18 ms·

Stop Telling Women To Do Startups

• AznHisoka 15y ago
  I love Penelope Trunk and her political incorrectness. Her advice may always be controversial, but she's never afraid to speak her mind. And she's right too about women. Their natural imperative is to raise children and nurture them - not to do startups. Most also want the social companionship from friends/family as they raise children (which is missing today as most people don't live near extended family), but they don't need to go the extreme of climbing the corporate ladder, or starting a venture. If anyone wants career advice that makes sense from a human perspective, her blog is a must-read. You just can't dish out career advice without considering human happiness and human nature as a whole.
  • CJefferson 15y ago
    If women's natural imperative is to raise children and nurture them, why is Penelope Trunk running a start-up? I really thought that this kind of overly-simplistic "men do X, women do Y" was in the past now, but of course such things never die. There was a time where it was generally believed women should stay at home and worry about the children rather than go to school, or vote. I am sure we will look back on this kind of advice in the same way. I hope you see the irony in thinking that there is nothing stopping women from running startups, but they shouldn't want to, as women want to stay at home and look after the children.
    • AznHisoka 15y ago
      Oh for crying out loud... Everyone on the internet now has to include a disclaimer every time they write a general statement that doesn't apply to 100% of people, but is pretty much true . The majority of women don't do startups - that's empirical evidence right there. There's nothing stopping them of course, and I'm not saying they shouldn't do startups. I'm just observing why I think most don't.
      • CJefferson 15y ago
        No, there is no need for a disclaimer. This article make very clear that the opinion of Penelope is that the only reason women aren't running more startups is their genetics tells them to settle down, have children, and only run little lifestyle business between having children. While there certainly is help for women running startups, there is also still sexism at many levels. There are lots of reasons why women still stay at home and look after the children other than genetics. One of the most obvious ones to me (from personal experience) is that men are looked down on if they are the primary carer for their children.
      • rmc 15y ago
        There's nothing stopping them of course Institutial misogyny?
    • yummyfajitas 15y ago
      If women's natural imperative is to raise children and nurture them, why is Penelope Trunk running a start-up? Unless something changed since October, she is living on a farm raising her kids. http://venturebeat.com/2011/10/24/how-to-know-when-to-leave-your-startup/ http://venturebeat.com/2011/10/24/how-to-know-when-to-leave-...
    • munaf 15y ago
      Her point was that women have a choice, and by nature, women have different options than men. She did not say that all women should just sit at home having kids.
    • dextorious 15y ago
      """If women's natural imperative is to raise children and nurture them, why is Penelope Trunk running a start-up?""" 1) She doesn't, as a comment below states. 2) I fail to see how your question makes any sense. Tendency/Preference etc is not Absolute Law. For example, a human's natural instinct is survival, yet there are still people willing to sacrifice their lives for others in danger, etc. (I always hate it when someone takes some statistical observation and thinks it's very smart to point out that there are exceptions --or even worse, uses them to "prove" the statistical observation doesn't hold. Happens all the time in pedantic-land). """I really thought that this kind of overly-simplistic "men do X, women do Y" was in the past now, but of course such things never die.""" Overly simplistic? Just because there are counter-examples, and complex cases, doesn't mean that the generalization is overly simplistic. To make sense of the world you have to generalize, that is not to give equal importance to a multitude of fringe cases. """I hope you see the irony in thinking that there is nothing stopping women from running startups, but they shouldn't want to, as women want to stay at home and look after the children.""" Nobody said "shouldn't", she said "wouldn't". And, statistically speaking, most don't. Do you see equally as many women founders? Or do you think you can attribute that to some mysterious general sexist attitude that prevents them?
  • JoachimSchipper 15y ago
    > [Women's] natural imperative is to raise children and nurture them This is the 21st century. Are we really still talking about "natural imperatives"? If nothing else, note that women are having fewer and fewer children, later and later - clearly, they are feeling this "natural imperative" less and less. Traditional gender roles are unfair to women wanting to have a career, unfair to men who want to stay home with the kids, and far more rigid than needed. Having some "standard patterns" makes sense, but there should be more than one, and the freedom to deviate from those.
    • burgerbrain 15y ago
      "Are we really still talking about "natural imperatives"?" I am puzzled by this sort of comment. There are certainly things that I do as a male that I consider to be built in behavior. I do not see any reason to think that women would not have similar.
      • wpietri 15y ago
        What's natural isn't necessarily right; what's right isn't necessarily natural. Respectively those are the naturalistic fallacy and the moralistic fallacy. The reason people object to the naturalistic fallacy in arguments on this topic is that it is typically used to argue for the status quo by people who benefit from the status quo. If you would like to see an example of it in action, read the Texas Declaration of Causes of Secession and the Cornerstone speech. There you can see rich white people explaining how black people are natural slaves, unfit to any higher role in society. Which was certainly a convenient argument for them to make.
        • burgerbrain 15y ago
          I have no interest in ethics, certainly not universal ethics. All I'm saying is that "everybody is the same" type positions ignore reality.
          • wpietri 15y ago
  • rmc 15y ago
    Their natural imperative is to raise children and nurture them - not to do startups. [citation needed] There is no evidence that women naturally want to only raise children. And the implication that a woman who doesn't want spend all their life at home is a 'unnatural' woman, and there is something wrong with her, is a terribly, false, harmful meme to spread. I find this comment offensive, since it spreads a meme that's completly against the Hacker ethic, which values meritocracy above pety ideas like gender, race etc. I'm flagging this comment.
    • hackinthebochs 15y ago
      This is why we can't discuss sensitive subjects like this. People always take an innocent comment, which seems to be borne out by observational evidence at the very least, and then twist it to mean something entirely different. >There is no evidence that women naturally want to only raise children. Do you see what you did there? You (perhaps unconsciously) inserted "only" in the parent's statement, completely changing its meaning. Then you attack your modified statement as being sexist. Furthermore, nothing in OPs statement implied there was something wrong with a woman who chose differently. Discussions on subjects like these would be much more productive if we could just take statements at face value without assuming all kinds of implied sexism.
