“Let her speak please” • Hacker News Board

Re: “Let her speak please”

#661

Post by mpweiher » Thu, Jun 08, 2017, 6:32 AM UTC

Mz wrote: post #596

ryanmarsh wrote: post #473

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.

From what I gather, it does get done to women more than to men. From my perspective, an even bigger problem is that women are more expected to just take it. Having read the piece, it is by a woman who spoke up and said "Let her speak, please" and that's fine. But I have mixed feelings about the title of this piece and how it looks before you read it, because white knighting is a big problem for women. Men coming to t…

> women are more expected to just take it.

Or women, in general, just don't want the bother.

> giving the guys push back

Excellent. Too many women don't, in my experience. In my personal experience, I find women not standing up for themselves in the situation at hand, and then complaining about it for ages after.

> highly likely to get me banned, no matter how reasonable I am about it.

That seems unlikely. If you are getting banned, maybe you're not being reasonable about it?

> If you do, you can be actively punished for it.

This is not a women-only issue. Men get "punished" just as much for unpopular opinions. Just like they get talked over if they let themselves be talked over. etc.

Re: “Let her speak please”

#662

Post by mpweiher » Thu, Jun 08, 2017, 6:45 AM UTC

devnonymous wrote: post #518

complexmango wrote: post #503

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That precludes the breed of jerks who will talk over anybody that will tolerate it. What makes you think there aren't women who also like to claim the center of attention, regardless of other men OR women around them? I don't understand this need to idolize one sex over the other, when the issue is that some people (like this moderator) are just more tone deaf or inconsiderate than others. Equality between sexes impl…

> That precludes the breed of jerks who will talk over anybody that will tolerate it So are you claiming that those sort of jerks are not going to be extra nasty to women that will tolerate it? That they are going to be equally nasty to people of both sexes? If that's what you're claiming, I'll humbly disagree but won't engage any further. > What makes you think there aren't women who also like to claim the center of…

> So are you claiming that those sort of jerks are not going to be extra nasty to women that will tolerate it?

That is also my observation. We are just vastly more sensitive to aggressive/jerk behavior against women ("protect the women"), and this is highly emotionally charged for most people.

For a rough intro into the phenomenon, check out the youtube videos comparing bystander reactions to the exact same behavior in a woman -> man vs. a man -> woman setting.

Re: “Let her speak please”

#663

Post by exadeci » Thu, Jun 08, 2017, 7:09 AM UTC

burkaman wrote: post #580

_Codemonkeyism wrote: post #544

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

Still a sample too small, they need at least 1500 participants IIRC

Re: “Let her speak please”

#664

Post by mirimir » Thu, Jun 08, 2017, 7:11 AM UTC

lgas wrote: post #638

jgalt212 wrote: post #620

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> passionate conversationalists a nice way of saying workplace bullies.

Not really. Bullies have something specific going on. They are trying to hurt people. Many average people get excited when they talk about a subject they are passionate about and enter into a state entirely unlike any bullying I've ever seen but which nevertheless results in non-bullying behaviors like talking over people. These people are exhibiting behaviors like interrupting because they are excited and passionate…

I'm occasionally accused of interrupting others. But here's the thing: I like being interrupted. I enjoy conversations with lots of rapid back and forth. When I'm misguided, I want to be corrected as quickly as possible. I want others to finish my thoughts.

But hey, I mostly rein it in :)

Re: “Let her speak please”

#665

Post by vertex-four » Thu, Jun 08, 2017, 7:15 AM UTC

turc1656 wrote: post #457

vertex-four wrote: post #376

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Note that behaviours which tend to have disproportionate impact on one gender over another are still sexist, and women often have difficulty interrupting in the way that the men here did.

Nonsense. By your statement, the reason it disproportionately impacts women is not because of some rudimentary, fundamental reason but rather because they fail to react the same way the men did and speak up. That lies 100% on the women. In fact what YOU wrote is actually sexist, since it suggests that the corrective action would be to act differently toward her, but not the men. Perhaps you might merely argue that he…

> In fact what YOU wrote is actually sexist, since it suggests that the corrective action would be to act differently toward her, but not the men.

No - the "correct" response is to avoid talking over everyone. Helps everyone, overall helps women (as a group) a little bit more.

> But even if that's the case, you are still saying that women are incapable of speaking up for themselves the way the men did to gain their voice back from the moderator.

