
“Let her speak please” - devnonymous
https://www.facebook.com/marilee.talkington/posts/10155051385188961
======
jasonshen
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...](https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2015/01/the-secret-to-
smart-groups-isnt-smart-people/384625/)

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
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.

~~~
gpawl
Your anecdote of your fuzzy memory is not research.

When measurements are taken, there is a clear pattern:

[https://www.forbes.com/sites/womensmedia/2017/01/03/gal-
inte...](https://www.forbes.com/sites/womensmedia/2017/01/03/gal-interrupted-
why-men-interrupt-women-and-how-to-avert-this-in-the-workplace/#32635baf17c3)

[https://hbr.org/2017/04/female-supreme-court-justices-are-
in...](https://hbr.org/2017/04/female-supreme-court-justices-are-interrupted-
more-by-male-justices-and-advocates)

[http://nytlive.nytimes.com/womenintheworld/2015/03/19/google...](http://nytlive.nytimes.com/womenintheworld/2015/03/19/google-
chief-blasted-for-repeatedly-interrupting-female-government-official/)

~~~
_Codemonkeyism
Your fuzzy memory is not research so I quote the three top scientific
magazines: Forbes, HBR [1] & NYT.

(If you look in the articles, they quote studies with 20 participants. At
university I would have been destroyed when making fundamental claims on a
sample size of 20).

And yes my gut feeling tells me women get interrupted more often. And from
this comment you may assume I'm guilty of this, though my bad social habits
probably interrupt men as often.

[1] the magazine of business anecdotes.

~~~
burkaman
Here's one with 216 participants, and a whole bunch of citations that might be
interesting:
[http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1046496404263728](http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1046496404263728)

Another one from 1989 with 186 participants:
[https://www.researchgate.net/publication/250069045_Interrupt...](https://www.researchgate.net/publication/250069045_Interruptions_in_Group_Discussions_The_Effects_of_Gender_and_Group_Composition)

~~~
belorn
Please quote the exact number in those papers. The summery of the first do not
specify the levels of women interrupting women or men interrupting men,
explicitly focusing only on interaction between men and women.

The other one only say that _" both men and women exhibiting higher levels of
interruption behavior in male-dominated groups"_.

Citations is only as good as the ability it provide to verify a claim. Those
do not do that as far as summery goes.

~~~
burkaman
I'm not trying to prove anything, it just sounded like people were interested
in relevant research with higher sample sizes. The first says "The
participants for this study included 216 university students". The second says
"We systematically varied the sex composition of the six-person groups, [...]
Data on 31 groups in all were collected."

The second study directly addresses this discussion: "The odds of a male
attempting to interrupt another male (.078) are less than one-half the odds of
a male attempting to interrupt a female (.163). Females attempt to interrupt
male and female speakers at essentially identical levels (odds of .146 and
.141 respectively). In other words, men discriminate in their interruption
attempts, interrupting women much more often than men. Women, on the other
hand, do not discriminate; they attempt to interrupt men and women equally.
Group composition does not appear to influence interruption attempts."

~~~
belorn
Interesting to see actually numbers. They imply that the one odd number here
is the low rate of male attempting to interrupt another male, and that the
natural base line should be around 0.1435 (assuming that the female variance
of 0.0025 is the natural one for all humans).

That changes the tone of the issue. A 0.0195 difference from the norm is tiny
on the negative discrimination of men interrupting women if we compare it to
the norm difference of 0.0655 as positive discrimination for men interrupting
men. As a social issue of 13.6% negative discrimination vs 45.7% positive
discrimination, its a good time to ask what we want to fix. Is it the negative
13.6%, which mean we want men to interrupt women at the same rate as women
interrupt women, or do we want men to treat other men worse by interrupting
men as much as women do?

It also raises questions about moderators. Should we favor male moderators
over female ones because they will in average interrupt 20% less (.241 vs
.287) for a panel of 50% women and 50% men? The original post had a panel of
80% men and 50% men, which given the above numbers would have a male moderator
interrupt a panelist at the rate of 0.095 while a female moderator would have
interrupted a panelist with the rate of 0.145. A female moderator would be 52%
worse than a male moderator in this specific case.

------
token_throwaway
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.

~~~
beaconstudios
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.

------
andai
> 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.

[https://web.facebook.com/marilee.talkington/posts/1015505138...](https://web.facebook.com/marilee.talkington/posts/10155051385188961?comment_id=10155053361413961&comment_tracking=%7B%22tn%22%3A%22R9%22%7D&_rdc=1&_rdr)

~~~
golemotron
This might be the thing that is most problematic about 'call out' culture. We
assume that we know the intention of people's behavior (sexism) and how it is
received (offense). In many cases there may be neither. But I'm just cynical
enough to suspect that this many not matter to people who 'call out.' They
feel that they are on a mission to make society better regardless of whether
there are problems in any individual case.

~~~
vog
I don't see any "'call out' culture" here. Note that the person in the
audience did not say "you are sexist". The words were "Let her speak please".
Specific, and to the point.

 _(EDIT: The article itself uses the word "sexist", so it might indeed have
been a call-out. However, that doesn't affect my point that we should not
tolerate shitty behaviour, no matter which label is attached to it.)_

The moderator's behvaiour itself was inappropriate, no matter which gender the
other person had, and no matter whether the other person is offended or cool
with it.

Why? Because others might not be cool with that, and rightly so! If we
publicly tolerate inappropriate behaviour, we are making it even harder for
those who are not cool with it.

That's why we (the audience, the society) should not tolerate shitty
behaviour, and speak out publicly against it. Not just to fix this individual
case, where the affected person may or may not need our help, but to establish
a culture where this shitty behaviour will occur less often in the first
place.

~~~
xor1
>I don't see any "'call out' culture" here. Note that the person in the
audience did not say "you are sexist". The words were "Let her speak please".
Specific, and to the point.