      • rmc 15y ago
        I would not call what you said an "innocent comment". It's spreading a meme and idea that has frequently been used to keep half the population as second class citizens. You have part of a point about my "only" comment. However there is no evidence that women (and not men) want to naturally raise children. There is no evidence that there is anything "unnatural" about a woman (or man) who doesn't want children.
        • hackinthebochs 15y ago
          I don't think her argument is meant to be taken exclusively for women. It's just that women are singled out as needing to be told to do a startup. The assumption is that there's no way a woman would freely choose to downshift her career for children, so it must be because of hidden sexism. Her argument was meant to specifically address this misconception. It doesn't mean the same thing doesn't apply to men, its just that this particular misconception applies to woman so that's where she's focusing her argument. Natural vs unnatural is a complete red-herring. I agree that we all should stop using that word in discussions like this. It carries too many connotations and it implies beliefs that I don't think anyone has (that someone that deviates from "natural" behavior is wrong).
  • neilk 15y ago
    This might have been just a poor choice of words, but beware the naturalistic fallacy. Trunk believes that more women are choosing not to do startups. That's not exactly the same thing as saying it's their "natural imperative". Because then those who choose otherwise are being "unnatural". Also, the "natural imperative" thing implies that our current state of affairs is somehow the only possibility. Maybe the way investment works is currently broken somehow.
    • drumdance 15y ago
      Yes, but she addresses this by pointing out that women now outperform men in many measures, including college, law school, med school and even income in their twenties. Is it possible that many women don't choose startups for the same reason many men don't choose nursing? It's demeaning to suggest that women who choose not to do startups lack free will.
    • Gormo 15y ago
      Do you believe that the conception of "natural imperative" she's using refers to a deterministic binary, and not a normal distribution with a somewhat shifted mean in relation to that of men? Treating individuals as mere instances of categories is a bit absurd, isn't it?
  • zzzeek 15y ago
    "natural imperatives" also say that people are attracted to the opposite sex. So what do we do with all those pesky gays? Probably encourage them to go to church more. Certainly, any kind of "if you think you might be gay , that's OK, be gay !" is just encouragement against "natural imperatives" - we should "Stop" doing that !
    • hackinthebochs 15y ago
      Downvoted for projecting opinions on to parent that are completely unwarranted. Pointing out what seem to be tendencies that a majority hold does not imply there is anything "wrong" with those who deviate from the norm, nor does it imply any attempt at "fixing" the deviation.
      • zzzeek 15y ago
        as it turns out, I disagree. > You just can't dish out career advice without considering human happiness and human nature as a whole. This is an article that doesn't just say, "keep in mind not all women want to do a startup". It says, "stop encouraging women to do startups!" Parent post then links this advice to the fact that "human nature must be considered when we give advice". So it links the inaccurate assumption that "human nature" implies "all women want to have babies", which is about analogous to the assertion that all people are attracted to the opposite sex, to an endorsement of the article's premise - that nobody should ever be encouraged otherwise. The downmod you gave me is actually because of my tone. Feel free in that regard. I've observed the Hacker News community to have an incredibly low tolerance for sarcasm as an argumentative device.
        • hackinthebochs 15y ago
          >It says, "stop encouraging women to do startups!" The title is "stop telling women to do startups". I think the distinction is critical. (Perhaps this is her own strawman, but I think its important to get correct where she's coming from). Telling someone what to do is saying you know better than them, that somehow they're choice is sub-par and they need to be corrected. That's what she is ranting against. The implied assertion that women who choose to downshift their career must be doing so because of hidden sexism, not because they simply choose to.
  • wpietri 15y ago
    Their natural imperative is to raise children and nurture them - not to do startups. Hello, naturalistic fallacy! How surprising that you came to visit when a bunch of dudes are talking about what they think women should do!
• trocker 15y ago
  http://croak.eu/vm5Tjy http://croak.eu/vm5Tjy #whyAllTheMen?!
  • noamsml 15y ago
    Hm. While croakit is an interesting idea, I'd note that croakit comments aren't searchable or quotable. Sometimes text is better.
    • trocker 15y ago
      yup true, completely agreed.But doesn't it make more sense to discuss the things meant to be discussed? :)
• hnecib 15y ago
  I think she made some very good points. It was a bit ranty, and self contradictory at times: >On top of that there is evidence that the members of the VC community go out of their way to attract women. Of course, this makes sense. VCs look for underserved markets. Women are likely to address different markets than men, and since there are so few women founders compared to men founders, it’s likely that women are addressing an underserved market. and then this: >Whoever started the TED Women’s conference is pathetic. Uh, ok. Right on TED Women's webpage they say that "Over the past several years, a flood of fascinating data from the worlds of education, microfinance and more has shown an essential link between investing in women and girls and economic growth, public health, political stability." And it goes on to state that TEDW wants to explore those 'underserved markets' to borrow the author's words, in greater detail, -behavior that she just got finished praising. But whatever, I'm nitpicking. I think the general thrust of most of her arguments have merit. Women often choose to disengage from the business world to realize life goals that make them happier than what business success can offer them. What guy hasn't had this dream? To be sure, it's probably a different dream. For women, it may involve having children and raising a family for some. For me, it might be throwing caution to the wind and traveling the world. Bottom line is that I think there are some very basic 'non-business' aspirational lifestyles that humans of all walks of life wish they could engage in at different times. Biology and culture have conspired to offer women one of them up on a silver platter if they so choose. Many do, and there's nothing wrong with that. EDIT: I don't know how scientific this is, but just an ironic post I came across browsing just now. Check out #2 on the list: http://www.rense.com/general95/regrets.htm http://www.rense.com/general95/regrets.htm I think this would be an interesting study to formalize and conduct, don't you?
