Female Founders • Hacker News Board

Re: Female Founders

#111

Post by EricaJoy » Fri, Jan 10, 2014, 9:24 PM UTC

pg wrote: post #40

parfe wrote: post #26

I find myself disappointed by this blog post. The second paragraph amounts to a sexist version of "I'm not racist! I have black friends!" Then he follows up with statistics comparing YC to the general VC market. Fine, you do better than most. However, not the worst does not mean not bad. He comes closest to saying anything of substance with the paragraph: So how would you cause there to be more female programmers? Th…

The second paragraph amounts to a sexist version of "I'm not racist! I have black friends!" Actually by pointing out the degree to which women run things at YC it's closer to saying "I'm not racist! I'm black." And while it's possible for women to be sexist too, if you think Jessica, Kirsty, and Carolynn are sexist, I'd like to see you say it to their faces. And I do know something about groups working on getting gir…

> And I do know something about groups working on getting girls and women interested in programming. In fact we've funded two that are partially focused on that: Hacker School and one of the nonprofits in the current batch.

Can you share more about what Hacker School is doing to get girls and women interested in programming? "Hacker School is currently only for people who already know how to code," according to their FAQ, which seems counterintuitive to getting people (women or otherwise) interested in programming.

Re: Female Founders

#112

Post by Helianthus » Fri, Jan 10, 2014, 9:26 PM UTC

pg wrote: post #69

a8da6b0c91d wrote: post #43

Why is pg engaging with these trolls? Does anyone think they truly care about women succeeding in business or software? No, this is about making a stink and attention whoring. The appropriate response is to flip these weenies the bird.

It's not the trolls I care about so much as more moderate people who may have seen the fight from a distance and come away with the idea that YC is somehow sexist. Particularly women, because I want them to apply.

In other words, this is a posture piece: it's about your reputation, and only about the issue at hand insomuch as it is important to give that issue its due.

I mean that ('posture piece') as neutrally, perhaps, as it is possible to mean it.

>come away with the idea that YC is somehow sexist.

And you can say, with a straight face, that YC is not sexist? That it's just the tech environment, and you're on the 'right side'?

Again, this is about your reputation--controlling the narrative.

Re: Female Founders

#113

Post by baddox » Fri, Jan 10, 2014, 9:26 PM UTC

pg wrote: post #40

parfe wrote: post #26

I find myself disappointed by this blog post. The second paragraph amounts to a sexist version of "I'm not racist! I have black friends!" Then he follows up with statistics comparing YC to the general VC market. Fine, you do better than most. However, not the worst does not mean not bad. He comes closest to saying anything of substance with the paragraph: So how would you cause there to be more female programmers? Th…

The second paragraph amounts to a sexist version of "I'm not racist! I have black friends!" Actually by pointing out the degree to which women run things at YC it's closer to saying "I'm not racist! I'm black." And while it's possible for women to be sexist too, if you think Jessica, Kirsty, and Carolynn are sexist, I'd like to see you say it to their faces. And I do know something about groups working on getting gir…

> And while it's possible for women to be sexist too, if you think Jessica, Kirsty, and Carolynn are sexist, I'd like to see you say it to their faces.

While I don't agree (really, I know virtually nothing about those women and haven't met them), I think you would find that many of your critics from the original controversy do think they are sexist and would say it to their faces.

Re: Female Founders

#114

Post by AnimalMuppet » Fri, Jan 10, 2014, 9:26 PM UTC

shadowfox wrote: post #67

a8da6b0c91d wrote: post #43

Why is pg engaging with these trolls? Does anyone think they truly care about women succeeding in business or software? No, this is about making a stink and attention whoring. The appropriate response is to flip these weenies the bird.

> The appropriate response is to flip these weenies the bird That is a very mature approach, I am sure :P

Arguably, it's as mature a response as they deserve...

Re: Female Founders

#115

Post by jlees » Fri, Jan 10, 2014, 9:26 PM UTC

cjbprime wrote: post #21

pshin45 wrote: post #14

I posted this in a previous "Ask HN" thread about African American founders in YC [1], and reposting here because I think it bears repeating. > For those wondering why this is important, see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stereotype_threat "If negative stereotypes are present regarding a specific group, group members are likely to become anxious about their performance, which may hinder their ability to perform at the…

But do note that the same wikipedia page points out that several recent attempts to replicate the studies that claimed to measure stereotype threat have failed, putting the whole idea into question. I'm not saying that out of some attempt to sweep away the general problem of improving diversity; it's just important to work on solutions that will actually make a difference.

There are also recent studies that confirm different manifestations of it, for example [1]. I tend to agree with Wikipedia on the publication bias aspect, but I don't think you can sweep away the impact of stereotypes at all. I also think working to change tech stereotyping (in general) as one of the things that will actually make a difference, so I guess I'm biased too.

