Damn, Girl: New York Has Almost Double The Female Founders(betabeat.com)
betabeat.com
Damn, Girl: New York Has Almost Double The Female Founders
http://www.betabeat.com/2012/04/11/damn-girl-new-york-has-almost-double-the-female-founders/
12 comments
I think you're trying to find a conspiracy where there is none.
The lack of women in tech (and lack of women in science and math in general) starts at a very young age - while boys are immersed in video games and girls are having afternoon tea with their dolls. I doubt those 5-year-olds are influenced by the way women in tech are reported.
Maybe society in general assigns gender roles that we all feel forced to comply with. Or maybe we're just different. Can't men and women just be a bit different?
The lack of women in tech (and lack of women in science and math in general) starts at a very young age - while boys are immersed in video games and girls are having afternoon tea with their dolls. I doubt those 5-year-olds are influenced by the way women in tech are reported.
Maybe society in general assigns gender roles that we all feel forced to comply with. Or maybe we're just different. Can't men and women just be a bit different?
Although boys have outperformed girls in exams in maths at 16 here in the UK for the last three years, girls had outperformed boys at maths for the decade before that.
You're not arguing that men and women are "just a bit different" so much as you're arguing that people should conform to gender roles which don't necessarily apply.
What about gay people in tech - Peter Thiel, Tim Cook, Ben Ling? Shouldn't they have been playing with Barbie dolls, or My Little Pony or whatever at a young age too?
You're not arguing that men and women are "just a bit different" so much as you're arguing that people should conform to gender roles which don't necessarily apply.
What about gay people in tech - Peter Thiel, Tim Cook, Ben Ling? Shouldn't they have been playing with Barbie dolls, or My Little Pony or whatever at a young age too?
Oh, I can definitely believe girls outperform boys at math tests and even score higher on IQ tests.
The question is interests. Why aren't they as interested in pursuing careers in those fields? Maybe we are just a bit different in that regard.
And as for your theory on gay people in tech, I am not sure what you're saying. And not sure why you're even mentioning it actually.
The question is interests. Why aren't they as interested in pursuing careers in those fields? Maybe we are just a bit different in that regard.
And as for your theory on gay people in tech, I am not sure what you're saying. And not sure why you're even mentioning it actually.
> The question is interests.
The point they're trying to make is that you have very little evidence of that. Specially since girls of under 1 year old are already being surrounded with girly themes from their parents. They grow up being fed girly toys and mentality. Before a girl can even understand what a "toy" is, she is already surrounded by dolls in pink dresses.
So it is really the girl's interests that differ from the boy's interests? Or is it their parent's interests being pushed to them? You don't know this, and you have absolutely no evidence to indicate that it's their born interest to like one thing over the other.
The point they're trying to make is that you have very little evidence of that. Specially since girls of under 1 year old are already being surrounded with girly themes from their parents. They grow up being fed girly toys and mentality. Before a girl can even understand what a "toy" is, she is already surrounded by dolls in pink dresses.
So it is really the girl's interests that differ from the boy's interests? Or is it their parent's interests being pushed to them? You don't know this, and you have absolutely no evidence to indicate that it's their born interest to like one thing over the other.
I think the takeaway here is that: yes, there is quite likely a societally-imposed suggestion that men should go into software and women should not; however, that it's not just Silicon Valley's fault, and that the genders are really groomed essentially from birth for what they're "supposed to" do.
"The lack of women in tech (and lack of women in science and math in general) starts at a very young age - while boys are immersed in video games and girls are having afternoon tea with their dolls. I doubt those 5-year-olds are influenced by the way women in tech are reported."
I don't quite understand this. First, girls play video games. Everyone plays video games. Second, are you saying that portraying female founders in sexist terms is immaterial because whatever explains women being rare in tech has already taken effect after the age of 5?
That would imply that sexism in media only merits attention at all if children 5 or under can see that media. I think that's pretty unlikely.
And what about being a decent human being to the women who are already here? I mean say for the sake of argument that we go along with this theory that something utterly irrevocable happens at the magical age of 5. Doesn't a perfunctory nod to public decency still require that, if a woman in technology says "this article about women in technology does not portray people like me in the way I would prefer," anyone who is not in that category should acquiesce, or at least show a baseline level of respect for the request?
