Women (and everyone else, really) should do startups | Hacker News Reader

Women (and everyone else, really) should do startups

zachholman.com

68 pointsbiesnecker39 comments

He misses her point. It wasn't that women shouldn't be involved in startups, it was that women are quite capable of figuring out what makes them happy and harping on them to be founders isn't helping anyone.

Women have complete freedom in the modern workplace and the fact that some of them choose to stay home is not an indicator that they are broken. Why is it so offensive that many women have figured out what they enjoy and, more often then men, it's downshifting their careers around 30 so that they can focus on their families.

I am the husband of a woman that has decided to put her career on hold in order to stay home and focus on her children for a few years. And I'm quite certain my wife knows a hell of a lot more about what makes her happy than some kid at github.

> Women have complete freedom in the modern workplace

Let's stop right there. That's just not true.

http://www.mspb.gov/netsearch/viewdocs.aspx?docnumber=606214...

What's wrong with "the world" and what's wrong with working for "the government" are two different things.

Not sure that is true, though. How many people are even aware of the option of doing a startup? My impression is that the thought rarely ever occurs to most people, and it is not being encouraged at school or anywhere either. That goes for men and women alike.

I can understand why your sensitive about this considering your wife has chosen her path, but I don't think the author was directing it at her or other women saying they made the wrong decision.

He was making a simple point that the startup world can be uninviting towards women and instead it should be more inviting towards everyone, women included.

One point he discusses is clarifying the misconception that all startups look the same. That's a worthwhile point not just for women, but for a lot of men too.

I honestly can't see what is so upsetting or controversial about his statements.

By the way, I actually disagree with the author, I don't think startups are or should be for everyone. I am just making the point that his statements are not an attack on anyone's decision and his arguments seem pretty reasonable (even though I don't agree 100%).

while i don't disagree with holman's statements, i do think he misses the point. for me, trunk's article was about how the statement 'women should work at startups' is patronizing because it implies that they are less capable of making that decision for themselves than men.

advocating for a more equal distribution of startup awareness and technical training across demographics is a separate issue and i think holman and some of the commenters are confusing trunk's message as a denial of that. this is why her analogy of saying men should stay home and raise children is so apt. if they wanted to, they would. they don't need anyone's help or special attention to make sure they know all the opportunities for them in the stay-at-home-dad scene so that we have an equal number of men and women at home raising kids. maybe to some degree it's ok that different parts of society are skewed towards one gender or another since men and women are different.

we don't need to go around forcing our utopian vision of equality on systems as long as everyone has the opportunity to make the choice for themselves. whether or not women have that opportunity is a separate question. i think a lot of women do and it can be a slight to suggest otherwise based solely on their gender.

this is why her analogy of saying men should stay home and raise children is so apt. if they wanted to, they would

I'm trying to figure out if you're way more privileged than me (unlikely) or way more capable (possible!) but none of it really adds up. I'm wondering what world you live in where you think that people can just do whatever they want to, without resistance. "If women wanted to start companies, they would!" "If men wanted to stay home and raise kids, they would!"

I mean, I can get behind statements like "If someone really wants something bad enough... if it burns in their heart and their soul bears down on it like a million years of rock on a diamond, then they can achieve it."

That I believe.

But this idea that everyone is just doing exactly what they want to be doing, and that there aren't structural impediments that are unequally distributed across demographics... I mean, really?

I mean, read this article and tell me that the only thing stopping, say, American men from staying home and raising kids is that "they don't want to": http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/10/world/europe/10iht-sweden....

No, they don't have complete freedom. Women are often punished for being aggressive in the workplace. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07...

People are less likely to want to work with a woman who tries to negotiate a raise, for example.

It's great that your wife is happy, but please don't say that women have "complete freedom."

Hmmm.... are we in the midst of a paradigm shift?

From what I've read, a woman staying at home and raising a family was at it's peak in the 1950s (please correct me if I'm wrong). Apparently in the 1920s, a lot more women were in the workforce, then it decreased, then increased during WW2, then decreased, then increased ever since the 1960-70s.

Since the 1960-70s, staying home and raising a family has been looked upon as the "lesser" option for women. If you weren't busting your ass in the corporate world, you were wasting your life and your talents.

I read an article that said 50% of HBS graduates who are women eventually quit the corporate world and stay home to raise kids (for at least a period of time).

Are we seeing a shift where focusing on raising a family is suddenly viewed as being more valuable? I hope so, because I personally feel (whether man or woman), that focusing your efforts on creating a great environment to raise kids is far more valuable (and has a bigger impact) than most professions.

Apparently in the 1920s, a lot more women were in the workforce

Yes, but there was a qualitative difference there: The women who were employed in the first half of the 20th century were mostly young, uneducated, and single. There was no work/family conflict in general: Women (or at least, "good" women) didn't have children until they were married, and husbands (or at least "good" husbands) provided enough income that a wife no longer needed to work.

The employed woman of the 2010s -- usually well educated, often married, often having or intending to have children regardless of marital status -- is very different from the employed woman of the 1920s.

