Hot Startups Lack Female Employees (even as applicants)(observer.com)
observer.com
Hot Startups Lack Female Employees (even as applicants)
http://www.observer.com/2010/media/hottest-startups-full-bros
15 comments
In some circles, this is considered headhunting :)
Is headhunting someone based on their gender (or race, or religion) really something companies should be pursuing, rather then simply looking for merit?
Sometimes gender is merit. I wouldn't buy an issue of playboy if it had a dude on the cover.
Because there are fewer women then men in the technology space, they're a scarce resource. Startups who want diverse teams need to compete for them.
Also, parts of the YC universe have a bit of a reputation for being uncomfortable with women. Reaching out sends a clear signal that you're not like that -- you're the kind of company that wants women to work there enough that you're willing to take the initiative.
Also, parts of the YC universe have a bit of a reputation for being uncomfortable with women. Reaching out sends a clear signal that you're not like that -- you're the kind of company that wants women to work there enough that you're willing to take the initiative.
You're asking for startups to compete for a scarce resource (women) in an already scarce subset of engineers (good ones).
That's a pretty tall order for startups. And an almost impossible one if you expect them to take time out of (likely) much more pressing matters to expressly reach out (in some as yet undefined "woman-friendly" way) to females just to that they'll apply.
Not hire females. Just to get them to apply.
That's a pretty tall order for startups. And an almost impossible one if you expect them to take time out of (likely) much more pressing matters to expressly reach out (in some as yet undefined "woman-friendly" way) to females just to that they'll apply.
Not hire females. Just to get them to apply.
It comes down to whether you see diversity as valuable from a business perspective.
If so, you treat this just like you would any other important business problem.
If not ... well, then I guess it's not surprising that women don't want to work there.
If so, you treat this just like you would any other important business problem.
If not ... well, then I guess it's not surprising that women don't want to work there.
Parts of the YC universe are uncomfortable with women? I believe it, but please explain.
Sorry for the belated response ...
I said parts of the YC universe have a reputation of being uncomfortable with women. It's an overwhelmingly-male environments and a lot of the guys who hang out in that world are more comfortable with men than with women. If you're trying to recruit women, you want to actively signal that you're not like that.
I said parts of the YC universe have a reputation of being uncomfortable with women. It's an overwhelmingly-male environments and a lot of the guys who hang out in that world are more comfortable with men than with women. If you're trying to recruit women, you want to actively signal that you're not like that.
Thanks for the response. I was hoping you'd actually have an example. I'm not surprised that y-combinator seems to get the wallflowers when it comes to interacting with the opposite sex.
I'm personally comfortable hiring women just to bring different perspective to problems. I'd be champing at the bit if I were in the "social" space.
I'm personally comfortable hiring women just to bring different perspective to problems. I'd be champing at the bit if I were in the "social" space.
I am really sick of these articles; why cant we just focus on talent. Put the best people in the best positions. It should not matter if they are male, female black or white.
I think the point of the these articles is to point out a smell. An indication that maybe we aren't putting the best people in the best positions.
Maybe we're doing so after all, but it's worth asking the questions. And it's worth asking them again and and again and again.
Maybe we're doing so after all, but it's worth asking the questions. And it's worth asking them again and and again and again.
How do you measure talent while recruiting? The person with the most accomplished resume or who can answer your technical questions most aptly? Both are only proxies, albeit usually pretty good ones, for measuring talent. Perhaps that interviewee was nervous or maybe they're really really bright, but just haven't been programming as long as some of their counterparts.
Tracy Chou of Quora wrote a really insightful post about being a female software engineer: http://www.quora.com/Tracy-Chou/Women-in-Software-Engineerin.... It really opened my eyes to some of the reasons why maybe there aren't more women who even get started in the field - even if there isn't outright prejudice, women in engineering still face a lot of challenges that men simply don't. Sure, you can argue that you should give the most talented person the job, but keep in mind that the methods we use for measuring talent are hugely subject to circumstance. For example, I'll bet the average age when most female engineers start programming is higher, so they simply haven't been programming as long. It is rather naive to believe that talent is the primary indicator of whether someone gets a job or gets into a particular school - success is just as much a product of circumstance, getting the necessary opportunities, and other external conditions as it is of one's own inherent talent and work-ethic. And let's face it, women in software engineering face a wholly different set of circumstances than their male counterparts, so let's stop pretending that it's just about talent.
