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

An Open Letter to Jessica Livingston About YC's Female Founders Conference

jenniferaldoretta.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 189 posts

Re: An Open Letter to Jessica Livingston About YC's Female Founders Conference

#71

Post by VLM »

ffn wrote: post #37
chaostheory wrote: post #5

"I’ve lived my life in a 'man’s world', receiving a degree in mechanical engineering—which contains the lowest percentage of women compared to any other engineering field at just 7.2%—from an already male-dominated university." Going on a tangent, I suspect areas like mechanical engineering and computer science are still "boy's clubs" due to one thing: social prestige. I feel that women are more attracted to high pre…

Mechanical engineering graduate (and 2nd rate programmer) here. And I completely agree, this major is a sinkhole. Maybe 50 years ago when we were still building rockets, planes, and cars to stop the Soviets or what have you, ME was a great major (and maybe 40 years from now when fusion, Mars, and warp drive are all real it will be again). But today in an age of electronics and software, ME is an awful choice for anyo…

"We'd have to Hunger Games ourselves for that one position at the local power plant in ten years when the current engineer retires."

While at the same time some politician and businessman is making a speech that we have a desperate shortage of engineering talent and need to open the floodgates.

Re: An Open Letter to Jessica Livingston About YC's Female Founders Conference

#72

Post by abathur »

sputr wrote: post #51
lambda wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, when I looked around a bit I found this article " rel="nofollow">http://readwrite.com/2014/09/02/women-in-computer-science-wh... which links to this study: " rel="nofollow">http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2013/09/11/220748057/why-wome... which indicates that rather than being based on prestige, it appears that the disparity can be broken down based on more rewarding but lower paying, vs. more purely mercenary jo…

I think everyone discussing any gender gap should really watch this Norwegian documentary: Brainwashed: The Gender Equality Paradox https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tiJVJ5QRRUE The "social expectations" hypothesis fails to explain why countries with higher living standards have more polarized sectors. The idea that in a perfect world with no "social pressure" we would reach a parity between genders ignores just about…

A hypothesis about why people end up in the jobs they do fails to account for whatever non-causative correlation someone can cook up? Astonishing! Why doesn't every country with a highly gender-segregated economy have a high standard of living?

Re: An Open Letter to Jessica Livingston About YC's Female Founders Conference

#73

Post by yawaramin »

kbenson wrote: post #28
lambda wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, when I looked around a bit I found this article " rel="nofollow">http://readwrite.com/2014/09/02/women-in-computer-science-wh... which links to this study: " rel="nofollow">http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2013/09/11/220748057/why-wome... which indicates that rather than being based on prestige, it appears that the disparity can be broken down based on more rewarding but lower paying, vs. more purely mercenary jo…

> I wouldn't call being a teacher more prestigious than being an engineer, nor a social worker I would. There's a lot of respect for people that do these things, because they are seen as somewhat selfless (partly because the monetary compensation is so low, partly because the jobs are so essential). Aid workers share in this as well. Prestige is about respect, and there are paths to respect that don't include a lot o…

Speaking as a Canadian, I'd say that teachers are almost universally reviled here. Students hate them because they're the human agents of the school system; and parents hate them because they 'obviously' don't pay enough attention to and try to understand their 'special snowflake' kids, which is why the kid got a C- instead of the A+ they deserve.

I can't see things being very different in the States.

Re: An Open Letter to Jessica Livingston About YC's Female Founders Conference

#74

Post by helen842000 »

facepalm wrote: post #60
lisa_henderson wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Women tend to focus on those jobs where the need for the job seems solid. If we focus, for a moment, on those jobs that are available to those who have college degrees, many women become teachers, but teaching is not high prestige. There is little risk that the USA will outsource all the hospitals to China, so women go into medicine. There is little risk that the USA will outsource all the lawyers to China, so women…

So why do women become elementary school teachers rather than high school teachers? Although in general it's probably true that women tend to be more risk averse. I've always said that women are probably simply too smart to go into IT. Sitting in front of a glowing rectangle in a gloomy basement is probably not the best recipe for happiness. Cliched as it sounds, but a job that involves talking to people might be muc…

Women do tend to pick jobs where the job satisfaction is clearly defined. We understand the lifestyle it will bring, how it will make us happy & what we will get out if it. Lots of people are encouraging women to go into IT, very few are explaining why. I work in IT because I enjoy seeing people's lives improved by technology, not for the hours with the glowing rectangle.

