6 ms·

Could you point me at some studies that suggest that there are intrinsic things about men and women that would make it more likely for women to not be capable o

by kaens 16y ago

Could you point me at some studies that suggest that there are intrinsic things about men and women that would make it more likely for women to not be capable of participating in a startup in their 20s? I don't claim that the male and female mind are the same. I suspect that the differences between them have more to do with culture and pattern-recognition than biology, even though there is some overlap there. I'm also not anything more than an armchair neuroscientist, so if you'd like to point me at this "mounds of evidence to the contrary", please go ahead. (Edit: This sentence sounds a bit more snarky than I intended it to) As far as I know, we're still in a big grey area as far as how much evidence points to the majority of someone's mind being nature, and how much nurture, and how those interact. I'm working with the assumption that people's mindsets are almost entirely a blank slate at (or a bit before) birth, and that the vast majority of what they think about the world and all the stuff that comes with that is created via pattern-recognition over the course of their lives, with patterns they're exposed to frequently when young being more strongly ingrained than others. Am I wrong here? That is, I'm saying that I think that if you took a baby female, and raised it in an environment where the only exposure she had to what a "female" was and how a "female" differs from a "male" were manufactured (reversed even), that she would have those ideas about being a female instead of the ones in common usage. My conclusion isn't driven by political correctness either, although I can see how you would make that assumption. I don't give a shit about political correctness.

Super_Jambo 16y ago
Startups are very risky, men are more predisposed to risk: http://www.epjournal.net/filestore/ep062942.pdf http://www.epjournal.net/filestore/ep062942.pdf
- kaens 16y ago
  I do not doubt that men are more predisposed to risk, or that testosterone does not play a role in the decision-making process of humans, but I do not think that these studies show enough of a discrepancy to account for the low amount of women involved in startups, or the low ratio of women in tech fields in general. I would not be surprised if there were a somewhat higher percentage of males versus females in tech. As it is, that is not the case, unless you're using very large values of "somewhat". (It's getting better though, and seems to be getting better as the idea that programming or tech stuff "isn't for girls" becomes less common).
  - Super_Jambo 16y ago
    On what basis? We have a low pool of female talent (in tech), I have given you a mechanic whereby women would be less disposed to getting involved in startups. That gives us (statistically poor) evidence of an outcome and a mechanism which could cause it. Why do you feel there must be some extra discrimination that must be limiting female Y-Combinator applicants with no evidence to back this up? What is the mechanic? How did it not apply for the 7 women who did get in? btw - I am ignoring the 'not enough women in technology' point since it isn't the topic of the OP and is too large in scope for the time available.
    - kaens 16y ago
      You have given me a mechanic that accounts for a minor discrepancy in behavioral patterns, not a large one. No evidence of women not getting involved in tech because they felt inadequate as women? This is something that people have been screaming about for a while. A lot, if not the majority, of women are brought up surrounded by the assumption that they aren't good at math, or that they won't be doing much of anything but be housewives, as a lot of men are brought up surrounded by the assumption that they will be providers, and will chase tail. These are, obviously, simplifications. A lifetime of being discouraged from "not your gender" activities is going to make an individual less likely to do said activities, regardless of their natural propensity for said activities. The 7 women who did get in would be women who either realized that they were capable of it, decided they didn't care about the social pressures, or weren't surrounded by the social pressures to begin with. They could also be females that are closer to the average male in the ways that count for joining a startup. There's a lot of possibilities. I dont think that Y Combinator has been discriminating against women. I do think that the