35 ms·

“Let her speak please”

• porky 9y ago
  Noticed that too, also on other WSF videos. These is pretty common in the academics world as a rule, even between males (visible on this video)
• vjvj 9y ago
  Can someone paste the contents here?
  • gamache 9y ago
    Screenshots here: https://twitter.com/SarahLerner/status/871754739817512963 https://twitter.com/SarahLerner/status/871754739817512963
  • nailer 9y ago
    Marilee Talkington 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.
    • ygaf 9y ago
      Thanks for the FBpaste. > 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.
• danso 9y ago
  The Observer has an article about this: http://observer.com/2017/06/sexism-science-facebook-mansplaining/ http://observer.com/2017/06/sexism-science-facebook-mansplai... The video of the event is here: http://www.worldsciencefestival.com/programs/big-universe-bigger-questions/ 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 https://youtu.be/Er7qPv8jsZo?t=1h1m55s
  • nailer 9y ago
    1:05:39 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.
    • accountyaccount 9y ago
      gaslighting in a nutshell
    • nervousvarun 9y ago
      "Nerds do this a lot." Agreed but we can be less specific here...human males do this a lot.
      • iiv 9y ago
        We can be even less specific: humans do this a lot.
  • pxm 9y ago
    And the "let her speak please" happens just after 1:05: https://youtu.be/Er7qPv8jsZo?t=3928 https://youtu.be/Er7qPv8jsZo?t=3928
    • curiousgal 9y ago
      A Youtube comment: 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.
• retox 9y ago
  Mansplaining, bleh.
  • pokemongoaway 9y ago
    How many times do we have to tell feminists that this isn't sexism? Ya all those people on stage just HATE women! What about bad manners? What about cut throat career promoting academicians getting an audience?
    • seanhandley 9y ago
      You want to tell feminists what sexism is? My advice: don't. Listen.
      • humanrebar 9y ago
        Isn't this whole thread about not letting people talk over you? Only listening and not being able to contribute back to what should be a conversation? Everyone has the right to express frustration, I think.
        • Ensorceled 9y ago
          You missed the point entirely. This thread is specifically and pointedly about men speaking over top women, especially when there is a power differential (panelist vs. moderator in this case). Not about the general problem of needing to speak up for yourself.
          • TheGirondin 9y ago
            Exactly. The other poster needs to just shut up.
          • pokemongoaway 9y ago
            How is it that you get to decide what this is about by interpreting the article with a certain slant, and then use that slant to say he's not discussing actually 'your' point?
• asmosoinio 9y ago
  Since for some reason (flagging) this has fallen of the first page, I posted the Observer article also: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14505232 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14505232
• jasonshen 9y ago
  Edit: I watched the video. The moderator goes on and on and the "let her speak please" sounds very polite. 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-secret-to-smart-groups-isnt-smart-people/384625/ 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.
  • kirRoyale 9y ago
    You know men get talked over by women too?
    • lawik 9y ago
      Do you believe that it is as common? Do you believe that the person you are replying to doesn't believe that it ever happens? Does excluding a full disclaimer invalidate his thoughts about trying not to talk over women or dominating conversations? I don't believe it is always necessary to counter-exemplify what you experience as a general trend.
      • wayn3 9y ago
        watch the recode lady interview any one of her favourite nerds.
      • oneoff_147 9y ago
        My personal experience, especially through family and to a lesser extent through other acquaintances, is of women dominating conversations and talking over men. I (a man) can't tell you how many times I've had a woman ask me a question and then talk over my answer, or repeatedly interrupt me when I try to participate in a conversation. And I see the same thing happening to other men I know. The men just kind of give up and fade into the background as they realize they are simply not going to be allowed to speak. Now I'm perfectly willing to believe that other people find the opposite experience more common. But I have to admit my initial reaction to statements like "this is a painfully frustrating reminder that women get talked over by men" is not positive, and I really do wish the conversation could be about people dominating conversations rather than men dominating conversations.
• curiousgal 9y ago
  >he continued to talk over her and dominate the space for several minutes >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
  • mosselman 9y ago
    My thoughts exactly. It is beyond all doubt that sexism exists in the world, there are countless examples of it, from Disney movies, toy advertisement, philharmonic orchestra, etc, etc. 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.
    • DanBC 9y ago
      People talking over other people is a problem of sexism because the people doing the talking are mostly men, and the people being talked over are mostly (but not always) women; but also because the consequences for challenging this behaviour are different for men and women. 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.