  • fennecfoxen 15y ago
    Yes. What's a startup business, or even a traditional career, going to get you in the end? Admiration? Adulation? Money money money? As most people with children will be able to tell you, all of those things are vapid and empty compared to spending time with your children. Perhaps many women choosing to stay home raising families instead of pursuing careers have found something more rewarding to do with their time.
• gyardley 15y ago
  In a roundabout way, the author points out that because of differences in preferences between groups, equal access to opportunities don't lead to equal outcomes. However, the 'equal opportunities don't lead to equal outcomes' argument is often used as an excuse to ignore inequality - if we all pretend we've all got perfectly equal access to opportunities, we can attribute any difference in outcomes between groups to group preferences and call it a day. Yes, I'd expect that in a world where access to opportunity was truly equal, the gender balance of founders would still be skewed. But that doesn't imply that there's equal access to opportunity in tech today, and it certainly doesn't mean we can say 'no gender problem here' and stop thinking about the ways we inadvertently discourage women from doing what we do.
  • kstenerud 15y ago
    Thus begins yet another unendable initiative. Differences exist, therefore we say there could be inequality. Since there could be inequality, better to consciously bias against the alleged inequality, just in case the inequality actually exists. And since it's impossible to prove its nonexistence, better to simply state that it exists. After all, there HAS to exist some bias somewhere, no matter how significant. It's safer to think this way because you avoid being labeled as "against equality", and can enjoy life with the other "enlightened". I just call it pure cowardice.
    • deleted 15y ago
      [deleted]
    • tptacek 15y ago
      "Pure cowardice". Anyone who disagrees with you does so because they're afraid of acknowledging the truth that you've arrived at. Great comment.
    • wpietri 15y ago
      Come now. We know there's inequality, and we know there's bias. The question is always "is this particular outcome due to bias or some intrinsic difference?" When we honestly can't tell and the outcome is important, I think it's reasonable to proceed as if the problem is bias. First, because to just assume it's natural differences and be wrong means you're screwing up people's lives and supporting an unfair system. And second, because historically we have fallen back on natural differences in ways we now realize are total bullshit. See, for example, the Confederate Vice President's "Cornerstone Speech": "Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner- stone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery subordination to the superior race is his natural and normal condition." If you're going to call something cowardly, I'd favor people who argue for continuing the (favorable to them) status quo on the grounds that it's intrinsic to the universe. There's not much bravery in justifying a system that's working well for you.
• bethling 15y ago
  I think it makes sense to encourage women to consider doing a start up - yes for some women raising a family is the fulfillment that they want. But for those that do want to focus on a career, it's very possible to feel left out. Although (intellectually) you know that there's no reason why if this guy or that guy can do it, you can't - there's something somewhat sobering and potentially disheartening about almost everyone being "different" than you. As the years start adding, up its the same thing with age - I /know/ that I can do it, but there's that seed of doubt for one reason or another. So I think it's a good thing to encourage anyone who doesn't meet the standard expected start up founder profile - whether it's women, or people who have been around the block a couple of times. They (we :)), might have good ideas, we might need to be reminded that can be done - and to be pointed in the right direction.
  • scottilee 15y ago
    I agree it's more important that everyone has an opportunity to do something, whether they want to or not -- and if they want to do it, the more help and encouragement the better.
  • yummyfajitas 15y ago
    Although (intellectually) you know that there's no reason why if this guy or that guy can do it, you can't - there's something somewhat sobering and potentially disheartening about almost everyone being "different" than you. I do lots of activities where everyone is "different" than me in some way. I work in fashion, though I definitely stand out from the typical fashion crowd. (Most people who meet me assume I'm a tradesman of some sort.) At my company I'm an ethnic minority of one. I'm also an ethnic minority at my primary hobby. In my experience, it's mainly women who think "omfg, everyone is different from me, what'll I do?" Men just think "those people are doing cool things, I'd like to be like them."
• tryitnow 15y ago
  Actually, I've met a lot of guys who are in high powered positions who have implied or stated explicitly they'd much rather spend more time at home. And these guys have told younger guys, mentees, to pretty much spend more time as dads and husbands. This advice is becoming increasingly common. So, um yeah, Penelope is pretty much wrong right out of the gate.
  • srbloom 15y ago
    Your anecdote against hers. Thrilling.
  • gvb 15y ago
    Come again? I was agreeing until I read your conclusion. Your references are agreeing with Penelope from a position of hindsight: sacrificing family for your job is a bad choice.
• DaniFong 15y ago
  There are many women, myself included, who have directly benefited from the message that I could (if not, should) do a startup. I was previously on an academic treadmill. It was more or less assumed that if you were capable, you wanted to be a professor. It took awhile before I could really see the pros/cons of tying my research to that particular structure. I think a lot of women -- highly competent women -- are stuck in similar treadmills -- Law School, Finance, Consulting, Grad School. If they're not presented if this alternate life path, it may take many more year for them to get started. And that may be when they have a family, and that may put a damper on startup ambitions. Absolutely people have the right to make their own choices, and it's possible that different genders/families/ethnicities/what-have-you will make statistically different choices. But I really don't think we are doing such a great job with presenting women, or the population at large really, with the full range of what's possible. There are a lot more people out there who would be happier doing a startup, or any kind of entrepreneurial endeavor focussed on something they are really passionate about, than are actually doing one. There's really a lot we can do in this arena, and I don't think this industry's exhortations or encouragement really represents some kind of dismissal of women's choices or co-opts free will.
  • apinstein 15y ago
    Was the message you responded to a generic "startups are a viable path for you" or that message, but aimed at women? I am assuming the latter, and that you're making the case that for women to receive the argument, it has to be promoted from a women-centric perspective, is that right? If so, I can definitely believe that. I understand and agree with the author's point about women empirically being less interested in a startup lifestyle and disagreeing with how some people pitch startups to women. However anytime you're marketing an idea to people, sometimes it's best to take a niche approach to reaching them.
