5 ms·

Note that behaviours which tend to have disproportionate impact on one gender over another are still sexist, and women often have difficulty interrupting in the

Note that behaviours which tend to have disproportionate impact on one gender over another are still sexist, and women often have difficulty interrupting in the way that the men here did.

ebfd 9y ago
>Behaviours which tend to have disproportionate impact on one gender over another This encompasses nearly every behavior we engage in- almost nothing has a 50/50 gender split. Getting into arguments with people on Hacker News, to choose an example, has a disproportionate impact on men. Is this sexist?
turc1656 9y ago
Nonsense. By your statement, the reason it disproportionately impacts women is not because of some rudimentary, fundamental reason but rather because they fail to react the same way the men did and speak up. That lies 100% on the women. In fact what YOU wrote is actually sexist, since it suggests that the corrective action would be to act differently toward her, but not the men. Perhaps you might merely argue that he should not behave that way to anyone simply because of the disproportionate impact. But even if that's the case, you are still saying that women are incapable of speaking up for themselves the way the men did to gain their voice back from the moderator. How is either of those scenarios not sexist on your part?
- dragonwriter 9y ago
  > By your statement, the reason it disproportionately impacts women is not because of some rudimentary, fundamental reason but rather because they fail to react the same way the men did and speak up. That lies 100% on the women. No, the effects of deliberate, targeted differences in socialization by gender aren't the fault of the people experiencing adverse impacts because of the intersection of those with social structures that respond better to people socialized in the manner which is targeted at the other gender. > In fact what YOU wrote is actually sexist, since it suggests that the corrective action would be to act differently toward her, but not the men. It's not sexist to recognize that the consequences of past sexism may require corrective action that is sensitive to the gender-differentiated effects of that past sexism.
  - t_brah 9y ago
    >No, the effects of deliberate, targeted differences in socialization by gender aren't the fault of the people experiencing adverse impacts because of the intersection of those with social structures that respond better to people socialized in the manner which is targeted at the other gender. I've heard this argument before - that women are deliberately socialized to be subordinate. Personally, I believe in the strength & agency of women. >It's not sexist to recognize that the consequences of past sexism may require corrective action that is sensitive to the gender-differentiated effects of that past sexism. I don't understand how using a persons gender for gauging ability to cope with forceful men isn't sexist.
    - dragonwriter 9y ago
      > I've heard this argument before - that women are deliberately socialized to be subordinate. That's because it's a fairly well established fact. > Personally, I believe in the strength & agency of women. Yeah, so do I. That doesn't negate the effects of differential socialization; objective external circumstances have real impacts.
      - t_brah 9y ago
        It is possible for both things to be true at once: * For women to have strength & agency * For external circumstances & socialization to have impacts on individuals But what I don't understand is how you can maintain simultaneously that women are strong & have agency, but must receive corrective action sensitive to gender-differentiated effects. Are the strong women you're thinking of incapable of overcoming societal pressures without gender sensitive treatment?
        fatbird 9y ago
        When I was little and my brother was hitting me, I was always capable of moving away from him so he couldn't hit me. The right thing, though, was for him to stop hitting me.
- Sorreah 9y ago
  Protip: It's not.
  - turc1656 9y ago
