6 ms·

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 regardles

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.

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.