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

571–580 of 634 posts

Re: Female Founders

#571

Post by wpietri »

Crake wrote: post #550
wpietri wrote: post #506

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And as long as guys are still acting in ignorance of their privilege, I'll keep posting that and similar resources. But as long as we're talking about it, you might benefit by reading his FAQ in response to the post: http://whatever.scalzi.com/2012/05/17/lowest-difficulty-sett... He's mainly addressing the straight white males of the Internet who thought the piece was crap, so it's basically for you.

How do you know he's a straight white male? Can you tell race, genitalia, and sexual orientation by typing style? Are you going to tell me to check my male privilege next?

If somebody other than a straight white male has freaked out about the Scalzi piece, I haven't seen it yet. If Jim Zvz is not among that group, he is welcome to correct me, and to be clearer about his concerns about the piece.

Re: Female Founders

#572

Post by johnjlocke »

mtrimpe wrote: post #502
coldtea wrote: post #461

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Judging by the comments on this article, it would appear that once you've been labeled a sexist it is downright impossible to dispel. That's because it's easy. The "sexism-accusers" don't have to do anything themselves to fight sexism. Anything concrete I mean. It's enough that they voice their anger and point their finger to this or that scapegoat (and ocassional real offender), and they can feel good, nay, champi…

Or maybe they had something happen to them or someone they know? Maybe they had someone's head on their shoulder crying their heart out? Maybe they tried standing up for them and were fired? Maybe for whatever reason they really understand what it feels like in a world where most people don't. I'm one of those rage-queens you so happily deride here. I know it myself. I became one after I complained about a manager op…

This is how things actually roll in the real world. You can stick to your principles, but it may cost you. I do think that the PG situation is a bit of damage control. While not having enough female founders (or founders with a foreign accent) is a symptom of what's wrong, the root problems go a little deeper.

The quality of the idea, execution, and team is what should matter. Not the color of skin, not gender, sexual orientation, accents, or anything else. But here we are...

We can't pretend that SWM are the only ones who can create a good product, and if our tech heroes happen to fuck up or say something that isn't right, I don't think it helps to ignore it.

Re: Female Founders

#574

Post by moocowduckquack »

jacobtracey wrote: post #570
moocowduckquack wrote: post #566

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oh yes, he's shocked, he's genuinely shocked, he finds it all such a shame. I mean, really. People claiming outrage and shock at having just discovered the existence of affirmative action in a country that practiced aparthied in some parts within living memory are either outstandingly ignorant, stupid, or lying through their teeth.

You've added nothing but questioning his character and then a string of baseless insults. I'm sure if you had anything of value to say you'd have said it by now, so I'm just gonna let this one go.

To be fair, your main addition in this so far has been to parrot me then to say I sound stupid, which I may well do and I completely entertain it as a possibility, however I am not sure it puts you down for insightful contribution of the year here either.

Re: Female Founders

#575

Post by jacobtracey »

wpietri wrote: post #569
jacobtracey wrote: post #562

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This collectivism grouping of people with 'privilege' is so bogus it's astounding that people follow it so blindly. Have you ever considered the possibility that people can judge other people based on their individual merits, not by the actions/inactions of people with the same colour of their skin or gender? Furthermore, you quote one white paper to prove that white privilege is fact - how does that paper prove anyt…

If a lot of people see something you don't, they could all be deluded. Or you could just be missing something. Also, people aren't going to take you very seriously if you run around accusing them of being blind. Even when you're right. Actually, there's a lot of research that shows that the default condition of humankind is not to judge other people based on their individual merits. And that probably includes you. Tr…

I have no doubt that systemic racism still exists, particularly in the United States.

Certainly, that paper provides evidence that those with African American sounding names are at a disadvantage to people with white sounding names when applying for jobs.

Calling this disparity a 'privilege' and not a 'disadvantage' that needs to be corrected only stands as a reason to vilify one group, rather than lift the other, disadvantaged group up.

It's practically become a social faux pas to comment on anything in regards to social equity if you're a 'cigender white male' because of all the 'privilege' that group of people have. Case in point, this entire controversy with PG.

The word privilege has become so loaded that it's almost a catch all to dismiss or denigrate people's character irregardless of the quality of the content.

It's not that I think anyone is deluded, or blind. The language used has just become so muddled as to be almost worthless.

Re: Female Founders

#576

Post by wpietri »

jacobtracey wrote: post #575
wpietri wrote: post #569

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If a lot of people see something you don't, they could all be deluded. Or you could just be missing something. Also, people aren't going to take you very seriously if you run around accusing them of being blind. Even when you're right. Actually, there's a lot of research that shows that the default condition of humankind is not to judge other people based on their individual merits. And that probably includes you. Tr…

I have no doubt that systemic racism still exists, particularly in the United States. Certainly, that paper provides evidence that those with African American sounding names are at a disadvantage to people with white sounding names when applying for jobs. Calling this disparity a 'privilege' and not a 'disadvantage' that needs to be corrected only stands as a reason to vilify one group, rather than lift the other, di…

So your theory is that when I note my privilege, I am vilifying... myself?

