Live data from Hacker News

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

jenniferaldoretta.com

151–160 of 189 posts

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

#151
post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To be fair, I didn't hear the original anecdote. I'm only going off of the words in the post I responded to, but making people take an action to better your financial position is slavery. From the description, the people being coerced could presumably choose not to take the action, but would then be denied entry to the bar. That is explicit tribalism and creates a situation where you either join along with the groupt…

Asking people to do something before allowing them into your bar is not slavery. You don't need me to tell you that saying it is diminishes the great injustice that slavery is and was. My reading of it wasn't even that the bouncer insisted they do it. More that he or she suggested it as they were entering. This is marketing, not servitude.

It's not slavery of course, but it is a troubling approach to marketing. If I'm going to a bar on my own account (rather than to participate in some prearranged party) then I don't want to be hustled by some total stranger into supporting something I've never heard of as a condition of entry.

I know I'm out of the mainstream on this, but as a European one of the most difficult things about living in the Us is the lack of regard for personal space. Before I knew the appropriate code words I went through a stage of fending off signature-gatherers with clipboard petitions by pretending not to speak English. If you asked me to vote for something on my smartphone as a condition of entry to a bar then my first response would be to find some other place to have a drink.

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

#152
post #102

She mentions her field of STEM (mechanical engineering) has a particularly low percentage of women among its members, and cites another site. On that site, there is this interesting list: 39% of chemists and material scientists are women; 27.9% of environmental scientists and geoscientists are women; 15.6% of chemical engineers are women; 12.1% of civil engineers are women; 8.3% of electrical and electronics engineer…

Maybe women on average just prefer some jobs more than others? Really, I'm sure there are millions of factors that enter into to those stats -- about one for every woman because everyone woman is unique with her own goals and tastes -- but I think the occam's razor for this topic is that men and women on average have different preferences. Would we be hunting for a root cause in social pressure or discrimination if w…

Or maybe some companies in some industries took discrimination/diversity issues more serious at an earlier stage than others, leading to a disproportionate number of applicants in those fields. It's often misleading to assume everyone began at the same position on some imaginary starting line, and that present discontinuities are thus reflective of fundamental differences.

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

#153
post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Asking people to do something before allowing them into your bar is not slavery. You don't need me to tell you that saying it is diminishes the great injustice that slavery is and was. My reading of it wasn't even that the bouncer insisted they do it. More that he or she suggested it as they were entering. This is marketing, not servitude.

Well, we can look at what was said (in the third-party retelling): >Grace had the gutsy idea to ask the bouncer to make everyone who came into the bar have to vote for Watsi on the contest site on their smartphone I agree that it might not be quite slavery (it would depend on exactly what happened), which is why I included tribal exclusivism, which it most certainly was (at least according to the above portrayal). Ed…

[deleted]

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

#154
post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Asking people to do something before allowing them into your bar is not slavery. You don't need me to tell you that saying it is diminishes the great injustice that slavery is and was. My reading of it wasn't even that the bouncer insisted they do it. More that he or she suggested it as they were entering. This is marketing, not servitude.

It's not slavery of course, but it is a troubling approach to marketing. If I'm going to a bar on my own account (rather than to participate in some prearranged party) then I don't want to be hustled by some total stranger into supporting something I've never heard of as a condition of entry. I know I'm out of the mainstream on this, but as a European one of the most difficult things about living in the Us is the lac…

> my first response would be to find some other place to have a drink

Which is why the comparison to slavery is indeed overblown.

That said, I'm totally with you on this. At best, it's soliciting ballot stuffing.

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

#155
post #145
post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Would we be hunting for a root cause in social pressure or discrimination if we found women were a much higher chunk of the audience for Twilight and men were a higher percent of Avengers viewers? Why would you compare socio-economic inequalities to taste in media? That would be like comparing national budgets to a lemonade stand and asking why we don't put the same effort into managing a 12-year old's summer busine…

Why do we test drugs on mice when it is their effect on humans that we actually care about (almost no one actually cares about lowering high blood pressure or addressing erectile dysfunction in mice)? Answer: because understanding what happens in mice might give us some insight into similar mechanisms in humans, and it is easier to do many tests and experiments on mice. Same goes for media tastes. Factors that lead t…

This is from the post I was responding to:

>Would we be hunting for a root cause in social pressure or discrimination if we found women were a much higher chunk of the audience for Twilight and men were a higher percent of Avengers viewers?

What is this question suggesting? Is it saying that media preferences and employment differences are similar in such a way that the fact that we do not investigate media preferences means we should not investigate employment differences?

What you are saying is different: that investigating one will give you information about the other. I don't really disagree with that. I disagree with the implication that employment differences are to be trivialized as 'matters of preference,' and thus not worth investigating.

