If you wear sexism-colored glasses, don't be surprised if everything looks like sexism. That, I think, is what she's getting at. If you're always looking for a slight, always looking for a snide remark, you'll find it. Perception shapes reality.

"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.

It's magical sexism. Everyone agrees in the abstract that sexism must exist, but there are no actual incidents that can be positively attributed to sexism.

Sexism is like racism. It's a pattern of behavior. It is difficult to determine that a single act is motivated by sexism unless the actor uses terminology that deliberately casts it in that light.

That's the way this stuff works, and why it's so hard to fight. Racism, sexism, homophobia, the list goes on. The reason is that bigotry isn't conscious, it's subconscious.

"No actual incidents"

Have you been living under a rock? There are more than enough examples.

Here's just a few examples documenting the sexism in science:

http://www.nature.com/news/gender-imbalance-in-science-journ... https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/speaking-of-science/wp/2...

Whoosh

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?

No, this is silly. All language and behaviour has context. This idea that you can eliminate the shades of grey to find some absolute definition is largely what makes me uncomfortable with the more extreme proponents of this stuff. Such as those who believe particular words in isolation are always bad regardless of context.

It would be much healthier culturally if we take into full consideration the meaning and intent of the accused, as well as the feelings of the apparent victim. Which I feel like the OP's comment highlights.

For ex, the moderator could have been oblivious to the fact she hadn't spoken much, as the only woman there, and when he asked the question he may indeed have been so excited that he spoke for her. The kind of people who get moderator jobs at big events like this are the extrovert types. The ones who talk before listening... so I don't think that is entirely unrealistic here.

An extrovert too busy looking for a chance to talk himself, instead of being sensitive to the amount others have spoken? This just as likely as him believing he could do a better job at explaining the subject, merely because she was a woman.

So if we look at the objective facts: that a lone woman on a panel wasn't allowed to speak, even when her expert subject was brought up, would seem like the moderator was sexist. But digging into the context it's possible there was far more to it and this is often lost in the shades of grey when you only view it from a single perspective.

To know the truth we would need to look at how the other panel members were treated. If the moderator spoke for them as well, or tried to but was forcefully overridden, then sexism probably doesn't come into play. But if she was the only one, well... I wish I had time to view the proceedings for myself.

Fwiw, the linked post says the moderator comments on Veronika Hubeny's lack of speaking time, so he wasn't unaware. This presumably is what prompted shifting the discussion to her field. I'm not suggesting this provides any demonstrable proof the moderator was being sexist—Veronika's comments indicate her own take on the moderator's potential motivations.

Nonetheless, I do agree there are pitfalls and dangers in attempting to always distill nuance and shades of gray into stark, problematized blacks and whites. Sexism, like racism, definitely exists—it is woven into the cultural fabric and narratives that compose American society and consciousness. However, we are long past the overt institutionalization of these isms, which leaves recognizing it a regrettable slog through subtler shades of gray that leave opportunities for vehement disagreement. Sometimes I think everyone would be happier if they lived several decades ago, when these isms were black and white, and found themselves standing in solidarity on their own bridges of Selma.

Objectively, we know that many in the audience were also horrified by what they were seeing - because they verbally stated this afterwards. The moderator clearly had no explicit "intent" and the subject has also stated that she didn't detect this as "sexism". But had noone in the audience spoken out, a large portion of the audience would have come away feeling they had experienced a reminder that women are subject to routine gender-based mistreatment - even if neither person on stage saw it that way.

It's not possible to use an objective definition unless you can read minds. Use your best judgement, and keep in mind history and context. Actions don't exist in a vacuum.

Human interaction can't be reduced that way. You can't make objective rules for things that are inherently subjective. It's why we have judges to preside over court cases, rather than just follow a flow chart, for example.

The dichotomy of objective/subjective is a weak rubric for complex situations involving multiple observers and actors all of whom have asymmetric experiences. Sexism is an intersubjective phenomenon which means that it can only be analyzed effectively by taking into account many viewpoints and reconciling them.