The "call out" is the Facebook post and the subsequent social media firestorm
that follows it.

~~~
golemotron
Exactly. People have different levels of introversion and extroversion.
Moderators sometimes over talk introverts when they feel they have to keep
things moving. It may not have anything to do with sexism but because the the
sexes of the participants it's turned into a conversation that may have no
base in the reality of the situation.

It is arrogance to assume that we know the mind of another well enough to call
this sexism.

~~~
vog
Thanks for the clarification. That's exactly the point I wanted to make.

But also note that the moderator called the person from the audience
"heckling" just because she made him aware of his inappropriate behaviour. If
not sexism, this is at least a clear sign of ignorance.

~~~
monksy
That is exactly what a heckling is:

> interrupt (a public speaker) with derisive or aggressive comments or abuse.

When a member yells out something from the audience to someone on stage:
That's a heckle. They forced a break in the 4th wall. (yes, the audience
member was right, but so was the moderator in that small instance)

~~~
Avenger42
What was said ("let her speak, please") doesn't fit any of those categories.
It was an interruption, but not derisive, aggressive, or abusive.

~~~
monksy
It was aggressive. The statement was a command (followed by a desperate
request) deriding the behavior and speech of the moderator.

Why do you feel that calling the person who interjected a "heckler" is a bad
thing?

~~~
vog
First, "heckler" has negative connotation, while the interruption itself was
helpful and to the point.

Second, attaching such an attribute at all to that person was inappropriate,
given she pointed out an obvious misbehaviour of the moderator.

An appropriate reaction would have been: "Oh, I didn't notice. Thanks for
pointing this out!"

~~~
monksy
The emotional attachment was added by the listener/reader of the word.

> Second, attaching such an attribute at all to that person was inappropriate,
> given she pointed out an obvious misbehaviour of the moderator.

That is an assumption based on your emotional connection to the word. No one
believes that the moderator's behavior was "bad" (different attributions have
been made)

> An appropriate reaction would have been: "Oh, I didn't notice. Thanks for
> pointing this out!"

I would strongly disagree with that. It's impressive that he recognized the
heckle, and didn't respond negatively. From what I saw he acknowledged the
event and made the correction. For someone to do that on stage is VERY
impressive. That takes a lot of experience and a lot of skill. (Many
performers respond very negative to a heckle).

The heckle broke the 4th wall, it was processed by the moderator, acknowledged
(mentally and then verbally) without anger (which requires processing and
understanding), the suggestion (I'm being generous in that) was taken, and the
moderator returned back to the 4th wall with the context prior.

That's a freaking amazing job.

~~~
monksy
> No one believes that the moderator's behavior was "bad" (different
> attributions have been made)

Err meant to say: No one believes that the heckler's behavior was "bad"
(different attributions have been made)

------
ideonexus
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.

[1]
[https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/wp/2016/10/25/...](https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/wp/2016/10/25/how-
a-white-house-womens-office-strategy-went-viral/)

~~~
awkward
You need to keep in mind that the attribution of credit is important in
echoing - simply bringing the subject back up will be seen as stealing the
point.

~~~
jameshart
"will be seen as stealing the point." \- no, it _is_ stealing the point.

------
birracerveza
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.

~~~
anjc
What exaggeration!

> "Oh my god. what you said was the most important thing that was said all
> day. Thank you. Thank you."

> most important thing that was said

> most important

~~~
masondixon
You watch the video?

~~~
anjc
I didn't watch the full discussion but I think it's fair to say that "let her
speak please" was not the most important thing said that day.

How big headed is this person that she thinks her input was more important
than that of the person she's claiming to uplift.

~~~
dismantlethesun
I can see your perspective, and it's pretty reflective of that of the author.

However, in reality, I don't think her words empowered the expert speaker at
all but simply served as a check on the moderator's exuberance.

Those who actually benefitted were the audience---and we the public who get to
see the video afterward. The moderator was handling the situation poorly and
needed to allow the expert to speak which is what the audience _paid_ for, and
everyone is more interested in hearing.

I think the best panels are where the experts talk amongst themselves, and
moderators only serve to derail heated arguments that are consuming the
allotted time.

~~~
masondixon
Sets a good precedent doesn't it?

I hate what this PC culture has become. You have to watch yourself so
carefully or you will get publicly shamed like this. And if someone over
reacts there is no consequence. Its a race to the bottom.

------
masondixon
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.

Seriously people!

~~~
sebbean
WHERE IS THE VIDEO?

~~~
TheNewLab
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Er7qPv8jsZo#t=1h1m53s](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Er7qPv8jsZo#t=1h1m53s)

------
danso
The Observer has an article about this: [http://observer.com/2017/06/sexism-
science-facebook-mansplai...](http://observer.com/2017/06/sexism-science-
facebook-mansplaining/)

The video of the event is here:
[http://www.worldsciencefestival.com/programs/big-universe-
bi...](http://www.worldsciencefestival.com/programs/big-universe-bigger-
questions/)

edit: Youtube version, at the 1:02 mark where people apparently were getting
irritated:
[https://youtu.be/Er7qPv8jsZo?t=1h1m55s](https://youtu.be/Er7qPv8jsZo?t=1h1m55s)

~~~
nailer
1:05:39

Nerds do this a lot. It's annoying AF. I've had conversations about topics
like zopfli or 'HTTPS in the 90s' where I was sure I was right (and I was) but
the other person was so confident and loud I genuinely wondered if I was
missing something.

~~~
nervousvarun
"Nerds do this a lot."

Agreed but we can be less specific here...human males do this a lot.

~~~
iiv
We can be even less specific: humans do this a lot.

