5 ms·

There is a huge bias against women as can be seen by statistics of women in C-level positions, or on board seats, or as founders. The few that _do_ make it ofte

There is a huge bias against women as can be seen by statistics of women in C-level positions, or on board seats, or as founders. The few that _do_ make it often make a strong point of supporting more -- and many statistics have proven they're often better at long term performance than men. <---- I'm a dude It's continuing the problem by criticizing someone helping women. Regardless of what "time" it is -- it's damn awesome she's willing to help, whoever she helps.

0x4477 7y ago
> There is a huge bias against women as can be seen by statistics of women in C-level positions, or on board seats, or as founders. The presence of a statistical disparity does not automatically indicate malicious discrimination. I don't doubt that there is some amount of sexism present overall, but we're going to need more than uneven gender distribution to make this judgement. What about any other jobs or where women are under- or over-represented, like teaching, or nursing, or construction? Are different gender distributions among those an indication of malicious discrimination or sexism in either direction?
- KerryJones 7y ago
  ... I didn't say anything about malicious discrimination? That's an obvious strawman argument In fact the problem is exactly the opposite -- it's the lack of awareness that people unknowingly tend to choose people based off "gut feel" that a man will do better. This is well studied and documented and only recently have women started to enter the workforce and based off the few studies that show women in exec positions often do significantly better than the average male who are in those positions. A few articles: - https://www.thebalance.com/do-companies-with-female-executives-perform-better-4586443 https://www.thebalance.com/do-companies-with-female-executiv... - https://www.statnews.com/2016/07/29/women-in-science/ https://www.statnews.com/2016/07/29/women-in-science/ - https://www.cnn.com/2019/10/16/success/women-ceos-and-cfos-outperform/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2019/10/16/success/women-ceos-and-cfos-o...
thu2111 7y ago
Founders? That's because women don't create successful companies at the same rate, but there's no bias stopping them creating firms. That's really one of the few areas you can say for sure, there's no bias. Quite the opposite. It's well known that VC firms fall over themselves at the chance to give a female founder money, it even happens that men take on women as 'co-founders' specifically to make it easier to raise money (I've encountered more than one story like that). She is being criticised, rightfully, because what she's doing is sexism against men. Where's the consistency? Things like this show very bad double standards: women are allowed to openly discriminate against men, without consequences. That's just not right.
- KerryJones 7y ago
  > That's because women don't create successful companies at the same rate Please backup your arguments, because from what I've seen that's completely false. In fact, only 2.8% of VC dollars go to women, and that's considered an improvement: https://fortune.com/2020/03/02/female-founders-funding-2019/ https://fortune.com/2020/03/02/female-founders-funding-2019/ There's _complete_ bias against them and only in the last 2-3 years has that started to turn around, and are obviously still behind it. Yeah, anecdotally you've heard of a few cases of it -- because people try to draw extra attention, but look at statistics (like above), and it's _clear_ that is the exception. This is what I observed when raising my own capital (with a female co-founder) and many of my colleagues doing the same -- and men were often very biased against women. She's _balancing_ the discrimination -- again, look at the statistics above. She'll hardly budge it -- and this is _after_ many female-only funds have been created to try to balance it in recent years. We need to over compensate for our complete and utter discrimination before talking about "equality" among men -- there is NO equality. Also, that is _false_ that women can openly discriminate against men -- it might be true in certain areas, but many areas (such as housing, employment, etc.) We've been doing better in board member seats (20%, up from 17%): In the U.S., women hold about 20 percent of board seats at companies listed in the Russell 3000 stock index, up from 17 percent in 2018, according to the nonprofit 2020 Women on Boards. But we're still hugely biased. Checkout other articles I listed to other response as well

0x4477 7y ago

> There is a huge bias against women as can be seen by statistics of women in C-level positions, or on board seats, or as founders. The presence of a statistical disparity does not automatically indicate malicious discrimination. I don't doubt that there is some amount of sexism present overall, but we're going to need more than uneven gender distribution to make this judgement. What about any other jobs or where women are under- or over-represented, like teaching, or nursing, or construction? Are different gender distributions among those an indication of malicious discrimination or sexism in either direction?

KerryJones 7y ago
... I didn't say anything about malicious discrimination? That's an obvious strawman argument In fact the problem is exactly the opposite -- it's the lack of awareness that people unknowingly tend to choose people based off "gut feel" that a man will do better. This is well studied and documented and only recently have women started to enter the workforce and based off the few studies that show women in exec positions often do significantly better than the average male who are in those positions. A few articles: - https://www.thebalance.com/do-companies-with-female-executives-perform-better-4586443 https://www.thebalance.com/do-companies-with-female-executiv... - https://www.statnews.com/2016/07/29/women-in-science/ https://www.statnews.com/2016/07/29/women-in-science/ - https://www.cnn.com/2019/10/16/success/women-ceos-and-cfos-outperform/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2019/10/16/success/women-ceos-and-cfos-o...

thu2111 7y ago

Founders? That's because women don't create successful companies at the same rate, but there's no bias stopping them creating firms. That's really one of the few areas you can say for sure, there's no bias. Quite the opposite. It's well known that VC firms fall over themselves at the chance to give a female founder money, it even happens that men take on women as 'co-founders' specifically to make it easier to raise money (I've encountered more than one story like that). She is being criticised, rightfully, because what she's doing is sexism against men. Where's the consistency? Things like this show very bad double standards: women are allowed to openly discriminate against men, without consequences. That's just not right.

KerryJones 7y ago
> That's because women don't create successful companies at the same rate Please backup your arguments, because from what I've seen that's completely false. In fact, only 2.8% of VC dollars go to women, and that's considered an improvement: https://fortune.com/2020/03/02/female-founders-funding-2019/ https://fortune.com/2020/03/02/female-founders-funding-2019/ There's _complete_ bias against them and only in the last 2-3 years has that started to turn around, and are obviously still behind it. Yeah, anecdotally you've heard of a few cases of it -- because people try to draw extra attention, but look at statistics (like above), and it's _clear_ that is the exception. This is what I observed when raising my own capital (with a female co-founder) and many of my colleagues doing the same -- and men were often very biased against women. She's _balancing_ the discrimination -- again, look at the statistics above. She'll hardly budge it -- and this is _after_ many female-only funds have been created to try to balance it in recent years. We need to over compensate for our complete and utter discrimination before talking about "equality" among men -- there is NO equality. Also, that is _false_ that women can openly discriminate against men -- it might be true in certain areas, but many areas (such as housing, employment, etc.) We've been doing better in board member seats (20%, up from 17%): In the U.S., women hold about 20 percent of board seats at companies listed in the Russell 3000 stock index, up from 17 percent in 2018, according to the nonprofit 2020 Women on Boards. But we're still hugely biased. Checkout other articles I listed to other response as well