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

JL on Female Founders

foundersatwork.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 72 posts

Re: JL on Female Founders

#61

Post by mattmaroon »

DaniFong wrote: post #55
mattmaroon wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Men have always been encouraged to have sex with a lot of different partners, not to sire children with them. (Children were, of course, the reason that men developed the urge, but the urge stands separately, as shown by the fact that men do not decrease their mating habits when there is no chance of pregnancy.) That's clearly still the case in modern society. Spend 10 minutes in a high school locker room and you'll…

Why is it sexist to say we show up more frequently in science departments because we have also been designed by evolution to be better at math? Because compared with bench-pressing, claims of mathematically ability being better in men (and partially ordered, to boot) is seriously jumping the gun. We know what's involved in a bench press. We understand how testosterone stimulates the production of muscle. We are nowhe…

I don't think anyone would claim that we know or understand all of those differences yet. I don't even really have an opinion on the math one, it's just the most commonly cited so I used it as example.

But we need to be open to the fact that they are there. It hinders scientific and social progress to scream sexism any time someone suggests the sexes might be different in some way.

Re: JL on Female Founders

#62

Post by mattmaroon »

DaniFong wrote: post #48
mattmaroon wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

a) irrelevant b) I don't think anyone suggested that "dominant, decisive, intelligent, women" are any less likely to start startups than "dominant, decisive, intelligent" men. (I'd define the characteristics that drive one to start up differently, but you get the picture. However you define it, it may be that fewer women have those characteristics). a) ok. undoubtedly a part. b) Perhaps you have cause and effect bakc…

a) irrelevant with respect to what? The point of this is that it contrasts with the case for memes. Memes are directed towards the different groups much more strongly, and so by that force you'd assume that they're more likely divergent. I don't think anyone suggested that "dominant, decisive, intelligent, women" are any less likely to start startups than "dominant, decisive, intelligent" men. That is in fact more al…

Irrelevant in that sharing "mostly the same genes" still leaves the door open to vastly different physical and psychological makeups. It's a given to say that men and women are very different physically (hell, our brains even have noticeably different shapes) yet it's taboo to say we might be different psychologically.

Re: JL on Female Founders

#63

Post by DaniFong »

mattmaroon wrote: post #61
DaniFong wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why is it sexist to say we show up more frequently in science departments because we have also been designed by evolution to be better at math? Because compared with bench-pressing, claims of mathematically ability being better in men (and partially ordered, to boot) is seriously jumping the gun. We know what's involved in a bench press. We understand how testosterone stimulates the production of muscle. We are nowhe…

I don't think anyone would claim that we know or understand all of those differences yet. I don't even really have an opinion on the math one, it's just the most commonly cited so I used it as example. But we need to be open to the fact that they are there. It hinders scientific and social progress to scream sexism any time someone suggests the sexes might be different in some way.

It hinders progress in the same way to scream anti-sexism when what is really being suggested is a reasoned discussion.

It might be absurd to assert equality, but it's a decent postulate to take while we don't know for sure. And I think asserting the certainty of particular innate differences, without sufficient evidence, is more dubious than the corresponding assertion of equality.

Re: JL on Female Founders

#64

Post by mattmaroon »

DaniFong wrote: post #63
mattmaroon wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think anyone would claim that we know or understand all of those differences yet. I don't even really have an opinion on the math one, it's just the most commonly cited so I used it as example. But we need to be open to the fact that they are there. It hinders scientific and social progress to scream sexism any time someone suggests the sexes might be different in some way.

It hinders progress in the same way to scream anti-sexism when what is really being suggested is a reasoned discussion. It might be absurd to assert equality, but it's a decent postulate to take while we don't know for sure. And I think asserting the certainty of particular innate differences, without sufficient evidence, is more dubious than the corresponding assertion of equality.

Well, the one thing we know for sure is that we're different. We just don't know all of the why's and how's. So overall equality (in the sense of similarity) is the only thing we know to be incorrect.

Re: JL on Female Founders

#65

Post by mattmaroon »

DaniFong wrote: post #52
mattmaroon wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The easiest way to prove something is genetic rather than cultural is to examine different cultures throughout the world, especially isolated ones like pygmies or aborigines. The paradigm of man as provider and woman as nurturer, and the mating ramifications of that (i.e. women preferring men who are able to provide, which most closely translates in our society to wealth, and men preferring women more fit to raise ch…

The easiest way to prove something is genetic rather than cultural is to examine different cultures throughout the world, especially isolated ones like pygmies or aborigines. I agree that this is easy, but I am not sure that it is in fact accurate. To do so you must show that the particular cultural values you're exploring do not share anthropological linage. This is a very difficult problem. How do you propose to ha…

You can't simply say that since men are more hesitant to commit to relationships, and women less, that the same holds true in startups or careers, or that it translates at all. Both genders exhibit behaviors where mating is concerned that are very different from how they behave in other situations.

You should really read up on evolutionary psychology, I think you might enjoy it.

Re: JL on Female Founders

#66

Post by mcescher »

DaniFong wrote: post #18
mixmax wrote: post #5

I think that natural selection might explain it. What characrerises reproductively successful men? Or, to put it another way, what qualities do women seek in a mate? Women tend to prefer dominant men of high status with lots of money, and there is little reason to believe that their ancestors differed. For much of human history male status came from being a skilled hunter and warrior and from the ability to influence…

Unfortunately, your explanation does not go the whole way. Consider the evolution of biological genes: a) Men and women share mostly the same genes (the y chromosome is a desolate wasteland), and there are few (if any) known mechanisms by which gene merging is different for male and female humans. b) Dominant, decisive, intelligent, women are likely to share similar evolutionary advantages to men. Note that I leave h…

> b) Dominant, decisive, intelligent, women are likely to share similar evolutionary advantages to men.

