
Not enough women are arrogant self-aggrandizing jerks - AndrewDucker
http://www.shirky.com/weblog/2010/01/a-rant-about-women/
======
billswift
_Some of the reason these strategies succeed is because we live in a world
where women are discriminated against._

Liberal garbage. There are a few, mostly men on top. Then most women. With
most men on the _bottom_ of the pile. I'm getting tired of feminist whiners
deciding that since most of the people on top are men, therefore all men are
on top.

~~~
intellectronica
No feminist would have ever written an article like this. It is strongly
biased and doesn't support women's struggle to reach the same status men have
in any serious way.

The problem (according to feminist doctrine, not sure I subscribe to it
myself) is exactly that most of the people on top are men. Since the
population is split 50-50% between men and women you should expect the same
balance to exist at the top. In some very modern societies (Sweden, for
example) this is, in fact, the case.

I'm not sure what it is you're tired of, exactly. Except for those few cases
where the rights of men are compromised in the name of feminism, how could you
sensibly object to a school of though that wants to gain equality for women?

~~~
telemachos
One slight (odd) detail: the human population _isn't_ split 50-50. Normally, I
believe that male births slightly outnumber female births (105 or 106 males
for every 100 females according to a source I'll cite in a minute.)

However, there are complications. First, for a long time, the actual number of
females in the world doesn't match the 105/6 to 100 number above. This has
been described by Amartya Sen as the "missing women" problem. (That is, quite
a lot more women should be on the planet than are.) Second, I've seen some
more recent articles suggesting that the larger number of male births is
shrinking. I don't know enough to say much about that.

I'm very much in agreement with your overall sentiment and arguments though.
(There should be more women in positions of power. Who could argue with
equality and why would they do so?)

Here's a link to a Sen article about missing women:
<http://ucatlas.ucsc.edu/gender/Sen100M.html>

~~~
jodrellblank
"""(There should be more women in positions of power. Who could argue with
equality and why would they do so?)"""

Saying there ought to be more women in positions of power isn't equalitarian,
it's sexist against men. There ought to be an equal way for anyone to get to
said positions of power, but not to force the answer to come out any
particular way all the time.

Who would argue against equality? Someone who doesn't think men and women are
the same ( but without one being better or worse ) - see the below link for a
discussion about how and why men and women are different - if men are better
at wide and shallow relationships and business thrives on wide and shallow
relationships then it's less surprising if men and business go together, and
it's not a conspiracy by men against women necessarily. Equal pay for equal
work? Yes. Equal chance to apply for jobs and the best fit gets it without
gender prejudice? Yes. Forcing a 50:50 split to give a public image of
equality? Maybe not.

[http://tierneylab.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/08/20/is-there-
anyt...](http://tierneylab.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/08/20/is-there-anything-
good-about-men-and-other-tricky-questions/)

~~~
telemachos
I did not mean equality of outcomes should somehow be regulated. I didn't say
nearly enough to clarify my position, so that's my fault. However, nothing I
did say suggested or implied any kind of quota or regulation. That is your
assumption - perhaps reasonably based on past experience.

When I say "There should be more women in positions of power," I mean that
even if we assume a great deal of biological, inescapable, gender-based
differences in psychology and physiology, the number of women in positions of
power seems staggeringly low (and staggeringly low across time and space).
Given that, and given what I know about history, I believe that another factor
is at work here: sexism.

I also seem to be in the minority here insofar as I find most evolutionary
arguments that attempt to explain modern-day human psychology to be entirely
wrong-headed. I wont try to have that debate here, but for an idea of _why_ I
believe this, see this article by Jerry Fodor (nb: the link is to a pdf):
[http://ruccs.rutgers.edu/faculty/Fodor/Fodor_Against_Darwini...](http://ruccs.rutgers.edu/faculty/Fodor/Fodor_Against_Darwinism.pdf)

Another link with specific reference to something by Tierney:
<http://slate.msn.com/id/2124503/>

------
tfh
Men need to be arrogant self-aggrandizing jerks to get women's attention.
Women don't need that to get men's attention.

~~~
JoachimSchipper
Why? This seems to be a common sentiment, but it's definitely possible to find
a mate without crossing the line from "taking some initiative and dressing
nicely" to "self-aggrandizing jerk". I and many of my male friends do have
girlfriends; many of my female friends have boyfriends. To the best of my
knowledge, no-one behaved like a jerk.

Which doesn't even imply "your" strategy isn't more succesful, however you
want to define that, but it's definitely not the only way.

