←back to thread

1005 points femfosec | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
DoreenMichele ◴[] 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 #
dageshi ◴[] No.26613164[source]
Genuine question, if you were a man in that situation, what would you do?
replies(4): >>26613184 #>>26615709 #>>26616092 #>>26618552 #
DoreenMichele ◴[] No.26613184[source]
In what situation?
replies(1): >>26613212 #
dageshi ◴[] No.26613212[source]
Well the situation in the article seems like a good example, you think the female ceo should swap with the male co founder. You're invested but not massively and you've not really known either for years.
replies(3): >>26613228 #>>26614269 #>>26614453 #
cwhiz ◴[] No.26614269[source]
It’s easy. Investment is a math game. What is the upside and downside of either action?

First choice, I remain silent. Best case, the female CEO kills it and I make some money. Worst case she flops and I lose my investment. Potentially great upside, relatively minor downside.

Second choice, I suggest a change. Best case the company does well and I make money. Worst case I’m labeled a sexist and I’m effectively ejected from the startup world. Potentially great upside, but unlimited losses.

Easy choice. I stay silent.

replies(4): >>26615616 #>>26615688 #>>26615719 #>>26616057 #
pm90 ◴[] No.26615719{3}[source]
Third choice: you invest in creating a better relationship with the female founders so that you’re capable of expressing your concern without appearing sexist.

I’m not sure why female founders are being portrayed as a different species? They’re humans. They know about sexism. They know when what they’re seeing is sexism vs critical feedback. And they will understand if you express your concerns with that.

replies(6): >>26616012 #>>26616090 #>>26616125 #>>26616656 #>>26616893 #>>26619558 #
1. threwawasy1228 ◴[] No.26616012{4}[source]
The path of least resistance requires less work? I don't disagree with your view on this but it seems like the incentives simply aren't aligned to learn how to dodge an ever evolving anti-sexist culture that is interpreted as having different communication rules by different people. If it was as easy as like "don't misgender people" or something sure, fine everyone can learn the rules of the protocol in under 15 minutes. There is no reason why anyone can't do that. The rules for interacting aren't this simple though, and they are often differently interpreted by different people. Learning how to communicate in a way that makes every person feel comfortable often just isn't worth the time investment. If we want people to take this other option it has to have significant and demonstrable positive incentives that make people want to invest the time.