
STFU About What Women Want - mikeleeorg
http://usersknow.blogspot.com/2011/12/stfu-about-what-women-want.html
======
9oliYQjP
There's a group in Toronto called Ladies Learning Code
<http://ladieslearningcode.com/>. The group holds events for learning how to
program and constantly sells out. Once while I was in Toronto, I walked into
the event and it was so jammed pack that you couldn't walk from one side of
the room to the other. The women were diverse and evenly distributed in age
and ethnic background.

What interested me most is that the group session was held at 8 am on a
Saturday. A couple of speculative thoughts later and it seemed to make sense
to me. A lot of traditional developer events are held on weeknights and
evenings and involve drinking at bars. If you're a woman with a family, it's
probably preferable to carve out a Saturday morning, let your partner
(hopefully, if you have one) take care of the kids and come home (not sloshed)
to your family than it is to head down to the bar after work to have a couple
of pints. It's just a lot more feasible.

~~~
angrycoder
It is incredibly ironic that the top comment on an article blasting
stereotypes is itself full of stereotypes.

~~~
TechNewb
Agreed. And would a man be welcome at such an event? Why name the
event/group/org based off of a gender? Why not name it "learning code", and
have marketing based towards women. Why exclude an entire gender, even if it
is potentially already dominating the given market.

I personally am not a believer in excluding, to argue for including. It seems
counter productive.

~~~
heatherpayne
Hi there! I'm Heather, the founder of Ladies Learning Code. Men are welcome at
our events, and we have had a few men attend each workshop. The name was
designed to be a specific invitation to women, but we don't exclude men. (That
being said, I personally support the idea of separate men's groups and women's
groups in general, so I encourage someone to start "Men Learning Code" if they
are so inclined.

~~~
makmanalp
Let's try this in reverse:

"Women are welcome at our events, and we have had a few women attend each
workshop. The name was designed to be a specific invitation to men, but we
don't exclude women. (That being said, I personally support the idea of
separate women's groups and men's groups in general, so I encourage someone to
start "Women Learning Code" if they are so inclined."

I'd just like to point out, without opinion one way or the other, that I
believe the above paragraph would cause major outrage and claims of sexism and
separatism, along with "this is why there are so few women in software".

~~~
dgabriel
Ok, now make it a nursing seminar, or an education seminar directed toward
men. No outcry of sexism. See how that works?

~~~
makmanalp
I actually hadn't thought of this. So it's okay to do this because of the idea
that most men are not interested in nursing, and most women are not interested
in programming?

~~~
pyre
I think it's more along the lines of:

It's ok to discriminate when you're trying to target/encourage a specific
minority (i.e. women in software), but it's not ok when you're targetting a
majority, because it looks like you're trying to encourage the majority while
discouraging the minority

Whether or not people say this out loud, or think it consciously is a
different question.

"Ladies Learning Code" is discriminatory towards men, but it's less of an
issue because it is in the furtherance of encouraging a minority (women) into
the field. On the other hand, "Men Learning Code" seemingly discourages women,
who are already in the minority.

~~~
ajross
This is very close to my feeling too. The "principled irate male" demographic
tends to get upset over the double standard. But it's all a big case of a bad
optimization metric.

The point to organiations like this isn't to eliminate "discrimination" in the
abstract. It's to eliminate the inequality of opportunity. There is a very
large practical and moral difference between being excluded from a single
meeting of techincal people and being excluded from (or have limited access
to) an entire career path. Spending a few "discrimination" points on the
former to reduce the cases of the latter seems like a good idea to me.

~~~
scott_s
Thank you, ajross and pyre, for clearly and reasonably explaining why this
sort of targeted marketing is not also discrimination (the bad kind).

(Yes, upvotes say this too, but now that votes are not public, I wanted there
to be a visible commendation. These sorts of things set the tone of the
thread.)

------
vacri
I always find it weird when people say "what women want". As a man, I find it
easiest to illustrate the problem to other men by simply asking them to
substitute 'man' for 'woman'.

Who can say "what men want". Sure, if you listen to comedians, all men want is
sex sex sex and maybe some cars and sports.

But even before you look at what individuals are like, if you just look at
male archetypes, there are clear and common contradictions. The 98-pound
weakling versus the musclebound beach bum. The hot stuff young programmer and
the technically clueless grayhair. The expensively dressed high finance wizard
and the smelly protesting hippy. The sex-mad pickup artist and the asexual man
who simply isn't interested. The sports-mad bloke who hates literature and the
literature-mad bloke who hates sports. The deadbeat dad versus the father who
lives solely for his children.

And these are just archetypes, not actual individuals. They all have different
wants, needs, skills, and desires. How stupid it is to say "what men want", to
lump half the race into one generalisation. If you're a man, you should feel
viscerally just how bad this kind of generalisation is; why should women feel
any different when the same is applied to them?

~~~
mbell
I don't think the archetypes correspond to 'what people want'. The 98-pound
weakling may be playing world of warcraft all day telling everyone he is a
muscle bound beach head for example. People often want what they are not, "The
grass is always greener".

There is an artificial idealization of a 'Man' and an idealization of a
'Woman' in almost all societies around the world. The closeness of the
individual to the idealization doesn't always change their want for the
idealization. This is how we get media that often portrays the 'ideals' in
various forms. People live vicariously through that which they want to be but
aren't willing to work to be.

~~~
Fliko
This might be accurate with some people, but it can't be applied to everyone.
I am working towards everything I want, and honestly I think the journey is
much more desirable then the end result. A big part of Zen is killing your
ego, and I think this is a very powerful mentality to have.