Unfortunately women like that are incompatible with many human cultures. E.g. try being a dominant, assertive woman someplace with Sharia law. Historically, those traits were bad for survival in many parts of the world.

Or women were treated like chattel and were property of men, and they didn't get a say in who they mated with. So their intelligent genes would be diluted. Or look at Darfur -- it's rape rape rape all the time. Being good at Sudoku requires a certain level of societal stability before it's really that handy.

Re: JL on Female Founders

#67

Post by mcescher »

DaniFong wrote: post #23
smanek wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

that's close - but not quite what I was taught. Basically, men aren't as important as women. If 99.99% of men died today, the human race could be back to it's normal population within a generation (a man could easily father a child a day for 30 years ~10,000 children). On the other hand, we'd have much more trouble if 99.9% of women died, since a women can only realistically have about 10 children in a lifetime. This…

A women, on the other hand, can likely have 10 children whether or not she is successful Surely you are joking... Miscarriages, even a century ago, claimed so many women . You would be lucky to live past your third, much less your tenth! Without some network to provided for her (either by her family, or the village, or her mate, all of which are strongly effected by status), the likelihood of surviving a pregnancy be…

> Miscarriages, even a century ago, claimed so many women

s/Miscarriages/Childbirth

That's why wide hips are important.

Re: JL on Female Founders

#68

Post by jimbokun »

DaniFong wrote: post #18
mixmax wrote: post #5

I think that natural selection might explain it. What characrerises reproductively successful men? Or, to put it another way, what qualities do women seek in a mate? Women tend to prefer dominant men of high status with lots of money, and there is little reason to believe that their ancestors differed. For much of human history male status came from being a skilled hunter and warrior and from the ability to influence…

Unfortunately, your explanation does not go the whole way. Consider the evolution of biological genes: a) Men and women share mostly the same genes (the y chromosome is a desolate wasteland), and there are few (if any) known mechanisms by which gene merging is different for male and female humans. b) Dominant, decisive, intelligent, women are likely to share similar evolutionary advantages to men. Note that I leave h…

"Even in a more ordinary circumstance, male bosses can wield power in a way that would label their female cohorts 'ice queens'."

I suspect that those male bosses are equally called names and disliked. They just don't give a damn.

I wonder if women bosses just have a bigger aversion to being strongly disliked?

(Rhetorical question here. I really don't know. I've had several different male and female bosses at this point, but haven't really experienced behavior from either that would make me want to call them bad names.)

Re: JL on Female Founders

#69

Post by jdavid »

So I wanted to make sure no-one posted this view point before.

1stly in a modern 1st world country like the US or Japan birth-rates have been falling for along time. I think this a strong indication that gender roles are becoming less important in culture. Additionally you can see this in the current political strife on similar topics.

So to put all of those things aside, lets just look at the numbers. Marquette the school I went to had an engineering degree program with 40-60% female. It was the highest in the country while I was attending, and the topic of choice .....

Biology.

So, I had the chance to ask many of them why they chose that field and the response was ALWAYS, that they wanted to help people.

I think ability is not the root here, but it is the drive, and I think the women out there that have the personality and the drive to be entrepreneurs do not have an economic model that matches their interests.

I am willing to bet that as greentech becomes a viable industry to start a company you will see more women entering the entrepreneurship game. So, if it is still some sort of preference to help people and the world, why is that so? I don't know but thank God someone wants to do something more.

I think that if you are going to support a climate for female entrepreneur's you are going to have to find a way to create a community (YC seems to be a good start) and a way for the process to feel personable rather than abstract.

Jessica, maybe you can organize a few geek dinners to get female entrepreneurs together talking about what they would of like to have had when they were starting a company? I am sure you will find it much different than what the guys needed.

Re: JL on Female Founders

#70

Post by aasarava »

whacked_new wrote: post #34
aasarava wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While that makes for a neatly packaged Darwinian theory, it's important to remember that genetic selection is not the only force that affects our decisions. Medicine, culture, technology, and many other factors affect, and even override, what our genes may steer us toward if they could "act in a vacuum." Not convinced? By the same theory, one would think that men in today's society would be highly encouraged to have…

There is a difference between acknowledging a difference exists, and acting on that difference in a discriminatory manner. Women and men are wired differently. That much is a fact. The obvious, those of reproductive organs, are visible and nobody would deny them. Those in the head, are invisible and so somehow made into a sensitive issue, but significant differences exist. Women have a larger corpus callosum than men…

The problem about discrimination is what happens after this step: a man is unable to multitask. A giraffe is unable to eat food that is not in trees.

We are in agreement, and I give you credit for explaining the point better than I did.

I also probably should have been more specific when I said it's dangerous to believe that "women [are] wired for different work than men". I'm not arguing that women and men are the same in every way. Clearly there are differences. I'm saying it's unfortunate to take a problem like the low number of women founders and to use Darwinian theory to say "women just aren't wired for this type of intellectual work." This makes it all too easy to overlook other causes of the problem and, as you point out, can lead to discrimination in various forms.

Indeed, someone just posted this timely article on HN today about a study showing that "boys are not innately better at maths than girls, and any difference in test scores is due to nurture rather than nature." http://education.guardian.co.uk/schools/story/0,,2283083,00....

Post reply on HN