recaps of the top 'ask me anything' interviews from reddit and more...
After working at Google & Facebook for 15 years, I wrote a book called Lean Out, debunking modern feminist rhetoric and telling the truth about women & power in corporate America. AMA!

Long time Redditor, first time AMA’er here. My name is Marissa Orr, and I’m a former Googler and ex-Facebooker turned author. It all started on a Sunday afternoon in March of 2016, when I hit send on an email to Sheryl Sandberg, setting in motion a series of events that ended 18 months later when I was fired from my job at Facebook. Here’s the rest of that story and why it inspired me to write Lean Out, The Truth About Women, Power, & The Workplace:


Through personal (and humorous) stories of my time at Google and Facebook, Lean Out is an attempt to explain everything we’ve gotten wrong about women at work and the gender gap in corporate America. Here are a few book excerpts and posts from my blog which give you a sense of my perspective on the topic.


The Wage Gap Isn’t a Myth. It’s just Meaningless


So there are fewer women in STEM…. who cares?


Why it's Bullshit: HBR's Solution to End Sexual Harassment


Book excerpt on Business Insider




EDIT: I am loving all the questions but didn't expect so many -- trying to answer them thoughtfully so it's taking me a lot longer than I thought. I will get to all of them over the next couple hours though, thank you!

EDIT2: Thanks again for all the great questions! Taking a break to get some other work done but I will be back later today/tonight to answer the rest.

November 20th 2019
interview date

I'm a millennial woman in tech and it pisses me off how pushy other women are about going to those company meetups where they tell you that you're meek because of the men at the company and they will become your mentor and teach you how to lead like a man.

Maybe I just want to go home to do my hobbies instead of going to bullshit meetups about how I'm a delicate flower that must be protected from my scary sexist coworkers! I have better things to do than these fucking meetings!

What is the motivation for them to be pushy about these meetings and getting the younger women to have a female mentor to teach them how to have a more dominant personality? They are VERY pushy.

I don't feel bad or have any fucking problems:

  • Speaking up in meetings

  • Asking for a raise

  • Proposing new ideas

  • Taking on a leadership role

Yet only women assume I am unable to do these things! No man has EVER assumed those things about me. What kind of message does that send? To enmesh with them instead of be independent.

I get it that it's different now than it was for boomers but holy mother of God I got into tech to do tech not women's studies!


I am a feminist and always had a problem with all the female leadership stuff at work. It all seemed like phony corporate cheerleading. The truth is, the corporate world is all about power politics. Naturally the more pushy people will rise to the top. Some of them use 'women's issues' as a platform to further their own personal agenda and it's not really about a genuine interest in helping others. My advice: ignore them and don't let the bastards get ya down :)


Thanks for doing the AMA. As a former Google employee, what is your opinion about James Damore memo?


I agree with certain things he said like the personality differences between men and women on average (ex competitive vs cooperative). The major point he missed though, is that the corporate system favors the male dominant traits simply because it was designed by men from their world view (ie if i am more motivated by competition, I'll set it up as a zero sum game because I assume that's what will motivate others too). But If women are more motivated by cooperation, then why not change the structure from being exclusively a zero sum game? The corporate hierarchy was designed a few hundred years ago -- since then, the entire economy has transformed along with the composition of the workforce, yet these underlying structures have remained exactly the same. the question i pose in the book is, what makes more sense, rewiring women's personalities to conform to an outdated system or rewire the system to better meet the needs of today's workforce and economy?


Hi Marissa, thanks for doing this AMA. I just read your linked article on women in STEM and was curious about the viewpoint you presented. I wanted to see it as a call to acknowledge the fields that women are more dominant in and celebrate those areas, but I found it a bit dismissive of the social phenomenon that you mention Katie Couric has spoken about.

As a woman that studied psychology, I’m a bit ashamed to admit that I actually switched majors from a “harder” science. While I love my degree and enjoyed my studies, I know that as a confused and impressionable college student I felt passively discouraged from studying in a field where I would be a gender minority, and was encouraged to pursue areas that were more female-centric.

