logo
The 5-minute trick men use that undermines women in meetings

The 5-minute trick men use that undermines women in meetings

Fast Company2 days ago

Theftosterone (noun): When a woman shares an idea with her colleagues, perhaps in a meeting, and five minutes later, a man says almost the exact same thing, posing it as his own original idea in an effort to bolster his professional reputation at the expense of hers. (This aggression is exacerbated when the collective response to the woman is lackluster but the man gets credit for 'his' great suggestion and is all too happy to bask in the praise without the slightest sense of guilt.)
It doesn't matter how smart or accomplished the woman is, men still conversationally steamroll them and sometimes outright steal their ideas. We call this phenomenon 'theftosterone.'
It happens even in the highest court in the land. Transcripts of fifteen years of Supreme Court oral arguments show that as more women have joined the court, male justices have increased their interruptions of the female justices. Many male justices interrupt female justices at double-digit rates per term, but the reverse is almost never true. During a twelve-year span, when women made up 24% of the bench, 32% of interruptions were of the female justices, but only 4% were by female justices. Strangely, as the gender imbalance on the court has lessened over the past several years, the incidents of this have not gone down. In fact they've increased.
When we asked people in a survey for their firsthand experience observing original-thought theft, over 72% said they had indeed seen it take place. Reassuringly, the percentage of times it was called out, either on the spot or reported afterward, was 10% higher than incidents when the perpetrator was not called out on it.
THE MOST VULNERABLE
Kate White, the legendary editor in chief of Cosmopolitan, says that if you're a good idea person, you need to be extra vigilant in anticipating theftosterone and warding it off before it happens.
'I came up the ranks as an idea person. And let me tell you, those who are not idea people often steal your ideas out of desperation.'
There are two ways to protect against that, White says. Whenever possible, put ideas in writing and cc people. If your boss wants you to generate ideas in meetings, use a claim-the-floor strategy.
'You can say something like 'If I could have everyone's attention, I'd like to take a moment to provide some vital information that I think will be eye-opening and of tremendous value.' Don't just blurt out something like 'Maybe we should employ that strategy in California too.' It might get lost in the back-and-forth and then someone (probably a guy) will bring it up five minutes later as their own.
'Instead, gain the floor, and say, 'I have an idea. I think we should consider employing this strategy in California, and let me offer some research that explains why.' Don't start with all the research. Women tend to show their homework first.'
BLOCKING THE PUNCH
But what if the theftosterone has already been perpetrated? Here are three possible courses of action:
Amplification: This requires the cooperation and involvement of women colleagues. Juliet Eilperin, a reporter for the Washington Post, spoke with women who worked in the Obama administration who devised an antidote to theftosterone. It's a technique they called 'amplification.' Here's how it works. If a woman in a meeting makes a suggestion or presents an idea, another woman immediately acknowledges it, repeats it, and gives her credit. This shuts down any possibility that a man in the meeting can later stake claim to the idea for himself. The plan was executed with so much success that women in the administration noticed that Obama began calling on women in meetings more often.
Claiming Affirmation: If assembling a team of female support isn't possible for amplification, and you're forced to go it alone, it's up to you to speak up. The lines you should have in your back pocket are 'I'm glad you agree with the point I just made' or 'It's so gratifying to get your affirmation of my suggestion from a moment ago.'
Male Advocates: Women would benefit from a more equitable enforcement of communication justice. This requires that men also be on high alert for the appropriation of women's ideas at work. When they spot it, they can say, 'That sounds like exactly what Kristin said just a few minutes ago. Do you have anything more that you could add to that?' or 'I'm glad to see that you're aligned with the idea Kristin shared a little earlier.'
BALANCING GENDER COMMUNICATION
Unlike imitation, theftosterone is not the sincerest form of flattery. It is what its name suggests: an unjust appropriation of a woman's voice.
Given how long men have been engaging in this behavior, the prospect of eliminating or even dramatically curtailing these aggressions seems remote. For years the struggle to be properly respected seemed to be solely a battle for women to fight, and when they elected to go to the mat, often the consequences of being labeled militant or 'nasty' outweighed the benefits.
Men need to recognize the role they can and must play in combating this scourge to bring about more equity in communication in the workplace.
Adapted from by Bill McGowan and Juliana Silva. Copyright © 2025 by Bill McGowan and Juliana Silva. Reprinted courtesy of Harper Business, an imprint of HarperCollins Publishers. Available wherever books are sold.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Supreme Court Sides With Teenager in School Disability Discrimination Case
Supreme Court Sides With Teenager in School Disability Discrimination Case

