Female Founders • Hacker News Board

Re: Female Founders

#411

Post by klipt » Sat, Jan 11, 2014, 2:10 AM UTC

pyrocat wrote: post #228

msandford wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And men are under-represented in nursing (at 6%). Human beings bias themselves in addition to the biases that society puts on them. http://www.discovernursing.com/men-in-nursing As long as the ratio isn't much worse than 3:1 (men or women are at least 25% of the workforce) either way I'd argue that it's a pretty balanced work environment all things considered. Shooting for 50/50 equality would potentially make more i…

Equality is definitely a goal, I think we should have more male nurses, but that's not really a priority when men are over represented in most of the higher paid fields (doctors, lawyers, CEOs .etc). Let's work on helping the more disadvantaged party first, yeah?

> Let's work on helping the more disadvantaged party first, yeah?

You're right, we should pay garbagemen and janitors more. Maybe that will encourage more women to go into those fields.

Re: Female Founders

#412

Post by jfc » Sat, Jan 11, 2014, 2:16 AM UTC

jessedhillon wrote: post #369

hnriot wrote: post #346

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While that's an interesting view, it's also wrong. It might make for a good way of justifying things in your mind, you should really take a look at the more common definitions of racism to understand why this point of view you have in one held by a minority of people.

Hey, you know what? If every black person sees you and thinks "honkey," you will likely experience hurt feelings, and a slight discomfort when in certain neighborhoods. You probably will stop going to those places. It would be very hard to blame lack of progress in your professional or academic career on this perception. You could go almost your whole life without that perception having any tangible manifestation in…

> "Right. Because letting the majority population define which terms an aggrieved minority can use to describe its own situation is completely sensible. What a surprise, the discriminated minority has a different view of the majority's behaviors than do those in the majority!"

---

Perfectly stated. Seems like the people at BCG are trying to help girls learn to code, with an emphasis on those who are black--because of a range of obstacles that might otherwise prevent these girls from learning.

And let's be honest here: if BCG didn't do this work to encourage black women and girls to code, who would? I see nothing wrong with their desire to encourage black girls to learn more about coding.

Re: Female Founders

#413

Post by znowi » Sat, Jan 11, 2014, 2:20 AM UTC

I'm sorry, but this is a ridiculous continuation of a ridiculous drama that came out of a ridiculous out of context treatment.

We've become overly sensitive and prone to offense over trivial matters. Accusation of sexism or racism or what else is almost on par with being a terrorist now and all it takes is an unfortunately put word or two. The accused party is commonly terrified, as if he committed the worst possible crime, and tries hard to defend what's left of his honor and reputation.

This is nuts. This is the article that shouldn't have been.

Re: Female Founders

#414

Post by jfc » Sat, Jan 11, 2014, 2:25 AM UTC

pbhjpbhj wrote: post #345

prayag wrote: post #340

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem is that you don't understand what racism is. Racism isn't just treating someone differently because she belongs to a different race. Racism has more to do with power dynamics than with color of a person's skin. For example, just because a college has different standards of admission for different races to promote diversity is not racism but to give preferential treatment to the group of people who have mo…

It is racism. It's just that it's racism you appear to like.

Nonsense. It is not racism at all, especially considering the group is open to girls of all racial backgrounds.

Re: Female Founders

#415

Post by apsec112 » Sat, Jan 11, 2014, 2:26 AM UTC

shawnee_ wrote: post #380

The tone of this article is pretty defensive and borders on hostile. Understandably? Yeah, it sucks when people misinterpret a sentiment or take something out of context, but if you really want an open discussion about why there aren't more female founders, acknowledge your part. There's a dearth of female founders because YC and angels and VCs are just not as willing to fund females. Until 1974 -- when the Equal Cre…

Wha? Y Combinator and random Silicon Valley angels are somehow responsible for something big banks did over forty years ago? Before many of them were even born?

"Sometimes the kafkatrap is presented in less direct forms. A common variant, which I’ll call the Model C, is to assert something like this: “Even if you do not feel yourself to be guilty of {sin,racism,sexism, homophobia,oppression…}, you are guilty because you have benefited from the {sinful,racist,sexist,homophobic,oppressive,…} behavior of others in the system.” The aim of the Model C is to induce the subject to self-condemnation not on the basis of anything the individual subject has actually done, but on the basis of choices by others which the subject typically had no power to affect. The subject must at all costs be prevented from noticing that it is not ultimately possible to be responsible for the behavior of other free human beings." - http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=2122

I'm sorry to hear you got rejected from YC, but:

- there's a good bit of randomness in the process; no one could possibly have a 95% chance of getting an interview, even if they were young Elon Musk;

- as pg and co. will be the first to tell you, they make mistakes and don't fund promising groups all the time;

- simply getting a degree from any school (even Harvard) isn't a strong predictor of whether someone has all the skills to succeed at a startup (http://paulgraham.com/colleges.html), because colleges and YC are looking for somewhat different types of skillsets

Re: Female Founders

#416

Post by rds2000 » Sat, Jan 11, 2014, 2:35 AM UTC

DanBC wrote: post #410

rds2000 wrote: post #406

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is troll under the guise of charity. It's provocative, distracting and subverting - Introducing a politically sensitive, racially charged, artificial problem. This will incite anger through political correctness. The cause is bogus. Snubbing it is politically incorrect to criticize women and ethnic minorities in the west. Non sequitur, PC trolls like this can do as much distracting as they please. Why not bring…

You make a great point aboit the use of English for documentation, and the need for translation to other languages to promote computing in different nations. See how I didn't mention race or sex or sexuality? That's because you don't need to mention that other stuff when you have a tight focus. "Help girls code" does not mean "stop translating documentation to Portuguese". "Help translate all these documentations and…

Dan, even using english as a first language - I have a difficult time articulating this subject.