Obviously, I’m a sample size of one and you could certainly point to my own maturity at the time as a factor in not fighting the stereotypes, or whatever you might call that pressure. But I’m sure I’m not the only one that has had that experience, or seen my male cohorts in school be actively encouraged to “fall back” on more lucrative majors.

When I read your article about the wage gap being more attributed to the different careers and business sectors between genders, not necessarily from sexism in the payroll department, I found the 2 articles somewhat conflicting. It seems the STEM article is asking us to celebrate the areas that women choose(?) to dominate (although in my personal experience, it might not be completely a choice), and those areas can be equally but differently important than male-dominated fields; while the Wage Gap article seems to be saying that the wage gap is because of this choice to work in those fields, or take time off for family, etc. and is therefore understandable that women are paid less/men are paid more overall. The latter article also states that men would be paid less if they took the same flexibility in work as women do.

My question is: How do we overcome the societal pressure for women like myself to study a softer, more flexible industry, and therefore make less in the long run? Or, how do we encourage more men to not (perhaps) default to STEM or banking while women default to social sciences and nursing? (Excuse the gross exaggeration, but you get the idea).

Bonus question: if all of the above fields and careers paid exactly the same, do you think we would have a more equal distribution between genders across them?

I look forward to reading your book!


thank you for the thoughtful comment! To address your first point -- as a counter point based on a similar sample size of one, I felt the opposite pressure in college. I wanted to major in english and become a teacher. I was pressured to major in business -- more specifically, Decision and Information Sciences which was overwhelmingly male. I'm curious to know whether it was your parents pressuring you (as was the case in my story) or larger cultural messages from the media, etc.?

I'm not sure I understand your point about the conflicting messages in my articles so I'm not exactly sure how to address it. My point in the STEM article is that we should stop making value judgments which say women's choices are somehow less worthwhile than men's. In the wage gap article, my point is somewhat different: money and hierarchical rank are bad measures to use to judge female progress because they don't account for the trade offs entailed in those choices. I don't see how those points are conflicting but happy to clarify further if you have more specific questions.

To answer your question at the end: I don't think we need to put pressure on women (or anyone) to make certain career choices. People should be exposed to all their options and have the freedom to make their own choices. I don't get why we feel it's necessary to get more women in STEM if it's not something they want to do.

As for the bonus question, I don't think it's the right question to be asking. I think the question is, 'what do women want and how do we help them toward that end.' Instead we've been asking 'how do we get more women into XYZ fields?' which is based on the assumption that that's what's best for them. I find it condescending. It's built on the presumption that women don't know what they want without people's help.

Thanks again for your questions and hope you enjoy the book!


I just read the Business Insider excerpt from your book. It was a good read and seems like a fine insight into the going-ons in a large tech-company.

It describes a case where you do not want to manage teams of people. The personality test from HR confirms that you are a "green" type who do not appreciate those kind of dynamics. You then ask HR to skip the management experience requirement and promote you anyway, reasoning that you do not lack ambition - managing people just does not match your personality.

In that context I'd appreciate your take on this: Can one not reasonably expect employees to take on tasks that do not match their personality-traits? Also, wouldn't it be a chance for you to back up your feelings about managing other with some direct experience?

Thank you!


Building relationships and having formal authority over other people are two distinct motivational forces which are in direct tension with each other. For example, let's say you're on a team with your two best friends then suddenly you are promoted and now their manager. If you flex that position by lording your authority over them, your relationships suffer. But if you act like nothing has changed and they're still your best friends, then your authority is undermined. That's what I mean by they're in tension with each other . Everyone is more motivated by one over the other (relationships vs authority). The problem is, the only reward at work is formal authority, so what does that mean for those who aren't motivated by it? So many people stay below the glass ceiling not because they lack ability or ambition,, but because there's literally nothing motivating them to work harder and climb higher. That's an issue with the system of reward/motivation/incentive. It's not an issue with the people operating within that system.


