Edit: I watched the video. The moderator goes on and on and the "let her speak please" sounds very polite.
This is a painfully frustrating reminder that women get talked over by men. It's one thing to have one panelist talk over another, but to have the moderator, who is explicitly in charge of facilitating a panel discussion, be the one to drown out a panelist is just unacceptable. Yes, "not all men" do this, but the fact that this continues to happen in such visible and public settings, where presumably people are on "their best behavior", would suggest that it happens even more in more private situations. Research has shown that groups where speaking is more distributed are more successful at solving problems, and explicitly teams with more women are more successful: https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2015/01/the-sec...
I will take this story as another reminder to be aware of situations where I might be dominating a conversation, and I hope you will too.
People get talked over by people. I see this all the time and it's generally sexless. As a consultant I've helped at least 100 teams have crucial conversations across tens of businesses. I don't get the constant refrain that this is a male vs. female thing.
Journalists definitely like to hear themselves talk, even when formulating questions while moderating a discussion. But if he, as a relative layperson in science, felt that comfortable interrupting Dr. Hubeny and riffing off of her area of expertise, imagine what he's like in a topic in which he doesn't think himself a relative amateur.
I get talked over all the time. I usually chalk it up to being an American living in America, but with a more Scandinavian/Minnesotan conversational style.
That is, I will pause while speaking, spooling my next thought out to the phonological loop, to review and filter it, before streaming it out through the voice apparatus, but then some jackass will use that break to assume conversational priority when I haven't yielded it yet. So when I resume speaking, they are already talking.
It is practically impossible for me to engage in a conversation with such a person constantly ruining it for me, so I usually just keep my thoughts to myself and regret even showing up for the party.
Even my spouse does this in a 1-on-1 conversation. And then I am the one accused of interrupting, as though it is acceptable to jump in between two sentences of a paragraph. It's like I need that stupid conch shell from Lord of the Flies in order to say everything that I want to say. And I get so irritated when people spew out a stream of content-free babble, for the sole purpose of maintaining priority, to the point where I forget what I have been wanting to say for the last 5 minutes.
It might be a sexist thing, but I think it's more likely that the people with the least latency between brain and larynx--and therefore the fewest speech filters--are the ones that never learned that conversational priority isn't just about refraining from talking while sound is still coming out of someone else's mouth. And, of course, there are also the people who simply decide they are the most important person in a conversation and act like they're the lead actor giving a monologue, and everyone else is the chorus.
So please, have a care as to whether a silence in the conversation is a pause or a yield. You may be interrupting someone giving due consideration to what they will say next.
As a tiny, girly looking feminine man who crossdresses half the time, I have to say that everybody- male or female- is at risk for being "talked over" and not given a fair chance. That's just how the world works.
You can be upset about it and say that people were unfair, or you can make yourself a better person by learning from others mistakes.
The world would be a better place if people put less energy into being upset, and more energy into mutual empathy between sexes.
This is a real problem in the business and tech communities. I have seen few people "at the top" acknowledge it.
Leaders, make an effort to listen and clear the air for others to speak up. Don't beat them up if they don't articulate brilliantly right away -- it takes practice. You'll be surprised at the rate of improvement.
For individuals, I use this trick when people cut me off AND it's unjustified: saying "hang on, let me finish" and then driving my point aggressively. It has mostly worked though I am male.
If you watch the rest of the video you will find the moderator imposes himself and cuts off the panellists and talks over them multiple times, seemingly regardless of gender. This makes me strongly inclined to believe that this incident had nothing to do with sexism, but rather with the annoyingly dominant and imposing personality of the moderator.
Maybe you think otherwise. Why would you say this incident is a "painfully frustrating reminder that women get talked over by men"? Surely you can't construe this incident to mean that when all panellists alike suffered the same treatment? What's your take?
Watched the related part of the video. I don't know if it was because of sexism, but it was clearly rude and annoying. The excited native, faster and louder speaking moderator taking over a kind, non-native, slower and smaller speaker. Since as a non-native male, I have seen this kind of taking over whatever the gender is and this might happen to any person which has those characteristics.
Ugh, I watched the video, jesus the host might be the least self-aware person who's ever been asked to host anything. I was unreasonably annoyed listening to him.
Anyway I want to share something, made this throwaway account specifically for this. I'm the only female at my company, and a developer to boot. I'm assertive in general, I make sure I'm heard. In fact, I try to be hyper-aware of how much I'm talking in a meeting setting, just to be respectful of others. I also feel that I am virtually unaware of my gender at work. I've been lucky in that respect -- trust me, sexism in the world and sexism in STEM is real, and it's not always easy being a female -- but I'm in agreeance with the author that intent matters, and generally that assumed sexist intent can get a bit dramatic. Whether my personality affects my perception, I can't say.
