Hacker News Reader

Comment by CPLX | Hacker News Reader

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.

View on HN

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.

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.

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.

It's quite different appearing in public for a rehearsed routine as part of your regular work, than making an impromptu public political statement, specially for introvert types.

Both are not great but unintentional is "better" than intentional. The kind that involves intent is generally the kind that is done in a conscious manner (i.e. doing something one knows is sexism but you do it anyways, almost like planned murder is more serious a crime than manslaughter even though both end up with a dead victim).

She's just reporting her experience. If she hadn't felt so intense, she probably wouldn't have spoken up. The intensity was an important part of the story.

> Why all the references to "with my hands shaking" and "I'm feeling light headed" and so on?

A weighty argument these days is one with an emotional punch. When was the last time that a presidential debate was about well reasoned points? Are the reposted John Oliver clips the ones that cite the best evidence?

People instinctively share their feelings about an issue because that's how they get to be heard and listened to.

The risk is that the case being made ends up being very convincing to the people who empathise and off-putting to people who don't. I think this thread demonstrates that.

You know, I think you might be on to something.

https://youtu.be/Ro1ROeKbZhM

My opinion, probably worth less than the time it takes to type it, is that the moderator was clearly being very clueless. Therefore I definitely would have wanted to holler "Let her speak please." I'd have been annoyed, and perhaps a little angry.

But sexism in this case is really a stretch. He didn't seem condescending, just excited, and clueless, with just a touch of jackass. As a man who gets talked over by everybody, all the time, I know that you have to be very assertive to get a word in when talking to these donkeys. I think it's much more likely that the woman simply didn't reach that assertiveness threshold.

Notice that "Let her speak please!" works perfectly well, without the leap to the conclusion of sexism that followed here.

I sympathise with that position but the issue here is that the woman was 1. If there were two women and the same happened with both we could be much confident with our assertions as we'd effectively have a "control" woman but with just one its hard to make social assertions as to whether it was sexist or there were other factors that led to the outcome.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com