Thank you for this AMA.

I’m a women working in high tech and I’m struggling with the Mommy Gap/Career Gap. Coming back to work was difficult, and balancing work life and family life is a constant struggle. I also find that my husband suffers from the Family Gap; he struggles to find time to bond with the kids and keep up with my level of household involvement.

I’m very lucky to be in Canada and took eight months off for parental leave, and my partner took the other four. Our household feels more gender balanced than others, but it still doesn’t seem enough to have closed the Gaps for either of us.

I feel that longer parental leaves, and most importantly, EQUAL parental leave for both partners, are the most effective ways to close the Career Gap for women and the Family Gap for men.

How can we go about encouraging this policy in our governments and corporations?

Thank you.


I think one of the real problems is that facetime, visibility, and being in the office are used as proxies for good performance. That obviously hurts people's ability to manage their responsibilities across home vs. work. Instead of changing parental leave policies, I think it would make a much bigger impact if we could change the way we grade performance and design more objective ways of evaluating people's work/impact. Right now we grade on visibility which compromises people's ability to have balance.



I haven’t read your book yet but I had a look at the link describing the gender pay gap as meaningless. It was an interesting overview.

Did you ever come across a known common nature of a gambling personality with men being more prominent than with women? And how it has been proposed that men are more likely to “risk” asking for a pay wise in comparison to women in the workplace?

Thanks in advance.


I talk about a small subset of behaviors that are required to make it to the top of corporate America and how those behaviors correlate more highly with men. For example, behavior like aggression and self-aggrandizement are more recognized and rewarded simply because they are more visible than behavior like empathy and consensus building. And competitive people who desire dominance are more motivated to keep climbing that people who are motivated by relationships and building harmony/cooperation. The former correlate more highly with men but they don't correlate with competence and they're not a signal that someone is actually a good leader who deserves to be in their position.


Lots of people talk about how the dearth of women in high-paying careers is due to systemic sexism (anything ranging from subtle discouragement of little girls up to more overt sexism in hiring/advancement decisions). You frame the issue as simply a matter of women choosing different careers or prioritizing things other than money. As with all complex issues, the end result may be a mix of these root causes.

In your opinion, how much of the wage gap (and career gap) is due to sexism vs. choice? That is, in a world without sexism, and if all people were raised in a gender-neutral way from birth, what proportion of these gaps do you think would go away?

Also, what do you say to women who have experienced explicit sexism in their careers, especially if they're concerned that your work may be used by bigots who are dismissive of real hardships that women have and continue to face?


According to the research (which cited in my book), the wage gap the wage gap shrinks from 80 to 96 percent once you adjust for the differences in hours worked, job experience, level, and choice of profession. That means sexism can only account for the 4% difference at most. So I don't think the wage gap would go away in a hypothetical world where sexism doesn't exist. I think the problem is that we judge women's choices in a way we never do with men. If women go into lower paying careers for their own personal reasons, who is to say that's a bad choice? Less than 25 percent of America’s teachers are men. Do we treat it as a societal issue that must be fixed? Why, then, do we judge only women’s ambition as good or bad? I sympathize with anyone who experiences sexism or discrimination, but anyone who reads Lean Out will see that my arguments are anything but dismissive. I think it would be hard to use anything I say to support an agenda of bigotry.


You write that most of the wage gap is to do with the professions women choose, rather than discrimination; you say this as though this is something feminists or people who discuss the wage gap do not already know. Yes, perhaps someone who has only heard "women make 77cents for every dollar a man makes" and does not read into it further might make the false assumption that it is referring purely to discrimination. But when feminists speak of the wage gap being a problem, it is usually people who already understand what causes the wage gap and still thinks it is a problem worthy solving.