      • collyw 9y ago
        Bollocks. I have two ex-collegues who were exactly like this, no matter who they interacted with. I make a point of avoiding them now.
      • mosselman 9y ago
• chris_wot 9y ago
  Can someone please pass that note to Joe Scarborough also? He was interviewed by Colbert, and not once was this raised. Seriously, watch Morning Joe and he just will not let Mika Brzezinski speak, and you can see her suppressing her frustration. Scarborough doesn't even appear to know he's doing it, and Brzezinski seems to be powerless to stop him.
  • humanrebar 9y ago
    It can't bother her too much. They just announced their engagement. https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/05/04/business/media/morning-joe-engaged.html https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/05/04/business/media/morning...
    • deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]
    • chris_wot 9y ago
      That doesn't mean it doesn't bother her!
      • humanrebar 9y ago
        I'm assuming she isn't interested in marrying a sexist jerk. But, yes, there's plenty of room to be annoyed with ones' significant other. It's to be expected, really.
        • chris_wot 9y ago
          I don't think he's being intentionally sexist. In fact, I don't think he realises what he's doing at all! 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
• marvin 9y ago
  Aaaaaand it's flagged. No surprises there. I was refreshing every five minutes to see how long it would take. [Edit: Thanks to the mods for taking responsibility for allowing this discussion].
  • cooper12 9y ago
    The mere thought that the world isn't a meritocracy frightens techbros. Any word ending in -ism is like a swear word to them. It's a really big problem that no one wants to acknowledge and if you do bring it up suddenly you're an SJW, combative, political, etc... It speaks numbers that in the link so many people had the same thought as the author, but were afraid to speak out. We've successfully stigmatized calling people out in society because that would be impolite and PC culture. There used to be a phrase "speak truth to power", but it doesn't really work when so many are silenced and ostracized.
    • pbhjpbhj 9y ago
      Or the flagging is because these issues are trawled over here regularly and never really go anywhere, and people feel there are already better fora to discuss those issues?
      • cooper12 9y ago
        > never really go anywhere Better to sweep them under the rug and pretend they don't exist then. > there are already better fora Such as? This is a tech forum, one of places which currently has a lot of issues with sexism and discrimination. It should be one of the first places addressing it. What's this alternate forum? Somewhere out of sight and out of mind I'm sure. The fact that my comment got flagged is just testament to its veracity.
        • pbhjpbhj 9y ago
          This is a tech forum, in part, as you suggest. So surely avoiding issues which are primarily social and don't have a specific bearing on tech is reasonable. The other fora I see as better would be one's concerned with sex discrimination, probably IRL places. If someone posts on HN about a library someone wrote, a hack they did, obscure details of a back-end, a new startup .. the sex of the people involved is very rarely even mentioned. I'd sooner just focus on the reported actions rather than the sex of the people performing those actions. Do you really think HN is going to be a useful forum to advance chances in social policies and/or sexual politics? Perhaps we can flip things and ask you why you consider this to be a good forum for that?
• obstacle1 9y ago
  What's really interesting is that the author only became 'boiling' with rage when this socially-unaware moderator talked over the woman on the panel, not when he talked over the other men. 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.
  • ainiriand 9y ago
    Have you actually seen the video?
    • obstacle1 9y ago
      Yes, that is how I know that the moderator talks over each panelist in turn throughout the 'conversation'. 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.
      • ainiriand 9y ago
        Maybe we've seen different videos. Just that.
        • king_phil 9y ago
          And maybe you don't have anything to add and just want to be passive-aggressive...
      • ainiriand 9y ago
        I recognize that different people have different perceptions so in no way I could go and say that something is not the way others perceive it. That is why I asked if you actually saw the video, I have a different conclusion after seeing it. I see that there is a problem, while you don't. You see it as normal, for me it is far from that. Probably you could be a bit more open-minded in regards of other people's perceptions and less dismissive to problems that you fail to see.
• deavmi 9y ago
  Good for them :)
• Quarrelsome 9y ago
  he doesn't interrupt just her. His role is host, his role is to move the conversation about and yes he does fuck up by saying some stuff he should leave to her. However to me the evocative language used in the Facebook post suggests there is an aspect of deliberately seeking out "injustice" and being overly sensitive to it and seeing the world as a gender battle. If you're looking at the world through such a frame you're gonna get false positives. Maybe this isn't one but I feel a detailed and objective analysis might make it more close than the OP _feels_ it is through their frame that they view the world. 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.