------
Tiki
Veronika Hubeny(the physicist who got interrupted) replied to the incident,

[https://www.facebook.com/marilee.talkington/posts/1015505138...](https://www.facebook.com/marilee.talkington/posts/10155051385188961?comment_id=10155053361413961&comment_tracking=%7B%22tn%22%3A%22R9%22%7D)

Very humble woman.

~~~
neogodless
Could you possibly copy the comment here? I tried to find it in Facebook's
"awesome" comment paging system, but I don't know how far through the 9000
comments I have to scroll back. (I assume the URL you posted is supposed to
jump me to it, but it doesn't work for non-facebook users like me.)

ETA: From the Observer article: [http://observer.com/2017/06/sexism-science-
facebook-mansplai...](http://observer.com/2017/06/sexism-science-facebook-
mansplaining/)

“I applaud your heroism in standing up for what you believe in!” she wrote. “I
know well the shaky feeling and subsequent exhilarated contentment in the
knowledge of having done the right thing, and I think that doing so has become
more crucial than ever. Your behavior was inspiring, and I’m glad that many of
those inspired shared their gratitude with you.”

Hubeny also offered advice to help women deal with sexism at work, no matter
their field.

“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,” she wrote.

~~~
Tiki
The comment in full:

Veronika Hubeny: I applaud your heroism in standing up for what you believe
in! I know well the shaky feeling and subsequent exhilarated and heartwarmed
contentment in the knowledge of having done the right thing, and I think that
doing so has become more crucial than ever. Your behavior was inspiring and
I’m glad that many of those inspired shared their gratitude with you.

I guess that, being the subject of the incident, it might be worthwhile to
offer my perspective, which to my surprise is rather more atypical than I had
hitherto realized, but which I hope might perhaps provide some encouragement
to all those who feel put off by the present situation — especially to those
who feel drawn to science yet dissuaded from following their hearts’ calling.
(For posterity I also feel compelled to correct a point about the physics — as
a physicist I can’t help myself wink emoticon;-) — but since I realize that
that was entirely beside the point of the post, I’ll only do so at the very
end…)

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.

In fact, even though in my entire academic career I was in an environment
where women were in striking minority (and as a student often the only woman
in the class), I never felt discriminated against or thwarted in my calling.
The feeling was rather one of camaraderie: the challenges to unravel the
deepest mysteries of the universe, the thrill in understanding another tiny
bit of this grand puzzle, and the sheer wonder at how beautifully the physics
hangs together, put us all in the same boat, so to speak. In retrospect I
think I was fortunate in being amongst like-minded physicists who were not
only great but gracious and earnest in their love of science. But when I
eventually did start coming across others who were not of the same caliber,
they somehow seemed insignificant.

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.

OK, so now to the physics (sorry): First, what you refer to as the “two
theories of string theory that seem to contradict one another” are actually
two ‘dual’ descriptions of the same physics, which while curiously different
in rather amazing ways, are completely consistent with each other (one using
the language of string theory, the other of a field theory). Second, I cannot
take credit for inventing this holographic (so-called AdS/CFT) correspondence
— I have worked on understanding how it works at a deeper level, but the
AdS/CFT was originated by Juan Maldacena in 1997.

Once again, let me stress my appreciation, Marilee, of how you bravely stood
up for your principles and values! Well done!

~~~
curiousgal
>I never felt discriminated against or thwarted in my calling

This just goes to prove my stance whenever the whole women in STEM fields
debate is brought up. You have two kinds of women, those who are out there
doing science, building things and being badasses (The likes of Veronika and
Julia Evans, ones I consider as role-models) and then you have women that have
questionable technical skills who keep whining about sexism and lack of women
in tech. Veronica wasn't concerned with the perceived sexism and was
interested in physics, Marilee, a specimen of the second category, gave
herself a pat on the shoulder for standing up to Veronica.

~~~
d3ad1ysp0rk
Veronika stated quite clearly that sexism in STEM is an issue. Julia Evans has
wrote in bulk regarding issues she has experienced and ways she is trying to
get more women in STEM.

~~~
curiousgal
I didn't say the two categories are mutually exclusive. But you can notice
where the bulk of each person's efforts is directed.

~~~
d3ad1ysp0rk
Who is to say that those people who's bulk of effort is spent programming,
designing, or doing other technical activities don't appreciate the work
other's do on a more full time basis to improve issues they see?

------
curiousgal
> _he continued to talk over her and dominate the space for several minutes_

> _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
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.

~~~
DanBC
People talking over other people is a problem of sexism because the people
doing the talking are mostly men, and the people being talked over are mostly
(but not always) women; but also because the consequences for challenging this
behaviour are different for men and women.

If a man asserts himself he's seen as confident and assertive, and other
positive labels

If a woman asserts herself she's seen as aggressive, shrill,

> What, I now can't be rude to a woman without being called a sexist?

If your rudeness is more likely to happen to women then maybe it's a result of
sexism.

~~~
mosselman
> ...because the people doing the talking are mostly men, and the people being
> talked over are mostly (but not always) women;

I find _this_ sexist. I know cases where the opposite is true as well as where
the interruptor does not care about the gender of the other person.

> If your rudeness is more likely to happen to women then maybe it's a result
> of sexism.

If A=A then A=A, therefore we can conclude that A=A. How wise.

I am not saying sexism doesn't exist, I am just saying that the author of this
article is very liberal with her accusations based on a single observation of
the moderator. Moreover, ironically, it is very sexist of her and I find this
unfair to the moderator and men in general.

------
Houshalter
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.

~~~
jlebar
> I have a theory that women are less likely to be, I guess the word would be
> "assertive", than men.

If this has been your experience, I'd encourage you to consider why that might
be the case.

Here's one possibility: Perhaps in our culture, assertive women are treated
worse than assertive men.

~~~
fav_collector
Or that non-assertive women are treated well and non-assertive men are treated
poorly. Men have to learn to be assertive to be treated as well as women.

You can see this dynamic in the dating world where non-assertive men are the
losers of the game.

------
Quarrelsome
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.

~~~
CPLX
I tend to be sympathetic to the original poster of the story, it sounds like
the woman was treated differently, and an expert being talked over like that
by a host is ridiculous. It does indeed sound like an example of sexism.

This probably marks me as an ignorant oppressor, but I do find this style of
telling a story to be a bit confusing and off-putting though. Why all the
references to "with my hands shaking" and "I'm feeling light headed" and so
on?

I guess it's a personal story that she can tell however she likes, but this
idea of having a violent physical reaction to a relatively straightforward
conversational faux-pas seems to be the hallmark of a certain genre of story.

