6 ms·

Indeed, a level-headed comment is what is required in this situation. This is her livelihood, her career.. Pretty much everything for her. If she was to attack

by kefka 9y ago

Indeed, a level-headed comment is what is required in this situation. This is her livelihood, her career.. Pretty much everything for her. If she was to attack her colleagues, it would spell certain doom for her career. Her opinions and proofs would be dismissed and denigrated. And the specter of "Will I be accused of sexism if I pan this paper?" will rear its ugly head anywhere she would turn. Think of this as an analogy to badmouthing your previous employer in an interview. You just don't do it. Except, now exchange interview for world-wide public debate/discussion. Nobody in the world, in that field, would consider her.

weberc2 9y ago
While I agree, it's also plausible that she's being sincere, and it's merely a consequence of being awesome that people treat you well.
nostromo 9y ago
Aren't you doing the same thing the moderator did? You're dismissing her comments out-of-hand as not entirely honest and assuming you know her true feelings. Maybe now that she's been given the opportunity to speak, we should listen to and consider her thoughts.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- pavedwalden 9y ago
  kefka's comment appears* to be carefully worded to comment only on the situation she finds herself in, and does not make any assertions about her state of mind. *does HN indicate when a comment has been edited?
  - kefka 9y ago
    I did have 1 edit, around 5 minutes in. s/world-wise/world-wide/ _________________________ And that's correct. I put no state-of-mind or otherwise speak for her. I'm acknowledging the complexity of highlighting a potential problem amongst your peers in a very public manner. Especially in Academia, where your peers approve, collaborate, and act as a peer, attacking them publicly could have disastrous consequences. It is "safer", and provides face to be accepting of such actions, be they intentional or unintentional. (Yes, I work in Academia. This sort of thing happens pretty regularly, from what Ive seen. What's that saying... The nail that sticks out gets the hammer?)
derefr 9y ago
> Except, now exchange interview for world-wide public debate/discussion. There's an important difference caused by this: what you must avoid doing is badmouthing old employers to new employers. It's about what you, and you alone, say to the employer. The new employer isn't sitting around listening for what other people have to say; they're only interested in what you have to say. So your only options are "tell them yourself" or "don't tell them and they'll never know." But in the public sphere, there's a third option: ask a well-respected-in-the-same-sphere friend or colleague to carry the torch for you, making a big deal of what happened to you while you yourself remain silent. Other people in the public sphere are "listening" to claims made by any-and-all prominent members of the sphere, and so will hear what some random member says on your behalf. Which makes that pretty much the best option 100% of the time; you get the gains from speaking up, with none of the risks. As a side-note: consider the fact that you can pay people to speak up for you in this way. Consider the implication that "the protection of your social position through third-party calling-out" is a good that can be purchased by the wealthy, and which is less available to the poor. And consider what this implies, in an anthropic-argument sense, for those who rise to the top of social hierarchies.

by kefka 9y ago

weberc2 9y ago

While I agree, it's also plausible that she's being sincere, and it's merely a consequence of being awesome that people treat you well.

nostromo 9y ago

Aren't you doing the same thing the moderator did? You're dismissing her comments out-of-hand as not entirely honest and assuming you know her true feelings. Maybe now that she's been given the opportunity to speak, we should listen to and consider her thoughts.

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
pavedwalden 9y ago
kefka's comment appears* to be carefully worded to comment only on the situation she finds herself in, and does not make any assertions about her state of mind. *does HN indicate when a comment has been edited?
- kefka 9y ago
  I did have 1 edit, around 5 minutes in. s/world-wise/world-wide/ _________________________ And that's correct. I put no state-of-mind or otherwise speak for her. I'm acknowledging the complexity of highlighting a potential problem amongst your peers in a very public manner. Especially in Academia, where your peers approve, collaborate, and act as a peer, attacking them publicly could have disastrous consequences. It is "safer", and provides face to be accepting of such actions, be they intentional or unintentional. (Yes, I work in Academia. This sort of thing happens pretty regularly, from what Ive seen. What's that saying... The nail that sticks out gets the hammer?)

derefr 9y ago

> Except, now exchange interview for world-wide public debate/discussion. There's an important difference caused by this: what you must avoid doing is badmouthing old employers to new employers. It's about what you, and you alone, say to the employer. The new employer isn't sitting around listening for what other people have to say; they're only interested in what you have to say. So your only options are "tell them yourself" or "don't tell them and they'll never know." But in the public sphere, there's a third option: ask a well-respected-in-the-same-sphere friend or colleague to carry the torch for you, making a big deal of what happened to you while you yourself remain silent. Other people in the public sphere are "listening" to claims made by any-and-all prominent members of the sphere, and so will hear what some random member says on your behalf. Which makes that pretty much the best option 100% of the time; you get the gains from speaking up, with none of the risks. As a side-note: consider the fact that you can pay people to speak up for you in this way. Consider the implication that "the protection of your social position through third-party calling-out" is a good that can be purchased by the wealthy, and which is less available to the poor. And consider what this implies, in an anthropic-argument sense, for those who rise to the top of social hierarchies.