I work with a lot of very introverted and quiet males -- and a small handful of overpowering, extraverted males. I've found myself doing this exact thing quite often. Weekly even. "Let's let him finish his point", "I'm interested in hearing more from {quiet_guy}", "{quiet_guy}, is {contribution_of_loud_guy} what you meant by that?", et cetera.
I would like to believe that if the panel person was a male, it would have elicited the same building irritation from the audience. Although, I'm less sure that someone would have spoken up. I think someone would have needed to feel personally antagonized in order to speak up, which is exactly what happened here.
Bit of a ramble, sorry. My bottom line is that we should all be looking out for those who speak up less, if we sense that those people are being out-talked. My feeling is that people in that category might be more female than not... but I'm also saying that it doesn't matter either way.
I think your point about there being people who are out-talked is spot on. It seems to me that both quieter women and quieter men both get talked over by domineering men or women, but that due to men generally being more likely to be domineering, the whole situation skews by gender. I think it's one of those situations that seems sexist on the surface, but when you look into it it's more of a social dynamic that correlates with gender.
Thank you. As the "loud guy" around the office I have to keep this habit in check myself. I'd hate to think that, if I was drowning out the women, that people thought it was because I was personally discounting them as women.
Obviously sexism of outcome can be just as important to combat as sexism of intent, so of course I have to break the habit talking over people with my loud and opinionated speech.
Thank you. People get distracted by the difference between "intentional discrimination" and "disparate impact".
You are showing good leadership to your mild-mannered coworkers and also the ones who are better ad speaking than listening, both the women and the men.
> I would like to believe that if the panel person was a male, it would have elicited the same building irritation from the audience. Although, I'm less sure that someone would have spoken up.
This makes me think of a complain I saw years ago from a woman about how she was treated on a mailing list. Apparently someone got aggressive with her and one of the things she complained about is that no one stepped in to defend her.
My response to that was along the lines of "they probably expected you to defend yourself".
Your comment reminded me of that, and even then I thought the same thing. Many women are used to getting defended, but men generally aren't and have learned to defend themselves.
So I think you're right that it would've been less likely for someone to defend the panelist if said panelist had been male and for much the same reason. You would expect the male to defend themselves.
> 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 rooted in sexism. 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.
...
> 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.
If you see this kind of behavior in the workplace, I highly recommend the technique of "echoing" as a means of overcoming it. In meetings I've seen it happen many times where an introvert makes a brilliant point, which gets completely lost when some manager who likes to hear themselves talk follows them. When this happens, I find it incredibly powerful to raise my hand and say, "I'd like to bring us back to [introvert's] point that..." The women in the Obama White House made this techique popular [1], and it's extremely effective in getting quieter more thoughtful ideas the attention they deserve.
As an introvert myself, I support a workplace that is encouraging and respectful of women because that is a workplace respectful of introverts as well.
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.
Everyone reading this please, please, please watch the video.
It is ridiculously not what it seems. I read the comments here, and the FB post and after watching it in full context you get such a different perspective.
And it is just as the lady on the panelist has said in her comment.
The moderator is trying to simplify things for the audience.
After introducing her he tries to create an analogy as to how to think about it and says:
"I'm giving a very garbled caricature of it, you're the expect, why don't you tell us."
Why would he use self-deprecating language if he was being sexist? He is openly saying that she could explain it better.
He talks over her a few times, but he is in know way talking down to her, rather just trying to place everything in his overarching analogy which is the role of the moderator. To maintain a common thread running through the discussion.
Then he reframes it again, and concedes: "I'm putting this in a provacative way. Please explain it to us properly."
Again, he is even acknowledging when he feels he is being provocative.
After the interruption:
"That always happens to me...do I talk too much?"
Which seems like he knows that he gets overly excited sometimes and talks to much.
My thoughts exactly. It is beyond all doubt that sexism exists in the world, there are countless examples of it, from Disney movies, toy advertisement, philharmonic orchestra, etc, etc.
I find it a bit strange to label the speaker as a sexist just because he didn't let someone speak. Maybe he is just a dick? Maybe she was rude to him back stage? Maybe he was having a bad day? Maybe the chemistry between them was off? You have no idea what is going on beyond him not letting someone speak.
I even find it offensive to label his behaviour as sexist. What, I now can't be rude to a woman without being called a sexist? People should stick to the facts, not fill in the underlying reasoning. Well... unless you want to spark heated debates of course, in which case it is a solid strategy.
