It’s funny I have you tagged in my post for today with similar sentiments. I imagine women think this is normal because we have social incentives men don’t — the need to maintain status without looking like it ends up producing a false sense of both inferiority AND superiority (because the former can manifest as the latter which you’ve probably said over all these essays). And the need to maintain status covertly along with a society that’s now about performance rather than substance uniquely affects us. That then shows up in our thought.
The "without looking like it" part is key. I think the behaviour stands out to me because I've developed a high sensitivity to distortion. Once you start paying attention to the gap between what people believe they're communicating and what they're actually communicating, it's difficult to stop seeing it.
Honest, and rather naive question. Women have to face problems that men don't have to; that is clear; and some of them are more real than others, as you have covered extensively in your fantastic Substack. However, this one seems to be a really significant and troublesome one for women, and obvious once you notice it; however, women don't seem to directly address it much.
Is it because it's an intra-sexual issue (versus, say, men discriminating against or harassing women), and thus difficult to get any society-wide traction on it? Or because the answer seems to be "we women have met the enemy, and she is us", and nobody likes that answer--especially when the victim and the perpetrator are both inside the house? Side note: Has there ever been a case when the three parties in the Karpman Drama Triangle are all the same?
Is it because addressing it would violate a taboo? A foul in the game of (women's) life?
Is it because addressing it could be perceived as callling attention to a personal weakness--that is, an inability to effectively play the game?
Where did this social incentive come from? How did this evolve or come to be? And what can be done about it? What does it serve?
I see women stress and labor under this burden, and have to wonder who benefits from it, and if there's any way for women to walk away from this game.
These are really good questions that I'm going to partly answer in my follow piece. I also think it's more complex than trying to find a single cause to why women don't address it.
There is absolutely the intrasexual competition, the inability to acknowledge our own weaknesses and foibles (taboo- content in my upcoming piece), there are social and economic incentives, status needs, fear of consequences after calling out the fake sisterhood and a whole lot of conditioning.
We can be all three parties of a karpman drama triangle in a single interaction as well as the counterparts in The Empowered Triad. The fact that we remain oblivious to our true motives driving behaviour can blind us to the reality that we might be playing the perpetrator too alongside the victim and rescuer.
I'll look forward to your thoughts on my next piece and you'll let me know if I addressed any of your questions. Thanks Jabster!
That's really interesting, Nathalie. I think you already know my feelings on parasocial relationships, though in my own case, this happens far less with women than men. But I suspect that's also because you likely have more female readers? One thing I did do when I was younger was to write emails asking to meet certain professional contacts. But my currency was humor and whimsy. I certainly did not feel entitled to anyone's time nor that I had earned equal professional footing. I was grateful when a number of those people had agreed, even though these were cold calls. And, today, if someone writes a thoughtful message asking for a bit of my time for advice (on becoming a journalist for example), I'll often agree if I feel they had put some effort into, don't take it for granted and show familiarity with my work. But I think that's different from someone immediately placing themselves on the same footing without earning it and deciding that their contributions should be immediately added to your work as an improvement.
Thank you Katherine! Putting in effort to try to engage someone using your communication skills and personality can come across as a genuine attempt to connect by the recipient. The point is effort. It's obvious when someone has taken the time and care to engage you and obvious when you're part of a marketing formula.
Emotional blackmail - that's a great way of putting the feeling of receiving these messages. Trust takes too long and gets in the way of reacting to urgency! Thanks Eva!
Long-time reader, first-time commenter. And this is one of the few pieces of yours that's genuinely rubbed me the wrong way, which is partly why I'm finally commenting.
I htink there's a real observation buried in here: the etiquette gap between "this resonated with me" and "here's how your framework should be expanded" from a stranger is worth naming. But the framing collapses once you attribute it almost entirely to female status anxiety and disowned envy. The behavior you're describing—cold outreach, pitching collaboration, asking for platform access —is the literal playbook every networking and personal-branding resource teaches, to everyone, on LinkedIn and off it. It seems to me that you're pathologizing a structural artifact of how these platforms train people to behave, and assigning it a gendered psychological cause that's pretty hard to falsify (if a woman denies the insecurity, that's offered as proof it's "outside her awareness").
There's also a selection-bias problem worth naming (as another commentor has noted): if your readership skews female, then the volume of outreach you get from women isn't evidence of a gendered behavioral pattern: it's just who's in your audience. You'd need a comparison against your male readers' outreach rate to know if there's actually a gender effect here at all, and that comparison isn't in the piece.
Finally, the "before you call me a woman hater" list does more work than it should, too. Naming a handful of women whose outreach you approved of isn't an answer to the structural critique; it's inoculation against it. The same move as "I can't be biased, look who I'm friends with." It lets the core claim stand unexamined rather than actually tested against the simpler explanation.
Thank you for taking the time to write such a thoughtful first comment. I genuinely appreciate the care you took in explaining where the article lost you.