Tracy Chou of Quora wrote a really insightful post about being a female software engineer: http://www.quora.com/Tracy-Chou/Women-in-Software-Engineerin.... It really opened my eyes to some of the reasons why maybe there aren't more women who even get started in the field - even if there isn't outright prejudice, women in engineering still face a lot of challenges that men simply don't. Sure, you can argue that you should give the most talented person the job, but keep in mind that the methods we use for measuring talent are hugely subject to circumstance. For example, I'll bet the average age when most female engineers start programming is higher, so they simply haven't been programming as long. It is rather naive to believe that talent is the primary indicator of whether someone gets a job or gets into a particular school - success is just as much a product of circumstance, getting the necessary opportunities, and other external conditions as it is of one's own inherent talent and work-ethic. And let's face it, women in software engineering face a wholly different set of circumstances than their male counterparts, so let's stop pretending that it's just about talent.
Wait a second.
It's probably true that the average age at which female engineers start programming is higher, and they haven't been programming as long. You are correct that this is not a matter of talent. It's a matter of experience. However, given that all other attributes are equal, why should anyone pick a less experienced person over a more experienced one? The circumstances that lead to that don't matter.
It's probably true that the average age at which female engineers start programming is higher, and they haven't been programming as long. You are correct that this is not a matter of talent. It's a matter of experience. However, given that all other attributes are equal, why should anyone pick a less experienced person over a more experienced one? The circumstances that lead to that don't matter.
By making the "women in tech" conversation about anything other than talent, you are immediately creating another "affirmative action" situation.
Why should female applicants get a hand-out over more qualified male applicants? That doesn't do a damn thing other than even out some cosmetic "gender gap."
If I am passionate about programming, having done it from an early age, and I lose a position to a person who just discovered he/she could make a pretty penny at this "computer stuff," well, that really pisses me off.
Why should female applicants get a hand-out over more qualified male applicants? That doesn't do a damn thing other than even out some cosmetic "gender gap."
If I am passionate about programming, having done it from an early age, and I lose a position to a person who just discovered he/she could make a pretty penny at this "computer stuff," well, that really pisses me off.
I'm not advocating affirmative action or anything even remotely resembling that. In fact, I'm not offering any kind of solution at all. Just responding to having my eyes opened a little bit by a first-hand account of the struggles a woman in engineering faces.
I don't advocate affirmative action, but I acknowledge some of the reasoning/merit behind it. For example, I got into my dream school. Sure, I worked my ass off, and sure I wouldn't have been happy if someone else got in instead of me in part because of their race/gender/socio-economic status, but I also know that deep down, I'm really lucky/fortunate. I'm from a low-income family, but had tons of support/opportunities that a lot of other equally-deserving, equally-qualified people simply didn't. If affirmative action worked in a perfect world where out of two equally-qualified candidates, the upper hand went to the one who overcame more obstacles, then I wouldn't have any problem with it. Again, I'm not espousing choosing an applicant solely based on race/gender/socio-economic status, but if you turn a blind eye to an applicant's circumstances, your methods of evaluating candidates is extremely flawed.
I don't advocate affirmative action, but I acknowledge some of the reasoning/merit behind it. For example, I got into my dream school. Sure, I worked my ass off, and sure I wouldn't have been happy if someone else got in instead of me in part because of their race/gender/socio-economic status, but I also know that deep down, I'm really lucky/fortunate. I'm from a low-income family, but had tons of support/opportunities that a lot of other equally-deserving, equally-qualified people simply didn't. If affirmative action worked in a perfect world where out of two equally-qualified candidates, the upper hand went to the one who overcame more obstacles, then I wouldn't have any problem with it. Again, I'm not espousing choosing an applicant solely based on race/gender/socio-economic status, but if you turn a blind eye to an applicant's circumstances, your methods of evaluating candidates is extremely flawed.
Diversity can bring a difference of perspective on the problems you face. Sometimes it just brings different looking folks who think the same way.
As an industry, we're leaving about half the talent lying on the floor in the form of women who aren't inclined to study computer science. Carnegie Mellon has had a lot of success recruiting talented women [1]. In order to recruit talented women you can't alienate them. If I were a woman I wouldn't want to associate with the men in a typical high school or college computer science environment. I could give you a bunch of personal anecdotes, but the stories from [2] are typical of my experience. Why should bright women develop computer science talent when they're being harassed by their male peers? They go into another technical field, to the detriment of our industry.
1. http://www.post-gazette.com/regionstate/19990820compwomen4.a...
2. http://www.networkworld.com/community/blog/there-sexual-hara...
1. http://www.post-gazette.com/regionstate/19990820compwomen4.a...
2. http://www.networkworld.com/community/blog/there-sexual-hara...
> As an industry, we're leaving about half the talent lying on the floor in the form of women who aren't inclined to study computer science.
Your assertion shoots itself in the foot. Since you posit a group of people who are not inclined to study a subject, you can't count them as a loss -- all further effects are purely speculative.
It takes years and years of effort to get good at something difficult. You may as well lament the lack of interest in hammer-throwing, or ice hockey.
