Y Combinator Mentoring for Women(christine.net)
christine.net
Y Combinator Mentoring for Women
http://www.christine.net/2008/10/mentoring-women-for-the-next-y-combinator-1017-deadline.html
15 comments
Might I suggest that you consider taking part in a class dominated by women? Perhaps something discussing the proto-feminist leanings of Woolf?
I'm not kidding.
I think you'll find that you're lonely. That you gravitate towards talking to other men in the group. That you feel like your voice isn't heard. That you sense resentment towards you. That your opinion isn't valid.
Now imagine going through that every day in your college career.
(I'm assuming you're a man. If you're not, then my 97% die roll failed me.)
I'm not kidding.
I think you'll find that you're lonely. That you gravitate towards talking to other men in the group. That you feel like your voice isn't heard. That you sense resentment towards you. That your opinion isn't valid.
Now imagine going through that every day in your college career.
(I'm assuming you're a man. If you're not, then my 97% die roll failed me.)
I know exactly what you're talking about. I once worked for a software company where the female engineers/managers way outnumbered the male engineers. It became known as a friendly place for female engineers to work and that, in turn, attracted more female engineers.
But that's not my point. My point is, at that company, I would often go to engineering meetings (with five to seven other people) where I was the only man in attendance. And I can tell you without a doubt that it was hard to get my opinion heard and I felt isolated.
So, I completely agree with your argument. You don't know what it's like until you've been there.
But that's not my point. My point is, at that company, I would often go to engineering meetings (with five to seven other people) where I was the only man in attendance. And I can tell you without a doubt that it was hard to get my opinion heard and I felt isolated.
So, I completely agree with your argument. You don't know what it's like until you've been there.
I'm a man, and I've worked as an ER/ICU nurse for the past 15 years. Being a gender FOO in a gender BAZ dominated industry can be unpleasant and challenging at times.
Not to complain, but to make the point:
* I almost got expelled from nursing school because of what I believe was discrimination towards men. I've talked to other men who've had similar experiences.
* I worked on a unit where my charge nurse repeatedly called me a "boy nurse".
* I am frequently referred to as "one of those male nurses".
* Many patients have asked me, "are you going to go on to be a doctor". When I tell them that I'm not, I hear, "Oh." and get a surprised, concerned look.
* I've had my ass pinched/slapped by coworkers. (I'm married. It's not appreciated)
* I had a coworker ask me to help with her, "fertility problems" and don't I look just like her boyfriend.
* Last week, I had a coworker come behind me and start braiding my long hair. I had to tell my coworker that I don't like people messing with my hair. Can you imagine if I did that to a female coworker at Google, IBM or Ford?
* I'm frequently around when women trade child birthing stories, or hear coworkers talk about their menstrual cycles.
* I've had bosses talk to me about how men don't really do foo very well as nurses.
* I'm frequently asked to "be a big, strong man and help me move my patient". I have back problems from 15 years of being asked to do things because of my size and gender.
* I've often been asked to care for hostile, combative, drunk or otherwise chemically altered patients, because I'm a "big, strong man".
I could go on.
Let's just say that I'm happy to mentor any man that comes into this profession. There are certain tricks of the trade that will help a lot that I've picked up along the way. And, there are benefits to being a man in this profession as well.
If the gender FOO's want to get together and help each other out or talk about how to deal with being FOO around so much BAZ... More power to them.
Not to complain, but to make the point:
* I almost got expelled from nursing school because of what I believe was discrimination towards men. I've talked to other men who've had similar experiences.
* I worked on a unit where my charge nurse repeatedly called me a "boy nurse".
* I am frequently referred to as "one of those male nurses".
* Many patients have asked me, "are you going to go on to be a doctor". When I tell them that I'm not, I hear, "Oh." and get a surprised, concerned look.
* I've had my ass pinched/slapped by coworkers. (I'm married. It's not appreciated)
* I had a coworker ask me to help with her, "fertility problems" and don't I look just like her boyfriend.
* Last week, I had a coworker come behind me and start braiding my long hair. I had to tell my coworker that I don't like people messing with my hair. Can you imagine if I did that to a female coworker at Google, IBM or Ford?
* I'm frequently around when women trade child birthing stories, or hear coworkers talk about their menstrual cycles.
* I've had bosses talk to me about how men don't really do foo very well as nurses.
* I'm frequently asked to "be a big, strong man and help me move my patient". I have back problems from 15 years of being asked to do things because of my size and gender.
* I've often been asked to care for hostile, combative, drunk or otherwise chemically altered patients, because I'm a "big, strong man".
I could go on.
Let's just say that I'm happy to mentor any man that comes into this profession. There are certain tricks of the trade that will help a lot that I've picked up along the way. And, there are benefits to being a man in this profession as well.
If the gender FOO's want to get together and help each other out or talk about how to deal with being FOO around so much BAZ... More power to them.
I'm a bit confused about the last two points. If you were a big strong female would they not have asked you to help move patients or take care of hostile patients? Were you asked to help with physical tasks because you are a man or because you are strong?
I suppose that's a good point.
In thinking about it, however, I haven't noticed when working in an ICU that stronger women are asked to care for the 400+ lb patients more often.
It is a fairly common occurrence, however for men to be asked to care for certain patients because "men are stronger". I've also been told by women that they are glad to have more men in the industry because "men are stronger".
I could be wrong, but I struggle to think of an instance where it would be okay for me to to categorize female coworkers as being inherently better or worse because of a physical attribute, however.
In thinking about it, however, I haven't noticed when working in an ICU that stronger women are asked to care for the 400+ lb patients more often.
It is a fairly common occurrence, however for men to be asked to care for certain patients because "men are stronger". I've also been told by women that they are glad to have more men in the industry because "men are stronger".
I could be wrong, but I struggle to think of an instance where it would be okay for me to to categorize female coworkers as being inherently better or worse because of a physical attribute, however.
Somehow, I've managed to have more women bosses than men bosses in my programming career. I've never had a problem communicating with them, or felt uncomfortable voicing my opinion. I suppose that's different, though, than having the coworkers mostly female, too.
Mind you, I am not saying that I have any complaints about my own experience. The women in question have been good bosses, and mostly have let me use my own judgment in deciding how to complete the tasks assigned to me. For those of us programming as an employee, for the most part I think this is all we really want.
Maybe this is why I have a hard time accepting programs that seek to pump indifferent women into computer science/programming fields. I can't relate to the idea that women are discriminated against in this field when, more often than not, it has been a woman telling me what to do. For what it's worth, most of these women seemed more than happy to let others do the implementation and make technical decisions, while they focused more on the parts of the work that require human interaction. This is not to say that they did not understand the technical questions or were incapable of doing the implementation, just that it did not seem to interest them as strongly as the inter-personal aspects.
Having said that, I don't have any objections to this program being offered to help women entrepreneurs. I agree with the sentiments expressed elsewhere that men in women dominated fields find the same need to talk to men who have "been there" and can relate to the minority experience.
Mind you, I am not saying that I have any complaints about my own experience. The women in question have been good bosses, and mostly have let me use my own judgment in deciding how to complete the tasks assigned to me. For those of us programming as an employee, for the most part I think this is all we really want.
Maybe this is why I have a hard time accepting programs that seek to pump indifferent women into computer science/programming fields. I can't relate to the idea that women are discriminated against in this field when, more often than not, it has been a woman telling me what to do. For what it's worth, most of these women seemed more than happy to let others do the implementation and make technical decisions, while they focused more on the parts of the work that require human interaction. This is not to say that they did not understand the technical questions or were incapable of doing the implementation, just that it did not seem to interest them as strongly as the inter-personal aspects.
