Female founder friend (non tech space) was in a female focused incubator / competition. She got only one set of somewhat critical feedback - ie, lacks experience in X and Y which are key in product space Z.
She posted a comment on her social media focusing on this feedback as "criticism" that came from a sexist guy "of course". It was pretty easy to draw the line to the three panelists, one of whom was a guy. Ouch.
In a previous life, I'd worked in a awesome (female led!) product company. While I had no experience prior to this, I quickly realized that the product itself and its quality etc was almost irrelevant to success, the X and Y mentioned by the male panelist was unfortunately everything, which you'd only know if you were in the space itself. The female led company I worked for was bought out by a (male led) competitor, who then using much strong x and y skills - cleaned up. Company I worked for got basically nothing.
Fast forward - my friends business not doing so great, she asks me for feedback. I said nothing other than enthusiasm. Partly because I was really enthusiastic - she'd put her heart into this project. But her comment on social was in my mind - I had no desire to be next sexist guy "shooting down" an idea
She's out of the business I think mostly. Anyways, this parallels the take of the article.
I've had similar a few times. The most illogical was had a sales person (female) telling me (male) about how girls cant get ahead in the company, naturally in context to themselves.
I asked them what their boss was (female) and their bosses boss (female) and til a few months before, their bosses bosses boss (was female and recently changed to male). Was not a happy look I received.
And 100% there is sexism/racism in workplaces but in my small bubble of the world it feels a reasonable proportion of people put these kind of excuses on their lack of progression over looking inward, but I've tended to work in more progressive environments so maybe I've missed what the wider world is like.
This victimhood mentality is atrocious and is something I recently wrote about. I don't normally do this but here's a shameless plug if anyone wants to read a bit more about this phenomenon.
I've found that women in particular seem to really try to avoid any form of "open conflict" and seem to have a much harder time taking any form of "criticism".
I'm much, much more likely to feel like I'm walking on eggshells around women, this happens with men also, but more in a personal setting.
This combined with the whole metoo movement certainly didn't help women in receiving frank feedback or mentorship.
Thanks for sharing this. One of the best pieces I've read on the topic, it's sad to see society's shift in this regard. I agree with you, and we can't know yet what the consequences of this will be in the long term. It seems like it matters less and less how good we are at what we do, and more and more what "class" we are considered to be in.
In my view there are few things more rewarding than taking control of our lives, and stop blaming others for our own shortcomings.
I'm glad you enjoyed it, I agree entirely about the reward in finding a sense of agency of ones own life. The mentality I wrote about has a way of robbing us of our independence and leads to a deeply rooted unhappiness. I truly believe it to be a major contributor to so much of the turbulence in the world today.
Very nicely put! Thank you for this. Hits softly when you’re past this obstacle.
The big question for me is how to show this to your dear people in a kind and helpful way.
Thank you! I see another user replied to you about an RSS-feed, do you find their answer sufficient? I don't have any social media presence as of yet, I'm just getting into blogging and that was my first ever article.
Thank you for this read. Very observant and insightful in only a few words. Communism is the outcome if this mindset continues. Like you said, we must teach others not to believe the lies of victimhood. Thank you so much for sharing. Teach it to all you encounter.
An otherwise cool female coleague kept making claims people were misogynistic, at first I thought she was joking or that she did have some claim, because someone made an unintentional mysoginistic joke.
Then I left the company, and I talked with an ez coleague who was promoted as a team lead.
The guy was into some new age stuff, about helping everyone, and she was slaking/not interested; the higher ups wanted to fire her.
Not my friend, he really believed in her.
When it was clear she was about to be fired, she complained about him to the HR, that he's sexist and all that.
That guy was the least sexist guy I've ever met and the only one caring for her.
"mysoginistic" in the sense of "I literally hate women" or in the sense of "I think women are less capable than men" or "I liked a physical feature of her"?
There's more to choose from, the list of things that are called "misogyny" nowadays has gotten incredibly expansive.
I witnessed such a joke, from a brogrammer -- he thought it was funny, but noone else did, especially knowing how sensitive the female coleague was -- someone broke a pot of plants and he said "Why should we clean it, we have plenty of women around here" -- I just know the guy, the tone of his voice, and so forth, and I know he just tried to be funny, but at the end of the day, that was a sexist remark, we knew it, he knew it after he said it, he should have apologized, but he didn't.
