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

631–640 of 1001 posts

Re: Female Founder Secrets: Men Clamming Up

#631

Post by SpicyLemonZest »

ntr-- wrote: post #603
danielvaughn wrote: post #531

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are better and worse ways to communicate, sure. But fundamentally, you cannot control how people interpret the words that you say.

I disagree. Effective communication requires effort, but many people speak impulsively and fail to convey what they actually mean. If someone is unable to clearly express themselves without being misunderstood then either their thoughts need to be distilled further or the statement needs to be carefully worded. If I am not responsible for how people interpret my words, who is?

You're not wrong, but the key insight is that one key technique for careful wording is "clamming up".

Personal example. A friend mentioned that a new hire at her work didn't have to go through as much interview training as her, and she was wondering if she should take offense. If she were a guy, I would have said something along the lines of "come on, 'amount of interview training' isn't a real status marker, you're getting worked up over nothing". But I strive to be an effective communicator, so I couldn't just bluntly refute her feelings like that; it'd sound like I'm denying the very real ways that women can be subtly mistreated in the workplace. Instead I clammed up, and she ended up deciding to file an HR complaint, which is unlikely to have a positive impact on her career.

Is there any way I could have told her what I thought without being misunderstood? Sure, maybe, if we'd had 30 minutes to sit down and talk about a bunch of abstract principles. Is there a strategy that would have fit inside the 30 seconds of conversation we had on the topic? I don't think so.

Re: Female Founder Secrets: Men Clamming Up

#632

Post by Natanael_L »

WrtCdEvrydy wrote: post #516
daenz wrote: post #505

There's a dark irony to the idea that the defenses against sexism (standing up and calling people out) are also causing an unintended secondary sexism by discouraging equal treatment out of fear of accusations. I've held the belief that if a someone can't recognize and clearly identify the differences between criticism based on merits and criticism based on bias, then there is no point attempting to do "what they wan…

I think trust is the issue, a person coming to you for answers is coming from a place of vulnerability. I've solved this in the past by asking the person if they want a comforting lie or an honest truth. I still provide feedback in both ways but the honest truth path is what is taken by most people who are able to take negative feedback correctly.

I also think trust is the single biggest issue here.

The more you trust somebody the more leeway you will give them in how they can express themselves to you, because you expect them to be honest and you assume that they mean well. You are more willing to interpret ambiguity favorably. From experience this seems to be a rather universal phenomenon. I often determine how I should express myself to people based on how much I think they trust me, and this approach seems to work well enough.

Re: Female Founder Secrets: Men Clamming Up

#633

Post by lr4444lr »

whatshisface wrote: post #606
MeinBlutIstBlau wrote: post #560

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The NDA comment actually is an interesting thought. I wonder if that may actually get implemented in the future actually. And basically women would be breaking the NDA by complaining they had to sign an NDA thusly inferring an irrational accusations online that we've seen run rampant in the past decade. If I was in management, I'd at least consult my HR department about it. Better safe in court.

The problem with this NDA plan is that it cuts all the way to stopping speech about legitimate abuses.

IANAL, but an NDA I think is a civil contract. Civil contracts are not valid to sign away your rights or enable otherwise criminal/misdemeanor behavior.

Re: Female Founder Secrets: Men Clamming Up

#634

Post by lazide »

sidr wrote: post #572
WrtCdEvrydy wrote: post #516

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think trust is the issue, a person coming to you for answers is coming from a place of vulnerability. I've solved this in the past by asking the person if they want a comforting lie or an honest truth. I still provide feedback in both ways but the honest truth path is what is taken by most people who are able to take negative feedback correctly.

Everyone thinks they want the honest truth. Has anyone ever told you they want you to lie to them?

Not the poster, but I’ve used a similar strategy a handful of times - it’s been 50/50. Many people don’t really want a solution, they just want sympathy.

Which is long term self sabotage imo, but it is what it is.

Re: Female Founder Secrets: Men Clamming Up

#635

Post by quiescant_dodo »

hu3 wrote: post #574
downandout wrote: post #544

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For the (at least) 2 people that downvoted this: what part of this comment is controversial or offends you? I don’t see it, and I would love to understand. Downvoting without comment does no good for anyone.