> If I were a woman I wouldn't want to associate with the men in a typical high school or college computer science environment.
And your bigoted attitude is the fault of other people why?
And despite that, you don't need to socialize with anyone to work on problems of theory or programming.
> I could give you a bunch of personal anecdotes, but the stories from [2] are typical of my experience.
I refer you to: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_harassment_in_education
Sexual harassment is not a computer science issue. There are any number of pursuits where sexual harassment is far more prevalent -- and yet females do not avoid those other pursuits like they do with computer science.
If anything, females are far more likely to experience sexual harassment and bullying from other females. Stories about this abound in the news and are fodder for teen movies.
Regardless of the makeup of a social group, you don't get good at a technical skill by socializing. You can spend all day painting and become a great painter, or you can try to "break into the scene" and spend all day trying to hang out with the hip crowd, and lament your lack of acceptance. None of that will make you a better painter.
Likewise, programmers get good by spending all day programming. There is more learning material available at everyone's fingertips than ever before in human history. A female of today has it a thousand times better than a male of the 1980s. Nobody is going to harass you while you are in your room working on programming, or art, or writing, or playing music.
Also note that the vast majority of males avoid computer science like the plague. Why are we not lamenting losing all of their talent? Are we only concerned with numbers of bodies here, or do individuals matter?
For every story about a female being harassed, there are 10 more about males bending over backward to be helpful and non-harassing to female peers. But it doesn't seem to matter, because ultimately, this stuff is difficult, no matter how nice people are to you.
Nobody can learn for you, just like a personal trainer can't exercise for you. And people have tons of excuses for why they aren't in shape.
Ultimately, this whole topic is begging the question, because people like you are assuming females ought to want to get into computer science. That seems the most condescending viewpoint of all, deciding that you know what's good for them better than they do.
The whole notion of making things more "female-friendly" is insidious sexism of the worst kind. How are you going to overcome social or cultural biases when you are dead set on preserving an existing set of cultural stereotypes and baggage?
If you are taking for granted that females are fundamentally different, then there is no basis for assuming that they should approach parity with males in any given context.
IQ tests show that there are more males at either extreme, with females clustered more toward the middle. If whatever IQ measures correlates well with whatever computer science requires, you should expect to see fewer females at the top end, even if you start with complete gender parity in classroom makeup.
Even disregarding that, it is not at all far-fetched that certain personality traits will be far more prevalent in one gender than another. It could just be that the kind of person who is okay with staring at a screen all day wrestling with code is more likely to be male.
It could even be that extremely smart people are evolutionary "mistakes", and all our progress comes thanks to the social equivalent of paraplegics. The more intelligent someone is, the more likely he or she is to be socially isolated or feel socially alienated.
And it may require social isolation to be able to devote enough time to certain pursuits to become very skilled.
Just by random chance, a small percentage of people born every year will be unusually smart, even when their parents aren't. So even if the smartest people never reproduce, there will still be a supply of smart people turned out by the general populace every year. That group -- a genetic dead-end -- picks up the reigns of the existing technology and takes the next step, generation after generation.
There is no reason we ought to wish anyone into that position. As a group, people who are into computers have traditionally been heavily discriminated against socially. Your comments are just another example of the social ostracization that technical people can expect. And then on top of it, they are a convenient scapegoat for why other people avoid the field. It couldn't be because it's hard -- no, it's got to be because of those fucking nerds.
Your assertion shoots itself in the foot. Since you posit a group of people who are not inclined to study a subject, you can't count them as a loss -- all further effects are purely speculative.
It takes years and years of effort to get good at something difficult. You may as well lament the lack of interest in hammer-throwing, or ice hockey.
> If I were a woman I wouldn't want to associate with the men in a typical high school or college computer science environment.
And your bigoted attitude is the fault of other people why?
And despite that, you don't need to socialize with anyone to work on problems of theory or programming.
> I could give you a bunch of personal anecdotes, but the stories from [2] are typical of my experience.
I refer you to: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_harassment_in_education
Sexual harassment is not a computer science issue. There are any number of pursuits where sexual harassment is far more prevalent -- and yet females do not avoid those other pursuits like they do with computer science.
If anything, females are far more likely to experience sexual harassment and bullying from other females. Stories about this abound in the news and are fodder for teen movies.
Regardless of the makeup of a social group, you don't get good at a technical skill by socializing. You can spend all day painting and become a great painter, or you can try to "break into the scene" and spend all day trying to hang out with the hip crowd, and lament your lack of acceptance. None of that will make you a better painter.
Likewise, programmers get good by spending all day programming. There is more learning material available at everyone's fingertips than ever before in human history. A female of today has it a thousand times better than a male of the 1980s. Nobody is going to harass you while you are in your room working on programming, or art, or writing, or playing music.