~~~
mbell
I certainly wasn't intending this post to apply to 'everyone', that is a silly
claim to make. However generalizations about a group are often valuable. In
the NH context there are articles about A:B testing a UI all the time which
gives you generalization of your target users. Just like years of show testing
has provided TV channels generalization of their audience. I probably read at
least 3-5 'interesting statistics' posts a week on HN that are all about
generalizing a group. Why? because this is in fact valuable information,
especially for the target audience of HN. Understanding what a populous
'generally' wants and does is a huge first step to providing a solution to a
problem.

------
Vivtek
Second this, on behalf of my wife, who is a theoretical physicist. Most women
also don't want to do physics, because they'd rather have babies, or so she's
always been told. And got passed over for a grant because she had a husband
and therefore didn't need the money. I'm still pissed, not least because she's
naive enough to believe it's right for her to be treated this way.

~~~
einhverfr
My grandmother was a theoretical physicist (G. R. Caughlin, co-author of the
FCZ papers on element formation in stars). She found it difficult to succeed
as a woman in physics. She also raised four kids (without child care). She
taught at Montana State University, Caltech, and others, and worked with
Willie Fowler, Fred Hoyle, and other great minds of her day.

However, having talked to women in academic sciences today, she had it easy.
No long post-doc programs, tenure was an easier process, and so forth. I hear
over and over from such women that they have to choose between having the
family life they want and a tenure track. This is an indication of an
institutional barrier to women in the field (as is your wife being passed up
for the grant).

These are the sort of things that need to be fixed. I am afraid simply asking
how we encourage interest among women will make the problem worse because it
will make the positions more competitive and hence lead to longer post-doc
programs and more family sacrifices in order to achieve tenure.

This gets back to my point. Focus on _institutional_ issues only and stop
worrying about outreach.

~~~
klipt
> choose between having the family life they want and a tenure track

This is probably true to some extent for men too. Ultimately, the only
biological difference is that men can delay family life longer with less risk
of infertility (provided they have a younger partner).

------
microarchitect
Both Klein and Trunk seem to be missing the point that just because women are
choosing do X instead of Y doesn't mean there's no sexism in the Y.

Anyway, to me the arguments here about babies and startups are eerily
reminiscent of the arguments against women becoming professors. Stuff like:
women want to have babies, how will they advise their students when they're
pregnant? They can't bring in grant money for a whole two years! Blah blah
blah. Think of our academic standards.

Fortunately that argument has been thoroughly debunked by the large number of
successful female professors who are also mothers. Frankly, I don't buy the
argument that having a pregnant co-founder hurts a startup. If women can get
tenure at a top-10 university while raising a kid, I'm pretty sure they can
also keep your startup going while raising a kid.

EDIT: Heh, I've been downvoted. Why am I not surprised?

~~~
natrius
_"Fortunately that argument has been thoroughly debunked by the large number
of successful female professors who are also mothers."_

The argument hasn't been debunked. I don't have the facts to back this up, but
I'd guess that on average, men work more hours per year than women with the
same jobs, because women tend to give birth and take care of children more
than men. The reason there are so many successful female professors is because
we've decided as a society that optimizing for hours worked per year is a bad
idea with detrimental effects on our lives.

If someone were choosing between a man and a woman of equal skill to work at a
startup, wanted to maximize hours worked per year, and didn't care about the
law or the effects of their decision on society, they'd pick the man.
Fortunately, there are far better indicators than gender of how prone an
individual is to take extended leave.

~~~
briancooley
_I'd guess that on average, men work more hours per year than women with the
same jobs, because women tend to give birth and take care of children more
than men._

I can't help but wonder if this is significantly influenced by an imbalance in
compensation.

When my daughter was born, my wife and I decided that one of us would stay
home, and income was certainly a large factor in determining that she would be
the one to stay home. If our incomes had been reversed, then I would have
become a stay-at-home dad.

~~~
da_dude4242
The way you frame it is a catch-22 but data shows that when matched for age,
marital status, and children single women with no children make more money
than their male counterpart.

As soon as a man becomes married this switches. A man is more likely to take
on extra hours/responsibilities and a woman is more likely to work part-time
at this point. It's the over-time and hazard pay that is associated with the
wage gap. A person working 80 hours per week should not have the same hourly-
wage as someone working 30 hours per week regardless of gender.

------
sgentle
What you think women want is clearly not what women want, because you're only
one woman, and women are complex and varied, and want different things.

Also, I want a different thing to what you want, and lots of women want what I
want. So you are twice as wrong! Not only for assuming other women want what
you want, but also that you want what other women want!

Ahem. Now that "want" and "women" have started sounding less like words and
more like an arbitrary sequence of sounds, is anyone willing to contribute
actual science to the discussion? People yelling at each other "women are like
me!" "no, women are like me!" has, I fear, outlived its usefulness.

Are there any studies covering, say, startup success by founder gender? Any
documentation on attrition rates from school -> university -> startup? Has
anyone even been bothered to go out and survey the attitudes of women towards
startups rather than just projecting out their own?

Rather than shutting up about what women want, I think a better idea would be
to actually find out what women want. Gender balance is clearly an issue in
the startup community, and not talking about it isn't likely to help. Are
there few women because women don't want startups, or because startups don't
want women?

I don't know, but there comes a point where more opinions are not useful.