Your point about status anxiety is fair. I was drawing on ideas I've developed over a number of earlier articles about covert envy and status regulation, and I compressed too much of that thinking into this piece. My explanation comes from observing this pattern repeatedly in others and recognising that I've engaged in similar behaviour myself at times when I felt insecure and envious in the presence of women I admired. This article doesn't show that progression, so I can see why the explanation feels like too big a leap.
On the question of networking, I agree that social media and personal branding culture encourage people to reach out to strangers, but it doesn't compel this particular form of outreach. People still choose how they engage. Good marketing and relationship building advice also emphasise building trust before expecting influence.
On the selection bias point, I can see why you raised it. My audience isn't predominantly female. The majority of outreach I receive on Substack is actually from men, while on LinkedIn I receive slightly more outreach from women. Men have approached me in the way I describe, so I'm not suggesting this behaviour is exclusive to women. My observation is that this particular pattern appears disproportionately in messages from women. The article explores why I encounter this pattern so frequently among women.
I also take your point about the final paragraph. The "I can't be biased because I have X friends" argument makes me cringe too, and I can see why that paragraph came across that way. It wasn't intended as evidence for the argument and was there to distinguish the behaviour I'm describing from the many women I've come to know through Substack who approached me with genuine curiosity and allowed trust to develop naturally over time. Those relationships have been a real pleasure.
Thank you again for engaging with the article so thoughtfully. Comments like yours help me see where my reasoning is clear, where I've assumed readers have followed me from earlier pieces, and where I need to improve.
Those are good points. The thing that stands out to be is the lack of respect in how these cold approaches are conducted. I think a man would approach a more senior or accomplished man with more deference, but women assume a sort of equality that can be more insulting in its own way. Again, small sample size, it's speculation, etc. It does line up with my own experience as a woman that female groups have a toxic egalitarianism where everyone must be exactly equal all the time, or the group breaks apart.
Thank you for articulating this in a way that makes so much sense. I see the ‘status building through relationships’ behavior in my women peer groups. It’s a subtle form of power that. I also experience this behavior as an immigrant, a woman of color, where the expectation is to fast track intimacy due to a shared background. Most times I’m happy to meet and connect, but I do expect true relationships to be built over time. That nuance seems to be indeed lost.
I'm glad it resonated Nikki. I can totally understand how easy it is to bypass some of the relationship building steps when you're new to a place/group because you just want to feel comfortable or the other is trying to make you feel comfortable enough to drop your guard. But like you said, the expectation of intimacy based on a shared background or experience feels forced and leads to issues down the track when the beliefs bound to those expectations are challenged and disrupted.
Thank you!!! 🙌🏼🙌🏼🙌🏼 I can’t like this enough. I’ve been iced out here and there for not playing these games and I’m fine with that — I prefer actual relationship building and connection. So glad we connected. 💛🫶
You're the connecting queen Kelly. We both know about the freeze queens out here and their attempts to connect and extract your ideas while claiming them as their own. Another wonderful function of the envy-insecurity-resentment trifecta that we have both sampled that plague so many women (and some men but that's another topic).
Love this Nathalie! It gives such a pause for reflection. I’ve experienced the ick of reading introductory messages that felt - and were- very entitled and condescending. I can also see where I’ve been drawn to others’ work and have been super awkward and lacked clarity in my contact that it’s no wonder there was zero response. Thank you for putting into words this multi layered dynamic!
Thanks for reading it Shana! I'm glad it resonated and got you thinking about how your messages might be experienced by the other person. I mean, we can never know if what we said was a turn off if we never get a response. But, the examination of our own outreach practices and how to express interest to connect without the distortion from insecurity is always a good thing.
This was interesting, I haven't noticed it as much. Or, if it did happen I was oblivious to it.
I do think they key is to be clear about your ask and your intent, and time limit it. Example "Would you be free for a15min call so I can ask 2-3 questions about TOPIC?"
Some people will ignore you, some will say yes, and some will be offended. It has been my experience that extremely successful people will say "yes" and middle managers will ignore your or reply with a snarky message. Make of that what you will.
Oh how I wish people were this clear and respectful “Example "Would you be free for a15min call so I can ask 2-3 questions about TOPIC?"
Middle managers might see that clarity as arrogant assumed authority and ignore or sass back to restore superiority. Successful people don’t have those issues.
Probably the best way of looking at this is "relationship spamming". That is, someone wanting a connection--a "relationship"--for personally self-serving reasons, while putting some kind of a veneer on it to hide that. Many times that veneer is one of "I can help you, and this is how", while ignoring the fact that that "help" may not be needed, wanted, or appreciated--or has unspoken self-serving motives.
Now, commerce has operated in this way for centuries. However, when the party making the offer is being honest about the nature of the proposed relationship, it's fine. It's when it starts masquerading as something else things get, well, gross--especially if the party making the offer starts trying to pretend that suddenly you're the best of friends.
I see this a lot on LinkedIn. The problem with LinkedIn is you never know why someone wants to connect with you, unless there is some pre-existing relationship (such as a colleague at work) or they state it up front.