    • DaniFong 15y ago
      It was more direct -- it was targeted specifically to me by a friend. But I also was greatly encouraged by Paul Graham's essays and Founders at Work. I had only a few role models of people doing good science outside of academia (Craig Venter was one), but it would have made it easier for me if I knew other young women doing the same thing. There still aren't many, but the numbers are growing. I do know women who felt, early on in their lives, quite specifically that they couldn't be both "smart" and "feminine." This is really tough, and it's going to be an influence for as long as technical or intellectual fields are perceived as being "guy's things." Most of us want to identify with something. When people's ideas for "woman" or "mother" or "entrepreneur" or "engineer" start to be mutually exclusive, it's going to restrict the futures they can imagine for themselves, and what they do. I mean, even "scientist" and "grad-school dropout" seemed contradictory to me, and scared me. If my stereotype for "entrepreneur" insists that I work 100 hour weeks until achieving world domination, how can that leave room for a family? More immediately, leaving the family question out of it, oftentimes I may need to force a particular issue in an engineering or business discussion. To be heard, especially in a discussion where the male-dominated norms of raised voices are common, I may need to be forceful, stubborn, insistent, controlling, resolute. I have felt like less of a woman at those times. Ugly. It hurts me, yet it may be what is demanded of a startup founder. And in dark moments, I have considered that I didn't like who I was having to become to succeed, and considered dropping out. I can see why a lot of women do. This is a fine line to walk that doesn't really go away. I think these pressures continue throughout adulthood. It leads to a lot of women downplaying their achievements and abilities. And not just socially. I think it gets into our heads and hearts. I think it's a major reason why women consistently underestimate their talents as compared to men. I think it's really a big help for a lot of people to see a diversity of role-models, living their lives happily and without contradiction. Even when I began trying to start startups, I thought I would have to do a software startup first. I pretty much started my current company by accident -- I was too afraid of doing a hardware startup and tackling the energy question head-on. I tricked myself into starting by saying I wanted to just make it an open source project, and hoping someone with more resources could take it further. A common mistake, which, once I realized I'd have to push it forward myself, I overcame. Even then, I was quite afraid that as a young woman, without many credentials, the energy industry wouldn't take me seriously. It turns out that a lot of this can be dealt with by assembling a great team around oneself. Also, even though I've been dismissed on numerous occasions, without much of a thought on their part, because I am a young woman, it turns out that, for the most part, people can have their minds changed quite readily by confident expressions of confidence. Perhaps even by being unexpectedly knowledgable, they remember me better? I will declare that misogyny still exists within the ranks of investors and engineers, which can be quite upsetting. It's far from the norm, but shows up once in a while. And it might not be so bad as to tip off everyone else that there's a problem, but it is bad enough to seriously unnerve someone, if they're unprepared.
• protik001 15y ago
  http://croak.eu/sUmovl http://croak.eu/sUmovl
• lindseybieda 15y ago
  I'm not sure why people still take Penelope Trunk seriously. http://blog.penelopetrunk.com/2011/08/16/blueprint-for-a-womans-life/ http://blog.penelopetrunk.com/2011/08/16/blueprint-for-a-wom... This should be enough to convince you that she is full of shit. She doesn't practice what she preaches and holds very strongly to the status quo. She actively discourages women from entering the startup world, so no wonder she is annoyed that some people are trying to encourage women. http://blog.penelopetrunk.com/2011/03/05/the-workplace-should-be-segregated-maybe/ http://blog.penelopetrunk.com/2011/03/05/the-workplace-shoul... She regards inequality and unbalance as a non-problem and generalizes that all women are the same. http://venturebeat.com/2011/11/29/woman-problem-what-woman-problem/ http://venturebeat.com/2011/11/29/woman-problem-what-woman-p... http://baileybear.hubpages.com/hub/Penelope-Trunk-Brazen-Careerist-or-Brazen-Narcissist http://baileybear.hubpages.com/hub/Penelope-Trunk-Brazen-Car... Listening to anything this woman says seems to do more harm than good.
  • yummyfajitas 15y ago
    She doesn't practice what she preaches... Pretty much anyone who says "don't make the same mistakes I made" doesn't practice what they preach. She actively discourages women from entering the startup world... Your link does not support your claim. If you disagree, please quote some text from your link where she discourages women from entering the startup world.
  • RobAtticus 15y ago
    In your first link, and also the link submitted, she states that women do better than men in school. I don't see where she gets this information (she doesn't cite any study that I can find), and I'm curious about the claim. Is it simply that men have a wider range of grades in school so there are many more in the failing range that brings down the average, whereas women have a smaller range with fewer women failing so the average is higher? Is it even measured in terms of grades? I only wonder because in my experience, my peers who did the best in school were mostly male (however, the ones doing the worst were also mostly male). Then again, maybe my peer group is just an exception to the norm?
    • 15y ago
• cousin_it 15y ago
  Why is it suddenly about "happiness" and "respect"? Stop moving the goalposts!!! If society would benefit from more women doing startups (as is often alleged), and men are encouraged to change their behavior in the name of that goal, why shouldn't women be encouraged to change their behavior too?
• rachelbythebay 15y ago
  This almost sounds like a front to keep everyone but the "true believers" out. If you try to make a startup three times, do they finally accept you and let you in? I will continue to lean on everyone I know. One of them might break loose and go on to do something interesting, and then I will feel good about it. It might even improve the situation as a whole for the rest of us.
• inuhj 15y ago
  One thing that I took away from this is that there are plenty of women in their early 30s who have children who want to work part-time. I've heard this echoed in my girlfriend's circles as well. Perhaps a marketplace for mom's seeking part-time work is in order.
  • learc83 15y ago
    I like this idea, my mom ran many small businesses while myself and my siblings were young. She still sells quite a lot on the micro-stock photography websites. However, to be successful, you'd need to find part-time work that mom's where inherently better at. Or to put it better work that can't easily be done, by single guys in developing countries. If you can't figure out a way to do this, the target demographic will be crowded out by people from countries with very low cost of living (which is starting to happen with stock photography). Before someone says it, I don't mean to imply that developed countries deserve these jobs any more than developing countries. I'm just pointing out that a job site for moms fails if moms can't compete.