Boys and girls are socialised differently. Activities, traits, and skills that are encouraged in boys lead them to be drawn to jobs that just happen to pay well. Activities, traits, and skills that are encouraged in girls lead them to be drawn to jobs that just happen to not pay well.

It is all very good to say "well women get paid less because they choose less well paying jobs". Well why are they choosing them? Because the jobs appeal to them based on what they have been raised to enjoy, value and be good at.

So either you're telling women to just choose better paying jobs that they don't want to do, or telling them to do jobs they do enjoy but just suck it up that they are low paying and don't care about money. Whereas men have more opportunities to see their skills and interests lead to jobs that they will enjoy and be paid well for.



If women's job choices are a result of cultural conditioning, does that mean men are making career choices out of their own free will? Why are men's jobs choices considered the standard and held up as the benchmark to which women should aspire? To me, that's a very anti-female position. The problem is that women's choices are subjected to scrutiny, judgment, and condescension in a way that men's choices never are. Are engineers or Wall Street traders more valuable to society than nurses and teachers? We need to embrace the idea that men and women may want different things when it comes to their careers. After all, isn’t the whole point of diversity to accept and honor the variations in personality, background, perspective, and experience across the tapestry of humanity?


I read your article "So there are fewer women in STEM…. who cares?".

You start off talking about the theory that cultural conditioning is one of the factors for less women in STEM, but the rest of the article seems like it's just a deflection from that discussion. You point out a handful of fields dominated by women and ask "why doesn't anyone care about that?" You pose some interesting questions that should be looked at regarding those fields but then go back to arguing "who cares"?

Wouldn't the right answer be to weave that into the larger discussion as to why men and women self-select to certain fields, rather than throw your hands up and say "Who cares"?


The phrase "who cares" is meant to convey "why do you care if women prefer lower paying jobs if that's their personal choice?" It's condescending to presume these women would make different choices if they weren't "oppressed by culture." Do women not possess the same personal agency as men in making their own career choices? To me, the real problem is the value judgment people make about women's choices. For example, if the majority of women expressed a sincere desire to be engineers and were having trouble bringing those desires to life, it makes sense to help them towards that end. But research shows that most women do not aspire to be engineers, so why do we encourage them to enter certain fields without taking into consideration whether it's something they actually want to do? Because other people know better than they do? It's totally condescending and it implies that women can't possibly know what they want without other people's help.


I’m a man in STEM and I’ve noticed in many companies (not all) there is a representation issue with women.

Here’s why I disagree with you and think it’s a problem.

Sexism is an issue with this being the case in many of these companies. I’ve heard numerous stories of women’s suggestions or achievements being undervalued.

I read the article you wrote and while you touch on cultural conditioning you don’t really mention the flip side. In the not too distant past, there was an absence of role models in STEM fields for women- and coupled with institutional sexism which is still very much so a problem today- that creates a culture that tells women they aren’t good enough to be in STEM.

Do you think that’s equivalent to what’s happening with men getting soft science degrees?

I think men are not expected to do nursing or teaching or similar caregiving roles by similar societal pressures- but I wouldn’t say it’s as tangibly harmful as women being denied opportunities in STEM.

Only a couple years ago Google, your own former workplace, was getting sued for sexism and unequal pay for equal work. I think it’s fair to say the fight is not over for these feminist causes.


thank you for your thoughtful comment. If it were sexism and lack of role models at play, then what is the explanation for the fact that women dominate social science degrees but not mechanical sciences like engineering? They are both sciences which historically lacked role models. So how did females come to dominate one but not the other? Is one sub category free from sexism and the other rife with it? There is research which shows men are more interested in things and women are more interested in people. This makes sense to me as an explanation for such a phenomenon because I can't make sense of the sexism argument given female domination in psychology, sociology, etc.


In your opinion, is there some useful ideas in modern feminist rhetoric you criticise? Do you see some positive solutions, or are you totally sceptical about it?


