You know the one. Maybe you have been to several versions of it. The one at the local shop or restaurant, or your local chamber. All free and promising connections.

Amanda and I were in a working sesh when another one popped up on social media, and I snapped (you will learn I do these rage-y outbursts when injustice arises = hence why I’m labeled the disruption part of our duo). Not really at the existence of these events, but rather a combination of the sheer volume of invitations, the structure, the marketing, and the fact that…

Men are not doing this.

The average man building his business is not attending seven networking coffees in May. He’s not showing up and hoping, by sheer proximity to other ambitious people, that something useful will emerge.

And yet, here’s the part that gets me: he’s probably getting more business than we are.

So what. are. we. doing?

Behavioral economists have a name for what happens when we choose action over inaction, even when staying put would produce a better outcome. Action bias. The classic example is soccer goalkeepers facing penalty kicks: standing still in the center of the goal is statistically the optimal move, but goalkeepers almost always dive because diving feels like trying (and yes, we are excited for the World Cup). Standing still feels like giving up.

There is a second bias running alongside it called the bandwagon effect. We do things because others are doing them (obviously). The invites keep coming, women we respect keep going, and somewhere in the back of our minds, a quiet voice says: this must be where I’m supposed to be too.

Together, they are quite the trap. So, before you add the next coffee to the calendar, the only question worth asking is: am I going because this genuinely serves me, or because doing something feels better than nothing and everyone else seems to be doing it?

Presence is not progress. Motion is not (always) momentum. A calendar full of networking events is not a pipeline.

Here is what researchers found when they interviewed 37 senior female leaders about their professional networks: women approach networking from a social and relational orientation. They are uncomfortable with the transactional. They worry about taking more from a connection than they can give back. They underestimate their own professional value going in (psst... This research is from 2018 but still widely cited and, if you disagree, I’d love to see the counterargument).

Men, according to the same research, make networking decisions for what the authors called "egoistic and instrumental motives." They walk in asking how does this benefit me. Women walk in asking how do I make sure this is fair for everyone.

Neither of these is fully wrong. The problem is not our relational instinct. The problem is that we keep putting it in rooms that are not designed to hold it. Unstructured, unintentional spaces where the relational energy has nowhere to land, and so it dissipates into small talk and forgotten follow-ups.

We’re bringing our best selves to the ‘less-than-ideal’ conditions for it.

Why not add in another layer?

There is no neutral month for women, but all this is hitting harder coming out of ‘Maycember.’ Research consistently shows that women carry a disproportionate share of the mental load, and not just at home. The invisible coordination, the calendar management, the follow-through on everything that keeps a life and a business running. It does not have a slow season.

Into this reality, we are stacking networking coffees.

This is not a scheduling problem. It is a structural one. We are not choosing between a networking event and nothing. We’re choosing between a networking event and our own recovery. Between a hopeful coffee and the actual work that needs to get done. And between showing up somewhere unstructured and showing up for ourselves.

On top of that, the same research that shows women network more than men also shows we get less from it. One study found that at a professional conference, women met 42% fewer new contacts than their male counterparts and spent 48% less time in substantive conversation with them. More events = Worse outcomes. That’s not a coincidence. That’ss what happens when we prioritize presence over intention.

Here is the reframe I want to offer, because I think it‘s what matters most.

The instinct that pulls us into every room, the wanting to connect, to support, to make sure the exchange is fair - that instinct is NOT the problem. It’s genuinely one of the most powerful things we bring into a room.

The problem is what we do with it.

There’s a framework I’ve used all the time from my consulting days called the Perimeter Prime. The idea is this: every group builds a fence. The fence separates what they will allow themselves to talk about from what stays outside. Most rooms, especially networking rooms, operate entirely inside the usual fence. Surface conversation. Safe topics. "What do you do?" asked and answered without anyone really listening.

The Perimeter move is going first and saying something no one’s said yet. Expanding what’s available in the room.

For you, in a networking context, this means being specific about what you ACTUALLY need. Not "I’m open to connections" but "I’m looking for someone who has navigated X" or "I’m trying to make a decision about Y and would love a thought partner." It looks like naming a real win instead of deflecting one. It looks like asking someone a real question instead of a polite one.

And here’s what I want you to hear: this isn’t abandoning the relational way you show up, rather leaning into it.

Brené Brown says clear is kind. I think about that constantly. The most nurturing thing you can do in a room full of women who are all quietly hoping someone else will go first is (surprise) go first. Name what you need. Make a specific ask. That isn’t selfish. It is an invitation. It gives every other woman in the room permission to do the same.

We do not need to network like men. We need to network like ourselves, with intention.

Choose one space. Test it. Go deep. Understand how the connections you make there actually live - how they develop, what they produce, whether you leave feeling more ‘resourced’ than when you walked in.

Skin in the game is not just financial. It is showing up with a clear purpose, a real ask, and the willingness to go first. If you walk into a room that is not designed for that kind of conversation, you can still make that move yourself and expand the perimeter. Say the thing. Better yet, ask for what you need.

And if after a few honest tries the room does not hold that kind of exchange, stop going.

You have things to build, so go build them in rooms worth your time.

—

Bailey Feldman is the founder of Fount & Flourish, an intergenerational women's social club and coworking space, and the creator of the Effervescent Collective. She has spent over a decade studying behavioral science, meeting design, and community building.