2 ms·

Because: 1) Regardless of whether she experienced the sexism or not, there is only one response she can publicly express, namely the one she did. 2) There was

by croon 9y ago

Because: 1) Regardless of whether she experienced the sexism or not, there is only one response she can publicly express, namely the one she did. 2) There was evidently an entire room/audience that did audibly agree with the "hecklers" sentiment, and many privately expressed so afterwards. 3) Sexism doesn't only exist when the object of it register it. 4) The proof is in the pudding, if you bother to watch through the entire panel. (I did)

oh_sigh 9y ago
1) That's a great way to dismiss any woman's viewpoint: she just can't express what she really feels because of fear 2) good point. Groups of people are never wrong, and there's certainly no selection bias going on. And it was definitely the entire room and not just some subset of the room 3) I agree, but if this is about the supposed victim, then perhaps the supposed victim should have some input. 4) I'm not sure how you can claim it is sexism. Do you know the mental state of the host? Did you consider the supposed victims explanation of why it happened that was not sexism? If a woman is ever treated differently from a man or men, is that automatically sexism?
- croon 9y ago
  1) This is a two parter now: First off, you're the one stating "woman's" viewpoint, this is irrelevant. Secondly, "fear" only in potential professional impact. Also unrelated to gender. If you were mistreated in any way in a public and professional setting, and it wasn't malicious (which I don't think it was) you're probably better off just playing it off rather than escalating it, which is what she did. 2) Are you being sarcastic? 3) She absolutely should, but I'm just not sure if it's relevant. Have you ever finished a sentence for a stutterer, behaved differently around physically disabled people, maybe intellectually been more thorough in conversation? Both of these things are seemingly "considerate" or "well-meaning", but they are nonetheless very condescending. If you've never been on the receiving end you might not grasp the concept, which I think is a contributor to people (typically able white men) discrediting these experiences as over-sensitivity. 4) I claim it from watching the entire video and comparing how he yielded the floor to EVERY other panelists immediately if they ended up speaking at the same time, which he did not do for her to my count 8 times, as well as treating the other non-native speaker (man) very differently than her, to rule out that factor. To your last question: That's a tough hypothetical, but if it's systemic I'm inclined to say yes. If incidental, no.

by croon 9y ago

oh_sigh 9y ago

1) That's a great way to dismiss any woman's viewpoint: she just can't express what she really feels because of fear 2) good point. Groups of people are never wrong, and there's certainly no selection bias going on. And it was definitely the entire room and not just some subset of the room 3) I agree, but if this is about the supposed victim, then perhaps the supposed victim should have some input. 4) I'm not sure how you can claim it is sexism. Do you know the mental state of the host? Did you consider the supposed victims explanation of why it happened that was not sexism? If a woman is ever treated differently from a man or men, is that automatically sexism?

croon 9y ago
1) This is a two parter now: First off, you're the one stating "woman's" viewpoint, this is irrelevant. Secondly, "fear" only in potential professional impact. Also unrelated to gender. If you were mistreated in any way in a public and professional setting, and it wasn't malicious (which I don't think it was) you're probably better off just playing it off rather than escalating it, which is what she did. 2) Are you being sarcastic? 3) She absolutely should, but I'm just not sure if it's relevant. Have you ever finished a sentence for a stutterer, behaved differently around physically disabled people, maybe intellectually been more thorough in conversation? Both of these things are seemingly "considerate" or "well-meaning", but they are nonetheless very condescending. If you've never been on the receiving end you might not grasp the concept, which I think is a contributor to people (typically able white men) discrediting these experiences as over-sensitivity. 4) I claim it from watching the entire video and comparing how he yielded the floor to EVERY other panelists immediately if they ended up speaking at the same time, which he did not do for her to my count 8 times, as well as treating the other non-native speaker (man) very differently than her, to rule out that factor. To your last question: That's a tough hypothetical, but if it's systemic I'm inclined to say yes. If incidental, no.