A woman connected with me on LinkedIn, and then proceeded to pitch me on her service--essentially a cold sales call. Well, OK. I took the bait. Happens all the time. Sometimes cold connections are fruitful, especially when trying to drum up business and connections yourself.
But when I didn't respond, I got this followup: "starting to feel like prom again...being stood up lol" Gross! Trying to imply that I had some obligation there to respond to her cold call implied more of a relationship than there was, and her simile just made it more icky.
Yes to this part: "Now, commerce has operated in this way for centuries. However, when the party making the offer is being honest about the nature of the proposed relationship, it's fine. It's when it starts masquerading as something else things get, well, gross--especially if the party making the offer starts trying to pretend that suddenly you're the best of friends."
I have low tolerance to distortion. I would put up with it in workplaces because that's just what you do when you know saying something about it will get your ass kicked and scapegoated. But when it's in my own sphere, I don't have to tolerate it or invite it in.
This is absolutely Linkedin culture, where much of my inspiration comes for these articles. I'm on Linkedin daily to post my own things but I'm very clear about their purpose (business and education) and I don't do the fakery. The cold calls after connecting, as if accepting a connection makes it now ok to sell at me is super gross. The scenario you gave with the smartass followup is the essence of this article in one response.
Let me take the other side of this for a moment, at least in part, as a mental exercise. We’ll see whether it makes sense or has a “there” there.
Social media was originally sold to us for the “social” part, but it’s the “media” part that we were actually buying. And a medium mediates.
Just like the fourth state of water is the medium through which information moves in our bodies, the internet is the medium through which information is moving from one node (me) to another node (you) and vis versa. They told us it was a “network,” but I didn’t think about what that meant. A community has different social milieux; there are strictly personal, strictly professional, and some in-between. But social media is actually mostly the last two. I suspect the vast majority of time spent here is monetized, or in the interest of monetization.
I don’t have a problem with that, but I DO have a problem with fakery around it. Would I write for the public as much as I do if I didn’t need to make a living? Probably not, and it’s a good incentive that I am grateful for (I don’t make one on Substack, but I do work almost entirely remotely so people find me in the webs), but I left Instagram when it began to feel like the only content that could be visible had to be selling something. But, the consequence of that is that the assumption is that the whole space is one big networking event, where you are expected to hand out your card and ask for cards in return.
I believe that fiat currency and the global monetary system has created this and is the root of 99% of everything, but that’s another story for another day. For now, I think this situation raises the bar on the need to hone the ability to gracefully say, and accept, “no” for an answer.
I’m choosing to name that and embrace it more and more, but there are a lot of growing pains in both directions. I had a good client for several years who elected not to continue our work together when we reached a natural stopping point, and then completely ghosted my outreach to make sure that we were in good standing and had no unfinished business from her side.
I found myself taking it really personally, as if I were entitled to a response from someone beyond the terms of our clear, paid-in-full contract, and I noticed that I felt that way. My dentist doesn’t feel that way, despite the fact that I haven’t seen her in four years😂 But the constancy of electronic communications has lulled us into a weird parasocial space in what would, formerly, have been clearly professional.
I appreciate the mental exercise Sarah. I agree that social media is a mediator that plays the part of matchmaker for social and professional connections. I liked how Anuradha Pandey talked about social media as a marketing platform masquerading as a medium for social connection (if I understood her Note correctly). We are being sold to 100% of the time that we're here even if we convince ourselves that we're here for the writing or to find interesting writers. We're a product and the producers.
It certainly has helped many people here, including me, cultivate strong boundaries and relational filters to know intimacy fakery when it appears.
I also think that there are different expectations for practitioner-client dynamics. You do develop a strong familiarity and rhythm after working together, diving deeply into their innermost world. You would want and expect a clean ending after working together for so long, and assume that if something wasn't working, they would tell you especially if they've shown courage to give feedback before. It would make sense that you would feel upset or bothered when the long term client who benefited so much (or at least that's what they said and what you saw in them) ghosts you. I would want an explanation!!!
Dentists are more transactional because you're not exposing your psychic process and soul to them. They're in your mouth with a strict protocol to go through. The dentist wouldn't expect an explanation unless you had a strong emotional connection that was mutual.
Parasociality has messed with our mind and the process of building and sustaining longer term relationships. What many of us had thought was mutual could have been asymmetrical all along.
Thought-provoking as always. My experience both aligns with and differs from what you describe here in ways that spark my curiosity about both the communicator and the receiver in these sorts of encounters.
Some of my most meaningful collaborations (and friendships) have come from approaching people and being approached in this way. Have also encountered/been unresponsive. Your post has me thinking about whats at play in that dynamic.
It's interesting that you were open to engaging with people who approached you in the way I described when for me, I see it as dishonest and therefore, a turn off. I wonder what the conditions were at the time that would keep you open to engaging with them, and the conditions whereby you remained closed.