~~~
lauraglu
Women do have startups - they have run businesses for generations.

Women _leave_ technology because of overt and subtle sexism and harassment;
[http://rachelappel.com/stats-data-and-answers-as-to-why-
ther...](http://rachelappel.com/stats-data-and-answers-as-to-why-there-are-so-
few-women-in-technology-fields)

And there are plenty that get cut off in the "university" step of your funnel
because they aren't equal there either:
[http://web.mit.edu/fnl/women/women.html#What%20the%20Committ...](http://web.mit.edu/fnl/women/women.html#What%20the%20Committee%20Learned)

That being said, the trend is moving towards women running both the business
and the home, solo if need be:
[http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/print/2010/07/the-end-
of...](http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/print/2010/07/the-end-of-men/8135/)

Do those help?

~~~
sgentle
Yes!

Wow, that's fantastic. Did you see the numbers change in the 2011 MIT
report[1]? And that LPFI report[2] is just mindblowing.

"The vast majority of men in startups believed their companies spent an
adequate amount of time addressing diversity (82%). Almost 40% of women,
however, believed not enough time was devoted to addressing company diversity.
Additionally, women in startups were much more likely to endorse companywide
practices to increase diversity than their male counterparts in startups (65%
versus 41%)."

"Female status and underrepresented racial/ethnic status were both significant
predictors of negative workplace experiences suggesting that negative
workplace experiences increase with membership in both demographic groups
(F(1,555)=15.4, p<.00, and F(1,555)=7.47, p<.01; B=.68, SE=.18, p<.01 and
B=.73, SE=.29, p<.05; Appendix 2)"

Now that's the way to shoot down a "there's no problem here it's just that
women don't want to do startups" argument.

Thanks, I had no idea the numbers were so compelling. I wish there was more of
what you're posting on the front page.

\--

[1] <http://web.mit.edu/faculty/reports/pdf/women_faculty.pdf>

[2]
[http://www.lpfi.org/sites/default/files/tilted_playing_field...](http://www.lpfi.org/sites/default/files/tilted_playing_field_lpfi_9_29_11.pdf)

~~~
lauraglu
Here's one more to add to the mix: [http://io9.com/5867401/there-really-is-no-
difference-between...](http://io9.com/5867401/there-really-is-no-difference-
between-men-and-womens-math-abilities)

------
jyrkesh
> So, when a publication like TechCrunch spews some nonsense about what women
> want, it means that the next time I go into an interview with a male founder
> (and they are overwhelmingly male for some reason that I’m not going to
> address here, but that Penelope assures us has nothing to do with bias) who
> has read that nonsense, he may be thinking, consciously or subconsciously,
> “she doesn’t really want to work at this startup because she wants to have a
> baby.”

I don't think this is true at all. As the original TC article pointed out, the
VC community bends over backwards to get as many women as they can working for
and speaking about startups. And frankly, regardless of whether someone has
told me or whether I believe that "most women want to have babies", when a
woman walks into an interview for a startup position, I'm going to assume that
she wants that position and probably doesn't want babies. That makes sense
since she probably wouldn't be there otherwise.

------
einhverfr
I agree. It seems a reinforcement rather than a critique of the TechCrunch
piece though.

The point abut the Tech Crunch piece was exactly this. Stop saying "we want
women to..." and simply stand back and let women do what they want.

~~~
lauraklein
I hope that wasn't the point I was making. The point I was trying to make was
that telling people that, "most women want x" isn't helpful, regardless of
whether it's true right at this moment in history. More to the point, it makes
life harder for women who DO want to work at startups (whether or not they
want to have babies), because it reinforces the stereotype that we don't want
to work full time.

I don't want an investor thinking that's true when I walk into a meeting to
ask for money. I don't want a CEO thinking that's true when I'm looking for a
job. I don't want them thinking it's true about all women, because it's not
true about the woman who matters most to me - ME.

It's about more than letting women do what they want. It's about believing
women can do the things they want to do - in this case work at startups. It's
about believing that many women do, in fact, want to work at startups and that
more will want to work at startups if we talk about how awesome it is. It's
about the fact that what we do want changes based on a lot of things that have
nothing to do with biology or nature, and that sometimes changing what we want
is a really good thing for everybody.

Thanks for reading and commenting. I appreciate the feedback.

~~~
einhverfr
I do work in an area where women are extremely underrepresented--- open source
software development. By some estimates, 1.5% of open source software
developers are women (in contrast nearly 1/3rd of software developers with
jobs are women).

I have noticed a few things. The first is that women tend to report being hit
on fairly frequently just because the gender ratios are skewed. This isn't the
end of the world and workplace/professional society romances and sexual
encounters are are not that uncommon so it's going to happen unless we decide
sex isn't part of the human condition (which isn't going to work).

The second is that the single most consistent annoyance mentioned to me is
everyone asking "how do we get more women involved in open source?" This
drives women _away._

The third is hard to quantify but my sense is that of the women who come to
open source, the vast majority come to it through employment. They have a job,
and this is a means to get that job done. You see a lot more men who are
independent consultants and hobbyists, and these make up the bulk of most
projects. I would say the ratio of hobbyists/consultants of men to women in
open source is probably 100:1.

If men get a job in open source it is more often through open source work, in
other words participation is usually a career investment while for women it is
more often something to do for a job.