~~~
Ensorceled
Speaking up in public or confronting people has this effect on many, many
people.

It is an indication of something that you think explaining a woman's own
theories to her in public a "relatively straightforward conversational faux-
pas". You should ponder that.

~~~
auggierose
It clearly sounds like sexism (probably non-intentional, but is that better or
worse?).

On the other hand, the woman who spoke up seems to be an actress working at a
theatre, so public speaking is probably not a problem for her.

~~~
aetimmes
There's a distinction between scripted public speaking in a venue where all
interaction is controlled and initiating real conflict in a public place with
no such control.

------
Klockan
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.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Albert](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Albert)

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_F._R._Ellis](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_F._R._Ellis)

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Guth](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Guth)

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrei_Linde](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrei_Linde)

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barry_Loewer](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barry_Loewer)

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Search?search=Veronika...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Search?search=Veronika+Hubeny)

~~~
likelynew
I think there is some differential. Judging by number of citations, looked by
google scholar:

George F R Ellis: 30744

Andrei Linde: 56716

Veronika Hubeny: 4874

Barry Loewer: 3431

Alan Guth: >17,317(summed 2 pages in scholar, as he doesn't have a profile
there)

David Albert: >5062(summed 3 pages in scholar, counting only papers related to
quantum mechanics)

So there are 3 researchers there whose voice can potentially trump others by a
margin, if citations are a good measure.

------
macspoofing
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.

------
glutamate
From [http://www.vanityfair.com/culture/2012/07/jim-holt-why-
does-...](http://www.vanityfair.com/culture/2012/07/jim-holt-why-does-the-
world-exist)

> 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?

~~~
dewyatt
Social awareness and "intelligence" often seem to have an inverse correlation
in my experience.

Maybe he thinks the general public believes that the scientific community
tends to discriminate against _attractive_ women the most, and he's trying to
address that?

I don't know, but it seems like there may be a bit of a disconnect between him
and the rest of society.

------
obstacle1
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.

~~~
throwaway91111
What's really interesting is that every time sexism comes up there are
volunteers eager to show it isn't sexism.

~~~
tomp
Alternatively, every time a a man is rude to a woman, there are volunteers
eager to show it's sexism.

------
unicornporn
Facebook posts are more or less unreadable to me without a Facebook login.
This is what it looks like to me:
[https://i.imgur.com/ZQNexgi.png](https://i.imgur.com/ZQNexgi.png)

Does anybody else outside Facebook space find it annoying?

~~~
komali2
Yup, and not because I don't have a Facebook, only because I'm not logged in
on my work machine.

------
tomxor
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.

~~~
neogodless
1:07:41 is the "end" of the event. Starting around the 1 hr mark is probably
good if you've got 8 minutes to see the lead-up.

(This is for others "hunting" like you and I did.)

------
soneca
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](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.

~~~
exodust
> _I believe, it 's a strong signaling that it was sexism_

No idea where you get that from, if not the wave of social media outrage.
There's no evidence of sexism here at all.

The audience applauded because of the injustice taking place at that moment
which the moderator was unaware of. He was being rude by not letting her speak
at that point. Everyone saw and applauded when balance was restored.

Nothing to do with sexism, it was just a clumsy moderator moment that could
have happened to anyone.

He could have handled it better by saying "let me talk for a moment about your
theories, if I may, and then I'll hand over to you". That would have been
acceptable, but he didn't do that, and she felt unable to speak. Audience was
with her, and applauded.

At 27:05 he asks her a question and does not interrupt, so it's not like there
are no examples of him being polite and treating her with the same respect as
other members.

------
asmosoinio
Since for some reason (flagging) this has fallen of the first page, I posted
the Observer article also:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14505232](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14505232)

------
microcolonel
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.

------
chrisper
Why do activists like these always have to write that they "shake"? I usually
stop reading and taking them seriously.

~~~
DanBC
because normal human beings have a stress response that includes adrenaline
being released.

they are literally shaking, and they are accurately describing their stress
response.

~~~
chrisper
Yes, but it makes it sound ridiculous. If I am going to include all my
emotional responses to an event every time I write about something it will
become ridiculous and annoying at one point.

Can you not be annoyed by something without starting to shake every time?
Especially if you try to interpret rudeness as sexism...

~~~
DanBC
The emotion is not _anger_ , it is _fear_.

~~~
chrisper
From the text:

> I am in full outrage. My body is actually beginning to shake.

Outrage to me means anger and not fear.

------
y0ghur7_xxx
If you want to know what happened by watching the video yourself, here it is:
[https://youtu.be/Er7qPv8jsZo?t=3920](https://youtu.be/Er7qPv8jsZo?t=3920)

------
jancsika
I remember a sociologist once remarking that prejudice (racism in the case we
were discussing) exists _quite_ apart from an individual's intentions.

Most of the comments here appear to assume that prejudice is determined solely
(or mainly) by the moderator's intentions-- hence the endless quests to
somehow prove what is or isn't lurking in the moderator's soul.

That _seems_ irrelevant in this case, but I haven't read the relevant
sociological literature so that's all I can say.

Are there any sociologists here that can flesh this out (with citations)?

Edit: clarification

~~~
jccalhoun
I''m not a sociologist. My phd minor was Anthro and I don't have any citations
handy.

But basically you can never know someone's intention with 100% certainty.
There is always the possibility that someone has different intentions than you
think they are or that they say they have. Even if it is someone you know very
well and trust there is the possibility that you are in some sort of Truman
Show where everyone you know has been lying to you your whole life. Or, if we
want to get into psychology, there is the possibility that a person could
think their intentions are really one thing but subconsciously they might be
something else.

So if we can't depend on knowing someone's intentions then we only have the
act itself and its impact.

Of course, this opens up a deep rabbit hole in that we can't trust anyone's
intentions, including the person that wrote this facebook post. Or mine for
leaving this comment...

~~~
jancsika
I shouldn't have put "citations" in parentheses. That's what I'm most
interested in-- recommended readings from people who study this stuff for a
living.

