[zasz]

The implication is that the rest of the team felt comfortable enough in that environment that they could change the channel without even having to ask, while OP was loudly ridiculed for wanting to change the channel in a more polite way. The rest of the team felt comfortable with the team dynamic in a way that OP did not, and by ridiculing her, they made it clear that her desires were less important than theirs, thus proving that her sense of discomfort was justified.

To put it as clearly and simply as possible, as if we were examining the results of a double-blind clinical trial:

OP attempts to change the channel. OP is loudly ridiculed in an unpleasant way.

Rando teammate changes the channel. Everyone thinks it's a really funny joke.

What changed? Just the OP. It's pretty obvious the team doesn't like her the way it likes the rest of its members. Is this necessarily an example of sexism, like the seat-belt incident that OP also references? Not necessarily, but it's certainly quite alienating.

Also, while I'm generally sympathetic to the idea that there is a hierarchy of things that are better and things that are worse, how impactful an event is, is ultimately subjective and often not under any conscious control. The time I was mugged in San Francisco honestly made much less of an impression than the time my coworker said he hated all of us and refused to go out for lunch.

[bloaf]

Say you were on a baseball team for a couple of years. After every game, your team always goes out to Bob's Pretty Good Pizza for beers. What do you think would happen if you one day suggested that instead of Bob's, the team should go to Carl's Seafood Shack?

You'd probably get laughed at.

It wouldn't be because people thought seafood was dumb. It wouldn't be because you looked funny, or were female, or played poorly that day. It would be because you misunderstood why the team went to Bob's week after week. The team doesn't go to Bob's because they've got a taste for pizza, they go to Bob's because they want a comfortable routine, shared experiences, and customs to uniquely identify their group.

The suggestion of giving those comforts up because you had a taste for fish sticks instead of pepperoni would be funny to the people who really appreciate them.

And so it goes with baseball on the TV.

[Jommi]

Yep, it has more to do with team dynamics and authority levels than anything related to sexism.

It's a simple fact that usually in groups the majority rules. The majority wanted to watch baseball, not Friends.

[zasz]

Sure, but you can be a majority that's a tyranny, or a majority that occasionally is more accommodating.

[Jommi]

Yup, and it sucks and I would personally not be part of that kind of circle. Ofcourse in a work environment this is hard to avoid. That's why "Culture fit" is stressed so much in recruiting.

[marvin]

This is unrelated, but I don't really get why one would want to watch TV with colleagues. It's not like you're productive when doing it. The requirement for the infamous "culture fit" is lower if you don't require that all coworkers are 100% socially compatible with each other. Then again, I'm from Europe.

[geon]

Sure. Neither one is about sexism, though.

[geon]

> while OP was loudly ridiculed for wanting to change the channel in a more polite way

No. OP wanted to change the channel away from THE established channel.

Had OP been a male, and a woman changed the channel back to baseball, the situation would have been the same.

[marvin]

> The implication is that the rest of the team felt comfortable enough in that environment that they could change the channel without even having to ask, while OP was loudly ridiculed for wanting to change the channel in a more polite way.

And not only once -- the single event of her requesting a switch to the different show was repeatedly ridiculed, as if this was a completely outrageous suggestion. This would have been quite okay if she asked "could we watch Friends today instead" and the other team members looked at each other and simply responded "Eh, we'd all really like to watch this game".

[ddalex]

What happend to democracy lately ?

[pigpaws]

This is EXACTLY what democracy is. THIS is how it works. Two wolves and a sheep trying to decide what's for dinner.

you may be thinking about a 'Republic', in which the rights of the minority are protected, but THIS is democracy in ACTION.

[cathartes]

I think what's more unsettling to me about that part of her story is that there was only One Right Answer: the sports game. I'm accustomed to team dynamics with aggressively asserted opinions; but even within the group, those opinions generally differed by substance or degree. Faced with this kind of consensus, I'd feel alienated too; because I know this behaviour would be integral to my daily work interactions with those people . . .