I don't think that's what's going on at all. Privilege checklists, for example, are written by and for privileged people: http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/wiki/Privilege_checklist

Maybe the term is muddled for you, but for me it's a pretty specific technical term, and most usages of it I see are pretty accurate.

I think the "disadvantage" term can have some utility, but for me it misses important nuances. One is that disadvantage sounds pretty abstract, pretty diffuse. E.g., disadvantaged youth are ones that happen to be born into poverty. But differential hiring based on names is active and specific.

Another is that thing many of the actions that make up privilege are positive ones. People helped me out in ways that other people just weren't helped. For example, when you look at the makeup of company boards or executive rosters, it's not like anybody said, "Hey, let's keep the women out." It's just that they happened to promote a lot more guys.

But the biggest thing for me is it puts the focus for action in the right place: on the people who are privileged. With power comes responsibility. White privilege is mainly white people helping other white people. That will only change if enough individual white people notice their privilege and act.

Re: Female Founders

#577

Post by calinet6 »

cynicalkane wrote: post #233
Zikes wrote: post #146

Judging by the comments on this article, it would appear that once you've been labeled a sexist it is downright impossible to dispel. I'm not sure what people expect, exactly. Is pg supposed to give up all his worldly goals and possessions and live as some sort of equality monk? Should he know of and contribute to every one of the many groups and organizations involved in gender equality? And what exactly is wrong wi…

This is the shallowness of that kind of P.C. bullying--Paul Graham has done much more for women in technology than any Internet bully, but he will continue to be attacked because it is possible to assign uncharitable interpretations to a few things he said once. When one realizes that this whole kerfuffle is not about being pro-woman, it's about posturing such that one appears to be pro-woman, then the attackers' vie…

I think the kind of critique here is subconsciously and pedantically picking up on general tone and perceived lack of authenticity.

PG went on the defensive -- and attempted to dispel critiques with a negative attitude and a logical argument.

This isn't a problem you can logic away. What he needed to do was write from the perspective of social conscience, even if it's not logical, even if it's not strictly absolutely statistically true. He needed to prove that he is coming from a genuinely positive point of view, so that we can see that his great influence is not aimed simply toward the neutral or equal, but in fact good.

He failed to do this, and therefore he receives criticism. The arguments against him are focused on the wrong things, because they're not very self-aware, but they're fundamentally correct in the big picture.

There's a difference between simple absence of evil, tactless neutrality, and genuine good. We like to hope our idols and influences are as far toward the good as possible.

Re: Female Founders

#578

Post by jacobtracey »

wpietri wrote: post #576
jacobtracey wrote: post #575

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have no doubt that systemic racism still exists, particularly in the United States. Certainly, that paper provides evidence that those with African American sounding names are at a disadvantage to people with white sounding names when applying for jobs. Calling this disparity a 'privilege' and not a 'disadvantage' that needs to be corrected only stands as a reason to vilify one group, rather than lift the other, di…

So your theory is that when I note my privilege, I am vilifying... myself? I don't think that's what's going on at all. Privilege checklists, for example, are written by and for privileged people: http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/wiki/Privilege_checklist Maybe the term is muddled for you, but for me it's a pretty specific technical term, and most usages of it I see are pretty accurate. I think the "disadvantage" term ca…

No, that is not what I said. I said calling it privilege only stands as a reason to vilify a group. Whether or not you choose to do that is up to you. You and many others seem to have taken the tact of creating a sense of responsibility to those who you deem to be privileged based on something they have had zero control over - their name, gender or ethnic backgrounds.

The focus of anyone interested in social equality should be to raise those with disadvantages up, not to impart a sense of blame and responsibility on those who fall into Peggy McIntosh's definition of privileged.

Recognising and providing support for those who are disadvantaged achieves that. Blaming those who do not have these disadvantages as if there's a concerted effort to screw the disadvantaged is great if you want to encourage victimhood and a lack of self determination for those you're attempting to help.

Re: Female Founders

#579

Post by Crake »

heterogenic wrote: post #425

You know what I'd love to see the next time one of these inflammatory gender-related posts comes up? One thread that only women are allowed to post to. No men to challenge them, play devil's advocate or otherwise defend their privilege. Just one place for us to say our piece without being downvoted into oblivion, where our voice can be heard (in all its glorious heterogeneity). Because that's what's missing in this c…

>You know what I'd love to see the next time one of these inflammatory gender-related posts comes up?

>One thread that only men are allowed to post to. No women to challenge them, play devil's advocate or otherwise defend their privilege. Just one place for us to say our piece without being downvoted into oblivion, where our voice can be heard (in all its glorious heterogeneity).

>Because that's what's missing in this conversation about men in tech. Men.

>Carry on femsplaining your way through it girls... I'll be over here building things.

Do you think you'd react well to a comment written like this? Expect hostility--it's deserved. Sexism isn't pretty, and that goes for both misogyny AND misandry.

Post reply on HN