~~~
jccalhoun
Off the top of my head I'm not thinking of anything specific but it is related
to the intentional fallacy and thinking along the lines of The Death of the
Author as well as more anthro/socio stuff by people like Erving Goffman. I'm
thinking of his Presentation of Self in Everyday Life where he talks about
things in terms of acting and live theater.

~~~
jancsika
Thanks, jccalhoun.

I'm really looking for a citation of something much more fundamental.

If I wanted to assess the security of Firefox, it would be inane to try to do
so by assessing each bug individually. Instead, I could ask on HN, "What books
should I read to begin learning how to assess the security of Firefox?" And
even though I'd probably get a lot of responses trying to clarify what I mean
by "security", I'd certainly get some solid reference materials that outline
current approaches to assessing security that are based on the best research
available.

Now suppose I want to assess sexism in the sciences in academia. It would be
inane to try to do so by assessing each alleged case of sexism individually.
What books should I read to assess sexism in academia? I'd like to hear about
reference books (or articles) that outline current approaches to assessing
sexism in academia that are based on the best research available.

------
jotadambalakiri
How is this sexism? As a quiet man that happens to me a lot too and I hate
these kind of people.

~~~
DanBC
Yes, it does also affect men and it always sucks when it happens and it's not
acceptable behaviour.

But it happens more often to women. Also, if the person being interrupted
asserts themselves they're seen in a positive light if they're male but a
negative light if they're female.

And in this case there's a video, and he interrupts her far more often than he
interrupts the other male guests.

------
munificent
I don't know if Holt behaved the way he did out of sexism, enthusiasm for the
subject, generally liking the sound of his voice or what. Regardless, I think
the narrative of this exchange between him, Hubeny, and Talkington can
function as a nice morality play that most of us can learn from.

But I think it only works if we don't jump demonize or defend Holt and try to
simply use him to score points for our side. Instead, if I empathize for all
of the characters, there's something to be gained from each.

When I imagine myself in Holt's shoes (which, to be honest, is unfortunately a
little _too_ easy for me to do), it's a reminder to be more of a listener and
less focused on filling silence or letting my own inner monologue take over.
I'm overly sensitive to pauses in conversation and tend to rush to fill them.
But some people are naturally quieter, more pensive, or have a different
preferred cadence. It's important to cater to them. This is true regardless of
their gender, but is particularly true for women where society has trained
them to be the conceding person when two people — deliberately or accidentally
— start talking at the same time.

Hubeny handled the whole thing with remarkable grace, both during and after.
She didn't get irate on stage and tried to respond to Holt and go with the
flow to keep things moving, even when she had every right to be frustrated.
She certainly would have been justified in pushing back on him, but she
demonstrated another important social skill, which is giving people some
benefit of the doubt. Good engineers never forget about tolerances and safety
factors and our social interactions need those too. We're humans. We make
mistakes. When others around us handle those tactfully, it helps the whole
machine run smoother.

It is, of course, totally unfair when women find themselves having to do a
disproportionate amount of this social lubrication. But that's why it's useful
for me (a man) to empathize with her in this interaction. It helps remind me
to pick up that role more than I probably do now.

And, then, of course, Talkington's description is a perfect encapsulation of
how frightening, but also important and rewarding it is to stand up for what
you believe in. The applause she received afterwards shows that while most in
the audience didn't have the courage she had, at least most of them did have
their _hearts_ in the right place. That's a sign of progress to me.

------
korijn
This reminds me an awful lot of Zimbardo's talk on how we should encourage
children to learn to speak/act when the crowd does not.

[https://www.ted.com/talks/philip_zimbardo_on_the_psychology_...](https://www.ted.com/talks/philip_zimbardo_on_the_psychology_of_evil/transcript)

------
overgard
It seems like the other perspective has been lost here. The host has now been
publicly branded as a sexist on "evidence" that at best is ambiguous. To the
people upvoting this: Shouldn't claims like this that are extremely damaging
to a persons reputation require more evidence?

------
justin_vanw
Like half of this was talking about how the male was not letting the female
asking the question (the male sounds like a bad interviewer for sure), and the
other half was about how everyone 'literally applauded' what the author did.
Sadly none of it was about the woman who was not allowed to speak or what she
said... I get the point, the rest of the audience didn't say anything, but on
the other hand 'literally shaking' is maybe not a reasonable response to
someone being (probably inadvertently) rude, really no matter why the person
is being rude.

I don't know how to write this without sounding like I in any way would defend
sexism in any form, I mean maybe I should show I'm not sexist by piling on the
male on stage and breaking out the pitch-fork or something.

------
aaron695
This is written straight out of Buzzfeed, why did it not stay flagged?

I wish people could stop supporting these articles about serious issues that
are so emotive build purely to play on/abuse human emotions? It just hurts
every cause.

Veronika Hubeny on the other hand wrote a response very worthy of HN.

------
prbuckley
Good on her for speaking up but I would postulate that minority groups gets
talked over by the majority group and that this is not sexism. Should people
try to be more mindful of the people around them? Absolutely, but jumping to
the conclusion that it is sexism is just counter productive.

Anecdotally as a man any time I am in a group that has a majority of woman the
men get talked over by the woman all the time. I grew up in a family that was
a majority woman and the same thing happened all the time, I would say
generally in social settings where one sex has the majority they tend to talk
over the opposite sex and control the conversation. It is human nature.
However we can and should be better then that but it is hard.

------
23inhouse
This video is great. I'm glad I watched it and as soon as I finish writing
this I'll be looking for more like it.

"Let her speak please", there are some many things wrong with this, starting
with live tweeting this panel's discussion.

Just watch the video! There are so many more interesting and inspiring things
to discuss. Listen to what they are saying. They are talking about the nature
of reality and if it's possible for us to understand it.

Edit: I just got to the point where the audience member yelled out. What a
disgusting display, who do they think they are, they should "check their
privilege". This type of forum is not the place for aggressive behaviour like
that. It's not good enough.

