33 ms·

Your comment contains a bunch of suppositions that are by no means widely accepted or indisputable truths. For example you characterize Tinder's mode of conduc

Your comment contains a bunch of suppositions that are by no means widely accepted or indisputable truths. For example you characterize Tinder's mode of conduct as "masculine posturing". Inherent in that comment is the supposition that there is something toxic about masculinity itself. Imagine if someone called Bumble's letter "feminine posturing". Irrespective of the content of the letter, could you ever perceive the use of that term as anything but ignorant and misogynistic? You also claim there is a "gendered power structure", and imply that Tinder is part of it, which is a very serious and broad allegation, that's made without supporting evidence, which is irresponsible. You claim that "gender is a cultural mode of expression (and it is most certainly not a tribe you have to defend, so just calm down, guys)", but the letter says Bumble is proud to be women-run. It's not necessarily bad to embrace femininity and celebrate a company being run by women, but be upfront about it, and don't gas light anyone who recognizes it as a form of tribalism. Instead of trying to cast women as victims, and men as victimizers, I think we should step back from identarianism and recognize that members of both genders are disproportionately afflicted with their own set of maladies (e.g. 92% of workplace fatalities afflict men) and that it would be more constructive to put aside this 'which gender is a greater victim' competition and focus on empowering all individuals irrespective of gender.

BadassFractal 9y ago
This is a generalization, but I wonder if what we're seeing, with the job world becoming more evenly split between the genders, is men and women playing to their traditional strengths to advance in their professional goals. Historically women don't pick up the club and physically assault their opponent. They instead often indirectly attack a challenger's reputation (see shaming, guilt inducing etc), which is still very powerful. Men, when facing a challenge, will avoid complaining, buckle down and try to power through the obstacle. Women, on the other hand, will play the victim card instead of using brute force, and will rely on their cunning to accomplish the same business goal. Both strategies are likely very effective. I wonder if, as we have more majority-women and women-led organizations, we will see more of these indirect tactics deployed by those organizations. More covert corporate warfare than what we're traditionally used to. Nothing wrong with it per se, but just a shift in tactics people might have not foreseen.
- CryptoPunk 9y ago
  I don't foresee the corporate world becoming more evenly split between men and women. The primary differentiator between men and women is testosterone and estrogen levels, and this has a profound impact on life strategy. With respect to testosterone, the much higher levels found in men drive them to be far more likely to make sacrifices and take risks to achieve more ambitious goals, which manifests in everything from higher numbers of Nobel prize winners, to a life expectancy that is on average 5 years lower than that of women, to a much a higher proportion of murderers, and criminals in general, being men. This difference in outcomes is not based on gender, even if it correlates with gender, so it won't go away as a result of eliminating any supposed social constructs that promote gender stereotypes. It's based on different behavioural traits associated with sex hormones, that establish a person's priorities, and that just happen to be found at higher concentration levels in a higher proportion of men, or women, depending on the hormone.
  - BadassFractal 9y ago
    I buy all of that, but does that preclude us from ever seeing more women-only or majority-women companies out there that behave as a unit differently from the traditionally predominantly-male companies?
acobster 9y ago
> step back from identarianism and recognize that members of both genders are disproportionately afflicted ... it would be more constructive to put aside this 'which gender is a greater victim' competition (Aside: ALL genders. Just wanted to get that out of the way :D) Yes! Gender politics is a double edged sword in that way: in attempting to point out inequity it's easy to unintentionally reinforce gender dynamics even more (through defensiveness, raising the stakes, etc). To be clear, I see Bumble pointing out inequity, but not so much dismantling notions about gender, which I think is where most conversations about this stuff fall short. What I find is that the people who most vehemently disagree (and most thoughtfully oppose) my point of view on this often are gesturing at the same point on the horizon as I am: a future where gender just doesn't play as much of a role. But to get there we have to train ourselves to see all these "maladies," as you say. > Inherent in that comment is the supposition that there is something toxic about masculinity itself. Not quite. There is something toxic about certain traditionally masculine behaviors. That's why I was careful to use the as it's practiced in corporate culture language. Of course there are toxic feminine behaviors as well: IIRC former Uber engineer Susan Fowler's HR rep (a woman IIRC) gaslighted her, saying something like "the common thread here is you." > you imply that Tinder is a part of [a gendered power structure] Dude, the entire culture is entangled with a gendered power structure! But re: dating apps, I pretty specifically called out what's gendered about that experience i.e. an imabalance of abusive behavior. > *don't gas light anyone who recognizes [a women run company] as a form of tribalism. Not saying anyone's crazy to think that women-run is a kind of tribalism, I'm actually advocating for "stepping back from identarianism" as you say. People (esp. men in my experience) seem quick to defend against any kind of gendered accusation or even relatively benign discussion around gender, even if they don't personally have any skin in the game. It's as if the very topic presents an existential threat.
- brucephillips 9y ago
  > But to get there we have to train ourselves to see all these "maladies," as you say. I agree with this, but your initial comment is creating gendered maladies that don't exist. How is an IP lawsuit a gendered issue?
  - 9y ago

