You'd have to agree though that it's a remarkable coincidence that the moderator began to ramble when he started talking about a topic that he was particularly excited about and which he was not particularly knowledgeable about.
I don't expect he set out that day to make the scientist shut up because she was a woman. A lot of sexism is so deeply rooted that it's not even hostile by the men who engage in it, it's simply the acting of the cultural norms, for example, that men can talk over women.
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.
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.
When I'm excited about something I'm prone to talking over everybody, and after realising this was sometimes squeezing people out of conversations where they could provide valuable input I've done my best to learn to catch myself doing this and try and consciously stop and let them talk.
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)
> 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.
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've concluded that I don't have enough data to be sure but wouldn't be surprised if it's a mixture of all three - testosterone levels correlating with assertiveness/aggressiveness seems sufficient to suggest biology may play a part, and I've definitely seen the latter two happen.
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.
> I've spoken to people like this moderator and they just ramble over any topic they get excited about.
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.
Respectfully, I disagree. I am also not convinced that his motivations really matter, in the end he demonstrated that it's okay to let the men speak but not the one woman. In my mind, this is what really matters.
> 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.
Just because she's strong enough to survive in her field and ignore the sexism doesn't mean it isn't there and should be tried and challenged.
If there's an obstacle course in front of the entrance to a supermarket, I would still have to get food. Even if I'd make it through it, I don't think anyone should have to.
Survivors of inequality doesn't disprove the existence of inequality. Yes, individually you shouldn't let inequality stop you from trying and fighting, but collectively we should fix that shit.
I like how you quote her response where she is talking about sexism in general(which certainly exists), when I and OP were talking about the specific event, and whether it was sexism.
Why didn't you quote this part instead?
> 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.
1) That's a great way to dismiss any woman's viewpoint: she just can't express what she really feels because of fear
2) good point. Groups of people are never wrong, and there's certainly no selection bias going on. And it was definitely the entire room and not just some subset of the room
3) I agree, but if this is about the supposed victim, then perhaps the supposed victim should have some input.
4) I'm not sure how you can claim it is sexism. Do you know the mental state of the host? Did you consider the supposed victims explanation of why it happened that was not sexism? If a woman is ever treated differently from a man or men, is that automatically sexism?
1) This is a two parter now: First off, you're the one stating "woman's" viewpoint, this is irrelevant. Secondly, "fear" only in potential professional impact. Also unrelated to gender. If you were mistreated in any way in a public and professional setting, and it wasn't malicious (which I don't think it was) you're probably better off just playing it off rather than escalating it, which is what she did.
2) Are you being sarcastic?
3) She absolutely should, but I'm just not sure if it's relevant. Have you ever finished a sentence for a stutterer, behaved differently around physically disabled people, maybe intellectually been more thorough in conversation? Both of these things are seemingly "considerate" or "well-meaning", but they are nonetheless very condescending. If you've never been on the receiving end you might not grasp the concept, which I think is a contributor to people (typically able white men) discrediting these experiences as over-sensitivity.
4) I claim it from watching the entire video and comparing how he yielded the floor to EVERY other panelists immediately if they ended up speaking at the same time, which he did not do for her to my count 8 times, as well as treating the other non-native speaker (man) very differently than her, to rule out that factor. To your last question: That's a tough hypothetical, but if it's systemic I'm inclined to say yes. If incidental, no.
How is it trolling? Mansplaining is in the OED and I explained myself beyond just throwing the term out. Is it because I'm mirroring the supposed victims own words and not jumping on the sexism train, which goes against the received wisdom of this forum?
Now you're meta-trolling. If you want to comment on this site, you need to do so substantively and thoughtfully. If you continue to violate that rule, we're going to ban your account.
That's the obvious retort, but if you think about it, it's easy. Simply don't do things that imply bad faith (rhetorical questions, irrelevant distraction, drive-by swipes, grandiose posturing—all of which you managed to cram in there) and instead do some things that imply good faith, like taking responsibility and finding common ground.
Rhetorical questions have been used by rhetoricians for thousands of years without bad faith. Whether something was sexist or not when reading an article about a supposed sexist event seems highly relevant, especially when the supposed victims has gone on record saying she didn't think it was sexism.
Am I getting special attention because there is a received wisdom around sexism in segments of the tech community which I'm not acknowledging? I'm not sure how other communities operate, but I've noticed that, basically, if anything negative happens to a woman or minority in the tech community, it is automatically assumed that it was because they are a woman or minority. This situation is a perfect example.