The suggestions for women to be more assertive and rebel against gender norms are useful IF you desire to be the CEO of a large corporation. I don't judge anyone's career choices, but for the many women who don't aspire to those positions, the advice is useless at best and harmful at worst.


How do you feel comfortable claiming "the truth of the entire world" based only on your firsthand experience?


The book includes a ton of research. Happy to debate any specific points.


Does the kind of support you receive from toxic fringe idea communities bother you at all? Are you scared of being adopted by groups that would use your book to push misogyny?

EDIT: I'd like to thank everyone for the PMs and the one reply for the thoughtful responses, I'm glad to know my question was right on the money.


great question. before the book came out I did worry about this (I remember watching a dave chappelle clip on youtube where he talked about a similar dynamic that happened on chappelle show). But anyway, the book came out in June, and so far the only hate I've gotten was on Reddit today lol. I think it's for a couple reasons: 1. if anyone actually reads the book, they would see how pro-female it is and i think it would be difficult to use any of it to support a hate-type agenda. 2. Low awareness of the book.

So honestly, the only toxic response so far has been from seemingly liberal people (that's a pure guess on my part as to their political affiliation) today on Reddit, who haven't read the book and assume that my position is very conservative (which it isn't).


What do you make of the recent stories about Ernst and Young's training for women? Do you think that's an outlier or just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to training for women at large corporations?


I open the book with a similar kind of story, except in my case the messages were wayyyy more subtle. The E&Y stuff seemed so overt it bordered on cartoonish. Read more like an episode of the show Silicon Valley. I never experienced anything close to that in my career so I can't see it becoming the norm. But then again, based on some of the comments on this thread... who knows? ;)


A lot of your articles lean heavily on “whataboutisms”. Not enough women in stem? What about the lack of men in Nursing? To much sexual harassment? What about other forms of abuse?

Isn’t it imperative to actually solve each of these individual problems rather than saying hey it’s not really a problem because another problem exists?

Take nursing for example. Nurses were historically women because men were historically doctors. Some men might actually choose less profitable jobs because of the stigma surrounding being a male nurse. How would men know they don’t like nursing unless millions of men are encouraged to try it? I would ask the same about women in engineering, how do women know their true preference if they are shaped by culture around them?


the point in asking these questions like "why aren't we upset about the lack of men in nursing" is simply to demonstrate that the real problem is not culture, but the value judgments we make about what women 'should' be choosing vs what they actually choose. The questions are supposed to be rhetorical but they're obviously not making the point intended so I'll elaborate. If my argument was that women prefer the color green and men prefer the color red, nobody would give a fuck. nobody would get all angry and say "BUT CULTURE MAKES WOMEN LIKE GREEN." the only difference between a statement like "more women prefer green while more men prefer blue" and the statement "more women prefer nursing and more men prefer engineering," is the object of desire. and the only reason why one would get upset about the latter and not the former, is because they're making some value judgement about what women prefer. they're essentially saying that women would make different (ie. better) choices if they weren't influenced by culture. so that's why I ask -- i'm pointing out that the only reason we see this as an issue is because of the value judgment. We assume women only choose nursing (FOR EXAMPLE PURPOSES ONLY) because that was a profession historically associated with women. It assumes women are still enslaved by history and don't have the same free agency as men. I'm pointing out how condescending and dis-empowering that is. Is nursing a less worthwhile profession than engineering? Then why are we trying to encourage women to make different choices? Because you think it's better for them?  If people really felt that more men might become nurses vs doctors if unencumbered by culture, then why don't we see programs like STEM for women being developed for men in the opposite direction? There are virtually no programs that encourage high school boys to go into nursing and teaching like the STEM programs which exist for girls. Why is that, if it's not for a societal judgment on female choice?


A lot of the topics covered in your book are considered somewhat heretical by certain folks, particularly those who are engaged in what has come to be known as “cancel culture.” With that in mind, what has been (or will be) your go-to response to people who insist that you’re doing a disservice to society by highlighting the myths to which they’ve clung?