Also note that the vast majority of males avoid computer science like the plague. Why are we not lamenting losing all of their talent? Are we only concerned with numbers of bodies here, or do individuals matter?
For every story about a female being harassed, there are 10 more about males bending over backward to be helpful and non-harassing to female peers. But it doesn't seem to matter, because ultimately, this stuff is difficult, no matter how nice people are to you.
Nobody can learn for you, just like a personal trainer can't exercise for you. And people have tons of excuses for why they aren't in shape.
Ultimately, this whole topic is begging the question, because people like you are assuming females ought to want to get into computer science. That seems the most condescending viewpoint of all, deciding that you know what's good for them better than they do.
The whole notion of making things more "female-friendly" is insidious sexism of the worst kind. How are you going to overcome social or cultural biases when you are dead set on preserving an existing set of cultural stereotypes and baggage?
If you are taking for granted that females are fundamentally different, then there is no basis for assuming that they should approach parity with males in any given context.
IQ tests show that there are more males at either extreme, with females clustered more toward the middle. If whatever IQ measures correlates well with whatever computer science requires, you should expect to see fewer females at the top end, even if you start with complete gender parity in classroom makeup.
Even disregarding that, it is not at all far-fetched that certain personality traits will be far more prevalent in one gender than another. It could just be that the kind of person who is okay with staring at a screen all day wrestling with code is more likely to be male.
It could even be that extremely smart people are evolutionary "mistakes", and all our progress comes thanks to the social equivalent of paraplegics. The more intelligent someone is, the more likely he or she is to be socially isolated or feel socially alienated.
And it may require social isolation to be able to devote enough time to certain pursuits to become very skilled.
Just by random chance, a small percentage of people born every year will be unusually smart, even when their parents aren't. So even if the smartest people never reproduce, there will still be a supply of smart people turned out by the general populace every year. That group -- a genetic dead-end -- picks up the reigns of the existing technology and takes the next step, generation after generation.
There is no reason we ought to wish anyone into that position. As a group, people who are into computers have traditionally been heavily discriminated against socially. Your comments are just another example of the social ostracization that technical people can expect. And then on top of it, they are a convenient scapegoat for why other people avoid the field. It couldn't be because it's hard -- no, it's got to be because of those fucking nerds.
Because diversity is important and hugely valuable. You shouldn't have to compromise on talent in order to achieve diversity.
Why aren't there more talented female developers? And if they're out there, why aren't they applying for these jobs?
Why aren't there more talented female developers? And if they're out there, why aren't they applying for these jobs?
Is that proven? Is it intuitively clear? What makes us think that a mixed team of programmers is better than a homogeneous one? Maybe it is in some cases, and isn't in others.
Several studies have reproduced a correlation between diversity and organizational success. I don't know of such a study for programmers specifically. I also haven't seen proof of causality - do better organizations have diverse hiring practices, or vice versa? But I've never seen a study that said that lack of diversity was a good thing. So far the evidence weighs towards diversity being better for your organization, though I wouldn't call it "proven".
I think if you're making a claim like this, you should point people to the studies.
You're right and I would prefer to link. It comes up in The Economist from time to time. I can't find the links right now.
I read this as "Startups Lack Hot Female Employees" and was expecting an Onion-style article.
I'm only sort of glad that it isn't. The Onion article would at least have been funny.
I'm only sort of glad that it isn't. The Onion article would at least have been funny.
I agree a thousand times.
If women want to do tech (read: if they are interested in tech) then they will do tech, and good for them.
But god damn it, stop complaining about it. There may be a distinct lack of women in the industry, but stop acting like it's actually a problem. It would be great to have more, sure, but the industry is doing fine, and so are the women.
If you're interested in something, fucking do it. That's all there is to it.
No one told me to get interested in programming, and if they did I would have told them to fuck off. The same goes for women, and everyone else in the world.
If women want to do tech (read: if they are interested in tech) then they will do tech, and good for them.
But god damn it, stop complaining about it. There may be a distinct lack of women in the industry, but stop acting like it's actually a problem. It would be great to have more, sure, but the industry is doing fine, and so are the women.
If you're interested in something, fucking do it. That's all there is to it.
No one told me to get interested in programming, and if they did I would have told them to fuck off. The same goes for women, and everyone else in the world.
How many times were you groped by a peer while learning to program? When you were in high school and first learning to code, did you have peers whose presence inspired all the women to leave the room because of their obnoxious behavior? These patterns of behavior are a real, measurable problem that discourages female computer science participation. That shrinks the talent pool and benefits nobody.
Are saying that the typical experience of a woman in tech is that they are groped by their peers?