Having said that, I don't have any objections to this program being offered to help women entrepreneurs. I agree with the sentiments expressed elsewhere that men in women dominated fields find the same need to talk to men who have "been there" and can relate to the minority experience.
OK, I'll bite. In college my minor was archaeology, a field completely dominated (at least at my school) by women. I've been the one guy in otherwise all-women classes.
Compared to my CS classes, it was like a breath of fresh air. (I actually double-booked my afternoons, and walked out of Operating Systems halfway through class to go study ancient Peruvian pottery. It was therapeutic.) I felt like a curiosity at first, but never trivialized or resented. As always, I gravitated towards a couple other people in the department as friends, but they didn't happen to be men.
The pattern I saw was not that men (or the dominant sex) are trivializing and resentment-laden, but that specific departments were. Even the women in the CS department were into the macho-geek BS, and a lot of us men hated it.
That's why we're offended by the suggestion that there should be special anything for women in CS. A lot of us men want computing to grow up, too, and we feel excluded by these women-only programs. There's your sex discrimination.
Compared to my CS classes, it was like a breath of fresh air. (I actually double-booked my afternoons, and walked out of Operating Systems halfway through class to go study ancient Peruvian pottery. It was therapeutic.) I felt like a curiosity at first, but never trivialized or resented. As always, I gravitated towards a couple other people in the department as friends, but they didn't happen to be men.
The pattern I saw was not that men (or the dominant sex) are trivializing and resentment-laden, but that specific departments were. Even the women in the CS department were into the macho-geek BS, and a lot of us men hated it.
That's why we're offended by the suggestion that there should be special anything for women in CS. A lot of us men want computing to grow up, too, and we feel excluded by these women-only programs. There's your sex discrimination.
I took a course at Mt. Holyoke in college (I'm male, Mt. Holyoke is an all-women's college). I also spent quite a while in the Harry Potter fandom, which is literally 99% female.
In neither situation did I ever feel marginalized, or excluded, or ignored. Occasionally I felt like I was an object of curiosity, but I can deal with that.
It is a bit of a culture shock, and in both situations I was careful to observe first and talk later. I saw some guys who entered fandom, immediately started acting like...men, and had a rather unwelcome reception as a result. But that's social skills 101: being aware of existing culture and norms of a group.
That said, I don't have any problem with a group like this. It's not really a sex issue: it's connecting experienced entrepreneurs with like-minded people, which is kinda the point of mentoring. Arguably, PG started YCombinator because he wanted to mentor people like himself; I don't see any reason why a group of women should not be able to do the same thing.
In neither situation did I ever feel marginalized, or excluded, or ignored. Occasionally I felt like I was an object of curiosity, but I can deal with that.
It is a bit of a culture shock, and in both situations I was careful to observe first and talk later. I saw some guys who entered fandom, immediately started acting like...men, and had a rather unwelcome reception as a result. But that's social skills 101: being aware of existing culture and norms of a group.
That said, I don't have any problem with a group like this. It's not really a sex issue: it's connecting experienced entrepreneurs with like-minded people, which is kinda the point of mentoring. Arguably, PG started YCombinator because he wanted to mentor people like himself; I don't see any reason why a group of women should not be able to do the same thing.
"It's not really a sex issue:"
Nope. It's totally a sex issue.
I still think it's a fine thing to do. But this is just a ridiculous statement.
Nope. It's totally a sex issue.
I still think it's a fine thing to do. But this is just a ridiculous statement.
PG's actions imply that it's okay to discriminate on the basis of intelligence and ability. Here we probably all agree. This woman's actions imply that it's okay to discriminate on the basis of gender. If you don't have a problem with it, then would you also not have a problem with a society that excludes women?
It's not society that's excluding anyone, it's one particular mentoring group.
I have no problem with all-male groups like the Freemasons, Boy Scouts, or fraternities.
I have no problem with all-male groups like the Freemasons, Boy Scouts, or fraternities.
I meant a society, not the society. I should have used a different word.
The things you've listed are all-male for traditional reasons. If someone were to start an all-male group now (like, say, an all-male mentoring group), it would generally be frowned upon. I was just wondering if you'd frown upon it also.
The things you've listed are all-male for traditional reasons. If someone were to start an all-male group now (like, say, an all-male mentoring group), it would generally be frowned upon. I was just wondering if you'd frown upon it also.
I'd think it kinda pointless and wouldn't participate myself, but no, I wouldn't frown upon it in a "should this exist?" way. People have a right to associate with folks they choose.
Edit: actually - I can't say that I wouldn't participate myself. Mentoring is mentoring - if I liked the people involved, I'd get involved.
I had no qualms when students at my college started a new all-male acapella group, or when they started "The Men's Project" (which, somewhat ironically, spent a lot of time discussing how to prevent violence against women).
Edit: actually - I can't say that I wouldn't participate myself. Mentoring is mentoring - if I liked the people involved, I'd get involved.
I had no qualms when students at my college started a new all-male acapella group, or when they started "The Men's Project" (which, somewhat ironically, spent a lot of time discussing how to prevent violence against women).
* Mentoring is mentoring - if I liked the people involved, I'd get involved*
Yeah, but if it's a 50 year old male executive privately mentoring a 22 year old female CS grad, it might get a little creepy. Same thing goes for a 50 year old female executive privately mentoring a 22 year old new grad.
That's not to say that it's wrong for older people to mentor young people of another gender. It's just that the potential for creepiness is higher.
Yeah, but if it's a 50 year old male executive privately mentoring a 22 year old female CS grad, it might get a little creepy. Same thing goes for a 50 year old female executive privately mentoring a 22 year old new grad.
That's not to say that it's wrong for older people to mentor young people of another gender. It's just that the potential for creepiness is higher.
Not really. There are groups that are men's only and nobody bats an eye about it. (Sport teams, dating/relationship support groups). They just have to be something unique to men.
If there is some functional reason why a group might be all one sex, then few people would argue against it. For example, the way men act, think, are expected to behave, etc, in a dating/relationship setting is different from how women do; and importantly the behaviours that lead to success differ depending on whether you are male or femaile. So in that setting it'd be entirely appropriate to have a all-male or all-female support group.
Is being a startup founder like that? I don't know, but it seems plausible that it might be.
Is being a startup founder like that? I don't know, but it seems plausible that it might be.
The boy scouts allow women it's just rare that one wants to join and there are lots of co-ed fraternities.
In order to correct for a demographic imbalance, you have to put extra attention on minority recruitment and retention in the group.
She is clearly discriminating based on gender, but she's doing it because of an observed gender imbalance.
She is clearly discriminating based on gender, but she's doing it because of an observed gender imbalance.
Why do you consider a 50-50 gender balance "correct"? Few extend this idea of "correctness" to apply to homeless rates or prison populations.
I said no such thing.
I recognize there may be a biological reason why the gender split in our field is the way it is, but I feel it is probably mostly cultural. I'm using lots of qualifying words because I just don't know. It may be a combination of biological and cultural. But since I think there is a cultural component to the disparity, I'm sympathetic to people who make attempts to address it.
I recognize there may be a biological reason why the gender split in our field is the way it is, but I feel it is probably mostly cultural. I'm using lots of qualifying words because I just don't know. It may be a combination of biological and cultural. But since I think there is a cultural component to the disparity, I'm sympathetic to people who make attempts to address it.
