←back to thread

1005 points femfosec | 4 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 #
Thorentis ◴[] 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 #
awb ◴[] No.26615692[source]
It’s probably both.

The men are assuming based on the female founder’s gender _alone_ that she might accuse him of sexism.

Regardless of how rational this fear is, they are stereotyping new female founders they’re meeting for the first time based on what an X% of other female founder’s have done in the past.

For the men, it’s probably a risk/reward calculation. Keep your head down and be polite and have ~0% chance of being accused of sexism. Or, speak up and maybe ruffle some feathers and have a ~X% chance of being accused of sexism.

You can see the problem on both sides of the equation, but withholding advice based on gender alone does meet the definition of sexism, regardless of the intentions of self-protection rather than hate.

replies(19): >>26615745 #>>26615757 #>>26615877 #>>26616063 #>>26616066 #>>26616071 #>>26616460 #>>26616650 #>>26616815 #>>26617247 #>>26617417 #>>26617485 #>>26617538 #>>26617851 #>>26618197 #>>26618891 #>>26619796 #>>26620046 #>>26631104 #
dcolkitt ◴[] No.26617247[source]
Okay. Let me draw an analogy. Say you're in occupied Hungary circa 1956. Whenever you hear anybody walk by speaking Russian, you clam up for fear that they might be Soviet secret police.

Would you describe this person as "racist" against Russians? I don't think a reasonable person would apply that label. I think they'd say they're responding rationally to the specific circumstances of their immediate situation. That sort of behavior shows no inherent animosity to Russian people in general.

(And before anyone cries foul, I'm not in anyway saying sexism accusations in 2021 corporate America is anywhere near the same as the KGB. I think that should be patently obvious. The reason I picked this specific example was to stretch the underlying logic to a situation that's clear enough to be cut and dry situation.)

replies(2): >>26618417 #>>26618643 #
roenxi ◴[] No.26618643[source]
> Would you describe this person as "racist" against Russians?

Yeah, they're making decisions and treating someone differently based on the person's (anticipated) race. Something being rational doesn't make it not racism.

> That sort of behavior shows no inherent animosity to Russian people in general.

Racism has nothing to do with animosity. Consider that men have the opposite of animosity towards women and yet sexism is something between humans.

replies(3): >>26618880 #>>26618932 #>>26619034 #
knocte ◴[] No.26619034[source]
> Yeah, they're making decisions and treating someone differently based on the person's (anticipated) race

What the actual fuck? Did you read the context? Hungary in 1956: they would fear those Russians!

replies(2): >>26619329 #>>26620563 #
lyu07282 ◴[] No.26619329{3}[source]
If you weren't an enemy of communism you had nothing to fear against Russians and could speak to them openly.

If you aren't an enemy of feminism you have nothing to fear against female founders and can speak to them openly.

replies(3): >>26619616 #>>26619752 #>>26655860 #
1. krige ◴[] No.26619616{4}[source]
That's not how that worked. "If the communism didn't consider you an enemy" is more apt and an average Hungarian had no way of telling how anything they say could be interpreted.
replies(1): >>26619737 #
2. virgilp ◴[] No.26619737[source]
I believe that's exactly what lyu07282 actually implied (that it doesn't even matter if you're a "feminist" but what matters is if the "feminists" consider you an enemy; and that the average "Hungarian" has no way of telling how anything they say could be interpreted by "feminists"). Replace terms in quotes with whatever else feels appropriate - the bottom line is that mob justice lacks due process and is dangerous/very likely does more harm than good.
replies(1): >>26619781 #
3. krige ◴[] No.26619781[source]
I feel the distinction is critical in this case - GP implies it's a matter of a quality that you have ("you are the enemy of communism"), while in reality any qualities you had were irrelevant - it only mattered what someone else decided about you, arbitrarily, and with a good incentive for being biased about it.
replies(1): >>26619889 #
4. lyu07282 ◴[] No.26619889{3}[source]
> in reality any qualities you had were irrelevant - it only mattered what someone else decided about you, arbitrarily, and with a good incentive for being biased about it.

I really don't know how to make this any more clear to you, you almost there. And now think an inch further...