I don't often do this, but (non-anecdotal) citation needed.
I don't often do this, but (non-anecdotal) citation needed.
I know a lot of women in tech and virtually all of them have either been groped or known a friend who was groped.
It can be interesting to poll your own network, although guys often have to get to a fairly deep level of trust before women will discuss it with them.
It can be interesting to poll your own network, although guys often have to get to a fairly deep level of trust before women will discuss it with them.
The citation was [1]. It is typical for women that attend open source conferences. That really sucks, for everybody involved.
1. http://www.networkworld.com/community/blog/there-sexual-hara...
1. http://www.networkworld.com/community/blog/there-sexual-hara...
Yes, it does suck for anyone who undergoes sexual harassment.
But you're using the word "typical". It connotes that such harassment is not only regular, but expected if a woman attends a conference. Nothing you've linked to (and nothing they've linked to from what I've read) supports the position that sexual harassment is activity that a woman should expect to be typical when going to these conferences.
Do they happen more than any of us would like? Most definitely. I agree it's a problem. I disagree that it's a typical problem.
But you're using the word "typical". It connotes that such harassment is not only regular, but expected if a woman attends a conference. Nothing you've linked to (and nothing they've linked to from what I've read) supports the position that sexual harassment is activity that a woman should expect to be typical when going to these conferences.
Do they happen more than any of us would like? Most definitely. I agree it's a problem. I disagree that it's a typical problem.
[deleted]
If women decide not to do Computer Science because they don't like their male peers, I think you're right that there is a more fundamental problem: they probably didn't want to do Computer Science that much in the first place. I would never let my classmates determine my career path. Anyone who tries to argue that is a fraud.
It really is no more complicated than this: do what you love, and fuck everyone else.
I mean it when I say I would love to see more female programmers. But it doesn't help anyone by trying to argue it's all the boys' fault there are no women in tech.
If more women were interested in esoteric technical subjects like computer programming or engineering, they would do them. It's that simple. It just so happens there are more guys who are interested in these things.
It really is no more complicated than this: do what you love, and fuck everyone else.
I mean it when I say I would love to see more female programmers. But it doesn't help anyone by trying to argue it's all the boys' fault there are no women in tech.
If more women were interested in esoteric technical subjects like computer programming or engineering, they would do them. It's that simple. It just so happens there are more guys who are interested in these things.
I do not think this is typical, yet, in High School. I think the social and sexual ineptness and poor behaviour is fostered and reinforced by the lack of female presence for the crucial years between, say, 14-23 (I doubt the number of actual sexual offenders — for whom acclimation is not a solution — is larger among the techy group than any others).
The long-term solution is to get more girls (HS and younger) interested in programming and so on.
Edit: probably unnecessary clarifications in italics.
The long-term solution is to get more girls (HS and younger) interested in programming and so on.
Edit: probably unnecessary clarifications in italics.
Want to fill me in about the flaw in my argument?
I wonder how much of this is because of the company and how much is because of the company's stage in its lifecycle.
Google today is known as a pretty female-friendly employer, at least among tech companies. The gender balance in the cafes seems about 60/40 male, and engineering is about 10% female (which sounds terrible but is actually better than many undergrad CS departments). Several top executives are women.
But Google's first female hire was Marissa, who was something like employee #20. Which means that when Google was the size of FourSquare or Tumblr or Kickstarter, it was even more male-dominated than they are.
It could just be that women have no desire to pad their egos by working at a successful startup. If you don't care about the cash and cachet of that, there's no reason to put yourself through the risk and uncertainty of it.
Google today is known as a pretty female-friendly employer, at least among tech companies. The gender balance in the cafes seems about 60/40 male, and engineering is about 10% female (which sounds terrible but is actually better than many undergrad CS departments). Several top executives are women.
But Google's first female hire was Marissa, who was something like employee #20. Which means that when Google was the size of FourSquare or Tumblr or Kickstarter, it was even more male-dominated than they are.
It could just be that women have no desire to pad their egos by working at a successful startup. If you don't care about the cash and cachet of that, there's no reason to put yourself through the risk and uncertainty of it.
I don't know why we should focus on startups when this is a much more global issue. If you look at your typical college's CS, Engineering, or Math departments you'll find similar ratios of females as you find in the tech workforce. I have no idea why that is but it's not caused by who startups are hiring. If you look at a typical college's marketing department you'll see a lot more women, how is it surprising that there are more women in marketing positions?
Agreed. I think the issue is exacerbated in startups because they inherently have fewer employees.
It's important to highlight and actively try to fix this because it's a bootstrapping problem. Tech is male dominated, so it is a less comfortable work environment for many women, so few women go into tech, so tech is male dominated. (There are of course many other factors in play, but this is one which can be nicely isolated and is important on it's own)
The principal problem with objections centered about "but why can't we just focus on talent" is that they are short sighted greedy optimizations which are actively trapping the tech industry in a local talent maximum.