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

#156
post #2

Not quite what I was expecting with a post that begins with "An Open Letter to...". I've been trained to expect any such letters would be someone's way to make their grievances about some entity public. Now I need to go reflect on why I feel disappointed it was so positive. Haha, only serious.

I agree! I'm all about airing of grievances, but it's also good to see validation that previous such airings of grievances have led to advancement.

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

#157

Before you write a comment about why women are or aren't enrolled in STEM fields, please read the Wikipedia article on it. Every time someone says a generalization like "they just choose safer employment" or "high status something, something" without first reviewing a summary of the body of research into the matter, it's kinda pointless. It's like someone saying "here's why I think computers crash" but they've never…

Given the politics of any gender-issue related topic on Wikipedia, there is little reason to bother reading it, much less use it as an appeal to authority.

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

#158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> YC is still stuck in a world of ideas based on controlling others through the creation of debt and claiming lifetime ownership of others' work. I don't understand this sentiment AT ALL. There is no debt involved, so I don't see any control exerted through those means. And sure, they buy non-controlling ownership of others' work, but that ownership is sold freely. Not to mention the other consideration that lands on…

>There is no debt involved Can you provide an executed contract to confirm? YC appears to have moved away from convertible notes (ie. debt) [1], but if you read closely it appears that PG said the reason was to avoid debt term limits and interest rate limits....so it's an even more extreme version of debt, just not 'debt' according to CA regulations. [1] http://blog.ycombinator.com/announcing-the-safe-a-replacemen...

If you read that link you posted you'll see "what the investor buys is not debt, but something more like a warrant. So there is no need to fix a term or decide on an interest rate"

Warrants just give the investor the right to purchase equity at a given price some time. They are not debt.

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

#159
post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How is this misogyny? I didn't say that it was skill or talent that was keeping women from our fields.

A sweeping statement like "women only care about social validation, and that's why there aren't many in tech" is sexist. First, that's like saying "men only care about money": it's not backed by any real evidence and it is disparaging to an entire gender. Second, that's sweeping under the rug the constant discrimination against women that is keeping them out of our industry. You are making women responsible for not c…

"A sweeping statement like "women only care about social validation, and that's why there aren't many in tech" is sexist."

I feel that you're making really strong and incorrect assumptions about my posts. I never said that "women only care about social validation". Is it wrong to say that more women frown upon occupations that are seen to be held by social pariahs and outcasts by society at large? Why would an ambitious woman be interested in becoming what's seen as an educated plumber or janitor when she can aspire to become a respected high level, finance executive or powerful lawyer instead? imo it's more common sense rather than misogyny.

Also some sweeping gender statements are actually true, such as men being more prone to violence than women.

"Second, that's sweeping under the rug the constant discrimination against women that is keeping them out of our industry."

I agree that there's a ton of discrimination against women in the tech industry. But really how of this discrimination keeps women from actually joining our fields? Your argument would make more sense if there were a lot of women entering AND then leaving, but that doesn't happen. Few actually even try entering our field. Look at the military. While things are slowly changing, there are few environments more toxic to women than the military's male dominated, authoritarian atmosphere (gender discrimination is horrible, but rape that isn't prosecuted and punished is much worse); the tech industry isn't even close to being as bad. This is pretty well known to society at large, yet there are more women joining the military (and then leaving) than there are women joining the tech industry; which leads me to believe that the general social perception of our field is just horrible when the even armed forces are beating us at female recruitment. Now let's look at finance. The average wage gap in the financial industry for genders is the worst compared to other industries (about $0.70 to a $1), investment banks have the reputation of being 'frat houses', and yet more women enter finance than our industry. imo gender discrimination isn't as strong of a force for deterring women from entering a field. Gender discrimination is much stronger at affecting how long women stay active and how far they can rise within a field.

Historically there's been a ton of discrimination against women in pretty much every field. I feel that the sectors that already got 'fixed' (i.e. somewhat better than before) were the ones where large numbers of women have entered due to interest (i.e. politics, healthcare, business, legal). Those women were well aware of the toxic environment, but the interest level was so high they joined anyway. I feel that while education and company policies regarding discrimination helped those sectors, the larger female presence was a stronger force. I just don't see that in technical fields.

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

#160
post #114
post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm a woman. I was inducted into Mu Alpha Theta in the 11th grade, a college level math honor society. I didn't take any math my senior year in high school because I would have had to go to school an hour earlier to take the class they made available to the three people who qualified for it (the other two students did opt to go in early -- but I have serious health problems that had not yet been identified). So I got…

You may find this interesting: http://slatestarcodex.com/2015/01/24/perceptions-of-required... (I haven't read it yet though, only one of the linked articles in the third paragraph.)

Based on two recommendations, I went and read the slatestarcodex article. I too enjoyed it greatly, though I had a methodological quibble or two.

The main reason I'm commenting is because I want to note that the entire point of the article you linked is to debunk the articles in the third paragraph (none of which I have read).

Post reply on HN