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

Female founders who've had a great 2016

techcrunch.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 122 posts

Re: Female founders who've had a great 2016

#101

Post by DrDimension »

dang wrote: post #29
xkiwi wrote: post #9

I lookup your list due to curiosity. So far I am on the third one, and I learned few thing from it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-pKR212H5vQ #1 Y Combinator hosted a Female only founder conferences in the year of 2015. Where is the Male only founder conference? #2 She explain why her spirit animal is a beaver in the video 23:13. Later she explained how a small honey beaver can take down the lion king. The method i…

> Where is the Male only founder conference? Sorry, but this is off-topic because it predictably leads to tedium ( https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13241873 ). It also breaks the site guidelines, which ask you not to do classic flamewar topics on HN ( https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html ). We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13259484 and marked it off-topic.

You know, Dang, this whole thread is a flame war topic. Why didn't you delete that? Oh, I know why, because it supports your side of the ideological narrative.

All people are asking is that you apply your own rules to your own selves. It should be obvious by now that these double standards do not make for community harmony.

Re: Female founders who've had a great 2016

#102

Post by dang »

jimmywanger wrote: post #62

> We recognize that there is a significant gender imbalance in technology professions, markedly larger than that of any other cognitive non-routine profession Why is this gender imbalance receiving all of the attention, as opposed to teaching and nursing, both of which are heavily skewed towards the opposite gender imbalance?

This has been covered ad infinitum by HN flamewars and is eternally off-topic. Please see https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13261688 and the links there.

We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13260599 and marked it off-topic.

Re: Female founders who've had a great 2016

#103

Post by morgante »

chongli wrote: post #98
tzs wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The income distribution at Harvard doesn't fit your theory: http://features.thecrimson.com/2013/frosh-survey/admissions....

About 14 percent of the incoming freshman said their families earn above $500,000 Sure it does. If everybody in the US had equal access to primary and secondary education and Harvard had income-blind admissions, do you really think that number would be so high?

Harvard does have income-blind admissions. Admissions officers don't look at your financial aid information when you apply and it's not a factor.

Of course, there's still the factor that wealthy parents can pay for a better education. Also that intelligence is largely hereditary.

Re: Female founders who've had a great 2016

#104

Post by tomlock »

facepalm wrote: post #97
tomlock wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>>My personal impression with Google is that they are not interested in hiring male coders anymore... I can't think of many scenarios that would give you that impression. Did google personally reject you for being a man?

For the last two years I have only seen ads with exclusively female engineers from Google, for example the "I look like an engineer" series. I haven't seen any effort to attract male talent. Of course having more women on the team will probably make a company more attractive to men, but I doubt that is the only thing they should bank on to attract men.

I think over the past two years I've seen a sum total of one video about working at Google, and it featured a woman and a man. From what you're saying I can only assume I stumbled on a super rare video. Is that accurate?

Re: Female founders who've had a great 2016

#105

Post by dang »

DrDimension wrote: post #101
dang wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Where is the Male only founder conference? Sorry, but this is off-topic because it predictably leads to tedium ( https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13241873 ). It also breaks the site guidelines, which ask you not to do classic flamewar topics on HN ( https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html ). We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13259484 and marked it off-topic.

You know, Dang, this whole thread is a flame war topic. Why didn't you delete that? Oh, I know why, because it supports your side of the ideological narrative. All people are asking is that you apply your own rules to your own selves. It should be obvious by now that these double standards do not make for community harmony.

It's a matter of degree. The OP has flamebait aspects, but it also has substantive, on-topic material. Obviously we're not going to treat all such stories as off-topic just because some people make flamewars out of them. If we did that, people could kill any story just by flaming enough.

"Blah blah blah what about nurses fuck you", on the other hand (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13241873), has no merit as a subtopic at all—not after the number of times we've all endured it. I trust that most HN readers understand that when we make a call like this, it isn't about ideology, but about not subjecting the community to tedium.

> your side of the ideological narrative

We hear this often enough from a minority of readers who feel strongly about ideology. However, it varies (quite reliably in fact) with the ideology of the beholder. To me that seems like evidence of cognitive bias at work, since it's same body of moderation decisions being interpreted in conflicting ways.

Re: Female founders who've had a great 2016

#106

Post by facepalm »

tptacek wrote: post #99
facepalm wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If it is such a broad classification, maybe it is not very meaningful then to say "tech has less women than any other non-routine cognitive profession". Why use the classification at all, if it so broad? If you use "all professions", you get perhaps things like garbage men and miners who are worse than tech? So you can always select a filter that makes tech look worst.