The principal problem with objections centered about "but why can't we just focus on talent" is that they are short sighted greedy optimizations which are actively trapping the tech industry in a local talent maximum.
I don't know the figures for the US, but in the UK roughly 10% of developers are female. So it's not surprising that a startup with 9 developers might have no female developers.
There might be an issue due to hiring methods (i.e. recruiting through venues that are male dominated, adverts being tailored to males, etc.), but the overwhelming reason is likely to be the lack of female devs across the industry.
There might be an issue due to hiring methods (i.e. recruiting through venues that are male dominated, adverts being tailored to males, etc.), but the overwhelming reason is likely to be the lack of female devs across the industry.
When I started out, about 30 years ago, the male/female ratio in IT was about 60:40. But I presume that men were also a larger percentage of the total workforce at that time, at least in "professional" roles.
The first time I really noticed the change was at Sun around 1998/99 when my group, containing about 100 engineers, only had two women in it.
The first time I really noticed the change was at Sun around 1998/99 when my group, containing about 100 engineers, only had two women in it.
Bad form to reply to myself, but I just went and read the Tracy Chou post mentioned elsewhere here http://www.quora.com/Tracy-Chou/Women-in-Software-Engineerin...
I have to say that I recognise everything she says. For the record, I am male.
On reflection, the IT world has become a place where a huge amount of male posturing and faux competitiveness goes on. It wears me down. I know a lot of guys behave this way, but the IT world is best powered by cooperation and collaboration, not by a lot of willy waving.
It's interesting that she mentions her mum being in IT 25 years ago and gave it up 10 years ago, as I know a lot of women who did just that. A lot.
I have to say that I recognise everything she says. For the record, I am male.
On reflection, the IT world has become a place where a huge amount of male posturing and faux competitiveness goes on. It wears me down. I know a lot of guys behave this way, but the IT world is best powered by cooperation and collaboration, not by a lot of willy waving.
It's interesting that she mentions her mum being in IT 25 years ago and gave it up 10 years ago, as I know a lot of women who did just that. A lot.
So I run a conference, Swagapalooza, which involves companies launching new consumer products to bloggers. The products are mostly food, fashion, tech, books, music, clothes, parenting stuff, etc. While I do get a decent number of applications from women who want to present their products, most of them are for Etsy-like stuff, which generally doesn't work as we are only looking for products that we have the potential to help tip. The percentage of women-run consumer product companies whose products are interesting[1] and mass produceable are probably just as low as the percentage of women-run tech companies.
[1] Genuinely novel. Not just a company that silkscreens t-shirts with their own designs.
[1] Genuinely novel. Not just a company that silkscreens t-shirts with their own designs.
What about the more tepid startups?
I've often heard companies saying they would love to hire more women, but they lack the applicants. Can anyone that handles hiring for a company speak out on even the perceived ratio of applicants?
For what it's worth, I recently recommended my old boss at an unnamed large company in Silicon Valley hire a female colleague for a technical position I used to hold. If they won't apply, recommending a job to a woman you know is the next best step.
For what it's worth, I recently recommended my old boss at an unnamed large company in Silicon Valley hire a female colleague for a technical position I used to hold. If they won't apply, recommending a job to a woman you know is the next best step.
"I just scanned through all the applicants we have received for advertised 'making' positions. To date, we have yet to receive a single female applicant"
When I see statements like this, I wonder what they've been doing to reach out to women. Usually the answer is "nothing" or "well, we asked our friends" ... in other words, they're not investing any significant effort.
EDIT: downvoted. I know you're shocked.
When I see statements like this, I wonder what they've been doing to reach out to women. Usually the answer is "nothing" or "well, we asked our friends" ... in other words, they're not investing any significant effort.
EDIT: downvoted. I know you're shocked.
Ok so men looking for work have to network, send 100s of resumes out, research, and train. Women looking for work should blame companies for not "reaching out" to them. Sounds equal.
What kind of outreach do you expect a new startup to do? They don't exactly have an excess of free time or resources to invest significant effort.
And perhaps more fundamentally, are the job descriptions looking for applicants biased towards males in such a way that it warrants an explicit female-oriented recruiting outreach?
And perhaps more fundamentally, are the job descriptions looking for applicants biased towards males in such a way that it warrants an explicit female-oriented recruiting outreach?
There's a bunch of suggestions on the Geek Feminism Wiki at http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/wiki/Hiring_discrimination#Sol...
Yes, most job descriptions give the appearance of being biased towards males. The best thing to do is get feedback on it from a couple of women with the skills you're trhing to attract and a diversity/recruiting expert. We did that at my previous startup and it made a huge difference.
