When I'm excited about something I'm prone to talking over everybody, and after realising this was sometimes squeezing people out of conversations where they could provide valuable input I've done my best to learn to catch myself doing this and try and consciously stop and let them talk.

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)

> 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.

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've concluded that I don't have enough data to be sure but wouldn't be surprised if it's a mixture of all three - testosterone levels correlating with assertiveness/aggressiveness seems sufficient to suggest biology may play a part, and I've definitely seen the latter two happen.

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.

I've spoken to people like this moderator and they just ramble over any topic they get excited about.

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

> I've spoken to people like this moderator and they just ramble over any topic they get excited about.

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.

Because he did. He rambled over the only woman.

That he rambled over the only woman does not mean that he rambled over her because she is a woman.

Respectfully, I disagree. I am also not convinced that his motivations really matter, in the end he demonstrated that it's okay to let the men speak but not the one woman. In my mind, this is what really matters.

Her words:

> 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.

I like how you quote her response where she is talking about sexism in general(which certainly exists), when I and OP were talking about the specific event, and whether it was sexism.

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.

Because:

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)

1) That's a great way to dismiss any woman's viewpoint: she just can't express what she really feels because of fear

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?

1) This is a two parter now: First off, you're the one stating "woman's" viewpoint, this is irrelevant. Secondly, "fear" only in potential professional impact. Also unrelated to gender. If you were mistreated in any way in a public and professional setting, and it wasn't malicious (which I don't think it was) you're probably better off just playing it off rather than escalating it, which is what she did.

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.

> Why are you mansplaining

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

How is it trolling? Mansplaining is in the OED and I explained myself beyond just throwing the term out. Is it because I'm mirroring the supposed victims own words and not jumping on the sexism train, which goes against the received wisdom of this forum?

Now you're meta-trolling. If you want to comment on this site, you need to do so substantively and thoughtfully. If you continue to violate that rule, we're going to ban your account.

Is there any way to disagree with the assertion that you're trolling without being accused of metatrolling? That's rhetorical, I'll see myself out.

That's the obvious retort, but if you think about it, it's easy. Simply don't do things that imply bad faith (rhetorical questions, irrelevant distraction, drive-by swipes, grandiose posturing—all of which you managed to cram in there) and instead do some things that imply good faith, like taking responsibility and finding common ground.

Rhetorical questions have been used by rhetoricians for thousands of years without bad faith. Whether something was sexist or not when reading an article about a supposed sexist event seems highly relevant, especially when the supposed victims has gone on record saying she didn't think it was sexism.

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.

You realize you're basically saying Uncle Tom was right.

No - I'm saying I trust first hand accounts from supposed victims more than I trust third hand accounts from random people on the internet mansplaining what happened.