61–70 of 175 posts
I'd like to see some stats to back that up, i.e. police reports. Sounds like a generalization that's probably not based in reality. Every investor isn't a rapist waiting for a shot at a female CEO.
But that doesn’t give us free reign to ignore the problems that exist in universities, accelerators, tech companies and venture capital. These pieces of the funnel need to be thoroughly analyzed and optimized for inclusion - be it for gender, race, age, or other markers, so that we’re able to produce the best sustainable and profitable companies and organizations possible. Why? 3. ‘Not discouraging’ women isn’t enoug…
Just so you know, your tone is extremely off-putting. It doesn't come across as genuine asking the question, but are instead whining about how you are being forced to change and you don't want to change and don't see why you should budge so much as a single hair on your head. Also the "Why not blacks? Why not midgets?" line is a particularly poor choice. My understanding is that little people do not like being called…
By not paying extra attention to females?
Buddy, I'm here to get a job done, if my applicant is a woman and she is good, I will hire her. Move on with your bullshit.
Paul Graham isn't keeping women out of technology. Nor do I believe he wants to. If anything, his interests would be served by there being more women in technology, and thus more candidates for YC. Also, Valleywag is a cesspool. I ponied up for the whole interview at The Information. I'd rather eat a bug than talk about what a Gawker publication has to say. But Paul Graham has said some things on this issue that I th…
For example, here's what PG recently said on Twitter (https://twitter.com/paulg/status/416994260995416064):
> Will write about female founders, but traveling all day so it will have to wait. Reserve judgment? Prob too much to hope for, alas.
The responses are typical of feminist activists:
1. > pg translated: "Shut up. All I did in the last decade is not what I believe in, I will graciously explain it to you when I see fit"
2. > Obviously not an important enough issue to deal with now.
3. > please DO NOT write about women founders until you have a better fucking grasp on the issue.
4. > oh don't you even try to equate being a douchebag "startup" founder with being a hacker
The privilege topic has been discussed to death.
If someone were to use "privilege" to mean "unearned benefits for individuals in specific contexts", then no one could have a problem with it. We could talk about:
- female privileges in the workplace
- male privileges in the workplace
- white privileges at university
- black privileges at university
- gay privileges at bars
- straight privileges at bars
- American-born privileges regarding medical care
- Canadian-born privileges regarding medical care
- etc.
Instead, third-wave feminists have transformed the notion of "privilege" into a targeted weapon for belittling and denigrating the specific demographics they deem hostile to their goals.
When a "friendly" demographic does well, it's a result of hard work and determination. For example, when young women earn more than young men, or when young women graduate from college at far higher rates than young men, it's a result of hard work and determination.
Another example: Have you ever seen tptacek complain about the Asian tech problem, the Indian tech problem, or the Jewish tech problem? Nope. Those people worked hard! That is why they're wildly overrepresented. No need to scold them. No need to demand flagellation from them.
But men doing well? White men? Oh god, it's just their privilege. We need to fix this, and we'll know the problem isn't fixed as long as there is any disparity.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
After finishing with a statement so women-hating and/or trolling as "Women are so entitled nowadays.", there really can't be a sensible discussion. Check your sensitivity. That's how I feel from my own experience dealing with women. A lot of them feel that they are being crushed by men with no real world example, it's a large modern bandwagon. Modern day pseudo-feminism, that is.
If you have decided to put 50% of the population into a single box, I find that to simplistic. Would you accept a similarly general negative statement about men? All men are lazy? All men put women down? Or would you consider any such statement too generalising?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Technical jobs are 90%+ male, but our customer base is generally much closer to 50/50. Don't you think it's pretty plausible that having a woman working with you might add a useful perspective when making your product? I've worked at 3 startups(2 as a dev) and interviewed a couple hundred programmers over that time, and don't think I've yet even had a resume from a female programmer, and honestly that really disappoi…
I understand you and I fully agree. I actually work with a majority of women. I'm in the corporate sector, and there are more women then men from what I'm seeing. I still don't get the movement. Everyone knows Computer Science exists. It's just not an interesting or attractive field for everyone. Let's be honest, when you have prospective high school grads you can't make CS more interesting than say, Physics, Bio, Ch…
Since it is not an imbalance that can be pinned on biology (perhaps unlike an imbalance in world weightlifting records?), the cause of the imbalance must be somehow 'nurture' related. Even if we do not consider the imbalance itself to be problematic, the imbalance is considered to be the result of some sort of bias that is assumed to be problematic.
