I appreciate the effort to think of a better word than sexism. My question is, is this even sexism at all? How many men can get publicly denounced as “sexists” and have their life ruined because they didn’t speak carefully enough, before it is simply just “smart” rather than “sexist” to be extra careful with how you speak to women.
To take the example to an extreme just to illustrate the point: If, in a hypothetical world, men served jail time for making eye contact with women, would it be sexist for men to stare at their feet when women are around?
I am 100% convinced that sexism does exist and is not all that uncommon (I’ve seen my wife deal with it a bit in the workplace). I’m just not convinced this is an example of it. Seems more like it’s the “safe” choice for a man in 2021. Both men and women would benefit if we worked to make it not that way.
There is a danger of getting overly semantic, but also a danger of ignoring the importance of semantics to perspective here. Sexism as opposed to sexists. Sexism, using the term as the the GP does, is how they behave towards or speak to her. That's what sexism is regardless of why it is. It affects her or the workplace the same way whether it is because of "exclusionary assholes" or unintended chilling effects.
Gravity in a box is equivalent to acceleration.
That said, you have a point too. From your (me also) perspective, there's a snookered conclusion to this story. Inasmuch as Twitter mobs are scary, some people are opting out of joining the girls for a drink.. sometimes advisably.
This is incredibly flawed. It can never be behaviour observed in a vacuum. A behaviour's motivation in context is the only thing to observe and - potentially - classify as sexism.
Please don't post flamebait to HN. Nothing good can come of this.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
Edit: please don't use HN for ideological battle. You've been doing it repeatedly, and it's not what this site is for. We ban accounts that are using HN primarily for this (https://hn.algolia.com/?sort=byDate&dateRange=all&type=comme...), and your account looks close to that line if not over it.
I've detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26613374.
If your perspective is one where you care about "culprits," and whether they are good or bad... motivations matter.
If you're characterising the system, not judging culprits.. you don't care about motivations, historical reasons or such. You just care about how the system behaves.
A sexist office is one where people are treated differently based on sex. That could be because of office rules. It could be because of cultural or religious reasons. It could be because of #metoo. Etc. Say you walk into that office, experience or observe sexism and walk out. You don't know why it's sexist, but you do know that it's a sexist office.
I get that you don't want everyone inside that office painted as sexists. Maybe they're not. That doesn't mean that it's not a sexist workplace. This isn't a criminal trial.
Criminal trials are the way they are because that's the best way we know to find out truth. If you don't care about truth, then just say so directly. No need to mention whether something's a criminal trial or not.