Indeed. Now add a bunch of chest-pounding chicks writing self-described "controversial rants" about the utter ridiculousness of having a group just for men to feel good about themselves.
Hell, the tone of the parent article alone is enough to justify this group. Guys: we already dominate the industry, and will for the rest of our careers. There's no need to be jerks about it. If you don't see the need for a group to which you'll never belong, just keep quiet.
Hell, the tone of the parent article alone is enough to justify this group. Guys: we already dominate the industry, and will for the rest of our careers. There's no need to be jerks about it. If you don't see the need for a group to which you'll never belong, just keep quiet.
I find your reply objectionable.
I believe you mischaracterised my argument or completely misjudged my tone. At no point did I suggest the original author's point-of-view was "utterly ridiculous", just that I found it frustrating and to try and emphatically explain the reasons why. There is a world of difference there. The introductory comments about it being a "controversial rant" have been mischaracterised - the idea was to try and minimise any offence to the original author, that I knew it was slightly hijacking the thread, that it may be a fringe viewpoint and that the author would probably disagree with my point-of-view. At no point was I aiming for "chest-beating", nor do I believe that was the tone of the post, but I do apologise if it came across as such. I do believe, however, that had the roles been reversed that I would not be offended if someone put their arguments forward as I did to support their point of view.
I also quite obviously disagree that I'm a "jerk", and I firmly believe that my opinion still matters despite apparently being the "wrong sex" to be able to have one on this matter and that this sort of discussion is not and should not be out of bounds.
I believe you mischaracterised my argument or completely misjudged my tone. At no point did I suggest the original author's point-of-view was "utterly ridiculous", just that I found it frustrating and to try and emphatically explain the reasons why. There is a world of difference there. The introductory comments about it being a "controversial rant" have been mischaracterised - the idea was to try and minimise any offence to the original author, that I knew it was slightly hijacking the thread, that it may be a fringe viewpoint and that the author would probably disagree with my point-of-view. At no point was I aiming for "chest-beating", nor do I believe that was the tone of the post, but I do apologise if it came across as such. I do believe, however, that had the roles been reversed that I would not be offended if someone put their arguments forward as I did to support their point of view.
I also quite obviously disagree that I'm a "jerk", and I firmly believe that my opinion still matters despite apparently being the "wrong sex" to be able to have one on this matter and that this sort of discussion is not and should not be out of bounds.
> Guys: we already dominate the industry, and will for the rest of our careers.
What do you mean "we"? The fact that some other guys dominate "the industry" does absolutely nothing for me.
If this is like other similar efforts, it's an attempt to help connected women compete with connected men. Meanwhile, "unconnected" women and men remain left out.
Excuse me for not seeing that as a significant improvement.
> If you don't see the need for a group to which you'll never belong, just keep quiet.
Would you say that to anyone other than unconnected white men?
What do you mean "we"? The fact that some other guys dominate "the industry" does absolutely nothing for me.
If this is like other similar efforts, it's an attempt to help connected women compete with connected men. Meanwhile, "unconnected" women and men remain left out.
Excuse me for not seeing that as a significant improvement.
> If you don't see the need for a group to which you'll never belong, just keep quiet.
Would you say that to anyone other than unconnected white men?
I'll admit that I haven't personally taken such a class - sadly it's very unlikely I'll be able to do so.
I would find it very sad if that you described happened, though. I think a male point of view would be valuable on a discussion of an issue like proto-feminism, for example. The idea that someone would get shouted down from a discussion for having a dissenting point of view to me seems bizarre assuming they facilitate the discussion, but perhaps that's just me.
I would find it very sad if that you described happened, though. I think a male point of view would be valuable on a discussion of an issue like proto-feminism, for example. The idea that someone would get shouted down from a discussion for having a dissenting point of view to me seems bizarre assuming they facilitate the discussion, but perhaps that's just me.
I doubt you'd get 'shouted down.' The poster you're responding to never said anything like that. He (I'm assuming) suggested that you'd feel isolated, and have difficulty communicating your ideas in a way that makes you feel you're being understood.
This could happen (to a man in such a class, or to a woman in a male-dominated workplace) with no one shouting at anyone, or expressing any kind of hostility, or even really doing anything wrong. These are difficult problems.
This could happen (to a man in such a class, or to a woman in a male-dominated workplace) with no one shouting at anyone, or expressing any kind of hostility, or even really doing anything wrong. These are difficult problems.
I would place that responsibility on the person to get better at communicating. People of the opposite sex aren't aliens. It should be possible to get your ideas across if you put effort into understanding their world view.
Now, if your ideas are not received because of existing prejudice, that's a different issue.
Now, if your ideas are not received because of existing prejudice, that's a different issue.
I've always heard things like "I think you'll find that you're lonely." Hm. Well, yeah, I (male) do find that! But it doesn't seem to matter where I am or what "group" I'm in, I'm lonely as hell. I connect on a meaningful level with a very low percentage of people. Most of the others can be classified as disconnected from me and apathetic about me (not "wrong" per se) or actively malignant, in that they are bullies or otherwise seek to use\abuse me, probably in a totem pole ego gratification move or just in a political\profit based one.
I dunno. I think what it comes down to is that in most things, male\female is much the same experience, even if it expresses it self in different ways. You can rant on about all the sucky hard experiences one side gets, but I think if you really look, you'll find the otherside has a very similar set of problems as well.
I dunno. I think what it comes down to is that in most things, male\female is much the same experience, even if it expresses it self in different ways. You can rant on about all the sucky hard experiences one side gets, but I think if you really look, you'll find the otherside has a very similar set of problems as well.
"Now imagine going through that every day in your college career."
Except for the US college system is dominated by women. There are roughly 6.4 million men and 8.7 million women currently enrolled in college. By 2016 the gap will jump to 7 million men and 10.3 million women. And since the top colleges can get away with accepting more men to even out the gender ratios, that means the median college classroom is entirely dominated by women except for a few niche departments like computer science and physics.
Except for the US college system is dominated by women. There are roughly 6.4 million men and 8.7 million women currently enrolled in college. By 2016 the gap will jump to 7 million men and 10.3 million women. And since the top colleges can get away with accepting more men to even out the gender ratios, that means the median college classroom is entirely dominated by women except for a few niche departments like computer science and physics.
I'm all for such groups targeted exclusively for minorities, even if there were no longer any discrimination.
Suppose you're a member of minority M, looking to get into group G, which is dominated by members of group D, who are all significantly different in some very obvious way. Wouldn't you personally like a little reassurance from someone else in M who's made it in G, that you too can do well? It's just plain human insecurity. As a girl who takes a lot of CS classes, even though I never experience any hostility from the guys in the classes, it just feels a little weird. I certainly do feel more insecure. Like it or not, just because so many more guys are in these classes, girls form a stereotype of CS as being something for guys and not for them. They have to hear that message from a girl, a living counterexample, to shake that stereotype. Being outnumbered by guys everywhere does nothing but reinforce stereotypes.
Suppose you're a member of minority M, looking to get into group G, which is dominated by members of group D, who are all significantly different in some very obvious way. Wouldn't you personally like a little reassurance from someone else in M who's made it in G, that you too can do well? It's just plain human insecurity. As a girl who takes a lot of CS classes, even though I never experience any hostility from the guys in the classes, it just feels a little weird. I certainly do feel more insecure. Like it or not, just because so many more guys are in these classes, girls form a stereotype of CS as being something for guys and not for them. They have to hear that message from a girl, a living counterexample, to shake that stereotype. Being outnumbered by guys everywhere does nothing but reinforce stereotypes.
