4 ms·

The woman who said "let her talk" indeed sounded like she meant "I want to hear from her". Its a shame she felt the need to follow that up with a facebook soapb

The woman who said "let her talk" indeed sounded like she meant "I want to hear from her". Its a shame she felt the need to follow that up with a facebook soapbox piece you are clearly sympathetic to. I am not symapthetic, and have no interest in extending a gesture of patronising charity for the sake of the greater cause - women's rights and equality. An important cause yes, but that isnt an automatic qualification to piggy back on anything that even might possibly be related to that topic. The expression "mansplaining" is a trashy and sexist term, and when used falsely to condemn someone's likely innocent mistake is highly disrespectful. You want empathy and understanding of a viewpoint stemming from gender put-downs and unfounded accusations of sexism? People need to hold in their sexism trigger finger for when it actually happens, not when some vague maybe and could-be circumstance provides an excuse to let out a wave of built up disapproval.

ivraatiems 9y ago
> People need to hold in their sexism trigger finger for when it actually happens, not when some vague maybe and could-be circumstance provides an excuse to let out a wave of built up disapproval. Whose judgment are we supposed to trust about "when sexism actually happens?" Further, why is it so clear to you that this person is not being genuine in retelling her experience of what happened? Why is she "on a soapbox" for talking about things she observed and felt in the moment, whether you agreed with them or not? What has she done to indicate to you that she should not be treated credibly? If you came forward with a claim of sexism, would you expect us to treat you with the same level of skepticism you're showing here? > The expression "mansplaining" is a trashy and sexist term, and when used falsely to condemn someone's likely innocent mistake is highly disrespectful. You want empathy and understanding of a viewpoint stemming from gender put-downs and unfounded accusations of sexism? "Falsely condemn," again, is language that's unnecessarily harsh and misleading, and "unfounded" is simply not true. Sexism (and most forms of bias) is not always explicit or intentional; in fact, many biases are implicit.[1] When you treat a person differently because of their gender (or race, religion, etc.) - whether you are doing it on purpose or not - you are exhibiting bias. The purpose of calling out that bias is not just or mainly to shame the person. It's to shine a light on behavior that not only is tolerated or not seen as a problem, but that isn't even consciously considered by people whom it doesn't affect. We can argue over the degree to which the moderator was aware that what he was doing was inappropriate, and we can argue over whether the person who called him out delivered her message in the best possible way, but what happened was not acceptable, and the accusation is not unfounded. [1] https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/implicit-bias/ https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/implicit-bias/
- exodust 9y ago
  > Whose judgment are we supposed to trust about "when sexism actually happens?" You could start by listening to what Veronika Hubeny said in response to the claim: "I genuinely did not feel affronted or discriminated by the moderator’s behavior...I don’t a-priori assume that the incident was rooted in sexism....I simply gave him the benefit of doubt that he was so excited by the newly-learned idea of the duality that he couldn’t resist, and that the same might have occurred had the panelist been a male instead of me." Beyond that you could trust the evidence when indisputable, for example when someone uses the term "mansplaining"; or when someone makes a remark about female drivers; or when there's pay disparity for the same role, etc. Pretty obvious really. The consequences of jumping the gun is that you discredit someone not deserving of that smear campaign. You seem completely insensitive to the moderator, and the potential harm this could bring his reputation. No doubt you believe he can weather the storm because he's a man. That logic is inferred from your earlier remark that women will be labelled "pushy and aggressive" and shamed if seen to be "taking charge" whereas a man would not because of your perception about his "cultural position". Your divisive expectations are working against you in this argument. You believe the hard exterior of a man's shell is worth a few false flags for the good of drawing attention to sexism. I do not believe that which is why I'm replying. > "Falsely condemn," again, is language that's unnecessarily harsh and misleading, Why? In her FB post, Talkington states: "The sexism is beyond blatant." It sounds like you blatantly want this to be about sexism, because why... you want to find evidence of wrong-doing because you're convinced it's rampant and out of control? Calling out sexism is important, but it should never involve discrediting someone based on a hunch, or Facebook post, or whatever other perceived smoking gun motivates you to jump on the hype train. Put yourself in the moderator's shoes, consider his more than likely innocence in this matter even on the implicit bias front, and good luck with the empathy and understanding. Bye.

ivraatiems 9y ago

> People need to hold in their sexism trigger finger for when it actually happens, not when some vague maybe and could-be circumstance provides an excuse to let out a wave of built up disapproval. Whose judgment are we supposed to trust about "when sexism actually happens?" Further, why is it so clear to you that this person is not being genuine in retelling her experience of what happened? Why is she "on a soapbox" for talking about things she observed and felt in the moment, whether you agreed with them or not? What has she done to indicate to you that she should not be treated credibly? If you came forward with a claim of sexism, would you expect us to treat you with the same level of skepticism you're showing here? > The expression "mansplaining" is a trashy and sexist term, and when used falsely to condemn someone's likely innocent mistake is highly disrespectful. You want empathy and understanding of a viewpoint stemming from gender put-downs and unfounded accusations of sexism? "Falsely condemn," again, is language that's unnecessarily harsh and misleading, and "unfounded" is simply not true. Sexism (and most forms of bias) is not always explicit or intentional; in fact, many biases are implicit.[1] When you treat a person differently because of their gender (or race, religion, etc.) - whether you are doing it on purpose or not - you are exhibiting bias. The purpose of calling out that bias is not just or mainly to shame the person. It's to shine a light on behavior that not only is tolerated or not seen as a problem, but that isn't even consciously considered by people whom it doesn't affect. We can argue over the degree to which the moderator was aware that what he was doing was inappropriate, and we can argue over whether the person who called him out delivered her message in the best possible way, but what happened was not acceptable, and the accusation is not unfounded. [1] https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/implicit-bias/ https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/implicit-bias/

exodust 9y ago
> Whose judgment are we supposed to trust about "when sexism actually happens?" You could start by listening to what Veronika Hubeny said in response to the claim: "I genuinely did not feel affronted or discriminated by the moderator’s behavior...I don’t a-priori assume that the incident was rooted in sexism....I simply gave him the benefit of doubt that he was so excited by the newly-learned idea of the duality that he couldn’t resist, and that the same might have occurred had the panelist been a male instead of me." Beyond that you could trust the evidence when indisputable, for example when someone uses the term "mansplaining"; or when someone makes a remark about female drivers; or when there's pay disparity for the same role, etc. Pretty obvious really. The consequences of jumping the gun is that you discredit someone not deserving of that smear campaign. You seem completely insensitive to the moderator, and the potential harm this could bring his reputation. No doubt you believe he can weather the storm because he's a man. That logic is inferred from your earlier remark that women will be labelled "pushy and aggressive" and shamed if seen to be "taking charge" whereas a man would not because of your perception about his "cultural position". Your divisive expectations are working against you in this argument. You believe the hard exterior of a man's shell is worth a few false flags for the good of drawing attention to sexism. I do not believe that which is why I'm replying. > "Falsely condemn," again, is language that's unnecessarily harsh and misleading, Why? In her FB post, Talkington states: "The sexism is beyond blatant." It sounds like you blatantly want this to be about sexism, because why... you want to find evidence of wrong-doing because you're convinced it's rampant and out of control? Calling out sexism is important, but it should never involve discrediting someone based on a hunch, or Facebook post, or whatever other perceived smoking gun motivates you to jump on the hype train. Put yourself in the moderator's shoes, consider his more than likely innocence in this matter even on the implicit bias front, and good luck with the empathy and understanding. Bye.