Zach completely missed the point. She never advocated that women avoid startups. She simply said that women are smart and capable enough of figuring out what they want to do by themselves. If they want to do a startup, then fine. If they don't then that is also fine. Quit patronizing them is largely her point.

"Doing" a startup and working at a startup as an employee, especially after the money's been secured, are pretty different things.

I encourage the people I care about (who are often women), to be confidently independent when it comes to work.

To me that includes a spectrum of behaviors:

- assertively asking for raises at their current job - aggressively negotiating for the best job - consulting and setting their own fee - ...and a startup would be an extreme end, for the right people

More generally, if you want someone to be successful, then you want to coax them down the path towards assertiveness and independence in their career, losing their fear of success, power, money, responsibility.

(I guess after startup, might come "incubator". But after that? Curious how pg will play it).

Agreed. I would also separate the arguments that "everyone should look at starting a business" from "everyone should look at working at a startup." The latter is a subset of the former. One's own businesses are a lot of work. However, starting a micro-business gives tremendous freedom, and I think this freedom gives folks a greater opportunity than anything else.

With a micro-business you can do the things you like to do and work on the problems you want to work on. Could be coding against technical problems, interior decorating, catering, or whatever.

I think it's fantastic that you're encouraging them to do this--things will never get better without us chipping away at it, but also understand, too, how hard it is to be "confidently independent" when it comes to asking for recognition for one's work--it may be a bit illuminating to ask the women you care about how being "confidently independent" when negotiating raises and salaries when job hunting really works out for them.

In my experience, people (both men and women) can be really turned off by a woman asking for what she's worth. Personally, I haven't gotten too worked up about this when it happens to me--I think it's educational--it's good to know what you're getting into and how a prospective employer or current employer responds to that, to me, tells me a lot about whether I'd want to work or stay there.

But, witness, just a few small bites when job hunting or negotiating raises:

"You answered all the database questions right, but you laughed when they gave you the logic question about the lockers and prime numbers. You're just not technical enough! You ask for too much money anyway."

"We just can't justify giving you a raise of seven percent. Sure, we just justified adding three headcount to replace you and will end up paying a way less qualified guy 30k more than we paid you in just a few months, but still, whatcha thinkin', girlie? A seven percent raise is nuts right now!"

"We can't believe that you won't accept our job offer--sure, it's got fewer benefits, you'll be locked in a closet all day doing boring work and will make only 3k more a year, and we understand that due to the benefit reduction and longer commute, you'll actually be making a good 5k less than you are now - but we're a WONDERFUL company with great people...and you're TOTALLY overpaid now! Honestly, Jen, we don't know what your current company is thinking, paying you as much as they do."

It can be kind of exhausting and can really knock your confidence if you don't pretend it's just a game...we've either got to keep chipping away at it...or? What's wrong with saving a little money, figuring out wtf to do about health insurance, then jumping off the track and going our own way? I assure you that I don't have to be held back by these goofy attitudes anymore in my startup (full disclosure: you WILL have to deal with this when dealing with some investors and potential acquirers--but this just forces you to work that much harder at staying independent and self-sufficient so that you can tell them no if you need to). Bootstrapping a startup, right now, it can be terrifying, but you're not held back - people love or hate your work, not you - your users likely don't even know who you are and don't care, either. It's actually pretty amazing.

I agree with this:

"I don’t mean to sound like a broken record, but hours are bullshit. You don’t need to enforce 9-5 hours at a company. You don’t even need a full 40 hour work week. Companies like GitHub, Heroku, Square, Simple… we’re still in the minority, but I think it’s safe to say that it’s okay to be successful without working 90 hour weeks and forcing everyone to come in at arbitrary hours."

I saw the initial article, saw this one and others, and had a lot to say until I remembered a rule of the internet. it is paraphrased here in a response article: http://techcrunch.com/2011/12/12/stop-telling-women-not-to-d... "And here’s a piece of advice to women (or any other minority) in tech — Every time you get worked up over a dumb blog post, you’re wasting time that you could have spent building a world-changing company, writing your own blog post and/or proving pundits like Penelope Trunk wrong. And that starts with voting with your feet (or pen even)."

Yep. I could discuss Zach's optimism. I could talk about why Penelope's wrong, or why she may have been misled by truths, but I'd rather prove her wrong. With my startup. It ain't tech, but just watch me.

All seven billion humans should do a startup!

Maybe not. But any of the seven billion humans could do a startup.

Egalitarian nonsense. Different people have different capabilities. Many people, if not most, have no ability to run a company at any stage.

Most people in the globe try something entrepreneurial at some point in their lives. In many cases, that's because they don't live in a society with lots of economic mobility and they're just trying to survive selling trinkets on the street or finding a way to provide some kind of service to their neighbors for money. It may even be in the gray market or a completely informal economy.

I know that's not the typical HN / tech view of a startup, but the fact is that most of the people on the planet can't always depend on a monolithic employer to give them a paycheck in exchange for their time.