~~~
araneae
Obviously women want men that are good to them. But they also want high
quality mates (which tend to be jerks, because they can afford to be, the same
way they prettiest women tend to be bitches, because they can afford to be).
They're also more likely to dump a guy that's way too nice because he seems
desperate, which means she could probably do better.

So the end result is that a woman might date the high quality male even though
he's a jerk and dump the nice guy, simply because she's looking for quality.

~~~
hyperbovine
I could be way off here, but you sound very young. I remember believing the
world worked this way when I was about 19. Get towards thirty and my, how the
tables turn. Now, practically everyone I know (including me) is in a happy,
stable, long-term relationship. _Nobody_ I know fits that description. Of the
ones that aren't, their main complaint is that they can't find a nice, down-
to-earth mate. The very few people I am still in touch with who remain as
superficial as you describe, are miserable.

The alpha-male / hot bitch thing works okay when everyone is looking for a
one-night stand. When you get a little older and thoughts turn to finding
someone to spend the rest of your life with, that sort of behavior just seems
idiotic.

~~~
araneae
You believed that's the way things worked when you were 19, because it did.
And now when that you're 30+, it's different. You're not smarter, things have
changed.

For men, the late teens to mid-twenties is the period where most mate
competition takes place. This is where testosterone rates soar, as do
accidental deaths as a result of risk-taking behavior
<http://www.epjournal.net/filestore/ep026685.pdf>

No one you knows fits that description because like you said, everyone you
know is in a relationship. What I described happens when people are trying to
compete over mates. When everyone has a mate, i.e. past their mid-twenties for
most part, they become much nicer.

Well, except for the occasional 30+ yo that likes to make cheap shots about
folks over the internet via an implied link between maturity and intelligence.

~~~
hyperbovine
Remind me again why we're suddenly talking about "smarter", "intelligence" and
"cheap shots"?

It's funny, another thing I vividly remember doing around that time was flying
off the handle and insulting people who had no beef with me and meant no
offense whatsoever :-) The follies of youth...

~~~
araneae
You started it.

Anyway, I'm 24, and engaged.

------
aditya
I wonder how much of this has to do with women being biologically wired to
avoid risk or anything that threatens survival of the race while men are
biologically wired to be as aggressive as possible and take as many risks as
possible to show they (and their genes) are even fit to survive?

~~~
gort
_threatens survival of the race_

Rather, anything that threatens their own inclusive fitness.

Apart from that you may be in the right area. In the environment in which we
evolved, a successful male can theoretically have more children by having more
partners, whereas a female cannot increase her progeny in this way. It also
seems that an unsuccessful male is less likely to have any children than an
unsuccessful female.

In short, variance in reproductive success is supposed to be higher in males,
and its theorised that there's been a selection pressure towards more risk-
taking in males. Naturally, this sort of thinking has its detractors.

~~~
richi
women are wired to feel more attracted to risk takers rather than prudes. men
just want someone hot, risk takers or prudes.

