Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

“Let her speak please”

facebook.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

241–250 of 723 posts

Re: “Let her speak please”

#241

Post by AmIFirstToThink »

ajuckel wrote: post #211
dekhn wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it was really valuable to surface the feelings of the person who was the target of this discussion. It changes the perspective of the incident.

In what way? Sure, it's an additional perspective, but it sounds like you're suggesting it should somehow alter the audience perspective.

She saw it as questioner trying to put on table his understanding of the theory so she can correct him in his understanding.

e.g. Mam, you tell me if I got this correctly. This is how I think it works...

I think it is actually a position of submission in a discussion, the person who is doing the talking is accepting the higher authority of person doing the listening to find errors in your understanding of the subject.

You explain to see if you got it correctly in front of a teacher.

The audiences would have been better served by hearing from the expert directly, so the moderator clearly failed at moderating. There is a chance that he may not have been sexist, but more student like and in the flow of events forgot the place, audience and his role in the conversation.

I didn't see the video so just exploring possibilities.

The audience may have come to thank the person who yelled "LET HER SPEAK PLEASE" for two reasons...

1. They thought moderator was sexist and one doing yelling was a liberator.

2. They wanted to hear the expert. Moderator was doing a poor job at moderating. This was not classroom. The people were there to hear the experts, they probably paid to attend the event. So, "HER" in this case is referencing the expert, not a woman. e.g. a version of "LET THE PROFESSOR SPEAK PLEASE".

Re: “Let her speak please”

#242

Post by natch »

curiousgal wrote: post #138
Tiki wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The comment in full: Veronika Hubeny: I applaud your heroism in standing up for what you believe in! I know well the shaky feeling and subsequent exhilarated and heartwarmed contentment in the knowledge of having done the right thing, and I think that doing so has become more crucial than ever. Your behavior was inspiring and I’m glad that many of those inspired shared their gratitude with you. I guess that, being th…

>I never felt discriminated against or thwarted in my calling This just goes to prove my stance whenever the whole women in STEM fields debate is brought up. You have two kinds of women, those who are out there doing science, building things and being badasses (The likes of Veronika and Julia Evans, ones I consider as role-models) and then you have women that have questionable technical skills who keep whining about…

The real world is just not as simple as your bimodal stance.

First off, sexist environments do exist. So that alone should invalidate how you think of this as either competence versus whining. Also, there are varying degrees of sexism, including places where it is not present at all. How can we know this? Zipf's law. Or by just doing a thought experiment, which I'll leave out here (just think about the simplest possible workplace).

On the issue of technical skills, everyone is incompetent at something. Even if you are highly technically skilled in your chosen field, these days almost every field has overlap, including new and emerging areas of overlap, with other fields including new fields. There are also new techniques being developed all the time. Everyone is learning on the job, and that's as it should be. Does that mean it's OK to whine about non-existent sexism? No, but does it mean that sexism does not exist? Also no. And if it does, it should be called out, regardless of whether someone is a Nobel laureate or a student.

Going to the extreme, if you're not at all skilled in any field but are just learning, that doesn't mean that speaking up about sexism is just whining about imagined problems in every case.

I have no doubt that some of what you're talking about is going on. But my point is it just doesn't begin to explain the whole picture.

Re: “Let her speak please”

#243

Post by orcdork »

trendia wrote: post #164
FussyZeus wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't expect he set out that day to make the scientist shut up because she was a woman. A lot of sexism is so deeply rooted that it's not even hostile by the men who engage in it, it's simply the acting of the cultural norms, for example, that men can talk over women. I don't have a sexist bone in my body and I've caught myself doing this. The only way we improve as a society is to continuously monitor and correct…

I don't think he was doing that because he was sexist, I think he was doing that because he was really excited about the duality. The only way to improve society is to recognize when things are really done with ill intent and when they're the result of: geeking out + bad social skills

What about the possibility that if someone is being a douchebag, blaming their shitty behaviour on the "bad at social skills" strawman is not an excuse any more (or ever was).

Re: “Let her speak please”

#245

Post by MadSax »

roberto wrote: post #200
walterstucco wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This is a painfully frustrating reminder that women get talked over by men men get talked over as well some people just talk over other people nothing new

I can't find the study, but men interrupt women much more than they interrupt men. Also, women interrupt other women more than they interrupt men as well.

There was a study of the video already?

