241–250 of 290 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Then say all and not inappropriate - presumably you come down with a fit of vapours when NCIS is on and Toy and Ziva flirt.
A television show isn't a justification for real life behavior.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You have provided neither the evidence nor the logic that could guide us towards your extraordinary claim that it is "preposterous" that most of the investors YC works with aren't harassing women.
I didn't claim that most investors Y Combinator works with are harassing women. I stated that it is preposterous for Y Combinator to suggest that it knows that "nearly all" investors it's dealing with are "completely upstanding and professional." As I wrote, "There is simply no way for anybody to know all of the investors who are behaving badly." As Sam Altman has acknowledged, most instances of this behavior go unre…
Is it possible that YC affiliates with higher-caliber VCs that are less prone to this behaviour?
Is it possible that "super rare" occurrences and "mostly unreported" occurrences are both very low numbers, to the point that YC can expect not to have any incidents?
I think the answers to both could be yes, but I don't know if anyone has numbers to support anything. Anecdotal evidence from often anonymous founders indicates that there is a problem, but I honestly don't know how out-of-control it is.
Either way, good on Sam and Jessica for addressing the issue.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You have provided neither the evidence nor the logic that could guide us towards your extraordinary claim that it is "preposterous" that most of the investors YC works with aren't harassing women.
I didn't claim that most investors Y Combinator works with are harassing women. I stated that it is preposterous for Y Combinator to suggest that it knows that "nearly all" investors it's dealing with are "completely upstanding and professional." As I wrote, "There is simply no way for anybody to know all of the investors who are behaving badly." As Sam Altman has acknowledged, most instances of this behavior go unre…
Is it possible that YC affiliates with higher-caliber VCs that are less prone to this behaviour?
Is it possible that "super rare" occurrences and "mostly unreported" occurrences are both very low numbers, to the point that YC can expect not to have any incidents?
I think the answers to both could be yes, but I don't know if anyone has numbers to support anything. Anecdotal evidence from often anonymous founders indicates that there is a problem, but I honestly don't know how out-of-control it is.
Either way, good on Sam and Jessica for addressing the issue.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You have provided neither the evidence nor the logic that could guide us towards your extraordinary claim that it is "preposterous" that most of the investors YC works with aren't harassing women.
I didn't claim that most investors Y Combinator works with are harassing women. I stated that it is preposterous for Y Combinator to suggest that it knows that "nearly all" investors it's dealing with are "completely upstanding and professional." As I wrote, "There is simply no way for anybody to know all of the investors who are behaving badly." As Sam Altman has acknowledged, most instances of this behavior go unre…
Is it possible that YC affiliates with higher-caliber VCs that are less prone to this behaviour?
Is it possible that "super rare" occurrences and "mostly unreported" occurrences are both very low numbers, to the point that YC can expect not to have any incidents?
I think the answers to both could be yes, but I don't know if anyone has numbers to support anything. Anecdotal evidence from often anonymous founders indicates that there is a problem, but I honestly don't know how out-of-control it is.
Either way, good on Sam and Jessica for addressing the issue.
If you don't understand why this needs to be done, you're part of the problem. If you think romantic overtures as an investor to a founder is 'ok', or should be ok, you're part of the problem. EDIT: For those of you who think this is too harsh, you're proving my point. Sexism in tech will start to become less of a problem once people recognize that it's an issue. If you don't think it's an issue -- you're part of the…
I completely, totally, 100% agree. And not only in tech, and the same with racism, homophobia, and other related issues.
But I don't agree that simple ignorance makes you part of the problem -- although I do agree that ignorance makes it more likely that you will perpetrate these kinds of problems accidentally.
As a white, heterosexual, privileged man I don't have a very good instinctive sense for the problems that those less privileged than me face. Gradually, but mostly four or so years ago, I decided I should learn some more, and started asking people and searching the net.
When I did this, I found learning about this to be a much more grueling process than it seems it should have been. In particular, I found some people (not all) who were more eager to belittle me for my ignorance than to simply to explain the problems that they have faced, or refer to me to some resource that would.
At the core I think that both of us agree: that it would be a very good thing if more people learned about racism, sexism, and related issues. I believe that your comment detracts from, rather than supports, this goal.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The premise of this question is that execs have been fired for being "insufficiently diverse" or "insufficiently feminist". But there's a difference between not believing that anthropogenic global warming is a problem that demands changes to the way industry is run, and doing things that have the overt effect of creating barriers for women in the industry. Leaving that aside, I think you'll find that a more careful l…
I don't see why you think Dickinson is an unrelated example. He was never accused of any misconduct beyond wearing sunglasses while disagreeing with feminists. The fact is that feminists have power in our society and the tech industry is relatively weak. We provide a great source of symbolic victories for them.
This is self-evidently false, so much so that I'm confused as to how you could have written this comment.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Exploiting a position of power or influence so that one can "get away with it" does not mean that it was ever considered appropriate behaviour.
I meant considered appropriate within their moral framework. I wrote it to stress that it's often group behavior, with the enablers and supporters that go along with it, and that you shouldn't think about it in terms of the 'lone distraught person.' Just to be clear: I would never, ever, wish to be associated in any manner with a person or organization that operates on such a moral framework.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't see why you think Dickinson is an unrelated example. He was never accused of any misconduct beyond wearing sunglasses while disagreeing with feminists. The fact is that feminists have power in our society and the tech industry is relatively weak. We provide a great source of symbolic victories for them.
He was never accused of any misconduct beyond wearing sunglasses while disagreeing with feminists. This is self-evidently false, so much so that I'm confused as to how you could have written this comment.
http://valleywag.gawker.com/business-insider-ctos-is-your-ne...
http://www.businessinsider.com/statement-2013-9
Just a bunch of tweets mocking feminists, liberals and Mel Gibson.
[edit: Tom I really don't understand how you think this disagrees with what I said above. How do these links imply any misconduct, or anything other than disagreeing with feminists? Are you asserting that opposing the welfare state or mocking Mel Gibson is what got him fired?]
You apply for a job or you build a startup and you want to be a professional. You want to do awesome things. Then someone else comes around, whether from a position of power or not and displays romantic or sexual interest towards you. No matter how polite it is, it irreversibly changes the previously professional relationship in a very discomforting way. It's a dick move and it's shit like this why many women shy awa…
Do you believe that this "dick move" is absent in other fields with lots of women? Specifically, do you believe doctors and lawyers ask each other out less than techies? If "shit like this" is present in every field, it's a poor explanation of why women avoid technology but no those other fields. Now if you want to rescue this hypothesis, you could point out that doctors aren't a bunch of low status nerds. But that's…
A different field might be, for example, perhaps nursing--traditionally a very female-heavy field.
I'm not aware of any such dataset, unfortunately.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because I don't have any desire to prolong a conversation with someone who feels like a possibly poor choice of words on my part renders my entire argument useless. Choosing to opt out of a discussion is not the same as attempting to prevent others from having one. Having a discussion with someone whose principle argument is that the discussion shouldn't be had seems like folly to me. Call it unfruitful if you like,…
>extend the conversation The original conversation is not the one being extended. And who chose to take a leap away from the original conversation? You did. Your entire comment: invalid.