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

281–290 of 290 posts

Re: A Reminder To Investors

#281

Post by AlSweigart »

highCs wrote: post #90
bdcravens wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Professional athletes and drug use. Police officers and violence. Clergy and child sexual abuse. As a percentage, those situations are extreme minorities, but it's important to aggressively address serious issues that exist in an industry, and not shy away for fear of generalizing.

Interesting point. But if I rephrase things a little bit, I don't feel it is becoming better: "A reminder to Clergy people: no sexual abuse on children are permitted." I think if I was a member of that profession, I would feel insulted. EDIT: rerephrased according to comment (that may invalidate the commentors' opinions).

But one of the especially insidious things about sexism in tech is that it is often followed up with "it's just a joke" or "you're being overly sensitive". For a _lot_ of men in tech, it's just seen as boy's club fun and any discomfort it causes can easily be passed over.

I'd compare it to police corruption: the problem isn't so much the few corrupt cops, but the fact that the rest of the police will cover for them.

Re: A Reminder To Investors

#282

Post by AlSweigart »

dkarapetyan wrote: post #144
SkyMarshal wrote: post #70

Possibly prompted by this anonymous Forbes piece making the rounds on Twitter recently: http://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffbercovici/2014/08/07/what-it...

The anonymity in that article doesn't help. It doesn't matter how much money you have the kind of behavior described in that article is unacceptable. I like to think that the majority of technologists and entrepreneurs are humanists and they are in it to make the world a better place. I also like to think that if the article wasn't anonymous there would be non-violent collective action to make it known in no uncertai…

In short, that's easy for you to say. You aren't the one risking anything.

I'd also like to think that if the article wasn't anonymous there would be action. I've personally seen enough instances where nothing is done and in fact the abusers are covered for to think that expecting action is borderline naive.

Re: A Reminder To Investors

#283

Post by AlSweigart »

throw2 wrote: post #232
untog wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sigh. Let me guess - you're a white dude, aren't you? Of course you don't see this happening. Of course you don't see discrimination in the workplace. Maybe - just for once - accept that the people who actually do face this stuff are telling you that it does happen, and that we should do something about it. Maybe try listening to a perspective - any one will do, really - that is different from your own.

This is an incredibly offensive comment. Firstly, discrimination in the workplace is not limited to "non-whites". Secondly, you cannot claim the supreme and unilateral right to determine what constitutes discrimination based on your race. Simply stating "you're white and therefore you cannot see it" is both unreasonable, racist, and, if put forth as grounds for legislation, incredibly corrosive to the notion of rule…

Obvious day-old troll account is obvious.

Re: A Reminder To Investors

#284

Post by AlSweigart »

balls187 wrote: post #198
AnimalMuppet wrote: post #155

So here's what I think it comes down to: You're an investor. You're at demo day. There's this female founder, and you think she's hot. You interact with her purely professionally, but you still feel the chemistry, and you think she does, too. You want to ask her out, because you think there might be something there. So what do you do? You resign from your role as a VC/investor. That's what it's going to cost. Then yo…

>But if asking her out isn't worth more to you than your job is, then leave things professional. Quit your job just to ask a woman out? Asking a woman out you recently met isn't sexual harassment. Some advice to your specific example: 1. Don't do it during demo day. She's a founder, and that's her time to meet with investors. 2. If you are planning on investing in her company- potential conflict of interest. Don't ge…

The cluelessness that... balls187... is exhibiting is the reason why so many men do unprofessional, uncomfortable, and offensive things and then say, "What? That's not offensive. That wasn't sexual harassment."

It seems no matter how loud the chorus of women who complain about this behavior is, some men still feel like they are the ones who get to define what sexual harassment is.

Re: A Reminder To Investors

#285

Post by yummyfajitas »

tptacek wrote: post #280
yummyfajitas wrote: post #279

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 goe…

Neither is entry into tech. Only entry into the extremely narrow "Sand Hill Road" style VC funded tech is entrepreneurial and social. There is a rigid heirarchical track for software much like law: stanford -> google, or MIT -> apple, or rutgers -> morgan stanley. Most of technology fits a track like this, in fact.