But that was the only instance that struk me as sexist, and the guy always helped female coleagues, in no way did see any other "bad behavior" from him, it was just that guys generally have thicker skins when it comes to jokes and jabs, and he was usually very friendly, I've worked in male teams that were outright toxic, he was nothing like that.
It's a very, tired joke, and context matters. Like how jokingly saying "call over one of the nerds, they'll sort it out" regarding a difficult problem would be okay in a technology company, but on the risky side (as in, likely to cause a bad feeling) in high school.
Of course, high school kids haven't learned etiquette and don't care, but we want to hold higher standards in the workforce.
I think the concept is pretty straightforward? It's if you believe women < men generally (not like, avg(women height) < avg(men height)).
The last one, "I liked a feature of her" is not misogynistic absent of context. The context here is really important. It's like saying "I like your haircut". Did I pass up promotion for another person in a non-modeling job because they had a shitty haircut?
I clarrified it, basically someone made a remark/joke that is clearly sexist, but he never displayed sexism at all.
It was just unprofessional I would say.
For instance I can appreciate a dark joke that would clearly be sexist/racist/antisemitic/homophobic, I can even reproduce it in a like-minded circle of people, and I still don't consider myself sexist/racist/homophobic.
Not sure I understand the analogy. You mean speaking professionally in a professional context is not (should not be?) misogynistic. Then is it not a little strange that you're commenting on a person's haircut, who is not applying for a modeling job for which they're required to cut their own hair?
You seem to be implying that it's not professional to mention a haircut. What is unprofessional about it?
I've had my haircut mentioned at work… because I'd had a haircut. It's people trying to be nice or make conversation, and neither of those things are unprofessional.
I work from home so the only person who remarks on my hair is my wife, and her comments, if overheard, might pass for misandry. I'm trying to forment a Twitter mob against her in response.
If you take a step back, you could actually look at this as a sign of progress in society. Things are moving enough for sexism to be a concern to a company - even if it's for cynical reasons and it has been weaponised by a dishonest person. Progress is bumpy and people can end up suffering during a transition.
The problem is what is good for society can hinder progress in certain individuals, as in this case.
It's not just a regular weapon, being acused of sexism or sexual harassment or God forbid rape is a nuclear weapon, it can do such tremendous damage to an innocent man with zero damage to the one making false allegations that there's no wonder men a really careful.
We have reached a local peak for sexual equality, but I don't think it is possible to move forward as long as mens lives can be completely destroyed by false allegations.
> The problem is what is good for society can hinder progress in certain individuals, as in this case.
That was exactly my point.
Sexism in the workplace has gone from normalised, to being recognised as a potential issue, to having a process which can deal with it all within my lifetime. To expect a perfectly executed deescalation undoing hundreds of years of history across all of society is disingenuous.
I won’t even pretend to know enough to be able to solve this problem. But does your social circle not include other female friends that you could discuss the optics of this situation with? Or better yet, be honest with the female friend that you wanted to advice, pointing out what she had done before and expressing your apprehension in providing critical feedback?
"But does your social circle not include other female friends that you could discuss the optics of this situation with?"
Respectfully, this shouldn't be on the person from whom advice is being sought, but on the asker.
"Or better yet, be honest with the female friend that you wanted to advice, pointing out what she had done before and expressing your apprehension in providing critical feedback?"
If someone asked me this, I'd probably think they used hashtags like #redpill or were into bashing Ellen Pao or something. It comes across as, "you can't say anything these days without being offensive, men in tech are soooo mistreated."
>If someone asked me this, I'd probably think they used hashtags like #redpill or were into bashing Ellen Pao or something. It comes across as, "you can't say anything these days without being offensive, men in tech are soooo mistreated."
Wise moderates don't even join the conversation on social media. A wise decision for an individual, but it's harmful to all of us collectively. One negative side effect is people assume that everyone is an extremist of one stripe or another.
the problems genders face are interrelated, invalidating all men that complain about something just because of a history specifically disenfranchising women will not help your cause
> If someone asked me this, I'd probably think they used hashtags like #redpill or were into bashing Ellen Pao or something. It comes across as, "you can't say anything these days without being offensive, men in tech are soooo mistreated."
Interesting. I hesitate to accept your interpretation as the universal one, because my experience has been that there are ways to express these concerns without coming off as a bigot. Perhaps more education, awareness or discussion is required.