As an example in physics of a situation where multiple observers have to be reconciled, imagine a spaceship zipping along at some fraction of c, observed by two observers, both of whom are moving some fraction of c relative to each other. Their observations of the length of the spaceship don't match up naively, but special relativity tells us how to reconcile their measurements: This allows us to consider their measurements as describing the same underlying phenomenon.

In this situation, one of the observers, A, can infer what B sees because B's measurements should only depend on properties of B that A can observe. So A can construct B's measurements by observing B, without B having to do anything. This is a very easy epistemological situation to deal with.

In a complex social situation, A can't take independent measurements and get the big picture. B needs to tell A about how they perceive the situation. Furthermore, B can't reasonably tell A everything all at once: Imagine if we had to spill all of our guts every time we wanted to reach a common understanding. Nothing would get done! So, reaching common social understanding needs to be a process, a dialogue between people.

Understanding phenomena like sexism involves communicating and interacting with each other in order to understand how we communicate and interact with each other. It's a much more complicated epistemological situation than observing an external object, like a spaceship. That's why I think you won't be able to get a satisfactory definition that you would consider objective, especially one that fits in a hacker news comment.

Sounds like you're (inadvertantly?) making the argument that sexism is purely subjective.

to a non-victim, perhaps.

In the same sense there either is a victim, or not a victim; then it either is subjective, or isn't.

There isn't "subjective for some" - there is just differing, and mutually exclusive opinion - a situation in which one party must be wrong.

"subjective for some" takes place when one particular party fails to look at a situation objectively. They are relying on subjective opinion and they are wrong.

In which case it's sarcastic, not literal.

Why not state directly what you believe to be the case?

Just say "that isn't the case, and you only believe otherwise because you are not a victim", them defend that claim.

Sarcasm is an effective and appropriate communication tool used throughout the history of literature and language. I was not aware that Hacker News prohibits sarcasm and i would argue those of us who rely on sarcasm to communicate in many scenarios are being unduly silenced.

Strawman. It's your opinion that sarcasm has been "effective and appropriate" in communication. In domains of importance, like law, is is notably absent.

> I was not aware..

Not the case, just more sarcasm from you. Those who argue unproductively are silenced in some ways, btw, in the form of mod restrictions and bans. Most of us are able to communicate more effectively and agreeably without sarcasm, and care to do so - why waste peoples time otherwise?

Per the guidelines at https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html, there is no such rule that "sarcasm is not allowed" on Hacker News. And yes, if someone suggests that sexism is essentially in someones mind in a real life conversation, sarcasm would certainly be appropriate in response to a statement so thoughtless.

> In domains of importance, like law, is is notably absent.

That's not particularly relevant...

> Most of us are able to communicate more effectively and agreeably without sarcasm

The poster who I was responding to was certainly not being agreeable by smugly suggesting that sexism is a "purely subjective" phenomenon. Victims would not find it "agreeable" to have to defend against absurity such as this.

> Those who argue unproductively are silenced in some ways,

In this case, if any mod looked at this thread, the first thing they'd see is: "zzzeek made a comment that people felt was inflammatory, it got -4 downmod". And the conclusion any reasonable mod would draw from that is, "the system worked! the end." If it ended there, I'd be fine with that as well - I posted something too strong for folks, it got downmodded, oh well. I have about 4000 karma to spend so this is certainly anomalous behavior for this poster, no further action to take.

However, for some reason you have the need to jump on top of this comment and continue to lecture and "correct" me on something, and quite frankly it's a bit disturbing. I don't actually need your guidance on why my comment got -4 points. If there is something about my comment that is so disturbing that it warrants prolonged argument and discussion, maybe it shouldn't have been downvoted, but as it was, continuing to browbeat on the poster is definitely a much greater productivity drain than a simple one line, inflammatory comment (in response to another that not everyone thought was so inflammatory) that was downvoted within seconds.

> there is no such rule that "sarcasm is not allowed" on Hacker News

Has anyone claimed this? You are beating a strawman.

