I posted this in a previous "Ask HN" thread about African American founders in YC [1], and reposting here because I think it bears repeating. > For those wondering why this is important, see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stereotype_threat "If negative stereotypes are present regarding a specific group, group members are likely to become anxious about their performance, which may hinder their ability to perform at the…
But do note that the same wikipedia page points out that several recent attempts to replicate the studies that claimed to measure stereotype threat have failed, putting the whole idea into question. I'm not saying that out of some attempt to sweep away the general problem of improving diversity; it's just important to work on solutions that will actually make a difference.
Female Founders
151–160 of 634 posts
Re: Female Founders
#152Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because he destroyed the idea that young whippersnappers need "adult supervision".
Bill Gates did a pretty good job before that (whereas Jobs and Page&Brin brought in adults)
Re: Female Founders
#153Earlier quoted context omitted.
The second paragraph amounts to a sexist version of "I'm not racist! I have black friends!" Actually by pointing out the degree to which women run things at YC it's closer to saying "I'm not racist! I'm black." And while it's possible for women to be sexist too, if you think Jessica, Kirsty, and Carolynn are sexist, I'd like to see you say it to their faces. And I do know something about groups working on getting gir…
> And while it's possible for women to be sexist too, if you think Jessica, Kirsty, and Carolynn are sexist, I'd like to see you say it to their faces. That... is not an argument? There's ample evidence to show that members of underrepresented groups within individual companies/industries experience unconscious biases in hiring/ranking/etc, even towards groups of which they're a member.
You are judging particular people based on statistics that you think you know about groups of people. I don't think I have to explain the irony here.
Re: Female Founders
#154I find the outrage over this so disingenuous. It looks to me like it's more about punishing someone for being a high-profile member of a hated, perceived-oppressor group than actually caring about women being programmers. To think that pg actually believes that there are no female programmers was the least charitable possible interpretation, and the only reason to have picked that one in particular was to confirm you…
Note that there is no similar hand-wringing about the lack of women in the fields of sanitation, construction, plumbing or cartooning. Likewise, not much hubbub about the gender imbalance in the fashion industry. Could it possibly be that men and women think differently, and those minor differences are reflected in their career preferences? Could it be that these preferences play a bigger role in gender imbalances in…
But please proceed. Other groups are underrepresented in tech. Let's hear how they think differently.
Re: Female Founders
#155Earlier quoted context omitted.
> And while it's possible for women to be sexist too, if you think Jessica, Kirsty, and Carolynn are sexist, I'd like to see you say it to their faces. That... is not an argument? There's ample evidence to show that members of underrepresented groups within individual companies/industries experience unconscious biases in hiring/ranking/etc, even towards groups of which they're a member.
In this case are clearly not under represented if you reflect that PG also says they wield genuine power at YC.
"While 3 out of 12 is not 50-50,"
Re: Female Founders
#156Earlier quoted context omitted.
> And while it's possible for women to be sexist too, if you think Jessica, Kirsty, and Carolynn are sexist, I'd like to see you say it to their faces. That... is not an argument? There's ample evidence to show that members of underrepresented groups within individual companies/industries experience unconscious biases in hiring/ranking/etc, even towards groups of which they're a member.
Can you provide an example of something that you would consider to be a valid argument or piece of evidence?
If any evidence would be relevant here it would be something like results of implicit association tests on the topic. I for one would be very interested in the (effects of the) results.
Re: Female Founders
#157I find myself disappointed by this blog post. The second paragraph amounts to a sexist version of "I'm not racist! I have black friends!" Then he follows up with statistics comparing YC to the general VC market. Fine, you do better than most. However, not the worst does not mean not bad. He comes closest to saying anything of substance with the paragraph: So how would you cause there to be more female programmers? Th…
It bothers me unduly much that it has become a common meme that saying this amounts to saying "I am a racist!" That may be convenient pattern-matching, but if someone has friends that are black, that is definitely some evidence that they aren't racists.