> my experience has been that there are ways to express these concerns without coming off as a bigot
Please share with us. I can't think of a single way to express these concerns without looking like a "red piller". The mere fact someone even has concerns marks them as suspicious and harmful.
This is a fair question - not sure why you are getting down votes.
Background - I'm actually on the left a fair bit. So one issue - you are not supposed to really ask minorities / women to explain / teach you / help you deal with these issues because it in fairness burdens them. I'm not looking for that either.
In terms of my colleague who I'd mentored in past (before things had gotten more extreme). I think others have made good suggestions - do you want some suggestions that may have already been made (it's never truth really - just another persons guess) or comfort.
> "So one issue - you are not supposed to really ask minorities / women to explain / teach you / help you deal with these issues because it in fairness burdens them."
Well, yes and no. I can see how it's a burden, but they're also the people with the most hands-on experience. If they won't explain, how can anyone else learn?
Because it is a serious problem, and not solving it is not acceptable. Of course men, or whichever the privileged group in any particular case is, have a responsibility to listen and learn, but that only works if someone is willing to explain.
Although I'd love to agree that it's the responsibility of the oppressor or privileged group to fix the problem, it has got to be a collective responsibility. You can't help people without the involvement of the people you're trying to help.
> Well, yes and no. I can see how it's a burden, but they're also the people with the most hands-on experience. If they won't explain, how can anyone else learn?
Take a sociology class at your local community college, read a book, read some blogs/articles by women, people of color, and other minorities.
There are a lot of really good ways to learn from the people who have taken the time to write/speak about the issues they face.
> I'm actually on the left a fair bit. So one issue - you are not supposed to really ask minorities / women to explain / teach you / help you deal with these issues because it in fairness burdens them. I'm not looking for that either.
Thank you for pointing this out. You’re absolutely right on this one, and I would retract my suggestion if HN allowed me to edit the previous comment.
> lacks experience in X and Y which are key in product space Z.
Obviously you didn't post the feedback, but I wonder how this was phrased. If the feedback was "improve X and Y", I think I sympathize with the panelist. The feedback was solicited! If it was framed as "unlikely to succeed because inexperienced in X and Y" then I think that crossed a line from critical feedback to a somewhat demeaning comment, even if it was right.
Regardless of how it actually played out, there's a good lesson here that you should be mindful of how your communication is understood. It's not enough to be right, it's important to speak in a way that makes sure what you're conveying is delivered in a useful way.
What the people in this thread are saying is that when there's nothing to gain by speaking, the most foolproof way to be mindful of how your communication is understood is to not communicate. That's a great life principle that goes a whole lot farther than this particular subject.
Completely agree, in the face of a person who is possibly hostile, or just in general a person that generates a lot of uncertainty what incentive could you give me not to stay silent?
People need to think about it in terms of incentives, what incentive do I have to try communicating with an incredible mindfulness and scrutiny that I might then fail at. The failure to do so properly could have potentially endless downsides? The default incentive is always going to be avoidance as much as possible. Not because of any desire to be sexist, but because is the instinctive path of least resistance.
> or just in general a person that generates a lot of uncertainty what incentive could you give me not to stay silent?
not OP but the silence is a feature that allows you to actively listen[1] which is impossible when trying to come up with an answer while the other person still speaks.
I don't think anyone is accusing people of not listening to each other, at least not in the context of this thread. The issue is people actively listen, and then decline to provide any meaningful feedback on what they just heard as a means to avoid controversy. Me listening to someone doesn't do much good if I decline to contribute to the conversation afterwards.
I believe in the film NORAD names their Supercomputer WOPR, but the AI gives itself the name Joshua. Not sure, it's been a while. Guess it's time for a rewatch!
This is also known as 'Half of winning is showing up'.
Heroes are mostly martyrs. Bulk of winning is done by showing up every day and doing small improvements, slowly albeit steadily. This is today's culture is called 'below average' or 'mediocrity'.
Consistent sustained mediocrity, and occasional 1% progress is 99% of success.
In general, but the risk-reward ration is now way off, as the author of the article mentions, so why risk it if you potentially face harsh repercussions.
If you've been thoughtful in your reply, there should be no risk of repercussions. Post your message publicly. If you were thoughtful, no reasonable person should be able to look at your communication and fault you. If you weren't thoughtful, you deserve the scorn for proving the point of the person who called you out. If you're not confident that you can be a decent and empathetic person in your communication with others, then yes, I suppose that's a good reason to avoid putting yourself in a position where your foot can enter your mouth.