I didn't dodge your question, I pointed out why the answer was irrelevant. There are two ways to debunk a theory: directly (by showing a premise is false) and by contradiction (showing it implies a false conclusion). I'm doing the latter.

As for how women feel about being asked out, in my experience the primary determinant is how attractive she finds the asker. To relate a real life experience, if a woman is surrounded by firefighters and one of them asks her out, she probably won't mind. Not that the anecdotes really matter (see the point above about argument by contradiction).

Re: A Reminder To Investors

#286

Post by balls187 »

AlSweigart wrote: post #284
balls187 wrote: post #198

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>But if asking her out isn't worth more to you than your job is, then leave things professional. Quit your job just to ask a woman out? Asking a woman out you recently met isn't sexual harassment. Some advice to your specific example: 1. Don't do it during demo day. She's a founder, and that's her time to meet with investors. 2. If you are planning on investing in her company- potential conflict of interest. Don't ge…

The cluelessness that... balls187... is exhibiting is the reason why so many men do unprofessional, uncomfortable, and offensive things and then say, "What? That's not offensive. That wasn't sexual harassment." It seems no matter how loud the chorus of women who complain about this behavior is, some men still feel like they are the ones who get to define what sexual harassment is.

So setting aside your ad hominem attack, do you have an actual counter argument?

> It seems no matter how loud the chorus of women who complain about this behavior is, some men still feel like they are the ones who get to define what sexual harassment is.

Women don't get to define what sexual harassment is either.

You see, sexual harassment (in the US) is a LEGAL issue with LEGAL consequences. It's defined as "...unlawful to harass a person (an applicant or employee) because of that person’s sex. Harassment can include “sexual harassment” or unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other verbal or physical harassment of a sexual nature.

Harassment does not have to be of a sexual nature, however, and can include offensive remarks about a person’s sex. For example, it is illegal to harass a woman by making offensive comments about women in general." [1]

Granted that while the EEOC definition really only pertains to the work, it's not hard to extend that definition to scenarios outside employment (such as any professional setting).

Any unwanted behavior is not okay. However, I believe that politely asking a woman for a date (given the right circumstances [see my list prior]), is not sexual harassment, even if a woman is not interested.

My response in my earlier comment was very specific to the OP's contrived scenario: an investor meets a female founder, he likes her, he feels that she likes him back (this was the key) so he should quit his job before making a move.

Quitting his job has no bearing on whether the women would find his "asking her out for a date" welcome or not, because there wouldn't be any way for her to know he quit, unless he told her, and in that case she'd probably think he's crazy (rightly so).

That of course presupposes the investor did not misread the situation, given he is a potential investor, and she is a female founder.

[1] http://www.eeoc.gov/laws/types/sexual_harassment.cfm

Re: A Reminder To Investors

#287

Post by tptacek »

yummyfajitas wrote: post #285
tptacek wrote: post #280

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 goe…

Neither is entry into tech. Only entry into the extremely narrow "Sand Hill Road" style VC funded tech is entrepreneurial and social. There is a rigid heirarchical track for software much like law: stanford -> google, or MIT -> apple, or rutgers -> morgan stanley. Most of technology fits a track like this, in fact. I didn't dodge your question, I pointed out why the answer was irrelevant. There are two ways to debunk…

This is demonstrably incorrect. All you have to do is read a few years of Patrick McKenzie's advice to underemployed tech workers to see how different the character of tech jobs is from medical jobs. Scoring by "status" or by compensation, the variance among tech jobs in the first 5 years of a tech career dwarfs those of a medical doctor. Some people with CS degrees end up working helpdesk or patch management. Some of them wind up writing J2EE LOB applications wiring up form fields to SQL columns over and over again. And some of them work in challenging roles that offer opportunities to build a career.