The reason I'm closed is because I've been burned by those who were unaware or in denial about their true motives by remaining open to them, which is why I eventually had to change my response. It's become a rule but it's not because I'm worried about getting hurt. It's more about wanting to engage with people who are alert to the distortions driving their interest and their transparency about it. So if someone were to approach me in this way, and I responded by sharing my thoughts about what I see is playing out and a rationale for why I'm declining their proposal, then they responded with an acknowledgement and transparency about their true motives. I'd be more inclined to engage because truth presented itself.
Having said that, I have had people who approached me this way and it seemed that they were status levelling because they were masking their vulnerability. That despite their professional expertise about say, workplace dynamics, they were caught up in their own difficult situation and couldn't find their way out. I could see through the this and chose to engage to see if they would open up.
You got me thinking about the situations in which I make exceptions to my rule that I had not thought about before. Thank you!
My approach to this emerges from spiritual practice, so it is by its very nature neither rational nor logical. It often leads to engaging with people I neither trust nor believe to be honest (whether I like it or not). And, to be plain, I am often “betrayed” in one way or another according to rational/logical measures. Not an approach I would readily recommend to others lol, but it’s the one I’ve discerned to be mine. I’m also thinking about where/when I operate in exceptions. Interesting post indeed!
I really resonated with this Nathalie. Thank you for having the courage to write about it, especially in today’s climate where these conversations can be difficult to have.
One thing I’ve realised throughout my career is that the best managers I’ve had have been both women and men, but the majority have actually been men. That’s only my experience, not a generalisation, but it’s made me reflect a lot on relationship-building in the workplace.
I’ve always found it difficult when there’s an expectation of instant closeness simply because we’re both women. As someone who’s quite observant (and neurodivergent), I naturally build trust slowly. I need to know who someone is before I change how I relate to them, what I share with them, or how much I trust them. Relationships, whether personal or professional, have always felt like something that should be earned over time, not assumed.
I’ve also experienced more jealousy, resentment and competitiveness from women than from men. Again, that’s just my experience. Most of the men I’ve worked with have been far more pragmatic. Competition seemed to motivate them rather than threaten them, whereas with some women I’ve felt there was more insecurity around it.
That said, I’ve also worked with incredible women who were the complete opposite. The difference, in my experience, has always been self-awareness. The women who had done the work on themselves became mentors. They wanted to see other women succeed. They shared their experience, challenged you when necessary, and genuinely celebrated your growth.
I sometimes think we focus so much on the barriers women face externally that we don’t spend enough time talking about the ways we can also hold one another back. We have the capacity to become each other’s greatest advocates, but sometimes we also become each other’s greatest obstacle. I think that’s a conversation worth having.
This is a really sharp piece. I had been loosely aware of these phenomena before, but hadn’t considered in nearly enough depth and certainty didn’t put my finger on it. The gendered aspect makes perfect sense given your explanation. Thanks for this!
One part I’m curious about: “You don’t walk into a conference, meet a keynote speaker for the first time, and begin by explaining how their framework should be expanded, and you don’t introduce yourself to a respected consultant by explaining how their methodology would be stronger if they incorporated your model.”
Weirdly, this does seem to happen with more frequency than I expect. I try to make a point of being available after my talks and workshops, and a surprising amount of people come up to me hoping to “collaborate” in some way that really just involves me incorporating and platforming their ideas.
It is predominantly women that do this (though not entirely). I’m curious how my gender etc. influences this.
Thank you for reading it Jake. I've been guilty in the past of doing the exact thing I wrote about and that you described happens to you with women. Men who exude authority can trigger several reactions in women who would like to also have the same platform and recognition as the man on stage, and who believe they also have the same authority to be up there. When you're approached, it's competitiveness mixed with admiration. Men are more readily recognised as authorities on a subject than women (it's just how it is) so women who think you don't deserve to be up there compete by trying to prove they have as much expertise as you that you would want to access through a collaboration. It's our way of challenging your authority while trying to access it. That's why it's never a good idea to entertain a collaboration when anyone acts like that!
Men are doing the same thing but men find other ways to challenge authority than trying to force a collaboration.
This absolutely tracks! I also probably code as women-friendly/likely supportive rather than archetypically masculine (feminist politics/musings, deprecating humor; even the bearded dad-bro vibe is probably subordinate to the academic pedigree nerd + cliché suburban girl-dad energy) in a way that invites more of these requests at these keynotes.
Also just read the piece you linked to. Exceptional stuff. Consider me subscribed.
I write about the things I used to do even if it makes me cringe. I didn't think about the things I write about now to inform my own approach back then. I'm hopeful that my cringe moments help people become aware of their own or at least know why some people's messages seem a bit off.
It’s funny I have you tagged in my post for today with similar sentiments. I imagine women think this is normal because we have social incentives men don’t — the need to maintain status without looking like it ends up producing a false sense of both inferiority AND superiority (because the former can manifest as the latter which you’ve probably said over all these essays). And the need to maintain status covertly along with a society that’s now about performance rather than substance uniquely affects us. That then shows up in our thought.
The "without looking like it" part is key. I think the behaviour stands out to me because I've developed a high sensitivity to distortion. Once you start paying attention to the gap between what people believe they're communicating and what they're actually communicating, it's difficult to stop seeing it.
I'm looking forward to your piece!
My whole life struggle seems to be about that gap
I hear you!
Honest, and rather naive question. Women have to face problems that men don't have to; that is clear; and some of them are more real than others, as you have covered extensively in your fantastic Substack. However, this one seems to be a really significant and troublesome one for women, and obvious once you notice it; however, women don't seem to directly address it much.
Is it because it's an intra-sexual issue (versus, say, men discriminating against or harassing women), and thus difficult to get any society-wide traction on it? Or because the answer seems to be "we women have met the enemy, and she is us", and nobody likes that answer--especially when the victim and the perpetrator are both inside the house? Side note: Has there ever been a case when the three parties in the Karpman Drama Triangle are all the same?
Is it because addressing it would violate a taboo? A foul in the game of (women's) life?
Is it because addressing it could be perceived as callling attention to a personal weakness--that is, an inability to effectively play the game?
Where did this social incentive come from? How did this evolve or come to be? And what can be done about it? What does it serve?
I see women stress and labor under this burden, and have to wonder who benefits from it, and if there's any way for women to walk away from this game.
These are really good questions that I'm going to partly answer in my follow piece. I also think it's more complex than trying to find a single cause to why women don't address it.
There is absolutely the intrasexual competition, the inability to acknowledge our own weaknesses and foibles (taboo- content in my upcoming piece), there are social and economic incentives, status needs, fear of consequences after calling out the fake sisterhood and a whole lot of conditioning.
We can be all three parties of a karpman drama triangle in a single interaction as well as the counterparts in The Empowered Triad. The fact that we remain oblivious to our true motives driving behaviour can blind us to the reality that we might be playing the perpetrator too alongside the victim and rescuer.
I'll look forward to your thoughts on my next piece and you'll let me know if I addressed any of your questions. Thanks Jabster!
That's really interesting, Nathalie. I think you already know my feelings on parasocial relationships, though in my own case, this happens far less with women than men. But I suspect that's also because you likely have more female readers? One thing I did do when I was younger was to write emails asking to meet certain professional contacts. But my currency was humor and whimsy. I certainly did not feel entitled to anyone's time nor that I had earned equal professional footing. I was grateful when a number of those people had agreed, even though these were cold calls. And, today, if someone writes a thoughtful message asking for a bit of my time for advice (on becoming a journalist for example), I'll often agree if I feel they had put some effort into, don't take it for granted and show familiarity with my work. But I think that's different from someone immediately placing themselves on the same footing without earning it and deciding that their contributions should be immediately added to your work as an improvement.
Thank you Katherine! Putting in effort to try to engage someone using your communication skills and personality can come across as a genuine attempt to connect by the recipient. The point is effort. It's obvious when someone has taken the time and care to engage you and obvious when you're part of a marketing formula.
Very true.
oh my goodness , thank you for this post. much needed today. what happened to trust-building instead of "emotional blackmail"?
Emotional blackmail - that's a great way of putting the feeling of receiving these messages. Trust takes too long and gets in the way of reacting to urgency! Thanks Eva!
I am happy the phrase fits - I cannot claim credit for this apt phrase as it was Susan Forward, PhD who coined this term
Long-time reader, first-time commenter. And this is one of the few pieces of yours that's genuinely rubbed me the wrong way, which is partly why I'm finally commenting.
I htink there's a real observation buried in here: the etiquette gap between "this resonated with me" and "here's how your framework should be expanded" from a stranger is worth naming. But the framing collapses once you attribute it almost entirely to female status anxiety and disowned envy. The behavior you're describing—cold outreach, pitching collaboration, asking for platform access —is the literal playbook every networking and personal-branding resource teaches, to everyone, on LinkedIn and off it. It seems to me that you're pathologizing a structural artifact of how these platforms train people to behave, and assigning it a gendered psychological cause that's pretty hard to falsify (if a woman denies the insecurity, that's offered as proof it's "outside her awareness").
There's also a selection-bias problem worth naming (as another commentor has noted): if your readership skews female, then the volume of outreach you get from women isn't evidence of a gendered behavioral pattern: it's just who's in your audience. You'd need a comparison against your male readers' outreach rate to know if there's actually a gender effect here at all, and that comparison isn't in the piece.
Finally, the "before you call me a woman hater" list does more work than it should, too. Naming a handful of women whose outreach you approved of isn't an answer to the structural critique; it's inoculation against it. The same move as "I can't be biased, look who I'm friends with." It lets the core claim stand unexamined rather than actually tested against the simpler explanation.
Thank you for taking the time to write such a thoughtful first comment. I genuinely appreciate the care you took in explaining where the article lost you.