> if someone suggests that sexism is essentially in someones mind in a real life conversation, sarcasm would certainly be appropriate in response to a statement so thoughtless.

I disagree, it's your opinion that a comment is without merit, and you are constructively responding to it rather than engaging - this is not mere "sarcasm", it's sarcasm employed as a punishment for comments you dislike.

HN does discourage these kinds responses, whether implemented using sarcasm or otherwise, for being argumentative and unconstructive:

> if someone suggests that sexism is essentially in someones mind

If this is obviously incorrect, it should be easy to state why, rather than resorting to insults. The rules state "Be civil", there is no stated exception "unless you are replying to a post that is itself civil, or otherwise offends you". The rule "reply to the argument instead of calling names" is in the same spirit.

> continue to lecture and "correct" me on something

Your original post was not civil, something that is in the guidelines (and of which sarcasm is a form).

Why do I continue to "lecture" you? Because this reply continues to be uncivil, down-votes or no - plus you are apparently unrepentant (or at least unapologetic), and your thoughts on the matter imply you will continue to do so.

> I don't actually need your guidance on why my comment got -4 points

I don't know how many point it did, or will, have; nor take it into account. I don't believe it was grayed at the time I responded.

> That's not particularly relevant...

full context:

>> Sarcasm is an effective and appropriate communication tool

> In domains of importance, like law, is is notably absent

meaning, it means on what you are trying to achieve - if you are trying to effectively and unambiguously communicate, it is not effective.

> > there is no such rule that "sarcasm is not allowed" on Hacker News

> Has anyone claimed this? You are beating a strawman.

you did:

> Your original post was not civil, something that is in the guidelines (and of which sarcasm is a form).

> Why do I continue to "lecture" you? Because this reply continues to be uncivil, down-votes or no - plus you are apparently unrepentant (or at least unapologetic), and your thoughts on the matter imply you will continue to do so.

so you are trying to harass me into "repentance"? is this something you think is appropriate on hacker news ?

The "glasses" in this case is the mind looking for threats. The mind can filter (find) threats of a certain type, but can it exclude them in the same way?

There is a framing issue here, and mental "highlighting" seems to be an entirely different kind of bias (wrt the actual mental mechanism) than "ignorance".

What you're talking about is a common mental pattern of attributing bad intent where there is none. Sometimes called "siege mentality". It's a definite problem, and many communication manuals talk about practicing adopting perspectives that avoid it.

You're right about how one's desire to see something a specific way has a huge influence on what they actually think. However, that tends to be counter-productive both ways.

You might choose to ignore the problems because you have to succeed despite them. That's generally how immigrant Chinese people look at the bigotry directed towards them. As a side effect, the Chinese community has issues talking about what that bigotry actually is.

Alternately, you might choose to try to root out the subtle effects that make up the bulk of bigotry, like the feminist movement. So there's a lot of academic language around defining the nature of misogyny, but you get accused of seeing bigotry where there is none because it's heavily contextual.

We want to latch on to egregious moments as catalysts of change, but the real problem is the low level background noise where you have situation after situation where it's unclear how to interpret a specific event. Case in point, I've seen female friends dealing with situations where their mentor probably just hit on them, but it's deniable enough that you can't necessarily call it out. Depending on which glasses you're wearing, you can choose to see it however you want, but the problem is that every female colleague or friend I've talked to can recall instances of ambiguous unwelcome advances mixed into their professional interactions. There's a problem, and it's not just a matter of which glasses they're wearing.

If a sexist makes a comment in the woods and no one hears him (or her), does it matter? I would say no.

The naive people with sexism-blocking glasses are less likely to burn out and leave the field. Solve for equilibrium.

It doesn't matter if people perceive extra sexism or block much of the sexism. It matters which strategy leads to less sexism in objective reality, not in perception.

That's not remotely close to what she said. In fact, she says that there is sexism in science and thanks her for speaking up. She says that her love of science prevents her from getting caught up in concern over the sexism, but she never says that it isn't real or an important issue, just that it has not stopped her from pursuing her passion.

