“Let her speak please”

>He spends 0:40 asking her the first question. He continues talking when she tries to speak once.

>She talks for 0:30

>He redirects her from her answer and tries to clarify what he wants to know for 0:55

>She talks for 1:00 answering this question

> He begins clarifying/providing an example of what she is saying for 0:20, continuing to talk when she tries to speak once. It is during this interruption that "let her speak please" is shouted (1:05:40).

This makes it sound like he only interrupts her twice, while my count is up to eight at this point. He's already interrupted her mid-speach three times, and she's trying to get back air time five times after 1:03:25 when he's interrupted her.

And it's the same after 1:05:25 when he interrupts her yet again.

> It's clear that he was quite excited about the ideas and some of the ways he wanted to explain them and examples he wanted to give. It's not clear that there was no subconscious bias on his part in the way he went about it.

I honestly don't think it's nefarious, but what I do think is fairly blatant is that it's a case of speaking for the woman, which is text book sexism. If I can read more between the lines than perhaps is there, I think he believes he's doing her a favor. While clearly wrong, I think this is a/the main component of sexism. Which could also explain people (men) not seeing it as a problem because it's habitual and not stemming from ill-will.

> Veronica wasn't concerned with the perceived sexism

Citation needed. If you read her comment carefully she acknowledges there is sexism in science but says that it should not put off people from pursuing what they love. And in this case she said she just gave the host the benefit of the doubt, since his attitude could be interpreted in multiple ways.

> Marilee, a specimen of the second category, gave herself a pat on the shoulder for standing up to Veronica.

That's an asshole thing to say, and your comment makes it look like it's a full-blown trait, not a one-time accident. Out of a whole theater who noticed the incident, she was the only one who had the balls to stand up. You may disagree that it was sexism (can't be proven either way, you can't know the host's state of mind at that time), but you can't in good conscience disagree that it wasn't right, and it's a good thing someone said something.

And yes, the way you phrased your comment clearly implies that there are two categories of people, the doers and the whiners; it reeks of assholery. There are people who do a lot and "whine" a lot; just because you're good at something doesn't mean you should bury your head in the sand when you see something wrong.

I don't see any "'call out' culture" here. Note that the person in the audience did not say "you are sexist". The words were "Let her speak please". Specific, and to the point.

(EDIT: The article itself uses the word "sexist", so it might indeed have been a call-out. However, that doesn't affect my point that we should not tolerate shitty behaviour, no matter which label is attached to it.)

The moderator's behvaiour itself was inappropriate, no matter which gender the other person had, and no matter whether the other person is offended or cool with it.

Why? Because others might not be cool with that, and rightly so! If we publicly tolerate inappropriate behaviour, we are making it even harder for those who are not cool with it.

That's why we (the audience, the society) should not tolerate shitty behaviour, and speak out publicly against it. Not just to fix this individual case, where the affected person may or may not need our help, but to establish a culture where this shitty behaviour will occur less often in the first place.

This is written straight out of Buzzfeed, why did it not stay flagged?

I wish people could stop supporting these articles about serious issues that are so emotive build purely to play on/abuse human emotions? It just hurts every cause.

Veronika Hubeny on the other hand wrote a response very worthy of HN.