  • exodust 9y ago
    That's spot on. Unfortunately the swarm of social media opinion in support of the more scornful verdict, is what the news outlets pick up and run with regardless of truth. 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.
    • rainbowmverse 9y ago
      The only thing as annoying as a moderator who speaks over guests is a guest who speaks over the moderator. Moderators are there for a reason. If they aren't doing their job, the whole thing descends into an anarchy of people talking past each other while the least bold panelists sit there quietly bemused.
• soneca 9y ago
  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 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.
  • wayn3 9y ago
    potential alternative explanation: 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. or we can just assume it was sexism. because everything is always sexism at all times when theres a woman involved. but then obviously its still sexism because assuming someone is afraid of attention must have been because shes a woman and any true sexist would assume that women, being women, wouldnt ever want to be in the spotlight, so sexism either way.
• adictator 9y ago
  In the Atharva Veda: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DBpP-z_U0AEuYPT.jpg:large https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DBpP-z_U0AEuYPT.jpg:large
• Jedd 9y ago
  > And I'm thinking. "God, please god let this be an opening for those that were here today ... Hoping that a deity may initiate a major change of human social policy based on this event may be a non-obvious and non-trivial part of the greater problem.
  • sctb 9y ago
    Religious flamewars don't belong on Hacker News in the first place, but we certainly don't need to stretch so far to start them.
• birracerveza 9y ago
  The exaggeration of this post is infuriating. I saw the video, and while I do agree that Jim Holt was especially rude in asking questions and then start talking as soon as she started answering, that is all it is. Rudeness. Not sexism. He did it with the men too.
  • chisleu 9y ago
    He did it with the men, AND he had reason to believe she was nervous or otherwise less communicative because she had an hour where many theories she certainly has views on were discussed and barely chimed in. The moderator is a scientist with a clear understanding of the subject matters being discussed. I agree that it was a poor way to try to involve her, but the FB post is off the rails.
    • learc83 9y ago
      The moderator isn't a scientist, he's a science journalist. He appears to refer to himself as a philosopher, but I can't find anything about his credentials other than popular articles and books he's written. Regardless of what exactly he is, he's not a scientist.
  • anjc 9y ago
    What exaggeration! > "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
    • masondixon 9y ago
      You watch the video?
      • anjc 9y ago
        I didn't watch the full discussion but I think it's fair to say that "let her speak please" was not the most important thing said that day. How big headed is this person that she thinks her input was more important than that of the person she's claiming to uplift.
• alexpetralia 9y ago
  ITT: Sexism _must_ be intentional to be true! 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!
  • pbhjpbhj 9y ago
    There's a further characteristic to consider when thinking about intent. 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.
  • trueSlav 9y ago
    The demo of this reddit wannabe board is like 95% numales and male feminists. I.e. pathetic individuals. Lol
• _pmf_ 9y ago
  I find it very patronizing to assume that the woman on the panel is not able to defend herself against being talked over.
  • pbhjpbhj 9y ago
    She certainly can, the question is why didn't she; the answer of course could show it had nothing (or everything) to do with her sex.
• Tiki 9y ago
  Veronika Hubeny(the physicist who got interrupted) replied to the incident, https://www.facebook.com/marilee.talkington/posts/10155051385188961?comment_id=10155053361413961&comment_tracking=%7B%22tn%22%3A%22R9%22%7D https://www.facebook.com/marilee.talkington/posts/1015505138... Very humble woman.
  • andai 9y ago
    >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. ... > 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.
  • neogodless 9y ago
    Could you possibly copy the comment here? I tried to find it in Facebook's "awesome" comment paging system, but I don't know how far through the 9000 comments I have to scroll back. (I assume the URL you posted is supposed to jump me to it, but it doesn't work for non-facebook users like me.) ETA: From the Observer article: http://observer.com/2017/06/sexism-science-facebook-mansplaining/ 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.
• y0ghur7_xxx 9y ago
  If you want to know what happened by watching the video yourself, here it is: https://youtu.be/Er7qPv8jsZo?t=3920 https://youtu.be/Er7qPv8jsZo?t=3920
• macspoofing 9y ago
  I watched the video the other day and I did notice the Hubeny was not called a lot - part of the reason was that she was more introverted and soft-spoken then the other panelists and part of the reason was that the moderator monopolized the conversation - which is typical of the WCF where the moderator will try to contextualize and steer the discussion in a way that makes it broadly accessible (even to kids, who are the target audience as well). 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.