Startup life is a lot easier when you have a mentor, and it's easier to form that mentor relationship when you have things in common. I don't see anything wrong with female mentors reaching out to other women and offering the opportunity to form these relationships.
"... I don't see how sex matters when you're a business person, when you're programming, when you're building things ..."
Maybe because you are a member (myself included) of a homogeneous monk-like cloistered society that meets daily with your own kind where everyone knows the secret hand-shake and acknowledges you. Given that nobody does lone-programming anymore if you are different you are going to be side-lined.
I guess the argument killer here is "put your hands up all those who would trade places as a man to be a women in a male dominated - some say one of the last - in the software industry?".
Your argument of course is not a new one. The best example I can think of is hiring musicians for Orchestra. You would think that gender would not be a problem. Surely a musician who is good enough would get a job in a Orchestra based on musical ability in the "12 minute recital" alone? Yet Orchestras have been a male dominated industry ~ http://www.polyphonic.org/panels.php?id=7&day=1 Read here more on the debate on Orchestral selection and among other things gender.
Is this issue another structural issue within Startups where gender dominance is only skills based? Or are there entry hurdles that can be knocked down with some small changes? Don't we all want as many high quality entrepreneurs and Startups to florish? Or is it a "foo only club?" where you can join in as long as you are one of "us"?
Maybe because you are a member (myself included) of a homogeneous monk-like cloistered society that meets daily with your own kind where everyone knows the secret hand-shake and acknowledges you. Given that nobody does lone-programming anymore if you are different you are going to be side-lined.
I guess the argument killer here is "put your hands up all those who would trade places as a man to be a women in a male dominated - some say one of the last - in the software industry?".
Your argument of course is not a new one. The best example I can think of is hiring musicians for Orchestra. You would think that gender would not be a problem. Surely a musician who is good enough would get a job in a Orchestra based on musical ability in the "12 minute recital" alone? Yet Orchestras have been a male dominated industry ~ http://www.polyphonic.org/panels.php?id=7&day=1 Read here more on the debate on Orchestral selection and among other things gender.
Is this issue another structural issue within Startups where gender dominance is only skills based? Or are there entry hurdles that can be knocked down with some small changes? Don't we all want as many high quality entrepreneurs and Startups to florish? Or is it a "foo only club?" where you can join in as long as you are one of "us"?
> Given that nobody does lone-programming anymore
Really? I need a support group.
Really? I need a support group.
"... > Given that nobody does lone-programming anymore Really? I need a support group. ..."
I'm being facetious.
This was a throw away line Doug Crockford gave in a talk I was listening to, "Quality" talk I was listening to the other day (about 10-15m in) ~ http://developer.yahoo.net/blogs/theater/archives/2007/05/do...
For most SoftCo. management this is probably what they think.
I'm being facetious.
This was a throw away line Doug Crockford gave in a talk I was listening to, "Quality" talk I was listening to the other day (about 10-15m in) ~ http://developer.yahoo.net/blogs/theater/archives/2007/05/do...
For most SoftCo. management this is probably what they think.
Me too :-)
I thought some orchestras started having blind auditions, where the performer is behind some kind of opaque barrier?
"... I thought some orchestras started having blind auditions ..."
That's what I thought and was the reason I chose this instance. I remember seeing an example of perceived vs actual performance and more women where hired because of bias selection. How many Orchestras try this I don't know.
That's what I thought and was the reason I chose this instance. I remember seeing an example of perceived vs actual performance and more women where hired because of bias selection. How many Orchestras try this I don't know.
>I don't see how sex matters when you're a business person, when you're programming, when you're building things.
Sex shouldn't matter, but how people perceive me due to my sex could have an impact on how I do things.
I know the following would make me sound like a really passive aggressive person, but I write some awful code when someone pisses me off. One time in school I had no choice over who to partner with, and my partner was this awful guy who told me explicitly that he didn't want to work with me because I was female. In the end I wrote most of the code anyway (all he'd provide is copy-pasted code labelled file1, file2, file3 etc. either cause he just didn't know how to do anything or it was just him being passive aggressive at being forced to work with me), but it ended up being the most obfuscated, profanity-laced code I had ever written. I spent quite a bit of time refactoring and deleting comments before submitting it.
I would never do that professionally (instead I go and rant on IRC or twitter for a bit to friends), but I can say I am sometimes tired of the sexism (just like you are tired of the double standard) and it affects me once in a while, and that certainly affects the work I do in myriad ways.
Sex shouldn't matter, but how people perceive me due to my sex could have an impact on how I do things.
I know the following would make me sound like a really passive aggressive person, but I write some awful code when someone pisses me off. One time in school I had no choice over who to partner with, and my partner was this awful guy who told me explicitly that he didn't want to work with me because I was female. In the end I wrote most of the code anyway (all he'd provide is copy-pasted code labelled file1, file2, file3 etc. either cause he just didn't know how to do anything or it was just him being passive aggressive at being forced to work with me), but it ended up being the most obfuscated, profanity-laced code I had ever written. I spent quite a bit of time refactoring and deleting comments before submitting it.
I would never do that professionally (instead I go and rant on IRC or twitter for a bit to friends), but I can say I am sometimes tired of the sexism (just like you are tired of the double standard) and it affects me once in a while, and that certainly affects the work I do in myriad ways.
Though clearly well-intentioned, these sorts of things have always rubbed me the wrong way, too. It seems they are only acceptable for categories outside the "dominant" set {white, male}. "Women in Engineering" is fine, as is "African Americans in Medicine". And unlike, say, a Gay Men's Chorus, I'd bet they're not particularly accepting of people who don't fit the profile.
As a white male, I'm sure I enjoy all sorts of implicit advantages I don't even notice, but it still weirds me out to see groups wear their exclusionary nature not only openly, but with pride.
As a white male, I'm sure I enjoy all sorts of implicit advantages I don't even notice, but it still weirds me out to see groups wear their exclusionary nature not only openly, but with pride.
Is your opposition with the fact that minorities are forming groups or that they might be exclusive in nature? If it's the latter, most of them actually aren't--feel free to join your local National Society of Black Engineers chapter.
It's not really opposition, just uneasiness. I believe in voluntary associations, but I think it's a warning sign that it would be hard to form the "National Society of White Engineers" without seeming racist or a "Men in Engineering" group without seeming sexist, even if they accepted anyone who wanted to join. The National Society of Black Engineers, no matter how welcoming they may be in practice, just don't sound like they really want me to show up at their next meeting. And I'm pretty sure the Women in Engineering group at Caltech would have been pissed off if I or any other male Techers had crashed their parties...
Well, the pattern isn't "random group of people get-together," it's "severe minority group get-together." Less of a warning sign and more of a general pattern. I think it makes a lot of sense to look for the familiar when you're surrounded by something that is somehow alien to you. And since the groups are often formed because of some exclusion (perceived or real), they're very rarely exclusionary themselves.
As a white male in tech, I can see how you might find it difficult to empathize with someone in that situation. Best sort of "imagine if" scenario would be if I dropped you in the middle of a foreign country and you looked around and realized that there were a few Techers there with you. You guys (and gals?) might have some beers together, and if anyone from Turkmenistanians wanted to join you, they could.