    Pulled a quick definition of sexism from the web (they all seems more or less the same - "prejudice, stereotyping, or discrimination, typically against women, on the basis of sex." And the commenter said - "women often have difficulty interrupting in the way that the men here did" At minimum, that fits at least the stereotyping requirement of the definition.
    - fatbird 9y ago
      "pulled a quick definition from the web" is virtually never a useful way to engage something like this. It's like quoting a statute from the law books and ignoring a long history of case law that defines how that law actually works in practice.
      - turc1656 9y ago
        That's a fair enough point. I'll strengthen my position this way instead. Let's assume the definition is garbage and ignore it. Are stereotyping examples things that fall into the category of sexism? I think they absolutely are. And I think most people would agree. "Women aren't as good as men at [whatever]" - sexist? Yep "Women often have difficulty interrupting in the way that the men here did" - sexist? Sure sounds like it to me.
        reitanqild 9y ago
        "Men aren't as good as women at multitasking" - sexist?
        fatbird 9y ago
        You're doubling down on your quick definition by pushing a simpler, even broader definition that's more trivially satisfied. This isn't an issue of categories and word use, it's an issue of history and culture and every incident is tied up in a large amount of context. This is exactly why simplifying terms and definitions fail here. It's not the land of referential transparency. I can't say whether either of your statements are substantially sexist because they only have real meaning once you get at what underlies each one. "Women aren't as good at men at critical thinking because they're genetically programmed for motherhood while men are programmed for leadership" seems very sexist because it's talking about essential traits of men and women. "Women aren't as good at interrupting as men are because they're socialized to be deferential while men are socialized to dominate" seems not sexist because it's describing an accident of history that could as easily be the other way.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- eridius 9y ago
  > By your statement, the reason it disproportionately impacts women is not because of some rudimentary, fundamental reason but rather because they fail to react the same way the men did and speak up. That lies 100% on the women. Saying "women should just act like men" is actually pretty sexist.
- tkxxx7 9y ago
  Seems you've equated failing to successfully interrupt with "failing to react the same way". I think GP was pointing to the reception, not reaction.
- vertex-four 9y ago
  > In fact what YOU wrote is actually sexist, since it suggests that the corrective action would be to act differently toward her, but not the men. No - the "correct" response is to avoid talking over everyone. Helps everyone, overall helps women (as a group) a little bit more. > But even if that's the case, you are still saying that women are incapable of speaking up for themselves the way the men did to gain their voice back from the moderator. Nope, I'm saying that there's a sort of cultural training against interrupting people, and women are more severely affected by that cultural training since it ties in with a lot of "be nice/the good girl" pressure that women get while men are pressured to be more competitive. What I'm specifically not saying is that this is something inherent in being female - it's a cultural issue, not a female one. Or, in other words - it's easier for men to interrupt people because it's the norm for men to interrupt people and so they have practice at it. It's harder for women to interrupt people because it's not the norm for women to interrupt people and so they have less practice at it. Doing something you don't normally do is hard, even if you have the knowledge on how to, and it's especially hard when you know you're going against the norm to do it. I'm sure most people go against the norm sometimes - but we should really be creating social environments in which people don't have to go against the norm to get the same result as their peers.
Consultant32452 9y ago
This seems to boil down to the same old question of whether we're really asking for equality or equity. Attempting to guarantee equal outcomes is a dangerous path to head down.