This reminds me of the idea of physical risk for someone with a lifespan of a 1,000 years. If you're 60 with an average lifespan of 70, your actions are risking 10 years of life. If you're 60 with a potential lifespan of 1,000 years, you're effectively risking everything and might be inclined to be more risk averse.
When public discourse magnifies the risk of your comments, you'll tend to be risk averse also. Once upon a time, your opinion would be spoken almost all the time, and perhaps put in a letter rarely. The effort for anyone to raise hell over a minor quibble would involve spreading the word, and doing so enough to find the rare people with a tendency to join you. Go back decades and that is infinitely less likely.
Now, chances are your comment is in writing or recorded, and even if it isn't, the quibbler can broadcast their version of events to increasingly wider circles in seconds, at no cost and with virtually no effort.
I delete half of the comments I start writing online, thinking "What's the point? At best, one person appreciates it. At worst, thousands want to argue."
Yeah, that's often raised in the hypothetical. Typically, older people with the least remaining life to risk are the least rash with their decision making!
> "If you've been thoughtful in your reply, there should be no risk of repercussions."
"If you give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest of men, I will find something in them which will hang him.", attributed to Cardinal Richelieu.
> If you've been thoughtful in your reply, there should be no risk of repercussions.
I agree that there shouldn't be, but as life advice this is a bad thought to operate from. If someone doesn't like you or what you've said, there's always a way to put you in a bad light. With discourse that contains a lot of risk, it's probably better to just avoid it.
You are projecting your own thinking style onto the "other" person with this. There are many people who have a pathological sense of responsibility (that is, they have NONE) and will always react defensively to any feedback.
Thoughtful is the keyword here. If it’s not a thoughtful person they might spread close to lies. For example: -masks help! -no what helps is distance!
This is what my doctor said. A non thoughtful person would say that is antimask, and it might imply it, but until you ask the person that directly, you don’t know and there is so extremely much bad faith articles online that spring from polarized anger.
When I say “there are better and worse ways to communicate”, that is what I’m implying. Of course you should try. But the way in which we adjudicate these matters should take into account the fact that perfection is impossible. We have no silver bullets here.
In collaborative situations, the vast majority of the time you should try to trick others into critical thinking instead of using logic to explain things.
A risk here is that this is even trickier to do right, and is even more dependent on the person receiving it. It’s very easy to accidentally come across as condescending.
Not sure why you're downvoted. I'm open to suggestions.
The Socratic Method is similar. But it differs because it is trying to expose a contradiction in thought about a particular subject through questions. Whereas you can trick others into critical thinking about a subject just by helping them think critically in general, and it can be done without the use of questions.
Them having their own interpretation doesn't mean you did anything wrong, nor that they should have no expectation of reason.
Thoughtfulness is for the aware, and many investors aren't even aware of how they can be raked over the coals by a bloodthirsty mainstream outrage machine for something minor, petty, completely misinterpreted, or intentionally twisted for click bait.
Effective communication requires effort, but many people speak impulsively and fail to convey what they actually mean. If someone is unable to clearly express themselves without being misunderstood then either their thoughts need to be distilled further or the statement needs to be carefully worded.
If I am not responsible for how people interpret my words, who is?
You're not wrong, but the key insight is that one key technique for careful wording is "clamming up".
Personal example. A friend mentioned that a new hire at her work didn't have to go through as much interview training as her, and she was wondering if she should take offense. If she were a guy, I would have said something along the lines of "come on, 'amount of interview training' isn't a real status marker, you're getting worked up over nothing". But I strive to be an effective communicator, so I couldn't just bluntly refute her feelings like that; it'd sound like I'm denying the very real ways that women can be subtly mistreated in the workplace. Instead I clammed up, and she ended up deciding to file an HR complaint, which is unlikely to have a positive impact on her career.
Is there any way I could have told her what I thought without being misunderstood? Sure, maybe, if we'd had 30 minutes to sit down and talk about a bunch of abstract principles. Is there a strategy that would have fit inside the 30 seconds of conversation we had on the topic? I don't think so.
I am unsure. I would say maybe if there is a lot of trust there. I offered candid responses before with mixed results. I did get into minor trouble but nothing horrible. Looking back at the experiences though, I still think twice before responding and I am a very talkative person.. In short, I am not sure you could have helped her there. Frankly, the person, whose first reaction is running to HR is not likely to be my best friend.