cultural perception of gender roles in the US makes it less likely for women who would otherwise be applying to even get to the point where they'd have something to put on an application. Less than a hundred years ago, women didn't have the right to vote. There's still a large percentage of the population that thinks that the place for a woman is in the kitchen, making babies. Do you really think that theses attitudes have no effect on the amount of women doing things like joining startups? You and I may not have attitudes like that, but if you think that those attitudes are rare, you are mistaken. The same thing happens with men with different activities. The studies you showed, while they did show differences between males and females with regards to risk-taking, did not show a huge difference between males and females. If we were talking about 11 female founders out of 30, it would be one thing. That is not the case. There is a large difference, and I find the "well men are more prone to risk taking" argument quite unconvincing when the data shows that men are more prone to taking risks -- but not nearly to the same degree as the discrepancy. Furthermore, many of the social risk-taking activities studied may not be motivated out of anything that is intrinsic to being a man or a woman. A man may take risks as a form of mating dance. A man may also take risks because "that's what a man does". This is not a simple issue, and I doubt it can be reduced to purely biological differences, other than in the very literal level that all differences between individuals can.
Super_Jambo 16y ago
Effect of testosterone on economic behavior: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/08/090824151254.htm http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/08/090824151254.ht...
todayiamme 16y ago
Look I am intersexed and I have dealt with such stuff all of my life. The one thing I have learnt is that we aren't blank slates, but we aren't mentally engineered either. It is true that environment plays a huge role in the development of a child, but please understand this. Gender is something that is innate to your mind. Be it through proprioception or something more complex than that. It is etched in you in the womb and the way it expresses itself is something that is acquired in tandem with the environment. Now understand this too, gender is a spectrum. What most talks center around are the peaks of the two bell curves, but there are lots of folks on either sides. There are kind, sensitive men and abusive, viscous women. The truth is just like skin color gender isn't exactly something to go on when dealing with another human being. Some people tend to conform, but a lot of folks don't and those are the interesting ones. I feel like laughing my head off each time I read such things. It is true that it sucks to be a woman, but it sucks to be a man too. I will say this again and again, when you see the spaces society creates as an outsider then you begin to understand that things aren't absolute. I am sub-human to most people, and my right to access a lot of spaces that most readers of this thread take for granted is fought out in courts around the world. To most people I am a freak, but they don't understand. They've been taught to see a world that can fit in neat boxes, only that nature doesn't really care. [edit: This sounds really mean and rude when I read it again before going to sleep. To any reader I assure you this was not my intention. I am sorry if I came across like that to you.] What I am trying to say is that don't create women only spaces, or LGBTI friendly spaces, or anything like that. Create human friendly spaces. Embrace and accept the differences in others and only then can you see that the world is far more complex than any label we can slap on top of it. [edit: forgot grammar and spell check. Sorry.]
- kaens 16y ago
  I'm on the same page regarding gender and the need for an effort for "human friendly spaces". I've been phrasing things in a binary-gender manner because gender being a spectrum is a bit tangential and distracting to the point here, and is something that a much lower percentage of the population seems to have waken up to. FWIW, I've spent a fair amount of time explaining that it doesn't just suck to be a woman, or a man, or a whatever to people. I think it's very hard for people to see how much assumptions about the way people are supposed to act based on their appearances or physical features really affect peoples day-to-day lives. Whether that's avoidable or not is another discussion. Anyhow, I wish you luck.

