5 ms·

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.

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.
  - exodust 9y ago
    Surely audience members speaking over the moderator is worse than a risk of "anarchy" from a guest chiming in with "please let me answer". It's not machine code on stage. It's humans. While there's obvious guidelines, there's also normal breathing space for polite interruption as people remember things to add, seek clarification, or in this case answer the question they feel they didn't get the chance to.
    - deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]
- ivraatiems 9y ago
  > 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. Women who do this are very often shamed and called "pushy" or "aggressive" for doing so, even though a man doing it would garner no such complaint. The cultural position of "take charge and get what you want" being appropriate doesn't apply for women. The advice you're giving, frankly, is part of the problem.
  - sinistersnare 9y ago
    Is it the advice thats part of the problem, or the reaction? The advice is great, why should a panelist take charge if he/she is being run-over by the moderator? The real issue is, like you said, that women are not 'supposed' to be pushy like a man.
  - exodust 9y ago
    > The advice you're giving, frankly, is part of the problem. No. It's your paranoid prophesy that is frankly the problem. You're labelling women as victims before any crime has happened. Your confirmation bias has everything worked out ahead of time, including the derogatory remarks awaiting any woman who dares cross the line you've drawn in red paint. Nobody would label the scientist on the panel as pushy or inappropriate for simply correcting a moderator's error. The moment would be forgotten seconds later instead of becoming the next awkward drama 'one woman vs world of men'.
    - ivraatiems 9y ago
      > You're labelling women as victims before any crime has happened. Your confirmation bias has everything worked out ahead of time, including the derogatory remarks awaiting any woman who dares cross the line you've drawn in red paint. Nobody's accusing anybody of any "crime." I don't understand why you're stepping up the rhetoric like this. It's not a war, it's not about punishing anyone, it's about correcting social misbehavior that was harmful - whether it was intended to be or not. > You're labeling women as victims before any crime has happened. Your confirmation bias has everything worked out ahead of time, including the derogatory remarks awaiting any woman who dares cross the line you've drawn in red paint. Knowing nothing about you (as you know nothing about me), I could easily make the same assertion you're making here: That the only reason you don't see sexism is because you are biased against seeing it. But it's no more likely that everyone in this thread arguing against this being sexism is doing so for biased reasons than it is that everyone arguing that it is sexism is doing so. What is actually happening is that we have looked at the same situation and seen it two different ways. What's being requested here is some amount of empathy for and understanding of the viewpoint you don't agree with, not some kind of punishment or shaming. When someone says "let her talk," they're not saying "how dare you oppress her with your talking," they're saying "I want to hear from her about her, not from you about her." I'm a guy; I understand how this could be seen as no big deal to other guys. But I also can see how people not in my situation wouldn't see it that way. I'm asking you to try to do the same, rather than just write off everybody who doesn't share your opinion as irrevocably and maliciously biased.
- robotresearcher 9y ago
  > We all have the responsibility and option to guide things back on track So the woman panelist failed in her responsibilities? Nice try.
  - exodust 9y ago
    What exactly am I trying? To bring reason to a table overrun with emotive finger-pointing? She didn't "fail". Please don't put dramatic words in my mouth. When you accept an invitation to speak on a panel, there are certain expectations around participatory behaviour of all the members. At the rare times something runs off track, there's always an option to speak up and deal with it in the moment. No harm done. Wait... yes there is. The moderator has been labelled a sexist asshole by a legion of social media button-clickers. He made a mistake, but people like you have taken that mistake and added a world of unrelated issues on top, insisting that's how it is when actually it's most likely a normal moderator error.
    - robotresearcher 9y ago
      You dropped the word 'responsibility' and left 'option'. You stated that she had the responsibility to get things back on track. I disagree with that specific point. Of course you're right she had the option. The moderator did a bad job, it seems that most accounts agree on that. If he's behaving badly to one member in particular - as the OP states - then it's particularly not her job to save him from looking foolish. Edit: 'People like you'? Sheesh.
      - exodust 9y ago
        Yes but I said "certain expectations around participatory behaviour" which implies a responsibility as member of panel. Minor point anyway. His behavior was bad in that moment, no dispute there, but as for generally bad behavior towards her I disagree. And yes, "people like you" was my error, sorry. Would edit out if I could. "Button clickers" was insulting too. Sorry!
    - dang 9y ago
      You've been repeatedly breaking the HN guidelines in this thread by crossing into name-calling, incivility, and now even personal attack. We ban accounts that do that, so please take care to edit such stuff out of your comments here.
CPLX 9y ago
I tend to be sympathetic to the original poster of the story, it sounds like the woman was treated differently, and an expert being talked over like that by a host is ridiculous. It does indeed sound like an example of sexism. This probably marks me as an ignorant oppressor, but I do find this style of telling a story to be a bit confusing and off-putting though. Why all the references to "with my hands shaking" and "I'm feeling light headed" and so on? I guess it's a personal story that she can tell however she likes, but this idea of having a violent physical reaction to a relatively straightforward conversational faux-pas seems to be the hallmark of a certain genre of story.
- Quarrelsome 9y ago
  I sympathise with that position but the issue here is that the woman was 1. If there were two women and the same happened with both we could be much confident with our assertions as we'd effectively have a "control" woman but with just one its hard to make social assertions as to whether it was sexist or there were other factors that led to the outcome.
- humanrebar 9y ago
  > Why all the references to "with my hands shaking" and "I'm feeling light headed" and so on? A weighty argument these days is one with an emotional punch. When was the last time that a presidential debate was about well reasoned points? Are the reposted John Oliver clips the ones that cite the best evidence? People instinctively share their feelings about an issue because that's how they get to be heard and listened to. The risk is that the case being made ends up being very convincing to the people who empathise and off-putting to people who don't. I think this thread demonstrates that.
- Ensorceled 9y ago
  Speaking up in public or confronting people has this effect on many, many people. It is an indication of something that you think explaining a woman's own theories to her in public a "relatively straightforward conversational faux-pas". You should ponder that.
  - 9y ago
d3ad1ysp0rk 9y ago
If someone "fucks up" with women but not men, even if not intentional, is that not sexism?
- Quarrelsome 9y ago
  it is if its the only thing you're looking for it but if you're not then there are countless possibilities. One of which being that he'd read up on her work, was excited about it and blurted it out accidentally instead of letting her talk about it. If there was a second woman on the panel then we'd have greater clarity about making the assertion if he behaved the same way. Sadly there wasn't which means that we should be cautious about labelling it as out and out sexism.
accountyaccount 9y ago
It's very likely both, and out of all the panelists she did seemingly have fewer chances to speak. So in this isolated case, a surface evaluation of some gender bias being involved isn't completely outrageous. It doesn't by any means indicate that he's a bad person.
- Quarrelsome 9y ago
  its certainly not outrageous but its also hard to make the claim with any strong probably as there could be many factors that led to the outcome.

