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
There's no irony here. If your plan to make society better is to infantilise group X because you view them as too weak to handle corrective feedback (or compete against group Y) they (as a group) will soon start to lose the benefits of success-selection that come with competition and correcting your course when you get feedback.

>>Sophis+OS
> you view them as too weak to handle corrective feedback

The article says they don't get corrective feedback not because they're seen as too weak, but because it's too risky to give criticism, since it can be misinterpreted (or misrepresented) as sexism.

>>MikeUt+w01
Is this actually different?

Isn't receiving what was intended as corrective feedback as though it were sexism a sign of weakness?

If you believed the person you were giving corrective feedback was strong enough to take it in stride and learn from it, there would be no need to worry.

>>smeej+O31
They address this in the blogpost.

They claim male investors give more candid feedback to female founders they are familiar with, because they are not worried about the female founder calling them sexist on Twitter.