Re: “Let her speak please”

#246

Post by qznc »

jccalhoun wrote: post #229
randomguy23 wrote: post #221

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you wear sexism-colored glasses, don't be surprised if everything looks like sexism. That, I think, is what she's getting at. If you're always looking for a slight, always looking for a snide remark, you'll find it. Perception shapes reality.

"If you wear sexism-colored glasses, don't be surprised if everything looks like sexism." and if you wear glasses that block out sexism, don't be surprised if nothing looks like sexism.

So, how should I deal with it?

The only way I see is to have an objective definition, which can be objectively applied no matter which glasses I wear. What would that definition of sexism be?

Re: “Let her speak please”

#247

Post by weberc2 »

jccalhoun wrote: post #229
randomguy23 wrote: post #221

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you wear sexism-colored glasses, don't be surprised if everything looks like sexism. That, I think, is what she's getting at. If you're always looking for a slight, always looking for a snide remark, you'll find it. Perception shapes reality.

"If you wear sexism-colored glasses, don't be surprised if everything looks like sexism." and if you wear glasses that block out sexism, don't be surprised if nothing looks like sexism.

Sounds like you're (inadvertantly?) making the argument that sexism is purely subjective.

Re: “Let her speak please”

#248

Post by ethbro »

roberto wrote: post #200
walterstucco wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This is a painfully frustrating reminder that women get talked over by men men get talked over as well some people just talk over other people nothing new

I can't find the study, but men interrupt women much more than they interrupt men. Also, women interrupt other women more than they interrupt men as well.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/lexicon_valley/2014/07/23/study_m...

Men are 3x as likely to interrupt women. Women will interrupt women, but rarely men.

Informal study, but decent sample size.

Re: “Let her speak please”

#249

Post by StevePerkins »

roberto wrote: post #217
discombobulate wrote: post #159

I received a delivery from a black gentleman today. Whilst reaching out for the package I was concerned he may think I'm racist if I wasn't excessively nice to him. I think I may be uncomfortable around minorities for fear of being labelled a racist. I have a similar worry around women. I think becoming racist would solve my concerns -- at least in my own mind. However, it doesn't make any sense to do that: individua…

If you're a white heterosexual male you're probably not used to being uncomfortable because the whole world was made for you. You don't feel uncomfortable when you see the police. You don't feel uncomfortable walking down your street at night by yourself. You don't feel uncomfortable going to your church. You don't feel uncomfortable kissing your spouse in the street. In my opinion, the discomfort you're feeling is n…

There's a valid point somewhere in here that could be made, but this doesn't make it very well.

You see, even as middle-class heterosexual white male... I still very much AM uncomfortable when dealing with police. I AM uncomfortable walking down a street alone at night (even in my own neighborhood). I WOULD feel awkward and self-conscious kissing my spouse in the middle of a street. I'm not sure if my mental wiring matches the majority of white people or not. But it definitely reflects a significant portion, if it's not flat-out "the norm".

If any groups outside of heterosexual white males feel wronged because they don't feel such a level of comfort, then I imagine they will forever feel wronged. Because it doesn't describe MY comfort level, either. When people read stuff that's written this starkly, it is EXTREMELY easy to dismiss the concept of privilege. Because your description of white male life simply doesn't match our experience.

Re: “Let her speak please”

#250

Post by jccalhoun »

jancsika wrote: post #167

I remember a sociologist once remarking that prejudice (racism in the case we were discussing) exists quite apart from an individual's intentions. Most of the comments here appear to assume that prejudice is determined solely (or mainly) by the moderator's intentions-- hence the endless quests to somehow prove what is or isn't lurking in the moderator's soul. That seems irrelevant in this case, but I haven't read the…

I''m not a sociologist. My phd minor was Anthro and I don't have any citations handy.

But basically you can never know someone's intention with 100% certainty. There is always the possibility that someone has different intentions than you think they are or that they say they have. Even if it is someone you know very well and trust there is the possibility that you are in some sort of Truman Show where everyone you know has been lying to you your whole life. Or, if we want to get into psychology, there is the possibility that a person could think their intentions are really one thing but subconsciously they might be something else.

So if we can't depend on knowing someone's intentions then we only have the act itself and its impact.

Of course, this opens up a deep rabbit hole in that we can't trust anyone's intentions, including the person that wrote this facebook post. Or mine for leaving this comment...

Post reply on HN