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

181–189 of 189 posts

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

#181

Post by Aaronontheweb »

chaostheory wrote: post #165
Aaronontheweb wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I heard an interesting theory on low female attendance in STEM this week: the fact that those fields are stereotyped as nerdy, "low prestidge" men. It keeps a lot of men, at least in the US, out of the field too. When I went through engineering school at least half of my classmates were from countries that have very different attitudes towards engineering. I'm sure there's some data out there breaking out US STEM gra…

> I heard an interesting theory on low female attendance in STEM this week: the fact that those fields are stereotyped as nerdy, "low prestidge" men Can you give me the source?

No? Literally an idea I overheard in a conversation.

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

#182

Post by darkmighty »

Retra wrote: post #180
crazy1van wrote: post #179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Preferences are not a problem, social inequalities are a problem. Exactly. Preferences are not a problem. Social inequalities are a problem. However, neither of those are easily directly measurable. So we do indirect measurements on things like gender participation in a given career. When we measure unequal participation in a field, I think we are too quick to attribute it to social inequalities when perhaps it is…

EDIT: I have a clearer analogy for you. Imagine that we lived in a world where the US watched lots of action films and Spain watched lots of documentaries. Furthermore, imagine that there was a lot of money and power flowing into the documentary industry, and that the action film industry is relatively dry. That's a proxy for socioeconomic inequality. Now what you are trying to argue is that Americans just might pref…

I think you have to challenge your perception professional preference has to be gender-balanced, or else there is something wrong going on.

Men and women are physiologically different. They have an intrinsically different hormonal and social development path. Their movie preference shows this well: you can't possibly think that even in an "ideal" society men and women would prefer exactly the same movies? Why would they prefer the same professions? Surely you've met some nurses and seen why it might be a popular occupation among women?

The "preference" model hints what part of gender unbalance would be present even in an ideal world, and the rest we should address. That's the point you're missing here.

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

#183

Post by Retra »

darkmighty wrote: post #182
Retra wrote: post #180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

EDIT: I have a clearer analogy for you. Imagine that we lived in a world where the US watched lots of action films and Spain watched lots of documentaries. Furthermore, imagine that there was a lot of money and power flowing into the documentary industry, and that the action film industry is relatively dry. That's a proxy for socioeconomic inequality. Now what you are trying to argue is that Americans just might pref…

I think you have to challenge your perception professional preference has to be gender-balanced, or else there is something wrong going on. Men and women are physiologically different. They have an intrinsically different hormonal and social development path. Their movie preference shows this well: you can't possibly think that even in an "ideal" society men and women would prefer exactly the same movies? Why would t…

>I think you have to challenge your perception professional preference has to be gender-balanced, or else there is something wrong going on.

Why? What are my goals? Why should I be assuming that women should not have the same opportunities as men with regard to professional preference?

>Men and women are physiologically different. They have an intrinsically different hormonal and social development path.

Obviously. But the culture of business doesn't have any innate hormonal path, so why should it conform to mens' hormones and not women's? Why can't we change the realities of STEM to create a balance?

What is it about STEM that makes it incapable of accommodating different brain chemistry?

>The "preference" model hints what part of gender unbalance would be present even in an ideal world

An ideal world would have gender inequality? Got it.

>Surely you've met some nurses and seen why it might be a popular occupation among women?

Are you serious right now? Explain this to me. Why do women prefer to be nurses? Tell me all about how nursing requires vaginas and estrogen.

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

#184

Post by darkmighty »

Retra wrote: post #183
darkmighty wrote: post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you have to challenge your perception professional preference has to be gender-balanced, or else there is something wrong going on. Men and women are physiologically different. They have an intrinsically different hormonal and social development path. Their movie preference shows this well: you can't possibly think that even in an "ideal" society men and women would prefer exactly the same movies? Why would t…

> I think you have to challenge your perception professional preference has to be gender-balanced, or else there is something wrong going on. Why? What are my goals? Why should I be assuming that women should not have the same opportunities as men with regard to professional preference? > Men and women are physiologically different. They have an intrinsically different hormonal and social development path. Obviously.…

> But the culture of business doesn't have any innate hormonal path, so why should it conform to mens' hormones and not women's? Why can't we change the realities of STEM to create a balance?

"Business" is far different from the realities of mechanical engineering, industrial engineering, etc -- which go from very specific courses in education to certain work environments.

For example, take children of age ~7. Boys love playing with cars; girls do like them a bit too, but it's pretty clear they prefer simulating social interactions, specially dolls talking. Should we address this imbalance too? That would be like making a toy which is a car with a doll strapped on it's back and forbidding all other toys -- we'll achieve equality, but won't it be artificial? Will boys and girls actually be happier with their toys?

