←back to thread

Female Founder Secrets: Men Clamming Up

(femfosec.com)
1005 points femfosec | 5 comments | 28 Mar 21 18:37 UTC | HN request time: 0.209s | 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 #
pm90 ◴[28 Mar 21 23:11 UTC] No.26615719[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 #
sidlls ◴[28 Mar 21 23:55 UTC] No.26616090[source]▶
I do not believe we can have an open, honest discussion of sexism (or racism) in this country when one side of the discussion is effectively shut out.
replies(1): >>26616212 #
1. airhead969 ◴[29 Mar 21 00:08 UTC] No.26616212[source]▶
This is it.

It's only sexism if it happens to a woman, therefore the word "feminism" itself isn't inherently sexist.

It's only racist if it happens to someone of color. White people can't be discriminated against by definition. Anyone who believes in "reverse discrimination" is a "racist" who has "too much entitled privilege."

Be quiet and accept the prevailing, correct opinions and beliefs, or be labeled and canceled. There is no debate and there is no discussion because the ideological mafia has already decided what beliefs are proper today. Oh and anyone who doesn't renounce yesterday's micro aggressions should be forced to resign if they don't apologize hard enough four times.

The left is a circular firing squad that doesn't have any loyalty.

replies(2): >>26616344 #>>26616353 #
2. airhead969 ◴[29 Mar 21 00:23 UTC] No.26616344[source]▶
PS: It sucks that we're here because we all need decency, awareness, and fair treatment. What's unhelpful is retribution masquerading as movements for fairness.
3. sidlls ◴[29 Mar 21 00:24 UTC] No.26616353[source]▶
That's not quite what I meant. I simply don't think the prevailing narrative--"men can't/don't understand/recognize sexism and (all) women do" and "whites can't/don't understand/recognize racism and (all) black/other minority do"--is either true or useful for moving forward together.

I do believe that in the US sexism is generally one directional due to the intrinsic imbalance in power. There are stereotypes about males, and they are harmful in some cases, but generally because more men have power the harm to women is more pervasive and severe.

Same thing with respect to race and white people, actually.

replies(1): >>26616396 #
4. airhead969 ◴[29 Mar 21 00:30 UTC] No.26616396[source]▶
Well, that's circular logic that implies an -ism is correct because one side can never understand it and is therefore always guilty of it.

I don't understand what you're trying to say about sexism or racism because your sentences don't make grammatical sense.

replies(1): >>26616709 #
5. sidlls ◴[29 Mar 21 01:21 UTC] No.26616709{3}[source]▶
I'll break them down into smaller chunks for you:

Sexism exists and affects both genders. Imbalances in power mean the effects of sexism are generally felt more by women than by men. The narrative that men cannot understand or recognize sexism, or have an inferior ability to do so, is not supported by the facts. It is also harmful to overcoming the problems of sexism by men toward women.

I hold a similar view with respect to the relationship between racism and white people.