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.
- exodust 9y ago
  Surely audience members speaking over the moderator is worse than a risk of "anarchy" from a guest chiming in with "please let me answer". It's not machine code on stage. It's humans. While there's obvious guidelines, there's also normal breathing space for polite interruption as people remember things to add, seek clarification, or in this case answer the question they feel they didn't get the chance to.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
ivraatiems 9y ago
> 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. Women who do this are very often shamed and called "pushy" or "aggressive" for doing so, even though a man doing it would garner no such complaint. The cultural position of "take charge and get what you want" being appropriate doesn't apply for women. The advice you're giving, frankly, is part of the problem.
- sinistersnare 9y ago
  Is it the advice thats part of the problem, or the reaction? The advice is great, why should a panelist take charge if he/she is being run-over by the moderator? The real issue is, like you said, that women are not 'supposed' to be pushy like a man.
- exodust 9y ago
  > The advice you're giving, frankly, is part of the problem. No. It's your paranoid prophesy that is frankly the problem. You're labelling women as victims before any crime has happened. Your confirmation bias has everything worked out ahead of time, including the derogatory remarks awaiting any woman who dares cross the line you've drawn in red paint. Nobody would label the scientist on the panel as pushy or inappropriate for simply correcting a moderator's error. The moment would be forgotten seconds later instead of becoming the next awkward drama 'one woman vs world of men'.
  - ivraatiems 9y ago
    > You're labelling women as victims before any crime has happened. Your confirmation bias has everything worked out ahead of time, including the derogatory remarks awaiting any woman who dares cross the line you've drawn in red paint. Nobody's accusing anybody of any "crime." I don't understand why you're stepping up the rhetoric like this. It's not a war, it's not about punishing anyone, it's about correcting social misbehavior that was harmful - whether it was intended to be or not. > You're labeling women as victims before any crime has happened. Your confirmation bias has everything worked out ahead of time, including the derogatory remarks awaiting any woman who dares cross the line you've drawn in red paint. Knowing nothing about you (as you know nothing about me), I could easily make the same assertion you're making here: That the only reason you don't see sexism is because you are biased against seeing it. But it's no more likely that everyone in this thread arguing against this being sexism is doing so for biased reasons than it is that everyone arguing that it is sexism is doing so. What is actually happening is that we have looked at the same situation and seen it two different ways. What's being requested here is some amount of empathy for and understanding of the viewpoint you don't agree with, not some kind of punishment or shaming. When someone says "let her talk," they're not saying "how dare you oppress her with your talking," they're saying "I want to hear from her about her, not from you about her." I'm a guy; I understand how this could be seen as no big deal to other guys. But I also can see how people not in my situation wouldn't see it that way. I'm asking you to try to do the same, rather than just write off everybody who doesn't share your opinion as irrevocably and maliciously biased.
robotresearcher 9y ago
> We all have the responsibility and option to guide things back on track So the woman panelist failed in her responsibilities? Nice try.
- exodust 9y ago
  What exactly am I trying? To bring reason to a table overrun with emotive finger-pointing? She didn't "fail". Please don't put dramatic words in my mouth. When you accept an invitation to speak on a panel, there are certain expectations around participatory behaviour of all the members. At the rare times something runs off track, there's always an option to speak up and deal with it in the moment. No harm done. Wait... yes there is. The moderator has been labelled a sexist asshole by a legion of social media button-clickers. He made a mistake, but people like you have taken that mistake and added a world of unrelated issues on top, insisting that's how it is when actually it's most likely a normal moderator error.
  - robotresearcher 9y ago
    You dropped the word 'responsibility' and left 'option'. You stated that she had the responsibility to get things back on track. I disagree with that specific point. Of course you're right she had the option. The moderator did a bad job, it seems that most accounts agree on that. If he's behaving badly to one member in particular - as the OP states - then it's particularly not her job to save him from looking foolish. Edit: 'People like you'? Sheesh.
    - exodust 9y ago
      Yes but I said "certain expectations around participatory behaviour" which implies a responsibility as member of panel. Minor point anyway. His behavior was bad in that moment, no dispute there, but as for generally bad behavior towards her I disagree. And yes, "people like you" was my error, sorry. Would edit out if I could. "Button clickers" was insulting too. Sorry!
  - dang 9y ago
    You've been repeatedly breaking the HN guidelines in this thread by crossing into name-calling, incivility, and now even personal attack. We ban accounts that do that, so please take care to edit such stuff out of your comments here.

