
Tradeoffs for Women in Technology - michael_nielsen
http://hmrx.posterous.com/being-a-woman-in-tech-sucks-yes-but-seriously
======
patio11
It is curious that the problem is diagnosed as a social pathology to overwork
and then the solution proposed is mentoring more women. Wait, back up here:
you're taking a functioning sausage grinder and proposing throwing more folks
you care about into it so that the sausage that successfully makes it to the
other end is a little pinker than the mostly blue sausage we get right now.
How about working to fix the sausage grinder model, instead? (Well, strictly
speaking they are not mutually exclusive, but if you had to concentrate your
energy, I know which one I'm picking.)

There is nothing intrinsic about startups that requires getting up at 6 AM and
working 18 hour days that leave no room for meeting one's more important
obligations to family, friends, the community, God, etc. The fact that we
generally believe that this is intrinsic, and model it as the "correct"
behavior, is a social pathology in our industry. Fix that and plenty of people
will have improved lives, including (quite possibly) the marginal new female
founders the detoxified culture will attract.

~~~
contagionhealth
The interesting thing about "startup" social pathology is not just that I fall
in willingly (intrinsic motivation to ascribe to this set of normative
behaviors), but that many others in the Valley often do the same (extrinsic
motivation to ascribe to this set of normative behaviors).

The cultural miasma is this is the way things are done. You can always buck
the prevailing culture and be a black swan, but you have to look at the risks
and benefits of swimming that way.

And many more folks than me buy in. Many are heavily invested in perpetuating
this model because it gives them a level of perceived (rather than actual)
control - if they aren't actually forming the startups, and they need a set of
ways to evaluate potential success, than overwork may be one of those
obtainable metrics you can check off relatively easily.

This means the sausage grinder may always be a sausage grinder no matter the
tinge of the sausage coming out on the other end. I have no idea how to go
about fixing this other than to begin not by continuing to bitch about
work/life balance but to begin to fix my own equation (intrinsic - what are my
goals? How will I reach them?) and others (extrinsic - are there talented
groups out there who aren't getting a shot because we aren't telling women
they can strut in and say "fuck it, fund me?").

I figured I'd start with a more open solution where women are informed about
the risks and returns by those who've been there. I've been fortunate enough
(for various reasons) that I've been able to get those meetings and hack the
existing network here.

If anyone has more concrete suggestions I'd love to hear them - and better yet
see them implemented, pronto. The generic "let's fix the sausage grinder
model" comments tend to put my teeth on edge because they lack 1. specificity
and 2. actionability and thus 3. utility.

Why we persist with collaborative maintenance of the startup 'mythology' or
'reality' (one person's myth is another person's faith system) is, you're
right, the interesting question.

I can only answer that for myself.

Early stage, high-growth, hyperactive tech startups where you're doing a new
feature release every 2 weeks and an entirely new product on average once
every 12 weeks means, sorry, working near 18 hour days.

This model may not be 'correct,' but it sometimes works. And as a startup
entrepreneur, my primary interest is in finding things that work.

It's not like I haven't examined a multiplicity of options. I've read
37signals, and used their method for 2 years prior.

Bootstrapping got me to a partnership with a top US health insurer to build a
product within 3 months after launching my company, keynotes at Mayo and Eli
Lilly, and consulting for the National Board (which administers the USMLE or
'boards' to docs) so I'm not knocking this as a potential solution - and one
to which I might return (have a day job, do the startup lunches, nights, and
weekends).

The pathology to overwork is a personal tendency which you accurately
diagnose. In my case it's been augmented by choosing a role in an early stage
tech startup where that group pathology persists.

I'm not sure fixing the social pathology is a viable solution, but like other
pathologies, teaching coping skills and how to manage emergent behaviors may
be.

------
ShabbyDoo
Law and medicine are perhaps worse because these professions impose relatively
rigid career tracks upon their members. It's well and good to work 80+
hours/week at a "white shoe" law firm when you're in your late 20's without
children. But, even the time off required to push out a baby and recover will
have a negative impact on your billable quota. A couple years ago, a friend's
firm adopted some new, supposedly mommy-friendly policies in hope of keeping
more women on partner track. A few months later, they did a round of lay-offs
which included her. She had been working part-time post-child after having
received glowing reviews pre-pregnancy. Other firms have done better by
offering non-partner track roles which paid less, but offered 40-hour work
weeks -- a realistic option taken by a couple of women I know. Perhaps the
whole up-or-out partner track model of traditional law firms must change. It's
clearly from an era where the rising star was expected to have a stay-at-home
wife to take care of things. It can't be the only model by which law can be
practiced successfully. This model also adversely affects those opting into
law as a second career.

Physicians finish residency around age 30 -- about the average age for
college-educated women to have a first child. A friend of ours had to delay
residency by two years because a pregnancy required bed rest at the time she
was supposed to be finishing up her internship year. The next year's match
class was already full. So, after a MD/PhD and fellowship, she will have her
first real job at age 37. Maybe the traditional model of "lots and lots of
school" followed by being a full-fledged doctor could be replaced by some sort
of stepping-stone model which where one could opt out of the rat race for a
couple of years in the middle. I'm imagining a path that allows on to practice
as doctor-lite (like a nurse practitioner) and later become a full-fledged
doctor.

I don't think one can "have it all" -- meaning that a parent can't compete
successfully with those willing to sacrifice their lives to work and still
show up at the after-school soccer games. Society will have to figure out
alternatives for those models of success built-up in the era where it would
have been redundant to prepend "stay-at-home" to "wife."

I'm not suggesting that there's anything morally/ethically wrong with the way
law firms work today. If a private business wants to limit the available work
force through an incentive system that's not fully utilizable by 50% of the
population, that's its right. I'm not so comfortable with making a similar
statement about medicine because the rites of passage are implicitly set by
government regulation rather than market forces. It's not as if I can start-up
a certification program for high-end health professionals which will compete
with the AMA's MD designations.

