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

261–270 of 1001 posts

Re: Female Founder Secrets: Men Clamming Up

#261

Post by anonporridge »

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…

It's a matter of risk mitigation.

Either a person accepts extreme, but very unlikely, risk by exercising perfect candor with everyone or they decide to clam up around people lower on the 'oppression hierarchy' which costs them almost nothing to do.

Why would any rational actor not choose option B unless they're getting some reward great enough to offset the risk of option A?

Re: Female Founder Secrets: Men Clamming Up

#262

Post by majkinetor »

throwaway861229 wrote: post #236

I have been extremely fortuante that women have always found me very attractive and there is not a single job I've had where female co-workers didn't make comments at work which would not have been seen as extremely inappropriate the other way around. Even when I was 19 and I got my first job some 30+/40+ year old female co-workers heavily flirted with me in the most inappropriate way. I'm not gonna lie, I enjoyed it…

Yeah, attractive males can say bunch of "nasty" stuff to females and it is considered flirting rather then mobbing

As always, context is everything.

> after I got married and stopped to accept such behaviour

Man should never stop accepting such behavior ...

Re: Female Founder Secrets: Men Clamming Up

#263

Post by dang »

tryonenow wrote: post #216

Exactly as intended. Beneath the surface, this "social justice" movement is nothing but a power grab, primarily from those who could not attain such power by merit. All of society suffers when decisions are made according to gender or race rather than ability. This is an organized, quasi-religious campaign of oppression, self-justified by perceived oppression. The key word here is perceived - it is trivial to "find"…

It looks like your account has been using HN primarily for ideological battle. We ban accounts that do that, regardless of what they're battling for or against, because it's destructive of the curious conversation this site is supposed to be for.

If you wouldn't mind reviewing https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and sticking to the rules when posting here, we'd be grateful.

Re: Female Founder Secrets: Men Clamming Up

#264

Post by ourmandave »

If Amazon ever cracks down on fake 5-star review bots (yeah, I know), maybe those clowns can start a new service.

If you're falsely accused of being That Guy, you can just hire them to fill your twitter feed with glowing reviews of your character from "women".

Or crank up the Ashley Madison fembots to do it.

Re: Female Founder Secrets: Men Clamming Up

#265

Post by wrnr »

benhoyt wrote: post #171
wrnr wrote: post #38

Good looking women (and men) have an easier time making progress in their carrier at least up to the point when everybody starts assuming they just got where they are because of their looks. Companies with an explicit diversity and inclusion statement on their job applications get more minority applicants but hire proportionally less minority candidates, speculation range from smug interviewers to interviewees being…

> Companies with an explicit diversity and inclusion statement on their job applications get more minority applicants but hire proportionally less minority candidates I'm curious: do you have a source for that?

google HBR yourself

Re: Female Founder Secrets: Men Clamming Up

#266

Post by retrac »

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.

I do some work with HIV prevention. Sometimes I give talks where I'm very blunt about the realities of HIV among men who have sex with men. I've watched people immediately shift from mild hostility and discomfort to wholehearted acceptance of what I am saying, when I tell them I'm gay myself.

In that circumstance, I think it is clear that my sexual orientation is the basis by which they are judging the authoritativeness I have to speak on the topic. Never mind the formal qualifications, or the logic or veracity of what I am actually saying. Like, I know we all have little unconscious checklists like that for judging whether someone is credible, but it is uncomfortable to see the effect live.

Re: Female Founder Secrets: Men Clamming Up

#267

Post by kjjjjjjjjjjjjjj »

ta-ffsmcu wrote: post #51

I can see this happening with myself (male, for the record). I'm usually someone who gives feedback quite frankly, am more critical of others' (and my own) work than average, etc. Over recent years I've read so much about women being passed over, cut off, terms like "microaggressions", women getting less talking time in meetings, etc., that's it's made me extremely self conscious. It's not even that I'm afraid of get…

I find it funny because they love to talk about implicit bias and microaggressions, and all these other things that "white men" are not aware of, but then cancel them when white men do something wrong. Where is the opportunity to learn and grow?

Re: Female Founder Secrets: Men Clamming Up

#268

Post by will4274 »

antiterra wrote: post #227
will4274 wrote: post #202

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> A number of people I talk to (curiously they tend to be production engineers) think we live in a meritocracy where racism and sexism have virtually been erased. Do they? I don't think I know anybody like this. Most of the people I know think we live in a flawed and complex world. That's why so many of them are less forthcoming with casual acquaintances, in "mixed company" as they say, as this article describes. Not…

Absolutely. After hours in a break area, people would be much more candid when they think everyone agrees with them, and then they state this out loud. I have chat logs with a PE at a FAANG who starts off by declaring that diversity is bullshit, not just efforts but the goal itself, and that race or gender is no impediment to success. What’s even more demonstrative is so many here saying they are afraid to comment wi…

I don't really understand. How could somebody simultaneously believe we live in a meritocracy and be afraid of a woke mob attacking them for saying something they believe is correct? Surely in a meritocracy, the mob would praise their correct thinking, not attack them?

Are you sure those people weren't saying that it was best to _act like_ a meritocracy (as opposed to one actually existing today)?

Re: Female Founder Secrets: Men Clamming Up

#269

Post by DoreenMichele »

ridethebike wrote: post #232
DoreenMichele wrote: post #5

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…

Wasn't Theranos debacle because the tech was never going to work due to it being borderline snake oil and whishful thinking hyped by con(wom)man?

Yes, but it was called a "decacorn" because it was valued at $10 billion dollars and its valuation dropped overnight to zero when it was outed as a fraud.

I posit that it wouldn't have gotten so crazy overvalued if it hadn't been headed by a pretty young woman. But trying to explain that is probably "off topic" and just thinking about trying to explain it makes me tired. I'd rather not.

Post reply on HN