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

391–400 of 1001 posts

Re: Female Founder Secrets: Men Clamming Up

#391

Post by johnrichardson »

geoduck14 wrote: post #330
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…

I respectfully disagree. Feedback is best received when you relate to the person who is giving it and you trust the giver has your best interest at heart. While the "current environment" may make it so women are more weary of men (and thus less likely to receive feedback) - I think there is a stronger current. White male investors see people outside of their social group and realize that their advice might not be wel…

Hogwash! Cultural enrichment has no downsides, ever! We just aren't diversifying hard enough, comrade.

Re: Female Founder Secrets: Men Clamming Up

#392

Post by hiofewuhfribfjj »

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…

It's clearly a sign of sexism in our culture. Sexism against men that is.

And yes I feel like using throwaway too, happy times.

Re: Female Founder Secrets: Men Clamming Up

#393

Post by jancsika »

igorkraw wrote: post #223

I'm a bit sad about how eager everyone is jumping on the idea that "candid advice" will always be construed as possibly sexist. I'm from Germany and we are famously blunt, so maybe there is a cultural aspect to this, but to me candor != risk of sexism. If your advice is candid, it also shouldn't leave any ambiguity..."I'm unsure about you doing the pitch because the last N times you froze up and you seem nervous agai…

If I'm sexist then I could choose to make such a remark only if it happens to be a female colleague. If male then sleep(). Sexism achieved.

If you're not from the U.S. you have to understand the background of mendacity that flows through nearly the entire culture. That's a big part of the backdrop for fairly deep levels of distrust, whether it's of a company, one's colleague, the gov't, etc.

For example-- I was watching a political show where the question was something about global warming. One of the guests gave a reply that sounded vaguely reasonable but wasn't clear. The host tried to rephrase the question, and the same respondent again gave a suspiciously confusing reply. This caused the host to drill down on a simpler question-- did the guest believe that global warming was real and that human activity has contributed to this global warming? This time the guest answered a different question, addressing the reality of global warming but ducking the issue of causes. This went on for about 45 seconds before the host finally forced the guest to give a response that revealed the guest was in fact a climate denier. Honestly, it was like watching that scene in Blade Runner with the Voight-Kampff test, except on humans.

Being an American myself, I could immediately tell what the guest's purpose was: to sound like they agreed with the other (sensible) panelists, in order to give more credibility to a climate denial talking point that their job depends on. It's a planned strategy essentially of "denial-in-depth"-- try to sneak FUD into an otherwise good faith discussion, and if that doesn't then reveal your crude talking points for what they are.

In a weird way, the process of figuring out someone's level of earnestness makes me think of the "Sie" to "du" journey in German. Except here in the U.S., it's a slow slog of figuring out exactly how a friend spouts bullshit and under what circumstances, and then figuring out if there's enough earnestness left to become close friends.

Re: Female Founder Secrets: Men Clamming Up

#394

Post by monocasa »

oneplane wrote: post #386
stcredzero wrote: post #332

Knowledge of history has gone down, year over year. Students are more likely to get a propagandized and highly skewed caricature of history that leaves out certain "inconvenient truths." This is also an overcorrection.

Which students, and where? I don't see that happening locally, but perhaps it's different where you are?

Yeah, I see the opposite around me too. I literally had textbooks that referred to the Civil War as "The War of Northern Aggression" at the turn of the millennium.

Re: Female Founder Secrets: Men Clamming Up

#395

Post by stcredzero »

oneplane wrote: post #386
stcredzero wrote: post #332

Knowledge of history has gone down, year over year. Students are more likely to get a propagandized and highly skewed caricature of history that leaves out certain "inconvenient truths." This is also an overcorrection.

Which students, and where? I don't see that happening locally, but perhaps it's different where you are?

Well over 90% of people those ages I interacted with online are for throwing out principles like Free Speech and innocent until proven guilty -- it just depends on the context for them. To understand those principles, it's necessary to understand their historical origins. Virtually none of the young people in such conversations understood those things and none of them cared. All basically responded to such information as if it was trash. Stuff like, the Magna Carta and The Bill of Rights.

Re: Female Founder Secrets: Men Clamming Up

#396

Post by stcredzero »

monocasa wrote: post #394
oneplane wrote: post #386

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which students, and where? I don't see that happening locally, but perhaps it's different where you are?

Yeah, I see the opposite around me too. I literally had textbooks that referred to the Civil War as "The War of Northern Aggression" at the turn of the millennium.

That's not the opposite of what I wrote above. That's merely another kind of overcorrection!

Re: Female Founder Secrets: Men Clamming Up

#397

Post by SunlightEdge »

DoreenMichele wrote: post #188
nullsense wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's more like reverse sexism here. I totally get the behaviour here. You simply don't want to be on the receiving end of potential backlash when you're just trying to help someone. The calculus being you feel as if you might make a genuine remark only to receive a response interpreting said remark as the product of sexism e.g "out of persons A and B, I think B should run the company" where A is a woman and B is a ma…

One example I overheard was a female engineer talking to another female non-engineer outside their workplace just about their experiences in their jobs. I heard the female engineer remark something along the lines of "the Architect often shoots down my ideas because I'm female". I sat thinking to myself... That's interesting because the architect shoots down my ideas too (different workplace, so I don't _know_ her si…

Mmmmmm the problem I have found with feminist literature is that it often talks about the advantages of men and the disadvantages of women (which is all fair enough) but it doesn't really talk about the advantages of women and the disadvantages of men. To generalise, it doesn't attempt to critique its own model. I'm all for encouraging equality etc. and do my best to avoid identity politics discussions but at the back of my mind this is what I'm thinking when I over hear a woman/man complain about sexism. e.g. Are you really sure that this is true?

Yes things can be improved. But at some point will critical thinking and the benefit of the doubt be encouraged in society?

Or are we doomed to the media/twitter blowing up things out of proportion and people looking through prisms of victimhood.

Re: Female Founder Secrets: Men Clamming Up

#398

Post by bvaldivielso »

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…

That's not at all the way I interpret the article. The author empathizes with the male investors, and justifies their behaviour. If anything, she's blaming society, not men.

Re: Female Founder Secrets: Men Clamming Up

#400

Post by rhizome »

simonbarker87 wrote: post #82

> I’m not going to suggest a solution to the problem of men clamming up. I find this a little frustrating, they’ve noticed a pattern of behaviour that concerns them in an area they are clearly invested in - yet they have no thoughts or suggestions on how to address this? Is it possible they are not offering such thoughts because of the same issue they have highlighted in the article?

By my read, the essay's audience is men who don't know as much about running a business as they think they do. Why wouldn't the successful conversation about switching CEOs in the first case work in the second? Idealistically, shouldn't it? Women aren't actually from Venus.

Furthermore, isn't this an issue of long-standing that for some reason is still a big enough problem to raise complaints? How many decades have there been women in upper-management, let alone the C-suite? Why aren't VCs, people who are rumored to be good at analyzing businesses across their field of expertise, already aware of this weakness? Is rooting out inefficiencies only for the businesses in which they invest?

This is to say, why is this essay still necessary? I'd say it's because many men are trying to keep the old world going. Status quo.

I suggest that a VC who can't have the conversation about swapping for CEO in both "directions," who is aggrieved about the present state of business demographics enough to clam up in fear of raising controversy, is not a competent investor.

This is a Continuing Education topic for those who need it, just like RNs have to take a certain number of class-hours each year to stay up on current techniques and technologies. This essay is about and aimed at guys who don't think that their attitudes toward women need changing.

Post reply on HN