------
MattBearman
Having watched other parts of the video, I would say this was sexism.

While the moderator had a bad habit of talking too much and answering his own
questions to all panelists, he didn't talk over the other (male) panelists, he
only seemed to do that to Veronika Hubeny.

------
Tech1
I was at this event. Marilee was seated directly in front of my girlfriend and
I (the stage / panel and the back of Marilee's head pictured:
[https://imgur.com/a/GEapw](https://imgur.com/a/GEapw)). The interruptions
were real. I was one of the men in Marilee's facebook post making comments
about the sexism. Immediately following Marilee's comment, the entire place
erupted with applause. On the way out, several people asked my GF if she was
the one who made the comment, with one person saying "That was the most
important thing to happen here today".

------
differentView
This guy seems like quite the blowhard. I do, however, need to know if he also
does this to men. I've had a few co-workers that just talk on and on without
letting other people get a word in. They do this to everyone.

------
adamsea
Throwing in my two cents: a) the intent of the moderator is less important, in
this specific instance, than the systematic and structural sexism which we
know to be present. Who knows, perhaps the moderator was secretly grateful
because they were unconscious of the impact of their behavior? Perhaps not.
Outcome is a more useful measure than intent here.

b) In a perfect world, if the same thing was happening to a man, I would hope
someone would speak up for him as well. Not only was the authors behavior an
example of feminism in action, we could also say it was an act of human
decency.

------
paulmd
Knowledge of this social construct (that women are socially expected to be
"seen and not heard") is one of the simplest life-hacks for small-group
interactions, because once you're mindful of the dynamic it's fairly obvious
when someone is getting talked over.

It also applies equally well to other introverts, it's just a good social rule
in general. Let people finish their thoughts.

Most times people aren't doing it to be an asshole, they just are focused on a
point or are extroverted and are unintentionally dominating the conversation.

------
acomjean
I was at the world science festival though not at this talk. If it's like the
others it's a panel discussion but a lot pre planned. For the Brian Greene
quantum physics panel discussion he went from person to person to discuss the
double slit experiment. The fact that videos were involved indicated that it
wasn't just a random discussion.

There was the Alan Alda / Tina Feye talk about communicating that was quite
good. If your waiting to say your thing instead of listening..

------
sigi45
This facebook post sounds like a murder.

I do understand that it isn't nice or anything but that post blows it up to
much which leads to disliking it.

------
openasocket
I'm suprised no one has brought up that men talking over women is a well-
studied phenomenon in childhood and adolescence. Girls tend to contribute less
to discussions or conversations in mixed gender settings than they do in
single-gender settings. My parents even noticed it when my brother and I moved
out of the house, and suddenly my little sister was a lot more talkative at
the dinner table. The exact mechanism or reason for this is not well
understood.

I'm not sure if this phenomenon has been studied in adulthood, but I wouldn't
be surprised if some remnant of it remains. Could this simply be an example of
that phenomenon in action? Which isn't to say this isn't sexism, I wouldn't
consider those two things mutually exclusive.

EDIT: to be clear, I'm not absolving the moderator of blame, or placing any
fault on the woman. I'm simply linking this behavior to a broader social
phenomenon that is fairly well studied. I personally think what he did was
sexist, whether or not that was his intent.

~~~
cr0sh
> The exact mechanism or reason for this is not well understood.

I have nothing to back this up, but my personal opinion is that the reason is
our patriarchal society.

It permeates our shared culture to such an extent, that most people don't see
it. Women and girls even participate in it, and use it to perpetuate it. It is
everywhere. Literally everywhere. From the moment of birth to the moment of
death, you are immersed in it. It's not really a wonder that children would
pick it up quickly and act accordingly.

If you ever are able to glimpse it - you likely won't be able to unsee it. It
becomes blindingly obvious.

You and others may or may not agree with me, so I'll just leave this here:

[https://cdn-images-1.medium.com/max/800/1*yiv4glZWr2rzS2BMOo...](https://cdn-
images-1.medium.com/max/800/1*yiv4glZWr2rzS2BMOodT6A.gif)

~~~
openasocket
I completely agree, this is a consequence of the patriarchy pretty much by
definition. The smoking gun is that girls become more talkative specifically
when men are absent, so girls aren't just less talkative in general, it's
specifically a reaction to the presence of boys. By "exact mechanism" I meant
more specifically why the phenomenon happens. Are women encouraged to be quiet
when men are talking, or are men encouraged to interrupt women, or both? In a
truly egalitarian society, would men interrupt less or would women interrupt
more?

------
ixr
Started reading her post, got to "The panel was made up of 5 men and 1 woman."
and the agenda instantly became clear. Finished reading, in a masochistic
attempt to confirm my suspicion and indeed, I was right. Give. Me. A. Break.

------
mbfg
Has Jim Holt or World Science Festival commented officially after the fact? I
would have thought this would be a priority by both parties. I don't see
anything, but perhaps i'm just missing it.

------
miesman
I'm sure the moderator wasn't even remotely conscious of what he was doing
because this is so endemic in our society. The only way this will change is
for more people to speak up like this.

------
xchip
I am a male and when I am talked over I have to say something like "hold on
let me finish" and that fixes it :D It's not a male vs female thing, it's just
that everyone gets too excited, it happens to me too sometimes :D

The moderator talks too much along the whole video. Not a sexist thing though.

A link on how to handle interrupts:
[http://www.marionspeaks.com/_blog/Marions_Communication_Tips...](http://www.marionspeaks.com/_blog/Marions_Communication_Tips/post/WHY_PEOPLE_INTERRUPT/)

------
porky
Noticed that too, also on other WSF videos. These is pretty common in the
academics world as a rule, even between males (visible on this video)

------
alexpetralia
ITT: Sexism _must_ be intentional to be true!