When I was a raver, and I saw stories in the media about ravers, and I told my non-raver friends "yeah that doesn't quite correspond to reality," they were curious to hear what the reality was. When, as a first-generation American with British parents, I spot some unrealistic British character on an American TV show doing something no British person would ever do, if I point this out to Americans, they tend to listen.
I think you have to just show respect for the fact that somebody in the category that the article was about disagrees with the depiction of the category. I think that's (no pun intended) categorical, and the larger issues of sexism are irrelevant here. I think that's just common courtesy, even leaving aside your argument that media only has an effect on the mental attitudes of children, and/or that the whole thing is a done deal by age 5 anyway so why bother -- OK honestly I have no idea what your argument was there. But I made a good-faith effort to tackle it and I think any discussion of women in tech should show a token level of courtesy, just on the offchance that they turn out to be human beings after all.
I don't quite understand this. First, girls play video games. Everyone plays video games. Second, are you saying that portraying female founders in sexist terms is immaterial because whatever explains women being rare in tech has already taken effect after the age of 5?
That would imply that sexism in media only merits attention at all if children 5 or under can see that media. I think that's pretty unlikely.
And what about being a decent human being to the women who are already here? I mean say for the sake of argument that we go along with this theory that something utterly irrevocable happens at the magical age of 5. Doesn't a perfunctory nod to public decency still require that, if a woman in technology says "this article about women in technology does not portray people like me in the way I would prefer," anyone who is not in that category should acquiesce, or at least show a baseline level of respect for the request?
When I was a raver, and I saw stories in the media about ravers, and I told my non-raver friends "yeah that doesn't quite correspond to reality," they were curious to hear what the reality was. When, as a first-generation American with British parents, I spot some unrealistic British character on an American TV show doing something no British person would ever do, if I point this out to Americans, they tend to listen.
I think you have to just show respect for the fact that somebody in the category that the article was about disagrees with the depiction of the category. I think that's (no pun intended) categorical, and the larger issues of sexism are irrelevant here. I think that's just common courtesy, even leaving aside your argument that media only has an effect on the mental attitudes of children, and/or that the whole thing is a done deal by age 5 anyway so why bother -- OK honestly I have no idea what your argument was there. But I made a good-faith effort to tackle it and I think any discussion of women in tech should show a token level of courtesy, just on the offchance that they turn out to be human beings after all.
In 2001, only 12% of video gamers were girls. Now in 2011, that number is 40%.[1] But the fact is, more boys play video games than girls, and 10 years ago when today's tech founders were growing up the ratio was 8:1.
I do not support sexist language or sexism in general, and was not making a comment on whether this article was offensive. Merely stating that the 5-year-old girls who are not as interested in tech as their brothers are not being influenced by online blogs.
[1] http://www.theesa.com/facts/pdfs/ESA_EF_2011.pdf
I do not support sexist language or sexism in general, and was not making a comment on whether this article was offensive. Merely stating that the 5-year-old girls who are not as interested in tech as their brothers are not being influenced by online blogs.
[1] http://www.theesa.com/facts/pdfs/ESA_EF_2011.pdf
ok, but do you get that the person you were responding to was a woman who didn't like how the blog was representing her?
do you get why I think it's weird that you dismissed her complaint because no 5-year-olds were present?
do you get why I think it's weird that you dismissed her complaint because no 5-year-olds were present?
no, i had no idea the original commenter was a woman. she didn't say "i am a woman and i was offended" either, so you're putting words into her mouth.
the author of the original post Kelly Faircloth is a woman too. that also deflates the notion that the headline, picture, and phrasing in the text was sexist.
the author of the original post Kelly Faircloth is a woman too. that also deflates the notion that the headline, picture, and phrasing in the text was sexist.
> the author of the original post Kelly Faircloth is a woman too. that also deflates the notion that the headline, picture, and phrasing in the text was sexist.
Women can be sexist against women. In fact, any member of a group may hold prejudices against that same group, even without realizing it or believing that they are engaging in that kind of behavior or attitude, so the gender of the article's author isn't really relevant as to whether or not this piece is sexist in this instance.
Women can be sexist against women. In fact, any member of a group may hold prejudices against that same group, even without realizing it or believing that they are engaging in that kind of behavior or attitude, so the gender of the article's author isn't really relevant as to whether or not this piece is sexist in this instance.
I normally wouldn't write a comment echoing something that's already been said, but I wanted to say thanks for writing this, and stress again to whoever else is reading this thread that this is a hugely important point that I think a lot of people miss. And as you pointed out, it can apply to any group prejudice, including gender, race, etc.