The difference between the high-status roles and the low-status ones isn't school, excepting possibly that an absurdly small subset of the industry (Stanford and MIT grads) have easier time avoiding helpdesk jobs.

The "rigid hierarchical track" you suggest exists for tech also doesn't exist. I have a single semester of university. If you want to make the pot rich enough, we can bet on whether I can get a full time job at Google or Apple. I'd warn you that I've got an information advantage on this bet.

Hiring in technology is warped and driven by bogus apocrypha. A tiny component of the overall demand is fed by truly credentialing universities. But the majority of the demand is fed by a pool of candidates not distinguished by the particulars of their degree. Instead, they're distinguished by ability to navigate hazing rituals.

Your last paragraph isn't an argument. It's what you'd like to believe is true. It doesn't even fit the anecdotal evidence we have here. Have you met a lot of VCs? I have. As a group, they tend to be attractive: fit, the product of school, career, and social tracks that build social (and athletic) skills. They're well dressed, which comes of having large amounts of disposable income. And yet, strangely: women founders appear not to be comfortable being propositioned by them. The only way your last graf works is if we assume that those women are simply lying.

Re: A Reminder To Investors

#288

Post by yummyfajitas »

tptacek wrote: post #287
yummyfajitas wrote: post #285

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Neither is entry into tech. Only entry into the extremely narrow "Sand Hill Road" style VC funded tech is entrepreneurial and social. There is a rigid heirarchical track for software much like law: stanford -> google, or MIT -> apple, or rutgers -> morgan stanley. Most of technology fits a track like this, in fact. I didn't dodge your question, I pointed out why the answer was irrelevant. There are two ways to debunk…

This is demonstrably incorrect. All you have to do is read a few years of Patrick McKenzie's advice to underemployed tech workers to see how different the character of tech jobs is from medical jobs. Scoring by "status" or by compensation, the variance among tech jobs in the first 5 years of a tech career dwarfs those of a medical doctor. Some people with CS degrees end up working helpdesk or patch management. Some o…

Scoring by "status" or by compensation, the variance among tech jobs in the first 5 years of a tech career dwarfs those of a medical doctor.

The variance among law jobs in the first 5 years dwarfs those of a medical doctor. You cite your sister who got a biglaw job, which is more or less the legal equivalent of stanford -> google. Most lawyers don't get to biglaw just as most engineers don't work at google.

You've done a great job explaining why medicine has women, while law and computing don't.

But the majority of the demand is fed by a pool of candidates not distinguished by the particulars of their degree. Instead, they're distinguished by ability to navigate hazing rituals.

How does this differ from most other fields? Do you think HR, lawyers, accountants or management consultants don't have hazing rituals?

As for my last paragraph, it's simply an anecdotal observation. I'm not pushing it . I'm not accusing anyone of lying or disagreeing with their experience. I'm just pointing out that your theory predicts incorrect facts.

Re: A Reminder To Investors

#289

Post by tptacek »

yummyfajitas wrote: post #288
tptacek wrote: post #287

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is demonstrably incorrect. All you have to do is read a few years of Patrick McKenzie's advice to underemployed tech workers to see how different the character of tech jobs is from medical jobs. Scoring by "status" or by compensation, the variance among tech jobs in the first 5 years of a tech career dwarfs those of a medical doctor. Some people with CS degrees end up working helpdesk or patch management. Some o…

Scoring by "status" or by compensation, the variance among tech jobs in the first 5 years of a tech career dwarfs those of a medical doctor. The variance among law jobs in the first 5 years dwarfs those of a medical doctor. You cite your sister who got a biglaw job, which is more or less the legal equivalent of stanford -> google. Most lawyers don't get to biglaw just as most engineers don't work at google. You've do…

No: the overwhelming majority of law school graduates end up in established legal practices that employ many attorneys. It's possible that not even a plurality of CS graduates end up as software developers at software firms; a huge number of CS graduates end up writing line of business software for insurance companies, or on their QA teams.