The problem is, it exists. I've seen it plenty of times. It's particularly bad for women in male dominated fields. They have to be aware of it and on the look out for it so they can deal with it. If you continually assume the good in people, when sexism is a common occurrence, you get fucked over. Repeatedly.

There's a female engineer on my team. She started at roughly the same time as a male engineer. Similar levels of experience in the past. Both are quite good. But she's better, especially in several specialties. They sit near each other - and you have to walk past her to get to him. I see people day in and day out walk right past her to ask him about the things that she is a subject matter expert on, that he is not. People that don't have a real background with either of them, where it is widely know that she specializes in this specific thing. It's constant. I'm the most tenured engineer on the team, so people come to me frequently for things - I know it's because of my tenure. But she knows more than I do in these areas, so I refer people to her on the more in depth things. And a good portion of them then walk right past her, and instead ask the male engineer. She also constantly gets dinged by people for giving short and to the point answers - something that he and I do not have a problem with, despite having the same general style of answering questions.

Should she chalk this up to something else? Assume that all of these repeat occurrences are due to some other root cause? Her technical chops are not in question by anyone that actually works with the tech involved - she's undisputedly talented there and has been vital in cracking several major problems. Yet this keeps happening.

Should she ignore it? Should the rest of the team? Or should it be acknowledged and talked about, so people that are (almost certainly) doing this unconsciously can reflect on it and try to modify their behavior to be less biased?

And this is just one of many examples I've witnessed over the past decade+. Sexism colored glasses for women are a basic necessity if you have any interest in trying to get what you deserve.

Tathagata Buddha, the Father Buddha, said, "With our thoughts, we make the world."

And Ronald Regan, the Great Gipper, once thought "I'm shot", and it was so. But it was just as true for JFK, who made no such observation.

Everything will look like sexism, including real sexism.

This is like basic thinking skills 101 here.

Let's simplify.

Let's say you perceive two rocks, one real and one fake.

Just because the fake rock is not real, does not mean the real rock is not real.

You're right, perception shapes reality. But apart from perception shaping reality, there is also an underlying reality beyond perception. A real rock is real.

In the story from TFA, I don't know if the sexism was real or perceived.

The thing is, a lot of sexists may be doing it for the reaction from the target - with no reaction, the sexist doesn't get that 'thrill' that they would otherwise get. If the reward is consistently denied, the behaviour may (may) go away.

Sounds like you are talking about trolls. I agree those exist but I think it's safe to assume they are a small subset of sexists.

That is almost certainly not what she was getting at.

That's what I'm getting out of this. Maybe I was the only one, but my first thought was "physicists still seem pretty damn biased against string theory proponents". I know the theory has sparked a lot of controversy and skepticism in the past. Only later on did it dawn on me that the author was assuming sexism instead of string theory-ism.

100% agree.

The causation might also run the other way. She might have survived in the field and built up this attitude because she was fortunate early on in her career to have worked with some really good people who were just focused on the science, as opposed to being into trivial stuff like workplace power games. So there might have been some luck involved. She did say that early on she worked with great people.

If that's the cause of her attitude, the point about survivorship bias is still valid... but the reasons for survival are different. The luck of having a good work environment (unusual, some would say) caused the good experience and allowed her to stay in the field with a good attitude.

Edit: I'm not claiming it was definitely the way I say in this particular case, versus the way you said. I'm just saying both possibilities should be considered. Also we should acknowledge that sexism does exist, apart from perceptions of sexism, which admittedly can sometimes be wrong.

Or maybe she's just so classy that she can see taking the high ground offers stronger rebuke instead of objecting to the slight. Hubeny was not allowed to speak as uninterruptedly as the other panelists.

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.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Er7qPv8jsZo&t=3713s

Hubeny doesn't seem like a person who would tell someone to shut up though, and sexism or not, it's basic politeness to give shy people a bit more room. Certainly after announcing that you now finally want to hear their perspective :/ I doubt that moderator can watch that part and say "yeah, that's good moderation".

