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

571–580 of 723 posts

Re: “Let her speak please”

#571

Post by chrisper »

DanBC wrote: post #545
_jcwu wrote: post #441

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, but it makes it sound ridiculous. If I am going to include all my emotional responses to an event every time I write about something it will become ridiculous and annoying at one point. Can you not be annoyed by something without starting to shake every time? Especially if you try to interpret rudeness as sexism...

The emotion is not anger , it is fear .

From the text:

> I am in full outrage. My body is actually beginning to shake.

Outrage to me means anger and not fear.

Re: “Let her speak please”

#572

Post by oh_sigh »

croon wrote: post #559
oh_sigh wrote: post #435

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I like how you quote her response where she is talking about sexism in general(which certainly exists), when I and OP were talking about the specific event, and whether it was sexism. Why didn't you quote this part instead? > Maybe I’m too naive, but 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…

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 th…

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?

Re: “Let her speak please”

#573

Post by _lex »

masondixon wrote: post #341
_lex wrote: post #180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it's worth considering that we're seeing some survivorship bias here - it's possible that she's the only woman on the panel because she thinks this way. In other words, it's possible that other women who would have seen this event as being rooted in sexism may eventually be a part of so many similar events during their career that they effectively burn out and switch to more female friendly fields. This has b…

> it's possible that she's the only woman on the panel because she thinks this way No true scotsman. If she doesn't agree with your narrative, she is an exception. > the ones who pay attention to how they might be treated differently leave. Because they see sexism when its just normal human behaviour. Why do feminists think its okay to second-guess the male mental and emotional state? As if the same stuff never happe…

> it's possible that she's the only woman on the panel because she thinks this way

Note I said "it's possible". I did that because I can't prove it. I don't think anybody can prove either possibility.

>why do you assume anything is racist in the first place instead of thinking it is just normal human behaviour?

I'm not originally from the US, though I live here now. While you may look at me and see a black man, I grew up in a country where everyone was black, and therefore nobody was. As a result, I'm probably the least indoctrinated into any movement or society based on identity. The idea that I might identify with racial issues faced by American blacks was one that was forced onto me by reality.

Imagine you're a black person who's never seen racism before. You'd only start assuming that the problems you face are related to race when you are repeatedly treated worse than your cohort, and when you're treated so badly that there is no plausible narrative that you can construct that will lead to another explanation. For example: Employers are shocked (and uncomfortable) when a black face shows up with your resume. Your job offers are lower and less frequent, although you're at the top of your field. People find issues with you and your work that they just can't explain, but accept and praise your work when submitted under other names. Senior leaders think you're a janitor when you lead a department. Patients refuse to be seen by you, even though you are indisputably the best in your speciality. I can go on (note these events have not all happened to me, but each has happened to someone in my inner circle). After a while, even someone who didn't know that racism existed would discover it. You're lucky you don't have to.

Movements like feminism and BLM must sometimes be wrong about specific events - there's no way to really prove what's in someone's heart. And sometimes bad things happen to women and black people - things that would have happened independent of gender and race. But when there's a distinct, recurring pattern, it's really hard to pretend like nothing's wrong.

Separately, you should know that racism and sexism are actually normal (meaning default) human behavior. People form groups based on similarities and exclude those who are dissimilar. These groups may include employment, or leadership at companies. Thats why this is so hard.

Re: “Let her speak please”

#574

Post by oh_sigh »

dang wrote: post #472
oh_sigh wrote: post #262

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ok, so the woman who is ostensibly the victim doesn't see it as sexism, but presumably a random man who wasn't there and didn't see the event is arguing it is. Hmm, who to believe? Why are you mansplaining sexism to a woman and denying her lived experience?

> Why are you mansplaining Please don't troll here. On HN, if you have a substantive point, make it thoughtfully; otherwise please don't post.

How is it trolling? Mansplaining is in the OED and I explained myself beyond just throwing the term out. Is it because I'm mirroring the supposed victims own words and not jumping on the sexism train, which goes against the received wisdom of this forum?

Re: “Let her speak please”

#575

Post by kefka »

pavedwalden wrote: post #450
nostromo wrote: post #427

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Aren't you doing the same thing the moderator did? You're dismissing her comments out-of-hand as not entirely honest and assuming you know her true feelings. Maybe now that she's been given the opportunity to speak, we should listen to and consider her thoughts.

kefka's comment appears* to be carefully worded to comment only on the situation she finds herself in, and does not make any assertions about her state of mind. *does HN indicate when a comment has been edited?

I did have 1 edit, around 5 minutes in.

s/world-wise/world-wide/

_________________________

And that's correct. I put no state-of-mind or otherwise speak for her. I'm acknowledging the complexity of highlighting a potential problem amongst your peers in a very public manner. Especially in Academia, where your peers approve, collaborate, and act as a peer, attacking them publicly could have disastrous consequences.

It is "safer", and provides face to be accepting of such actions, be they intentional or unintentional.

(Yes, I work in Academia. This sort of thing happens pretty regularly, from what Ive seen. What's that saying... The nail that sticks out gets the hammer?)