~~~
joeyo
I don't disagree with the substance of your post, but I wanted to note that
the AMA, and the national and state licensing boards are non-government
entities. While the states do make it illegal to practice medicine without a
license (or practice law without a license), for the most part they let these
professions regulate themselves.

~~~
ShabbyDoo
Can I start-up a competing licensing body? That's my issue -- the AMA is given
an implicit monopoly by the Federal/State governments.

------
Tichy
Except for the childrens thing, what is the bit that makes it harder for
women? The article was very long, and children were only mentioned once, quite
in the beginning.

Also, why does the startup require the long hours etc? Is there a law in the
universe for it? Then it seems curious that the law requires one to work
exactly 18 hours per day on a startup. What if the universe decided that to
run a startup successfully one would have to work 30 hours per day on it? Then
nobody would be able to do startups...

~~~
contagionhealth
Hey Tichy - good questions. Never thought this post would end up on HN, so I
didn't explicate the problem(s) and challenges systemically.

There's no universal law, but as mentioned earlier, there is a cultural norm,
or, as patio11 pointed out, a tendency towards social pathology that rewards
'overwork.'

All startups may not require the long hours - I don't know and can't speak for
ALL founders. However, I know many for whom this is true. It's certainly true
that in this stage of growth (pre-toddler) for MY startup it requires that
amount of work to complete the specific things I have on my calendar.

~~~
Tichy
"a tendency towards social pathology that rewards 'overwork.'"

Reward in what way?

~~~
contagionhealth
<http://www.paulgraham.com/die.html>

------
dennisgorelik
I think she's in a good position of bootstraping with 30-hours work week from
home while raising kids and living on husband's salary.

~~~
contagionhealth
Ouch. Thanks Dennis. Now if you want to toss a husband my way for an arranged
marriage that would be great! <end sarcasm/>

------
skennedy
Do most start-up founders really end up making a choice between the start-up
and their relationship/family? Are there examples of people who haven
successfully been able to maintain the energy in both? If not, that's pretty
depressing.