As a white male in tech, I can see how you might find it difficult to empathize with someone in that situation. Best sort of "imagine if" scenario would be if I dropped you in the middle of a foreign country and you looked around and realized that there were a few Techers there with you. You guys (and gals?) might have some beers together, and if anyone from Turkmenistanians wanted to join you, they could.
I describe experiencing this kind of thing in Japan elsewhere in this thread.
I recruit from my alma mater first. I help people who grew up in my hometown. It's a comfort level thing.
"And unlike, say, a Gay Men's Chorus"
Did you see the episode of Will and Grace, where Matt Damon pretends to be gay because that is the only way he can get accepted into the men's chorus group?
Did you see the episode of Will and Grace, where Matt Damon pretends to be gay because that is the only way he can get accepted into the men's chorus group?
I haven't seen that episode, but it sounds funny. For what it's worth, I have been invited to join a Gay Men's Chorus, despite not being gay. Though maybe it was just because, like all choruses, they were desperately short of tenors. :-)
I think most arguments for "diversity" are bullshyt. However, I can see how otherwise qualified female applicants might feel intimidated by an organization that is 95%+ male. Increasing the number of females in the program could therefore increase the average quality of the founder pool.
But yes, I don't see any worth in "diversity" for its own sake, unless we are talking about a diversity of skill-sets, knowledge, or something else worth talking about.
But yes, I don't see any worth in "diversity" for its own sake, unless we are talking about a diversity of skill-sets, knowledge, or something else worth talking about.
Diversity is good because when members have different experiences, and thus point of views.
"Point of view is worth 80 IQ points"
"Point of view is worth 80 IQ points"
> Diversity is good because when members have different experiences, and thus point of views.
Wrong. Diversity that brings in useful points of view is good. Diversity that brings in other points of view is bad.
> "Point of view is worth 80 IQ points"
My cat has a different point of view but I'm pretty sure that she doesn't have anything useful to say about Google App Engine.
Wrong. Diversity that brings in useful points of view is good. Diversity that brings in other points of view is bad.
> "Point of view is worth 80 IQ points"
My cat has a different point of view but I'm pretty sure that she doesn't have anything useful to say about Google App Engine.
If I thought you meant to equate women's point of view with your cat's in any way I would be highly amused--at what you reveal about your own perspectives.
> If I thought you meant to equate women's point of view with your cat's in any way I would be highly amused--at what you reveal about your own perspectives.
Cute insinuation.
Do you really want to argue that every person can add something useful to any discussion of Google App Engine? Or is it just every woman?
If not, then the "diversity" argument fails, at least wrt Google App Engine.
While the right points of view add 80 IQ points, some points of view don't add any IQ points, and some even subtract. Gender, orientation, and ethnicity are sometimes good predictors for "useful point of view" but not always.
The advantage of using my cat is that she isn't offended when I point out that she doesn't have a useful perspective on something.
Cute insinuation.
Do you really want to argue that every person can add something useful to any discussion of Google App Engine? Or is it just every woman?
If not, then the "diversity" argument fails, at least wrt Google App Engine.
While the right points of view add 80 IQ points, some points of view don't add any IQ points, and some even subtract. Gender, orientation, and ethnicity are sometimes good predictors for "useful point of view" but not always.
The advantage of using my cat is that she isn't offended when I point out that she doesn't have a useful perspective on something.
> I guess it comes down to this: I don't see how sex matters when you're a business person, when you're programming, when you're building things.
I'm sure you believe this yourself, you behave like this, and you have probably witnessed this a great deal - but this doesn't necessarily generalize.
However, there has been a lot of (empirical) research into this area and it's shown that this still is an issue. For example: http://psy.ex.ac.uk/seorg/glasscliff/
I'm sure you believe this yourself, you behave like this, and you have probably witnessed this a great deal - but this doesn't necessarily generalize.
However, there has been a lot of (empirical) research into this area and it's shown that this still is an issue. For example: http://psy.ex.ac.uk/seorg/glasscliff/
While I agree with you for the last two paragraphs, I've started to think that it might be very useful to have a female in the founders or first employees circle. The reason isn't because they are necessarily better, but they are aware of facets of culture that we are not aware of because they grew up in that tribe and we didn't. They would have the same problem vica versa.
If you're selling to a broad multisexual audiance, it makes sense to have a confederate in your midst to point out any faux pas you may make.
If you're selling to a broad multisexual audiance, it makes sense to have a confederate in your midst to point out any faux pas you may make.
I can see your point although I'm not necessarily sure I agree with it. I don't think I'm any more away of the facets of culture of the average man any more than most women and I don't like to think that women-kind is that distant that it's easy to make faux-pas.
I don't object to employing someone for their knowledge of a market though when it's relevant. When in Rome, it might be handy to hire some Romans...
I don't object to employing someone for their knowledge of a market though when it's relevant. When in Rome, it might be handy to hire some Romans...
please watch the
formatting
This is about equity, not equality.
And we do talk about the same things for men when it comes to reading ability and scholastic performance. In fact just a couple weeks ago I posted a review of Peg Tyre's new book The Trouble With Boys.
And we do talk about the same things for men when it comes to reading ability and scholastic performance. In fact just a couple weeks ago I posted a review of Peg Tyre's new book The Trouble With Boys.
Your second paragraph is why attempts like this author's exist. The assumption is that the gender imbalance in our field is cultural, not biological. She's trying to fix that imbalance.
This is a fascinating set of responses. For those men who don't see the need and therefore don't approve, I wonder why you are objecting? For those who see this as exclusionary, you might ask yourself whether an all white organization seems meant for and welcoming to a person of color, and then swap out gender and see what your response is. Just because women live in a world where most engineering cultures are set by men, that doesn't mean that everyone, women and men, are impacted by the lack of diversity and gender difference.
As someone who took a woman-founded team to TechStars (yep, and I'm not an engineer, either), we found a strong interest there in supporting many diverse types of teams as they also sought to support the strongest teams they could find that year.
I left a voice mail for Jessica Livingston letting her know that we were going to do this before we started it, and if I'd been more aware of the deadlines earlier, I would have reached out earlier and started it earlier. There are no factors except culture, comfort and class that make it neccessary for 98% of the applicants and teams selected for YCombinator--or any competitive program--to be male.
This mentoring effort, which I started with some friends, is meant to give women who qualify and want to apply some support that they may perceive as lacking in a program that, to date, has been almost exclusively male, as are most programs in the start up world.
Will this effort be exclusive to YCombnator? I think not. But you're our first noble experiment, and if you're reading this and are a woman who'd like mentoring or to support this, email us at [email protected]
--Susan Mernit
I'm applying for this year's cycle and have sent pinkgaragementors a couple of emails with no reply. Any other way to get in touch?
jodie--the email is [email protected] or email me directly via my blog-susan mernit
"At the last Y Combinator Demo Day I attended, there were 3 women in a room of over 100 people. That just seems a bit low to me, and I have no doubt that it reflects the candidate pool"
I'm glad she mentioned this. How could Livingston not want more women founders? She's trapped with 80 dudes six months out of the year.
I'm certainly for equal treatment, but whether the media wants to admit it or not - people are different. That's why Title 9, quota hiring and Chief Diversity officers (gag!) have been such utter failures. Right idea, wrong execution. Working in admissions in school was one of the most eye opening things I've ever done. Some of the other efforts are great, but most come off as discriminating double standards.
I'm glad she mentioned this. How could Livingston not want more women founders? She's trapped with 80 dudes six months out of the year.
