zlacker

[return to "Female Founder Secrets: Men Clamming Up"]
1. Doreen+z2[view] [source] 2021-03-28 18:55:50
>>femfos+(OP)
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 to patterns of this sort and not because most men intentionally want me to fail. But the cumulative effect of most men erring on the side of protecting themselves and not wanting to take risks to engage with me meaningfully really adds up over time and I think that tremendously holds women back generally.

I think gendered patterns of social engagement also contributed to the Theranos debacle. I've said that before and I feel like it tends to get misunderstood as well. (Though in the case of Theranos it runs a lot deeper in that she was actually sleeping with an investor.)

◧◩
2. dagesh+Y3[view] [source] 2021-03-28 19:05:03
>>Doreen+z2
Genuine question, if you were a man in that situation, what would you do?
◧◩◪
3. Doreen+i4[view] [source] 2021-03-28 19:06:38
>>dagesh+Y3
In what situation?
◧◩◪◨
4. dagesh+K4[view] [source] 2021-03-28 19:09:38
>>Doreen+i4
Well the situation in the article seems like a good example, you think the female ceo should swap with the male co founder. You're invested but not massively and you've not really known either for years.
◧◩◪◨⬒
5. Doreen+05[view] [source] 2021-03-28 19:11:27
>>dagesh+K4
The odds are good I would err on the side of not risking it

Which is why this needs to be discussed: So a path forward can be found. Our current default patterns aren't working well.

◧◩◪◨⬒⬓
6. worker+4g[view] [source] 2021-03-28 20:05:28
>>Doreen+05
The only path forward is for enough high-profile, hyper-woke behavior examples to get negative public exposure. As long as men are afraid of accidentally becoming the target of the next donglegate, it's safer to just not engage.
◧◩◪◨⬒⬓⬔
7. Doreen+pi[view] [source] 2021-03-28 20:17:40
>>worker+4g
I agree with what I think you are going for: That this super blamey "hyper woke" bullshit needs to stop if we are going to make any real forward progress on issues like this one.

In my experience, one good example of how to do it right is vastly more powerful in solving social ills than any number of people being hung high and scapegoated for getting it wrong.

In fact, I generally feel that scapegoating people in a system where there are no good answers is actively counterproductive and helps keep things stuck. Hanging someone high for not knowing "the right answer" in a system that gives zero good options for how to handle X implicitly suggests that good answers exist and implicitly denies the reality that "We don't know how to do this dance. We don't have an answer for that."

It implicitly suggests there is a means to get this right when the reality is there isn't. So it actively distracts from real problem solving.

I would like to see more real problem solving in this space. As a dirt poor woman, I have a vested interest in seeing a world where there are answers for how to do this dance.

So far, I am mostly coming up empty under circumstances that suggest to me that my behavior is not the problem. The problem is the lack of good answers for how to do this dance.

◧◩◪◨⬒⬓⬔⧯
8. dkerst+4H[view] [source] 2021-03-28 22:55:49
>>Doreen+pi
Completely agree. Scapegoating can't have positive effects. At best, it causes what we see here: people staying silent in fear. At worst, it just alienates people and causes them to dig their heels in, doubling down on whatever bad behavior they're scapegoated for because they've got nothing left to lose. It rarely, if ever, actually improves behavior.

I recently had a conversation where the lady I was talking to basically said (paraphrasing for brevity) "all men bad, always" and I'm really not sure what she even wanted to achieve. Some kind of perceived revenge maybe? I ended up disengaging and it left me feeling rather deflated. If I'm bad by default and there's nothing I can do to change that, why care at all? Luckily I know that most women are much more reasonable so I will continue to strive to treat everybody equally and how I want to be treated.

But I do worry sometimes that even that can backfire, because I've witnessed another situation (on Twitter) where a lady complained that men who didn't get her joke tweet were mansplaining about how what she wrote was wrong, that they were explaining her (purposeful) error to her because she was a woman. Except others replied with their own versions of the joke and they too were getting "mainsplained" too, even though many were themselves men. That is, some people were misunderstanding the joke and commenting, it wasn't anything to do with her being a woman. But she turned it into a gender issue.

So if I want to treat everyone equal, but that equal treatment can be seen as mansplaining or other negative gendered thing, that makes me more likely to disengage out of fear and then I'm not treating people equally, but not out of malice or feeling of superiority, just out of fear...

Its a big problem and I don't know the answer either.

[go to top]