BadassFractal 9y ago

This is a generalization, but I wonder if what we're seeing, with the job world becoming more evenly split between the genders, is men and women playing to their traditional strengths to advance in their professional goals. Historically women don't pick up the club and physically assault their opponent. They instead often indirectly attack a challenger's reputation (see shaming, guilt inducing etc), which is still very powerful. Men, when facing a challenge, will avoid complaining, buckle down and try to power through the obstacle. Women, on the other hand, will play the victim card instead of using brute force, and will rely on their cunning to accomplish the same business goal. Both strategies are likely very effective. I wonder if, as we have more majority-women and women-led organizations, we will see more of these indirect tactics deployed by those organizations. More covert corporate warfare than what we're traditionally used to. Nothing wrong with it per se, but just a shift in tactics people might have not foreseen.

CryptoPunk 9y ago
I don't foresee the corporate world becoming more evenly split between men and women. The primary differentiator between men and women is testosterone and estrogen levels, and this has a profound impact on life strategy. With respect to testosterone, the much higher levels found in men drive them to be far more likely to make sacrifices and take risks to achieve more ambitious goals, which manifests in everything from higher numbers of Nobel prize winners, to a life expectancy that is on average 5 years lower than that of women, to a much a higher proportion of murderers, and criminals in general, being men. This difference in outcomes is not based on gender, even if it correlates with gender, so it won't go away as a result of eliminating any supposed social constructs that promote gender stereotypes. It's based on different behavioural traits associated with sex hormones, that establish a person's priorities, and that just happen to be found at higher concentration levels in a higher proportion of men, or women, depending on the hormone.
- BadassFractal 9y ago
  I buy all of that, but does that preclude us from ever seeing more women-only or majority-women companies out there that behave as a unit differently from the traditionally predominantly-male companies?

acobster 9y ago

> step back from identarianism and recognize that members of both genders are disproportionately afflicted ... it would be more constructive to put aside this 'which gender is a greater victim' competition (Aside: ALL genders. Just wanted to get that out of the way :D) Yes! Gender politics is a double edged sword in that way: in attempting to point out inequity it's easy to unintentionally reinforce gender dynamics even more (through defensiveness, raising the stakes, etc). To be clear, I see Bumble pointing out inequity, but not so much dismantling notions about gender, which I think is where most conversations about this stuff fall short. What I find is that the people who most vehemently disagree (and most thoughtfully oppose) my point of view on this often are gesturing at the same point on the horizon as I am: a future where gender just doesn't play as much of a role. But to get there we have to train ourselves to see all these "maladies," as you say. > Inherent in that comment is the supposition that there is something toxic about masculinity itself. Not quite. There is something toxic about certain traditionally masculine behaviors. That's why I was careful to use the as it's practiced in corporate culture language. Of course there are toxic feminine behaviors as well: IIRC former Uber engineer Susan Fowler's HR rep (a woman IIRC) gaslighted her, saying something like "the common thread here is you." > you imply that Tinder is a part of [a gendered power structure] Dude, the entire culture is entangled with a gendered power structure! But re: dating apps, I pretty specifically called out what's gendered about that experience i.e. an imabalance of abusive behavior. > *don't gas light anyone who recognizes [a women run company] as a form of tribalism. Not saying anyone's crazy to think that women-run is a kind of tribalism, I'm actually advocating for "stepping back from identarianism" as you say. People (esp. men in my experience) seem quick to defend against any kind of gendered accusation or even relatively benign discussion around gender, even if they don't personally have any skin in the game. It's as if the very topic presents an existential threat.

brucephillips 9y ago
> But to get there we have to train ourselves to see all these "maladies," as you say. I agree with this, but your initial comment is creating gendered maladies that don't exist. How is an IP lawsuit a gendered issue?
- 9y ago