• sigi45 9y ago
  This facebook post sounds like a murder. I do understand that it isn't nice or anything but that post blows it up to much which leads to disliking it.
• acomjean 9y ago
  I was at the world science festival though not at this talk. If it's like the others it's a panel discussion but a lot pre planned. For the Brian Greene quantum physics panel discussion he went from person to person to discuss the double slit experiment. The fact that videos were involved indicated that it wasn't just a random discussion. There was the Alan Alda / Tina Feye talk about communicating that was quite good. If your waiting to say your thing instead of listening..
• tomxor 9y ago
  I dipped in an out of the video hunting for this "event" a bit harder to find than I expected. Initially I didn't realise who the moderator was, and eventually I realised this guy kept adding dumbed down clarifications to everything, unnecessarily annotating things, almost every time talking over someone who was in the middle of trying to make a point or explain something... Maybe deep inside he did have a sexist attitude, but when I found "the event" what I saw was just a worse versions of the same explanation hijacker in previous parts of the video, It was nowhere near as well defined exclusion as the post made out... It was fucking frustrating sure but memory is coloured with your feelings, and this video shows it.
  • neogodless 9y ago
    1:07:41 is the "end" of the event. Starting around the 1 hr mark is probably good if you've got 8 minutes to see the lead-up. (This is for others "hunting" like you and I did.)
• andai 9y ago
  > 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. ... > 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/10155051385188961?comment_id=10155053361413961&comment_tracking=%7B%22tn%22%3A%22R9%22%7D&_rdc=1&_rdr https://web.facebook.com/marilee.talkington/posts/1015505138...
  • FussyZeus 9y ago
    You'd have to agree though that it's a remarkable coincidence that this only happened to the only female scientist who was part of the panel.
    • trendia 9y ago
      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.
      • FussyZeus 9y ago
        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.
• MattBearman 9y ago
  Having watched other parts of the video, I would say this was sexism. 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.
• smirksirlot 9y ago
  This thread is basically people stumbling over themselves trying to defend how this is NOT sexist or justify the varying degrees of sexism. 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?)
  • exodust 9y ago
    There's no evidence of sexism though. You've been swept up by the tide of Facebook outrage and that's good enough for you to settle on your verdict. I watched the video and found evidence of him treating her equally....try 27:05 for starters. The actual incident was just a moderator being clumsy. You've taken that and thrown sexism in there because, why... you need a victim to cheer for and an industry to scorn? I don't get your motivation when there is clearly no evidence of sexism.
  • tnone 9y ago
    No this thread is a response to obvious and blatant grievance mongering about one anecdote. 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.
• korijn 9y ago
  This reminds me an awful lot of Zimbardo's talk on how we should encourage children to learn to speak/act when the crowd does not. https://www.ted.com/talks/philip_zimbardo_on_the_psychology_of_evil/transcript https://www.ted.com/talks/philip_zimbardo_on_the_psychology_...
• Medaber 9y ago
  Meh. This was just a bad moderator.
• ideonexus 9y ago
  If you see this kind of behavior in the workplace, I highly recommend the technique of "echoing" as a means of overcoming it. In meetings I've seen it happen many times where an introvert makes a brilliant point, which gets completely lost when some manager who likes to hear themselves talk follows them. When this happens, I find it incredibly powerful to raise my hand and say, "I'd like to bring us back to [introvert's] point that..." The women in the Obama White House made this techique popular [1], and it's extremely effective in getting quieter more thoughtful ideas the attention they deserve. 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/how-a-white-house-womens-office-strategy-went-viral/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/wp/2016/10/25/...
  • deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  • awkward 9y ago
    You need to keep in mind that the attribution of credit is important in echoing - simply bringing the subject back up will be seen as stealing the point.
    • jameshart 9y ago
      "will be seen as stealing the point." - no, it is stealing the point.
  • worldsayshi 9y ago
    Nice an actual constructive suggestion! > 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.
  • gpawl 9y ago
    Thank you. Mild-mannereds unite!
• deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
• andrepd 9y ago
  "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." I just love these comically self-aggrandizing retellings of one's brave intervention in an unjust situation. Reminds me of the "atheist in store copy-pasta"[0] Not very important, I know, but it just ticked me off the wrong way. PS: Watch the video and you will notice that there is no delay between her shouting and the audience applauding, nor did the interviewer ever say she was heckling. [0](https://www.reddit.com/r/circlejerkcopypasta/comments/w9iy3/ https://www.reddit.com/r/circlejerkcopypasta/comments/w9iy3/)
• forgotpw1123 9y ago
  The hell does this get on the front page? Serious HN, I expected to see something at least somewhat scientific. This is pure, 100%, facebook chain letter clickbait. I watched the video and everyone is talking over each other. Also what the hell is she wearing? She looks straight out of little house on the prairie. that last part was pure trolling
  • warent 9y ago
    Are you really judging a woman's choice of clothing in a conversation about sexism? I'm no feminist but what the fuck
    • forgotpw1123 9y ago
      the last part was just for the lulz. I figured a facebook quality post needed some facebook quality comments.
  • BCNative 9y ago
    Why are you people so incapable of forming a complete sentence. "The hell?" How about, "How the hell"? And let's see a picture of your fabulous fashion sense? Come on, let's see you in your cheeto-stained t-shirt and hoodie.
• discombobulate 9y ago
  I received a delivery from a black gentleman today. Whilst reaching out for the package I was concerned he may think I'm racist if I wasn't excessively nice to him. I think I may be uncomfortable around minorities for fear of being labelled a racist. I have a similar worry around women. I think becoming racist would solve my concerns -- at least in my own mind. However, it doesn't make any sense to do that: individual differences are larger than differences between race. I would be inflicting an incorrect model of the world on myself. Does anyone have any advice on how to think about the issue? Is becoming a racist the best solution, so I'm able to function more effectively? (So I can disregard my concerns and carry on working toward what I feel is valuable.)
  • ssanders82 9y ago
    Jesus Christ. Here's a thought, treat them as people and not "a black" or "a woman". You don't have to ingratiate yourself in the fear that some random person will think you're a racist. He's just a person going about his day delivering packages. He's got his own worries and concerns and things going on in his mind. "Is becoming a racist the best solution, so I'm able to function more effectively?" I can't tell if you're being tongue-in-cheek here or have genuine social issues. My (admittedly somewhat harsh) advice is to close your IDE and go interact - in person - with other humans.
    • discombobulate 9y ago
      > He's just a person going about his day delivering packages. He's got his own worries and concerns and things going on in his mind. Of course. He could also be vigilantly looking for 'racists'. I really don't know. I'm using the theory of mind to construct a possible world view. My data set is Twitter/HN/reddit, mainly. I would love to treat everyone like a person, but if I do I leave myself vulnerable to accusations. Since anything I do can be perverted into a racist/sexist narrative. I'm all for empathy and kindness. Not at my own expense, though. It's a reaction to a hostile environment. > My (admittedly somewhat harsh) advice is to close your IDE and go interact - in person - with other humans. I've done enough of that. I want to concentrate on ideas/code/mathematics/philosophy. The abstract.
• jancsika 9y ago
  I remember a sociologist once remarking that prejudice (racism in the case we were discussing) exists quite apart from an individual's intentions. 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
  • collyw 9y ago
    Is there anything that gives this socialogist any more credibility than me if I claimed the opposite?
  • jccalhoun 9y ago
    I''m not a sociologist. My phd minor was Anthro and I don't have any citations handy. 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...
    • jancsika 9y ago
      I shouldn't have put "citations" in parentheses. That's what I'm most interested in-- recommended readings from people who study this stuff for a living.
      • jccalhoun 9y ago
• deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
• aaron695 9y ago
  This is written straight out of Buzzfeed, why did it not stay flagged? 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.
• mememaestro 9y ago
  I'm literally in tears and shaking with anger. How could he?!
  • dang 9y ago
    We've banned this account for trolling.
• microcolonel 9y ago
  This only seems sexist if you think that people only speak when allowed to speak. People speak when they speak, the rules of politeness are universal, and she had every right to speak up, and every right to pipe down. She could have just as easily been a bit uncomfortable, or just more interested in listening. The host was overbearing on the whole conversation from what I see. There could be any number of reasons why the host might interrupt the string theorist; and the argument that it must be sexism is just so just-so. I don't see why people should be expected to all be equally sonorous, when clearly people are not equally interested in it.
• openasocket 9y ago
  I'm suprised no one has brought up that men talking over women is a well-studied phenomenon in childhood and adolescence. Girls tend to contribute less to discussions or conversations in mixed gender settings than they do in single-gender settings. My parents even noticed it when my brother and I moved out of the house, and suddenly my little sister was a lot more talkative at the dinner table. The exact mechanism or reason for this is not well understood. 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.
