You know who *doesn't* like this post? Google. I read it on my phone, wanted it on my laptop, and am lazy so I googled "LinkedIn Likes Me Better As A Man". Tons of hits about how to use LinkedIn as a dating site and nothing that lead here despite multiple search permutations. I finally gave up and just wrote in you substack URL.
This supports my thesis/impression that Substack is highly relational, while LinkedIn is intensely transactional. Things are just different here. And it has a much more relational feel. If I read your article and use “relational“ in place of “female“ and “transactional in place of “male“, I have a feeling the message will come through just the same.
Interesting point -- as someone that is confounded upon shifting network effects, I wonder whether I am overthinking about building out further over here.
What keeps me here is that I view this as Facebook married Medium. You have control over your network. What would you say ?
The "female coded" language makes it sound like your primary concern is patient well-being and the "male coded" language makes it sound like your primary concern is increasing profits. Guess which one the employer cares more about?
Megan - Thanks so much for your thorough decryption of this issue, particularly the cost of continuing to disparage relational language from a business perspective. I, too, find myself helping people (especially women in healthcare professions, but mostly women across the board) to find authentic-to-them language to express business ideas so it will land. It is a translation effort for sure, and you're right to point out that since the male standard business language disparages relational language, it puts (yet another) burden on women to adapt. Thanks again for illuminating this for us so clearly. I hope someone at LinkedIn is paying attention to your point about the mental health/health implications beyond just the gender bias issues.
😑 Women's Studies major here, class of 1994. Thank you for pointing this out. I find the belief that the valuation of female over male voices is a thing of the past makes it hard to even have the conversation about it.
The reality is that therapy and business run on separate tracks. The problem is wanting to make money off mental health. It used to be an assumption that hospitals and agencies made their money on other specialties to support mental health. The private practice sector is trying hard to change this and we are getting our asses kicked. There are only so many people who are able to pay out of pocket, and in certain geographic areas. I get the language disparity, but that also lines up because the majority of people who are both therapists and clients are women. The money makers are mostly men. That’s how they speak. Globalization has not been good to women. Nor has the new techno-feudalism.
You put in the work and I see it as one of your followers and am very surprised at the small amount of responses you have gotten on this issue. Shadow banning, isn’t that what they call it?
Thanks for taking the time to lay this out. I appreciate anyone who’s actually trying to think through the mechanics instead of hand-waving the whole thing away.
Where I see it differently is here: my follower count did not go up 400%. My views did. That distinction matters for understanding what’s going on.
If my audience suddenly loved the male-coded tone, I would expect a dramatic rise in follows. But they didn’t follow. They didn’t meaningfully engage. They didn’t suddenly prefer this voice. The content just got shown to more people. That aligns with what I’m arguing: the algorithm surfaced the posts, not because they were “better,” but because they matched the communication pattern LinkedIn currently boosts.
You’re right that the algorithm isn’t consciously thinking “man good, woman bad.” It’s pattern-matching. But the patterns it has learned to match are built on decades of conditioning about what “professional” looks and sounds like. That’s the problem. The bias gets baked in unintentionally, and then scaled.
And in my case, it creates a very real barrier for the audience I actually write for. Therapists don’t respond to this tone. If they did, my follower count would reflect it. So what gets rewarded at the algorithm level directly conflicts with what works in my field. That’s the tension I’m pointing to.
So yes, I agree with you on the mechanics, but the downstream effect is the same: the algorithm learns from biased human behavior, amplifies it, and suppresses the communication patterns entire industries rely on.
Followed the entire article and the thoughtful interpretation. I agree that the outcome validates your views, Megan.
One thought I had.
I wish you had just changed your gender to male and nothing else and tested that for a week -- for the sake of the argument. You could revert your headline/bio. It would be an undeniable validation at that point -- any trained statisticians feel free to correct me.
You know who *doesn't* like this post? Google. I read it on my phone, wanted it on my laptop, and am lazy so I googled "LinkedIn Likes Me Better As A Man". Tons of hits about how to use LinkedIn as a dating site and nothing that lead here despite multiple search permutations. I finally gave up and just wrote in you substack URL.
