271–280 of 723 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"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?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Jesus Christ. Here's a thought, treat them as people and not "a black" or "a woman". You don't have to ingratiate yourself in the fear that some random person will think you're a racist. He's just a person going about his day delivering packages. He's got his own worries and concerns and things going on in his mind. "Is becoming a racist the best solution, so I'm able to function more effectively?" I can't tell if yo…
> He's just a person going about his day delivering packages. He's got his own worries and concerns and things going on in his mind. Of course. He could also be vigilantly looking for 'racists'. I really don't know. I'm using the theory of mind to construct a possible world view. My data set is Twitter/HN/reddit, mainly. I would love to treat everyone like a person, but if I do I leave myself vulnerable to accusation…
See how creating a hostile environment works?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
When you look at the full response though.. She is supportive of the woman in the audience who spoke up. 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…
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…
I'm not really too thrilled at Talkington's outburst - it kind of makes the offense about her, not Hubeny, who if she wanted to could have asked Holt to shut up - but the sentiment was warranted if you watch more of the video for context.
ITT: Sexism _must_ be intentional to be true! If someone's implicit biases (or given the circumstances, like having ten or hundred men in the room versus one woman) cause them to act differently toward women than men, it's still sexism - intentional or not. I'd encourage the men in this thread to exercise a bit of empathy and imagine what it'd be like to be the only man in a room full of 100 women (eg. Miley Cyrus co…
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
In my opinion, ignoring hurtful behavior because we believe the intent wasn't meant to be hurtful will only encourage these behaviors in the long run. We also do a disservice to the perpetrator, if they are truly well meaning or absent of meaning then we're robbing them of an opportunity to improve.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Today I met a journalist who gave up on his job because it was all about his interpretations of other people. He instead started projects to empower others to speak.
Please provide some links to these projects.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The only way to improve society is to recognize when things are really done with ill intent I strongly disagree. We need to fix issues no matter if they had been done because of ignorance or because of ill intent. The measures and consequences should be different, but naming and fixing the issue should be independent from that. "Bad social skills" is a common excuse, but in the end, it's just another word for ignor…
Are you saying we should fix when people geek out about a topic and ramble? If so, I agree. But good luck making progress on that!
> You may be amazed to hear it, but during this panel session I genuinely did not feel affronted or discriminated by the moderator’s behavior. It seemed more amusing to see him try posing a question in a way that at the same time tried answering it. It’s true that this made the question a bit of a moving target for me (and therefore harder to address coherently), but I don’t a-priori assume that the incident was root…
This might be the thing that is most problematic about 'call out' culture. We assume that we know the intention of people's behavior (sexism) and how it is received (offense). In many cases there may be neither. But I'm just cynical enough to suspect that this many not matter to people who 'call out.' They feel that they are on a mission to make society better regardless of whether there are problems in any individua…
You can never hide behind "the victim said it was ok". You need to examine the behavior. Consider the environment in which it took place. Consider the statement the behavior makes to those observing it. Maybe even consider why the perpetrator was behaving that way, but don't give that too much weight.
The important part is that public behavior does not exist in isolation, by definition. Public behavior shapes the world in which it takes place, and the perception of it is shaped by the world in which it exists.
Let me jump to a hypothetical case, totally unrelated to what was presented here:
Let's imagine a couple who in private mutually enjoy the male partner dominating the female partner, including verbal and physical abuse. There is nothing wrong with this. "It's not a problem, she enjoys it" is a perfectly true statement.
Now move that couple's behavior into the public realm. "It's not a problem, she enjoys it" is no longer true. She can completely enjoy it, even feel empowered by it, and the situation still presents a problem. The abuse must now be considered in a wider context. If no one challenges it, it is tacitly accepted behavior. That acceptance influences other people - a man sees that there are no consequences for abusing women and thinks the behavior is a bit more acceptable; a woman sees the same and thinks her only option in that situation is to put up with it.
To move the subject back to the original post, then:
It really doesn't matter whether the victim believed she was being attacked. What matters are the conclusions observers would draw from the interaction. Up until the OP spoke out, an observer would see evidence that it's acceptable for a male speaker to talk over the female speaker he's supposedly asking a question of. The OP speaking out (and the room's reaction to it) provided a very strong contrary signal - it's not acceptable.
In context, does this one incident mean a whole lot either way? No. But our reactions to it do. If you read about this and say "hey, that was a good thing, I should do the same if I notice a situation like that" then you are helping to fight sexism in a real way. Every single time someone says "Let her speak, please" it is creating a tiny shift away from sexism. On the other hand, if your reaction was "this was a non-issue, just ask the woman on the panel", you're not doing a thing to help the culture shift away from sexism.
I'm in the former camp myself. I've been on a work call where a male participant jumped in and started talking over the top of a female participant. I'm ashamed it took me almost a whole minute to work up the nerve to tell him we should let her continue talking. Next time I'll be faster about it. And Marilee's story definitely makes me feel better about doing so in the future.
Don't call this "problematic". It's explicitly shifting cultural norms in the correct direction, a little bit at a time. Stand up for what's right and do the same next time you notice a public situation which would serve to normalize sexism. Trust me, I know how uncomfortable it is. But I also know it's worth it.