  • projectorlochsa 9y ago
    It's biology. 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.
    • openasocket 9y ago
      No, this behavior is likely not biological. It's not a universal behavior, there are cultures where this phenomenon is reduced or completely lacking. That means it is likely a social construct, not biological.
      • projectorlochsa 9y ago
        Which cultures? 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-pao-bans-salary-negotiations-to-equalize-pay/ http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2015/04/08/reddit-ceo-ellen... A nice example of how biology created an inequality.
• deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
• unicornporn 9y ago
  Facebook posts are more or less unreadable to me without a Facebook login. This is what it looks like to me: https://i.imgur.com/ZQNexgi.png https://i.imgur.com/ZQNexgi.png Does anybody else outside Facebook space find it annoying?
  • komali2 9y ago
    Yup, and not because I don't have a Facebook, only because I'm not logged in on my work machine.
• _jcwu 9y ago
  Why do activists like these always have to write that they "shake"? I usually stop reading and taking them seriously.
  • DanBC 9y ago
    because normal human beings have a stress response that includes adrenaline being released. they are literally shaking, and they are accurately describing their stress response.
    • _jcwu 9y ago
      Yes, but it makes it sound ridiculous. If I am going to include all my emotional responses to an event every time I write about something it will become ridiculous and annoying at one point. Can you not be annoyed by something without starting to shake every time? Especially if you try to interpret rudeness as sexism...
      • DanBC 9y ago
        The emotion is not anger, it is fear.
        • chrisper 9y ago
          From the text: > I am in full outrage. My body is actually beginning to shake. Outrage to me means anger and not fear.
• theWatcher37 9y ago
  Outrage culture front and center. Time to pull out our morality antennas and virtue signal how pious we are in support.
  • DanBC 9y ago
    > virtue signal Your use of this vapid phrase is itself a form of virtue signalling.
    • and0 9y ago
      Someone who unironically uses "virtue signalling" very conveniently signals that they're not worth listening to. It's kinda nice, actually.
      • hackinthebochs 9y ago
        I disagree, it's a very apt description of an increasingly common phenomena online. When one's need to signal group membership outweighs their personal feelings regarding the issue at hand, that's virtue signalling. With the balkanization of online communities to being hyper-focused, and actively exclusionary of those with slightly different beliefs, virtue signalling becomes an important component of becoming and staying a member in good standing. Online political forums are stark examples of this.
    • weberc2 9y ago
      I thought it means "dogwhistling", except for the political left instead of the right?
      • xaa 9y ago
        Sort of. My understanding is that it means "declaring your (virtuous) opposition to <bad thing X>, regardless of whether <current topic Y> is actually an instance of X or whether Y is actually harmful." 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.
• mannykannot 9y ago
  Thanks! - to the vast number of commentators who have taken the time to explain to me what Jim Holt was probably thinking.
• jbmorgado 9y ago
  It baffles me that moderators keep blocking the community and remove flags form these kind of totally non factual and opinionated posts, and then go and themselves flag highly voted fact based posts that make it to the first page of HN - like they did some weeks ago about the code capabilities of IT grads in India. 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.
  • gergles 9y ago
    I would like to echo this a million times over. Flags are the community's way of saying that things aren't appropriate for HN, and the moderators removing flags to editorialize the front page, then in other threads throwing up their proverbial hands and going "well, the community voted for it" when someone comments about why something made the front page, as if there is nothing that can be done, is intellectually dishonest. Either the community has control, or the moderators do and we should just remove voting altogether.
• vbuwivbiu 9y ago
  What an annoyingly selfish host. His job is to get his guests to talk not for him to bang-on about what he thinks they think. Men talking over women - I see it all the time in the workplace and I know I do it myself. Anyone know any techniques for stopping it when they notice it in a meeting ? Maybe interrupt then apologize and hand back to the person who was being ignored ?
• jotadambalakiri 9y ago
  How is this sexism? As a quiet man that happens to me a lot too and I hate these kind of people.
  • DanBC 9y ago
    Yes, it does also affect men and it always sucks when it happens and it's not acceptable behaviour. 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.
• crawfordcomeaux 9y ago
  I've seen a lot of people denying the moderator is exist. I don't care one way or another. 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.