There are exceptions of course. And one shouldn't underestimate their
importance--- my grandmother was programming computers in Fortran, as she was
an astrophysics professor. However at some point I think it is important to
realize that asking the question, "how do we get more women involved" misses
the point, and in fact drives women away. It's a counterproductive strategy.
Simply saying "you are welcome at the table" is IMO a far more helpful way to
proceed.

~~~
hendrix
This. "How do we get more women in OSS?" is the same as saying "How do we get
more male nurses"? If men want to become nurses, then they will become nurses,
if women want to become open source software developers they will become OSS
developers.

~~~
einhverfr
I'd agree with this.

The only exception really is to look at institutional (not cultural) barriers
IMO. "Are we doing something that keeps people from being willing to have a
seat at the table?"

Cultural barriers are beyond our immediate control where they extend beyond an
immediate institution. If nursing is seen as unmanly, then there's not a lot
one can do about that. And very often well-meaning attempts to "fix" cultural
problems ends up re-inforcing them. Culture is a very resilient, homeostatic
thing, and indeed, the idea that "we know what's better for women than they
do" is pretty obviously sexist, but it is the same thing that comes up when
saying "how do we get more women involved in X."

In general the only culture you can change is that of your own institutions,
including your business and your family. That's it.

Edit: Downvotes are a bit amusing. Guess someone finds the idea challenging?

~~~
davedx
Because you're talking rubbish.

Are you an anthropologist, to be able to say how resilient culture is to
change? Can you produce some studies to back up this claim?

How do you explain the anti-slaving and civil rights movements? They didn't
take 1000's of years, yet the idea black people were inferior was pretty
deeply ingrained in the white culture's psyche.

Saying "we can't change the bad things in our culture" is self-defeating and
destructive.

------
peterwwillis
The problem with this article is that you're basically telling a stupid person
to stop saying stupid things because other stupid people will listen to it.
Also the post could be shortened to: "please don't make sweeping
generalizations because the assumptions they create breeds stereotypes and
hurts others' credibility."

~~~
wpietri
I'm not seeing a problem there. TechCrunch is still somehow widely read.
Pointing out stupidity there is a public service.

~~~
DanBC
The only problem is that stupid people don't stop being stupid just because
you ask them.

I agree with you that it's still important to point out that they're being
stupid - if nothing else it lets isolated people know that there are people
who don't agree with the stupid ones.

~~~
wpietri
Hmmm... I don't know about that. I've definitely stopped being stupid about
some things because people have pointed out my idiocy to me. And I've
certainly seen stupid people stop being quite so loudly stupid after feedback.
Perhaps even Techcrunch can learn.

~~~
peterwwillis
We all sometimes say and do stupid things, sometimes without knowing it. We're
flawed creatures and that's fine. But there's a point where some people just
can't be helped. If a single editorial article in a tech blog will change how
an individual thinks towards an entire gender, that person is so stupid that
they will probably believe anything (or at least anything that confirms their
already existing personal beliefs) and a response like the OP's will do little
to help this person become less stupid. But that's just my stupid opinion.

------
davros
There seems to be an assumption that people (specifically women but same logic
applies to men) can either be entrepreneurs or take care of young children,
but not both.

I believe that startups can provide the flexible environment that bigger
corporations really struggle with. Focus on results not attendence,
telecommuting, flexible hours, etc. Maybe some VCs would struggle with the
concept, but I know it can work because I've seen it done.

~~~
Mz
Would you know of resources that help share practical information on _how_ to
make that work? Often, simply don't know how and making some sweeping
statement that "it can be done" is typically insufficient to help spread the
practice.

(I know from first-hand experience as my attempts to tell people "X can be
done" often fail to fill them in adequately on the how and this gets me lots
of ire. I struggle with that. I am often shocked at what other people do not
know that I take for granted they "should" know. I continue to try to work on
that.)

Thanks.

~~~
davros
There is tons of HR documents that I researched, but in the end I found that
the most important way to be genuinely flexible and family-friendly is to
listen to your team and then think creatively about finding ways to fit with
their needs but also of course be part of a dynamic business. I think its more
about attitude and approach than the specific way you do things.

Our business won two awards for our flexible practices and I believe that the
reason we were ahead of the competition was that when the judges visited I was
able to point to real results not just reams of HR policies and documents.

Founders and early staff really understand that they need to get a lot done
and they should also be highly motivated to contribute to the business
success. If the business takes the view that it can give people some
flexibility in return then this can work out really well.

Some of the people who 'need' the flexibility should be founders or part of
the key management team. In a startup you have tremendous control over the way
your systems and business practices are set up - think about your family needs
when doing this. Allow people to find what works for them. One of my
cofounders found that she worked best after your children went to sleep and so
we got a huge amount done between 9pm and midnight. We built all our systems
so people could work from home and told our team that if their kids were sick
they could work from home to look after them. That safety net makes a big
difference.

------
skrebbel
(offtopic) Genuinely wondering: I once said "fuck" in an HN comments and got
10 downvotes. Used some other form of very slight rudeness (often considered
humour where I'm from), downvotes again. Assumed it was an American thing,
tried to adapt.

Now here's an article full of profanity, and an _excellent_ read also because
of that, and nobody complains. Don't get me wrong: I love it. I wish everyone
on the internet would get their heart out so well. I'm just surprised HN digs
it so much. Anything cultural I'm missing?

~~~
peterwwillis
Though using curses or any kind of emotional outburst is generally frowned
upon intellectually, this is ignored if the person doing the outburst is seen
to be fighting bigotry. 'Fuck Node.js' is not an acceptable use of cursing,
but 'Fuck Sexism' is.

