391–400 of 723 posts
The exaggeration of this post is infuriating. I saw the video, and while I do agree that Jim Holt was especially rude in asking questions and then start talking as soon as she started answering, that is all it is. Rudeness. Not sexism. He did it with the men too.
> "Oh my god. what you said was the most important thing that was said all day. Thank you. Thank you."
> most important thing that was said
> most important
The exaggeration of this post is infuriating. I saw the video, and while I do agree that Jim Holt was especially rude in asking questions and then start talking as soon as she started answering, that is all it is. Rudeness. Not sexism. He did it with the men too.
I have a theory that women are less likely to be, I guess the word would be "assertive", than men. That is a stereotype, but sometimes there's truth in stereotypes. I mean I recall studies that women are less likely to ask for raises or are worse at haggling. So if a person is speaking over you and rambling on, perhaps a man is more likely to speak up or butt in at the first opportunity. The quote in the top comment…
> I have a theory that women are less likely to be, I guess the word would be "assertive", than men. If this has been your experience, I'd encourage you to consider why that might be the case. Here's one possibility: Perhaps in our culture, assertive women are treated worse than assertive men.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Charlie Rose has been an absolutely abysmal interviewer his whole career, which is a tragedy considering how good they are at booking great guests. He asks long leading questions, proceeds to answer them himself, and then tacks on an “isn’t that right?” at the end. When the guest inevitably says “that’s not how I think of it, Charlie, let me explain ...”, he then interrupts and repeats his original claim again. Ugh,…
Can't agree more with this assessment of Rose. I don't understand how he got or keeps his job. I wish they'd give that position to Alec Baldwin. His work on "Here's the Thing" has proven him to be an adept interlocutor. While he also has a tendency to talk over his guests it's usually to help enlighten or at least to say something funny.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Thanks for the clarification. That's exactly the point I wanted to make. But also note that the moderator called the person from the audience "heckling" just because she made him aware of his inappropriate behaviour. If not sexism, this is at least a clear sign of ignorance.
That is exactly what a heckling is: > interrupt (a public speaker) with derisive or aggressive comments or abuse. When a member yells out something from the audience to someone on stage: That's a heckle. They forced a break in the 4th wall. (yes, the audience member was right, but so was the moderator in that small instance)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"Prevent all potentially offensive behaviour" is not a valid solution. What constitutes offense is subjective, and furthermore the topic at hand is sexism.
The issue at hand is an example for precisely the opposite. Everybody agrees that the moderator's behaviour was inappropriate, the discussion is mostly about how bad it was (what should the consequences be?) and the label (sexism or not?). More general, regarding subjectivity: Although the individual members of a group or society have different subjective standards, they can still find some common ground on what beha…
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…
> 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. I think you need to read through this thread. People are assigning motivations to the host: "He is sexist" . Maybe he is, maybe he isn't. I'm sure he'd say that he is not, but plenty of people here are saying he is. Is it crazy to think the same…
Nothing. Nobody would care about that. Except some panels overrepresented by women and about any SJ topic where a guy trying to shut female mod up to get a voice for male speaker would be literally destroyed.
Guess what, things like that are happening everyday for both sides but for one direction there's recently some overheated sensitivity. I think there's problem where to draw the line, so we don't call everything sexism or look for the context of gender.
I think it would be sexist to not invite good female scientist simply because she's a woman (and invite worse but male guest).
Now about the real issue which is asexual - ability to be great orator / speaker.
Most of great speakers would made their way into persuading moderator to let them express themselves (like you can't simply get between words of Lisa Abramson, Isabel Aguilera, Lawrence Krauss, Richard Dawkins or Neil deGrasse Tyson - they simply won't let you). There's much more speakers (both male and female) who simply are weak debaters and they find themselves much more comfortable in quiet lab than in heated discussion. Regardless of merit they posses.
The exaggeration of this post is infuriating. I saw the video, and while I do agree that Jim Holt was especially rude in asking questions and then start talking as soon as she started answering, that is all it is. Rudeness. Not sexism. He did it with the men too.
What exaggeration! > "Oh my god. what you said was the most important thing that was said all day. Thank you. Thank you." > most important thing that was said > most important