New York Times

time34 minutes ago

  • New York Times

Supreme Court Sides With Teenager in School Disability Discrimination Case

The Supreme Court on Thursday sided with a teenage girl with epilepsy and her parents who had sued a Minnesota school district, claiming that her school had failed to provide reasonable accommodations, which made it difficult for her to receive instruction. The case hinged on what standard of proof was required to show discrimination by public schools in education-related disability lawsuits. In a unanimous decision written by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., the court held that the student and her family needed to show only that the school system had acted with 'deliberate indifference' to her educational needs when they sued. That is the same standard that applies when people sue other institutions for discrimination based on disability. The school district argued that a higher standard — a stringent requirement that the institution had acted with 'bad faith or gross misjudgment' — should apply. Had the district prevailed, the new standard might have applied broadly to all kinds disability rights claims filed under the Rehabilitation Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act. That argument had unnerved some disability rights groups, which had cautioned that a ruling for the school could make it much harder for Americans with disabilities to successfully bring court challenges. Want all of The Times? Subscribe.

Supreme Court Unanimously Greenlights Lawsuit Over FBI's Botched Raid
Supreme Court Unanimously Greenlights Lawsuit Over FBI's Botched Raid

Newsweek

time38 minutes ago

  • Newsweek

Supreme Court Unanimously Greenlights Lawsuit Over FBI's Botched Raid

Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. The Supreme Court ruled unanimously on Thursday that an Atlanta family whose home was mistakenly raided by the FBI in 2017 can move forward with their lawsuit, granting them a new day in court. The decision stems from a pre-dawn incident in which an FBI SWAT team broke down the family's front door, deployed a flashbang grenade, and pointed weapons at Trina Martin, her then-boyfriend Toi Cliatt, and her 7-year-old son—only to realize moments later they had entered the wrong house. Although the agents quickly apologized and relocated to the correct address—blaming a GPS error for the mistake—Martin and Cliatt were left with emotional trauma and a damaged home. Their lawsuit against the federal government, alleging assault, false arrest, and other claims, was initially dismissed by lower courts. The 11th Circuit Court of Appeals had ruled that the agents were protected under the Constitution's Supremacy Clause, which prioritizes federal law over state law. But Martin's legal team, backed by advocacy groups across the political spectrum, appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that such protections should not shield federal agents from accountability in clear cases of harm. The Court's decision reverses the lower rulings and revives a debate on law enforcement oversight and federal immunity. This is a breaking news story. Updates to follow.

L.A. Immigration Crackdown Sparks Concerns About Possible Martial Law
L.A. Immigration Crackdown Sparks Concerns About Possible Martial Law

