[AnimalMuppet]

What is your default assumption?

Stuff happens. Is your default assumption that the stuff is sexism in action?

Look, there is sexism. I don't deny it. You know it, I know it, and everyone who isn't actively in denial knows it.

But there are also honest misunderstandings. And there are personal, petty actions that are just because people are petty. Even if the recipient is female, it isn't always sexism.

So, when a situation happens, what is your default assumption? Do you immediately assume that it's sexism (or racism, or ageism, or whatever happens to best fit the identity of the recipient)?

I suggest that the default assumption should be that it's accidental and/or just pettiness. When a pattern develops (like, yes, this person is petty and vindictive, but only to females), then you can claim sexism. And then you should challenge it, rather than let it slide.

[lukev]

This argument is insidious, because it's extremely difficult to document a pattern, particularly when folk come out of the woodwork to undermine each and every individual anecdote claiming sexism (as in this and every other thread like this on HN. Even, I would point out, in cases where the sexism is undeniable to any rational observer).

Do you have to believe every anecdote? Of course not. Should you let those women have a voice to air their perceived grievances, without stifling them in the name of "fairness" or "defaults"? To do any less is the very definition of institutional sexism.

[AnimalMuppet]

I wasn't talking about the discussion here on HN. I was talking about when something happens to a female in the workplace. Is it just that Mr X had a bad day? Or is he a jerk to everyone? Or is he just a jerk to the female employees? You (the female employee) need more than one incident to tell. And you (the HN readers) usually don't have enough data to tell one way or the other.