Just a quick heads up - I'm not actually a woman.
No, they're not influenced by blogs, but they are influenced by family members/other adults telling them, "Oh no, you don't want to play with that, that's for boys." Some of us were lucky to have had parents that had no problem with us having fun with computers and video games (partially because my mom loved playing with our Intellivision :).
But there's still pressure and expectations on what kids play with. Girls get dolls - they've not been expected to play with video games and the like.
However (as the demographics are showing) - that is changing. Parents weren't into games, it was just a toy that happened to be part of the "boy" group. But they've grown up, and still play them. I was rare in that my Mom and Dad introduced me into video games and that helped spark my interest in computers. I have friends who are parents who ask their daughters if they want to try this game or that game. I can't imagine most of my friends' parents growing up doing that.
Will that shift us closer to a more balanced demographic in tech? I don't know, I'd like to hope that coming generations of women don't feel pushed away from the field due to really artificial or societal reasons.
But there's still pressure and expectations on what kids play with. Girls get dolls - they've not been expected to play with video games and the like.
However (as the demographics are showing) - that is changing. Parents weren't into games, it was just a toy that happened to be part of the "boy" group. But they've grown up, and still play them. I was rare in that my Mom and Dad introduced me into video games and that helped spark my interest in computers. I have friends who are parents who ask their daughters if they want to try this game or that game. I can't imagine most of my friends' parents growing up doing that.
Will that shift us closer to a more balanced demographic in tech? I don't know, I'd like to hope that coming generations of women don't feel pushed away from the field due to really artificial or societal reasons.
A quick google returns songs called "Damn Girl" by Justin Timberlake, All American Rejects... I think it's safe to say that it's just a well known phrase, not a reference to a song called "Sexy Bitch".
Actually, both those songs have misogynistic lyrics too. The JT song includes the line "Don't need no L'Oreal 'cause bitch you're bad as hell." Maybe referring to women as "girl" is just a bad jump-off point.
The point I was making was that there is no reference to any of these songs in the article title. It's a commonly used phrase- including by women themselves.
It's not a reference to a song at all. It's a reference to a meme called "feminist Ryan Gosling."
I thought that the meme was, "Hey Girl"?
http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/people/ryan-gosling
http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/people/ryan-gosling
>it references the Akon song "Sexy Bitch"
No, it doesn't. Stop making up conspiracy theories where there are none.
No, it doesn't. Stop making up conspiracy theories where there are none.
i agree with your main point, but saying that the title is a reference to Akon is a bit silly
Completely unimportant quibble: That song is actually by David Guetta, and /features/ Akon.
ah, but is it actually "by" david guetta, or is he just more business savvy than most pop producers?
It has everything to do with NYC being more than a tech hub. It's arguably the fashion and business capital of the world and the startups that we get here tend to reflect that.
Having people from all backgrounds building businesses around real problems in their industries sets it apart from SV, where you get people doing startups for the sake of startups.
I agree with your general argument about NYC. SV isn't only where you get "people doing startups for the sake of startups" (although it has that). It is more technology focused and less "all business" like NYC.
Of course not, but it's Disneyland for engineers and you don't get people from other professions flocking to work there. My girlfriend is a med student and she wasn't a fan of a suggested move to the Valley. My friends in finance dream of Wall Street, those in arts wouldn't trade Broadway for anything and all the fashionistas only hold Paris above 5th ave and SOHO.
New York never ceases to amaze! Almost half of founders are women... I'm sure that can only be a good thing for the diversity of problems solved, and those startups' availability to address wider audiences. Obviously Silicon Valley needs to learn from NYC.
I wonder what this might have to do with it:
> Local entrepreneurs are 4.3 times as likely to list
> “content” as their competitive advantage.
I figured this was likely to explain almost all of it:
Founding Team Composition: Silicon Valley founding teams are 34% more likely to be technical heavy than founding teams from NYC. Whereas NYC founding teams are almost 2x as likely to be business heavy than Silicon Valley founding teams.The answer to why there are more female founders in New York than the Valley is easy: Valley startups tend to be a lot more tech-heavy than NYC startups as a whole. And women in general aren't drawn to deep technology. I find it interesting how whenever issues of women and technology come up, everyone gets all pc and pretends not to know what the root of the gender gap is. But then if you ask them to count the number of women they know who are fascinated by technology, mathematics and deep, impersonal abstraction, they can't. Human nature doesn't change just because we pump a few billion dollars into figuring out how to get girls to love STEM. It'll never change. Tech heavy centers like Silicon Valley will always have a preponderence of male entrepreneurs and less tech heavy centers like NYC will always be more appealing to female entrepreneurs. Boys will be boys and girls will be girls.
