2014 Could Be the ‘Tipping Point’ for Female Founders, Says Jessica Livingston
techcrunch.com
techcrunch.com
To men, it reinforces the idea that women are being kept down by men. Maybe that's true and I'm simply not getting invited to the meetings where men gather to conspire to keep women down and out of the board room. Or maybe that doesn't happen and the real reason there are fewer women in the very high positions is a result of something else.
There is a vocal minority of dick heads out there who hate women and happen to be in tech. My guess is that they hate women for the very reason you would expect a "geek/nerd" to hate women; because girls ignored them, and were probably mean to them. The power balance in school between boys and girls goes a long way to explaining the animosity between some men and women in my opinion.
If I were asked to organise a talk to encourage women to become founders, I would ask an expert in risk assessment to speak, because we know it to be true that women are more risk averse than men. And that is why there are more male founders AND more male prisoners. To talk about anything else is just pretending there are no real, measurable and relevant differences between men and women. And I don't see how that helps anyone.
Deleted comment
But sometimes its just that one culture currently dominates a social/economic niche for historical reasons. Then members of other cultures have a hard time 'fitting in'; they can't catch a break because they don't know anybody in the industry and may even seem strange/uncomfortable for those in power, so get excluded or overlooked as new members.
Your Hollywood example may fit in that camp I believe. Maybe Jewish culture is a superior fit; maybe historically folks from that crowd entered the industry in its infancy and the rest is cultural momentum. For better or for worse.
The lesson for Silicon Valley and its bro-culture is then clearer. Why no women? Because in the 50's, there were few women. And if there is a 'women's culture', its dissimilar enough from the bro-culture that they feel mutually uncomfortable working together.
The gist of it being that in the former males are much more competitive, and in the latter, females are. While there are of course real physiological differences between men and women, don't discount out of hand the effect culture has as well.
There don't need to be "meetings where men gather to conspire to keep women down" for a society to have a significant biasing effect.
Prove it!
And if we keep flaunting stereotypes of men in tech as bitter losers and outcasts, maybe we'll be lucky and they will start resenting everyone.
What was really special is that people there were actually giving useful, practical advice instead of just telling the story of their company. There was no bravado, no bullshit, and it sounded like the speakers actually wanted to help people in the audience and pass on advice instead of promoting their companies.
Oh and the segment on fundraising was probably the most useful and forward talk on fundraising I have ever listened to in terms of practical advice.
There's a statistic - Ben Horowitz used it in a talk once - that on average an educated woman will educate at least 4 other people in their lifetime, whereas you're lucky if a man educates one. I felt like this really rung through as I was watching this.
You should watch the stream of the conference if you haven't.
How was that defined and measured? Or in other words, [citation needed].
Luckily, I've educated many people with nit-picky anonymous and pseudonymous internet comments, so I must have great karma.
Here's it is: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wQnDDKDiSy8
It's 6 minutes in: "If you educated a girl in the developing world, you educate 5 people, because if you educate one girl, on average, she'll educate at least 4 other people through the course of her life."
I feel really bad for not linking it. Thank you so much for the reminder.
I believe the [citation needed] is meant to ask for the source of this fact, i.e. whoever investigated this phenomenon and measured it.
To me, the statement is rather dubious because even the thesis is (in general use of the word educate) loosely defined -- Does a mother educate the children, is it the teacher who educates them, or do we count both? How often do we count the father as well? What about when a foreman teaches a fresh employee, is that education also?
Unless we exactly specify what is meant by education, this statement seems "purely inspirational" to me, i.e. rather meaningless.
If the hypothetical 'crazy, homeless Bill' said that the sun were bright, he'd be correct regardless of the fact that it came from 'crazy, homeless Bill'. If Ben Horowitz stated that 1 = 2, then he'd be wrong, regardless of the fact that he's 'Ben Horowitz'.
"According to Camfed, when you educate a girl she will earn up to 25 percent more and reinvest 90 percent of her income in her family." http://www.pbs.org/newshour/extra/lessons_plans/important-ed...
I couldn't find the original research cited, but my family lives in a remove village in the developing world... and you can definitely see the educated boys move to the capital city and the educated girls stay in the local community.
If it's so well known then either provide us with the research that proved such an effect, or stop spreading dubious, sexist nonsense.
Seriously, this strikes me as sexist gibberish. I know I've personally educated 3 people so far, as far as software development goes. With one, I've spent a great deal of my free time educating them. Yet you come to me and tell me -- with nothing more than folklore and a spurious link regarding an unrelated issue as proof -- that men don't educate anyone.