------
gldalmaso
I strongly agree to the issue at hand where we our patriarchal culture tends
to drive women into choosing between career and babies.

I also abhore the fact that our patriarchal culture makes it very very easy
for men to have very little participation in taking care of our own children,
therefore agravating the issue.

I would suggest that 'maternity-leave' be exchanged for 'family-leave'. Why
don't we allow fathers to participate in the care of a newborn baby, or
rather, why don't we _enforce_ it.

Not only the care of the child is made a burden on women only, also they have
to shoulder the career burden as well.

Maybe then the whole thing would be less of a career problem and turn into a
career fact, where it'd just acceptable that anyone employee might at sometime
in the future need a leave to care for their respective babies and it would be
just normal to do so.

~~~
lemming
_I would suggest that 'maternity-leave' be exchanged for 'family-leave'. Why
don't we allow fathers to participate in the care of a newborn baby, or
rather, why don't we enforce it._

I believe that this is the case in many places in Northern Europe. From
memory, in Sweden parental leave is 6 months and can be divided between the
parents as desired. I believe there may also be a minimum for each of them.

Edit: Wikipedia says it's actually 16 months, with 2 months minimum for the
"minority" parent, usually the father.

------
rythie
"Twenty percent of women in their 40s do not have children" -
<http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/13/us/13generations.html?_r=1>

------
Tichy
I might be old fashioned, but I prefer science and statistics over anecdotes
and political correctness.

I don't have the numbers, but I think women wanting to have children is still
a pretty likely thing.

More women studying law could also happen for any number of reasons.

------
nevinera
This is an appropriate argument basically _any_ time somebody claims that
[insert group here] [insert behavior of an individual here]. Groups of people
do not behave uniformly; when they behave in statistically significant ways,
it is not for uniform reasons.

It's difficult to reason abstractly about groups as they actually are, so we
abstract that group into a uniform body - that way we can make abstract claims
about their behavior _without_ the benefit of an education in applied
statistics and research methodology. It's a useful tool for intuiting
behavior, but try to avoid making non-statistical claims about the members of
a group of people; you will almost never be correct.

~~~
da_dude4242
I agree with you but in how many other cases are stats so clear? It's not like
we're talking about slight margins of significants. ~80% of women have
children and most of them do in what would peak years of career development.

It doesn't explain why the female involvement for CS is so pathetically low
compared to other traditionally male careers but I think it explains the
values with which many woman are making lifestyle decisions.

------
thewisedude
<Quote>...who has read that nonsense, he may be thinking, consciously or
subconsciously, “she doesn’t really want to work at this startup because she
wants to have a baby.” </Quote>

Based on the above quote, looks like the author is more concerned about her
interviewers being prejudiced against her(since she is a woman) rather than
actually delving into the veracity of Tech Cruch's article!

Stereotypes exist. Women like this. Men like that. Men are more good at that,
Women are better at something else etc. As an interviewer if he is prejudiced,
its not your fault. I would not think that it is right to control his
prejudices by censorship of inconvenient truths!

~~~
Anechoic
> _Stereotypes exist. Women like this._

The specific problem she is addressing is that when a _woman_ promulgates a
stereotype about women, that makes it more believable (and acceptable) to men
and, therefore, makes her life worse.

~~~
thewisedude
True... are we not taught to NOT judge based on prejudices? There are so many
stereotypes not just about women and men that is. There are also stereotypes
about Black, Latino, Asian communities etc. Sometimes they are spread by the
people of these communities itself. However, its unprofessional or wrong(? for
the lack of a better word) on anybody to judge them based on these stereotypes
however tempting it might be, and that is what I think our education should
teach us? I must admit they do make good late night comedies and hopefully
nothing more!

~~~
einhverfr
The thing is, though, we think in patterns. Patterns mean prejudices. I.e.
This person like this treated me like that. This other person is also like
this so he will probably treat me similarly. When you look at how people in
oral cultures think (see "Orality and Literacy" by Walter Ong and "Myth and
Reality" by Mircea Eliade), it is entirely in this pattern-centric approach.
This means I meet you and I assess you based on how you conform to everyone
else I have ever met. Maybe that's not the same as judging you, but if it
isn't the difference is quite narrow.

I don't think there is an easy way out of this, nor do I think that would be
productive. Instead I think the correct approach is to be aware of limitations
and simply allow people room to break out of one's pre-conceived assessments
(prejudices).

I don't think you can wave away hundreds of thousands of years of human
development just because for a few centuries here and there we've had
widespread literacy with a largely phonetic writing system (note that excludes
Arabic and Hebrew from consideration because of a lack of vowels in how the
languages are usually written).

------
desushil
Well, I agree to how you pointed things out but look closer to the article in
TC, she says: "People are pretty good at making choices for themselves. Men
can stay home. Women can do startups. The thing is, most don’t want to. And
that’s okay." And there is the word 'most' in her phrase.

She's expressed her opinion pretty clearly. And believe me, most of the time
you, me and all of us runs on generalization. So this is no exception, except
you just freaked out because you just didn't fit in this generalization. And
frankly, you are just as an exception to that.

Now really, tell me how many of womens really think as you do?

------
yason
The whole question seems to come from the fact that once there were a number
of things women _weren't allowed_ to do and it was deemed a good thing to work
on making the playfield equal for both sexes. Turns out, when the gates were
opened for one particular activity, many women did indeed want to engage in it
and over the decades the gender distribution converged towards 50-50.

However, from that, some people extrapolate that if the gender distribution in
some field is too far from 50-50, then there must be something in place that
is horrible and sexist and blocking women from that field. Even if technically
women can apply and graduate, they conclude that the field still has some
implied male chauvinist bias against women. Whenever it gets to that level,
it's simply not an option that _women might not want it_ that much.

Other professions took maybe decades before women started to want them, even
if they were already allowed to work as such. We can conclude that women today
don't want programming badly enough. Those who do are already enrolled or
working in the field. They are few in number but merely because they all had
no alternative they could themselves live with.

The situation today is that it's not mainstream for women to want to be
programmers. _It's not wrong, people just aren't sure yet._

This is a very different statement that women aren't explicitly or implicitly
allowed to become programmers in the contemporary society. Barring a few
ploughers, people often don't know what they can want unless they see a
supporting example many enough times. If you're a young woman and you don't
know what you want to do, you could become a nurse. Many nurses started like
that, regardless of whether they actually like their job or not.

It might be a few decades forward when enough women get into programming, that
the field also begins to appeal to women. It may also never happen, or it
might happen to an extent. Maybe roughly 1% of women would like to do
programming where as roughly 2% of men want to do it. If so, then eventually
roughly one programmer out of three will be women some day, in the average.

Thanks for the article writer to voice a loud counterexample that hopefully
reset people into confusion about the true state of matters.