Surprisingly I haven't gotten a lot of hate or push back from the book or the arguments in it. I think its because I really avoided making this into an identity issue of one gender vs. another. Instead, I simply lay out why certain personality types make it to the top of corporate America and others don't, and explain that it's not so much about gender about about a small cluster of behaviors that are required for 'winning.'


I'm a man who has for 2 decades chosen his jobs based on "soft" perks such as flexibility so I could focus on my family. My salary has drastically been impacted by that choice and I trail far behind in finances at my age.
With that being said, I appreciate your stance on the gender "pay gap" and focusing on the bigger picture since I essentially fall into that category even though I'm not a woman.

So my question becomes, with the pay gap movement how do you break through that outrage? People are so upset at a perceived injustice that the details of how and why aren't seen. Especially when these details are as I described as "soft" benefits that aren't necessarily measured easily.


great question. i wrote this book for women like me who needed to hear there was nothing wrong with them and their choices simply because they aren't valued in the mainstream. Every week I get messages from women thanking me for making them feel heard and understood. I think that's the answer. I'm not trying to change every person's mind. I'm trying to connect with women who, like me, didn't feel satisfied by their corporate career, and felt that being honest about it would betray some part of their identity as a modern, empowered woman. So I guess in a roundabout way, my answer is that I don't care about breaking through the outrage because people who are outraged have some personal/identity issue that's behind it and no amount of logic or thoughtful debate will change that. Instead, I care about connecting with women who feel the same way I do, but don't hear their voices or challenges or experiences reflected in the mainstream conversation. Hope that answers your question.


Excerpt from your article for Medium -

“We hired you because we know you’re good. So you don’t have to go around trying to prove it to everyone. You’re coming off as frazzled and out of control.”

The punches to the gut kept coming. I ask too many questions. I’m never happy. I’m trying too hard. 

I spoke up just once during all of this, and it was to ask,

“Are there specific examples you can share that would help me understand why I’m appearing this way?” -end of excerpt -

I just read your medium post and this ☝️happens to me everywhere I go. It's usually an indicator that they feel insecure about their abilities and knowledge, and project it back on to the other person in order to feel better about themselves.

It's really sad to me because they are holding themselves back by not allowing divergent views to exist.

However, what's the best way to resolve this problem to avoid issues with management?


know what game you are playing. It took me over a decade to finally figure it out.


Which perks/benefits were offered to you from Google/Facebook? (ie. free gym, free lunch, paid insurance, etc.)


the perks were an embarrassment of riches and i miss allll of them! I work for myself now, so I have perspective on just how good I had it. free food, insurance, amazing salary, massages onsite, etc. I worked in the NYC office so there was no free gym but you did get a subsidy.


Do you have any published research?

This seems like a bunch of ideological and anecdotal stuff to me.


12 pages of notes that cite supporting research at the end of the book. Here they are if interested:



A few objections, which I will phrase in the form of questions.
1) You realize that people aren't mad that there are fewer women in STEM because "having women scientists" is inherently valuable, but because we presume women are better at HAVING FEEEEEEELINGS, and that's bad for any number of insidious psychological reasons (Like what is the result of us culturally telling men to distance themselves from their feelings, etc, etc,)? Like, your point that the psych degrees disproportionally go to women is a *symptom of the problem.*

So you ask if we should actively campaign for Men to join the nursing profession. The answer is: YES, we should do that. If there are Men who would listen to a Man-nurse to take their meds but ignore a Lady-nurse (And I have no doubt there are such Men), then get some dang Man-nurses.

So to answer your question, yes, men are the victims of culture pushing them out of empathy-dominated fields. Women are *additionally* victimized because we don't pay people in those fields as well as the fields men culturally gravitate to, and to be clear, the fact that hundreds of thousands of dollars of lifetime earnings is on the line here makes "recruit women to STEM" a bigger problem than "recruit men to nursing." But both problem we need to fix; and hopefully when there are more men in child development and mental health fields culture will start to shift and we can reduce the problems with toxic masculinity we have.


if it were true that women are better at having feelings, why would that be a bad thing?