I upvoted. But I think you got downvoted because people don't want to have to advertise themselves as "willing to take criticism". That should be norm. Perhaps we agree and you should clarify your message. Sometimes I get harsh criticism, I can get momentaneously defensive and it hurts a ton but you won't see me lashing back at the person and chances are you'll see me thanking them.

> people don't want to have to advertise themselves as "willing to take criticism". That should be norm.

I don't think this is precisely correct. In the situations like in the article, the issue is that both parties are playing a dance around _what kind of feedback/criticism_ is acceptable.

If I ask you "why might my business fail?", and your gut reaction is "your personal life is a mess", do you tell me this? Even with an NDA, that's _super harsh_ feedback.

(This feedback would hurt me more AFTER the NDA. The NDA would change my expectations around the types of feedback. I'd expect "you're not a good programmer" or "you don't work enough hours to beat the competition".)

But if I _really_ wanted to have my business succeed, that's feedback I probably need from someone other than my therapist. :)

Re: Female Founder Secrets: Men Clamming Up

#636

Post by [deleted] »

worik wrote: post #102
CodeGlitch wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thought experiment: I do wonder if some boss in the future will only employ straight white males simply to avoid people "offending" others (it's hard to offend a straight white male in this new woke ideology). Of course this has the opposite effect to what the woke seem to want, but this is the world we have built ourselves.

Diversity is a competitive advantage.

[deleted]

Re: Female Founder Secrets: Men Clamming Up

#638

Post by ergocoder »

luckylion wrote: post #410
scythe wrote: post #315

It's interesting that Twitter doesn't get more attention here as a center of activity. Apparently, taking down Harvey Weinstein means you can do no wrong. The problem with Twitter isn't just that they get people fired because people say mean things on the Internet. The problem is also that they incite and organize illegal activities like targeted harassment, threatening phone calls and vandalism, as well as the quest…

Does that actually happen on Facebook? I've seen it happen on Twitter multiple times, and across countries, but I don't associate Facebook with raids and targeted harassment. It feels like Twitter's user base is much more radical, and the focus of the product on instant public messaging might add fuel, while Facebook's group system generally limits the spread and seems to be more geared towards asynchronous sharing (…

Facebook is more private (as in you don't follow random people on Facebook; you are either friend or not), so it doesn't happen as frequent as it happens in Twitter, not in the same degree.

Re: Female Founder Secrets: Men Clamming Up

#639

Post by zszugyi »

0_____0 wrote: post #592
scarmig wrote: post #548

A female founder acquaintance of mine (who's quite smart and capable) went on a Twitter screed a couple weeks ago. As it turns out, someone else had copied her idea, and her startup now had a competitor. The competitor was also able to raise a solid amount of money despite her being first to market and her having more relevant knowledge of the problem space (by her own estimation). So, this scenario isn't exactly unc…

I remember some comedian pointing out, racism (sexism in this case) drives people crazy. Because it's subtle. Very rarely are people nowadays blatantly racist/sexist, because they get called out for it. But imagine that every time you have an 'off' experience with someone, you end up wondering whether your race or sex had something to do with it. It only takes a couple instances of finding out that that 'off' feeling…

Sounds like microaggressions.

Re: Female Founder Secrets: Men Clamming Up

#640

Post by stcredzero »

ajmadesc wrote: post #434
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.

Thisis a baseless claim. Personal experience doesn't count. The overwhelming majority of history education leaves out inconvenient truth of vile and anti democratic acts committed in the name of American Capital interests.

The overwhelming majority of history education leaves out inconvenient truth of vile and anti democratic acts committed in the name of American Capital interests.

Actually, the overwhelming impression I have of the "US history" in the minds of young people, is summed up by that very sentence. However, real history is always nuanced and complex. I certainly wouldn't disagree that bad things have happened in the name of US power. However, the actual history isn't that one-sided.

And often, it's that one-sided skew which is then used to justify throwing out principles like due process and innocent until proven guilty.

Post reply on HN