Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

XX Combinator

terezan.tumblr.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 67 posts

Re: XX Combinator

#31

Post by kaens »

dieterrams wrote: post #16
ryanwaggoner wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Damn, you started out strong and then things fell apart a bit. That's what I get for voting without reading all the way through. This whole article smacks of the idea that there is something fundamentally different about men and women and their capabilities at different points in their adult life Men and women are fundamentally different, and research from a wide variety of fields continues to support that. I find it…

You've got this wrong. kaens did not claim that men and women are "fundamentally the same". He's saying, don't assume there are fundamental (crippling) differences. All you've pointed out is that there are indeed fundamental differences of some kinds, but not of the sort kaens was talking about. The inconclusiveness you raise supports his point. Edit: Wow. Downvoted. What on earth for?

Yes, that's a much more succinct way of putting it.

Re: XX Combinator

#32

Post by Super_Jambo »

adw wrote: post #23
dieterrams wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You've got this wrong. kaens did not claim that men and women are "fundamentally the same". He's saying, don't assume there are fundamental (crippling) differences. All you've pointed out is that there are indeed fundamental differences of some kinds, but not of the sort kaens was talking about. The inconclusiveness you raise supports his point. Edit: Wow. Downvoted. What on earth for?

Amen. There are, obviously, some population differences between men and women; for instance, on average men are taller. Blame the hormones. But people confuse mean and variance, and this is one case where instinctive ignorance of probability is tantamount to sexism. In fact, it's plain rude to do that to people. Okay, an example. Let's say that on average , men are better fighters than women - whether that's societal…

Which is an excellent argument not to discriminate against an individual.

However, what the OP and this thread are discussing is ways of 'fixing' a low percentage of women in startups. Which could be caused by either women on average having a worse skill set for startups or on average having less of a desire to take risky economic decisions.

If these are the causes then there isn't likely to be any way to 'fix' it.

Re: XX Combinator

#33

Post by kaens »

catone wrote: post #11

If 7 female founder is reflective of the Y Combinator applicant pool, and the only thing YC is doing to structurally to "keep women out" is to favor founders who have coding skills, then the issue appears to be that there aren't enough competent female coders. Rather than a band-aid solution (e.g., creating a separate model of startup incubator that plays the types of jobs women currently do), if we want true gender…

I think that what needs to be addressed is the cultural idea that math and programming and "science stuff" is a male thing.

On a more abstract level, I think what needs to be addressed is the cultural idea that $FOO or $BAR are a $GENDER thing, especially considering what we're discovering about gender and sexuality. There's plenty of examples of women being pressured to not do X and men being pressured to not do Y because X or Y fall out of what are considered to be normal social behavior for their respective gender or sex.

How to address it? I don't know exactly, other than stressing the point, and making a point of not performing that type of implied discrimination yourself.

I'm a big fan of meritocracy in this regards -- if I'm looking for coders (or dancers, or drivers, or artists, or bakers, or whatever), I care about what they can and have accomplished, not what they look like or what their sex is. If I ever start my own company, I very well might make the application process (as) entirely anonymous (as possible) to enforce this.

Re: XX Combinator

#34

Post by kaens »

Super_Jambo wrote: post #25
kaens wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Could you point me at some studies that suggest that there are intrinsic things about men and women that would make it more likely for women to not be capable of participating in a startup in their 20s? I don't claim that the male and female mind are the same. I suspect that the differences between them have more to do with culture and pattern-recognition than biology, even though there is some overlap there. I'm als…

Startups are very risky, men are more predisposed to risk: http://www.epjournal.net/filestore/ep062942.pdf

I do not doubt that men are more predisposed to risk, or that testosterone does not play a role in the decision-making process of humans, but I do not think that these studies show enough of a discrepancy to account for the low amount of women involved in startups, or the low ratio of women in tech fields in general.

I would not be surprised if there were a somewhat higher percentage of males versus females in tech. As it is, that is not the case, unless you're using very large values of "somewhat".

(It's getting better though, and seems to be getting better as the idea that programming or tech stuff "isn't for girls" becomes less common).

Re: XX Combinator

#35

Post by kaens »

Super_Jambo wrote: post #32
adw wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Amen. There are, obviously, some population differences between men and women; for instance, on average men are taller. Blame the hormones. But people confuse mean and variance, and this is one case where instinctive ignorance of probability is tantamount to sexism. In fact, it's plain rude to do that to people. Okay, an example. Let's say that on average , men are better fighters than women - whether that's societal…

Which is an excellent argument not to discriminate against an individual. However, what the OP and this thread are discussing is ways of 'fixing' a low percentage of women in startups. Which could be caused by either women on average having a worse skill set for startups or on average having less of a desire to take risky economic decisions. If these are the causes then there isn't likely to be any way to 'fix' it.

I'm fairly certain that the percentage of women in startups is much lower than can be explained by purely biological means.

