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

The Myth of the Non-Technical Startup Employee

modelviewculture.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 258 posts

Re: The Myth of the Non-Technical Startup Employee

#121

Post by lambda »

your_throwaway wrote: post #110
ericabiz wrote: post #14

The situation described at the tradeshow in this article has also happened to me, repeatedly and consistently. The difference? I AM technical. I just also happen to be a woman. I love the tech industry. I've been in it professionally since 1997, and I've run tech startups as a CEO for the past 13 years. And if there's one thing I can count on, it's the consistent, pervasive assumption that I'm not technical. I hate g…

Yeah, except when I do start a conversation with you, I'm hitting on you, and probably being "creepy". I have to navigate a mental minefield of "don't say this" "don't say that too much" or "don't be overly aggressive", otherwise I get screamed about on twitter, labeled as a misogynist, and possibly fired from my job. (Uh-oh, I said dongle! Or...[1]meritocracy!) I'm not saying women in tech don't have problems, they…

Dude, it's really not hard to have a technical conversation with someone and not come off as creepy. If you feel like you have to worry about this all the time, there's something seriously off about your interpersonal instincts. I'm a pretty socially awkward nerdy guy, and I've never had a problem with being able to have a technical conversation with a woman without being accused of "mansplaining", "being overly aggressive", being "screamed about on twitter" or the like. If all of those things are happening to you, you're probably going about it wrong.

Remember, you hear about the worst incidents online. The things that make it to the news do so because they're newsworthy, not because they're commonplace.

Since many of us are socially awkward nerds here, let me give you a few hints:

Inviting someone for beers after a conference is not hitting on them. But if you're really worried it appearing that way, make sure you invite more than one person; it feels much more like an after-conference beer than an invitation to a date if there's a group of people.

Complementing someone on what they're wearing? I complement my male coworkers on their new sneakers or spiffy new jackets sometimes; it's no more creepy to do the same for a female coworker. But I wouldn't do that to some guy I just met, only someone I've known for a while and already have a professional relationship with. If the first thing I said to a guy was a complement on his shoes, that would sound a little weird, wouldn't it, like I might be hitting on him? Same rule goes. Don't make a complement on a woman's clothes or appearance be the first thing you say to her, that makes it sound like you're hitting on her. But if you've known her a while and you notice that she's gotten a new haircut or new jacket, it's not a problem to mention it.

Asking about someone's projects? How would you imagine that would sound like flirting? Just make sure you're actually interested in someone's projects, and not just using it as a "get to know you" before trying to ask them on a date.

Re: The Myth of the Non-Technical Startup Employee

#122

Post by hueving »

dragonwriter wrote: post #104
zorpner wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I always hesitate to post this on HN, because it almost never goes well, but here it is: Racism (sexism/classism/etc) is not about race (sex/class/etc). It's about power. For this reason alone (let alone all the other good ones), there is no symmetry in these biases (e.g. the false equivalence of misogyny and misandry).

> Racism (sexism/classism/etc) is not about race (sex/class/etc). It's about power. That's, frankly, bullshit. It about allocating power by race, etc., and is, therefore, necessarily about race (or whatever else defines the -ism in question) and power. > there is no symmetry in these biases There is a difference in effect (in a short time window, but see below) between whether the group favored is the currently in-po…

Don't even bother trying. The people that post the definition you are replying to either willfully ignore the basic logical flaws of their argument or they have been brainwashed and lack the mental fortitude to actually defend what they are saying. You will not get a a meaningful response.

Re: The Myth of the Non-Technical Startup Employee

#123

Post by mattlong »

I was fortunate enough to work with the author at the startup she mentions. And I don't use the word "fortunate" lightly; she was absolutely a key player on the team. I'm happy to see that she had a positive experience with the rest of the (male) team!

Maintaining a good company culture™ was very important to me and the other founders and we were very aware of how much our early hires would contribute to it. An important part of that culture was only hiring the best and smartest people (yes, it's cliché, I know). It did not even cross our minds to hire an operations manager (or any other role) who could not understand and comfortably explain our product, for instance. I think that did a lot to set a tone that no one should have lower expectations set for them nor was somehow in a "second-class" role.

P.S. In my defense, it was darn good beef jerky.

EDIT: English is hard.

Re: The Myth of the Non-Technical Startup Employee

#124

Post by melindajb »

haukilup wrote: post #115
melindajb wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

oh because claiming a bullshit voodoo science as argument was so earth shattering? seriously. especially coming from someone with "balls" in the name. read the link. Love it, i'm now not being allowed to reply. I love how it's ok for guys on hacker news to denigrate and insult women and minorities but if we say, look stop it, you're all suddenly begging for rationality. NOTHING about pattern matching is rational. So…

I'm having a hard time determining if you comments are meant to be trolling or not. You see to be adamantly against an opinion the people you're replying to don't exactly hold. You're doing the equivalent of yelling out a boilerplate rant anytime a keyword you've been waiting for pops up.

