zlacker

>>femfos+(OP)
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 want," because they don't know how to identify what they want even if they got it.

>>daenz+2J
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.

>>WrtCdE+aK
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.