If someone's implicit biases (or given the circumstances, like having ten or
hundred men in the room versus one woman) cause them to act differently toward
women than men, it's still sexism - intentional or not. I'd encourage the men
in this thread to exercise a bit of empathy and imagine what it'd be like to
be the only man in a room full of 100 women (eg. Miley Cyrus concert) - not
particularly comfortable!

~~~
pbhjpbhj
There's a further characteristic to consider when thinking about intent.

I'm often the only man in a room of 10-40 women, eg "Mums & Toddlers" groups
and at work. There's usually a degree of overt sexism and exclusion; however
acting differently toward me is human nature, we have two different sexes.

Sexism that's not negative discrimination seems like something we should just
live with. Some intentional (or at least easily avoided) sexism falls in that
class IMO.

------
mannykannot
Thanks! - to the vast number of commentators who have taken the time to
explain to me what Jim Holt was probably thinking.

------
blahman2
By making everything so dramatic you will end up scaring all women away from
science.

------
komali2
I feel like the details in the post make it fodder for alt right cannons. "I
was literally shaking" and "everyone went silent and then burst into applause"
are dirt-common memes on alt-right discussion boards. Until I saw the video I
thought this was an elaborate alt-right prank.

------
peternicky
Looks like she missed John Gruber's post on Facebook last week. :(

------
gpawl
Talkington, quite the aptonym for this article.

------
sebbean
link?

------
jbmorgado
It baffles me that moderators keep blocking the community and remove flags
form these kind of totally non factual and opinionated posts, and then go and
themselves flag highly voted fact based posts that make it to the first page
of HN - like they did some weeks ago about the code capabilities of IT grads
in India.

It is almost like the moderators in HN have a clearly defined and very limited
political range of ideological opinions they believe in and that they only
allow anyone else to express - or even discuss about - their personal opinions
if they mirror those of the moderators.

~~~
gergles
I would like to echo this a million times over. Flags are the community's way
of saying that things aren't appropriate for HN, and the moderators removing
flags to editorialize the front page, then in other threads throwing up their
proverbial hands and going "well, the community voted for it" when someone
comments about why something made the front page, as if there is nothing that
can be done, is intellectually dishonest.

Either the community has control, or the moderators do and we should just
remove voting altogether.

------
vjvj
Can someone paste the contents here?

~~~
nailer
Marilee Talkington

4 June at 17:40 ·

So, after thinking about this over night, I've decided to share something that
happened at the WORLD SCIENCE FESTIVAL yesterday afternoon in NYC that changed
me. Or rather made me step into who I am in a larger way.

As some on my feed have seen, I was live-feeding the beginning of the panel
discussion on FB. That panel was made up of some of the greatest and most
famous minds in the world in Inflationary Cosmology, String Theory, Cosmology
and Physics based Philosophy. The panel was made up of 5 men and 1 woman. And
the moderator was a science writer and journalist for The New Yorker.

In the first hour of the panel discussion you can see clearly, if watching the
video, that Veronika Hubeny, the only woman on the panel is barely given any
opportunity to speak. And the Moderator, Jim Holt even acknowledges this.

In the last 20-30 minutes of the 90 minute discussion Jim Holt finally pushes
the conversation to Hubeny's field of expertise, string theory, and this is
what ensued:

He asked her to describe her two theories of string theory that seem to
contradict one another.

And THEN, without letting her answer, proceeded to answer for her and describe
HER theories in detail without letting her speak for herself.

We could clearly see that she was trying to speak up. But he continued to talk
over her and dominate the space for several minutes.

I should say that this panel was taking place in a large auditorium as it is
an extremely high-profile and always sold-out event. And the panel discussion
was being live-streamed across the world and they say that millions of people
watch these videos after they are made public. (Which they already are).

So at this point, after seeing very clearly that she was not going to be given
space to speak and in fact having her own theories described to the audience
by the moderator, I am in full outrage. My body is actually beginning to
shake. The sexism is beyond blatant. It is happening on stage and NO ONE, not
a single other physicist or panelist is stepping in to say anything about it.
And I can hear other audience members around me, both men and women becoming
more and more agitated with what is happening. Jim Holt, even at one point,
asks Veronica a question and she laughs because he has been answering his own
questions about her work...and he makes fun of her for 'giggling'.

So at some point while he is Still talking about Her theories, I just can't
handle it any longer.

With my hands shaking,

I finally say from my seat in the 2nd row of the audience, as clearly,
directly and loudly as possible;

"Let. Her. Speak. Please!"

The moderator stops.

They all stop.

The auditorium drops into silence.

You could hear a pin drop.

And then the audience explodes with applause and screams.

Jim Holt eventually sat back, only after saying I was heckling him

And he let her speak.

And of course, she was brilliant.

\-----------------------

So, the panel discussion ends.

My hands are still shaking. I'm still upset by the incredible sexism that has
been demonstrated this afternoon. But I also realize that I just spoke up in
an auditorium full of people that are listening to people that are considered
gods in the international science world. I was just overwhelmed by it all

We get up to leave.

And then it happens.

Person after person come up to me. Both men and women.

The first woman, right behind me, reaches over and embraces me and says, "Oh
my god. what you said was the most important thing that was said all day.
Thank you. Thank you."

And then people start filing out of their aisles and wind their way over to
me:

"Was that you? Thank you so much for speaking up. Thank you."

"Was that you? Oh god, what he was doing was horrific. Thank you. I wanted to
do something but didn't know how"

"Was that you? I wish I had the courage to say something, thank you! Thank you
so much"

"Was that you? You said what everyone here was thinking. Look I had even been
writing in my notebook what you eventually said (shows me his notebook with
'let her speak' written over and over.) But you said it. You said it. Thank
you."

"Was that you? Thank you! I felt so powerless to do anything."

And on.

So we were all thinking this.

\----

So I walked out. And my friend who was sitting about 8 rows behind me, came up
to me with a huge grin and said

"That was you, wasn't it? Of course it was. YES!!!!! I will be telling this
story for years."

And the whole time, my hands are still shaking. And I'm felling light-headed.
And I just want to scream out into the lobby "WHY IS THIS SEXISM STILL
HAPPENING? WHY, does someone like me, with No status in that room, have to be
so extraordinarily bold and speak up? And why was it so frightening to do so?"

And I'm thinking. "God, please god let this be an opening for those that were
here today and the tens of thousands that watched the live-streaming of the
panel yesterday and the hundreds of thousands that will watch the video this
year- to speak up when we see this happening. And please let me not be afraid
to do this again

...and again

...and again"

Because it was scary.

Please keep giving me courage.