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 sort of hints at this. That she didn't feel as annoyed by his talking and so didn't speak up. I haven't watched the whole thing, but other comments mention he does this over male panelists as well.
he doesn't interrupt just her. His role is host, his role is to move the conversation about and yes he does fuck up by saying some stuff he should leave to her.
However to me the evocative language used in the Facebook post suggests there is an aspect of deliberately seeking out "injustice" and being overly sensitive to it and seeing the world as a gender battle. If you're looking at the world through such a frame you're gonna get false positives. Maybe this isn't one but I feel a detailed and objective analysis might make it more close than the OP _feels_ it is through their frame that they view the world.
Did the host just fuck up or was it sexism? Maybe the host really loves her work and is read-up on it and got carried away? There are lots of possibilities.
I'm not disagreeing with OP, I like that they chipped in. Everyone has the right to push around on their local environment to change it. I'm just wary of people viewing the world as a gender battle because it might turn it into more of a gender battle than it actually was.
I'm not sure that this has to do with her being a woman, everyone else on the panel have wikipedia pages while she doesn't. In such a scenario there will obviously be a power differential irrespective of the genders involved.
I watched the video the other day and I did notice the Hubeny was not called a lot - part of the reason was that she was more introverted and soft-spoken then the other panelists and part of the reason was that the moderator monopolized the conversation - which is typical of the WCF where the moderator will try to contextualize and steer the discussion in a way that makes it broadly accessible (even to kids, who are the target audience as well).
I've seen panels moderated by Neil Degrasse Tyson and Lawrence Krauss and those guys are terrible because they really love to hear themselves speak and will monopolize the discussion.
What's really interesting is that the author only became 'boiling' with rage when this socially-unaware moderator talked over the woman on the panel, not when he talked over the other men.
This kind of behavior is extremely common in STEM, and happens to everyone. If you don't talk with confidence, purpose, and animation, you're going to get talked over by the alpha nerd of the group. Man, woman, or purple elephant. Problem? Yes. Sexism? No.
What's really interesting is that you felt the need to insist that there must be no sexism here because it happens to everyone, and that the person in the audience who described her and the audiences reaction is simply imagining the asymmetry.
Fallacy of symmetry.
Show me a sequence like what happens from 1:03 to 1:06 (the shout out) to her for the men in attendance. This is also not a case of women not speaking up. She repeatedly tries to answer, tries to interject and get a word in. I didn't watch the entire video, but I failed to see any comparable sequences.
I think in general you're not wrong that there is more generally shitty behaviour than explicitly discriminating behaviour. The right way to go about this is to make a better atmosphere for everyone. We all benefit if the quiet person in the room gets heard, too, and if ideas are properly attributed. This is anyway something we should strive for, and it's great that it also improves the experience of people who were not socialized to inject themselves forcefully, or even socialized to not inject themselves forcefully. Because sexist ideas and behaviours persist in our society these people tend to be women more often, thus the shitty behaviour of alpha nerds hurts women more than men (even if they do them to everyone). That's also why I'm not a big fan of calling people out as sexist.
You've been able to watch enough of the video to discern that the moderator was an equal-opportunity-interruptor? Honest question, I just skimmed the video, and given that there were 5 men of similar age/race, I don't think even if I were in the audience I'd have a clear tally on how much each man got to speak, versus how easy it is to track how much/little opportunity the woman had. But the OP does assert that the moderator even acknowledged to Dr. Hubeny that she hadn't had much time,. Looking at the time period around 1 hour in, it does seem that he talks excessively while questioning Hubeny. But I didn't sit and watch all of the other interactions he had with the men.
Just because the moderator had interrupted some of the other speakers does not mean the OP is wrong in her assessment that Hubeny was egregiously talked-over. I guess if you think the sexism claim is unwarranted, you could help skeptics by linking to timestamps where Holt gives other panelists the same intensity of talk-over he allegedly gave Hubeny.
Edit: I'll play a little Devil's advocate to help the discussion.
At 39:25, the moderator is going on length about...something. His cadence wavers as if inviting anyone to jump in, but he keeps on going: https://youtu.be/Er7qPv8jsZo?t=39m26s
30 seconds later, he finally asks why inflation has such skepticism and points to a panelist. The panelist tells a kind of rambling joke and as he rambles through the punchline, the moderator steps in and moves on to the next question:
Arguably, though, you could say the moderator did the right thing because the panelist made a kind of weak joke, and the moderator had to interject to go onto the next topic. He ends up explaining, in a way that I imagine is more accessible to the audience, the 2 fields of thought, before pointing to another panelist:
This panelist is given a decent chunk of time to talk, almost 2 minutes, to go over string theory, etc.