> Is there a strategy that would have fit inside the 30 seconds of conversation
What about: "I personally wouldn't have cared about that." -- then you didn't say what you thought she should do, instead just what you yourself would (not) have done.
And she could have used that as a data point when making her own decision.
And, optionally continue with: "you got more education than X, I wonder if that might as well mean that the company decided to invest more money in you, maybe a good thing for you. Maybe X could have filed a complaint about that as well"
Create a fake female role model employee that was previously at the company. Talk about how that role model was successful despite challenges X and Y because she did Z.
Of course the problem with this is that the facade will crumble at some point because the person doesn't exist.
Someone I know got their career start as a janitor. Their first boss would teach technique by saying things like, "We used to have this guy, he mopped the floor like this (demonstrating), can you believe that? I do this now."
> If I am not responsible for how people interpret my words, who is?
Not everyone that you speak to is objective or level headed.
Maybe they're low-sugar and crashing. Maybe their dog just died.
You have absolutely no way to prepare for all of the ways someone will be ill-equpped to handle their day. And this is probably a high percentage of people at any given time.
But we can't afford a society where everyone treads on egg shells.
>If I am not responsible for how people interpret my words, who is?
Others too.
First because "Effective communication requires effort" from BOTH sides.
And also because others can deliberately misinterpret your words for their own gain, or because they're biased, or because they've been primed by factors outside your control, or for lots of other reasons...
>If someone is unable to clearly express themselves without being misunderstood
That has been the case for everybody for the entirety of history.
There are better or worse ways to express something, but there's no foolproof way to express even the simplest thing in a way that you "wont be misunderstood".
Sometimes even saying "yes" or "no" with the wrong tone (or what the other person perceives as the wrong tone) can be misunderstood.
Your comment only works if it’s possible to construct your words so precisely that there is no way to misinterpret them. You honestly believe that’s possible?
Ironically, I’m honestly unable to interpret your response. Are you listing examples of sentences that are 100% unambiguous, in conjunction with a third sentence that is unintelligible?
If that is the case, then it doesn’t invalidate what I’m saying. I’m not saying it’s impossible to create unambiguous statements. What we’re talking about here is complex conversational speech, especially in regards to sensitive topics that people feel strongly about. And specifically, we’re talking about the usage of such speech in everyday interactions, in which words have to be formed on the fly at a rapid pace.
nothing nearly as heady, mate. Just pointing out the obvious trope about wish spells backfiring because unambiguous wording is absurdly difficult. It's all throughout media -- so your argument must be something that people should be able to easily intuit.
No I don't, I'm being misunderstood even in this thread!
What I do believe is that as the speaker I have to do my very best to make sure the receiver can understand what I'm saying, they have to do their part too, of course.
If the speaker neglects to choose their words with sufficient care, or the receiver doesn't make an effort in their interpretation then the balance of understanding tips away from being 50/50 and chaos ensues.
Sibling comments mention all kinds of secondary factors such as mood, bad faith, bias, but these are clear violations resulting from the offending side not making the necessary effort to meet half-way.
> Your comment only works if it’s possible to construct your words so precisely that there is no way to misinterpret them.
Not really. We have a responsibility for the effects of our actions. There is a practical limit to how far we can take worrying about those effects, but that doesn't mean the responsibility goes away.
The same is true for considering how different audiences will interpret your words. You have a responsibility do take those interpretations into consideration but there is a practical limit to how far it can be taken.
However, I believe the listener shares some of the responsibility to consider other (possibly more generous) interpretations beyond their initial reaction.
If both parties do this, is is remarkable how quickly disputes get resolved. If neither party does this, a conversation accomplishes nothing.
>We have a responsibility for the effects of our actions. There is a practical limit to how far we can take worrying about those effects, but that doesn't mean the responsibility goes away.
Doesn't it? I might sneeze and inadvertantly cause a typhoon in Malaysia through the butterfly effect but I can't possibly know or predict that, so how can I take responsibility for it? What does "responsibility" even mean if it's practically outside of your control?
I would argue that the limits of our responsibility are defined by practical limitations. We can't take responsibility for accidental negatives, any more than we can take credit for accidental positives. If you tried to account for your entire impact on the universe, regardless of the practicality, you'd be paralysed with indecision.
You seem to have missed my point and tried to explain the subtext of my argument to me.