Your point about status anxiety is fair. I was drawing on ideas I've developed over a number of earlier articles about covert envy and status regulation, and I compressed too much of that thinking into this piece. My explanation comes from observing this pattern repeatedly in others and recognising that I've engaged in similar behaviour myself at times when I felt insecure and envious in the presence of women I admired. This article doesn't show that progression, so I can see why the explanation feels like too big a leap.
On the question of networking, I agree that social media and personal branding culture encourage people to reach out to strangers, but it doesn't compel this particular form of outreach. People still choose how they engage. Good marketing and relationship building advice also emphasise building trust before expecting influence.
On the selection bias point, I can see why you raised it. My audience isn't predominantly female. The majority of outreach I receive on Substack is actually from men, while on LinkedIn I receive slightly more outreach from women. Men have approached me in the way I describe, so I'm not suggesting this behaviour is exclusive to women. My observation is that this particular pattern appears disproportionately in messages from women. The article explores why I encounter this pattern so frequently among women.
I also take your point about the final paragraph. The "I can't be biased because I have X friends" argument makes me cringe too, and I can see why that paragraph came across that way. It wasn't intended as evidence for the argument and was there to distinguish the behaviour I'm describing from the many women I've come to know through Substack who approached me with genuine curiosity and allowed trust to develop naturally over time. Those relationships have been a real pleasure.
Thank you again for engaging with the article so thoughtfully. Comments like yours help me see where my reasoning is clear, where I've assumed readers have followed me from earlier pieces, and where I need to improve.
Those are good points. The thing that stands out to be is the lack of respect in how these cold approaches are conducted. I think a man would approach a more senior or accomplished man with more deference, but women assume a sort of equality that can be more insulting in its own way. Again, small sample size, it's speculation, etc. It does line up with my own experience as a woman that female groups have a toxic egalitarianism where everyone must be exactly equal all the time, or the group breaks apart.
Thank you for articulating this in a way that makes so much sense. I see the ‘status building through relationships’ behavior in my women peer groups. It’s a subtle form of power that. I also experience this behavior as an immigrant, a woman of color, where the expectation is to fast track intimacy due to a shared background. Most times I’m happy to meet and connect, but I do expect true relationships to be built over time. That nuance seems to be indeed lost.
I'm glad it resonated Nikki. I can totally understand how easy it is to bypass some of the relationship building steps when you're new to a place/group because you just want to feel comfortable or the other is trying to make you feel comfortable enough to drop your guard. But like you said, the expectation of intimacy based on a shared background or experience feels forced and leads to issues down the track when the beliefs bound to those expectations are challenged and disrupted.
Thank you!!! 🙌🏼🙌🏼🙌🏼 I can’t like this enough. I’ve been iced out here and there for not playing these games and I’m fine with that — I prefer actual relationship building and connection. So glad we connected. 💛🫶
You're the connecting queen Kelly. We both know about the freeze queens out here and their attempts to connect and extract your ideas while claiming them as their own. Another wonderful function of the envy-insecurity-resentment trifecta that we have both sampled that plague so many women (and some men but that's another topic).
Love this Nathalie! It gives such a pause for reflection. I’ve experienced the ick of reading introductory messages that felt - and were- very entitled and condescending. I can also see where I’ve been drawn to others’ work and have been super awkward and lacked clarity in my contact that it’s no wonder there was zero response. Thank you for putting into words this multi layered dynamic!
Thanks for reading it Shana! I'm glad it resonated and got you thinking about how your messages might be experienced by the other person. I mean, we can never know if what we said was a turn off if we never get a response. But, the examination of our own outreach practices and how to express interest to connect without the distortion from insecurity is always a good thing.
This was interesting, I haven't noticed it as much. Or, if it did happen I was oblivious to it.
I do think they key is to be clear about your ask and your intent, and time limit it. Example "Would you be free for a15min call so I can ask 2-3 questions about TOPIC?"
Some people will ignore you, some will say yes, and some will be offended. It has been my experience that extremely successful people will say "yes" and middle managers will ignore your or reply with a snarky message. Make of that what you will.
Oh how I wish people were this clear and respectful “Example "Would you be free for a15min call so I can ask 2-3 questions about TOPIC?"
Middle managers might see that clarity as arrogant assumed authority and ignore or sass back to restore superiority. Successful people don’t have those issues.
Probably the best way of looking at this is "relationship spamming". That is, someone wanting a connection--a "relationship"--for personally self-serving reasons, while putting some kind of a veneer on it to hide that. Many times that veneer is one of "I can help you, and this is how", while ignoring the fact that that "help" may not be needed, wanted, or appreciated--or has unspoken self-serving motives.
Now, commerce has operated in this way for centuries. However, when the party making the offer is being honest about the nature of the proposed relationship, it's fine. It's when it starts masquerading as something else things get, well, gross--especially if the party making the offer starts trying to pretend that suddenly you're the best of friends.
I see this a lot on LinkedIn. The problem with LinkedIn is you never know why someone wants to connect with you, unless there is some pre-existing relationship (such as a colleague at work) or they state it up front.