Human nature doesn't change just because we pump a few billion dollars into figuring out how to get girls to love STEM. It'll never change.
If women's interest in CS is purely fixed by human nature, how do you account for the precipitous drop over the past decades? Women got 37% of the CS degrees in 1984 but get way fewer now.[1]
[1] http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~women/resources/aroundTheWeb/hostedPa...
If women's interest in CS is purely fixed by human nature, how do you account for the precipitous drop over the past decades? Women got 37% of the CS degrees in 1984 but get way fewer now.[1]
[1] http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~women/resources/aroundTheWeb/hostedPa...
To understand what really motivates people, it's much better to look at what they do in the real world. Sure, there have always been women getting CS degrees, but how many of them go out and become programmers or tinker with technology, electronics and hardware late at night because they want to? The people who do that have been the engines behind technological advancement and growth throughout human history. And they've been mostly males. Saying that men tend to be more interested in technology than women doesn't mean that women's interest in CS is purely fixed. It just means that there will always be statistically more males tinkering with technology than females. And those statistical disparities will always ensure that the majority of tech-heavy, companies, and inventions will be led by men.
that's great dude but you didn't actually answer the question.
"If women's interest in CS is purely fixed by human nature, how do you account for the precipitous drop over the past decades?"
a 37% drop over a few decades is a pretty dramatic change.
your argument is based on zero data and a whole bunch of rhetoric. not only that, it completely ignores the question.
if it's all about human nature, how do you explain a dramatic recent change? (and realize that if you really want to take the discussion to the grand, sweeping level of human nature, three decades becomes a tiny, tiny timespan for such a sharp drop.)
"If women's interest in CS is purely fixed by human nature, how do you account for the precipitous drop over the past decades?"
a 37% drop over a few decades is a pretty dramatic change.
your argument is based on zero data and a whole bunch of rhetoric. not only that, it completely ignores the question.
if it's all about human nature, how do you explain a dramatic recent change? (and realize that if you really want to take the discussion to the grand, sweeping level of human nature, three decades becomes a tiny, tiny timespan for such a sharp drop.)
>if it's all about human nature, how do you explain a dramatic recent change?
It's difficult to tell if you're trolling or if you truly don't get it. At no point did the parent poster claim that 100% of a person's likelihood to found a tech start-up was nurture.
Consider this situation: Nurture (U) and Nature (A) are both factors in a person's likelihood to start-up (L). If L = UxA, then a 37% drop in U would cause a 37% drop in L regardless of differences in natural abilities.
A good starting point if you're interested in the interplay between nurture and nature in human psychology is Steven Pinker's The Blank Slate.
It's difficult to tell if you're trolling or if you truly don't get it. At no point did the parent poster claim that 100% of a person's likelihood to found a tech start-up was nurture.
Consider this situation: Nurture (U) and Nature (A) are both factors in a person's likelihood to start-up (L). If L = UxA, then a 37% drop in U would cause a 37% drop in L regardless of differences in natural abilities.
A good starting point if you're interested in the interplay between nurture and nature in human psychology is Steven Pinker's The Blank Slate.
I don't need help finding a book, and I don't appreciate your condescension.
Comparing 1984 to 2002 in CS is ridiculous. Nothing dropped precipitously. CS grew astronomically, and it attracted more new males than females, but still there are far more women doing CS now than then.
As a woman in a technical field who is fascinated by 'deep' technology, and mentors other girls to foster their own interests towards a technical career, your comment serves to isolate and offend. Please keep divisive gender-based comments out of this forum unless you have some very hard data to back this up.
Do non-divisive comments not require "very hard data"?
You realize that we create bias if we adopt stricter scrutiny of some hypothesis over others.
You realize that we create bias if we adopt stricter scrutiny of some hypothesis over others.
So any explanation besides "Oh my they're being oppressed" is deeply offensive?
Any explanation aiming towards "we're just born better" is.
Your post is the first one that mentions being "better". Plenty of women don't think computer projects are better or for better people than non-computer projects. In fact, men of the past twenty years were more likely than women to pursue computer projects, a trend that is changing now in part because computers are becoming more sophisticated and capable of more modes of interaction, some of which women find more interesting than men.