• Houshalter 9y ago
  I have a theory that women are less likely to be, I guess the word would be "assertive", than men. That is a stereotype, but sometimes there's truth in stereotypes. I mean I recall studies that women are less likely to ask for raises or are worse at haggling. 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.
  • ep103 9y ago
    I read a study that comes to mind, that said, basically, women tend not to ask for raises as often as their male counterparts in the office. And when they do ask for raises, they tend to ask for raises to the level they are currently at, as opposed to where they think they will grow to, while its the opposite for men. Its just one data point, but it correlates
  • devmunchies 9y ago
    At what point do we chalk up behaviors to sexism vs biological tendencies? 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?
    • blowbaybestban 9y ago
      Anti-sexism might still be sexism, but with a non-negative connotation. 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 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.
• glutamate 9y ago
  From http://www.vanityfair.com/culture/2012/07/jim-holt-why-does-the-world-exist http://www.vanityfair.com/culture/2012/07/jim-holt-why-does-... > 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?
  • dewyatt 9y ago
    Social awareness and "intelligence" often seem to have an inverse correlation in my experience. 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.
• blahman2 9y ago
  By making everything so dramatic you will end up scaring all women away from science.
• token_throwaway 9y ago
  Ugh, I watched the video, jesus the host might be the least self-aware person who's ever been asked to host anything. I was unreasonably annoyed listening to him. 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.
  • jshevek 9y ago
    I'm grateful for your perspective and your values.
  • beaconstudios 9y ago
    I think your point about there being people who are out-talked is spot on. It seems to me that both quieter women and quieter men both get talked over by domineering men or women, but that due to men generally being more likely to be domineering, the whole situation skews by gender. I think it's one of those situations that seems sexist on the surface, but when you look into it it's more of a social dynamic that correlates with gender.
• jerosystems 9y ago
  What utter nonsense. The moderator was a tool who did this to every panel member. Why are you lot upvoting this toxic feminist propaganda shitpost?
• dating_advice 9y ago
  Not contributing, am I? But that kind of voting is contributing, so much so that you have to get a bunch of karma to be allowed the privilege, right? Dear god. Yeah, I'm not allowed to talk about votes, but if you're going to give random people the ability to grey out comments of others anonymously, that's just tough luck. I don't care about the POINTS, I care what they're trying to say, and to that I will respond without fail. 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 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.
  • dang 9y ago
    This comment breaks the HN guidelines by going on about downvotes. Please read https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html (and https://news.ycombinator.com/newswelcome.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newswelcome.html) and follow them when commenting here. We detached this comment from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14507266 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14507266 and marked it off-topic.
• paulmd 9y ago
  Knowledge of this social construct (that women are socially expected to be "seen and not heard") is one of the simplest life-hacks for small-group interactions, because once you're mindful of the dynamic it's fairly obvious when someone is getting talked over. 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.
• masondixon 9y ago
  Everyone reading this please, please, please watch the video. 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!
  • sebbean 9y ago
    WHERE IS THE VIDEO?
    • TheNewLab 9y ago
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Er7qPv8jsZo#t=1h1m53s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Er7qPv8jsZo#t=1h1m53s
  • mclightning 9y ago
    Exactly. Seems nobody cares to take the time to watch it. 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...
• Tech1 9y ago
  I was at this event. Marilee was seated directly in front of my girlfriend and I (the stage / panel and the back of Marilee's head pictured: https://imgur.com/a/GEapw https://imgur.com/a/GEapw). The interruptions were real. I was one of the men in Marilee's facebook post making comments about the sexism. Immediately following Marilee's comment, the entire place erupted with applause. On the way out, several people asked my GF if she was the one who made the comment, with one person saying "That was the most important thing to happen here today".
• komali2 9y ago
  I feel like the details in the post make it fodder for alt right cannons. "I was literally shaking" and "everyone went silent and then burst into applause" are dirt-common memes on alt-right discussion boards. Until I saw the video I thought this was an elaborate alt-right prank.
• sitoseb 9y ago
  About sexism part: Imagine what would happen when the same thing happened to a male panelist from female moderator side? Nothing. Nobody would care about that. Except some panels overrepresented by women and about any SJ topic where a guy trying to shut female mod up to get a voice for male speaker would be literally destroyed. Guess what, things like that are happening everyday for both sides but for one direction there's recently some overheated sensitivity. I think there's problem where to draw the line, so we don't call everything sexism or look for the context of gender. I think it would be sexist to not invite good female scientist simply because she's a woman (and invite worse but male guest). Now about the real issue which is asexual - ability to be great orator / speaker. Most of great speakers would made their way into persuading moderator to let them express themselves (like you can't simply get between words of Lisa Abramson, Isabel Aguilera, Lawrence Krauss, Richard Dawkins or Neil deGrasse Tyson - they simply won't let you). There's much more speakers (both male and female) who simply are weak debaters and they find themselves much more comfortable in quiet lab than in heated discussion. Regardless of merit they posses.