A woman connected with me on LinkedIn, and then proceeded to pitch me on her service--essentially a cold sales call. Well, OK. I took the bait. Happens all the time. Sometimes cold connections are fruitful, especially when trying to drum up business and connections yourself.
But when I didn't respond, I got this followup: "starting to feel like prom again...being stood up lol" Gross! Trying to imply that I had some obligation there to respond to her cold call implied more of a relationship than there was, and her simile just made it more icky.
Yes to this part: "Now, commerce has operated in this way for centuries. However, when the party making the offer is being honest about the nature of the proposed relationship, it's fine. It's when it starts masquerading as something else things get, well, gross--especially if the party making the offer starts trying to pretend that suddenly you're the best of friends."
I have low tolerance to distortion. I would put up with it in workplaces because that's just what you do when you know saying something about it will get your ass kicked and scapegoated. But when it's in my own sphere, I don't have to tolerate it or invite it in.
This is absolutely Linkedin culture, where much of my inspiration comes for these articles. I'm on Linkedin daily to post my own things but I'm very clear about their purpose (business and education) and I don't do the fakery. The cold calls after connecting, as if accepting a connection makes it now ok to sell at me is super gross. The scenario you gave with the smartass followup is the essence of this article in one response.
Let me take the other side of this for a moment, at least in part, as a mental exercise. We’ll see whether it makes sense or has a “there” there.
Social media was originally sold to us for the “social” part, but it’s the “media” part that we were actually buying. And a medium mediates.
Just like the fourth state of water is the medium through which information moves in our bodies, the internet is the medium through which information is moving from one node (me) to another node (you) and vis versa. They told us it was a “network,” but I didn’t think about what that meant. A community has different social milieux; there are strictly personal, strictly professional, and some in-between. But social media is actually mostly the last two. I suspect the vast majority of time spent here is monetized, or in the interest of monetization.
I don’t have a problem with that, but I DO have a problem with fakery around it. Would I write for the public as much as I do if I didn’t need to make a living? Probably not, and it’s a good incentive that I am grateful for (I don’t make one on Substack, but I do work almost entirely remotely so people find me in the webs), but I left Instagram when it began to feel like the only content that could be visible had to be selling something. But, the consequence of that is that the assumption is that the whole space is one big networking event, where you are expected to hand out your card and ask for cards in return.
I believe that fiat currency and the global monetary system has created this and is the root of 99% of everything, but that’s another story for another day. For now, I think this situation raises the bar on the need to hone the ability to gracefully say, and accept, “no” for an answer.
I’m choosing to name that and embrace it more and more, but there are a lot of growing pains in both directions. I had a good client for several years who elected not to continue our work together when we reached a natural stopping point, and then completely ghosted my outreach to make sure that we were in good standing and had no unfinished business from her side.
I found myself taking it really personally, as if I were entitled to a response from someone beyond the terms of our clear, paid-in-full contract, and I noticed that I felt that way. My dentist doesn’t feel that way, despite the fact that I haven’t seen her in four years😂 But the constancy of electronic communications has lulled us into a weird parasocial space in what would, formerly, have been clearly professional.
I appreciate the mental exercise Sarah. I agree that social media is a mediator that plays the part of matchmaker for social and professional connections. I liked how Anuradha Pandey talked about social media as a marketing platform masquerading as a medium for social connection (if I understood her Note correctly). We are being sold to 100% of the time that we're here even if we convince ourselves that we're here for the writing or to find interesting writers. We're a product and the producers.
It certainly has helped many people here, including me, cultivate strong boundaries and relational filters to know intimacy fakery when it appears.
I also think that there are different expectations for practitioner-client dynamics. You do develop a strong familiarity and rhythm after working together, diving deeply into their innermost world. You would want and expect a clean ending after working together for so long, and assume that if something wasn't working, they would tell you especially if they've shown courage to give feedback before. It would make sense that you would feel upset or bothered when the long term client who benefited so much (or at least that's what they said and what you saw in them) ghosts you. I would want an explanation!!!
Dentists are more transactional because you're not exposing your psychic process and soul to them. They're in your mouth with a strict protocol to go through. The dentist wouldn't expect an explanation unless you had a strong emotional connection that was mutual.
Parasociality has messed with our mind and the process of building and sustaining longer term relationships. What many of us had thought was mutual could have been asymmetrical all along.
Excellent writing and analysis. Thank you.
Thanks Marco!
Thought-provoking as always. My experience both aligns with and differs from what you describe here in ways that spark my curiosity about both the communicator and the receiver in these sorts of encounters.
You've piqued my curiosity, Joan. What are you wondering about the communicator and the receiver?
Some of my most meaningful collaborations (and friendships) have come from approaching people and being approached in this way. Have also encountered/been unresponsive. Your post has me thinking about whats at play in that dynamic.
It's interesting that you were open to engaging with people who approached you in the way I described when for me, I see it as dishonest and therefore, a turn off. I wonder what the conditions were at the time that would keep you open to engaging with them, and the conditions whereby you remained closed.