All of them with multi-million dollar exits!

Is it just me or have we had enough of this topic for a year now? Long story short, please stop talking about what people should do. Our 'job' as human beings is to just provide an equal opportunity environment for everyone. Not provide affirmative action.

Then please, tell us what we should be doing, in concrete examples, to ensure equal opportunity for historically disadvantaged minorities in this industry.

Honestly, I'm all ears.

Which minorities are disadvantaged? This is capitalism, discrimination has a cost and I don't believe many people are willing to spend much on their sexist/racist tendencies.

The fundamental difference is between "let's start a business and make great things that provide value to our customers" and "let's start a business, dive into the hype cycle around some newfangled thing, and hope to cash out before we burn out," no?

If you're doing the first, you can work reasonable schedules (hard, yes, but not insane), and create value, and build your business. This is, in my view, what Github (where the author works) does.

If you're doing the latter, then you have to kill yourself because you need to cash in before everyone realizes what you're doing is either 1) actually worthless, or 2) not the coolest thing on the block anymore, and moves on to the next fad.

I have a feeling this comment thread is going to be really productive and insightful.

Less than 1% of people are suited to founding a startup.

Women may be under-represented in startups, or tech. But so are a lot of my male friends. Who aren't techies. I would say the majority of my personal friends are outside of tech.

A lot of PEOPLE aren't willing to go through the extremes of becoming, and staying great at tech. Tech perpetually outdates itself.

They might instead choose to contribute just as meaningfully to the world in other ways. And dare I say actually do it instead of being in it for their own enjoyment.

Startups aren't for everyone. Women maybe (sometimes) for family or other considerations. Men, maybe (sometimes) for family or other considerations.

This isn't about gender to me. Or having children.

It's about risk tolerance, the price you pay to take the risk perpetually, and what what you miss out on.

All that matters in entrepreneurship is if we can learn to make a go of it... and what price we're willing to go to find out if we're an entrepreneur. That's it.

All the other entreporn out there is bs. Being a qualified entrepreneur means you were able to make money (profit) from a validated product or service, in any way. Until then you might be someone attempting entrepreneurship, but staying an entrepreneur is another thing altogether.

If you keep doing the same thing without improving results, that's up to you. I'm not sure if it's worth connecting it to what is, or isn't between your legs and what that might mean. What's in our head, heart and gut is far more important.

It just sounds like an insane amount of work for a tenuous, or even nonexistent, payoff. I work for a company that does not limit my time off, that respects its employees, and generally provides a great working atmosphere.

Joining a startup seems like it would be throwing all that away for the joy of sleeping under my desk and finding out one day that my options are worthless. I would rather enjoy my life, I think.

To some people, working a startup IS enjoying life. Of course, it's your own preference and taking that risk is a choice.

Do you like what you actually do at your job? If yes - this is ideal job.

If no - that's what people going after when joining start-ups.

There are lots of cool things to do at non-startup jobs. Also, I'm sure there is just as much grunt work that sucks to do at a startup as there is at any other job.

IMHO, the only reason to do a startup is for ownership. Working for one without ownership just sounds like a recipe to be overworked and underpaid.

Well. Sounds about right. For some people having ownership is what makes their day. And that's why they join start ups. It is much harder to get ownership of something in more traditional company.

There are many exciting things in many areas. I am glad someone find their job at traditional company exciting - this fulfill two very demanding parts - financial stability and fun.

Start-ups offer different thing, but core reason why people join these is the same - they like what working in start-up gives them. :)

I'm happy enough in academia. If I left it, it would only be for assured big bucks with job security. So, yeah, I don't think the startup life is really for me.

Academia also has wonderful vacation policies that are pretty near impossible to beat. My dad, a professor, hung out with his family for pretty much the entire duration of summer vacation. Multi-week vacations to visit extended families 400-800 miles away? Can do! Not a problem!

This is not normal for computer science academia, at least in my current department or my alma mater's. I've only met one professor who doesn't seem to work more than an average software developer.

Did you read Holman's article? If not, I will reiterate a key point, not all startups make you work insane hours. Lots of them have you work flexible work weeks with the same amount of hours of a regular 9-5 job. I enjoy life, and that's why I am at a startup. I can take time here and there to go do something fun, and I can go to work and enjoy what I do there because I can actually have an impact on my company and its products. In my former non-startup roles, the companies were way to big to have any real influence on how they worked.

A lot of people can be very creative and able to execute projects, but still not have what it takes to run a startup. Consider all the regular Joes and Janes being highly creative and structured in leading World of Warcraft guilds, for instance.

What is needed is some kind of gamified meta-startup, a giant sandbox for economic activity to take place with the low-level stuff of startups abstracted away. The day MMORPGs start to have real economic effects (outside of currency exchange) is the day the economic system will be radically transformed.

For the record, I didn't think of this myself. Credit goes to John Robb: http://ieet.org/index.php/IEET/more/robb20100318

Reply on news.ycombinator.com