to find a word for this behaviour. If you choose a word (femmwhining, maybe?) that implies that all women are always complaining and whining, then you are being sexist.
The problem is not just people talking over people in general, the problem is specifically men talking over women, so a term that encapsulates that gender dynamic is appropriate.
A term that is gender neutral would be inaccurate and useless for drawing attention to the problem.
> the moderator was somehow socially aware (such people exist) and felt, or seemed to feel, that the interviewee was anxious, and felt that doing the talking for her made her more comfortable.
Oh! OK, so not sexism, just paternalism. But only for the female panelist.
It's only paternalism if his motivation is based on the person's sex, surely. How can you tell that motivation? Why not political bias, nepotism (friend-of-a-friend, say), pity, ...?
2. what is the deal with audiences thinking they can shout??? Where are the manners?
1. the moderator either was thrilled he was with a superstar and overtalked to show her his knowledge, to elevate to her level - or he was a total disrespectful jerk.
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.