At 1:02:00, he pitches to Dr. Hubeny, and he gives her the same treatment in which he takes a good long time to set up the question and the scope that's understandable to the audience, while being a useful topic for her:
At about 30 seconds in, as he's describing her position (presumably to the audience), she tries to clarify something , but he keeps talking. However, i think this is case of her misreading the moderator's pause as a cue. About 10 seconds later he finishes his train of thought and cedes the floor to her at around 1:03:00: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Er7qPv8jsZo&feature=youtu.be...
But about 20 seconds later, as she's trying to assert how both theories are correct, the moderator jumps in say "So tell us about those 2 theories".
...which is fine, because maybe he sensed the speaker was going to go too deep into details about the equivalence of the 2 models, when the audience would benefit from her describing the models.
...However, this interruption goes on for almost a minute, as he apparently decides to do the work of describing the theories. He eventually stops talking and reverts back to his prior prompt of "tell us a little bit about the 2 theories"
Hubeny appears ready to speak, but the moderator then goes on for 10 more seconds in which he tries to explain to her what he wants her to explain...and this is where Hubeny "giggles". But she's given about a full minute to talk, which seems reasonable.
----
I don't present the above points as complete evidence, it's what I landed on after randomly scrubbing in the period before the 60 minute mark. I think it's not out-of-line to say that the moderator is aggressive/over-eager in talking too much, and it may not just be sexism. But when you have a panel of 5 men and 1 woman and the woman has had little to speak for 60 minutes in, that's a bad time to go on an extended interruption as he did, as it becomes very noticable.
That said, I don't want to say that the moderator is a total ass. He has 6 highly intelligent and possibly highly specialized people who don't have a unifying topic of debate, so it's incumbent upon him to not only define a scope that the audience can relate to, but aggressively move the discussion forward so that no one rambles too far into their rabbit hole.
> This kind of behavior is extremely common in STEM, and happens to everyone. If you don't talk with confidence, purpose, and animation, you're going to get talked over by the alpha nerd of the group. Man, woman, or purple elephant. Problem? Yes. Sexism? No.
I thought about this argument a bit and I disagree on multiple grounds.
1.) These fields used to be refuge for actual nerds - shy introverted awkward people who could not really cut it elsewhere. What changed and why do we think it is ok that it changed?
2.) How come that loudmouth with half baked ideas who don't really know what he is talking is somehow nerd? Nerd used to be people who knew their shit. Alpha nerd is literally a dude who is pretender - fake who wants to be seen as nerd for social status points.
3.) If this is true, then these fields can not be possible meritocracies. Good ideas from shy and introverted people will be ignored and loudmouths with bad ideas are rewarded.
4.) The moderator quality should be judged on moderation quality. If the audience is so annoyed that they clap over the interruption, then the moderator failed miserably. Such moderators should either learn or be replaced by people who can do it better.
Panel members should not have to do anything special to not be talked over by moderator - it is literally his job to facilitate them talking.
This kind of argument is very akin to saying that we need a White History Month, and that #whitelivesmatter.
STEM, as an institution, has historically not provided a level playing field for everyone. So when stuff like this happens, it stops being an alpha nerd issue, and starts becoming a social issue.
I dipped in an out of the video hunting for this "event" a bit harder to find than I expected. Initially I didn't realise who the moderator was, and eventually I realised this guy kept adding dumbed down clarifications to everything, unnecessarily annotating things, almost every time talking over someone who was in the middle of trying to make a point or explain something... Maybe deep inside he did have a sexist attitude, but when I found "the event" what I saw was just a worse versions of the same explanation hijacker in previous parts of the video, It was nowhere near as well defined exclusion as the post made out... It was fucking frustrating sure but memory is coloured with your feelings, and this video shows it.
It is hard and subjective to assess if the moderator behavior was just indiscriminately rude or sexism by mansplaining. That's why I don't expect the comments here to be as interesting and enlightening as for other common topics at HN.
But I would like to just point out what, I believe, it's a strong signaling that it was sexism: the whole audience reaction to when the woman shouted: "Let her speak please". There is a genuine, spontaneous and loud ovation. Contrast that with the fact that through the rest of the video, the moderator doesn't act the same way to other panelists; and it makes clear to me that the whole audience was considering the moderator's behavior inappropriate and motivated by her being a woman. So, for subjective assessments, there is some wisdom of the crowd worth considering (especially as this was not a 'feminist' crowd or even a female-biased crowd, on the contrary, I believe).
Now, to give the moderator some credit, after some awkward moment where he does not know how to keep it cool, he does take the hint and shut up.
