[jfc]

That's really the core issue: too many people believe that they can evaluate a person's technical knowledge based on physical appearance, which ends up including gender, race/ethnicity, sometimes even religion (if the person is wearing religious attire).

It's just easier to get to know people instead of assuming.

Also: environments that are unpleasant/hostile/uncomfortable for "people outside the norm" make it difficult for such people to distinguish between sexism/racism/discrimination and legitimate feedback.

For example, playing with one's hair during a presentation is often a sign of nervousness, but it is also a signal that conveys that nervousness to the audience. Is it distracting to some degree? Maybe, but more importantly, it detracts from her authority. Still, I can see why she responded as she did--if you are constantly undermined, under fire or criticized for no good reason, it becomes difficult to filter out which criticism/feedback is actually useful.

Edited to add: Loved the artwork in that article.

[falcolas]

> It's just easier to get to know people instead of assuming.

I hate to be the one to say it, but no, it's not easier. It's much more accurate, but it's not easier.

Getting to know someone involves overcoming biases, stereotypes, first impressions, and a lot of time. The payout from expending this effort is a much richer experience, but it comes at the cost of having fewer experiences.

I personally don't have the time or energy evaluate every person I meet with such scrutiny, and so I take shortcuts and evaluate them based on my experience with people superficially similar to them.

I'm not ashamed of that, it's part of being a human with a finite amount of time to devote to interpersonal relationships.

[jfc]

Not really my point. I'm hardly suggesting that it's necessary to establish in-depth relationships with every person you meet. For me it's easier not to think about who a person might be and instead just ask them who they are.