bpang.posterous.com
"How can we make more women successful? Without fundamental changes in how men and women perceive attractiveness, it will be difficult to change the status quo. ... what about making the next "Carrie Bradshaw" a hardworking tech entrepreneur?"
is taken by men.
I think that the "reason" that there are fewer female entrepreneurs and hackers than men is because of this psuedo-sexist ideology.
Why must it be attractive for a female to be powerful in order for her to succeed? Screw how good you look. Do what you love and you'll be surrounded by people who appreciate you and what you do.
Personally, I believe the disparity lies not in social overtones of popularity, attractiveness and potential as a mate; I believe that the disparity is primarily due to lack of mentorship, education and people telling women, specifically in this case, that they can excel as an entrepreneur if they choose.
My guess, though, is that this disparity is not going to last very long. Gender differences continue to grow smaller in other fields and instances; why not starting companies? Or, at least, it is my very sincere hope that this is the case. Partially because it makes me sad every time 100 guys on HN try and figure out what's wrong with women.
Women are in general more interested in having babies than men.
Women are also just different than men in some way, not just physically, but socially.
We should close gender gap where possible, but we shouldn't insist on equal gender balance if women really don't like to go into the same career that men goes into.
Do you mean that, because women are capable of carrying a child to term that they are more interested in copulating?
Do you mean to say that women want to have and raise children more than men?
I'm not sure I understand your point.
As to "Women are also just different than men in some way, not just physically, but socially", all I can say is this was much more true 50 years ago than it is today, but that doesn't mean that it's not true now. What I (as well as the author of the article) was trying to address is: Why?
"We should close gender gap where possible, but we shouldn't insist on equal gender balance if women really don't like to go into the same career that men goes into."
Who is advocating forcing people to do things?
The same way a hot woman is universally attractive to heterosexual men. It's how we are. I guess my second point is a bit irrelevant but I'm adding on to what Beatrice is saying: much of our behaviors follow a certain template to ensure the continuation of the species, there's a special synergy between men and women.
I felt like that there is an assumption of male sexist bias against women or something. So I feel something like "assumption of female ability in all area, regardless of reality".
I also feel the ideas of "males are sexists and evil and the like".
Then they forget that males are disproportional one of the most violent offenders, but also overachievers.
So I spoke the truth as I see it.
Don't be so offended, I would like a hacker woman to marry and love. I wish there were more of them around and I wish I have the skills to date them. However, I also recognized, that women are women, and there will never be a 50% split gender tech population.
There is an undeniable biological tendency to want to attract a partner. Hence, any human's behavior will tend (in varying amounts) toward striving to be attractive to a partner. This foments a tendency for men to seek "Success, wealth and power" while fomenting a tendency for women to seek "beauty and femininity" (to use the article's wording).
Nothing is wrong. There is no wrong. People are different. I like to say I was born an engineer, that's some neurological condition I can't escape. Is there something wrong with me? Of course not!
More observation than ours should be made before we conclude men have a higher probability to engage in physically dangerous forms of entertainment, but I would say it's a good bet they do.
At least in our society.
How much of it is nature and how much is nurture is what seems controversial.
Short version of a lot of reading I have done over the years: European women put a lot of emphasis on getting assistance from society and government with the burden of bearing and rearing children. This has helped narrow the gender-gap on income, generally without pushing up the divorce rate to American levels. But in America, women generally have taken the political position of "Don't tread on me" and "Get the fuck out my way and I will show you what I can do, damnit!", which is a historical American political position dating back to the American Revolution. This works fairly well -- until you have kids. Women who are unmarried and childless make about 98% of what men make, given similar experience and education. But, overall, American women make about 2/3 what men make, the same figure listed somewhere in the bible as their difference in value (ie from about 2000 years or so ago).
Some of the most frustrated, baffled women I have known are women who thought they could make it on a man's terms in a man's world and did quite well for themselves -- that is until they had children. Then it all fell apart and they couldn't figure out wtf happened or how the hell to fix it. I think I am still alive and doing better than I "should" be because I never tried to make it in a man's world on a man's terms. I followed a female path of success. So having kids unexpectedly early derailed my immediate career plans but did not derail my life unrecoverably.
The drive to have and raising children is a powerful force in the human psyche. Yet surely the desire to shape and guide those children, or to spread out thoughts and feelings and philosophies among family, friends and foes alike, must be at least as strong -- and sometimes more so.
How else might one explain the all too common act of disowning, shaming, beating, or even killing one's children for disobeying religious precepts, cultural taboos against who to love or marry, for failing to fit cultural or gender norms. Or the vast religious wars that have waged across our continents. Or this very debate?
---
For what it is worth, from my vantage point the number of women founding venture backed clean/green tech companies is rapidly growing.
Or we can face the fact we are different and cherish it.
I want to earn my success because of the things I can control and what I create with my own mind and hands and hard work.
Btw ladies, there are men out there who admire a woman who is strong and successful - and they're worth searching for. Some of them even work for startups, too
I am assuming here that an investor would be more likely to invest in an entrepreneur with a green card. They would certainly be saving money by doing so.
Mankind doesn't have that purpose and may not even have any purposes. Many people value certain things, but that's very different.
Don't confuse what survival often selects for with purpose.
Though most of the article remains very relevant when you take it out of the "this is the way it has been for thousands of years" mold which doesn't really have incredibly ironclad evidence and recognize that our present society does present these barriers for women.
But I do think that overcoming our perceptions is not a matter of overcoming hardwired notions, but societally reinforced norms which can seem awfully hardwired.
>For thousands of years, men look for beautiful and young-looking women to bear their children and women look for powerful men who can well protect themselves and their children. Such an instinct has been imprinted into our unconsciousness.
Freud wasn't just "sexsexsexsexsex".
Of course, that isn't necessarily an endorsement of his much more specific views on male and female gender roles.
His work on curing heroin addiction was interesting, even took the remedy himself and found it really perked him up. Cocaine really is a wonder drug.