* He was geeking out. True.

* There was no ill intent. True.

* He wasn't sexist. False.

He could geek out all he wanted, but speaking for her multiple times over her trying to get a foot in was very sexist, regardless of intent. I hold the door for guys all the time, but if you're only doing it for "feeble girls" it is telling. This was the case in this panel. She's there because she knows her shit, let her explain it.

> 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

No, the only way to improve society (equality wise) is to recognize when you're treating someone differently (condescendingly) only when they're one gender, however well meaning YOU think it is.

Do you think it's annoying if your parent treats you like you're 10 when you're 35, even when you know they love you and they don't mean it? It's exactly like that, but it's a large portion of the population.

What seems to be the case is that men are more likely to interrupt back, so on a population level this does tend to squeeze a higher percentage of women out - but it doesn't squeeze out the women who're happy to interrupt you back, and it does also squeeze out the quieter men, whose existence and contributions I've also become more aware of as a result.

So the mistake may not have been gendered on his part, and I'd suggest you think hard about whether you're engaging in benevolent sexism by believing only women can be quieter and more in danger of interrupted.

(note that given your other comment down-thread, it may be he's more likely to interrupt women - but it also may be that men are more likely to interrupt him back - if your watching of the video strongly suggests the former then fair enough, but my point here is "all quieter people gain from us learning to talk over people less" and I think that's worth remembering)

> So the mistake may not have been gendered on his part, and I'd suggest you think hard about whether you're engaging in benevolent sexism by believing only women can be quieter and more in danger of interrupted.

Aren't these contradictory if you're first saying that women are less likely to interrupt back and then saying it might be in my head?

Either way, your overall point is sound, but she TRIED to interrupt him several time, whereas none of the other panelists had to even try. I'm always questioning myself, but I don't think I'm projecting that interpretation.

I do however agree that obviously quieter people will have less airtime than more extrovert people, regardless of gender.

I think the question is: Do we believe that this is inherent in gender (nature), nurtured in our culture (women's upbringing), or enforced by sexism after the fact (imposed by men as a result of culture/nurture)?

If your hinted statistics are true, then one statement above must be true, unless I excluded an option.

I don't, however, think it's contradictory to say that "women are less likely to interrupt back" does not automatically mean that the person interrupting them is therefore sexist, even though the results of the behaviour end up impacting a higher percentage of women than men - they may simply be oblivious to the consequences, even if from the sounds of it in this case that wasn't it.

What specifically makes you think he rambled because she was a woman?

Sure, me too, and they're generally consistent in that between genders. This guy isn't. And people like him are very common too.

> What specifically makes you think he rambled because she was a woman?

By watching the entire video and comparing him to his conduct with the other panelists interviewed. She also wasn't the only non-native speaker, so it's not that either.

> I had early on decided that I like physics so much that I’d be quite willing to give up quite a bit of other comforts for it, but perhaps having made that decision and bracing oneself, then made the actual “discomforts” not only more bearable, but genuinely less discomforting. I think the subjective severity of a lot of these issues can be greatly influenced by one’s mindset, one’s psychology. If you allow yourself to enjoy the beautiful things that really matter, if you don’t let social or peer pressure dissuade you from pursuing a field which appeals to you, then no pettiness or childishness or boorishness that you encounter can harm you so much.

> Please understand that I’m not trying to say that sexism in science is a myth. It is real and we should all aspire to diminish it. But I am trying to say that it need not pose as much of an impediment as you might fear and that you might be in more control over its influence yourself than you might think. Just as you put up with long lines to see a great show, or with sore feet or mosquitos to have a great hike etc., the annoyance of otherwise abominable behavior diminishes in the larger perspective of doing something you really enjoy.

Just because she's strong enough to survive in her field and ignore the sexism doesn't mean it isn't there and should be tried and challenged.

If there's an obstacle course in front of the entrance to a supermarket, I would still have to get food. Even if I'd make it through it, I don't think anyone should have to.

Survivors of inequality doesn't disprove the existence of inequality. Yes, individually you shouldn't let inequality stop you from trying and fighting, but collectively we should fix that shit.

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 the panelist been a male instead of me. So it didn’t bother me.

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 the entire panel. (I did)

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?

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.

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

Am I getting special attention because there is a received wisdom around sexism in segments of the tech community which I'm not acknowledging? I'm not sure how other communities operate, but I've noticed that, basically, if anything negative happens to a woman or minority in the tech community, it is automatically assumed that it was because they are a woman or minority. This situation is a perfect example.

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 ignorance. Learning a few social rules is like learning design patterns, and learning not to be sexist or racist is like learning about anti-patterns. It is not harder than coding! If anything, learning social basics is easier than programming.

But if you don't care, you won't learn it. Which you may choose to, but then, it's ignorance, not inability.

You should especially take care of that if you have any major position in a larger group, not matter if it is a company department, an open-source project or a user-group.

If nobody cares visibly about social behaviour, that group is either doomed and won't achieve anything in the long run. Or it reduces a very low number of active participants - usually just one.

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 behaviour they accept or don't accept. You'll find such emerging consent not just in informal rules about social behaviour, but also in formal rules which we call "laws".

I was just talking about making cultural progress. All I said is that informal rules are established (almost by definition) by reacting to those who break them. Doing so reduces the chances that these are broken again, which is just another way of saying that these informal rules are established. And if a good climate within a group is important to you (in a leading position it usually is), then you need to be part of establishing those. Otherwise you risk that your group becomes a hostile place.

The strategy I described does work, and is generally recommended, so I'm not sure what you are arguing against.

I've seen it working in various groups. If shitty behaviour is criticized as such, people become more aware and more careful. As long as the criticism itself is in an appropriate place and reflects the group's values, this is a very healthy thing to do. If the criticized person refuses to adjust their behaviour, they usually leave the group on their own, which is also healthy. In the worst case there's to way but to throw them out, but that is surprisingly seldom. Either way, these people either have to find a group that is okay with their behaviour (good luck!), or they need to change their behaviour in order to engage in groups.

"It may be uncomfortable, but it's the only way to make cultural progress."

And you've really only explained what tacit rules are and how they're enforced, but we knew that already so bully, I guess? The guy talked over her because he was excited and therefore not thinking about the consequences.

Chairing a panel of professionals isn't about you getting to talk to them, it's about showcasing their positions for the audience. "Aw, he just got excited" is not an excuse in this context.

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.

OTOH, maybe you should man the fuck up and move on with your life. I know that seems blunt and assholeish, but that's sort of the point.

I've been offended plenty of times and talked myself down because I knew ultimately it was my emotions misinterpreting the intent.

There is nothing that says just offense can't be mistaken.

edit: watch someone call the phrase 'man the fuck up' sexist.

We can't ever know for certain if it was sexism. I'm not saying take the guy out and shoot him. I'm not even saying do the thing we normally do and try and humiliate him in a public space. I'm saying: This is evidence of the accepted cultural norms in a society that I don't think anyone would disagree was largely designed by and is largely ruled over by men, and there are consequences to that.