Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Female Founder Secrets: Men Clamming Up

femfosec.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

481–490 of 1001 posts

Re: Female Founder Secrets: Men Clamming Up

#481

Post by julianmarq »

cynusx wrote: post #408

If you are a woman you can easily counter this behavior by labelling it and saying that you don't have a porcelain skin. Bonuspoints if you laugh about a guy giving you super bad feedback and how this did not bother you. Putting people at ease around you (especially customers) is a critical entrepreneurial skill. You can't blame people for being cautious when a lot of people are buying into victim-narratives and conv…

The problem with this "solution" is that the risk is still too high to bother risking it. Even if the woman is unlikely to assume bad faith (and the likelihood is such, outrage mobs are a minority, even if one with too much weight for its size), nothing guarantees she won't change her mind later and assume that the criticism was because of sexism after all.

And even if one were to believe that that is unlikely too, nothing guarantees that someone else won't think it sexist. For example, I remember some panel with four scientists (three men and one woman) that was discussed in HN a while ago; at some point, someone in the audience (I think she was a journalist) yelled at the moderator to "let her speak"... Even though the scientist herself didn't think the moderator was doing anything wrong.

Re: Female Founder Secrets: Men Clamming Up

#482

Post by dang »

buzzerbetrayed wrote: post #41

> 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 appreciate the effort to think of a better word than sexism. My question is, is this even sexism at all? How many men can get publicly denounced as “sexists” and have their life ruined because they didn’t speak carefully enough, before it is simply just “smart” rather than “sexist” t…

> If, in a hypothetical world, men served jail time for making eye contact with women

Please don't post flamebait to HN. Nothing good can come of this.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Edit: please don't use HN for ideological battle. You've been doing it repeatedly, and it's not what this site is for. We ban accounts that are using HN primarily for this (https://hn.algolia.com/?sort=byDate&dateRange=all&type=comme...), and your account looks close to that line if not over it.

I've detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26613374.

Re: Female Founder Secrets: Men Clamming Up

#483

Post by awb »

tolbish wrote: post #424
rocqua wrote: post #409

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Its treating people different based on gender. It depends very much on semantics whether you call that sexism. It is certainly not the form of sexism that people these days are most worried about.

That would be discrimination based on sex, but no it would not be sexist in this case. Now if, for example, he treated people based on gender because he felt women belong in the kitchen, then that would be both sexist and discriminatory. The words sexism/racism often get confused with discrimination.

> The words sexism/racism often get confused with discrimination.

Oxford definition of “sexism” via Google:

> prejudice, stereotyping, or discrimination, typically against women, on the basis of sex

The definition of sexism seems to include discrimination. What definition are you using?

Re: Female Founder Secrets: Men Clamming Up

#484

Post by thaumasiotes »

yarcob wrote: post #219
idyio wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> people who are equal or lower than you on the oppression hierarchy This supposed hierarchy of oppression, based on identity characteristics such as race, gender and sexuality, really is the biggest scam going. Almost all of the oppression we see around us can be explained by wealth disparities, corruption, and abuse of power. Yet, identarians insist on shoehorning everything into their flawed worldview. The Black L…

> Almost all of the oppression we see around us can be explained by wealth disparities I recently talked to a mom who visited her adult foster daughter with a different skin tone. Her daughter reminded her to make sure she doesn't forget her ID in the hotel. The mom was confused. They were just going to take a walk in Munich. Why would she need an ID? She never has an ID on her when she goes for a walk. The daughter…

> Foster daughter had brown skin, so she was randomly stopped by police and asked for ID because she looks like an immigrant.

This conclusion isn't quite there.

In China, foreigners are notionally required to carry their passport with them. I have never actually obeyed that, because it is a very bad idea. And it's never mattered, because although I'm obligated to produce it on demand, that demand has never been made.

It's not because I blend in. Any idiot can see that I'm not Chinese. "Looking like an immigrant" is not sufficient to be stopped by the police.