I don't understand the premise of your objection. The point of the comparison is that tech is uniquely unbalanced among the professions. I'm also disinclined to try to rebut an argument that seesaws like yours now is --- first the comparison is so idiosyncratic that it must be biased, then so broad as to be meaningless. If you object to the classification of labor as "cognitive" or "manual" and "routine" or "nonrouti…

My question is/was: do you think sexism is the main thing that differentiates tech from other non-routine cognitive professions? That economists created such a classification is pretty irrelevant. The point about the broadness was that if it is so broad, you might as well take all professions and get a different result.

Re: Female founders who've had a great 2016

#107

Post by facepalm »

tomlock wrote: post #104
facepalm wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For the last two years I have only seen ads with exclusively female engineers from Google, for example the "I look like an engineer" series. I haven't seen any effort to attract male talent. Of course having more women on the team will probably make a company more attractive to men, but I doubt that is the only thing they should bank on to attract men.

I think over the past two years I've seen a sum total of one video about working at Google, and it featured a woman and a man. From what you're saying I can only assume I stumbled on a super rare video. Is that accurate?

I'll include a link to my paper where I use the method of autoethnography to show how Google has turned into a misandryst megacorporation.

Just kidding - I didn't write a paper about it, nor did I conduct a rigorous study. Most of the Google Ads I have seen came via various Google Twitter accounts, like https://twitter.com/lifeatgoogle (Life at Google seems to be dedicated to hiring people for Google).

So my filter bubble might be to blame. I haven't seen the video you mentioned which features a man.

(Edit: I just scrolled through the first several dozen tweets from "Life At Google - I think there is definitely a bias to only show female engineers there.... However, it is of course only one Google Twitter account dedicated to hiring, I don't know how many others exist. Maybe it was created explicitly to target women and minorities, but then maybe they should somehow say so).

Re: Female founders who've had a great 2016

#108

Post by tomlock »

facepalm wrote: post #107
tomlock wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think over the past two years I've seen a sum total of one video about working at Google, and it featured a woman and a man. From what you're saying I can only assume I stumbled on a super rare video. Is that accurate?

I'll include a link to my paper where I use the method of autoethnography to show how Google has turned into a misandryst megacorporation. Just kidding - I didn't write a paper about it, nor did I conduct a rigorous study. Most of the Google Ads I have seen came via various Google Twitter accounts, like https://twitter.com/lifeatgoogle (Life at Google seems to be dedicated to hiring people for Google). So my filter b…

I'm still not sure why you had the impression that Google is not interested in hiring male coders anymore?

Re: Female founders who've had a great 2016

#109

Post by tomlock »

facepalm wrote: post #106
tptacek wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't understand the premise of your objection. The point of the comparison is that tech is uniquely unbalanced among the professions. I'm also disinclined to try to rebut an argument that seesaws like yours now is --- first the comparison is so idiosyncratic that it must be biased, then so broad as to be meaningless. If you object to the classification of labor as "cognitive" or "manual" and "routine" or "nonrouti…

My question is/was: do you think sexism is the main thing that differentiates tech from other non-routine cognitive professions? That economists created such a classification is pretty irrelevant. The point about the broadness was that if it is so broad, you might as well take all professions and get a different result.

I think your original argument was worded "only thing" not "main thing". It feels like you've changed your argument slightly.

Re: Female founders who've had a great 2016

#110

Post by pokemongoaway »

matt4077 wrote: post #46
danso wrote: post #22

I support these kinds of lists. Like #BlackLivesMatter, the focus on a purportedly disenfranchised group doesn't mean that the "main" group doesn't matter -- but it's an acknowledgement that we see plenty of representation of the main group -- in this case, men -- by default. Unless you believe that there really are no barriers specific to women (and it doesn't necessarily have to be sexism) and that women just are t…

May be more necessary than usual – I got the feeling that women were overrepresented in the "Founder-does-something-terrible" articles, at least on HN. Some was certainly deserved, although I'm not sure about the proportionality of the 20th "No, seriously, Elizabeth Holmes is a terrible terrible person!" - article. Some was offensive, misogynistic, backwards bullshit that I can only hope is highly correlated with the…

You're either lucky or inexperienced to have never been in a professional environment by 2016 where you and/or other men had to grit their teeth because they couldn't criticise a woman's ideas because of your gender (and her's). We all know the tactic of emasculation you're using: "are you not man enough to handle competitor from women?!" As you can see by the other comments in this thread, you can see most men have learned to ignore the ad hominem in these cases and focused on rational cause-and-effect approaches.
Post reply on HN