Just reading the FB post, I was taken aback a little, to be perfectly honest I rolled my eyes at "why is this sexism still happening" because from the description it didn't strike me as necessarily sexist. But now after having seen what a friendly and generous person Hubeny is, and even more importantly what interesting things she had to say, I'm kind of proud that it made Talkington angry and finally speak up. Hubeny may not need "white knighting", but the impetus comes from a good place IMHO.

What of it if it makes the offense about Taffington? I also get mad when someone else mistreats another person in my eyes; if the victim in my eyes isn't a victim in their own comes secondary. That is probably arrogant, or even ironic because it can be disrespectful, but I feel it's usually easier to clear the air after overreacting or misreading a situation, than to muster the courage to stand up for someone after you already got used to not doing it. You have to do it when you see it, maybe after double checking, but you can't linger too long. Certainly not in a situation like that, where mustering the courage takes a lot either way. Hubeny is fine, but for Taffington this was and maybe is nerve wrecking. So kudos where kudos are due :)

Thanks for the context! That post was really missing video.

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 unless it's done to prevent clear and present danger is considered rude, and two rude behaviors (Holt's being the first) do not make etiquette, even if comes from a place of warranted indignation. That's what post-commentary media is for. It's not a workable system to praise everyone who gives into their angry instincts in the moment without regard to decorum. That's called childishness.

I'm sure someone will read that as an apology for Holt. Far from it. It's about finding a time and a place to voice one's objections, not losing control and exploiting the attention of a quiet crowd, and then self-styling one's self as a crusader who "created an opening" because one gets a few pats on the back for it, and far from showing any remorse about her timing, saying "please let me not be afraid to do this again ...and again ...and again Because it was scary." Do we really want a one-woman Westboro Baptist Church of anti-sexism disrupting every event that she has decided is "scary"?

I absolutely disagree. This emphasis on "not being rude, even to stop others from being rude" is how we get this casual sexism. Waiting for post-commentary media would mean that Hubeny wouldn't get the chance to speak.

Childishness in this instance is deciding that politeness trumps doing the right thing.

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 enforce things for you. But the problem is that if you're a woman/minority, there's a class of issues where social enforcement happens far too infrequently. You can't trust the system to actually look out for you.

As the demographic who has to play from behind, politeness as a mechanism is insufficient to look after your own interests.

Hubeny is a part of a fortunate group of people who follow a certain pattern: some degree of "brick walls be damned" determination, some degree of willful self-exceptionalism, and a lot of luck. It's a powerful combination and she has earned her success, but that combination of traits to succeed despite tilted odds is​ very far from the norm, and it's the norm that needs to shift. I can guarantee you that among Hubeny's peers - other women at the tops of their fields - they view politeness as a fickle ally at best because they are consistently working at its edges out of necessity.

This misses the point, and makes a lot of assumptions about what happened as "power dynamics" which are unwarranted. I would not have faulted Hubeny herself for chastising Holt, because he was a bad moderator and obviously treating her unfairly. This is about the fact that Hubeny herself did not think his offense merited that, and that Talkington decided on her own in the moment that she was so righteously justified to take upon herself to disrupt the event in a way Hubeny neither asked for, nor in her reply conveyed that she was personally thankful for after the fact on behalf of herself of women in science.

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?

> But now after having seen what a friendly and generous person Hubeny is, and even more importantly what interesting things she had to say, I'm kind of proud...

So if she came across less sympathetically on camera or didn't speak interestingly enough for you it would be OK to treat her with sexism?

Yes. I'm a female engineer, and fairly successful one. And I do think that I have on rose colored glasses, so to speak, when it comes to workplace sexism. Often my friends or colleagues come to the conclusion that something sexist happened far before I do. I virtually always assume little actions, slights, etc. are innocent and not rooted in sexism.

Because I think that usually, they are innocent. But that means I also probably miss out on (and don't have to stress out about) some sexism that occurs. And that helps me 1) not burn out like you mentioned, and 2) not be disliked by work by bringing it up and making a (potentially completely valid) fuss. So it probably helps me, oddly.

