38 ms·

Maybe it happened to the least assertive person in the panel?

by _pmf_ 9y ago

vog 9y ago
Yes, the moderator's behaviour would have been wrong against any person, no matter their gender. But it is especially inappropriate when done against those who have to endure this more than others throughout their life. You don't need a sexist intent to behave sexist. Being ignorant to this issue doesn't make it much better. And calling the person from the audience "heckling" just because she made him aware of this issue is a very clear sign of ignorance. At least he changed his behaviour nevertheless, although I'd attribute this more to the reaction of the rest of the audience.
oconnor663 9y ago
Yeah, this gets into a problem where people use the word "sexism" in a couple different ways, that don't mean the same thing. Mostly conscious vs unconscious, I think? Almost no one goes home and writes, "Dear Diary, today I insulted some women, because I hate women. Let's keep doing that." So of course, if you accuse someone of being that kind of conscious sexist, it's a huge insult. You're calling them a sad hate monster person. When we do talk about other people's sexism, especially if those people don't have a lot of practice talking about unconscious bias, it might be a good idea to reassure them that we're not calling them a hate monster. But that cuts both ways, and it's possible to be unfair in the other direction. If someone comes to me and says "I think what you did was sexist," it would be fair and polite of me to assume they meant "unconsciously sexist." If I want to ask for reassurance about that, sure that's fine, but not fair for me to put words in their mouth like "HOW DARE YOU CALL ME A CONSCIOUS SEXIST?!" when I know that both meanings exist. So yeah, sorry for the long reply, but here's why your comment made me think of it: Saying "that wasn't sexist; so-and-so is actually less assertive" kind of assumes that we're talking about conscious sexism. If we're talking about unconscious sexism instead (the charitable assumption here), that difference-in-perceived-assertiveness might be precisely the problem that we're worried about. This is kind of a nitpicky distinction, except that accusing someone of accusing you of conscious sexism, can be kinda sorta flirting with bad faith?
- braveo 9y ago
  > Saying "that wasn't sexist; so-and-so is actually less assertive" kind of assumes that we're talking about conscious sexism. The idea that less assertive implies female is sexist. The person you're responding to could have simply meant the other participants refused to let the moderator walk over them like that, which has nothing to do with sex and everything to do with behavior.
  - oconnor663 9y ago
    > The person you're responding to could have simply meant the other participants refused to let the moderator walk over them like that, which has nothing to do with sex and everything to do with behavior. I think that's precisely what they meant. There are a lot of dimensions here: - The other participants might've behaved differently than Prof. Hubeny, in a way that got them treated differently. - The moderator might've had different expectations about how different people on the panel would behave, or how they might want him to behave, prior to anyone's actual behavior. - Any difference in expectations might or might not have anything to do with sex. - Someone posted Prof. Hubeny's response elsewhere in this thread, and it sounds like her experience was pretty different from the audience's experience. Which is fine; one event can mean different things to different people. So there's room for lots of different true, sincere points to be made out of a single story.
    - braveo 9y ago
      I don't disagree with the sentiment, but I felt it important to point out that the assumption made in the sentence I quoted was itself a sexist assumption.

Maybe it happened to the least assertive person in the panel?

by _pmf_ 9y ago

Maybe it happened to the least assertive person in the panel?

vog 9y ago

Yes, the moderator's behaviour would have been wrong against any person, no matter their gender. But it is especially inappropriate when done against those who have to endure this more than others throughout their life. You don't need a sexist intent to behave sexist. Being ignorant to this issue doesn't make it much better. And calling the person from the audience "heckling" just because she made him aware of this issue is a very clear sign of ignorance. At least he changed his behaviour nevertheless, although I'd attribute this more to the reaction of the rest of the audience.

oconnor663 9y ago

Yeah, this gets into a problem where people use the word "sexism" in a couple different ways, that don't mean the same thing. Mostly conscious vs unconscious, I think? Almost no one goes home and writes, "Dear Diary, today I insulted some women, because I hate women. Let's keep doing that." So of course, if you accuse someone of being that kind of conscious sexist, it's a huge insult. You're calling them a sad hate monster person. When we do talk about other people's sexism, especially if those people don't have a lot of practice talking about unconscious bias, it might be a good idea to reassure them that we're not calling them a hate monster. But that cuts both ways, and it's possible to be unfair in the other direction. If someone comes to me and says "I think what you did was sexist," it would be fair and polite of me to assume they meant "unconsciously sexist." If I want to ask for reassurance about that, sure that's fine, but not fair for me to put words in their mouth like "HOW DARE YOU CALL ME A CONSCIOUS SEXIST?!" when I know that both meanings exist. So yeah, sorry for the long reply, but here's why your comment made me think of it: Saying "that wasn't sexist; so-and-so is actually less assertive" kind of assumes that we're talking about conscious sexism. If we're talking about unconscious sexism instead (the charitable assumption here), that difference-in-perceived-assertiveness might be precisely the problem that we're worried about. This is kind of a nitpicky distinction, except that accusing someone of accusing you of conscious sexism, can be kinda sorta flirting with bad faith?

braveo 9y ago
> Saying "that wasn't sexist; so-and-so is actually less assertive" kind of assumes that we're talking about conscious sexism. The idea that less assertive implies female is sexist. The person you're responding to could have simply meant the other participants refused to let the moderator walk over them like that, which has nothing to do with sex and everything to do with behavior.
- oconnor663 9y ago
  > The person you're responding to could have simply meant the other participants refused to let the moderator walk over them like that, which has nothing to do with sex and everything to do with behavior. I think that's precisely what they meant. There are a lot of dimensions here: - The other participants might've behaved differently than Prof. Hubeny, in a way that got them treated differently. - The moderator might've had different expectations about how different people on the panel would behave, or how they might want him to behave, prior to anyone's actual behavior. - Any difference in expectations might or might not have anything to do with sex. - Someone posted Prof. Hubeny's response elsewhere in this thread, and it sounds like her experience was pretty different from the audience's experience. Which is fine; one event can mean different things to different people. So there's room for lots of different true, sincere points to be made out of a single story.
  - braveo 9y ago
    I don't disagree with the sentiment, but I felt it important to point out that the assumption made in the sentence I quoted was itself a sexist assumption.