Forbes

timean hour ago

  • Forbes

L.A. Immigration Crackdown Sparks Concerns About Possible Martial Law

TOPSHOT - Demonstrators holding signs and flags face California National Guard members standing ... More guard outside the Federal Building as they protest in response to federal immigration operations in Los Angeles, on June 9, 2025. US President Donald Trump on June 9 ordered active-duty Marines into Los Angeles, vowing those protesting immigration arrests would be "hit harder" than ever. Protests in Los Angeles, home to a large Latino population, broke out on June 6, triggered by immigration raids that resulted in dozens of arrests of what authorities say are illegal migrants and gang members. (Photo by Apu GOMES / AFP) (Photo by APU GOMES/AFP via Getty Images) In recent weeks, the Los Angeles immigration crackdown has become the epicentre of a dangerous national experiment—one in which immigration enforcement is serving as the pretext for something far more ominous: a steady descent into possible martial law. The deployment of U.S. military forces into California without the governor's consent, the violent sweep of immigration raids, and the weaponization of emergency powers all signal that the constitutional order is under siege. President Donald Trump's decision to send 4,000 National Guard troops and Marines into California was met with outrage from state leaders and legal experts alike. California Governor Gavin Newsom has called the action 'an illegal, immoral, and unconstitutional act,' and the state has filed suit against the federal government, citing violations of the U.S. Federal Code, which prohibit federalizing state militias except in cases of invasion, rebellion, or when a state cannot enforce its own laws. None of those conditions apply in this case. Yet the justification offered by the administration—that Los Angeles was on the brink of collapse due to immigrant protests—is as false and inflammatory as was demonstrated on a recent episode of Jimmy Kimmel, which showed footage of quiet Los Angeles streets. Following a series of ICE raids that detained over 100 people, protests erupted across the city. While the Los Angeles Police Department stated that the demonstrations were largely peaceful, federal officials framed them as acts of rebellion. In televised comments, President Trump, without evidence, declared that Los Angeles would have been 'completely obliterated' without military intervention. However, some legal scholars point out that such claims are disturbingly reminiscent of how autocrats have historically manufactured crises to seize power. For instance, in comments made recently by Yale historian Timothy Snyder, he warned, 'Be wary of paramilitaries. When the men with guns claim to be against the system, the system is under threat.' These warning signs are increasing. Earlier this year, President Trump re-declared a national emergency at the southern border, significantly intensifying deportation efforts, particularly in sanctuary jurisdictions. His Homeland Security Secretary, Kristi Noem, asserts that these efforts are crucial to national security. However, critics contend that the raids are politically motivated, intended to incite chaos and test the boundaries of presidential authority. This is not mere conjecture. There have been calls to arrest Governor Newsom for defying the troop deployment—an idea that would equate to criminalizing political opposition. The implications are chilling. Meanwhile, on Capitol Hill, Republicans are racing to pass what Trump has dubbed his 'big, beautiful bill,' a sprawling legislative package that, among other things, includes over $46 billion for the border wall and ICE funding. The administration is leveraging the unrest in Los Angeles to push hesitant GOP senators to fall in line. The proposed bill also imposes a $1,000 asylum application fee—an unprecedented barrier to legal refuge—and earmarks billions more for new Border Patrol and customs agents. These aren't merely policy choices; they are tools of exclusion and intimidation. Sen. Tom Cotton (R-AR), a leading voice for the legislation, is actively urging his colleagues to use the Los Angeles protests as proof of why ICE and the border crackdown require even more support. Beyond Capitol Hill, the cultural symbolism of this shift is equally revealing. Trump has announced a massive military parade in Washington, D.C., timed to coincide with the U.S. Army's 250th anniversary—and his own birthday. With tanks, howitzers, and cruise missile launchers on display, the spectacle is designed to evoke strength. But it also mirrors the authoritarian aesthetics of regimes like Russia and North Korea. The question is, where is this all heading? During his first term, Trump was dissuaded from invoking the Insurrection Act during the George Floyd protests only after senior military officials objected. This time, with loyalists appointed to key positions, those checks seem to be absent. Historically, there exists a dangerous precedent for all this. In 1933, Adolf Hitler used the Reichstag Fire to suspend civil liberties and consolidate power. Legal analysts are increasingly drawing comparisons between that moment and today's ongoing use of emergency powers in the name of immigration control. 'If you saw all this in any other country — soldiers sent to crush dissent, union leaders arrested, opposition politicians threatened — it would be clear that autocracy had arrived,' said constitutional law professor Laurence Tribe. Even tech magnates are playing a role. Elon Musk, who now owns X (formerly Twitter), has eliminated most content moderation, amplifying polarizing rhetoric and misinformation. His platform has become a megaphone for conspiracy theories that portray immigrants as invaders and critics as traitors. Beneath all these disturbing developments in the crackdown on immigrants lies a core question: Is the United States still a democracy governed by civilian law, or is it becoming a militarized state ruled by executive whim? The courts may still provide a line of defense. California's lawsuit regarding the unauthorized deployment of federal troops will test the judiciary's willingness to uphold the Constitution. However, history teaches us that legal battles alone cannot protect democracy when institutions are co-opted or eroded. What is unfolding is more than a dispute over immigration policy; it is a stress test of America's democratic fabric. The use of immigration raids to justify military actions, the demonization of peaceful protests, and the consolidation of emergency powers—these are not isolated events. They form a pattern. While Americans seem divided on the issue of military use in the Los Angeles immigration crackdown, with half in favour and the other half, particularly Californians, opposed, June 14th, 2025, the 'No Kings National Day of Action,' promises to be a pivotal day for America as immigration protests, which have spread to other cities, will likely reach their peak on that day. While this unfolds, Trump will head to Canada to attend the G-7 meeting while keeping a watchful eye on events back home. Meanwhile, the fate of the Republic may hinge not on whether Trump builds a wall, but on whether Americans permit him to dismantle the walls of constitutional restraint in the name of constructing it.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store