581–590 of 723 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Interrupting somebody else isn't physically hurting anybody. This is a real argument that affects lots of people. Don't dilute it with your sarcastic strawmans.
I was countering one strawman argument with another. Please realize that the bar to meet here isn't violence, it's professional and courtesy.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 ho…
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Speaking up in public or confronting people has this effect on many, many people. It is an indication of something that you think explaining a woman's own theories to her in public a "relatively straightforward conversational faux-pas". You should ponder that.
It clearly sounds like sexism (probably non-intentional, but is that better or worse?). On the other hand, the woman who spoke up seems to be an actress working at a theatre, so public speaking is probably not a problem for her.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I didn't mean for her to tell Holt to literally "shut up", but that Hubeny handled it as she want to - which I conclude based on my confidence in her ability and stature to do so and from her follow-up comment - and she was in fact "White Knighted" as what's meant by the term to have jumped in, even if Talkington was female. Maybe I was raised in a different generation, but disrupting a staged event from the audience…
The topic of politeness (civility) and its role in power dynamics has been discussed extensively in the context of race and gender issues. Politeness tends to reinforce existing subconscious norms, which in practice often includes women not "getting a seat at the table" despite being at the table. If you're a disadvantaged demographic in that setting, politeness is your ally only to the extent that the majority will…
If civility is really such a barrier to equality (or whoever perceives it so), why not take this to its logical conclusion as Femen has? Or if it can be conceded that a more nuanced approach is better, why assume the worst of the offender with direct social attack, if you're willing to admit already that the behavior might be subconscious and indirect?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You'd have to agree though that it's a remarkable coincidence that the moderator began to ramble when he started talking about a topic that he was particularly excited about and which he was not particularly knowledgeable about.
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…
We shouldn't try to root out all sexism, because that is the same as rooting out sexuality itself. Instead we should focus on rooting out harmful sexism. But then maybe I have that opinion because I'm a man and by definition sexist, so whatever.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
People get talked over by people. I see this all the time and it's generally sexless. As a consultant I've helped at least 100 teams have crucial conversations across tens of businesses. I don't get the constant refrain that this is a male vs. female thing.
My suspicion is that it is based largely upon context. I would postulate that academia and journalism are still pretty sexist compared to the 'tens of businesses' you observed. Potentially in support of your perspective: I see the overspeaking roles inverted in the context of reality TV shows, though that could potentially be seen as a counter-action to normal social roles which develops as structure of society is re…
Two industries I have not had the pleasure of engaging with. My coaching experience has been around healthcare, insurance, banking, transportation, energy, construction, software, audit, and a few other random things.
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…
Sexism is unavoidable, and it is not always a negative. Men hold open doors, or offer up their seat, for women more often than for men. That too is sexism, but rarely do you hear complaints. We shouldn't try to root out all sexism, because that is the same as rooting out sexuality itself. Instead we should focus on rooting out harmful sexism. But then maybe I have that opinion because I'm a man and by definition sexi…
I've often heard complaints, by women, that this inequality is sexist, patronizing and, essentially (though usually the complaint comes from people who wouldn't use the term) a micro-aggression sending the message that women are regarded as less capable of taking care of themselves.
Now, these complaints usually aren't the complainants' biggest complaint about sexist behavior, but you may be confusing the fact that their are far bigger problems that drown out these complaints with these not actually being problems for women.
> We shouldn't try to root out all sexism, because that is the same as rooting out sexuality itself.
Sexism is not necessary for sexuality, even if it is deeply incorporated in some social norms surrounding sexuality.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah, this gets into a problem where people use the word "sexism" in a couple different ways, that don't mean the same thing. Mostly conscious vs unconscious, I think? Almost no one goes home and writes, "Dear Diary, today I insulted some women, because I hate women. Let's keep doing that." So of course, if you accuse someone of being that kind of conscious sexist, it's a huge insult. You're calling them a sad hate m…
> Saying "that wasn't sexist; so-and-so is actually less assertive" kind of assumes that we're talking about conscious sexism. The idea that less assertive implies female is sexist. The person you're responding to could have simply meant the other participants refused to let the moderator walk over them like that, which has nothing to do with sex and everything to do with behavior.
I think that's precisely what they meant. There are a lot of dimensions here:
- The other participants might've behaved differently than Prof. Hubeny, in a way that got them treated differently.
- The moderator might've had different expectations about how different people on the panel would behave, or how they might want him to behave, prior to anyone's actual behavior.
- Any difference in expectations might or might not have anything to do with sex.
- Someone posted Prof. Hubeny's response elsewhere in this thread, and it sounds like her experience was pretty different from the audience's experience. Which is fine; one event can mean different things to different people.
So there's room for lots of different true, sincere points to be made out of a single story.
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 links do not justify your confident tone. Two are about the 7 Supreme Court Justices and some Google guy. That's 8 people. The first is about a study involving 11 male-female interactions (19 now), and a study which noted that "...The men interrupted their female conversational partners 2.1 times during a three minute conversation. That number dropped to 1.8 when they spoke to other men." So men just interrupt m…
I'll buy that. If this disproportionately affects women then I'll buy that too. I don't buy that men interrupt women specifically out of some sort of bias. My experience has been that the more passionate conversationalists among us will interrupt anyone who will let them.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Honestly this is a horrible philosophy -- the notion that anything can be sexist if someone chooses to be offended. You talk about an imbalance of power, but isn't the ability to recontextualize any bad behavior as sexist just because of the participants involved a huge source of power in of itself?
> Honestly this is a horrible philosophy -- the notion that anything can be sexist if someone chooses to be offended. But it's the exact opposite. Being offended has nothing to do with sexism. Sexism is an objective situation of an unequal distribution of power. Sexism would exist even if everyone in the world thought it was great, and no one was ever offended in the slightest. > but isn't the ability to recontextual…
According to the U.S. Census Bureau, as of 2006 only 3.6% of alimony recipients were men. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alimony#History
Mothers are granted custody in ~80% of cases and are the recipients of 94% of child support dollars paid: https://dalrock.wordpress.com/2011/08/15/latest-u-s-custody-...
Men make up 93% of the current prison population: https://www.bop.gov/about/statistics/statistics_inmate_gende...
Men are assumed to be sexist by default: https://amberskyeforbes.files.wordpress.com/2013/09/1240542_...
Men have no reproductive rights. If a woman decides to cede responsibility for her child, she can abort it or give it up for adoption. If a man decides to cede responsibility for a child, he is labeled a "deadbeat" and on the hook for child support payments anyways.
Only men are required to register for the United States Selective Service.
According to a 2012 CDC study, more men than women suffer from domestic violence and psychological aggression: http://www.saveservices.org/2012/02/cdc-study-more-men-than-...
But when the very first domestic violence shelter for men opened in the US it was panned as a misuse of nonprofit money: http://www.xojane.com/issues/domestic-violence-shelters-for-...
More than double the available scholarships for women than for men: https://www.scholarships.com/financial-aid/college-scholarsh... https://www.scholarships.com/financial-aid/college-scholarsh...
So yeah, there's a pretty clear imbalance of power.
