5 ms·

There are software companies composed of all men (or 95% men if we want to be a bit more relaxed). Successful ones - as in making profit. Where are all-women (

• fatbird 10y ago
  If women are underpaid because they're (consciously or not) undervalued as workers by entrepreneurs, then those same entrepreneurs are unlikely to visualize a net salary savings. You're basically saying: if women are as good as men but you can pay them less, why not hire women? And the answer is that the same factors that lead to women being underpaid lead to not seeing them as interchangeable hire with males.
  • deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
  • brighteyes 10y ago
    I could be wrong, but I think the point that the poster was making was this: Sure, maybe women are undervalued on average, but that's just on average. Assuming women are both paid less, and undervalued, then together that creates a double opportunity for an employer that can see through the undervaluing, and rationally hires mostly women because they are just as good but cost less. And the point is that we don't seem to see such companies. All the major tech companies have similar percentages of women, despite all of them trying very hard to increase those numbers.
    • fatbird 10y ago
      I think your characterization of the op's point is correct. My point remains: The same sexism leading to underpaying women or directing them into less compensated roles, should also tend to obscure, for decision makers, the "rational" idea that there's a double opportunity there. Evidence? First, "pricing is information". Second, Uber et al, and the continuing follies of the tech industry demonstrating systemic sexism. Third, continued use of the word "meritocracy" despite repeated demonstrations that tech firms practice a particularly narrow form of geek clubhousing. Bottom line: no one's actually rational enough to exploit what's really a fairly transparent, backhanded attempt to say that women are paid less because they're worth less. We just tell ourselves that we are.
      • prepend 10y ago
        But is the sexism so pervasive it would prevent women from starting companies and making an app? The meritocracy of technology means that people downloading your app have no idea who the coders are, or what their genders are. Perhaps this is an opportunity for VCs because people certainly love money more than sexism.
        • fatbird 10y ago
          Prevent? No. Continually add friction at all stages, from conceptualizing, staffing, funding, and interacting with the larger techsphere while competing for earned media, virality, etc.? Yes, absolutely, with predictable effects. One way to understand the effects of systemic "isms" is that the targets have to continually deal with a headwind that others don't, and the cumulative effect of this is like compound interest. The supposed meritocracy of technology that's blindly present in the download screen hides all the non-meritocratic context leading up to it.
          • gspetr 10y ago
            > One way to understand the effects of systemic "isms" is that the targets have to continually deal with a headwind that others don't, and the cumulative effect of this is like compound interest. Nevertheless there do exist profitable apps written by low caste Indians living on a few dollars a day and having virtually no social welfare safety net. Do you honestly believe that women in the US have it worse than those men? I do not see enough evidence that your systemic "isms" can explain the lack of bootstrapped female founders and entrepreneurs in the US.
• firebones 10y ago
  Regarding "exploitation", I suspect that it is because employment markets are inefficient and non-fungible (based on location and many, many other factors, including culture and reputation) and that if a company's metric is hiring talent at the 90th percentile, then they may more quickly hit a limit where their ability to fill 90th percentile job salaries strips their ability to access talent in non-majority groups. Efforts to reduce imbalance (regardless of demographic) is necessary to overcome location bias, and the bigger the pool, the higher the tide for all boats. If you're "labor", stop thinking that you're at war with other demographics.
  • gspetr 10y ago
    > Efforts to reduce imbalance (regardless of demographic) is necessary to overcome location bias, and the bigger the pool, the higher the tide for all boats. Thing is, you can do it right and do it wrong. Effort for the sake of effort means little, it's not the thought that counts but results. https://academiccommons.columbia.edu/download/fedora_content/download/ac:137529/CONTENT/king_issue_brief.pdf https://academiccommons.columbia.edu/download/fedora_content... When President Bush piloted his No Child Left Behind act, one of the underlying goals was to close racial and class gaps in educational standards, therefore, improving opportunity for disadvantaged groups but not guaranteeing ideal results. Justice Clarence Thomas, the only current black Supreme Court judge, took a strong stance against race‐based affirmative action as it establishes “a cult of victimization” that permeates leniency on and faulty judgment of black students and workers in admissions and employment processes. He believes this strengthens stereotypes and requires special, preferential treatment of the black community in order to make up for past oppression. ... This sentiment is spreading, and a continual decline in academic achievement of black students will most certainly propel these sentiments throughout the country. The American Civil Rights Institute founder, Ward Connerly [who's african american], said he is “not against policies that address ongoing disparities in income, educational opportunities or other factors, but they should not be race based.” Policy reform is now addressing the achievement gap between black and white students in hopes that solving the underlying issue between black underachievement will lead to natural, unregulated increase in black enrollment in universities and, ultimately, employment.