Law schools can exert pressure on law firms in ways that CS programs can't exert pressure on technology firms.

Do law firm hires endure hazing rituals like those in technology? I don't know. I doubt it. First-year associate hires aren't high-stakes the way tech hires are; the legal profession is structured around an "up or out" process that admits entrants to the profession mechanically. The technology profession as a rule does not, and relies intensely on status indicators.

You've agreed with me on that last point in the past, so I'd be surprised to hear you contest it now.

Here it's worth noting: the law profession does have gender equality issues; they just take place at a tier of the profession higher than where they happen in technology. But consider the implication of law forestalling the gender reckoning and tech front-loading it: entrants to the law field start amongst a relatively balanced cohort of coworkers. They get a foothold. They get experience working on real projects for partners. They get a track record. They have a different experience than minority entrants to technology.

Once again: the feeling of being singled out by your gender when you represent a tiny minority is different than being approached when you have a solid peer group of the same gender.

Hey: while I'm at it: I consult for F500 companies that build LOB apps. You can imagine that banks and hedge funds are more concerned about security than cat-sharing startups. Women are in my experience over the last ~9 years better represented in software jobs at non-software companies than they are in startups. Tech employees at banks and insurance companies are hired more mechanically and with less rubber-chicken voodoo than they are at startups. I don't think this is a coincidence.

Re: A Reminder To Investors

#290

Post by yummyfajitas »

tptacek wrote: post #289
yummyfajitas wrote: post #288

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Scoring by "status" or by compensation, the variance among tech jobs in the first 5 years of a tech career dwarfs those of a medical doctor. The variance among law jobs in the first 5 years dwarfs those of a medical doctor. You cite your sister who got a biglaw job, which is more or less the legal equivalent of stanford -> google. Most lawyers don't get to biglaw just as most engineers don't work at google. You've do…

No: the overwhelming majority of law school graduates end up in established legal practices that employ many attorneys. It's possible that not even a plurality of CS graduates end up as software developers at software firms; a huge number of CS graduates end up writing line of business software for insurance companies, or on their QA teams. Law schools can exert pressure on law firms in ways that CS programs can't ex…

No: the overwhelming majority of law school graduates end up in established legal practices that employ many attorneys. It's possible that not even a plurality of CS graduates end up as software developers at software firms; a huge number of CS graduates end up writing line of business software for insurance companies, or on their QA teams.

I don't think I fully understand the preconditions for your theory, so let me try to carefully state it. Being asked out + diversity of work situations + mostly internal department rather than external firm + non-rigorous interview process => women won't go from 0 to 50%.

Did I miss any preconditions? If I did, could you carefully list them?

Fun fact: HR (lots of women) satisfies these properties, near as I can tell. HR drones certainly ask me stupid non-rigorous interview questions, I'm sure they ask the same of each other. So there should be a dearth of women in HR?

Incidentally, the process I'm doing here was described by Scott Alexander yesterday. Basically I'm "feynmaning" you - finding examples which satisfy your preconditions but not your conclusion. http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/08/12/does-race-exist-does-cu...

You've agreed with me on that last point in the past, so I'd be surprised to hear you contest it now.

Let me repeat myself one more time. I don't disagree with you on this. I also don't disagree with your claims about people's subjective feelings. I don't think it's unique to tech, which makes it a poor explanation of a tech-specific phenomenon. Finance certainly uses similar interview techniques, and mid-office finance (besides IT) has no shortage of women.

Incidentally, if your observations about banks/f500 vs startups are correct and generalizeable, then your theory explains part of the discrepancy. Specifically, it explains the delta between startups and f500, but not the delta between f500 tech and f500 HR. It's not the only explanation that part of the discrepancy - risk aversion also works, and to me seems simpler. But I can't immediately reject your theory for that portion of the discrepancy.

Post reply on HN