Not that I particularly agree with his argument, but your comment really doesn't follow from what he said, unless you think that being interested in deep technology makes someone 'better', rather than just different.
There are two main problems with that thought. First is that, more often than not, lack of interest is used as an excuse to imply lack of skill. Which is why I used to wording "aiming towards". And second, falsely attributing lack of interest in itself can be considered offensive to many people. Maybe you wouldn't think it's offensive yourself, but it's clear many people do. On the very least, it's discriminating.
To make both points a bit more clear. Imagine that if I told you, that "it's not that I think you're bad at coding. But I just think that you're not interested in hard problems. You rather solve easy ones instead." I'm not (directly) attacking your skills, I'm just falsely discriminating your interests. But hopefully you can understand why this sentence would sound offensive to many people.
To make both points a bit more clear. Imagine that if I told you, that "it's not that I think you're bad at coding. But I just think that you're not interested in hard problems. You rather solve easy ones instead." I'm not (directly) attacking your skills, I'm just falsely discriminating your interests. But hopefully you can understand why this sentence would sound offensive to many people.
I can see how someone might take offense, but at the same time accurate statements aren't always palatable.
I'm not sure your comparison is completely fair - you make it purely about deep technical problems vs 'easy' technical problems. My experience when I was a CS grad student was that the women there were interested in very difficult, important problems (particularly UX, for example), but weren't generally fascinated by, say, fundamental data structures research. Obviously there's notable counterexamples, and I am speaking in generalisations.
The reason I distance myself from the comment that sparked this discussion is not that I think it's wrong with respect to what men/women are, on average, interested in (it's hard to argue with basic statistics), but because I have no idea whether that's purely because of cultural influences or it's something more fundamental as well.
I'm not sure your comparison is completely fair - you make it purely about deep technical problems vs 'easy' technical problems. My experience when I was a CS grad student was that the women there were interested in very difficult, important problems (particularly UX, for example), but weren't generally fascinated by, say, fundamental data structures research. Obviously there's notable counterexamples, and I am speaking in generalisations.
The reason I distance myself from the comment that sparked this discussion is not that I think it's wrong with respect to what men/women are, on average, interested in (it's hard to argue with basic statistics), but because I have no idea whether that's purely because of cultural influences or it's something more fundamental as well.
All these statements about human nature, the gender gap, and the motivation for 'tinkering late at night' are quite baseless.
Go on, you have a lot of ground to cover before you're going to convince anyone that this is more than just another angry pre-coffee rant.
Go on, you have a lot of ground to cover before you're going to convince anyone that this is more than just another angry pre-coffee rant.
Other highly technical areas, such as medicine, don't seem to have this problem. The average doctor has a better handle on science and mathematics that the most computer professionals ever had.
"Computer professionals" are not regulated or licensed, so the term may be too ambiguous to have a meaningful discussion.
But your average engineering or computer science major at a reputable program has to take far more difficult math than your typical premed.
Look through the requirements for medical school admission, and you'll see many do not require more than a single year of calculus.
UCSD, for instance, even provides an easier track of calculus and physics for biology majors, perfectly acceptable for medical school, but unacceptable for math, physics, or most computer science or engineering majors.
http://ucsd.edu/catalog/curric/BIOL-ug.html#major
Yes, I know that anyone is allowed to read a book on PHP and hang out a shingle as a "computer professional", so if you're including them, then sure, I guess the average doctor has a better handle on math. And honestly, I'm glad that this kind of freedom exists in the world of software. But I hope you realize that the math background of a typical CS major from a good university greatly exceeds what is required to go to med school.
But your average engineering or computer science major at a reputable program has to take far more difficult math than your typical premed.
Look through the requirements for medical school admission, and you'll see many do not require more than a single year of calculus.
UCSD, for instance, even provides an easier track of calculus and physics for biology majors, perfectly acceptable for medical school, but unacceptable for math, physics, or most computer science or engineering majors.
http://ucsd.edu/catalog/curric/BIOL-ug.html#major
Yes, I know that anyone is allowed to read a book on PHP and hang out a shingle as a "computer professional", so if you're including them, then sure, I guess the average doctor has a better handle on math. And honestly, I'm glad that this kind of freedom exists in the world of software. But I hope you realize that the math background of a typical CS major from a good university greatly exceeds what is required to go to med school.