This is gonna be a dumpster fire, isn't it?


I ain't scared (for now, at least).


Are you aware of the data that shows that countries with more equality between genders worldwide (as measured by an index) also tend to have an increase in sex differences in job professions they enter into (ie, a higher percentage of women enter nursing, teaching careers, a higher percentage of men enter engineering careers)?


I've heard this before. One of the subtexts in my book is that being equal doesn't mean everyone has to be the same. Perhaps the harder countries push in making everyone the same and erasing gender differences, the more people rebel by conforming to gender norms? i don't really know i'm just guessing as to the reason this happens.


What role do you think being White plays into your analysis?


The lack of female CEOs and the lack of black CEOs are born from two totally different systemic issues. The latter has to do with socioeconomic, historical, and cultural forces that are outside the scope of my book, knowledge, and experience.


If culture and gender biases are to blame for women earning only 21% of engineering degrees, how are they so easily able to overcome such forces and dominate psychology and the social sciences, where they hold 63% of all degrees?

Are you seriously equating engineering degrees with psychology and social sciences? For one, there is a notable pay difference between them which should - based on the simple principles of economics - show an equal number of women as men since there is an equal number attending those universities.

Of course it is culture and gender biases in play. So much so that you can have a great career as a four year graduated engineer where as anyone with a psyc degree will tell you there is nothing out there unless you have at least a masters.

So why would a woman choose the path with the lowest pay and the most education requirement if they are not being nudged down those paths?


your question assumes that people only make choices based on money. I left a very lucrative career in the tech world to pursue writing this book. I bet my whole life savings on it and went broke in the process. and i wouldnt trade it for anything. So i can't really answer your question because we disagree on the premise. I think some people want to do work they enjoy and are willing to forgo a higher salary in order to do it.


Isn't your idea that women should earn less because they spend more time at home based on assumed heterosexuality and a traditional home setup?


I've never said anything close to this and don't believe that at all so I'm not sure how to answer your question.


Remember when r/iAMA was about a person belonging to a group instead of self advertising?


Is a perspective not worthy of discussion just because it was captured in a book?




I had to google Tomi Lahren just now. I'm not even close to being a conservative and after a quick glance at her wikipedia page, doubt we share similar perspectives on the world. My book debunks feminist rhetoric by explaining its faulty assumptions.


Surely there will be some misogynists that will selectively site your work to support the notion that there is no inequality or to diminish the perceived impact of it. What's your move in this case? How do you prevent your narrative from getting twisted?


Copying my response to a similar-ish question:

"great question. before the book came out I did worry about this (I remember watching a dave chappelle clip on youtube where he talked about a similar dynamic that happened on chappelle show). But anyway, the book came out in June, and so far the only hate I've gotten was on Reddit today lol. I think it's for a couple reasons:

  1. if anyone actually reads the book, they would see how pro-female it is and i think it would be difficult to use any of it to support a hate-type agenda.

  2. Low awareness of the book.

So honestly, the only toxic response so far has been from seemingly liberal people (that's a pure guess on my part as to their political affiliation) today on Reddit, who haven't read the book and assume that my position is very conservative (which it isn't)."


Do you have book recommendations, specifically about communication, helping women survive men’s dominated corporate culture?


This is admittedly self-serving, but Lean Out has a lot about male and female communication styles, so you might find it helpful. One of my favorite books on communication (although not gender specific) is Never Split the Difference by Chris Voss.




The only time people really made fun of my last name was in elementary school when the song 'Can't Fight This Feeling' by REO Speedwagon came out. Kids would change the lyric from "throw away the oars forever" to "throw away MARISSA ORR forever." In my career, I don't remember anyone ever trying to make me feel bad for being a woman or having an odd last name.

Card image cap