1. English

English is the more topic subject dividing engineers and programmer's from reaching their potential. These are people who are already on their path and passionate about growing themselves into programmers.

Can you imagine how we can help them? Their potential if they have localized documentation?

A story of disadvantage - imagine having an issue and being powerless to articulate yourself to a predominately english-speaking world of engineers. What about their hearts, their passions?

And this is effective, safe. Helps people. Constructive. This is great news man.

Now you see where I'm going?

2. The PC troll issue

I feel tempted to blurt out every emotion. But when a particular group is mentioned - we have to make everyone happy? Why is pycon code of conduct pulled off geekfeminism.org (http://jessenoller.com/blog/2012/12/7/the-code-of-conduct). This is sensitivity not to woman, but I feel it's creating a culture of hysteria.

Truly, I do not believe woman in the first world (I'm sorry if this offends people) are at risk of rape or sexual harassment at conferences. Most conferences do not have codes of conduct that state this because it makes you ask, "Why?". Do these people ever go outside, to starbucks, etc? Do they live in a Chapel away from vulgar language and stringent political correctness? I'm deeply sorry to offend anyone here.

But how do you even get to Pycon if you're in this feminist Cabal? Do you go around in a bubble when you're outside? Especially in SF where radical free expression is so prevalent, it's amazing how the when it gets to the workplace and conferences, women (a select few), pull what we may see as a 180. Now they're ultra-chaste, "triggered"* by humor they probably laughed out at dinners before, especially in front of more confident and boastful company.

I feel I can't talk about anything. I feel it's a sand pit meant to distract and divide. I feel like I can't express myself in the most basic ways.

* Triggered means PTSD for traumatic events in their past. So now it's not a matter of political niche. Ever study cognitive-behavioral psychology? People can link a bad memory to anything!

Re: Female Founders

#417

Post by vezzy-fnord » Sat, Jan 11, 2014, 2:36 AM UTC

kaitai wrote: post #403

vezzy-fnord wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I guess you could . Although I'm not sure how exactly an algorithm can be inherently prejudiced, that sounds rather postmodern. You can make one that is inefficient or apply one that isn't suitable to a given data set, and end up with skewed results. But an algorithm promoting prejudice by itself? I don't know. I always thought mathematics was neutral. Either way, it absolutely does not apply here. HN's algorithms si…

Along a slightly different track than you were originally running on, there are a number of ways in which an algorithm could promote prejudice. Consider a nice little machine-learning algorithm that analyzes characteristics of successful employees at a given company in order to select new hires that share those characteristics. If, for instance, the company had a couple rabid barbecue-lovers who made sure that all lu…

Once again, this isn't the algorithm being inherently prejudiced. It does what it's meant to do, but it's being applied to a prejudiced and unreliable data set.

Don't blame the algorithm for the fallacies of the people using it. The only fault in your scenario is the PEBCAK.

Re: Female Founders

#418

Post by mudil » Sat, Jan 11, 2014, 2:38 AM UTC

What amazes me is that in this whole conversation no one even mentions the differences between men and women, as these differences were shaped by evolutionary forces. In all our attempts to make women and men "equal", not just in this country, but across the world, women and men still go into different professions and do have different interests, and are good in their gender-specific things. There is a reason for that: men and women are different.

Surely, there will be women in tech and men in nursing. But the differences are there and they go back hundreds of millions of years, and they've been shaped by real evolutionary forces, and they play out every day in myriads of ways.

For all the scorn that Harvard University President Lawrence Summers got in 2005 for bringing out these issues, he was coming from a serious scientifically-based view on differences of sexes.

For those who want to understand how evolution shaped women and men, I recommend to start with Dawkins' books (The Greatest Show on Earth, The Blind Watchmaker, The Selfish Gene), and then to read "The Red Queen: Sex and the Evolution of Human Nature" by Matt Ridley, and "The Mating Mind: How Sexual Choice Shaped the Evolution of Human Nature" by Geoffrey Miller.

And, hey, I am talking to the audience here, since it is mostly composed of men (there is a reason for it): understanding the evolution of sex will make you better at picking up women!

Re: Female Founders

#419

Post by lamontcg » Sat, Jan 11, 2014, 2:47 AM UTC

stephp wrote: post #375

wanda wrote: post #349

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>"expression" >"design" >"communicative purpose" >"social dynamics" >"affect people with what I was making" >"impressing friends/boyfriends" >"coding" >websites No need to declare that you're a blogger. It's obvious.

I'm not sure if this is an insult, but it reads like one.

yep. and the culture of internet snark and bullying certainly isn't helping this problem.

Re: Female Founders

#420

Post by FeeTinesAMady » Sat, Jan 11, 2014, 2:57 AM UTC

jlees wrote: post #176

SloughFeg wrote: post #97

It'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.

Lemma: Women-led companies are desirable. Vivek Wadhwa is doing a bunch of research into the data. I don't have his report at my fingertips but fundamentally, not investing in women is not a rational move. Here's the media headline version: "Women-led private technology companies are more capital-efficient, achieve 35 percent higher return on investment, and, when venture-backed, bring in 12 percent higher revenue th…

Hypothetically, that could be completely accounted for by women being more realistic of their chances of success at starting a company. So those who wouldn't have succeeded never bothered in the first place, skewing those statistics.