Math is one letter of the STEM acronym that you threw out there. CS is a essentially a branch of applied math, so sure, you have a deeper math background if you have a BS from a rigorous program.
I guess your point is that girls can't hack diff eq? Whatever -- most CS majors know jack about organic chemistry, biology, or other premed programs in undergrad, and know nothing about what is taught in med school.
I guess your point is that girls can't hack diff eq? Whatever -- most CS majors know jack about organic chemistry, biology, or other premed programs in undergrad, and know nothing about what is taught in med school.
I guess your point is that girls can't hack diff eq?
No, and it's remarkable that you would conclude that this is my point when all I have addressed, in any way, is the difference in mathematics requirements for college majors typical of "computer professionals" (CS and "related fields") and pre-med or life science programs.
most CS majors know jack about organic chemistry, biology, or other premed programs in undergrad, and know nothing about what is taught in med school.
Right, and most premeds or physicians know very little about differential equations, mathematical optimization or stochastic processes. I didn't claim that CS majors have a better background in life sciences than physicians, but you did make the claim that your average doctor has a better grasp on math than most computer professionals ever had.
No, and it's remarkable that you would conclude that this is my point when all I have addressed, in any way, is the difference in mathematics requirements for college majors typical of "computer professionals" (CS and "related fields") and pre-med or life science programs.
most CS majors know jack about organic chemistry, biology, or other premed programs in undergrad, and know nothing about what is taught in med school.
Right, and most premeds or physicians know very little about differential equations, mathematical optimization or stochastic processes. I didn't claim that CS majors have a better background in life sciences than physicians, but you did make the claim that your average doctor has a better grasp on math than most computer professionals ever had.
This is false.
Any data to contradict GP?
I graduated last May with a degree in CS. I had several friends who were Bio (Pre-Med). The math I was required to take started at a number higher than their highest math requirement. Likewise with statistics -- I saw some of their stat class work, and seemed like a joke to me. Incidentally, in my statistics course, we talked about how doctors don't (as shown by studies) grasp basic principles.
EDIT: I went to a fairly small, but locally very well respected school.
I graduated last May with a degree in CS. I had several friends who were Bio (Pre-Med). The math I was required to take started at a number higher than their highest math requirement. Likewise with statistics -- I saw some of their stat class work, and seemed like a joke to me. Incidentally, in my statistics course, we talked about how doctors don't (as shown by studies) grasp basic principles.
EDIT: I went to a fairly small, but locally very well respected school.
[deleted]
I don't think that statement is supported by the facts; for example, only 6 of more than 100 Nobel Prize winners in Medicine are women[0].
[0]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Nobel_laureates_in_Phys...
[0]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Nobel_laureates_in_Phys...
If that justifies the argument that "girls dont get math" to you, good luck to you.
Many medical schools have female enrollments in the 40-50% range.
Many medical schools have female enrollments in the 40-50% range.
I can't figure out if this guy is trolling or not.
count the number of women they know who are fascinated by technology, mathematics and deep, impersonal abstraction
Classic nature vs nurture debate. You have no evidence to support the claim that women are inherently less inclined towards tech (instead of say, conditioned by society to be tech averse).
Classic nature vs nurture debate. You have no evidence to support the claim that women are inherently less inclined towards tech (instead of say, conditioned by society to be tech averse).
These social conditioning arguments are always non-sequiters. At some point you have to ask yourself, what conditions society? Something has to create the condition where people begin to notice that engineering and tech is kind of a male thing and, say, nursing, is kind of a female thing on average. Something must have created that original pattern for people to notice it. It doesn't just come out of the ether. Once the pattern exists, it's probably reinforced, but you can't tell me that with all the effort that goes into getting girls into STEM, the tide wouldn't have been turned by now had the phenomenon been based purely on nurture. Plus, you see this pattern all over the world. And it's always evident that there's bias in this argument because nobody gets upset when somebody points out that most elementary school teachers are women. And that leads me to think that there's a lot of people (of the female variety) who deep down believe that what men do is superior to what women do. And that's sad, because it's entirely untrue.
Something has to create the condition where people begin to notice that engineering and tech is kind of a male thing and, say, nursing, is kind of a female thing on average.