The point is that the line for what you are and are not responsible for is a grey and fuzzy one that depends on the context the the decision, the magnitude of the decision, and your own capabilities as an agent.
My point is that the limitations of trying to understand how your words may be interpreted are similarly based in practical considerations.
>Not really. We have a responsibility for the effects of our actions. There is a practical limit to how far we can take worrying about those effects
If you can lose your job because someone misinterpreted what you said (or chose to misinterpret something clear), then that "practical limit" can get quite high...
>If both parties do this, is is remarkable how quickly disputes get resolved. If neither party does this, a conversation accomplishes nothing.
Well, if every person loved each other, then there would be no crime either!
Let me play devils advocate here: I got offended reading your post. And (according to what you said) you are clearly responsible. Now how are you going to compensate me for my harm?
What did you find offensive? Your beat bet is to explain how you understood what I said and how it was offensive to you. That will give me the best bet of understanding how you and people like you interpret the things I say.
No matter how well you believe you have expressed yourself, it is always possible for someone to take your words the wrong way (not the way you intended them to be taken). You can, and should, take the time to craft what you say so that it best (given constraints) represents what you want the person to understand, but that is not always enough. Sometimes, people hear what they expect to hear, not what you say.
Yup, language is a sort of compressed code that exploits model biases. If the receiver's model is biased in a different way than the sender's model decoding fidelity plummets.
Put differently, expectation is half of sensing. That insight goes back at least as far as Helmholtz.
please also take into account that unlike theoretical systems the real world is a constantly moving target. the moment that I've formed an opinion it is probably already outdated within the nano-second an additional thought has entered my subconscious and is waiting to be integrated into what I think is my "truth".
So, we're mostly engineers here. Let's use an engineering metaphor. We're trying to achieve interpreters communication. We need to send some piece of data.
We'll simplify down to three elements: the serialization process, the communication medium, and the deserializatiom process.
The serialization process is our speaker. How well can we represent our data in a line protocol? Do we lose fine details, maybe data types get converted? Do things get entirely mistranslated, like a zero value becoming a null? A speaker can do a poor job converting their thoughts (data) into words (serialization format).
The medium is how the data gets exchanged. Maybe details are lost (again) via headers being stripped, or sourced getting over written. People can lose a lot of information based on medium as well, in particular text based communication, different cultural context, or just a noisy room.
Finally, there's deserialization. No matter how well formed your line protocol, how reliable your medium, the receiver can have a library that incorrectly decodes the data. Ints can become strings, zeros can become nulls, formatting can be lost.
So, as you said the speaker is responsible for being thoughtful and careful, but even if they are the listener can get the wrong message due to their own flaws or even just circumstances. And that is leaving aside intentional misrepresentation, which is a problems unto itself.
You forgot 99.99999% of what matters when communicating: the context/culture/shared model of the world. You can send a single word and in one context it is a death sentence and in another context it shows that you are part of the group.
But distilling an idea can take lots of time.
In the startup partner scenario, one want quick, honest feedback and start the discussion to refine the idea.
Holding up ideas from your partner is... Less then ideal.
It was basically as part of scoring of ideas. I think in the weaknesses box the panelist had noted lack of experience / plans with respect to X and Y. So while I would make a suggestion, this was probably more in critique space.
The issue was more - unless you'd been in the space, you wouldn't realize that THIS issue was actually perhaps very important in the products success. Since I'd been a part of a business that had gotten TROMPED on for a similar set of non-product issues - it hit home.
She posted a comment on her social media focusing on this feedback as "criticism" that came from a sexist guy "of course". It was pretty easy to draw the line to the three panelists, one of whom was a guy. Ouch.
In a previous life, I'd worked in a awesome (female led!) product company. While I had no experience prior to this, I quickly realized that the product itself and its quality etc was almost irrelevant to success, the X and Y mentioned by the male panelist was unfortunately everything, which you'd only know if you were in the space itself. The female led company I worked for was bought out by a (male led) competitor, who then using much strong x and y skills - cleaned up. Company I worked for got basically nothing.
Fast forward - my friends business not doing so great, she asks me for feedback. I said nothing other than enthusiasm. Partly because I was really enthusiastic - she'd put her heart into this project. But her comment on social was in my mind - I had no desire to be next sexist guy "shooting down" an idea
She's out of the business I think mostly. Anyways, this parallels the take of the article.