Re: “Let her speak please”

#576

Post by scrollaway »

snowwrestler wrote: post #488
scrollaway wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

None of this is useful nor OK. I watched a bunch of the video. The guy is a poor moderator. Using this term creates a charged bias on the reader, who almost certainly hasn't seen the video: It labels the moderator's behaviour as purposefully sexist and paints a clear picture of something that is actually really, really hard to read. On top of this, what if you're wrong ? What if this is a genuine mistake (which it ho…

Yes I'm ok with it. The whole point of "mansplaining" and similar terms is to draw attention to behaviors which otherwise would not be noticed by a lot of men. Situations like this don't have to be purposeful, conscious, and malicious to problematic. In fact the reason sexism is so hard to fight is that it is usually unconscious habit. The power of default. It's not an issue of cherry picking; this sort of thing happ…

What you are doing here is turning something that is quite likely completely unrelated to gender, into a gender issue.

This is not useful. It doesn't "fight sexism", it makes the battle harder to fight because you end up fighting an enemy that doesn't exist. You're moving the goal posts.

And I am 100% for fighting "unconscious biases", but my point is this isn't even necessarily that.

Please read some of the comments here. Please read Veronika Hubeny's reply. None of the people who were actually involved in this think it has to do with sexism/gender. Great, a woman stood up for another woman, an awkward moderator was humbled, and we all learned and felt a little better at the end of the day. Now, by turning this into a sexism issue, trying to claim that the moderator was "mansplaining" without even bothering to figure out whether it is conscious or not, not only are you drawing a new dragon to fight against, but you're subjecting a moderator to potential bullying and harassment.

None of this is motivating. It's pretty dreadful in fact, and the idea that you might be subjecting an innocent to this sort of treatment is turning people off the cause -- in fact, it's far likelier to make them even more cautious and tread even more carefully when talking about it (which through continued self-censorship ends up turning the entire community into an echo chamber).

Please focus on the real dragons. Changing people's views and behaviour takes focus and patience. Look at the environmentalism and lgbt movements: They're fighting for issues that the majority of people aren't (directly) affected by, but they're winning because, the majority of the time, they use other people's compassion to fight real issues.

Here instead, you're taking something we've all been guilty of in our life (talking too long and over someone else) and turning the person into an enemy because it might have had something to do with gender. Do you realize how horrifying that is?

Re: “Let her speak please”

#577

Post by ajuckel »

AmIFirstToThink wrote: post #470
ajuckel wrote: post #325

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't understand why we're arguing about what the moderator's intent might have been. That seems very much beside the point. I was asking for clarification because it seemed that the post I was replying to was implying that the perspective of the person on the stage should somehow color what we all learn from the Facebook post. I think the person on stage and the people in the audience are all entitled to their own…

>the perspective of the person on the stage should somehow color what we all learn from the Facebook post. What if you knew she was guiding his PhD thesis? That he was her student. What if he had conversations with her before this topic trying to understand her theory? What the person on the stage was feeling does matter. Ms. Talkington is entitled to her interpretation of the event. But, to say that interpretation i…

I don't see how your hypothetical, behind-the-scenes interactions would have affected how observers experienced the event. Again, I feel the point of the facebook post was an observer sharing her perspective, not someone claiming to be reporting on some objective, unassailable truth.

I apologize, I wasn't trying to imply that you have less right to speak than anyone else, though I see now how I worded it clumsily. My point in bringing up listening isn't to try to shut you or anyone else down from sharing their experiences. I am suggesting that seeking to fully understand OP's position, starting from the assumption that OP is a rational individual giving a true and faithful account of her reasonable reaction to a sequence of events would be a worthwhile endeavor.

Re: “Let her speak please”

#578

Post by prbuckley »

Good on her for speaking up but I would postulate that minority groups gets talked over by the majority group and that this is not sexism. Should people try to be more mindful of the people around them? Absolutely, but jumping to the conclusion that it is sexism is just counter productive.

Anecdotally as a man any time I am in a group that has a majority of woman the men get talked over by the woman all the time. I grew up in a family that was a majority woman and the same thing happened all the time, I would say generally in social settings where one sex has the majority they tend to talk over the opposite sex and control the conversation. It is human nature. However we can and should be better then that but it is hard.

Re: “Let her speak please”

#579

Post by joyeuse6701 »

t_brah wrote: post #535
dragonwriter wrote: post #515

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

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…

From a societal perspective, it would be honorable to right a wrong on behalf of the victim. Sure they may lift themselves up out of their own predicament, but it may not be necessary.

Re: “Let her speak please”

#580

Post by burkaman »

_Codemonkeyism wrote: post #544
gpawl wrote: post #522

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your anecdote of your fuzzy memory is not research. When measurements are taken, there is a clear pattern: https://www.forbes.com/sites/womensmedia/2017/01/03/gal-inte... https://hbr.org/2017/04/female-supreme-court-justices-are-in... http://nytlive.nytimes.com/womenintheworld/2015/03/19/google...

Your fuzzy memory is not research so I quote the three top scientific magazines: Forbes, HBR [1] & NYT. (If you look in the articles, they quote studies with 20 participants. At university I would have been destroyed when making fundamental claims on a sample size of 20). And yes my gut feeling tells me women get interrupted more often. And from this comment you may assume I'm guilty of this, though my bad social hab…

Here's one with 216 participants, and a whole bunch of citations that might be interesting: http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1046496404263728

Another one from 1989 with 186 participants: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/250069045_Interrupt...

Post reply on HN