←back to thread

Female Founder Secrets: Men Clamming Up

(femfosec.com)
1005 points femfosec | 4 comments | 28 Mar 21 18:37 UTC | HN request time: 0.884s | source
Show context
DoreenMichele ◴[28 Mar 21 18:55 UTC] No.26613077[source]▶
I'm really glad to see this here. I don't have a better word readily available than sexism for trying to talk about patterns like this but when I use the word sexism, I think people think I mean "Men are intentionally exclusionary assholes just to be assholes because they simply hate women." and that's never what I'm trying to say.

I find my gender is a barrier to getting traction and my experience is that it's due to patterns of this sort and not because most men intentionally want me to fail. But the cumulative effect of most men erring on the side of protecting themselves and not wanting to take risks to engage with me meaningfully really adds up over time and I think that tremendously holds women back generally.

I think gendered patterns of social engagement also contributed to the Theranos debacle. I've said that before and I feel like it tends to get misunderstood as well. (Though in the case of Theranos it runs a lot deeper in that she was actually sleeping with an investor.)

replies(13): >>26613164 #>>26613190 #>>26613291 #>>26613423 #>>26613710 #>>26614078 #>>26614401 #>>26614781 #>>26615738 #>>26616493 #>>26617059 #>>26619084 #>>26635090 #
Thorentis ◴[28 Mar 21 20:50 UTC] No.26614401[source]▶
What is described in the article isn't sexism - it's fear. Fear of being labeled as a sexist.
replies(4): >>26615013 #>>26615692 #>>26615843 #>>26628308 #
godelski ◴[28 Mar 21 23:27 UTC] No.26615843[source]▶
Fear based actions can still be sexist though. We're talking about treating people different based on their sex.

Let's draw a parallel. Most people would consider crossing the street because there is a black man walking towards you as a racist action. Sure, not burning a cross in their lawn racist, but racist nonetheless (it's a spectrum). I would argue that people that do this do so because they are afraid of said black person. Yes, their action is caused by fear, but their fear is caused by racism (i.e. they view a black person as being more likely to be dangerous than a person of another race).

Looping back, I believe you are right that these decisions are fear based, but it is fear that women are out to get you, which is the sexist part. In reality it does not appear that women are more out to get you than men are. Though we likely have a perception bias that they are because of social media. There's the double edged sword of awareness. It can help you solve a problem but it can also increase the problem because it can make you blind to the root issues.

I think this brings us to problems with social media or more precisely sensationalism (which is amplified in social media but far from the only platform that encourages this). These cases are more visible and gives us a selection bias. But I guess we have to encourage good faith discussions (which is a rule on HN btw) through media, which is rather difficult to do at a cultural level. And we don't want to entirely kill sensationalism either because topics going viral has a lot of utility (such as that more women are being open about the abuse that they've received. Yes, this does lead to a higher number of false accusations, but they still are a very small percentage of accusations). It's a really difficult problem but I think encouraging good faith arguments, being kind to one another, patience, and allowing for mistakes are a necessary step to be able to solve this entire issue (which I'm not going to pretend to have real answers). Particularly I think the last component is essential because we need to recognize that not everyone learns the same lessons. If we're going to say things like "everyone is racist" or "everyone is sexist" we have to also allow people to safely make mistakes and importantly be given the opportunity change/fix their behavior. I personally believe if people are not given this opportunity they double down on their ways. It is a coping mechanism because no one wants to be the bad guy.

replies(5): >>26615892 #>>26616001 #>>26616161 #>>26618682 #>>26618723 #
1. Decker87 ◴[28 Mar 21 23:44 UTC] No.26616001[source]▶
I disagree with this definition of sexism.
replies(1): >>26616049 #
2. godelski ◴[28 Mar 21 23:49 UTC] No.26616049[source]▶
Would you like to expand on that point?
replies(1): >>26618158 #
3. Decker87 ◴[29 Mar 21 06:04 UTC] No.26618158[source]▶
I appreciate you asking respectfully, and I understand the meanings of words like "sexist" and "racist" are changing and subject to opinion.

In my opinion, the nuance is whether the difference is truly because of gender or if gender is just something with a high correlation.

For example, if an average man says to me "give me your wallet or I'll beat you up", I'm likely to do it since I'm on the smaller side. If an average woman did that, I'd say no. So maybe it seems like sexism at first, but then I consider, if a woman threatened me who was the size and build and general risk of an average man, what would I do? I'd hand over my wallet.

replies(1): >>26627652 #
4. godelski ◴[29 Mar 21 20:19 UTC] No.26627652{3}[source]▶
I would not say you are acting sexist in your analogy. If we take average male vs average female, yes there is a large strength disparity and your response seems very justified. It is clear that your response is more linked to the danger that you're in. I would contrast this from my analogy (black person walking towards you and crossing the street) because there's not a good justification for thinking that the black person is more likely to mug you than if a white person was walking towards you (there's no justification for increased danger). I'd argue that the priors are different in these situations (I'm sure there are people that would disagree and call your response sexist, but I will say that my thesis is about not binning people to easy little boxes. "us vs them". That responses need to be thoughtful and tempered).

> I understand the meanings of words like "sexist" and "racist" are changing and subject to opinion.

Also on this point, I think this kind of "words having different meanings to different people" is far more common than people realize and requisites more care in how we interpret others' statements. I think this is obviously true for any "ism" (sexism, racism, capitalism, socialism, etc). Pinning a definition to strictly our own interpretation ends up being naive and often leads to fighting because we have basic breakdowns in communication. We can't agree even if philosophically we agree. It should be the other way around, meaning triumphing over diction. Diction over meaning is just looking for a fight.