I'm certainly for equal treatment, but whether the media wants to admit it or not - people are different. That's why Title 9, quota hiring and Chief Diversity officers (gag!) have been such utter failures. Right idea, wrong execution. Working in admissions in school was one of the most eye opening things I've ever done. Some of the other efforts are great, but most come off as discriminating double standards.
Just curious whether you'd be willing to share some of those eye-opening insights with us.
Wouldn't really call them insights, but sure.
HHI 60k, Black, 2.1 GPA, similar EC, no record, ACT Score 16 - Accepted.
HHI 50k, White, 3.2 GPA, similar EC, no record, ACT Score 22 - Rejected.
Most were variations of that. That is, less qualified applicants in similar economic situations were admitted solely because of race. Obviously I knew these practices existed (oh hai Division 1 athletics), I was just surprised how blatant it was especially with economic situations being roughly equal in many of the cases. Scholarships were even worse, but seeing as it was a few years ago, I don't remember specific cases. Just apply the above to general scholarship fund stuff.
Edit: Didn't like how the first sentence read.
HHI 60k, Black, 2.1 GPA, similar EC, no record, ACT Score 16 - Accepted.
HHI 50k, White, 3.2 GPA, similar EC, no record, ACT Score 22 - Rejected.
Most were variations of that. That is, less qualified applicants in similar economic situations were admitted solely because of race. Obviously I knew these practices existed (oh hai Division 1 athletics), I was just surprised how blatant it was especially with economic situations being roughly equal in many of the cases. Scholarships were even worse, but seeing as it was a few years ago, I don't remember specific cases. Just apply the above to general scholarship fund stuff.
Edit: Didn't like how the first sentence read.
I hear ya. I spent some time as an admission officer at an Ivy and the conversations we'd have over and over again just got to me. We were building a class and had just a dizzying array of pieces to work with each year. This, coupled with our need to have every group, region and interest under the sun represented inevitably led to exchanges like this one: "This student seems smart relative to other (insert minority group)." The choices made were hard and required us to reduce people to numbers, colors and legacies. What an eye-opener. I feel I've got a leg up on anyone when I apply for stuff from now on.
I'm curious. What happens if someone lies on their application about their race? Do you verify in any way? Would you disqualify them if/when you saw them in person? I've wondered why, with so many people trying to get an edge in admissions, more applicants don't claim "one drop".
As far as I know, there's not organized, institutional way to verify an applicant's race. Schools pretty much take them on their word, with the understanding that they can rescind an offer at any time before the day of enrollment.
Oh. Not that surprising, really. Affirmative action exists. Even (especially?) in the best schools in the nation. It's not just for race, though. Women get it at tech schools, men get it at some state schools, and poor people get it anywhere where most students are wealthy.
For the record, I'm an adamant supporter of AA. And not entirely because it helped me out personally.
edit: I go through all this work to say something to get an argument, and all I do is get a downvote? C'mon guys...
For the record, I'm an adamant supporter of AA. And not entirely because it helped me out personally.
edit: I go through all this work to say something to get an argument, and all I do is get a downvote? C'mon guys...
I'm fine with affirmative action. But I like to keep the debate on topic. You need to remember that aa is not a goal in itself (I think so, anyway). On the contrary, it is damaging in itself. It may justify the ends, but in itself it's bad.
Just like having a 99% white male University is not bad in itself, it's a consequence of bad - Inequality in society. The goal of aa (should be) is to deal with that.
There is an inherent problem. We tend to gauge gender equality by things like the male/female exec ratio. That's fine. But then we try to improve equality by artificially equalising that. Ok..but we are getting into murky waters? How do we know if the underlying problem is solved now. The goal of such a program is not to be needed at some point in the future. When you're talking about minorities in schools etc. that can take a long time, but aa is not acceptable (to me) indefinitely.
There's also another type of aa*. EG the organisation believes certain staff ratios are good for corporate culture, good for morale, good to give an impression of equability etc. etc. That's a different kettle of fish. Completely different. The company/school may have rational economic reasons for this decision, but that is discrimination for utilitarian reasons. How would you feel if for the same reasons, the decision was made to hire all white males?
Just like having a 99% white male University is not bad in itself, it's a consequence of bad - Inequality in society. The goal of aa (should be) is to deal with that.
There is an inherent problem. We tend to gauge gender equality by things like the male/female exec ratio. That's fine. But then we try to improve equality by artificially equalising that. Ok..but we are getting into murky waters? How do we know if the underlying problem is solved now. The goal of such a program is not to be needed at some point in the future. When you're talking about minorities in schools etc. that can take a long time, but aa is not acceptable (to me) indefinitely.
There's also another type of aa*. EG the organisation believes certain staff ratios are good for corporate culture, good for morale, good to give an impression of equability etc. etc. That's a different kettle of fish. Completely different. The company/school may have rational economic reasons for this decision, but that is discrimination for utilitarian reasons. How would you feel if for the same reasons, the decision was made to hire all white males?
Which is why I never called it an insight - you did :). It was eye opening for me personally. Like I said, I was more surprised how it carried over towards the poorer end of the spectrum. I definitely didn't go to a top tier university (for the record: University of Dayton in Ohio). I went to a University that wanted to improve it's diversity rankings in US News.
As a middle class white kid, I actually got bit by affirmative action, but I'm 100% for what I perceive as the idea behind it (give everyone a damn chance!) and hold no grudges at all. The execution, in my mind has just been bad because it leads to reverse discrimination. Unfortunately, I'm not well read enough in the subject to propose a plan to fix it. I'm working on it.
As a middle class white kid, I actually got bit by affirmative action, but I'm 100% for what I perceive as the idea behind it (give everyone a damn chance!) and hold no grudges at all. The execution, in my mind has just been bad because it leads to reverse discrimination. Unfortunately, I'm not well read enough in the subject to propose a plan to fix it. I'm working on it.
Don't worry aston, the News.YC audience is primarily white male libertarian (both right and left) leaning. Although it's a philosophically consistent position, I think it fails to recognize that there are deep inequities in society that the market/competition just cannot fix (and sometime the market sometimes exacerbates).
I understand there are inequalities. The fact that most of us were born in the United States or certain parts of Europe puts us in the top 5% (higher? 1%?) of the world.
The inequalities between Americans is almost trivial compared to the inequalities found between rich and poor countries. And even though I still do it, that's why I feel so foolish complaining about anything
The inequalities between Americans is almost trivial compared to the inequalities found between rich and poor countries. And even though I still do it, that's why I feel so foolish complaining about anything
Free markets never fix societal inequities. In fact, they exacerbate them. People with wealth use that wealth to generate more wealth. Additionally, only a percentage of the lower class can climb to the upper class in each generation. It amazes me that anyone thinks there can ever be "equality".
Given a choice between equality in actual misery and "poor" people who have multiple TVs, decent housing, way too much food, and so on, why would anyone prefer equality?
I mention that tradeoff because it's the decision we get to make. Free markets give us poor people who live like kings compared to the poor bastards who are all equal.
I think that Bill Gates and Warren Buffet are an acceptable price to pay for a well-off poor people.
Me - I'm far more concerned with what I've got than I am with what someone else has. Why are you so concerned with what other people have? More to the point, how much are you willing to give up for equality?
I mention that tradeoff because it's the decision we get to make. Free markets give us poor people who live like kings compared to the poor bastards who are all equal.
I think that Bill Gates and Warren Buffet are an acceptable price to pay for a well-off poor people.
Me - I'm far more concerned with what I've got than I am with what someone else has. Why are you so concerned with what other people have? More to the point, how much are you willing to give up for equality?