I think this really comes down to pattern-matching and goalpost shifting. There are many definitions of racism, and conflating them serves the purposes of people on both sides of the argument, which makes it an anti-useful rather than merely useless term. When someone says "I'm not a racist, I have black friends" they are referring to the casual/common definition of racism, which is that they judge individuals as individuals and not based on their membership of a racial group. Under this definition, calling someone a racist is essentially saying that they have views that are sympathetic to the views of extremist groups like the KKK. Under this definition, saying, "I'm not racist, I have black friends" makes perfect sense, because it implies that, even if they have tiny biases against people based on race, they are at least not so strong as to preclude having close personal relationships with them.
Another definition of racism, used by people arguing against them, amounts to "everyone is racist in some ways, so it's basically always wrong to say you aren't a racist." (Obviously this is a caricature of another end of the spectrum, there are intermediate definitions) Under this definition, you can have black friends, a black husband/wife, black adoptive parents, black children, and saying any of those things simply pattern-matches to a denial of the obvious conclusion that if you aren't black, you can't know black struggles and so are inherently racist no matter what. If this is the definition of racism you are using, there is literally no evidence you can provide other than to be black yourself to avoid claims of racism against black people. People who subscribe to this definition have had arguments with people who they believe to be self-evidently racist, yet who used "I have black friends," so many times, that it pattern-matches in their brain to "this person is a racist." This is an uncharitable view.
Having black friends or black family members is Bayesian evidence that someone isn't racist as it is defined in casual discourse, and I think it's time that people stop pretending it's the opposite. Similarly, having a female co-founder is valid evidence that you view females as having the capability of equal business acumen to men, no matter how much people dislike the way the argument pattern-matches.
Unfortunately, there is literally no way to be so careful with your language use to avoid this argument, because the issue has long, long since diverged from the norms of reasonable discourse. There will always be people on the side of "everyone is racist" who will just say, "He's just hiding his racist views by trying to use alternate terminology."
Re: Female Founders
#158Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Note that there is no similar hand-wringing about the lack of women in the fields of sanitation, construction, Yes there is, and examples of programmes to get men into. Ursing or women into construction have been posted to HN before. Someone always always makes the same point as you and for some reason it always manages to infuriate me. I've had to re-write this 4 times because it was so vicious at first. But it do…
'But it does feel tbat a person must be deliberately trollin when they trot out the same tired bullshit that other idiots spout, especially when that bullshit has been debunked on the same forum that they're posting to and when it is so easy to debunk with a simple websearch. It feels as if some people like living their lives with the blinkers on.' Well then, since I'm spouting "bullshit" (your words): Educate me. Le…
Until we see what you are basing your silly assertion on, yeah, you are the one spouting bullshit.
Re: Female Founders
#159It's interesting that neither this article or Paul's related December article ever address the most basic and seminal question about this in the first place: why is this a problem? Why is it a big deal if there are less female founders than male? It seems like this whole discussion has been nothing but a bunch of posturing and vague half-solutions about an issue that I'm not sure even exists.
As an axiom, there's not really a way to argue that it is illogical. You can only attempt to persuade the person to change their axioms.
Re: Female Founders
#160Earlier quoted context omitted.
In other words, this is a posture piece: it's about your reputation, and only about the issue at hand insomuch as it is important to give that issue its due. I mean that ('posture piece') as neutrally, perhaps, as it is possible to mean it. >come away with the idea that YC is somehow sexist. And you can say, with a straight face, that YC is not sexist? That it's just the tech environment, and you're on the 'right sid…
> And you can say, with a straight face, that YC is not sexist? I don't think he could have made that any clearer.
The nature of this kind of discussion is always going to be hyperbolic and emotionally charged, which is why gender discussions here get nuked.
That's what I find so amusing about PG's foray today: PG could write the most innocuous treatise imaginable, and he'd still be getting into trouble, and deservedly so.
Ask yourself: what happens after this? Is YC going to be the shining light that brings sexual equality to the Valley?
Or does YC culture get to pat itself on the back for being less sexist than the other parts of tech culture and continue its general status quo?
This essay doesn't heal any divide; it just stirs the pot a bit more. It's about reputation, not solutions--which is somewhat a shame, because the second half of the essay (which essentially is a restatement of PG's initial comment) is pretty thoughtful and reasonable.