------
mhansen
_Now, can you guess the gender of the student involved?_

Anyone else guess female?

~~~
thristian
I certainly did. "I realize that, by overstating their abilities, the student
has probably gotten the best letter out of me they could have gotten" sounded
like the sort of social-engineering-unbeknownst-to-the-manipulated at which
women are stereotypically adept.

------
diN0bot
it's better for everyone to become pleasant, collaborative and respectful,
then for everyone to become jerks. i'd rather live in the former world. "when
in rome..." is a little too simplistic and immature in this scenario. it's
almost like seeing injustice and deciding to come out on top oneself, rather
than fighting for social change. "man up!" seems somewhat appropriate for
everyone involved.

as a techie female, the change in culture that i've seen has been crucial and
awesome. i've stayed away from rails in favor of the awesome python and django
communities. i've had excellent mentors. i've taken my time to accrue skills
and confidence, and i've come to terms with what ego-ism and arrogance i do
encounter.

before i was pulled into my first startup i had so often turned away from the
perceived negative environment of hackers and startups and mean people. i
assumed i wasn't l33t enough. like hell! i'm not afraid to say i've had
encouraging guidance along the way, nor that i'm a master of my limited
domains.

very early on i saw that we were all of us somehwere on the same continuum
trying to get better. our paths might diverge based on goals, but there is no
point in static comparison.

i see hacker news as milestone in social tech news. reddit was unbearably
self-centered and negative. coming to hacker news, where people wanted to be
intelligent _and_ amiable, share and listen, was what proved to me that the
tech culture had truly changed. maybe it's the entrepreneur influence that
makes people more cognizant of networking and bridges.

shirky might have some good advice, it's just taken to the extreme. there's no
need to stoop to the lowest denominator. be authentic to yourself, but don't
put yourself down. build yourself with the long term in mind. competence
shows, confidence follows. anyone can be competent with enough man-hours.

everyone always says startups are a roller coaster of emotion, but after two
startups and nearly 3 years, i have to disagree. sure, i'm as emotional as the
next woman, and starting out did come with a lot of doubts and stress, but at
this point very little phases me. but yeah, maybe my balanced view doesn't
help someone who feels very emotional about work.

------
qeorge
Somewhere in this rant is a good point, but the author has piled on so much
bullshit its hard to find. For example:

 _"It would be good if more women see interesting opportunities that they
might not be qualified for, opportunities which they might in fact fuck up if
they try to take them on, and then try to take them on."_

This drips of sexism to me. It paints women as patently timid and naive, which
is a costly mistake.

------
karzeem
You can be self-promoting without being a jerk. The problem is it's hard to
finesse that, and it's a lot more acceptable for men to cross the line than
for women to do it.

I think it's mostly because we have this pernicious idea that manhood is
somehow related to dominating others.

~~~
xcombinator
Is that idea pernicious?

Think in the animal world, is that pernicious that the best wolf leader is the
only one that reproduce? Does it make (slightly) sense?.

Is pernicious that the best scientist, or athlete that dominates others in
their field is somewhat more attractive to women? Does it make (slightly)
sense?.

Maybe it is pernicious for those that are not that dominant.

~~~
karzeem
It does make sense that successful people are more attractive to others, and
that's probably not a bad thing.

I was referring more to domination in the sense of forcing your will on
others, especially if it's done assholishly. A lot of people feel that you're
a "real" man _if and only if_ you're richer/stronger/getting more women/etc.
than other men.

------
pvg
We're going to put this, however equivocated, on women, really? Maybe too many
men are arrogant, self-aggrandizing jerks.

~~~
JoachimSchipper
That misses the point. Yes, the world would be nicer without jerks, but "let
my (female) students do well in the world" is a far more realistic goal than
getting rid of all the jerks.

The author makes the point that selectively being a jerk can be effective, and
that women might be more succesful if they obtained this ability.

~~~
araneae
It doesn't miss the point at all. This is a zero-sum game.

That is, men being SAJ more than women is problematic because it means they
will get more attention. If men reduced their level of SAJ-hood to equal that
of women, then men would have no advantage over women. There would still be
winners and losers, but they would be female and male in equal proportion
(according to this theory).

~~~
JoachimSchipper
It may be a zero-sum game (no idea), but it's still a good idea to change what
can be changed, instead of invoking some grand principle (I'm all for grand
principles; it's just that the result of invoking them is either changing what
can be changed or doing nothing constructive, usually the latter.)

Besides, it's not really good for women, per se, if the jerks are a bit less
successful; it's equally good for everyone who isn't jerk-ish, which includes
many men.

------
barnaby
I wholeheartedly agree. All the women executives that I know are assertive,
self-promoting, and self-confident. All the female secretaries I've met were
really pleasant, constantly smiling girls.