I am not sure why equality === misery. But I am not talking about everyone having the same amount of money- using the word equality did not adequately convey my feelings on this. I am talking about setting a standard for living (we already have explicit and implicit standards) and then actually following the standard.
Depending on the metric you are using we do well. If you are talking about making sure people have the bare essentials, we do pretty well. The "extras" like education are lacking though.
Depending on the metric you are using we do well. If you are talking about making sure people have the bare essentials, we do pretty well. The "extras" like education are lacking though.
I've seen reports that Asian Americans have now replaced Jewish Americans' historic role as having an upper limit quota for how many to admit. Does that fit with your experience?
I think that the University of California system has higher percentages of Asian Americans than other academically comparable institutions since California banned affirmative action.
I think that the University of California system has higher percentages of Asian Americans than other academically comparable institutions since California banned affirmative action.
Not at all, but I'm just one data point. The University of Dayton is primarily composed of wealthy white kids who had private school backgrounds (as a middle class white kid who went to public schools, I was only able to attend due to some scholarships).
If the 2.1 GPA dude had a mentor group catering specifically to him, his GPA may have been higher. That's the point of group specific mentoring groups - find a group that seems weak in a particular area and mentor them specifically to improve there.
You don't see Black Basketballers Mentoring Associations, do you?
You don't see Black Basketballers Mentoring Associations, do you?
As a white man who loves basketball and would have loved to have been better at it at a younger age, I would be all for a Black Basketballers Mentoring White Basketballer Wannabes Assocation!
I like and appreciate this effort on behalf of women. I want my girls to grow up feeling comfortable getting involve in hacking because of some of you out there playing the role model for them.
All through my career I have seen a handful of women hackers and some were pretty damn good ones. Keep on pushing girls!!
All through my career I have seen a handful of women hackers and some were pretty damn good ones. Keep on pushing girls!!
I think this is a great idea! She is offering help.
Frankly, this is the first post I've read where someone is offering plain and simple help. It would be great if she could help everyone, but her available 'free helping' time is I'm sure limited, and she choose a filter to limit the pool and to serve her personal goals as well.
I say thank you!
Frankly, this is the first post I've read where someone is offering plain and simple help. It would be great if she could help everyone, but her available 'free helping' time is I'm sure limited, and she choose a filter to limit the pool and to serve her personal goals as well.
I say thank you!
Yay! It's really nice to see women help other women out like this. I'm not applying for this upcoming cycle, but I have benefitted from talking to and being mentored by other women with more experience. Helps a lot when there's only a very, very tiny percentage.
I'm a girl and found the suggestion interesting. Support when you are starting is apreciated :)
Sometimes you need someone to look upon, who you can use as inspiration or for support. The closer they are to you the better you tend to feel. For example, I would look first for a local incubator (Spain) instead of aiming for a foreign one (e.g. US), but that doesn't mean the foreign ones aren't as good, just that I probably will feel more comfy on the one that's closer and consider we will understand each other better. This of course can be true or not, and I will find out eventually.
Before thinking about "does genre matter", think of the subject and change genre for something else. Does it sound normal to you? Then why the controversy when it's about genre (or race, politics or whatever)? This is just a proposition to try to bring more players into the game :)
Sometimes you need someone to look upon, who you can use as inspiration or for support. The closer they are to you the better you tend to feel. For example, I would look first for a local incubator (Spain) instead of aiming for a foreign one (e.g. US), but that doesn't mean the foreign ones aren't as good, just that I probably will feel more comfy on the one that's closer and consider we will understand each other better. This of course can be true or not, and I will find out eventually.
Before thinking about "does genre matter", think of the subject and change genre for something else. Does it sound normal to you? Then why the controversy when it's about genre (or race, politics or whatever)? This is just a proposition to try to bring more players into the game :)
We're hoping that it gives more women the gumption to apply. It's Susan Mernit's idea, and a good one.
Is it ever okay to suggest that a demographic balance is just fine?
There is a lack of european-descent long-distance runners in the top tiers. Not too many woman play football. Very few men do much knitting. Do we need outreach and mentoring to change make sure that all groups are a mirror of the world's demographic makeup?
Women and men are different, and perhaps the reason that software startups are male-dominated speaks to that difference rather than a social issue. In other words, perhaps our society is that way because of how we are rather than how we are being driven by our society.
All that being said, I met Christine at Demo Day was was very impressed-- if she's offering to mentor you, you should take her up on it. If you couldn't/wouldn't have the guts to dive in and kick ass without this mentorship/support group, I'd suggest that you probably aren't temperamentally suited to be an entrepreneur.
There is a lack of european-descent long-distance runners in the top tiers. Not too many woman play football. Very few men do much knitting. Do we need outreach and mentoring to change make sure that all groups are a mirror of the world's demographic makeup?
Women and men are different, and perhaps the reason that software startups are male-dominated speaks to that difference rather than a social issue. In other words, perhaps our society is that way because of how we are rather than how we are being driven by our society.
All that being said, I met Christine at Demo Day was was very impressed-- if she's offering to mentor you, you should take her up on it. If you couldn't/wouldn't have the guts to dive in and kick ass without this mentorship/support group, I'd suggest that you probably aren't temperamentally suited to be an entrepreneur.
So white males are the most affluent, successful class because of their geneitics? ROFL.
Feel free to read up on what a Straw Man Argument is at your leisure:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man
For all the gents out there, please stop griping. We need more women in startups (seriously, have you been to the meat market parties after tech events?!).
Moreover, it'll give lonely male hackers more choice beyond the no talent Julia whatsherface-cant-get-back-my-15minoflife-after-reading-her-lameness-in-Wired, the designer and "community" chicks, the high-powered VC women, and the one or two technical female founders (re Leah Culver).
I've met some really talented technical women out there (see the women of Meebo) and I've learned a lot from just talking to them and giving them the leg up of YC, LB, or TS would be a good move.
Moreover, it'll give lonely male hackers more choice beyond the no talent Julia whatsherface-cant-get-back-my-15minoflife-after-reading-her-lameness-in-Wired, the designer and "community" chicks, the high-powered VC women, and the one or two technical female founders (re Leah Culver).
I've met some really talented technical women out there (see the women of Meebo) and I've learned a lot from just talking to them and giving them the leg up of YC, LB, or TS would be a good move.
We need more women in startups (seriously, have you been to the meat market parties after tech events?!) ... Moreover, it'll give lonely male hackers more choice
Although you probably didn't mean it, this attitude is most definitely Part Of The Problem. It's a pain because you're right - in an ideal, evenly-divided environment, there would be a lot of within-group dating, and everyone would be fine with that.
The problem is that, as long as there's a significant imbalance, the constant romantic interest is going to be seriously offputting for the few women in the group.
The men don't even need to be malicious or socially maladroit (although, let's face it, as a group hackers tend to lack social skills, which makes things much worse). What would be a perfectly reasonable level of possible romantic interest from each individual person rapidly becomes intolerable if it's all concentrated on the lone female in a big group of males. Which is why you hear so many female geeks screaming "Stop trying to date me, damn it, and look at my code!"
Although you probably didn't mean it, this attitude is most definitely Part Of The Problem. It's a pain because you're right - in an ideal, evenly-divided environment, there would be a lot of within-group dating, and everyone would be fine with that.
The problem is that, as long as there's a significant imbalance, the constant romantic interest is going to be seriously offputting for the few women in the group.