For example, fewer women in tech may not be considered problematic in and of itself (though I believe many people think that it is), but the existence of this imbalance may be evidence of systematic sexual harassment, which certainly is problematic.
I might be getting this wrong, so I welcome corrections.
I wrote down some of my thoughts on this issue here: https://medium.com/p/f7efb084e8a
But that doesn’t give us free reign to ignore the problems that exist in universities, accelerators, tech companies and venture capital. These pieces of the funnel need to be thoroughly analyzed and optimized for inclusion - be it for gender, race, age, or other markers, so that we’re able to produce the best sustainable and profitable companies and organizations possible. Why? 3. ‘Not discouraging’ women isn’t enoug…
> Why not blacks? Why not midgets? Yes, those people too. > Women are so entitled nowadays. GODDAMN THOSE LAZY WHORES FOR WANTING EQUAL PAY FOR THE SAME WORK.
From personal experience, a little anecdote:
When I was first hired as a junior developer, I was offered 40k. Me, along with a few women, and a few junior guys.
Now, is it sexism that:
a) I demanded hire pay and was in pay negotiation for 2 months before I was bumped to 60 because I made a compelling case, a long with a few of the guys?
b) That the women who were offered the same position signed off immediately on the agreement?
There is no "we pay women less for the same job" mantra anywhere that matters, and if there is, please point to a concrete example.
It's not my fault that I'm willing to risk a little and fight for higher pay and potential unemployment for doing so.
Paul Graham isn't keeping women out of technology. Nor do I believe he wants to. If anything, his interests would be served by there being more women in technology, and thus more candidates for YC. Also, Valleywag is a cesspool. I ponied up for the whole interview at The Information. I'd rather eat a bug than talk about what a Gawker publication has to say. But Paul Graham has said some things on this issue that I th…
Privilege is a bogus concept, at least in every manner it has been explained to me. Examine the example you provided. If most elite startup hackers are male, English speaking, 20-40, and white or Asian, then a person giving that characterization would be giving a reasonable one based on observation. What does this have to do with "privilege" or "fitting the mold"? And, more importantly, why should I feel guilty or have some additional responsibility simply because I, through no choice of my own other than refraining from suicide and sex reassignment surgery, fit into one of these "privileged" groups? You might as well claim that the winner of a paper rock scissors competition has privilege.
My questions are actually genuine and not rhetorical. I would appreciate responses, or perhaps corrections of my impression of the concept of privilege.
Paul Graham isn't keeping women out of technology. Nor do I believe he wants to. If anything, his interests would be served by there being more women in technology, and thus more candidates for YC. Also, Valleywag is a cesspool. I ponied up for the whole interview at The Information. I'd rather eat a bug than talk about what a Gawker publication has to say. But Paul Graham has said some things on this issue that I th…
The irony is that there is an immense amount of money being left on the table by this whole "startup world" ignoring women and people of color.
I don't buy it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm not sure what you mean. If somebody isn't interested in either programming or being involved with tech startups (and the overwhelming majority of people in the world are not) then I don't see any particular reason to expect people to have heard of PG. Experts in fields are typically widely unknown by the general public. I first learned of Andre Geim (A Nobel Prize winner in Physics; not my field) from a youtube v…
I'm commenting on the role of mass media in a contemporary society. This is important because I'm afraid that soon everyone is going to hear about PG/YC because "oh no, patriarchy!" To repeat, look at engineering circa 1990s -- nearly entirely male-populated field, moderate prestige. Now look at engineering circa 2010s -- slightly more diverse field, significantly higher prestige. If you start with a 90+%-male base a…