• gcb 15y ago
  Loved it. At work they have one organization about Women in Tech. That does nothing besides call out the misconception that women need help for some reason. In my previous country that would outright illegal. You know, sexism. Here it's seen as a great thing. Well, we didn't have minorities guettos on every city either...
• quellhorst 15y ago
  I'm tired of the articles on HN telling me what to do.
• roguecoder 15y ago
  Very few women are actually stay-at-home moms, and it is only even an option for a narrow proportion of women married to upper-middle-class and rich men. The women who are choosing not to do start ups aren't choosing not to in order to stay at home or work part-time. They are choosing to continue working for other people, never trying out their ideas. We are all poorer for it. Additionally, of course, plenty of people argue that more men should take on a greater share of household tasks and primary responsibility for raising children. Men even just taking the paternity leave to which they are already legally entitled could do great things for gender equality in the work place.
  • wyclif 15y ago
    The women who are choosing not to do start ups aren't choosing not to in order to stay at home or work part-time. They are choosing to continue working for other people, never trying out their ideas. I don't think that's totally true. Certainly there are plenty of non-rich, middle-class women who are at home raising children full time. That's one way of interpreting it. Another way of looking at is that "working for other people" is not the negative you imply. Working for other people may be something women choose over entrepreneurship as a good way to get the work/life balance they want.
• eof 15y ago
  I am some what torn about this; it seems akin to "stop telling women to do math." I think it's a matter of semantics; no one (at least in these pro-woman-startup posts) is telling particular women that they need to do a start up. They are encouraging women to go into a male-dominated field. I strongly believe that evolutionary biology sas on-average gifted men and women with different types of strengths; and while cultural idiosyncrasies have exasperated the 'problem' of a dearth of women in engineering, etc; there is also the issue of playing to our natural strengths and preferences. So, of course women (and men) should do whatever the hell they want; and be encouraged in that regard, and, discouraged from falling into stereotypes.
• tptacek 15y ago
  tl;dr: Some women say it's hard for women to start startups. But none of them have started startups like I have. Except for Facebook's C.O.O. But who wants her life? Wouldn't most women want to be GOOD moms? VCs say they want to encourage women to start startups. But since they're not themselves women who have started startups, they can't know what I know, which is that women have ovaries and want to work part time. Now please excuse Penelope while she repeatedly hits refresh on her blog stats for a few continuous hours to see how this post did for her site.
  • look_at_me 15y ago
    Now please excuse Thomas while he repeatedly hits refresh on his EVERYTHING stats until he gets his daily dose of narcissism. All comments Copyright © 2009, 2010, 2011 Thomas H. Ptacek, All Rights Reserved.
    • tptacek 15y ago
      I would love it if I had EVERYTHING stats I could hit refresh on.
      • brandnewlow 15y ago
        writes down idea
    • gruseom 15y ago
      No, please no. Not the snide novelty swipe. You don't like something, have the guts to say it straight. But I do think TP was unfair to PT. She's saying things that a lot of strong, smart women I know would agree with. For example: For the most part, women are not complaining about the lack of VC funding in the world. They are complaining about the lack of jobs with flexible hours. That is so true of the women I know that my guess is one would have to be at a statistical frontier to see anything different.
      • look_at_me 15y ago
        To be honest, it its merely personal. I don't like Thomas, even if he can be a good laugh sometimes. Edit: There we go folks, all it takes was a personal dig and those upvotes cascade into downvotes ;)
• prasinous 15y ago
  I am a woman and I have worked at four different startups in finance. I have to say, women weren't treated differently to men insofar as civility seems orthogonal to success in finance. But after ten years of ninety hour weeks, "special" weekend projects, perpetual release death marches, and striving to meet unrealistic deadlines, you know... I am really thinking of downshifting. Not for children, not for society's expectations, not because I can't make it in a man's world - but because I would really just like to take a long hot bath with a cigarette, a glass of wine, and some Chaucer, and then... leave and never come back to any of this rot. So please don't tell me how you really feel about "women in startups" or whether there should be more of them or less of them or your pet theory about how two X chromosomes result in the inability to reason or to compete. I'm here to code and the rest is just not very interesting.
  • tptacek 15y ago
    I've been doing startups since I was 18 years old, for over 15 years, and so my social circle is reasonably well populated with other startup people --- mostly men, for obvious reasons --- and this sentiment is so not gender specific that it's hard to see how it's even germane. Everyone gets ground down by trying to get small companies off the ground. I don't know many people at all who think 90(!) hour weeks and death marches are a good idea, even at launch time. Stop smoking, though. It's really bad for you.
  • hack_edu 15y ago
    The longing to take it slower and treat yourself right, and not grinding yourself into the ground for the sake of sexy business and easy cash, is perfectly reasonable. The notion of life balance is quite well represented around here, contrary to what the minority that dominate the echo chamber would like you to think. Time enjoyed is time well-spent.
• francesca 15y ago
  I was hoping hackernews would have a better discussion on this topic but I guess not. I think I'm the only person who is infuriated by Penelope Trunk's article in TechCrunch Titled "Stop telling women to do startups" It moves up to the top of HackerNews very quickly, and I'm a little disappointed by the comments in the article. The title is pure nonsense first of all, and while there are maybe two points that I could agree with, it overall is a very poorly constructed argument. As a 20-something starting her career, I would hate for this type of talk to become a trend amongst women, because this logic cannot influence the next gen of women movers and shakers. 1. Women have choices and they aren't choosing startups because they want to have their own children: FALSE women are not empowered to balance the work life continuum. For men, the startup legend is one they would like to fulfill--a la the Pirates of Silicon Valley. For Penelope Trunk, she would rather be soft on the women who are itching to live life with a less exciting career (quite contrary to her title of "Brazen Careerist"). 2. Raising Money and Running a Startup is Hard, so don't just tell anyone to do it!: FALSE women should be empowered to make these decisions and push themselves into riskier situations. In fact women who have partners with a stable income and have children should feel even more empowered to launch their own company (like so many women on this list have done) WHY CAN'T THEY BE RISKY! Why can't they work their ass off and succeed--or fail? I tried to start my own company, tried to raise money and failed miserably and guess what, I'm probably WAY more clever now because of that. Saying that women have a natural imperative to raise children is horrible backwards. Women are the only ones who can give birth, but they are also capable of building great ideas, great work environments, great products and great companies. I'm horribly disappointed in this piece.
