5 ms·

It’s easy. Investment is a math game. What is the upside and downside of either action? First choice, I remain silent. Best case, the female CEO kills it and

by cwhiz 6y ago

It’s easy. Investment is a math game. What is the upside and downside of either action? First choice, I remain silent. Best case, the female CEO kills it and I make some money. Worst case she flops and I lose my investment. Potentially great upside, relatively minor downside. Second choice, I suggest a change. Best case the company does well and I make money. Worst case I’m labeled a sexist and I’m effectively ejected from the startup world. Potentially great upside, but unlimited losses. Easy choice. I stay silent.

themolecularman 6y ago
> Easy choice. I stay silent. Agreed same here. Unfortunately I think the reality will be that male founders may get even more funding than before, which will then lead to a potentially wider gap. And then the cycle will continue, a misread of the situation as sexism or more accusations of sexism than before will lead to more people staying with the easy choice of being silent. I'm reminded of that quote, "better to be silent and be thought of as an idiot than to open your mouth and remove any doubt people have." The same thing is true for investors but with idiot replaced by sexist.
darkerside 6y ago
Actually, biggest upside is, you make a change, the business succeeds because of your change, and you not only make huge profits on the business but also continue to cement your reputation as a top tier advisor. But yes, doing it safely requires skill.
pm90 6y ago
Third choice: you invest in creating a better relationship with the female founders so that you’re capable of expressing your concern without appearing sexist. I’m not sure why female founders are being portrayed as a different species? They’re humans. They know about sexism. They know when what they’re seeing is sexism vs critical feedback. And they will understand if you express your concerns with that.
- threwawasy1228 6y ago
  The path of least resistance requires less work? I don't disagree with your view on this but it seems like the incentives simply aren't aligned to learn how to dodge an ever evolving anti-sexist culture that is interpreted as having different communication rules by different people. If it was as easy as like "don't misgender people" or something sure, fine everyone can learn the rules of the protocol in under 15 minutes. There is no reason why anyone can't do that. The rules for interacting aren't this simple though, and they are often differently interpreted by different people. Learning how to communicate in a way that makes every person feel comfortable often just isn't worth the time investment. If we want people to take this other option it has to have significant and demonstrable positive incentives that make people want to invest the time.
- sidlls 6y ago
  I do not believe we can have an open, honest discussion of sexism (or racism) in this country when one side of the discussion is effectively shut out.
  - airhead969 6y ago
    This is it. It's only sexism if it happens to a woman, therefore the word "feminism" itself isn't inherently sexist. It's only racist if it happens to someone of color. White people can't be discriminated against by definition. Anyone who believes in "reverse discrimination" is a "racist" who has "too much entitled privilege." Be quiet and accept the prevailing, correct opinions and beliefs, or be labeled and canceled. There is no debate and there is no discussion because the ideological mafia has already decided what beliefs are proper today. Oh and anyone who doesn't renounce yesterday's micro aggressions should be forced to resign if they don't apologize hard enough four times. The left is a circular firing squad that doesn't have any loyalty.
    - airhead969 6y ago
      PS: It sucks that we're here because we all need decency, awareness, and fair treatment. What's unhelpful is retribution masquerading as movements for fairness.
dkarras 6y ago
And worst case for women: I would not invest in a company that would potentially make me evaluate such options. Indirectly: Men should be wary of partnering up with women because investors might see such a partnership as "danger zone" and pass. I KNOW sexism exists and should be eradicated. Unfortunately the current way of doing things cause lots of unintended consequences for women. I (a man), for one, refuse to put myself in a position where I'll have to make explicit decisions for men vs. women on the merit of their work because there is a chance that if the woman "loses" they'll label me a sexist (they can genuinely feel that way, but I know that my intentions are not towards gender discrimination - unfortunately there is no way to convince her of that if that happens). That means I tend to not work with women, even though I hate passing on people that will do the work well. If they have a history with such activism, it is worse because whatever happens, if they are terminated for any reason, it will most probably be labeled discrimination. If they have a social media following, I'm screwed. So it is difficult. I don't want to pass on them but the potential consequences for any misunderstanding are too large. I don't want to live and work while walking on eggshells.
- imtringued 6y ago
  We solve sexism by creating unequal opportunities instead. After all, fairness and honesty are worse than not creating a facade to play along with societies' outrage induced rules.