~~~
Jem
It's thinking like yours that makes it harder to get into fields where women
are "under" represented.

I battled sexual harassment and derogatory comments about my ability to work
in tech (specifically about being female) to stay in the industry.

If I'd have bowed out years ago, it wouldn't have been because I "don't want
programming badly enough" - it was because I had better things to do than
prove my vagina makes absolutely no difference to my ability to code.

------
level09
Just because the writer or a few women decided to do a startup or decided not
to have children doesn't mean that most women are doing the same thing.

I'm not a fan of tech crunch but their article was more of a general fact
based on statistics and biology/nature, it should not be taken as an insult,
starting a blog post with STFU won't make your point any more valid.

------
captainaj
I heard people telling women to have babies and quit learning (let alone
starting their own companies) more than what Penelope has portrayed. Matter of
fact, NO ONE has ever told me to join a startup or start one. This is not a
first time Ms. Trunk has lectured us about what women think and want. Please,
you don't present every female and all this talk should stop. Just do your job
or whatever you want.

------
seejay
If everyone STFU about what others want or don't want and just focus more on
they want out of their lives, world would be a far better place.

~~~
davedx
Would the world have been a better place if the civil rights movement didn't
have support from non-blacks?

Positive change requires social awareness and participation in that change,
not just from the disenfranchised.

------
seanp2k2
Good read that pretty much matches my thoughts on this issue. Thanks.

------
zeeed
maybe it's just me but I can't see how either the original article nor the
response is in any way significant. If I want to work in a startup wearing
heels, then I'll do that. I don't need TC's permission for that. And, being in
a startup, neither will I have the time to get upset about someone's opinion.

~~~
refurb
I think the same way. If I want to do X and someone says "You shouldn't do
that" or "that's weird" or "you don't have the skills" or whatever, I usually
reply with a "OK", then go and do what I want to do.

I certainly don't waste my energy trying to make sure that everyone else
agrees with my choices in life.

------
deepkut
Favorite Line: "I want to wear heals, and write jQuery, sometimes at the same
time."

------
leeoniya
no one says ALL women. but MOST women DO want to dedicate time to families.
just like many good drivers suffer high insurance premiums because of
statistical truths about gender, age, car color, # of doors, etc. how about
custody of children during divorce? there are many biases that also favor
women because of statistics.

we all have to deal with unfairness every day because we don't fit some
stereotype. that's life, it's not fair.

------
cafard
What if I never Opened TFU?

------
mkramlich
Almost all discussions involving women with respect to stereotypes or gender
oppression will devolve into the same pedantic, non-productive patterns of
fuzzy thinking and inability to discern causation from correlation. It's a
topic where cherry-picked beliefs are so strong (on multiple sides) that it
pulls you in like a black hole, and nothing truly useful, not even light, can
escape. Just noise. I've learned to try to ignore it when I can. Especially
here on HN, where the "college" demographic is particularly strong, and
particularly susceptible to it.

The takeaway I wish everyone would have, instead, would be something like, in
short: _that women and men are actually different. Get over it. Individuals
vary. No shit! Unfair things happen. Get over it. Men get shit too. Not all
things you don't like are because of your gender. Get over it. And there are
plenty worse things, by orders of magnitude. Get over it._

~~~
5hoom
People (still) want to discuss complex issues that effect their career and
everyday life. Get over it.

------
skeptical
I'm getting a bit tired of this fake modern-thinking. I don't think anyone is
disregarding women right to self determination by making an observation that
is obvious.

There are jobs and social roles that are clearly perused mostly by men and
some mostly by women. That's because man and women are different. There's
nothing wrong with that, do we need to pretend that men and women are equal to
grant equal rights to both?

So this woman is an exception, minority if you prefer, but so what? I feel
that is rather frustrating that people doesn't accept simple facts because
they are not fashionable in today's ethics or are not politically correct.

Everytime someone touches a sensitive subject concerning a group, there comes
the sh*tstorm "you're stupid, I am the proof of the contrary". This is
particularly sad among circles were one would expect to hear opinions of wise
people. I guess even wise people have a hard time getting rid of taboos.

