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

A Reminder To Investors

blog.ycombinator.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

271–280 of 290 posts

Re: A Reminder To Investors

#271

Post by SamReidHughes »

yummyfajitas wrote: post #270
SamReidHughes wrote: post #267

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> How do these links imply any misconduct, or anything other than disagreeing with feminists? You're talking about these tweets with rape jokes, tweets where he's an asshole toward poors, and "ironic" use of the N-word? ... Are you high?

You realize the "rape joke" with the N-word is mocking Mel Gibson, right? See #2 on this list: http://www.ranker.com/list/top-10-most-offensive-mel-gibson-... As for the rest of it, if you want to argue that libertarianism rather than anti-feminism got him fired, square that viewpoint with Business Insider's statement about firing him. They didn't say he was too conservative, they said he disagreed with them on diver…

Why should I believe Business Insider's statement?

Re: A Reminder To Investors

#272

Post by walshemj »

smacktoward wrote: post #131
walshemj wrote: post #54

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.

Tony and Ziva are colleagues , which makes their relationship different in power terms from a supervisor-supervised relationship. For contrast, look at Gibbs and Abby, who do have a supervisor-supervised relationship with the same power dynamics as that between investors and entrepreneurs. In their case, the show goes out of its way to make sure everyone understands that their relationship, while affectionate, is nei…

Tony's the senior agent and Zivas superior

Re: A Reminder To Investors

#273

Post by icebraining »

Jun8 wrote: post #147
yummyfajitas wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Here is a translation of Altman's message from powertalk into english: "Dear feminists and rabble rousers, we recognize your power. We are on your team. We will genuflect in the direction of those things you consider holy. Please don't target us." (For those unfamiliar with the term, "powertalk" is the in-group language of powerful people.) http://www.ribbonfarm.com/2009/11/11/the-gervais-principle-i... YC is attempt…

Judging from its (current) grayness this seems to be a much derided point of view on HN. Why? In a previous comment Livingstone was quoted as saying this is a rare problem in (I assume) YC investor circles. Why put out a direct message like this then? Some here have argued that it is useful because it makes things unambiguous and simple. I think the people who condone and/or engage this behavior (e.g. the kinds that…

Rare is not the same as unimportant.

And it's exactly because the people engaging in this behavior know and disregard the "rules of engagement" that it's important to let them know that they will have more to lose.

And the way you do that is by stating it publicly, making YC itself accountable to the public and forcing them to actually act. That way, it's harder for such investors to convince themselves that when push comes to shove, YC wouldn't actually do anything.

Re: A Reminder To Investors

#274

Post by facepalm »

StandardFuture wrote: post #222
facepalm wrote: post #201

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How is falling in love with somebody (or even just being infatuated) displaying a complete lack of sympathy, empathy and general kindness towards others? Maybe you should work on your empathy...

Imposing your own personal lustful attitudes on others who do not want to share in them and then feel internally justified (usually by the fact that no one you directly know is speaking critically of such types of actions) is very much so a display of a complete lack of any regard for other people's well beings (outside of you and your 'circle'). Edit: I thought about refraining from saying this but it really should…

I think you are rather confused in your head. Being attracted to somebody is not the same as "imposing lustful attitudes".

Your further comment just reinforces my impression that it is you who are severely lacking in the empathy department.

Re: A Reminder To Investors

#275

Post by angersock »

seanflyon wrote: post #265
angersock wrote: post #249

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So, easy enough way of testing this is to go and compare, across fields, gender ratio and percent dating within that field. A different field might be, for example, perhaps nursing--traditionally a very female-heavy field. I'm not aware of any such dataset, unfortunately.

The problem is not dating within a field, but advances across a power imbalance.

That's perhaps a problem, but one of the other claims being made is that somehow same-level dating is harming the field.

Re: A Reminder To Investors

#276

Post by tptacek »

yummyfajitas wrote: post #269
tptacek wrote: post #264

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, you haven't shown the explanation to be poor. You've implicitly invoked one possible reason why unprofessional behavior among men might create obstacles for women, rebutted it, and declared the debate over. If this was an argument over the right way to interpret statistics over a website optimization scheme, you'd laugh at you. Considering only gender policy, what is the most significant difference between doctor…

The OP's explanation is indeed poor. You can possibly add additional hypothesis which rescue it (I suggested one in the post you just responded to), but that doesn't mean the original hypothesis by itself isn't poor. what is the most significant difference between doctors and engineers? Obviously: distribution among genders in medicine is much more balanced than in technology. The key word here is "is". This was not…

I'm confused. The M.O.C. point was very simple. As it turns out from this comment, you empathize with the struggles of a white male with an established career history getting a fair shake in VC-funded technology. But for reasons I have not yet managed to unearth, you do not empathize with women whose careers are impeded by gender bias --- or, in a distinction that makes no difference, you're unable to acknowledge that gender bias exists.