The more outlandish a claim, the more proof it requires, and simply saying "some famous guy said it!" isn't a proof, and nor is linking to a source (your PBS link) which is essentially irrelevant to the claim. I would also say that the surest way to ensure fewer men educate people is to tell them that educating people is a gendered trait that belongs to a gender other than their own; pay serious heed to engaging in sexist tripe like this, because it may set a terrible precedent for the generation that follows.
Zmitri (the person who raised this spurious nonsense) has seriously offended me here, and so have you by claiming it has any factual basis. Please remedy this either providing proof for the apparent-nonsense, or rescinding your support for this claim.
It would be like saying, "on average an educated man will write at least 8 applications during his lifetime, whereas you're lucky if a woman writes one". Completely ignoring the real problem, men outnumber women 9 to 1.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/educationnews/10475740/...
My Co-founder went and I watched the entire event online(I'm a guy and her SO) it definitely got me excited knowing so many awesome women are starting companies and building great things, we just talked on the phone for an hour about all the things people she met are building and I'm blown away.
No conference I've ever been to had so many compelling speakers packed into the same day back to back.
Just another reason I keep hanging out on HN and admiring what YC does for founders ... of all types.
Thanks YC
I have often wished I was in a position to apply to yc, not so much because of the investment, but because of the energy and the community.
You called yourself "shy but determined" and I think that determination is what really matters. We all have strengths, but adapting to or overcoming our weaknesses makes us grow.
The talks were real and gave honest and practical advice we could all relate to. The audience was incredible. Everyone I talked to was a founder and / or engineer. I haven't been at an event with so many impressive women in one room!
We got a glimpse of what a world with a lot more female founders would look like, and it's going to be better than I could have imagined.
After all, what do people naturally do? What do animals naturally do? Well, they don't sit and wait to be told what to do. No, they seek out opportunities.
The current economic arrangements, however productive they are, are the anomaly.
I don't think they are going away, but the work we do will become more more entrepreneurial as labor is automated. And as education evolves away from "sit still and listen to the lecture" towards something more compatible with how people actually thrive.
Emulation is a massive part of animal behavior and learning, just FYI.
I think it was great initiative by YC. Though I couldn't attend this time, Hope to have more of such conferences. Excellent way to build up our female network and learn from each other.
Kuddos to YC for taking up this initiative
For context, she said this specifically about women who were having trouble finding technical hires.
Any one of whom happily outshone me in risk taking, capability and skill sets, but I was the self employed one.
I don't think that a high growth shoot for the moon startup can be run whilst doing anything else like raising kids, but there is a world of alternatives between the next 100m exit and nothing.
Oh and risk assessment - oh yes, given my daughter is currently jumping off the stairs onto a chair, risk assessment is a real boon to colonising that middle ground of entrepreneurialism as well as an equal number of all or nothing founders
The four stages of overcoming social stratification:
* Contributing to or ignoring the disadvantaged group's problems.
* Recognizing that the group faces undue burdens but not acting.
* Pushing for the group members to be treated differently to recognize their intrinsic value / contributions to a society, industry, etc.
* The "Aha!" moment when a majority of people realize that not only does the group bring value to an industry, but that value has nothing to do with their ethnicity, gender or other born characteristics.
After the "Aha!" moment, more news stories focus on what individuals in the group are doing rather than the fact that they are doing it despite their identities.
Pushing for the group members to be treated differently to recognize their intrinsic value / contributions to a society, industry, etc.
If you mean treated differently as in no longer doing whatever it was you were presumably doing before that contributed to this group's "undue burdens," OK. But I'm not clear that that is what you mean, based on what you said.
If you're advocating preferential treatment due to "undue burdens" (e.g. Affirmative Action), all you're doing is discriminating in the other direction and adding an undeserved burden to other groups that didn't have it before. That's not progress; it will only ever 'work' at the expense of creating or inflaming animosity based on this attempt to counter inequality with unfairness.
But you will know that progress has been made when we start seeing stories about women succeeding or failing in the industry and the news doesn't associate those triumphs or setbacks with gender.
This I absolutely agree with. Women are underrepresented in all sorts of areas, but firmly planting that badge on their foreheads takes away from their individual successes and failures. Defining someone -- anyone -- based on their sex, ethnicity, nationality, etc. for the purpose of categorization serves only to tacitly affirm discrimination.
I agree with your ideas about the way "treated differently" should be defined and how preferential treatment is counterproductive. Hopefully we'll see more news stories in the future that focus on women's successes and failures but don't concentrate so much on gender.
The one thing that really puzzles me in this article is the following quote:
“I’m not an aggressive person, and often, girls aren’t trained to be aggressive in the same way that boys are.”