EDIT: I would like to give some more credit to the moderator. At the video moment that lorenzhs pointed out below (https://youtu.be/Er7qPv8jsZo?t=1h1m55s), the moderator explicitly state that Veronika Hubeny was not given a chance to speak about her knowledge. This, I believe, is an indicator that the moderator is not a bad person and his sexism is not conscious or originated by strong believe that women are not as capable in the field as men. I still believe he is patronizing and is being sexist, but in a way that he can get the feedback and change his behavior, as he is not a sexist. He was being sexist, he is not one. My point is: he seems to be a nice person, not a villain, that is influenced by a sexist environment. And changing that environment should be our goal, not pointing fingers. As Marilee Talkington did, politely and publicly.
EDIT 2: After reading Hubeny's comment I'm more in doubt if it was sexism. Actually, I'm more inclined to believe it was not sexism. As I said, it is a subjective call, and her opinion matters most than others as she is the subject and used to being surrounded by men in her profession. Her comment is very kind and smart also in itself, worth reading.
This only seems sexist if you think that people only speak when allowed to speak. People speak when they speak, the rules of politeness are universal, and she had every right to speak up, and every right to pipe down. She could have just as easily been a bit uncomfortable, or just more interested in listening. The host was overbearing on the whole conversation from what I see. There could be any number of reasons why the host might interrupt the string theorist; and the argument that it must be sexism is just so just-so.
I don't see why people should be expected to all be equally sonorous, when clearly people are not equally interested in it.
[+] [-] jasonshen|8 years ago|reply
This is a painfully frustrating reminder that women get talked over by men. It's one thing to have one panelist talk over another, but to have the moderator, who is explicitly in charge of facilitating a panel discussion, be the one to drown out a panelist is just unacceptable. Yes, "not all men" do this, but the fact that this continues to happen in such visible and public settings, where presumably people are on "their best behavior", would suggest that it happens even more in more private situations. Research has shown that groups where speaking is more distributed are more successful at solving problems, and explicitly teams with more women are more successful: https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2015/01/the-sec...
I will take this story as another reminder to be aware of situations where I might be dominating a conversation, and I hope you will too.
[+] [-] ryanmarsh|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] danso|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] logfromblammo|8 years ago|reply
That is, I will pause while speaking, spooling my next thought out to the phonological loop, to review and filter it, before streaming it out through the voice apparatus, but then some jackass will use that break to assume conversational priority when I haven't yielded it yet. So when I resume speaking, they are already talking.
It is practically impossible for me to engage in a conversation with such a person constantly ruining it for me, so I usually just keep my thoughts to myself and regret even showing up for the party.
Even my spouse does this in a 1-on-1 conversation. And then I am the one accused of interrupting, as though it is acceptable to jump in between two sentences of a paragraph. It's like I need that stupid conch shell from Lord of the Flies in order to say everything that I want to say. And I get so irritated when people spew out a stream of content-free babble, for the sole purpose of maintaining priority, to the point where I forget what I have been wanting to say for the last 5 minutes.
It might be a sexist thing, but I think it's more likely that the people with the least latency between brain and larynx--and therefore the fewest speech filters--are the ones that never learned that conversational priority isn't just about refraining from talking while sound is still coming out of someone else's mouth. And, of course, there are also the people who simply decide they are the most important person in a conversation and act like they're the lead actor giving a monologue, and everyone else is the chorus.
So please, have a care as to whether a silence in the conversation is a pause or a yield. You may be interrupting someone giving due consideration to what they will say next.
[+] [-] lphnull|8 years ago|reply
You can be upset about it and say that people were unfair, or you can make yourself a better person by learning from others mistakes.
The world would be a better place if people put less energy into being upset, and more energy into mutual empathy between sexes.
[+] [-] vm|8 years ago|reply
Leaders, make an effort to listen and clear the air for others to speak up. Don't beat them up if they don't articulate brilliantly right away -- it takes practice. You'll be surprised at the rate of improvement.
For individuals, I use this trick when people cut me off AND it's unjustified: saying "hang on, let me finish" and then driving my point aggressively. It has mostly worked though I am male.
[+] [-] andrepd|8 years ago|reply
Maybe you think otherwise. Why would you say this incident is a "painfully frustrating reminder that women get talked over by men"? Surely you can't construe this incident to mean that when all panellists alike suffered the same treatment? What's your take?
