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.
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.
If the man on the panel was really experienced in said domain, regardless of if he was sexist or not, he could have given the same feed back. Especially if he’s really confident he’s right.
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.
Which is long term self sabotage imo, but it is what it is.
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.
As they accomplish their goals the moderate extreme membership drops out and the median voice moves ever towards the radical. "You either die a hero or live long enough to see yourself become a villain" sort of thing. I'm not trying to say that about any specific movement, but it does seem like the "hero" aspect of many movements is on the decline.
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.
I didn't call it a lie, but yes, that's what I was requesting.
In that circumstance, I believed things would ultimately work out, but my confidence was faltering. I needed to hear my own belief in an outside voice whether that person believed it or not.
I didn't actually need his belief. I already had my own. I just needed him to voice it.
I've met people who treat any investor as a part owner and will listen to them as best they can. Then there are those who treat any investor as someone who is graciously being tolerated.
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.