I'm not claiming all unbalance in STEM comes from preference, I'm claiming some may come, and it's important to recognize that to effectively address the situation.

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

#185

Post by Retra »

darkmighty wrote: post #184
Retra wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I think you have to challenge your perception professional preference has to be gender-balanced, or else there is something wrong going on. Why? What are my goals? Why should I be assuming that women should not have the same opportunities as men with regard to professional preference? > Men and women are physiologically different. They have an intrinsically different hormonal and social development path. Obviously.…

> But the culture of business doesn't have any innate hormonal path, so why should it conform to mens' hormones and not women's? Why can't we change the realities of STEM to create a balance? "Business" is far different from the realities of mechanical engineering, industrial engineering, etc -- which go from very specific courses in education to certain work environments. For example, take children of age ~7. Boys l…

>"For example, take children of age ~7. Boys love playing with cars; girls do like them a bit too, but it's pretty clear they prefer simulating social interactions, specially dolls talking."

Bullshit. Do you have a source for this, or are you just unaware of how bigoted this is? It is not 1950. I am not going to agree that "girls like dolls and boys like trucks" without some reliable evidence. I'm sure if you marketed trucks to girls long enough and dolls to boys long enough, they would prefer the opposite just fine. Here's what you've been arguing:

    Left handed people prefer not to use scissors.

    Therefore, scissor manufacturers shouldn't bother to make left-handed scissors.

    This is in spite of the fact that, when asked *why* they 
    don't like scissors, they tell you "because they are 
    uncomfortable to use."
"Left handed people prefer not to use scissors because they are uncomfortable, therefore we should not make comfortable scissors for left handed people."

I'm sorry that I'm unwilling to jump on your circular logic bandwagon to defend your obvious bigotry.

PS> I'm still waiting for you to explain why women should be nurses and men should be doctors.

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

#186

Post by darkmighty »

Retra wrote: post #185
darkmighty wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But the culture of business doesn't have any innate hormonal path, so why should it conform to mens' hormones and not women's? Why can't we change the realities of STEM to create a balance? "Business" is far different from the realities of mechanical engineering, industrial engineering, etc -- which go from very specific courses in education to certain work environments. For example, take children of age ~7. Boys l…

>"For example, take children of age ~7. Boys love playing with cars; girls do like them a bit too, but it's pretty clear they prefer simulating social interactions, specially dolls talking." Bullshit. Do you have a source for this, or are you just unaware of how bigoted this is? It is not 1950. I am not going to agree that "girls like dolls and boys like trucks" without some reliable evidence. I'm sure if you markete…

If you don't believe boys and girls have some fundamental differences in personality maybe you need to get away from your monitor and interact with a child.

You can find countless studies of gender distinction in just about every physiological/psychological aspect, just google it. (your point about handedness is very poor since humans have bilateral symmetry, unlike genders; although some asymmetric brain specialization actually seems to create some fundamental differences in the way left handed people think)

If you didn't get this after all this discussion I'm afraid you never will.

>PS. I didn't suggest women would prefer nursing to clinician work, but it's fairly obvious they would prefer nursing over truck driving.

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

#187

Post by Retra »

darkmighty wrote: post #186
Retra wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>"For example, take children of age ~7. Boys love playing with cars; girls do like them a bit too, but it's pretty clear they prefer simulating social interactions, specially dolls talking." Bullshit. Do you have a source for this, or are you just unaware of how bigoted this is? It is not 1950. I am not going to agree that "girls like dolls and boys like trucks" without some reliable evidence. I'm sure if you markete…

If you don't believe boys and girls have some fundamental differences in personality maybe you need to get away from your monitor and interact with a child. You can find countless studies of gender distinction in just about every physiological/psychological aspect, just google it. (your point about handedness is very poor since humans have bilateral symmetry, unlike genders; although some asymmetric brain specializat…

>If you didn't get this after all this discussion I'm afraid you never will.

No, I won't. I don't see any reason why I would want to 'get' something that is wrong. I'm not a stupid person.

> it's fairly obvious they would prefer nursing over truck driving.

"Fairly obvious" is your standard of truth? Oh, how rational and modern you are!

My mother is a truck driver, you know.

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

#188

Post by abathur »

chaostheory wrote: post #163
abathur wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why can't you help feel but feel this?

If you read the npr article that lambda referred to ( http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2013/09/11/220748057/why-wome... ), it still feels like women choose fields that are cooler and higher prestige as opposed to being higher salary and lower prestige. lambda just refers to this as "rewarding" vs "mercenary" I'm also going further disagree with lambda. For society at large, I feel that teachers and social workers do ha…

Sorry--you probably won't see this now (much like I didn't notice for a bit!), but you took the time to reply, so I figured I should, as well. I was (a bit tartly) hoping to get you to unpack why, in a very deep sense, you can't help but feel that way.