[+] [-] doall|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|8 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] walterstucco|8 years ago|reply
men get talked over as well
some people just talk over other people
nothing new
[+] [-] kirRoyale|8 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] token_throwaway|8 years ago|reply
Anyway I want to share something, made this throwaway account specifically for this. I'm the only female at my company, and a developer to boot. I'm assertive in general, I make sure I'm heard. In fact, I try to be hyper-aware of how much I'm talking in a meeting setting, just to be respectful of others. I also feel that I am virtually unaware of my gender at work. I've been lucky in that respect -- trust me, sexism in the world and sexism in STEM is real, and it's not always easy being a female -- but I'm in agreeance with the author that intent matters, and generally that assumed sexist intent can get a bit dramatic. Whether my personality affects my perception, I can't say.
I work with a lot of very introverted and quiet males -- and a small handful of overpowering, extraverted males. I've found myself doing this exact thing quite often. Weekly even. "Let's let him finish his point", "I'm interested in hearing more from {quiet_guy}", "{quiet_guy}, is {contribution_of_loud_guy} what you meant by that?", et cetera.
I would like to believe that if the panel person was a male, it would have elicited the same building irritation from the audience. Although, I'm less sure that someone would have spoken up. I think someone would have needed to feel personally antagonized in order to speak up, which is exactly what happened here.
Bit of a ramble, sorry. My bottom line is that we should all be looking out for those who speak up less, if we sense that those people are being out-talked. My feeling is that people in that category might be more female than not... but I'm also saying that it doesn't matter either way.
[+] [-] beaconstudios|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Pxtl|8 years ago|reply
Obviously sexism of outcome can be just as important to combat as sexism of intent, so of course I have to break the habit talking over people with my loud and opinionated speech.
[+] [-] gpawl|8 years ago|reply
You are showing good leadership to your mild-mannered coworkers and also the ones who are better ad speaking than listening, both the women and the men.
[+] [-] braveo|8 years ago|reply
This makes me think of a complain I saw years ago from a woman about how she was treated on a mailing list. Apparently someone got aggressive with her and one of the things she complained about is that no one stepped in to defend her.
My response to that was along the lines of "they probably expected you to defend yourself".
Your comment reminded me of that, and even then I thought the same thing. Many women are used to getting defended, but men generally aren't and have learned to defend themselves.
So I think you're right that it would've been less likely for someone to defend the panelist if said panelist had been male and for much the same reason. You would expect the male to defend themselves.
[+] [-] jshevek|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] andai|8 years ago|reply
...
> 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.
https://web.facebook.com/marilee.talkington/posts/1015505138...
[+] [-] ideonexus|8 years ago|reply
As an introvert myself, I support a workplace that is encouraging and respectful of women because that is a workplace respectful of introverts as well.
[1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/wp/2016/10/25/...
[+] [-] birracerveza|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] masondixon|8 years ago|reply
It is ridiculously not what it seems. I read the comments here, and the FB post and after watching it in full context you get such a different perspective.
And it is just as the lady on the panelist has said in her comment.
The moderator is trying to simplify things for the audience.
After introducing her he tries to create an analogy as to how to think about it and says:
"I'm giving a very garbled caricature of it, you're the expect, why don't you tell us."
Why would he use self-deprecating language if he was being sexist? He is openly saying that she could explain it better.
He talks over her a few times, but he is in know way talking down to her, rather just trying to place everything in his overarching analogy which is the role of the moderator. To maintain a common thread running through the discussion.
Then he reframes it again, and concedes: "I'm putting this in a provacative way. Please explain it to us properly."
Again, he is even acknowledging when he feels he is being provocative.
After the interruption:
"That always happens to me...do I talk too much?"
Which seems like he knows that he gets overly excited sometimes and talks to much.
Seriously people!
[+] [-] sebbean|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] danso|8 years ago|reply
The video of the event is here: http://www.worldsciencefestival.com/programs/big-universe-bi...
edit: Youtube version, at the 1:02 mark where people apparently were getting irritated: https://youtu.be/Er7qPv8jsZo?t=1h1m55s
[+] [-] Tiki|8 years ago|reply
https://www.facebook.com/marilee.talkington/posts/1015505138...
Very humble woman.
[+] [-] curiousgal|8 years ago|reply
>I'm still upset by the incredible sexism that has been demonstrated this afternoon
Now I feel bad for missing out on labeling every instance of a man being rude to me as sexism! /s
[+] [-] mosselman|8 years ago|reply
I find it a bit strange to label the speaker as a sexist just because he didn't let someone speak. Maybe he is just a dick? Maybe she was rude to him back stage? Maybe he was having a bad day? Maybe the chemistry between them was off? You have no idea what is going on beyond him not letting someone speak.
I even find it offensive to label his behaviour as sexist. What, I now can't be rude to a woman without being called a sexist? People should stick to the facts, not fill in the underlying reasoning. Well... unless you want to spark heated debates of course, in which case it is a solid strategy.
