Networking is not a test of courage

A networking event is not a neutral space just because everyone wears a name badge. Someone who is financially secure, has a strong network and can leave without consequences has different options from someone who depends on a particular person, position or invitation.

For some women, a group dominated by men primarily represents an opportunity. For others, it may also mean assessing their safety, fending off sexualisation, navigating racist or ableist comments, or dealing with past experiences of violence. Taking these differences seriously does not mean declaring every group of men dangerous. It means not taking the conditions for granted.

The fact that some women can navigate these situations confidently does not mean the additional burden is fair or reasonable for everyone.

Women are not a homogeneous group. Racism, sexism, ableism, social background and exclusion related to migration can intersect. A Black woman's experiences cannot be neatly divided into one part racism and one part sexism.

For women with disabilities, dependence on others, a lack of accessibility or limited options for leaving a situation can create additional risks. For migrant women, residence status, language, recognition of qualifications or financial insecurity can shift power dynamics. None of these experiences is the same for everyone. But none disappears with advice to act more confidently.

The key findings of the EU survey on gender based violence, published in 2024, report that around one in three women has experienced physical violence, sexual violence or threats in adulthood. Around one in three women has experienced sexual harassment at work. These findings show why safety is not a side issue. They do not imply that every individual networking gathering is dangerous.

Studies on violence experienced by women with disabilities and the Afrozensus make clear why we must not leave further differences out of the discussion. The Afrozensus is a community based online survey of Black, African and African diaspora communities in Germany, not a representative survey of all Black women. Different studies describe different groups and contexts. Sources are listed at the end of this article.

Black women are not responsible for racism. Migrant women are not responsible for exclusion related to migration. Women with disabilities are not responsible for ableist structures. And no one is obliged to risk their safety, mental health or personal boundaries to gain access to a circle of power.

This does not mean individual strategies are useless. Preparation, mutual support and intentionally building relationships can help. But they do not replace the responsibility of businesses, event organisers and people in leadership positions.

If power lies predominantly within structures dominated by men, the crucial question is not just: How do women get in? It is also: Who decides who gets access, why are these networks so exclusive, and who will change their rules?

People in marginalised positions who constantly have to explain, correct, mediate and set boundaries are doing additional work. This work rarely appears in the conventional networking narrative. There, we see the confident conversation, the successful connection, the new opportunity. Not the energy it took to be able to stay in the room at all.

Navigating a discriminatory remark without being labelled difficult. Setting a boundary without losing a career opportunity. Proving your competence again and again while others are given the benefit of the doubt. These are not signs of a lack of soft skills. They are demands that fall unequally on different people.

Anyone who judges only how an individual woman presents herself overlooks the conditions that shape her behaviour.

Intersectional feminism does not mean women should stay away from men. Quite the opposite. Women need access to power, capital, information and decision makers.

But placing a woman in a space dominated by men does not automatically change its rules. Who gets heard? Whose ideas are taken up? Who gets recommended, funded or promoted? Who can disagree without putting their own place at risk?

Research on women on corporate executive boards also shows that representation and the distribution of power are institutional issues. A personal invitation can be a start. Fair recruitment, transparent promotion and genuine decision making power must follow.

That is why we need both access and structural change. Not separation as a principle. But not adaptation at any cost, either.

Actively open up networks. Do not wait for someone to be brave enough to knock. Make introductions, recommend people and share information. Sponsorship means more than offering friendly advice: it means using your position to create opportunities for others.

Make access transparent. Businesses must establish clear criteria for promotions, leadership roles and resources. If the crucial conversations happen only in informal circles, formal openness often remains a promise with no real impact.

Plan for safety and accessibility. Event organisers need accessible spaces, clearly identified points of contact, understandable codes of conduct and complaints procedures that are taken seriously. No one should be penalised for setting a boundary or reporting an incident.

Take responsibility when discrimination happens. Do not stay silent, leave those affected to explain it, or simply point to good intentions. Listen, act and accept the consequences.

Offer multiple ways to participate. Not every professional relationship has to begin late at night, in a noisy group or under social pressure. Different formats make room for different lived realities.