  • colevscode 15y ago
    These are the voices I want to hear. Young women actually effected by the debate at hand. Why encourage women to start startups? 1) Because starting your own company is the hardest and potentially most rewarding career choice available and 2) Because women aren't doing it as frequently as men. It's that simple.
  • DuncanIdaho 15y ago
    As a guy I have read a different article. The article I read was about talking the talk versus walking the walk. And being aware that sacrifices will have to be made. And that people have a mind of their own and most of the people take the route of less sacrifices. Honestly, nowadays in western world anybody can do just about anything if they put their mind and effort towards it. And acting as if women don't do startups as per some kind of society's disapproval is weak. I was raised by an emancipated woman, who was a truck driver 40 years ago. I see the same kind of women around me. They are few, but they command respect and admiration. And there is this other kind, too busy writing and debating to even get anything done. My point? The author shared her experience of walking the walk in contrast to others who in a Victorian fashion talk the proper talk.
• solipsist 15y ago
  The problem with this article, along with the rest, is that it is full of generalizations. It attempts to dichotomize the situation, which simply shouldn't (and thankfully can't) be done. I didn't read past the first few paragraphs.
• kenjackson 15y ago
  Why doesn't her advice apply to men? Why isn't the title of her article, "Stop encouraging young bright males interested in SW from doing startups"? It's just interesting that it's fine to push men into potentially lucrative careers, but do the same for women and then there's tons of controversy. She tries to offer a counterargument w/ what she's thinks is absurd: "Men could change the world by staying home with their kids and parenting them. Men would provide a totally different perspective as the lunchroom parent. They would ask for totally different after-school programming. Men would hire different babysitters and different SAT tutors. Because men are different than women." As a father who does do a lot of this (although not a stay-at-home dad), actually we can have huge impact in these types of settings. I've literally had several other parents saying they wish there were more people like me involved as deeply as I am. I've single-handled been able to change the tone and attitudes of lot of interactions apparently. And based on the poor behavior I've seen from a lot of children of "executive" dad stay-at-home mom parents -- something clearly isn't working with their model. People are pretty good at making choices for themselves. With all due respect to the author, that's not consistent with reality. If that were the case I wouldn't have so much feedback in code reviews. We wouldn't have child protective services, the incarceration rates we have, poverty, high HS drop out rates (and not just for the Thiel money), etc.... People are generally really bad at making decisions w/o guidance. No one is saying hand hold, but provide some basic guidance so that people can see all potentially avenues.
  • drumdance 15y ago
    She's written similar things. For example, that Silicon Valley is overrated, grad school is overrated, New York is overrated and especially that pursuing art over commerce usually sucks.
  • pilgrim689 15y ago
    I have never seen someone encouraging young bright males specifically into starting a business. The words we hear target "bright people", "bring minds", sure, but never "bright males" or "bright men". We either see people saying "people should try running a startup" or "women should try running a startup". Thus, the author's point is that the latter is unnecessary because the former covers both bases.
• DanielBMarkham 15y ago
  There are a lot of hidden prejudices both in this article and in the entire discussion around women in technology and the startup world. I have a startup. I love startups. So should everybody else love startups too? Not at all. A more direct question: roughly 50% of people are females. Should 50% of startup founders be female? I don't think so, but I find it difficult to continue the conversation past this conclusion. The reason I don't think so is that I know that my judgment on how cool startups are doesn't extend to everybody else. I intuitively feel that being a founder involves complex traits and personal decisions that I cannot fathom. To simply say the ratio should be the same sounds wrong. It sounds like the same kind of mental error that makes me want to believe everybody should be in startups. Likewise to say that women should not be in startups sounds wrong also. Or to say startups should have more women in them than men. Each possible conclusion is undefendable. You could try to attack this problem by taking it the level of personal choices: assuming women are rational actors making informed choices, why do so many choose not to be in startups? Is it the environment? The difference in the sexes? Chemicals in the water? Of course, that doesn't work, because once you try to start making general assumptions about the behaviors of millions of people you're going to start stereotyping and using guesswork. It can't be helped. So at the end of the day I understand that other people don't want to be founders. And I accept that. Heck, for all I know the people who are not in startups are the smart ones, and I'm the guy who has something wrong with him. Not only am I not sure how to reasonably investigate this issue, I'm not even sure I have my head screwed on well enough to know what a good or bad outcome is. I think it's one of those things that you can endlessly argue about, and I choose not to. If folks want to discuss why Person A made her personal decision not to stay in the startup or tech world, we could do that. But when generalizing to all women, and to all startups, in my opinion it's just too much abstraction to be a tractable issue.
  • hack_edu 15y ago
    This is the most reasonable and fair analysis that I've seen of this issue on HN. What have we learned, after how many threads with 100+ comments have there been on this subject now? Everyone just seems to chime in with their one-bit comment, based on some generalization based on anecdote. Discussion would be a lot more direct and on-point if each thread about the intersection of startups and gender politics had this comment near the top.
• djtriptych 15y ago
  The reason we need women doing startups is (as corroborated by the author's own argument) that women think differently than men do in many ways, and we need all kinds of ways of thinking amongst people who are creating on the web.
  • im3w1l 15y ago
    Are female entrepreneurs more successful than males? What does that imply about what is in undersupply?