Re: XX Combinator

#36

Post by Super_Jambo »

kaens wrote: post #34
Super_Jambo wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Startups are very risky, men are more predisposed to risk: http://www.epjournal.net/filestore/ep062942.pdf

I do not doubt that men are more predisposed to risk, or that testosterone does not play a role in the decision-making process of humans, but I do not think that these studies show enough of a discrepancy to account for the low amount of women involved in startups, or the low ratio of women in tech fields in general. I would not be surprised if there were a somewhat higher percentage of males versus females in tech.…

On what basis? We have a low pool of female talent (in tech), I have given you a mechanic whereby women would be less disposed to getting involved in startups.

That gives us (statistically poor) evidence of an outcome and a mechanism which could cause it.

Why do you feel there must be some extra discrimination that must be limiting female Y-Combinator applicants with no evidence to back this up? What is the mechanic? How did it not apply for the 7 women who did get in?

btw - I am ignoring the 'not enough women in technology' point since it isn't the topic of the OP and is too large in scope for the time available.

Re: XX Combinator

#37

Post by Perceval »

kaens wrote: post #14
mindcrime wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This whole article smacks of the idea that there is something fundamentally different about men and women and their capabilities at different points in their adult life. I think this idea is harmful. But what if it's true? I know it's not politically correct to say this, but there are biological differences between men and women, rooted in our different roles in reproduction. Yes, we are more similar than different f…

It could be true, and if it is then we need to think about equality in a different manner, I suppose. I strongly suspect that the vast majority of the differences are cultural in nature -- in fact I suspect that patterns exposed through culture that are identified as valid by the brains of the people experiencing them are biological differences, but they're not biological differences in the sense of what makes us a s…

When confronted with uncomfortable truths, most people will resort to the “cultural conditioning” argument. It is fear of the unchangeable that motivates them.

Re: XX Combinator

#38

Post by mindcrime »

dieterrams wrote: post #22
mindcrime wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This whole article smacks of the idea that there is something fundamentally different about men and women and their capabilities at different points in their adult life. I think this idea is harmful. But what if it's true? I know it's not politically correct to say this, but there are biological differences between men and women, rooted in our different roles in reproduction. Yes, we are more similar than different f…

> But what if it's true? And what if it's not? What's wrong with resisting the idea until we actually know? Yeah, there are deep biological differences, no doubt. But the idea that women were fundamentally incapable of X for biological reasons has been the norm in history, and the history of women has been repeatedly proving that they can, in fact, do X.

> What's wrong with resisting the idea until we actually know?

Nothing at all.

> But the idea that women were fundamentally incapable of X for biological reasons has been the norm in history, and the history of women has been repeatedly proving that they can, in fact, do X.

No doubt, and I don't intend to assert that - in general - there is any specific thing that women can't do. But the idea that women would be more inclined/able/interested to do certain things, at certain times of their life, and that it might be different from men, for biological reasons, does not strike me as absurd. Look at the whole "biological clock" issue that prompts women to worry more about when they have kids, versus men, who mostly don't have to worry about that issue. (I'm just throwing that out there as an example, not saying that specifically means anything).

Anyway, to reiterate what I said in the other thread, in case anyone might misunderstand where I'm coming from: I am 100% in favor of gender equality and the idea that men and women should have equal access to opportunities and the ability to pursue their dreams.

Re: XX Combinator

#39

Post by arijo »

btilly wrote: post #30

What I read is this, "I want a Y-combinator, except where I live, aimed at my gender and with a schedule I can accept. Oh, and please supply the tech talent I need. If things work out I can reward the coders with salary and possibly a CTO position down the road." Need I explain what is wrong with that picture? If you don't see the problems, you might start by reading http://blog.wepay.com/2010/03/5-things-i-%E2%80%9C…

Objectifying tech people as reusable and throw away nerds seems to be a recurrent pattern along non-tech folks trying to create a startup.

Re: XX Combinator

#40

Post by Alex3917 »

btilly wrote: post #30

What I read is this, "I want a Y-combinator, except where I live, aimed at my gender and with a schedule I can accept. Oh, and please supply the tech talent I need. If things work out I can reward the coders with salary and possibly a CTO position down the road." Need I explain what is wrong with that picture? If you don't see the problems, you might start by reading http://blog.wepay.com/2010/03/5-things-i-%E2%80%9C…

I disagree, I think it's a perfectly legitimate request. I know Tereza personally, and I also went through YC, so trust me when I say that she is definitely more talented than the average YC founder. That being said, she would still benefit greatly from having some additional resources, a community, and a push in the right direction, but the resources and community that YC provides don't quite fit her needs.

Don't get me wrong, moving out to silicon valley and eating ramen for three months is a lot of fun. But at the end of the day, YC is still kind of an existential solution to a monetary problem. Which is great, and it's the best thing for a lot of people including me, but there are other people with other needs who are just as capable of being successful given the right environment for them.

Post reply on HN