If a company sees diversity as important, it doesn't really take that much time or money to reach out.
Yes, most job descriptions give the appearance of being biased towards males. The best thing to do is get feedback on it from a couple of women with the skills you're trhing to attract and a diversity/recruiting expert. We did that at my previous startup and it made a huge difference.
If a company sees diversity as important, it doesn't really take that much time or money to reach out.
'If a company sees diversity as important'
Maybe they seek success as important. How does a focus on diversity help a company succeed?
Maybe they seek success as important. How does a focus on diversity help a company succeed?
I work for a large company. They think it's important. The framing is along the lines of "How can we sell to everyone if we don't hire everyone?" If you are dominated by white males, you may be making wording choices and other decisions which subtly exclude women, blacks, hispanics, etc and you probably have no idea you are doing it. (Subtle does not necessarily mean the effect is small either.)
Exactly. Also, diverse teams outperform -- Scott Page's book The Difference presents the underlying cognitive diversity model for why, and there's been some great recent empirical work as well.
Conversely a lot of white guys don't believe that diversity leads to success -- and many of them talk primarily to other white guys who reinforce their views (or to women and people of color who agree with them). So, companies they run wind up with mostly male and mostly white development teams, building products optimized for white guys. It's a crowded market space ...
Conversely a lot of white guys don't believe that diversity leads to success -- and many of them talk primarily to other white guys who reinforce their views (or to women and people of color who agree with them). So, companies they run wind up with mostly male and mostly white development teams, building products optimized for white guys. It's a crowded market space ...
Anecdotally, my recollection is that the most successful organized crime group ever was successful in part because they would work with anyone, so long as they had the necessary skills. Prior to that, the Irish stuck with the Irish, the Italians stuck with the Italians, etc. Inclusiveness of people = not excluding skills/talent based on some arbitrary, irrelevant detail (like skin color, gender, etc).
A lot of the comments here seem to focus on sexual harassment as The Issue. I wonder, though, about the issue of how close-knit and intimate start-up culture tends to be. There was a (flagged, dead) thread not terribly long ago where some married man had gotten his female co-founder pregnant and was looking for suggestions on how best to handle this big mess. Long hours, late nights and possibly no one else around in a close-knit, small social unit (aka a startup) is probably also a concern for some women, even if the men are all perfect gentlemen. They might not fess up to this angle but I think any concerns about this which one might normally have for work generally would be magnified by the type of intimate environment of a startup. An affair at work can lead to being fired (and sometimes other ugliness). So if someone has a brain and considers this to be a potential issue, it seems to me the wisest thing to do is not go there to begin with.
It's a great point. Women often have a lot more to lose in situations like this so may be extra wary. And the long hours late nights can be much more of an issue for single moms or moms in families where both parents are working. So it's challenging all around.
Because most women are not good at programming. Because their brain lacks the wiring [1]. Otherwise they would've already jumped at a chance to secure $150k/year jobs.
Stop writing superficial articles that don't address the fundamentals.
[1] http://scienceblogs.com/cognitivedaily/2007/09/why_arent_mor...
"Mental rotation tasks (see this CogDaily post), which require working with a three-dimensional representation of an object, have been found to have very large sex differences favoring males"
Stop writing superficial articles that don't address the fundamentals.
[1] http://scienceblogs.com/cognitivedaily/2007/09/why_arent_mor...
"Mental rotation tasks (see this CogDaily post), which require working with a three-dimensional representation of an object, have been found to have very large sex differences favoring males"
I recently saw that a "Walgreens Pharmacist" is typically paid around ~$120k/yr.
If I set my mind to it, I am fairly certain I could become a Walgreens Pharmacist. However I have no interest whatsoever in that. So regardless of the pay, I would not pursue it.
Do you see the problem here? This issue is deeper than you give it credit for. For example, if women are different in some fundamental way, what is the difference? It seems just as likely that it results in them not being interested rather than lacking ability.
If I set my mind to it, I am fairly certain I could become a Walgreens Pharmacist. However I have no interest whatsoever in that. So regardless of the pay, I would not pursue it.
Do you see the problem here? This issue is deeper than you give it credit for. For example, if women are different in some fundamental way, what is the difference? It seems just as likely that it results in them not being interested rather than lacking ability.
[deleted]
"So regardless of the pay, I would not pursue it."
The current unemployment rate for college grad worldwide is ~30%. So you're not the norm.
The current unemployment rate for college grad worldwide is ~30%. So you're not the norm.
This is true.
That's another interesting question I think about sometimes...
What would I do, if programming did not exist?
Architecture, maybe...
That's another interesting question I think about sometimes...
What would I do, if programming did not exist?