~~~
ygaf
Thanks for the FBpaste.

> WHY, does someone like me, with No status in that room, have to be so
> extraordinarily bold and speak up? And why was it so frightening to do so?

Audience members do have some status, she actually exercised the precise limit
of that status. Audience members aren't meant to have equal status, because
that's just called a bunch of people in a studio / anarchy.

------
marvin
Aaaaaand it's flagged. No surprises there. I was refreshing every five minutes
to see how long it would take.

[Edit: Thanks to the mods for taking responsibility for allowing this
discussion].

------
mememaestro
I'm literally in tears and shaking with anger.

How could he?!

~~~
dang
We've banned this account for trolling.

------
dating_advice
Not contributing, am I? But that kind of voting is contributing, so much so
that you have to get a bunch of karma to be allowed the privilege, right? Dear
god. Yeah, I'm not allowed to talk about votes, but if you're going to give
random people the ability to grey out comments of others anonymously, that's
just tough luck. I don't care about the POINTS, I care what they're trying to
say, and to that I will respond without fail.

In case of someone getting confused by my handle, I was going to reply "Not on
the first date though" in response to the sentence "Most people would prefer
to hear something along the lines of 'I love you and want to marry you.'" in
this comment
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14499533](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14499533)
earlier today, but then thought better after I had already made the account,
but didn't bother to log out either. If you don't understand something, assume
there's a super cool reason that's not for you to know.

~~~
dang
This comment breaks the HN guidelines by going on about downvotes. Please read
[https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html](https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html)
(and
[https://news.ycombinator.com/newswelcome.html](https://news.ycombinator.com/newswelcome.html))
and follow them when commenting here.

We detached this comment from
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14507266](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14507266)
and marked it off-topic.

------
theWatcher37
Outrage culture front and center. Time to pull out our morality antennas and
virtue signal how pious we are in support.

~~~
DanBC
> virtue signal

Your use of this vapid phrase is itself a form of virtue signalling.

~~~
and0
Someone who unironically uses "virtue signalling" very conveniently signals
that they're not worth listening to. It's kinda nice, actually.

~~~
hackinthebochs
I disagree, it's a very apt description of an increasingly common phenomena
online. When one's need to signal group membership outweighs their personal
feelings regarding the issue at hand, that's virtue signalling. With the
balkanization of online communities to being hyper-focused, and actively
exclusionary of those with slightly different beliefs, virtue signalling
becomes an important component of becoming and staying a member in good
standing. Online political forums are stark examples of this.

------
chris_wot
Can someone please pass that note to Joe Scarborough also? He was interviewed
by Colbert, and not once was this raised. Seriously, watch Morning Joe and he
just will not let Mika Brzezinski speak, and you can see her suppressing her
frustration.

Scarborough doesn't even appear to know he's doing it, and Brzezinski seems to
be powerless to stop him.

~~~
humanrebar
It can't bother her too much. They just announced their engagement.

[https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/05/04/business/media/morning...](https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/05/04/business/media/morning-
joe-engaged.html)

~~~
chris_wot
That doesn't mean it doesn't bother her!

~~~
humanrebar
I'm assuming she isn't interested in marrying a sexist jerk. But, yes, there's
plenty of room to be annoyed with ones' significant other. It's to be
expected, really.

~~~
chris_wot
I don't think he's being intentionally sexist. In fact, I don't think he
realises what he's doing at all!

I was actually making a general comment. In fact, I'm actually pretty
interested in what Mika has to say, and frankly it's very rare she gets a word
in edgeways...

It appears I've offended others with my observation. That's a pity, because I
actually really like Joe Scarborough, one of the few pro-Republican
commentators on air who makes reasonable sense and is able to put forward
conservative stances in ways I can grapple with. Just my 2c

------
smirksirlot
This thread is basically people stumbling over themselves trying to defend how
this is NOT sexist or justify the varying degrees of sexism.

Some of the fun examples: \- men get talked over too! (doesn't mean this isn't
sexist) \- he's just an asshole (doesn't mean he's not a sexist asshole) \-
that woman is just looking for a social justice moment (how about the rest of
the audience?)

~~~
tnone
No this thread is a response to obvious and blatant grievance mongering about
one anecdote.

If you don't want to be interrupted, keep talking. If the moderator is an ass,
he's an ass.

If you expect to always be treated with respect by default, a) you're
privileged and b) you're deluded. Those men probably learnt to assert
themselves because if they didn't, they'd be invisible. The woman on the other
hand learned that if she waits long enough, someone will stand up for her and
everyone will applaud.

So the cycle continues, that those whose problems are automatically taken
seriously by most are those who are the least self sufficient and the most
coddled. Hacker culture and the internet doesn't apply this rule so much, most
of all because physical attractiveness and charisma is usually out of the
picture.

What's that line again, about how when you're used to privilege, equal
treatment feels like oppression? Strange how nobody examines it in both
directions.

------
crawfordcomeaux
I've seen a lot of people denying the moderator is exist. I don't care one way
or another.

The real question is was this behavior sexist in this context?

That's much easier to answer: yes. How we know:

A woman said she was seeing a discrimination pattern.

But what if she's wrong?

Then we'll overcorrect for sexism, realize it, and ideally find a point of
moderation. Guess what...we're probably going to do that anyway because no
system is perfect so the likelihood of moderately correcting sexism without
over-/under-correcting is low.

All we need to do is let the women speak and give their perspective equal
footing.

This can more easily be resolved without attempting to force objective
judgments. I know that can be a hard idea for science-minded people to
swallow. Unfortunately, science has become too objective and still lacks solid
frameworks for dealing with the subjective experience, which sexism is so
clearly intertwined with.

