Hacker News new | comments | show | ask | jobs | submit login
[flagged] Y combinator, X chromosomes (economist.com)
20 points by e15ctr0n 188 days ago | hide | past | web | 24 comments | favorite



I agree that an equally qualified woman should be compensated the same as a man. What I fail to understand is why anyone cares that the tech industry has more males than females. If more males are interested in working with technology than females are then of course there will be more males in the industry. Why do people see this as some kind of problem that needs to be fixed? I understand that having a diverse team brings different viewpoints that might allow for solutions to be found that may not have been found without that other viewpoint. Is that all that this is about? (besides pay differences)


Is that all that this is about?

No, this is about the number of women who would like to be included but who remain excluded. That is what this is about.

And this piece doesn't really do anything about it. It very much misses the mark. But, of course, people like discussing crap like this. It can feel like they are doing something about it when they aren't actually doing anything at all about it. "Let's measure sexism endlessly, instead of putting time and effort into actually moving those numbers that we talk too damn much about."


> If more males are interested in working with technology than females

You put the "If" at the beginning of that sentence. It's a big "If". Imagine if that's just not true. Then just keep imagining that.


And what if reality differs from what I'm imagining?

Yeah, I know, imagine that reality matches my imagination. But does it?


? imagine if it's not true? the numbers say that it is true...


Don't you agree that the numbers are the way they are because of cultural stereotypes? If there were more female tech role models that females with a budding interest in tech can look up to, that would move the needle. I don't think you can simply say "look men are more interested in tech than women" and wipe your hands of the situation. We have to change our culture in order for more women to excel and therefore become role models for the next generation.


> Don't you agree that the numbers are the way they are because of cultural stereotypes?

Partly because of cultural stereotypes. And partly because there actually are differences between males and females. The part that's because of cultural stereotypes, yes, we should fight. And the part that isn't, we should accept.


+1


Well if it's not true then someone can go ahead and prove it?


> I understand that having a diverse team brings different viewpoints that might allow for solutions to be found that may not have been found without that other viewpoint. Is that all that this is about?

That is an ostensible reason. Another is to correct the inequality caused by societal pressures discouraging women from pursuing careers in tech. The other possible reasons are not allowed to be discussed here.


> That is an ostensible reason. Another is to correct the inequality caused by societal pressures discouraging women from pursuing careers in tech.

Where's the social movement to correct the inequality caused by societal pressures discouraging women from pursuing careers as coal miners? That's a male dominated field that is surprisingly lucrative.


> Where's the social movement to correct the inequality caused by societal pressures discouraging women from pursuing careers as coal miners?

Did you search? Because it's the first fucking hit on any search engine: https://www.womeninmining.org.uk/

Here's a comment from 2 years ago on HN. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9227796


In the US?


So this sort of thing for women in tech isn't going too far if a similar thing is happening to coal miners very specifically in the US? Where was this going?


[flagged]


Would you please stop violating the guidelines like we've asked?


Ah, what assholes. I may yet have to write that piece about Jessica Livingston -- you know, the sole female co-founder of Y Combinator. (I keep hesitating to write it because I am concerned about it being seen as gossip and as saying not nice things about people. Oh, ha ha. Compared to tripe like this, it would likely amount to ass kissing.)

The piece that everyone seems to fucking miss is that Jessica Livingston and Paul Graham were the original two and he soon brought on his previous cofounders from Via Web. So, really, a woman is about one half of the success story here. And everyone just ignores that while they bitch endlessly about sexism.

I will just leave this here for now:

http://paulgraham.com/jessica.html

Can we talk about something else for a change? I am really tired of this old saw. My mother used to say "When you point fingers, three more are pointing back at you." I would like to know what constructive thing this article, its author and the publication it is in are doing to actually fix this while closing their piece with Silicon Valley is a remarkable place. But it is time for the boy’s club to grow up.

You first, dumb ass.

(So I did go ahead and clean up that draft about Jessica and posted it here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14102279)


> everyone just ignores that while they bitch endlessly about sexism

the economist is probably aware of the existence of female partners/co-founders; from the article:

> 6% of partners at venture-capital firms are women

> 40% of the top 100 venture-capital firms have a female partner charged with investing


Title: Y combinator, X chromosomes

Sounds like a great lead in for "Hey, didja know that one half of the original team that actually founded this is really a woman who kind of isn't getting the credit she really deserves while people run around talking overly much about Da Menz."

Furthermore, Y Combinator seems to do a fair amount of stuff in terms of promoting female founder conferences and participating in them, and they have a regular thing here on HN here lately where they do something like "Ask a female engineer." So the title is basically smearing Y Combinator for what all of SV is doing instead of actually recognizing what is going on here.

It is sort of like saying "We are going to hang the only guy in town who is not a member of the KKK because he is white and we need a scapegoat."


> Title: Y combinator, X chromosomes

That's the title on HN. Where does it appear in the Economist article?


It's a section heading near the end. Obviously it still shouldn't have been used as the submission title.


The economics behind women earning less just don't add up. If I'm a CEO and know I can hire women who do the same work as men for 20% (or whatever the figure is) less money, I'd only be hiring women. If the pay discrepancies are that great, why isn't this happening?


You assume economic actors are rational, when all the evidence shows that they aren't.


Since Uber won't punish Travis Kalanick, I want the marketplace to punish Uber.


what if the marketplace doesn't care? they only care about cheap rides




Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | DMCA | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: