4 ms·

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

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.
      - fatbird 10y ago
        When you can find a few examples of some group succeeding or being where the vast majority of their group are not, it's called "tokenism", and it's a self-defeating argument. Is it common for low caste Indians with no security to successfully bootstrap profitable apps? Are they a significant constituency amongst tech leaders in India? Rags-to-riches stories only prove something is possible, not that it's normal. We have no problem understanding how subtly performance enhancing drugs in sports can make huge differences over the long term. Why are we sceptical that performance degrading circumstances are as consequential?
        gspetr 10y ago
        If you want a significant constituency I'll give you one. Do all the daughters of upper middle class software engineers do not exist? That's among tech leaders' families in the US. So where are they? Or is it that they have seen their fathers' jobs and decided they want no part of it?

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.
    - fatbird 10y ago
      When you can find a few examples of some group succeeding or being where the vast majority of their group are not, it's called "tokenism", and it's a self-defeating argument. Is it common for low caste Indians with no security to successfully bootstrap profitable apps? Are they a significant constituency amongst tech leaders in India? Rags-to-riches stories only prove something is possible, not that it's normal. We have no problem understanding how subtly performance enhancing drugs in sports can make huge differences over the long term. Why are we sceptical that performance degrading circumstances are as consequential?
      - gspetr 10y ago
        If you want a significant constituency I'll give you one. Do all the daughters of upper middle class software engineers do not exist? That's among tech leaders' families in the US. So where are they? Or is it that they have seen their fathers' jobs and decided they want no part of it?