Yes, our disagreement is about the cause of those conditions. You've observed a correlation between sex and interest in STEM, but that correlation does not prove that sex is intrinsically linked to interest in STEM. Do you also consider black men to be naturally averse to education because black women graduate college 2:1 compared to black men?
but you can't tell me that with all the effort that goes into getting girls into STEM, the tide wouldn't have been turned by now had the phenomenon been based purely on nurture
It does not follow that women are less inclined towards STEM because efforts to increase women in STEM careers has not "turned the tide"
Women are just as mentally capable as men with regard to STEM, trying to link a nebulous concept such as "natural interest" to sex is absurd.
Yes, our disagreement is about the cause of those conditions. You've observed a correlation between sex and interest in STEM, but that correlation does not prove that sex is intrinsically linked to interest in STEM. Do you also consider black men to be naturally averse to education because black women graduate college 2:1 compared to black men?
but you can't tell me that with all the effort that goes into getting girls into STEM, the tide wouldn't have been turned by now had the phenomenon been based purely on nurture
It does not follow that women are less inclined towards STEM because efforts to increase women in STEM careers has not "turned the tide"
Women are just as mentally capable as men with regard to STEM, trying to link a nebulous concept such as "natural interest" to sex is absurd.
Talk to a woman from Russia or Eastern Europe about how women don't learn college-level math or how personal individual preferences have anything to do with educational outcomes.
Bio-truths on HN. Why is this not suprising in the least?
There's also a demographic difference between New York and Silicon Valley. Some figures from the 2010 census:
New York City, Female persons: 52.5%
San Francisco County, Female persons: 49.3%
San Mateo County, Female persons: 50.8%
Santa Clara County, Female persons: 49.8%I wonder if even a small imbalance could almost completely explain it.
If a gender is less likely to be able to find a Significant Other (we'll assume that homosexuality exists in equal proportions in both genders), would they be more likely to take risks than the other gender? It wouldn't take much of a difference to make a large change in founder figures, since such a small amount of people try to start a company.
If a gender is less likely to be able to find a Significant Other (we'll assume that homosexuality exists in equal proportions in both genders), would they be more likely to take risks than the other gender? It wouldn't take much of a difference to make a large change in founder figures, since such a small amount of people try to start a company.
New York City is one of the most culturally diverse cities in the world, and I'll bet that the diversity in New York is evident in New York's tech scene.
Many cities like to claim this, but NY barely makes the top 10. For example, Dubai has way over 75% foreign residents. And cities like Toronto and Sydney are both statistically and anecdotally more culturally diverse.
I'd be more interested in the number of fashion/wedding startups in NY and the percentage of females who run said startups. Huge stereotype and completely unfounded, but it wouldn't surprise me either.
I'd be more interested in the number of fashion/wedding startups in NY and the percentage of females who run said startups. Huge stereotype and completely unfounded, but it wouldn't surprise me either.
New York's natural born citizens are culturally diverse.
Exactly. I remember reading dating scene analyses that report the ratio of 2:1 for men and women around SF whereas in NYC it is just the reverse. This neatly explains the x2 factor.
A female population of 52.5% explains the effect for dating, but not for founding companies. The difference is because it's the surplus that matters for dating but the entire population for founding.
Suppose that 42.5% of the population are women in a marriage or committed relationship, and then by definition 42.5% are also committed men. That leaves 10% of the population as single females and 5% as single males, and there's your 2:1 ratio for dating, created by just the small female surplus.
Would that hold for founding companies? I don't think so. Any of the 52.5% females could start a business, as could any of the 47.5% males. The small excess of women doesn't create a 2:1 ratio here. (There may be some correlation, that married and settled women are less likely to start a business, but the population ratio can't explain the entire outcome.)
Suppose that 42.5% of the population are women in a marriage or committed relationship, and then by definition 42.5% are also committed men. That leaves 10% of the population as single females and 5% as single males, and there's your 2:1 ratio for dating, created by just the small female surplus.
Would that hold for founding companies? I don't think so. Any of the 52.5% females could start a business, as could any of the 47.5% males. The small excess of women doesn't create a 2:1 ratio here. (There may be some correlation, that married and settled women are less likely to start a business, but the population ratio can't explain the entire outcome.)
I don't know if the startup founder demographic is well defined enough to make a definitive statement.
There are probably significant demographic divisions (race, educational background, housing rent/own ratio, size of industry clusters, national origin, income distribution, etc) that probably have an impact.
There are probably significant demographic divisions (race, educational background, housing rent/own ratio, size of industry clusters, national origin, income distribution, etc) that probably have an impact.
The data above doesn't support that - there's only about a 2% difference.