Re: Female Founder Secrets: Men Clamming Up

#485

Post by ectopod »

throwaway_-_-_- wrote: post #18

Creating a throwaway for obvious reasons. I'm not an investor but someone who is in a position to make key decisions about peoples' careers and give advice, and I do have a bit of a trick I use for this. There was one black female mentee who I noticed was timid in taking credit for her work. I had recently attended a diversity panel where someone in a similar role as me said that in a similar situation, and her advic…

That was terrible advice. It's basically "play the white man", which is a notorious racist trope in the UK.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Play_the_white_man

Re: Female Founder Secrets: Men Clamming Up

#486

Post by tsm_sf »

cronix wrote: post #89
jxidjhdhdhdhfhf wrote: post #17

This is kind of the end result we're heading for, where you can only talk candidly with people who are equal or lower than you on the oppression hierarchy. The shitty part is that I'm pretty sure 99% of people are reasonable human beings but the media has to make it seem like that isn't the case so the risk equation changes. Similar to how kids used to roam around the neighborhood but now it's deemed too risky becaus…

> where you can only talk candidly with people who are equal or lower than you on the oppression hierarchy Wouldn't someone talking to someone "lower" on the "oppression hierarchy" just be what we basically have today? That sounds like "privilege," or an "imbalanced power dynamic." I think you'll only be able to talk to equals, whatever that is, and by whatever metric is en vogue for that day.

The subtext of this entire conversation is that you'll never be able to talk "freely" in front of subordinates, so you need to either pine for yesteryear or take another look at your power dynamics.

Re: Female Founder Secrets: Men Clamming Up

#487

Post by dang »

2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote: post #75

>I don’t think most female founders even realize that they’re getting different advice than their male counterparts. Silicon Valley has always run on candor, but it’s being stifled at the moment, and no one is noticing that we are the collateral damage. Imagine what it's like being the intended target and not just "collateral damage". It's not a problem that men are nervous to be candid but it's a problem that women…

Please don't take HN threads further into gender flamewar.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Re: Female Founder Secrets: Men Clamming Up

#488

Post by holografix »

This is a very relevant article to everyone in business. Men and women.

I wouldn’t say this publicly and am saying it here due to a reasonable amount of anonymity (that’s a symptom of the problem).

There are behaviours that are universally toxic and destructive. Sexual abuse, sexual objectification, violence, etc.

These are all behaviours, generally, more commonly found in males. I think a lot of males have understood this and over corrected. This over correction “may” now be going too far.

Little is said about toxic behaviour more commonly associated with women:

Gaslighting, manipulation through victimisation, sexual suggestion for preferential treatment, gossiping, etc.

I think education needs to start early in school about what’s not acceptable.

I have a feeling that’s going to start happening once society realises that focusing only on male behaviour is also to the detriment of women.

Re: Female Founder Secrets: Men Clamming Up

#489

Post by Wowfunhappy »

lightgreen wrote: post #457
Wowfunhappy wrote: post #430

The other day, I was in a Zoom meeting with another man and a woman. The call had too much latency, and the conversation was a tad heated, so we were all interrupting each other to some extent—but I noticed halfway through that I was interrupting the woman more, and she was speaking the least. Just like in all the research. While I certainly didn't go silent for the rest of the meeting, I made a concerted effort to l…

It is not necessarily your bias against women. It is equally possible that the woman is not self-confident enough to interrupt you more often. Recently I had a zoom meeting with two women. One of them was a bit shy and quiet, and the other one constantly interrupted me and the other woman. There was nothing gender-specific in that encounter. Similarly, in other meetings there are often some men who stay quiet (but ob…

Sure, and there's plenty of men who don't speak up often enough. But knowing the societal trends helps me recognize problems and correct them.

Re: Female Founder Secrets: Men Clamming Up

#490

Post by dang »

oirjjlksjmfljaj wrote: post #323

There's a rhetorical pattern I see in many articles, this one included, that perpetuates the issue this article is trying to address: men are the problem. Before, it was men saying bad things. Now, it's that men aren't saying things at all. "I’m not going to suggest a solution to the problem of men clamming up." If not, then perhaps that's the wrong problem statement, and solutions will become more readily obvious an…

Please don't take HN threads further into gender flamewar hell. Instead, please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and remember that this guideline:

"Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith."

...applies to articles too.

Post reply on HN