←back to thread

Female Founder Secrets: Men Clamming Up

(femfosec.com)
1005 points femfosec | 2 comments | 28 Mar 21 18:37 UTC | HN request time: 0.487s | 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 #
dageshi ◴[28 Mar 21 19:05 UTC] No.26613164[source]▶
Genuine question, if you were a man in that situation, what would you do?
replies(4): >>26613184 #>>26615709 #>>26616092 #>>26618552 #
DoreenMichele ◴[28 Mar 21 19:06 UTC] No.26613184[source]▶
In what situation?
replies(1): >>26613212 #
dageshi ◴[28 Mar 21 19:09 UTC] 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 ◴[28 Mar 21 20:37 UTC] 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 #
1. dkarras ◴[28 Mar 21 23:50 UTC] No.26616057[source]▶
And worst case for women: I would not invest in a company that would potentially make me evaluate such options.

Indirectly: Men should be wary of partnering up with women because investors might see such a partnership as "danger zone" and pass.

I KNOW sexism exists and should be eradicated. Unfortunately the current way of doing things cause lots of unintended consequences for women. I (a man), for one, refuse to put myself in a position where I'll have to make explicit decisions for men vs. women on the merit of their work because there is a chance that if the woman "loses" they'll label me a sexist (they can genuinely feel that way, but I know that my intentions are not towards gender discrimination - unfortunately there is no way to convince her of that if that happens). That means I tend to not work with women, even though I hate passing on people that will do the work well. If they have a history with such activism, it is worse because whatever happens, if they are terminated for any reason, it will most probably be labeled discrimination. If they have a social media following, I'm screwed. So it is difficult. I don't want to pass on them but the potential consequences for any misunderstanding are too large. I don't want to live and work while walking on eggshells.

replies(1): >>26618827 #
2. imtringued ◴[29 Mar 21 08:19 UTC] No.26618827[source]▶
We solve sexism by creating unequal opportunities instead. After all, fairness and honesty are worse than not creating a facade to play along with societies' outrage induced rules.