It's expected that every word anybody said during that conference will be scrutinized beyond what's appropriate, simply because it's such a touchy subject. That's probably the reason why the video of the conference was already taken offline today while I was watching it (edit: it's not, see below). Generally I think it would be more productive if judgements weren't done on a hair trigger, because that's what makes this topic so toxic when in fact it shouldn't be.

Personally I found the presentations very entertaining and insightful - and even though I didn't have the opportunity to watch the panel to the end, I was struck by the impression that for the most part these were normal startup stories. That's a good thing, because it means while there is work to do when it comes to making the playing field fairer to women founders, we're at a state where the main issue is not "how to cope with my gender" but "how do we get our startup off the ground".

The area where I believe much more work is required is how we get more woman programmers started. The article touches very slightly on that, but then misses the mark:

> To get a male founder to admit he doesn’t write the code his startup depends on you have to twist his arm. With a female founder it’s the second sentence out of her mouth. As if to say “PS - don’t take me seriously”

A completely different way to read this is that people who code don't have a lot of status in circles of non-programmers. So a non-technical founder might in fact expect to be taken more seriously by professing hacking ignorance.

One reason why non-technical women founders are quick to volunteer that info might be a subconscious reflection of that nerd stigma, and of course that's probably a large reason why women don't become programmers as often as men in the first place. It seems to me that perception of social status is the core issue.

To be fair though it was a founders' conference, not a female hackers conference.