CPLX 9y ago

I tend to be sympathetic to the original poster of the story, it sounds like the woman was treated differently, and an expert being talked over like that by a host is ridiculous. It does indeed sound like an example of sexism. This probably marks me as an ignorant oppressor, but I do find this style of telling a story to be a bit confusing and off-putting though. Why all the references to "with my hands shaking" and "I'm feeling light headed" and so on? I guess it's a personal story that she can tell however she likes, but this idea of having a violent physical reaction to a relatively straightforward conversational faux-pas seems to be the hallmark of a certain genre of story.

Quarrelsome 9y ago
I sympathise with that position but the issue here is that the woman was 1. If there were two women and the same happened with both we could be much confident with our assertions as we'd effectively have a "control" woman but with just one its hard to make social assertions as to whether it was sexist or there were other factors that led to the outcome.
humanrebar 9y ago
> Why all the references to "with my hands shaking" and "I'm feeling light headed" and so on? A weighty argument these days is one with an emotional punch. When was the last time that a presidential debate was about well reasoned points? Are the reposted John Oliver clips the ones that cite the best evidence? People instinctively share their feelings about an issue because that's how they get to be heard and listened to. The risk is that the case being made ends up being very convincing to the people who empathise and off-putting to people who don't. I think this thread demonstrates that.
Ensorceled 9y ago
Speaking up in public or confronting people has this effect on many, many people. It is an indication of something that you think explaining a woman's own theories to her in public a "relatively straightforward conversational faux-pas". You should ponder that.
- 9y ago

d3ad1ysp0rk 9y ago

If someone "fucks up" with women but not men, even if not intentional, is that not sexism?

Quarrelsome 9y ago
it is if its the only thing you're looking for it but if you're not then there are countless possibilities. One of which being that he'd read up on her work, was excited about it and blurted it out accidentally instead of letting her talk about it. If there was a second woman on the panel then we'd have greater clarity about making the assertion if he behaved the same way. Sadly there wasn't which means that we should be cautious about labelling it as out and out sexism.

accountyaccount 9y ago

It's very likely both, and out of all the panelists she did seemingly have fewer chances to speak. So in this isolated case, a surface evaluation of some gender bias being involved isn't completely outrageous. It doesn't by any means indicate that he's a bad person.

Quarrelsome 9y ago
its certainly not outrageous but its also hard to make the claim with any strong probably as there could be many factors that led to the outcome.