[1] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23713580

Re: Female Founders

#116

Post by DanBC » Fri, Jan 10, 2014, 9:26 PM UTC

MrZongle2 wrote: post #99

krstck wrote: post #76

I find the outrage over this so disingenuous. It looks to me like it's more about punishing someone for being a high-profile member of a hated, perceived-oppressor group than actually caring about women being programmers. To think that pg actually believes that there are no female programmers was the least charitable possible interpretation, and the only reason to have picked that one in particular was to confirm you…

Note that there is no similar hand-wringing about the lack of women in the fields of sanitation, construction, plumbing or cartooning. Likewise, not much hubbub about the gender imbalance in the fashion industry. Could it possibly be that men and women think differently, and those minor differences are reflected in their career preferences? Could it be that these preferences play a bigger role in gender imbalances in…

> Note that there is no similar hand-wringing about the lack of women in the fields of sanitation, construction,

Yes there is, and examples of programmes to get men into. Ursing or women into construction have been posted to HN before.

Someone always always makes the same point as you and for some reason it always manages to infuriate me. I've had to re-write this 4 times because it was so vicious at first. But it does feel tbat a person must be deliberately trollin when they trot out the same tired bullshit that other idiots spout, especially when that bullshit has been debunked on the same forum that they're posting to and when it is so easy to debunk with a simple websearch. It feels as if some people like living their lives with the blinkers on.

Re: Female Founders

#117

Post by wellboy » Fri, Jan 10, 2014, 9:26 PM UTC

johnrob wrote: post #23

Another explanation of why girls don't start companies: maybe they are smarter? The median outcome of a startup is a loss of time and money.

If you're only looking at cash in the bank afterwards from the exit maybe.

What doing a startup does is worst case, that it accelerates your carreer a lot. If you do startups for 2 years, you can get the jobs (if you want) that people working at a corporation will get within 10 years, so it accelerates your career by the factor of around 5.

Examples? Myself and all my startup-friends who have to work for someone every now and then when the bank balance nears 0 again are offered very high-paying/high responsibility jobs.

The reason for that is that the education about business, building a product and personal growth that you get out of a startup is simply unmatched.

For that reason, it's smarter to do a startup in all cases. However, only if you want to accelerate your career of course. If you don't want to make career in your life, then doing a startup is not smarter, because it does take a toll.

Re: Female Founders

#118

Post by baddox » Fri, Jan 10, 2014, 9:27 PM UTC

zorpner wrote: post #65

pg wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The second paragraph amounts to a sexist version of "I'm not racist! I have black friends!" Actually by pointing out the degree to which women run things at YC it's closer to saying "I'm not racist! I'm black." And while it's possible for women to be sexist too, if you think Jessica, Kirsty, and Carolynn are sexist, I'd like to see you say it to their faces. And I do know something about groups working on getting gir…

> And while it's possible for women to be sexist too, if you think Jessica, Kirsty, and Carolynn are sexist, I'd like to see you say it to their faces. That... is not an argument? There's ample evidence to show that members of underrepresented groups within individual companies/industries experience unconscious biases in hiring/ranking/etc, even towards groups of which they're a member.

Can you provide an example of something that you would consider to be a valid argument or piece of evidence?

Re: Female Founders

#119

Post by vezzy-fnord » Fri, Jan 10, 2014, 9:27 PM UTC

cjbprime wrote: post #86

vezzy-fnord wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I guess you could . Although I'm not sure how exactly an algorithm can be inherently prejudiced, that sounds rather postmodern. You can make one that is inefficient or apply one that isn't suitable to a given data set, and end up with skewed results. But an algorithm promoting prejudice by itself? I don't know. I always thought mathematics was neutral. Either way, it absolutely does not apply here. HN's algorithms si…

I think you're overcomplicating it by insisting on isolating the algorithm from its owner and environment. No-one else was doing that. If you don't want to apply a label to the algorithm, how about "Foo Bar's decision to run Algorithm X against Dataset Y resulted in consequences that predictably increased prejudice, so it would have been better if he hadn't done it"? If that's okay, note that this is pretty close to…

I won't comment on the efficiency of the algorithm (although it is questionable).

Let's assume that it's a bad design decision. Your logic behind it being prejudiced is still faulty, as it ascribes a fallacious cause.

The algorithm merely shuffles page rankings based on two criteria: upvotes and comments, both of which are user-supplied. The algorithm does not support prejudice, it simply behaves in the fashion it is programmed to. You're completely ignoring all of the mundane stories that go down due to the same factors, and cherry picking the ones about sexism.

Re: Female Founders

#120

Post by MrZongle2 » Fri, Jan 10, 2014, 9:27 PM UTC

dragonwriter wrote: post #110

MrZongle2 wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

'The second paragraph amounts to a sexist version of "I'm not racist! I have black friends!"' Tangent: if I am attempting to prove that I am not bigoted against group X and by doing so I point out that I have members of group X amongst my friends, haven't I made my point if they really ARE my friends? Or is it up to the mob to define what "friendship" is?

> Tangent: if I am attempting to prove that I am not bigoted against group X and by doing so I point out that I have members of group X amongst my friends, haven't I made my point if they really ARE my friends? No, having friends that are members of group X does not disprove prejudice against group X. Finding specific people of group X meet your bar from friendship, no matter how high that bar is, does not mean that…

'No, having friends that are members of group X does not disprove prejudice against group X.'

Perhaps you and I have different definitions of the word "friend", then.

I'm talking about the pre-Facebook version, where they were earned.