Coincidence? I think not.

~~~
diN0bot
> "assertive, self-promoting, and self-confident."

true, but slightly more balanced than self-aggrandizing jerks. i hope people
of both genders shoot for what you said rather than what shirky said. it's
self-aggrandizing arrogant (mean, self-centered) jerks that are impossible to
work with and quite frankly turned me off from programming for a long while.

think of what "hacker" used to mean and then think of what it means now.
there's a way to have positive energetic confidence that doesn't demean
others, and in fact helps others.

------
motters
And that's probably a good thing. There are too many self-aggrandizing jerks
in the world already. We don't need more, we need less.

Current trends towards greater transparency are likely to mean that a career
as a con-artist is not quite as profitable a business as it may have been in
the past. People who make gross exaggerations about their abilities are likely
to be uncovered sooner.

~~~
roundsquare
Thats only true to a degree. As things get more transparent, the value of
exaggeration will decrease and perhaps become negative.

However, the value of saying "pick me" will still be high in many situations.
Anywhere where the selection process involves talking to people or asking for
volunteers, etc... will still require people to stand up to be seen.

------
intellectronica
This article is quite sexist. I don't think it's even appropriate in this
forum. If you're going to make far reaching claims about differences between
the sexes you better back it up with data, otherwise you're just broadcasting
your own bias and helping perpetuate whatever problem you're identifying.

~~~
roundsquare
_I don't think it's even appropriate in this forum._

Why not? Its well accepted in technology that there are far fewer women than
men. Finding out why is of interest to people in technology. However, to
discuss it openly, people do have to make statements that are "sexist" because
we are talking about differences between genders.

 _you better back it up with data_

Articles like this can be helpful. It makes people reflect on their
experiences and maybe change their actions. Sure, having data would be nice
(although it might be hard to quantify "being a SAJ") but as long as readers
notice these conclusions come from the author's personal experience and not
any study, we can add as much salt to the article as we want.

------
mikeliu
_And then, as I get over my annoyance, I realize that, by overstating their
abilities, the student has probably gotten the best letter out of me they
could have gotten._

What's wrong with a good recommendation, as long as it comes off believable? I
feel the whole point of a recommendation letter is so that the person you are
recommending achieves the goal she/he set out to achieve. Don't agree to the
recommendation at all if you think they are not qualified. Afterall, it's
called a recommendation, not an evaluation.

~~~
cracki
technically, it is. but practically, the one who reads it expects some veiled
insights, some _evaluation_.

------
ntoshev
What was wrong with the original title? A woman wouldn't have changed it ;)

~~~
allenbrunson
i generally agree that submissions should use the same title as the original
article. but in this case, that title isn't very good. "A Rant About Women"
could be almost anything, and the implications it carries would prejudice me
against it.

~~~
ntoshev
Ok, you're right, the new title is probably better although it's also spicier.

~~~
kelnos
I'd actually say the actual post title is 'spicier' since it's less
descriptive, more broad, and more likely to get a click just because people
love a good flame. The current HN post title is indeed possibly inflammatory,
but at least it's descriptive and probably provokes interest based on
curiosity quite a bit more than the real title would.

------
jrockway
This is related to "there are no women in open-source".

~~~
axod
There are no straight men in fashion. News at 11.

This constant analysis of how Women are different than Men, whilst refusing to
accept that they actually are different for reasons beyond anyones control, is
just getting boring IMHO.

~~~
timr
_"There are no straight men in fashion. News at 11. This constant analysis of
how Women are different than Men, whilst refusing to accept that they actually
are different for reasons beyond anyones control, is just getting boring
IMHO."_

What makes you so sure that the reason that straight men avoid fashion is
innate to their sex?

Women and men might be differently situated in our society for reasons beyond
anyone's control, but there certainly seem to be some reasons that are
manufactured. The real question is, why does your opinion on the matter get to
be the definitive one?

------
anonjon
Ok, I don't actually see any example of people being arrogant self-
aggrandizing jerks in this article. I see a lot of relatively minor risk-
taking behavior.

Saying 'my drafting is fine' when it really isnt, is a risk, because you could
fail the class. Putting yourself out there and saying 'Come look at my work,
its awesome', is a risk, because it could get flung back in your face as not
awesome. Giving yourself the positive assessment that you would hope for is a
risk, again because it could be rejected.

But none of these things strike me as examples of being a jerk. They are
examples of taking little risks that help to optimize the chances of a
positive outcome. Sometimes these risks have no little-to-no-downside.