[+] [-] Houshalter|8 years ago|reply
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 sort of hints at this. That she didn't feel as annoyed by his talking and so didn't speak up. I haven't watched the whole thing, but other comments mention he does this over male panelists as well.
[+] [-] Quarrelsome|8 years ago|reply
Did the host just fuck up or was it sexism? Maybe the host really loves her work and is read-up on it and got carried away? There are lots of possibilities. I'm not disagreeing with OP, I like that they chipped in. Everyone has the right to push around on their local environment to change it. I'm just wary of people viewing the world as a gender battle because it might turn it into more of a gender battle than it actually was.
[+] [-] Klockan|8 years ago|reply
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Albert
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_F._R._Ellis
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Guth
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrei_Linde
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barry_Loewer
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Search?search=Veronika...
[+] [-] macspoofing|8 years ago|reply
I've seen panels moderated by Neil Degrasse Tyson and Lawrence Krauss and those guys are terrible because they really love to hear themselves speak and will monopolize the discussion.
[+] [-] glutamate|8 years ago|reply
> Q: Bone to pick: your list excludes women.
> Jim Holt: It wasn’t meant to be that way! I was going to include a Harvard physicist who’s not only a woman but she’s extremely attractive.
WTF?
[+] [-] obstacle1|8 years ago|reply
This kind of behavior is extremely common in STEM, and happens to everyone. If you don't talk with confidence, purpose, and animation, you're going to get talked over by the alpha nerd of the group. Man, woman, or purple elephant. Problem? Yes. Sexism? No.
[+] [-] Certhas|8 years ago|reply
Fallacy of symmetry.
Show me a sequence like what happens from 1:03 to 1:06 (the shout out) to her for the men in attendance. This is also not a case of women not speaking up. She repeatedly tries to answer, tries to interject and get a word in. I didn't watch the entire video, but I failed to see any comparable sequences.
I think in general you're not wrong that there is more generally shitty behaviour than explicitly discriminating behaviour. The right way to go about this is to make a better atmosphere for everyone. We all benefit if the quiet person in the room gets heard, too, and if ideas are properly attributed. This is anyway something we should strive for, and it's great that it also improves the experience of people who were not socialized to inject themselves forcefully, or even socialized to not inject themselves forcefully. Because sexist ideas and behaviours persist in our society these people tend to be women more often, thus the shitty behaviour of alpha nerds hurts women more than men (even if they do them to everyone). That's also why I'm not a big fan of calling people out as sexist.
This moderator was particularly egregious though.
[+] [-] rainbowmverse|8 years ago|reply
1: Alpha nerds are jerks to everyone. (true)
2: A specific instance of an alpha nerd being a jerk to someone can be because they're being sexist. (likely, based on the account I read)
[+] [-] throwaway91111|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] danso|8 years ago|reply
Just because the moderator had interrupted some of the other speakers does not mean the OP is wrong in her assessment that Hubeny was egregiously talked-over. I guess if you think the sexism claim is unwarranted, you could help skeptics by linking to timestamps where Holt gives other panelists the same intensity of talk-over he allegedly gave Hubeny.
Edit: I'll play a little Devil's advocate to help the discussion.
At 39:25, the moderator is going on length about...something. His cadence wavers as if inviting anyone to jump in, but he keeps on going: https://youtu.be/Er7qPv8jsZo?t=39m26s
30 seconds later, he finally asks why inflation has such skepticism and points to a panelist. The panelist tells a kind of rambling joke and as he rambles through the punchline, the moderator steps in and moves on to the next question:
https://youtu.be/Er7qPv8jsZo?t=39m50s
Arguably, though, you could say the moderator did the right thing because the panelist made a kind of weak joke, and the moderator had to interject to go onto the next topic. He ends up explaining, in a way that I imagine is more accessible to the audience, the 2 fields of thought, before pointing to another panelist:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Er7qPv8jsZo&feature=youtu.be...
This panelist is given a decent chunk of time to talk, almost 2 minutes, to go over string theory, etc.
At 1:02:00, he pitches to Dr. Hubeny, and he gives her the same treatment in which he takes a good long time to set up the question and the scope that's understandable to the audience, while being a useful topic for her:
https://youtu.be/Er7qPv8jsZo?t=1h1m55s
At about 30 seconds in, as he's describing her position (presumably to the audience), she tries to clarify something , but he keeps talking. However, i think this is case of her misreading the moderator's pause as a cue. About 10 seconds later he finishes his train of thought and cedes the floor to her at around 1:03:00: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Er7qPv8jsZo&feature=youtu.be...