Re: An Open Letter to Jessica Livingston About YC's Female Founders Conference

#75

Post by yawaramin »

sputr wrote: post #51
lambda wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, when I looked around a bit I found this article " rel="nofollow">http://readwrite.com/2014/09/02/women-in-computer-science-wh... which links to this study: " rel="nofollow">http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2013/09/11/220748057/why-wome... which indicates that rather than being based on prestige, it appears that the disparity can be broken down based on more rewarding but lower paying, vs. more purely mercenary jo…

I think everyone discussing any gender gap should really watch this Norwegian documentary: Brainwashed: The Gender Equality Paradox https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tiJVJ5QRRUE The "social expectations" hypothesis fails to explain why countries with higher living standards have more polarized sectors. The idea that in a perfect world with no "social pressure" we would reach a parity between genders ignores just about…

On the contrary, the difference in living standards explains it perfectly. If you're in a poor country, pragmatism forces you to drop your 'social expectations'. It's either earn enough to eat or hold on to your prejudices. In that environment, people lose their prejudices fast.

Re: An Open Letter to Jessica Livingston About YC's Female Founders Conference

#76

Post by xaa »

abathur wrote: post #72
sputr wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think everyone discussing any gender gap should really watch this Norwegian documentary: Brainwashed: The Gender Equality Paradox https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tiJVJ5QRRUE The "social expectations" hypothesis fails to explain why countries with higher living standards have more polarized sectors. The idea that in a perfect world with no "social pressure" we would reach a parity between genders ignores just about…

A hypothesis about why people end up in the jobs they do fails to account for whatever non-causative correlation someone can cook up? Astonishing! Why doesn't every country with a highly gender-segregated economy have a high standard of living?

Obviously because it is quite reasonable to assume that standards of living partially cause gender distribution by making daycare affordable, allowing more paid leave, etc., whereas gender polarization would not be expected to be a strong enough effect to pull an entire economy significantly in one direction or another.

Causal modeling is a very difficult thing when you cannot perform a controlled experiment. I would be interested in your take on how you would suggest that the authors attempt to confirm or disprove this hypothesis.

Re: An Open Letter to Jessica Livingston About YC's Female Founders Conference

#77

Post by imaginenore »

impendia wrote: post #32
garrisondmr wrote: post #18

I watched the FFC live and what struck me was that it was the same as any other founder conference except that it was a girl on stage instead of a dude. If we want to stop making gender a big deal then we need to stop making gender a big deal. There is no Male Founder Conference right?

> we need to stop making gender a big deal By your own admission, FFC didn't make a big deal out of gender and is therefore doing as you ask. Events like these are appreciated and found helpful by the women who participate in them. Isn't that sufficient grounds to be happy that they are taking place?

> FFC didn't make a big deal out of gender

You mean by putting "Female" in the title?

This is plain gender discrimination.

Re: An Open Letter to Jessica Livingston About YC's Female Founders Conference

#78

Post by facepalm »

helen842000 wrote: post #74
facepalm wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So why do women become elementary school teachers rather than high school teachers? Although in general it's probably true that women tend to be more risk averse. I've always said that women are probably simply too smart to go into IT. Sitting in front of a glowing rectangle in a gloomy basement is probably not the best recipe for happiness. Cliched as it sounds, but a job that involves talking to people might be muc…

Women do tend to pick jobs where the job satisfaction is clearly defined. We understand the lifestyle it will bring, how it will make us happy & what we will get out if it. Lots of people are encouraging women to go into IT, very few are explaining why. I work in IT because I enjoy seeing people's lives improved by technology, not for the hours with the glowing rectangle.

I'm glad you question the why, it drives me crazy that this rarely gets mentioned. Nothing against IT - I work in it, too. But I also struggle with "finding meaning" a lot. I don't think I ever saved anybody's life. I suspect for example physicians struggle a lot less with the question if what they do is any use at all (apart from the fighting bureaucracy part). Of course you can do great things with IT, but it's certainly not a given, probably not even the norm.

Re: An Open Letter to Jessica Livingston About YC's Female Founders Conference

#79

Post by TheOtherHobbes »

tptacek wrote: post #62
tomp wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's now low prestige, it's just lower prestige than e.g. medicine, law or "investment banking".

This is more truth-y than true. If occupational prestige drove employment, we'd all be firefighters. And, of course, when you actually look at occupational prestige figures, engineers crush lawyers. Really, there's no axis on which your hypothesis explains anything.

Which explains why politics - which by definition is full of people who have enough status to set national policy - is full of engineers, while the lawyers are left discussing the finer technical points of voir dire on Lawyer News.

Re: An Open Letter to Jessica Livingston About YC's Female Founders Conference

#80

Post by facepalm »

chaostheory wrote: post #5

"I’ve lived my life in a 'man’s world', receiving a degree in mechanical engineering—which contains the lowest percentage of women compared to any other engineering field at just 7.2%—from an already male-dominated university." Going on a tangent, I suspect areas like mechanical engineering and computer science are still "boy's clubs" due to one thing: social prestige. I feel that women are more attracted to high pre…

I found it striking in Big Bang Theory how even the smartest scientist is not deemed worthy to date a waitress. Nothing against waitresses, but I think it said a lot about values in society.
Post reply on HN