You seem like the kind of person who would be irritated by the knowledge that he's missing something. You don't have a gnawing feeling that maybe you're missing something in this conversation?

Re: A Reminder To Investors

#277

Post by yummyfajitas »

tptacek wrote: post #276
yummyfajitas wrote: post #269

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The OP's explanation is indeed poor. You can possibly add additional hypothesis which rescue it (I suggested one in the post you just responded to), but that doesn't mean the original hypothesis by itself isn't poor. what is the most significant difference between doctors and engineers? Obviously: distribution among genders in medicine is much more balanced than in technology. The key word here is "is". This was not…

I'm confused. The M.O.C. point was very simple. As it turns out from this comment, you empathize with the struggles of a white male with an established career history getting a fair shake in VC-funded technology. But for reasons I have not yet managed to unearth, you do not empathize with women whose careers are impeded by gender bias --- or, in a distinction that makes no difference, you're unable to acknowledge tha…

I said "don't pick on Michael O. Church" (something I've observed you do repeatedly). I didn't say "Michael O. Church's factual claims are correct." I get the impression that I'm discussing testable hypothesis about the world, whereas you are attempting to signal empathy and kindness.

My very specific claim: if you postulate a theory why tech lacks women, your theory must distinguish between technology and medicine/law/catholicism (catholicism has lots of gender bias and lots of women). "People ask other people out" does not make this distinction.

Incidentally, there is a third possibility which you seem to be glossing over. I believe gender bias exists but is not the cause of women being underrepresented in tech.

Re: A Reminder To Investors

#278

Post by tptacek »

yummyfajitas wrote: post #277
tptacek wrote: post #276

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm confused. The M.O.C. point was very simple. As it turns out from this comment, you empathize with the struggles of a white male with an established career history getting a fair shake in VC-funded technology. But for reasons I have not yet managed to unearth, you do not empathize with women whose careers are impeded by gender bias --- or, in a distinction that makes no difference, you're unable to acknowledge tha…

I said "don't pick on Michael O. Church" (something I've observed you do repeatedly). I didn't say "Michael O. Church's factual claims are correct." I get the impression that I'm discussing testable hypothesis about the world, whereas you are attempting to signal empathy and kindness. My very specific claim: if you postulate a theory why tech lacks women, your theory must distinguish between technology and medicine/l…

I just made the distinction. Being asked out when you're the one woman among ten men is a different and more alienating experience than being asked out when you're one of four women along with six men.

Re: A Reminder To Investors

#279

Post by yummyfajitas »

tptacek wrote: post #278
yummyfajitas wrote: post #277

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I said "don't pick on Michael O. Church" (something I've observed you do repeatedly). I didn't say "Michael O. Church's factual claims are correct." I get the impression that I'm discussing testable hypothesis about the world, whereas you are attempting to signal empathy and kindness. My very specific claim: if you postulate a theory why tech lacks women, your theory must distinguish between technology and medicine/l…

I just made the distinction. Being asked out when you're the one woman among ten men is a different and more alienating experience than being asked out when you're one of four women along with six men.

Let me repeat: women were a minority in medicine and law at one point. Why did getting asked out not prevent them from achieving parity in those fields?

Re: A Reminder To Investors

#280

Post by tptacek »

yummyfajitas wrote: post #279
tptacek wrote: post #278

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I just made the distinction. Being asked out when you're the one woman among ten men is a different and more alienating experience than being asked out when you're one of four women along with six men.

Let me repeat: women were a minority in medicine and law at one point. Why did getting asked out not prevent them from achieving parity in those fields?

Because entry into medicine is neither entrepreneurial nor social. You apply and you get in.

The medical professions evaluate gender trends by the number of women who go to medical school. Once you graduate medical school, you're on a track that leads straightforwardly to gainful employment. That allowed schools to be a focal point for policy changes to improve representation of women in the field. The same thing goes for law. My sister graduated UChicago law and got a lucrative, high-status biglaw job immediately based, as I understand it, pretty much on her track record in school.

No similar track exists for software, and, obviously, even less of a path exists in entrepreneurial technology, which is largely controlled by wealthy male gatekeepers.

Tangentially: a law or medical professor could be fired for aggressively propositioning a student. A successful investor can't be "fired".

But also: you dodged my question instead of addressing it. Do you actually believe that the experience of being targeted by sexual advances is the same if you're one women surrounded by men as it is if you're one of many women surrounded by an almost equal number of men?

Post reply on HN