Note that behaviours which tend to have disproportionate impact on one gender over another are still sexist, and women often have difficulty interrupting in the way that the men here did.

ebfd 9y ago

>Behaviours which tend to have disproportionate impact on one gender over another This encompasses nearly every behavior we engage in- almost nothing has a 50/50 gender split. Getting into arguments with people on Hacker News, to choose an example, has a disproportionate impact on men. Is this sexist?

turc1656 9y ago

Nonsense. By your statement, the reason it disproportionately impacts women is not because of some rudimentary, fundamental reason but rather because they fail to react the same way the men did and speak up. That lies 100% on the women. In fact what YOU wrote is actually sexist, since it suggests that the corrective action would be to act differently toward her, but not the men. Perhaps you might merely argue that he should not behave that way to anyone simply because of the disproportionate impact. But even if that's the case, you are still saying that women are incapable of speaking up for themselves the way the men did to gain their voice back from the moderator. How is either of those scenarios not sexist on your part?

dragonwriter 9y ago
> By your statement, the reason it disproportionately impacts women is not because of some rudimentary, fundamental reason but rather because they fail to react the same way the men did and speak up. That lies 100% on the women. No, the effects of deliberate, targeted differences in socialization by gender aren't the fault of the people experiencing adverse impacts because of the intersection of those with social structures that respond better to people socialized in the manner which is targeted at the other gender. > In fact what YOU wrote is actually sexist, since it suggests that the corrective action would be to act differently toward her, but not the men. It's not sexist to recognize that the consequences of past sexism may require corrective action that is sensitive to the gender-differentiated effects of that past sexism.
- t_brah 9y ago
  >No, the effects of deliberate, targeted differences in socialization by gender aren't the fault of the people experiencing adverse impacts because of the intersection of those with social structures that respond better to people socialized in the manner which is targeted at the other gender. I've heard this argument before - that women are deliberately socialized to be subordinate. Personally, I believe in the strength & agency of women. >It's not sexist to recognize that the consequences of past sexism may require corrective action that is sensitive to the gender-differentiated effects of that past sexism. I don't understand how using a persons gender for gauging ability to cope with forceful men isn't sexist.
  - dragonwriter 9y ago
    > I've heard this argument before - that women are deliberately socialized to be subordinate. That's because it's a fairly well established fact. > Personally, I believe in the strength & agency of women. Yeah, so do I. That doesn't negate the effects of differential socialization; objective external circumstances have real impacts.
    - t_brah 9y ago
      It is possible for both things to be true at once: * For women to have strength & agency * For external circumstances & socialization to have impacts on individuals But what I don't understand is how you can maintain simultaneously that women are strong & have agency, but must receive corrective action sensitive to gender-differentiated effects. Are the strong women you're thinking of incapable of overcoming societal pressures without gender sensitive treatment?
      - fatbird 9y ago
        When I was little and my brother was hitting me, I was always capable of moving away from him so he couldn't hit me. The right thing, though, was for him to stop hitting me.
Sorreah 9y ago
Protip: It's not.
- turc1656 9y ago
  Pulled a quick definition of sexism from the web (they all seems more or less the same - "prejudice, stereotyping, or discrimination, typically against women, on the basis of sex." And the commenter said - "women often have difficulty interrupting in the way that the men here did" At minimum, that fits at least the stereotyping requirement of the definition.
  - fatbird 9y ago
    "pulled a quick definition from the web" is virtually never a useful way to engage something like this. It's like quoting a statute from the law books and ignoring a long history of case law that defines how that law actually works in practice.
    - turc1656 9y ago
      That's a fair enough point. I'll strengthen my position this way instead. Let's assume the definition is garbage and ignore it. Are stereotyping examples things that fall into the category of sexism? I think they absolutely are. And I think most people would agree. "Women aren't as good as men at [whatever]" - sexist? Yep "Women often have difficulty interrupting in the way that the men here did" - sexist? Sure sounds like it to me.
      - reitanqild 9y ago
        "Men aren't as good as women at multitasking" - sexist?
      - fatbird 9y ago
        You're doubling down on your quick definition by pushing a simpler, even broader definition that's more trivially satisfied. This isn't an issue of categories and word use, it's an issue of history and culture and every incident is tied up in a large amount of context. This is exactly why simplifying terms and definitions fail here. It's not the land of referential transparency. I can't say whether either of your statements are substantially sexist because they only have real meaning once you get at what underlies each one. "Women aren't as good at men at critical thinking because they're genetically programmed for motherhood while men are programmed for leadership" seems very sexist because it's talking about essential traits of men and women. "Women aren't as good at interrupting as men are because they're socialized to be deferential while men are socialized to dominate" seems not sexist because it's describing an accident of history that could as easily be the other way.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
eridius 9y ago
> By your statement, the reason it disproportionately impacts women is not because of some rudimentary, fundamental reason but rather because they fail to react the same way the men did and speak up. That lies 100% on the women. Saying "women should just act like men" is actually pretty sexist.
tkxxx7 9y ago
Seems you've equated failing to successfully interrupt with "failing to react the same way". I think GP was pointing to the reception, not reaction.
vertex-four 9y ago
> In fact what YOU wrote is actually sexist, since it suggests that the corrective action would be to act differently toward her, but not the men. No - the "correct" response is to avoid talking over everyone. Helps everyone, overall helps women (as a group) a little bit more. > But even if that's the case, you are still saying that women are incapable of speaking up for themselves the way the men did to gain their voice back from the moderator. Nope, I'm saying that there's a sort of cultural training against interrupting people, and women are more severely affected by that cultural training since it ties in with a lot of "be nice/the good girl" pressure that women get while men are pressured to be more competitive. What I'm specifically not saying is that this is something inherent in being female - it's a cultural issue, not a female one. Or, in other words - it's easier for men to interrupt people because it's the norm for men to interrupt people and so they have practice at it. It's harder for women to interrupt people because it's not the norm for women to interrupt people and so they have less practice at it. Doing something you don't normally do is hard, even if you have the knowledge on how to, and it's especially hard when you know you're going against the norm to do it. I'm sure most people go against the norm sometimes - but we should really be creating social environments in which people don't have to go against the norm to get the same result as their peers.

Consultant32452 9y ago

This seems to boil down to the same old question of whether we're really asking for equality or equity. Attempting to guarantee equal outcomes is a dangerous path to head down.