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

Female Founders

paulgraham.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 634 posts

Re: Female Founders

#131

Post by yarrel »

pshin45 wrote: post #63
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…

(Posted on behalf of a friend) "PG, of the three female partners you mentioned, one is in charge of legal, the second: taxes, and the third (largely) of founder relations. How many full-time or part-time YC partners actually advise companies on business strategy?"

You have a remarkably sexist friend.

Re: Female Founders

#132

Post by pshin45 »

jl wrote: post #101
pshin45 wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

(Posted on behalf of a friend) "PG, of the three female partners you mentioned, one is in charge of legal, the second: taxes, and the third (largely) of founder relations. How many full-time or part-time YC partners actually advise companies on business strategy?"

This comment makes me so angry that it is difficult to remain calm, but I will try. You have this wrong. All three of us are in charge of so much more than you suggest here. We all participate in investment decisions and advise the companies on many different matters-- including business strategy. Since we started YC, there has not been one important decision we've made that I have not been a part of.

(On behalf of the same friend)

"That's good to know - I wasn't aware of that. I'm happy to hear this isn't the case, but I've heard this from YC founders many times which is why it was my perception."

Re: Female Founders

#133

Post by michaelkariv »

My wife is a founder and a programmer. I help her all I can, as a hacker. Watching it from up close I am more pessimistic about quick leveling of the playing field near term.

Yet here is what we can do that pg did not mention. I shall tech my daughters. Thank you code.org.

Unlike me most of the crowd here don't have kids yet, I guess. But day will come and you will. Half will be girls. They'll see you from up close. They will hear your battle stories. There will be no better role model than you.

Yes one generation is a lot in internet years. But status quo never changes quickly. At least we can personally can see to it that it does change

Re: Female Founders

#134

Post by krstck »

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…

Well, a couple thoughts.

1. It is possible that men and women do think differently and therefore have different career preferences, so the optimal gender ratio is not 1:1.

2. Just because the optimal gender ratio may not be 1:1 does not mean that the current expression is the optimal one.

I think we absolutely need to make this field more friendly to women. I don't think we'll ever see 50% participation, but I don't want to see any person (man, woman, or anyone identifying otherwise) turn away from this field because they found it hostile. I do believe that this happens, and that sucks.

Re: Female Founders

#135

Post by dragonwriter »

MrZongle2 wrote: post #120
dragonwriter wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 .

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

I think the problem has nothing to do with the word "friend" but the word "prejudice".

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

So what? The fact that people in group X can earn any given position with you doesn't mean that they don't, just by the fact of being members of group X, start out in a worse position in your view. So, that people in group X may have earned the designation "friend" from you does not in any way prove that you don't have a prejudice, even potentially a very strong one, against group X.

Re: Female Founders

#136

Post by loumf »

zachlatta wrote: post #30
loumf wrote: post #13

In a footnote, PG says the poor need hardware to program. I work with poor kids (and volunteer to teach technology to them). Hardware is relatively easy to come by (there are cheap options and donations), but access to the Internet is not.

How have you been working to overcome the lack of access to the internet? This is something I've been giving a lot of thought lately.

They just have to go to central places (cafes, libraries). It's not easy. Also, not everything we do needs internet -- we tear apart and rebuild desktops -- that's actually a fairly easy thing to teach even a young kid.

Re: Female Founders

#137

Post by baddox »

Helianthus wrote: post #112
pg wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 sid…

> And you can say, with a straight face, that YC is not sexist?

I don't think he could have made that any clearer.

Re: Female Founders

#138

Post by gizmo »

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…

Oppressed minorities have historically been excluded from highly desirable fields. As a consequence even today you see few black people in, say, Princeton or investment banking. This is most certainly not because black people (or women) think differently. The status quo just takes a long time to improve, especially when people pigheadedly deny there's a societal problem.

Re: Female Founders

#139

Post by dictum »

loumf wrote: post #126
dictum wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's one positive side effect of 3G: more people can get Internet access. Data caps for pre-paid plans are low here (200MB-300MB), but at roughly $5/month, they're the only affordable option for poor families and people who live away from metro areas.

Not for a desktop computer for programming purposes. Access to google, stack overflow, github, hosting, etc.

It's a cup half-empty/half-full thing. I'm happy that more people can access the Internet, but I wish they could have uncapped broadband. Until we get there, hacker spaces for the poor will remain a necessity.

Re: Female Founders

#140

Post by MrZongle2 »

krstck wrote: post #134
MrZongle2 wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Well, a couple thoughts. 1. It is possible that men and women do think differently and therefore have different career preferences, so the optimal gender ratio is not 1:1. 2. Just because the optimal gender ratio may not be 1:1 does not mean that the current expression is the optimal one . I think we absolutely need to make this field more friendly to women. I don't think we'll ever see 50% participation, but I don't…

'I think we absolutely need to make this field more friendly to women.'

And I completely agree. I guess my point is: how much of this outrage is manufactured? Is the gender imbalance truly a "crisis" or is it an artifact of something else entirely?

Post reply on HN