Why do you feel the need to determine whether I'm a troll or not?

I'm tired of hearing the same old excuses for discrimination, namely "pattern matching." It's bullshit. It's everywhere on this thread as it so often is when posts about discrimination and harassment reach any level of awareness on Hacker News. And while most of the time I generally ignore it, rolling my eyes and occasionally just become depressed as hell, sometimes I just get fed up and decide to call it out. Then I vent it out and get back to work. I don't care what you label it as, in fact the whole concept of labeling is precisely the issue.

Treat people with respect. That's all any of us want. But when we say that nicely we get ignored. When we say it strongly, we get labeled everything from bitch, to sociopath, to irrational, to whatever. There's no win. So I just say what I think and let the chips fall where they may. Upvote me, downvote me, I honestly do not give a shit.

Re: The Myth of the Non-Technical Startup Employee

#125

Post by sliverstorm »

adrianm wrote: post #112
sliverstorm wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He's implying that it is sexist to be bad at talking to women.

Really? Re-reading it with that in mind, I think you're right... I guess my brain presumed that was such an irrational conclusion to draw about me after reading what I wrote that it didn't register at all, I honestly thought I was just not understanding what the poster was trying to say. It really feels terrible to be insulted when I was trying to contribute a thoughtful comment.

IMO it's a ridiculous allegation, anyway. Guys aren't bad at talking to women because they want to be, so telling them "Hey that thing you're ashamed about, well you should feel even worse about it now" isn't useful.

Re: The Myth of the Non-Technical Startup Employee

#126

Post by lostcolony »

hobs wrote: post #111
CGudapati wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not to be that guy but regardless is the correct form. Irregardless is considered as non-standard or incorrect. But if you do know this, please don't mind this nitpick.

I actually didn't know that. I googled and learned that it came into use in the 50s, interesting. Edited and changed. Edit: too old to edit! But still, thanks for the info.

I do not believe this thread just happened.

Re: The Myth of the Non-Technical Startup Employee

#127

Post by mooreds »

Loved the refreshing different view of the startup world. I'm technical and not in SV, but I've seen this behavior in other scenarios. (Not so blatant, however.) It seems like every company has a class of employees, typically either sales, executives, or technical in my experience, that are valued just a bit more than everyone else.

Even though it is everybody putting their shoulder to the grindstone every day that really moves the company forward.

Re: The Myth of the Non-Technical Startup Employee

#128

Post by hippich »

ericabiz wrote: post #14

The situation described at the tradeshow in this article has also happened to me, repeatedly and consistently. The difference? I AM technical. I just also happen to be a woman. I love the tech industry. I've been in it professionally since 1997, and I've run tech startups as a CEO for the past 13 years. And if there's one thing I can count on, it's the consistent, pervasive assumption that I'm not technical. I hate g…

I believe no matter if you are technical or not, you still can find certain correlation between person's sex and if he or she is technical or not. I understand that there are a lot of gals in tech, but it is less likely to happen to see couple where female party is technical and male - is not. It is just statistics. Just like it is more likely for gals to have longish hair and for guys - shorter one. It is just how current overall earth as large system evolved.

Just like everybody assumed I am boring when I was young and nerdish, same would happen to gals in tech. I bet that if instead of waiting for 13 minutes you would join conversation whoever approached you and your fiance would happily continue conversation with you two. Yes, his initial assumptions were incorrect, but they are based on current expectations. As soon as there will be close to 50/50 female/male ration in tech I bet these assumptions will disappear.

Don't try hard to find samples of sexism. Just join a conversation.

Re: The Myth of the Non-Technical Startup Employee

#129

Post by Pherdnut »

gatsby wrote: post #20

Are these really commonly held beliefs? --You only take a job in business operations if you aren’t smart enough to be an engineer (or designer, or product manager, or…) --If your role isn’t technical, you don’t actually understand the product. I don't think many people actually say or believe this. Maybe these were common thoughts in 1999, but as an SF-based ops guy, I've never heard this. In fact, I would argue that…

Does it have to be common or just regularly enough encountered for it to become seriously irritating.

Re: The Myth of the Non-Technical Startup Employee

#130

Post by Pherdnut »

melindajb wrote: post #49
nicolethenerd wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But it is just pattern matching - 'sexism' seems to connote intent, or at least some kind of discrimination / negativity. Assuming that a woman you meet is more likely to be non-technical than technical is just probability - it's not a great thing, but I do it too, and I am a woman. It doesn't mean that I think women shouldn't be in tech, or that I'm surprised when they are - just more likely than not, in my experien…

Here is why pattern matching is bullshit: https://medium.com/best-thing-i-found-online-today/8178b2794... Here, I'll even save you the trouble of clicking: To be direct: Pattern recognition is bullshit voodoo pseudo-science masquerading as objectivity and meritocracy. It’s sexism, racism, ageism, homophobia, and xenophobia dressed up as science. It sickens me.

But oh-so-handy for validating e-mail addresses.
Post reply on HN