The men don't even need to be malicious or socially maladroit (although, let's face it, as a group hackers tend to lack social skills, which makes things much worse). What would be a perfectly reasonable level of possible romantic interest from each individual person rapidly becomes intolerable if it's all concentrated on the lone female in a big group of males. Which is why you hear so many female geeks screaming "Stop trying to date me, damn it, and look at my code!"
Just to add, the guys have it far worse in this situation.
Just to add, the guys have it far worse in this situation.
-Clonk.-
Yes, the guys have it worse if you view it primarily as a dating situation. But viewing it primarily as a dating situation is a large part of what makes it so uncomfortable for the women in the first place.
Consider this very crude quantitative model: There is a group of 10 (straight) male hackers who spend workdays together. They would prefer to spend 95% of their day working, and 5% flirting. So they spend 5% of their time frustrated, and 95% satisfied.
A female hacker joins the group. She's no celibate saint - she, too, would like to spend 5% of her time flirting and 95% working. But, because she's the only woman around, 50% of her time is occupied by her coworkers trying to flirt with her. So, despite a much better position in the dating situation, she spends 45% of her time being frustrated by the constant romantic attention when she'd far rather be working.
Do you see how we could end up with a situation in which "normal" behaviour, or "just treating someone like you would anyone else", can make someone feel very uncomfortable indeed?
It's certainly much more serious than the minor inconvenience of being unable to meet potential romantic partners at work.
-Clonk.-
Yes, the guys have it worse if you view it primarily as a dating situation. But viewing it primarily as a dating situation is a large part of what makes it so uncomfortable for the women in the first place.
Consider this very crude quantitative model: There is a group of 10 (straight) male hackers who spend workdays together. They would prefer to spend 95% of their day working, and 5% flirting. So they spend 5% of their time frustrated, and 95% satisfied.
A female hacker joins the group. She's no celibate saint - she, too, would like to spend 5% of her time flirting and 95% working. But, because she's the only woman around, 50% of her time is occupied by her coworkers trying to flirt with her. So, despite a much better position in the dating situation, she spends 45% of her time being frustrated by the constant romantic attention when she'd far rather be working.
Do you see how we could end up with a situation in which "normal" behaviour, or "just treating someone like you would anyone else", can make someone feel very uncomfortable indeed?
It's certainly much more serious than the minor inconvenience of being unable to meet potential romantic partners at work.
Wow, interesting. The only shortcoming is that you made this all up.
People in PLENTY of more evenly paired occupations flirt all day long. If flirting is something a woman hates then go right ahead into programming! You can easily avoid human interaction almost entirely.
People in PLENTY of more evenly paired occupations flirt all day long. If flirting is something a woman hates then go right ahead into programming! You can easily avoid human interaction almost entirely.
Not really; women are trying to get a place at the table when they do tech work, not find dates.
As a female/startup co-founder, I find it rather unfortunate that Christine chose to close with:
Let's work constructively to get more bright young women to apply.
Why young? Are women over 30 over-represented among start-up founders? Does she feel that we are ticking time bombs waiting to run off to have babies? Is she simply uncomfortable mentoring someone slightly older? What is it?
I don't question the intentions. But I do question the quality of a mentoring group where the mentors themselves carry outdated self-defeating stereotypes. Reminds me of an otherwise intelligent Indian friend of mine who is completely hung up about having darker skin.
Let's work constructively to get more bright young women to apply.
Why young? Are women over 30 over-represented among start-up founders? Does she feel that we are ticking time bombs waiting to run off to have babies? Is she simply uncomfortable mentoring someone slightly older? What is it?
I don't question the intentions. But I do question the quality of a mentoring group where the mentors themselves carry outdated self-defeating stereotypes. Reminds me of an otherwise intelligent Indian friend of mine who is completely hung up about having darker skin.
My sense is that most of the YC applicants are not just male but under 30. Is this incorrect?
I am one of the mentors in the group and participated in TechStars at the grand old age of 38 and have two young children, and I can say that our group would be happy to work with applicants of any age. I don't believe that Christine's comment is meant to indicate our support of women within a particular age range (or whether they have or plan to have children) -- it's a reference to what we believe the median age of YC applicants are.
Your comment does make me wonder, however: what is that number? Does anyone know?
I am one of the mentors in the group and participated in TechStars at the grand old age of 38 and have two young children, and I can say that our group would be happy to work with applicants of any age. I don't believe that Christine's comment is meant to indicate our support of women within a particular age range (or whether they have or plan to have children) -- it's a reference to what we believe the median age of YC applicants are.
Your comment does make me wonder, however: what is that number? Does anyone know?
Lisa is correct - the comment was pragmatic, not didactic. I don't know the actual median age of the YC applicant pool, but in my own anecdotal and unscientific experience (e.g., who have I met in person at events, or heard a pitch from) the median YC participant is around 23, and has yet to develop the familiarity with pitching that comes from years in the industry. Also, if program awareness comes from social networking or from university outreach, I'd expect a dominant concentration of 20-somethings in the pool.
[deleted]
Surely this could have been worded to come accross as slightly less offensive:
"Y Combinator Mentoring from prominent businesswomen".
"Y Combinator Mentoring from prominent businesswomen".
And less accurate, yes.
Considered asking yourself why something being for women is offensive?
Considered asking yourself why something being for women is offensive?
Sure, for the same reason if something is for whites only it's offensive, or for men only.
It's pointless anyway... Why aren't there more white basketball players? Racism? Probably more likely the same reason there aren't more women founders.
You have to admit a special school only for white basketball players would be pretty offensive. no?
It's pointless anyway... Why aren't there more white basketball players? Racism? Probably more likely the same reason there aren't more women founders.
You have to admit a special school only for white basketball players would be pretty offensive. no?
No no no; I said _ask yourself._ Don't just repeat what you already know; think a little longer and look a little deeper into where the offense, the _feeling of offense in you,_ comes from.
heh I don't take life seriously enough to get offended.
I'm just looking for a bit of consistency here though. Either every instance of racism/sexism is offensive, or they are all fine.
I'm just looking for a bit of consistency here though. Either every instance of racism/sexism is offensive, or they are all fine.
shouldn't the mentoring be for your start-up in general, and not just the YC app?
[deleted]
I guess it comes down to this: I don't see how sex matters when you're a business person, when you're programming, when you're building things. The sex of the person rightfully shouldn't come into it - it's their skills that matter. The interpreter, afterall, doesn't spit out a different result depending the sex of the coder - a computer is ultimately a great leveller. It has been a long fought battle to try and gain equality between the sexes and I firmly believe society is increasingly heading towards that goal.
And then when I read things like this it feels like a punch-in-the-face, as though it's saying "equality doesn't matter when it helps women". Or, even worse, there's perhaps an implication that women /need/ the help of other women to succeed and deserve special treatment. Or should I get ideas that there is some sort of conspiracy to form the inverse to the stereotype sexist "men's-only club" boardroom and there's some sort of attempt to reverse that through a "women's-only club". I loathe all these implications.
I've often wondered about this curious double-standard. There's previously been women-only discussions by Google in Computer Science at my University, but I bet there isn't men-only discussions in the psychology department, languages or other women-dominated social sciences and I think they'd be highly controversial if they did. Often an eyelid isn't blinked when someone offers something exclusively for women, but there'd rightly be uproar if someone offered it for men-only. I often wonder if the fact that men do significantly worse than women in exams (and as such University admissions) in this country would be quite such a footnote if the shoe was on the other foot.