I am hoping this has been taken out of context because otherwise it's really a sweeping generalization without substantiation. This worries me. I think it's great to make women aware of trends in the tech industry and society, but statements like this will put people off from listening. I'd be interested in data that backs up the fact that boys are trained to be aggressive. My anecdotal evidence to the contrary includes myself and my male friends. I don't have any reason to believe that we have been trained to be aggressive, but that might be because we fall outside the "often" bracket.
I've never had a physical fight in my life. I'm also not sure that that's what was the intention of the quote.
(It should be noted that she said aggressiveness, not violence)
I guess the crux of the issue lies in what aggressiveness is defined as. I just found it a particularly jarring statement to just state without any substantiation. I would never in a million years categorize myself as aggressive and I'm pretty sure that the majority of my male friends wouldn't either. On the basis of that small sample set, I feel the quote requires further explanation. As it stands, on it's own, to me it comes across as rather perfunctory.
I think the issue is that you're taking "aggressive" as violent or harmful, when in popular usage it often means simply competitive, assertive and/or ambitious, which is the more sensible interpretation in this case, considering the context (nobody would say that being outright violent is helpful as a startup founder!)
As an example, a female friend of mine was a gymnast growing up and she was most definitely in an "aggressive", competitive environment. This again is simply an example from my personal sphere which leads me to pose the question as to how such a sweeping statement can be made about the fact that girls are not trained to be aggressive in the sense of competitive, ambitious etc. The limited data set that I am exposed to based on my personal connections indicates no "obvious" bias that you seem to imply exists as a matter of fact.
For clarification, I am not definitely not taking aggressive to mean violent/harmful. We can definitely agree on the fact that that is not a helpful character trait as a founder, so I don't question that this is what the quote is referencing.
I loved the bit in jl's talk where she announces this conference, and it is reported in the press as 'Paul Graham announces...' :)
I'd definitely recommend watching all of these talks, and avoiding the toxic and inexplicable troll threads on HN on the original story. Perhaps those result from people not watching the talks before commenting? Anyway, here is a direct link to the video for anyone who has not seen these:
female founders have more than our share of Sisyphian tasks; events like this give us the strength to keep going.
An interesting statistic. Does anyone know why this is the case?
I have one wild guess that may influence it, while I'm sure there's many other factors; selection. They pay close attention to the strength of the relationship that the founders have because one of the most common ways to fail is for the co-founders to have a fall-out. When you're a couple, you've probably been on holidays or other adventures together (look at the Lanyrd founders for instance, who I think started Lanyrd on a long honeymoon) or worked your way out of tough times and sticked together, there's clear evidence you have the potential to work together through stressful situations. (And who knows, perhaps they're less likely to walk away if it means walking away from their startup and spouse.)
Could we please get a more interesting metaphor?
Women in general, I think your best bet would be to try to rid the world of all the no talent entertainers (such as Miley Cyrus, Beyonce singers actresses ETC). All these women do is shake their butt or breasts all over and try to sell sex. Speaking of selling sex, get rid of all hookers, strippers, porn stars, nude models, start dressing your teenagers and yourselves modestly (cover up), stop sleeping around, no more one night stands, having 4 kids from 3 daddies, stop stripping down in movies too, doing half naked fashion shows or miss X contests, ETC. You do nothing but lose respect when you do all of this. You think men are pigs for ignoring the fact that you have a good brain in that head and just staring at your chest, yet women doing all of the things I mentioned are why men think like this (a vicious cycle I know).
Do this and I guarantee that you will have a tipping point that is unprecedented. Men will take you seriously and the amount of respect that you get will be far greater than today.
I am not saying that this would guarantee or put you on equal footing as a founder because the skills and desire that is necessary are not common in women. But it would sure help you be taken seriously, and there is not much that is more important than that.
Now stop gabbing on HN and go get me a coffee, okay hon?
Get back in your time-machine and return to the 1950s.
Men sell sex just as much.
> You think men are pigs for ignoring the fact that you have a good brain in that head and just staring at your chest.
Women stare at mens bodies as well, you know.
> amount of respect that you get will be far greater than today.
I think most people respect those who deserve it. Never in my life I did respect women just because she is women and never did I respect men just because he's men.
Women do not need special treatment, they are not disabled. They were enough women making stellar careers for years. Such events make women feel disabled.
But I know that many weak protagonists jump on this trend because that's the only way they can get attention (Jessica Livingston, Sheryl Sandberg and many more).
Also, please don't stereotype all men & all women as being talented in one particular sector. If (and it's a big if - as there's no scientific consensus) there is some underlying nature-based difference, common sense tells us that it would be comparable to the height difference between genders (where lots of women are taller than men, despite women being shorter on average). It's not a "women are like x, men are like y" situation.