Gender imbalances are more dramatic in the 20-60 population than 0-20 because children have less say in where they live. In other words a 32 year old male might decide to move based on a gender, but people rarely move based on the gender of their children.
Also, a high percentage of dating age people are in a relationship. If there is a 48:52 gender imbalance in 25-45 year old population. And 2/3 the women are in a relationship (ignoring the same sex relationships) the gender imbalance is more significant among the single population. 48 /3 vs 52 - (48*(2/3)) is 16:20 or 44.4:55.6
Also, a high percentage of dating age people are in a relationship. If there is a 48:52 gender imbalance in 25-45 year old population. And 2/3 the women are in a relationship (ignoring the same sex relationships) the gender imbalance is more significant among the single population. 48 /3 vs 52 - (48*(2/3)) is 16:20 or 44.4:55.6
Here's the proof, all the single ladies, all the single ladies, are on the East Coast: http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2008/03/30/...
[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted]
I'd be curious to know the kinds of industries female founders in NYC gravitate towards - or if there isn't a clear cluster at all, and it's a fairly even distribution. If it's the latter, what does New York have that other cities don't?
One of the biggest that I know of is Gilt Groupe, founded by Michael Bryzek and Alexandria Wilkis Wilson. Many of the execs are also female. They're doing quite well, with revenues of apx $500mil in 2011. They do flash sales of apparel and the like.
Ms. Wilson's pedigree includes Phillips Exeter, Harvard (twice!), Merrill Lynch, and Louis Vuitton. That list says a lot about the NYC ecosystem. How many people with her background are going to make their way to SV to try a pure-tech play?
[1] http://www.linkedin.com/pub/alexandra-wilkis-wilson/0/17b/84...
[1] http://www.linkedin.com/pub/alexandra-wilkis-wilson/0/17b/84...
I noticed this last Fall at the Open Hardware Summit in NYC. That event has become the must-attend event for those involved in open source hardware. (Arduino team members, et al.) The event was founded and chaired by Alicia Gibb and Ayah Bdeir. And the speaker list was way more gender-balanced than your typical SF/SV event. No one was asking "where are the women?" at OHSummit. (But if they did ask, the answer was: "Everywhere! And they're leading the charge!")
[deleted]
New York also has a little more than double the females.
I'm glad to hear this. The sexism in SF/SV is one of the major reasons I moved away.
I think NY and SV differ culturally and thus differ in the mix of startups that take root there (hence the %400 higher likelihood of listing "content", for instance.)
This may mean that women are more likely to pick areas for doing a startup that are consistent with the NY startup culture than the SV startup culture.
On the other hand, I can imagine that many startups in NY are funded by well heeled individuals (many of whom are women) in a sort of friends-and-family fashion that is more casual than the VC & Angel style of SV. This is purely speculation, but given my interactions with venture capitalists, I think their thinking and focus is more... conservative and traditional.... and that this may well mean women led companies are less likely to find funding in SV than the same company in NY.
If this perspective is correct, then we may find that with startup crowdsourcing, an even higher percentage of women will get funded than in SV.
This may mean that women are more likely to pick areas for doing a startup that are consistent with the NY startup culture than the SV startup culture.
On the other hand, I can imagine that many startups in NY are funded by well heeled individuals (many of whom are women) in a sort of friends-and-family fashion that is more casual than the VC & Angel style of SV. This is purely speculation, but given my interactions with venture capitalists, I think their thinking and focus is more... conservative and traditional.... and that this may well mean women led companies are less likely to find funding in SV than the same company in NY.
If this perspective is correct, then we may find that with startup crowdsourcing, an even higher percentage of women will get funded than in SV.
I agree silicon valley from what I have seen since trying to get into startups NY seems to be the more professional of the two more suit and button ups. Silicon valley is more technical geek and their startups seem to be more based technical performance. I personally being technical don't really like the NY mode but I can see why people like it.
Please don't confuse "professional" with fancy taste or cold-weather clothing,
Take this article for example - it references the Akon song "Sexy Bitch" in the title (yeah, real female empowerment there!), it doesn't mention a single female startup or founder, and the picture is a generic Flickr grab of a woman walking past a coffee shop in a short skirt.
All of it, even the fact that the section is called "Ladybeat" serves to further this principle that there is a "Women's" tech ecosystem and it is somehow different from the male one. I mean "female-friendly fashion and beauty startups?" Come on.