Does this have to do with how you perceive men and women? Does it have to do with how you perceive these various vocations? Is this feeling rooted in personal experience(s) and memories? Can you locate those in space and time?

It's important to challenge the ways we can't help but feel, because those are stumbling blocks when it comes to understanding what motivates other people--especially people who aren't like us. Our personal experience is always a fairly small slice of human life, and I'm concerned that you're projecting things you "can't help but feel" onto two of the largest populations.

I posted this elsewhere in the thread--I don't know if you saw it, but the Harris poll actually released some numbers not too long ago on the notion of prestige in various occupations: http://www.harrisinteractive.com/vault/Harris%20Poll%2085%20...

But still, even though it cuts against some of your assertions about what is and isn't prestigious--it's a poll. It's messy. Hidden within its aggregations are the differences between what parents (of both genders) think would be prestigious for their boys, and for their girls. It hides differences between what is seen as prestigious in different ethnic, religious and regional communities. The way you "can't help but feel", whether about the people picking these occupations or the occupations themselves, is located in the messy middle of your own experiences.

There are communities where the most prestigious thing a woman can do is be a stay-at-home mother. There are communities where any occupation that doesn't pay at least six figures is an embarrassment. There are communities where going into finance is like selling your soul. There are communities where you aren't a real man unless you get dirty for a living. There are communities where academics are exalted regardless of pay, and communities where they're disdained for class, religious and political reasons.

This is all to say: The NPR article doesn't feel that way at all to me. But the way I read it doesn't mean your perceptions of the relative prestige of occupations are "wrong". They're probably quite right, given your experiences. Be open to the likelihood that your experiences don't generalize to others. Be open to the likelihood that the decisions other people make are better understood through careful consideration of their experiences than your own.

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

#189

Post by chaostheory »

abathur wrote: post #188
chaostheory wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you read the npr article that lambda referred to ( http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2013/09/11/220748057/why-wome... ), it still feels like women choose fields that are cooler and higher prestige as opposed to being higher salary and lower prestige. lambda just refers to this as "rewarding" vs "mercenary" I'm also going further disagree with lambda. For society at large, I feel that teachers and social workers do ha…

Sorry--you probably won't see this now (much like I didn't notice for a bit!), but you took the time to reply, so I figured I should, as well. I was (a bit tartly) hoping to get you to unpack why, in a very deep sense, you can't help but feel that way. Does this have to do with how you perceive men and women? Does it have to do with how you perceive these various vocations? Is this feeling rooted in personal experien…

> Does this have to do with how you perceive men and women?

In the past compared to boys, girls simply aren't exposed enough to anything technical for them to discover it before their minds can get potentially tainted by popular perception compared to other fields. Is this changing? Yes. I feel that this will be much less of a problem for our children given the advent of toys like Goldiblox and even Lego sets aimed for girls. However I feel that this doesn't change the present situation for adults.

> Does it have to do with how you perceive these various vocations?

Yes because I've lived outside of places like Silicon Valley, in metros with a more conventional and old mindset.

> Is this feeling rooted in personal experience(s) and memories?

Yes outside of Silicon Valley it is strongly encouraged that engineers transition to management. It just isn't as respected outside of tech hubs and it's pretty recent. Is this changing for the better? It depends on the metro and the rate of change in perception varies.

> Be open to the likelihood that your experiences don't generalize to others.

I am definitely open to my generalizations being incorrect in many different places and times. I'm just stating what I feel is the general mass trend.

> I posted this elsewhere in the thread--I don't know if you saw it, but the Harris poll actually released some numbers not too long ago on the notion of prestige in various occupations

Looking that this poll and several other similar studies over the decades, my hypothesis has been proven wrong. Thanks for posting quantitative data. Yeah polls are subject to a lot of errors. Still, they're better than guesses based on personal experience. Logically I'm thinking that I've been proven wrong. However what's annoying though is that even in light of data, I still feel that I'm 'correct'. My gut still tells me that engineering is still seen by the masses as low prestige (outside of tech hubs like Silicon Valley). If I were to rationalize it, I would say that popular media is the main driving force behind my opinion. It's hard to ignore annoying shows like The Big Bang Theory. Ugh, I really hate that show. Another reason is that I feel the polls are measuring prestige incorrectly. imo A political office is very prestigious, yet in these polls they score so low. Why? Because the way the researchers measure prestige includes perception of ethics and generalized likability.

Post reply on HN