Architecture, maybe...
[deleted]
Most people aren't good at programming, at least until you train them. It's hard to convince women to spend ten years becoming excellent programmers when their peers disrespect and harass them. I've never seen credible evidence that women's brains "lack the wiring" - that's an awfully Victorian era sentiment. The fundamental problem here is with the behavior of men in the field of computer science.
> It's hard to convince women to spend ten years becoming excellent programmers when their peers disrespect and harass them.
The same thing happened to me, only I started at 13 so I was more poorly equipped to deal with it. I learned anyway, because computers mesmerized me, and nothing that happened away from the keyboard could ever change that. Anyone capable of walking away really should, and go find their calling elsewhere, because this isn't it.
The same thing happened to me, only I started at 13 so I was more poorly equipped to deal with it. I learned anyway, because computers mesmerized me, and nothing that happened away from the keyboard could ever change that. Anyone capable of walking away really should, and go find their calling elsewhere, because this isn't it.
If I were interested in becoming a cook, I would take the classes and become a cook.
If I were interested in becoming a dancer, I would damn well become a dancer.
You can't just say it's the mens' fault. That is disingenuous and insulting to me as a male programmer.
The fundamental problem has nothing to do with men: it's that women aren't interested at all in computers. They're interested in babies, families, and things that are warm, cuddly and emotional. I'm not being sexist, I am quoting my girlfriend.
If I were interested in becoming a dancer, I would damn well become a dancer.
You can't just say it's the mens' fault. That is disingenuous and insulting to me as a male programmer.
The fundamental problem has nothing to do with men: it's that women aren't interested at all in computers. They're interested in babies, families, and things that are warm, cuddly and emotional. I'm not being sexist, I am quoting my girlfriend.
Your girlfriend is sexist then.
You are being sexist - you're overgeneralizing from one example (your girlfriend).
I didn't mean to insult you. I did mean to say that the aggregate behavior of many men has discouraged many women from participating in CS. That's not disingenuous, it's a fact supported by evidence.
I didn't mean to insult you. I did mean to say that the aggregate behavior of many men has discouraged many women from participating in CS. That's not disingenuous, it's a fact supported by evidence.
"when their peers disrespect and harass them"
That's pretty damning accusation you're making for programmers everywhere. Do you have citations?
That's pretty damning accusation you're making for programmers everywhere. Do you have citations?
Yes, I have a citation[1]. I've also got anecdotal evidence from studying computer science at Stuyvesant High School and Carnegie Mellon University. To be clear, I didn't mean that programmers everywhere disrespect and harass women. I meant that sufficiently many programmers act this way for it to have a negative effect on female CS participation.
1. http://www.networkworld.com/community/blog/there-sexual-hara...
EDITED TO ADD: where's your citation for the "brain wiring" comment above?
1. http://www.networkworld.com/community/blog/there-sexual-hara...
EDITED TO ADD: where's your citation for the "brain wiring" comment above?
http://scienceblogs.com/cognitivedaily/2007/09/why_arent_mor...
"Mental rotation tasks (see this CogDaily post), which require working with a three-dimensional representation of an object, have been found to have very large sex differences favoring males"
"Mental rotation tasks (see this CogDaily post), which require working with a three-dimensional representation of an object, have been found to have very large sex differences favoring males"
Thanks for the citation. That same article says that "at least one study has found that it's possible to teach these visuospatial skills." I can interpret the result "males in the study did better at mental rotation tasks" to mean "males brains are wired better" or "males have better math educations". Both interpretations fit the study evidence as presented.
The 3rd part of the linked article even says:
"So it appears that there are a wide variety of social factors that affect (or are affected by) sex differences in math and science. Because of limitations in the way these studies can be controlled, it's difficult to say that discrimination or differential treatment cause the sex differences we see in math and science."
Overall, the linked articles do not support the hypothesis that "men's brains are wired better".
The 3rd part of the linked article even says:
"So it appears that there are a wide variety of social factors that affect (or are affected by) sex differences in math and science. Because of limitations in the way these studies can be controlled, it's difficult to say that discrimination or differential treatment cause the sex differences we see in math and science."
Overall, the linked articles do not support the hypothesis that "men's brains are wired better".
Yeah ok please show me a YC startup (still in startup mode) playing $150K for any position.
There's a lot of risk in working at a startup, I think that plays a factor too although I have no data to back this up, just a vague recollection of college courses and reading.
There's a lot of risk in working at a startup, I think that plays a factor too although I have no data to back this up, just a vague recollection of college courses and reading.
[deleted]
Consider what is really being asked for here; startups are now "supposed" to go seek women out who aren't even indicating they are searching for a job and hire them? That's not a sensible demand; translated into real action that borders on harassment.