~~~
wpietri
Making an observation isn't in itself problematic. It's all the bullshit that
people tack on after that. To wit:

 _There are jobs and social roles that are clearly perused mostly by men and
some mostly by women. That's because man and women are different._

This is either tautological or fatuous. You've gone from a simple observation
(in 2011, some jobs are held at different rates by men and women) and
suggested that it's somehow a natural feature of the universe, like the
gravitational constant. There are a lot of possible explanations for the
different occupational frequencies, and you seized on one of them with no
proof and no apparent thought about alternatives.

200 years ago, women (and, say, black people) weren't doctors. People argued
then, as you do now, that the current situation was just the outcome of
natural differences. They said that not because it was true (it wasn't) or
because they had any real evidence (they didn't). They said it because it was
convenient for them to believe that.

~~~
bermanoid
_200 years ago, women (and, say, black people) weren't doctors. People argued
then, as you do now, that the current situation was just the outcome of
natural differences. They said that not because it was true (it wasn't) or
because they had any real evidence (they didn't). They said it because it was
convenient for them to believe that._

That people in the past argued that something was due to natural differences
doesn't necessarily mean that natural differences don't exist, and that they
had no evidence then doesn't mean that we have none now. Men and women differ
genetically by about the same amount that humans and chimpanzees do, so to
discount the possibility that there just might be some real differences in the
way we are prone to behave is just as ridiculous as to suggest that those
genes account for the entire difference.

There are very solid biological reasons to believe that men should always be
more genetically inclined to seek out reproductive risk than women (male
reproductive success is more variable than female success by a good margin).
It's not a very big stretch from there to conjecture that perhaps nature
achieved that by cranking up the overall risk tolerance knob in men, since
that would probably require fewer bit-flips than hard coding a condition for
reproductive risk - in fact, to a large extent, we know that testosterone does
exactly what this would require. That would explain a lot about why men are
more likely than women to go in for high-risk high-reward ventures like
startups...

I'm not saying that social factors are not in play, too, but quite frankly,
these social factors are far less oppressive than they were 50 years ago, yet
we've seen relatively little progress in terms of gender ratios. This makes me
suspect that there are probably some other causes in effect, and the genetic
one is an obvious suspect that I don't think has been properly debunked,
excepting attempts to do so by overreaching appeals to equality that are, IMO,
not justified by the relevant biology.

~~~
wpietri
I have never suggested natural differences don't exist.

I'm suggesting that a) using the idea of them without evidence to justify
apparently unfair outcomes is bullshit, b) historically people making those
arguments have often been spectacularly wrong, and c) people who make that
argument when it's personally convenient are perhaps fooling themselves.

You're also rampantly committing the naturalistic fallacy. What's natural
tells us nothing about what's right. Even if we have made a perfectly fair
society (which we certainly haven't) and discover that there is some
difference in outcomes that is explainable by genetic differences, that
doesn't mean we should accept the result.

If some people are genetically likely to be less good at math, should we
cancel their math classes? Or should we give them better ones? I say the
latter: as a society we want people to understand and appreciate math.

If some group of people is more prone to a disease, do we go with what's
natural? Or do we work against it? Consider heart disease for African
Americans, or skin cancer for white people. As one of the naturally pale, I
appreciate having sunblock available, and cultural reminders to put it on or
cover up. And if I do get skin cancer, I'd rather be treated instead of being
told it's "natural" for me to die of it.

I've also heard it argued that psychopaths make "natural" CEOs, and that we
should therefore accept their various depredations. That ignores that CEO
isn't some sort of ecological niche; it's an artificial, societally-
constructed position. We may have reason to want CEOs to be more responsible
than average rather than less, no matter what's "natural" in this context. And
we may have reason to want startups being created by a broader collection of
people than those who might "naturally" most incline (after a lifetime of
unnatural conditioning) to play the entirely artificial game we've set up for
them.

~~~
bermanoid
_You're also rampantly committing the naturalistic fallacy. What's natural
tells us nothing about what's right. Even if we have made a perfectly fair
society (which we certainly haven't) and discover that there is some
difference in outcomes that is explainable by genetic differences, that
doesn't mean we should accept the result._

This is what's frustrating about these conversations, the worst is always
assumed. Given that I absolutely do not believe that "natural" implies
"right", I'm annoyed at the accusation, which comes up with some regularity
even though I (like most others in the "not-only-nurture" camp) specifically
disclaim such a view and never said a single thing about what is right or not.

 _If some people are genetically likely to be less good at math, should we
cancel their math classes? Or should we give them better ones? I say the
latter: as a society we want people to understand and appreciate math._

First, let me be clear: I think that the evidence that women are genetically
worse at math is shoddy, at best. I think the evidence that their performance
is less variable is very robust, but that's a very different claim.

Second, if either one is provably the case, then no, I very strongly don't
think we should just throw our hands up. I think we should try to look at what
causes the difference in statistical distribution of talent and figure out how
to exploit/correct it - it's evolutionarily inconceivable that math talent is
directly hard-coded genetically, so it's got to be emerging as a second or
third order effect of genes, perhaps related to stress response (learning math
is a process of experiencing micro-stresses over and over, and dealing with
them in a way that makes you learn rather than get frustrated or angry - the
"mathy" emotional state is a very delicate balance, even in people that are
good at math). This is true even if the male/female gap is not genetic, since
it's pretty clear that there is some sort of heritable component to math
ability. Figuring out how this sort of thing affects performance could be very
helpful, because even though it's partially innate (and somewhat based on
brain chemistry), it can often be directly trained.

But if we declare by fiat that performance in math is primarily guided by
factors outside the student's head (which is implicit in the "sexism keeps
girls out of field X" argument), then we'll never figure out what's really
going on, and we'll never discover how to help people that aren't predisposed
to be good at math get better.

------
billpatrianakos
I thought the point of the original TC article was that we should stop
pandering to women and it's jus a fact of life that a majority don't want to
do startups. That's fine and it's not knocking women. I can see how the thing
about babies could have confused people into missing that point though.

I really think you don't see many women doing it because there aren't a whole
lot trying to. When you've got an applicant pool that's already a minority and
you know that a good portion of any applicant pool won't get a particular job
then it's not at all surprising to see that not many women get into startups.
If there aren't many trying to start and a good portion won't make it to the
finish line then this isn't surprising. I think it's more wrong to try to find
minority candidates for the sake of finding minority candidates. Let the cream
rise and if it doesn't consist of minorities then it's not our fault.

------
shpoonj
Umad? Stop whining and go make something.

------
gcb
The writer of this article haven't read, or understood, the article it's
arguing against...

------
ygmelnikova
"I'll be a wife and mother first, then First Lady". Jackie Kennedy

Class, pure class.