by kaens 16y ago

Super_Jambo 16y ago

Startups are very risky, men are more predisposed to risk: http://www.epjournal.net/filestore/ep062942.pdf http://www.epjournal.net/filestore/ep062942.pdf

kaens 16y ago
I do not doubt that men are more predisposed to risk, or that testosterone does not play a role in the decision-making process of humans, but I do not think that these studies show enough of a discrepancy to account for the low amount of women involved in startups, or the low ratio of women in tech fields in general. I would not be surprised if there were a somewhat higher percentage of males versus females in tech. As it is, that is not the case, unless you're using very large values of "somewhat". (It's getting better though, and seems to be getting better as the idea that programming or tech stuff "isn't for girls" becomes less common).
- Super_Jambo 16y ago
  On what basis? We have a low pool of female talent (in tech), I have given you a mechanic whereby women would be less disposed to getting involved in startups. That gives us (statistically poor) evidence of an outcome and a mechanism which could cause it. Why do you feel there must be some extra discrimination that must be limiting female Y-Combinator applicants with no evidence to back this up? What is the mechanic? How did it not apply for the 7 women who did get in? btw - I am ignoring the 'not enough women in technology' point since it isn't the topic of the OP and is too large in scope for the time available.
  - kaens 16y ago
    You have given me a mechanic that accounts for a minor discrepancy in behavioral patterns, not a large one. No evidence of women not getting involved in tech because they felt inadequate as women? This is something that people have been screaming about for a while. A lot, if not the majority, of women are brought up surrounded by the assumption that they aren't good at math, or that they won't be doing much of anything but be housewives, as a lot of men are brought up surrounded by the assumption that they will be providers, and will chase tail. These are, obviously, simplifications. A lifetime of being discouraged from "not your gender" activities is going to make an individual less likely to do said activities, regardless of their natural propensity for said activities. The 7 women who did get in would be women who either realized that they were capable of it, decided they didn't care about the social pressures, or weren't surrounded by the social pressures to begin with. They could also be females that are closer to the average male in the ways that count for joining a startup. There's a lot of possibilities. I dont think that Y Combinator has been discriminating against women. I do think that the cultural perception of gender roles in the US makes it less likely for women who would otherwise be applying to even get to the point where they'd have something to put on an application. Less than a hundred years ago, women didn't have the right to vote. There's still a large percentage of the population that thinks that the place for a woman is in the kitchen, making babies. Do you really think that theses attitudes have no effect on the amount of women doing things like joining startups? You and I may not have attitudes like that, but if you think that those attitudes are rare, you are mistaken. The same thing happens with men with different activities. The studies you showed, while they did show differences between males and females with regards to risk-taking, did not show a huge difference between males and females. If we were talking about 11 female founders out of 30, it would be one thing. That is not the case. There is a large difference, and I find the "well men are more prone to risk taking" argument quite unconvincing when the data shows that men are more prone to taking risks -- but not nearly to the same degree as the discrepancy. Furthermore, many of the social risk-taking activities studied may not be motivated out of anything that is intrinsic to being a man or a woman. A man may take risks as a form of mating dance. A man may also take risks because "that's what a man does". This is not a simple issue, and I doubt it can be reduced to purely biological differences, other than in the very literal level that all differences between individuals can.

Super_Jambo 16y ago

Effect of testosterone on economic behavior: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/08/090824151254.htm http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/08/090824151254.ht...

todayiamme 16y ago

Look I am intersexed and I have dealt with such stuff all of my life. The one thing I have learnt is that we aren't blank slates, but we aren't mentally engineered either. It is true that environment plays a huge role in the development of a child, but please understand this. Gender is something that is innate to your mind. Be it through proprioception or something more complex than that. It is etched in you in the womb and the way it expresses itself is something that is acquired in tandem with the environment. Now understand this too, gender is a spectrum. What most talks center around are the peaks of the two bell curves, but there are lots of folks on either sides. There are kind, sensitive men and abusive, viscous women. The truth is just like skin color gender isn't exactly something to go on when dealing with another human being. Some people tend to conform, but a lot of folks don't and those are the interesting ones. I feel like laughing my head off each time I read such things. It is true that it sucks to be a woman, but it sucks to be a man too. I will say this again and again, when you see the spaces society creates as an outsider then you begin to understand that things aren't absolute. I am sub-human to most people, and my right to access a lot of spaces that most readers of this thread take for granted is fought out in courts around the world. To most people I am a freak, but they don't understand. They've been taught to see a world that can fit in neat boxes, only that nature doesn't really care. [edit: This sounds really mean and rude when I read it again before going to sleep. To any reader I assure you this was not my intention. I am sorry if I came across like that to you.] What I am trying to say is that don't create women only spaces, or LGBTI friendly spaces, or anything like that. Create human friendly spaces. Embrace and accept the differences in others and only then can you see that the world is far more complex than any label we can slap on top of it. [edit: forgot grammar and spell check. Sorry.]

kaens 16y ago
I'm on the same page regarding gender and the need for an effort for "human friendly spaces". I've been phrasing things in a binary-gender manner because gender being a spectrum is a bit tangential and distracting to the point here, and is something that a much lower percentage of the population seems to have waken up to. FWIW, I've spent a fair amount of time explaining that it doesn't just suck to be a woman, or a man, or a whatever to people. I think it's very hard for people to see how much assumptions about the way people are supposed to act based on their appearances or physical features really affect peoples day-to-day lives. Whether that's avoidable or not is another discussion. Anyhow, I wish you luck.