Nope, I'm saying that there's a sort of cultural training against interrupting people, and women are more severely affected by that cultural training since it ties in with a lot of "be nice/the good girl" pressure that women get while men are pressured to be more competitive. What I'm specifically not saying is that this is something inherent in being female - it's a cultural issue, not a female one.

Or, in other words - it's easier for men to interrupt people because it's the norm for men to interrupt people and so they have practice at it. It's harder for women to interrupt people because it's not the norm for women to interrupt people and so they have less practice at it. Doing something you don't normally do is hard, even if you have the knowledge on how to, and it's especially hard when you know you're going against the norm to do it.

I'm sure most people go against the norm sometimes - but we should really be creating social environments in which people don't have to go against the norm to get the same result as their peers.

Re: “Let her speak please”

#666

Post by exadeci » Thu, Jun 08, 2017, 7:22 AM UTC

ryanmarsh wrote: post #473

jasonshen wrote: post #11

Edit: I watched the video. The moderator goes on and on and the "let her speak please" sounds very polite. This is a painfully frustrating reminder that women get talked over by men. It's one thing to have one panelist talk over another, but to have the moderator, who is explicitly in charge of facilitating a panel discussion, be the one to drown out a panelist is just unacceptable. Yes, "not all men" do this, but th…

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.

If it was a men complaining about the same situation women would be the first to tell him to man up and speak up.

Re: “Let her speak please”

#667

Post by watwut » Thu, Jun 08, 2017, 7:25 AM UTC

mpweiher wrote: post #661

Mz wrote: post #596

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From what I gather, it does get done to women more than to men. From my perspective, an even bigger problem is that women are more expected to just take it. Having read the piece, it is by a woman who spoke up and said "Let her speak, please" and that's fine. But I have mixed feelings about the title of this piece and how it looks before you read it, because white knighting is a big problem for women. Men coming to t…

> women are more expected to just take it. Or women, in general, just don't want the bother. > giving the guys push back Excellent. Too many women don't, in my experience. In my personal experience, I find women not standing up for themselves in the situation at hand, and then complaining about it for ages after. > highly likely to get me banned, no matter how reasonable I am about it. That seems unlikely. If you are…

> Excellent. Too many women don't, in my experience. In my personal experience, I find women not standing up for themselves in the situation at hand, and then complaining about it for ages after.

That complaining about it is pushing back. And you whine about it right now.

Re: “Let her speak please”

#668

Post by exodust » Thu, Jun 08, 2017, 8:20 AM UTC

ivraatiems wrote: post #654

exodust wrote: post #646

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> 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"…

> 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.

Re: “Let her speak please”

#669

Post by weberc2 » Thu, Jun 08, 2017, 8:31 AM UTC

okreallywtf wrote: post #649

weberc2 wrote: post #598

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Females are also known to underreport, but we know that males underreport to a greater degree (or so I've read in several academic papers). > I meant it more as an analogy than anything else. I understand, and my post was a digression, but I felt it important because I was shocked when I learned the severity of the problem.

I agree, it needs to be talked about and I would say most of the stigma comes from other men (though surely not all).

I mean, the stigma has probably been around for tens of thousands of years in the form of masculinity. Bravery and courage probably evolved because men had to do all of the risky hunting and defense and so societies which rewarded make sacrifice and success flourished and the others largely died out.

Re: “Let her speak please”

#670

Post by exodust » Thu, Jun 08, 2017, 8:32 AM UTC

robotresearcher wrote: post #304

exodust wrote: post #206

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What exactly am I trying? To bring reason to a table overrun with emotive finger-pointing? She didn't "fail". Please don't put dramatic words in my mouth. When you accept an invitation to speak on a panel, there are certain expectations around participatory behaviour of all the members. At the rare times something runs off track, there's always an option to speak up and deal with it in the moment. No harm done. Wait.…

You dropped the word 'responsibility' and left 'option'. You stated that she had the responsibility to get things back on track. I disagree with that specific point. Of course you're right she had the option. The moderator did a bad job, it seems that most accounts agree on that. If he's behaving badly to one member in particular - as the OP states - then it's particularly not her job to save him from looking foolish…

Yes but I said "certain expectations around participatory behaviour" which implies a responsibility as member of panel. Minor point anyway.

His behavior was bad in that moment, no dispute there, but as for generally bad behavior towards her I disagree.

And yes, "people like you" was my error, sorry. Would edit out if I could. "Button clickers" was insulting too. Sorry!