~~~
einhverfr
_Class, pure class._

And increasingly, limited to the _upper class._

------
hendrix
It does not matter what women want if the government is going to helpfully
step in and make it impossible to function. Consider the federal law in
regards to descrimination of women:

[i]Sex Discrimination

Title VII's broad prohibitions against sex discrimination specifically cover:

    
    
        Sexual Harassment - This includes practices ranging from direct requests for sexual favors to workplace conditions that create a hostile environment for persons of either gender, including same sex harassment. (The "hostile environment" standard also applies to harassment on the bases of race, color, national origin, religion, age, and disability.)
        Pregnancy Based Discrimination - Pregnancy, childbirth, and related medical conditions must be treated in the same way as other temporary illnesses or conditions.[/i]
    

Ok so you can't as an employer treat your [women] employees having babies as a
life-changing [and work-productivity reducing] event? WTF that might work at
wal-mart or a retail-bank or even possibly a law firm, but that will not work
at a startup where you have to give it 100% for >8hrs/day. What will actually
happen is that the woman will be passed over for a man who has none of the
associated liabilities. Then the VCs and unhappy bloggers will be scratching
their heads as to why there are so few women in startups. Some of those VCs
will also seek out women founders in some sort of PC guilt trip.
<http://www.eeoc.gov/facts/qanda.html>

What needs to happen to fix this and ensure equality for women who do not want
children is to get rid of the workplace discrimination laws regarding women.
Then you can have a woman sign a contract that she will not have babies for x
amount of time. Otherwise we will just have the current under-the-radar
discrimination.

~~~
rat87
Or you could sue the startups? Also have maternity leave for mothers and
fathers like in other countries?

~~~
mbell
While I'd love to look at the world with rosy colored glasses I think this is
simply unrealistic. While the parent post wasn't worded all that well (sorry).
Its just a fact that it isn't realistic to expect a startup or even an early
stage company to go without a critical member for several months, regardless
of the cause of the absence. Male, Female, Trans-gender, pregnancy, bar fight,
rehab, base jumping, whatever. The cause doesn't really matter, the effect is
extremely destructive to the company and I feel it's reasonable to expect
those in critical positions to protect themselves against such absences. Just
to be clear, not singling out women here, there are many things everyone can
do to avoid issues that could result in such an absence.

~~~
Fliko
I find it ironic that you would say this about a type of business that is
usually praised for it's ability to be flexible with work hours, granted that
the employees finish what they are expected to finish.

This obviously varies with position to position, but flexibility shouldn't be
thrown out of a window because it might be an inconvenience. It's important to
treat your employees well!

~~~
mbell
There is a large difference between flexible work and under going a life
changing event during the development of the business.

Given a situation where you were picking between two individuals for a co-
founder or other critical role, equally qualified, one telling you they are
free and clear, no outstanding obligations for the foreseeable future and the
other saying "well, there is a good chance I'll be heavily engaged in an
outside issue for a couple months next summer", which would you choose?
Disregard all gender / cause for the issue.

~~~
Fliko
I totally agree, picking someone as a cofounder that will be taking leave for
their newborn baby is insane, but I had 'lower' positions in mind when I was
talking about flexibility.

------
Caligula
Sigh. Another useless fucking article is #1 after 1 hour. It is the same tired
discussion repeated ad nausea.

~~~
captainaj
This is actually necessary because of the first nauseating article. If you
correctly remember, another Techcrunch post also made the round before jwz set
the record straight.

------
sktrdie
Okay, now all we need is a "STFU women" post and we'll be back to regular HN
interesting stuff :D

~~~
coridactyl
Durr hurr yeah cuz women complain all the time about stupid shit amirite
fellas?

You are the problem.

------
maz123
Conjecture is common and there’s an irrefutable buzz in the air: Big Brother
Bingo is about to drop anchor! Bingo pundits come in all shapes and sizes.
We’ve got the small old ladies, the hip, hop and happening trendsetters, the
carefree youth and even the up-and-coming professionals all turning to bingo.
Is there something these folks know to the rest of us don’t? Learn more please
go to-<http://www.bigbrother-bingo.com>