• peternicky 9y ago
  Looks like she missed John Gruber's post on Facebook last week. :(
• miesman 9y ago
  I'm sure the moderator wasn't even remotely conscious of what he was doing because this is so endemic in our society. The only way this will change is for more people to speak up like this.
• adamsea 9y ago
  Throwing in my two cents: a) the intent of the moderator is less important, in this specific instance, than the systematic and structural sexism which we know to be present. Who knows, perhaps the moderator was secretly grateful because they were unconscious of the impact of their behavior? Perhaps not. Outcome is a more useful measure than intent here. 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.
• munificent 9y ago
  I don't know if Holt behaved the way he did out of sexism, enthusiasm for the subject, generally liking the sound of his voice or what. Regardless, I think the narrative of this exchange between him, Hubeny, and Talkington can function as a nice morality play that most of us can learn from. 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.
• differentView 9y ago
  This guy seems like quite the blowhard. I do, however, need to know if he also does this to men. I've had a few co-workers that just talk on and on without letting other people get a word in. They do this to everyone.
• sebbean 9y ago
  link?
• justin_vanw 9y ago
  Like half of this was talking about how the male was not letting the female asking the question (the male sounds like a bad interviewer for sure), and the other half was about how everyone 'literally applauded' what the author did. Sadly none of it was about the woman who was not allowed to speak or what she said... I get the point, the rest of the audience didn't say anything, but on the other hand 'literally shaking' is maybe not a reasonable response to someone being (probably inadvertently) rude, really no matter why the person is being rude. 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.
• mbfg 9y ago
  Has Jim Holt or World Science Festival commented officially after the fact? I would have thought this would be a priority by both parties. I don't see anything, but perhaps i'm just missing it.
• deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
• 23inhouse 9y ago
  This video is great. I'm glad I watched it and as soon as I finish writing this I'll be looking for more like it. "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.
• Klockan 9y ago
  I'm not sure that this has to do with her being a woman, everyone else on the panel have wikipedia pages while she doesn't. In such a scenario there will obviously be a power differential irrespective of the genders involved. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Albert https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Albert https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_F._R._Ellis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_F._R._Ellis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Guth https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Guth https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrei_Linde https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrei_Linde https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barry_Loewer https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barry_Loewer https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Search?search=Veronika+Hubeny https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Search?search=Veronika...
  • likelynew 9y ago
    I think there is some differential. Judging by number of citations, looked by google scholar: 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.
• gpawl 9y ago
  Talkington, quite the aptonym for this article.
• overgard 9y ago
  It seems like the other perspective has been lost here. The host has now been publicly branded as a sexist on "evidence" that at best is ambiguous. To the people upvoting this: Shouldn't claims like this that are extremely damaging to a persons reputation require more evidence?
• xchip 9y ago
  I am a male and when I am talked over I have to say something like "hold on let me finish" and that fixes it :D It's not a male vs female thing, it's just that everyone gets too excited, it happens to me too sometimes :D 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/post/WHY_PEOPLE_INTERRUPT/ http://www.marionspeaks.com/_blog/Marions_Communication_Tips...
• deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
• prbuckley 9y ago
  Good on her for speaking up but I would postulate that minority groups gets talked over by the majority group and that this is not sexism. Should people try to be more mindful of the people around them? Absolutely, but jumping to the conclusion that it is sexism is just counter productive. 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.
• jerosystems 9y ago
  What utter nonsense. The moderator was a tool who did this to every panel member. Why are you lot upvoting this toxic feminist propaganda? And why are you deleting any comment that is critical of this garbage?
• smokedoutraider 9y ago
  What utter nonsense. The moderator was a tool who did this to every panel member. Why are you lot upvoting this toxic feminist propaganda? And why are you deleting any comment that is critical of this garbage?
• deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
• ixr 9y ago
  Started reading her post, got to "The panel was made up of 5 men and 1 woman." and the agenda instantly became clear. Finished reading, in a masochistic attempt to confirm my suspicion and indeed, I was right. Give. Me. A. Break.