    • roguecoder 15y ago
      http://www.illuminate.com/whitepaper/ http://www.illuminate.com/whitepaper/ explores this question, and finds that though they have fewer resources than man-led start ups, woman-led start ups have lower rates of failure. A complete answer probably depends on what definition of "success" is adopted.
• mjg59 15y ago
  Her first link ("women earn more than men in their 20s") goes to an article that ascribes the difference to a larger number of women at that age having degrees - ie, all else being equal, women earn less than men for the same job. Her second link ("women choose to downshift") links to an opinion piece that provides no citations for any of its claims. Her third link ("Women are choosing children over startups") links back to her own blog and again provides no substantive citations. If someone's going to make blanket assertions like this then they ought to be able to back them up. She hasn't.
  • randomdata 15y ago
    I recall an article posted to HN several months ago that echoed her assertions. It showed that single women in their 20s were earning as much, if not more, than similarly skilled men. But those earnings, relative to men, declined as they started getting married and having children. So yeah, it would have been nice of her to cite it, but the data is out there.
• jfager 15y ago
  Of all the things women are told on a day-in, day-out basis, "you should start a start-up" seems really low on the list in terms of both frequency and maliciousness. It's also odd to simultaneously state that women are perfectly capable of making their own decisions, but it's somehow damaging to present them with another choice they can decide on. Why, exactly, do we need to protect women against the awful specter of another option in life?
• mjijackson 15y ago
  "If you are worried that women don’t feel capable of doing whatever they want, you can stop worrying." This comment from the article gets at the heart of what the author is trying to say. Behind the desire to single out women as a group that needs a special invitation to pursue a career doing startups are two assumptions: 1) that women actually want a career doing startups and 2) that they do not feel empowered to pursue that course on their own. The author simply isn't comfortable making those assumptions, which point of view is completely valid given the subjectivity of the topic.
  • prodigal_erik 15y ago
    This is the thing that always bugs me about encouraging anyone (not just women) to become founders. The relentlessly resourceful, the ones who are equipped to succeed, were not waiting for encouragement or an invitation. (And no, I'm not claiming to be one of them, merely tempted while bereft of ideas with legs.)
• _pius 15y ago
  Penelope is known for throwing out controversial memes and running with the ones that get attention. This idea got her some pageviews last year and she's been rewriting the same article over and over again ever since: http://techcrunch.com/2010/10/09/women-startups-childre/ http://techcrunch.com/2010/10/09/women-startups-childre/ http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505143_162-47140168/are-startups-better-as-single-gender-affairs/ http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505143_162-47140168/are-startups... http://blog.penelopetrunk.com/2011/08/16/blueprint-for-a-womans-life/ http://blog.penelopetrunk.com/2011/08/16/blueprint-for-a-wom... http://venturebeat.com/2011/11/29/woman-problem-what-woman-problem/ http://venturebeat.com/2011/11/29/woman-problem-what-woman-p... And now, of course, today's link bait. As with other trolls, the best thing to do is to just ignore her.
  • jen_h 15y ago
    I stopped reading the TC article when I hit the byline, having read her writing before. Kudos, I guess, for her omitting (or TechCrunch excising) the advice about how women who really want to succeed should get plastic surgery, focus less on work and more on capturing and keeping a man. That "Blueprint" post reads so much like satire that I actually read the entire thing, only to discover the woman was dead serious. "It's no small feat, but Botox and Restylane will be your best teammates in this part of the adventure." For real?? And that's not even the worst part of the post. Egad. Anything for page views, I guess! :/
• ThomPete 15y ago
  Here are some interesting statistics from Denmark. There are 2.5 as many male entrepreneurs as female Companies started by female entrepreneurs do not survive as well a companies started by male after the first 5 years. Female entreperneurs are distributed across industries much less than men The three biggest industries that women acupy accounts for 91% af all companies tarted by women. 1/4 of female entrpreneurs have emploees after 5 years (male 1/3)
• CPlatypus 15y ago
  I love the assumption that the men currently in startups have female partners who would want to reverse roles. Most have female partners who would prefer to stay home or work for an established company, so the actual effect of those men staying home would be a smaller talent pool. That is, unless she's trying to tell men who they should marry as well as how they should run their careers. Nothing she suggests would actually lead to the change she supposedly wants. The best way to get more women in startups is to let them see supportive role models . . . most often, their fathers.
• amcintyre 15y ago
  And he himself points out that by the time women are 40 and they want to go back to work full-time, these women are not going to relocate to Silicon Valley. But the truth is that if there were really a problem with there not being enough women running startups, then people like Fred would fund startups in suburbia. He’d fund startups that run at half-speed to accommodate carpools. He’d fund startups that have part-time ambitions. He’s not doing that, though. So clearly there is not that big a problem that women are not running startups: The market for funding has spoken, and it is still funding mostly men. The market has spoken, and it is still funding mostly men that are willing to drop everything and relocate to NYC or Silicon Valley (who hopefully have minimal business experience so they can be convinced to give up more equity than they should). The things she lists as disqualifiers all apply to me, except the "being a woman" part.
  • im3w1l 15y ago
    One should be careful in assuming market efficiency
    • amcintyre 15y ago
      I'm not assuming that it's efficient, just that there are a lot of people that would probably be very useful in a startup that aren't of any interest to people funding startups.
• firefoxman1 15y ago
  On Jean Bittingham: "She’s an author and an academic. Of course. She has no idea what life is like running a startup, so she thinks it’s a good idea to tell other women to do that while she writes books." That's how it's always been. There are the talkers (they're usually the academics as well) and then there are the doers-the ones that don't scream their opinion every chance they get, but if you ask them for advice they'll be full of real world experience to share with you. This article does raise a lot of good points though. I usually ignore posts with opinionated titles, but I'm glad I read this one.