by cwhiz 6y ago

themolecularman 6y ago

> Easy choice. I stay silent. Agreed same here. Unfortunately I think the reality will be that male founders may get even more funding than before, which will then lead to a potentially wider gap. And then the cycle will continue, a misread of the situation as sexism or more accusations of sexism than before will lead to more people staying with the easy choice of being silent. I'm reminded of that quote, "better to be silent and be thought of as an idiot than to open your mouth and remove any doubt people have." The same thing is true for investors but with idiot replaced by sexist.

darkerside 6y ago

Actually, biggest upside is, you make a change, the business succeeds because of your change, and you not only make huge profits on the business but also continue to cement your reputation as a top tier advisor. But yes, doing it safely requires skill.

pm90 6y ago

Third choice: you invest in creating a better relationship with the female founders so that you’re capable of expressing your concern without appearing sexist. I’m not sure why female founders are being portrayed as a different species? They’re humans. They know about sexism. They know when what they’re seeing is sexism vs critical feedback. And they will understand if you express your concerns with that.

threwawasy1228 6y ago
The path of least resistance requires less work? I don't disagree with your view on this but it seems like the incentives simply aren't aligned to learn how to dodge an ever evolving anti-sexist culture that is interpreted as having different communication rules by different people. If it was as easy as like "don't misgender people" or something sure, fine everyone can learn the rules of the protocol in under 15 minutes. There is no reason why anyone can't do that. The rules for interacting aren't this simple though, and they are often differently interpreted by different people. Learning how to communicate in a way that makes every person feel comfortable often just isn't worth the time investment. If we want people to take this other option it has to have significant and demonstrable positive incentives that make people want to invest the time.
sidlls 6y ago
I do not believe we can have an open, honest discussion of sexism (or racism) in this country when one side of the discussion is effectively shut out.
- airhead969 6y ago
  This is it. It's only sexism if it happens to a woman, therefore the word "feminism" itself isn't inherently sexist. It's only racist if it happens to someone of color. White people can't be discriminated against by definition. Anyone who believes in "reverse discrimination" is a "racist" who has "too much entitled privilege." Be quiet and accept the prevailing, correct opinions and beliefs, or be labeled and canceled. There is no debate and there is no discussion because the ideological mafia has already decided what beliefs are proper today. Oh and anyone who doesn't renounce yesterday's micro aggressions should be forced to resign if they don't apologize hard enough four times. The left is a circular firing squad that doesn't have any loyalty.
  - airhead969 6y ago
    PS: It sucks that we're here because we all need decency, awareness, and fair treatment. What's unhelpful is retribution masquerading as movements for fairness.

dkarras 6y ago

And worst case for women: I would not invest in a company that would potentially make me evaluate such options. Indirectly: Men should be wary of partnering up with women because investors might see such a partnership as "danger zone" and pass. I KNOW sexism exists and should be eradicated. Unfortunately the current way of doing things cause lots of unintended consequences for women. I (a man), for one, refuse to put myself in a position where I'll have to make explicit decisions for men vs. women on the merit of their work because there is a chance that if the woman "loses" they'll label me a sexist (they can genuinely feel that way, but I know that my intentions are not towards gender discrimination - unfortunately there is no way to convince her of that if that happens). That means I tend to not work with women, even though I hate passing on people that will do the work well. If they have a history with such activism, it is worse because whatever happens, if they are terminated for any reason, it will most probably be labeled discrimination. If they have a social media following, I'm screwed. So it is difficult. I don't want to pass on them but the potential consequences for any misunderstanding are too large. I don't want to live and work while walking on eggshells.

imtringued 6y ago
We solve sexism by creating unequal opportunities instead. After all, fairness and honesty are worse than not creating a facade to play along with societies' outrage induced rules.