This supports my thesis/impression that Substack is highly relational, while LinkedIn is intensely transactional. Things are just different here. And it has a much more relational feel. If I read your article and use “relational“ in place of “female“ and “transactional in place of “male“, I have a feeling the message will come through just the same.
Interesting point -- as someone that is confounded upon shifting network effects, I wonder whether I am overthinking about building out further over here.
What keeps me here is that I view this as Facebook married Medium. You have control over your network. What would you say ?
The "female coded" language makes it sound like your primary concern is patient well-being and the "male coded" language makes it sound like your primary concern is increasing profits. Guess which one the employer cares more about?
Megan - Thanks so much for your thorough decryption of this issue, particularly the cost of continuing to disparage relational language from a business perspective. I, too, find myself helping people (especially women in healthcare professions, but mostly women across the board) to find authentic-to-them language to express business ideas so it will land. It is a translation effort for sure, and you're right to point out that since the male standard business language disparages relational language, it puts (yet another) burden on women to adapt. Thanks again for illuminating this for us so clearly. I hope someone at LinkedIn is paying attention to your point about the mental health/health implications beyond just the gender bias issues.
😑 Women's Studies major here, class of 1994. Thank you for pointing this out. I find the belief that the valuation of female over male voices is a thing of the past makes it hard to even have the conversation about it.
Really insightful! I’m a freelance journalist interested in researching the harassment women receive on LinkedIn! I feel there’s more to the story.
If you’re interested in completing an anonymous survey for my article please do so here https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSfmmYa5yau8pLpKeYkbMcbiK86RR4LZsWmLa04ipkymdJGb0A/viewform
I always truly appreciate your insights! It’s like you peak into my brain and are able to synthesize all the things I struggle to output.
The reality is that therapy and business run on separate tracks. The problem is wanting to make money off mental health. It used to be an assumption that hospitals and agencies made their money on other specialties to support mental health. The private practice sector is trying hard to change this and we are getting our asses kicked. There are only so many people who are able to pay out of pocket, and in certain geographic areas. I get the language disparity, but that also lines up because the majority of people who are both therapists and clients are women. The money makers are mostly men. That’s how they speak. Globalization has not been good to women. Nor has the new techno-feudalism.
You put in the work and I see it as one of your followers and am very surprised at the small amount of responses you have gotten on this issue. Shadow banning, isn’t that what they call it?
This is VERY sad. Thanks for sharing..
Thanks for taking the time to lay this out. I appreciate anyone who’s actually trying to think through the mechanics instead of hand-waving the whole thing away.
Where I see it differently is here: my follower count did not go up 400%. My views did. That distinction matters for understanding what’s going on.
If my audience suddenly loved the male-coded tone, I would expect a dramatic rise in follows. But they didn’t follow. They didn’t meaningfully engage. They didn’t suddenly prefer this voice. The content just got shown to more people. That aligns with what I’m arguing: the algorithm surfaced the posts, not because they were “better,” but because they matched the communication pattern LinkedIn currently boosts.
You’re right that the algorithm isn’t consciously thinking “man good, woman bad.” It’s pattern-matching. But the patterns it has learned to match are built on decades of conditioning about what “professional” looks and sounds like. That’s the problem. The bias gets baked in unintentionally, and then scaled.
And in my case, it creates a very real barrier for the audience I actually write for. Therapists don’t respond to this tone. If they did, my follower count would reflect it. So what gets rewarded at the algorithm level directly conflicts with what works in my field. That’s the tension I’m pointing to.
So yes, I agree with you on the mechanics, but the downstream effect is the same: the algorithm learns from biased human behavior, amplifies it, and suppresses the communication patterns entire industries rely on.
Followed the entire article and the thoughtful interpretation. I agree that the outcome validates your views, Megan.
One thought I had.
I wish you had just changed your gender to male and nothing else and tested that for a week -- for the sake of the argument. You could revert your headline/bio. It would be an undeniable validation at that point -- any trained statisticians feel free to correct me.