zlacker

>>femfos+(OP)
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 let the woman talk more, and I'm glad I did, because she had good things to say.

I'm aware that I have the same biases as the rest of society. I do my best to recognize them, and, where applicable, to add a small mental counterweight before making decisions. I don't think this always leads to better outcomes, but I do think it's a net positive. And if investors act on similar frameworks, they've probably doomed some companies and saved others. The future is unknowable, and we'll never know what would have happened.

I wish this investor had acted out of a desire to be a better person, or a more successful VC, rather than from fear of a mob. I'm not a fan of mobs. But none of us are immune to cultural biases, and we should second-guess ourselves accordingly.

>>Wowfun+zA
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 obvs nobody cares about them).

Possibly we should let shy people talk more. Regardless of whether they are women, men, black, gay or whatever.

Or maybe not. Maybe you need to be self-confident and a bit bold to lead, because if you don't, you won't be a good leader anyways even if you were given time to speak regardless of your sex. I don't know.

Don't look for sexism in every encounter.