• Mz 15y ago
  It's highly likely that I will regret posting this, but I just find this woman annoying (and her ideas stupid -- and this is not the first piece of hers that made me feel this way). I don't view myself as a "feminist". To me, "feminist" means "women who want to pursue career/personal fulfillment at the expense of their children". I wanted a career but when push came to shove, I ended up doing the full-time mom thing for eons (my oldest child was 19 when I got my first full time paid job). I had children younger than I intended. My kids had special needs. I could not count on their dad to help raise them (if I left the kids with him for two hours, it went disastrously, with children unfed and diapers unchanged). Their dad had a lot of fine qualities and was a dutiful provider, but, no, taking proper care of children under a certain age was just not one of his strong points. I happened to be extremely good at it. So I did it -- for the sake of my children, not for personal joy. Yes, I made a choice (like she keeps harping on). But, no, it wasn't a choice of the "gee, golly whiz, staying home and raising kids is all I have ever dreamed of my entire life and this is the fulfillment of a DREAM!!!" variety. If I had been in a different situation with more support (or less demanding children and fewer health issues of my own), I would have preferred to have both a family and career. That option was simply not viable for me so I rose to the occasion and did right by my kids. And most of the time I am reluctant to talk about my views on the topic because I am leery of the potential to come across like this woman, who is doing all she can to set women back a few decades. The fact that women clearly make different choices from men hardly means those choices are rooted entirely in free will and the fulfillment of their dreams. A lot of it is rooted in "shit happens and then, if you are a decent, responsible person, you do right by your kids rather than indulging your personal whims, like it or not." I don't resent my kids. I do resent the general lack of support that denied me other opportunities. And I've worked really hard to change my life. So I am not thrilled with the crap that routinely comes out of this woman's mouth.
  • danilocampos 15y ago
    The trouble with Penelope Trunk is that she has neuroses and disorders that make her thinking and patterns of behavior... shall we say extremely specific to her. But then she writes and behaves as though she understands how other people can, should or do work. And it's baffling. As a career guidance person she is a charlatan and I have been long troubled that anyone would pay attention to her advice, much less pay for it.
• helen842000 15y ago
  Women don't need to be told "go start a startup", the barrier to entry is knowing that it is a possibility in the first place. I only knew this life path existed due to working at an early age in the family company. I know of 2 other women that went and set up their own businesses after working there too. All female entrepreneurs will probably find they had some unusual serendipitous exposure at an early age into the world of business. A moment they can trace back to where their interest was sparked. A helpful mentor, boss, teacher, a particularly interesting class etc. Somewhere they were talked to about the beginnings of a business. Miss out on this moment and there's little else for women as a point of reference to join the business world. Young males tend to look at peers and see this route implied far more clearly. Many men choose the startup route without ever having first hand experience of it. I'm a female running a startup, I wouldn't want to be invested in just because my gender is under-represented. I want it to be because my plan, idea and execution is intelligent and strong. From my experience, women are more likely to bootstrap for longer and look to take on a lower level of investment. Perhaps more offers of micro investments would naturally fit in with the types of businesses that women are already running. There seems to be a big gap in investment, it's either fiercely fought incubator places offering around $15k or the traditional VC route of $100k+. Where's the middle ground for those that don't like the "go big or go home" attitude but want to "start small, stay stable" - I think that's where the majority of female entrepreneurs sit.
• chadp 15y ago
  Here is someone talking sense. Who cares whether people starting startups are black, yellow, purple, men or women. There doesn't need to be any equality. Everyone is already equal and can decide to start a startup whenever they wish.
• peterwwillis 15y ago
  My theory is this post, along with this woman's online identity, is an elaborate troll on feminism. Let's explore. "Here is a Blueprint for a Woman’s Life which I published. It is full of recommendations for how to make choices based on what we know women really want for themselves. It does not involve getting VC funding." Hmm. It's kind of weird for anybody to pretend they can tell anyone else how to live their life, since figuring out how to life your life in your own way is what makes it your life and not someone else's. But whatever. Let's read a bit into this thing and see what she talks about... She posted a list of things all women should be doing with their life. Here's the list verbatim (from http://blog.penelopetrunk.com/2011/08/16/blueprint-for-a-womans-life/ http://blog.penelopetrunk.com/2011/08/16/blueprint-for-a-wom...): 1. Do less homework. 2. Get plastic surgery. 3. Go to business school right out of the gate. 4. Start early looking for a husband seriously. 5. Milk maternity leave for all it's worth. 6. Guard your marriage obsessively. 7. Practice austerity. 8. Do a startup with a guy. 9. If you can't get men to do a startup with you, do a lifestyle business. 10. Homeschool. Your kids will be screwed if you don't. 11. Spend money on household help and Botox to keep more doors open longer. 12. Break the mold in your 40s. All of that sounds like wonderful advice. It's a really thought-provoking and insightful read. Her only problem is she doesn't go far enough. First of all, you want to marry rich. That way you don't have to work, much less create a start-up. Actually wait, that was the whole point of the techcrunch post, so nevermind. Before you liberal feminist sissies get all huffy, she clearly states "I know that's not good for feminism. But none of this post is." So please don't fret over whether or not she's setting women back by 60+ years as she is probably typing this story from the kitchen. (p.s. this is the woman who did the tweet about having a miscarriage during a board meeting - http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2009/nov/06/penelope-trunk-tweet-miscarriage http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2009/nov/06/penelope-...)
• pwaring 15y ago
  There seems to be an assumption within the tech industry that startup == total dedication to the company, including 60 hour weeks and a lack of family time (which might put some people - male and female - off). I don't understand why this has to be the case. I work for a startup in another industry (wholesale insurance) and 90% of our staff are female. People work 8:30-5 Mon-Fri and rarely do any overtime. If there's a programming/development project which needs to be done, I estimate how it will take and we decide if it's worth the cost, including the opportunity cost of what we could have worked on instead. If tech startups were run properly, with sensible deadlines, fixed hours and no 'crunch sessions' (if you need these on a regular basis, your project management is broken) they would probably attract a far wider range of people.