[abacate]

There are a lot of disturbing things in these stories, but I also see a lot of remarks about situations that have a number of alternative explanations besides sexism.

For instance:

> Noting how if two women are talking to each other at a conference, it becomes highly unlikely any guys will walk up and join us. If three women are talking, forget about it.

Yes, indeed, and there are a number of reasons for this. From my point of view, I would avoid approaching a group of women talking by themselves since I'd be the odd one out.

> My “mentor” told me he had never worked with a woman before and wasn’t sure how to talk to me. I suggested he try talking to me like a person.

Depending on the tone, it may mean something completely different than what you are trying to say.

In fact, to me, it looks to me like he was talking about an insecurity he has, and it's not directly related to you... and you are tagging this as sexism.

Long story short, there is a clear line between acceptable and unacceptable behaviour, and that is respect. It's clear that this line was crossed in a number of times in these stories, but just because you are in a position where you didn't like something doesn't mean the line was automatically crossed.

[colanderman]

> From my point of view, I would avoid approaching a group of women talking by themselves since I'd be the odd one out.

That is exactly sexism – the subtle, insidious kind that us men tend not to even notice. You aren't the odd one out; you and them are all professionals at a conference.

That many men – the majority of attendees at most tech conferences – make decisions like yours is a major reason why it is more difficult for women to advance in tech fields than men. Behavior like this is exactly what people mean when they talk about "patriarchy". That it's subtle and "innocent" – "I'd be the odd one out" – is what makes us not recognize it in ourselves.

[nitwit005]

> That is exactly sexism – the subtle, insidious kind that us men tend not to even notice

Suppose there is a group of girls at a high school is approached by a single guy that doesn't know them. What is the odds of being welcomed into the conversation without any questioning looks? At least at the high school I went to, it'd pretty low odds. As a consequence, guys learned not to do that.

That stuff carries forward, even if the situation has changed somewhat. You have a population of men trying to be polite. They're not going to approach groups that have given them negative feedback before, because they don't want to be a jerk.

[deanCommie]

Once again: "you and them are all professionals at a conference."

You aren't in high school.

You aren't facing a clique of girls who happen to all live in the same neighborhood and have radically different interests likes and dislikes from you.

You're facing a group of top industry professionals self-selected from around the region/country/world (depending on how large/prestigious of a conference it is).

And the fact that you don't understand this distinction, the fact that you think it's legitimate for a man to categories "groups of women" as "cliques of mean girls" from high school onwards without reflecting or reevaluating the changing circumstances is why society (and more specifically YOU) still have a long way to go to understand what sexism is and is not.

[nitwit005]

Kindly think a little deeper into what you're reading instead of leaping to insult people.

There is a difference between explaining why people do things and approving of it? I was literally explaining why the "insidious" sexism existed. I even quoted what I wanted to elaborate on.

[abacate]

See, that's where we disagree: I'd probably not approach any group talking by themselves in a conference if I was the odd one - the only latino, the only man... you name it.

Maybe I would if I had something to add to the conversation, but to simply socialize? No.

In another context, a social one, maybe... but otherwise I don't see how that would work out.

And that says nothing about any bias, at least I cannot see it that way. Maybe it reflects some sort of insecurity, fear of rejection? Yes for sure. But that goes really far from sexism.

[eropple]

> From my point of view, I would avoid approaching a group of women talking by themselves since I'd be the odd one out.

Women in male-dominated workplaces already feel like this every day.

I would submit that, while it is important to be cognizant that there are cases in which you may be intruding[0], the overwhelming majority of situations that's really not likely to be the case. It's work. You're working. Joining co-workers to talk about work is fine and overthinking it will bite you.

[0] - and yes, this may be identity-based and that may in a vacuum feel unfair, but we've held most of the cards for the run of human history and we can deal with it.

[abacate]

> Women in male-dominated workplaces already feel like this every day.

Note that "work" and "conference" are two very different environments. I have no problem joining co-workers in a conversation.

[aidenn0]

>> Noting how if two women are talking to each other at a conference, it becomes highly unlikely any guys will walk up and join us. If three women are talking, forget about it.

> Yes, indeed, and there are a number of reasons for this. From my point of view, I would avoid approaching a group of women talking by themselves since I'd be the odd one out.

The outcome for the women is similar regardless of the motivations behind the behavior. The motivations matter in terms of how to solve the problem, but do not indicate there isn't a problem.

>> My “mentor” told me he had never worked with a woman before and wasn’t sure how to talk to me. I suggested he try talking to me like a person.

> Depending on the tone, it may mean something completely different than what you are trying to say.

I can't read this as not implying that the individual believes that the way he talks with male students is inappropriate for talking with female students. This implication is worrisome no matter which direction you take it in.

> In fact, to me, it looks to me like he was talking about an insecurity he has, and it's not directly related to you... and you are tagging this as sexism.

If I say "I've never performed trigonometric substitution before so I'm not sure how to solve this math problem." m I may be talking about an insecurity I have, but it certainly is directly related to them math problem.

[gowld]

Why are you arguing against a point no one made?

That section begins "But it’s important to portray the drip-drip-drip of smaller stories as well, so here goes."

> I would avoid approaching a group of women talking by themselves since I'd be the odd one out.

In what world is that not sexism? It's at least "sex-separatist", which isn't a good thing either. The fact that it is theoretically symmetrical doesn't make it OK. (And in practice it's not symmetrical, since women are an extreme minority at these events.) That is treating people differently because of gender, in a situation where gender is irrelevant.

[Noos]

The thing though is men are seen as potential harassers, which women virtually never have to deal with. Even though we aren't, enough men are to color relations with women and add wariness to interactions; women would see us approaching, and not see us as professionals alone. And guys know they see us that way, and its not unwarranted; they don't know we won't be creepy tech guy, and there's a lot of proving on our end to assure them we wont be.

That extra subtext isn't there as much with men.

[PhasmaFelis]

> Yes, indeed, and there are a number of reasons for this. From my point of view, I would avoid approaching a group of women talking by themselves since I'd be the odd one out.

That's really weird. Why would you assume--in a professional environment, specifically--that it's less acceptable to approach a pair of strangers based exclusively on their gender?

> In fact, to me, it looks to me like he was talking about an insecurity he has, and it's not directly related to you... and you are tagging this as sexism.

How would you feel if the mentor had said they'd never worked with black people before, and weren't sure how to talk to them?

You mentioned "alternative explanations besides sexism," but I don't see any way that these explanations aren't sexism.

I wonder if you're assuming that "sexist" only applies to harassers and open bigots. If you mean well but are unable to treat colleagues equally because of their gender, that's sexist. It doesn't mean you're a monster or a bad person, but it does mean that you have some real problems that you need to address.

[urahara]

Isn't a person who refuses to acknowledge and change his toxic behavior despite all warning signs a definition of a bad person (which also often transitions to monster)?

[PhasmaFelis]

I'd like to leave room for a person who hasn't yet fully realized their behavior is problematic.

[urahara]

I wouldn't, because his learning time means his victims's time in hell. It also doesn't work like this legally, in case of committing a crime, not fully realizing one's own problematic behavior is not quite an argument.

[PhasmaFelis]

I specifically said I was talking about guys who behave awkwardly around women and make things uncomfortable, not rapists and outspoken bigots.

[urahara]

It still applies, although on a smaller scale. Some person will feel uncomfortable because of another person's learning process. It's obvious that learning will take place, but it should happen as an established and guided process like training or curation, this kind of learning is ok.