6 ms·

Nonsense. By your statement, the reason it disproportionately impacts women is not because of some rudimentary, fundamental reason but rather because they fail

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.
        t_brah 9y ago
        Sorry that happened to you. What you've said is true - your brother should not have hit you in the first place. Apples and oranges, though. Physical violence, threats, and calls to action must not be equated to expression. The urgency & rigor needed to address violence would be inappropriate applied to expression. As an aside: it's not always possible to take action to defend yourself, but this does not necessarily mean that passive or defensive actions are all that you have.
        fatbird 9y ago
        Thank you. It wasn't severe abuse, it was just annoying sibling bullying. My point, made obliquely, is that the one's agency is independent of how others should behave. > Are the strong women you're thinking of incapable of overcoming societal pressures without gender sensitive treatment? Strength and agency are relative, and different in principle and in fact. All women (and men) are theoretically capable of asserting themselves even against an expressive bully (which is what I think you mean when you say " I believe in the strength & agency of women"; in practice many are not for a variety of circumstantial reasons--bad day, bad upbringing, cultural background, misinformation, fear, insecurity. Whether men (especially conference organizers and panel moderators) should do something differently in light of received knowledge about sexist patterns of socialization, there's no contradiction with believing in the agency of women. Affirmative action might be problematic at the legislative level, but strongly indicated at the social level. In other words, Jim Holt could be conscious of the fact that sexism against women in science is a real and ongoing problem, and make a point of being deferential to female speakers; at the very least, he could avoid actively preventing them from speaking more than he was preventing the men. The first would be a positive good; the latter a basic expectation. Neither is an infringement on Holt's expression, nor is a social backlash against Holt for failing to meet even the basic expectation of civility.
- rach-face 9y ago
  get real.
  - dragonwriter 9y ago
    In precisely what way is any of what I wrote not real?
- turc1656 9y ago
  It may not be the fault of the people experiencing "adverse impacts", but they still make a choice on how to respond to them. The commenter claimed that women find it more difficult to respond in the same way as men. To me, that's sexist because they are saying women are essentially less capable of standing up for themselves. I don't understand how anyone doesn't see it that way. "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." True, but if the corrective action is treating women differently, then yeah, that's sexist. You can't say this guy is being sexist because he acted differently toward her and then say that we need to treat women differently than men to correct past sexism, but that different treatment is somehow not sexist.
- gpawl 9y ago
  Nice victim-blaming, bro. Just because some people push back against misbehavior doesn't mean the misbehavior is right to continue wherever it's not checked.
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.

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.
      - t_brah 9y ago
        Sorry that happened to you. What you've said is true - your brother should not have hit you in the first place. Apples and oranges, though. Physical violence, threats, and calls to action must not be equated to expression. The urgency & rigor needed to address violence would be inappropriate applied to expression. As an aside: it's not always possible to take action to defend yourself, but this does not necessarily mean that passive or defensive actions are all that you have.
        fatbird 9y ago
        Thank you. It wasn't severe abuse, it was just annoying sibling bullying. My point, made obliquely, is that the one's agency is independent of how others should behave. > Are the strong women you're thinking of incapable of overcoming societal pressures without gender sensitive treatment? Strength and agency are relative, and different in principle and in fact. All women (and men) are theoretically capable of asserting themselves even against an expressive bully (which is what I think you mean when you say " I believe in the strength & agency of women"; in practice many are not for a variety of circumstantial reasons--bad day, bad upbringing, cultural background, misinformation, fear, insecurity. Whether men (especially conference organizers and panel moderators) should do something differently in light of received knowledge about sexist patterns of socialization, there's no contradiction with believing in the agency of women. Affirmative action might be problematic at the legislative level, but strongly indicated at the social level. In other words, Jim Holt could be conscious of the fact that sexism against women in science is a real and ongoing problem, and make a point of being deferential to female speakers; at the very least, he could avoid actively preventing them from speaking more than he was preventing the men. The first would be a positive good; the latter a basic expectation. Neither is an infringement on Holt's expression, nor is a social backlash against Holt for failing to meet even the basic expectation of civility.
rach-face 9y ago
get real.
- dragonwriter 9y ago
  In precisely what way is any of what I wrote not real?
turc1656 9y ago
It may not be the fault of the people experiencing "adverse impacts", but they still make a choice on how to respond to them. The commenter claimed that women find it more difficult to respond in the same way as men. To me, that's sexist because they are saying women are essentially less capable of standing up for themselves. I don't understand how anyone doesn't see it that way. "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." True, but if the corrective action is treating women differently, then yeah, that's sexist. You can't say this guy is being sexist because he acted differently toward her and then say that we need to treat women differently than men to correct past sexism, but that different treatment is somehow not sexist.
gpawl 9y ago
Nice victim-blaming, bro. Just because some people push back against misbehavior doesn't mean the misbehavior is right to continue wherever it's not checked.

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

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.