The reason I'm closed is because I've been burned by those who were unaware or in denial about their true motives by remaining open to them, which is why I eventually had to change my response. It's become a rule but it's not because I'm worried about getting hurt. It's more about wanting to engage with people who are alert to the distortions driving their interest and their transparency about it. So if someone were to approach me in this way, and I responded by sharing my thoughts about what I see is playing out and a rationale for why I'm declining their proposal, then they responded with an acknowledgement and transparency about their true motives. I'd be more inclined to engage because truth presented itself.
Having said that, I have had people who approached me this way and it seemed that they were status levelling because they were masking their vulnerability. That despite their professional expertise about say, workplace dynamics, they were caught up in their own difficult situation and couldn't find their way out. I could see through the this and chose to engage to see if they would open up.
You got me thinking about the situations in which I make exceptions to my rule that I had not thought about before. Thank you!
My approach to this emerges from spiritual practice, so it is by its very nature neither rational nor logical. It often leads to engaging with people I neither trust nor believe to be honest (whether I like it or not). And, to be plain, I am often “betrayed” in one way or another according to rational/logical measures. Not an approach I would readily recommend to others lol, but it’s the one I’ve discerned to be mine. I’m also thinking about where/when I operate in exceptions. Interesting post indeed!
I really resonated with this Nathalie. Thank you for having the courage to write about it, especially in today’s climate where these conversations can be difficult to have.
One thing I’ve realised throughout my career is that the best managers I’ve had have been both women and men, but the majority have actually been men. That’s only my experience, not a generalisation, but it’s made me reflect a lot on relationship-building in the workplace.
I’ve always found it difficult when there’s an expectation of instant closeness simply because we’re both women. As someone who’s quite observant (and neurodivergent), I naturally build trust slowly. I need to know who someone is before I change how I relate to them, what I share with them, or how much I trust them. Relationships, whether personal or professional, have always felt like something that should be earned over time, not assumed.
I’ve also experienced more jealousy, resentment and competitiveness from women than from men. Again, that’s just my experience. Most of the men I’ve worked with have been far more pragmatic. Competition seemed to motivate them rather than threaten them, whereas with some women I’ve felt there was more insecurity around it.
That said, I’ve also worked with incredible women who were the complete opposite. The difference, in my experience, has always been self-awareness. The women who had done the work on themselves became mentors. They wanted to see other women succeed. They shared their experience, challenged you when necessary, and genuinely celebrated your growth.
I sometimes think we focus so much on the barriers women face externally that we don’t spend enough time talking about the ways we can also hold one another back. We have the capacity to become each other’s greatest advocates, but sometimes we also become each other’s greatest obstacle. I think that’s a conversation worth having.
This is a really sharp piece. I had been loosely aware of these phenomena before, but hadn’t considered in nearly enough depth and certainty didn’t put my finger on it. The gendered aspect makes perfect sense given your explanation. Thanks for this!
One part I’m curious about: “You don’t walk into a conference, meet a keynote speaker for the first time, and begin by explaining how their framework should be expanded, and you don’t introduce yourself to a respected consultant by explaining how their methodology would be stronger if they incorporated your model.”
Weirdly, this does seem to happen with more frequency than I expect. I try to make a point of being available after my talks and workshops, and a surprising amount of people come up to me hoping to “collaborate” in some way that really just involves me incorporating and platforming their ideas.
It is predominantly women that do this (though not entirely). I’m curious how my gender etc. influences this.
Thank you for reading it Jake. I've been guilty in the past of doing the exact thing I wrote about and that you described happens to you with women. Men who exude authority can trigger several reactions in women who would like to also have the same platform and recognition as the man on stage, and who believe they also have the same authority to be up there. When you're approached, it's competitiveness mixed with admiration. Men are more readily recognised as authorities on a subject than women (it's just how it is) so women who think you don't deserve to be up there compete by trying to prove they have as much expertise as you that you would want to access through a collaboration. It's our way of challenging your authority while trying to access it. That's why it's never a good idea to entertain a collaboration when anyone acts like that!
Men are doing the same thing but men find other ways to challenge authority than trying to force a collaboration.
I wrote a cautionary piece about it here that applies to men as much as it does to women here: https://www.hackingnarcissism.com/p/sisterhood2
This absolutely tracks! I also probably code as women-friendly/likely supportive rather than archetypically masculine (feminist politics/musings, deprecating humor; even the bearded dad-bro vibe is probably subordinate to the academic pedigree nerd + cliché suburban girl-dad energy) in a way that invites more of these requests at these keynotes.
Also just read the piece you linked to. Exceptional stuff. Consider me subscribed.
Wow, yes. Thank you for putting this situation into words.
I'm glad it resonated. Thank you Josiane for reading it!
This is rings painfully, awkwardly true.
I write about the things I used to do even if it makes me cringe. I didn't think about the things I write about now to inform my own approach back then. I'm hopeful that my cringe moments help people become aware of their own or at least know why some people's messages seem a bit off.