But about 20 seconds later, as she's trying to assert how both theories are correct, the moderator jumps in say "So tell us about those 2 theories".
https://youtu.be/Er7qPv8jsZo?t=1h3m21s
...which is fine, because maybe he sensed the speaker was going to go too deep into details about the equivalence of the 2 models, when the audience would benefit from her describing the models.
...However, this interruption goes on for almost a minute, as he apparently decides to do the work of describing the theories. He eventually stops talking and reverts back to his prior prompt of "tell us a little bit about the 2 theories"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Er7qPv8jsZo&feature=youtu.be...
Hubeny appears ready to speak, but the moderator then goes on for 10 more seconds in which he tries to explain to her what he wants her to explain...and this is where Hubeny "giggles". But she's given about a full minute to talk, which seems reasonable.
----
I don't present the above points as complete evidence, it's what I landed on after randomly scrubbing in the period before the 60 minute mark. I think it's not out-of-line to say that the moderator is aggressive/over-eager in talking too much, and it may not just be sexism. But when you have a panel of 5 men and 1 woman and the woman has had little to speak for 60 minutes in, that's a bad time to go on an extended interruption as he did, as it becomes very noticable.
That said, I don't want to say that the moderator is a total ass. He has 6 highly intelligent and possibly highly specialized people who don't have a unifying topic of debate, so it's incumbent upon him to not only define a scope that the audience can relate to, but aggressively move the discussion forward so that no one rambles too far into their rabbit hole.
[+] [-] watwut|8 years ago|reply
I thought about this argument a bit and I disagree on multiple grounds.
1.) These fields used to be refuge for actual nerds - shy introverted awkward people who could not really cut it elsewhere. What changed and why do we think it is ok that it changed?
2.) How come that loudmouth with half baked ideas who don't really know what he is talking is somehow nerd? Nerd used to be people who knew their shit. Alpha nerd is literally a dude who is pretender - fake who wants to be seen as nerd for social status points.
3.) If this is true, then these fields can not be possible meritocracies. Good ideas from shy and introverted people will be ignored and loudmouths with bad ideas are rewarded.
4.) The moderator quality should be judged on moderation quality. If the audience is so annoyed that they clap over the interruption, then the moderator failed miserably. Such moderators should either learn or be replaced by people who can do it better.
Panel members should not have to do anything special to not be talked over by moderator - it is literally his job to facilitate them talking.
[+] [-] ainiriand|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|8 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] IncRnd|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|8 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] eckza|8 years ago|reply
STEM, as an institution, has historically not provided a level playing field for everyone. So when stuff like this happens, it stops being an alpha nerd issue, and starts becoming a social issue.
[+] [-] watwut|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unicornporn|8 years ago|reply
Does anybody else outside Facebook space find it annoying?
[+] [-] komali2|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tomxor|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] neogodless|8 years ago|reply
(This is for others "hunting" like you and I did.)
[+] [-] soneca|8 years ago|reply
But I would like to just point out what, I believe, it's a strong signaling that it was sexism: the whole audience reaction to when the woman shouted: "Let her speak please". There is a genuine, spontaneous and loud ovation. Contrast that with the fact that through the rest of the video, the moderator doesn't act the same way to other panelists; and it makes clear to me that the whole audience was considering the moderator's behavior inappropriate and motivated by her being a woman. So, for subjective assessments, there is some wisdom of the crowd worth considering (especially as this was not a 'feminist' crowd or even a female-biased crowd, on the contrary, I believe).
Now, to give the moderator some credit, after some awkward moment where he does not know how to keep it cool, he does take the hint and shut up.
EDIT: I would like to give some more credit to the moderator. At the video moment that lorenzhs pointed out below (https://youtu.be/Er7qPv8jsZo?t=1h1m55s), the moderator explicitly state that Veronika Hubeny was not given a chance to speak about her knowledge. This, I believe, is an indicator that the moderator is not a bad person and his sexism is not conscious or originated by strong believe that women are not as capable in the field as men. I still believe he is patronizing and is being sexist, but in a way that he can get the feedback and change his behavior, as he is not a sexist. He was being sexist, he is not one. My point is: he seems to be a nice person, not a villain, that is influenced by a sexist environment. And changing that environment should be our goal, not pointing fingers. As Marilee Talkington did, politely and publicly.
EDIT 2: After reading Hubeny's comment I'm more in doubt if it was sexism. Actually, I'm more inclined to believe it was not sexism. As I said, it is a subjective call, and her opinion matters most than others as she is the subject and used to being surrounded by men in her profession. Her comment is very kind and smart also in itself, worth reading.
[+] [-] asmosoinio|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] microcolonel|8 years ago|reply
I don't see why people should be expected to all be equally sonorous, when clearly people are not equally interested in it.