~~~
ShabbyDoo
It's relatively easy for a parent to work 12+ hours/day as long as there's a
spouse at home who can dedicate his/her life to the children and household.

~~~
contagionhealth
Exactly. And in our culture that's usually still women (although more stay at
home dads are stepping up - see: <http://www.rebeldad.com/stats.htm>).

So, as a woman in startup tech, if you choose to have work and family life
simultaneously, it means finding a partner who will do that (is willing and
financially stable), and/or outsourcing a significant portion of your
childcare to family, nannies, etc.

~~~
Tichy
I am still not quite sure what you are complaining about? At least as a woman
you have a choice, you can opt out and spend more time with the kids. That's
not supposed to be a burden imposed by society, it is supposed to be quality
time and a gift. Why else have children, if you don't even like it? If you
don't like it, the choice is easy, just spend all the time at your startup.

Unfortunately everything has a price - spending more time at home has a price
(earning less money with the startup?), spending more time at the office has a
price (no kids). But you have a choice.

In another comment you said that your particular startup requires the long
hours. Maybe you could restructure the startup? Maybe you could spend some
money on employees? I don't know - but overall I don't see how you being a
woman makes it in any way special. If anything, you have more choices than
men?

~~~
contagionhealth
Good point Tichy - not complaining about being a woman, which I very much
enjoy. Being a woman doesn't make, by virtue of your sex-linked chromosomes,
doing a startup in anyway special. And as to choices, exactly. That's the
point of the post (sorry if that wasn't clear). We all accept (or should
accept) responsibility for our own choices. I like your closing comment ;).
More choices, more challenges. Synonymous?

~~~
Tichy
In hindsight I thought OK, just having kids probably is easier for men. As
others commented, it's easy if the spouse stays at home to take care of the
kids. It seems kind of equivalent to employing nannies - except it is probably
not easy to find adequate nannies?

And the man working long hours also might not benefit from his children much.
Except maybe later in life, when they are older and he works less?

I didn't want to come across as harsh. I just suspect that in hindsight it is
common to wonder what for did one sacrifice family and children? I am 37
(male) now, and I don't really have a strong inbuilt desire to have children.
But one could just go for it and see what happens? If not now, then when?
Other things are probably more easy to delay.

I admit that I am also becoming cynical about the traditional roles. I am not
that thrilled about having to provide as much money as possible to compete for
child rearing women. It may still look as if men have the better position in
society, but it doesn't really make much sense. Men don't have any bargaining
position at all. They are 100% replaceable (sperm is cheap) - so struggling to
be as successful as possible financially is pretty much the only option. Men
have to take the risks - women pretty much can opt to take them for fun, or
not. More or less, at least...

------
lsc
"Not only am I an unpedigreed, first time (at 30, Jesus) female founder of a
tech company, I am a non-tech, non-CS founder who doesn't code."

I don't care if you have four dicks. if you are not technical, you have no
business running a tech startup.

~~~
contagionhealth
Thanks Isc 12. I'll quit what I'm doing immediately and work on growing four
interesting male parts instead.

~~~
lsc
huh? I said male parts won't help. a non-technical person, male or female,
running a tech company would be like me running a company that, say, relies on
sales to enterprises.

you can't just "know business" - to run a company, you need to understand what
that company does.

~~~
michael_nielsen
Successful tech companies often need to do much more than just technology to
be successful. There's no reason such a company shouldn't have at least one
non-technical founder. I agree that it would be a mistake if all the founders
were non-technical, or if the non-technical person were running the technical
side of the show. But nothing suggests that's true here.

~~~
contagionhealth
Exactly! We've built our company based not just on tech, but market needs.
I've seen startup friends build kick-ass stuff that goes nowhere because no
one knows about it (the marketing and biz/dev functions) 2 years after launch.
Then they're demoralized, die off, and go back to a day job and hacking nights
and weekends.