I can't say that how I evaluate these kinds of things is correct, or even good, but I do think it's probably helped my career more than it's hurt.

I think the important point is that everyone has to deal with bullshit, and it's generally better to assume it's not meant to intentionally hurt.

I've had many occasions where someone has said something that caught me a little and offended me and I ultimately just decided they didn't mean it that way (even if they did). I do this because I know I'm not the smoothest individual out there and I have no doubt I've said some things that may have causes someone else doubt or offense when it was just me saying things in a bad manner.

When you enter the work force there's a certain amount of bullshit you have to put up with. I once had the CEO of a company roll his eyes at me in the middle of a meeting and say roughly "you IT people are all the same" in front of everyone there.

Sometimes it's just a part of being it the work force and you have to deal with bullshit in your day to day. It doesn't mean it's sexist, racist, or whathaveyou, it just means you're dealing with people who are oblivious or assholes.

> I call it assuming positive intent. It's how you survive.

Assuming positive intent is generally a good way to live, and it makes life significantly less stressful.

> I think it's worth considering that we're seeing some survivorship bias here

True. But there is also a "virality bias" that made us see this story in the first place. If it didn't fit a trending narrative so well we would never have heard of it.

Meanwhile millions of unreported interactions happened the same day. We can't know what big picture they add up to.

To me the lesson is that basing your world view on viral internet stories is one of the worst ways to understand the world.

This^10000!

...https://scholars.opb.msu.edu/en/publications/does-stereotype...

The most interesting result is that lowered performance in adverse conditions seems to stem from the induced cognitive load of wanting to avoid confirming negative stereotypes...

So internally roleplaying a WASP male really does work.

> it's possible that she's the only woman on the panel because she thinks this way

Note I said "it's possible". I did that because I can't prove it. I don't think anybody can prove either possibility.

>why do you assume anything is racist in the first place instead of thinking it is just normal human behaviour?

I'm not originally from the US, though I live here now. While you may look at me and see a black man, I grew up in a country where everyone was black, and therefore nobody was. As a result, I'm probably the least indoctrinated into any movement or society based on identity. The idea that I might identify with racial issues faced by American blacks was one that was forced onto me by reality.

Imagine you're a black person who's never seen racism before. You'd only start assuming that the problems you face are related to race when you are repeatedly treated worse than your cohort, and when you're treated so badly that there is no plausible narrative that you can construct that will lead to another explanation. For example: Employers are shocked (and uncomfortable) when a black face shows up with your resume. Your job offers are lower and less frequent, although you're at the top of your field. People find issues with you and your work that they just can't explain, but accept and praise your work when submitted under other names. Senior leaders think you're a janitor when you lead a department. Patients refuse to be seen by you, even though you are indisputably the best in your speciality. I can go on (note these events have not all happened to me, but each has happened to someone in my inner circle). After a while, even someone who didn't know that racism existed would discover it. You're lucky you don't have to.

Movements like feminism and BLM must sometimes be wrong about specific events - there's no way to really prove what's in someone's heart. And sometimes bad things happen to women and black people - things that would have happened independent of gender and race. But when there's a distinct, recurring pattern, it's really hard to pretend like nothing's wrong.

Separately, you should know that racism and sexism are actually normal (meaning default) human behavior. People form groups based on similarities and exclude those who are dissimilar. These groups may include employment, or leadership at companies. Thats why this is so hard.

But all the things you mentioned could easily happen to a non-Black. I've read tons of Medium posts about this stuff, and everything I read can equally apply to non-Blacks, and as a white I can relate to a lot of what is said. But its so sad that they blame it all on race - something that is 100% unchangeable. Its like as hard as you try - you will always fail. And if you succeed, you were lucky.

It is the most pessimistic and depressing narrative that is forced onto every minority these days.

And at some point its probably a vicious cycle - in that employers become afraid of minorities because they feel that everything will be construed as discrimination. And the minorities have huge power because they can easily play the discrimination card.

Do you see any merit in this?