No - I'm saying I trust first hand accounts from supposed victims more than I trust third hand accounts from random people on the internet mansplaining what happened.
> The only way to improve society is to recognize when things are really done with ill intent
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.
It may be uncomfortable, but it's the only way to make cultural progress.
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.
"Prevent all potentially offensive behaviour" is not a valid solution. What constitutes offense is subjective, and furthermore the topic at hand is sexism.
The issue at hand is an example for precisely the opposite. Everybody agrees that the moderator's behaviour was inappropriate, the discussion is mostly about how bad it was (what should the consequences be?) and the label (sexism or not?).
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".
You're using a different definition of 'offensive' than I am. Also, note that no societies we regard highly have outlawed talking over people. Unless your plan is to modify institutions to reduce offensive behaviour you won't have much luck.
Yes you did, but then you said that the solution is to reform society so that informal social rules are never broken. And I'm saying that unless you want to make those rules into laws, or something like laws, it's not doable.
I still don't get it. Who said that informal social rules shall never never broken? Who talked about reforming society?
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.
"Are you saying we should fix when people geek out about a topic and ramble?"
"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.
In the context of being a moderator for a panel of people who have gathered specifically to talk about their things, yes, it's a bad thing to geek out and ramble over someone. The audience haven't gathered to listen to the moderator crap on; they're there for the panelists.
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.
Whether sexism or not, if you are moderator and ramble like that, you are doing it wrong. Meaning someone more capable should take your position next time.
Many things that hurt people are done without ill intent. They are often done out of fear, or laziness, or ignorance. The people that do them often do them thoughtlessly or out of a belief that the reasons they do them are so self-evident that they don't deserve much thought.
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.
> 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.
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.
But again, his bad social skills only kicked in for the woman.
We 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.
What about the possibility that if someone is being a douchebag, blaming their shitty behaviour on the "bad at social skills" strawman is not an excuse any more (or ever was).
TLDR Even if its not a purely sexist situation if women make up a significant percentage of the victims of this behavior I think it is OK to consider it in the context of women. Rape isn't entirely male on female, both male on male and female on male and female on female also occur but male on female rape is the most prevalent and therefore gets an appropriate proportional amount of attention. It doesn't mean thats the only way it occurs but why derail a conversation about a serious issue facing women by reminding them that they aren't 100% of the problem, just 99%.
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.
According to the national crime victimization survey, males account for more than 1/3 of reported rape victims, and males are known to underreport compared to females. It could easily be 50/50.
I think females are also known to under-report as well but its hard to know who under reports more.
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 mean, the stigma has probably been around for tens of thousands of years in the form of masculinity. Bravery and courage probably evolved because men had to do all of the risky hunting and defense and so societies which rewarded make sacrifice and success flourished and the others largely died out.
Agreed, but that doesn't necessarily have as much of a place in modern society or at least there are limits to how many jobs/lifestyles reward those traits. In the same way that women can be frustrated by an unattainable feminine ideal portrayed by media, men face the same dilemma at the opposite end of the spectrum.
Labels can ruin people. This was perhaps poor manners and should be mentioned but how can Marilee Talkington look deep into someone's "soul" by one single event and determine that they practice culturally rooted sexism?
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.[…]
Sexism is unavoidable, and it is not always a negative. Men hold open doors, or offer up their seat, for women more often than for men. That too is sexism, but rarely do you hear complaints.
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.
> Sexism is unavoidable, and it is not always a negative. Men hold open doors, or offer up their seat, for women more often than for men. That too is sexism, but rarely do you hear complaints.
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.
Yes, the moderator's behaviour would have been wrong against any person, no matter their gender. But it is especially inappropriate when done against those who have to endure this more than others throughout their life.
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.
Yeah, this gets into a problem where people use the word "sexism" in a couple different ways, that don't mean the same thing. Mostly conscious vs unconscious, I think? Almost no one goes home and writes, "Dear Diary, today I insulted some women, because I hate women. Let's keep doing that." So of course, if you accuse someone of being that kind of conscious sexist, it's a huge insult. You're calling them a sad hate monster person. When we do talk about other people's sexism, especially if those people don't have a lot of practice talking about unconscious bias, it might be a good idea to reassure them that we're not calling them a hate monster.
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?
> Saying "that wasn't sexist; so-and-so is actually less assertive" kind of assumes that we're talking about conscious sexism.
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.
> 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.
I don't disagree with the sentiment, but I felt it important to point out that the assumption made in the sentence I quoted was itself a sexist assumption.
